The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Position as Recommended by Intergovernmental Relatio Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: %. provegl ❑ Conditional) Approved ❑ Denied SSE iP Cit ler ' Sign re CG. S :;* Oav L Council Meeting Date: 3/17/08 Department ID Number: AD 08-05 monoa T° o , #d CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �Z Z/-c.r��rr�y 4A v&-t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Pigo � y� 3 C/yQet1 S�7U, 6ACC,J, C44core —,VC) SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Jill Hardy, Council Member, Chair on behalf of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Members Councilman Don Hansen and Councilman Keith Bohr s PREPARED BY: Patricia Dapkus, Department Analyst, Senior SUBJECT: APPROVE A CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON LEGISLATION PENDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (IRC) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Approval of City Council positions as recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) on legislation or budget issues pending before a federal, state, or regional government; and approval of the city's federal funding agenda for this year. Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Authorize letters to our federal legislators asking them to support an appropriation of funds for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 2. SUPPORT AB 1295 (Ducheny) Amending the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as Introduced) 3. Approve the city's Federal Funding Agenda for this year as follows: • Water Infrastructure • Gun Range Clean Up • Bluff Top Park • Senior Center (Green Elements) • Continue to support OCTA's request for funding to widening the 405 Freeway Alternative Action(s): • Do not authorize a letter regarding the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant appropriation, and/or • Do not approve support for AB 1295, and/or • Do not approve the city's 2008 Federal Funding Agenda, and provide direction to staff. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONError! No text of specified style in document. MEETING DATE: 3117/08 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-05 Analysis: 1. Authorize letters to our federal legislators asking them to support an appropriation of funds for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. During the 2007 federal legislative session, Congress approved, and the President signed, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. One component of this act was the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, which would provide funds to enable cities and counties throughout the U.S. to undertake locally-based energy efficiency, conservation, and production initiatives. The new law authorized $2 billion annually to this block grant to begin in 2008. As Congress begins its deliberation on the federal budget, the United States Conference of Mayors is urging cities to ask their legislators to include funding for this block grant in this year's federal budget. This program will enable cities, counties, and states to accelerate their efforts to expand building and home energy conservations programs, fuel conservation programs, building retrofits for increased energy efficiency, and alternate energy programs. With a weakening economy, increasingly burdened by high energy costs, funding for programs like these will reduce energy use and ease energy price pressures. It will also allow local leaders to chart a new course of increased energy independence, greater energy efficiency, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. At the urging of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the encouragement of our federal lobbyist, a letter of support for funding for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant was sent by the Mayor to our legislators. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that a letter be sent on behalf of the entire City Council. 2. SUPPORT AB 1295 (Ducheny) Amending the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as Introduced) The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined. Existing law provides that, after certification of a local program, any appealable action on a coastal development permit or claim of exemption for any development by a local government or port governing body may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission by an applicant for a permit, any aggrieved person, or any two members of the commission. This bill would revise that provision to eliminate an appeal by two members of the California Coastal Commission. The League of California Cities Coastal Cities Committee brought this bill to our attention. Planning staff has reviewed it and is recommending support for the following reasons: • The application and any appeal have already been reviewed through the local agency's process. -2- 3/6/2008 10:04 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONError! No text of specified style in document. MEETING DATE: 3/17/08 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-05 ® The applicant and any interested party affected by the project still retain their ability to appeal, and there is no cost associated with filing an appeal. • Appeals to the Coastal Commission can be prolonged and costly for all those involved due to the need to hire consultants, carrying costs, travel to meetings, etc. • Eliminating appeals by only two members of the fifteen member Coastal Commission should reduce the likelihood that an appeal will be made when there is no local concern with a project. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee, on a vote of 2-1, is recommending that the City Council support SB 1295. 3. Approve the city's Federal Funding Agenda for this year as follows: • Water Infrastructure • Gun Range Clean Up • Bluff Top Park • Senior Center (Green Elements) • Continue to support OCTA's request for funding to widening the 405 Freeway Each year, we ask departments to submit a list of projects for potential funding through our Washington, D.C. lobbyist. The lobbyist then reviews these projects and provides a recommendation on those projects that are most likely to receive funding. The above is a list of those projects that our lobbyist is recommending we pursue this year. Project information sheets on these projects are attached. Strategic Goals: 1-2 - Improve the energy efficiency of city equipment, vehicles, and buildings, and L-5 - Improve the efficiency of the development review process, and F-1 - Create long-term financial strategies for funding the backlog of capital projects and maintenance requirements, and ensuring sufficient reserves to withstand major revenue fluctuations in order to ensure continuation of city services during economic downturns. Environmental Status: NA Attachment(s): Page NuMber No. Destription ` 1. Request from U. S. Conference of Mayors and letters for Mayor Cook. At 2. SB 1295 (Ducheny) California Coastal Act of 1976 and comments a. = from staff and the Coastal Cities Committee -3. 3/6/2008 10:04 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONError! No text of specified style in document. MEETING DATE: 3/17/08 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-05 3. Project information sheet for the Talbert Lake WRDA Request 4. Project information sheet for the Storm Water Infrastructure WRDA Request 5. Project information sheet for the Gun Range Clean Up request 6. Project information sheet for the Blufftop request - 7. Project Information sheet for the Senior Center request -4- 3/6/2008 10:04 AM I rl AO, -pp THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS C3 1620 EYE STREET,NORTHWEST 6GO� �I WASHINGTON,D.C.20006 i A + + + -0 r r TELEPHONE(202)293-7330 � o + - FAX(202)293-2352 URL:www.usmayors.org 7 x TO: The Mayor FROM: Tom Cochran Executive Director and CEO SUBJECT: Funding for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program DATE: February 11, 2008 We need Your help to secure funding for the new Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant(EECBG) grogram. In December, the new energy law authorized $2 billion annually for the EECBG program. This block grant program is a vital tool to help mayors move America towards greater energy independence, an improved environment, and reductions in climate emissions, especially now as the economy weakens and reduces available local revenues for expanding local efforts. We need to urge Congress to provide prompt funding (i.e., appropriations) for the program, especially now as Congress begins its budget and appropriations work. As you work with your Congressional delegation. please note that a reasonable estimate of annual funding for your city is about $6.00 per resident, assuming a $2 billion appropriations level. (Under the law, U.S. Department of Energy must set the final formula for the program.) We have two requests. First, please send a letter to every member of your Congressional delegation— Senators and Representatives—asking them to support full funding of the EECBG program at the $2 billion level. (Two sample letters are attached.)Next, please complete the very quick electronic registration form to help us follow-up with your staff on funding for the block grant program and related energy/climate issues. To complete this form, please go to— www.usmeors.org/blockgrantcontacts. Please send copies of your letters to Debra DeHaney-Howard (ddehaney(a:usrnavors.org) or Judy Sheahan (jsheahan(cyusmayorL=). You can also fax copies to (202) 293-2352. A Conference staff person may be contacting your office as well to follow up on this request. In the meantime, please call either Debra or Judy at (202) 293-7330. Conference President Trenton Mayor Douglas H. Palmer. the USCM Leadership and I appreciate your continued help on the priority of climate protection. Attachments �r s SAMPLE LETTER--TO MEM 3ERS OF CONGRESS ON APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE February , 2008 The Honorable(names of your Senators) United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Or The Honorable (name of your Representatives) United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Senator or Representative I am writing to solicit your help to secure full funding of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program,which was enacted in the"Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" [P.L. 110- 140]. With a weakening economy increasingly burdened by high energy costs, we believe prompt funding commitments to this program will reduce energy use and ease energy price pressures,as local and state leaders work to chart a new course of increased energy independence, greater energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically,this block grant will enable cities and counties throughout the U.S.to undertake many thousands of locally-based energy efficiency, conservation and production initiatives. The new energy law authorizes $2 billion annually in block grant funding, beginning this fiscal year(FY 2008).Therefore, we urge your support for an appropriation at $2 billion to promptly launch this program to begin securing the national economic benefits that will occur. A strong funding commitment to this program will enable cities,counties and states to accelerate their efforts to expand building and home energy conservation programs, fuel conservation programs, alternative fuels development, building retrofits for increased energy efficiency, planning and zoning adjustments. and alternative energy programs. I strongly urge you and your colleagues to support funding commitments to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. If you have any questions. please contact my staff at or Conference of Mayors' staff-Debra DeHaney-Howard or Judy Sheahan at (202)293-7330. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE FERGUSCANI Con.mctu,ut Ave"U" 7i to ioU �;Vasur.gtor:,U C :Jp3u 710? 33 1598"OXI From: John Gaine Re: Week of February 11 U.S. Conference of Mayors Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 This memorandum represents the topics of discussion at the weekly meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM). ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT USCM urges mayors to write letters to their delegation in support of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program that is part of the Energy Efficiency and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140), which was signed into law by President Bush on December 19, 2007. The law authorizes $2 billion annually for local governments (cities over 35,000 and counties over 200,000) to take measures that decrease energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions at the local level. In order for the program to receive funding, Congress, through the Budget Committee must increase the Department of Energy's budget by $2 billion to allow for the program to be funded. Once the Budget Committee allocates money for the program, the Appropriations Committee must appropriate money to implement the program. USCM has authored sign-on letters to both the House and Senate Budget Committees urging support for the program. , �, t 6j Qy� , A-6'Z Budget Sign-on Letter: http://usmayors.oriz/76thWinterMeetins4/release 012508.3df L l The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources rces and Environment will hold a hearing titled "Revitalization of the Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Program" on February 14 at 2p.m. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT President Bush's FY2009 budget was released on February 4. The budget cut funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to $2.9 billion from $3.6 billion, eliminated HOPE VI funding used to renovate public housing, and provides no increase to the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)program ($300 million). Funding formulas were released for the Office of Community Planning and Development's (CPD) programs: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), including the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI); Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA); and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG). The full year allocations can be found at the following website: liter://www.liud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budgctO8/index.cfm As part of the stimulus package, which President Bush is expected to sign later this week, the conforming loan limit will be raised from $417,000 to 125% of the median home prices in an area up to $730,000. This means that g m overnent sponsored mortgage banks Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are allowed to buy larger loans which will add liquidity to the market and potentially relieve some of the mortgage crisis. USCM believes that changing the conforming loan limit adds urgency to the need of Congress to pass a government sponsored entity reform bill, which would overhaul Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in other ways. The House passed a reform bill on May 22, 2007 but the Senate has failed to move any legislation. TAX 1LEGISLATION On August 3, 2007, Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced H.R. 3359, which would prohibit state and local governments from collecting taxes from an individual who has spent less than 60 days in a state or locality where taxable work was performed, New York City calculated that if enacted, the bill could cost the city $100 million annually. There is currently no Senate companion to the bill and USCM is not sure whether the bill will gain support in Congress. AVIATION Included in President Bush's FY2009 budget request is a $765 million cut to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The Administration's argument is that the cuts will be made up if Congress passes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization, which calls for an increase in the passenger facility charge to fund AIP. FAA reauthorization has been stalled for months as the Senate attempts to work out differences in how to fund the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Yage 1 of 1 )apkus, Pat From: Charmayne Macon [cmacon@tfgnet com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10 38 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Cc: John Gaine Subject: RE: Energy Bill lave staff looking into additional resources for this but the recently passed Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant :ECBG)which I forwarded you information on earlier this week/last week will provide for such use although no guidance by Dept Energy/EPA has been issued yet he City stands to get a total of$1 13 million on an annual basis if Congress funds the program in FY09 at the authorized level of 2 billion The EECBG is authorized at$10 billion for 5 years and set up like CDBG where entitlement communities would get an nnual funding allotment :karmayne 'rom: Dapkus, Pat [mailto:pdapkus@surfcity-hb.org] ;ent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:13 PM 'o: Charmayne Macon >ubject: Energy Bill ;harmayne, the city is hoping to build our senior center as a green facility. To that end, we are hoping there is something n the recently passed energy legislation that might assist with some of the funding. Can you provide assistance in dentifying areas where we might seek funding? :,at Dapkus ;714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) 2/13/2008 ® City o ti t®ll Bea cu P.O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 Debbie Cook Mayor February 26, 2008 The Honorable Senator Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing to solicit your help to secure full funding of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, which was enacted in the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007- [P.L. 110-140]. With a weakening economy increasingly burdened by high energy costs, we believe prompt funding commitments to this program will reduce energy use and ease energy price pressures, as local and state leaders work to chart a new course of increased energy independence, greater energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, this block grant will enable cities and counties throughout the U.S.to undertake many thousands of locally-based energy efficiency, conservation and production initiatives. The new energy law authorizes $2 billion annually in block grant funding, beginning this fiscal year (FY 2008). Therefore, we urge your support for an appropriation at$2 billion to promptly launch this program to begin securing the national economic benefits that will occur. A strong funding commitment to this program will enable cities, counties and states to accelerate their efforts to expand building and home energy conservation programs, fuel conservation programs, alternative fuels development, building retrofits for increased energy efficiency, planning and zoning adjustments, and alternative energy programs. I strongly urge you and your colleagues to support funding commitments to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. If you have any questions, please contact me at(714) 536-5553 or Conference of Mayors' staff- Debra DeHaney-Howard or Judy Sheahan at (202) 293-7330. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Debbie Cook Mayor Xc: City Council Interim City Administrator, Paul Emery TELEPHONE i734� 535-55E2 �• ntt.ii.rir. '` i /r„+, rr J a 114r �jf_C�..., 1 171IG ]all a,' J City ®f Mxyxtbagtoia Beach • P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 Debbie Cook Mayor February 26, 2008 The Honorable Senator Boxer 312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1748 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to solicit your help to secure full funding of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, which was enacted in the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" [P.L. 110-140]. With a weakening economy increasingly burdened by high energy costs, we believe prompt funding commitments to this program will reduce energy use and ease energy price pressures, as local and state leaders work to chart a new course of increased energy independence, greater energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, this block grant will enable cities and counties throughout the U.S.to undertake many thousands of locally-based energy efficiency, conservation and production initiatives. The new energy law authorizes $2 billion annually in block grant funding, beginning this fiscal year (FY 2008). Therefore, we urge your support for an appropriation at$2 billion to promptly launch this program to begin securing the national economic benefits that will occur. A strong funding commitment to this program will enable cities, counties and states to accelerate their efforts to expand building and home energy conservation programs,fuel conservation programs, alternative fuels development, building retrofits for increased energy efficiency, planning and zoning adjustments, and alternative energy programs. l strongly urge you and your colleagues to support funding commitments to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. If you have any questions, please contact me at(714) 536-5553 or Conference of Mayors' staff- Debra DeHaney-Howard or Judy Sheahan at (202) 293-7330. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Web ie Cook Mayor Xc: City Council Interim City Administrator, Paul Emery TELEPHONE (714) =3E-``_`_`_ FAY (7714) 536-522. apar, City of ffixiathagtoia 113eacla P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 Debbie Cook Mayor February 26, 2008 The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher United States Congress Rayburn Bldg.#2338 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Rohrabacher: I am writing to solicit your help to secure full funding of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, which was enacted in the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" [P.L. 110-140]. With a weakening economy increasingly burdened by high energy costs, we believe prompt funding commitments to this program will reduce energy use and ease energy price pressures, as local and state leaders work to chart a new course of increased energy independence, greater energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, this block grant will enable cities and counties throughout the U.S. to undertake many thousands of locally-based energy efficiency, conservation and production initiatives. The new energy law authorizes $2 billion annually in block grant funding, beginning this fiscal year (FY 2008). Therefore, we urge your support for an appropriation at$2 billion to promptly launch this program to begin securing the national economic benefits that will occur. A strong funding commitment to this program will enable cities, counties and states to accelerate their efforts to expand building and home energy conservation programs, fuel conservation programs, alternative fuels development, building retrofits for increased energy efficiency, planning and zoning adjustments, and alternative energy programs. I strongly urge you and your colleagues to support funding commitments to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. If you have any questions, please contact me at(714) 536-5553 or Conference of Mayors' staff- Debra DeHaney-Howard or Judy Sheahan at (202) 293-7330. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Debbie Cook Mayor Xc: City Council Interim City Administrator, Paul Emery TELEPHONE '7141 52-E-555Z Vailancic \ » /i•,,I.nn' FAX (714) 53E-5233 `-nic.,ianar f �Is Tor SB 1295 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED Page 1 of 2 BILL NUMBER: SB 1295 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Senator Ducheny FEBRUARY 19, 2008 An act to amend Section 30625 of the Public Resources Code, relating to coastal resources. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1295, as introduced, Ducheny. California Coastal Act of 1976: coastal development permit: appeal. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined. Existing law provides that, after certification of a local program, any appealable action on a coastal development permit or claim of exemption for any development by a local government or port governing body may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission by an applicant for a permit, any aggrieved person, or any 2 members of the commission. This bill would revise that provision to eliminate an appeal by 2 members of the California Coastal Commission. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 30625 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read: 30625. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in �} zrse (@,` ^f-- Section 30602, any appealable action on a coastal development permit or claim of exemption for any development by a local government or port governing body may be appealed to the commission by an applicant —,alay or an aggrieved person , ^ tka . The commission may approve, modify, or deny such proposed development, and if no action is taken within the time limit specified in Sections 30621 and 30622, the decision of the local government or port governing body, as the case may be, shall become final, unless the time limit in Section 30621 or 30622 is waived by the applicant. (b) The commission shall hear an appeal unless it determines the following: (1) With respect to appeals pursuant to R;4',�11�1s};; af-- Section 30602, that no substantial issue exists as to conformity with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) . (2) With respect to appeals to the commission after certification of a local coastal program, that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which an appeal has been filed pursuant to Section 30603 . (3) With respect to appeals to the commission after certification of a port master plan, that no substantial issue exists as to conformity with the certified port master plan. (c) Decisions of the commission, where applicable, shall guide local governments or port governing bodies in their future actions under this division. file://C:\Documents and Settings\dapkusp\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK35\SB 1295 - Coas... 3/5/2008 SB 1295 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED Page 2 of 2 file://C:\Documents and Settings\dapkusp\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK35\SB 1295 - Coas... 3/5/2008 Page I of 3 Dapkus, Pat From: Broeren, Mary Beth Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9 17 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Cc: Hess, Scott Subject: RE [Coastal Cities] New Coastal Commission Bill Introduced Definitely support From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 5:17 PIVI To: Broeren, Mary Beth Cc: Hess, Scott Subject: FW: [Coastal Cities] New Coastal Commission Bill Introduced FYI, Please let me know if we need to take this to Intergovernmental Relations. THANKS! Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From: coastalcities-bounces@lists.cacities.org [maiIto:coastaIcities-bounces@lists.cacities.org] On Behalf Of Mary Creasey Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:33 PM To: coastalcities@lists.cacities.org Subject: [Coastal Cities] New Coastal Commission Bill Introduced Hi Coastal Cities This bill was introduced yesterday morning by Senator Ducheny (D) (San Diego) We do not know who the sponsor of the bill is at this time We'll also keep you updated as the bill progresses through the legislative process Kyra and Mary Kyra Emanuels Ross Legislative Representative League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 658-8252 SENATE BILL No. 1295 Introduced by Senator Ducheny February 19, 2008 3/5/2008 Page 2 of 3 An act to amend Section 30625 of the Public Resources Code,relating to coastal resources. legislative counsel s digest SB 1295, as introduced, Ducheny. California Coastal Act of 1976: coastal development permit: appeal. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for the planning and regulation of development, under a coastal development permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined. Existing law provides that, after certification of a Local program, any appealable action on a coastal development permit or claim of exemption for any development by a local government or port governing body may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission by an applicant for a permit, any aggrieved person, or any 2 members of the commission. This bill would revise that provision to eliminate an appeal by 2 members of the California Coastal Commission. Vote. majority. Appropriation: no Fiscal committee yes. State-mandated local program no The people of the State of California do enact as follows 1 SECTION 1. Section 30625 of the Public Resources Code is 2 amended to read: 3 30625. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in 4 subdivision(a)of Section 30602, any appealable action on a coastal 5 development permit or claim of exemption for any development 6 by a local government or port governing body may be appealed 99 3/5/2008 Page 3 of 3 SB 2_ 1295 1 to the commission by an applicant, any or an aggrieved person, 2 or any two members of the commission. The commission may 3 approve, modify, or deny such proposed development, and if no 4 action is taken within the time limit specified in Sections 30621 5 and 30622,the decision of the local government or port governing 6 bod , as the case may be, shall become final, unless the time limit 7 in Section 30621 or 30622 is waived by the applicant. 8 (b) The commission shall hear an appeal unless it determines 9 Ithe following: 10 (1) With respect to appeals pursuant to subdivision(a)of Section 11 30602, that no substantial issue exists as to conformity with 12 Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). 13 (2) With respect to appeals to the commission after certi fication 14 of a local coastal program, that no substantial issue exists with 15 respect to the grounds on which an appeal has been filed pursuant 16 to Section 30603. 17 (3) With respect to appeals to the commission after certi fication 18 of a port master plan, that no substantial issue exists as to 19 conformity with the certified port master plan. 20 (c) Decisions of the commission,where applicable, shall guide 21 local governments or port governing bodies in their future actions 22 under this division. 3/5/2008 `NT A A 4 H« Mr E FERGUSON G G 'LLC 1130 Corks Cucur,hyenu,,NLV sm.",3(}() VVa,>hington,OX.. 20G3b 202.3i] 8,t),} 202 331 1 598 fax FY 2009 APPROPRIATIONS PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE ALL PROJECTS This questionnaire was developed by The Ferguson Group to gather background information on individual projects during the federal appropriations process. Please use this form only for projects for which you are seeking federal funding for a direct line item in an appropriations bill. Only answer sections A and B. If you have an EPA, Transit, Federal Highway or Economic Development project, please fill out the Section that corresponds to that type of project as well. Please use Microsoft Word to ensure our work is compatible with documents used by congressional offices. The format of the questionnaire allows you to click on a question and answer in the appropriate field. You will also be able to "check" a box by clicking on the box with the cursor. A. Background Information 1. What is your name,job title, and contact information (including address, email, fax, and phone)? Geraldine Lucas; Principal Civil Engineer 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 Phone 714-375-8494 Fax 374-1573 glucas@surfcity-hb.org 2. What is the name of the project? Talbert Lake, Huntington Lake and Blackbird Pond Restoration Project 3. Where is the project located? Huntington Beach Central Park 4. Which Congressional District(s) does this project fall within? 46th (Forty Six) Congressional District 5. Please describe any special characteristics of the site. For example, current and past uses or historic significance of the site. Page I of 13 THE i FERGUSON GRO Ric At 190 acres, Huntington Central Park is one of the largest passive park settings in Orange County, including the Talbert Lake, Huntington Lake, Shipley Nature Center, an equestrian center, four miles of walking paths, home to the monarch butterfly, habitat for over 300 bird species, and contains over 12,000 trees. The park provides a quiet retreat from the usual city turmoil and is located approximately 3 miles from the coast. The park is considered a bird watchers heaven; housing wrens, loons, tanagers, flycatchers, pelicans, egrets, ducks, coots, falcons, owls, kingfishers, woodpeckers, larks, vireos, sparrows, finches, and more. The unique site is one of the few such places in west Orange County. With its fresh water and natural vegetation, it is outstanding habitat for wildlife, especially waterfowl and birdlife. Although the topography of the land has changed some since the turn of the century, the geography has not. Shipley Nature Center is an 18 acres nature center consisting of a variety of habitats frequented by many birds and other native wildlife. A great variety of plant life can be found there, including many edible varieties. A I/2 mile self-guided trail meanders among forest, grasslands, and a freshwater marsh. Huntington Lake is 12 acres and has water year round, however the level substantially decreases during the dry season. Talbert Lake is 16 acres and has been completely dry during the past several years. 6. Briefly describe the project (4-5 sentences). For example, describe the physical characteristics of the project, the population to be served, and the purpose of the project. The Talbert Lake, Huntington Lake and Blackford Pond Restoration Project will provide multi- benefits to the region that include protection of the beneficial uses of our coastal waters, enhancement of park recreation and habitat value, education, groundwater recharge and seawater intrusion barrier enhancements. The project will protect and improve the quality of the region's receiving water bodies; including Huntington Harbour, Anaheim Bay, Talbert Lake, Huntington Lake, and Blackbird pond. The project will maximize pollutant removal and plant uptake, provide a highly treated water source to be infiltrated into groundwater basin, and provide a high quality water source for Central Park lakes, nature center and irrigation. 7. What sets this project apart from other similar projects? How will this project benefit the community? The project will provide multi-benefits to the region that include protection of the beneficial uses of our coastal waters, enhancement of park recreation and habitat value, education, groundwater recharge and seawater intrusion barrier enhancements. 8. What is the national significance of the project? Why should the Federal Government be involved in the project? Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay have been designated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies due to urban runoff, storm sewers, and unknown sources. Sampling for the TMDL process in Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay reducing the polluted flow into these water bodies and reducing the number of postings for Page 2 of 13 ilMr THE FERGUS(--)N TAGROL)Ptu- elevated levels of bacteria. This project would reduce urban runoff contamination along the 8.5 miles of Pacific Ocean beaches, as well as the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The Bolsa Chica is an important migratory stop along the Pacific Flyway, providing habitat and nesting area for several species on the Federal Endangered Species List, including the California least Tern, Brown Pelican, and Western Snowy Plover. Central Park is in close proximity to the Wetlands, and provides similar benefits to endangers migratory and local species such as the Belding Savannah Sparrow and least Bell's Vireo 9. Does the project address an immediate need or is it related to future growth and/or development? Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay have been designated as 303(d) listed impaired waterbodies due to urban runoff, storm sewers, and unknown sources by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The ongoing citizen volunteer sampling for the TMDL process in Huntington Harbour and Anaheim Bay has focused considerable public and political attention on reducing the polluted flow into these water bodies and reducing the number of postings for elevated levels of bacteria. This project would help addres this concern. 10. What is the timeline for the project? Specifically,when will the project begin and end? The project will begin as soon as funding is authorized. Progress has already been made on several aspects of this project is coordination with the Talbert Lake Diversion Project. The planning for the Talbert Lake design enhancements and CEQA planning is currently ongoing. Once the project is funded and authorized, it is anticipated to be completed within three years. 11. Are there multiple phases to this project? Yes X No ❑ a. If yes, for which phase are you requesting funds? This is the final phase, however can be considered a stand alone project. b.Please describe any future phases of the project. N/A 12. Is there public and/or private support of this project? Yes X No ❑ a. If yes, who are these supporters? Project partners and supporting organizations include the County of Orange, the Orange County Sanitation District, Friends of the Shipley Nature Center, Orange County Coastkeepers, Bolsa Chica Conservancy, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, Orange County Water District and the City of Seal Beach. www.ferguson roup.Lis Page 3 of 13 0m:AGROUPLIC THE GUSON b.Would these supporters be willing to publicly support the project by writing letters or passing resolutions? Yes X No ❑ 13. Please provide the names of state or federal agency staff that are familiar with the project and you believe would advocate for the project. Mark Adelson, Athar Khan &Dave Woefel at the Santa Ana Regioanl Water Quality Control Board. 14. Does this project require environmental review? Yes X No ❑ a. If yes,what level of review is required? It is anticipated based on previous work and experience that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be sufficient for the environmental planning process on this project. b.Have you started environmental review? If yes, describe the review status? Some of the work required for the environmental planning process associated with the Talbert Lake portion of the project has been completed, including habitat surveys, estimated construction impacts and engineering design. 15. have you previously discussed this project with any congressional offices? Yes X No ❑ a. If yes,whom dad you contact? Please provide the staff members' names if possible. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and staff. WVVW� F(�r;u�,-Otl r LJIMIS Page 4 of 13 GROL)Pt Lc THE FERGUSON B. Financial Information 16. How much funding is sought for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008— September 30, 2009)? $ 2,500,000.00 17. Is this the total amount you will request from the federal government for this project? Yes X No ❑ a. If not,what is the total amount you will request from the federal government? 