Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpper Newport Bay Land Exchange PlanUPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE ,,PL MARCH 31,196A Al- TN EEL :11, 7/\ "E. . ....... K� PREPARED BY ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR "DISTRICT ORANGE CO eHH HARBOR COMMISSION' RICHARD C. HONER. CHAIRMAN ROY EDWARDS, y10E.CHAIRMAN TED KUCHEL CHIP CLEARY C. C. (JACK) WOOLLEY March 31, 1964 The Honorable Board of Supervisors Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: V IAIA "t" IA110 DISTRICT KENNETH SAMPSON HARBOR DISTRICT MANAGER 1901 BAYSIDC DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH.. CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE (7l4) 673.6440 Transmitted herewith is "Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan ", dated March 31, 1964. This report was prepared in compliance with Board Resolution No. 63 -1808 of December 18, 1963. In the process of carrying out your instructions to cooperate with the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company to deter- mine the City's requirements, a revised land exchange plan evolved. A comparative analysis of this with other plans has been made for the benefit of your Honorable Board. KS :mph Encl Respectfully submitted, ENN TH SAMPSON, Harbor nager UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE REPORT March 31, 1964. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Purpose 4 Comparlson of Land Exchange Plans 5 Dredging and Land Fill Plan 12 Economic Studies 15 Procedure to Accomplish the Land Exchange 23 Land Ownership 24 Prior Development Planning 27 Authority for Land Exchange 30 Planning of Public Waterways 31 DOCUMENTS AND MAPS Document Index 2 Map Index 3 Prepared under the direction of Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager James E. Ballinger, Harbor Engineer ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT 1901 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, California UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE REPORT March 31, 1964 DOCUMENT INDEX NUMBER DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT PAGES 1 Instructions to Harbor Board Resolution No. 63-1808 1 -1 District and 1 -2 2 Tidelands Patent Tidelands Patent No. 204 to James 2 -1 Irvine, January 25, 1901 3 County Tidelands Grant Statutes of California, 1919 3-1 4 County Tidelands Grant Statutes of California, 1929 4 -1 Amended 5 Upper Bay Tidelands Superior Court Decree No. 20436 5 -1 Adjudication to 5-7 6 Enabling Legislation Statutes of California, 1957 6 -1 for Exchange and 6 -2 7 Legal Opinion on Tide- County Counsel Opinion No. 63-226 7 -1 land Ownership to 7-3 8 Harbor Lines Approval City Council Minutes, January 26, 8 -1 by City 1962 9 Land Exchange Proposal The Irvine Company letter, May 20, 9 -1 1963 to 9-5 10 Land Valuation Analysis Right of Way Dept. Report, August 10 -1 (Plan A) 6, 1963 to 10 -7 11 Estimated Value of Prop- Right of Way Dept., Exhibit 1 11 -1 erties (Plan B) adjusted for Plan B 12 Land Valuation Analysis Right of Way Dept. Report, March 12 -1 (Plan C) 4, 1964 to 12 -4 13 City's Report on Plan C City of Newport Beach letter, 13`1 March 10, 1964 14 Cooperative Dredging Conference Notes, March 4, 1964 14 -1 Plan and 14 -2 2. UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE REPORT March 31, 1964 MAP INDEX Ownerships before Exchange Harbor Lines Map Land Parcel Exhibit A Land Parcel Exhibit B Land Parcel Exhibit C Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit Ownerships after Exchange General Use Map 3. Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI Appendix VII Appendix Vill PURPOSE This report is prepared in compliance with Board Resolution No. 63-1808 (Document No. 1) that directs the Harbor District staff, in cooperation with the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, to make a_study of the city requirements and report to the Board within ninety days. The purpose of this report is to present the City's requirements for an acceptable land exchange plan. These requirements are: I. That two neighborhood beach parks averaging three acres each.be located on the westerly side of the channel and a large park with a minimum of 1,500 feet of main channel frontage be located on the easterly side of the channel at Big Canyon. 2. That a continuous roadway be provided along the water on both the east and west sides of the channel. 3. That the control, development, administration and use of these parks be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. This re- quest is referred to as a minimum requirement in a letter from Mayor Charles E. Hart, dated March 10, 1964 (Document No. 13). The following exhibits are included in order to compare the land exchange plan that incorporates the City's requirements with the land exchange plans discussed.at the December 18, 1963 public hearing. The plans are discussed in the following section "Comparison of Land Exchange Plans ". 1. Land Parcel Exhibit A (Appendix 111). This is the land exchange plan proposed by The Irvine Company and recommended by the Orange County Harbor Commission in its report dated August 26, 1963. 2. Land Parcel Exhibit B (Appendix IV). This is Plan A revised to show changes requested in December 18, 1963 Board Resolution No. 63-1808 (Document No. 1). 3. Land Parcel Exhibit C (Appendix V). This is the new land exchange plan that incorporates the City's requirements. 4. General Use Map (Appendix Vill). This map shows in general the pro- posed plan of development based on the land exchange, as shown on Exhibit C. The additional exhibits and documents are included as data that may be perti- rent in the evaluation of the land exchange proposal. 4. COMPARISON OF LAND EXCHANGE PLANS The value comparison of the three land exchange plans and the public owner- ship and use comparison of the three land exchange plans with the existing ownership and the Patterson Plan* are shown on Tables 1, 2 and 3, Pages 7, 8 and 9. Land Comparisons, Table 1, shows the following land acreage and land value advantages to the County: Land Acreage Land Value Plan A 271.4 Ac. $1,620,000 Plan B 284.1 Ac. $1,803,000 Plan C 289.7 Ac. $3,253,600 Plans A, B and C are shown on the Land Parcel Exhibits A, B and C (Appen- dices III, IV and V) and the land value estimates, together with the valua- tion assumptions, are shown in Documents No. 10, 11 and 12. Public Ownership Comparisons, Table 2, shows the following publicly owned areas and publicly owned water frontage. Recreational Use Comparisons, Table 3, shows maximum daily recreational capacity and estimated number of average annual users of the public areas. Existing Ownership Patterson Plan Plan A Plan B Plan C Daily Capacity 29,400 46,600 89,300 91 „200 93,600 Annual Users 1,104,000 1,920,000 3,723,000 3,780,000 3,852,000 *Improvement plan recommended in report entitled "Improvement of Upper New- port Bay, Newport Bay Harbor, Orange County, California ", dated July 1950, prepared by R.L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer. 1411 Area Water Frontage Existing Ownership 411.8 Ac. 6 „088 Ft. Patterson Plan 635.5 Ac. 14,660 Ft. Plan A 720.9 Ac. 17,964 Ft. Plan B 726.7 Ac. 19,227 Ft. Plan C 759.7 Ac. 17,883 Ft. Recreational Use Comparisons, Table 3, shows maximum daily recreational capacity and estimated number of average annual users of the public areas. Existing Ownership Patterson Plan Plan A Plan B Plan C Daily Capacity 29,400 46,600 89,300 91 „200 93,600 Annual Users 1,104,000 1,920,000 3,723,000 3,780,000 3,852,000 *Improvement plan recommended in report entitled "Improvement of Upper New- port Bay, Newport Bay Harbor, Orange County, California ", dated July 1950, prepared by R.L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer. 1411 The current land exchange negotiations were initiated by a letter from The Irvine Company (Document No. 9), dated May 20, 1963, that proposed an ex- change of fee owned islands, uplands and patented tidelands for portions of the County tidelands in order to permit the orderly development of the Upper Newport Bay. This proposal is essentially the same as the plan recom- mended for approval by the Orange County Harbor Commission in the Upper Bay Land Exchange Report, dated August 26, 1964, and is shown on Land Parcel Exhibit A (Appendix 111). At the close of the public hearing on December 18, 1963 the County Board of Supervisors, by Resolution No. 63-1808 (Document No. 1), approved in principle The Irvine Company proposal with revisions as shown on Land Parcel Exhibit B (Appendix IV), and instructed the Harbor District staff to cooper- ate with the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company to make a study of the City requirements and report to the Board within ninety days. Plan C, a new land exchange plan that incorporates the City's requirements Is shown on the following exhibits: Land Parcel Exhibit C (Appendix V) Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit (Appendix VI) Ownership After Exchange (Appendix VIi) General Use Map (Appendix VIII) The General Use Map shows in a general way the proposed plan of development, including perimeter roads with harbor view sites, private channels in water- front residential areas, public and private boat basins, public parks and swimming beaches, and launching areas for traiiered boats. 6. TABLE 1 LAND COMPARISONS of LAND EXCHANGE PLANS At 8 AND C PLAN Al PLAN 82 PLAN C3 COUNTY TO RECEIVE Uplands For Waterways 143.0 Ac. 143.0 Ac. 143.0 Ac. For Parks 69.5 69.5 120.0 Tidelands Patent For Waterways4 129.4 129.4 129.4 For Parks 76.3 82.9 54.4 TOTAL ACREAGE TO COUNTY 418.2 Ac. 424.8 Ac. 446.8 Ac. • IRVINE COMPANY TO RECEIVE Tidelands 108.1 Ac. 108.9 Ac. 97.9 Ac. Release of Public Easement on Tidelands Patent No. 204 38.7 31.8 59.2 TOTAL ACREAGE TO IRVINE CO. 146.8 Ac. 140.7 Ac. 157.1 Ac. TOTAL AREA ADVANTAGE TO COUNTY 271.4 Ac. 284.1 Ac. 289.7 Ac. TOTAL VALUE ADVANTAGE TO COUNTY5 $1,620,000 $1,803,000 $3,253,600 NOTES : 1 See Land Parcel Exhibit A (Appendix III) and Land Valuation Analysis (Document No. 10). 2 See Land Parcel Exhibit B (Appendix 1V) and Estimated Value of Prop- erties (Document No. 11). 3 See Land Parcel Exhibit C (Appendix V) and Land Valuation Analysis (Document No. 12). 4 The underlying fee ownership to the public easement for fishery and navigation is to be granted to the County. 5 Value estimates for the individual land parcels determined by the Orange County Right of Way Department are shown in Document Nos. 10, 11 E- 12. 7. TABLE 2 PUBLIC OWNERSHIP COMPARISONS FOR LAND EXCHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS DESCRIPTION EXISTINGI PATTERSON2 PLAN A3 .PLAN B3 PLAN C3 LAND AND WATER AREA PUBLICLY OWNED LAND AREA 69.5 ACS. 4 126.5 Ac. 225.2 Ac. 231.0 AC.. 264.0 Ac. PUBLICLY OWNED WATER AREA 342.3 AC.5 429.0 AC.6 495.7 AC.7 495.7 AC.7 495.7 AC. .7 CD TOTAL PUBLICLY OWNED AREA 411..8 AC. 635.5 AC. 720.9 Ac. 726.7 Ac. 759.7 Ac. WATER FRONTAGE TOTAL WATER FRONTAGE 70,.049 FT.A 56.,300 FT.B 51,973 FT.c 51,973 FT.D 51,973;FT.c PUBLICLY 04HEO WATER FRONTAGE 6,088. FT. 0 14,660. FT. E 17,964 FT.c 19,227 FT.c 17,883 FT. .c % PUBLICLY OWNED F 8.i% 26.1% 34.6% 37..0% 34.LCX NOTES I I ASSUMING A DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING OWNERSHIPS. 2 INFORMATION FROM R. L. PATTERSON'S REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY, NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DATED JULY, 1950. (NOTES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) NOTES (CONTINUED) 3 SEE LAND PARCEL EXHIBITS A, B AND C ON APPENDICES III, IV AND V. 4. HARRY WELCH PARK LAND AREA LEASED TO NEWPORT DUNES, INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF AQUATIC PARK. S. THE AREA OF THE PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR FISHERY AND NAVIGATION IN TIDELANDS PATENT N0. 204 (243.0 AC.) IS NOT INCLUDED. 