Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout - Joint City Council - Harbor Commission MeetingSeptember 9, 2008 Agenda Item: SS #3 JOINT CITY COUNCIL — HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING September 9, 2008 — 4:10 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Blvd. AGENDA ROLL CALL 2. INTRODUCTIONS REVIEW OF HARBOR COMMISSION DUTIES [As per attached] 4. STAFF PRESENTATION ON HARBOR DREDGING AND PERMIT OPTIONS [See Item 427 on 9/9/08 Regular Meeting Agenda] 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HARBOR COMMISSION WHEREAS, Section 700 of the Charter of the City ofNewport Beach authorizes the City Council to create by ordinance advisory commissions as in its judgment are required, and may grant to them such powers and duties as are consistent with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach; and and WHEREAS, Newport Harbor is one of the largest small craft harbors in the world; WHEREAS, the waters and shoreline of Newport Harbor support a wide variety of commercial, recreational, and residential uses and scenic and biological resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach desires to establish a commission to provide the City of Newport Beach with an advisory body representing these diverse uses of Newport Harbor and its waterfront. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council of the CityofNewport Beach hereby establishes the Harbor Commission with the purpose, powers and duties described in Attachment A. SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on December 11, 2001, and adopted on the 8th day of January, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Heffernan, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS O'Neil MAYOR ATTEST: dwpl7w-o, CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT A HARBOR COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION: Established by Ordinance 2001- 25 OFFICIAL TITLE: Harbor Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California. PURPOSE: Newport Harbor supports numerous recreational and commercial activities, waterfront residential communities and scenic and biological resources. The purpose of the Harbor Commission is to provide the City of Newport Beach with an advisory body representing these diverse uses of Newport Harbor and its waterfront. RESPONSIBILITES: 1. Advise the City Council in all matters pertaining to the use, control, operation, promotion and regulation of all vessels and watercraft within the Newport Harbor. 2. Approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove applications on all harbor permits where the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code assigns the authority for the decision to the Harbor Commission. 3. Serve as an appellate and reviewing body for decisions of the City Manager on harbor permits, leases, and other harbor - related administrative matters where the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code assigns such authority to the Harbor Commission. 4. Advise the City Council on proposed harbor - related improvements. 5. Advise the Planning Commission and City Council on land use and property development applications referred to the Harbor Commission by the City Council, Planning Commission, or the City Manager. 6. Make recommendations to the City Council for the adoption of regulations and programs necessary for the ongoing implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan. MEMBERSHIP: Seven (7) members appointed by the City Council pursuant to Section 702 of the City Charter. In no event will individual appointments to the Harbor Commission exceed two (2) consecutive full terms, exclusive of appointments to fill unexpired terms. TERM: Each member shall serve a term of four (4) years and such terms shall be on a staggered basis, pursuant to Section 702 of the City Charter. STAFF: City Manager or designee. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LAVONNE M. HARKLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2001 -25 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 8th day of January 2002, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Absent: O'Neil Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 9th day of January 2002. (Seal) _0 0, /✓�� City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LAVONNE M. HAR.KLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. 