HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-3108 - Cost Sharing, Upper Newport Bay Feasibility StudyMAY — 2 7— 9 7
T U E 10:04 KENNETH E M A N U E L S
%
KENNETH
EMANUELS
' LE6f8LATIVR APVOCACV
r OVLANAC9T fl VLATRINS
DATE:
i
Tuesd8y,:May27,1 1997.
TO-
Mayor and CoUr.4il Members,
City. gfNewportbeach
FROM:
Ken Emanuels
SUBJECT:
Legislative Activi"' on your. Behalf
I I
A,
P _ 0 1
_5)-a7)97 — ';0,$/
;,_ cj
MAY 2 7 1997
As of last Thursday and ff ke tb ee mpnths of intense lobbying and probably 6 to 8 committee
hearings, boththe,proposed Assembly and Sena a versiuns.of the FY 1997 -98 State Budget
inalude partial funding'far SGc�6jntation reiiioy d in the Upper Bay, $2.0 million in the Assembly
and. V.9 million in the ScnAfev : sion. In 4 _446n to a'14ifference between the two versions in the
�.
level 'of funding, the Sources o hmi fling ar4 ifla rent; The Senate version funds us from state
tidelands oil revenue;and'the asembty ve' s iin �dndg us from the Harbors and Watercraft
ievolving Fund. The alifotnia Iviafte Parks end i arbors Association, the Marina Recreation
Association, the Caiifomia Asid-gatigp of it 6or Mssters and Port Captains and the Western
Boaters Safety Oroup vioi¢uslj! opgose.fupding from.the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving
Fund, which by statufe;fs.d§si # iie for loa�LS for:iinptovements to marina operators. (In response
to tttc opposition,
the'ciirrent law statutory restricts ?ns on the use. pf this Fund can be easily revised in a budget
trill bill, which is what'theI 4sseinbly xersion assumes:)
The City of Beach pas tieen:the,leading proponent of state funding for sedimentation
removal; even. though the Upgerc pdy.,1:e41ogicef )teserve is owned by the State and managed by % thi: bepartment of Fish and:(xa`tne :The Count* `$ Orange; the Planning and Conservation
League, the Sietra,&A, phi �aiiQr of Audubon $8ciety,:Sea & Sage Audubon, SPON, Friends of
Newport Ba and other state attd local c ivu'o"Ontal: organizations all have endorsed the
proposal aitirade pfidp ca71, well as.fojir ltscal rparina operators (Newport Dunes Marina,
De: Ati?� lbiarima, $wales J.
otage and the. Cal&nra Recreation Company) and the Newport
iarbor Yacht C1uli„ 1 heid4 sjipp4rt.letters end telephone calls. and FAXes would not have
been generated in a timely maifner. bur for the et%rts'.of the City and my office.
I Y Y
'K N 7 8 N 8 1'
v'ITC 41hi. aA1;MA14f.NTU
1: ALI TO AN IA YA
1'tV
- IRY -27 -1997 10:08 951 - P.01
MAY-27-97 T U E 10:04 K E N N E T H E M A N U E L S P-02
Special notice should be made of the efforts of both Senator Ross Johnson and Assembly Member
Marilyn Brewer. Each was responsive to the City's calls for assistance when votes were about to
be cast and each called upon their fellow Legislators, more than once in writing and in person, to
support the project. Even though the dredging project has regional if not statewide significance,
as a budget matter it is viewed As a district issue by Legislators and therefore without the
commitment of both Johnson and Brewer, the project would not have been funded at the level it
was. I have briefed them or their staffs on our progress at least weekly since February,
It was also helpful that the City staff and council members took the time in February and March to
visit Sacramento several times and to cafl on:the budget committee staff to explain the need for
the project in great detail, aerial photds and all.
In my opinion, it is now quite likely that the project will receive at least $2.0 million in the FY
1997 -98 State Budget.. However, the.budget conference committee, which will begin to meet
next week, must reconcile the differences between the sources and level of funding. The major
factor will be what.the Administration wants. Up to now, their preference has been $2.0 m. from
the harbors and Watercraft Account, but when the makeup of the budget conference committee is
announced, it may become apparent that -this source will be defeated, i.e. if Senator Quentin Kopp
is appointed to the committee. The Administration has indicated initial opposition to the Senate
version's funding source, tidelands oil revenues.