6. PAR. 264 OF REPORT SHOWS A NET WATER AREA BETWEEN PROPOSED PIERHEAO LINES OF 400 ACRES AND A TOTAL WATER AREA OF $09.0 ACRES. THE 429.0 ACRES IS THE NET WATER AREA PLUS 29.0 ACRES FOR PUBLIC BOAT BASINS. THESE ACREAGES ARE FOR AREAS NORTHERLY OF COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE. 7. 467.2 ACRES BETWEEN PROPOSED BULKHEAD LINES (SEE HARBOR LINES MAP APPENDIX 11) PLUS 28.5 ACRE HARRY WELCH PARK LAGOON. THESE ACREAGES INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL 19+ ACRES LCCATEO SOUTHERLY FROM THE COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE TO A LINE CONNECTING FEDERAL BULKHEAD STATIONS 130 AND 134. A. MEASURED ALONG LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH TIDE FOR ISLANDS AND UPLANDS. B. MEASURED ALONG. BOAT BASINS, RECREATION CENTERS, AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS. C. MEASURED ALONG PROPOSED BULKHEAD LINE AS SNOWN ON HARBOR LINES MAP (APPENDIX 11). 0. MEASURED ALONG PERIMETER OF HARRY WELCH PARK LAGOON. THIS WATER FRONTAGE REDUCES TO 2,207 FEET WHEN MEASURED ALONG THE PROPOSED BULKHEAD LINE (APPENDIX 'i ). E. PAR. 264 OF REPORT SHOWS 6,680 FEET OF WATER FRONTAGE FOR BOAT BASINS AND 7,980 FEET FOR RECREATION CENTERS. F. THE 19$0 PATTERSON REPORT SHOWS 21.7% OF WATER FRONTAGE IN LOWER NEWPORT BAY. DESCRIPTION TABLE 3 RECREATIONAL USE COMPARISONS LAND EXCHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS EXISTING I PATTERSON2 BOATING FACILITIES BOAT BERTHING CAPACITY (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) 5004 2,2005 TRAILE.REO BOAT LAUNCHING 6008 9 317 FACILITIES MAXIMUM DAILY RECREATIONAL CAPACITY G TRAILEREO BOAT LADNCNI.NGS11 900 475 • TRAILERED BOAT USERS 12 3,600 1,800 BERTHED BOAT USERS 13 2,000 8,800. 1 PUBLIC SWIMMING BEACH 14 6,058 FT. 7,930 FT. I BEACH USERS 23,80015 27,00015 16 5 RECREATIONAL PARK USERS .NE 9,00016 1 MAXIMUM CAPACITY 29.,400 46,.600. AVERAGE ANNUAL USE PLAN A3 3,000 6 1,200 1,800 7,200 2,000 3,660 FT. NO 2,600 15 7,500 89,300 TOTAL NUMBER of USERS 18 1,104,000 1,920,000 3,723,000 NOTES: I ASSUMING A DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING OWNERSHIPS. (NOTES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) PLAN 83 3,000 6 1,200 1,800 7,200 12,000 13,830 FT. 54,000 15 18,000 91,200 3,780,000 PLAN C 3 3,000 7 1,200 10 1,800 7,200 12,000 12,250 FT. 55,800 15 18,600 93,600 3,852,000 NOTES (CONTINUED) 2 INFORMATION FROM R. L. PATTERSON'S REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, NEWPORT BAY HARBOR, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DATED JULY 1950. 3 SEE LAND PARCEL EXHIBITS A, B AND C1 APPENDICES III, IV AND V. 4 428 BOAT BERTHS IN PRIVATELY OPERATED MARINAS AND 72 RESIDENTIAL BOAT BERTHS. 5 1,170 BOAT BERTHS IN PUBLICLY OPERATED MARINAS AND 1,030 RESIDENTIAL BOAT BERTHS. 6 2,000 BOAT.BERTHS IN PRIVATELY OPERATED MARINAS AND 1,000 RESIDENTIAL BOAT BERTHS. 1,800 BOAT BERTHS IN PRIVATELY OPERATED MARINAS, 200 BOAT BERTHS IN PUBLICLY OPERATED MARINAS, AND 1,000 RESIDENTIAL BOAT BERTHS. 8 PRIVATELY OPERATED FACILITIES. 9 R. L. PATTERSON'S REPORT DATED JULY 1950 PROVIDES LAUNCHING FACILITIES FOR SMALL SAILBOATS-LESS THAN 20 FEET IN LENGTH. 10 BOAT LAUNCHING AND TRAILER PARKING AREAS FOR APPROXIMATELY 400 UNITS ARE PLANNED FOR THE 2 NEW PUBLIC PARK AREAS. HARRY WELCH PARK HAS A FACILITY FOR 400 UNITS THAT IS OPERATED AS PART OF THE NEWPORT DUNES LEASE. 11 THE RATIO OF MAXIMUM DAILY LAUNCHINGS TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR CARS AND TRAILERS IS 1.5 TO 1. THIS ALLOWS FOR A 50% TURNOVER PER DAY. 12 ' AN AVERAGE OF FOUR PERSONS FOR EACH LAUNCHED BOAT. 13 AN AVERAGE OF FOUR PERSONS FOR EACH BERTHED BOAT. 14 O.ISTANCES SHOWN ARE FOR BEACHES ADJACENT TO BULKHEAD LINES AND BEACHES ADJACENT TO SWIMMING LAGOONS. 15 MAXIMUM DAILY USE IS TWICE THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY. THIS ALLOWS FOR 100`}0' TURNOVER IN ONE DAY. 16 TABLE 36 IN PATTERSON REPORT SNOWS MAXIMUM DAILY USE OF 36,000 FOR RECREATION CENTERS. THIS REPORT DISTRIBUTES THIS USAGE TO 27.,000 FOR BEACH USERS AND 9,000 FOR PARK USERS. 17 RATIO OF BEACH USERS TO BEACH FRONTAGE IS INCREASED FROM 3.9 IN PLANS A AND B TO 4.5 FOR PLAN C DUE TO GREATER AVERAGE DEPTH OF BEACH. I8 TOTAL NUMBER OF USERS IS BASED ON 100 MAXIMUM USE DAYS FOR TRAILEREO BOAT USERS, 75 MAXIMUM USE DAYS FOR BERTHED BOAT USERS, AND 30 MAXIMUM USE DAYS FOR BEACH AND RECREATIONAL PARK USERS. DREDGING AND LAND FILL PLAN The development of the main channel and the reclaiming of the adjacent marsh- lands is divided Into five parts based on the proposed cooperative dredging plan referred to In Conference Notes, dated March 4, 1964 (Document No. 14). The areas to be dredged and the lands to be filled are based on Land Exchange. Plan C and are outlined on the Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit (Appendix VI). Part 1. The County will be responsible for filling the tidelands, to be exchanged, above the line of mean high tide as a statutory requirement for making the exchange. This requires the dredging of approximately 1,112,000 cubic yards of material from the future main channel areas colored light blue on the exhibit and depositing it on the tideland areas colored brown. The dredging will deepen the existing waterways between the proposed bulkhead lines to a design depth of -10 feet MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water) and will cre- ate a 300 -foot wide navigable channel to the northerly end of the bay. Part l must be accomplished prior to the exchange of land titles. Part 2. The Irvine Company will dredge from the future main channels the materials required for filling their waterfront lands to a height desir- able for development. This requires the dredging of an estimated 970,000 cubic yards of material from the portions of the main channel colored dark blue on the exhibit. Part 2 may be accomplished at the Company's option after the land exchange agreement Is executed. Part 3. Main channel areas that can be excavated with land operated' equipment will be offered to the State Division of Highways, or other agencies desiring fill material. By letter, dated January 30, 1963, the Right of Way Agent for the State Division of Highways, confirms a discussion with the Harbor District relative to the availability of surplus materials from the development of Upper Newport Bay that could be excavated and used for embankment fills. 12. Quantities in the range of from 2 to 4 million yards were discussed. The three islands and the water areas northeasterly of the Salt Works dike all lend themselves to excavation by land operated equipment. The needs for highway embankment fills within easy hauling distance of Upper Newport Bay exceeds 10 million yards. This material would be excavated from the areas colored dark blue on the exhibit. Part 3 cannot be accomplished until after the land exchange has been completed. Part 4. The County will be responsible for dredging from the main channel areas the remaining material required for filling the regional park area at the northerly end of the bay. This involves the dredging of an estimated 1,270,000 cubic yards of material from the dark blue areas on the exhibit and filling the green area at the northerly end of the bay. Part 4 cannot be accomplished until after the land exchange has been completed. Part 5. The main channel dredging, in addition to that referred to in Parts 1 thru 4, will be shared on a 50/50 basis between the County and The Irvine Company. if it is assumed that 2,000,000 cubic yards will be exca- vated in Part 3, then the estimated remaining quantity to be so dredged Is 1,729,000 cubic yards. The Irvine Company is to provide disposal areas within two miles of the dredge site for any excess materials removed from the public waterways. Plan 5 cannot be accomplished until after the land exchange has been completed. NOTE: The area in the vicinity of the coast highway bridge colored dark blue on the exhibit indicates the embankment required to protect the existing bridge. This material cannot be excavated until after a new bridge is constructed, and it may be removed by the State as a part of the bridge project. 10 13. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF DREDGING AND LAND FILL PLAN for UPPER NEWPORT BAY (PLAN C) COUNTY'S SHARE OF DREDGING Part 1 1,112,000 cu. yds. Part 4 1,270,000 Cu. yds. Part 5 (50 %) 864,500 cu. yds. 3,246,500 cu. yds. NOTES : I See Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit, Appendix Vi. 2 Per Cooperative Dredging Plan, Document No. 14. 14. Responsible Party County Irvine Co. Other agencies County 50% County 50% Irvine Co. Dredge Item Quantity Part 1. Materials for filling tidelands 1,112,000 cu. yds.1 before exchange. Part 2. Material for developing adjacent 970,000 cu. yds. lands. Part 3. Surplus material for embankment 2,000,000 cu. yds. fills. Part 4. Material for regional park 1,270,000 cu. yds.I (north end). Part 5. 50/50 cooperative dredging 1,729,000 cu. yds. plan. TOTAL MATERIAL TO BE DREDGED 7,081,000 cu. yds.I from between proposed bulkhead lines COUNTY'S SHARE OF DREDGING Part 1 1,112,000 cu. yds. Part 4 1,270,000 Cu. yds. Part 5 (50 %) 864,500 cu. yds. 3,246,500 cu. yds. NOTES : I See Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit, Appendix Vi. 2 Per Cooperative Dredging Plan, Document No. 14. 14. Responsible Party County Irvine Co. Other agencies County 50% County 50% Irvine Co. ECONOMIC STUDIES The economic studies for development of the public areas proposed in Plan C, as shown on "Ownerships After Exchange" (Appendix VII), are divided into two categories: Channel Development and Recreational Park Development. Channel Development. The estimated costs of channel development are shown on Table 5, Page 16; the estimated tax revenues on Table 6, Page 17; and the benefit to cost ratio on Table 7, Page 18. Based on the estimated increased tax revenues to the County compared to the County's share of the channel development costs, Orange County can expect to receive a 36% annual return on its investment. Recreational Park Development. The development studies for additional park sites are shown on Table 8, Page 19; the estimated development costs on Table 10, Page 21; and the benefit to cost ratio on Table 11, Page 22. Based on the estimated park revenues compared to the estimated development and operation costs, the public can expect to receive a 31% annual return on its investment. The annual returns on both the Channel Development and the Recreational Park Development are based on the direct benefits and do not give credit to such other indirect benefits as increased tax base from real estate located near enough to the water to increase in value from the development, nor to the increased business volume serving the new residents and park users. 15. TABLE ESTIMATED COST OF CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT for UPPER NEWPORT BAY (PLAN C) COST OF DREDGING 3,246,500 cu. yds.I @ $0.50 per cu. yd. OTHER DEVELOPMENT COSTS Relocate Water Lines & Appurtenances $120,000 Storm Drain Alterations 125,000 Harbor District Sub - Station 30,000 Total Other Development Costs 1 TOTAL CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,623,250 275,000 $1,898,250 NOTE: 1 County's share of main channel dredging, as shown on Table 4, "Summary of Dredging and Land Fill Plan ", page 14. 16. TABLE 6 ESTIMATED TAX REVENUES for UPPER NEWPORT BAY (PLAN C) INCREASE IN ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES Berthed Boats 3,000 Boats X $2,000 Average Assessed Value $6,000,000 Reclaimed Tide and Submerged Lands 88.75 Acres X $65,000 Average Assessed Value 5,768,750 Improvements on Reclaimed Lands 88.75 Acres X $67,000 Average Assessed Value 5,946,250 TOTAL INCREASE IN ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES I 1 000 INCREASE IN TAX REVENUES TO COUNTY Berthed Boats $6,000,000 X .0193112 $115,860 Reclaimed Lands $5,768,750 X .01.93112 111,400 Improvements on Reclaimed Lands $5,946,250 X .0193112 114,830 TOTAL INCREASE IN TAX REVENUES TO COUNTY S 342,090 NOTES: 1 Assume 50% of the 177.5 acres of exchanged tidelands will be used for private waterways and public roads, leaving the remaining 88.75 acres for residential and commercial development. 