2001 -25 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City Council of said City and that same was so published in The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper of general circulation on the following date, to wit: January 12, 2002. P 0IN In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this day of City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH r PLANNING DEPARTMENT Hearing Date: December 11, 2001 _ 3ooNEWPORTIB011iEVARD Agenda Item No-, 4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 Staff Person- Patrick J. Alford (%+s)644-sROa FAX (4tv)ars'sl2v (949) 644.3235 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI SUBJECT: Proposed Harbor Commission b I -B -oZ SUMMARY: The establishment of a Harbor Commission intended to advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the use, control, operation, promotion and regulation of activities within and around Newport Harbor. ACTION: 1) Introduce Ordinance No. 2001-__ establishing the Harbor Commission and pass to second reading on January 8, 2002; and 2) Adopt Resolution 2001 -_ -- directing the Harbor Committee to provide.advice and orientation to the newly appointed Harbor Commission and extending the term of the Harbor Committee to 2003. Background On "October 9, 2001, the City Council held a study session on the proposed Harbor Commission. Discussion at the study session focused on the membership and the powers and duties of the proposed Harbor Commission. The consensus of the City Council was that the membership should be drawn from a pool of candidates citywide. Furthermore, while Harbor expertise Is desirable, the Harbor Commission should not be a purely technical body. The City Council also concluded that the Harbor Commission should have a limited role in the review of land use and property development applications. The City Council directed staff to forward their comments to the Harbor Committee and to bring the issue back for consideration at the earliest opportunity. On November 27, 2001, the Harbor Committee voted to revise their proposed rules of procedures, pursuant to the City Council's direction. Analysis The Need for a Harbor Commission At the October 9, 2001 study session, staff was directed to provide a discussion on why the current system should be changed by establishing a Harbor Commission. The primary need for a Harbor Commission is to provide a standing appointive body to address the numerous issues related to the use of the Harbor. Currently, the staff of the Harbor Resources Division makes most of the decisions relating to the Harbor. These decisions are made without any legislative oversight other than the ability to appeal to the City Council. The Harbor Commission is intended to establish a body of resident members that can provide ongoing direction to the Harbor Resources Division concerning the Issuance of harbor permits and the administration of harbor regulations. The Harbor Commission's other primary role would be to advise the City Council on matters relating to the use of the harbor, and proposed harbor Improvements. The Harbor Commission may also be asked by the City Council, Planning Commission or City Manager to review land use and development projects that may affect harbor activities. Membership The Harbor Commission would consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council. Each member shall serve a term of four (4) years and would be eligible for reappointment by the City Council. However, no appointments could exceed two (2) consecutive full terms (exclusive of appointments to fill unexpired terms). Terms will be on a staggered basis, pursuant to Section 702 of the City Charter. Per the City Council's direction, the Harbor Committee has removed any recommendations concerning the composition of the membership of the Harbor Commission. A Harbor Commission member would only have to be able to meet the qualifications for a registered voter (i.e., over 18 years of age, U.S. Citizen, resident, etc.) and not hold any paid office (Section 702 of the City. Charter). Some members of the Harbor Committee were concerned that this could lead to political appointments. However, the consensus of the Harbor Committee was that the appointment procedure required by City Council Policy A -2 provides an adequate screening process. Responsibilities The Harbor Commission's primary role would be to advise the City Council on matters relating to the use of the harbor, proposed harbor improvements, and land use and development that may affect harbor activities. The Harbor Commission would also be asked to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the implementation of the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan. Per the City Council's direction, the Harbor Committee is recommending that the Harbor Commission have a limited role in the review of land use and property development applications. The Harbor Commission could only review those projects referred to the Harbor Commission by the Planning Commission, City Council, or City Manager. The Harbor Commission could also have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove certain harbor permits, should the City Council assign this authority to the Harbor Commission through the provisions of Title 17 (Anchorage and Mooring Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Currently, the authority to approve harbor permits and harbor - related permits are assigned to either the City Manager or the Harbor Resources Director or, in some cases, the Revenue Manager or the City Council. The establishment of a Harbor Commission would not change these procedures. Such a change would require amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Harbor commission December 11. 