A potential third source for additional funding is AB 241 (Lempert) which contains $6.3 million
for a wetlands mitigation clearinghouse and mitigation bank to be operated by the Coastal
Conservancy. The bill will be heard for the frsttime in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
this week. the environmental orgaII&Mlons supporting the bill, the Coastal Conservancy staff
and the author's siaffall have indicated potential support for designating a portion of the $6.3m.
for our project.
Where do we go from here? While we will ask for it, I do not expect that the two versions will
be combined for $4:9 million, This initi0phase of funding is most likely to end up between $2.0
m. and $2.9 m. From the City's standpoint, there is no reason to favor one source over another.
Therefore, after the conference committee is appointed, I will go over the newly appointed
members with Ross and Marilyn and focus our.lobbying team on two members from each house,
the minimum required vote for the approval of an item. At the same time, the Governor's office
will have to tell us which funding source they wilt 9ccept and whether or not they will ask for an
increase above the $2.0 million. Inasmuch as the Governor has line item veto authority over any
item the conference committee adopts,. the Governor is now the key for this and every other item
in the final budget.
The budget conference eommitteemin begin meeting In earnest the first week of June and
hopefully will finish In very early duly,
MAY -27 -1997 10:09 95i P.02
MAY-27-97 T U E 10:05 KENNETH E M A N U E L S P. 0 3
AB 820 ftawl Re�uation in the retentionpgtigSj for video tape for routine pglice department
monitoring from 24 months to 6 moths. Sno ty of Newport Beach.
Already approved by the Assembly Local Government Committee and the Assembly floor, this
City- sponsored bill is widely supported by the California Police Chiefs Association, California
Sheriffs Association and the League of Calitbrpia Cities. It would authorize the destruction of
routine video monitoring after sic months, rather than 24 months, the current law.
Representatives of the Newport Beach Police Department testified in favor of the measure. It
would save the City substantial storage space and reduce the cost of video tape. At this point,
there is no opposition.
B 573 (Johnson). Revision of the SWe Tidelands Grant to the City.
This bill has also been approved by the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and is
awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. There is no opposition to the bill.
This bill relieves the City from the obligation to use tidelands revenue only for tidelands property
acquisition and permits the city to use it for tidelands - related expenditures such a beach cleaning,
pier and jetty repair, bulkhead repair, etc. In addition, the bill provides:
1) l0% of tidelands lease revenue would be paid directly to the State Lands Commission
2) The remainder would be utilized as follows:
- 80% for general tidelands and/or capital projects, and
- 10 for environmental restoration or activities directly related to same.
3) City can use the tidelands revenue within the corporate limits of Newport Beach.
4) City will implement an appropriate land transfer in 12 months to augment trust assets (to
remedy failure to comply with acquisition provision.)
5) City will modify tideland. accounting procedures to more accurately reflect revenues and
expenditures.
With the agreement of the State Lands: Commission, the Legislature is expected to support SB
573 with very little discussion and no dissent.
MOV -97 -1007 10:1p QC' 0 AZ
0
AUG 12r-:,O-
August
r -::'0
August 12, 1996
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. 15
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL C -3jc
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: UPPER NEWPORT BAY FEASIBILITY STUDY - COST SHARING
AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Cost Sharing Agreement with the County of Orange to perform the Federal
Cooperative Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study with County of Orange and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
Discussion
In 1986, at the request of the County of Orange (County) and the City of Newport
Beach (City), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Army to modify the Federal
Newport Bay Harbor project, which in 1935 constructed the current harbor entrance and
main navigation channels in the lower bay. The proposed modification was to extend a
15 -foot deep by 250 -foot wide channel from the Lower Bay to the boundary of the
Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve, and to deepen the existing channel
downstream of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge.