2 1963-64 tax rate of $1.9311 per $100 of assessed value is as follows: County General .016600 Harbor District .001025 rlood Control Distrl,ct .001686 Total .019311 17. TABLE 6 ESTIMATED TAX REVENUES for UPPER NEWPORT BAY (PLAN C) INCREASE IN ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES Berthed Boats 3,000 Boats X $2,000 Average Assessed Value a $6,000,000 Reclaimed Tide and Submerged Lands 88.75 Acres X $65,000 Average Assessed Value m 5,768,750 Improvements on Reclaimed Lands 88.75 Acres X $67,000 Average Assessed Value 5,946,250 TOTAL INCREASE IN ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES 1 1 000 INCREASE IN TAX REVENUES TO COUNTY Berthed Boats $6,000,000 X .0193112 $115,860 Reclaimed Lands $5,768,750 X .0193112 11i,40o Improvements on Reclaimed Lands $5,946,250 X .0193112 114,830 TOTAL INCREASE IN TAX REVENUES TO COUNTY $ 342,090 NOTES: I Assume 50% of the 177.5 acres of exchanged tidelands will be used for private waterways and public roads, leaving the remaining 88.75 acres for residential and commercial development. 2 1963-64 tax rate of $1.9311 per $100 of assessed value is as follows: County General .016600 Harbor District .001025 Flood Control District 001686 Total .019311 17. 18. TABLE 8 RECREATIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT STUDIES FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAT (PLAN C) DESCRIPTION CAPACITY PARKING REQUIRED PARKING AMC 2 ROADWAY AREA REQUIRED USE AREA REQUIRED TOTAL LAND REQUIRED PARKS 9,300 PEOPLE 4 2,820 CARS 38 ACRES 21 ACRES 59 ACRES BEACHES 16,000 PEOPLE 5 4,850 CARS 66 ACRES 37 ACRES 103 ACRES BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES AT 800 CARS 6 800 CARS 22 ACRES 2 ACRES 24 ACRES _ BIG CANYON PARK AND AND NORTH PARK (PLAN C) TRAILERS PUBLIC BOAT SLIPS AT BIG 200 SLIPS 5 150 CARS 2 ACRES - -- 2 ACRES CANYON (PLAN C) LAND AREA REQUIRED RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 188 ACRES NOTES: I PARKING REQUIRED BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF 3.3 PEOPLE PER CAR, I PARKING SPACE FOR EACH CAR AND TRAILER, AND 3 PARKING SPACES FOR EACH 4 SLIPS. 2 PARKING AND ROADWAY AREA REQUIRED BASED ON 74 CARS PER ACRE AND 37 CARS AND TRAILERS PER ACRE. 3 USE AREA REQUIRED BASED ON 100 SQ. FT.. PER PERSON FOR PARKS AND 100 SQ. FT.. PER PERSON FOR BEACHES. 4 TABLE 3, PAGE 10, "RECREATIONAL USE COMPARISONS", SNOWS A MAXIMUM DAILY CAPACITY OF 18,600 RECREATIONAL PARK USERS FOR PLAN C. TNLS IS BASED ON A MAXIMUM CAPACITY AT ONE TIME OF 9,300 WITH A 100% TURNOVER FOR A MAXIMUM DAY. 5 TABLE 30 PAGE 10, SNOWS A MAXIMUM DAILY CAPACITY OF 55,800 BEACH USERS AMC 18,600 PARK USERS FOR PLAN C FOR A TOTAL OF 74,400 USERS INCLUDING 23,800 BEACH USERS AT HARRY WELCH PARK. THIS IS BASED ON A MAXIMUM CAPACITY AT ONE TIME OF 37,200 USERS WITH A 100% TURNOVER FOR A MAXIMUM DAY. 6 THE TWO LARGE PUBLIC PARKS WILL EACH PROVIDE LAUNCHING AND PARKING FACILITIES FOR LAUNCHING 400 TRAILEREO BOATS PER DAY. 7 194.5 ACRES AVAILABLE, LEAVING 6.5 ACRES.FOR HARBOR DISTRICT SUBSTATION, DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, ETC. I I TABLE 9 ESTIMATEO COST OF RECREATIONAL PARK OEVELOPMENT FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAY (PLAN C) ! OESCRIPTION UNITS COST PER UNIT COST PARKING (BEACH -AND PARK) 128 ACRES @ $10,6003 $1,356,800 No GENERAL IMPROVEMENT I BEACH 37 ACRES @ $ 2,500 $ 920500 PARK 21 ACRES @ $ 5,000 $ 105,000 RESTROOM2 11 EACH @ $15,000 $ 165,000 TOTAL BEACH AND PARK. OEVELOPMENT COST $Il.719,300 NOTES: I FOR SEWER LINES, WATER LINES, POWER LINES', AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. . 2 1 RESTROOM FOR EACH 20 ACRES OF PARK AREA AND I RESTROOM FOR EACH 1,000 FEET OF BEACH FRONTAGE. 3 PAVING COSTS 25Q PER SQUARE FOOT. I TABLE 10 ESTIMATED INCOME FROM RECREATIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAT (PLAN C) SOURCE'. NUMBER NUMBER DAYS PER YEAR AMOUNT PER UNIT GROSS INCOME % OF GROSS TO COUNTY AMOUNT TO COUNTY PARKING 7,670 30 $0.50 /OAT $1152050 100% $1152050 I BEACH USERS 32,0001 30 $0.50 /DAY2 $480,000 20% 96,000 PARK USERS 18,6001 30 $0.40 /OAY2 $223,200 20% 44,640 BOAT LAUNCHING 1,200 3 100 $1.75 EACH $210,000 20% 42,000 . BOAT SLIPS 200 (25) 4 $18 /PER FOOT Of $ 90,000 20% 18,000 BOAT PER YEAR TOTAL ESTIMATEO INCOME FROM RECREATION PARK DEVELOPMENT $315,690, I NOTESs I USERS OF THE TWO AOOI.TIONAL PARK AREAS. THIS OOES NOT INCLUDE ATTENOANCE AT HARRY WELCH PARK (NEWPORT DUNES). 2 AVERAGE OAILY EXPENOITURE PER PERSON FOR F000, BEVERAGE, EQUIPMENT RENTAL, ETC. 3 BOAT LAUNCHINGS PER OAT FOR THE TWO AO.OITIONAL RECREATION PARK AREAS. THIS OOES NOT INCLUDE LAUNCHINGS AT HARRY WEIGH PARK (NEWPORT DUNES).. 4 AVERAGE LENGTH OF BOAT BERTHEO IN PUBLICLY OWNEO MARINA. v TABLE 11 BENEFIT TO COST RATIO FOR RECREATIONAL PARK DEVELOPMENT UPPER NEWPORT BAY (PLAN C). ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS Total Estimated increase in Tax Revenues to County Beaches and Parks $315,690 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES Amortization of Total Beach and Park Development Costs $1,719,3002 Cd 40/. for 40 years $86,515 Maintenance and Operation Costs Beaches and Parks 60,000 Additional Personnel m 95,000 Total Estimated Average Annual Expenditures $241,515 ESTIMATED BENEFIT TO COST RATIO BENEFIT _ REVENUES _ 3R 690 1.31 to 15 COST EXPENDITURE $2 1,515 NOTES: 1 See Table 10, Page 21, "Estimated income From Recreational Park Development." 2 See Table 9, Page 20, "Estimated Cost of Recreational Park Development." 3 Cost of maintaining and operating parking areas, landscaping, District sub - station, drainage structures and miscellaneous items. 4 Lifeguards, parking attendants and other seasonal personnel. 5 Based on these estimated costs and revenues, the County can expect to receive an annual return of 31% on Recreational Park Development Cost. 22. PROCEDURE TO ACCOMPLISH THE LAND EXCHANGE The following actions are suggested as a procedure to be followed in the accomplishment of the proposed land exchange: The County and The Irvine Company to approve in principle the exchange of lands as shown on the Land Parcel Exhibit. V2. The County and The Irvine Company to enter into a land exchange agreement that will authorize the exchange subject to completion of items 3 through 9. 3. The County to make application to the State Lands Commission and secure its approval to exchange the County tidelands for adjacent uplands. The conditions of the tidelands grant are set forth in Chapter 526, Statutes of California - 1919 (Document No. 3). 4. The County and The Irvine Company to arrange for appropriate liti- gation to establish the constitutionality of the enabling legisla- tion, Chapter 2044, Statutes of California - 1957 (Document No. 6). 5• The County and The Irvine Company to approve the proposed harbor lines map. The City of Newport Beach gave its approval by Council • action on February 26, 1962 (Document No. 8). 6. The County to make application to and secure action from the Secretary of the Army to establish Federal harbor lines coincident with the harbor lines shown on Harbor Lines Map (Appendix 11). *7. The County and The Irvine Company to enter into an agreement for dredging the public waterways within the bulkhead lines. The main points of this agreement are set forth in the Conference Notes, dated March 4, 1964 (Document No. 14). 8. The County to fill the tidelands to be exchanged to the elevation required by the enabling legislation, Chapter 2044, Statutes of California - 1957 (Document No. 6). ^9. The County and The Irvine Company to exchange deeds to the property as called for in the Land Exchange Agreement. IcThe land exchange agreement will set forth the conditions for the exchange of deeds and may also include the details of the dredging agreement. 23. P LAND OWNERSHIP The land ownerships for the land and water areas in Upper Newport Say are delineated in colors on the exhibit entitled "Ownerships Before Exchange" (Appendix 1). The parcel colored light blue at the northerly end of the bay is Tidelands Patent No. 204 (Document No. 2) that granted title to James Irvine on January 25, 1901. The boundaries for this parcel were adjudicated by the Superior Court Decree No. 20436 (Document No. 5), dated May 6, 1926, that defined the line of ordinary high tide and further de- fined the title granted in the Tidelands Patent. The following is the excerpt from the Court Decree that established a public easement and rights of fishery and navigation on the area covered by Tidelands Patent No. 204: "And it Is hereby adjudged that the defendant (The Irvine Company) is the owner and holder of the legal title of said last described tidelands by virtue of State Tide Land Patent issued by the State of California to its predecessor, James Irvine; subject, however, to the public easement and rights of fishery and navigation, which said public easement and rights and all interest and title in said lands necessary to the support thereof are held and owned by the plaintiff (County of Orange) herein by virtue of said grant from the State of California to said plaintiff, in trust for the uses and purposes and upon the express trusts set out in the Granting Act (Document No. 3) of the County of Orange hereinabove referred to." The parcels colored dark blue and light green are included in the Tidelands Grant (Document No. 3) to the County of Orange. The following are excerpts from Chapter 526, Statutes of California, approved May 25, 1919: "There is hereby granted to the county of Orange and to its successors all of the rights, title and interest of the State of California . . . to all that portion of the tidelands and submerged.lands bordering upon and under Newport bay . . .which are outside of the corporate limits of the city of Newport Beach . . .the same to be forever held by said county and by its successors in trust for the uses and pur- poses and upon the express conditions following." 24. "Said lands shall be used by said county and by its successors solely for the establishment, improvement and conduct of a harbor . . .And said county or its successors shall not at any time grant, convey, give or alien said lands or any part thereof to any individual, firm or corporation for any purposes whatsoever; provided, that said county or its successors . . .may lease said lands or any part thereof for a period not exceeding twenty -five years (changed to fifty years in Tidelands Grant Amended, Document No. 4) for purposes consistent with the trust upon which said lands are held by the State of California, and with the requirements of commerce or navigation at said harbor." The boundaries of the County tidelands were adjudicated by the Superior Court Decree No. 20436 (Document No. 5), dated May 6, 1926, that defined the line of ordinary high tide. The wording of the County Tidelands Grant (Document No, 3) brings up a question as to whether or not the City of Newport Beach would become the successor in interest to County tidelands at the time the Upper Bay was annexed to the City. The County Counsel gave the following legal opinion on Tideland Ownership (Document No. 7): "in our opinion, the title to these tidelands is in the County." The parcel colored olive green and dark green, known as Coney Island, was purchased by the Orange County Harbor District through an eminent domain action on March 6, 1958 for $112,310.00. The parcels colored buff are islands and uplands owned in fee by The Irvine Company. The line of mean high tide for uplands and for the northerly is- land was adjudicated by Court Decree (Document No. 5). The other islands are referred to in the Decree as being exluded from the County tidelands; however, the line of ordinary high tide was not included in the adjudica- tion. The two islands were not owned by The Irvine Company at the time of the adjudication, but have since been acquired. Aerial photos and govern- ment charts of the Upper Bay indicate that the line of mean high tide along the islands has been relatively unchanged from the early maps, dated 1875 to the present. Therefore, the line of mean high tide for the islands, as shown on the Map Exhibits (Appendices I thru VII), is reasonably accurate. 