The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22.62 PHASE III- GRANT*NEW FILE* 22.62 PHASE 111 = GRANT i 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 April 19, 1988 Mr. Bill Van Beckum L.C.P. Grant Administrator California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: L.C.P. Phase III Grant #LCP-5300-F Dear Bill: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, the City of Newport Beach will not be requesting any more funds under the above referenced grant. The City is currently involved in updating its General Plan and Staff has been concentrating on completing this update. It is anticipated that upon completion of the update, Staff will again work on the Phase III Implementing Ordinances. We would appreciate it if you could keep us informed of any future grant funds becoming available to complete the Phase III Ordinances. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES . HEWICKER, Director a' &t4 -- B CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gonmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR e> SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 0 (415) 543-8555 April 15, 1988 Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: LCP Grant #LCP-5300-F FINAL INVOICE NOTICE Dear Chris: This office is in the process --of--c-losing-out a1.1 LCP local assistance grants----. that were awarded by the Commission in 1984, 1985 and 1986, and whose grant periods either recently expired or soon will expire. For any of these grants, funds are not available for reimbursement of work program - associated tasks carried out once a grant has expired; further extensions of the grant periods for these grants are not available. To complete the close-outs by the State Controller's Office deadlines, we must receive the City's final grant invoice by May 2. 1988, Newport Beach's 1985 grant is due to expire on June 30, 1988. Our records indicate a balance of $3,307.40 in the Grant #LCP-5300-F account. If the City has completed all grant work program tasks, please submit an invoice for reimbursement of all costs actually incurred, but not previously invoiced, up to the grant account's entire balance. If all work tasks have not been completed yet, you may include in your billing actual costs incurred to date and costs estimated to be incurred through June 30, 1988. We will accept documentation of costs incurred (e.g. copies of published reports specified in the grant work program) through July 31, 1988. If it later turns out we have reimbursed the City an amount more than was actually incurred through June 30, 1988, we will request the City to refund the difference to us. Please call me should you have any questions. Enclosed is the "Request for Funds" form to use as the City's invoice. Sincerely, Bill Van Beckum LCP Grant Administrator Enclosure BVB/btr 2830P YRECEIVEO Plannll;t APR191988 L"ird'.�' A.•7' • REQUEST FOR FUNDS COASTAL GRANT 0 To: Bil] Pan Beckum c/o dalifornia Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 From: Grant Recipient: Address Agreement No. Total Grant $ Percentage of Program completed: Percentage of funds requested to -date: Period covered by this request: Program Costs Cost of program this period: S Previously reported costs: S Total costs to date: $ Grant amount requested this period: Cash grant received to date: Make check payable to: Mailing address: $ I hereby certify that the above costs were incurred in the performance of work required under Grant Agreement No. signature of authorized official date NOTE: Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal officer or by the authorized official designated by the local legislative body. FOR OFFICE USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT r Date: By: Per: Notes: COMPLETE THE REVERSE 0 0 BUDGET ITEM TOTAL BUDGETED I AMOUNT TOTAL FUNDS EXPENDED THIS PERIOD CUMULATIVE FUNDS EXPENDED ( TO DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing Indirect Charges Consultant Other (itemize) PERSONAL SERVICES (Break out as in approved work ,program budget) I I � I I t I TOTAL I certify to the best of my knowledge that the funds listed in the expended column are consistent with the amounts evidenced by supporting documents and expenditures entered into the official grant accounting records. Authorized Official or Fiscal Officer Date INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. Where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet complete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the LCP progress - -This progress report should estimate the degree of completion of all major tasks and should indicate the schedule for their completion. Contact Commission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions. rev.7/79 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 July 15, 1987 Bill Van Beckum L.C.P. Grant Administrator California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: L.C.P. Phase III Grant WLCP530OF Dear Bill: In accordance with our telephone conversation of July 7, 1987, the City of Newport Beach is requesting reimbursement for that portion of the Phase III work program completed to date, which amounts to 60% of the Grant amount, and is also requesting a one year extension on the remaining portion of our Grant. It is anticipated that the City will complete the entire Phase III Implementing Ordinances within this time period. Enclosed is a Request for Funds for the work completed to date. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me anytime. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEWICKER, Director JAMYI—SGU By: IN Senior Planner CG:LCPEXT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach REQUEST FOR FUNDS • COASTAL GRANT . !, `r' • �nnin:-. JUL�n�P�r To: Bill Van Beckum `1�„ ci 1198Z a. c/o dalifornia'Coastal Commission \ N pORi Fia 631 Howard Street 4 CAG1F. Cy San Francisco, CA 94105 From: Grant Recipient: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Address P.O. Box_.1768_: Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Agreement No. LCP-5300-FAl Total Grant $ $8,270.00 Percentage of Program completed: 60% Percentage of funds requested to date: '0% Period covered by this request: May 1, 1987 to April 30. 1988 Program Costs Cost of program this period: Previously reported costs: Total costs to date: $ 8,270.00 $ Grant amount requested this period: $ Cash grant received to date: $ _ 8�270.00 Make check payable to: City of Newport Beach 5300 Newport Blvd. Mailing address: P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 I hereby certify that the above costs were incurred the performance of work required under Grant Agreement No. LCP-5300-FAl signature of autAorized official date NOTE: Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal officer or by the authorized official designated by the local legislative body. FOR OFFICE USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Date: By: Per: Notes: COMPLETE THE REVERSE ITEM TOTAL BUDGETED I AMOUNT TOTAL FUNDS D THIS PERIOD ULATIVE FUNEXPENDED ITO DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing Indirect Charges Consultant Other (itemize) Office Supplies 200 120 120 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 100 60 60 Postage 100 60 '60 PERSONAL SERVICES (Break out as in approved work program budget) Salaries 3,829.60 Benefits 1 495 897.00 897.00 I I ' I ' I I i I i I TOTAL I certify to the best of my knowledge that the funds listed in the expended column are consistent with the amounts evidenced by supporting documents and expenditures entered into the official grant accounting reco Aut orized Official or -Fiscal Officer 'I 5_v 2 Date INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. Where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet complete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the LCP progress.` -This progress report should estimate the degree of completion of all major tasks and should indicate .the schedule for their completion. Contact Commission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions. rev.7/79 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 29, 1986 Bill Van Beckum California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: Standard Agreement LCP-5300-F Amendment One -Time Extension Dear Bill: Enclosed is the executed copy of the agreement referenced above. Thank you for your assistance. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at anytime. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Senior Planner CG4/jm Enclosure G 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I t e 0 a A BY THE STANDARD AGREEMENT • APPROVEDATTORNEYGENERAL • ❑ CONTRACTOR ❑ STATE AGENCY STATE OF CALIFORNIA STD. 2 (REV. 6/811 ❑ DEFT. OF 9ER. ❑ CONTROLLER THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 30th day of May , 1986 ❑ in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, ❑ qualified and acting ❑ TITLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR SPATE AGENCY NUMBER Executive Director California Coastal Commission LCP-5300-F A/1 City of Newport Beach hereafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) 1. AMENDMENT ONE The purpose of this.amendment is to extend the agreement by one year to a new termination date of May 31t 1987. All other terms and conditions shall remain the same. The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR AGENCY CONTRACTOR (IF OTHER THAN AN INOIRDUAL 11TATE WHETHER A COAPORAMON. PARTNERSHIP. ETC.) California Coastal BY IAUTH SIGNATURE) BY (A HO )ZED 91GNA EI TITLE TITLE JadaeW. Burns, Chief Deputy Director ty Manager ADDRESS CONTINUED ON _ SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR O Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-89c1n5 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED eWM ajWEE AND TITLE) FUND TTRg5% GF Department of General Services t 270.00 Federal Catalog No. 11419 1 45% FTF Use Only UNENCUMBERED BALANCE (OPTIONAL USE) PCA-29000-GF ocal Cost PCA-29500-FTF hereby pertify that ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE ITEM3720-101-001 CHARTER STATUTE I FISCAL YEAR his contract is 3720-101-890 11 1985 85-86 ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) xempt from Department f General Services -Asst. to Local Plannina A encies 1 hereby certify upon my awn personal knowledge that budgeted funds are availableforthe pe dpurpose oftheexpenditure stated above. T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. pproval . inistrative Officer SIGNATURE OF COV NG ICER DATE 5/30/86 1 h certify that allconditionsfarexempyd5zet forth in State Administrative Manual Section 1209 have been complied with and this documeNt is exempt from review by the Department of Finance. SIGNATURE OF SIGNING ON BE ALF OF AGENCY DATE i 0 1. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Contractor in the performance of this contract. 2. The Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in the performance of this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of State of California. 3. The State may terminate this agreement and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Contractor should Contractor fail to perform the covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein provided, In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. The cost to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this agreement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid the Contractor upon demand. 4. Without the written consent of the State, this agreement is not assignable by Contractor either in whole or in part. 5. Time is the essence of this agreement. 6. No alteration or variation of the terms of this contrpet shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not Incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 7. The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Contractor's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided. J • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION - 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR '• we SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415) 543-8555 TDD ONLY (415) 896.1825 October 17, 1986 Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Standard Agreement LCP-5300-F AMENDMENT ONE Time Extension Dear Chris: Enclosed are four (4) copies of the Agreement listed above between the Coastal Commission and your jurisdiction. Please have your authorized official sign all four copies. Keep the original for your records, and return three copies to me. Upon being signed by your authorized official, this Agreement becomes fully executed. If you have any questions or problems regarding this Agreement, please call me at the above number. Sincerely, Bill Van Beckum LCP Grant Administrator Enclosures ja *ECCIVEals ,p' BVB/btr t �CT2219 cnyU1 86 s .� Btj �nUR ACID �ti r APPROVED BY THE 4STANDARD AGREEMENT -ATTORNEY GENERAL 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STO. 2 (REV. 6/811 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 30th day of May , 1986 , in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting CONTRACTOR I STATE AGENCY I DEPT. OF GEN. SER. I CONTROLLER I TITLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR STATE AGENCY NUMBER Executive Director California Coastal Commission LCP-5300-F A/1 City of Newport Beach hereafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) 1. AMENDMENT ONE The purpose of this.amendment is to extend the agreement by one year to a new termination date of May 31, 1987. All other terms and conditions shall remain the same. The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, Upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR AGENCY California oastal Commission, CONTRACTOR (IF OTHER THAN AN INOMMAL STATE WHETHER A CORM"TIDH. PARTNERSHIP. ETC.) BY (AUTH SIGNATUREI ll� BY (AYTHO RED SIGNA Et � TITLE TILE . J W. Burns, Chief Deputy Director ity Manager ADDRESS CONTINUED ON _ SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR O BOX 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 Department of General Services 'AMOUNT ENCUMBERED , 270.00 ew mAzei atQeeZ AND TITLEI ederal Catalog No. 11419 FUND TITL55g GF 45% FTF Use Only UNENCUMBERED BALANCE (OPTIONAL USE) PCA-29000-GF ocal Cost PCA-29500-FTF hereby certify that ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE ITEM3720-101-001 CHARTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR his contract is 3720-101-890 11 1985 85-86 ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) xempt from Department f General Services 8 1P.—Asst. to Local Plannina A encies I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. pproval . available for the pejr od d purpose of the expendlnue stated above. ` SIGNATURE OF'A COV ING ICER DATE 5/30/86 dministrative Officer I h certify that all conditions five exempt t forth in State Administrative Manual Section 1209 Moe been complied with and this docume i is exempt from review by the Department of Finance. TSIGNATURE ON SIGNING ON BE ALF OF AGENCY 0ATE 0 0, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING COMMISSION (714) 644-3225 June 23, 1986 Bill Van Beckum L.C.P. Grant Administrator California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: L.C.P. Phase III Grant #LCP5300r Dear Bill: In accordance with our telephone conversation of June 23, 1986, the City of Newport Beach is formally requesting an extension of the above referenced grant. As(- we discussed, no new work has been started on the City's Zoning Implementing OrdQnj ces since the drafts were submitted to the Coastal Commission's Long Beach Office in December of 1984. I talked with Tom Crandall of the Coastal Commission and he indicated that their staff should complete its review sometime in July. It is still anticipated that the City will require approximately six months to process the Implementing Ordinances, including public hearings before the Planning Commission, City Council, and Coastal Commission. In order to accommodate any unforseen problems and/or delays, please extend our grant to May 31, 1987. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me anytime. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B RIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG:jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach f STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGEMCP CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415) 543-8555 TDD ONLY (415) 896.1825 June 10, 1986 Chris Gustin, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: LCP Phase III Grant #LCP-5300-F Dear Chris: • GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Gommor m. r �.a REPTnr e& IWO,, I am writing in regard to the above -noted LCP grant. The grant contract period expired on May 31, 1986, but this office has not received from you either a request to extend the grant period or any invoice for work accomplished under the grant. We intend to close out all expired LCP grants within the next days If the grant contract is not extended, and if we do no receive an invoice for work accomplished before the grant expired, whatever funds remain in the grant's account will be reverted and will be unavailable to reimburse costs of work occurring after May 31, 1986. for extension expired. A request to extend the grant must be in writing and should indicate revisions of any milestones that were included in the grant contract's work program. The Commission may grant an extension of this grant up to June 30, 1987. Enclosed is a copy of our "Request for Funds" form for you to make a reimbursement claim; each form submitted to our office must be accompanied by evidence that the products or milestones described in the approved work program are completed. Costs claimed must be itemized to clearly relate to approved work program costs as described in the grant agreement. If you have any questions, please call me. Enclosure: cc: Wayne Woodroof BVB/btr Sincerely, Bill Van Beckum LCP Grant Administrator E REQUEST FOR FUNDS COASTAL GRANT To: Bill Van Beckum c/o California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 From: Grant Recipient: Address Agreement No. Total Grant $ Percentage of Program completed: Percentage of funds requested to date: Period covered by this request: Program Costs Cost of program this period: Previously reported costs: Total costs to date: Grant amount requested this period: Cash grant received to date: Make check payable to: Mailing address: I hereby certify that the above costs were incurred in the performance of work required under Grant Agreement No. signature of authorized official date NOTE: Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal officer or by the authorized official designated by the local legislative body. USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT t Date: By: Per: Notes: BUDGET ITEM TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT TOTAL I FUNDS EXPENDED THIS PERIOD CUMULATIVE FUNDS EXPENDED TO DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing Indirect Charges Consultant Other (itemize) PERSONAL SERVICES (Break out as in approved work program budget) I TOTAL I certify to the best of my knowledge that the funds listed in the expended column are consistent with the amounts evidenced by supporting documents and expenditures entered into the official grant accounting records. Authorized Official or Fiscal Officer Date INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. Where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet complete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the LCP progress. -This progress report should estimate the degree of completion of all major tasks and should indicate the schedule for their completion. Contact Commission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions. rev.7/79 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 March 18, 1986 Bill Van Beckum California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: LCP 5-360-153 Dear Bill: I must apologize for neglecting to forward a copy of the City's resolution authorizing submittal of a grant application. This was purely an oversight on my part. Enclosed is a. copy of Resolution 86-4, adopted January 13, 1986, by the Newport Beach City Council. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By ( , &-�, CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm Enclosure 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENC� GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Go"mor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR WE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415) 543-8555 January 16, 1986 Chris Gustin, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: LCP Grant Dear Chris: On December 17,• 1985, the Coastal Commission approved a Phase III grant and work program for the City of Newport Beach for $8.271. This grant will be for the period December 1, 1985 to May 1, 1986. Contract documents are now being prepared and should be sent to you shortly for signatures. In the meantime, you are hereby authorized to proceed with the work program and to incur costs on your projects beginning December 1, 1985. If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 543-8555. Sincerely, Bill Van Beckum LCP Grant Administrator cc: Praveen Gupta, South Coast Area BVB/btr 0911P JPN��1996 �'' ov o flteF�CN. ra�'ar Cp lf- V CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 "r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 November 8, 1985 Mr. Bill Van Beckum California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: Grant Application Dear Bill: Enclosed you will find the City's application for funding the balance of the Phase III Work Program. The total amount requested in this _ application, $8,271, should reimburse the City for additional expenses related to the adoption of the Phase III Zoning ordinances, based upon the approved Work Program. The application package is complete except for the City Council Resolution relative to Coastal Zone Management Assistance. Staff will transmit this Resolution upon adoption by the City Council. For your information, Exhibit "A" (attached) provides a cost breakdown of the wages and benefits of the staff participating in the work plan and their budgeted time. As it stands now, staff anticipates that it will take approximately 340 hours to complete the preparation of the implementing ordinances, including the public hearing process before the Planning Commission, City Council and Coastal Commission. Included in this total estimate are the estimated hours of the Planning Director, City Attorney, Advanced Planning Administrator, a Senior Planner, and a Clerk Typist. Expenses arp estimated to total $400. We anticipate that the overall time required is six months, with a tentative completion date of May, 1986. As we discussed on the telephone November 5, 1985, there are certain action items in the Phase III Work. Program that should no longer be included as an element of the Implementation Plan. Specifically, Action Item 15, Local Coastal Program Circulation System Plan, was not funded by the Coastal Commission when the Work Program was approved in February of 1983. Similarly, Action Item 19, Develop a Municipal Transit Plan, which is also a policy in the City's LCP (Page 15, Item 5) is dependent upon the City's financial ability to do so. The City is not requesting grant funds to prepare this municipal transit plan, primarily because the utilization of remote parking, on the weekends with tram service into the beach areas and the place -to -place shuttle system has been shown to be financially unfeasible and impractical. A 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. Bill Van Beckum• • November 8, 1985 Page 2 circulation syste study is being conducted at this time for a portion of the the Balboa Peninsula area, the preliminary results of which indicate that the proposed Balboa Peninsula trolley and remote parking area will not contribute to an easing of congestion, nor will it relieve any existing parking problems. In addition, a recent court case, Liberty vs. California Coastal Commission, negated the City's ability to require a private property owner to provide public parking on his property during non -business hours. It is also our understanding that the Bank of Newport, which provided a terminal for a local shuttle service is no longer required to provide this service. Therefore, it is the City's intention at some time in the future to request that Action Items 15, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27 of the Work Program and the associated LCP Circulation Policies 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 be deleted from the Work Program and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as indicated. It should be noted that the City is not requesting the reimbursement of any indirect costs, therefore the certification form is not includ- ed in this submittal. Staff would also like to reserve the option of requesting additional funds in the future as necessary and if avail- able. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime. Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation. very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director OL_ A'11L By CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG3/jm xc: Praveen Gupta .. ISv $185 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM APPLICATioN FOR FuNorNG TOTAL 'WORK ?QOG;ZAM ?fame of A00Ticant: City of Newport Beach j ?","ect CireCtor: James D. Hewicker Tryle, Planning Director I Address: 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714/644-3222 Fiscal Officer: George Pappas Title: Finance Director Address: 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 714/644-3123 5tat2 State Oistrict(s): Concressional: 40th Senate: 37th Assembly: 70th +Months Recuired to Comolete Total 'Mork Procram: six Grant Requesteo 5 8,270 for Total Cost of Procram: S 33,000 Grant Period: Dec. 1, 1985 - May 1, 1986 List the Oates of Adootion or Status of Your General Plan dements: I js�enlc Land Use CirculationHousing SoacelCanservatienl�toiselSeismic Safet fSzfet,/Hichwav 2-11-85 I 3-11-74 16-25-8411-19-1 1-14-74 �0-15-74 13-10-71 APPLICATION u41y_cLTALS TO Bi; SUB.CTT� 1. Application form (this sheet). 2. Total' work program, relat-n-g tasks to costs. 3. Products, schedule and milestones description. +. %dget A2-1ccat_on Summate sheet (attached). j. Resolum4lon Zranz a;n;;ration (sample attached). Su udcS two (2) cov es of comni.eted aaol_caticn to the Coastal CcmrrEss4 REP 8185 Grant Applicant: Address: LOCAL C'.^.nS i n' L .'ROGRA 4 °- BUDGET ALLcumrTCN SUm4Hf City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Project Title: Phase III Zoning Implementation Zip Code: 92663 Grant Amount Requested: $8,270•. Grant Period: Aec. i, 2985 -. May 31, 1986 Current Grant Reauest Personal Services Salaries and 'Wages Benefitt Total Personal Services Operating Expenses Travel Professional and Consultant Services Lzdirectt (overhead) Costs — see reverse Other (Itemize, use separate sheet i4 required) office supplies postage printing of reports Total Operating cxoenses Total Budget 6,376 1,495 7,871 -0- -0- -0- $ 100 9 100 $ 200 S 400 5 8,271 * Please round off all budget amounts to the nearest dollar. REV 8/85 NOT APPLICABLE INDIRECT COST RATE CRRTr?ICATION Indirect costs are described in office of Budget Management Circular No. A-87 and the Guidelines for Grants Management manual prepared by the Coastal Commission. Indirect costs may include costs of space, equipment use, utilities, insurance, administration, etc. Such costs must not otherwise be treated as direct costs. In accordance with provisions of OMB Circular A-87 all counties, and some cities, will have prepared a Cost Allocation Plan which includes an indirect cost rate. This indirect cost rate provides a departmental rate based on a percentage of direct salaries and wages. The designated fiscal officer of any jurisdiction which has prepared a Cost Allocation Plan must complete the certification below if indirect costs are shown on the Local Coastal Program Budget Allocation Summary. For cities which do not have Cost Allocation Plans but wish to include indirect costs in their grant budget, materials describing the basis for the proposed indirect cost rate must be provided to the Coastal Commission along with this application. CERTIFICATION I. , hereby certify that the indirect Name of Fiscal Officer costs identified in this grant application are consistent with the Cost Allocation Plan, for which Name of Jurisdiction has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87. Documentation of the Cost Allocation Plan and methods of calculation for departmental indirect cost rates contained in the Plan will be made available upon the request of the Coastal Commission or its designees. Signature of Fiscal Officer Title Date t EXHIBIT "A" BUDGET ALLOCATION SUMMARY Hourly Benefit/ # of Rate Hour Total City Attorney 32.38 7.59 39.97 Planning Director 28.47 6.68 35.15 Advance Planning Adm. 22.27 5.22 27.49 senior Planner 18.67 4.38 23.05 Typist Clerk 8.89 2.08 10.97 Hrs. TOTAL 20 $ 799.40 40 1,406.00 40 1,099.60 160 3,688.00 80 877.60 $7,870.60 r f EXHIBIT "B" Products, Schedule, and Milestones This grant request is intended to reimburse the City of Newport Beach for staff time and expenses as set forth in Exhibit "A". Staff anticipates completing all Action Items as described herein and in the attached Phase III Work Plan necessary to prepare and adopt the Zoning Implementation ordinances required. Specifically, the following Action Items, at a minimum, should be completed within the six-month period between December 1, 1985 and May 31, 1986. Action Items: 3;4;5;6;7;16;17;22;28;29;30;33;35;36;37;39;44;45;48;49; 51;52;53;55;56;58;60;61;62;63;64. CITY OF NEWPORT BOCH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES F October 15, 1985O\kptPl;9 � INDEXROLL , 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: To Pending Legislation and Legislation Procedural Ethics Committee, (48) communication from Southern alifornia Coordinator National mocratic Policy Committee, re arding legislation on AIDS cri s. (b) To Gen ral Services for response, Garbage/ letter rom Ruth Mang and William Trash E. Kelce regarding smell and acid (44) drainage om trash bin and suggesting nstalling drainage system in Ge son's Market. (c) To Public Work for reply, letter PW/r-o-w from David L. Co , D.C., regarding Cliff Dr. any changes of pu lic right-of-way (74) in front of 2957 C ff Drive. (d) To Parks, Beaches and Recreation PB&R Department for inclusi in the (62) records, letter from Pa nts' Support Group, Newport Be ch Aquatics, commending,Dan I ata, Recreation Supervisor for h excellent service in swimmin activities. (a) To Pending Legislation and Legislation Procedural Ethics Committee, lette (48) from Citizens Leading Effective Action Now, requesting support for A.B. 365 (prosecutable definition of obscenity). (f) To Planning Department for Planning inc usio� nrin the records, letter (68) from Judy_B`Rosener, concerning shipyards doing business in Newport Harbor, anLkrimarycoastal dependent_uses_of land. I (g) To Pending Legislation and Legislation Procedural Ethics Committee, letter (48) from Mayor of City of Carson, urging support for League of ifornia Cities Resolution No. 71 (pro erty tax revenues from undeve ed annexing areas). (h) Removed from he Consent Calendar. (i) To Aviation Commi ee for inclusion O/C -John in the records, lett from Phil Wayne Arprt Greyshock regarding Jo h Wayne (54) Airport Expansion. Volume 39 - Page 387 OTY OF NEWPORT RACH 00 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \CAL 'oROLL Gas � October 15, 1985 INDEX CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: (a) STREET LIGHT CONVERSION PROGRAM, Street Ltg PHASE I, AIRPORT AREA (C-2521) - Cnvsn Ph I Approve a budget amendment to Arprt provide funds for award; and award C-2521 Contract No. 2521 to Sierra Pacific (38) Electrical Contracting Inc., in the amount of $37,930; and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute said contract. (Report from Public Works Department) (b) ALBOA PENINSULA POINT SEWER Balboa R PLACEMENT (C-2497) - Award Pnsla Pt C tract No. 2497 to E. J. Vadnais Swr Rplem fo the total price of $647,437.57 C-2497 and authorize the Mayor and the (38) City Clerk to execute the contract, all bject to execution of a coope tive agreement by County Sanita ion District No. 5 of Orange County. (Report from Public Works Departm t) (c) ACCEPTANC OF AN AMENDED OFF -SITE U/P 3076/ PARKING A EMENT for a portion of Amnd OfSt the parkin spaces required in Pkg Agmt conjunction with USE PERMIT NO. (88) 3076, a requ at of Howard Properties, wport Beach, to convert an ex ting commercial building locat d at 503 Edgewater Place, Central alboa, into a restaurant with n-sale alcoholic beverages, live tertainment and dancing. (Report rom the Planning Department) (d) CORONA DEL MAR BEAC CONCESSION CdM Beach AGREEMENT (C-1920) - uthorize the Concession Mayor and the City Cl rk to execute C-1920 an agreement with Kil r (38) Enterprises to operate he concession at Corona de Mar State and City Beach Park for he period of January 1, 1986 to De mber 31, 1990. (Report from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director) (e) Consent of the City to Sale f Marinapark Mobilehome and Trailer Park ace MH Cnsnt No. 5-D at Newport Marinapark Sale#5-D Mobilehomes. C-1546 Volume 39 - Page 386 11 JUDY B. ROSENER 125 VIA VENEZIA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 September 29, Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Council Members: NFw 01),0r�( "O;t C� lx ASH, v � I would like to add my voice to those who are distressed to see the City hag not (for whatever reason) protected what few shipyards we have left in Newport Harbor. With over 7,000 boats, it would seem that boatowners (I am not one) would be an important constituency for the Council. Unfortunately, because many of them don't live here, but only spend money here, and because as a group they are not organized to moniter Council actions, it is often too late for them to have any impact when they lose services. The Local Coastal Planning process was created explicitly to give local officials such as yourselves an opportunity to innovate and come up with ways to protect primary coastal dependent uses of land. Instead of doing that, we see increasing office buildings (most of which remain vacant for years) along the coast, something contrary to the Coastal Act. But we see the name of the Coastal Act invoked to justify shops and hotels and restaurants which bring busloads of people from out of the area to increase traffic, trash, crime, etc. The City could use the LCP process to justify zoning, or transfer of development rights or other ways to make sure that boats in the harbor have places where they can be repaired, etc. It is ironic that it was not the Shipyard owner who was saying he could not make a living. And the landowner is not one who has put his life savings into this one plot of land and now wants to cash in. Rather it was the expectations of the city that anyone can now put up office buildings, block views, etc. as long as somehow they make a token effort to do what they are required to do anyway, i.e. have some little nott toward a coastal dependent use. How sad! The City has allowed the Pacific Coast Highway to be turned into office buildings and now some high buildings, with sliver views that were used as a carrot to get higher than zoned uses. Unlike Laguna and other cities that retain views and the beach essence of their cities, we seem to be pouring more and'more concrete with less and less beach ambiance. Some of us feel we elect council members to have a vision of the future that •protects the interests of those of us who live here and feel the impact of changing a beautiful resort city into botiques and self service food marts. The S&E�rm is going fast, and the offices in the Bay Lido Building and the PCH officeszs-till vacant. And what will happen when the new PCH buildings get built? More beauty? Hardly:But then, I know how hard it is to say no to landowners. It doesn't -make one popular. Even though that is what publicpolicy making is all about. S rel ,X /Jr.441 y B. Rosener �b _`off 04. E G �I tU Nwz?n. (C t�`�K"-- 4 47 C7 :1. Ck. f10 c� �8]10300 N000 .- - 1; TO: FROM: UN�EWPOrZT VED YC CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION g \631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105--(415) 543-8555ent985 ®- F�Acr1,July 11, c' Fiscal Officer and Planning Director California Coastal Commission SUBJECT: Claim Form Instructions for Reimbursement of Costs Mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Ch.. 1330, Statutes of 1976, Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq) I. INTRODUCTION The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires coastal cities and counties to prepare local coastal programs (LCPs) for the portion of their jurisdiction within the coastal zone. Generally, an LCP consists of a land use plan and the land use controls, such as zoning ordinances, necessary to implement the land use plan. Most local governments will prepare their LCPs with grants approved by the California Coastal Commission.' However, for reasonable and necessary LCP preparation costs not covered by a grant, the State -mandated costs account, pursuant to Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (SB 90), provides other reimbursement funds to local governments. Chapter 1075, Statutes of 1978, established procedures and requirements which local governments must comply with to claim and receive State reimbursement for costs mandated by and directly attributable to the California Coastal Act of 1976. These procedures and requirements supersede prior procedures promulgated by the State Controller relating to reimbursement of costs mandated by the Coastal Act. Period of Claims Covered by This Announcement 1984-85 claims for actual costs for the period 7/l/84 - 6/30/85. 1985-86 claims for estimated costs for the period 7/1/85 - 6/30/86. (Generally, estimated cost claims will not be recommended for reimbursement unless estimated costs cannot be covered by a grant from the Coastal Commission.) Deadline for Claims and Sunnortina Materials Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September .30, 1985. Send claims to: Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, 631 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Late claims must be paid at the rate of 80% of the approved claim. Supporting information should be on the forms enclosed herein and accompanied by necessary cost breakdown and work task information. if you have any questions, please call Bill Van Beckum at the State ,Commission Office (415) 543-8555. Costs Eligible for Reimbursement There are two classifications of reimbursable costs. These are: 1. Direct planning and administrative costs related to the preparation, review and certification of a local coastal program or any portion thereof. Direct planning and administrative costs include costs incurred for identification of issues to be addressed in an LCP, preparation of an LCP work program for Coastal Commission review and approval, and completion of approved work program tasks. Costs for the latter must be for work reasonable and necessary for the preparation and certification of a local coastal program prepared pursuant to the approved work program. Costs for work which is not part of a Commission -approved work program are eligible if the work is shown to be necessary for completion of a certifiable LCP or if the Commission, on the basis of new information, requires such work to be done. Work programs are approved by the Commission with a budget anticipated to be sufficient to carry out the specified work. Costs which are included in the approved work program and eligible for reimbursement under the LCP grant (whether or not reimbursed at the time of the claim filing) are not eligible for mandated costs reimbursement. The availability of grant funds and necessity of the work will determine whether the Commission will augment the LCP grant to cover increased costs, will recommend against the grantee incurring the costs, or will recommend that they be submitted as the mandated costs claim. The grantee must follow the procedures specified in the grant agreement for notifying the Commission of the need for budget augmentation. Without such notification, it will be difficult for the Commission to make -the -requisite find-ing- that •manda.ted costs reimbursement is appropriate due to the unavailability of grant funds. 2. Costs not directly related to the preparation of an LCP but for work mandated by the Coastal Act•. These may include costs for the implementation of a certified LCP, including initial start-up costs as defined in Section 30353 of the California Coastal Act. Section 30353 also provides that a fixed payment not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per local coastal permit application (except in special circumstances) may be claimed. Costs in both classifications 1 and 2 must:• a. Be the direct operation of Commission; result of and be mandated by the the Coastal Act or by the Coastal -3- b. Not be paid for or reimbursed from any other source of State or Federal funds.; and C. Not be for work that is optional. Costs Not Eligible for Reimbursement _ There are several grounds on which a claim may be denied. Examples of non -reimbursable costs are: 1. Costs not related to the preparation, review and approval of an LCP or otherwise mandated by the Coastal Act or the Commission (i.e., costs of completion or updating general plan elements already mandated by State law). 2. costs associated with Coastal Act Boundary Study. 3. Costs of salaries for a City Manager or County Administrator, which are ongoing costs of local government; inappropriate or inefficient use of high level staff to do work appropriate for lower levels. 4. Costs claimed that are not supported by accounting records substantiating such costs. These four examples are illustrative only -since there may be other grounds for denial of a claim. II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF CLAIMS Claim Categories: Coastal Act related claims are divided into four categories (a separate claim form should be used for each category): I. Issue Identification and preparation of a Work Program for the LCP. II. Preparation of the Land -Use Plan: III. Preparation of Land Use Controls, such as zoning ordinances, to implement the land use plan. IV. Other Costs not related to the preparation of an LCP. sunoortina Data: 1. A Mandated Costs Claim Form must be completed with supporting data divided as to each of the four claim categories (i.e., Issue Identification/Work Program; Land Use Plan; Land Use Controls; and Other Costs). Use the forms provided and include the necessary budget breakdown by work task item. You may attach additional pages if the form does not provide sufficient space for the information requested. -4- . 0• .I . 2. Actual costs for the period 7/1/84 - through 6/30/85 and estimated costs for the period 7/1/85 through 6/30/86 should be clearly distinguished in each of the categories for which a claim is submitted. Please round all costs to the nearest dollar. 3. The Summary and Certification sheet must be sinned and must list the totals of all actual or estimated costs, and previous reimbursements, detailed in the claim form(s). 4. If you are reporting actual or estimated costs over and above those covered by an existing Local Coastal Program Grant you must report the total costs for the claim category, and reduce the costs by the amount budgeted In the approved work program. 5. The reporting of actual costs incurred for the period 7/1/84 through 6/30/85 must be in accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A87 entitled "Cost Principles and Procedures for Establishing Costs Allocation Plans and 'Indirect Cost Bates for Grants and Contracts with the Federal Government." In addition, the format set forth in these federal regulations should be followed for proper accounting of expenditures made in each phase of the LCP work program. 6. For auditing purposes, all costs claimed must be traceable to source documents or worksheets that show evidence of and the Validity of such costs. These documents (i.e.. receipts, vouchers, contracts, timesheets, cost plans, etc.) must be kept on file and made available on the request of the Coastal Commission or the State Controller for a period of three years from the date of payment of claim. III. CLAIMS SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST -- A separate four -page Mandated Costs Claim Form must be completed for each claim category (e.g., one form for Land Use Plan cost claims and another form for Land Use Controls cost claims). This office will accept photocopies of the attached blank form, or will provide additional forms upon request. -- All listed costs should be rounded to the nearest dollar. -- The Summary and Certification sheet must be completed, with signature. -- Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1985. BVB,riw Paae 1 of 4 MANDATED COSTS CLAIM FORM COASTAL ACT OF 1976 Jurisdiction Name This claim is for (circle one; use a separate form for each claim category): 1. Issue Identification/Work Program II. Land Use Plan 111. Land•Use Controls IV. Other Costs _ A. _-Project Dates: Project Started: Project Completed: B. Amount of any grant authorized _. ..__for this project and grant dates: C. Amount reimbursed for this project or any portion thereof pursuant to a mandated costs claim previously submitted (FY 76/77, 77/78, 78/79, 79180. 80/81, 81/82, 82/83, 83/84) D. Cost Breakdown 1. Salaries and Benefits _ Show the position/title of persons involved, describe the specific functions performed relative to the mandate, and budgeted hourly salary. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/l/84 - 6/30/85 7/l/85 - 6/30/86 Revised 6/85 Pace 2 of 4 2. Services and Supplies Only expenditures identified as a direct cost resulting from the mandate can be claimed. List costs of goods acquired that have been consumed or expended specifically for the purposes of this workphase. Travel and subsistence expenses are paid in accordance with rules of the local jurisdiction. Compensation for use of equipment is allowable through a use allowance or depreciation during the period it is assigned to the work phase. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 3. Professional and Consultant Services Show name of each consultant, describe reasons for hiring consultants, specify functions consultants performed relative to the mandate, length of appointment, and itemized costs for such services. Indicate other work consultant performed for your jurisdiction during this period. Provide documentation of cost, invoice copies, etc. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 711/85 - 6/30/86 Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 6/86 Pace 3 of 4 4. Allowable Indirect Overhead Costs (State % used) Indirect costs may only be claimed through an indirect cost rate proposal prepared in accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A87. Generally, this provides for a cost rate based on a percentage of direct salaries and wages. Indirect costs may include costs of space, equipment, utilities, insurance, administration, etc. Such costs must not otherwise be treated as direct costs. The indirect cost rate percentage used= must be shown on the claim. Calculations or an explanation of the derivation of the rate should be attached to the claim. If the rate is difference from one used in a current coastal grant, explain the difference. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 711/84 - 6/30/85 7/1/85 - 6/30/85 SUB -TOTALS: $ 5. Use this space to show budget. breakdown by work tasks claimed under this category. Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 6/85 Page 4 of 4 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DATA AND INFORMATION Responses to all of the following quetions must be provided for each category of costs and for each work task item for which a claia is submtited. Indicate whether the response applies to actual and/or estimated costs. Responses applicable to estimated costs (if not the same) may be less detailed than for actual costs. Failure to respond to these questions and items result in a negative recommendation to the Controller and may result in a denial of the claim by the Controller. 1. Specify by each work task how costs claimed relate to the Coastal Act of 1976, or to the local government's approved Local Coastal Program Work Program. 2. Where planning costs are claimed, specify the type of planning work done, broken down by work task, (i.e., work on elements of General Plan, specific plans, agricultural feasibility, public access, etc.). Be as specific as possible, referring to actual products of the effort. Please do not submit the products unless requested by the Commission. 3. Was the proposed work for which reimbursement is claimed reviewed with the Coastal Commission or its staff before costs were incurred? With whom was the work discussed? 4. If costs are claimed by departments other than planning, provide a description of the type of work done, demonstrate how It relates to the Coastal Act or the LCP. S. If costs are claimed for work that is related to work supported by a grant from the Coastal Commission, explain how the costs claimed are different from those coveted by the grant agreement. Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 6/85 - -- - -- ---- - SUMMARY AND CERTIFICATION MANDATED COSTS COASTAL ACT OF 1976 Actual - CLAIM SUMMARY 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 I. Issue Identification/Work I'i. Land Use Plan III. Land Use Controls IV. Other Costs Less Grants or other Reimbursement. Received to Cover Costs Shown BALANCE Estimated 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 A local government's claim must be 'accompanied by the following certification: CERTIFICATION OF CLAIM: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2231, Revenue- and Taxation Code, I certify that I am the person authorized by the local agency to file claims with the State of California for costs mandated by Chapter 1330 (Statutes 1976); and certify under penalty of perjury that I have not violated any of the provisions of Government Code Sections 1090 to 1096, inclusive. I further certify that there were no applications for not any grants or payments received, other than from the claimant, for reimbursement of costs claimed herein; and such costs are for a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by said chapter. The amount of $ . is hereby claimed from the State for payment of the actual and/or estimated cost for the mandated program set forth on the attached statements. Date Signature of Authorized Representative Type Name Title Name of Jurisdiction sed-_-6/85 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 September 28, 1984 Bill Van Beckum >. California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: LCP5-360-153 Dear Bill: Enclosed you will find the City's Request for Funds for reimbursement of costs incurred in conjunction with the adoption of local zoning ordinances to conform to the Phase II Land Use Plan. It should be noted that the City did not, nor does it intend in the future, to use a consultant as previously approved. This will result in a substantial reduction in the amount of funds necessary #to complete Phase III. City staff has prepared the Draft Ordinances within the previously approved and allocated budget. Also attached are revised cost breakdowns, using current wage and benefit costs per employee. Again it is important to note that even though there is a slight increase in these costs, the City of Newport Beach will complete Phase III well under the approved budget and Grant. Pursuant to your letter of September 17, 1984, the City of Newport Beach will be submitting the balance of the work program as a new grant request by November 1, 1984. Should you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 640-2261. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES A. HEWICKER, Director By Q --' JC4 Chris Gus in Senior Planner CG:pjd 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach i) REQUEST FOR FONDS COASTAL GRANT 4 To: Kathleen Ohlson c/o California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 From: Grant Recipient: City of Newport Beach' Address 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 Total Grant $ 33,000 Percentage of Program completed: F>;9k Percentage of funds requested to date: 0 Period covered by this request: 3/1/83 to 9/30/84 Program Costs Cost of program this period: $ 18,927.27 Previously reported costs: $ 0.00 Total costs to date: $ 18,927.27 Grant amount requested this period: $ 18,927.27 Cash grant received to date: $ 0.00 Make check payable to: City of Newport Beach Mailing address: 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA •I hereby certify that the above costs were required under Grant Agreement No.' 'QJ1D ' a performance )work- atur o authorized T cial a 1-n 16,/ NOTE: Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal officer or by the authorized official designated by the local legislative body. FOR OFFICE USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT i Date: By: Per: Notes: - I I .. BUDGET ITEM TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT TOTAL FUNDS EXPENDED THIS PERIOD CUMULATIVE FUNDS EXPENDED TO DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing •Indirect Charges Consultant Other (itemize) Tele one 960 624 624 11 329.42 0 0 600 390 390 Supplies 960 624 624 Postage/Mailing 600 390 390 PERSONAL SERVICES (Break out as in approved work program budget) City Attorney 3,198.53 3,198.53 3,198.53 1,645.88 45.88 Adv. I4,011.00 1 3,369.24 369.24 8,308.17 7,266.69 7,266 1 er 504.32 378.48 378.48 Steno Clerk•II 588.49 I 540.45 I 540.45 I i I I I TOTAL 32,992.07 1 ,92 . 7 I certify to the best of my knowledge that are consistent with the amounts evidenced b entered into the official grant accounting INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet complete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the LCP progress. This progress report should estimate the degree of completion of all major tasks and should indicate the schedule for their completion. Contact Commission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions. rev.7/79 COST BREAKDOWN EXHIBIT "A" Benefits $/hr. Overhead/hr.(1) Total # of hrs. Total City Attorney 29.40 9.37 38.77 82.50 3,198.53 Planning Dir. 26.69 9.09 35.78 54.00 1,932.12 Adv. Planning Administrator 19.74 7.00 26.74 150.00 4,011.00 Senior Planner 17.47 6.20 23.67 351.00 8,308.17 Assistant Planner 12.12 3.64 15.76 32.00 504.32 Typist Clerk 8.26 3.75 12.01 49.00 588.49 Total 718.50 18,542.63 (1) Benefits include: City contribution to PERS (Retirement), Group Life and Health Insurance, Group Disability, Workers Compensation, Vacation, Sick Leave, Unemployment Insurance and Overhead. SERVICE AND SUPPLIES Telephone 600.00 Copying 960.00 Supplies 960.00 Postage Mailing 600.00 3,120.00 BUDGET BREAKDOWN BY HOURS AND COST EXHIBIT "B" Advance —' City Planning Planning Senior Assistant Steno (1) Total Total Attorney Director Adminis. Planner Planner Clerk II Consult. Hours Costs ($) Oolicy Implementation 30 16 50 150 16 16 278 17067.40 zoning 45 20 26 78 8 12 (320). 189 5271.95 Intergovernmental Coordination 2 11 32 3 48 1159.17 Admiministrative Procedures 7.5 8 35 25 8 83.5 2200.75 Administration 4 22 6 32 699.76 Coastal Commission Hearings 8 24 44 8 4 88 2143.60 Total Hours 82.5 54 150 351 32 49 (320) 718.5 tal Costs ($) 3198.53 1932.12 4011.00 8308.17 504.32 588.49 18542.63 (1) Subsequent to grant approval, City Staff prepared the zoning ordinances without using a consultant. The ordinances have been prepared within the previously approved and budgeted City staff time. State of California, George Deukmig Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 Newport Beach Planning Dept. James 0. Hewicker, Planning Dir. 3300 West Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Hewicker: September 17, 1984 y �F�FI c plan ,peps n�ma `SFp� �'"In� rl � �c eY .1� This letter is to notify you of the expiration of all current LCP grant funds and of the availability of new funds. If your jurisdiction is already issuing permits under a certified LCP, then this letter will be of little interest to you except as an update of our grant programs. Over the past seven years, the Coastal Commission's LCP grant programs have provided substantial financial support for local coastal jurisdictions to prepare Local Coastal Programs. You should note, if your jurisdiction is receiving current funding, that all current LCP grant contracts will expire on September 30, 1984, and that after that date any funds remaining in current grants accounts will be reverted to the federal government and to the State's general fund. These funds will be unavailable for further grant reimbursements. Some new funds, however, will be available after September 30, 1984 for continued LCP planning work. The new funds, from federal and State sources, total $419,000. The new grant monies may be used to fund: -- Permit start-up programs; -- Work leading to resubmittals of Land Use Plans and/or Implementation Programs that respond to Commission -suggested modifications; -- Continuation of work on incomplete Implementation Programs; -- Continuation of work on incomplete Land Use Plans; -- Other programs that do not fit within the above categories. The funds for the last category are available only for work leading to certification of LCPs and for their initial implementation. Jurisdictions with already certified LCPs, therefore, are not eligible to apply for new grant funds other than for start-up programs. We will keep all jurisdictions informed, of course, should funds later become available for post -certification endeavors, such as LCP amendment processing or re -printing amended LCPs. At this time we 0 -2 have no indication that any additional funds available after June 30, 1985, although grant Commission's fiscal year 1985-86 budget. for LCP grants will become funds are proposed in the Because of the limited funds to be granted from September 30, 1984 to June 30, 1985, we cannot guarantee that each grant request will be approved for the amount requested. Amounts awarded to each grant request will in part depend on the total amount allocated statewide to each of the above categories. -In turn, the amount allocated to each category will depend, statewide, on the number of requests made and dollar amounts requested. In•other words, we will not merely distribute the funds on a first -come, first -serve basis. Rather, to be equitable in our allocations among jurisdictions, we expect that no recommendations on grant requests will be made before mid -November of this year, thereby allowing us time to assess the overall level statewide of grant requests. However, so that we can make best use of our time spent in evaluating grant requests, we would urge that all requests be submitted directly to our San Francisco office as early as possible, and by November 1, 1984 at the latest. In some cases --for example, where a current grant is expiring before its funded work program has been completed --the current work program may be submitted as a new grant request's proposed work program, as long as it is clear for which not -yet -completed work tasks the new grant funding is being requested, as well as being clear in showing where downward budget revisions are proposed. The Commission cannot assure automatic approval of previously approved work programs. Each application should be realistic in terms of commitment and ability to carry out its requested work programs tasks according to its proposed schedule. Grant application materials are enclosed for jurisdictions whose current grants are expiring. If you have any questions regarding the new grant programs, please contact Bill Van Beckum or Steve Scholl at our San Francisco office: (415) 543-8555. Sincerely, / JAMES W. BURNS Deputy Director for Land Use JWB/lgu BILLL State of California, George Deukmes'Pbvernor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 August 31, 1984 Pat Temple, Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Subject: Local Coastal Program Grant #360 Dear Ms. Temple: This letter is to remind you that the contract period for the above -mentioned LCP grant expires on September 30, 1984. Soon after we will be closing -out all current LCP grants. After close-out, any funds remaining in this grant account will be unavailable for grant ,reimbursements. It is therefore imperative that by October 15 we receive any final reimbursement requests for work performed in accord with your grant's work program. Each request should be accompanied with evidence of what work was accomplished and that the work was carried out within the grant contract period. While this grant cannot be extended, we will advise you shortly of possible new grant programs available after September 30. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bill Van Beckum Grants Administration cc: District Office 1 1 Rev. 11/80 • LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TOTAL WORK PROGRAM Name of Aoolicant: Project Director: Title: Address: Phone: Fiscal Officer: Title: Address: Phone: State 5tate District s : Congressional: Senate: Assembly:. Months Required to Complete Total Work Program: Grant Requested for Total Cost of Program: S Grant Period: List the Dates of Adootion or Status of Your Generai Plan Elements: Open Scenic Land Use Circulation Housino Space ConservationlNoise Seismic Safet Safet Hi hwa 1. Resolution authorizing grant application [] 2. Application form (� 3. Total Work Program 4. Products and Other Milestones Description S. Budget [�6. Statement of Assurances ❑ !• Clearinghouse Form (submit CA 189 or 424 to Area Clearinghouse and copy of form to Coastal Commission for submission to State Clearinghouse for intitial Phase 11 grants only. Check with your local area clearinghouse for Phase III grant submittal. Transmit verification of clearing- house review when complete.) Submit tcn (2) copies of completed application to Coastal Commission; one copy must bear original signatures on items 1, 2'and 6 above. Submit one copy each to the regional and state commission offices. Authorized Official Signature Date Title: 1 • 1 ' INDIRECT COST RATE CERTIFICATION • If indirect costs are shown on the Local Coastal Program Budget, the follow- ing must be completed by the Grantee's designated fiscal officer. Indirect costs are described in Section F of Federal Management Circular 74-7 and the Grants Management Manual prepared by the Coastal Commission. Grantees must calculate indirect costs according to an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan which has been submitted to a cognizant federal agency or the State Controller or the Coastal Commission. Grantees wishing to establish such plans should request.explanatory materials from the Coastal Commission. Counties CERTIFICATION hereby certify that the indirect Name of Fiscal Officer costs identified above are consistent with the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan, for , which has been.submitted to Name of Jurisdiction the cognizant federal lead agency or the State Controller. Information documenting submission -of Indirect Cost Allocation Plans and methods of calculation for departmental Indirect Cost Rate Proposals will be made ., available upon the request of the Coastal Commission or its designees. Signature of Fiscal Officer Title Date Cities Not all cities are required to submit Indirect Cost Allocation Plans. Where Indirect Cost Allocation Plans have been submitted and accepted by a cognizant federal agency, documentation of acceptance of the plan by the federal agency should be provided. In the event that no plan has been filed with a cognizant federal agency, and the city wishes to use an Indirect Cost Rate, a copy of the plan must be provided to the Coastal Commission. Grant Applicant: Address: Project Title: Grant Amount Requested: Personal Services Salaries and Wages Benefits Total Personal Services LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATION Zip Code: Grant Period: Operating Expenses Travel Professional and Consultant Services Indirect Charges (see over) Other (Itemize, use separate sheet if required) office supplies postage printing of reports i an overherate is charged, provide basis and breakdown) Total Operating Expenses Total Budget Current Grant Request* $ $ *Please round o££ all budget amounts to the nearest dollar. • Stoent of Assurances Form STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES The Applicant hereby assures and certifir, that he will comply with the regula- tions, policies, guidelines, and requirruornts including OMB Circulars Nos. 74-4. A-95, and 74-7, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also, the Applicant assures and cer- tifies with respect to the grant that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution,, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body,, authorizing the filing of the application, includ- ing all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the appli- cant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights -Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures neces- sary to effectuate this agreement. 3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where, (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or, (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -aided activity. 4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs. 6. It will comply with the provision of the Hatch Act which limits the poli- tical activity of employees. 6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational institution employees of State and local governments. 7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their posi- tions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 8. It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General, through any authorized representative, the access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the federal grantor agency concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other admi- nistrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. 74-7. Signature of Authorized Officia .,Smmolc Rosolution Form SUGGESTED RESOLUTION RMATIVE TO COASTAL. ZONE MNAGFJ fFNi' PIANNTNG ASSISTANCE WHE.RLAS, the (name of�jvrisdiL cff or g&ncv�_ recognizing the problems and issues identified in the attached application for Coastal Zone Management Grant desires to provide for a planning study contributing to improved coastal planning, decisionmaking, and management capability re- lated to community development and growth; and W TKRZ'?S) the�name of 'urisdiction or agency_ has developed an application package to deal with these development- problems and issues; and the California Coastal Commission, under authority of the Government Code of the State of California , may provide planning and financial assistance for such a program, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the�ame of the legislative _ or Policy_ bodyZof the (name of .Jurisdiction _or agency)__ hereby requests the Coastal Commission to provide planning and financial assistance under authority of the Government Code of the State of California, not to exceed the amount of $__ Such planning assistance is more particularly described in a project description that is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as if fully set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (title of official)__ of the --L"rmie of jurisdiction or 2Zencx1__Abe, and he/she is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the name of jurisdiction or a enc ), all necessary applications, contracts, and agreements and amendments hereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution. The foregoing Resolution was passed by the (legislative or policy the—jjurisdiction or aLqncy)__this day of l9_ Effective 19_ . Attest: Signed: (name and title of official authorized to sign resolutions of the governing body) State of California • Memorandum To FISCAL OFFICER AND PLANNING DIRECTOR 9 G� From : California Coastal Commission INTRODUCTION Date : July 2, 1984 Subject: SB 90 Claim Forms Instructions for Reimburse- ment of Costs Mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Ch. 1330, Statutes of 1976, Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq) The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires coastal cities and counties to prepare local coastal programs (LCPs) for the portion of their jurisdiction within the coastal zone. Generally, an LCP consists of a land use plan and the land use controls, such as zoning ordinances, necessary to implement the land use plan. Most local governments will prepare their LCPs with federal grants approved by the California Coastal Commission and issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research or the Coastal Commission. However, local governments may claim state reimbursement (SB 90) for LCP costs that were not covered by federal grant. Chapter 1075, Statutes of 1978, established procedures and requirements which local governments must comply to receive State reimbursement for costs mandated by and directly attributable to the California Coastal Act of 1976. These procedures and requirements supersede prior procedures promulgated by the State Controller relating to reimbursement of costs mandated by the Coastal Act. Period of Claims Covered by This Announcement 1983-84 claims for actual costs for the period 7/1/83 - 6/30/84. 1984-85 claims for estimated costs for the period 7/1/84 - 6/30/85. (Generally, estimated cost claims will not be recommended for reimbursement unless estimated costs cannot be covered by a grant from the Coastal Commission.) Deadline for Claims and Supporting Materials Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1984. Send claims to: Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, 631 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Late claims must be paid at the rate of 80% of the approved claim. Information should be on the enclosed forms accompanied by necessary cost breakdown and work task information. If you have any questions, please call Steve Scholl at the State Commission Office (415) 543-8555. Costs Eligible for Reimbursement 1. Direct planning and administrative costs related to the preparation, review and approval of a local coastal program or any portion thereof. These include costs incurred for identification of issues to be addressed in an LCP, preparation of an LCP work program, and completion of approved work program tasks. Costs in this category must be for work reasonable and necessary for the preparation and approval of a local coastal program prepared pursuant to a work program approved by the Coastal Commission. Costs for work which is not part of a Coastal Commission approved work program are eligible if the work is shown to be necessary for completion of a certifiable LCP or if the Commission, based on new information, requires such work to be done. Work programs are approved by the Commission with a budget anticipated to be sufficient to carry out the specified work. Costs which are included in the approved work program and eligible for reimbursement under the LCP grant (whether or not reimbursed at the time of the claim filing) are not eligible for reimbursement under SB 90. The availability of federal funds and necessity of the t�or to determine whether the Commission will augment the LCP grant to cover the increased costs, will recommend against the grantee incurring the costs, or will recommend that -they be submitted as the SB 90 claim. The grantee must follow the procedures specified in the grant agreement for notifying the Commission of the need for budget augmentation. Without such notification, it will be difficult for the Commission to make the requisite findinq that SB 90 s aoorooriate due 2. Costs not directly related to the preparation of an LCP but for work mandated by the Coastal Act. Costs of carrying out the work program that exceed the grant budget may be eligible for reimbursement under certain circumstances. Costs in both categories 1 and 2 must: a. Not be paid for or reimbursed from any other source of State or federal funds. b. Be the direct result of and be mandated by the operation of the Coastal Act or by the Coastal Commission; and c. Not be for work that is optional. Costs Not Eligible for Reimbursement 1. Costs not related to the preparation, review and approval of an LCP or otherwise mandated by the Coastal Act of the Commission (i.e., costs of completion or updating general plan elements already mandated by State law). 2. Costs associated with Coastal Act Boundary Study, 3. Inappropriate or inefficient use of high level staff to do work appropriate for lower levels. Salaries for a City Manager or County Administrator are not reimbursable as these are ongoing costs of local government. 4. Costs claimed that are not supported by accounting records substantiating such costs. These four examples are illustrative only since there may be other grounds for denial of a claim. -3- II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF CLAIMS Claim Categories: Coastal Act related claims are divided into four categories (a separate claim form should be used for each category): Issue Identification and preparation of a Work Program for the LCP. Preparation of the Land Use Plan pursuant to the approved work program. Preparation of Land Use Controls, such as zoning ordinances, implementing the land use plan. Other Costs not related to the preparation of an LCP. This may include costs for the implementation of a certified local coastal program (LCP) as defined under Section 30353 of the California Coastal Act, including initial start up costs and other LCP implementation costs. Section 30353 provides that a fixed payment not to exceed ten dollars ($10) per local coastal permit application (except in special circumstances) may be claimed. Supporting Data: 1. A claim summary must be prepared with supporting data divided as to each of the four claim categories. (e.g., Issue Identification/Work Program; Land Use Plan; Land Use Controls; and Other Costs.) Use the forms provided and include the necessary budget breakdown by work task item. 2. Actual costs for the period 7/1/83-through 6/30/84 and estimated costs for tFe period 7/1/84 through 6/30/85 should be clearly disting is ed in each of the categories for which a claim is submitted. 3. If you are reporting actual or estimated costs over and above those covered by an existing Local Coastal Program Grant (i.e. if you do not plan to state: "No costs over those covered by Grant" or "Costs above grant cannot be determined at this time") you must report the total costs for the claim category, and reduce the costs by the amount budgeted in the approved work program. 4. The reporting of actual costs incurred for the period 7/1/83 through 6/30/84 must be in accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A87 entitled "Cost Principles and Procedures for Establishing Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates for Grants and Contracts with the Federal Government." In addition, the format set forth in these federal regulations should be followed for proper accounting of expenditures made in each phase of the LCP work program. 5. For auditing purposes, all costs claimed must be traceable to source documents or worksheets that show evidence of and the validity of such costs. These documents (i.e., receipts, vouchers, contracts, timesheets, cost plans, etc.) must be kept on file and made available on the request of the Coastal Commission, Office of Planning and Research, or the State Controller for a period of three years from the date of payment of claim. 6. Please round all costs to the nearest dollar. SB 90 CLAIM FORM SUMMARY SHEET COASTAL ACT OF 1976 CLAIM SUMMARY I, Issue Identification/Work Program II. Land Use Plan III.Land Use Controls IV. Other Costs Less Grants or other Reimbursement Received to Cover Costs Shown BALANCE 7/1/83 - 6/30/84 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 A local government's claim must be accompanied by the following certification: CERTIFICATION OF CLAIM: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2231, Revenue and Taxation Code, I certify that I am the person authorized by the local agency to file claims with the State of California for costs mandated by Chapter 1330 (Statutes 1976); and certify under penalty of perjury that I have not violated any of the provisions of Government Code Sections 1090 to 1096, inclusive. I further certify that there were no applications for nor any grants or payments received, other than from the'claimant, for reimbursement of costs claimed herein; and such costs are for a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by said chapter. The amount of $ is hereby claimed from the State for payment of the actual and/or estimated cost for the mandated program set forth on the attached statements. Date Signature of Authorized Representative Type Name Title Name of Jurisdiction Revised 6/84 SB 90 CLAIM FORM Name of Jurisdiction COASTAL ACT OF 1976 This claim is for (circle one; use a separate form for each claim category): I. Issue Identification/Work Program II. Land Use Plan III. Land Use Controls IV. Other Costs A. Project Dates: Project Started: Project Completed: B. Amount of any grant authorized for this project and grants aces: C. Amount reimbursed for this project or any portion thereof pursuant to a SB 90 claim previously submitted (FY 76/77, 77/78, 78/79, 79/80, 80/81, 81/82, 82/83) D. Cost Breakdown 1. Salaries and Benefits (Show the position/title of persons involved, describe the specific functions performed relative to the mandate, and budgeted hourly salary.) Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/83 - 6/30/84 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 r 2. Services and Supplies (Only expenditures identified as a direct cost resulting from the mandate can be claimed. List costs of goods acquired that have been consumed or expended specifically for the purposes of this workphase. Travel and subsistence expenses are paid in accordance with rules of the local jurisdiction. Compensation for use of equipment is allowable through a use allowance or depreciation during the period it is assigned to the work phase.) Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/83 - 6/30/84 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 3. Professional and Consultant Services (Show name of each consultant, describe reasons for hiring consultants, specify functions consultants performed relative to the mandate, length of appointment, and itemized costs for such services. Indicate other work consultant performed for your jurisdiction during this period. Provide documentation of cost, invoice copies, etc.) Actual Costs Estimated costs 7/1/83 - 6/30/84 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 2of4 Revised 6/84 Allowable Indirect Overhead Costs (State used (Indirect costs may only be claimed through an indirect cost rate proposal prepared in accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A87. Generally, this provides for a cost rate based on a percentage of direct salaries and wages. Indirect costs may include costs of space, equipment, utilities, insurance, administration, etc. Such costs must not otherwise be treated as direct costs. The indirect cost rate percentage used must be shown on the claim. Calculations or an explanation of the derivation of the rate should be attached to the claim. If the rate is different from one used in a current coastal grant, explain the difference.) Actual Costs 7/1/83 - 6/30/84 SUB -TOTALS: Estimated Costs 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 5. Use this space to show budget breakdown by work tasks claimed under this category. 3of4 Revised 6/84 0 0 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING DATA AND INFORMATION Responses to all of the following questions must be provided for each category of costs and for each work task item for which a claim is submitted. Indicate whether the response applies to actual and/or estimated costs. Responses applicable to estimated costs (if not the same) may be less detailed than for actual costs. Failure to respond to these questions and items result in a negative recommendation to the Controller and may result in a denial of the claim by the Controller. 1. Specify by each work task how costs claimed relate to the Coastal Act of 1976, or to the local government's approved Local Coastal Program Work Program. 2. Where planning costs are claimed, specify the type of planning work done, broken down by work task, (i.e., work on elements of General Plan, specific plans, agricultural feasibility, public access, etc.). Be as specific as possible, referring to actual products of the effort. Please do not submit the products unless requested by the Commission. 3. Was the proposed work for which reimbursement is claimed reviewed with the Coastal Commission or its staff before costs were incurred? With whom was the work discussed? • 4. If costs are claimed by departments other than planning, provide a description of the type of work done, demonstrative how it relates to the Coastal Act or the LCP. 5. If costs are claimed for work that is related to work supported by a grant from the Coastal Commission, explain how the costs claimed are different from those covered by the grant agreement. 4of4 Revised 6/84 CA PFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION" TOi FROM: 631 Howard Strait, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 April 30, 1984 Interested Parties Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director RECEIVED, Planning PePartment MAY 7 1984r. CITY OF �4EwPCRrBEAC, I 6AWF. �A< SUBJECT: Notice of Proposed Changes to the California Coastal Management Program (Local Coastal Program Certification and 1983 California Coastal Act revisions) Background. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA), esta is ed a voluntary program to encourage states to develop and implement programs to manage the nation's coastal resources. The CZMA is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The CZMA established minimum standards for state coastal management programs. In 1977, NOAA approved the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) as meeting the standards of the CZMA. The CCMP carries out the policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code, Division 20), which is administered by the California Coastal Commission. The CZMA requires federal agencies to carry out their activities and programs which directly affect the coastal zone in a manner "consistent to the maximum extent practicable" with approved state coastal management programs. In addition, applicants for federal licenses, leases, or permits which affect the coastal zone, and local governments receiving federal financial assistance for activities which affect the coastal zone, must conduct their activities in a manner "consistent" with approved state coastal management programs. Routine Program Implementation. Under the requirements of the CZMA and its Tmp ement ng regulations, changes to California's approved state coastal management program can be incorporated into the CCMP either as "amendments" or as "routine program implementation." The federal regulations (15 C.F.R. 923.80 - 923.84) define an amendment as a substantial change to -the program, while routine program implementation is further detailing of the program that does not change the program's basic policies, criteria, or uses subject to management. Local Coastal Programs. A major component of the CCMP is the preparation, by 'oagovernments, o ocal Coastal Programs (LCPs). The purpose of the LCPs Is to conform local land use plans and implementing ordinances with the policies of the California Coastal Act. Each LCP must be submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and certification that the LCP reflects the Coastal Act policies to the extent necessary to achieve the State's basic goals for the coastal zone. Until an LCP has been certified, virtually all development within the coastal zone requires a coastal permit from the Commission, as well as a local permit from the city or county in which the development will be located. After certification of an LCP, the Commission's regulatory authority over most types of development is transferred to the local government, subject to limited appeal to the Commission. However, the federal consistency review authority remains with the Commission. As required by the CZMA, the standard for this review is consistency with the state's coastal management program as a whole. In this review, the Commission looks to all relevant elements of the CCMP. This includes the LCPs, which refine Coastal Act policies in light of local circum- stances. The LCPs therefore must be incorporated into the CCMP. None of LCPs that the Commission has certified as being consistent with the California Coastal Act has changed the fundamental principles of the CCMP or the uses subject to its management. Rather, the LCPs have refined the polices of the Coastal Act by applying them -to specific geographic areas within the local jurisdiction. Because the LCPs constitute detailing and refinement to the basic program established by the Coastal Act, 1 have determined that they are "routine program implementation." I intend to formally notify NOAA of this determination on June 1, 1984, request NOAA's concurrence in this determination, and ask that the changes be incorporated into the federally -approved California Coastal Management Program. 1983 California Coastal Act Amendments. In its 1983 session, the California _LegUlature we a_ e►-c _atm-s- t"m Coastal Act. A copy of these changes is attached. The 1983 changes are technical or clarifying in nature; none them ` modify the fundamental principles or components of the CCMP. Therefore, I have determined on behalf of the Commission that these changes constitute routine implementation as defined in the applicable federal regulations. I am notifying NOAA of this determination today, requesting NOAA's concurrence in this determination, and asking that these changes be incorporated into the federally approved California Coastal Management Program. Public Comments. Under the applicable federal regulations (15 C.F.R. 923.83 nterested parties have three weeks from the date I submit the LCPs and the California Coastal Act changes to NOAA to comment on whether the LCPs and the Coastal Act changes constitute amendments to the CCMP or routine program implementation. Comments on whether the Legislature should have made the changes to the Coastal Act or whether the Commission should have certified the LCPs are not considered relevant by NOAA at this point. I am notifying the public in advance of my submitting the LCPs to NOAA because prudent fiscal management prohibits me from sending a complete copy of each LCP to everyone on the Commission's extensive mailing list. If you are interested in reviewing any of the LCPs, copies are available for review during normal working hours at the Commission's headquarters office in San Francisco and in other Commission offices as noted. During -the next three months, I will submit the Coastal Act changes and LCPs to NOAA as indicated by the following schedule. -3- • The 1983 Legislative changes to the California Coastal Act are being submitted to NOAA today; public comments on these changes will be accepted by NOAA through May 22, 1984. **************************************** The following LCPs will be submitted to NOAA on June 1, 1984; public comments on these LCPs will be accepted by NOAA through June 22, 1984. Local Coastal Program and Certification Date Commission Area Office Point Arena Amendment 1-83 (9/14/83) Point Arena Amendment 2-83 (12/1/83) Marin County Amendment 3-83 (12/1/83) San Mateo County Amendment 2-83 (11/30/83) Santa Cruz County (1/13/83). subsequent Amendments (1-83, 2-83, 3-83), and Post -certification maps North Coast Area Office 350 E Street, 4th floor Eureka, CA 95501 North Coast Area Office Headquarters Office 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Central Coast Area Office 701 Ocean Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Central Coast Area Office The following LCPs will be submitted to NOAA on July 1, 1984; public comments on these LCPs will be accepted by NOAA through July 22, 1984. Local Coastal Program and Certification Date Commission District Office Santa Barbara County (8/11/82)' South-central Coast Area Office 735 State Street, Suite 232 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Comments.should be sent to: Pacific Regional Manager Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 3300 Whitehaven'Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 CALI• NIA COASTAL COMMISSION* 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555 April 30, 1984 1983 Changes to the California Coastal Act The changes to the California Coastal Act in 1983 are not "amendments" to the state's coastal management program as defined in 15 CFR 932.80 (c) because they do not make substantial changes in either the Coastal Act's basic goals and policies or in the coastal zone boundary. Because the focus of much of the legislative debate surrounded the Coastal Commission's budget, there were very few policy changes in the Coastal Act. The changes that were made were minor, technical, non -substantive, or clarifying amendments. These changes include: (1) Section 30119 (Ch. 143, Cal._Stats. 1983) 30119. "State university ee ee-l-lege" means the University of California and the California State University and ee-l-leges.- Analysis: This is a technical amendment that simply corrects the Coastal Act terminology to that now used by the State University system. (2) Section 30212 (Ch. 744, Cal. Stats. 1983) 30212. (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new develop- ment projects except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for main- tenance and liability of the accessway. (b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not include: (1) Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610. (2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family resi- dence; provided, that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area, height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent, and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure. (3) improvements to any structure which,do not change the intensity of its use, which do not increase either the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure,by more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede public access, and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by'the structure. . Page Two Section 30212 (cont.) (4) The reconstruction or repair of (5) Any repair or maintenance act v ty for which the commissi�on', has determined, pursuant to Section 30610, that a coastal develop- ment permit will be required unless the regeena�-eeinmao#en-er-the commission determines that ouch the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access acng the beach. As used in this subdivision, "bulk" means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure. (c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. Analysis: This is a restatement of existing law which codifies the Commission's administrative interpretation of Sections 30212 and 30610 (d) and (g). (3) Section 30233 (Ch. 454., Cal. Stats. 1983) 30233. •(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open doastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal -dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. (3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities,•a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service facilities shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the - placement of structural ilin s for up blic recreational iersstthat rye access and recrnaeopportunities. (5) incidental pu5i c service purposes, Including, But not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. Page Three Section 30233 (cont.) (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, -except in environmentally,sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource -dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration'of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the 19 coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise In accordance with this division. For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay" means that not less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be developed or improved, where such improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities. (d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on watercourses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients which would otherwise.be•carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for such purposes are the method of placement, time of year of Llacement, and sensitivity of the placement area. Analysis: This is a technical amendment to remove any ambiguity in existing law. This amendment makes it clear that the placement of new pilings for recreational piers is consistent with the Coastal Act's wetland policy. This allows the storm -damaged piers to be rebuilt and restored by replacing the old damaged piling with new pilings. Page Four (4) Section 30237, '(Ch.: 1203,' Cal.. Stats,.• 1983) Page Five Analysis: This addition to the Coastal Act allows the Coastal Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game to jointly prepare a "habitat conservation plan" for the Bolsa Chica area. If Orange County, the landowner, the Conservancy, and Fish and Game prepare a plan that is determined by the Coastal Commission to be consistent with Coastal Act policies, then the habitat conservation plan can be incorporated into the County's LCP. This addition to the Coastal Act only author.Fzes the Conservancy and Fish and Game to prepare this plan; there are no substantive changes to Coastal Act policies or to the Commission's review authority. (5) Section 30411 (Ch. 1300, Cal. Stats. 1983) 30411. (a) The Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission are the principal state agencies reponsible for the establishment and control of wildlife and fishery management programs and neither the commission nor any regional commission shall establish or impose any controls with respect thereto that duplicate or exceed regulatory controls established by such these agencies pursuant to specific statutory requirements or authorization. (b) The Department of Fish and Game, in consultation withihe commission and the Department of Navigation and lessen Bevelopment Boating and Waterways, may study degraded wetlands and identify those which can most feasibly be restored in conjunction with development of a boating (ability as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 30233. Any such study shall include consideration of all of the following: (1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural processes so substantially impaired that it is not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity without major restoration activities. (2) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in no event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facil- ities project. (3) Whether restoration of -the wetland's.natural values, including its biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjuction with a boating facility or whether there -are other feasible ways to achieve such values. (c) The.Legislature finds and declares that salt water or brackish water aquaculture is a coastal -dependent use which should be encouraged to .augment food supplies and to further the policies set forth in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 825) of Division 1. The Department of Fish and Game may identify coastal sites it deems appropriate for aquaculture facilities. If the department identifies such these sites, it shall -do se by Geteber-l7-19807 and shall by the sen+e date transmit information identifying seek Page Six Section 30411 (cont.) the sites to the commission and the relevant local government agency. The commission, and where appropriate, local governments shall, consistent with the coastal planning requirements of this division, provide for as many coastal sites, identified by the Department of Fish and Game for sueh any uses as that are consistent with the policies of chapter 3 (commencing with Section•30200) of this division. (d) Any agency of the state owning or managing land in the coastal zone for public purposes shall be an active participant in the selection of suitable sites for aquaculture facilities and shall make the land available for use in aquaculture when feasible and consistent with other policies of this division and other provision of law. Analysis: The technical changes were requested by the Legislative Counsel to correct grammar and terminology regarding the Department of Boating and Waterways, and to eliminate the "sunset" date for the determination of aquaculture sites along the coast. (6) Section 301411'9' (Ch. '8'2-4 , 'Cal-. Stats . 1983 ) Analysis: This section formalizes the Department of Boating and Waterways' comments on the economic feasibility of any boating facility. The Department's comments are advisory. (7) Section 30517.5 (Ch. 7471 Cal. Stats. 1983) 30517.5. (a) Within 60 days from the effective date of this section, the commission shall establish a schedule for the submittal of all land use plans that have not been submitted, pursuant to Section 3050i, to a former regional commission of the commission on or before July 1, 1981. This schedule shall be based on the commission's assessment, in consultation with local governments, of each local government's current status and progress. The schedule shall specify that submittals may not be made sooner than nor later than certain specified dates and in no event later than January 1, 1983. Page Seven Section 30517.5 (cont.) .(b) If a local government fails to meet the schedule established pursuant to subdivision (a), the commission may take any of the following actions: (1) Waive the deadlines for commission action on a submitted land use plan, or any portion thereof, as set forth in Sections 30511 and 30512. (2) Prepare and adopt, after a public hearing but not sooner than January 1, 1984, a land use plan for the land area within the loc` gr ovenment s jurisdiction. After adop- tion of the land use plan, the commission shall determine the permissibility of proposed developments pursuant to the provisions of the adopted plan. The affected local government may choose to adopt, in whole or in part, the commission's prepared and adopted land use plan in which event the commission shall certify the plan, in whole or in part,'or it may continue to prepare its own land use plan consistent with the provisions of this chapter. (3) Report the matter to the Legislature with recommendations for appropriate action. Analysis: This is the rare example of a nonsubstantive "spot bill" becoming law. It authorizes the Commission to prepare and adopt a land use plan (LUP) for a "tardy" local government after January 1, 1984. This would obviously have been possible had the original September 1, 1983 date not been changed. (a) Section 30605 and 30606 (Ch. 600, Cal. Stats. 