In preparing the plans for the 1988 Upper Newport Bay Unit II Sediment Control and
Enhancement project, (sediment basin below saltworks dike and access channel from
Lower Bay up to the basin), the City submitted a final report for the proposed
modifications to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps determined
that there was not sufficient Federal interest in the project and the authorization to
modify the Federal project in the Lower Bay was not approved.
Since that time, the Federal government has expressed interest in environmental
projects and in 1992 initiated a 100 percent Federally- funded reconnaissance study to
modify the Federal project in the Lower Bay to provide environmental restoration and
navigation in the Upper Bay. That study was completed in 1994 and found sufficient
Federal interest in environmental enhancement in the Upper Bay to recommend moving
to the next stage in developing Federal projects, a 50 percent Iocal/50 percent
Federally- funded feasibility study.
Ll
i,_I
SUBJECT: UPPER NEWPORT BAY FEASIBILITY STUDY - COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY
OF ORANGE
August 12, 1996
Page 2
The Corps has prepared a plan which provides for a $1,350,000 study to be shared 50
percent local/50 percent Federal over the next two and one -half years. The study will
focus on addressing the problems and needs caused by sediment deposition in the
Upper Newport Bay area. Planning objectives of the study are:
1. Develop an agency consensus related to meaningful modifications to the bay and
San Diego Creek that would ensure greater species diversity and protection with the
least impact to current populations;
2. Address the evolution and dynamic nature of the ecosystem through participation of
the resource agencies during the first phase of the study;
3. Regulate the sediment storage within the Upper Bay;
4. Coordinate efforts of the Department of the Army and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to restore and create fish habitat;
5. Protect and enhance wetland habitat for a variety of water associated wildlife,
including rare and endangered species;
6. Improve the water quality within the Upper Bay by improving tidal circulation and
increasing the tidal prism;
7. Allow for continued navigation to existing marinas within the lower portion of the
Upper Bay and the Federal project in the Lower Bay;
8. Make provisions for unique scientific and educational opportunities for study of
wetland communities;
9. Seek regional partnerships and agencies expertise through the Coastal America
Program.
Preliminary alternatives to be studied will focus on reducing the uncontrolled distribution
of sediment within the Upper Bay, and associated restoration of the ecosystem.
Formulation of alternative plans will rely on extensive existing information about the
watershed, and future planning and engineering modifications to the watershed that
may reduce the volume of sediment that is transported to Newport Bay. Alternative
plans will also consider improving tidal circulation by deepening channels adjacent to
existing islands. Other measures to restore, enhance or create desired environmental
0
0
SUBJECT: UPPER NEWPORT BAY FEASIBILITY STUDY - COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY
OF ORANGE
August 12, 1996
Page 3
conditions and habitat for threatened and endangered species, such as the light- footed
clapper rail, will be formulated and addressed during coordination efforts with other
agencies. Maintaining a navigation channel from the existing Federal project in the
Lower Bay to the marinas in the Upper Bay will also be addressed. Environmentally
sensitive dredging methods will be explored, and alternate sites and uses for dredged
material will be considered.
Orange County will act as lead agency and enter into a cost sharing agreement with the
Corps to prepare the study. This agreement provides for the City to share 50 percent
City /50 percent County for the local share of the cooperative Federal feasibility study.
One half of the local share can be "in kind services" (work performed by local agency)
and it is planned that the in kind services can be accounted for with City and County
work being completed for the Unit III Upper Bay project. That work includes the
bioassay reports and surveys being completed for the Unit III project and additional
survey work in the entire Upper Bay planned by the County. Terms of this agreement
with the County are generally provided as follows:
1. Funding
a. CASH
City $30,000
County 50.000
TOTAL $801000
b. IN KIND SERVICES
City $126,500
County J-2aAQ
TOTAL $253,000
$ 80,500 $ 68,000
80.500 �4 494
$161,000 $116,000
$23,000 $29,000
23.000 29•UUO
$46,000 $58,000
2. Newport Beach will provide the City's share of the funding to the County by
September 30th each year;
3. City and County may terminate participation in the study by written notice;
4. The study will be managed by an Executive Committee comprised of the Los
Angeles District Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
Deputy District Engineer, Los Angeles District Chief of Planning, and one member
each from the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach; and
L
0
SUBJECT: UPPER NEWPORT BAY FEASIBILITY STUDY- COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY
OF ORANGE
August 12, 1996
Page 4
5. If funds are not available from any cooperative local agency, the Executive
Committee may amend the scope of work to continue within the limits of the revised
funding.