2001 Page 2 Code through the code amendment process.- The Harbor Commission would also serve as an appellate and reviewing body for decisions on harbor permits. The extent to which the Harbor Commission would review and make recommendations on land use and property development applications is not required by the Municipal Code and is therefore not defined. Such review would have to be conducted within the time limits established by State Law for the Planning Commission /City Council public hearing process. Staff would attempt to anticipate the need for Harbor Commission review early in the application process and seek referral authorization from the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Manager prior to public hearings. This has worked reasonably well in avoiding delays for projects that required input from the Economic Development Committee (EDO. Nevertheless, a review by the Harbor Commission has the potential to lengthen the public review process on some projects. Procedures The Harbor Committee has drafted a set of rules of procedures for the Harbor Commission. Under these rules of procedures, the Harbor Commission would follow a traditional structure, with the officers consisting of a chairman, vice chairman, and a secretary. The conduct of meetings would also follow standard parliamentary procedures. The Harbor Commission would set the dates, time, and location of meetings. Administrative Costs The Harbor Resources Division has provided staff services to the Harbor Committee since January 1999. Similar staff services would be provided to the Harbor Commission, so it provides a good estimate of the administrative costs. The Harbor Resources Director estimates that he spends an average of six (6) hours a month assisting the Harbor Committee. In addition, an administrative assistant spends approximately eight (8) hours a month providing clerical and other services to the Harbor Committee. The annual cost for these staff services is approximately $5800. Since the Harbor Commission meetings would be subject to the Brown Act, there would be a minor increase in administrative costs associated with the posting of agendas and other mandates. However, the City can be reimbursed for these costs by the State. Harbor Commission review of land use and development applications would result In additional use of Planning Department staff resources for the preparation of reports and attendance at meetings. Because the Harbor Commission would only review projects referred to them by the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Manager, staff estimates that there would be no more than five (5) such projects each year. Staff estimates that a project planner would spend an average of eight (8) hours on each project. This translates to annual cost of approximately $3435 for providing Planning Department services to the Harbor Commission. Extension of the Harbor Committee On June 12, 2001, the City Council extended the term of the Harbor Committee until such time as the City Council takes final action on the proposed Harbor Commission. Harbor Commission December 11, 2001 Page 3 This means that the term of the Harbor Committee will end once the vote is taken on the proposed Harbor Commission. Council Member Ridgeway requested that staff Include a provision that would extend the term of the Harbor Committee for an additional year. The charge of the Harbor Committee would change from advising the City Council on harbor - related manners to providing technical assistance to the Harbor Commission. This Is intended to retain the knowledge and experience of the Harbor Committee to help orient the new members of the Harbor Commission. Staff recommends that the City Council Introduce the attached ordinance establishing the Harbor Commission and pass to second reading on January 8, 2002 and adopt the attached resolution extending the term of the Harbor Committee for one (1) year. Submitted by: DAVID KIFF Assistant City Manager Attachments: Prepared by: PATRICK J. ALFORD Senior Pianner 1. Draft ordinance establishing the Harbor Commission. 2. Draft resolution extending the term of the Harbor Committee. Harbor Commission December 11, 2001 Page 4 ��ppr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A PLANNINGDEPAIMIENP Hearing Date: October 9,'2001 33 o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Agenda Item No.: NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9260 Staff Person: Patrick J. Alford (%q)644-SZQOI FAX ("9)6s4-" (949) 644-3235 STUDY SESSION REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Proposed Harbor Commission SUMMARY: Discussion on the formation of a Harbor Commission Intended to advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the use, control, operation, promotion and regulation of activities within and around Newport Harbor. ACTION: Provide direction to the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee and staff on the proposed Harbor Commission and rules of procedure. Backaround On January 11, 1999, the City Council established the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee to make recommendations on any matter pertaining to the Harbor. On May 9, 2000, the City Council held a study session on a proposed Harbor Commission and a Harbor Element of the General Plan. On July 11, 2000, the City Council held a hearing on the formation of a Harbor Commission. The City Council voted to defer action on the formation of the Harbor Commission until consideration and adoption of the Harbor Element is complete. On June 12, 2001, the City Council adopted the Harbor and Bay Element and extended the term of the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee until such time as the City Council takes final action on the proposed establishment of a Harbor Commission or one (1) year, whichever occurs first. On September 18, 2001, the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee voted to reiterate their support for the formation of a Harbor Commission. The Ad Hoc Harbor Committee has prepared a set of rules of procedures to be effective upon the establishment of Fhe Harbor Commission. The proposed rules of procedures for the Harbor Commission are modeled after that of the Planning Commission. The rules of procedures establish the membership and term of the commissioners, powers and duties, officers, and procedures for the conduct of meetings. Should the City Council act to establish the Harbor Commission, the proposed rules of procedures should be adopted in two parts. Membership, terms, powers and duties should be adopted by a resolution of the City Council and the Harbor Commission should adopt the remaining parliamentary procedures. This would allow the City Council to maintain composition and duties of the Harbor Commission, while allowing the Commission to control the conduct of their meetings. I1 Membership The proposed Harbor Commission would consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council. Each member shall serve a term of four (4) years and would be eligible for reappointment by the City Council. However, no appointments could exceed two (2) consecutive full terms (exclusive of appointments to fill unexpired terms). The recommended composition of the Harbor Commission would be as follows: ■ At least two (2) members who reside on or near the harbor. At least one (1) member involved in a water- dependent' commercial activity In or on the harbor. At least one (1) member involved in a water - related /water - enhanced' commercial activity in or near the harbor. ■ At least two (2) members with expertise and experience In recreational boating, including boating experience in Newport Harbor. At least one (1) member with education and /or experience in Oceanography, Marine Science, Marine Engineering or a related field. It would be desirable for individual members to be qualified in more than one of the above categories. This membership balance is considered optimal, but is not required. The Ad Hoc Harbor Committee is exploring the possibility of a technical advisory committee that would assist the Harbor Commission. This is Intended to retain some of the knowledge and experience of the 13- member Ad Hoc Harbor Committee while avoiding attendance problems associated with a large commission. Powers and Duties The Harbor Commission's primary role would be to advise the City Council on matters relating to the use of the harbor, proposed harbor improvements, and land use and development that may affect harbor activities. The Harbor Commission would also be asked to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the implementation of the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan. I water Deoendent use Those uses that are tied to and require water, including fishing and other vessel rental and charter, water transportation, water public safety and enforcement, marinas, boatyards, yacht/salling /boating /fishing clubs, watersports instructional and educational facilities,, public and guest docking facilities and landslde support uses, dredging, marine construction and harbor service and maintenance uses and related equipment (Harbor & Bay Element). 2 Water- Enhanced Use Those waterfront or waterfront - adjacent land uses and activities, Including restaurants and residential uses that derive economic, aesthetic and other amenity benefits from proximity to and views of water and water -based activities, but which do not need direct access and proximity to the water In order to accomplish their basic functional and economic operation. Water- Related Use Those uses that relate to but do not require water, including nautical museums, bait and tackle shops, boat charter, rental, sales, storage, construction and /or repair, marine - related retail sales, and marine - related Industry (Harbor & Bay Element). Harbor Commission October 9, 2001 1 Page 2 The extent to which the Harbor Commission would review and make recommendations