1983) 30605. To promote greater efficiency for the planning of any public works or state university or college or private university development projects and as an alternative to"project-by-project review, plans for public works or state university'or college or rivate university long-range land use development plans may be submitted oft e�regsea ea e�n+msesiess at%d the commission for review in the same manner prescribed for the review of local coastal programs as set forth in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500). If any seech plan for public works or state university or college development project is submitted prior to certification of the local coastal programs for the jurisdictions affected by the proposed public works, the commission shall certify whether such the proposed plan is consistent with the previsions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). The commission shall, by regulation, provide for the submission and distribution to the public, prior to public hearings on the plan, detailed environmental information sufficient to enable the commission to determine the consis- tency of the plans with the policies of this division. If.any such plan for public works is submitted after the certification of local coastal programs, any such plan shall be approved by the commission only if it finds, after full consultation with the affected local governments, that the proposed plan for public works is in conformity with certified local coastal programs in jurisdictions affected by the proposed public works. Each state university or college or private univerjsjtX shall coordinate and consult with local government in the preparation of long-range development plans so as to be consistent, Page Eight Section 30605 and 30606 (cont.) to the fullest extent feasible, with the appropriate local coastal program. Where a plan for a public works or state university or college or private uunniveer_siit_y development project has been certified by the commis' —won, any subsequent review by the commission of a specific project contained in such the certified plan shall be limited to imposing conditions consistent w3Tit Sections 30607 and 30607.1. A certified long-range development plan may be amended by the state university or college or priva,te universit , but no such amendment shall take effect until -it as een c�ed by the commission. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted to, and processed by, the regional commission or the commission in the same manner as prescribed for amendment of a local coastal program. 30606. Prior to the commencement of any development pursuant to Section 30605, the public agency proposing the public works project, or state university or college or private university, shall notify the commission and other interested persons, organ^ zations, and governmental agencies of the impending development and provide data to show that it is consistent with the certified public works plan or long-range development -plan. No development shall tape place within 30 working days after such the notice. Analysis: This change in the Act allows private universities in the coastal zone to be treated like public institutions of higher learning. Pursuant to this change, both private and public universities can prepare long-range development plans. This is no real substantive change since the Commission had proposed to Pepperdine University (the only private university in the coastal zone) the option of preparing a "master permit" for its proposed expansion, which would have been analogous to public university long-range development plans. (9) Section 30715 (Ch. 584, Cal. Stats. 1983) 30715. (a) Until such time as a port master ,plan or any portion thereof has -Veen certified, the commission and-regdenai-eeaunissiens shall permit developments within ports as provided for in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600). After a port master plan or any portion thereof has been certified, the permit authority of the commission provided in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600) shall no longer be exercised by-Ilse-regienai-eeaunssa$en-er by the commission over any new development contained in such the certified plan or any portion thereof and shall at that time be Me egated to the appropriate port governing body, except that approvals of any of the following categories of development by the port governing body may be appealed to the commission: 40 (1) Developments for the storage, transmission, and processing of liquiened natural gas and crude oil in such quantities as would have a significant impact upon the oil and gas supply of the state or nation or both the state and nation. A development which has a significant impact shall be defined in the master plans. Page Nine Section 30715 (cont.) 4b} (2) Waste water treatment facilities, except for those facilities; which process water waste water discharged incidental to normal port activities or by vessel 4e} (3) Roads or highways: -which are not principally for internal circulation within the'port boundaries. 4d} (4) office and residential buildings not principally devoted to the administration of activities within the port, hotels, motels, and shopping facilities not principally devoted to the sale of commercial goods utilized for -water -oriented purposes; commercial fishing facilities; and recreational small craft marina related facilities. 4e} (5) oil refineries. 44} (6) Petrochemical production plants. 'Analysis: This is a technical, clarifying amendment to make it clear that maintenance dredging, which is not a development for permit review, is not an issue for the Commission to review on any appeal of a port district's permit decisionThe change simply codifies an existing administrative practice of the Commission. State of California, George Deuk*1 Governor 0 California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415)543-8555 February 21, 1984 Pat Temple, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Re: LCP Grant 360 Dear Ms. Temple: Your time extension request was referred to me by Mr. Steve Scholl, and has been reviewed with Commission staff; no objections to your request have been raised. This letter is to notify you that your grant has been extended to September 30, 1984. Because we only recently learned that Phase III Federal grant funds have been extended, we were not able to notify you earlier of your extension. The necessary grant amendment documents are now being processed in this office and should be sent to you soon. You should continue with all tasks specified by your approved work programs to meet the new deadline date. If you have any questions please call me. Sincerely, ,/ ¢� � Bill Van Beckum Coastal Planner cc: Bob Joseph, District Office -"z BVB:eds N r :w X �'.' `, lPjan pg ID ni FEB 2 7498-0 s b1 7-Y OF NEWPORT E3E 4CH, CALIF. . State of California, George Deuk , Governor Li California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 February 14, 1984 Patricia Temple Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 RE: LCP Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 Amendment 1 Dear Ms. Temple: RECEn�gO pion ent pepa�m 4 r F�,6 Z�'1g8 cITY BF�+cr►t4enpoKr2), Enclosed are four (4) copies of the agreement listed above between the Coastal Commission and your jurisdiction. Please have your authorized official sign ALL FOUR COPIES. Keep the original for your records, and RETURN THREE COPIES to my attention. Upon being sign by your authorised official, this Agreement becomes fully executed. If you have any questions or problems regarding this Amendment, please call me at the above number, extension 289. Sincerely, Deborah Braver Contracts and Grants Manager Enclosures RECEIVED planning Department rap% 5 1984 +► cITY OF NEWpoRT BEACH MIF. STANDARD AGREEMENT — ATTWYO OBY THE ENERAL STATE OF. CALIFORNIA STO. 2 (REV. 11/75) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 29th day of December , 19__$, in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting ❑ CONTRACTOR ❑ STATE AGENCY ❑ DEPT. OF GEN. See. ❑ CONTROLLER 0 TITLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR STATE AGENCY NUMBER Executive Director I California Coastal Commission LCP—360-153 A/1 hereafter called the State, and City of Newport Beach hereafter Called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) AMENDMENT ONE The purpose of this amendment is to extend the term of agreement by nine months to a new termination date of September 30, 1984. All other terms and conditions shall remain the same. (Program Code 130) The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. M wTTNp'CQ 1BFTtr]7Fr1F th;q ROTPPmPnt has hPen executed be the narties hereto. upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR AGENCY (T California oast on CONTRACTOR (IF OTHFP TN AN A IN DI vi pV Al, ITATC wN CTNC A cDn PonAfloN PARTNERSHIP. CTC.1 C]�tET O Newport Beach BY (AUTHORIZED SIGN R BY AU O IZE O ATV 1 TITLE William Travis, Deputy Director TI TL IE City Manager ADORE Box 1768, Newport Beach, 9:2663-381 ICON TINNED ON USX cETS EACH BEARING N4ME OF CON TR4CT0 R1 Department of General Services AMOUNT ENCUMBERED 33, 000. M APPROPRIATION FUND Local Coastal Progr ms Use ONLY S UNENCUMBERED BALANCE I01-, #9420 T-I T120-44 5101IL-T13 FISCAL YEAR I hereby certify that S this contract is exemp ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE FUNCTION from Executive Order S California Coastal Commission D-83-18, and is not ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT subject to Dept. of q Local Assistance General Services I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted fund T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. approval. are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure staled above. SIGNATU E OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE I hereol certify that al and' for exemption set forth In State Administrative Glanual Section 1209 have been ca I ocument is exempt from review by the Department of Finance. JC��h'N&IL12/29/83 Deborah Braver SIGN 4TU RE 1 ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY DATE 12/29/83 W r " Siate of California, George Deuk* Gdv'ernor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 August 19, 1983 James 0. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660-3884 Re: Local Coastal Program Grants Dear Mr. Hewicker: RECEOVED N AUG2 21983►- CITr OF NEWPORT SFACH, CALIF. We have now entered the final year (1983-84) of the LCP grant program. In previous memos, (September, 1982 and January, 1983), you have been notified of the impending termination of this program. The purpose of this memo is to emphasize that grant deadlines are rapidly approaching and that there.will.be.no.extensions•..to•these.deadlines. State law mandates LCP submission to the Commission by December 31, 1983. The federal government, which provides 80% of the funding for the LCP grant program, has required that grants be terminated concurrently with state mandated deadlines. Grant program deadlines are as follows: Phase•III•(Zoning),Grants Expiration Date: Maximum possible extension: December.31,.-1983 (Some grants expire earlier) March.31,.1984 This extension is possible IT.and.onl-,if the LCP has een submitted to the Commission by December 31, 1983 THE COMMISSION DOES NOT FORESEE THAT THESE DEADLINES WILL BE EXTENDED. Phase-IV.(Start=up).Grants A modest amount of funding has been set aside for implementation grants to fund zoning adoption and one-time permit start-up costs. These grants are available if a zoning work program has been approved by the Commission and if the district director determines that these tasks can be accomplished without impeding the progress of an ongoing zoning work program. ADolications.for.this.orant.Droaram.should.be.submi-tted.b-v-.December.31, /I -q 0 The Commission looks forward to completion of the LCP review process. If you foresee any difficulties meeting the grant deadlines discussed above, or if you have any questions, please call Steve Scholl, LCP Grants Administrator at the central office (415) 543-8555. Sincerely, Robert G. Brown SAS Deputy Director for Land Use RGB/ay t State of California, George Deukmis Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 April 29, 1983 Patricia Temple, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 RE: LCP GRANT NO. LCP5-360-153 Dear Ms. Temple: Enclosed is the fully executed original of the above numbered Agreement between the Coastal Commission and your jurisdiction. Please keep it with your other records. If you have any questions or problems regarding this Agreement, please call me at the above number, extension 289. Sincerely, D"k P-�� Deborah Braver Grants & Contracts Manager Enclosure iriyy2 -ter T' ' 1• r r�pTHE ElCONTRACTOR STANDARD AGREEMENT ATT ♦ GPNERAL' • STATE AGENCY STATE OF,CALIFORNIA I ❑ STD, 2 (REV. tt/TS) DEPT. OF GEN. SER. El CONTROLLER THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of January 19 83 ❑ in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, ❑ qualified and acting TITLE OF OFFICVER ACTING FOR STATE AGENCY NUMBER Executive tD�irector California Coastal Commission hereafter LCP5-360-153 callRt)itCy Otp, Wewport Beach hereafter called the Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Sot forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) SCOPE OF AGREEMENT The Contractor agrees to use grant funds provided by the State pursuant to this Agreement, for the purpose of preparing the Phase III of the Local Coastal Program (LCP), consisttent with the provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended. Phase III is an adaptation of local zoning ordinances to conform to the Phase II Land Use Plan approved by the State. The grant is awarded pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. APPROVALS This Agreement shall not take effect until it is approved by the California Department of General Services. (Program Code 130) The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this aoreement has been executed by the Battles hereto, upon the date first above written. STATE OF AL 1W A CONTRACTOR AGENCY California ssio CONTRACTOR OF OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL, STATE WHETHER A CORPORATION PARTNERSHIP. ETC.) City of Newport Beach BY IAUTNOR D G BY lAU HO ;ZED SIGN TU ,TLE William Travis, Deputy Director TITLE Robert L. Wynn, City Manager ;CONTINUED ON —SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR) ADDRESS P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Department of General Services Use ONLY AMOUNT ENCUMBERED 33,000.00 APPROPRIATION Local Coastal Progra FUND s UNENCUMBERED BALANCE ITEM SDF #942 CHAPTER 01-3720-44- STATUTES 01-13 FISCAL YEAR LICY RUaarT ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE - - FUNCTION California Coastal Commission d.a niofGr.ncralServices li�PPKOVED ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT Local Assistance APR2 71983 1 hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted fund are available for the period and purpose of the xpendlture slated above. T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. SIGNATURE OF -ACCOUNTING OFFICER tfU/N DATE 1/1/83 -"" Ass'. ht�(f lS 1 hereby certi that t' s xemption set forth to State Administrative Manual Section 1209 have bee c ❑ d s document is exempt from review by tits Department of Finance. SIGN TUR O G ON BEHALF OF THE AGENCY DATE 1. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Contractor in the performance of this contract. 2. The Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in the performance of this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of State of California. 3. The State may terminate this agreement and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Contractor should Contractor fail to perform the covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. The cost to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this agreement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid the Contractor upon demand. 4. Without the written consent of the State, this agreement is not assignable by Contractor either in whole or in part. S. Time is the essence of this agreement. 6. No alteration or variation of the terms of this contrpet shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 7. The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Contractor's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided. Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 2 1. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT (continued) Specifically, the Contractor shall 'comply with the attached budget, approved work program, and schedule, which are integral parts of this Agreement. In accepting the grant, the Contractor agrees to abide by the following conditions: I. The application, as submitted by the Contractor, is a part of this Agreement, and includes the following: a. The Resolution adopted by the legislative or policy body of the Contractor; and b. The Statement of Assurances. II. The Contractor will obtain prior written approval from the State for any changes in the work program, budget, or schedule before implementing such changes. III. The Contractor will administer the grant in accordance with, and subject to: written instructions from the State; the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972; the terms and conditions following herein; and the Guidelines for Grant Management for Coastal Zone Management Grants. 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The attached staff recommendation is an integral part of this Agreement. Standard Agreement No CP5-360-153 State of California, I George Deukme(ion, Gpwn»r California Coastal Commission South Coast District 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590.5071 City of Newport Be# - page 3 To: Commissioners and Interested Persons From: Robert Brown, Deputy Director for Land Use; February 10, 1983 Joan Lundstrom, LCP Grants Administrator; - - Dave Loomis, Chief Planner, South Coast District;i Gary Gleason, Coastal Analyst - Subject: City of Newport Beach, Phase III (Local Coastal Program Zoning and Implementation) Work Program and Grant Request (for public hearing and possible action at the Commission Hearing of February 22-25, 1983) Funding Request The City of Newport Beach requests approval of a Phase III Work Program and Grant for $56,953.50 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Phase III Work Program and approval of a grant not to exceed $33,000 subject to the following conditions: 1. The budget is amended to reflect a reduction in the dollar amounts allocated to City staff time and consultant time as indicated in Exhibit A. The Work Program is also amended to reflect an increase in the dollar amount allocated to operating expenses as indicated in Exhibit A. A maximum of $33,000 has been allocated to the City of Newport Beach for their Phase III (Zoning) Work Program under the Commission's grant priority program. 2. The Work Program is amended to specifically indicate the period of time for which the Work Program is in effect is limited to January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983. Should the City's Phase III Work Program extend beyond December 31, 1983, it is possible that work performed beyond that date may not be reimbursed due to federal grant deadlines. 3r. The Phase III Work Program is amended to delete references to the preparation of policy statements and the establishment Standard Agreement ' No. LOP5-360-153 " City of Newport Beach page 4 of policy language. The emphasis of the City's Phase III Work Program is the development of ordinances and regulations to carry out the provisions of the City's certified land use plan. The Phase III Work Program is amended to delete the proposed Coastal Circulation System Study. 5. The Phase III Work Program is amended to delete Phase IV Work " Tasks such as the preparation of a coastal permit procedures manual. fI,I 6. The Work Program is amended to delete Work Tasks not mandated .as Phase III Work Tasks, such as the preparation of cost `estimates for ordinance implementation. Background The City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) was conditionally certified by the Commission in November, 1981. The LUP, as conditionally certified, was later adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council in February, 1982. Subsequently, in May, 1982, the City received final certification for its land use plan. Analysis In order to implement the policies of its certified coastal land use plan, the Coastal Act in Section 30513 requires the City of Newport Beach to submit zoning ordinances, zoning district maps and where necessary, other implementing mechanisms to execute the policies of the City's land use plan. A major emphasis of the City's Phase III Work Program will be the evaluation of LUP policies in order to determine the most appropriate method of implementation. In addition, each land use designation in the City's LUP will have to be carefully reviewed in order to ensure that a corresponding zoning designation either exists or will be developed during Phase III. The following section evaluates each of the City staff's work task requests by category. In those areas where the Commission staff has recommended a reduction of City staff time requested, a justification has been pro- vided. Policy Implementation EVALUATION: This is the work task category where the City will develop regulations which will address diking, dredging and filling, lease of public properties, standards to protect archaeological and paleontological resources, require the provision of public access in new development, es- tablish ride sharing procedures as well as procedures to allow for joint use of parking in commercial development. The City has requested 37 staff days for Phase III work to be completed in this work task category. 'Standard Agreement • No. LCP5-360-153 " City of Newport Beach page 5 Staff time allocated to this category will also be provided in order to enable the City to review existing policies and determine where modifica- tions are necessary, draft revisions to ordinances as necessary and pre- pare for public review and City hearings. The Commission staff recommends the City be funded approximately 35 staff days in order to complete work in the policy implementation category. The Commission staff has also recommended conditions which are aimed at eliminating references to the preparation of policy statements or the establishment of new policy language. The development of policy language is not a Phase III work task. Commission staff has also recommended a limited reduction in the amount of City Attorney staff time proposed for this work task. Zoning EVALUATION: This is the work task category wherein the City proposes to do most of the work necessary to create new zone districts and amend existing zone districts in order to carry out the policies of the City's certified land use plan. The City has requested a total of 138 staff days (including) consultant time for the preparation of the work tasks in this category. Most of the work tasks proposed in this category are appropriate; however, the City has in this category, requested a total of 71 staff days of consultant time for the preparation of a Coastal Circulation System Study. Such a circulation study, although desirable, is further land use planning and is simply not eligible for reimbursement under a Phase III Work Program, the primary purpose of which is the de- velopment of ordinances. Therefore the Commission staff recommends that the 71 days of consultant time recommended fox t'_s work task be deleted. The City has identified specific zone districts which will need to be modified as part of this work task category, in addition, the City has cited those new zone districts which may have to be created in order to execute the policies of the City's certified land use plan. The City has proposed to utilize the services of a consultant to assist in the development of new and amended zoning ordinances. The Commission staff does not usually recommend the use of consultants in preparation of LCPs when City staff is available, because of the higher costs asso- ciated with consultant time. However, in this instance, the City has indicated that a consultant is proposed to perform some work tasks in this work category due in part to the consultant's expertise in the de- velopment of zoning ordinances. Therefore, the Commission staff recom- mends approval of 40 days of consultant staff time for use in this work category. A reduction in time has been recommended in this work task category to delete work task d) in this category (prepare cost estimates for implementation of the ordinances)since this is not a mandated cost in the -Phase III Work Program. Also, a small reduction in the amount of City Attorney time requested for this task has been recommended. Commission staff recommends 64 staff days for completion of the work tasks in this category. Standard Agreement No. LCP%-360-153 0 City of Newport Beach'" page 6 Intergovernmental Coordination EVALUATION: This is the work task category where the City will coordi- nate with other governmental agencies in implementing land use plan poli- cies. The City has requested a total of 12 staff days to complete work tasks in this category. However, after reviewing the amount of time requested for this work task category, the Commission staff has recommended a 50% reduction in the amount of staff time requested. Most of the work involving intergovernmental coordination should have been completed pre- viously as a Phase II Work task, and the Commission staff therefore rec- ommends a total of 6 staff days for completion of this work task category. Administrative Procedures EVALUATION: This is the work task category wherein the City will pre- pare procedures for the issuance of coastal development permits. These procedures will include among other tasks, a system for accepting, re- viewing and processing coastal permits as well as public hearing and notification requirements, appeal criteria and appeal procedures. The City has requested a total of 21 staff days for completion of this work task category. In addition to the above identified tasks, the City also proposes 10 staff days for the preparation of a coastal permit pro- cedures manual (work task d). This is a Phase IV work task and funding for this type of work task is available under a separate grant program. Therefore, the Commission staff has recommended a reduction in the amount of staff days necessary to complete this task to approximately 10 days. Administration EVALUATION: The City has requested a small amount of staff time (4) days to administer the Phase III Grant Program. The Commission staff recom- mends approval of the time requested for this work task category. Coastal Commission Hearings EVALUATION: The City has requested a total of 11 staff days for this work task category which will include review of the Commission's staff report on implementation, meetings with the Coastal Commission staff, and at- tendance at Commission hearings. The Commission staff recommends approval of 11 staff days for this work category as requested by the City. Operating Expenses EVALUATION: The City has requested only $1,800 for funding this category. The Commission staff recommends funding for this category be increased by $1,320. The City's request of $400 for copying and $200 for supplies appears extremely low. Standard Agreement No. LCP5-36o-153 City of Newport Beach page 7 / � cart w tllvro)rt 1Mtw P1As1 at! 1ulcer• - Citll\1T A tl1tY.tT tltTYGO.M• 5111A1tt5 ha faty PI .n.. AOv,nn. f_T,nn) T. n9 Srnwr it=—r N.br.nt T � Sum cf�u fon.vltmt Tut.l 1b�r1 Tout Cuu �T r A� oT=_tor letl[ 429N 275 T.f3i.Ts1 t 7.112.70 IV.ICS 121 -1- 31 11 I51) 50 115.1 %so INI 11 1161 Ill) 11 lT Ifftl A0 Well S0f (N.015.10) laOatC 21 t Its) 05 0Its Ila)) 1a01 io 121) a llq 79 111 1 1f1/ 9.103.33 O IT.LLIN 3.N6)] tYlaa,, "�M. IQ 2 1]31 11 INI 32 ] llNl t1.5 N,]Il.fq JdM.33 �M, f)�y�11 421 -1- lie) 7.5 PI 1 1151 33 111s) 33 11) IU 1 gill A 4601.M1 61,3.31 AWptl1flMTa[� NI 1 122) TS l01 • /N 101 1 1 Ise) N I3.U61q 3.13610 E00/ML COIMiMi011 l01 1 1201 20 1001 00 T1Ytai 101AL tl00Y 1221 •1' Illol 12.5 lssl N /I6I1330 Ufll 151 gill l] 9531 O (8fl) lL (1707) ]•A.S SVP01 IAMt 11.11S.121 0.139.50) 1.302.12 I1.f11.211 1.910.52 (4.2/1.1011,51. 119.797.16) 0.115.0 4517.001 517.40 I651.531 113.17 431.135) 11.2" II1131 103113 ISS.133.511I i]f.NO.M ORYTItC WICOZZ2 mPfttlo (OMI 1161 - Mt � GaY � l2M) fM - City Cam. 5[t([ 1VOt. �1�M�J� —11M pU]i tiYY TOPA)Sit 0AL1111t 11155.153.31) I13.880 oP14r3tlG Wf)Iftty 1.1M.101 310 fNJS).SH P].0.0M - • I13fttlo1 L 1v0t1At1 tytMfK alq atlluMt.1 M • 0 Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page B 3. WORK PROGRAM, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET The Contractor shall carry out the following work program, schedule and budget. 4. COST AND PAYMENT As compensation for the satisfactory performance of the work described in this Agreement, the State agrees to pay the Contractor a sum that shall not exceed $33,000.00. The Contractor will periodically submit to the State three copies of a signed invoice, known as the Request for Funds. Payments shall be made in arrears, not more often than monthly, when products or milestones as described in the approved Work Program are completed. Costs incurred for which no product is available may be substantiated by progress reports. Payments may be withheld if a progress report reveals that insufficient progress has been made toward completion of the tasks, or when the product is past due or unacceptable. The State's designated Project Coordinator, or the LCP Administrator, shall determine whether the performance of the work is satisfactory. Up to seventy-five percent (75%) of the total grant shall be paid prior to the Contractor submittin the LUP or the LCP to the State for certification. The final twenty-five percent ?25%) shall be paid upon submission of the completed LUP or LCP for certification, and/or upon completion of the work tasks as provided in the work program under this Agreement. 5. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983. -.Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 • City of Newport Beach • City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program page 9 Phase III - Zoning and Implementing Ordinances Work Program (As approved by the California Coastal Commission on February 24, 1983) Introduction The Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program establishes community policies and appropriate land uses within the Coastal Zone. Several separate types of actions will be necessary to implement the adopted Land Use Plan. These will include policies, ordinances, and intergovernmental coordination. In addition, administrative procedures for the issuance of coastal permits will need to be established. •These procedures will include application requirements, public hearing requirements, and appeal procedures. This work program outlines the major tasks which need to be completed during the implementation phase as well as a listing of items for action in the major task areas. These will be refined during the Phase III studies and in the subsequent public hearings. Policy Implementation. Many of the policies contained in the Land Use Plan are statements of the City's intentions and do not require development of a specific implementing ordinance or land use regulation. These statements of policy will be incorporated into a single ordinance entitled "Coastal Zone Policy Statement" for adoption. Other specific policies will require the development of a specific regulations which will be included in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Items included in this section are: 1. Establish regulations regarding dredging, diking, and filling. 2. Establish regulations regarding the lease of public properties. 3. Establish policies to protect archeological and paleontological resources. 4. Require provision of public access in new development. 5. Establish procedures to encourage ride -sharing and car-pooling to minimize traffic demands. 6. Establish procedures to allow joint use of parking of commercial development by coastal visitors. The budget requirements of this task include: City a) Research and document existing policies and ordinances; determine items requiring additional implementing actions b) Preparation of new and revisions to existing ordinances c) City Attorney Review d) Public review and hearings _ r. Man Days Consultant TOTAL 35 Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 • -z- • City of Newport Beach` page 10 Zoning Zoning. Perhaps the most comprehensive tool available to the City is the police power to control land uses through zoning. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program establishes several different land use designations. Some are similar to existing zoning designations, while others have been specifically created for the' Local Coastal Program. Each designation will have to be carefully reviewed and compared to existing provisions. Existing zoning districts will need to be altered or new districts created in order to implement the .Land Use Plan. Some of the policies contained in the land use plan can only be implemented by revisions or additions to the zoning code. Each of these will also have to be reviewed and compared to existing provisions and existing districts altered or new districts created. Items included in this section are: 1) Development of a Recreational and Marine Commercial Zoning District. 2) Revisions to existing -Commercial Zoning Districts as required. 3) Revisions �o existing Open Space Zoning Districts as required. 4) Develop a core Planned Community Text or revision to existing Planned Community District. 5) Regulation of the location of structures on vacant parcels. 6) Requirements for the provision of public access in new development. 7) Development of any special zoning districts or chapters as required. Budget requirements of this task include: Man Days City Consultant a) Research and preparation of new and revised zoning districts b) Research and preparation of P-C Text c) City Attorney Review d) Public Review and Hearings TOTAL 24 , 40 Intergovernmental Coordination. Intergovernmental coordination will be vitally important in implementing many of the policies of the Land Use Plan. Local, State, and Federal agencies will all be involved. These include the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine; the County of Orange; State Departments of Transportation, Fish and Game, and Water Resources; and Federal agencies including Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers. Standard Agreement • • No. LOP5-360-153 3- City of Newport Beach page 11 The City is currently working with all of these agencies and has a good relationship with most of them. Methods of continuing and improving relations with other agencies at both the staff and political levels will be explored in order to achieve mutual goals and establish programs of mutual benefit. The funding requirements for this task include: Man Days City Consultant a) Coordination of input from other tasks. b) Identification of specific projects and programs involving other agencies c) Meetings and communication d) Revisions to other tasks _ TOTAL 6 0 Administrative Procedures. In addition to the implementation programs discussed above, the City is required to establish administrative procedures for the issuance of coastal permits. These procedures should include an application process, review procedure, review criteria, public review and input process, public hearing requirements, appeal criteria,. and appeal procedure. The administrative procedures should be integrated into existing City procedures and policies to the extent possible. The budget requirements will be as follows: r Man Days City Consultant a) Research requirements of Coastal Act and Coastal Commission for local issuance of permits b) Research requirements of Coastal Act and Coastal Commission for appeal of local decisions c) Review all existing City procedures d) City Attorney Review e) Public Review and Hearings TOTAL 10 0 Standard Agreement Nor L6P5-360-153 `4'.. City of Newport-BeacFi page 12 Administration. Staff time will be required to administer the Phase III - Zoning and Implementing Ordinances Grant. Budget requirements will be as follows: Man Days City Consultants a) Administration of LCP Phase III Grant 4 0 TOTAL 4 0 Coastal Commission Hearings. Upon completion of the Zoning and Implementing ordinances phase of the Local Coastal Program, the documents will have to be reviewed and approved by -the California Coastal Commission. Budget requirements will be as follows: l a) Review of Coastal Staff Report on Implementation Program b) Meetings with Coastal Commission Staff c) Preparation of City responses to Coastal Commission concerns d) Attendance at Coastal Commission hearings Man Days City 4 1 5 r 1 TOTAL 11 Consultants no C on I Summary Requirements for the implementation phase based on the individual tasks outlined above are: Policy Implementation Zoning Intergovernmental Coordination Administrative Procedures Administration Coastal Commission Hearings Man Days City Consultant TOTAL 90 90 ,Standard Agreement No:CP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 13 NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Phase III - Activity Schedule Activity categories are as described in the approved Phase III Work Program and funding request. Completion Activity Time -Frame Product Policy Implementation 1.5 months Various amendments March 1, 1983 - to the Newport Beach April 15, 1983 Municipal Code to (29.75 man days) implement LUP policies. Zoning 2.5 months Various Amendments to April 15, 1983 - Chapter 20 of the June 30, 1983 Newport Beach Municipal (56.125 man days) Code. Administrative 1 month Amendment to NBMC Procedures July 1, 19B3 - establishing Coastal July 31, 1983 Development Permit (10.4375 man days) procedures. Intergovernmental 1 month Circulation of Coordination August 1, 1983 - implementing ordinances August 31, 1983 to other agencies. (6 man days) Administration March 1, 1983 - December 31, 1983 (4 man days) Local Public Hearings 2 months September 1, 1983 - October 31, 1983 (12 man days) Coastal Commission Hearings 1 month November 1, 1983 - November 30, 1983 (11 man days) Revisions, City Approval 1 month Certified Local Coastal and Certification December 1, 1983 - Program December 31, 1983 (2.5 man days) PLT:nma 3/7/83 Standard Agreement • • f No. LCP5-360-153 �t ' City of Newport Beach 1�I page 14 6. TERMINATION During this term, either party may terminate this Agreement at will by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination, the Contractor shall take whatever measures are necessary to prevent further costs to the State under this Agreement. The Commission shall be responsible for any reasonable and noncancellable obligation incurred by the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement up to the effective date of termination. This amount shall not exceed the balance of the total funds unobligated under this Agreement at the time of termination. All material produced as a result of this Agreement shall become the property of the State upon termination of the Agreement. This Agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available by the California Budget Act of 1982 and the United States government, for the fiscal year 1982-83 for the purposes of this program, and only if the Federal Grant requested by the State is approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, this Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, or conditions enacted by the California Legislature or by the Congress of the United States, in the Budget Act or any other statute enacted by the Legislature or the Congress, which may affect the provisions, terms, or funding or this Agreement in any manner. It is mutually understood that this Agreement may have been written before October 1, 1982, and before Congressional appropriation of funds, for the benefit of both parties, to avoid program and fiscal delays which would occur if the Agreement were executed after October 1, 1982. It is mutually agreed that if the California Legislature and/or the U.S. Congress do not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Agreement shall be amended to reflect any reduction in funds. 7. SUBCONTRACTING Except as provided in the attached staff report, the Contractor shall not enter into any sub -contract exceeding $10,000 for any of the work to be performed under this Agreement unless such sub -contract has first been approved by the State. Competitive bidding or request for proposals shall be used, and bid information must be included before the sub -contract can be approved. The costs of any sub -contract awarded which does not comply with these provisions shall not be eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement. 8. PROJECT COORDINATOR Joan Lundstrom, LCP Administrator (or her successor), is designated Project Coordinator for this Agreement. The Contractor shall consult directly with this Project Coordinator on questions or problems relating to this Agreement. Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 15 9. AUTHORITY Section 30334 of the Public Resources Code provides that: The Commission... may... contract for any private professional or governmental services if such work or services cannot satisfactorily be performed by its employees. 10. RESOLUTION I certify that at its meeting of February 24, 1983, the California Coastal Commission authorized the execution of this Agreement. �,IorJ� �ZjY� Contracts Manager CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 11. APPROVALS This Agreement is subject to the advance approval of the California Department of General Services. 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Pursuant to the California Coastal Commission Conflict of Interest Code, the Contractor or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974, which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interests. 13. TRAVEL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES When invoiced in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, and within the amounts shown in the project budget (Section 2), the Contractor shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses of its employees, and for other necessary expenses, at a cost not to exceed the rates allowable for State employees under the Rules of the State Department of Personnel Administration, as amended from time to time. Standard Agreement . • No. LCP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 16 13. CREDITS AND CITATIONS The cover or title page of any publication resulting from this Agreement shall include the following credit: This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and from the California Coastal Commission under the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. Reasonable credit for the Contractor's work shall be permitted on such publications. 14. FEDERAL GRANT CONDITIONS Because this Agreement is partially funded from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grant No. NA-81-AA-D-CZ064, it is subject to all conditions of that grant applicable to third party participation, and, in particular, the following: o Nondiscrimination. The Contractor assures that the work carried out under this Agreement will a conducted in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4) and the requirements imposed by the regulations of the Department of Commerce (30 Fed. Reg. 305; 15 CFR Part 8) issued pursuant to that Title, applicable and appropriate to the work supported by this Agreement. To ensure non-discrimination, the attached "Statement of Assurances" is an integral part of this Agreement. o Officials Not to Benefit. No member or delegate to Congress, or resident Federal Commissione_rs_,__sF_a7 be.admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit that may arise therefrom. o Access to Records and Ri ht to Audit. The Contractor agrees that the Comptroller Genera of t e Hite States or any of his/her duly authorized representatives, the Secretary of Commerce or any of his/her duly authorized representatives, and the duly authorized representatives of the California Coastal Commission shall, until the expiration of three years after expenditure of the funds under this Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the Contractor involving transactions related to this Agreement. The Contractor agrees that payments(s) made under this Agreement shall be subject to reduction for amounts charged thereto which are found on the basis of audit examination not to constitute allowable costs under this Agreement. The Contractor shall refund the necessary amount by check, payable to the California Coastal Commission. o Maintenance of Records. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and all questions arising therefrom are resolved, or three years after the termination of this Agreement, whichever is sooner. I . • r. .d • • s � Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 16 L] RESOLUTION NO. ]..O O 2 - 4 P I,q@)RET)gD AUG 17-19g1 MASTAL Q MI SS1CW A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE LAND USE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND THE WORK PROGRAM FOR PHASE III OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Coastal Act of 1976 requires the City of Newport Beach to prepare a Local Coastal Program; and WHEREAS, said Local Coastal Program will set forth the objectives, supporting policies and implementing ordinances which wil guide future development in the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the proposed Land Use Plan.and Development Policies has been reviewed by the Local Coastal Planning Advisory Committee in 26 public meetings, the Planning Commission in nine public hearings and the City Council in eight public hearings; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a proposed Land Use Plan and Development Policies (Exhibit "A") that reflects the concerns of members of the general public, 'the Local Coastal Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and further reflects the decisions of the City Council on each of the Land Use and Development Policies contain- ed therein; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has prepared a Work Program for Phase III (Exhibit "B") of the Local Coastal Program that reflects the work necessary to implement the Land Use Plan and Development Policies. Standard Agreement No. LCP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the proposed Land Use Plan and Development Policies of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program which is attached to this Resolution, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve the Work Program for Phase III of the Local Coastal Program which is attched to this Resolution marked Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the proposed Land Use Plan and Development Policies of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program to the Regional Coastal Commission for formal review and approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the Work Program for Phase III of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program and a pending application to the Regional Coastal Commission; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Newport Beach is hereby authorized and empowered to execute on behalf of the City of Newport Beach, all necessary ;- ontracts andagreements and amendments thereto, to 2 Standard Agreement • No. LOP5-360-153 City of Newport Beach page 18 provide funding assistance for Phase III of the Newport Beach CLocal Coastal Program. ATTEST: City Clerk ADOPTED thisili-h day of April , 1981. Mayor 041381 HRC/pr 3 ,�•+r►.; Standard Agreement No. LCP5-36o-153 . Sta nt of Assurances Form City of Newport Beach page 19 STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES The Applicant hereby assures and certifir, that he will comply with the regula- tions, policies, guidelines, and requirrim nts including OMB Circulars Nos. 74-4. A-95, and 74-7, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also, the Applicant assures and cer- tifies with respect to the grant that: I. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, m..,on or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, includ- ing all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing end authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the appli- cant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights -Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures neces-' sary to effectuate this agreement. 3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where, (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or, (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -aided activity. 4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the -Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L..41-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs. 5. It will comply with the provision of the Hatch Act which limits the poli- tical activity of employees. 6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational institution employees of State and local governments. 7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their posi- tions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 8. It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General, through any r authorized representative, the access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the federal grantor agency concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other admi- nistrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. 74-7. QqUT _� � Signature of Authorized Offitial � p��tVwll ^---truant AY2 1983�. t?EIVF�r State of California, Gwrye Devtunhi�ari. Govrnwr California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 March 18, 1983 Patricia Temple, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 RE: LCP GRANT NO. LCP5-360-153 Dear Ms. Temple: Enclosed are four (4) copies of the above numbered Agreement, between the Coastal Commission and your jurisdiction. Please have your authorized official sign all FOUR copies, and RETURN ALL FOUR COPIES TO THE COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION. UFF the necessary approvals-Tiave been obtained, the fully executed original will be returned to you. Because final approval takes approximately one month after the copies are returned, it is to your advantage to return them as quickly as possilbe. If you have any questions or problems regarding this Agreement, please call me at the above number, extension 289. Sincerely, 1!�borahbBra.Fver Grants & Contracts Manager Enclosures e 41. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 March 7, 1983 Ms. Joan Lundstrom Grants Administrator California Coastal Commission 631 Howard St., 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Joan: Enclosed is the requested Phase III Schedule based on the approved Work Program. Time frames have been estimated using a commencement date of March 1, 1983. We would, however, hope that the grant documents will show a January 1, 1983 start date, in that a small amount of the ordinance work has already been done. I hope this chart provides you with the information you require to complete the grant documents. If you need more information please call me at the above number. Thank you for your help and advice. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By I (.W u-O � Z • / �icC�a-- PATRICIA L. TEMPLE _T Senior Planner PLT:nma Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COROSTAL PROGRAM Phase III - Activity Schedule Activity categories are as described in the approved Phase III Work Program and funding request. Activity Policy Implementation Completion Time -Frame 1.5 months March 1, 1983 - April 15, 1983 (29.75 man days) Product Various amendments to the Newport Beach Municipal Code to implement LUP policies. Zoning 2.5 months Various Amendments to April 15, 1983 - Chapter 20 of the June 30, 1983 Newport Beach Municipal (56.125 man days) Code. Administrative 1 month Amendment to NBMC Procedures July 1, 1983 - establishing Coastal July 31, 1983 Development Permit (10.4375 man days) procedures. Intergovernmental 1 month Circulation of Coordination August 1, 1983 - implementing ordinances August 31, 1983 to other agencies. (6 man days) Administration March 1, 1983 - December 31, 1983 (4 man days) Local Public Hearings 2 months September 1, 1983 - October 31, 1983 (12 man days) Coastal Commission Hearings 1 month November 1, 1983 - November 30, 1983 (11 man days) Revisions, City Approval 1 month Certified Local Coastal and Certification December 1, 1983 - Program December 31, 1983 (2.5 man days) F 29.75+ 56.125+ 10.4375+ PIT:nma 0 5 3/7/83 96.5125* I George Deukm4W, Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415)543-8555 March 2, 1983 James D. Hewicker, Director of Planning City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Re: LCP Grant #360 (Zoning Program) Dear Mr. Hewicker: On February 24, 1983, the Coastal Commission approved a Phase III (Zoning) grant and work program for $33,000 for the City of Newport Beach. This grant will be for the period from January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1983. Contract documents are now being prepared and should be to you shortly. Until the executed grant agreement has been approved by the legal section of the California Department of General Services, the State cannot guarantee that costs incurred will be reimbursed, We do not expect any difficulties in getting this approval. You should receive an executed grant agreement three weeks from the date we receive the copies back from you, With.the above provision, you are hereby authorized to proceed with the work program and to incur costs on your project beginning January 1, 1983 If you have any questions, please contact me at (415) 543-8555. ULL;jc cc; Distr:kct; G&ry Gleason Sincerely, 0 4 4wdoieU Joan L. Lundstrom LCP Grant Administrator RECEIVF9 1 Awn; ig Dc^'.atm ont MAR4 1983► Ct flEWPORT F7 BE 8E.h6igt CAut:_ 6 0 Sedway/Cooke San Francisco • Los Angeles December 13, 1982 Mr. Bob Lennard Advance Planning Administrator Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Lennard: Urban and Environmental Planners and Designers 350 Pacific Avenue, Third Floor San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 433-0966 The Implementation (Phase 111) stage of the California Coastal Conservation Act is now beginning for many jurisdictions. We would like to convey to you our interest in assisting Newport Beach Planning Commission with this phase of the work. Our firm combines expertise in environmental planning with legal -administrative requirements and has already prepared several Phase III instruments. Sedway/Cooke has completed, is working on, or will soon be starting the Phase III implementation work for Humboldt County, Santa Cruz County, and Chula Vista. Of course, we have also completed many of the required coastal land use plans (Phase II) for coastal jurisdictions, and we have completed dozens of innovative and highly usable zoning ordinances and regulatory instruments for California. If you would be interested in discussing with us your needs relating to this highly demanding phase of the work, please let me know. Sincerely, rwDOOKE ay, P Principal �% RSCFI � C26198, 0 • i CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555 December 7, 1982 TO: ALL COASTAL ZONE PLANNING DIRECTORS FROM: BOB BROWN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND USE SUBJECT: COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON REGULATION 13537: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHECKOFF OF SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TIME LIMIT EXTENSION On Thursday, December 16, the Commission will discuss the matter of Regulation 13537 pertaining to time limits on "suggested modifications". I bring this matter to your attention as it may have a direct effect upon your schedule for LCP certification. Attachment CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555 December 1, 1982 TO: COMMISSIONERS FROM: BOB BROWN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND USE SUBJECT: EXTENSIONS.TO TIME PERIOD FOR LUP/LCP SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Commission's Regulations provide that LUP/I,CP suggested modifications are valid,,for;a period of six months after adoption by the Commission. The staff is recommending the Commission provide a one-time extension of 3 months for those suggested modifications that would otherwise "expire" by February 1, 1983. BACKGROUND: The Coastal Act provides that the Commission may (unless otherwise requested) identify "suggested modifications" which, if adopted by local government, would provide for a certified LUP/LCP where otherwise the program was found inconsistent. The Commission's adoption of such suggested modifications provides the policy language which the Commission identifies as responsive to the issue previously identified. The Coastal Act provides that,upon the determination of the Executive Director (and subsequent conformation by the Commission) that the local government has adopted these suggested modifications the program is deemed "certified". The Commission has, however, concluded that such "suggested modifications" are adopted based upon existing circumstances and information. They should, therefore, be subject to some time period after which the Commission would explicitly re-examine the suggested modifications to determine their continued responsiveness and reality. Consequently, the Commission's regulations, (adopted early in 1982) provides the suggested modifications are valid for Executive Director "check -off" for a period of six months or January 1, 1983, whichever occurs last. Therefore, on January 1, 1983, many suggested modifications will expire. ISSUE: Many local governments have not been sufficiently aware of the six month time limit of suggested modifications and will find the demise of the Executive Director "check -off" option an untimely and unfortunate "change" in their scheduled course of action for program completion. There are 23 jurisdictions out of 67 which are affected by the January 1, 1983 deadline (including segments, this accounts for 31 plans). In addition, there are four other Jurisdictions, whose plans were adopted with suggested modifications, which may be similarly affected by a lack of awareness of the deadline. In considera- tion of the time constraints necessary for local governments to bring about 0 • 2. an action of acceptance and the number of plans affected, staff recommends an one time, three month extension, to April 11 1983 be provided under Section 30S17 of the Coastal Act. The Commission may extend any LCP time deadline (except the due date for submittal of the completed LCP) for good cause. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the following finding supporting the extension of LUP/LCP suggested modifications which would otherwise expire by January 1, 1983. Such extension shall be for a three month period, until April 1, 1983. FINDINGS SUPPORTING EXTENSION Section 30517 of the Coastal act provides that the Commission may, for good cause, extend certain time limits established in the LCP process. The Commission concludes that due to lack of sufficient and explicit notice by the Commission, many local governments had not been adequately aware that the Commission's suggested modifications had an "expiration" period. The Commission finds that a three month extension of such expiration dates is necessary to permit an adequate response period for those local governments considering adoption o; the suggested modifications. Without such an extension, the Commission would require to expend limited staff and Commission resources for the review of programs previously adequately reviewed. The Commission further concludes that there has been no significant changes in law nor are there discernible changes in other underlying circumstances likely for this limited three month extension period. IFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSiON 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 October 18, 1982 TO: Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director FROM: William Travis, Deputy Director SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program Grant Funds I understand that some concern has been expressed because the percentage of the Commission's proposed 1983-84 budget allocated to local grants appears relatively small. This seems to be being misinterpreted that the Commission may be abandoning Its commitment to the LCP process, In fact, this statistical situation is a result of the termination of financial assistance to coastal states under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, As you know, the Commission passes the bulk of the funds it receives under the CZI.14 to local governments for their LCP work, The state funds the Commission provides to local governments are the 20% match required as a condition of receiving the federal funds. Because these federal funds will not be available next year, I suspect that our proposal to continue providing state funds to local governments will be met by some skepticism in the Department of Finance and the Legislature. Nevertheless, we are requesting that state funds be provided for the reasons explained below, 1977-1980, Between January 1, 1977 anclDecember 31, 1980, we provided local governments with a total of $6,264,812 in federal funds and matching state funds. Because the federal grant under which these funds were available expired at the end of 1980, we had to close out the account and revert any unspent funds. A total of $1,098,266 had to be thus reverted because local governments had spent only $5,166,546 of the total we had awarded to them, 1981-1984. We are currently operating under a federal grant which extends from January 1, 1981 through June 30, 1984, Because it is a continuing grant, we are able to carry the federal funds from one state fiscal year to another. We currently have $ji,253,212 in state and federal funds for LCP grants, Of this, $2,195,000 has been awarded to local governments, leaving $2,058,212 still available for award. Moreover, of the $2,195,000 awarded, only $995,000 has been spent by local governments. Thus, local governments have $1,200,000 in unspent funds avalalble to them, and we have another $2,058,212 available for additional awards to cover costs between now and the end of the state's 1983-84 fiscal year. The federal government has prohibited us from spending federal funds for LUP work after the December 31, 1982 deadline established in the Coastal Act for the completion of this work. Similarly, we are prohibited from spending federal funds on LCP work that takes place after December 31, 1983, Because ot- these restrictions and to cover any unexpected LUP and LCP costs, we are proposing that $180,000 in state funds be included in our 1983-84 budget for local government grants. This will bring the total available for local grants to $2,238,212. our estimates indicate that is will be more than adequate to complete the LCPs and implement them in the next budget year. Nevertheless, we are also requesting that $400,000 be provided to reimburse local governments for any unexpected costs under SB 90 and that $100,000 be available for LUP implementation under the provisions of AB 385 of 1981 (Hannigan), 1 believe this amount is not only adequate to cover all appropriate local government costs, but I also believe it is highly likely that we will have to revert'some of the available funds to the federal government because they will not be needed, i 1/77-12/80 '198n-81 1981-82 i_9C7_-63 1983-84 Federal Funds 5,037,500` 90o,0OO l,,oit� i=aU0 720,000 p� State Funds TOTAL 1 V7 312 2 t $12' 178 212 ''-" I,O7ii,212 1475,000 1 'n onn 180 000 Expended P 5,166,546 2,275,000 90o,GlU IrOiQOp Reverted 1,0989266 Cumulative Total 1,078,212 3,353,212 4;253,212 4,1133,0R2 Grants Avardad Balance Available 2,1950000 1,15% 2,}95,o00 2J195,000 212 ?,058* 21." 20238,212 SB go i 4o0 000 200 000 1 iao,000 400,000 ` 4ao,aoo Hannigan 1001000 1000000 t *Includrs If of 1980-81 fiscal year figures. The other half is shown in 1979-E0, This was rc;uircd because our fcdorai grant ended in the middI6 of the fiscal year, 0 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIOP 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 September 15, 1982 .%F^ 9 z` .:. TO: MAYORS AND BOARD CHAIRMEN PLANNING DIRECTORS CJ�e�o19` GN' LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR FY 1982-83 This letter is to alert you of'two important changes in the FY 1982-83 LCP Grant Program. Since your LCP may be incomplete at the end of this year, these changes may be of critical importance to your local plan and you may wish to reassess your work program and schedule. First, after six years of financial support, the federal government is anxious to complete the local coastal program. In approving the Commission's current federal grant for local assistance, the Commerce Department stipulated that federal funds for Local Coastal Programl work will terminate during the next year. These dead- lines are as follows: December 31, 1982 - no federal funds may be expended by a local government for Land Use Plan work after this date unless the LUP has been submitted to the Commission by this date. March 31, 1983 - no federal funds may be expended by any local government for LUP work after this date. June 30, 1983 - no federal funds may be expended for any LCP work after this date. Since the legislative deadline for submittal of all LCP zoning programs is December 31, 1983, the Commission is requesting of the Commerce Department a six month ex- tension to allow expenditure of federal funds until the end of 1983 to coincide with the state deadline. If this request is denied, the Commission will then request additional state funds in its 1983-84 budget to compensate for the lost federal funds. Therefore, unless the extension is granted or state monies are appropriated for FY 1983-84, the Commission will be unable to extend any grants beyond these federal deadlines. Second, the federal and state appropriations for the current fiscal year 1982-83 have eliminated the LCP grant program deficit, but the funds are at about half the previous years' budgets. Up until this time, the Commission has not been able to fund all Land Use Plans and zoning programs. At the beginning of 1981 the Reagan Administration had called for the elimination of federal financial assistance to state and local governments for coastal manage- ment. Because of the proposed loss of federal funds, increased cost projections to complete local plans, and reversion in previously granted monies, the Commission 1The LCP grant program is funded 80% by federal monies with a 20% state match. -2- 4✓ faced a major LCP grant deficit. with the prospect of being unable to fund all local governments, the Commission adopted a grant priority system in 1981 to con- centrate the limited funds on those programs that were moving ahead to completion on schedule. Under the priority system a number of jurisdictions did not qualify for any grant due to lack of progress in their planning programs. At the same time the Commission was unable to fund permit start up grants for the local governments nearing completion of their zoning programs. With the restoration of grant funds, the Commission, at its September 8 meeting, voted to modify the grant priority system to make additional monies available to those previously unfunded programs in order that they too can meet the mandated deadlines. As approved by the Commission, we are informing you of the following changes in grant priorities (listed in priority order): Augmentations: A limited amount of funds will be available for LUPs and LCPs showing budget shortfalls in basic work tasks. These programs must show progress in meeting completion deadlines. Augmentations are not available for extensive plan revi- sions in response to Coastal Commission hearings. If your program meets these criteria, discuss your budget with the Chief Planner of your District Office and then submit a written request to Joan Lundstrom, LCP Grants Administrator at the State Office. The request must include a budget breakdown, work task definition, schedule, and Council or Board resolution. If the augmentation is for your LUP, please submit your request by October 15. if the LUP was sub - (If the LUP was segmented, 50% of the segments must have been submitted by March 1, 1982). Programs that qualify but have not submitted a complete work proqram re - County. These jurisdictions should submit their completed work program by October 31. Grants are awarded up to the maximum target -a- amour or a ocal governments with a 10% allowance for basic cost increases for the zoning programs which are just starting. Phase IV Implementation Grants: A grant program will now be available to fund one time permit start up costs and zoning adoption if these tasks are not already covered by an existing grant. A modest amount of funding will be available provided that a zoning work program has been aunroved by the Commission and the District Director determines uaan Hnese Lasxs can De accumpiisnea wiznouu lmpeaing une progress or an onooinq zoning work program. An application with a sample work program is enclosed which should be returned to the state office on or before December 31, 1982. The imple- mentation grant will not cover the ongoing costs to administering coastal permits and will not be available for further land use planning nor LCP amendments. Under Section 30353 of the Coastal Act, an SB 90 claim may be filed at the end of the fiscal year to request $10 reimbursement for each permit processed under a certified LCP in the preceeding year. Zoning programs that do not have authorized grants because the LUP was sub- mitted after March 1, 1982: These remaining programs will be judged by the District Director on the basis of progress toward completion of .the Land Use Plan and on the ability to work on a zoning program that will not impede the progess of the LUP. We encourage you to review your LCP program relative to these priority re- visions and to proceed under this program unless we notify you by mid -September of any changes. In conclusion, with additional grant monies now available, the Commission believes that there is adequate funding for local governments to complete their program(s) within the legislative mandated deadlines. In prepar- ing for the probable.termination or substantial reduction in the grant program next year, the Commission staff will work with you closely in order to bring the local coastal program to a successful conclusion. Please call Joan Lundstrom at the state office (415-543-8555) with any questions regarding the grant program. cc: Michael Fischer William Travis Bob Joseph Joan Lundstrom SAMPLE i' LCP Phase IV Implementation Grant Work Program, Schedule and Budget This work program is for the purpose of implementing a certified LCP and of adopting start up and operating procedures necessary for the local permit process. 1. Final Rezoning Actions Project Description: Lands within the cpas-tal zone must-be-in,conformance with the adopted LCP. This task will include noticing, advertising and hearings as re- quired by local code. Administrative costs may include preparation of ordinance maps for noticing, printing of zoning ordinaces, and codifi- cation expenses. Work Product: I ' Adoption of final zoning and maps to be in conformance with the adopted LCP. Budget: 2:. Preparation of Permit Procedures and Staff Training: Project Description: This work item consists of several measures which are necessary to es- tablish processing of coastal permits . These would consist of the re- view of existing procedures which would lead to development of public hearing and noticing procedures for coastal permits, procedures for appeals,(both internal and to the Coastal Commission), and identification of exempt projects and categorical exclusions. The end product would re- sult in developing processing forms, including public notices for coastal permits and developing a staff manual and processing checklist. Also included would be funding for staff to provide additional staff assistance during the expected training period. In order to train other staff personnel in the permit procedures, new checklists, flow charts, and )ther graphic materials will be developed. Workshops and staff meetings to review permit applications and the permit process will need to be undertaken, preferably directed and organized by existing staff familiar with the approved program. All work will be carried out with existing staff to the maximum extent `possible.. -2� Work Products: O 1. Permit Application Forms 2. Public Notices 3. Data Checklists for Application Requirements 4. Processing Flow Chart 5. Staff Manual for Permit Processing 6. index to the Permit Process 7.. Public Handout on Permit Procedures 8. Staff Training Budget: n Work Program Schedules (4, ^ Rev. 11/80 is LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TOTAL WORK PROGRAM Name of Applicant: Project Director: Title: Address: Phone: Fiscal Officer: Title: Address: Phone: State State .Districts : Congressional: Senate: Assembly: Months Required to Complete Total Work Program: Grant Requested for Total Cost of Program: $ Grant Period: List the Dates of Ado tion or Status of Your General Plan Elements: Open -Safet Scenic Land Use Circulation Housin S ace Conservation Noise Seismic Safet Hi hwa 1. Resolution authorizing grant application 2. Application form 3. Total Work Program 4. Products and Other Milestones Description 5. Budget rl 6., Statement of Assurances ❑ 7• Clearinghouse Form (submit CA 189 or 424 to Area Clearinghouse and copy of form to Coastal Commission for submission to State Clearinghouse for intitial Phase II grants only. Check with your local area clearinghouse for Phase III grant submittal. Transmit verification of clearing- house review when complete.) Submit two (2) copies of completed application to Coastal Commission; one copy must bear original signatures on items 1, 2 and 6 above. Submit one copy each to the regional and state commission offices. Authorized Official Signature Date Title: I REV 11/80 • • ,INDIRECT COST RATE If indirect costs are shown on the Local Coastal Program Budget, the follow- ing must be completed by the Grantee's designated fiscal officer. Indirect costs are described in Section F of Federal Management Circular 74-7 and the Grants Management Manual prepared by the Coastal Commission. Grantees must calculate indirect costs according to an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan which has been submitted to a cognizant federal agency or the State Controller or the Coastal Commission, Grantees wishing to establish such plans should request explanatory materials from the Coastal Commission. ' Counties CERTIFICATION I, , hereby certify that the indirect Name of Fiscal Officer costs identified above are consistent with the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan, for , which has been.submitted to Name of Jurisdiction the cognizant federal lead agency or the State Controller. Information documenting submission .of .Indirect Cost Allocation Plans and methods of calculation for departmental Indirect Cost Rate Proposals will .be made available upon the request of the Coastal Commission or its designees. Signature of Fiscal Officer Title Date Cities Not all cities are required to submit Indirect Cost Allocation Plans. Where Indirect Cost Allocation Plans have been submitted and accepted by a cognizant federal agency, documentation of acceptance of the plan by the federal agency should be provided. In the event that no plan has been filed with a cognizant federal agency, and the city wishes to use an Indirect Cost Rate, a copy of the plan must be provided to the Coastal Commission. REV 11/80 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATION Grant Applicant: Address: Zip Code: Project Title: Grant Amount Requested: Grant Period: Current Grant Request* Personal Services Salaries and Wages Benefits Total Personal Services Operating Expenses Travel Professional and Consultant Services Indirect Charges (see over) Other (Itemize, use separate sheet if required) office supplies postage printing of reports (if an over ea rate is charged, orovide basis and breakdown) Total Operating Expenses Total Budget *Please mind off all budget amounts to the nearest dollar. • Stement of Assurances Form STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES The Applicant hereby assures and certifir, that he will comply with the regula- tions, policies, guidelines, and requirrinrnts including OMB Circulars Nos. 74-4. A-95, and 74-7, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also, the Applicant assures and cer- tifies with respect to the grant that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the appl•icant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, includ- ing all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the appli- cant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights -Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title•VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant receives federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures neces- sary to effectuate this agreement. 3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d) prohibiting employment discrimination where, (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or, (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -aided activity. 4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L..91-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs. 5- It will comply with the provision of the Hatch Act which limits the poli- tical activity of employees. 6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational institution employees of State and local governments. 7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their posi- tions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 8. It will give the grantor agency or the Comptroller General, through any authorized representative, the access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the federal grantor agency concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other admi- nistrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. 74-7. Signature of Authorized Official • �am2llg Resolution rorm, _SUGGESTED RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO COASTAL ZONE MANAG13YM PLANNING ASSISTANCE WHEREAS, the�nanie of iisdiction or a�epeyl recognizing the problems and issues identified in the attached application for Coastal 'Lone Management Grant desires 'Co provide for a planning study contributing to improved coastal planning, decisionmaking, and management capability re- lated to community development and growth; and WHEREAS, the (name of .jurisdiction or agency�has developed an application package to deal with these development problems and issues; and the California Coastal Commission, under authority of the Government Code of the State of California , may provide planning and financial assistance for such a program, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the1name of the legislative _ or policy bq.d Zof the (name of .Jurisdiction a requests the Coastal Commission to provide planning and financial assistance under authority of the Government Code of the State of California, not to exceed the amount of $ Such planning assistance is more particularly described in a project description that is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as if fully set forth herein, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (title of official)__ of the name of .jurisdiction or agency)___be, and he/she is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the name of jurisdiction or a enc ), all necessary applications, contracts, and agreements and amendments hereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution. The foregoing Resolution was passed by the (legislative or policy bod -----of the urisdiction or agency)�__this _ day of 19 Effective --, 19 Attest: Signed: (name and title of official authorized to sign resolutions of the governing body) E CITY OF. NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884 PLANNING DEPAFImmT (714) 640-2261 March 25, 1982 Mr. Gary Gleeson California Coastal Conmi.ssion South Coast District Office 666 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 3107 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 Dear Gary: This letter is to confirm two additional budget line item estimates provided to Joan Lundstrom via our phone conversation on March 19, 1982. Joan had requested the following estimates for addition to the Phase III budget: City Attorney $3141.60 Coastal Comnission Hearing $2576.36 If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at the above number. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma - xc: Joan Lundstrom 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 3 (a92 50,,25i a), 30 z U , 3i ZS..Sl 31gI,VD 42 a 5-, 2�6 a 51(v- 3fcl 'IPA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR MEMORANDUM: FrOM Assistant City Attorney CALII Pat, Advanced Planning Re: LCP Implementation Attorney Work Time We have reviewed the draft, prepared by your department, outlining the work to be performed in conjunction with the implementation of the Local Coastal Program. It is anticipated that this office will spend approximately 110 hours in performing the task required of it during the implementation of the LCP. The bulk of this time will be consumed in the preparation in excess of 80 resolution and/or ordinances, the preparation of which falls upon this office by virtue of the provisions of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions concerning our itemization of the hours we anticipate will be expended please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.) Reply wanted p Reply not necessary ❑ By......... Bob... Burnham CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.U. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663.3884 (Planning Department - 640-2261) March 1, 1982 Mr. DeWitt Pickens California Coastal Commission South Coast District 666 E. Ocean Blvd. Suite 3107 P. 0. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 Dear Mr. Pickens: Attached please find a budget breakdown and time schedule for Phase III of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. Please note the time schedule is given in months from commencement of the program, rather than by specific months. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at (714) 640-2261. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR BY Patricia Temple Senior Planner PT/pw attachments 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Mr. Pickens March 1, 1982 Page Two BUDGET BREAKDOWN Task Programs and Policies General Plan Amendments Zoning Development of Plans Intergovernmental Coordination Funding Administrative Procedures Local Publip.Hearings Clerical and Operating Costs TOTAL Estimated Cost $ 4,000 3,360 14,000 19,240 5,360 5,760 2,760 2,960 2,640 $ 60,000 f Mr. Pickens March 1, ,1982 Page Three TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the total work for Phase III of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program can be completed in 10 months. Many of the work tasks can be done concurrently by utilization of consultant services. The time needed for each task area is estimated below: " Task Months Ongoing Programs and Policies 1.5 General Plan Amendments 1.0 zoning 3.5 Development of Plans 4.5 Intergovernmental Coordination 1.5 Funding 1.0 Administrative Procedures 1.0 Local Public Hearings (Citizen Participation) 2.0 If the Phase III Work Program is approved and work commences May 1, 1982, local public hearings could commence January 1, 1983. ADVANCE PLANNING ARTMENT ROUTE SLIP Date — z H z E-1 FyE-i p, 0 a O H RC H Cx WE fx W INITIALS BOB LENARD PAT TEMPLE CRAIG BLUELL SANDY GENIS SHERI TULLEY NANCY ALVIDREZ • r• d Lam"Ur State of California, Edmund G. On Jr., Gouernor 0 California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415)543-8555 Bob Lennard, Advance Planning Administrator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: 1982 LCP Grant Priority Program Dear Mr. Lennard: February 22, 1982 v' RECEP"') FEB261982b- en•r 0i. NEWPOR'i BEACH. CALIF, Last fall the Commission informed you -that the LCP grant program remained short of funds necessary for completing all LCP programs statewide. Due to this deficit in the LCP grant program, the Commission established a grant priority system to allocate funds to Land Use Plans and zoning -programs that could be submitted to the Commission by the end of 1981, and extended to programs that could be submitted by April 1982. Under the priority guide- lines, your LCP program, along with twelve other cities and counties, was not eligible for continuing grant funds. However, $675,000 in federal funds has now been made available for the present fiscal year. This does not fully cover all unfunded programs, so on February 16 the Commission approved a revised grant priority program for 1982. Basically the new priorities will be directed first to completing all Land Use Plan programs (Phase II) statewide by January 1, 1983. Then grants will be directed to those unfunded zoning programs (Phase III) if the Land Use Plan has been submitted to the Commission by March 1, 1982. If the LUP is segmented, 30% of the segments must be submitted by this date. Five programs still remain unfunded. Under the revised 1982 priority guidelines, your LCP program can now be considered for a grant at an assured level of funding. A maximum amount of funds has been set for each LCP program. For your Phase III program, a maximum of $30,000 has been earmark —ea -.- Consideration of grant applications had been deferred until the Commission adopted a schedule for submittal of all LUPs and for submittal of zoning pro- grams if the LUP was certified. Pursuant to AB 385 (the Hannigan Bill), the Commission has now adopted these schedules. Therefore if you have not sub- mitted a grant application package to the Commission, it would be appropriate for you to do so at this time. If you have requested a grant, your application will now be considered and scheduled for Commission hearing in the near future. jY r If you have any questions regarding the status of your program, please con- tact your District Office or Joan Lundstrom, LCP Grants Administrator in the state office. JLL/lgu cc: District Chief Planners Sincerely, Robert G. Brown ��'Q�� Deputy Director Land Use LIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 West Newport Blvd Newport Beach', CA 92660 Telephone: (714) 640-2261 ;Tanning Director: James 0. Ilewicker Advance Planning Administrator: Bob Lennard CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 February 2, 1982 TO: Planning Directors of Local Governements in the Coastal Zone FROM: Robert Brown, Deputy Director of Land Use SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of the LCP Grant Priority Program Early last year we wrote_vou about the -potential loss of.$900,000 in;`federal funds from the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Grant Program. Equally significant was a major shorfall in the grant budget which exceeded the projected estimates for completion of all LCPs statewide. Since not all LCPs could be funded to completion, the Commission adopted a priority system to allocate the monies during 1981. Essentially, the priority system set a basic level of funding with emphzsis for the cities and counties that were closest to completion of their coastal plan and had scheduled completion by the end'of 1981. Additional federal funds have now become available, making up part of the grant program shortfall. Therefore staff is recommending a revised grant priority system to the Coastal Commission. Since your jurisdiction has not fully completed your LCP program, we are sending you the Commission report on these proposed changes in the grant priority program. Please let us know if the revisions will create any undue hardships or delays in your local coastal program. The Commission will hear this report on Tuesday, February 16 at the Santa Barbara County Administration Building. 0' • iyEtivOP� r,FA CPt1F• � 'a \ � Q olo CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION �."� 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105 —(415) 543.8555 CIO C `ao \ � February 1, 1982 California Coastal Commissioners and Interested Persons Robert Brown, Deputy Director for Land Use and Joan L. Lundstrom, LCP Grants Administrator SUBJECT: LCP Grant Priority Program (For Commission Hearing and Possible Action on February 16-19, 1982) Staff Recommendation Because we have finally received most of the federal funds indicated in our 1981-82 budget, additional monies are now available for the LCP grant program. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission revise the LCP grant priority program with these new priority groups: Priority 1: Top priority is given to Land Use Plans (Phase II) that do not presently have authorized funding. Priority 2: Augment present LUPs, total LCPs and zoning grants based on evidence of progress and the limits of the budget. Priority 3: Zoning programs (Phase III) that do not presently have authorized funding, provided that the Land Use Plan has been submitted to the Commission by March 1, 1982. If the LUP is segmented, 50% of the segments must be submitted by this date. Priority 4: Programs for development of permit procedures and training (Phase IV) that do not qualify for Hannigan grant funds, provided that the zoning program of the total LCP is submitted prior to the mandatory date established under the Hannigan Act. Priority 5: Unfunded Zoning programs (Phase III) that do not quality under Priority group 3. (No funds are presently available.) Staff recommends approval of these revisions to the present Grant program to be adopted as the 1982 Grant Priority Guidelines. Background In early 1981, staff reported to you a major deficit of $1.42 million to fund the LCP grant program resulting in the Commission being unable to fund all LCPs to completion. The Commission at that time established a grant priority system, in March, 1981, to allocate the limited amount of grant funds. In October, 1981 this program was extended until additional funds became available. That grant priority program allocated a basic level of funding first to those zon- ing programs (Phase III) that were closest to completion and then to Land Use Plans (Phase II) that could be completed by the end of 1981. (See Appendix A for e -2- Grant Phase Definitions). Lowest priority was given to Zoning and Land Use programs that could not be completed by the end of 1981, and to Implementation programs (Phase IV) that were not previously authorized. No funding has been available for the lowest priority programs. At the end of 1981, all but 13 local governments had LCP grants for both Land Use Plan and Zoning programs. Those local governments presently unfunded are the Cities of Half Moon Bay, Seaside, Monterey City, Watsonville, Morro Bay, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Newport Beach, Laguna Beacht and the Counties of Monterey, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego. Funds Now Available The Commission's budget for the 1981-82 fiscal year includes $1,800,00 in federal funds for local assistance. Of this amount, $900,000 was avail- able when we reported to the Commission last October. Subsequently, another $675,000 has been made available for'the present year, as shown in the summary below. Of the amount now available, the LCP grant budget looks like this: Available Funds: 1/1/81 to 6/30/82: State: $628,212 Federal: 11800,000 Total: $2,428,212 Federal funds now available 1/1/82 to 6/30/82 +675,000 Total: $3,103,212 Less grants encumbered to date and reserve:-21100,000 New Balance Available: $1,053,212 An application for $225,000 is pending for this fiscal year (1981-82) in our ap- proved -federal budget, but these funds have not been received at this time. For the coming fiscal year 1982-83, the Commission has requested additional federal funds for local assistance. It will be several months until the amount of the allocation is known. Proposed Revision of Grant Priority Program A deficit to the LCP grant program still remains at this time, and not all unfunded programs will be funded. Therefore until the deficit is made up by federal or state funds, staff recommends continuation of the grant priority system with these proposed revisions to the priority groups. Revisions to the present LCP grant program are necessary for several reasons: 1. Last year, the highest priority was given to completing as many zoning pro- grams as possible. However, the passage of AB 385 (Hannigan) transfers permit authority to local governments with fully certified LUPs and requires that all LUPs be submitted to the Commission no later than January 1, 1983. M: Several local governments have no funding to complete their Land Use Plans in order to be in compliance with this legislation. Therefore completion of Land Use Plans is now recommended as the highest priority. 2. Also, highest priority was given to LCP's and LUP's that could be completed by the end of 1981. 3. A maximum level of funding was set for all LCP programs. Staff recommends that these levels be continued but that a modest amount be reserved for augmentations to help LCP programs to meet the legislative deadlines for completion. 4. Funding of those zoning programs (Phase III) that do not presently have grants should be tied to submitting the Land Use Plan as a measure of pro- gress. Under this criteria, 8 of the 13 unfunded programs would now qualify. 5. Staff recommends that a limited amount of funds be made available for development of permit procedures and for staff permit training (Phase IV). A number of local governments who are near completion of their zoning programs may opt to complete their programs rather than assume permit authority under AB 385 (Hannigan). In this case no grant funds are now available for those jurisdictions to develop a permit start-up program. This proposal would correct that inequity. Appendix B outlines the effect of the proposed priority guidelines on the various local governments that are completing the Local Coastal Program. APPENDIX A Definitions of LCP Program Funding Phases Phase I: Identification of coastal issues and development of work pro- gram (including funding requirements) to address LCP issues. (All local governments have completed Phase I.) Phase II: Development and submittal of Land Use Plan portion of LCP based upon the coastal planning issues identified in Phase I. Phase III: Development and submittal of proposed local zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other regulations including Code and General Plan amendments needed to carry out a certified LUP. (Note: Some jurisdictions have combined Phase ii and III programs.) Phase IV: Implementation of certified Land Use Plan or total LCP through enactment of zoning program, development of permit procedures and manuals, staff training and other start-up programs necessary to transfer permit authority, and develop- ment of further planning programs. • APPENDIX B Proposed 1982 Grant Priority Program Jurisdictions are listed in order from North to South. Proposed maximum grant amounts are shown for unfunded programs. Priority 1: LUPs (Phase II) that do not presently have funding. City of Monterey: Downtown/Harbor $15,000 City of Los Angeles: 6 area plans 75,000 County of Los Angeles: Malibu and Marina Del Rey 217,600 Priority 2: A modest level of funds will be reserved for some augmenta- tions within -this priority group to enable these programs to meet the legislative deadlines for completion. All jurisdic- tions listed have a zoning or total LCP grant, *indicates an active LUP grant also. North Coast: Del Norte County* Crescent City Humboldt County* Eureka Mendocino County* Fort Bragg Central Coast: Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz City Capitols. Marina Sand City Seaside Carmel South Central: San Luis Obispo County* Pismo Beach Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara City Ventura County* San Buenaventura Oxnard South Coast: Manhattan Beach* Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Seal Beach* Huntington Beach* San Clemente San Diego Coast: Oceanside Del Mar San Diego City Coronado Imperial Beach APPENDIX B (Continued) Priority 3: Zoning programs (Phase III) that do not presently have funding, and will have a LUP submitted by March 1, 1982: Seaside. $100000 Half Moon Bay 30,000 Monterey County 100,000 Morro Bay 40,000 Orange County 150,000 Newport Beach 30,000 Laguna Beach 25,000 San Diego County 82,000 Priority 4: Permit start-up procedures (Phase IV) for programs that do not qualify for Hannigan grant funds provided that the zoning program is submitted prior to the mandatory Hannigan schedule. It is un- known at this time which governments will qualify for this group. Priority 5: (Unfunded) Zoning programs that do not qualify under Priority 3: Watsonville $5,000 Monterey City 30,000 Pacific Grove 10,000 Los Angeles County 250,000 Santa Monica 40,000 Completed Phase II and III Programs: Trinidad Arcata Point Arena Sonoma County Marin County San Francisco San Mateo County Daly City Pacifica Grover City Carpinteria Port Hueneme E1 Segundo Torrance Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Long Beach Avalon Irvine Chula Vista State of California, Edmund G.Wn Jr., Governor . California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 January 28, 1982 Patricia Lee Temple Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Kemple: Phase II Grant Thank you for submitting the update of your Phase II program. Based upon this information, the City's Phase II Grant (#194) will be extended to June 30, 1982. This should be ample time for the City to resubmit the Land Use Plan to the Commis- sion and for Commission hearings. Contract documents are being prepared and should be to you shortly. Phase III Grant The City submitted a request for Phase III implementation funds last fall. At that time the Commission requested that you submit: 1. a program schedule for work tasks and for public hearings; and 2. a budget breakdown by work program tasks. The grant application is incomplete and cannot be reviewed and scheduled for hear- ing until this information is received. Commission consideration of the Phase III Work Program and grant request must take place prior to the City commencing work on the zoning implementation program if the City expects to be reimbursed from other than local funds. Since this information was requested last fall and has not been received to date, I urge you to provide the necessary documentation for the City's request within the next few weeks. DeWitt Pickens of the District office will also be in contact with you and can answer questions that you may have. Sincerely, e%�.4 oan L. Lundstrom LCP Grants Administrator JLL:cm cc: DeWitt Pickens Debra Braver P,ECEIVC,I� FEB 1 QV 411217,+awr &7gC+j s F CALIFOPVIA COASTAL COMMISSION REQUEST FOR FUNDS COASTAL GRANT S+�e'Je Soho(( To: c/o California Coastal Caunission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Fran: Grant Recipient: Address: Agreement No. Total Grant $ _ Percentage of Program completed: _ Percentage of funds requested to date: Period covered by this request: Program Costs Cost of program this period: Previously reported costs: Total costs to date: Grant amount requested this period: Cash grant received to date: Make check payable to: S Mailing address: _ I hereby certify that the above costs were inpprred in the pertoppnce of work required under Grant Agreement No. Signature of AuthgFiged Official Date Note: Please submit Three (3) copies with original signature: Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal gffigex or by the authorized official designated by the local legisjgtjye:body. L1OR.OFFICE USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE: By: Per: Notes: BUDGET ITEM TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT TOTAL FUNDS EXPENDED THIS PERIOD CUMULATIVE FUNDS EXPENDED TO DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing Ihderect Chaiges Consultant Other (itemize) _ PERSONAL SERVICES (Break cut as in approved work PROGR41 BUDGET) TOTAL I certify to the best of my knowledge that the funds listed in the expended column are consistent with the amounts evidenced by supporting documents and expenditures - entered into-the--of-Lcial-grant accounting -,records., Authorized Official or Fiscal Officer Date INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. Where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet ccniplete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the LCP progress. This progress report should estimate tho degree of ccm),,)letion of all major tasks and should indicate the schedule for their completion. Contact Commission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions, rev. 7/79 CALIFOPNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REQUEST FOR FUNDS COASTAL GRANT S+ese_ S cCktlj To: c/o California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 From: Grant Recipient: Address: Agreement No. Total Grant $ Percentage of Program canpleted: Percentage of funds requested to date: Period covered by this request: Program Costs Cost of program this period: $ Previously reported costs: $ Total costs to date: $ Grant amount requested this period: $ Cash grant received to date: $ Make check payable to: Mailing address: I hereby certify that the above costs were incurred in the perfopmr}ge of. work required under Grant Agreement No. Signature of Authdr#eq Official Date' Note: Please submit Three (3) copies with original signature; Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal offiesp pr by the authorized official designated by the local legis;otivs'body.. FOR.OFFICE USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE: By: Per: Notes: COMPLETE THE REVERSE BUDGET ITEM VIAL BUDGETED P1.10UN'1' T0'TAL FUNDS EXPENDED THIS PERIOD CUMULATIVE FUNDS EXPENDED '10 DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing Xhaerect Charges Consultant Other (itemize) _ PERSONAL, SERVICES (Break cut as in approved work PROGRAM BUDGET) TOTAL I certify to the best of mml knowledge that the funds listed in the expended column are consistent with the amounts evidenced by supporting documents and expenditures entered -into the -official grant -accounting records. Authorized Official or Fiscal officer Date INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. Where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet complete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the LCP progress. This progress report should estimate the degree of completion of all Co or tasks and should indicate the schedule for their completion. Contact Cartnission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions. rev. 7/79 T CALIFOINIA OJASTAL OOMMISSION REQUEST FOR FUNDS COASTAL GRANT S%eue S�II -rem California Coastal Commission 631 Howard -Street San Francisco, CA 94105 From: Grant Recipient: Address: Agreement No. Total Grant $ Percentage of Program ccmpleted: _ Percentage of funds requested to date: Period covered by this request: Program Costs Cost of program this period: Previously reported costs: Total costs to date: Grant amount requested this period: Cash'grant received to date: Make check payable to: Mailing address: I hereby certify that the above costs were incurred in the perfopmpce of work required under Grant Agreement No. Signature of Authdri2ed Official Date Note: Please submit Three (3) copies with original signature: Request for Funds must be signed by the program fiscal, gfftper or by the authorized official designated by the local legislative body. FOR.OFFICE USE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATE: _ By: Per: Notes: COMPLETE THE REVERSE '� I l BUDGET IT94 TOTAL BUDGETED AMOUNT TOTAL FUNDS EXPENDED THIS PERIOD CUMULATIVE FUNDS EXPENDED TO DATE OPERATING EXPENSES Travel Printing thderect Charges Consultant Other (itemize) _ _ PERSONAL SERVICES (Break out as in approved work PRAM BUDGET) TOTAL I certify to the best of My knowledge that the funds listed in the expended column are consistent with the amounts evidenced by supporting documents and expenditures entered into the official grant accounting records. Authorized Official or Fiscal Officer Date INSTRUCTIONS: Billings should correspond with the completion of products which provide a measure of LCP progress. Where costs have been incurred on tasks for which the products are not yet complete, the grantee should provide an assessment of the I,CP progress. This progress report should estimate the degree of completion of all major tasks and should indicate the schedule for their completion. Contact Cofunission representative or LCP administrator for further instructions. rev. 1/79 State of California, _ r--�, George Dwkmeiion, Governor ; '�� t 0 1/ California Coastal Commission South Coast District r•. r ii 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 � DOW' 11 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 FE82 ti (213)5905071 z a0� JZ February 10', 1983 To: Commissioners and In From: Robert Brown, Deputy.Director for Land Use; Joan Lundstrom, LCP Grants Administrator; Dave Loomis, Chief Planner, South Coast District; Gary Gleason, Coastal Analyst Subject: City of Newport Beach, Phase III (Local Coastal Program Zoning and Implementation) Work Program and Grant Request (for public hearing and possible action at the Commission Hearing of February 22-25, 1983) Funding Request The City of Newport Beach requests approval of a Phase III Work Program and Grant for $56,953.50 It Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Phase III Work Program and approval of a grant not to exceed $33,000 subject to the following conditions: 1. The budget is amended to reflect a reduction in the dollar amounts allocated to City staff time and consultant time as indicated in Exhibit A. The Work Program is also amended to reflect an increase in the dollar amount allocated to operating expenses as indicated in Exhibit A. A maximum of $33,000 has been allocated to the City of Newport Beach for their Phase III (Zoning) Work Program under the Commission's grant priority program. 