25. The portion of the County tidelands colored light green, together with 6.6 acres of the Harbor District's Coney Island colored olive green, are in- cluded in the 69.5 acre aquatic park lease for the Harry Welch Park to Newport Dunes, Inc. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP UPPER NEWPORT BAY EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC OWNERISHIP County Tidelands (Tidelands Grant, 1919) 403.7 Acres Harbor District (Coney Island Purchase, 1958) 8.1 Acres TOTAL EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 411.8 Acres LIMITED PUBLIC RIGHT) Public Easement (Tidelands Patent No. 204) 243.0 Acres SUMMARY OF PUBLICLY OWNED RECREATION AREAS UPPER NEWPORT BAY HARRY WELCH PARK (Land Area) 69.5 Acres Leased to Newport Dunes, Inc. in 1958 for development and operation of an aquatic park. HARRY WELCH PARK LAGOON (Public Water Area) 28.5 Acres Public water area southerly of proposed bulkhead line. TOTAL PUBLICLY OWNED RECREATION AREAS 98.0 Acres NOTES 1 Tidelands in Upper Newport Bay located northerly of a line connecting Federal bulkhead stations 130 and 134. 2 The County of Orange was granted a public easement and rights of fishery and navigation over the Tidelands Patent No, 204 in Superior Court Decree No. 20436 (Document No. 5). The water frontage for the exlsting Upper Newport Bay waterways measured a- long the high tide line is 70,049 feet, with The Irvine Company controlling the access to the waterways over all but the 6,088 feet of frontage measured along the water line at Harry Welch Park. The public water frontage is 8.7 per cent of the total. The length of water frontage for Harry Welch Park, as measured along the proposed bulkhead line, is 2,207 feet. This is the length of water frontage used in the comparison with Plans A, B and C (Appen- cides III, IV and V). 26. PRIOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ENGINEERING REPORT ON NEWPORT BAY, Orange County.Harbor, California, made by General Lansing H. Beach, U.S.A. Retired, for the Orange County Harbor Commission, dated April 1925. The report shows a proposed channel to Upper Bay with a possible water frontage of 35,000 feet. The following are excerpts from the report: Page 12. ". .1 recommend that you order a careful study of the upper lagoon to be made at an early date. Its logical use Is either as a water park, should the vicinity develop a population which would justify such disposition, or else as an industrial harbor.', Page 13. "It is recommended that before a decision be taken as to the manner of developing the lagoon, a careful study be made con-' cerning the costs of each method, the effects upon the class and number of people each will bring into the County, the effects upon land values and tax returns and such other matters as will afford a proper comparison of ultimate benefits and advantages." PRELIMINARY REPORT ON UPPER BAY DEVELOPMENT, Orange County Harbor, Newport Bay, California, by R.L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer, dated December 15, 1942. The report introduces four preliminary plans and makes the following com- parisons: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Area of Water': 492.0 Ac. 475.0 Ac. 485.0 Ac. 485.0 Ac. *In comparing Patterson Plans 1, 2, 3 and 4 with present Plans A, B and C shown in section "Comparison Land Exchange Plans ", it should be pointed out that Plans 1 thru 4 are for the total water area northerly of the Coast Highway bridge and Plans A, B and C refer only to the public water- ways within the bulkhead lines, plus the water area at Harry Welch Park lagoon. The following are excerpts from the Patterson report: Page 2. "It is the consensus of opinion that development in Upper Bay should be for yachting and recreational use. The present development of Lower Bay eliminates the possibility of commercial development for commerce in the upper bay." -. 27. Page 5. "The depth of the main channel and upper basin should have a minimum depth of 8 feet at low water for navigation by pleasure craft. Considering that the bay will be a mecca for swimming and other recreational activities, a depth of 10 feet would be more ideal as the turbulence in the water will be a great deal less. "it would be advisable to provide for a 10 foot depth in the initial development, owing to lack of suitable disposal areas for fu- ture dredging. "A depth of 6 feet below low water is suitable for secondary channels which are 200 feet in width." Page 9. "Preliminary studies indicate that the water area north of the state highway should be between 450 to 500 acres. The tidal prism would be increased by about 25 %. The increased channel widths and alignment will reduce the velocity of flow and eliminate practically all erosion of the shoreline caused by the ebb and flow of tides." Page 13. "A legal opinion should be secured on the possibility of exchanging tidelands under present law, and if this cannot be done, determine the proper legislation." Report to Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Harbor Com- mission on the IMPROVEMENT OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY, Newport Bay Harbor, Orange County, California, dated July 1950, by R.L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer. The following is an excerpt from the report: Par. 266. "The channel lines . . . were laid out without regard to property ownership in order to secure a desirable plan. The County would acquire all private lands within the area to be dredged, through exchange of tidelands and submerged lands owned by the County, lying landward of the proposed channel lines." Report on the development of UPPER NEWPORT BAY 6 ADJACENT AREA, Orange County, California, prepared for The Irvine Company by Knappen, Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy Engineers, transmitted by letter dated September 15, 1952. The following are excerpts from the report: Transmittal letter. "In prior reports there are many points concerning basic requirements and the evaluation of the benefits of the development of Upper Newport Bay, with which we fully agree. However, we do not hold that sound future planning for the development of Newport Bay and Adjacent Area can or should be based upon a virtual public monopoly of waterfront development." Page 4. 'Any development of the Upper Bay must reflect to the pecuniary advantage, not only of present owners and future investors but to the business men of the area, and to the County, the State and the Federal Government. The development must also change the Upper Bay from its I -i 28. present undeveloped state of low income and restricted recreational value to an area devoted to first class homesites, estates, recrea- tion facilities, resort hotels and business centers. These changes must be carried out in an orderly manner, constructing complete parts of the development to function as units without 'interference, yet complementary with and to the construction of additional units." Page 20. "As the provisions of free water access is the key to any developmental program for the Upper Bay, 'Boats' are the key to the bays' popularity. One of the bases of land value increase is popu- larity, and that will vary directly with the convenience of the boat- ing facilities. The necessity for ample and properly located and designed boat basins is apparent." Page 21. "Newport Bay's beaches are its most valuable single com- modity. The value of waterfrontage is well known and those lots which would have access to, or would be near waterfront in any development become tremendously valuable. it makes sense, therefore, that con- sideration be given to the provision of a maximum length of waterline consistent with other developments. This length of useable frontage may be created by two means: "l. Locate the water areas so as to allow where practicable a generous strip of land along the base of the bluffs land- ward of the bulkhead line, and 112. Create, consistent with channel requirements, the most irregular waterline possible. An irregular shoreline is interesting but land area along it is necessary to support the waterfront development." Page 26. "We believe that public recreation centers should be devel- oped and maintained by political subdivisions whereas the construction and operation of boat basins should be by the owners of the waterfront properties. These facilities should be made available to the general public in proportion to the demand. The best interest of the community will be promoted when (1) any owner of water frontage is permitted to develop it within established bulkhead lines and promulgated regula- tions; (2) development proceeds only as rapidly as the demand exists or can be stimulated; (3) public bodies provide the access to the water- ways and large recreation centers as required, leaving the payment for special facilities to the users of such facilities; and (4) special facilities and subdivisions are left to be constructed by private capital." 1 29. 4 AUTHORITY FAR LAND EXCHANGE The thought of exchanging County tidelands for The Irvine Company's islands' and uplands was expressed as a recommendation in the "Preliminary Report on Upper Bay Development ", dated December 15, 1942, prepared by R.L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer. This is the recommendation: "A legal opinion should be secured on the possibility of exchanging tidelands under present law, and if this cannot be done, determine the proper legislation." The attorneys for both The Irvine Company and the County explored the legal- ity of exchanging the public tidelands for privately owned lands and con- cluded that special enabling legislation was required. The proposed special legislation initiated by the County was passed by the State Legislature, approved by the Governor on July 8, 1957, and became effective September 11, 1957. This legislation is Chapter 2044, Statutes of California - 1957 (Document No. 6). The following is an excerpt of the enabling legislation: "Sec. 3 . . .portions of said lands (County tidelands located land- ward of bulkhead lines) . . .if and when so improved, filled, and reclaimed (filled above the line of ordinary high tide), may be irrevocably alienated and conveyed free of the public uses and trusts in said acts (County Tidelands Grant, Document No. 3) by the said County of Orange, with the approval and concurrence of the State Lands Commission, to the owner or respective owners of uplands lying contiguous thereto in exchange for land of such owner . . .necessary or desirable for the improvement, development and conduct of said harbor upon a finding by the State Lands Commission that the lands located in the area commonly known as Upper Newport Bay which are to be exchanged are no longer useful for navigation, commerce, and fishing, and that the lands to be received in exchange are at least of equal value thereto. The lands received by the county in exchange shall be used by the county only for purposes of state -wide interest. Upon any conveyance as herein provided all right, title, and interest of the State and said County of Orange in the land exchanged shall vest in the grantee or grantees thereof." I 30. PLANNING OF PUBLIC WATERWAYS The location of the harbor lines, as shown on the Harbor Lines Map (Appen- dix II), was selected without regard to property ownership in order to pro- vide the best possible channel design for the ultimate development of Upper Newport Bay based on the current recreational boating needs. The waterways are designed to provide facilities.for the Increased number of trailered boats registered to the County, as shown on chart entitled "Recreational Boating In Orange County 1950 to 198011, on page 35. The harbor lines map was approved by the Orange County Harbor Commission on February 13, 1962, by the Newport Beach City Council on February 26, 1962 . (Document No. 8), and was approved by the Board of Directors of The Irvine Company on March 7. 