The City has participated with Orange County and the Corps of Engineers during
preparation of the initial reconnaissance phase of the study. City interest includes
Federal participation in funding future Upper Bay work; Federal participation as a
project proponent in dealing with the resource agencies; and Federal participation in
acquiring permanent designation for the L.A. III ocean disposal site.
The study will also provide for survey of the entire Upper Bay (not just the sediment
control basins); modeling of fresh water and tidal flows in Upper Bay; additional
resource enhancement; and recommendations to enhance sediment control.
Under terms of the agreement, the City's share of the cost for FY 1996/97 is $30,000
and is currently available in Account No. 7011- C5100005.
Respectfully submitted,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Don Webb
Director of Public Works
•
E
0
0
r1
L�
0
0
UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III
SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
MILESTONE SCHEDULE
July 19, 1996
Task
N& Description
1. Complete bioassay testing
2. Submit funding applications to State Coastal Conservancy
to complete project development
3. Complete Agreement to transfer administration to Orange
County establish a project management committee and
provide funding to complete project development
4. Obtain bioassay approvals from the EPA
S. Complete California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documentation
6. Initiate plans and specifications
7. Submit U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), CDFG,
and Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB)
permit applications
8. Submit California Coastal Commission application
9. Complete plans and specifications
10. Prepare agreements for funding and funding mitigation
credit
11. Obtain Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB permits
12. Coastal Commission hearings and approval
13. Bid advertisement
14. Award contract1commence construction
1tVl9A4 OM943
NEWPMTBFACM
DAk
July, 1996
July, 1996
August, 1996
August, 1996
August, 1996
July, 1996
August, 1996
August/September, 1996
October, 1996
October/November, 1996
November, 1996
November, 1996
December, 1996
January, 1997
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd.
UNIT III PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY •
July 19, 1996
Expenses to Date (Fiscal Years 1993194, 1994195, and 1995196)
■ Preliminary engineering, agency approvals,
$236,000
project management, mitigation plan development
and bioassay preliminary approvals
)
■ Fisheries report
6,000
■ Preliminary topographic surveying
12,000
■ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
40,000
documentation
■ Resource agency coordination/permitting
10,000
■ Bioassay
260,000
■ Topographic surveys
32.000
Subtotal
$596,000
Encumbrances to Date (Fiscal Year 1995196)
■ Project management
Total Costs to Date $605,000 .
Funding Available to Date and Remaining Balance
■ City of Newport Beach (Fiscal Year 1993/94) $100,000
■ City of Newport Beach (Fiscal Year 1994/95) 100,000
■ City of Newport Beach (Fiscal Year 1995/96) 100,000
■ Orange County(') 75,000
■ The Irvine Company 200,000
■ Dover Shores(') 301000
Total Funds Available to Date $605,000
Estimated Expenses Up To Construction (Winter 1996197)
■ Project management, negotiations with EPA regarding
approval of Bioassay/LA III Permanent Designation and
funding agreement negotiation
$35,000
■ Complete environmental documentation permit processing
and Coastal Commission approval
45,000
■ Surveying and design to complete final plans,
60,000
specifications, cost estimates, and contract documents
Total Funds Required Up To Construction
$140,000 •
Notes (1) Cost abating for Orange CooM}+s and Dauer Shores' portion of bioanay work
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd.
UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III
SEDIMENT CONTROL AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
May 30, 1996
Background
The Upper Newport Bay Unit III project is critically needed to manage sediment moving into the
Upper Bay, thereby protecting the Upper and Lower Bay environmental resources and economic
interests. It is critical since all of the planned sediment capacity in the basin adjacent to
Jamboree Road has been filled. There is a possibility of environmental damage downstream if
the facility is not restored immediately. The City of Newport Beach (City) has been acting as the
Project Manager for the Sediment Control and Enhancement Project. It has been the intent of the
City, on behalf of the Executive Committee, to have all of the plans and specifications completed
' and permits and approvals obtained in order to award a dredging contract once funding is
available, hopefully before the 1996 /1997 winter storms.