2. The Work Program is amended to specifically indicate the period of time for which the Work Program is in effect is limited to January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983. Should the City's Phase III Work Program extend beyond December 31, 1983, it is possible that work performed beyond that date may not be reimbursed due to federal grant deadlines. 3r. The Phase III Work Program is amended to delete references to the preparation of policy statements and the establishment of policy language. The emphasis of the City's Phase III Work Program is the development of ordinances and regulations to carry out the provisions of the City's certified land use plan. 4. The Phase III Work Program is amended to delete the proposed Coastal Circulation System Study. 5. The Phase III Work Program is amended to delete Phase IV Work Tasks such as the preparation of a coastal permit procedures manual. 6. The Work Program is amended to delete Work Tasks not mandated as Phase III Work Tasks, such as the preparation of cost estimates for ordinance implementation. Background The City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP) was conditionally certified by the Commission in November, 1981. The LUP, as conditionally certified, was later adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council in February, 19B2. Subsequently, in May, 1982, the City received final certification for its land use plan. Analysis In order to implement the policies of its certified coastal land use plan, the Coastal Act in Section 30513 requires the City of Newport Beach to submit zoning ordinances, zoning district maps and where necessary, other implementing mechanisms to execute the policies of the City's land use plan. A major emphasis of the City's Phase III Work Program will be the evaluation of LUP policies in order to determine the most appropriate method of implementation. In addition, each land use designation in the City's LUP will have to be carefully reviewed in order to ensure that a corresponding zoning designation either exists or will be developed during Phase III. The following section evaluates each of the City staff's work task requests by category. In those areas where the Commission staff has recommended a reduction of City staff time requested, a justification has been pro- vided. Policy Implementation EVALUATION: This is the work task category where the City will develop regulations which will address diking, dredging and filling, lease of public properties, standards to protect archaeological and paleontological resources, require the provision of public access in new development, es- tablish ride sharing procedures as well as procedures to allow for joint use of parking in commercial development. The City has requested 37 staff days for Phase III work to be completed in this work task category. - 2 - Staff time allocated to this category will also be provided in order to enable the City to review existing policies and determine where modifica- tions are necessary, draft revisions to ordinances as necessary and pre- pare for public review and City hearings. The Commission staff recommends the City be funded approximately 35 staff days in order to complete work in the policy implementation category. The Commission staff has also recommended conditions which are aimed at eliminating references to the preparation of policy statements or the establishment of new policy language. The development of policy language is not a Phase III work task. Commission staff has also recommended a limited reduction in the amount of City Attorney staff time proposed for this work task. Zoning EVALUATION: This is the work task category wherein the City proposes to do most of the work necessary to create new zone districts and amend existing zone districts in order to carry out the policies ofthe City's certified land use plan. The City has requested a total of U-38 staff days (including) consultant time for the preparation of the work tasks in this category. Most of the work tasks proposed in this category are appropriate; however, the City has in this category, requested a total of 71 staff days of consultant time for:ithe preparation of a Coastal Circulation System Study. Such a circulation study, although desirable, is further land use planning and is simply not eligible for reimbursement under a Phase III Work Program, the primary purpose of which is the de- velopment of ordinances. Therefore the Commission staff recommends that the 71 days of consultant time recommended fox t' _s work task be deleted. The City has identified specific zone districts which will need to be modified as part of this work task category, in addition, the City has cited those new zone districts which may have to be created in order to execute the policies of the City's certified land use plan. The City has proposed to utilize the services of a consultant to assist in the development of new and amended zoning ordinances. The Commission staff does not usually recommend the use of consultants in preparation of LCPs when City staff is available, because of the higher costs asso- ciated with consultant time. However, in this instance, the City has indicated that a consultant is proposed to perform some work tasks in this work category due in part to the consultant's expertise in the de- velopment of zoning ordinances. Therefore, the Commission staff recom- mends approval of 40 days of consultant staff time for use in this work category. A reduction in time has been recommended in this work task category to delete work task d) in this category (prepare cost estimates for implementation of the ordinances)since this is not a mandated cost in the -Phase III Work Program. Also, a small reduction in the amount of City Attorney time requested for this task has been recommended. Commission staff recommends 64 staff days for completion of the work tasks in this category. - 3 - Intergovernmental Coordination EVALUATION: This is the work task category where the City will coordi- nate with other governmental agencies in implementing land use plan poli- cies. The City has requested a total of 12 staff days to complete work tasks in this category. However, after reviewing the amount of time requested for this work task category, the Commission staff has recommended a 50% reduction in the amount of staff time requested. Most of the work involving intergovernmental coordination should have been completed pre- viously as a Phase II Work task, and the Commission staff therefore rec- ommends a total of 6 staff days for completion of this work task category. Administrative Procedures EVALUATION: This is the work task category wherein the City will pre- pare procedures for the issuance of coastal development permits. These procedures will include among other tasks, a system for accepting, re- viewing and processing coastal permits as well as public hearing and notification requirements, appeal criteria and appeal procedures. The City has requested a total of 21 staff days for completion of this work task category. in addition to the above identified tasks, the City also proposes 10 staff days for the preparation of a coastal permit pro- . cedures manual (Work task d). This is a Phase IV work task and funding for this type of work task is available under a separate grant program. Therefore, the Commission staff has recommended a reduction in the amount of staff days necessary to complete this task to approximately 10 days. Administration EVALUATION: The City has requested a small amount of staff time (4) days to administer the Phase III Grant Program. The Commission staff recom- mends approval of the time requested for this work task category. Coastal Commission Hearings EVALUATION: The City has requested a total of 11 staff days for this work task category which will include review of the Commission's staff report on implementation, meetings with the Coastail Commission staff,, and at- tendance at Commission hearings. The Commission staff recommends approval of 11 staff days for this work category as requested by the City. Operating Expenses EVALUATION: The City has requested only $1,800 for funding this category. The Commission staff recommends funding for this category be increased by $1,320. The City's request of $400 for copying and $200 for supplies appears extremely low. sws - 4 - can a smmw 04=N, 1Y•t[ III tttlriT• [lY AD I ,L -i SY - ytA•1[f nil• ory TLmm�S 1Wprc� Il.n Tny vmar tc=r luzbune l�lr�n-r c(-II WT cm•u5e.nt T"t1 Inu�r• Tout Co•r• IWuwr 1ti�nuY Oi%tor !d•In. Illw Its 7,116.161 [ 7.113.10 Mi" llwJ ATIM 111 •I- L - Ito) 9 1141 16 ISO) SO Ilfol ISO 116) 10 416) 16 total UO IIINI Sll 117,135.561 lbwl.fl 10YIItI IAI -a- (Sol is 00) 20 Ilzl if list 1[ 101 [ (ll( Il fill 41 12.316461 1.I41.13 lY6YpT'[SYIORLL tafSo. _ IQ a Pll 11 Iw) 11 1st 1 Iltst 93.5 111111.111 3.366.51 Y•t10. [•^^•••••• Ill -1- - list l.s l01 0 1151 IS (lost lS 10) S fill 11 4413.58) SIMS 1M11Ita1NTI41 to) t 1111 11 Ill 0 Ila) It 13.110.711 1,130.16 coSIISL <nwiwltt• 18) 1 I241 ]t Iltt tt to) 0 14) 1 OWIYOI 1TdY. tWll 1321 -s- •- Illst q.S I561 SS /1611150 10631 151 flat 11 I1111 w 111,11 110 11147) 109.5 falls. taw[ U.ws.011 -s- (4.661.9) 3.511.12 11.11611/ 1.St"I I4.119.74f30311 110.791.161 91165A2 1511.101 517.50 1611.561 611.07 131,195) 11.306 Well IUO.S ISS.15I.56) szoosw.w .RATIIc 1na14T1 T6LYGi law) too �IW (iMl wl - S."Is Pwl 1w _ CtIY seat lulnwrum _IN 600 fast - taizlo TOTASI ftLw[t I15s.I11.111 gflwt a1MT10G [a)Yt1t 1 Ltl1.111 ).l]0 _ US.151.511 1311009 • 1 I11w01 L ►rtrYu sSw••••t eltT S.1u.Se./ Sw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2261 October 28, 1982 Ms. Joan Lundstrom California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Ms. Lundstrom: Enclosed please find the revised Phase III Work Program for the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. A copy has also been sent to Gary Gleason at the South Coast District. Thank you for your help in this matter. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thanks again, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director I By P TRICIA T. TEMPLE Senior Planner PLT:nma xc: "Gary Gleason South Coast District City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Phase 222 - Zoning and Implementing Ordinances Work Program April 16, 1982 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 (714) 640-2261 Introduction The Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program establishes community policies and appropriate land uses within the Coastal Zone. Several separate types of actions will be necessary to implement the adopted Land Use Plan. These will include policies, ordinances, and intergovernmental coordination. In addition, administrative procedures for the issuance of coastal permits will need to be established. These procedures will include application requirements, public hearing requirements, and appeal procedures. This work program outlines the major tasks which need to be completed during the implementation phase as well as a listing of items for action in the major task areas. These will be refined during the Phase III studies and in the subsequent public hearings. Policy Implementation. Many of the policies contained in the Land Use Plan are statements of the City's intentions and do not require development of a specific implementing ordinance or land use regulation. These statements of policy will by incorporated into a single ordinance entitled "Coastal Zone Policy Statement" for adoption. Other specific policies will require the development of a specific regulations which will be included in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. items included in this section are: 1. Establish regulations regarding dredgij, diking,'and filling. 2. Establish regulations regarding the lease of public properties. 3. Establish policies to protect archeological and paleontological resources. 4. Require provision of public access in new development. 5. Establish procedures to encourage ride -sharing and car-pooling to minimize traffic demands. 6. Establish procedures to allow joint use of parking of commercial development by coastal visitors. The budget requirements of this task include: Man Days City Consultant a) Research and document existing policies and ordinances; determine items requiring additional implementing actions 7 --- b) Preparation of new and revisions to existing ordinances 15 --- c) City Attorney Review 5 d) Prepare cost estimates for implementation of the ordinances 5 e) Public review and hearings 5 --- TOTAL 37 3 zoning Zoning. Perhaps the most comprehensive tool available to the City is the police power to control land uses through zoning. The Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program establishes several different land use designations. Some are similar to existing zoning designations, while others have been specifically created for the Local Coastal Program. Each designation will have to be carefully reviewed and compared to existing provisions. Existing zoning districts will need to be altered or new districts created in order to implement the Land Use Plan. The most significant segment of the development of the zoning districts for implementation of the policies of the certified land use plan will be the determination of appropriate levels of intensity of development. Visitor serving commercial uses generate the greates amount of traffic. The priority of visitor serving uses in the LUP combined with deletion of University Drive from the LCP Master Plan of Streets and Highway results in a need to complete a detailed analysis of the coastal portions of the Circulation System in order to implement,the policies of the certified Land Use Plan. Some of the policies contained in the land use plan can only be implemented by revisions or additions to the zoning code. Each of these will also have to be reviewed and compared to existing provisions and existing districts altered or new districts created. Items included in this section are: it 1) Development of a Recreational and Marine Commercial Zoning District. 2) Revisions to existing Commercial Zoning Districts as required. 3) Revisions to existing Open Space Zoning Districts as required. 4) Develop a core Planned Community Text or revision to existing Planned Community District. 5) Regulation of the location of structures on vacant parcels. 6) Requirements for the provision of public access in new development. 7) Development of any special zoning districts or chapters as required. Budget requirements of this task include: Man Days City Consultant v/ a) Coastal Circulation System Study 0 71 b) Research and preparation of new and revised zoning districts 6 15 c) Research and preparation of P-C Text 2 10 d) Research and preparation of ordinances 4 15 e) City Attorney Review 7.5 f) Public Review and Hearings 7.5 TOTAL 27 4 Intergovernmental Coordination. Intergovernmental coordination will be vitally important in implementing many of the policies of the Land Use Plan. Local, State, and Federal agencies will all be involved. These include the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine; the County of Orange; State Departments of Transportation, Fish and Game, and Water Resources; and Federal agencies including Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers. The City is currently working with all of these agencies and has a good relationship with most of them. Methods of continuing and improving relations with other agencies at both the staff and political levels will be explored in order to achieve mutual goals and establish programs of mutual benefit. The funding requirements for this task include: Man Days City Consultant a) Coordination of input from other tasks. 3 0 b) Identification of specific projects and programs involving other agencies 2 0 c) Meetings and communication ` 4 0 d) Revisions to other tasks 3 0 TOTAL 12 0 Administrative Procedures. In addition to the implementation programs discussed above, the City is required to establish administrative procedures for the issuance of coastal permits. .These procedures should include an application process, review procedure, review criteria, public review and input process, public hearing requirements, appeal criteria, and appeal procedure. The administrative procedures should be integrated into existing City procedures and policies to the extent possible. The budget requirements will be as follows: Man Days City Consultant a) Research requirements of Coastal Act and Coastal Commission for local issuance of permits 2 --- b) Research requirements of Coastal Act and Coastal Commission for appeal of local decisions 2 --- c) Review all existing City procedures 2.75 --- /d) Prepare coastal permit manual containing complete administrative procedure 10 --- 5 e) City Attorney Review 2.25 --- f) Public Review and Hearings 2 --- TOTAL 21 0 Administration. Staff time will be required to administer the Phase III - Zoning and Implementing Ordinances Grant. Budget requirements will be as follows: Man Days City Consultants a) Administration of LCP Phase III Grant 4 0 TOTAL 4 0 Coastal Commission Hearings. Upon completion of the Zoning and Implementing ordinances phase of the Local Coastal Program, the documents will have to be reviewed and approved by the California Coastal Commission. Budget requirements will be as follows: Man Days City Consultants a) Review of Coastal Staff Report on Implementation Program b) Meetings with Coastal Commission Staff c) Preparation of City responses to Coastal Commission concerns d) Attendance at Coastal Commission hearings 4 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 TOTAL 11 0 Summary Requirements for the implementation phase based on the individual tasks outlined above are: Man Days City Consultant Policy Implementation 37 0 Zoning 27 111 Intergovernmental Coordination 12 0 Administrative Procedures 21 0 Administration 4 0 Coastal Commission Hearings 11 0 TOTAL 112 ill L� Phase III - Budget Salaries: Benefits & $/hr. Overhead/hr.I Total # of hours TOTAL City Manager 34.50 15.31 49.81 22 1,095.82 City Attorney 29.40 13.05 42.45 110 4,669.50 Planning Director 24.50 10.88 35.38 56 1,981.28 Advance Planning Administrator 18.24 8.10 26.34 161 4,240.74 Senior Planner 16.15 7.17 23.32 463 10,797.16 Assistant Planner 11.20 4.97 16.17 32 517.44 Steno Clerk II 8.68 3.85 12.53 52 651.56 Consultant 35.00 320 11,200.00 Consultant (circulation) 35.0 571 20,000.00 1. Benefits include: City contribution to PERS (Retirement), Group Life and Health Insurance, ' Group Disability, Education, Workers Compensation, Vacation, Sick Leave, Unemployment Insurance and Overhead. SUBTOTAL: $55,153.50 Operating Expenses (In excess of normal overhead): Telephone @ $75 x 8 = 600 Copying @ $50 x 8 = 400 Stationery + Supplies @ $25 x 8 = 200 Postage + Mailing @ $75 x 8 = 600 SUBTOTAL: _ $1,800 $ 1,800.00 TOTAL: $56,953.50 PT:nma 10/28/82 BUDGET BREAKDOWN Advance City City Planning Planning Senior Assistant Steno Total Total Manager Attorney Director Adminis. Planner Planner Clerk II Consul. Hours Costs ($) Policy Implementation 8 40 16 50 150 16 16 296 7,936 76 Zoning 12 60 20 26 78 8 12 891 1107 37,835.84 Intergovernmental Coordination 4 22 64 6 96 2,288 66 Administrative Procedures 2 10 8 35 105 8 168 4,277 90 Administration 4 22 6 32 693.58 Coastal Commission Hearings 8 24 44 8 4 88 2,120 76 Hours 22 110 56 161 32 52 320 1216 Total Costs ($) . 1,095.82 4,669.50 1,981.28 4,240.74 10,797.16 517.44 651.56 11,200.00 65,153 50 PT:nma 10/28/82 BUDGET BREAKDOWN Advance City City Planning Planning Senior Assistant Steno Total Total Manager Attorney Director Adminis. Planner Planner Clerk II Consul. Hours Costs ($) 7,ic( Policy Implementation O 8 .3040 16 50 150 16 16 a79296 7,936.76 Zoning n 12 [/S60 20 26 78 8 12 3,?f891 $CgII07 37,835.84 Intergovernmental (,2288 3 Coordination 4 t) 22 3 2 64 6 -, !/� 96 2 66 Administrative ao6.55 Procedures 2 7.5-10 8 35 5105 8 0.5- 166 4,277 90 Administration 4 22 6 32 693.58 Coastal Commission Hearings 8 24 44 8 4 88 2,120.76 Total Hours Q 22 R-75-110 S*g56 /$'p161 463 32 qq 52 52n IW0 1216 3, 3?V. W,85..3.tL 61S.ga` Total Costs ($) /j 1,095.82 4,669.50 1,981.28 4:240.74 10,797.16 517.44 651.56 11,200.00 _65,153.50 PT:nma 10/28/82 Phase III - Budget Salaries: Benefits & $/hr. overhead/hr.1 Total # of hours TOTAL City Manager 34.50 15.31 49.81 22 1,095.82 City Attorney 29.40 13.05 42.45 110 4,669.50 Planning Director 24.50 10.88 35.38 56 1,981.28 Advance Planning Administrator 18.24 8.10 26.34 161 4,240.74 Senior Planner 16.15 7.17 23.32 463 Assistant Planner 11.20 4.97 16.17 32 517.44 Steno Clerk II 8.68 3.85 12.53 52 651.56 Consultant 35.00 320 11,200.00 Consultant (circulation) 35.0 571 20,000.00 1. Benefits include: City contribution to PERS (Retirement), Group Life and Health Insurance, Group Disability, Education, Workers Compensation, Vacation, Sick Leave, Unemployment Insurance and Overhead. SUBTOTAL: Operating Expenses (In excess of normal overhead): Telephone @ $75 x 6 = 600 Copying @ $50 x 8 = 400 %0 Stationery + Supplies @ $25 x 8 = 200 Q(,p Postage + Mailing @ $75 x 8 = 600 SUBTOTAL: _ $1,800 -217a0 TOTAL: $55,153.50 $ 1,800.00 $56,953.50 PT:nma 10/28/82 PHASE III PHASE IV ✓A NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE 1. Ordinance establishing maintenance and ,er. Accomplished No operation of bay and ocean beaches. Aahs Municipal Code (Page 7, Item 1) Sec. 2.12.090(b) 2. Ordinance establishing City maintenance pop. rs. Accomplished No of streets and walkways. ,ktF55 Municipal Code (Page 7, Item 2) Sec. 2.12.090(b) Protect and maintain existing vista was x No points on public property. ` (Page 8, Item 3) 4. Public Access in coastal areas maximized Ace-55 Public No consistent with the protection of natural FA Access resources, public safety, and private Ordinance property rights. (Page 8, Item 4) 5. Lateral access to be provided in new Public No development. Ndpy Access (Page 8, Item 5) aat P•0.w:eS i Ordinance t 6. Vertical access to be provided in new kq%5 Public No development. rA'Zv. Access cev. (Page 8, Item 6) pa^,,is Ordinanc 7. Public access provisions. Aur.75 Public No (Page 9, Item 7) VlSu At Access N�o waw2q.r Ordinance 8. City maintenance of a comprehensive signing kp-s x No program of City Coastal resources. (Page 9, Item 8) 9. Development shall not interfere with Ka55 x No prescriptive rights. DES' (Page 9, Item 9) FAI PHASE III PHASE IV (x) (A) NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE fl3.rar, 10. In leasing of public owned land, consideration Public No of public's right of access. Lease (Page 9, Item 1) Ordinanc 11. In leasing of public owned land, consideration Public No shall be given to consistency of the proposed Lease use with the public interest. fl 3• Ordinance (Page 9, Item 2) 12. All leases of public land shall be considered Public No by the City Council at a public hearing F"s`my Lease (Page 9, Item 3) Ordinance 13. Tidelands leases shall be at full market rus.rur. Public No value and used consistent with tidelands 440 Lease trust provisions. +gym/PP+r Ordinance (Page 9, Item 4) ' 14. Public access shall be required in leases n,7>vb7. Public No (Page 10, item 5) µam Lease Ordinance 5 Local Coastal Program Circulation System Plan x rNe— es 6 The City shall require a ridesharing and s• x No carpooling plan in non-coastally related developments of 10,000 sq.ft, or more. (Page 12, Item 2) o•c•>•D- �ey� 7 The City shall insure implementation x No of the bikeway system. (Page 12, Item 3) 18. Work with the OCTD. C=C• x 'No Request OCTD to institute summer bus letter from _ service serving the entire Balboa City Council, Peninsula. minute action (Page 12, Item 4) -EXj (x) ACTION ITEM NO ACTION REQUIRED ZONING ORDINANCE COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE SEPARATE ORDINANCE CONSULTA14T DESIREABLE DEVELOP A PLAN ZONE CHANGE CzrC• Ar4t4• 19. Develop a municipal transit plan. Yes x (Page 15, Item 5) 20. Balboa Peninsula Shall be studied for a means of Yes x easing traffic congestion and improving wWWL circulation in transit plan. (Page 15, Item 6) 21. All development shall provide adequate x No parking per Newport p g p Beach Zoning Code. . (Page 15, Item 7) 22 The City shall locate and develop new publiic ( x Yes x parking. P 4 • oEo. _ (Page 15, Item 8) RH.gr,ffs• r..,J �,,;.��__ �� 23. In -lieu parking fees shall be deposited into a x No specifically identified public parking fund_ (Page 15, Item 9) c 24. Parking program on Newport Island. Revision No (Page 15a, Item 10) to existing ordinance 25 Joint use parking. x No (Page 15, Item 11) 26. Publicity for remote parking and transit No program. 1 (Page 16, Item 12) 27. Pool Parking Management Plan Yes x (Page 16, Item 13) �B Designation of types of Environmentally ` x No Sensitive Habitat Areas. (Page 20, Item A.1) Location of Structures x No (Page 20, Item A.2) ) r 4 NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE 0 Maintenance of drainage courses and x No facilities, sedimentation basins, etc. (Page 21, Item A3) 31. Cooperation with agencies re: Existing Yes sedimentation of Upper Newport Bay. 6 (�� Planning (Page 21, Item A4) y-( / Program 32. Coordination with Fish and Game Dept. Existing No in developing a management plan for Planning No Upper Newport Bay. Program No (Page 21, Item A5) 33. Dredging, Diking, and Filling Policie {6 _ Dredging, No (Pages 21-24, Item B) Diking, / i/ ilnd idling Ordinanc 4 Coastal Bluff Policies. Amend No (Pages 24-27, Item C) Existing Code Archeological, Paleontological, and x No Historical Resources. (Page 27, Item D) 6 Coastal Views. x No (Pages 27-29, Item E) 7 The City shall preserve the ocean beaches and x No proposals for construction of anti -erosion structures, off shore breakwaters, or future marinas shall be examined in this light. (Page 32, Item 1) 38. The City shall preserve and enhance x Yes Upper the upper bay and marine coastal preserves. Newport Bay (Page 32, Item 2) Sedimentation Control Plan VS 7-1 i ACTION ITEM NO ACTION REQUIRED ZONING ORDINANCE COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE SEPARATE ORDINANCE CONSULTANT DESIREABLE DEVELOP A PLAN ZONE CHANGE 3 Encourage and protect water -oriented x No recreational and entertainment facilities. (Page 33, Item 3) Location and development plan for restroom Yes x facilities. (Page 33, Item 4) 1 Location and development plan for marine Yes x sanitation facilities. (Page 33, Item 5) d2 Location and development plan for drinking Yes x fountains, outdoor showers. (Page 33, Item 6) 3 Location and development plan for bicycle racks. Yes x (Page 33, Item 7) 4 Encourage provision of guest slips, moorings, x No and anchorages. (Page 33, Item 8) QS. Encourage maintenance of overnight j x No accommodations in all price ranges. (Page 33, Item 9) 46. Encourage the County of Orange to x No provide additional recreational vehicle camp areas in the Newport Dunes. (Page 34, Item 10) Coordinate development of Bayview Landing C Yes with Newport Dunes. Di 'ct (Page 34, Item 11) 48. Protect and Encourage Visitor -serving Area Zoning, Yes Facilities. RMC (Page 34, Item 12) PHASE III PHASE IV ✓k ✓K V/A ✓r 1/K ✓' NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE 49 The City shall actively pursue the provision x No x of a public launching facility for small sail boats on lower Newport Bay. f (Page 34, Item 13) (.// 50. Provisions of small craft harbor in x No West Newport. (Page 34, Item 14) Coastal dependent development shall have Area zoning Yes priority over other developments on or districts, near the shoreline. RMC (Page 35, Item 1) D2 Commercily and Industrially zoned areas Area zoningYes shall be dalesignated for coastal dependent, RMC, RSC coastal -related, and visitor -serving uses as priority uses. d/ (Page 35, Item 2) 3 Commercial Fishing facilities shall be x No encouraged. (Page 35, Item 3) j City shall encourage the opening and x No development of adjoining ocean and water- front areas outside of Newport Bay. (Page 35, Item 4) S Protect and maintain support facilities SP-5 x Yes x and services for marine recreation and amendment education. Area zoning (Page 35, Item 5) RM r t 6 Protect and enhance public visual access.l j x No (Page 35, Item 5) J f 57. Designate a site for eventual provision of Yes x additional boat pump out facilities. (Page 35, Item 7) PHASE III PHASE IV ✓X BSc NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE 5 Restore electrical service, provide x No potable water at Rhine Channel. <y (Page 35, Item 8) 59. Allow dinghy launching at all safe Amend No street ends and beaches. Existing (Page 35, Item 9) Ordinance 60 Land Use Designations: Residential x No (Page 36) G Buildable acreage x No (Page 36) �2. Location of Structures x No '(Page 37) Recreation and Marine Commercial Area zones, Yes x (Pages 37-38) -- —' RMC Retail and Service Commercial Area zones, Yes x (Page 38) C-1, C-2 65. Administrative, Professional, and x No Financial Commercial (Page 38) 66. Governmental, Educational, and x No Institutional Facilities. - (Page 39) 7 Recreational and Environmental Open Space %Amendment Yes x (Page 39) 68. Industrial. x No (Page 39) 69. West Newport. x No (Page 40) PHASE III PHASE IV NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE 70. 32nd Street x No (Page 40) BEECO P-C No x (Page 40) District 72. CalTrans West x No (Page 40) 73. CalTrans East (Page 41) x No . Mariners Mile Amend No (Page 41) SP- `?-- 5. Balboa Bay Club I'RA3C,'� Yes x (Page 41) 6 Lido Village Yes x (Page 41) 77. Lido Isle x No (Page 41) B Lido Peninsula P-C Yes x (Pages 41-42). ;S Distric 79 Cannery Village Area zone Yes x (Page 42) 80 McFadden Square Bayfront Area zone Yes x (Page 42) McFadden Square Area zone Yes x '(Page 42) 8 Marinapark Area zone Yes x (Page 42) 83. Island Avenue x No (Page 42) PHASE III PHASE IV JX NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE 4. Central Balboa Area zone Yes x (Page 43) 85. Balboa Peninsula Point x No (Page 43) Balboa Island Area zone Yes x (Page 43) Coast Highway/Bayside Drive RMC Yes x (Page 43) 8. Beacon Bay RMC Yes x (Page 43) 09 Bayside and Marine. RMC Yes x (Page 43) 90. Corona del Mar State Beach x No (Page 44) _ 91. Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge x No (Page 44) Inspiration Point No x (Page 44) !9:3:3 Corona del Mar/Coast Highway Commercial Area zone Yes x (Page 44) 94 Buck Gully/Morning Canyon No x (Page 44) 5 Newport Center Area zone Yes x (Page 44) Bayview Landing E P-C Yes x (Page 45) District -:1 PHASE III PHASE IV NO ACTION ZONING COASTAL SEPARATE CONSULTANT DEVELOP ZONE ACTION ITEM REQUIRED ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE DESIREABLE A PLAN CHANGE ORDINANCE 97. De Anza Mobile Home Park x No x (Page 45) Accomplished Mobile Home Overlay zone 8 Newporter Inn RMC Yes x (Page 45) 9. Newporter North i P-C Yes x (Page 45) �`w District !103Z Mouth of Big Canyon. pL P-C No x (Page 45) q District 0 East Bluff Remnant No x (Page 46) San Diego Creek _ P-C Yes x (Page 46) District no Jamboree and MacArthur P-C Yes x (Page 46) District . Westbay P-C Yes x (Page 46) Lj District 0 North star Beach No x (Page 47) . castaways P-C Yes x (Page 47) District 107. Upper Newport Bay Ecological x No Managemen Reserve Plan (Page 47) r t � 1 -�R.+tij U.,e 0.4 4 A�� 2O- 2Si Gezo J f i WZ w, _ 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowmor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION . ,� DJT, , 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR r SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 R E C E I V E D (415) 543.8555 Planning TDD ONLY (415) 896.1825 Department July 23, 1986 JUL281986 so. CITY OF NEWPORT' gEACH,,� TO: Fiscal Officer and Planning Director CALIF FROM: California Coastal Commission SUBJECT: Claim Form Instructions for Reimbursement of Costs Mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Ch. 1330, Statutes of 1976, Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq) INTRODUCTION The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires coastal cities and counties to prepare local coastal programs (LCPs) for the portion of their jurisdiction within the coastal zone. Generally, an LCP consists of a land use plan and the land use controls, such as zoning ordinances, necessary to implement the land use plan. Most local governments will prepare their LCPs with grants approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, for reasonable and necessary LCP preparation costs not covered by a grant, the State —mandated costs account, pursuant to Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (SB 90), provides other reimbursement funds to local governments. Chapter 1075, Statutes of 1978, established procedures and 'requirements which local governments, must comply with to claim and receive State reimbursement for costs mandated by and directly attributable to the California Coastal Act of 1976. These procedures and requirements supersede prior procedures promulgated by the State Controller relating to reimbursement of costs mandated by the Coastal Act. Period of Claims Covered by This Announcement 1985-86 claims for actual costs for the period 7/l/85 — 6/30/86. 1986-87 claims for estimated costs for the period 7/l/86 — 6/30/87. (Generally, estimated cost claims will not be recommended for reimbursement unless estimated costs cannot be covered by a grant from the Coastal Commission.) Deadline for Claims and Supporting Materials Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1986. Send claims to: Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, 631 'Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Supporting information should be on the forms enclosed herein and accompanied by the cost breakdown and work task information requested. Reimbursement claims submitted after September 30 1986 will be paid at 80% of the approved claim. If you have any questions, please call Bill Van Beckum at the State Commission Office (415) 543-8555. -2- Costs Eligible for Reimbursement There are two classifications of reimbursable costs. These are: i. Direct planning and administrative costs related to the preparation, review and certification of a local coastal program or any portion thereof. Direct planning and administrative costs include costs incurred for identification of issues to be addressed in an LCP, preparation of an LCP work program for Coastal Commission review and approval, and completion of approved work program tasks. Costs for the latter must be for work reasonable and necessary for the preparation and certification of a local coastal program prepared pursuant to the approved work program. Costs for work which is not part of a Commission -approved work program are eligible if the work is shown to be necessary for completion of a certifiable LCP or if the Commission, on the basis of new information, requires such work to be done. LCP Grant work programs are approved by the Commission with a budget anticipated to be sufficient to carry out the specified work. Costs which are included in the approved work program and eligible for reimbursement under the LCP grant (whether or not reimbursed at the time of the claim filing) are not eligible for mandated costs reimbursement. The availability of grant funds and necessity of the work will determine whether the Commission will augment the LCP grant to cover increased costs, will recommend against the grantee incurring the costs, or will recommend that they be submitted as the mandated costs claim. (Jurisdictions performing work under a Commission LCP Grant must follow the procedures specified in the grant agreement for 'notifying the Commission of the need for budget augmentation. Without such notification, it will be difficult for the Commission to make the requisite finding that mandated costs reimbursement is appropriate due to th'b unavailability of grant funds). 2. Costs related to the implementation of a certified local coastal program. Implementation costs eligible for reimbursement are identified in Coastal Act Section -30353--and are- summarfzed-below: ---------- -- -- - - - a. Costs for establishing• a regulatory program to implement a certified LCP, through such start-up measures as establishing permit systems, staff training, developing procedural manuals, and formally adopting already certified zoning measures. The costs are limited to those incurred over a period not to exceed -one year from the date a local government has adopted its certified LCP for implementation. b. General costs for processing coastal permit applications (e.g. costs for public notice, submittal of files to the Commission, and appearances before the Commission on appeals). This will be a fixed payment, not to exceed 10 dollars per application. -3- c. Other coastal permit processing costs not covered in (b) above that cannot be reasonably attributed to existing regulatory programs or covered by permit fees, due to (i) the jurisdiction's small population (less than 10,000) or (ii) extraordinary resource management review required by the LCP. . d. Enforcement costs attributable to LCP implementation, such as assuring compliance with coastal permit conditions (if such enforcement is not routinely performed or already required by law as part of a local government's normal regulatory responsibilities). e. litigation costs attributable to LCP implementation. ' If a local government prevails in an action, litigation costs may be paid to the extent such costs are not assessed against the party bringing the action. Costs in both reimbursable cost classifications 1 and 2 must: - Be the direct result of and be mandated by the operation of the Coastal Act or by the Coastal Commission; - Not be paid for or reimbursed from any other source of State or Federal funds; and - Not be for work that is optional. Costs Not Eligible for Reimbursement There are several grounds on which a claim may be denied. Examples of non -reimbursable costs are: - Costs totalling less than two hundred dollars ($200). - Costs not related to the preparation, review and approval of an LCP or otherwise mandated by the Coastal Act or the Commission (i.e., costs of completion or updating general plan elements already mandated by State law). - Costs associated with Coastal Act Boundary Study'. - Costs of salaries for a City Manager or County Administrator, which are ongoing costs of local government; inappropriate or inefficient use of high level staff to do work appropriate for•lower levels. - Costs claimed that are not supported by accounting records substantiating such costs. These above examples are illustrative only since there may be other grounds for denial of a claim. t ;t -4- II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF CLAIMS Claim Categories: Coastal Act related cTaims are divided into four categories (a separate claim form should be used for each category): I. Issue Identification and preparation of a Work Program for the LCP. II. Preparation of the Land Use Plan. III. Preparation of Land Use Controls, such as zoning ordinances, to implement the land use plan. IV. Implementation Costs. Suoportinq Data: 1. A Mandated Costs Claim Form must be completed with supporting data divided as to each of the four claim categories (i.e., Issue Identification/Work Program; Land Use Plan; Land Use Controls; and Implementation Costg). Use the forms provided and include the necessary budget breakdown by work task item. You may attach additional pages if the farm does not provide sufficient space for the information requested. 2. Actual costs for the period 7/1/85 - through 6/30/86 and estimated costs for the period 7/1/86 through 6/30/87 should be clearly distinguished in each of the categories for which a claim is submitted. Please round all costs to the nearest dollar. 3. The Summary and Certification sheet must be signed and must list the totals of all actual or estimated costs, and previous reimbursements, detailed in the claim form(s). 4. If you are reporting actual or estimated costs over and above those covered by an existing Local Coastal Program Grant you must report the total costs for the claim category, and reduce the costs by the amount budgeted in the approved work program. S. For auditing purposes, all costs claimed must be traceable to source documents or worksheets that show evidence of and the validity of such costs. These documents (i.e., receipts, vouchers, contracts, timesheets, cost plans, etc.) must be kept on file and made available on the request of the Coastal Commission or the State Controller for a period• of three years from the date of payment of claim. -5- III. CLAIMS SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST -- A separate four -page Mandated Costs Claim Form (attached pages CF-1 through CF-4) must be completed for each claim category (e.g., one form for Land Use Plan cost claims and another•form for Land Use Controls cost claims). All listed costs should be rounded to the nearest dollar. This office will accept photocopies of the attached blank. form, or will provide additional forms upon request. -- The Summary and Certification sheet (attached page CF-5) must be completed, with signature. -- Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1986. BVB:btr .l J A. B. C. MANDATED COSTS CLAIM FORM COASTAL ACT OF 1976 Page CF-1 Jurisdiction Name This claim is for (circle one, use a separate form for each claim category): I. Issue Identification/Work Program II. Land Use Plan III. Land Use Controls IV. Other Costs Project Dates: Project Started: Project Completed: Amount of any grant authorized for this project and grant•dates: D. Amount reimbursed for this project or any portion thereof pursuant to a mandated costs claim previously submitted (FY 76/77, 77/78, 78/79, 79/80, 80/81, 81/82, 82/83, 83/84, 84/85) E. Cost Breakdown Categories 1. Salaries and Benefits Show the position/title of persons involved, describe the specific functions performed relative to the mandate, amount of time spent, budgeted hourly salary and employee benefits. Actual Costs 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 Estimated Costs 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 Revised 7/86 Pave CF-2 2. Services and Supplies Only expenditures identified as a direct cost resulting from the mandate can be claimed. List costs of materials acquired, consumed or expended specifically for the purposes of this workphase. Travel and subsistence expenses are paid in accordance with rules of the local jurisdiction. Compensation for use of equipment is allowable througri a use allowance or depreciation during the period it is assigned to the work phase. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/l/85 - 6/30/86 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 3. Professional and Consultant Services Show name of each consultant, describe reasons for hiring consultants, specify functions consultants performed relative to the mandate, length of appointment, and itemized costs for such services. Indicate other work consultant performed for your jurisdiction during this period. Provide documentation of cost, invoice copies, etc. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/85 = 6/30/86 7/1/86 -6/30%87 Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 7/86 w 4. 5. Page CF-3 Allowable Indirect Overhead Costs (State % used) Cities and counties have the option of using 10% of direct labor as indirect costs or an indirect cost rate prepared in accordance with provisions of Office of Budget Management Circular No. A-87, Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants and Contracts. Indirect costs may include costs of space, equipment use, utilities, insurance, administration, etc. The indirect cost rate• used must be shown on the claim. If any indirect costs claimed are at a rate different than one used in a current Commission grant, the difference must be explained. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/l/85 - 6/30/86 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 SUB -TOTALS: $ $ Summary of Work Task Items and Products List tasks involved in any planning or implementing program for which reimbursement is claimed, and describe program products. For each work task itemize the components of the task's costs (using above Cost Breakdown Categories E-.1. through E.4.). Please submit a- copy of any product for which costs are claimed. Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 7/86 Pace CF-4 F. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Responses to all of the following questions must be provided for each category of costs and for each work task item for which a claim is submitted. Indicate whether the response applies to actual and/or estimated costs. Responses applicable to estimated costs (if not the same) may be less detailed than for actual costs. Failure to respond to these questions result in a negative recommendation to the Controller and may result in a denial of the claim•by the Controller. 1. Specify by each work task how costs claimed relate to the Coastal Act of 1976, or to the work program of a Coastal Commission grant. . 2. Was the work for which reimbursement is claimed reviewed with the Coastal Commission or its staff before costs were incurred? With whom and when was the work discussed? 3. If costs .are claimed by departments other than planning, provide a description of the type of work done, and demonstrate how it relates to the Coastal Act or the LCP. Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 7/86 Page CF-5 SUMMARY AND CERTIFICATION MANDATED COSTS COASTAL ACT OF 1976 CLAIM SUMMARY 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 I. Issue Identification/Work I1. Land Use Plan III. Land Use Controls IV. Implementation Costs Less Grants or other Reimbursement Received to Cover Costs Shown BALANCE 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 A local government's claim must be accompanied by the following certification: CERTIFICATION OF CLAIM: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2231, Revenue and Taxation Code, I certify that I am the person authorized by the local agency to file claims with the State of California for costs mandated by Chapter 1330 (Statutes 1976); and certify under penalty of perjury that I have not violated any of the provisions of Government Code Sections 1090 to 1096, inclusive. I further certify that there were no applications for nor any grants or payments received, other than from the claimant, for reimbursement of costs claimed herein; and such costs are for a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by said chapter. The amount of $ is hereby claimed from the State for payment of the actual and/or estimated cost for the mandated program set forth on the attached statements. Date Signature of Authorized Representative Type Name Title _- Name of Jurisdiction Revised 7/86 STATE OF P.AUFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEHAN, Govemor CALITORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 9 (415) 543.8555 p� TDD ONLY (415) 896.1825 R E C E I V July 23, 1986 S' pelenni.�q RMIOnt 1D " 1986 �• TO: Fiscal Officer and Planning Director IV CITY � YOF 11 FROM: California Coastal CommissionCHI t> SUBJECT: Claim Form Instructions for Reimbursement of Costs Mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Ch. 1330, Statutes of 1976, Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq) I. INTRODUCTION The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires coastal cities and counties to prepare local coastal programs (LCPs) for the portion of their jurisdiction within the coastal zone. Generally, an LCP consists of a land use plan and the land use controls, such as zoning ordinances, necessary to implement the land use plan. Most local governments will prepare their LCPs with grants approved by the California Coastal Commission. However, for reasonable and necessary LCP'preparation costs not covered by a grant, the State —mandated costs account, pursuant to Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxatiorr Code (SB 90), provides other reimbursement funds to local governments. Chapter 1075, Statutes of 1978, established procedures and " requirements which local bovernments• must comply with to claim and receive State reimbursement for costs mandated by and directly attributable to the California Coastal Act of 1976. These procedures and requirements supersede prior procedures promulgated by the State Controller relating to reimbursement of costs mandated by the Coastal Act. Period of Claims Covered by This Announcement 1985-86 claims for actual costs for the period 7/1/85 — 6/30/86. 1986-87 claims for estimated costs for the period 7/1/86 — 6/30/87. (Generally, estimated cost claims will not be recommended for reimbursement unless estimated costs cannot be covered by a grant from the ,Coastal Commission.) Deadline for Claims and Supporting Materials Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1986. Send claims to: Executive Director, California Coastal Commission, 631 Howard Street, San -,Francisco, California 94105. Supporting information should be -on the forms enclosed herein and accompanied by the cost breakdown and work task information requested. Reimbursement claims submitted after September 30 1986 will be paid at 80% of the approved claim. If you have any questions, please call Bill Van Beckum at the State Commission Office (415) 543-8555. -2— Costs Eligible for Reimbursement There are two classifications of reimbursable costs. These are: 1. Direct planning and administrative costs related to the preparation, review and certification of a local coastal program or any portion thereof. Direct planning and administrative costs include costs incurred for identification of issues to be addressed in an LCP, preparation of an LCP work program for Coastal Commission review and approval, and completion of approved work program tasks. Costs for the latter must be for work reasonable and necessary for the preparation and certification of a local coastal program prepared pursuant to the approved work program. Costs for work which is not part of a Commission —approved work program are eligible if the work is shown to be necessary for completion of a certifiable LCP or if the Commission, on the basis of new information, requires such work to be done. LCP Grant work programs are approved by the Commission with a budget anticipated to be sufficient to carry out the specified work. Costs which are included in the approved work program and eligible for reimbursement under the LCP grant (whether or not reimbursed at the time of the claim filing) are not eligible for mandated costs reimbursement. The availability of grant funds and necessityi of the work will determine whether the Commission will augment the LCP grant to cover increased costs, will recommend against the grantee incurring the costs, or will recommend that they be submitted as the mandated costs claim. (Jurisdictions performing work under a Commission LCP Grant must follow the procedures specified in the grant agreement for notifying the Commission of the need for budget augmentation. Without such notification, it will be difficult for the Commission to make the requisite finding that mandated costs reimbursement is appropriate due to the unavailability of grant funds): 2. Costs related to the implementation of a certified local coastal program. Implementation costs eligible for reimbursement are identified in Coastal Act Section 30353 and are summarized below: a. Costs for establishing a regulatory program to implement a certified LCP, through such start—up measures as establishing permit systems, staff training, developing procedural manuals, and formally adopting already certified zoning measures. The costs are limited to those incurred over a period not to exceed one year from the date a local government has adopted its certified LCP for implementation. b. General costs for processing coastal permit applications (e.g. costs for public notice, submittal of files to the Commission, and appearances before the Commission on appeals). This will be a fixed payment, not to exceed 10 dollars per application. N. -3— c. Other coastal permit processing costs not covered in (b) above that cannot be reasonably attributed to existing regulatory programs or covered by permit fees, due to (i) the jurisdictiva's small population (less than 10,000) or (ii) extraordinary resource management review required by the LCP. d. Enforcement costs attributable to LCP implementation, such as assuring compliance with coastal permit conditions (if such enforcement is not routinely performed or already required by law as part of a local government's normal regulatory responsibilities). e. Litigation costs attributable to. 'LCP implementation. If a local. government prevails in an action, litigation costs may be paid to the extent such costs are not assessed against the party bringing the action. Costs in both reimbursable cost classifications 1 and 2 must: — Be the direct result of and be mandated by the operation of the Coastal Act or by the Coastal Commission; — Not be paid for or reimbursed from any other source of State or Federal funds; and — Not tie for work that is optional. Costs Not Eligible for Reimbursement There are several grounds on which a claim may be denied. Examples of non —reimbursable costs are: — Costs totalling less than two hundred dollars ($200). — Costs not related to the preparation, review and approval of an LCP or otherwise mandated by the Coastal Act or the Commission (i.e., costs of completion or updating general plan elements already mandated by State law). — Costs associated with Coastal Act Boundary Study'. — Costs of salaries for a City Manager or County Administrator, which are ongoing costs of local government; inappropriate or inefficient use of high level staff to do work appropriate for lower levels. — Costs claimed that are not supported by accounting records substantiating such costs. These above examples are illustrative only since there may be other grounds for denial of a claim. -4— II. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF CLAIMS Claim Categories: Coastal Act related claims are divided into four categories (a separate claim form should be used for each category): I. Issue Identification and preparation of a Work Program for the LCP. II. Preparation of the Land Use Plan. III. Preparation. of Land Use Controls, such as zoning ordinances, to implement the land use plan. IV. implementation Costs. Supporting Data: 1. A Mandated Costs Claim Form must be completed with supporting data divided 1as to each of the four claim categories (i.e., Issue Identification/Work Program; Land Use Plan; Land Use Controls; and Implementation Costs). Use the forms provided and include the necessary budget breakdown by work task item. You may attach. additional pages if the form does not provide sufficient space for the information requested. 2. Actual costs for the period 7/l/85 — through 6/30/86 and estimated costs for the period 7/1/86 through 6/30/87 should be clearly distinguished in each of the categories for which a claim is submitted. Please round all costs to the nearest dollar. 3. The Summary and Certification sheet must be signed and must list the totals of all actual or estimated costs, and previous reimbursements, detailed in the claim form(s). 4. If you are reporting actual or estimated costs over and above those covered by an existing Local Coastal Program Grant you must report the total costs for the claim category, and reduce the costs by the amount budgeted in the approved work program. S. For auditing purposes, all costs claimed must be traceable to source documents or worksheets that show evidence of and the validity of such costs. These documents (i.e., receipts, vouchers, contracts, timesheets, cost plans, etc.) must be kept on file and made available on the request of the Coastal Commission or the State Controller for a period of three years from the date of payment of claim. -5- III. CLAIMS SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST -- A separate four -page Mandated Costs Claim Form (attached pages CF-1 through CF-4) must be completed for each claim category (e.g., one form for Land Use Plan cost claims and another form for Land Use Controls cost claims). All listed costs should be rounded to the nearest dollar. This office will accept photocopies of the attached blank. form, or will provide additional forms upon request. -- The Summary and Certification sheet (attached page CF-5) must be completed, with signature. -- Claims and supporting materials must be postmarked on or before September 30, 1986. BVB:btr it 0 A. LV C4. D. MANDATED COSTS CLAIM FORM COASTAL ACT OF 1976 Pace CF-1 Jurisdiction Name This claim is for (circle one; use a separate form for each claim category): I., Issue Identification/Work Program II. Land Use Plan III. Land Use Controls IV. Other Costs Project Dates: Project Started: Project Completed: Amount of any grant authorized for this project and grant -dates: _ Amount reimbursed for this project or any portion thereof pursuant to a mandated costs claim previously submitted (FY 76/77, 77/78, 78/79, 79/80, 80/81, 81/82, 82/83, 83/84. 84/85) E. Cost Breakdown Categories 1. Salaries and Benefits Show the position/title the specific functions mandate, amount of time and employee benefits. Revised 7/86 of persons involved, describe performed relative to the spent, budgeted hourly salary Actual Costs 7/l/85 - 6/30/86 Estimated -Costs 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 2. 3. Pace CF-2 Services and Supplies Only expenditures identified as a direct cost resulting from the mandate can be claimed. List costs of materials acquired, consumed or expended specifically for the purposes of this workphase. Travel and subsistence expenses are paid in accordance with rules of the local jurisdiction. Compensation for use of equipment is allowable through a use allowance or depreciation during the period it is assigned to the work phase. Actual Costs 711/85 - 6/30/86 A. Professional and Consultant Services Estimated Costs 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 Show name of each consultant, describe reasons for hiring consultants, specify functions consultants performed relative to the mandate, length of appointment, and itemized costs for such services. Indicate other work consultant performed for your jurisdiction during this period. Provide documentation of cost, invoice copies, etc. Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 7/86 Page CF-3 4. Allowable Indirect Overhead Costs (State % used) Cities and counties have the option o labor as indirect costs or an indirect accordance with provisions of Office Circular No. A-87, Principles for Applicable to Grants and Contracts. include costs of space, equipment use, administration, etc. The indirect shown on the claim. If any indirect costs claimed are at a rate different than one used in a current Commission grant, the difference must be explained. It . f using 10% of direct cost rate prepared in of Budget Management Determining Costs Indirect costs may utilities, insurance, cost rate• used must be Actual Costs Estimated Costs 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 SUB -TOTALS: $ 5. Summary of Work Task Items and Products List tasks involved in any planning or implementing program for which reimbursement is claimed, and describe program products. For each work task itemize the components of the task's costs (using above Cost Breakdown Categories E.1. through E.4.). Please submit a copy of any product for which costs are claimed. Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 7/86 Y Pace CF-9 F. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Responses to all of the following questions must be provided for each category of costs and for each work task item for which a claim is submitted. Indicate whether the response applies to actual and/or estimated costs. Responses applicable to estimated costs (if not the same) may be less detailed than for actual costs. Failure to respond to these questions result in a negative recommendation to the Controller and may result in a denial of the claim•by the Controller. 1. Specify by each work task how costs claimed relate to the Coastal Act of 1976, or to the work program of a Coastal Commission grant. It 2. Was the work for which reimbursement is claimed reviewed with the Coastal Commission or its staff before costs were incurred? With whom and when was the work discussed? 3. If costs are claimed by departments provide a description of the type of work how it relates to the Coastal Act or the LCP, other than planning, done, and demonstrate Mandated Costs Claim Form Revised 7/86 Page CF-5 SUMMARY AND CERTIFICATION MANDATED COSTS COASTAL ACT OF 1976 CLAIM SUMMARY 7/1/85 - 6/30-/86 I. Issue Identification/Work II. Land Use Plan III. Land Use Controls IV. Implementation Costs Less Grants or other Reimbursement Received to Cover Costs Shown BALANCE 7/1/86 - 6/30/87 A local governments claim must be accompanied by the following certification: CERTIFICATION OF CLAIM: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2231, Revenue and Taxation Code, I certify that I am the person authorized by the local agency to file claims with the State of California for costs mandated by Chapter 1330 (Statutes 1976); and certify under penalty of perjury that I have not violated any of the provisions of Government Code Sections 1090 to 1096, inclusive. I further certify that there were no applications for nor any grants or payments received, other than from the claimant, for reimbursement of costs claimed herein; and such costs are for a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by said chapter. The amount of $ is hereby claimed from the State for payment of the actual and/or estimated cost for the mandated program set forth on the attached statements. Date Signature of Authorized Representative Type Name Title Name of Jurisdiction Revised 7/86 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gommor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR as SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415) 543.8555 Tlb 95 , September 11, 1987 'q Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Standard Agreement LCP-5300—F AMENDMENT TWO Time Extension Dear Chris: Enclosed are four (4) copies of the Agreement listed above between the Coastal Commission and your jurisdiction. Please have your authorized official sign all four copies. Keep the original for your records, and return three copies to me. Upon being signed by your authorized official, this Agreement becomes fully executed. If you have any questions or problems regarding this Agreement, please call me at the above number. Sincerely, Bill Van Beckum LCP Grant Administrator Enclosures BVB/btr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 September 29, 1987 Mr. Bill Van Beckum California Coastal Commission 631 Howard St., 4th Floor San Francisco, CA.7.94105 Subject: Standard Agreement LCP-5300-F Amendment Two Time Extension Dear Bill: Enclosed are the three executed copies of the subject agreement. Thank you again for your time and efforts in this matter. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES P,. HEWICKER, Director By - S GUST N Senior Planner CG:jm C:\CG\9-29-87.CCC Enclosures 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport.Beach APPROVED BY THE STANDARD AGREEMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA STD. 2 (REV. S/Bt) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 29th day of May , 19 7 , in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting ❑ CONTRACTOR ❑ STATE AGENCY ❑ DEPT. OF GEN. SER. ❑ CONTROLLER El Cl TITLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR STATE AGENCY NUMBER Executive Director alifornia Coastal Commission O-5300-F A/2 City of Newport Beach Contractor. WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows: (Set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach plans and specifications, if any.) 1. AMENDMENT Two The purpose of this amendment is to extend the agreement by thirteen months to a new termination date of June 30, 1988. All other terms and conditions shall remain the same. The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR AGENCY CONTRACTOR (IF OTHER THAN AN INOIYIOUAL STATE WHETHER A CORPORATION. PARTNERSHIP. ETC) of Newport Beach BY (q IIED SIGNA RE) BY f T 2ED- ALJ C 1 TIT E TITLE Chiefof Admin Services Cit Manager —11 ADDRESS CONTINUED ON _ SHEETS, EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR PO Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Department of General Services Use Only AMOUNT ENCUMBERED 81,270.00 PROGRAM/CATEGORY (CODE ANDTT5l Asst Federal Catalog No. JJ11419 FUND TITLE 55$ GF 45% FTF UNENCUMBERED BALANCE (OPTIONAL USE) - Local Cost PCA-29500-FTF hereby certify that :his contract is ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE ITEM 32- - 3720-101-890 CHARTER ill STATUTE 1985 FISCAL YEAR 85-86 ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE) A—Asst to Local Planning Agencies exempt from Department )£ General Services approval. I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are avaflablefortl ad and purpose of the expenditure stated above. T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. SIGNATU O C UN NG OFFICER DATE 5 29 87 �dmin' trativ Officer l hereby certify that all condiifons for ex e on set forth in State Administrative Manual Section 120.9 have been compiled with and this do eat is exempt from review by the Department of Finance. SIG,NRT0FE OF OFFI R SIGNIN N BEHALF OF THE AGENCY DAT15/29/87 1. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Contractor in the performance of this contract. 2. The Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in the performance of this agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of State of California. 3. The State may terminate this agreement and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Contractor should Contractor fail to perform the covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. The cost to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this agreement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid the Contractor upon demand. 4. Without the written consent of the State, this agreement is not assignable by Contractor either in whole or in part. 5. Time is the essence of this agreement. 6. No alteration or variation of the terms of this contract shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto, 7. The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Contractors expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided. e- % CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date November 5, 1987 Demand of: California Coastal Commission Address: 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 In the amount Of $ 3,307.40 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT Refund of portion of "Cost Reimbursable" grant incorrectly sent to City of Newport Beach (Check #026-873502 - 10/5/87) by California Coastal Commission LCP-5300-F A/1 02-80605 Annrnvad Fnr Pavmant TOTAL $3,307.40 t� Depart Audited pproved: Financ Y tq STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Go"mor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 HOWARD STREET, 4TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 (415)543-8555 November 2, 1987 George Pappas, Finance Director City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Commission Grant # LCP-5300-F A/1 Dear Mr. Pappas: id0V s 198Ti .A The California Coastal Commission awarded the City of Newport Beach a Local coastal Program (LCP) planning grant, for $8,270, in 1985; the grant's time period runs from December 1, 1985 through June 30, 1988. On July 15, 1987, Mr. Chris Gustin, of the Newport Beach Planning Department, submitted a "request for funds" form to this office, requesting reimbursement of $4,962.60, for initial work performed under the grant through April 30, 1987. After I authorized payment of that amount, we discovered that the reimbursement check sent to the City in response to that "request for funds" was erroneously made out for $8,270, the full amount of the grant (check # 026-873502, issued October 5, 1987). Since the grant is a "cost reimbursable" grant, it will not be until the City has completed all grant work program tasks that the City will be eligible for full ($8,270) grant reimbursement. At this time, the City is eligible only for $4,962.60 reimbursement, the amount requested to date. To correct this matter, we request that the City now submit a check to this office, payable to the California Coastal Commission, for $3,307.40, the difference between the $8,270 paid to the City and the $4,962.60 eligible amount. I have discussed the above with Mr. Gustin over the phone, on October 26, 1987. I shall appreciate your cooperation in this manner, and hope that it is not long before the City can be fully reimbursed for the substantial progress it is making in completing its LCP. Sincerely, ��%% Bill Van Beckum LCP Grant Administrator BVB/ma State of Carr%.iia, Edmund G.*n Jr., Gouernor 0 California Coastal Commission % iR E C E y u r. t7 631 Howard Street, 4th floor P1"n' ' " San Francisco, California 94105 r .,•arrant (415)543-8555 �� OCT21198130' ( Cal"k OF IVEtu�'"3� ��• d( October 15, 1981' Bob Lennard, Advance Planning Administrator City of Newport Beach' 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Local Coastal Program (LCP) Grant Program The LCP program remains short of the amount of grant funds•needed to fund all Local Coastal Programs through completion. This spring the Commission reported to you that because of a potential loss of federal funds, the Commission requested the federal and state governments to offset the projected grant budget deficit. These requests are still pending and the Commission at this time has no+assurance these funds will be restored. As a result, the Commission established a grant priority program allocating funds only to those Land Use Plans and zoning programs which could be completed and sub- mitted to the Commission by December 31, 1981. A second priority group was recently established funding those programs which could be completed and submitted prior to April 30, 1982. Both of these priority groups are funded under the maximum targeted funding set for each jurisdiction by the Commission, All programs that will be completed after May 1, 1982 and that presently do not have a Phase III (zoning) grant, cannot be assured of grant funds. Under present funding circumstances, a small balance of grant funds remains for which nine cities and four counties are now competing. Based upon information you have submitted, your program is within this latter group. If your proposed work schedule and re- solution of Land Use Plan issues should change this status, please inform this office as it may be possible to have your program status reconsidered. Because of state legislation AB 385 (the Hannigan Bill) which becomes effective January 1, 1982, the Commission is required to set a schedule for submittal of all Land Use Plans that have not been submitted to the Commission on or before July 1, 1981 (Sec. 30517.5a). And after certification of the Land Use Plan, the Commission is required to establish a date for submittal of the zoning program to implement the LUP (Sec. 30517.6a). As a result, it is anticipated that by, January, 1982 the Commission will set an LCP completion schedlde. Based upon that determination, all grant programs will be coordinated with this schedule. Therefore, further consideration of any pending grant requests will be deferred until after the LCP completion schedule is adopted in January by the Commission. The District office will be contacting you concerning this completion schedule. POWNer"�Tt ROBE Deputy Director of Land Use Joan Lundstrom, LCP Grants Administrator District: Dave Loomis, Chief Planner State of California, Edmund G. 0n Jr., Governor 0. aa.a5 Ir California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415)543-8555 Pat Temple, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 June 15, 1981 RE: 1981 Iocal Coastal Program (LCP) Grant Request Dear Mr. Temple: 19�1v- JuN� NENIPrCP�iP- ,� J This is to confirm my review of the City's Draft Phase III Implementation Work Program dated March 23, 1981. As discussed, a number of the proposed implementation Programs would not be eligible for current Phase III grant funding. These programs are not essential to enable the City to have a certified LCP, which includes rezoning actions. Rezoning can occur either before or after certification by the Commission. At this time, the Commission cannot fund Phase IV programs which are defined as implementation of a certified Land Use Plan or total LCP through enactment of zoning programs, development of permit procedures and manuals, staff train- ing and other start-up programs necessary to transfer permit authority, and development of further planning programs Presently the Commission has allocated its limited grant funds to finishing as many LCD's as possible statewide. Then if additional monies become available, Phase IV programs may be eligible for grants. Your proposed Work Program should be accompanied by an application, budget break- down, and schedule and sent'to-bhis office within'thirty'days. I hope this clarifies the Coastal Commission's present grant program as it relates to your proposed Work Program. Please call me if you have any further questions. cc: region: Carol Pillsbury tt Sincerely, Joan L. Lundstran LCP Grants Administrator To: Bob Lenard, City of Newport Beach Planning Department Erom: Joan L. Lundstro , tate Coastal Commission June 29, 1981 Enclosed is an application for Local Coastal Program grant funding. It is to be accompanied by a formal Council resolution authorizing application for funds, a budget breakdown, and a time schedule including Council and Commission hearings. If the City does not wish to revise the Draft Work Program submitted dated March 23, 1981, then please indicate this is the Work Program intended for formal submittal. Please callW me if you have any questions at (415) 543-8555• � Rev. 11/80 • aa____ LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TOTAL WORK PROGRAM Name of Applicant: Project Director: Title: Address: Phone: Fiscal Officer: Title: Address: Phone: State State District s : Congressional: Senate: Assembly: Months Required to Complete Total Work Program: Grant Requested for Total Cost of Program: $ Grant Period: List the Dates of Ado tion or Status of Your General Plan Elements: Open' IScenic Land Use Circulation Housin S ace Conservation Noise Seismic Safety SafetylHiqhway 1. Resolution authorizing grant application 2. Application form 3. Total Work Program 4. Products and Other Milestones Description 5. Budget [� 6. Statement of Assurances ❑ 7• Clearinghouse Form (submit CA 189 or 424 to Area Clearinghouse and copy of form to Coastal Commission for submission to State Clearinghouse for intitial Phase II grants only. Check with your local area clearinghouse for Phase III grant submittal. Transmit verification of clearing- house review when complete.) Submit two (2) copies of completed application to Coastal Commission; one copy must bear original signatures on items 1, 2 and 6 above. Submit one copy each to the regional and state commission offices. .Authorized Official Signature Date Title: �-1 Sy • le Resolution Form SUGGESTED RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO COASTAL ZONE MANAGRY= PLANNING ASSISTANCE WHEREAS, the (name of .jurisdiction or agency), recognizing the problems and issues identified in the attached application for Coastal Zone Management Grant desires to provide for a planning study contributing to improved coastal planning, decisiormaking, and management capability re- lated to community development and -growth; and WHEREAS, the (name of .Jurisdiction or agency) .has developed an application package to deal with these development problems and issues; and the California Coastal Commission, under authority of the Government Code of the State of California , may provide planning and financial assistance for such a program, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the(name of the legislative _ or policy body)_of the (name of Jurisdiction or a enc ,_ hereby requests the Coastal Commission to provide planning and financial assistance under authority of the Government Code of the State of California, not to exceed the amount of $ Such planning assistance is more particularly described in a project description that is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution as if fully set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the (title of official)_ of the name of .jurisdiction ore_ be, and he she is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the name of�*urisdiction or. agency), all necessary applications, contracts, and agreements and amendments hereto to implement and carry out the purposes specified in this resolution. The foregoing Resolution was passed by the (legislative or policy body) __ of the urisdiction or p.ency1__this day of 19 . Effective , 19 Attest: Signed: (name and title of official authorized to sign resolutions of the governing body) • Sta nt of Assurances Form STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES The Applicant hereby assures and certifies that he will comply with the regula- tions, policies, guidelines, and requir(m rnts including OMB Circulars Nos. 74-4. A-95, and 74-7, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of federal funds for this federally assisted project. Also, the Applicant assures and cer- tifies with respect to the grant that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant; that a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, includ- ing all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the appli- cant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights -Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and in accordance with Title VI of that Act, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the applicant re@eives federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures neces- sary to effectuate this agreement. 3. It will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964' (42 USC 2000(,1 - - prohibiting employment discrimination where, (1) the primary purpose of a grant is to provide employment or, (2) discriminatory employment practices will result in unequal treatment of persons who are or should be benefiting from the grant -aided activity. 4. It will comply with requirements of the provisions of the"Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (P.L..41-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs. 5. It will comply with the provision of the Hatch Act which limits the poli- tical activity of employees. 6. It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as they apply to hospital and educational institution employees of State and local governments. 7. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their posi- tions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 8. It will give the grantor agency or the -Comptroller General, through any ~ authorized representative, the access to and the right to examine all 'records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. 9. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the federal grantor agency concerning special requirements of law, program requirements, and other admi- nistrative requirements approved in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular No. 74-7. Signature of Authorized Official RiV 11/80 • LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATION Grant Applicant: Address: Zip Code: Project Title: Grant Amount Requested: Grant Period: Current Grant Request�� Personal Services Salaries and Wages Benefits Total Personal Services Operating Expdnses Travel Professional and Consultant Services Indirect Charges (see over) Other (Itemize, use separate sheet if required) office supplies postage printing of reports tif an overhead rate is charged, Drovide basis and breakdown) Total Operating Expenses Total Budget *Please round off all budget amounts to the nearest dollar, REV 11/80 •y Y 4 • INDIRECT COST RATE CERTIFICATION If indirect costs are shown on the Local Coastal Program Budget, the follow- ing must be completed by the Grantee's designated fiscal officer. Indirect costs are described in Section F of Federal Management.Circular 74-7 and the Grants Management Manual prepared by the Coastal Commission. Grantees must calculate indirect costs according to an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan which has been submitted to a cognizant federal agency the State Controller or the Coastal Commission. Grantees wishing to establish such plans should request explanatory materials from the Coastal Commission, Counties CERTIFICATION I I,-- hereby certify that the indirect Name of Fiscal Officer p costs identified above are consistent with the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan, for _ i , which has been submitted to, Name cT Jurisdiction the cognizant federal lead agency or the State Controller. Information documenting submission of Indirect Cost Allocation Plans and methods of calculation for departmental Indirect Cost Rate Proposals will be made available upon the request of the Coastal Commission or its designees. Signature of Fiscal Officer -` Date Cities Not all cities are required to submit Indirect Cost Allocation Plans. Where Indirect Cost Allocation Plans have been.submitted and accepted by a cognizant federal agency, documentation of acceptance of the plan by the federal agency should be provided. In the event that no plan has been filed with a cognizant federal agency, and the city wishes to use an Indirect Cost Rate, a copy of the plan must be provided to the Coastal Commission. aa,as CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 640-2261 May 8, 1981 Ms. Carol Pillsbury South Coast Regional Coastal Commission 666 East Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90801 Dear Ms. Pillsbury, The City of Newport Beach, by this letter, does hereby express the intent to apply for funds during 1981 to complete the Zoning and Implementing Ordinances Phase (Phase III) of the Local Coastal Program. The estimated amount, as indicated in the attached draft Work Program for Phase III is $60,000.00. If you have any questions regarding this request, please call me at (714) 640-2261. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEIWICKER, Director Patricia Temple Senior Planner PT:tk Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 5, May 11, 1981 RECEIVED MAY 151981> £ Mayor Tb: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS City of Newport FROM: ROBERT BROWN, CHIEF PLANNER 2 beach ii iv SUBJECT: PARKLANDS BOND ACT OF 1980: DISBURSEMENT OF LCP INCENTIVE GRAN (For Public Hearing only, at the meeting of May 21, 1981, as described in the enclosed Meeting Notice.) Background On November 4, 1980, California voters approved the 'California Parklands Bond Act of 1980. This measure includes $20 million for "Coastal Resources" project grants to local governments, for purposes which will serve as an incentive for timely completion of LCPs and which will carry out the provisions of approved 1CP land use plans. The Bond Act (Sec. 5096.173a) requires the Coastal Conservancy and the Commission to adopt "priorities, criteria, and procedures" for review and approval of grants to local governments. To expedite the availability of grant funds, the Conservancy and Commission approved a set of interim guidelines in December, 1980, and January, 1981. This report presents for Commission review and public hearing proposed "permanent" guidelines for LCP incentive grants to local governments. A second public hearing will be held on this same subject at the Commission's next meeting? June 2-311981t in South San Francisco, with a staff recommendation for action at that time. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the California Coastal Commission, at its meeting of June 2-3, approve the attached Accessway and Wetlands Enhancement grant guidelines (Exhibits 1 and 2) for use by the Commission and Coastal Comservancy as the "priorities, criteria, and procedures" for review and disbursement of LCP incentive grants pursuant to Section 5096.173(a) of the Parklands Bond Act of 1980, for all grant applications received prior to February 1, 1982. Staff further tive grant pr guidelines at Staff Analysis recommends that the Commission review the progress of the LOP incen— gram in January, 1982, and reconsider the effectiveness of the adopted that time. The proposed guidelines are slightly modified versions of the present Conservancy Access and Wetlands grant programs. These programs have been in place since September, 1980, appear to have been working well, and should serve to carry out most of the purposes contemplated in the Parklands Bond Act. Commission staff has provided comment -,to the Conservancy on 20 grant applications submitted by local governments under these guidelines (which we have been using on an "interim" basis), and this review process, in accordance with the criteria provided in the guidelines, appears adequate to focus use of the limited grant funds on the highest priority projects. l 1_Fi EXHIBIT 1 STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY Guidelines and Criteria for Grants To Local Public Agencies for Comprehensi-ve Coastal Accessway Programs Adopted Septmber 11, 1980 Revised October 9, 1980, December 11, 1980 I. GENERAL A. Purpose The Conservancy is authorized under -Chapter 9 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code to award grants to local agencies for the acquisition and development of public coastal accessways which serve more than local public needs. i B. Categories The Conservancy has awarded access grants to local jurisdicitions in two previous rounds of grant awards. These grant awards covered a range of projects, including both improvement of existing accessways and provision of new accessways. In this round, the Conservancy will fund the following kinds of projects: (A) A comprehensive program for the development of accessways within a jurisdiction; (B) The development of accessways within easements required by Coastal Commission permit action; and (C) Access portions of Conservancy Urban Waterfront projects. C.. Eligibility The following jurisdictions and projects are eligible for this round of accessway grants: _ (A) Jurisdictions that have submitted a Land Use Plan (LUP) to the Commission or that will have submitted their LUP to the Commission within six months of the date of submittal of the grant application. (B) Projects on a dedicated and unopened vertical access easements or deed restricted area shown in the coastal access inventory. 1 (C) Urban waterfront restoration projects adopted by the Conservancy. D. Funding Available The Conservancy will' not accept applications for any individual project costing less than $1000. II. USE OF FUNDS Funds granted by the Conservancy under this program may be used, subject to the requirements discussed below for the construction and development of new or expanded accessway facilities, including trails, stairways, paths, parking facilities, and vista points and if necessary for the acquisition of fee title, easements, or other interests in real property needed to develop accessways. III. BASIC REQUIREMENTS Each accessway grant must meet the following Basic Requirements: A. Serves'Greater than Local Public Needs, Legislative requirement, mandates that each accessway must serve more than local public needs. (i.e., they must serve more than the immediate community of permanent residents surrounding the acessway site) In the case of comprehensive accessway programs each accessway need' not necessarily comply with this criteria as long as on the whole the complete integrated program does so. B. Local Coastal•Program/Coastal Act Consistency Projects must be consistent with land use plan of the Local Coastal Program, where certified by the Coastal Commission, and with the goals and policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Inclusion of accessways as elements of certified Local Coastal Program land use plan will generally create a presumption that they are consistent with the Coastal Act. C. Consistency with Access Standards The design of individual accessways must be reasonably consistent with the Coastal Access standards adopted by the Conservancy. D. Unavailability of Funding From Other Sources Funding for development of accessway projects must not be available from other governmental sources or from private development. For F: 6 example, aside from local government sources, CALTRANS may be a source of funding for some bicycle path projects; the Wildlife Conservation Board may provide funding for some fishing access projects; and the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program of the Department of Parks and Recreation may be a source of funding for a some access projects. The Conservancy will not fund individual accessways whose construction is required by t eTi Coastal Commission as conditions for approval of development permits. E. Special Criteria for Parking Facility Projects. Each parking facility proposal must demonstrate that the facility: 1. is needed solely for access to the shoreline and would serve only the shoreline, e.g., beach area; 2. would specifically serve a new accessway leading to the shoreline, e.g., a parking lot or expansion of an existing parking lot in the immediate vicinity of or a part of an accessway development that is a part of the 'grant application; 3. be relatively modest in area, as distinguished from a major parking garage structure; 4. is needed because other parking facilities or spaces are inadequate to meet demand fornew access in that area; 5. includes bike racks wherever possible; and 6. designates at least one out of every 20 parking spaces for disabled persons or as provided by Standard #12 of Conservancy Coastal Access Standards. F. Special Criteria for Bike Path Projects. Each bike path proposal must demonstrate: 1. the -necessity to provide or increase shoreline access by this -means- of access; 2. that the path is located to maximize access where alternative routes for bicycles are not possible; 3. that adequate provision is made for bicycle racks at - appropri-ate—potnts along the path and at its terminus; 4. that the path is required solely for new or substantially increased shoreline access; 5. that the design of the path would include adequate separation of bicycle use from pedestrian use. IV. PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA Applications that meet the above Basic Requirements will be evaluated competitively according to the following Project -Specific Criteria. In the event of a shortage of grant funds relative to the number of applications meeting the Basic Requirements, those proposals which most nearly meet the Project -Specific criteria will be funded first. A. Increased Access. The Conservancy will give highest priority to accessways which would create entirely new access opportunities over those which would formalize existing publically-used but unimproved access points. It will give lower priority under this criterion to renovation or rebuilding of existing usable accessways. B. Urgency. The Conservancy will give priority to individual accessways which would correct existing documented hazards to users; correct existing degredation of the site's natural resources resulting from use by the public; would take advantage of a unique opportunity such as an immediately available source of matching funds or a limited -term offer of dedication; or would reopen an accessway previously closed by destruction or deterioration. C. Need. The Conservancy will give priority to those applications where the need for increased access is greatest relative to existing access opportunities and to the financial and organizational resources of the local jurisdiction. D. Model. The Conservancy will give priority to those individual projects which would provide a model useful for other coastal jurisdictions and access situations. Projects may provide useful models by their materials or design; by their packaging of a variety of funding sources; or by their integration with natural features or other man-made improvements. E. Cost -Effectiveness. The Conservancy will give priority to those projects which are most cost-effective. The elements of cost-effectiveness will vary from accessway to accessway but may typically include the degree to which the design and materials of the accessway exceed that required by a good functional design; the number of users of the proposed facility relative to its cost; the expected life -span of the accessway relative to its cost; and the length of time it will take the local jurisdiction to open the accessway for public use. Based on its experience with previous accessway proposals the Conservancy has adopted more specific guidelines on the latter two 4 elements of cost-effectiveness. First, the Conservancy expects individual accessways to have expected lifespans of at least 20 years.This does not apply to the potential of destruction from catastrophic events, but is a general guideline for those accessways where the proposed improvements are of a temporary nature or where the interests in the underlying accessway site are held for a limited duration (i.e., a site which is leased). The Conservancy will retain a leasehold interest over the accessway for that time period to assure its continuous availability for public access. Second, the Conservancy expects that individual accessways will be open for public use within one year from the award of a grant. (This does not apply to highly complicated or involved improvement projects, however) Proposals to purchase or develop accessway sites where a showing is not made that the improvements can also be funded, installed and opened for public use within one year thus will not be funded unless unique, individual.circumstances suggest further consideration. F. Other Considerations. The Conservancy will give priority to individual accessways where the local jurisdiction is providing local funds to match the Conservancy grant and where maintenance will be provided by a local community group or the local government. V. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Applications should be submitted in letter form containing (1) a brief accurate description of the project, (2) a statement showing how it meets the Conservancy's Basic requirements and criteria including its consistency with the LUP, (3) an estimate of the cost for the project itemized by labor and material of each stage of construction, and (4) cost of acquisition. The letter should also be accompanied by scale drawings in sufficient detail to clearly describe the boundaries, location, and improvements involved in the project. The application •must also include a location map showing not only the location'of the proposed projects but also the location of the nearest existing public accesses on each side of the proposed projects. A signed statement of assurances (attached below) that the local jurisdiction has the ability to implement the project effectively and is able to provide continuing operation and maintenance for the project or that it has arranged for maintenance by a local community group must also accompany the application along with a resolultion of the City Council or Board of Supervisors authorizing the application. Finally, the application must include a preliminary timetable of implementing the projects, including interim dates for the completion of such things as engineering drawings and bids. VI. OTHER REQUIREMENTS. , A. California Conservation Corps Involvement To minimize the duplication of state programs and to ensure -that the state's resources are used effciently, the Conservancy requires that access projects make use of California Conservation Corps labor whenever available. The Conservancy has found from previous projects that the use of Conservation Corps labor in lieu of the granting of funds to pay for construction can significantly decrease the amount of funds it must grant individual projects, and thus it can fund more projects than would otherwise be the case. The local" jurisdiction should contact the nearest Conservation Corps camp as soon as it has identified its projects, and inquire whether the Corps can provide the type of labor required of the individual projects. The application should include a statement about the extent to which Conservation Corps labor is proposed to be used. B. CEQA Compliance Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act is required of all projects. The Conservancy has found that many access projects can comply with CEQA through a categorical exemption or a negative declaration. If the local jurisdiction determines that individual projects can meet CEQA by these means it must include the appropriate evidence of those CEQA actions as part of its application. If it determines that an environmental impact report would be required for an individual accessway it must be stated in the application. In those cases the Conservancy will generally award grants conditioned on the completion of the EIR and the finding of no unmitigatable adverse impacts. C. Commission Review The Coastal Commission shall review all grant applications for projects submitted to the Conservancy under this program for consistency of the proposed development'with the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP). Applications from any local public agency will not be forwarded to the Commission for such a determination until that jurisdiction has submitted its LUP to the Commission for preliminary review or certification. Grant applications will be returned to local governments if the applicant jurisdiction has not submitted its LUP to the Commission within six months of the date of applications. VII. CONSERVANCY ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE. Immediately following approval by the Conservancy of these guidelines, all qualified jurisdictions will be notified. Notification will be followed up by telephone calls, to asssure that the information has. 6 been received, and if necessary to set up appointments to meet personally with each jurisdiction to assist in identifying projects, and processing application materials. Questions, requests for assistance, and complete applications should be addressed to: Thomas H. Mikkelsen, Access Program Manager State Coastal Consevancy 1212 Broadway, Room 514 Oakland, CA 94612 (415) 464-1015 7 LIST OF ASSURANCES - The applicant hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with Conservancy regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements as they relate to the acceptance and use of Conservancy funds for this project•. Also, the applicant gives assurance and certifies with respect to the grant that: 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance and construct the proposed facilities; that, where appropriate, a resolution, motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the application, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the offical representative of the appplicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 2. It will have sufficient funds available to meet its own share of the cost for projects. Sufficient funds will be available when the project is completed to assure the effective operation and maintenance of the facility for the purposes constructed. 3. It will give the Conservancy, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant. .. 4. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a resonable time after receipt of notification from the Conservancy that funds have been approved and that the project will be prosecuted to completion with resonable diligence. 5. It -will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site and facilities except as permitted by the Conservancy. 6. It will, where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the State's Braithwaite Act (Chapter 1574, Statutes of 1971 and related statutes), which provides for fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons. 7. It will where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 8. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Conservancy concerning special provisions of law, and program requirements. :3 EXHIBIT 2 STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY Guidelines and Criteria for Grants to Local Public Agencies for Coastal Wetlands Enhancement Revised January 8, 1981 I. GENERAL A. Purpose The purpose of the Conservancy's wetlands program is to restore and enhance the productivity, value and use of damaged coastal wetlands and related habitat resources, and, where feasible, to create new wetlands. The Conservancy is authorized to undertake projects and to provide grants for the purpose of restoring and enhancipg degraded or threatened wetland resource areas B. Legislative Authorization The Conservancy may become involved in wetlands preservation, enhancement, or restoration under three of its programs: coastal resource enhancement (Section 31251-31265 of the Public Resources Code); coastal restoration (Section 31200-31215); and site reservation (Section 31350-31352). 1. Coastal Resource Enhancement Wetland preservation and enhancement activities normally take place under the Conservancy's coastal resource enhancement program. In this program the Conservancy may either directly undertake a wetland enhancement project, or it may make a• grant to a local agency or other state agency. The Conservancy may grant up to the full cost of site acquisition and improvement, and up to $50,000 for planning directly required for project implementation. Before funding for ei-ther-land acquisition or site improvement can be provided, an enhancement plan must be approved by the Conservancy and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2.' Coastal Restoration Under the coastal restoration program, the Conservancy may make a grant to a local agency or other state agency, or directly undertake a project involving development that is compatible with adjacent wetlands. Thus the Conservancy could incorporate wetland enhancement activities into the design of a coastal restoration project. Restoration projects allow the Conservancy to use a revolving fund approach to the correction of undesirable development patterns. Recapture of a portion of funds expended is thus an important aspect of restoration project design. The Conservancy may grant up to the full cost of site acquisition and improvement, and up to $50,000 for planning directly required for project implementation.. Before funding for either land acquisition or site improvement, a restoration plan must be approved by the Conservancy and Coastal Commission. 3. Site Reservation The Conservancy may also acquire wetlands under its site reservation program (Section 31350-31352). Proposals under this program must be submitted by a local or state agency. They are then reviewed in terms of compliance with the following program criteria: 1) identification of the site as a significant coastal resource; 2) assessment of the potential loss of the site to public use absent public action,' and the inability of the proposing public agency to fund the project; and 3) assessment of the proposing agency's ability j to fund the project in the future. If these requirements.are met, the site may then be acquired and held by the Conservancy (up to 10 years) until the sponsoring public agency is able to acquire the site from the Conservancy. II. USE OF FUNDS The Conservancy may award grants to local and state agencies or undertake projects for the restoration or enhancement of wetlands or related habitat resources where damage to fish and wildlife habitat, natural wetland areas, and the scenic and environmental resources of wetlands has occurred by dredging, filling, diking and the intrusion of incompatible land uses, and where additional funding is needed beyond that available from the local agency and other sources. Conservancy--funds—can be used for one or more of the following activities: acquisition of interests in land including fee simple and less -than -fee interests; provision of technical assistance to local public agencies for enhancement project development and implementation; preparation of project designs and plans; construction of site improvements; site reservation; and provisions of matching funds where appropriate and necessary to project success. Ordinarily, the maximum amount of Conservancy funds that a project sponsor may expect to receive is $500,000. In most cases, implementation grants will range from $50,000 to $300,000. 6 example, aside from local government sources, CALTRANS may be a source of funding for some bicycle path projects; the Wildlife Conservation Board may provide funding for some fishing access projects; and the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program of the Department of Parks and Recreation may be a source of funding for a some access projects. The Conservancy will not fund individual accessways whose construction is required by the Coastal Commission as conditions for approval of development permits. E. Special Criteria for Parking Facility Projects. Each parking facility proposal must demonstrate that the facility: 1. is needed solely for access to the shoreline and would serve only the shoreline, e.g., beach area; 2. would specifically serve,a new accessway leading to the shoreline, e.g., a parking lot or expansion of an existing parking lot in the immediate vicinity of or a part of an accessway development that is a part of the grant application; 3.' be relatively modest in area, as distinguished from a major parking garage structure; 4. is needed because other parking facilities or spaces are inadequate to meet demand for new access in that area; 5. *includes bike racks wherever possible; and 6. designates at least one out of every 20 parking spaces for disabled persons or as provided by Standard 112 of Conservancy Coastal Access Standards. F. Special Criteria for Bike Path Projects. Each bike path proposal must demonstrate: 1. the necessity to provide or increase shoreline access by this means of access; 2. that the path is located to maximize access where alternative routes for bicycles are not possible; 3. -that--adequate provision is made for bicycle racks at - appropriate points along the path and at its terminus; 4. that the path is required solely for.new or substantially increased shoreline access; 5. that the design of the path would include adequate separation of bicycle use from pedestrian use. IV. PROJECT SPECIFIC CRITERIA Applications that meet the above Basic Requirements will be evaluated competitively according to the following Project -Specific Criteria. IV. V. unresolved boundary disputes or title defects, the applicant must provide a letter by or on behalf of the State Lands Commission indicating the extent and approximate value of such state interests, stating whether the Commission supports or opposes the enhancement project and assuring that any property interests acquired or project developed with funds may be limited to the purposes for which the funds are requested. USE OF PROPOSITION 1 LOCAL GRANT FUNDS Any grants made pursuant to Proposition 1 (Public Resources Code Section 5096.141 et. seq) funds shall also comply with the following: A. Priority shall be given in the use of these funds for development and restoration rather than acquisition of wetlands. B. Jurisdictions eligible for these grants are limited to those jurisdictions that have submitted a Land Use Plan (LUP) to the Coastal Commission or that will have submitted their LUP to the Coastal Commission within six months of the submittal of the grant application. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS A. Development and Submittal of Proposals Private landowners or conservation organizations may apply in conjunction with local agencies or suggest projects independently. However, grants may only be awarded to local agencies. Typically, the applying agency should identify a specific problem or set of problems concerning wetland resources within its jurisdiction and formulate a potential enhancement or restoration project to address those problems. The applying agency should then submit a letter requesting Conservancy assistance which describes the problem and type of assistance sought. This letter should include a description of the proposed project; a map showing the project location and if available, any project plans; land acquisition needs of the project, including the property owner's name and the assessor's parcel number; an estimate of total project implementation costs; and additional information needed to complete the project. The review process described below refers to wetland enhancement projects and enhancement plans. Wetland acquisition, enhancement, and restoration may also take place under the Conservancy's Coastal Restoration and Site Reservation Programs. The review process for the three programs is similar. B. Review of Proposals for Completeness Upon receipt of a grant or project proposal, the Conservancy staff will review the proposal for completeness and evaluate its technical adequacy according to the standards and criteria enumerated below, If the proposal contains enough information to allow further evaluation, a letter of acknowledger^ent will be sent to the requesting agency and investigation will proceed. If a proposal is found to be incomplete, a letter listing the needed information will be sent to the requesting agency. Through early consultation With CCC staff, Conservancy staff will assure that sufficient information on the proposal will be available for subsequent CCC review. C. Evaluation of Proposals Once a complete proposal is received by the Conservancy, it will be forwarded to the Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal Commission and then to various public agencies having jurisdiction over the project area. Department of Fish and Game staff will assess the project's existing fish, wildlife and habitat resources and within 15 working days of its receipt provide written comments on the proposal. If DFG staff find that additional information is needed on the site's existing resources, they will submit as part of their comments an outline of the specific questions DFG will investigate and an estimate of the time required. DFG staff will also evaluate the biological soundness of the restoration or enhancement proposal, and suggest criteria for the development of a wetland enhancement plan for the project. Within 15 working days of receipt, the proposal will be evaluated by CCC staff for consistency with the Coastal Act. In addition, comments on proposals may be received from the State Lands Commission, the United State Army Corps or Engineers, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested agencies as appropriate. To ensure prompt processing of pr-oposa1s, agencies should submit any comrents on aroposals within 15 working days of their receipt. D. Preparation of a Wetland Enhancement Plan The Conservancy and the local agency will prepare an enhancement plan. Usually an application for a grant should include a conceptual enhancement plan. This plan should describe the proposed uses and locations of needed site improvements. The plan should also identify the area and location of the site, the name, address and telephone number of all parties having interests in the site, the name, addresses and telephone numbers of each adjacent property owner, the existing and proposed uses for the site, the existing and the proposed physical conditions of the site and the -type and locations of needed site improvements. The nearest public road and all utilities at or near the site should also be identified. If a plan is sufficiently detailed it may be presented to the Conservancy for approval with a request for authorization to submit the plan to the Coastal Commission for its review. However, further study and design may be needed to prepare an enhancement plan. In the latter case the staff will seek authorization from the Conservancy Board to prepare it. This process of developing enhancement plans will involve consultation with, and the assistance of, Department of Fish and Game staff. The Department shall participate in the the design and review of the land uses and site improvements to be included in the plan to ensure that the final design enhances the fish, wildlife, and habitat values of the wetland. CCC staff will also participate in this process and provide assistance to ensure that the project's design meets the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission's Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. E. Review and Approval of the Enhancement Plan After the enhancement plan has been prepared, it will be presented to the Conservancy for approval and authorization to submit it to the Coastal Commission for review and approval pursuant to Public.Resources Code Section 31253. After approval by the Conservancy, the plan will be forwarded to the CCC. The CCC then has 60 days in which to determine whether the plan is consistent with the Coastal Act and Guidelines and transmit its findings to—the-Cohservancy. -If'otherTgal requirements are ---- met the subsequent granting of a development permit can be expected if CCC approves the enhancement plan. F. Implementation Once the plan is approved by all the neces-sary parties, the staff will return to the Conservancy with a recommendation to award a grant or authorize the staff to proceed with land acquisitions and site improvements needed to implement the project. 9 The applicant is responsible for compliance with CEQA and obtaining local permits before obtaining a CCC permit and any other federal or state permits required. All development must proceed according to Coastal Act permit requirements. Upon completion of the project, the Conservancy, the Department of Fish and Game, the local government, and other agencies will closely monitor the impact of enhancement activities on the wetland and its habitat values. Since the mzthodology of wetland enhancement is relatively new, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques with respect to the design of future projects. VI. PROGRAM STANDARDS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA The following standards and criteria must be met before the Conservancy will undertake a wetlands enhancement project. They supplement those specified in the Conservancy Act and should be used only in conjunction with the language and intent of the Act itself. Technical assistance for project development and implementation may be provided either with the award of a resource enhancement grant or independently of the grant program. Program Standards The Conservancy's evaluation of grant applications or project proposals will be based on the following general standards and the protect -specific criteria outlined in the next section. . 1. Design Excellence Projects shall exhibit excellence in design and sensitvely integrate hydrologic, vegetative, and engineering aspects of the project into the natural coastal environmental without adversely affecting resource values. Projects shall provide identifiable and valuable resource benefits to the general public. 2. Cost- Effectiveness Project design shall promote the most cost-effective alternative of addressing the specific oroblem(s) being considered. The measure of a project's cost-effectiveness will be determined by the Conservancy according to how economically the proposed project's objectives can be met with the project -specific criteria. Conservancy staff may work with an applicant to modify a project's priorities to made it more economically feasible, if the project as proposed is not considered to be cost-effective. 3. Financial Program The availability of financial support 'from all sources must be sufficient to successfully complete the project. Projects will not 'be eligible for a Conservancy grant for that portion of the project for which other federal, state or local funds (including California Parklands Bond Act of 1980 funds available to the applicant) are reasonably and practicably available. Further, the Conservancy is limited to providing not more than $50,000 for preparing the restoration or enhancement plan. 4. Coastal Act Consistency Projects must be consistent with the goals and policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 and with any interpretive guidelines.and regulations adopted by California Coastal Commission. S. Local and Regional Plans Projects must also be consistent with applicable local and regional plans and regulations, e.g. master plans etc. Project -Specific Evaluation Criteria Within the overall framework of the five standards summarized above, the following detailed evaluation criteria will be employed in reviewing coastal wetlands grant applications. The criteria are intended to (a) translate the five general standards into more specific measures of a project's strengths and weaknesses; (b) permit measurement of each project's strengths in comparison with other grant applications and project proposals; (c) ensure that projects funded will further the goals the Coastal Act; (d) allocate money to applicants in an equitable and efficient manner. The criteria include: 1. Significance The rarity, irreplaceability or importance of the site and its resource values. The potential resource value of the area if restored or enhanced as proposed. 2. Wetlands Enhancement Program The project is recommended for Conservancy action in the California Wetlands Enhancement Program document. :1 3. Scope Ability of the project to address and resolve issues of greater than local concern; extent to which it addresses a multiplicity of the objectives of the Conservancy Act and Coastal Act policies. 4. Model Ability of the project to resolve wetlands protection, restoration,- enhancement, and management problems which are al -so important to other places around on the California coast and which have not yet been adequately addressed el-sewhere. 5. NaturalCharacter and Biological Diversit Extent to which the project will produce a wetland ecosystem with maximum biological diversity and requiring minimal management. 5. Public Benefit Extent to which the project provides not only for the enhancement of degraded natural and scenic resources, but for their public use or enjoyment. 7. Urgency Where the existence of adverse development pressures, speculation or taxation rates, or particular natural cond"ions may necessitate immediate Conservancy support to caintain the bay resources involved. 8. Need Absence of any other means, including regulation, to resolve the existing or potential problem(s). 9. financial Commitment The degree of local financial commitment in the public and private sectors to the project. 10. Readiness to Act Extent to which the applicant and other parties involved are ready to proceed with the project. E 11. Cooperation Extent to which the cooperation of all concerned parties including landowners and public, private, and other governmental and non -governmental entities will contribute to achieving the project's goals. Extent to which the project is actively supported by local conservation groups, colleges and universities, and other interested citizens. 12. Management Applicant's ability to provide sound fiscal and overall project management and effective implementation of Conservancy assistance. 13. Completeness Inclusion in the proposal application of all planning and design elements necessary to ensure a completed project consistent with the Conservancy's objectives. 14. Additional Support Extent to which the project is or can be supported by the current land -use planning or development programs of other governmental bodies. 15. Long -Term Maintenance Identification of an appropriate agency or group to undertake maintenance of the project site upon completion of the project. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION about the State Coastal Conservancy's Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Program, call Martin Cohen or Susa Oates at the Conservancy's office in Oakland, (415) 464-1015 or ATSS 8-561-1015. 10 F;ECEt�'Et� pl=nnin', ,. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION �e ,Kmont 631 Howard Street, Son Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555 MpR191981 C17Y Cf March 12, 1981 � • P •• I• :•"� M /• •' 171 N • • • 99 I IBI 1 I •.• Y� •�I 'J 1 •1 /• 01 M IYI' �• • 1' �i' JC.�� ••/• •.• Y• b !!• As you may have heard, President Reagan's proposed budget for the federal 1981-82 fiscal year (October, 1981 — September, 1982) recommends the elimination of grants to states under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Since 80% of the funds provided to you for Local Coastal Program development and implementation come from this source, the loss of federal funds world have a significant impact on our mutual efforts to complete coastal plans. We have already begun working in co- operation with other states through the Coastal States Organization and through the California Congressional delegation to attempt to have all or a significant part of these funds restored. I am sure that the Congressional representative from ,your area would be interested in hearing your views on the need for federal Coastal Zone 'anagement r^unds to complete your local coastal plan. As a back-up to these efforts, we have already requested that the Governor amend . his budget as submitted to the Legislature for California's 1981-82 fiscal year (July, 1981 — June, 1982) to provide additional state funds for local coastal . program grants to be available to you. Here again you might wish to make your views known to Governor Brown and members of the legislature. ,icwever, if we are unsuccess- ful in securing the necessary funds, it will be impossible for the Commission to continue to fund LCP work beyond this year. California has received a coastal grant for the 1981 calendar year. Therefore, we have funds to coves most, but not all, currently approvers work programs. But unless we change our budget management, virtually all incomplete LCP work would have to halt by the end of 1981. To address the potential loss of $900,000 in federal funds plus the equally serious proplem of a major shortfall for LCP budget heeds exceeding projected estimates, the State Commission on March 3 adopted some priorities for the allocation of whatever LCP funds are available during 1981. Essentially the priority system establishes a level of assured funding to those cities and counties that have already done the most work on their coastal plans and have scheduled completion this year. our 1981 budget management priorities, affecting all current grants, are outlined in the attached letter to your Planning Director. As you can see by the limits placed, it is essential that we worst more closely to- gether in order to carefully manage the funds available. You can assist in this effort by effectively managing whatever funds are available to you within your Mayors and Hoard Chairmen of Coastal Governments March 12, 1981 Page 2 time schedule and by, secondly, contacting your state and federal legislators to support funds to complete the Local Coastal Program. Finally I want to emphasize the commitment by the Commission to finish the coastal plan for the State of California. The many hours spent by citizens,'boards, councils, and planners bring us close t? our goo of returning the permit process to the coastal communities and vreservi v tHA r ai-Tina MICHAEL, L. executive Attachments cc: State Commissioners MLF:JLS/am w TO: FROM: IMPORTANT: Background CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555 March 13, 1981 PLANNING DIRECTORS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE 1981 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) GRANT PRIORITIES The Coastal Commission is projecting a grant funding deficit of up to $1.5 million due to the proposed federal cutback of coastal programs, the increased cost of the LCP zoning programs, and the loss of previous carryover of federal grant monies. (See attached letter to your Mayor or Board Chairman). The present LCP budget was more fully outlined in the February 11 State Commission report recently sent to you. Priority Guidelines As a result of our drastically changed and uncertain fiscal situation, the State Commission on March 3 adopted a priority system for allocating 1981 grant funds. The priority system is a departure from our previous goal to fully fund all LCP's to completion this year, utilizing a system of regional allocations. Since the Commission will not be able to fund all LCP's this year, the priority system will establish a framework to: -- complete LUP and zoning work in progress and essentially schedule which can be finished this year -- provide for new LCP zoning programs that.can be finished this year » set maximum grant amounts the staff will recommend for approval to establish an assured level of funding for top priorities Essentially, the LCP budget priority program would fund jurisdictions with either existing or proposed work phases II and III (see Appendix A for definition of LCP grant phases) that would be complete and submitted by the end of 1981. Those pro- grams which are unlikely to be completed by that time would, based upon existing financial estimates, not receive grant funds for this year. Obviously, we encour- age all programs to continue, however as indicated, it is unlikely grant funds will be available to meet all such requests. The attached report lists the priorities, maximum funding recommended, and sub- mittal dates estimated by Commission staff. The staff analyzed the record of each LCP program for evidence of successful work, for demonstrated progress to meet statutory deadlines, for effective budget management, and for commitment to con- tinuing the LCP program to successful completion. These funding levels are in- tended to cover a basic program to meet the mandates of the Coastal.Act. Under this priority system, there will be no regional budget allocations. 0 -2- 1981 Grant Process As you know, prior LCP grants expired on or befor grant requests are being reviewed on the basis of gardless of when submitted to the Commission. e the end of 1980. All 1981 the priority guidelines, re - If you have a previously approved Phase II, Phase III, or Phase IV grant, and have begun the program and are essentially on schedule, and have not ex- ceeded your previous budget, your current grant request can be approved ad- ministratively provided in the opinion of staff you meet the guidelines set in Priority Groups 1 or 2. (The Commission thus cannot guarantee automatic approval of previously approved programs.) 2. If you have a pending grant application that has not been acted upon by the Commission, staff will review your request based upon the priority and budget guidelines. Recommendations on pending grant applications will be made to the State Commission by the end of April and approved grants may be backdated. 3. If you have not formally applied fox a grant for this. a copy to Joan Sestak, LCP Grants Administrator, at the State Office. The Commission cannot guarantee that funds will be earmarked for your LCP past the April 30 deadline since we do not want to encumber funds that won't be utilized this year. The Commission staff will work closely with you to review your basic work program and budget. Major work programs will have grants tied to specific milestones and satisfactory work products.. Recommendations for new grants will be made to the State Commission within 45 days of submittal. The State Commission will retain final review in voting on all grant requests and may take other issues into consideration within the constraints of the budget. 4. In order to stretch LCP budgets, proposals for cooperative staff or budget programs might be considered. In certain instances Commission staff might be used to a greater extent to prepare requested work tasks. It is evident that the Commission must be prepared to be flexible in using additional techniques to accomplish the LCP program. All programs will be more closely monitored as we no longer have the luxury of extended deadlines or of augmentations. Any changes you might make in an approved work program should be first cleared with Commission staff so as not to result in cost overruns. In summary, faced with a reduced LCP budget, the Commission has attempted to fund, in as fair a manner as possible, the great number of cities and counties that are nearing completion of their coastal plans. We axe hopeful that, with your coopera- tion and close budget monitoring, we can complete the majority of Local Coastal Programs. MW/lgu APPENDIX A Definitions of LCP Program kiunding Phases Phase I: Identification of coastal issues and development of work program (including finding requirements) to address LCP issues. (All local governments have cai>pleted Phase I.) Phase. II: Development and submittal of Land Use Plan portion of LCP based upon the coastal planning issues identified in Phase I. Phase III: Development and submittal of proposed local zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other regulations including Code and General Plan amendirents needed to carryout a certified MP. (Note: Sane jurisdictions have combined Phase II and III programs.) Phase IV: Implm=taion of certified Land Use Plan or total LCP through enactaent of zoning program, development of permit procedures and manuals, staff training and other start-up programs necessary to transfer permit authority, and development of further planning programs- 0 9 �;" 1981 PRIORITY LCP GRANT PRIORITY GUIDELINES *Priority 1 Programs: Top priority is to be given to ongoing programs which will be complete by the mandatory deadline for Phase II and III or IV programs which meet the following criteria: A. Program has been previously approved as of March 3, 1981, and funding authorized by State Commission and B. Based upon this approval, work on the program has commenced, has pro- gressed essentially on schedule, and based upon evidence of progress to date, the Land Use Plan or zoning program will be submitted to the Com- mission July, 1981 and C. Within this priority group, Counties would generally have priority over Cities, where all factors are equal. *Priority 2 Programs: Phase III Zoning Programs (not including rezoning or other Phase IV tasks) which meet the following criteria: A. At the time of application, the Land Use Plan has been submitted and is in the process of being reviewed by the Commission and accepted by the local government and B. Based upon the approved work program and past evidence of progress, the Phase III zoning program can be completed and submitted to the Commission by November, 1981 and C. Within this priority group, Counties would generally have priority over Cities, where all factors are equal. **Priority 3 Programs: Phase III Land Use Plan programs which meet the following criteria: A. Work on the program has previously been approved and funding authorized by Commission, and B. Based upon past evidence of progress, plans will be completed and sub- mitted to the Commission by November, 1981, and C. Within this priority group, Counties would generally have priority over Cities, where all factors are equal. Priority 4 Programs Priority 4 programs include the remaining programs: A. Land Use Plans (Phase II) which will not be completed by November, 1981 U -2 B. Zoning Programs (Phase III which will not be completed by November, 1981, and C. Implementation Actions (Phase IV) not otherwise previously authorized under Priority Group 1 criteria. Other factors may be taken into consideration 1. Where a Land Use Plan is already divided into major segments, these seg- ments may be considered as separate elements for grant priority purposes to complete a LUP. A work program for zoning (Phase III) must include a basic overall zoning strategy so that the same procedures are used for all segments and are not duplicated. 2. If, for instance, a local government meets all criteria for being a high priority category but one or more unresolved land use issues have delayed final land use plan approval, the Commission might then determine whether a major or minor coastal issue is being contested; major disagreements involving Coastal Act policies unacceptable to local governments may be cause to lower the priority status of a particular request. 3. Priority is to be given to LCP zoning programs (Phase III) that will be completed this year. Where all factors are equal, zoning would take pre- cedence over Land Use Plans (Phase II) that are incomplete. This would recognize programs that are closest to meeting the legislative deadlines. However, an interim zoning grant may be recommended, based upon the partial approval of the LUP when the majority of the Land Use Plan is approved and isolated areas remain at issue. Also, approval of a zoning grant may be conditioned to approval and acceptance of the Land Use Plan. Zoning and ordinance analysis might begin for noncontroversial areas of a LUP. *definite funding for b; **probable funding for b; JLS/1gu «• n II III VE I• •; YY SITU �5 11111111111111111 NORTH COAST: Del Norte County 1 2,000 6/81 2 67,000 11/81 - Crescent City 1 2,000 3/81 2 13,000 11/81 - Humboldt County 1 58,200 4/81 - 2*( tdtive) - Trinidad - - 1 1,000 complete Arcata - 1 7,000 4/81 - Eureka - 1 10,000 6/81 - Mendocino County - 2 26,500 - 10,500 9/81 Fort Bragg 1 18,000 5/81 Point Arena - 1 5,000 2/81 - Department of Water Resources 13,000 0 lossible Specie L Study) NORTH CENTRAL: Sonoma County - 1 17,000 6/81 1. 23,000 6/81 Marin minty - 1 6,700 1/81 1 39,000 complete San Francisco - - - CRURAL COAST: San Mateo County - - _ Daly City - - _ Pacifica - _ _ Half Moon Bay 1 9,000 6/81 2 40,000 11/81 - Santa Cruz County 1 30,000 5/81 2 90,000 11/81 - Santa Cruz City 1 4,000 6/81 2 21,000 10/81 - Watsonville (II & III) 4 18,000 unknown Capitola - 1 22,400 7/81 - Monterey County Big Sur 1 61,000 7/81 2* ( tative) 8/81 North 2* ( tative) 8/81 Del Monte 2* ( tative) 8/81 Canml 2* (rb mtative) 8/81 Marina - 1 4,000 6/81 - f' Sand City (II & III) 4 33,000 unknown - 'i. PRTOR7 Seaside 1 ------ 2,000 - 7/81 4 6,000 uniaa rR1Jf4'ii lU!VIJL'Ni IJtil'G Monterey City unknown - - Cannery Row - 2* (T tative) 7/81 Laguna Grande - 4 2,000 Skyline Downtown - 4 2,000 unknown unknown Pacific Grove (Consultant) - - 4 1 15,000 4,000 unknown 6/81 Carmel - 2 10,000 11/81 - - South Central: San Luis Obispo County 1 21,000 6/81 2 83,500 11/81 Morro Bay 1 7,000 5/81 4 40,000 Pismo Beach 1 2,600 2/81 1 23,700 unknown 5/81 Grover City _ _ - - Santa Barbara County 1 6/81 1 82,000 7/81 _ Santa Barbara City 1 6/81 1 44,500 6/81 - - Carpinteria - 1 10,600 4/81 - - - - Ventura County 1 2,000 12/80 2 22,606 11/81 San Buenaventura - 2 43,800 - - Oxnard - 4 11/81 Port Hueneme _ 40,000 unknown - - SOUTH COAST: Los Angeles County Malibu 4 77,600 4/82 4 350,000 2/83 Marina del Rey/Baliona - (Bird Study)(Phase II) 1 20,000 6/81 4 130,000 5/82 - - E1 Porto/Los Alamitos - Catalina Island 3 10,000 9/81 4 22,000 Los Angeles City unknown - - Pacific Palisades Venice q 83,000 1982(II&I I) - - - Playa del Rey 3 20,000 11/81 San Pedro - - Santa Monica 1 6,000 3/81 2 40,000 11/81 El Segundo - - - !Manhattan Beach 1 4,000 3/81 2 20,000 11/81 - - Hermosa Beach 1 8,400 5/81 2 17,000 11/81 - - Redondo Beach - 1 31,300 5/81 - - Torrance - 1 4,200 6/81 - - -. H' •' W�.- LOCAL COVER OEMS — _ - PHASE II PHASE III kMA PRIORITY F[MTNi MTP.----- Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Long Beach Avalon - 1 4,000 6/81 ORANGE COUNTY 1 54,000 3/81 2 150,000 11/81 Seal Beach 1 5,000 5/81 2 9,400 8/81 Huntington Beach 1 20,000 3/81 2 50,000 11/81 Newport Beach 1 12,600 7/81 2 30,000 11/81 Iaguna Beach 3 7,500 11/81 4 25,000 2/82 San Clemente 1 81800 5/81 2 10,000 11/81 SAN DIEGO COAST: San Diego County - 2 75,000 11/81 - - Oceanside - 2 40,000 11/81 - - Carlsbad 1 5,000 6/81 - Del Mar 3 20,000 9/81 - - - San Diego City 1 30,000 5/81 2 200,000 11/81 - - Coronado - 2 20,000 11/81 - - National City - 1- 19,600 6/81 - - Chula Vista - _ Imperial Beach - 3 25,000 11/81 - - Py irr 0 0 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543-8555 January 7, 1980 Rg ce1v. TO: Planning Directors and Mayors or Board Chairmen✓AD'pa ent L Local Governments in the Coastal Zone I 1198 ((11 c�FROM: Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director 't?, Robert B. Lagle, Chief PlannerC�LlF �h� SUBJECTS: 1. Local Coastal Program Completion and 2. Incentive Grants for LCP Implementation I am writing for two purposes: 1) to urge all local governments to begin the zoning phase of your LCPs as soon as possible (if you have not already done so) so that all LCPs can be completed by the end of this year; and 2) to invite - those local governments that will have certified plans or total LCPs this year to apply for LCP implementation grants. only one year remains before the legislative deadline for all local governments to submit their complete Local Coastal Programs (including the phase III zoning ordinances) to the Coastal Commission for certification. In the next few weeks, we will prepare a report on the status of LCPs statewide for both the legislature and the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). As part of that report, we will establish deadline dates for submittals of all land use plans and complete LCPs (based on your work program schedules). We will also identify those LCPs which appear unlikely to meet the January 1, 1981, deadline unless their work pace is quickened. We will, of course, send you a copy of that report; you should expect it by the end of this month. 1. Zoning Phase Work Must Begin Now Most local governments are hard at work on their LCPs and many have incorporated or are now moving into the zoning phase, or have a schedule for doing so in the near future. (Those who have recently requested time extensions of existing grants should have set, in cooperation with Coastal Commission staff, firm deadlines for preparing Phase III work programs as well as for submitting land use plans.) However, for those still at work on the land use plan phase, it is essential to expedite zoning work and, where necessary, do it concurrently with the land use plan if the legislative deadline is to be met. If your existing work program does not include the zoning phase or a specific, agreed -upon schedule for producing the work program for this phase, you must plan for this phase - and the completion of the total LCP - now. You should prepare a Phase III work program and apply for grant funds (to augment your existing grant or begin a new one) by March 15, 1980, unless other specific arrangements have been made or are made with our office in writing before that date. .0ur staff will be glad to assist you in drafting the work program, which should include tasks, products, schedule, and budget. We expect that each work program will need to be tailored to the particular local situation, especially the land 'use proposals and existing ordinances, and thus "model" work programs or "model" ordinances would not be particularly useful. The work program should identify only the specific revisions or additions to existing ordinances needed to carry _ 2 _ out the land use plan. (As additional general guidance, we will be providing the long -missing zoning chapter of the LCP Manual, hopefully by the end of this month.) 2. LCP Implementation Grants: An Important Incentive Program The Coastal Commission will have an impossible workload if most local governments wait until the deadline to submit their LCPs; thus we have long been urging those who can to submit their LCPs during 1979 and early 1980. To encourage early certification of LCPs, the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) has required the Coastal Commission to reserve $807,000 of its LCP grant funds to be used for implementing LCPs, to serve as an incentive for completion and certification of LCPs. Therefore, in addition to urging many local governments to apply for Phase III grants, we are announcing this incentive program. It will be available on a first -come, first -served basis. Therefore, those local governments who will soon have certified land use plans or total LCPs should quickly apply for LCP implementation grants. (For convenience we'll call this Phase IV.) As with all LCP grant funds, eligible costs are limited to those that would not otherwise be incurred absent the LCP. Pursuant to federal rules and regulations, the primary purpose for the funds is to assure effective implementation and administration of the management program, including administrative actions to carry out and enforce program policies, authorities, and other management techniques. The funds may not, unfortunately, be used for land acquisition purposes; and only $50,000 statewide may be used for construction (expendable materials) in conjunction with the management of designated areas of particular concern, especially _ for preservation or restoration programs. Federal regulations encourage use of the funds for resolving coastal issues in which there is national interest such as fisheries management, reduction of losses due to coastal hazards, protection of natural resources, siting of energy facilities, provision of access to and use of the shorefront and urban waterfronts. The incentive grant funds can be used for a variety of programs to carry out either a certified land use plan or a total Local Coastal Program. (A plan or program is considered certified as of the date of final action by the State Coastal Commission.) Preference will be given for the available funds to those with a certified total LCP. With the agreement of the local government and consistent with the certified LCP, the incentive implementation funds may be granted to any public or quasi -public agency that can effectively carry out the required program or actions. Eligible programs will include: 1. LCP regulatory program start-up and operating costs - staff training - preparation and printing of permit process manuals, codes, public information, design guidelines, -etc. - increased staff review and permit processing costs, only where these cannot reasonably be covered by permit fees (pursuant to provisions of AH643.) 2. Developing further planning and management programs to carry out LCP proposals, such as (but not limited to): - capital improvement programs - waterfront revitalization plan 0 - 3 - 0 - harbor expansion/development studies - acquisition/transfer of development studies - specific resource management and restoration programs 3. Other personnel and operating costs in conjunction with carrying out LCP programs, such as (but not limited to): - rangers or guides for interpretive facilities, habitat monitoring or managing of ecological reserves - costs for beach clean-up, maintenance and liability for public accessways 4. Improvement programs (with costs of construction materials limited to $50,000 statewide) for specifically identified management, restoration, and accessway programs, such as (but not limited to): - building or removing berms and/or landscaping for water circulation and habitat enhancement in wetlands, streams or other habitat restoration measures - building raised walkways for access through sensitive habitat areas - building stairways or other walkways for safe access to the shoreline - installing signs for interpretive facilities or accessways - grading/landscaping to restore visually degraded areas - improvements to parking and public recreational facilities (restrooms, picnic facilities, bike racks, etc.) at public accessways to the shoreline - beach replenishment or other shoreline erosion control measures to protect against coastal hazards and maintain public facilities We hope that additional federal funds (after LCP development costs are adequately covered) will be available for LCP implementation in the future for those local governments which receive certification later but still have valuable programs to fund. We are also hoping to augment LCP grant funds with CEIP, Coastal Conservancy, and future Bond Act funds as these are available for LCP implementation, especially for the acquisition and development costs that cannot be funded by LCP grants under federal regulations. Attached is an application form that can be used for either Phase III grant requests and/or Phase IV. The proposed work program (with tasks, products, schedule, and budget) should be submitted with your grant request. Please.send two copies to the State Coastal Commission office and one copy to the Regional Commission office. We recommend you work closely with your regional and state staff liaisons; early staff review of draft proposals should assure that appropriate types of tasks are identified before final local and Commission approvals are sought. We are eager to see more LCPs certified, particularly in the next six months, and we hope the LCP implementation grant funds will help provide an incentive for early completion. We also will continue to expect all local governments to meet the January 1, 1981, deadline for LCP submittal7 aw CC: Coastal Legislators Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management 0 ! GRANT APPLICATION FOR PHASE III ZONING ORDINANCES OR LCP IMPLEMENTATION Name of Applicant: Project Director: Title: Address: Fiscal Officer. Phone: State State District(s): Congressional: Senate: Assembly: Title of Proposed Program: (Brief Description): Proposed Cost: Term of Program: LCP Status: Grief description, dates of future hearings or of approval, Status of Phase III, Implementation, etc.) Application should be accompanied by the following. 