1962, subject to the condition that the land exchange agreement be entered into prior to the establishment of the Federal harbor lines. The Federal Government is charged with the jurisdiction of ail navigable waters and must approve any proposed changes to the existing waterways of Upper Newport Bay. Discussions with the representatives from the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers and the Chief of Engineers in Washington, D.C. indicate that the Corps of Engineers will recommend to the Secretary of the Army that Federal harbor lines be established In the location shown on the Harbor Lines Map, if concurred In by the City, the County and the adjacent land owner (The Irvine Company). The features of the waterways within the bulkhead lines are shown on Table 12, Design of Public Waterways for Upper Newport Bay; and the total area of water- ways is shown on Table 13, Future Waterways for Upper Newport Bay. 31. The words harbor lines, bulkhead lines and pierhead lines have been used on the maps, in the text, and on the tables and may need further clarifi- cation. Harbor lines are lines established for the development and use of the harbor. These lines include the bulkhead lines and pierhead lines. The bulkhead lines define the channalward limit to which solid fill structures may be built. This, in general, defines the common boundary between the public channels and the privately owned land. The pierhead lines define the channelward limit to which open pile structures and floating dockage may be built. The area between the pier - head and bulkhead lines, shown in dark blue on the Harbor Lines Map (Appen- dix 11), is the portion of the public waterway that may be used for berthing boats. 32. 1 Am TABLE 12 DESIGN OF PUBLIC WATERWAYS FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAY AS SHOWN ON HARBOR LINES MAP (APPENDIX 11) AREAS MAIN CHANNEL AND TURNING BASIN DEPTH -10 FT. MLLW WIDTH OF CHANNEL AVG. 800 FT. VARIES FROM 650 FT. TO 980 FT. . I. 2. 3. 4. PLANNED USE RECREATIONAL BOATING USES A. SAILING B. POWER BOATING SWIMMING FISHING BERTHING OF BOATS IN AREA BETWEEN PIERHEAD AND BULKHEAD LINES I. 2. 3. REMARKS SPEEDS LIMITED TO S MILES PER HOUR SWIMMING IS RESTRICTED TO AREAS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF PUBLIC PARKS No SWIMMING PERMITTED IN MAIN TRAFFIC LANES ROWING COURSE 1. RECREATION BOATING USES I. SPEEDS LIMITED TO S MILES PER HOUR DEPTH -10 FT. MLLW A. SAILING 2. NO BERTHING OF BOATS PERMITTED w w WIDTH 400 FEET B. POWER BOATING INSIDE BULKHEAD LINES LENGTH 7,000 FEET 2. SWIMMING 3. THE NORTHERLY SHORELINE IS PLANNED 3. FISHING FOR A MILE LONG SWIMMING BEACH 4. COLLEGIATE .CREW RACING AND OTHER THAT CAN ALSO BE USED FOR VIEWING WATER COMPETITION CREW RACING MARINE STADIUM I. WATER SKIING 1. SPEEDS LIMITED TO 35 MILES PER HOUR DEPTH -10 FT. MLLW 2. SPEEDING 2. NO BERTHING OF BOATS PERMITTED IN WIDTH 1000 FT. 3. SPECIAL EVENTS THIS AREA LENGTH 3300 FT. 3. NO SWIMMING PERMITTED 4. THE USE OF THIS AREA MAY BE SCHE- DULED FOR SPECIAL EVENTS 5. AREA MAY BE COMPARTMENTIZED WITH BUOYS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM NOTES: USABILITY I THE ROWING COURSE IS THE SAN DIEGO CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL DEEPENED TO MAKE IT USABLE FOR AQUATIC RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. THIS PROVIDES A,WATER AREA FOR THE COLLEGIATE 2,000 METER CREW RACING EVENTS. 2 THE MARINE STADIUM WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE AN AREA FOR WATER ACTIVITIES REQUIRING SPEEDS UP TO 35 MILES PER HOUR WITHOUT INTERFERENCE TO THE MORE TRANQUIL WATER USERS. THIS AREA IS SEPARATED FROM OTHER WATERWAYS TO AVOID DAMAGE FROM THE WAKE CREATED BY HIGH SPEED BOATING. TABLE 1 FUTURE WATERWAYS FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAY as shown for Plan C on General Use Map (Appendix Vill) PUBLIC WATERWAYS INSIDE BULKHEAD LiNES 467.2 Acres PUBLIC WATERWAYS OUTSIDE BULKHEAD LiNES Harry Welch Park Lagoon 28.5 Acres Boat Basins In Public Parks 6.5 Acres Boat Launching Areas In Public Parksl 3.5 Acres Other Water Areas in Public Parks 5.6 Acres Public Waterways Outside Bulkhead Lines 44.1 Acres TOTAL PUBLIC WATERWAYS 511.3 Acres PRIVATE WATERWAYS OUTSIDE BULKHEAD LiNES Channeis to Serve Water Front Residences 20.8 Acres Commercial Boat Basins 25.8 Acres Total Private Waterways Outside Bulkhead Lines 46.6 Acres TOTAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WATERWAYS 557.9 Acres WATERFRONTAGE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF FUTURE WATERWAYS2 Privately Owned Frontage 48,000 Feet Publicly Owned Frontage 26,000 Feet TOTAL WATERFRONTAGE ALONG FUTURE WATERWAYS 74,000 Feet NOTES: . 1 The need for additional trailered boat launching facilities is pointed out in the chart entitled "Recreational Boating in Orange County 1950 to 198011, on page 35. 2 The waterfrontage shown on Table 2, page 8, compares the frontage along the future bulkhead line. The waterfrontage on this table shows the ` perimeter of the future water areas, including the water areas outside of the bulkhead lines. It is interesting to note that the percentage of publicly owned waterfrontage to the total is about the same for each method of measuring. 34. l COUNTY PbOULAT.ON TOTAL Nu.i Vua OF NU..BEO Op A3Okt Pk. Coo TQA,Lmmmp 15o&TB T17A1LEQdO BOATS, PER 4000 5-AT 93ERTH,NO FAC,L1T,E% BOAT 45aa mma CACII,T,CS p 4000 PQppLE. 4950 246,224 4.548 24.0 4,r.51 7. Co 2,896 45.4 NSWO FOR: 5CRTMIN9 FAP ITT I ®S BOATING Z O U 50,000 W Q cc O W Of W N 90,000 C7 W W Q 20,000 O Q I 0 c' 40,000 W m Z 4960 — 4970 4980 70-6,925 4,450,000 2.500,000 44,544 44.000 9Z,500 4 30.665 53,200 2 20.7 28.5 37.0 4 24.3 24.5 2 9.802 32 200 2x,900 74.500 4 58:000 2 45:2 2 2.0 I 29.8 1 45.4 44.0 2 5.242 9,000 413.000 T: p 6.2 T. 2 u 5,632 44,600 20.000 N 92 500 — NOTES : A BASED ON AN INCRl.A9110 PATG FROM 24.5 BOATS PER 4,000 Pe mo a IN 49(.2 To 57 BOATS PE AOOO PEOPLe IN 4980 Av PROjEc TEo IN TMt CALIFORN,A P"uC � OUTOOOR RCCRflAT,OMAL PLAN U BMI TTE To THE Gov ERNOR MARCH 25, 49S60. P 7 yy ........ . 2 BASED Os C)WkNOw C NTV'% 49(.2 W ym Vv- O� 24 � 15—ATS PlIm 4.000 PkmnLl. 3 BAS60 ON 6 B6TNED BOATS Pe¢ 4.000 P,Opim. LHGCND: TRA,L6R6o DOATa (ALINow- CE.RTgt B .TV) 4950 4960 4970 4980 REGREATIONAL BOATING IN ORANGE COUNTY 4950 TO 4980 ORANGE COUNTY H/'*RBOR OISTRIGT 35. MARCH 4964 s W E 7 u 0 0 s�a$�"'�.' #`yip- 'T 1. �:�� `M)A +1u..�- .t•rLi. � �_.� , e�Y - m+..4e...� R � 6,. �� O.C. H'd:GR DEPT. :1'1 TO I 1 RESOvIfION OF 'rm. BOAPI) OF SUPERVISORS OF i 2 ORANGE !.;OUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 December 18, 1963 4 On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and carried, the B following Resolution was adopted: B RESOLVED that the County of Orange hereby approves in principle 7 the proposal of The Irvine Company submitted to this Board-on May 20, 8 1963, to exchange certain uplands owned by said .Company for certain 9 filled lands owned by the County of Orange upon the following conditions 10 a. The improvements to the centerline of the main channels in 11 areas adjacent to private development are to be accomplished by the 12 developers. The Irvine Company is to agree to make this requirement 13 for the developers, with the City and the Harbor District exercising 14 control of the dredging and bulkheading permits.. 18 b. The berthing of boats is to be prohibited in the public water- is ways adjacent to the Rowing Course and Marine Stadium. a8 17 c. The Irvine Company is to provide disposal areas for the excess 18 materials from the Rowing Course, Marine Stadium and the Turning Basin, 19 the aree to be within two miles of the dredge site. 20 d. That the Harbor District staff immediately in cooperation with 21 the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, make a study of the 22 city requirements in the area other than that portion thereof to be used 23 for regional park purposes and report to this Board within ninety (90) '24 days from the date hereof. 2U e. That all of Parcel 32 as shown on "Land Parcel Exhibit" of the 26 proposal be conveyed to the County of Orange,.and that portion of Parcel 27 33 shown on said Exhibit, as delineated on Exhibit B, be retained by 28 The Irvine Company. 29 AYES: SUPERVISORS ALTON E. ALLEN, WM. HIRSTEIN, DAVID L. BAKER, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS AND C. M. FEATHERLY 30 NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 3L ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 37, Resolution No. 63 -1808 1. DOCUMENT No.4 INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARE REPORT PAGE 4 -{ 1 2 3 [7 6l 71 8 9 10 11 13 14 g 15 o� Zg$ 18 B 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ae. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and es- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of December , 19 63, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18th day of December 1963. W. E. ST JOHN ;Iq ;•., County Clerk and s*toff cio Clerk;.,.. of the Board of Pups rvieore''of Orange County CgllEornta 1 , By -7.9 P`. apart,' 2. PAGE a -2 z Ir 0 LL LL 0 Lli F-z U) 0 fr Lli LL 0 U) Lli U) 0 L.Li Z o O. Llj 4 - zi O M1 - ti o b4 tZI 4 It as C)I=>CUMF_N_r W0.2 TIDELANDS 4� CV O PATENT No, 204 PAGE 2-1 V rl 4� CV O PATENT No, 204 PAGE 2-1 CIIAPTER 526. An act granting certain tidelands and submerged lands of the State of California to the county of Orange in said state upon certain trusts and conditions. i [Approved May 25, 1919. In effect July 25, 1919.1 The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 71delmm SECTION 1. There is hereby granted to the county of Orange ,°,,'",4 ° and to its successors all of the right, title and interest of the ewidy. State of California held by said state by virtue of its sover- eignty in and to all that portion of the tidelands and sub- merged lands bordering upon and'.under Newport bay in the said county of Orange, which are outside of the corporate limits of the city of Newport Bench, a municipal corporation, the same to be forever held by said county and by its succes- sors in trust for the uses and purposes and upon the express conditions following, to wit: v..wisaft (a) Said lands shall be used by said county and by its suc- cessors solely for the establishment, improvement and conduct of a harbor and for the establishment and construction of bulkheads or brenliwaters for the protection of lands within its boundaries, or for the protection of its harbor, and for the construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves; docks, piers, slips, quays, ways and streets, and other utilities, structures and appliances necessary or convenient for the pro- motion or accommodation of commerce and navigation, and the protection of the lands within said county. And said county. or its successors shall not at any time grant, convey, give or alien said lands or any part thereof to any individual, firm, or corporation for any purposes whatever; provided, that said county or its successors may grunt franchises thereon for a period not exceeding Lwenty-five(jcars for wharves and other public uses and purposes, and may lease said lands or any part thereof for a period not exceeding ;twenty -fivo! years for purposes consistent with the trust upon which said' lands are held by the State of California, and with the requirements of commerce or navigation at said harbor. Imgwe moo (b) Said harbor shall be improved by said county without expense to the state and shall always remain a public harbor for all purposes of commerce and navigation, and the State of Calirornia slmll have 'art 'all times the right to Ilse, without charge, all wharves,, docks, piers,;' slips, quays, and other improvements constructed on said lands or any part thereof for any vessel or other water craft or railroad owned or oper -. ated by the. State of California. (c) In the, management, conduct or operation of said harbor, or of any of the utilities, structures or appliances mentioned in paragraph. (a) no discrimination in rates, tolls or charges, or in facilities for any use or service in connection therewith shall ever be made, authorized or permitted by said county, or 1110"0e by its' - successors. The absolute right to fish in the waters of said harbor with the right of convenient access to said water over said lands for said purpose is'hereby reserved to the people of the'Stato of California. Statutes of California - 1919 DOCUMENT N0.3 COUNTY TIDELANDS GRANT PAGE 3 -4 CNAPTrr 575. An act to amend section 1 of an act entitled "An act granting certain tidelands and submerged lands of the State of Cali-. fornia to the county of Orange in said state upon certain trusts and conditions," approved May 25, 1419, relating to the granting of franchises upon, and leases of, the tidelands therein granted to the county of Orange. [Approved by the Governor May 27. 