18. Including non-federal funding,what is the total cost of the project? $ 2,500,000.00 19. Has the project ever been included in the President's budget request? Yes ❑ No X a. Is it included in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request? Yes ❑ No X 20. Has the project received federal funding in the past? Yes ❑ No X a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. (NOTE: This information is not needed for projects previously worked on by TFG. Please continue to 20b.) N/A b. Has the federal funding from prior years been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A c. If the federal funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? N/A 21. Has the project received state funding in the past? Yes ❑ No X a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. N/A b. Has the state funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ Page 5 of 13 THE FE GU ') FIR AGROUP11c c. If the state funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? 22. Has the project received funding from private sources? Yes ❑ No X a. If yes, how much and from whom? N/A b. Has the private funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the private funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? 23. Are local matching funds available for the project? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, from what source or sources? Unknown at this time. 24. Describe any in-kind contributions to your project (architectural work, land, staff hours, etc.) and an approximate value of these contributions. In house staff would be working on many aspects of the project including engineering design, surveying, environmental planning, and construction management. 25. Can the amount requested be spent in Fiscal Year 2009? Yes ❑ No X a. If the entire amount can not be spent,how much can be spent in FY 2009? The project will take an estimated three years to complete. It is estimated that only 25% of project funds would be spent in the first year. 26. Please include a budget breakdown for the requested funding. (For example, salary $40,000; computers $30,000) Project construction costs are estimated to encompass the $2.5 million requested. www.ferguson roul).LIS Page 6 of 13 IV TF IE FERGUSON `_;12O _ PLLC Page 7 of 13 MUMM THE W or 1 FERGUSON G ROUPi_E_c- C. To Be Filled Out for Proiects Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) 27. Is the proposed project eligible for a loan from its state's Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If the project is eligible, have you applied for a SRLF loan? Yes ❑ No ❑ b. What priority did the state assign this project as a result of the application? c. What size of loan did the state determine the project was eligible to receive? 28. If you do not receive the requested funding, would the cost of the project be funded through user fees or tax increases? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. On average, how much would each household pay in annual user fees if you do not receive the requested funds? 29. What is the estimated average annual user fee as a percent of the estimated median annual income of households that will be served by the project if the community constructs the proposed project without the requested grant funds? a. With an SRLF loan? b. With municipal funding at market rates? 30. What is the current market rate for municipal funding? 31. How will the requested funds benefit low or moderate-income communities? us Page 8 of 13 T MAGROUR.ic SHE IR FERGUSON D. To Be Completed for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Projects 32. What, if any, federal-aid highway discretionary programs is the project eligible? 33. Are there any pending issues with the project, such as litigation or environmental problems? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. Please provide a brief description of the problem and timing for a resolution. Page 9 of 13 T(--IF FERGUSON1 Er C at LJ PLLc F. To Be Completed for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Projects 34. Has the project been discussed with FTA? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please provide the name and contact information of the FTA official contacted. 35. Is there a public transportation component of this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 36. Please provide the contact name and phone number for the area transit operator? 37. Is the area's transit operator involved in the project? Yes ❑ No ❑ 38. Has the requested earmark been discussed with the transit operator? Yes ❑ No ❑ Page 10 of 13 or THE FERGUSON 7NGROF'iw ii I F. To Be Completed for Economic and Community Development Projects 39. Does the project create jobs? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 40. Does this project meet a compelling human need? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 41. Does the project benefit low or moderate-income neighborhoods? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 42. Does the project eliminate physical or economic distress? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. Page I I of 13 W!AGROUPI!(- RUC' G. To Be Completed for Projects Under the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education 43. Please identify the activity or activities that will be carried out as a part of this project. 44. Please include a break down of the requested funding? (For example, salary $40,000; computers $3,000, etc.) €IS Page 12 of 13 17Kmr SHE FERGUSON lC-xRC)L)R-:-c H. To Be Completed for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation Projects 45. Is this project a new study or construction start? 46. Is this project authorized? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, what is the authorization? Page 13 of 13 /�AT N,T�� E FERGUSON GROUPUC (I 3D C.«;7re�tic�Et Av:ri��Y,3*EV 5ui:e Sop \k,aO in;lon,D C 1212G 3b 201,�;i 85Cr0 2G, i31 1�gSfax FAY 2009 APPROPRIATIONS PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE ALL PROJECTS This questionnaire was developed by The Ferguson Group to gather background information on individual projects during the federal appropriations process. Please use this form only for projects for which you are seeking federal funding for a direct line item in an appropriations bill. Only answer sections A and B. If you have an EPA, Transit, Federal Highway or Economic Development project, please fill out the Section that corresponds to that type of project as well. Please use Microsoft Word to ensure our work is compatible with documents used by congressional offices. The format of the questionnaire allows you to click on a question and answer in the appropriate field. You will also be able to "check" a box by clicking on the box with the cursor. A. Backiround Information 1. What is your name,job title, and contact information (including address, email, fax, and phone)? Linda Daily Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street (PO Box 190) Huntington Beach CA 92648 Phone 714-536-5599 Fax 714-374-1573 ldai lyksurfcity-bb.org 2. What is the name of the project? Storm Water Infrastructure Improvements. Specific projects may include Heil Drainage Pump Station, Newland Drainage Pump Station and Slater Drainage Pump Station,piping, channels and associated drainage features 3. Where is the project located? All projects will be located within the City of Huntington Reach, and generally located adjacent to City or County of Orange Flood Control Channels. 4. Which Congressional District(s) does this project fall within? AA€:�.t, ,: ,; .��a ,�. Page 1 of 11 THE rkC_IU ON T1RMC'Z0LJPLU_: , 461h (Forty sixth) Congressional District 5. Please describe any special characteristics of the site. For example, current and past uses or historic significance of the site. Existing stations may be reconstructed on the existing sites, or relocated within close proximity to larger sites if available and appropriate. 6. Briefly describe the project (4-5 sentences). For example, describe the physical characteristics of the project, the population to be served, and the purpose of the project. Fourteen of the existing 15 drainage pump stations were built in 1960s. The facilities are significantly undersized to meet the demands of the surrounding community. The City population is approximately 200,000, and much of area is located in FEMA designated Flood Zones. Proposed projects will expand the station capacities to meet the estimated 100-year peak discharge. The new facilities may incorporate an adjacent vegetated wetland to filter dry weather urban runoff instead of routing the runoff to the Orange County Sanitation District. 7. What sets this project apart from other similar projects? How will this project benefit the community? The projects will protect 200,000 residents and hundreds of millions of dollars in property value. The project will move the City closer to the goal of citywide protection from the Army Corps of Engineers predicted 100-year storm event. Included in one project is a proposed innovative vegetated filter that treats urban runoff prior to its flow into the regional East-Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGWC). As the EGGWC, drains to the Huntington Harbour, Anaheim Bay and the Pacific Ocean, the proposed station will protect the receiving waters from runoff pollutants. 8. What is the national significance of the project? Why should the Federal Government be involved in the project? The City of Huntington Beach is home to 200,000 residents and hosts over 11 million visitors each year. The project will help mitigate flooding hazards for the population and protect property values in the 28 square mile city. In addition, the project will bring the City and State of California closer to compliance with flood control protection goals as determined by FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers. 9. Does the project address an immediate need or is it related to future growth and/ or development? As the city's population has gone from 20,000 in the 1960s when the existing stations were built, to the current 200,000, the project has an immediate need. 10. What is the timeline for the project? Specifically, when will the project begin and end? The Heil Drainage Pump project is currently under design and will be ready upon finalization of the property acquisition. Construction will take approximately 18 months. The project can be complete by 2010. Simultaneous projects can be completed prior to 2011. Page 2 of 11 MMMM MICROUN(, FERGUSON 11. Are there multiple phases to this project? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, for which phase are you requesting funds? b.Please describe any future phases of the project. 12. Is there public and/ or private support of this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, who are these supporters? The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has included the Heil Storm Drainage project in the 2007/08 Capital Improvement Program. General Fund monies were allocated to purchase the property and design the project. Additional projects will be included in the 2008/09 and 2009/10 CIP. b.Would these supporters be willing to publicly support the project by writing letters or passing resolutions? Yes ® No ❑ 13. Please provide the names of state or federal agency staff that are familiar with the project and you believe would advocate for the project. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher 14. Does this project require environmental review? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes,what level of review is required? An environmental assessment would be performed at each location to determine actual need. An environmental impact report (EII2) is anticipated for each relocation. b.Have you started environmental review? If yes, describe the review status? No. 15. Have you previously discussed this project with any congressional offices? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes,whom did you contact? Please provide the staff members' names if possible. Congressman Dana I2ohrabacher vvmV Page 3 of 11 __Fi FERGLI " N B. Financial Information 16. How much funding is sought for Federal fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008— September 30, 2009)? Eighteen million dollars ($18 million) 17. Is this the total amount you will request from the federal government for this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If not, what is the total amount you will request from the federal government? 18. Including non-federal funding,what is the total cost of the project? Thirty million ($30 million) 19. Has the project ever been included in the President's budget request? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. Is it included in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request? Yes ❑ No ❑ 20. Has the project received federal funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. (NOTE: This information is not needed for projects previously worked on by TFG. Please continue to 20b.) b. Has the federal funding from prior years been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the federal funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? 21. Has the project received state funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. Page 4 of 11 T Er CFI ; ER,G _SON 1KMGR0(__JP1tc b. Has the state funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the state funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? 22. Has the project received funding from private sources? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much and from whom? b. Has the private funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the private funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? 23. Are local matching funds available for the project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, from what source or sources? City of Huntington Beach General Fund and Infrastructure Fund. 24. Describe any in-kind contributions to your project (architectural work, land, staff hours, etc.) and an approximate value of these contributions. Land acquisition $2.5 to 7 million; Project Engineering $2-3 million ; staff time for project management $250,000-$400,000; city funded value of construction costs will vary from $I- 6 million 25. Can the amount requested be spent in Fiscal Year 2009? Yes ❑ No a. If the entire amount can not be spent, how much can be spent in FY 2009? Approximately $5 million 26. Please include a budget breakdown for the requested funding. (For example, salary $40,000; computers $30,000) Construction (includes construction services and purchase of equipment such as pumps, engines, etc); Heil Drainage Pump Station $4 million; Slater Pump Station S8 million; Newland Pump Station $7 million; Channel Improvements C. To Be Filled Out for Projects Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 27. Is the proposed project eligible for a loan from its state's Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? Yes ❑ No ❑ MN"I",f';, Page 5 of 11 THE �< kGU ' KOUPuf: a. If the project is eligible, have you applied for a SRLF loan? Yes ❑ No ❑ b. What priority did the state assign this project as a result of the application? c. What size of loan did the state determine the project was eligible to receive? 28. If you do not receive the requested funding,would the cost of the project be funded through user fees or tax increases? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. On average, how much would each household pay in annual user fees if you do not receive the requested funds? 29. What is the estimated average annual user fee as a percent of the estimated median annual income of households that will be served by the project if the community constructs the proposed project without the requested grant funds? a. With an SRLF loan? b. With municipal funding at market rates? 30. What is the current market rate for municipal funding? 31. How will the requested funds benefit low or moderate-income communities? A To Be Completed for Federal Highway Administration (FIIWA) Projects 32. What, if any, federal-aid highway discretionary programs is the project eligible? Page 6 of 11 THE FERGI_SO CROURIc 33. Are there any pending issues with the project, such as litigation or environmental problems? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. Please provide a brief description of the problem and timing for a resolution. Page 7 of 11 Ir THE IN r.� � i TIR ) JP11-c E. To Be Completed for Federal'Transit Administration (FTA) Projects 34. Has the project been discussed with FTA? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please provide the name and contact information of the FTA official contacted. 35. Is there a public transportation component of this project? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 36. Please provide the contact name and phone number for the area transit operator? 37. Is the area's transit operator involved in the project? Yes ❑ No ❑ 38. Has the requested earmark been discussed with the transit operator? Yes ❑ No ❑ Page 8 of 11 T1 E F. To Be Completed for Economic and Community Development Froiects 39. Does the project create jobs? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes,please explain. 40. Does this project meet a compelling human need? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 41. Does the project benefit low or moderate-income neighborhoods? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. 42. Does the project eliminate physical or economic distress? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes,please explain. 4`cww fort: 'OC °gro' , i.. Page 9 of 11 W:ICI I TFIF FERGUSON � SO G. To Be Completed for ]Projects Under the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education 43. Please identify the activity or activities that will be carried out as a part of this project. 44. please include a break down of the requested funding? (For example, salary $40,000; computers $3,000, etc.) Page 10 of I MWO E i S _) H. To Be Completed for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation Proiects 45. Is this project a new study or construction start? 46. is this project authorized? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, what is the authorization? Page 11 of]] Ilk- AW, 7"'ami'vs, IV SHE FERGUSONIT a I LLC I I io(_onrvL11f ut Avenu �bV Suxw, Washtn;ton,U C 200 36 202 3;( t�500 202 i it 15,18 far FY 2009 APPROPRIATIONS PROTECT QUESTIONNAIRE ALL PROTECTS This questionnaire was developed by The Ferguson Group to gather background information on individual projects during the federal appropriations process. Please use this form only for projects for which you are seeking federal funding for a direct line item in an appropriations bill. Only answer sections A and B. If you have an EPA, Transit, Federal Highway or Economic Development project, please fill out the Section that corresponds to that type of project as well. Please use Microsoft Word to ensure our work is compatible with documents used by congressional offices. The format of the questionnaire allows you to click on a question and answer in the appropriate field. You will also be able to "check" a box by clicking on the box with the cursor. A. Background Information 1. What is your name,job title, and contact information (including address, email, fax, and phone)? Jim B. Engle, Director, Community Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel: (714) 536-5495 Fax: (714) 374-1654 jengle@surfcity-hb.org 2. What is the name of the project? Gun Range Clean-Up 3. Where is the project located? The site has a physical street address of 18191 Gothard Street in Huntington Beach; California. The site is situated to the southwest of the intersection between Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street, immediately north of Sully Miller Lake. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 405 (I-405) and Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1), located approximately 3 miles north and 2 miles south; respectively Page I of 11 TH i 171 i- l� N 1CROUP11C 4. Which Congressional District(s) does this project fall within? 46th District 5. Please describe any special characteristics of the site. For example, current and past uses or historic significance of the site. The Site was originally part of Huntington Beach Landfill (Landfill), which was owned and operated by the County of Orange (County). The Landfill was divided into two distinct areas: 33.2-acres of mixed municipal refuse and 18.3 acres of construction demolition material. The Site was reportedly part of the mixed municipal refuse portion of the Landfill. According to Kleinfelder, Inc. (1990), the County operated the Landfill as a burning dump from September 1947 through September 1956. After that date, the Landfill operated as a cut and cover operation. Kleinfelder reports that County records indicate that about 1.1 million cubic yards of refuse were deposited into the Landfill before its closure in 1962. When the Landfill closed, the County deeded the property to the City for public park and recreation purposes. The Huntington Beach Police Officers Association (HBPOA) constructed the current gun range improvements with a public and private training facility and operated the facility under a 20-year lease from the City. In 1988, the long-term lease expired, and the gun range lease was continued on a year-to-year basis. In the early 1990s, it became evident that the range needed rebuilding. Unstable soil conditions caused by the decomposing landfill materials were impacting the facility, and the public side of the facility was closed and partially demolished because of structural stability concerns. In 1993, the City began discussions with the HBPOA regarding rebuilding the Site. In 1997, the City terminated the lease due to safety concerns, and the gun range was closed. Existing improvements on the Site include several buildings, wood posts that serve as fencing, rubber tires used as target backing, and asphalt areas. 6. Briefly describe the project (4-5 sentences). For example, describe the physical characteristics of the project, the population to be served, and the purpose of the project. Mitigation of lead contamination from closed gun range facility in Huntington Central Park. 7. What sets this project apart from other similar projects? How will this project benefit the community? I believe this is the only outdoor public/private gun range in Orange county .;,, Page 2 of 11 Ti 4 FERC'UN GR( 8. What is the national significance of the project? Why should the Federal Government be involved in the project? This clean-up project is for a gun range that was used by the Unites States Marines, County Sheriff, and local Police Departments from Orange County. Therefore, the issue of clean-up goes beyond the responsibility of only Huntington Beach. 9. Does the project address an immediate need or is it related to future growth and/ or development? The immediate need for clean-up is to address lead contamination. Ultimately, the area will be used for a public park area. 10. What is the timeline for the project? Specifically, when will the project begin and end? The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) are being prepared now. The project could begin as soon as six month if funding is available. It will take less than one year to complete the project. 11. Are there multiple phases to this project? Yes ❑ No a. if yes, for which phase are you requesting funds? b.Please describe any future phases of the project. 12. Is there public and/ or private support of this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes,who are these supporters? The public and City Council support this project. b.Would these supporters be willing to publicly support the project by writing letters or passing resolutions? Yes ® No ❑ 13. Please provide the names of state or federal agency staff that are familiar with the project and you believe would advocate for the project. Ferguson Group: Please respond. Page 3 of 11 T Er H E FERGUSON IMIGROUP11c 14. Does this project require environmental review? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, what level of review is required? EIR is under way. b.Have you started environmental review? If yes, describe the review status? Environmental assessment has been completed. The EIR is in process. 15. Have you previously discussed this project with any congressional offices? Yes ❑ No ❑ a. If yes, whom did you contact? Please provide the staff members' names if possible. Ferguson Group: ? Page 4 of 11 - 1 it ER 1 a N n TIR - B. Financial Information 16. How much funding is sought for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008— September 30, 2009)? $2,100,000 ($2 million, one hundred thousand) 17. Is this the total amount you will request from the federal government for this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If not,what is the total amount you will request from the federal government? 18. Including non-federal funding, what is the total cost of the project? $2,100,000 19. Has the project ever been included in the President's budget request? Yes ❑ No a. Is it included in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request? Yes ❑ No ❑ 20. Has the project received federal funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. (NOTE: This information is not needed for projects previously worked on by TFG. Please continue to 20b.) b. Has the federal funding from prior years been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the federal funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? 21. Has the project received state funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. Page 5 of 11 THF T 7RAGR(_,A_)Rw FERGUSON b. Has the state funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the state funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? 22. Has the project received funding from private sources? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, how much and from whom? The city received $600,000 from the other sheriff and police departments who used it as part of a legal settlement. That funding was used for the EIR and RAP. b. Has the private funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the private funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? 23. Are local matching funds available for the project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, from what source or sources? See #22 response 24. Describe any in-kind contributions to your project (architectural work, land, staff hours, etc.) and an approximate value of these contributions. Public Works engineers and construction management staff will oversee the project. Estimated value = $100,000. 25. Can the amount requested be spent in fiscal Year 2009? Yes 0 No ❑ a. If the entire amount can not be spent, how much can be spent in FY 2009? 26. Please include a budget breakdown for the requested funding. (For example, salary $40,000; computers $30,000) The city will hire an appropriate contractor with the necessary certifications to clean-up the site. This company will receive the $2,100,000. Page 6 of 11 or L. FEDGUSX YN SRO UPw,- C. To Be filled Out for Projects funded by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) 27. 1s the proposed project eligible for a loan from its state's Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving fund? Yes ❑ No 19 a. 1f the project is eligible, have you applied for a SRLF loan? Yes ❑ No ❑ b. What priority did the state assign this project as a result of the application? c. What size of loan did the state determine the project was eligible to receive? 28. 1f you do not receive the requested funding,would the cost of the project be funded through user fees or tax increases? Yes ❑ No a. On average, how much would each household pay in annual user fees if you do not receive the requested funds? 29. What is the estimated average annual user fee as a percent of the estimated median annual income of households that will be served by the project if the community constructs the proposed project without the requested grant funds? Ferguson Group. ? a. With an SRLF loan? b. With municipal funding at market rates? 30. What is the current market rate for municipal funding? n/a 31. How will the requested funds benefit low or moderate-income communities? The clean-up project will eliminate the contamination from the soil, thereby, making the park ramp available for development which would benefit all people, including low and moderate income users. Page 7 of I1 THE',,,, FERGUSON (_; (_ . P c D. To Be Completed for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Projects 32. What, if any, federal-aid highway discretionary programs is the project eligible? n/a 33. Are there any pending issues with the project, such as litigation or environmental problems? Yes ❑ No ❑x a. Please provide a brief description of the problem and timing for a resolution. EIR and RAP being prepared now, but there are no mitigation or environmental problems expected. Impact of the clean-up project will eliminate the environmental contamination. Page 8 of I T or If T FERCIUSON E. To Be Completed for Federal Transit Administration (FI'A) projects 34. Has the project been discussed with FI'A? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, please provide the name and contact information of the FTA official contacted. 35. Is there a public transportation component of this project? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, please explain. 36. please provide the contact name and phone number for the area transit operator? n/a 37. Is the area's transit operator involved in the project? Yes ❑ No 38. Has the requested earmark been discussed with the transit operator? Yes ❑ No Page 9 of 11 TFIF RGUISO N F. To Be Completed for Economic and Community Development Proiects 39. Does the project create jobs? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. Short-term jobs will be created with the clean-up project and long-term jobs will be created with the development of the park land to maintain the park property. 40. Does this project meet a compelling human need? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. The compelling human need is to remediate health hazards. 41. Does the project benefit low or moderate-income neighborhoods? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. Ultimately, the site will become a park to be used by everyone, including low and moderate income individuals. The park is in close proximity to the Oak View neighborhood which consists of mainly low income families. 42. Does the project eliminate physical or economic distress? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. See #40 ,,w .f r,-us6i gro p_us Page 10 of I I THE y.. 71," 1wW h gg-- ygyg pg /3 r*�j�_ N G. To Be Completed for Projects Under the Departments of Labor, Health & Duman Services, and Education 43. Please identify the activity or activities that will be carried out as a part of this project. Ferguson Group ? 44. Please include a break down of the requested funding? (For example, salary $40,000; computers $3,000, etc.) Ferguson Group ? H. To Be Completed for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Declamation Projects 45. Is this project a new study or construction start? n/a 46. Is this project authorized? Yes ❑ No a. If yes,what is the authorization? Page 11 of 11 1 "T 0 'A A NM m �EN, ,,T Pill I ou � #, 6 T Gr THE IT a FERGUSON R ULLC 1130 l onrccna t Avcnue,NIV 5ul1c 3()() Lhashington,D.( 20036 202 331 8,500 202 3 3 1 1598 tax FX 2009 APPROPRIATIONS PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE ALL PROJECTS This questionnaire was developed by The Ferguson Group to gather background information on individual projects during the federal appropriations process. Please use this form only for projects for which you are seeking federal funding for a direct line item in an appropriations bill. Only answer sections A and B. If you have an EPA, Transit, Federal Highway or Economic Development project, please fill out the Section that corresponds to that type of project as well. Please use Microsoft Word to ensure our work is compatible with documents used by congressional offices. The format of the questionnaire allows you to click on a question and answer in the appropriate field. You will also be able to "check" a box by clicking on the box with the cursor. A. background Information 1. What is your name,job title, and contact information (including address, email, fax, and phone)? Jim B. Engle, Director, Community Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel: (714) 536-5495 Fax: (714) 374-1654 j engle@surfcity-hb.org 2. What is the name of the project? Blufftop Park 3. Where is the project located? Coast side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Seapoint Avenue, City of Huntington Beach, California 4. Which Congressional District(s) does this project fall within? 461h District w,ww.fc;r L1songrm1p.ti4 Page I of 10 Er H E FERGUSON 1MGROUPtic 5. Please describe any special characteristics of the site. For example, current and past uses or historic significance of the site. The City of Huntington Beach has made significant improvements to the bluff top area that we operate for the state between the pier and Seapoint Avenue since the days when it was an oil field. These improvements have totaled in excess of $4,500,000. There are still improvements that need to be completed to improve access to the beach as well as replacing stairwells and safety railing along the top of the bluff that has rusted due to the corrosive nature of the beach environment. There are also bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements that need to be made to improve the condition of the trail from a safety and liability perspective. The city has received two grants totaling $858,000 for this purpose, but there is still a shortfall of $1,200,000 to complete the project. The results of this project will be improving the bike path along Blufftop Park adjacent to the beach, safer access down to the sand, and creation of a safer environment along the edge of the bluff for the public. 6. Briefly describe the project (4-5 sentences). For example, describe the physical characteristics of the project, the population to be served, and the purpose of the project. Maintain public service road for safety, re-route trails due to erosion and complete park with infill project. 7. What sets this project apart from other similar projects? How will this project benefit the community? Blufftop Park is located adjacent to the beach and runs along the beach providing panoramic views of the ocean. There is not a similar project in our community or in the vast majority of other communities. The project provides walkers, bicyclists, and runners a place to exercise with a unique view of the ocean. It is a respite for people living in the busy urbanized area. People visit the park from Huntington Beach, Orange County, California and beyond. 8. What is the national significance of the project? Why should the Federal Government be involved in the project? This project is nationally significant because it has a regional draw as noted in#7 above. WWW ergua;�Ongroopt its Page 2 of 10 THE FERGUSON 9. Does the project address an immediate need or is it related to future growth and/or development? There is an immediate need for the project because it will complete the park. It also addresses re-routing trails that have been impacted by erosion. 10. What is the timeline for the project? Specifically, when will the project begin and end? Project has already started. We have put in new railing at the bluff s edge and addressed some of the infill areas. We need the requested fund so that we can complete the project. If funds were available now, the project would be complete within six months. Are there multiple phases to this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, for which phase are you requesting funds? Phase II. —see#10 b.Please describe any future phases of the project. Project will be completed if these funds are provided. 11. Is there public and/or private support of this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes,who are these supporters? The community supports the project; as exemplified by the large number of people who come to the park to use the ocean as well as walk, bike, and run along the length of the park. b.Would these supporters be willing to publicly support the project by writing letters or passing resolutions? Yes ® No ❑ 12. Please provide the names of state or federal agency staff that are familiar with the project and you believe would advocate for the project. Ferguson Group: Have you contacted the state or federal people that you know? The project is approved by the Huntington Beach City Council. ww,ter gl sanggroup.ua, Page 3 of 10 THE FERGUSON rAGRC')L)Pii-c 13. Does this project require environmental review? Yes ❑ No 0 Master plan and environmental assessment completed years ago for Blufftop Park. This project is simply "infill". a. If yes, what level of review is required? b.Have you started environmental review? If yes, describe the review status? 14. Have you previously discussed this project with any congressional offices? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, whom did you contact? Please provide the staff members' names if possible. Ferguson Group: ? Page 4 of 10 THE FERGUSON B. Financial Information 15. How much funding is sought for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008— September 30, 2009)? $2,000,000 ($2 million) 16. Is this the total amount you will request from the federal government for this project? Yes ®No ❑ a. If not,what is the total amount you will request from the federal government? 17. Including non-federal funding,what is the total cost of the project? City has spent over$5.3 million on Blufftop Park development 18. Has the project ever been included in the President's budget request? Yes ❑ No a. Is it included in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request? Yes ❑ No ❑ 19. Has the project received federal funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. (NOTE: This information is not needed for projects previously worked on by TFG. Please continue to 20b.) b. Has the federal funding from prior years been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the federal funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? 20. Has the project received state funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. WWW,Fer kl<"o gr011 .us Page 5 of 10 THE 171 EN 1GROUR-w b. Has the state funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the state funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? 21. Has the project received funding from private sources? Yes ❑ No 19 a. If yes, how much and from whom? b. Has the private funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the private funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? 