on land use and property development applications Is not required by the Municipal Code and is therefore not defined. Such review would have to be conducted within the time limits established by State Law for the Planning Commission /City Council public hearing process. Nevertheless, a review by the Harbor Commission has the potential to lengthen the public review process on some projects. The City Council may wish to consider limiting review to only those projects referred to the Harbor Commission by the Planning Commission, City Council, or City Manager, or by establishing criteria for projects subject to Harbor Commission review. The Harbor Commission could also have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove certain harbor permits, should the City Council assign this authority to the Harbor Commission through the provisions of Title 17 (Anchorage and Mooring Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Harbor Commission would also serve as an appellant and reviewing body for decisions on harbor permits. Currently, authority to approve harbor permits and harbor - related permits are assigned to either the City Manager, the Harbor Resources Director or, in some cases, the Revenue Manager or the City Council (see table below). The establishment of a Harbor Commission would not change these procedures. Such a change would require amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code through the code amendment process. Permit Marine charter permit Place, erect, construct or maintain moorings or buoys Live aboard permit Build, maintain. extend or make structural alterations Pumpout facilities Pier fees Live bait receiver Houseboat marina permit Commercial activities Revenue Manager City Manager Harbor Resources Director City Manager Harbor Resources Director Harbor Resources Director City Council City Council Harbor Resources Director Title 17 needs to be updated to reflect the new Harbor Resources Division. This presents an opportunity to define what role, if any, a Harbor Commission would serve in the administration of harbor permits, should this commission be established by the City Council. Procedures The Harbor Commission would follow a traditional structure, with the officers consisting of a chairman, vice chairman, and a secretary. The conduct of meetings would also follow standard parliamentary procedures. The Harbor Commission would establish the dates, time, and location of meetings..' Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: PATRICK J. ALFORD Senior Planner Attachment: Proposed Rules of Procedure of the Harbor Commission. Harbor Commisslon October 9, 2001 Page 3 Newport Beach City Council and Harbor Commission Joint Study Session September 9, 2008 What we will cover Quick background on the Harbor Commission Lower Newport Bay Dredging (main focus) Where are our problem areas? Shoaling Toxicity Cutting to the Quick — what are our options? 1 — Dredge something, anything now. 2 — Wait for the Corps to take the lead. 3 — Dredge comprehensively on our own. 4 — Combination of the above. Harbor Commission - Establishment Established January 8, 2002 Ordinance 2001 -25 Seven members Four -year terms, staggered Two -term maximum, not counting appointments to fill unexpired terms. Harbor Commission - Duties Advise the Council in matters pertaining to the use, control, operation, promotion and regulation of all vessels and watercraft within the Newport Harbor. Approve or disapprove applications on all harbor permits where the Municipal Code assigns the authority for the decision to the Commission. Hear appeals for decisions of the City Manager on harbor permits, leases, and other harbor - related administrative matters where the Municipal Code assigns such authority to the Commission. Advise the Council on proposed harbor - related improvements. Advise the Planning Commission and Council on land use and property development applications referred to the Harbor Commission by the Council, Planning Commission, or the City Manager. Make recommendations to the City Council for the adoption of regulations and programs necessary for the ongoing implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan. Lower Newport Bay Dredging Where are our problem areas? Shoaling Toxicity Cutting to the Quick — what are our options? 