The current status of the City's activities indicates that a contract could be awarded and
construction started in January of 1997 if funds for planning and construction becomes available
by September of 1996. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on activities currently
underway, the work to be started, and the current schedule.
Status of Current Work
The following five items of work are underway.
A bioassay is required to prove that the desired ocean disposal site will not be harmed by
the material dredged from the Upper Bay. The bioassay consultant has completed all
sediment sampling, including both chemical and bioaccumulation testing of the samples.
Initial results of the analysis indicate that most of the sediment dredged from the site will
be suitable for ocean disposal. A problem occurred with the initial test on the bottom
seven feet of sediment in one area of the Unit III basin. Unlike other portions of the
bioassay test area, these sediments have not been previously dredged. The initial testing
procedure used on these sediments did not appropriately account for variations in salinity
and ammonia in the samples.
The re -test provided satisfactory results for one test procedure, however; a second
Procedure on amphipods remains a problem. The U. S. Environmental Management
MMPPP U"3
NEWPORISEAM
0
Agency (EPA) has recommended a re -test with a second species of amphipod which •
provided satisfactory results on several projects in northern California. Those projects
involved very fine bay muds similar to the material in the Upper Bay and it is anticipated
that the additional testing and approval by EPA will be completed in July, 1997.
The LA III Ocean Disposal Site located offshore of the Newport Harbor Entrance is the
only practical/economically feasible site for disposal of dredge material. The site is
managed by the Federal government and studies required for its permanent designation
have not been completed. City and County staff have worked with Congressman Cox's
office, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to extend the temporary use of
the site and to provide for permanent designation. The site is definitely available for the
Unit III project and it appears that the efforts to obtain permanent designation of the site
for future dredge disposal will be successful. Orange County has just completed surveys
of the site for the EPA and the Upper Bay project will provide for post - construction
surveys of the site.
Progress has also been made on preparation of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) documentation and resource agency permits. The project description and initial •
study are being completed and on -site surveys for the analysis of visual construction
related impacts have been performed. It is currently anticipated that amendments of the
existing environmental documentation for the original in -bay projects will be sufficient to
satisfy the CEQA documentation with certification in August, 1996.
Upon certification of the CEQA document, the Section 404 Permit, the Section 401
Certification, and the Coastal Commission Development permits will be issued.
Resource agencies have been contacted, permitting requirements verified, and draft
permits are under preparation. No exceptional problems are foreseen.
1; 31MMf.l:4t�
Updated ground and aerial site surveys were completed in late July of 1995, and
topographic mapping for the Unit III area and access channel was completed in
mid- August. Surveys have just been completed to determine any additional
sedimentation which may have occurred during the 1995/1996 storm season.
Supporting data has been provided and steps are being taken to negotiate the sale of •
mitigation credits resulting from the enhanced habitat to be created. $5,000,000 is
required for the construction of the project and $10,000,000 is required for an annuity.
Doug Wheeler's office is currently taking the lead on this activity. Agreements with the
Moe"M9- M
NEwronreLAM 2
. parties and funding will be required by September, 1996 if the current schedule is to be
maintained.
Work to be Initiated
Though not complicated, the plans and specifications need to be prepared and must
include modification of the stabilizer structure downstream of Jamboree Road on San
Diego Creek. It is expected that the plans and specifications can be completed by
November, 1996.
It will be necessary for the State of California, the City of Newport Beach, the Port that
purchases credits, and some of the resource agencies to enter an agreement to transfer
funds to the City, to assure mitigation credits, etc. The agreement needs to be signed by
September, 1996. The major agreement points have been identified.
MEMBE =1 1 e
• It will be necessary for the City to raise an additional $140,000 to assure completion of
the steps described above in time for construction to start in January, 1997.
•
Current Schedule
An updated schedule is attached.
Update on Mitigation Credits and Negotiations with State Resources Agency on Funding is
attached.