22. Are local matching funds available for the project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, from what source or sources? City's General Fund monies are currently being spent on project. 23. Describe any in-kind contributions to your project(architectural work, land, staff hours, etc.) and an approximate value of these contributions. $100,000 in staff time to complete portions of the work on site. 24. Can the amount requested be spent in Fiscal Year 2009? Yes ® No ❑ a. If the entire amount can not be spent, how much can be spent in FY 2009? 25. Please include a budget breakdown for the requested funding. (For example, salary $40,000; computers $30,000) Entire amount will be spent to hire contractor to provide grading, landscaping, irrigation, etc. Page 6 of 10 WIr THE FERGUSON (GIB )t_ Pt i c C. To Be Filled Out for Proiects Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 26. Is the proposed project eligible for a loan from its state's Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? Yes ❑ No N a. If the project is eligible, have you applied for a SRLF loan? Yes ❑ No ❑ b. What priority did the state assign this project as a result of the application? c. What size of loan did the state determine the project was eligible to receive? 27. If you do not receive the requested funding,would the cost of the project be funded through user fees or tax increases? Yes ❑ No N a. On average, how much would each household pay in annual user fees if you do not receive the requested funds? 28. What is the estimated average annual user fee as a percent of the estimated median annual income of households that will be served by the project if the community constructs the proposed project without the requested grant funds? n/a a. With an SRI.F loan? b. With municipal funding at market rates? 29. What is the current market rate for municipal funding? n/a w w,torgu.=>t>ngroup.us Page 7 of 10 MMMMMIGROUPia- C1--1E FERGUSON 30. How will the requested funds benefit low or moderate-income communities? This park is accessible to all income levels of people because it has free access. This is a real recreation opportunity for low and moderate income individuals and families. D. To Be Completed for Federal Ili2hway Administration (FIIWA) Projects 31. What, if any, federal-aid highway discretionary programs is the project eligible? n/a 32. Are there any pending issues with the project, such as litigation or environmental problems? Yes ❑ No a. Please provide a brief description of the problem and timing for a resolution. E. To Be Completed for Federal'Transit Administration (FTA) Projects 33. Has the project been discussed with FTA? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, please provide the name and contact information of the FTA official contacted. 34. Is there a public transportation component of this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. The park is approximately 1.5 miles and linear in nature. It connects the existing beach trails of the state park to the north and the city beach to the south. 35. Please provide the contact name and phone number for the area transit operator? n/a 36. Is the area's transit operator involved in the project? Yes ❑ No 37. Has the requested earmark been discussed with the transit operator? Yes ❑ No ww vv, Lis Page 8 of 10 'NGROUPac THE FERGUSON F. To Be Completed for Economic and Community Development Projects 38. Does the project create jobs? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. The city needs to hire maintenance staff or contract with a maintenance company to work on the project, thereby, creating jobs. 39. Does this project meet a compelling human need? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. The project creates an area for people to get away from a hectic urban lifestyle to a place taking a respite from everyday challenges. 40. Does the project benefit low or moderate-income neighborhoods? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. The project is adjacent to a combination of rental units and other homes. The rental units would serve low and moderate income individuals and families. 41. Does the project eliminate physical or economic distress? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, please explain. See response#40 Page 9 of 10 THE FERGUSON TIE G. To Be Completed for Projects Under the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education 42. Please identify the activity or activities that will be carried out as a part of this project. Ferguson Group: ? 43. Please include a break down of the requested funding? (For example, salary $40,000; computers $3,000, etc.) Ferguson Group: ? H. To Be Completed for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation Projects 44. Is this project a new study or construction start? n/a 45. Is this project authorized? Yes ❑ No 0 a. If yes, what is the authorization? :www.fe=rgusungr ul).tIS Page 10 of 10 'W" 'r, I F, Z w", Opp, Hm' Ql , 71 wr SHE IT 17 FERGUSON PLLC 1 130 Conrecticut Avcnu-,,hAi, Sui'c ,0t1 V'Wshmb on,D C.20036 202 ;;1 8,500 202 331 1 598 tax FY 2009 APPROPRIATIONS PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE ALL PROJECTS This questionnaire was developed by The Ferguson Group to gather background information on individual projects during the federal appropriations process. Please use this form only for projects for which you are seeking federal funding for a direct line item in an appropriations bill. Only answer sections A and B. If you have an EPA, Transit, Federal Highway or Economic Development project, please fill out the Section that corresponds to that type of project as well. Please use Microsoft Word to ensure our work is compatible with documents used by congressional offices. The format of the questionnaire allows you to click on a question and answer in the appropriate field. You will also be able to "check" a box by clicking on the box with the cursor. A. Background Information 1. What is your name,job title, and contact information (including address, email, fax, and phone)? Janeen Laudenback, Superintendent, Recreation, Human& Cultural Services Community Services Department 714-536-5496,jlaudenback@surfcity-hb.org 2. What is the name of the project? City of Huntington Beach Senior Center Project 3. Where is the project located? The Senior Center Project is located in Huntington Central Park, at the southwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue. 4. Which Congressional District(s) does this project fall within? 46th District www.forguson roiip.us Page 1 of 14 THE 5. Please describe any special characteristics of the site. For example, current and past uses or historic significance of the site. There area is currently an open 14 acre undeveloped site within Huntington Central Park, a 356 acre regional park owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach. 6. Briefly describe the project (4-5 sentences). For example, describe the physical characteristics of the project, the population to be served, and the purpose of the project. We are currently looking for a senior center of approximately 45,000 square feet to accommodate the growing senior population in Huntington Beach. The purpose would be to provide an array of social services and recreation programs important to the quality of life for the Huntington Beach community. Services include senior meals, transportation, case management, and recreation activities that promote independence and life-long learning. 7. What sets this project apart from other similar projects? How will this project benefit the community? The City of Huntington Beach has always been a leader in providing social services and recreation programs for senors in our community. Our program is set apart from other municipal programs because in addition to senior recreation programs, it offers social services such as case management, in addition to an extensive transportation program, and meals to the home. The current senior center is a dilapidated 14,000 SF 1940's building made from three Quonset huts. Studies have concluded that the city needs a 45,000 SF building to meet the needs of seniors in the community. 8. What is the national significance of the project? Why should the Federal Government be involved in the project? Statistics demonstrate that the projected growth in the senior population is not only a local trend, but a national trend as well and is referred to as the "Senior Tsunami". As a society, we need to be prepared to meet the growing needs of the senior population. Preparing for this at a local level will enable us to address this issue as a country. 9. Does the project address an immediate need or is it related to future growth and/or development? In addition to addressing the current need for a larger, more modern facility a new senior center will enable the the City of Huntington Beach to address the projected dramatic growth in the senior population. According to the California Department of Finance, U.S. Census Projections indicate that between 2005 and 2020, Huntington Beach can anticipate a 64% increase in the 60+ senior population. ww,Ferguso groul).cF� Page 2 of 14 MF1THE FERGUSON C R ) _l LLc 10. What is the timeline for the project? Specifically, when will the project begin and end? The city has completed a needs assessment which studied the size, location and cost of a new facility. In addition, the Environmental Review has been completed and adopted, as well as the Conditional Use Permit. Plans and specifications will be ready and permits issued June 2008. We will begin construction at that time. 11. Are there multiple phases to this project? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, for which phase are you requesting funds? b.Please describe any future phases of the project. 12. Is there public and/or private support of this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes,who are these supporters? The Huntington Beach City Council and Council on Aging are aware of the anticipated growth in the senior population and understand the need for a more modern, larger facility in Huntington Beach. City Council dedicated approximately $64,000 of general fund support to the LPA study to determine size, cost and location of the new center. In addition, the City of Huntington Beach City Council has earmarked $22 million from the Park Fund for the Construction Costs. The community voted on and approved placing a senior center in Huntington Central Park.. b.Would these supporters be willin to publicly support the project by writing letters or passing resolutions? Yes No ❑ 13. Please provide the names of state or federal agency staff that are familiar with the project and you believe would advocate for the project. Senator Tom Harman and Karen Roper, Executive Director of the Orange County Office on Aging. We anticipate support from our other elected state and federal representatives, such as U.S. Senator Dana Rohrabacher and California Assemblyman John Silva. 14. Does this project require environmental review? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, what level of review is required? This project required a full Environmental Impact Report which was approved by Planning Commission and City Council. v "o'w'fern w taP1 rCsti;).LIS Page 3 of 14 T'N GRCAJRa- THE b.Have you started environmental review? If yes, describe the review status? Complete—Please see 14.a response. 15. Have you previously discussed this project with any congressional offices? Yes N No ❑ a. If yes,whom did you contact? Please provide the staff members' names if possible. We are in the process of contacting state and federal representatives, such as California Senator Tom Harman, Orange County Assemblyman Jim Silva, State Senator Feinstein, State Senator Boxer and U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher for their support of this project for senior citizens. In addition, to the state and federal representatives, we have the support of the Executive Director of the Orange County Office on Aging, Karen Roper. Senator Harman and Karen Roper have already expressed support for the project. We anticipate the other will after they have been contacted. Page 4 of 14 Mr T1-1 FERGUSON 7NGROUPtic il a B. Financial Information 16. How much funding is sought for Federal Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008— September 30, 2009)? Total: $1,950,000. $950,000 for furniture, furnishings and equipment; $1,000,000 to create an environmentally "Green" or LEED certified senior center. 17. Is this the total amount you will request from the federal government for this project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If not, what is the total amount you will request from the federal government? 18. Including non-federal funding,what is the total cost of the project? The projected cost for this project is approximately $23 million dollars. This estimate is not site specific, and does not talk into account some of the environmental issues such as water quality and habitat mitigation that are unique to this site, and an important aspect of any LEED certified or green development. 19. Has the project ever been included in the President's budget request? Yes ❑ No a. Is it included in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request? Yes ❑ No 20. Has the project received federal funding in the past? Yes X❑ No ❑ a. If yes, how much? Please detail by year. (NOTE: This information is not needed for projects previously worked on by TFG. Please continue to 20b.) This project previously received a HUD Congressional grant for $98,000 dollars for the initial plans and specifications and environmental review of the project. b. Has the federal funding from prior years been spent? Yes ❑ No Once the invoice is received for the Environmental Impact Report, the funding will be used. The EIR is complete and approved. c. If the federal funding has not been spent,when do you expect to spend it? The City of Huntington Beach will expend this $98,000 grant in 2008. Page 5 of 14 THE FERGUSON 21. Has the project received state funding in the past? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, how much? please detail by year. b. Has the state funding been spent? Yes ❑ No ❑ c. If the state funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? 22. Has the project received funding from private sources? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, how much and from whom? A developer's park in lieu fee is being used for construction of the senior center. The City of Huntington Beach Council on Aging has committed approximately $60,000 to this project, and has received commitments from several community members for additional funding once the project moves forward. b. Has the private funding been spent? Yes ❑ No c. If the private funding has not been spent, when do you expect to spend it? The City of Huntington Beach expects to spend developer's fee during the construction phase. 23. Are local matching funds available for the project? Yes ® No ❑ a. If yes, from what source or sources? The $22 million in park in lieu fees are city funds. 24. Describe any in-kind contributions to your project (architectural work, land, staff hours, etc.) and an approximate value of these contributions. N/A 25. Can the amount requested be spent in Fiscal Year 2009? Yes ® No ❑ a. If the entire amount can not be spent, how much can be spent in l YY 2009? Wv"' ,tu,guion rz up.us Page 6 of 14 EV THE FERGUSON 26. Please include a budget breakdown for the requested funding. (For example, salary $40,000; computers $30,000) Based on the study created by a professional consultant two years ago, we estimate the furniture, furnishings and equipment to cost $995,000. To create a LEED certified environmentally "green" building will cost approximately $1 million. Page 7 of 14 7NGROUPL-C THE FERGUSON C. To Be Filled Out for Projects Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 27. Is the proposed project eligible for a loan from its state's Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? Yes ❑ No ❑ To be answered by The Ferguson Group a. If the project is eligible, have you applied for a SRLF loan? Yes ❑ No ❑ b. What priority did the state assign this project as a result of the application? c. What size of loan did the state determine the project was eligible to receive? 28. If you do not receive the requested funding,would the cost of the project be funded through user fees or tax increases? Yes ❑ No ❑ To be determined—unknown at this time. a. On average, how much would each household pay in annual user fees if you do not receive the requested funds? 29. What is the estimated average annual user fee as a percent of the estimated median annual income of households that will be served by the project if the community constructs the proposed project without the requested grant funds? Varies. Many of the programs will be free. Some recreation programs will require fees to offset instructor costs. a. With an SRLF loan? b. With municipal funding at market rates? 30. What is the current market rate for municipal funding? Municipal funding is not involved. WWW Vr; s a18 catsP.uS Page 8 of 14 THE FERGUSON 31. How will the requested funds benefit low or moderate-income communities? Many of the programs at the senior center are free. The center provides free transportation, counseling and "meals on wheels"programs to seniors in the community. Overall, the senior population is on a fixed income. Many would be low or moderate income. Page 9 of 14 Er SHE IT G FERGUSON ROL)PILc D. To Be Completed for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Proiects 32. What, if any, federal-aid highway discretionary programs is the project eligible? None. 33. Are there any pending issues with the project, such as litigation or environmental problems? Yes ® No ❑ a. Please provide a brief description of the problem and timing for a resolution. The EIR and CUP have been approved by city's Planning Commission and City Council. The EIR includes a condition to create enhanced habitat within the park, but that will be done, so that is not a problem. To date, there has been no litigation against the project filed. Page 10 of 14 Wim�ICAROLJP[!,- T -- F )N E. To Be Completed for federal 'transit Administration (FTA) Projects 34. Has the project been discussed with FTA? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, please provide the name and contact information of the f'tA official contacted. 35. Is there a public transportation component of this project? Yes ❑ No a. If yes, please explain. 36. Please provide the contact name and phone number for the area transit operator? N/A. 37. Is the area's transit operator involved in the project? Yes ❑ No 38. Has the requested earmark been discussed with the transit operator? Yes ❑ No Page I 1 of 14 THE FERGUSON F. To Be Completed for Economic and Community Development Projects 39. Does the project create jobs? Yes X❑ No ❑ a. 1f yes, please explain. The existing senior center is 14,000 SF. The new center is planned to be 45,000 SF, so there will be some additional staffing needed for expanded services. 40. Does this project meet a compelling human need? Yes ® No ❑ a. 1f yes, please explain. The senior population is growing by 64%. There is a great need to meet the social and recreational needs of these senior citizens, many of whom are on a fixed income. 