1720. In exact August 14. 177T.7 The people of the State of California do enact as follows., Srr.TwN 1. Section I of an act entitled "An net granting state. 1936, certain tidelands and submerged 'lands of the State of Cali- a°malm«i fornia to the county of Orange in said state upon certain trusts and conditions," approved May 25, 1019, is hereby amended to rend as follows: Section 1. There is herby granted to the county of Orange Tidelands and to its successors all of the right, title and interest of the am=e b State of California held by said state by virtue of its sovereignty 0011w- in and to all that portion of the tidelands and submerged lands bordering upon and under Newport bay in the said county of Orange, which are outside of the corporate limits of the city of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation, the same to be forever held by said county and by its successors in trust for the uses and purposes and upon the express conditions following, to wit: (a) Said lands shall be used by said county and by its sue- unct cessors solely for the establishment, improvement and conduct 4od` of a harbor and for the establishment and construction of bulkheads or breakwaters for the protection of lands within its boundaries, or for the protection of its harbor, and for the construction, iaintenance and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers) slips, quays, ways and streets, and other utilities, structures and appliances necessary or convenient for the pro- motion or accommodation of commerce and navigation, and the protection of the lands within said county. And said county or its successors shall not at any time grant, convey, give or alien said lands or any part thereof to any individual, firm, or corporation for any purposes whatever; provided, that said county or its successors may grant franchises thereon for a period not exceeding fifty years for wharves and other pub- lic uses and purposes, and may lease said lands or any part thereof for a period not exceeding fifty years for pur- poses consistent with the trust upon which said lands are . held by the State of California, and with the requirements of commerce or navigation at said harbor. (L) Said harbor, shall be improved by said county withoutleprdeammt expense to the state and shall always remain a public harbor Of dh0`,ine, an for all purposes of commerce and navigation, and the State of bt etata California shall have'at all times the right to use, without charge, all wharves, .docks, piers, slips, quays, and other improvements constructed on said'lands or any part thereof for any vessel or other water craft or railroad owned or oper- ated by the State of California. (c) In the management, conduct or operation of said harbor, nates. or of any of the utilities, structures or appliances mentioned in paragraph (a) no discrimination in rates, tolls or charges, or in facilities for any use or service in connection therewith shall ever be made, authorized or permitted by said county, or by its successors. The absolute right to fish in the waters.of tursas said harbor with the right of con.vrilient access to said water ib red. over said lands for said purpose is hereby ;reserved to the peoplo.of the Sts,te of California. k Statutes of California - 1929 DOCUMENT Ncx4 COUNTY TIDELANDS GRANT AMENDED PAGS 4 -1 w It 13464. I9 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN ANU FOR THE C017NTY OF ORANGE. OPANOE COUNTY, CALIFORaIA, P. Public Corporation, Plaintiff No.20436. VP THE IRVIttE COMPANY, ) 0 E C R EE Defendant. ) This cause came on regularly for hearing before the Court without a.Jury, Alazander P. Nelson, Esq., District Atto"ney, end Masers. Anderson 8 Anderson appearing for the plaintiff end Messrs. Scarborough & Bowen appearing for the defer.de.r.t; and thereupon evidence wew adduced, and the Court having duly considered the awe, and findings having been waived by the respective parties, It Is now ORDERED, ADJULOED AND DECREED that the plaintiff Is the owner, as the successor In interest of the State of California under grant from the Legislature of s DoGUMelJT No.S UPPER BAY TIDELANDS ADJUDICATION PAGE 5 -4 s the State of California by Act approved May 209 1919, of title and interest of the state in n. that portion of the tide and submerged lands of Newport Bey in the 0ounty of Orange, State of California, which are outside of the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, to be forever bald in trust for the purpoeeaand uses and upon the express trusts eat out in said Creating Aot; And it is further ADJODDED AND DECREED that the following is a description Of the said tide and submerged lands of said Newport Bay which ware granted to the aid plaintiff by said Creating Aot and of which plaintiff is the owner under and by virtue of said Act, to -wit: situate in the County of Orange, State of California, oosmencing at - Stetion NO.1 and the point of beginning of the line herein described is the point of Intersection of the northerly boundary line of the City of Newport Bomb, California, with the bulkhead line extending from U. B. Bulkhead station No.101 to U. C. Bulkhead Station No.. 102 u said bulkhead line and bulkhead stations are laid out and shown upon a map of Newport Bay, California, sbowinp harbor lines, approved by the War Department January 1P, 1917; thence North 550 00' Vast, along the said bulkhead . line extending between bulkhead stations No.101 and No.102, 380 feat, more or lose to Bulkhead Station No.101, sees being Station No.2 of the line herein described; thence West, along the bulkhead line extending frog U. B. Bulkhead station No.101 to U. S. Bulkhead Station 100, 304.40 feet to Station 10.3 of the line heroin describad; thence, continuing West, along said bulkhead line, 250.00 feat to Station 10.4 of the line herein described; tbenoe, oontinuing West, along said bulkhead line, 295.00 feat to Station 1015 of the line herein described; thence, leaving said bulkhead line, North, 140..00 feet to Station lo.6; theme lorth750 02' 001 West, 823.71 feet to Station. No-7, theme North 850 43'001 West 1569.62 feet to station No.e; thence North 710 54' 000 Went, 1573.20 foot to Station 80.9; from whiob station the oom ^on corner to Sections 26, 27, 34 and 35 in Township 6, South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base and Horldim, bear@ North 211 24' 001 Vast, 470.00 feat; thence North 560 42' DO$ West, 489.90 feat to Station No.10; tbenoe North 80 la' 301 East, 674,25 feat to Station 10.11; tbenoe North 240 56' o01 Vast, 697.40 feat to station 80.12; tbenoe North 250 22' 30.1 Eeat,710.80 feat to Station NO-13; theaoe North 340 27' 301 teat, 468.00 feet to Station No.14; thence North 450 33' 00' Vast, 231.40 foot to Station 10.15; than@ South 860 470 DO- East, 482.62 feat to station 10-16; thence South 790 45' 300 East 861.71 feet to (tation No.164; thence South 210 13' 301 Vast '1020.00 feet to station 1o.16B; thence South 230 26' 3D1 Nast 1040.00 feat to Station No .17; theme Bo,tb 620 30. 001 East, 603.30 feet to station 10.18; thence south 860 26' 001 East, 528.65 feet to Station 10.19; tbenoo North 710 17' 3D1 East, 357.80 feet to Station NO-OD; thence North 490 19' 301 East, 535,75 feet to station NO.Zl; thence North 6. 34' 000 East, 838.70 feet to Station NO-2?; theme North 260 22' 301 East, 599.75 feet to Itstlen No. 23; thence North 6. 10' 301 vest, 308.85 feet to station lo.24; tbanoe North 250 09' DO' Weet, 428.05 test to glation 10.25; thence North 00 Z1' Do, vest, 70.70 feet to Station No.26; thence North 120 45' 001 Vast, 144.00 feet to Station 10.27; thence North 45. Ol' D01 Eaet, 467.80 feet to station lo.28; thence Worth 190 30' o01 rest, 284.00 feet to Station 50.29; thaws North 570 53' 001 Vaet, 86.10 feet to Station 10.30; theme South 890 21' 001 East, 154.00 feet to Stattsnr10.31; thence Sou tb 750 15' 000 last, 174.90 feet to v PAGE- 5-2 i a Y station No.32;, thence North 700 46, 00" East, 322.90 feet to station No.33;. thence North 340 48' 00" East, 640.10 fe °t to station N0.34; thence North 56" 3n' 90 ". East, 253.35 feet to station A0.35; thence. North 37" 55' 30' East, 246,25 feet to Station N0.36; thence North 18' 46 30' East, 315.70 feet to Station N0.37; thence North 0' 36' 000 East, 290.60 feet to Station No.38; thence North 220 24' 00' Nest. 367.36 feet to station N0.39T thence North 420 40' 45' Nest, 207.71 feet to Station 10.40), thence North .600 41, DO" west, 235.8' feet to Station /o.41; thence North 51' 31' 15' Nest, 237.52 feet to Station '1o.42; thence North 250 39' 00' Neat, 58.71 feet to Station No.43; thence North 490.20' 4.5• cast, 138.90 feat to Station N0. 44:thenoe North 50 13' 15" East, 1524.81 feet to Station No.45; thence North 390 26' 45 ' Neat, 128.30 feet to Station No.46: thence North 230 59' 00" west, 249.50 feet to Station No.47; thence North 40" 04' 30' Nest, 435-85 feet to Station N0.48; thence North 23' 14' 30" Nest, 614.77 feet to Station No.49; thence North 20" 40' 00' East, 1208.56 feet to Station 1o. 50; thence North 55. 37' 00' East, 73.38 feet to station 50.51; thence North 810 05' 00' East, 178.73 feet to Station 10.52; thence North 450 46' 00" East, 692.20 feet to Station 50.53; thence North 430 28P 000 East, 613.58 feet to Station 10.54; thence North 18.09' 30• East, 172.90 feet to station 10.55; thence North 20 57' 45" Nest, 548.99 fee to Station 10.56; thence .worth .220 15' 30' cast, 107.85 feet to Station 10.57; thence North 370 03' Q0• East, 112.06 feet to Station 50.58; thence North 460 58' 00" East, 899.65 feet to Station NO-59; thence North 63. 54' 00' East, 845.90 feet to station No.60; thence south 410 57' 30' East, 570.00 feet to Station No.61; thence 'South 67' 10' 30' East, 700..5~ feet to.. Station No.62:. thence 'North 740 18' 00' East, 106.07 feet to Station No.63; thence North 360 52' 300 pest, 1183.35 feet to Station 1o.64; thence North 460 15' 30' Neer, 1457.44 feet to Station 1o.65; thence North 750 58' 30" Meet, 1010_ "4 feet to station No.66; thence South 87. 29' 00' west, 1096.80 feet to Station No.67;. thence Sou th 830 14" 004 Nest, 300.35 feet to Station 1o.68; thence Booth 68. 14' 300 west, 572.15 feet to Station to.69; thence South 580 07' 30' west,. 379,90 feetto Station Y0.70; thence Soa th 42" 16' 30' west, 152.65 feet to Station No. 71; thence South 160 24' 00' west, 518.82 feet to Station 10.72; thence south 00 20' 45' west, 562.10 feet to station No, 73; thence south 50 06' 00" west, 168.65 feet to Station 10.74; thence south 210 34' 00' west, 508.60 feet to Station 10..75; thence south 270 47' 45' west, 501.82 fact to Station 10.76; thence Sloth 00 30' 00' East, 610.76 feat to Station 10.77; thence South 32' 32' 15' test, 670.40 feet to Station 90.78; thence South 22! 55, 00' East, 342.28 feet to Station No.79; thence South 100 45' 00' East, 564,65 feet to PAGE 5-3 • Stetlon :;a .80; Ihc. ^..t ". Sry St., ti on 9•.91: ".a<e S)uih 37' 5 °' :45" .6e,", $97.41 feetto Stetlon No .42; three Sw t^. 