City of Fort Bragg Incorporated August 5, 1889*

is only partially correct. The LUP includes policies governing development in the coastal zone that are necessary to implement the Coastal Act and the LUP is typically a part of a city's General Plan. In Fort Bragg, the new LUP is contained within the "Coastal General Plan." The IP provides implementing regulations for the LUP policies, including zoning and subdivision regulations, site development regulations, resource management requirements, etc. In Fort Bragg, the IP is contained within the "Coastal Land Use & Development Code" (Coastal LUDC).

is only partially correct. The footnote re: Categorical Exclusion orders inaccurately defines the specified types of development as being "exempt from CCC appeal." In fact, they are exempt from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit. In addition, the last sentence is only partially correct. Pursuant to Section 30519(b) of the Coastal Act, the Commission retains permit authority (with certain exceptions) after LCP certification over development occurring on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands.

is only partially correct. The City of Fort Bragg's original LCP (LUP and IP) was certified on July 14, 1983. A number of subsequent LCP amendments were certified by the CCC in 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1995.

is only partially correct. The City submitted an application to the CCC for a comprehensive amendment to its LUP in May 2003. The City was in the process of preparing an amendment to the IP (i.e., the Land Use & Development Code) at that time. At the time the comprehensive amendment to the LUP was submitted to the CCC, the Council and Planning Commission were involved in a lengthy public process for reviewing the proposed Land Use & Development Code. The amended IP was not completed by the City until July 2004.

is only partially correct. Characterizing the submittal of the IP amendment to the CCC in May 2006 as a "delay of nearly three years" is inaccurate, since the IP amendments (which were included in the Land Use & Development Code) were not adopted by the Council until July 2004.

is only partially correct. It does not address the fact that, in November 2004, the Council adopted further amendments to the LUP to ensure consistency between the newly adopted Land Use & Development Code and the December 2004 General Plan. Following this action, Coastal Commission staff suggested that an entirely new LCP amendment submittal should be prepared, hence the adoption of Resolution 2857-2005 in April 2005. The quotation in Finding #14 that the resolution states that the LCP amendments take effect "automatically upon Coastal Commission approval" is misleading as it does not include the remainder of the sentence in the adopted resolution as follows "unless the Commission suggests modifications, in which case, the Council will take action to consider adoption of the suggested modifications prior to the Local Coastal Program amendments taking effect."

inaccurately synopsizes the City Manager's May 22, 2006 report to the Council. The entire staff report is attached to this response.

is only partially correct. The reference to an "affordable housing project" is not technically accurate as the referenced project did not include any restrictive covenants regarding rental rates or tenant income eligibility. Based on the project design however, it appears that the project intended to target the lower end of the market rate housing spectrum. The statement that "the numerous demands placed on this application [Hazelwood Townhouse Project] constituted an effective denial of the project" is incorrect. In May 2004, the City sent a letter to the applicant requesting additional information and analysis necessary to complete the Hazelwood Townhouse Project application. That letter did not reference any "uncertified" LCP policies or regulations. The requested information (drainage analysis, traffic analysis, lighting plan, etc.) is standard information necessary to evaluate a project's impacts. Further, on June 19, 2006, the Community Development Committee (CDC) of the City Council met with Mr. Moura, his attorney and his architect to review the Moura Townhome Project application and clarify exactly what information would be necessary to complete the application (see attached CDC minutes). The City Manager, Community Development Director and Director of Public Works participated in that discussion. While the City understands that the information that was required was substantial and may have been interpreted by Mr. Moura to be an "effective denial," that was certainly not the intent of the Council or staff. Unfortunately, the requested information was not submitted and the application remained "incomplete" until it was deemed to be withdrawn in July 2008.

is only partially correct. The statement that the July 30, 2004 LUDC was not legally applicable to any development permit application in the coastal zone is not accurate. The portions of the LUDC that did not amend the City's certified LCP were applicable to development in the coastal zone. A staff report to the City Council dated August 28, 2006 explains the necessity of a "hybrid" approach (see , attached).

is not entirely correct. The statement that "Nonetheless, several provisions of the uncertified LCP are cited as also being applicable to the project" should read, "Several provisions ef the uncertified LCP of the LUDC that are not part of the City's LCP amendment application are cited as also being applicable to the project."

is incorrect. The Hazelwood Townhouse Project application was not a "failed" application, nor was it "terminated." The applicant failed to submit the information required to complete the application. The application status was "incomplete" until July 2008, when the City deemed the application to be "withdrawn." At that time, the City refunded the full balance remaining in the applicant's developer deposit account.