41. Does the project benefit low or moderate-income neighborhoods? Yes ® No ❑ a. 1f yes, please explain. Many of the seniors coming to the center are on fixed, low and moderate incomes. The new center will serve the entire city. 42. Does the project eliminate physical or economic distress? Yes ® No ❑ a. 1f yes, please explain. The center will provide counseling and meal programs to low income seniors. Page 12 of 14 OMM Mr THE FERGUSON G v UF' w G. To Be Completed for Proiects Under the Departments of Labor,Health & Human Services, and Education 43. Please identify the activity or activities that will be carried out as a part of this project. It is expected funds will come through HUD's economic development initiative. Social Services (meals, transportation and counseling) will be provided in addition to recreation and socialization activities for seniors. 44. Please include a break down of the requested funding? (For example, salary $40,000; computers $3,000, etc.) Based on the study created by a professional consultant two years ago, we estimate the furniture, furnishings and equipment to cost $995,000. To create a LEED certified environmentally "green"building will cost approximately$1 million. Page 13 of 14 T1THE FERGUSON 7AGROUR-a- H. To Be Completed for Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation Proiects 45. Is this project a new study or construction start? N/A 46. Is this project authorized? Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A a. If yes, what is the authorization? Page 14 of 14 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Relations Recommendations COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 17, 2008 _ R`CA ATfA4t `ONTO � ; :_ � � rc � OSTATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable El Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable E°XPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACH ENTS-w REVIEWED � . RETURNED � .FOR "EID, Administrative Staff ' Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANAT,IOWFOR RETUkhl'OrITEM W W' qe"` Only RCA Author Dapkus Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, arch 17, 2008 2 24 PM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: SIB 1295 Attachments: SB1295 ; Comment on agenda Item-SIB 1295 A couple of additional emails on 513 1295 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: VicShuttle@aol com Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8 48 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Comment on agenda Item -SB 1295 Dear City Council members, I am unable to attend the City Council meeting of March 17, 2008 but I want to voice a concern I have regarding an agenda item. Administrative Item (F) lists SB 1295 with a suggestion to send a letter in favor of this bill before the California State Senate. I am all for streamlining bureaucracy; however, the Coastal Commission should not be changed after the exemplary way they have saved our coasts. I say, do not vote in favor of this bill as individuals are not in a position to recognize coastal issues or those that may have statewide importance or cumulative impacts so the Coastal Commission is needed to oversee these issues. City Councils have enough work to do with infrastructure, housing permits and redevelopment. I don't think you have the time or resources to adequately research coastal issues as well. Please vote against this bi II and maintain Surf City as a coast supporter. Sincerely, 20 year resident, Victoria Shuttleworth 19226 Seabrook Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ************** It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001) F- 1 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Ferreira, Caren From: PARS11 @aol com Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9 19 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: SB1295 Hello all, To those thinking of running for Council again A gentle reminder that you will be beat soundly about the head and shoulders for a vote in favor of this bill Merle Moshin It's Tax Time' Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance �o / �- r r 3/17/2008 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Office of the City Administrator To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Patricia Dapkus, Administrative Analyst, Sr. Date: March 17, 2008 Subject: Item F-1 - Intergovernmental Relations Committee Recommendations on Legislation In preparing the Request for Council Action on Item F-1 an error was made in the second recommended action. The legislation was identified as "AB 1295 (Ducheny) Amending the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as Introduced)." It should have been identified as SIB 1295 (Ducheny) Amending the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as Introduced) The City Attorney has been consulted, and she believes the posted information was sufficient for the City Council nonetheless to act on this item. The corrected recommended action is as follows: Motion to: 1. Authorize letters to our federal legislators asking them to support an appropriation of funds for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 2. SUPPORT SB 1295 (Ducheny) Amending the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as Introduced) 3. Approve the city's Federal Funding Agenda for this year as follows: • Water Infrastructure • Gun Range Clean Up • Bluff Top Park • Senior Center (Green Elements) 4. Continue to support OCTA's request for funding to widening the 405 Freeway I regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Xc: Paul Emery, Interim City Administrator Joan Flynn, City Clerk, // �/o t Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: MICHAEL BALCHIN [mebabh2o@msn com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9 36 AM To: CITY COUNCIL, Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever, Nancy Hastings, Daryl Willis, Halie Schmidt, Cindy Duncan, Catherine Christiansen, me me, Kitty Wilis, Don Schulz, Tony Soriano, Sarg223344 Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Attachments: SB 1295 bullet points doc Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation 3/17/2008 �� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Ed Bush [ekbush@verizon net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2 19 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: California Coastal Act SB1295 (Ducheny) Mayor Cook and City Council Members, It has been brought to my attention that you are going to vote on whether to support SB 1295 (Ducheny)which appears to weaken the California Coastal Act I urge you to vote no on SB 1295 (Ducheny) Our coastline is precious and once any of it is lost it is lost forever Now that Huntington Beach has won the right to call itself Surf City we should do everything possible to preserve our coastline from any further encroachment Thank you, Ed Bush 6182 Moonfield Drive Huntington Beach, 92648 1 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Frank Drury [frank@coastalhomeloans corn] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9 44 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: vote NO in opposition to SB 1295 (Ducheny) Please vote NO on SB 1295 Frank Drury Windsor Capital Mortgage Corporation (714)596-5634 FAX(866)993-9381 frank@CoastalHomeLoans.com � e, /J .eta 3/17/2�08 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: FishSS@aol com Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 2 18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: SIB 1295 (Duchey) Dear HB Council I no longer live in the city of Huntington Beach I was a resident for over 30 years but still care deeply about Huntington Beach Over the years I have seen leaders, council people not serving the city in the best interest of the city It is so sad to see good people wanting to do good for the city and get into office and then not represent the city well for the people of Huntington Beach I hope you can put your politics aside and do what is good for the people of Huntington Beach Thank You Susan Fish former citizen of HB It's Tax Time' Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. F 34- 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 5 Esparza, Patty From: PARS11 @aol com Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 7 17 PM To: jgeever@surfrider org, lunaluv3@yahoo com; mebabh2o@msn com, CITY COUNCIL Cc: nhastings@surfrider org, crash_coarse1@yahoo com, haliewahine@gmail.com; Clhduncan@aol.com, christiansenlaw@yahoo com, surfdad@hotmail com; AOSACS2@aol com, Sarg223344@aol com Subject: Re, Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 indeed Joe... something akin to the"second coming" I think Merle In a message dated 3/16/2008 7-17-19 A M Pacific Standard Time,jgeever@surfrider org writes Huntington Beach Chapter Leaders If you would like to send an e-mail to your friends and members about this issue, I'm putting a draft message below that you might use, and attaching some "talking points"you can offer your members. It is your choice to use any or all of this stuff. I'm just offering it because Kitty asked and I'm trying to help As you may know, we have an action alert out to our members opposing this state legislation at. http.//actionnetwork org/campaign/cccauthority08 We already have over 2200 signatures from our members statewide. I plan to attend the City council meeting as well But, as always, it will take large numbers of people turning out to influence the City Council Onward and upward, Geev Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation California Policy Coordinator 8117 W Manchester Ave. #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 (310)410-2890 3/17/2008 _/ Page 2 of 5 Please help restore and protect the ocean we love by joining Surfrider Foundation at* www.surfnder org/join Dear Surfrider Member: On Monday night around 6pm, the Huntington Beach City Council will be considering a resolution to support a California Bill introduced to the California Senate—known as SB 1295. Please attend the City Council hearing and voice your concerns about this California Bill -- and the City considering support for undermining state-wide protection of our coast and ocean. We are attaching "talking points" for your consideration. But even if you don't want to speak in public, your presence at the meeting to show community opposition is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! The California Coastal Act is the premier law for protecting our coast and ocean. Under the Coastal Act, local governments are given enforcement authority once they have a Local Coastal Program (LCP) approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, the Coastal Commission retains oversight over these local decisions through their authority to hear appeals. Appeals of bad local decisions can be brought to the Coastal Commission by members of the public who participated in the local government permit proceeding or by any two Coastal Commissioners who think Coastal Act rules may have been violated. Recently introduced legislation by Senator Ducheny (SB 1295)would rob Coastal Commissioners of their ability to appeal local development permits. The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the law—consistent enforcement of the statewide policies in the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the State's coastal zone, and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time frame. As a result many development permits go unnoticed by members of the public until they are reviewed by commission staff who must receive 3/17/2008 Page 3 of 5 notification from the approving jurisdiction. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or unaddressed at the local level. Unlike members of the public, the Commission must receive notice of these actions, and under the present law Commissioners can appeal. Once appealed both the Commission and the public have an opportunity to address issues of concern to them. If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would"fall through the cracks,"and local governments would get even bolder about approving projects that do not conform with their LCP or the Coastal Act. If the appeal ability of Commissioners is removed,these developments will go forward, unnoticed, until the project and its impacts are already underway. At that point it will be too late to review. From: H unti ngton/Sea I Beach ViceChair [mailto:lunaluv3@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:57 PM To: Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever; Nancy Hastings; Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal Beach forward; Cindy Duncan; Catherine Christiansen; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: Re: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Well said Mike Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsbvicechairCED-surfrider.org 3/17/2008 Page 4 of 5 Please consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.org/support.asp ----- Original Message ---- From: MICHAEL BALCHIN<mebabh2o@msn.com> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> Cc: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org>;Nancy Hastings <nastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarse I@yahoo.com>; Halie Schmidt<Haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan<Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; me me <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Kitty Wilis <lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Don Schulz <surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:36:26 AM Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation 3/17/2008 Pagel of 3 Esparza, Patty From: Joe Geever Ugeever@surfrider org] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8-17 AM To: Huntington/Seal Beach vice chair forward, Huntington/Seal Beach chair forward, CITY COUNCIL Cc: Nancy Hastings, Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal.Beach forward, Cindy Duncan, Catherine Christiansen, Huntington/Seal Beach chair forward, Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: RE Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Attachments: SB 1295 bullet points doc, SB 1295 bullet points#2 doc Huntington Beach Chapter Leaders. If you would like to send an e-mail to your friends and members about this issue, I'm putting a draft message below that you might use, and attaching some"talking points"you can offer your members It is your choice to use any or all of this stuff I'm just offering it because Kitty asked and I'm trying to help As you may know, we have an action alert out to our members opposing this state legislation at http://actionnetwork org/campaign/cccauthority08 We already have over 2200 signatures from our members statewide. I plan to attend the City council meeting as well But, as always, it will take large numbers of people turning out to influence the City Council Onward and upward, Geev Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation California Policy Coordinator 8117 W Manchester Ave #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 (310)410-2890 Please help restore and protect the ocean we love by joining Surfrider Foundation at www.surfrider.org/ioin Dear Surfrider Member: On Monday night around 6pm, the Huntington Beach City Council will be considering a resolution to support a California Bill introduced to the California Senate—known as SB 1295. Please attend the City Council hearing and voice your concerns about this California Bill -- and the City considering support for undermining state-wide protection of our coast and ocean. We are attaching "talking points" for your consideration. But even if you don't want to speak in public, your presence at the meeting to show community opposition is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! The California Coastal Act is the premier law for protecting our coast and ocean. Under the Coastal Act, local governments are given enforcement authority once they have a Local Coastal Program(LCP) approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, the Coastal Commission retains oversight over these local decisions through their authority to hear appeals. Appeals of bad local decisions can be brought to the Coastal Commission by members of the public who participated in the local government permit proceeding or by any two Coastal Commissioners who think Coastal Act rules may have been violated. Recently introduced legislation by Senator Ducheny (SB 1295)would rob Coastal Commissioners of their ability to appeal local development permits. 3/17/2008 Page 2 of 3 The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the law—consistent enforcement of the statewide policies in the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the State's coastal zone, and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time frame. As a result many development permits go unnoticed by members of the public until they are reviewed by commission staff who must receive notification from the approving jurisdiction. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or unaddressed at the local level. Unlike members of the public, the Commission must receive notice of these actions, and under the present law Commissioners can appeal. Once appealed both the Commission and the public have an opportunity to address issues of concern to them. If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would"fall through the cracks," and local governments would get even bolder about approving projects that do not conform with their LCP or the Coastal Act. If the appeal ability of Commissioners is removed, these developments will go forward, unnoticed, until the project and its impacts are already underway. At that point it will be too late to review. From: Huntington/SealBeach ViceChair [mailto:lunaluv3@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:57 PM To: Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever; Nancy Hastings; Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal Beach forward; Cindy Duncan; Catherine Christiansen; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: Re: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Well said Mike Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsb vicechair(�i_)surfrider.org APlease consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.org/support.asp 3/17/2008 Page-3 of 3 ----- Original Message ---- From: MICHAEL BALCHIN <mebabh2o@msn.com> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> Cc: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org>; Nancy Hastings <nastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarse Igyahoo.com>; Halie Schmidt<Haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan <Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; me me <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Kitty Wilis <lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:36:26 AM Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Delores Haber[cdhhaber@verizon net] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9 32 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: oppose SIB 1295 We are objecting to SB 1295 as it would limit the Coastal Commission's abilities. We urge the HB City Council to voice an objection to this bill. Delores Haber 17161 Sandra Lee Ln Lee& Patricia Haber 5932 Glenroy J l 3/17/2008 r � �,. TO. HB City Council: Mayor Debbie Cook and Keith Bohr, Joe Carchio, Gil Coerper, Cathy Green, Dan Hansen, Jill Hardy FROM: Marinka Horack 21742 Fairlane Circleq� Huntington Beach, CA 92646 DATE: March 13, 2008 � 'a� 2 I , RE: March 17 City Council meeting :h a Administrative Item F-1 ` ry Ducheny's bill SB 1295 ACTION: D® NOT SUPPORT this bill. D This bill is bail news for our ocean! " 1 Dear Mayor Cook and HB City Council Members: Q The ocean is the most prized natural resource of Huntington Beach - we call it Surf City with a tremendous amount of pride. So it comes as a shock that some in the City Council would even consider supporting Ducheny's bill - SB 1295. This bill would attack the ability of the California Coastal Commission to protect our coast. In 1972, the people of California voted overwhelmingly to protect the magnificent coast, �J and thus the Coastal Commission was formed to champion the ocean and to keep it from being destroyed by over-development. Either you are for protecting the ocean, or you are not. By voting to support the Ducheny bill, you are voting to allow uncontrolled development of our coast. I urge you all to reject v this bill which is an outrageous attack on California's majestic coast. V Sincerely, ro W Marinka Horack m m w m 3 r� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: David Hamilton [dehamilton@earthlink net] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10 37 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: hbtalk@bixby org, sehbna@yahoogroups com Subject: March 17 agenda item F 1 Re: March 17, 2008 Agenda Item F.1.2 Motion to Support SIB 1295 (Ducheny) Dear Councilmembers, As a coastal city Huntington Beach owes a debt of gratitude to the people of California for passage of the 1972 California Coastal Act. Huntington Beach has greatly and directly benefited from enforcement of the Act's provisions for 32 years In an era of repeated beach closures, pollution from urban run-off, collapsed coastal fisheries, and the many assaults of our precious coastal resources, we, as coastal stewards, should be strengthening the Coastal Act, not weakening it Passage of SB1295 (Ducheny)will greatly weaken the Coastal Act Your vote on March 17 to not favor the motion to support SB1295 (Ducheny)will begin to pay the debt owed all Californians for their foresight in passing the Coastal Act I urge you to vote"NO" on this ill-advised motion Regards, Dave Hamilton Huntington Beach Resident& Homeowner C�7 C/�'7 'I' _ r -� 3/17/2008 SB 1295 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Gael O'Brien [strategy@fgi net] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 3 49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: SB 1295 Dear Mayor Cook, Mayor Pro Tern Bohr, and Council Members Carchio, Coerper, Green, Hansen and Hardy Thank you for the opportunity of expressing my opinion of SB 1295 which will be under discussion at the council meeting tomorrow night As someone fortunate enough to live in Huntington Beach near the wetlands, who has a deep respect for what makes Huntington Beach a tourist attraction in the first place, I do not want the power of the Coastal Commission diluted I urge the defeat of SB 1295 This bill will weakens the Coastal Commission's authority and throttles one of the most important tools the Coastal Commission has to ensure that development permits are consistent with approved Local Coastal Programs and the policies of the California Coastal Act To eliminate oversight by the Coastal Commission is to blatantly disregard the spirit and intent of the California Coastal Act which ensures consistent enforcement of the law statewide The Coastal Commission has a broader mandate than favoring one interest group over another. Its job is to work in the interests of the greater public good It is the voice of millions of Californians—who can only speak through the Coastal Commission's being allowed to do its job --who want to ensure that fair and consistent policies along our coast are enforced statewide SB 1295 undermines the intent of Proposition 20, which voters approved, and it undermines oversight of development along the coast, which is the responsibility of the Coastal Commission on behalf of Californians I urge the Council to take a position opposing passage of Senator Ducheny's bill Thank you for your consideration Sincerely, Gael O'Brien 19221 Seabrook Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .� jam' ��'J��✓ �i` ��C� 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 4 Esparza, Patty From: Halie Schmidt[haliewahine@gmail com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9 31 AM To: 'Huntington/Seal Beach ViceChair', 'Joe Geever', 'Huntington /Seal Beach chair forward', CITY COUNCIL Cc: 'Nancy Hastings', 'Daryl Willis', 'Cindy Duncan', 'Catherine Christiansen', 'Huntington /Seal Beach chair forward', 'Don Schulz', 'Tony Soriano', 'Sarg223344' Subject: RE Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SIB 1295 Yes I am available but I need the boards approval as we already talked about this morning. Halie Halie Schmidt Huntington/Seal Beach Surfrider HalieWahine@gmail.com Home 562 434 8758/Cell 562 761 3885 www sbhbsurfrider org From: Huntington/SealBeach ViceChair [mailto:lunaluv3@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:46 AM To: Joe Geever; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Nancy Hastings; Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal Beach forward; Cindy Duncan; Catherine Christiansen; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: Re: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 I suggest we do an email blast to our members, TODAY, using the exact verbiage that Joe provided, Does anyone else agree? City of Huntington Beach votes on it tomorrow evening, is there anyone from the EC that can attaned with us? Halie are you available to do the email blast? Thanks! Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsbvicechair@surfrider.oM �_-�-�� C. �✓�'I/�tom.-�J/ C�977C�� 3/17/2008 —� Page 2 of 4 Please consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://WWW.surfrider.orq/su�port.as� ----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> To: Huntington/Seal Beach vice chair forward <lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Huntington/ Seal Beach chair forward<mebabh2o@msn.com>; city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc:Nancy Hastings <nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarse I@yahoo.com>; Huntington/Seal Beach forward<haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan<Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; Huntington/ Seal Beach chair forward <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:16:32 AM Subject: RE: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach Chapter Leaders If you would like to send an e-mail to your friends and members about this issue, I'm putting a draft message below that you might use, and attaching some "talking points"you can offer your members It is your choice to use any or all of this stuff I'm just offering it because Kitty asked and I'm trying to help As you may know, we have an action alert out to our members opposing this state legislation at http//actionnetwork org/campaign/cccauthority08 We already have over 2200 signatures from our members statewide I plan to attend the City council meeting as well But, as always, it will take large numbers of people turning out to influence the City Council Onward and upward, Geev Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation California Policy Coordinator 8117 W Manchester Ave. #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 (310)410-2890 Please help restore and protect the ocean we love by joining Surfrider Foundation at. www surfrider orghoin Dear Surfrider Member: On Monday night around 6pm, the Huntington Beach City Council will be considering a resolution to support a California Bill introduced to the California Senate—known as SB 1295. Please attend the City Council hearing and voice your concerns about this California Bill -- and the City considering support for undermining state-wide protection of our coast and ocean. We are attaching "talking points"for your consideration. But even if you don't want to speak in public, your presence at the meeting to show community opposition is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! The California Coastal Act is the premier law for protecting our coast and ocean. Under the Coastal Act, 3/17/2008 Page 3 of 4 local governments are given enforcement authority once they have a Local Coastal Program(LCP ) approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, the Coastal Commission retains oversight over these local decisions through their authority to hear appeals. Appeals of bad local decisions can be brought to the Coastal Commission by members of the public who participated in the local government permit proceeding or by any two Coastal Commissioners who think Coastal Act rules may have been violated. Recently introduced legislation by Senator Ducheny (SB 1295) would rob Coastal Commissioners of their ability to appeal local development permits. The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the law—consistent enforcement of the statewide policies in the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the State's coastal zone, and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time frame. As a result many development permits go unnoticed by members of the public until they are reviewed by commission staff who must receive notification from the approving jurisdiction. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or unaddressed at the local level. Unlike members of the public, the Commission must receive notice of these actions, and under the present law Commissioners can appeal. Once appealed both the Commission and the public have an opportunity to address issues of concern to them. If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would "fall through the cracks," and local governments would get even bolder about approving projects that do not conform with their LCP or the Coastal Act. If the appeal ability of Commissioners is removed, these developments will go forward, unnoticed, until the project and its impacts are already underway. At that point it will be too late to review. From: H u ntington/Sea I Beach ViceChair [mailto:lunaluv3@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:57 PM To: Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; city.council@surfcjty-hb.org; Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever; Nancy Hastings; Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal Beach forward; Cindy Duncan; Catherine Christiansen; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: Re: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Well said Mike Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsbvicechair(a surfrider.oT 3/17/2008 Page 4 of 4 `;- Please consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.orci/support.asp ----- Original Message ---- From: MICHAEL BALCHIN <mebabh2o@msn.com> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever <jgeever@surfrider.org> Cc: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org>;Nancy Hastings<nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarsel@yahoo.com>; Halie Schmidt<Haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan <Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; me me <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Kitty Wilis <lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:36:26 AM Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Donald Schulz [surfdad@hotmail com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 3 54 PM To: sehbna@yahoogroups com Cc: CITY COUNCIL Subject: RE [sehbna] SB 1295 -solution in search of a non-problem Can someone who lives in Huntington Beach ask their city council members why SB 1295 is a voting issue for Huntington Beach and NOT on the agenda for any of the coastal cities in the State of Cal.? Don't the city council members have other issues to spend their time, and your money on? Surfdad lives in Rossmoor Thks. To: sehbna@yahoogroups.com From: timgeddes@msn.com Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:59:32 -0700 Subject: RE: [sehbna] SB 1295 - solution in search of a non-problem Visit Your Group New web site? Does anyone suspect a little birdie telling Don Hansen to raise this in Drive traffic now. Intergovernmental Committee Get your business and force a vote on it (Hansen and Bohr for and Hardy against)?Where did on Yahoo! search. the impetus come for Wellness Spot this to even be taken up? Hansen and Bohr could have just said no and we on Yahoo! Groups wouldn't have to deal A resource for living with it. It's on these two Council members who are up for reelection. the Curves lifestyle. Enough said. Yahoo! Groups Dog Zone Tim Connect w/others who love dogs. > To: hbtalk@bixby.org; sehbna@yahoogroups.com; parkside@bixby.org > From: mark@bixby.org > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:09:09 -0700 > Subject: [sehbna] SB 1295 - solution in search of a non-problem > Hi Parksiders, hbtalk, and SEHBNA, > In case any of you were wondering how many HB Coastal Development Permits were appealed solely by Coastal Commissioners since January 2002, the answer is just one -- the Hearthside Brightwater entry monuments: > http•//documents coastal ca gov/reports/2007J9/Wl4a-9-2007 pdf > During this same period, there were two additional HB projects appealed by Coastal Commissioners (Poseidon and Parkside), but there were also other appellants for those projects, and so SB 1295 would have had no o //�L 3/1 7/loos Page 2 of 2 effect on those two appeals. > In the case of those Brightwater entry monuments, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust did monitor this project as it was approved by the city, but missed the Coastal Act conflicts found by Commissioners Wan and Shallenberger in their appeal. If you think those issues were frivolous, read the above staff report and think again. > In any case, the "problem" that SB 1295 purports to solve simply does not occur with any regularity in HB. This bill should never have made it onto the city council agenda. > mark(ftixby.org > Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons... Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle wlmailtextlink Jan Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) I Start a new topic Messages c�ouws Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest I Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group I Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use I Unsubscribe Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now! 3/17/2008 Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 - Huntington Beach City Council Meeting M... Page 1 of 4 Esparza, Patty From: mbabski@mode icebase net on behalf of Surfrider Foundation - Huntington/Seal Beach [hsb@surfrider org] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 1 23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 - Huntington Beach City Council Meeting Monday) View this email as a webpage. Update your preferences or take yourself off this email list. r r Join Surfrider Monday 3/17 at the Huntington Beach City Council Meeting to oppose SB 1295 Dear Surfrider Member: On Monday night around 6pm, the Huntington Beach City Council will be considering a resolution to support a California Bill introduced to the California Senate - known as SB 1295. Please attend the City Council hearing and voice your concerns about this California Bill -- and the City considering support for undermining state-wide protection of our coast and ocean. Below are "talking points" for your consideration. But even if you don't want to speak in public, your presence at the meeting to show community opposition is MENU UNT111MMU9 The California Coastal Act is the premier law for protecting our coast and ocean. Under the Coastal Act, local governments are given enforcement authority once they have a Local Coastal Program (LCP) approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, the Coastal Commission retains oversight over these local decisions through their authority to hear appeals. Appeals of bad local decisions can be brought to the Coastal Commission by members of the public who participated in lo r lj 3/17/2008 1-2—:- 6�n f-,-? /mil/ C/h d Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 - Huntington Beach City Council Meeting M... Page 2 of 4 the local government permit proceeding or by any two Coastal Commissioners who think Coastal Act rules may have been violated. Recently introduced legislation by Senator Ducheny (SB 1295) would rob Coastal Commissioners of their ability to appeal local development permits. The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the law— consistent enforcement of the statewide policies in the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the State's coastal zone, and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time frame. As a result many development permits go unnoticed by members of the public until they are reviewed by commission staff who must receive notification from the approving jurisdiction. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or unaddressed at the local level. Unlike members of the public, the Commission must receive notice of these actions, and under the present law Commissioners can appeal. Once appealed both the Commission and the public have an opportunity to address issues of concern to them. If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would "fall through the cracks," and local governments would get even bolder about approving projects that do not conform with their LCP or the Coastal Act. If the appeal ability of Commissioners is removed, these developments will go forward, unnoticed, until the project and its impacts are already underway. At that point it will be too late to review. If you cannot attend but would like to support m please fill out our petition online: http://actionnetwoirk.org/campaign/cccauthoir5tyGO Details: Huntington Beach City Council Meeting Monday /17 Approx. 