1. Work Program for Phase III, Implementation Program or Project 2. Schedule 3. Products and Milestones description 4. Budget 5. Clearinghouse form (copy of CA 189 or 424 submitted to Area Clearinghouse) 6. Resolution authorizing grant application. (Submit official copy to State Office.) Send two copies (with attachments) to State Coastal Commission office and one copy to Regional Commission office. State of California, Edmund G. brown Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 1415)543-8555 August 10, 1979 TO: LOP CO�TS TASK FORCE AND LOCAL GOVER21ENTS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE 1 FROM BIM YEATES FOR PETER DOUGLAS SUBJECT: LOP IIII'LFMENTATION COSTS Please find enclosed a copy of amendments the Coastal Commission will be proposing for inclusion in AB 643 at the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife's hearing scheduled for August 21 at 7:00 p.m. These proposed amendments will set up a procedure for the payment of local coastal program implementation costs, The Coastal Act is silent on the question of who pays for LOP implementation. These proposed amendments reflect as closely as possible the approach discussed and agreed to at the May 4 LOP Costs Task Force workshop held in San Francisco. On May 16 Peter Douglas released a first draft of these amendments for comment. It had been originally proposed to include the LOP implementation costs in SB 751 (Keene), but time schedules were changed so AB 643 will be the vehicle chosen. If you should have any questions about these amendments, please contact either me in Sacramento or Peter Douglas or Bob Lagle in the San Francisco office. Additionally, I would like to point out that Senator Nejedly's proposed 1980 Park Bond Act (SB 547) as introduced contained $50 million for local governments with certified LCPs. As set up, the Commission would issue grants to those local governments with certified LCPs for projects consistent with the implementation of those rograms (i.e., parking structures, development of public accessways�. At the urging of the Resources Agency, SB 547 was amended to include the Renewable Resource Investment Fund concept announced by Governor Brown in April 1979. This has resulted in reducing state and local park acquisition funding as well as reducing the LOP implementation money to $25 million. LCP Costs Task Fole and • Local Governments Mthin the Coastal Zone Page 2 August 10, 1979 I am bringing this bill to your attention because the Commission staff believes this LCP implementation money will be important in carrying out the goals and objectives of your agencies' programs. We will be working with the Administration on this bill, but we need your help in assuring passage of legislation that contains a significant amount of LCP implementation funding. Enclosures Article 4. Local Coastal Program Implementation Costs Section 30350. (a) It is the policy of the state that local governments be paid their legitimate costs, from either state or federal funds, for the implementation of certified local coastal programs or any certified portion thereof; provided, however, that such payment shall only be available for those costs directly attributable to the operation of a certified local coastal program or any certified portion thereof and which costs would not have been incurred but for such local coastal program and which costs are not of a nature which would normally be incurred by such local government in carrying out its land use planning and regulatory responsibilities pursuant to any provisions of law other than those set forth in this division. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, claims for payment of mandated costs directly attributable to the operation of and for the implementation of a certified LOP or any certified portion " thereof, shall only be submitted, reviewed and approved in the manner set forth in and pursuant to the provisions of this article. (c) The provisions of this article are intended to establish a procedure that ensures the orderly and carefully monitored expenditure of limited public funds for payment of LCP implementation costs which costs are hereby recognized as being in the interest of all' the people of this state because they carry out state policies for the wise, long—term conservation and use of coastal resources. 30351. The commission shall, no later than July 11 1980, prepare and adopt procedures for the issuance and management of LOP implementation grants. The purpose of the grant program set forth in this section is to provide, to the extent funds are available, financial assistance for 1 local governments and, in cases the commission deems appropriate, other public agencies to carry out certified LCPs or any portion thereof. The procedures required by this section shall specify, consistent with the criteria set forth in Section 30350(a), the categories of expenditures eligible for implementation grants and shall include procedures for application, review, approval, and disbursement of grant funds. 30352. (a) Any local government carrying out its certified LCP or any certified portion thereof, may, upon the delegation of the development review authority pursuant to Section 30519, claim reimbursement of costs incurred for the implementation of such local coastal program if costs have not been provided for in an LCP implementation grant issued pursuant to Section.30351. (b) Claims made pursuant to this article shall be submitted to the executive director of the commission no later than August 31 immediately following the preceding fiscal year during which the claimed costs were incurred, The executive director shall review such claims in accordance with the provisions of this article and shall submit all such claims to the Controller within 60 days after receipt of a claim but in no event later than October 31. (c) All claims submitted pursuant to this section shall be filed on forms approved and prepared by the commission in consultation with the Controller. Such forms shall specify the information needed to enable the executive director of the commission and the Controller to make the determinations required by Section 30353. The claim forms required by this section shall provide for claims of actual costs incurred during the fiscal year preceding submittal and ; for the costs the claimant local government estimates will be incurred during the then -current fiscal year. 2 30353. Payment for costs claimed pursuant to this article shall be made only for costs which but for the operation of a certified LOP or any certified portion thereof would not have been incurred by the claimant local government and if the following criteria are met: (a) Costs for establishing a regulatory program to implement a certified LOP or any certified portion thereof, including costs for the preparation and printing of public information materials, application forms, establishing new procedures, and staff training are payable. The costs specified in this subdivision include initial start-up costs incurred over a period not to exceed one year from the date a certified LOP has been adopted for implementation by the appropriate local government. (b) A fixed payment not to exceed $10 per permit application for any development subject to a certified LOP or any certified portion thereof may be claimed and paid. The payment specified in this subdivision is intended to cover general costs, including costs for public notice, notice and submittal of files to the commission and appearances before the commission. (c) Other costs of processing and reviewing coastal development permits pursuant to a certified LOP or any certified portion thereof shall normally not be eligible for reimbursement because these types of activities should either be incorporated within the routine regulatory process of the local government or, at the discretion of such local government, be paid for from reasonable permit fees. A local government may, however, request payment for increased regulatory costs if it can show that either or both of the following special circumstances apply within its jurisdiction: (1) In jurisdictions with a population of less than 10,000, the existing regulatory program of the local government is not capable of 3 processing and reviewing additional coastal development permits pursuant to a certified LOP and where such increased costs could not reasonably be expected to be covered by permit fees. (2) The regulatory program included in a certified LOP or any certified portion thereof requires the discharge of resource management functions that exceed the level of regulatory review normally required or undertaken by the local government. (d) Costs for enforcement of regulatory requirements that are directly related to LCP implementation, such as ensuring compliance with coastal development permit terms and conditions, are payable, provided the enforcement activities are not of a type routinely undertaken as part of the affected local government's normal regulatory responsibilities. (e) Litigation costs which but for the operation of a certified LCP or any certified portion thereof would not have been incurred may be paid. Where an action is brought against a local government and such action states Y .as a principal cause of action the operation of such local government's LCP and the local government prevails in such action, litigation costs may be paid to the extent such costs are not assessed against the party bringing the action. Miere the local government loses such action primarily on grounds it has failed to properly carry out its certified LCP or any portion thereof, litigation costs shall not be paid. (f) If additional planning is required by the commission as a condition of its certification of any LCP, costs for such additional planning are payable. 30354. (a) The executive director shall review and evaluate each claim submitted pursuant to this article and shall determine whether: V (1) The costs claimed meet the requirements of this article. (2) The costs claimed are not paid for or reimbursed from any I other source of state or federal funding. (3) The claimed costs are reasonable and necessary for the implementation of a certified LCP or any certified portion thereof. (b) The executive director of the commission shall submit to the Controller, on behalf of each claimant local government, all claims submitted pursuant to this section together with his or her recommendation whether the Controller should allow or deny, in whole or in part, the claim. A copy of each claim shall also be sent to the claimant local government at the time such claim is submitted to the Controller. The executive director's recommendation shall be based on his or her determinations made pursuant to this article. If the executive director fails to make a recommendation by the time claims must be submitted to the Controller as - provided in Section , the executive director shall be deemed to have recommended approval of the claim. (c) The provisions of Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall apply to claims filed pursuant to this article, provided, however, where a conflict between Section 2231 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and this article occurs, such conflict shall be resolved in a manner that best carries out -the purposes of this article. The Controller shall apply the criteria of this article in determining whether to allow or deny, in whole or in part, any such claim and shall consider the recommendations of the executive director of the commission. -5- SB 547 - tiejedly as dcd July 10, 1979 in Committ� SB 547.proposes.a $495•million Parklands -and Renewable resources Investment Bond Issue for the June 1980 Ballot. It proposes to allocate the funds as follows: 1. Parks $293.million a. Grants to cities/counties + $ 95 million b. State parks 75 million Acquisition $ 40 million Development 25 million Historical resources 10 million c. Coastal Recreation Resources State park acquisition 55 million Grants for LCP implementation '25 million Coastal Conservancy 10'million d. Wildlife Conservation Baord 5 million e. Waterway access acquisition 3 million f. Tahoe acquisition 25 million 2. Salmon.and Steelhead Enhancement $ 27 million a: Hatchery expansion $ 16 million b.' Habitat restoration 11 million 3. Soil Conservation a. Soil conservation Grants/Loans b:. Loans for agricultural drainage c. Technical Assistance 4. Water Conservation a. Urban Conservation Education b. Agricultural Conservation Aesearch c. Grants for Municipal Wastewater Reclamation d. Urban Retrofit Programs e. Loans for Irrigation System ImOrovements $ 39 million $ 20 million 10 million 9 million $136 million $ 5 million 1 million 100 million 5 million 25 million TOTALS $495 million All proposed expenditures will be included in future Budget Ahts. Actual committal of funds for certain programs -(Soil Conservation) will be contingent on enactment of enabling legislation next Legislative Session. Deadline for qualifying for the June ballot is January 24, 1980. 7110/79 State of California, Edmund G. Bro r., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, California 94105 (4151543-8555 April 16, 1979 Mayors, California Cities Chairmen, County Boards of Supervisors u OFFIC OF THE MAYOR Dote —' COPIES SENT T0:- �jcouncilnon r�,`•laraQer [�RttorncY ❑city clork The California Coastal Act of 1976 directed the Coastal Commissions to implement statewide policies for the protection and wise use of the natural, scenic, and recreational resources of the California coastline. This goal is to be met through a unique cooperative effort between local and state governments, with the prepara— tion by local governments of Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) that incorporate state Coastal Act policies. Until the completion of LCPs, the Commissions are also required to exercise permit authority over development in the coastal zone. After LCP certif'icat:on, this permit authority is to be returned to local governments. There are 15 counties and 53 cities in the coastal zone. *The dead"'ne for certi— fication of all 68 LCPs is July 1981, when the six Regional Coasta,:.Cemmissions go out of existence, leaving only one State Commission. The work being done by local governments on Local Coastal Programs is, for the most part, on schedule. We estimate that 8C o or more of the cities and counties wr_l complete their DOPs 'within the legislative deadline, including the full involvement of state and federal agencies, interest groups, and extensive public hearings. For the Coastal Commissions' part, we are committed to maleing the local/state partnership work, and we have given highest priority to organizing, scheduling, funding and providing guidance to the LCP effort. The enclosed status report, with its attached completion schedule, is an example of how we are carrying out our management responsibtieb. We* welcome any comments you may have and wJ continue to keen legislators, interested local governments, organizations, and the public informed of progress in the completion of Local Coastal Programs. Sincerely, Dorill B. Wright Michael-L. Fischer Chairman, State Coastal Commission Executive Director) Coastal Commission Mayor, City of Port Hueneme DBW/,MJ2/ms CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, San Francisco 94105—(415) 543.8555 March 23,.1979 STATEWIDE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) MANAGEMENT Adopted as Commission Policy Direction for LCP Management on April 4, 1979 SYNOPSIS This report sets forth the efforts the Commission is undertaking to: 1) dllocate available funding to assure that local governments can complete certifiable LCPs; 2) establish a schedule in which, to the extent possible, all LCPs can be certified by the July 1981 deadline; 3) make the best use of the limited State Commission time that can be devoted to review LCPs; and 4) set priorities for and manage the limited regional and state staff resources to assist and monitor-LCP work. Key Recommendations and Conclusions: 1. Staff recommends that the Commission augment the previously allocated LCP funds, based on the availability of additional funding and a projection of funding needs over the next two years. The new regional allocations provide $4,860,000 for the land use plans and early zoning work and $2,040,000 for the balance of zoning work. The allocations will guide regional and state Commissions in granting funds to local governments. 2. Staff believes that approximately 80% of the total LCPs will be completed by the end of December, 1980. The schedule must be continually assessed to provide early certification of as many LCPs as possible, to give highest priority to LCPs with major coastal issues, and to alert local governments, the Commissions, and the Legislature of scheduling conflicts or substantial delays. 3. With a minimum of three LCP items per agenda on the average for the next 2-1/2 years, State Commission review of LCPs will have to be limited to major statewide concerns, once general policy interpretations have been established in early LCPs. This approach appropriately puts the emphasis on the regional commissions to review the plans in depth and to resolve most issues. 4. Staff must continue to, improve its monitoring of LCPs, with all efforts made to help local governments complete their work. Present staff deficiencies in the North and South Coast regional offices should be remedied as soon as possible. ( t, Introduction The Local Coastal Program process is a unique cooperative effort between local and state government. The Legislature, in the Coastal Act, placed major responsibilities and initiative for carrying out coastal policies at the local level; but it also established the Coastal Commission to guide and fund the preparation of LCPs, to certify them for conformity with Coastal Act policies, and to oversee their implementation. To be successful, the LCPs need to respond to local conditions and at the same time protect statewide interests in the coast's spectacular beauty, natural resources, and recreational assets. With competing demands for the use of the coast, few of the decisions are easy or clear-cut. There are 68 local governments (15 counties and 53 cities), six regional commissions, and the state Coastal Commission directly involved in the LCP process. In addition, there are numerous regional entities,, special districts, and state and federal agencies, each•with important responsibilities and concerns in the coastal zone. And the public - special_ interests, businesses, coastal residents, and inland visitors to the coast - should participate and have their needs reflected in the LCPs as well.. Added to all of these challenging aspects of the job, the LCP effort must meet a tight time schedule. The Coastal Commission's budget and staffing are certainly modest.in proportion to its state mandate. Local governments, in turn, are feeling even tighter constraints in.the wake of Proposition 13. Grant funds - a total of $7-1/2 million statewide - need to be stretched to cover all necessary local work to implement the Coastal Act. The legislative deadline for completion of all 68 LCPs is January 1981 (with another six months allowed for certification) - just four years after the new Coastal Commission came into existence. In comparison, many local governments have still not completed elements of their General Plans which have been mandated for over 10 years; and those local general plans represent a much simpler planning task, since they need not attempt to balance conflicting state and local goals to the degree expected of each LCP. To achieve certifiable LCPs will require very diligent efforts on the part of local governments as well as the Coastal Commissions. With initiative primarily at the local level, the major determinant of the LCP implementation process is beyond direct Commission control. Where local governments do not place a high priority on the LCP or are simply opposed to Coastal Act policies, there is little the Coastal Commission can do to force the issue. Fortunately, most local governments recognize the advantages of having plans that clearly and comprehensively guide future development of the coast and thus allow return of permit control to the local level. In most cases, cities and counties are working hard to meet the legislative deadlines and to apply coastal policies conscientiously to the local area. The Commission's part in seeing the successful completion of LCPs also requires careful management. The main resources needing to be allocated to get the job done are: 1) money (the grant funds available to local govern- ments); 2) calendar time (less than 2-1/2 years remain to certify all LCPs); 3) Commission time; and 4) staff time. -3- This report sets forth the Commission's management approach on all four of these factors on a statewide basis. Attached is a region -by -region evaluation of the status of all local coastal programs. 1. Budgets As presented in the June 9, 1978, memo on LCP budgets and in the Commission's actions on work programs to date, we have generally achieved reasonable, minimum work programs to complete land use plans that address key coastal issues while staying within our statewide budget constraints. However, we recognize that in a few cases budgets may have been approved at too low a level. For example, we may not have provided enough time for public participation given the controversies of the LCP, or we made assumptions that certain data or assistance from other sources would be available that we now find is not. In other cases we deleted some issues and tasks on the basis that - given the extreme funding constraint - they were deferable. The June 9 memo indicated (page 7) that we would try to augment the "bare -bones" LCPs as further funding could be made available. Funding Available: We now have some limited additional funds: $400,000 carried over from savings last year) which, by agreement with NOAA and the Department of Finance, must be allocated to local governments. There are also some remaining LCP funds from the state reserve - about $200,000 of the $366,000 remains uncommitted at this time; and two regions have percentages of their regional allocations to apply within their regions. Most importantly, the amendments to the Coastal Act last year extended the completion deadline for LCPs by one year, and as of late January 1979, we are now virtually assured of cQnfi rmed _fed_eral_CZNA fundi ng_fo�the_LL8D _f_iscal Year.* Originally, the statewide budget analysis of June 9, 1978, projected the funding through June 1979 being devoted to the land use plan phase so that the $1.7 million 1979-80 funds could be used to complete zoning phase work, consistent with the deadline for LCP completion of January 1980. The extended LCP deadline and the available 1980-81 funds (which, due to staggered federal fiscal years, can be made available earlier than July •1980 to be more useful for -the LCP schedules) now enable us to use portions of the 1979-80 funds to complete land use plans, while augmenting the amount available for zoning work with 1980-81 funds. Thus, while in June 1978, we projected total available funds of $5,476,000 (of which $3,776,000 through June 1979 was primarily for land use plans, and $1,700,000 in 1979-80 was for zoning work), we now have: 1977-79 $4,160,00b 1979-80 1,700,000 1980-81 1,700,000 Total: $7,576,000* *Note: The funds to support local coastal programs are primarily from federal Coastal Zone Management Act money (50% of the total available to the Commission under Section 306) matched by a 20% share provided by State funds. Other available funQg sources, such as the CoastaQnergy Impact Program (CEIP), special projects funded out of the Commission's general operating budget (primarily used to provide other state agency assistance to the LCP effort), and Coastal Conservancy funds, can of course be used to supplement LCP grant funds for related work. In addition, the SB90 account, administered by the State Controller's office, is available to reimburse local costs attributable to the Coastal Act but not otherwise funded. Amendments to the Act last year improved Commission review over the SB90 claims, and the $400,000 in the account was able to cover most of the 1978 claims in full. Effective with 1979 claims, SB90 funds can be used only if grant funds were determined not to be available. Revised Regional Allocations: Based on the extended schedules and federal funding availability, and with further experience in the LCP process, state and regional staffs,. in consultation with local governments, have reassessed funding needs for all jurisdictions, including an -attempt to estimate roughly the implementing phase costs where these are not now included in work programs. The projection of needed funding by region is as follows: Land Use Plan Zoning Phase Region: Allocationsl Allocations2 North Coast $ 680,000 $ 285,000 North Central 285,000 100,000 Central Coast 975,000 285,000 South Central 820,000 340,000 South Coast 1,425,000 700,000 San Diego Coast 675,000 430,000 Total: $4,860,000 $2,0,0,000 Grand Total: $6,900,000 Notes• 1. Total funding needs for all land use plans are included; however not all the land use plan funds will be committed this fiscal year. Approximately $700,000 of the allocated land use plan work will be uncommitted as of June 1979. This is due to late starting programs in Mendocino, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties and Los Angeles City, and no request as yet from the City of San Diego. Also included in the land use allocation is zoning work where it will be substantially underway this fiscal year. This is the case for: Trinidad, Marin County, San Mateo County, Daly City, Pacifica, Capitola, Santa Cruz City, Cannery Row (Monterey City), Seaside, Grover City, Santa Barbara County, Carpinteria, Port Hueneme, Torrance, Long Beach, Irvine Coast (Orange County), and Del Mar. -5- 2. Zoning work for the remaining jurisdictions is expected to take place in 1979-80 and 1980-81. Based on our experience to date, we generally expect the zoning stage to cost about 40% of the land use plan stage, with variations of course for the specific regulatory programs needed and the extent of public hearings. Costs of the zoning stage, however, remain difficult to estimate precisely until we know: (1) how much specificity we will achieve in the land-use'plans (which will probably vary); (2) how many good models will be provided by Commission staff or by early local programs; (3) how much existing local zoning can be used; and (4) what range of new tools we can and need to require as part of zoning (e.g. access improvement programs, etc.). Budget Adequacy: Based on the experience of nearly all the land use plan work programs approved and the many programs now well underway, staff believes it is possible to complete certifiable LCPs for all jurisdictions within the new regional allocations. The revised allocations allow a number of existing local grants to be augmented to assure that local governments have adequate resources to resolve major issues and to provide for full public participation. However, as set forth in the June 9, 1978, memorandum, budget limitations will continue to require setting of priorities, with work focussed on critical coastal issues, and use of existing information or reasonable assumptions where extensive data is not available. Living within grant amounts (and seeking only essential augmentations of those grants) will also require careful fiscal and staff management by local governments. Finally, the success of certifiable LCPs within these adequate but not lavish budgets requires diligent monitoring and guidance of the local efforts by state and regional Commission staff. This is discussed later in this report. Overall Budget Summary: With approximately $700,000 of the land use plan funds not needed until 1979-80 and with the major zoning work to be funded over both 1979-80 and 1980-81, funding needs statewide compared to available monies by fiscal year are estimated as: Approximate Needs by Fiscal Year 1977-1979 $4,160,000 FY1979-80 1,640,000 FY1980-81 1,100,000 $6,900,000 Available Funding by Fiscal Year $4,176,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 $7,576,000 A balance of $676,000 remains unallocated. Given the tentative nature of zoning estimates at this time and other potential unforeseen needs, staff believes that it is sound fiscal management to reserve this unallocated amount, primarily in the 1980-81 period. Scheduling The scheduling of the LCP work thus far has been based almost entirely on the local governments' schedules. The Commission issue the LCP Manual and LCP Regulati6ns, and sent initial grant application forms to all local.governments, in May 1977__ Most _ applied for and received initial grants for preparing_ issue identification!._ work programs within a few months. However, with competing demands on local staffs and lack of familiarity with the new Coastal Act, the preparation of work programs was not always highest priority. Work programs are still being submitted, almost two years later, in an initial phase that had been expected to take only a few months. . With nearly all the cities and counties now underway on land use planning, schedules still need to reflect the local governments' realistic estimates of the time required to complete the work. The existing grant agreements specify LCP completion dates (including local hearing and adoption time), and adherance to these timelines -is realistically the soonest tie cah expect= completion. However, the Commission should also review and manage the statewide schedule for LCPs. The goals of the Commission's. LCP scheduling should be: 1) to spread the LCPs out so that numerous LCPs do not all converge for Commission review at one time, or in the last months before the deadline; 2) to complete as many LCPs as early as possible to demonstrate that the job can, in fact, be done as well as to provide models that can be applied to other similar jurisdictions; and 3) to give highest -priority in cases of scheduling conflicts to jurisdictions where the LCP will make the biggest difference, because of major -resource conflicts, difficulties in resolving -issues in permit decisions, and the regional - or statewide importance of issues. Current Status of LCPs: To date the Commission has approved 46 issue identification/work programs. Only six major work programs are still pending. Four of these - Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz County, Watsonville, and Los Angeles City - should be approved by May, and the other two - San Francisco and Manhattan Beach.- shortly thereafter. Several small cities are proceeding directly,_to_the_certification stage. _ They are: Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos_ Verdes, Avalon, E1 Segundo, and Costa: _ Mesa. A few low priority cities are "on the back burner." They are Fortuna, National City, Sand City, and Pacific Grove. Finally, seven jurisdictions have requested the Commission prepare their LCPs (see discussion below). Thus, in an overview, there are: 46 Work programs approved 6 Work programs pending 5 Proceeding directly to certification 7 Requested Commission prepare LCP 4 No action - low priority 68 For a more detailed discussion of the status of LCPs, see the attached region -by -region descriptions. Commission PreaaratioTi of LCPs: A number of jurisdillions have asked the Commission to prepare their Local Coastal Programs. The Commission staff has been extremely reluctant to take on such planning without first exploring all alternatives for local control over the planning. This is in keeping with the legislative mandate that: "To achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, it is necessary to rely heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement" to carry out the Coastal Act. However, after extensive discussions with the jurisdictions involved, the ,,Commission is proceeding with the planning for most areas that have requested - Mendocino County, Eureka, Fort Bragg, Capitola, Marina and San Clemente. Capitola is underway with a specially -hired staff person. Marina work is being deferred pending the outcome of major boundary changes that could affect that City's coastal. planning. San Clemente was being undertaken by regional staff, but with the loss,of that staff person may experience some delay. The three North Coast areas will probably all be contracted to consultants; staff is now proparing the proposal for Mendocino County. The City of Carlsbad has also asked the Commission to prepare its'LCP for the portion of the City not covered by the Agua Hedionda Plan. The regional staff wilT•contract this effort to consultants in the near future. In all cases where the Commission undertakes the planning, efforts will be made to assure full involvement of both local citizens and decision - maker. Completion of Land Use Plans and LCPs: The 46 approved work programs provide for the delivery of land use plans or total LCPs over the next 21 months. Schedules for completion can also be projected for some of the pending work programs and the five cities that have submitted existing plans. The tentative schedule for adoption and certification of land use plans and LCPs is shown in geographic order in the attached chart. Statewide, this completion schedule indicates that about 15 total LCPs may be certified by the end of 1979. In the same period, approximately 20 land use plans may be approved; these would then be expected to complete zoning phase work in 1980. Another 5 LCPs are already scheduled to be certified in 1980, along with the remaining 25 or so land use plans. Some of the local governments completing land use plans in 1980 may, by expediting the zoning phase work concurrently with the land use plan approval process, be able to submit the final portion of the LCP in late 1980, still meeting the January 1981 deadline. However, it is realistic to estimate that at least 20% of the l.ocal governments may still be completing zoning phase work in early 1981, with Commission certification as close to the July 1981 deadline as possible. 0 The overall LCP completion schedule is illustrated graphically below: Early Late Early 1979 1980 1980 1981 Totals Total LCPs 15 ' 5 20 Land Use Plans 20 18 10 48 Zoning 10 24 14 Note that the first 20 LCPs are combined - plans with implementing ordinances while the remaining 48 LCPs, with some possible exceptions, are taking two steps: land use plan followed by zoning. The chart is,of necessity,'generalized. It does not take into account the segmentation of a number of local coasta•1 areas. If each segment were considered as a separate LCP, it would greatly increase the number, but the combined LCPs would still fall within the same general timeframes. For example, the City of San Diego has 14 segments, four of which are to be considered together, another two of which are already submitted for land use plan certification, and the rest of which will be submitted over the next two years. Monterey, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties and Los Angeles City each have four segments, with staggered completion dates the two year period. 3. Commission Review of LCPs In addition to time and money, a third commodity in relatively short supply is space on the Commission's agenda. If the schedule outlined above is kept and, in addition, we account for separate hearings on the roughly 25 segments of various jurisdictions, the number of LC P• land use plan, and zoning phase hearings on State Commission agendas over the next two years will total about 150. With two meetings each month, if the hearings are evenly spread over the period from mid-1979 to July 1981, there would need to be an average of three on each agenda. That, of course, assumes each one is heard only once. (Five local plans have already been reviewed by the Commission, three of them on a preliminary, informal basis.) Separate land use plan and zoning phases will, in addition to the two step certification process, also require approval by the Commission of zoning phase work programs. Some local governments may choose to use an informal preliminary review of their land use plan, with formal certification only upon completion of both phases of the work, as was done by Pacifica, for example. This may save some procedural steps, particularly for local adoption, but will still require nearly the same level of Commission review as formal certification of the land us-e plan. Other local governments may request preliminary review in addition to the formal certification of plans and zoning phases, to get early Commission guidance on major issues. As set forth in the LCP Regulations, each local government is entitled, if it so requests, to at least one preliminary review. The preliminary review process should certainly be a louraged where early policy direction is essential to the.formulation of a certifiable LCP. However, as Commission decisions on early LCPs provide guidance on policy interpretations and with staff providing thorough review of plans as they progress, it is anticipated that preliminary reviews should be needed only for major, particularly controversial planning issues. Some local govern- ments may seek informal review only at the Regional Commission level. While the schedule will need to be flexible and is incomplete, it does indicate a heavy load for State Commission agendas. It will be increasingly important to rely on the regional commissions for the in-depth review of LCPs, with the State Commission limiting its review to major unresolved issues (similar to finding no substantial issue on most appeals of regional permit. decisions). To keep the Commissioners informed during the formulation of LCPs, staff will continue to send to the Commission copies of all major policy letters to local governments. When Commissioners feel statewide guidance is needed, we will try to schedule special workshop sessions. It may also be desirable, on major LCPs, to establish a subcommittee of the Commission to participate more effectively during the local preparation and adoption of the LCP. Joint regional -state Commission hearings will also be considered for the _review of some LCPs. 4. Staffin There are presently 44 members of the Coastal Commission staff directly involved in the LCP programs: 30 at the regional level and 14 on the state staff (includim LCP administrative staff). Some of the regions have staff members assigned full time to LCP work, while in other regions staff members divide their time between permits and planning. The main responsibility for monitoring of on -going LCP work is the regional staff person assigned to that jurisdiction. They should be familiar with local plans and issues, contact local planners frequently and assure that work is proceeding on schedule, resolve problems, review draft plan reports, and -prepare letters and staff reports relating to that LCP. The regional chief planner is the manager and supervisor of all LCPs within the region. The state staff coordinator is the main contact for making sure positions represent joint response of all state staff reviewers and resolving any conflicts at the state level, as well as coordinating with permit staff on planning issues. Since effective monitoring and guiding of the LCPs relies primarily on regional staff, it is imperative that the regional offices be adequately staffed to do the job. After reviewing each region in relationship to the number and complexity of their LCPs, an effort has been made to project the staff time necessary to properly assist local governments in completing their programs. This is then compared to the staff currently available. North Coast Region: • # of LCPs Staff yrs needed Staff yrs available 11 7 5 (5 staff 2 time for 2 yrs) Although lead responsibility for preparation of LCPs for the Cities of Eureka and Fort Bragg and Mendocino County will be assigned to consultants, it is expected that regional staff will bear a larger coordinating responsibility than would be the case if the local governments were preparing these LCPs. In addition, two vacancies have reduced the normal staff level from 7 to currently 5. Addition of one to two staff members is critical. North Central Region: # of LCPs 3 44 with two units in Marin County) Staff yrs needed 2 Staff yrs available 3 (3 staff Z time for 2 yrs) Two of the LCPs should be completed in 1979 (Marin County and San Francisco), leaving only Sonoma County, which may well not be certifiable until 1981. Thus one staff member could probably be reassigned during 1980. Central Coast Region: # of'LCPs 15 (20 including 3 segments of Monterey City and 4 in Monterey County) Staff yrs needed 9 Staff yrs available 9 (7 staff 2/3 time for 2-yrs) In this region, two local governments are inactive (Sand City, Pacific Grove), three are just now submitting work programs, and Commission staff is committed to preparing two LCPs (Capitola, Marina). However, much environmental planning has already been done in the region, and with the recent reassignment of one state staff member to this region, there is no reason to believe that all local plans cannot be certified by 1981. South Central Region: # of LC2s 11 (10 if Santa Barbara County and Carpinteria remain combined) Staff yrs needed 7 Staff yrs available 72 (5 staff 3/4 time for 2 yrs) The region has all of their LCP programs underway. Complete LCPs for Grover City and Port Hueneme should be certified this year. All other programs should be completed within the deadlines. South Coast Region: # of LCPs 18 (28 including 4 segments each in L.A. City, L.A. County, and Orange County; Long Beach, although segmented, will probably submit its entire LCP at one-time) Staff yrs needed 16 Staff yrs available 12 (6 staff full time for 2 yrs) -11- A substantial number of existing local plans can be certified with minimal changes, requiring only a limited number of staff months. These include El Segundo, Avalon, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Costa Mesa. At the present time, however, staff has not been able to process these easier LCPs, as work on major plans such as Irvine and City of Los Angeles has taken priority. Even after these small LCPs are completed, the region will still be heavily committed staff -wise over the next two years. One planning staff member recently left, further burdening the remaining staff. Additional planning staff is essential if our deadline is to be met. In addition to filling the current vacancy, permit staff should be shifted to planning, as permit workload has been and is being further reduced by more expeditious procedures. San Diego Coast Region: # of LCPs 9• (20 including 2 segments of Carlsbad, plus 14 community areas for the City of San Diego, at least 4 of which will be combined for certification purposes) Staff yrs needed Staff yrs available The specific number o special circumstances could probably use an programs, the region which may provide the all LCPs in this regi 8 7 (3a staff full time for 2 yrs) f plans that must be reviewed may vary because of the of the City of San Diego. While the regional staff additional staff person working on the planning is getting a substantial amount of state staff time extra staff years to do the job. Completion of on within the schedule should be possible. State Commission Office: There are 14 full-time staff in the State planning division, including the acting chief planner. Eleven are "LCP coordinators" assigned to work with regional staff in reviewing local progress and to assure that policy positions are consistent with statewide permit and planning direction. Three of these coordinators also work one-half time on other planning projects: updating the LCP Manual, managing special contracts with state agencies, and housing. The other planning staff members are responsible for statewide LCP admin- istration. Beginning in April 1979, the Office of Planning and Research will transfer its grant administration function to the Commission office, and Kathy Ohlson and a staff aide position will be assigned from OPR to work in San Francisco. Both the LCP coordination effort and statewide grant management/administration thus appear to be adequately staffed. In addition to the planning division, several important LCP related projects rely on other staff assistance: legal division work on post -certification LCP regulations, model ordinances, review of local zoning, and other legal issues; mapping staff work on delineating the appealable area and technical review of local plan maps; energy division review of LCPs involving major energy facilities, etc. The legal division was seriously under -staffed for a long period of time during the state hiring freeze. New staff have now been hired and work is underway on these important projects. -12- • 0 Statewide Staffing Summary: The most urgent staffing needs are to fill two vacancies in the North Coast office and to fill one vacancy and add one or two additional planning staff persons in the South Coast Office. The augmentation of Central Coast staffing has already been accomplished. One additional staff person in the San Diego office would also be desirable, but until that time state staff can serve partially as regional staff. Conclusion The key conclusions of this report are stated in the synopsis on page 1. Briefly, they involve: (1) augmenting funds available for LCPs; (2) expediting the schedule for completion of LCPs to meet the legislatively - mandated deadlines to the maximum extent possible; (3) establishing joint regional -state review procedures on major LCPs and limiting State Commission review on most other LCPs to questions of substantial issue; and (4) assuring adequate state and regional planning staffing to assist local governments in completing certifiable LCPs. I , We must all continue to recognize that., even with careful management and somewhat increased funding, the LCPs must focus on the high priority coastal issues. As set forth in the June 9, 1978, Commission -adopted report, these priorities include: "a. Highest priority should be given to planning for presently undeveloped land, especially where there is pressure for development, where the Coastal Act policies will greatly affect future land use. (Such areas include San Mateo County, Irvine, Northern San Diego County, for example.) b. High priority should be given to protecting natural resources such as lagoons and to maintaining agriculture. c. In already highly urbanized areas, LCPs should focus on beach access, parking and traffic'congestion issues, visitor -serving uses, and low -moderate income housing (usually -in that order). The type and density of development should be dealt with as they affect these coastal concerns. Bulk, height, setback and design of development should be addressed only in very general terms except along scenic routes, shore areas, or in a very few identified special coastal communities with unique character which serve as visitor destination points; or where setbacks are needed to protect sensitive habitats or bluffs. d. Where the impacts of potential new development inside the coastal zone would be only a small contribution to impacts that transcend the coastal zone area, the LCP should not attempt to resolve such issues, although regional approaches can and should be reflected in the LCP where possible. However, where regional infrastructure systems are focused or constrained in the coastal zone (such as a sewage treatment plant, water supply system, or highway bottleneck), the affected local governments and the Commission together should seek the most effective means to address these issues, recognizing that an individual jurisdiction's ability to solve a regional problem may be limited. -13- e. In all cases, original research or new data collection should be kept to an absolute minimum." Staff recommends that the Commission reaffirm its commitment to this setting of priorities, endorse the LCP management approach outlined above, and continue to expect a firm monitoring of local progress to assure the success of the Local Coastal Programs. r, •.TENTATIVE LCP SCHEDULES • NORTE COUNTY cent City OLDT COUNTY OCM COUNTY Bragg t Arena MA COUNTY N COUNTY r'RANCISCO MATBO COUNTY P City Moots Day CRUZ COU`7TY Cruz City NT. CO.: North Co Del Monte Area Carmel Area Big Sur City {oat.: Cannery Row Dountown etc. Laguna Grande 'acific Grove '`armel iAN LUIS OBISPO CO. Morro Bay ,Pismo Snob ,rover City SANTA BARBARA CO. iCarpinteria Santa Barbara City L = LUP Draft Z = T I LCP or Zoning Draft } = L Hearings x = Reg onal Commission Hearing * = state Commission Hearing _fit-. - { :L4 i:A -(1S .! iCi : ��: `:I 1' =i T�?: •'t';: {-i•Y: xx1 �}iC1.,: .•:r t L'L'r.i. r.. .,i..i. ....t'i= :i-=- -t �.-•:1. ,Y :C f:.i:— 'i 't i :{. —:ram•:' - x.;_{c.t. I'_i_'L._:.�_L•:-:y �c�:.a- cry- _ .._,,, I:�;J-�._=7t'f �'I:=_ - ':L:;.::. r-._-:. �• �(' :r :-1••L- _•.y c -•»cam.:.-. *: i I.♦ ..a: TI. -�'-'1'L'r 'G�—•�=-E_'rY.'�''.L--•:� -}' �ri� `�. �J_ � H :_ -"!� :fit:. :1+- �"-,•t•'14 •\. ' {I.�_ -::.•i 'i _: 'C is :�:T` —h ' ""--C.i. _��= i —1 ;• I _I.:i={-l' _�i_I' _♦i.'_.�':,%.-'...t ' _'1. t._•_t. ! _I In - - t :L`:: --X:Nd_- :I Lj C . ..AdmIL c Ig TURA OprRrPf Can Buenaventura )ward ['ett Hueneme G.A. CountytMalibu Marina del Rey/ Ballona _ E1 Porto Santa Catalina Is LCityr PAC. Pal Venice Playa del Rey San Pedro Tanta Monica 3 Segundo danhattan Beach tetmosa Beach ladondo Beach "3rrance ?al03 Verdes Estate ?oncho Palos Verdes Long Beach Avalon )RANGE W..No. Coast Irvine Also Creek South Coast Seal Beach iuntington Beach lewport Beach 7osta Mesa iaguna Beach San Clemente SAN DI= COUNTY )ceanside )arlsbad Agua Hedionda 'Cl Mar 'an Diego City wor0nado `7ational City ,hula Vista Imperial Beach x •TIC J �i_.1.: ILF L l i • 11 �_`L .I• l t. 1 f ::L il'L"[ - _ ��L=c�f: ::-{___ •; _ 3-i •i-� ' �' i.i I :t_c_r.�.t: i_L"i:i• -__ I- _:. M �1 F��• y I_C,=�c•I ' � �.4 'I. ' 'L i •::.. rct- i ' 3 i' ;.:I �t::.1.. t• (.. i t Wit:... F 1 ':.�.i'.:.�-h• -� - - 3 u } ----.. , • 1 ..r• t. t. i ::• :. i Ff=_ .i..1_.�..=i::_t� i.i:i:» Y. i -:.-}_ � 3 �.i== Y :-Y ::1 � : Y L'_r•� t '•'f.1 'l:i _'�.3.-�• � •�: '_ _ i:" -t ( t��.: .r• �.a l:: _l. t_ '_�. _�- _:'•� ••' i.i: ��i'--[--•t_: � �'[_�:-.-' [': i��) _ y�:: l::_R ••i i r ��1-f:�`�•r�-` r•�.-r-�:.. _•�c---c: - •i i i i i /rr1am_ ��1. .yy.. { yy ••. 4.I� ♦_. :: h`•r.J: ti:; _ .1 � •l:.-i. t..:.:r- . _ ' f: t.• �.�:F. �i• 'i_y'.—' .. —._�_I_I_ _. ._1 _ r—":r'�t[y :�_�. 'l I 1 l _. l.' � _,•3 1 l i �'� .-: •_fir-r_. ...• k_� ._i '1::-t i i „ =�_- -_ i_ -_ ..:.— _ iU -ti L i - •-'�.�'--�_-.•"T':i ± ': _ f . 3-rF 'cL= �•.ts - -_I a' ._`-- _ = cis - _-1 -.r: - - 77 O i ..[ i O I .. V '1977 .' 4 • .-. V •1980 978^ 1979- 1981 t79