Unit III Project Financial Summary is attached.
NEWPORTUAC O
0 0
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd:
UPDATE ON MITIGATION CREDITS AND NEGOTIATIONS •
WITH STATE RESOURCES AGENCY ON FUNDING
May 30, 1996
The numerous steps taken are outlined below:
1. After the last Executive Committee meeting, meetings were held with
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) senior management and
concurrence was reached on project implementation and funding with
mitigation credits.
2. Additional follow -up meetings were held with State Resources Agency
administration and CDFG senior management to confirm CDFG's
commitment to the project and to expedite project development.
3. Meetings held with CDFG, National Marine Fisheries, and U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service staff led to technical level agreement that 50 acres of
project site could be used for credit.
4. Annuity estimate studies made.
5. Proposed that the 61.8 acres made up of footprint of the project that is .
being lowered to -14' mean sea level for the first time and other benefitted
areas was more appropriate than 50 acres.
6. 1.32 multiplier used to convert field footprint to mitigation credit acres was
introduced.
7. Salinity study made that shows high quality marine habitat during all critical
periods will be developed to Jamboree Road.
8. Study developed to demonstrate that 27.7 acres of non - footprint areas
could be used for credit due to regional benefits downstream for improved
tidal flushing and improved sediment management. Total acreage: 50 +
27.7 = 77.7 acres.
9. Calculations:
77.7 x 1.32 = 102.6 acres of marketable credits.
At $140,000 /acre, project and annuity contributions would be:
Project Construction Funding: $5,000,000.
Project Maintenance Annuity: $10,000,000.
10. Conclusion: Any combination of acres and values that yields $15,000,000 is •
acceptable.
•
is
•
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd.
11
UPPER NEWPORT BAY
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
UNIT III CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Task
&. De=*Iion
1. Complete California Environmental Quality Act documentation
*2. Prepare agreements for funding and funds mitigation credit
*3. Receive planning/construction funding
4. Prepare final plans, specifications, and contract documents
5. Obtain permits and approval
6. Advertise for bids
7. Award construction contract
Completion
DA&
8/15/96
8/15/96
10/15/96,
10/15/96
12/15/96
12/15/96
01/15/97
* It is anticipated that the Resources Agency will play a major role in negotiations of the
funding and mitigation agreements. John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd. under contract
to the City of Newport Beach is available to support and assist the Resources Agency as
needed.
m.sauwm
NEWPOM
John M. Tettemer & Associates, Ltd.
UNIT III PROJECT FINANCIAL_ SUMMARY •
May 30, 1996
Expenses to Date (Fiscal Years 1993194, 1994195, and 1995196)
■ Preliminary engineering, agency approvals, $200,000
project management, and bioassay preliminary
approvals
■ Fisheries report 6,000
■ Preliminary topographic surveying 12,000
■ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 50,000
documentation
■ Resource agency permitting 27,000
■ Bioassay 260,000
■ Final topographic surveys 32.000
Subtotal $587,000
Encumbrances to Date (Fiscal Year 1995196)
■ Project management 1.8
Total Costs to Date $605,000
Funding Available to Date and Remaining Balance
■ City of Newport Beach (Fiscal Year 1993194) $100,000
■ City of Newport Beach (Fiscal Year 1994/95) 100,000
■ City of Newport Beach (Fiscal Year 1995196) 100,000
■ Orange County(') 75,000
■ The Irvine Company 200,000
■ Dover Shores(') 30.000
Total Funds Available to Date $605,000
Estimated Expenses Up To Construction (Waiter 1996197)
■ Bioassay processing through EPA $20,000
■ Project management, funding agreement negotiation, permit 30,000
processing, and Coastal Commission approvals
■ Plans and specifications preparation, processing 90,000
and approvals
Total Funds Required Up To Construction $140,000
Nor ": (1) Con "ing for 0moSc Co ty+s and Dover Show' portion of hio=q work
a
0 0
Agreement No. D -96 -067
COST SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AND
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
FOR THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY FEASIBILITY STUDY
This Agreement is made and entered into this oCtl� day of ,
1996 by and between the City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation,
referred to as CITY and the County of Orange /Harbors, Beaches and Parks,
hereinafter referred to as COUNTY with reference to the following:
RECITALS
1. Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Army to modify the project
for navigation for Newport Bay Harbor, Orange County, California... to
dredge and maintain a 250 -foot wide channel in the Upper Newport Bay to
the boundary of the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve to a depth
of 15 feet mean lower low water, and to deepen the channel below the
Pacific Coast Highway bridge to a depth of 15 feet mean lower low
water..., pursuant to Section 841 of Public Law 99 -642 and subject to
section 903(b) of Public Law 99 -662 which requires completion of a final
report of the Chief of Engineers.