6:00 part H8 City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - The Public Comments portion of the meeting is at the beginning of the meeting. During Public Comments anyone may address the City Council on any issue for a maximum of three minutes. - The portion of the meeting that is open to the public begins at approximately 6:00 pm and can be viewed on cable television on channel 3. Broadcasted —Tuesday 3/17/2008 Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 - Huntington Beach City Council Meeting M... Page 3 of 4 10am and Wednesday 7pm. - Council meetings are webcast live and also archived on the HB City's Website. Tasking Points SB 1295 would amend Section 30625 of the Coastal Act to eliminate the ability of any 2 Coastal Commissioners to appeal a local permit decision to the California Coastal Commission as a body. This would have far-reaching negative consequences for the future of coastal protection in the state. Members of the environmental community are deeply concerned that the practical effect of this bill would be to decrease the Commission's already limited oversight in areas with certified Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) many of which are extremely out-of-date, place an impossible burden on grassroots NGOs and private individuals to monitor hundreds of local government actions, and result in numerous coastal development projects that do not adequately protect coastal resources or fully mitigate for their impacts. SB 1295 is not necessary because: • The current system has been in place for 32 years and continues to work well. • There is no compelling example of abuse or inappropriate implementation of this process. • Only 5% of all local permits are appealed to the Commission. Only 1/3 of these, or 1.67% of all local decisions, are appealed solely by Commissioners. • The Commission as a body, at a public hearing, must find that an appeal raises a "substantial issue" under the Coastal Act before any appeal is heard, thus providing an opportunity for public input and a check on individual Commissioners' discretion to appeal. • The current practice is a compromise enacted by the Legislature in 1976, in response to proposals that staff would retain the ability to file appeals. This was in recognition of the fact that the Commission is the only entity that receives notice of all appealable permits statewide. • Most city-issued permits are not appealable. Only projects that affect public access or the most sensitive resources can be appealed. SB 1295 would severely weaken the Coastal Act and diminish coastal resource protection because: • Local groups and individuals are not able to review every permit decision made at the local level. • Local groups and individuals are not in a position to recognize precedential issues or those that may have statewide importance or cumulative impacts. • Many local permits are issued administratively, with no public hearing. • The ability of Commissioners to co-appeal locally generated appeals is an important safety mechanism in the event that a local individual or group drops an appeal due to political pressure. • The 10-day appeal window is too short for many non-profit groups to get 3/17/2008 Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 - Huntington Beach City Council Meeting M... Page 4 of 4 authorization to appeal. Appeals are the Commission's only remaining oversight mechanism for LCPs that are significantly out of date. Section 30265 does not create a conflict of interest issue for the Commission because: The Commission as a body must first find that the appeal raises "a substantial issue" under the Coastal Act. If it does not, they must reject the appeal. e Commissioners often make the point that they signed on to the appeal simple so that the issues can be heard by the commission. After further review, they can and often do vote not to hear the project de novo. Signing on to an appeal has no bearing on the merits of a final decision whether the project complies with the law after all issues have been evaluated. Commissioners who bring appeals before the Commission are under no obligation to vote in a particular way when and if the appeal is heard de novo. This is analogous to the State Water Resources Control Board, which can, on its own motion, appeal Regional Water Quality Control Board permit actions to itself for review and action. hsb@surfrider.org a Surfrider Foundation - Huntington/ Seal Beach SO . ,-_' ffC.g eoid Powered by This CoolerEmad was delivered to you by Surfrider Foundation - Huntington/Seal Beach Leave this mailing list or modify your preferences If you request to be taken off this email list, Surfrider o Foundation - Huntington/ Seal Beach will honor your request pursuant to CoolerEmail's permission- based email terms and conditions Postal address P O Box 4216,Seal Beach,CA 90740 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Terry Welsh [terrymwelsh@hotmail corn] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9 43 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: no on sb 1295 Please vote no on SB 1295 / 7-- 3/17/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Norm Westwell [normw@modernpublic com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 2 39 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Esparza, Patty Subject: Late Communication Item F-1, POSITON#2 - SUPPORTING AB 1295 Attachments: sos01 JPG Late Communication Item F-1 from Norm Westwell S UPPORTING position #2 AB 1295 (Ducheny) Dear Council members. I urge you to SUPPORT Item F-1, POSTION #2 - AB 1295 (Ducheny) It is important for our community to have OUR ELECTED representatives regain LOCAL CONTROL over our local coastal issues. Decisions made by OUR LOCAL ELECTED representatives of the people who are intimately involved in their communities, should not be overturned by UN-ELECTED political appointments who are accountable to no one. I understand this is not the position taken by many of the special interests within our state who fund your campaigns. However, it IS the right thing to do for our community and your constituents. It is worthy of your support. Thank you taking up this issue. Save our local control. I urge you to SUPPORT AB 1295, Item F-1 . City Clerk, please place this into the public record as supporting information pertaining to this agenda item. Thank you. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Norm Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ J / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com 3/17/2008 Esparza, Patty From: Huntington/Seal Beach ViceChair[lunaluv3@yahoo com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8 57 PM To: MICHAEL BALCHIN, CITY COUNCIL, Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever, Nancy Hastings, Daryl Willis, Halle Schmidt, Cindy Duncan, Catherine Christiansen, me me, Don Schulz, Tony Soriano, Sarg223344 Subject: Re Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Well said Mike Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsb vicechair(LD-surfrider.orq b Please consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.org/support.as� ----- Original Message ---- From:MICHAEL BALCHIN <mebabh2o@msn.com> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever <jgeever@surfrider.org> Cc: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org>; Nancy Hastings <nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarse Igyahoo.com>; Halie Schmidt<Haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan <Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; me me <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Kitty Wilis <1unaluv3@yahoo.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:36:26 AM Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation a ( J) C.C./J 3/17/2008 — Page 1 of 4 Esparza, Patty From: Huntington/Seal Beach ViceChair[lunaluv3@yahoo corn] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8 46 AM To: Joe Geever, Huntington/Seal Beach chair forward, CITY COUNCIL Cc: Nancy Hastings, Daryl Willis, Huntington/Seal Beach forward, Cindy Duncan, Catherine Christiansen, Huntington /Seal Beach chair forward, Don Schulz, Tony Soriano, Sarg223344 Subject: Re Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 I suggest we do an email blast to our members, TODAY., using the exact verbiage that Joe provided, Does anyone else agree? City of Huntington Beach votes on it tomorrow evening, is there anyone from the EC that can attaned with us? Halie are you available to do the email blast? Thanks! Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsb vicechair@ surfrider.orb y Please consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.org/support.asp ----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> To: Huntington/Seal Beach vice chair forward<lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Huntington/ Seal Beach chair forward<mebabh2o@msn.com>; city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Nancy Hastings <nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis<crash_coarse I@yahoo.com>; Huntington/Seal Beach forward<haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan<Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; Huntington/ Seal Beach chair forward <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@,hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; 3/17/2008 Page 2 of 4 Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:16:32 AM Subject: RE: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach Chapter Leaders If you would like to send an e-mail to your friends and members about this issue, I'm putting a draft message below that you might use, and attaching some"talking points"you can offer your members. It is your choice to use any or all of this stuff I'm just offering it because Kitty asked and I'm trying to help. As you may know, we have an action alert out to our members opposing this state legislation at http/lactionnetwork org/campaign/cccauthority08 We already have over 2200 signatures from our members statewide plan to attend the City council meeting as well But, as always, it will take large numbers of people turning out to influence the City Council Onward and upward, Geev Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation California Policy Coordinator 8117 W Manchester Ave #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 (310)410-2890 Please help restore and protect the ocean we love by joining Surfrider Foundation at www surfrider.org/loin Dear Surfrider Member: On Monday night around 6pm, the Huntington Beach City Council will be considering a resolution to support a California Bill introduced to the California Senate—known as SB 1295. Please attend the City Council hearing and voice your concerns about this California Bill -- and the City considering support for undermining state-wide protection of our coast and ocean. We are attaching "talking points" for your consideration. But even if you don't want to speak in public, your presence at the meeting to show community opposition is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! The California Coastal Act is the premier law for protecting our coast and ocean. Under the Coastal Act, local governments are given enforcement authority once they have a Local Coastal Program( LCP ) approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, the Coastal Commission retains oversight over these local decisions through their authority to hear appeals. Appeals of bad local decisions can be brought to the Coastal Commission by members of the public who participated in the local government permit proceeding or by any two Coastal Commissioners who think Coastal Act rules may have been violated. Recently introduced legislation by Senator Ducheny (SB 1295) would rob Coastal Commissioners of their ability to appeal local development permits. The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the law—consistent enforcement of the statewide policies in the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the State's coastal zone, and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time 3/17/2008 Page 3 of 4 frame. As a result many development permits go unnoticed by members of the public until they are reviewed by commission staff who must receive notification from the approving jurisdiction. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or unaddressed at the local level. Unlike members of the public,the Commission must receive notice of these actions, and under the present law Commissioners can appeal. Once appealed both the Commission and the public have an opportunity to address issues of concern to them. If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would "fall through the cracks," and local governments would get even bolder about approving projects that do not conform with their LCP or the Coastal Act. If the appeal ability of Commissioners is removed, these developments will go forward, unnoticed, until the project and its impacts are already underway. At that point it will be too late to review. From: Huntington/Sea)Beach ViceChair [mailto:lunaluv3@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:57 PM To: Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever; Nancy Hastings; Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal Beach forward; Cindy Duncan; Catherine Christiansen; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: Re: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Well said Make Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsb vicech airCaD-surfrid er.M APlease consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.org/support.asp ----- Original Message ---- From: MICHAEL BALCHIN <mebabl12o@msn.com> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> Cc: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org>; Nancy Hastings <nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarsel@yahoo.com>; Halie Schmidt<Haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan <Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; me me <mebabh2o4msn.com>; Kitty Wilis <lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@ol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> 3/17/2008 Page 4 of 4 Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:36:26 AM Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation 3/17/2008 Page 1 of 3 Esparza, Patty From: Dj Willis [crash_coarse1@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9*57 AM To: Joe Geever, Huntington/Seal Beach vice chair forward; Huntington /Seal Beach chair forward; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Nancy Hastings, Huntington/Seal Beach forward, Cindy Duncan, Catherine Christiansen, Huntington /Seal Beach chair forward, Don Schulz, Tony Soriano, Sarg223344 Subject: Re Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SIB 1295 I agree with Joe. Yes to send an E-Mail Blast to all our chapter members. I also belive ASAP as we have Very Little Time as Monday night is the meeting to vote. THANX Daryl Willis Jr. ----- Original Message ---- From: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> To: Huntington/Seal Beach vice chair forward<lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Huntington/ Seal Beach chair forward <mebabh2o@msn.com>; city.council@surfcity-hb.org Cc:Nancy Hastings <nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarse Igyahoo.com>; Huntington/Seal Beach forward<haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan<Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; Huntington/ Seal Beach chair forward <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:16:32 AM Subject: RE: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach Chapter Leaders If you would like to send an e-mail to your friends and members about this issue, I'm putting a draft message below that you might use, and attaching some "talking points"you can offer your members. It is your choice to use any or all of this stuff I'm just offering it because Kitty asked and I'm trying to help. As you may know, we have an action alert out to our members opposing this state legislation at http.//actionnetwork.org/campaign/cccauthontyO8 We already have over 2200 signatures from our members statewide I plan to attend the City council meeting as well But, as always, it will take large numbers of people turning out to influence the City Council. Onward and upward, Geev Joe Geever Surfrider Foundation ``77 3/17/2008 � _/ Page 2 of 3 California Policy Coordinator 8117 W Manchester Ave #297 Playa del Rey, CA 90293 (310)410-2890 Please help restore and protect the ocean we love by joining Surfrider Foundation at: www surfrider.org/ioin Dear Surfrider Member: On Monday night around 6pm, the Huntington Beach City Council will be considering a resolution to support a California Bill introduced to the California Senate—known as SB 1295. Please attend the City Council hearing and voice your concerns about this California Bill -- and the City considering support for undermining state-wide protection of our coast and ocean. We are attaching "talking points" for your consideration. But even if you don't want to speak in public, your presence at the meeting to show community opposition is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! The California Coastal Act is the premier law for protecting our coast and ocean. Under the Coastal Act, local governments are given enforcement authority once they have a Local Coastal Program( LCP ) approved by the California Coastal Commission. However,the Coastal Commission retains oversight over these local decisions through their authority to hear appeals. Appeals of bad local decisions can be brought to the Coastal Commission by members of the public who participated in the local government permit proceeding or by any two Coastal Commissioners who think Coastal Act rules may have been violated. Recently introduced legislation by Senator Ducheny (SB 1295) would rob Coastal Commissioners of their ability to appeal local development permits. The ability of Coastal Commissioners to appeal local permits is one of the most critical oversight aspects of the Coastal Act. To eliminate this function would tear out one of the fundamental pillars of the law—consistent enforcement of the statewide policies in the Coastal Act. While appeals from members of the public are important, citizens and non-profit groups simply do not have the resources or the ability to monitor every single one of the hundreds of local permits issued throughout the State's coastal zone, and appeal the significant ones within a very short 10-day time frame. As a result many development permits go unnoticed by members of the public until they are reviewed by commission staff who must receive notification from the approving jurisdiction. If this bill passes, many important local permits dealing with issues relating to public access, wetlands, water quality or habitat will go unnoticed or unaddressed at the local level. Unlike members of the public, the Commission must receive notice of these actions, and under the present law Commissioners can appeal. Once appealed both the Commission and the public have an opportunity to address issues of concern to them. If Commissioners were unable to appeal these projects, dozens of projects every year would"fall through the cracks," and local governments would get even bolder about approving projects that do not conform with their LCP or the Coastal Act. If the appeal ability of Commissioners is removed,these developments will go forward, unnoticed, until the project and its impacts are already underway. At that point it will be too late to review. From: H u ntington/Sea I Beach ViceChair [mailto:lunaluv3@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:57 PM 3/17/2008 Page 3 of 3 To: Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever Cc: Joe Geever; Nancy Hastings; Daryl Willis; Huntington/Seal Beach forward; Cindy Duncan; Catherine Christiansen; Huntington / Seal Beach chair forward; Don Schulz; Tony Soriano; Sarg223344 Subject: Re: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Well said Mike Kitty Willis, Vice Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation hsbvicechair(@-sutfrider.org APlease consider the environment before printing this email kitty.willis skype name Please help our Mother Ocean by joining today at: http://www.surfrider.org/support.up ----- Original Message ---- From: MICHAEL BALCHIN<mebabh2o@msn.com> To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org; Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org> Cc: Joe Geever<jgeever@surfrider.org>; Nancy Hastings <nhastings@surfrider.org>; Daryl Willis <crash_coarse Igyahoo.com>; Halie Schmidt<Haliewahine@gmail.com>; Cindy Duncan <Clhduncan@aol.com>; Catherine Christiansen<christiansenlaw@yahoo.com>; me me <mebabh2o@msn.com>; Kitty Wilis <lunaluv3@yahoo.com>; Don Schulz<surfdad@hotmail.com>; Tony Soriano <aosacs2@aol.com>; Sarg223344 <Sarg223344@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:36:26 AM Subject: Surfrider Foundation Opposition to SB 1295 Huntington Beach City Council, Attached are negative items which would reduce our local coastal resource protection. Mike Balchin Chair Huntington/Seal Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation 3/17/2008 Pagel of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Terry Welsh [terrymwelsh@hotmail com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9 42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: No on SB1295 Keep the Coastal Commission strong No on SB 1295 3/17/2008