1 — Dredge something, anything now. 2 — Wait for the Corps to take the lead. 3 — Dredge comprehensively on our own. 4 — Combination of the above. — Project Line Depth in Feet 0 -3 3 -6 6 -9 _ 9 -12 12-15 15-18 - 18 -21 -21 -24 -24 -27 _ 27-30 _ 30-40 � I r �a w t-yl �e s GJS CS M les Newport Harbor Dredging Areas Passed in RGP -54 passed during Federal Obannel Tier IV. where tested. Ukely to pass for ocean disposal but may require bicaccumulailm testing. - Passed lot todaty In RGP -54, but Ng ooncentragons in surface sediment ltop 3 ft l likely to preventbcean disposal option Currently studying vertical and bonzontal extent May be able to manage upper -aft dIIererdly than underlying sand Passed In RGP -54 but moderate ampbipod mortality in Federal Channel samples. Llkely W be addressed in amphlpad study Would require bbeccumulabon testing If amphipod test passes _ Passed In RGP -54. but amptapod mortagty m Federal Channel samples May be addressed m amphipod study or TIE Would require bioaccumulation testng d ampbipod test passes a MIS was a targeted protect area new cn"ctenzatbn would be required. E — Project Line Depth in Feet 0 -10 w -zo _ 20- 30 - 30- 40 Newport Harbor Dredging Areas OPassed in RGP.54. passed during Federal Channel Tier IV, where tested. Likely to paw for Ocean disposer but may require btwcmmulatim tesbng. Passed for brlclty In RGP -54. but Hg concentratl ons in surface sadlmem. top 31t.1 likely to prevent ocean disposal option. Currently studying vertical and horizontal extent May be able to manage upper -311 differently than underlying sand 0 Passed In RGP -54 but moderate amphipod mortality in Federal Channel samples. Likely b be addressed In amphipod study KWldrequlre bmamumulaaon testing If amphlpod test passes. ®Passed in RGP -54, but amphipod modify, In Federal Channel samples. May be addressed In amphipod sNdy or TIE. Kbuld require bloaccumuralim testing it amphipm test passes Off mis ww a targeted prgect area new bnarmterizabm would be required w {�,•s s 0 o:s os Dredging Decision (death) Spiral We need to dredge now. Corps usually does it. Corps can't \ do it and What about we're tired of doing it waiting. ourselves? !� )just More testing Why s moneneeds to be testi done Can't wdred drives cost \ and CEQA How big a Because Don'tkno project? the testing costs t" w Where first? drives the test !� )just More testing Why s moneneeds to be testi done Can't wdred Disposal Options Dredging project's cost is a factor of disposal method and location. Disposal method and location is a factor of sediment toxicity. Cleanest Material LA -3 ($12 -15 million) Some clean, some toxicity (key = depth of toxicity) LA -3 and Upland Disposal/ Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site Extensive Toxicity Upland Disposal or CAD Site LAJ Isea�m..n+ oisno :,I sae) Option 2 — Wait for Corps to Take the Lead Much of the Harbor is the Corps' responsibility, but: Corps and OMB keeps "zeroing" the budget. The "metrics" the Corps uses to value the costs and benefits of projects aren't great for recreational harbors. There are ways to improve those metrics, like: Cost -share from City - $2 mn? $4 mn? The "done" part of "One and Done." City front -loads testing and CEQA /NEPA. Nice part of having Corps involved is that they take care of testing, permitting, and CEQA /NEPA. We're hearing that things might be different in FY 09 and FY 10 — more federal dollars for inland waterways projects. Would we bank on that? No. Option 3: Dredge Comprehensively on Our Own Advantages: We'd get to pick areas to address first. We'd be in control of the timing. We know it would get done. Challenges: Cost ($12 mn on the low end, $50 mn on the high end — disposal method drives the cost) — could always phase, though. Testing all on our dime. Permitting, CEQA /NEPA, all on our own. Option 4: Some Combination Keep the Corps engaged, both in funding requests and permitting /testing /CEQA -NEPA. Keep Members of Congress engaged re: FY 09, FY 10, and /or One and Done. Start testing now: Test comprehensively (the DMMP, SAP). Do it ourselves, but work closely with US EPA and Corps. Need to ensure & protect timeliness of data. Approach this in phases: Clear certain areas quickly, determine disposal options, permit, and dredge if we can. Look at each area individually, but consider it in the context of a larger plan (the DMMP). Prioritization — Post - Testing Council, with Commission's assistance, will prioritize areas as follows: Cost of disposal of sediment from each specific area; and Extent of shoaling; and Progress in permitting area by area. To Re -Cap First you test; Test results tell you your alternatives — especially disposal options; IP Disposal options (including permitting and environmental) drive the cost; Cost drives the quantity of material and the locations to dredge (the actual prioritization); then With resources allocated according to priorities, we dredge. Toxicity and Shoaling Discussion Point: What areas of the LNB are Commissioners, Council, and the public most concerned about? Are these areas easy to get permits to dredge, or difficult? Recommendations This Afternoon: Q &A, offer thoughts on where greatest need to dredge is. Discuss and advise on approaches (Staff recommends Option #4). This Evening: Approve the DMMP Proposal, including the SAP. Authorize the execution of the Professional Services Agreement ( "PSA ") with New Fields. Budget amendment to cover the PSA. Going Forward: Ask for regular staff updates on progress. Timeliness is critical here — we don't want wasted testing. For More Information www.city.newport- beach.ca.us then "Departments" then "Harbor Resources." Call or e -mail Chris Miller cmiller (d)-city.newport- beach.ca. 949 - 644 -3034