2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has conducted a reconnaissance study on
modifying the project for navigation for Newport Bay Harbor for the
purposes of providing environmental restoration and navigation in the
Upper Bay pursuant to this authority, and has determined that further
study in the nature of a "Feasibility Phase Study" (hereinafter the
"Study) is required to fulfill the intent of the study authority and to
0 0
assess the extent of the Federal interest in participating in a solution
to the identified problem.
3. The Study will be undertaken only to the extent of Congressional
appropriations, Newport Beach City Council and Orange County Board of
Supervisor's annual budgetary approval.
4. Section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law
99 -662, as amended) specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to
the Study.
5. The COUNTY and the CITY have the authority and capability to furnish the
cooperation hereinafter set forth and are willing to participate in the
cost sharing and financing of and for the Study in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement.
6. The COUNTY and the CITY understand that entering into this Agreement in no
way obligates either party to implement a project and that whether the
COUNTY and the CITY support a project authorization and budget it for
implementation depends upon, among other things, the outcome of the Study,
and the extent of financial participation of the Federal Government in a
proposed project implementation.
7. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prepared an Upper Newport Bay Project
Study Plan (Appendix A) dated October 1995 that identifies the work
activities, efforts required, schedules, costs and sources of funding
required to conduct the feasibility study for ecosystem restoration and
watershed management.
8. The "Study" shall be performed in accordance with Appendix A upon
2.
0 0
appropriation of the necessary funds and execution by the COUNTY and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of that certain Agreement attached hereto as
Appendix B and incorporated herein (hereinafter "Appendix B ") and shall
culminate in a report prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers that will be
made available to the COUNTY and the CITY.
9. The results of the Study are necessary for the determination of a federal
interest for further involvement of the design and construction of a
project for navigation and environmental restoration in Upper Newport Bay
and will provide the COUNTY and CITY information necessary to make
informed decisions related to the operation, maintenance and restoration
of tidelands granted to the COUNTY and CITY by the State of California.
10. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, COUNTY tidelands, CITY tidelands
and privately maintained navigation channels have experienced problematic
sedimentation and resulting hazardous shoals, changes in Ecological
Reserve habitats and threats to the viability of sensitive and endangered
species.
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. COUNTY and CITY agree to provide cost - sharing and financing of fifty (50 %)
percent of the Non - Federal funding required under Appendix B of COUNTY and
local supporting agencies. Consistent with applicable federal statues,
regulations and Appendix B, approximately one half of this cost sharing may be
acceptable in -kind services. The COUNTY and CITY shall equally share the
Non - Federal cost - sharing responsibility provided for in Appendix B.
3.
0 0
The individual annual cash and-in -kind service contribution for the CITY and
the COUNTY shall be as follows:
Fiscal Year
Count v Cash
City Cash
Count v In-Kind
City In -Kind
Contribution
Contribution
Service
Service
Contribution
Contribution
1996 -97
$ 40,000
$ 30,000
$126,500
$126,500
1997 -98
$ 80,500
$ 80,500
$ 23,000
$ 23,000
1998 -99
$ 58,000
$ 68,000
$ 29,000
$ 29,000
Totals
$178,500
$178,500
$178,500
$178,500
Applicable in -kind service contributions will include CITY and COUNTY
expenditures related to the performance of bioassay analyses, aerial and
hydrographic surveys and Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping in the
Upper Newport Bay. It is recognized that portions of the bioassay and survey
information developed by the CITY or COUNTY may not be applicable to the
Federal Feasibility Study.