199 3' 15" T.er.:, .'� I'm to 3tstl,n Na.e3: the +r,.e 3,u t:: 33° 90' 00" West. 54x.35 feet to Stetlon No.84.: thenca Scutt, 69 113' 30" Test. 251.65 feet to Stetlon No.85: thence South 199 33' 30" East. 242.00 feet to Station No.86: thence South 53° 42' 00 " East, 598.08 feet to Station No-F7: thence South 209 41' 00" ^nt. 215.98 feet to Station No.-8: thence South 500 24•.00" (lest. 313.7R feet to Statl ^n No.89: thence South 34' 25' 00" West, 30P.12 feet to Stetlon 'In.90: thence S -ath 09 27' 30" West, 157.67 feet to �3t a it on No.91: thence South 339 39' 00" East. 118.70 feet to Station No.92• thence Sou it 229 1F' 30" Fast. 212.38 .feet to Station NO-93: thence South 359 27' 00" Fast,. 198.67 feet to Station No.941 thence South 99. le- 00" East. 140.51 fee: to Station No.95: thence S7ut`. 369 48. 30" East, 254.20 feet to Station No.961 thence South 169 51' 30" East, 86_2: feet to Station N0.97: thence South 19 34' 30" East, 55.96 feet to Btatlon No.981 thence South 149 32, 30" West, 107.35 feet to Station No. ?9: theme South 3.09 4'1' 00" West, 165.21 feet to Station No.100: thence South 21! 48' 00- East. 138.89 feet to Station No.101: thence Synth 19 Tilt 15" East, 149.31 feet to Station No.102: thence South 709 03' 15" Wee%, 124.10 feet to Station NI-103: thence South 759 29. 15" 'es ", 141.00 feet to Station No.104: thence North 809 05. 15• West. 273.74 feet to Station No.105: thence South 879 31. 159 Wee%, 164.92 feet to Station No.106: thence South 829 10' 15" Wool. 209.09 feet to Btatlon 80.107; thence South 599 16' 00" West. 213.55 feet to Station 10.108: thence Bluth 32" 48. 00" West. 724.85 .feet to Station No .109: thsnnce South '159 27' 0 ^" East, 720.35 feet to Station No. 110: thence .Bluth 29 49•.00• East, 122.45. Sect to Station No..11l: thence South 129 16. 00" lest. 225.94 feet to Station No.112: thence South 349 10. 30" West. 213.64 feet to Station No.113:thence South. 670 46' 30" Wee%, 250.52 feet to Station 10.114; thence 9ou%h 829 57' 30" 'Rest. 379.91 feet to Station No.115: thence South FF9 51' 30" nest, 984.68 feet to Station lo.116: thence North 83° 21' 00" West, 450.32 feet to Station 10.117: thence Smith 899 2l' 30" Nest, 344,44 feet to Station No.119: thence South 799 46' 30" West, 219.61 few to Station N0.119: thence South 639 14'309 West. 189.03 feet to Station No.120; thence South 429 46' 30" West, 305.91 feet to Stetlon N0.121; thence South 459 W 00" West, 332.20 feet to Station No.122: thence South 319 50' 30" West, 308.10 feet to Stetlon 90.123: thence South 159 32' 45" Went. 133 50 feet to Station 10.124: thence Scutt 39 06. 30" £eat, 285.40 feet to Station No.115: thence Sou%^. 20 ,,. h^. ".west, 117.2? feet to Stetlon 90.106; thence South 209 02. 159 West, 279,79 feet to St,t17n N1.127: thence ; 9 58. 15" '.ea'. 424,05 feet to NAG E 5-4 Station No.i2n; th -vice S,u R•. 190 :;,3! 30" Seet. 162'.22 `ee' Ln 't -tinn �: „do- rald St -Lion 129 beln,: Identical with U. S. Bulkhead St-tion No.130; thence worth 610 00' 00" ^rest, along the bolkh"O lone extending from U. S. Bulkhead Station No. 130 to U. S. Bulkhead Stntlon No.120, 1R00.0O feet to Station NO-130 of the line herein described; thence, leaving said bulkhead 11ne North 290 00' 00" Eaet, 632.07 feet to Station wo.131, geld station NO-131 being in the Southerly line of the eighty (80) foot right of pay Of the California St^te H1-hwnv at a point which Dears South 10 36.' 30" West, "0.00 feet from Engineers Station 23 t 12.7c of the center line of said highway, as shown on Sheet No. 2 Section B, Route 60, County of Oran e. '!v!slon :'II, of plane approved by the California RSgbwav Commission on November 19, 19239 and on file in the office of ent°_ 0nllfornla Highway Ooamise3on; thence Westerly, along veld southerly line of the eighty (80) foot right Of Vey of the Cellfornle .State Highway, to U Intersection with the boundary line of the Olty of Newport Beech; thence southwesterly and In a general southeasterly d1-ection following along the geld boundery line of the City of Newport Beech, to a point due South of Station 1o. 4, of the Line herein described; thence North to said station No. 4; thence teat 250.00 feet to Station No.-, of the line herein described; thence south 200.00 feet town angle point in the boundary line of the City of Newport Bench; thence . westerly along said boundary line of the City of Newport Beech to station No. 1 of the line herein described and the point of beginning. Excepting Islands In geld Bay and also Excepting ell that portion of geld tide lend@ Dere3nsbove described w.Ich ere covered by Location No.204 of state tide -lands of Orange Oonnty In T. 6 s., R 10 T., San Bernardino Meridian, and eltuete In seotlone woe. 139 14, 23 'end 24, end which are part3cullrly described U follows: Beginning at a point In the surveyed boundary line of Newport Bay bereinabove described 'which bears E. 230 l4' 30" W. 26.41 feet from station 48, of the veld boundary line of 1Newport Hey, and running tb. n.e, frnm s +3d Point of beginning west, 37.62 feet to station 42 �of the boundary of Rancho Ben Jovquln, . no surveyed b'r J. S.DeFuty surveyor Henry Bannock in D -owber 1858, said point being the moat southwesterly corner of Loc•tinn #204 state I tide land@ Orange Oounty, California, T. 6 S., R. to w., S. B. B. t p; thence West along the boundary line of sell Location #204, 1.00 chain; thence along loW tide H. 270 46' W. 8.67 'chains; thence W. 700 20' X. 28.70 chain, to point 1.00 chain south of corner do seotlane 13 149 23 end 24; thence s. 800 451 1. 6.08 chains; thence North 2.00 chains to point 6.00 chain@ "got of earner to sections 13, 14, 23 end 24; thence North 23.00 chains; thence N. .450 W 8.4f ch03ne to point 21 ch±lns Worth of corner to sections 139 14, 23 and 24; thence S. 510 .40' N. 16.60 chains; thence S. 70 3nv W. 18.87 chains to point 15.46 chain, Ne@t of corner to 8eet3on@ 139111, 23 and 24; thence S. 50 25' W. 12.10 chains; thence leering veld boundary line of LOCetlon #204 end continuing S. 50 25' w• 25.13 fast to an Intersection with the above mentioned bomdary Jim carve/ If Newport Bay, bctwaan stations 30 :zed .11 07 said boon" .line, said paint of inter8ect3ona. beery N. 340 48' 3p" W. 96.14 feet from said station .811 thence following along the surveyed boundary line of Newport Bey w. 340 48' 300 W. 163.28 foot to Station #80; thence N. 100 45' W. 564.45 feet to station #79; tbowe N. 220 55' N. 342.28 feet to Stntlon #78; ,thence N. 320 32' 15" W. 670.40 feet to station #77; thence N. 00 30' W. 610.76 feet to station #76; thence N. 27. 47' 45" t. 501.82 feet to Station #75; ,thence N. 21" 34' 1. 508.60 feet to Station #74; i thence W. 59 06' t, 168.65 feet to station #73; PAGE 5 -5 thence N. 00 20' 45' r- 562.10 feettn station 872; tbenoeS. 160 24' E, 514.82 feet to station #71; thence N. 420 16' E. 152.65 feet to station 870; thence 1. 580 07' 300 E. 379.90 feet to station p69 thence V. 680 14' 30' E. 572.15 feet to station i68; thence A. 830 14' E. 300.35 feet to Station p67; thence N. 870 29' E. 1096.80 feet to station 866; thence S. 750 58' 30• E. 1010.44 feet to station ►65; thence S. 466 15' 300 E. 1457.44 fee: to station +64; thence S. 36. 52.' 30' E. 1183.35 feet to station #63; thence S. 740 181 ■. 106.07 feet to station 462; thenoe N. .570 10' 30. 1. 700.55 feet to station f61 thence 1. 410 57' 30' W. 570.00 feet to station 860; thenoe S. 83. 54' 1. 845,90 feet to station #59;. thence S. 460 58' N. 899.65 .feet to station 158; thence 9. 370 03' 1. 112.06 feet to Station 457; themes S. 220 15' 30. W. 107.65 feet to station #56 tbenos S. 20 37' 45' E. 546.99 feet to station A55; thence S. 180 09' 30° 1. 172.90 feetao Station l54; thence S. 430 26' W. 613.58 feet to station #53; thence s. .456 46' W. 692.20 feet to station /52; thence S. 610 05' W. 176.73 feet to Station }51; thence S. 550 37' W. 73.38 feet to station $50; thenoe s. 200 40' W. 1208.56 feet to station f49; thence S. 230 14' 30' E. 538-36 feet to the point of beginning. Nseariptio 0.1. TEE op B. And it is hereby Adjudged that the defendant is the .owner and bolder of the legal title afsaid last described tidelands by virtue of State. Tide Land patent issued by the State of California to Its predecessor, James Irvine; Subject, however, to the publio easement and rights of fishery and navigation, Slob said publio easement and rights and all interest and title in sold lands necessary to the support thereof are held and owned by the plaintiff herein by virtue of said grant from the State. of California to said plaintiff, in trust for the uses and purposes and upon the express trusts eat out in the said Granting Act of the County of Orange bereimbuve referred to. It is further AWUDGID AND DECREED that the line bereinabove first set forth describing the tide lands of said Newport Say Northerly of the corporate limits of Newport Beaob is except 'here the sgae crosses the sold Bay the line of ordinary high tide of said Bay., and is the boundary between the upland belonging to the defendant herein and the Bay of Import Beach where said upland is .contiguous to said Bay; And it 10 further ADJUDGED AND DIOSEED that the defendant is the owner of an Island situ& hwithin the laid Bay of Newport described as 'Lot 1, of Bee 23, T. 6 S., R. 10 1., S. B. A N., Ise per official map of Government Survey of Bald Townabip, containing 17.17 acres of land. Done in open Court this 6th day of Nay, 1926. E. J. Narks, Judge ?he foregoing inetruaeat Is a correct copy of the original on file in we office. Attest may 6,. 1926, ((COURT BEAN.)) J. S. Backe, County Clerk and Clerk of the Superior Court in and for the County Of Orange, State of California PAG E 5 -6 pled At ?;D" P.V. may 6, 1926 J, M. Backe, County Clerk eecorded at request of P. Belson. May 6., 1926 at 56 Yin. past. 2 P. M. in Book 651 peg 72 Of Deeds, Orange .County Records, Justine Whitney, County Recorder, Edith 9chaniel, Deputy Verge Trumble. COMPARED Ruby 'Cameron - - o � o - - s PAGE 5-7 CII:11 "1'Isit 3u•1.1 An act declaring portions of the lands granted to the County of Orange by an act entitled "An act granting certain tide- lands end submerged lands of the State of.California to the County of Orange in said State upon certain trusts and co7ditions," approved May 25, 1919., as amended, which have Uccn and which mat/ be hereafter improved, filled, and reclaimed, unavailable and unuscful for navigation, commcrcc, and fisheries, and excluding such portions from use for navigation, MIMIC) lcc, and fis /lcries, and providing that such portions, and other porlions'of the lands granted by said act, nuay be irrevocably alienated and convcticd free of public use and truest by the said county by eschanjing such lands with the owner or owners of uplands contiguous thereto. [Approved by Covernor July R. 1957. Filed with F..IP't SoCrotaff o[ Stato July 10, 1557.3 K ;.I•mIWr 11, 19 +T Vie people of the State of California do enact as follows. SecTtox 1. That portions of the lands heretofore granted to the County of Orange by an act entitled "An act granting certain tidelands and submerged lands of the State of Cali• fornia to the County of Orange in said State upon certain trusts and conditions," approved May 25, 1919, as amended, have been heretofore improved by adapting the same to use for navigation in connection with the plan heretofore adopted and established for tho improvement and developmoni of Now. port Bay in said County of Orange as a harbor, and that in so adapting slid lands to said use portions thereof which lie between the line of mean high tide and the established bulk- head or harbor lines have been filled and reclaimed, and that. such portions of said lands as have been so filled and reclaimed are thereby_ excluded from the public channels and are no longer available or useful or susceptible of being used for navigation, commerce, and fishing, and are no longer in fact tidelands or submerged lands; and that the said portions of said lands which have been heretofore and which