2. CITY and COUNTY agree that although the Project Study Plan (Appendix A)
describes a three year study program CITY and COUNTY participation shall be
limited by the annual budget approval of the appropriate Council or Board of
Supervisors for each fiscal year. The CITY shall remit their share of the
cash contribution to the COUNTY upon approval of the CITY Council and prior to
September 30 of each fiscal year. The COUNTY shall remit the combined cash
contribution to the Corps of Engineers with the budgetary approval of the
Board of Supervisors prior to September 30 of each fiscal year. The CITY and
COUNTY shall each provide an annual written statement of completed in -kind
services prior to September 30 of each fiscal year for submittal to the Corps
of Engineers Project Manager.
3. CITY and COUNTY agree that either party may terminate participation in
the Study if it is determined that it is not in accord with its current
4.
_ . •
policies and budget priorities. When such a case exists, the Study shall be
terminated according to Article x of Appendix B and all data and information
shall be made available to both parties.
4. If funds are not available from any cooperating local agency during the
Study period, the Executive Committee, as established in Article IV of
Appendix B, may amend the scope of work and plan of action to continue
within the limits of revised funding schedule.
5. In accordance with Article IV of Appendix B, the COUNTY and the CITY shall
have equal opportunity for overall Study management by the appointment of one
member of the Executive Committee.
5.
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY has caused this agreement to be executed by the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, acting as the governing board of COUNTY,
and attested by its Clerk, and CITY has caused this agreement to be executed
by its Mayor, and attested by its Clerk, all thereunto duly authorized on the
dates set forth opposite their respective signatures.
ATTEST: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH:
Date: ia--.74 s('0 By:
Mayor
Date: �l a a IG�°
AUG 2 0 1994
Date.
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD:
o, o C1 yln),,,�
DARLENE J. LBLB J.
Clerk of the Board of .Supervisors of
Orange County, California
By: &41 "))' rV
City Clerk
APPROVE AS FORM:
By:
City Att rney
HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS
By: t- (✓
Chairm f the Board of uper isors
of OrAnggfCounty acting as the
GoverWWg Board of the Orange County
Harbors, Beaches and Parks
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Laurence M. Watson, Acting County Counsel
Orange County California
By:
Deputy
21
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY has caused this agreement to be executed by the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, acting as the governing board of COUNTY,
and attested by its Clerk, and CITY has caused this agreement to be executed
by its Mayor, and attested by its Clerk, all thereunto duly authorized on the
dates set forth opposite their respective signatures.
ATTEST: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH:
Date: By:
Mayor
Date: By:
City C
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
• By:
City Attorney
ORAN Z ARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS
Date: AUG 2 D 1996-''c' By:
Chair n f the Board of Supervisors
of 0 n County acting as the
Governing Board of the Orange County
Harbors, Beaches and Parks
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California
•APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Laurence M. Watson, 11biwgb County Counsel
Orange Counjo California /J
6.
V2� n r
County otleOrange
Public Facilities & Resources Department
C'�IFOR� c
John W. Sibley, Director
A 9M
February 29,1997
Attention: Shauna Oyler, Executive Secretary
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -3311
Subject: Cost Sharing Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and the
County of Orange for the Upper Newport Bay Feasibility Study
Dear Ms. Oyler:
Its been a long time coming, but the Clerk of the Board finally worked out the
problems with executing the subject agreement. It appears that since the City
Council and County Board of Supervisors both acted on the agreement about the
same time, the individually executed copies passed in the mail so the Clerk had to
get your copies reexecuted by the Board. I noticed that County Counsel's signature
is not on the latest version so I am sending you a copy of one that he did sign to try
to expedite this lingering problem. If this is not acceptable let me know and I will
get County Counsel to sign again. Sorry for any inconvenience due to the delay.
Sincerely,
010 t
Tom Rossmiller, Coastal Engineer
LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE:
300 N. FLOWER ST. P.O. BOX 4048 (714) 834 -5302
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA, CA 92702AO48 FAX # 834 -2395