arc now so improved, filled, and reclaimed arc hereby declared to bc. free from the public use and trust for navigation, commerce, and fishery. Sec. 2. That in connection with and in aid of the further improvement and development of the said Newport Bay as a harbor, portions of the said Wills heretofore granted to the said county may be hereafter improved by adaptinlm the same to use for navigation, and that in so adapting said .lands to said use portions thereof which lie between the line of m_ can high tide and the established bulkhead or harbor lines may be hereafter filled and reclaimed, and portions of said lands so improved, filled, and reclaimed will be thereby excluded from the public channels and will no longer be available or useful or susceptible of being used for navigation, commerce, and fishin -, and will no longer in fact be tidelands or sub - mcrged lauds; and that such portions of said lands as shall be hereafter so. improved, filled, and reclaimed by or in col nection with the further improvement and development of Statutes of California - 1957 DOCUMENT No.6 ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR EXCHANGE GAGE G -4 said Newport Bay as a harbor shall, when so improved, filled, and reclaimed, be deemed free from the public use and trust for navigation, commerce, and llshe y. Src. 3.. That any and all of said portions of said lands hereinbeforc referred to, which have been or which shall hereafter be improved, filled, and reclaimed, as hercinbefore provided, if and when so improved, filled, and reclaimed, may ba irrevocably alienated and conveyed free of the pnblio uses and trusts in said nets, by the said County of Oramge, with the approval and conou•rence of the State Lands Commission, to the owner or respective owners of the nplands lying con - tignons thereto in exchange for lands of such owner or owners necessary or desirable for the improvement, development and conduct of said harbor npoc,a finding by the Statc'Lands Commission that the lands loented in the area commonly known as Upper Newport 'Bay, which are to be exchanged are no longer nseful for navigation, commerce, and fishing, and that the landq to be received in exchange are at least of'egnal valne thereto. The hinds received by the sooty in exchange shall be used by iho,connty only for purposes of state -%vide interest. Upon any conveyance as herein provided all right, title, and Interest of the State and said Comity of Orange in the land exchanged shall vest in the grantee or grantees thereof. Stattites of California 1957 (page 2) PAGE G -Z 63 -228 GEORGE F. HOLDEN COUNTY COUN. {L C. F. GALLOWAY ROBERT J. SWITZER OFFICE OF THE NAYWA OU P... PIZER E SEYMOUR B. PIZER iHI V.•MpT•HT ADRIAN KUYPER COUNTY COUNSEL SAMUEL C. FOLK RAY MELINE CLAYTON H. PARKER JOHN M. PATTERSON AcR.TANT. COUNTY OF O RAN GE FREDERICK M. BROSIO. JR. SOS HALL OF RECORDS ORUnu SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701. O.C.HAB OR Dc' TN PHONE 547-00 47 Dater d' e. June 10, 1963 RC!. ji To _._:. Kenneth Sampson, Ma nager _ � EngrOrange County Harbor District _ 1901 Wayside Drive Mss Newport Beach, California scey Clark Re: Title to Tidelands in Upper Newport Bay c;mDear Mr. Sampson: F'I' InslrucrfOnl: This opinion is in reply to your letter dated May 28, 1963, in which you asked substantially the following question: Question: Does the County or the City of Newport Beach own those areas of tidelands in Newport Bay which were originally granted to the County, in view Of subsequent annexations covering the entire Bay? In our opinion the title to these tidelands is in the County. Section 34332 of the Government Code reads as follows: "All officers, boards and .persons holding any property in trust for any public use shall convey such property to the city or officer entitled to it." There are no court decisions interpreting this section. Both it and the 1883 statute upon which it is based (Stats. 1883, Chap. 49, Sec. 6) are set forth in chapters on the incorporation of new cities; there is no similar section in the chapters on annexa- tion. TF:e one case interpreting the earlier statute, however, held that it did apply to annexations, and transferred easements for street purposes from the county to the city. Terminal Rail- way v. County Of Alameda, 66 C.A. 77 (1924). Our first reason for the above conclusion is that the tidelands . in question were granted to the county by special statute (Stats. 1919, Chap. 526, P. 1138) which included all tidelands in Newport Bay then outside Of the city limits, simultaneously with a speci- fic grant to the city of tidelands fronting on city- owned property (Stats. 1919, Chap. 4.94, P. 1011). In our opinion, these granting acts, being specific, govern over the general provision of Section 34332. In re Williamson, 43 C. 2d 651 (1954). Furthermore, we 00CUME.NT No.7 LEGAL OPINION ON TIDELANDS OWNERSHIP PAGE& 7 -4 Kenneth Sampson, Manager Orange County Harbor District June 10, 1963 Page 2 63 -229 believe the consistent practice adopted by the Legislature of making specific statutory grants of tidelands to cities and counties is a strong indication that tidelands were not considered or intended to be governed by Section 34332. Our second reason involves the interpretation of Section 34332 re- garding the kinds of property to which it was intended to apply, in the light of a more recent statute. The above cited case, as well as the two Attorney Ge:3aral opinions on the section (19 A.G.O. 1090 41 A.G.O. 69) have all agreed that the section does not apply to all county property: a county hospital, for example, was cited as an obvious exception. The question of what kinds of property are covered is one of legislative intent (19 A.G.O. 109); and a later statute bearing on that question may be considered by the courts in settling it. California Em plo t Stabilization Commission v. Payne, 31 C.2d 210 (194/), The 195 Enabling Act or the Upper Bay tidelands exchange (Chap. 2044) was passed after the two annex- ations which included all of the Upper Bay except the Dunes: No. 30, dated December 28, 19539 and No. 33, dated April 25, 1955. It is inconsistent with the theory that any of the tidelands included in ,the 1919 ge nt to the county had passed to city ownership by such annexations, because Section 3 provides "that any and all of said pportions of said lands" which had been or would be reclaimed, "may be irrevocably alienated and conveyed ... by the said County of Orange....11 The third reason for our conclusion is our belief that, apart from the 1957 Act, Section 34332 is to be interpreted as limited to . lands devoted to public use of a purely local nature, which would not include tidelands in a harbor of such size and importance as this one. The recent Attorney General's opinion cited above 0.'_ A.G.O. 69) held that the section applied to transfer owner- ship of drainage rights of way upon annexation to the City of Milpitas, emphasizing the purely local use there involved. It is true that the Morro Bay decision of tie Attorney General (19 A.G.O. 109) held that the section applied to county tide- lands such as those in question here. Since that decision how - ever, the case of Mallon v. City of Long Beach, 44 C.2d 1949 209 (1955), held that tidelands granted by the State to cities were subject to.a public trust to develop them "for the benefit of the entire State...." In the light of this, and of the later Attorney PAGE. 7- 2 Kenneth Sampson, Manager Orange County Harbor District. June 10, 1963 Page 3 63 -228 General's opinion in the Milpitas question, emphasizing the impor- tance of whether the public use is local or of wider importance, we. believe the Attorney General would hold otherwise in the Morro Bay question if i6 were to be posed today. Yours very truly, I" ig r off- AV,e�/ George We Ho.1dens County Counsel a X_6-ImWil Samuel C. Polk, Deputy SCP %rl PAGE T- 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 166 - Volume 15 COUNCILMEN `\ \ \in\ Yt Index February 26, 1962 A mi z * o. Upper Bay 7. (Agenda Item I -7) The Public Works Director reported Water Main orally regarding plane for the Upper Bay water main loop CA 12 The City Attorney was authorized to prepare an agree- Motion x meat with James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Ayes x x x x x for the design of the extension of a water main northerly Absent x along Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue from Santiago Drive to a point approximately 300' northerly of Del Mar Avenue. Water The Public Works Director was authorized to write a Motion x Service Tr 4444 letter to the State Real Estate Commissioner stating that Ayes x x x x x CA 12 the City will provide water service to Tract No. 4444. Absent x Accept 8. (Agenda Item I -8) A memorandum was presented from Improv, the City Manager and Public Works Director recommend - CA 129 ing the acceptance of improvements in Resubdivision No. 96.(located at the northeasterly corner of Tustin and 22nd Street) and authorization to the City Clark to release the performance bond. The recommendations were accepted, Motion x and the City Clark was authorized to release the perfor- Ayes x x x x x x; manta bond. Absent x R 5557 9. (Agenda Item I -9) Resolution No. 5557, authorizing the Agreement execution of an Agreement with Pacific Electric Railway, Motion x CA 26 Tr 3813 subdivider, for the construction of improvements in Roll Call; Tract No. 3813, was adopted. Ayes x x x x xK Absent x R 5558 0. .(Agenda Item I -10) Resolution No. 5558, authorizing the Agreement execution of an Agreement with Pacific Electric Railway, Motion x CA 26 subdivider, for the construction of improvements. in Roll Call: Ti 4400 Tract No. 4400, was adopted. Ayes .x x x x x Absent x Harbor 1..(Aganda Item I -11) The Harbor lines as proposed for 1* -nes th e Ustrpper Newport Bay by the Orange County Harbor Upper Bay Diict,. dated January 26, 1962, were approved. Motion z CA 70 Ayes X xX xxx i Absent x COMMUNICATIONS - REFERRALS: The following communications, designated 1 through 6, were ordered filed, and the communication. designated 7 was. re- Motion x ferred to the City Manager. . Ayes x x x x x x Metropolis an Absent Issues 1. ( Aganda Item K -1) Letter from California League of CA 55 Cities regarding Resolution and Principles adopted at League's Special Conference on Metropolitan Issues. Assembly Bill 2728 2. (Agenda Item K -2) Copy of letter from Coastal Municipal CA 12 Water District stating that said District has expressed its CA 66 opposition to Assembly Bill No. 2728 as proposed in the 1961 Session of the Legislature, attaching a copy of its ..Resolution of Objection. -- / ATTEST: ' o• Cit Gle •k - Page 166 i DOCUMENT No. 8 HARBOR LINES APPROVAL BY CITY PAGE 8 -{ The Irvine Company 13042 BlIYFORD ROAD • POET OFFICE BOX 37 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE PRBUIDZ" May 20, 1963 Board of Supervisors County of Orange 400 West Eighth Street Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Orange County's urban exploei.on and the corresponding increase in the boating public is generating an ever increasing demand ' -or additional harbors and water oriented recreation facilities. ;e Upper Newport Bay represents one of the last avid certainly thr largest of the undeveloped natural public waterways harbors in Orange County. Although many necessary stepF hav,.. been accomplished in creating a design and solving the legs, entao le - ments to allow the development of the Upper Newport Bay, i� 11 be necessary to find a mutually satisfactory solutimi and resolve the complicated land ownership problems before the bay can be improved to the benefit of all concerned. The present land ownership in the Upper Bay was clarified a--.,u established by two actions: 1. By statute approved May 25, 1919 (Stet. 1919, Chap. 526) the Legislature of the State of California granted to the. County all right, title and interest of the State in anti to all tidelands and submerged lands bordering upon and in Newport Bay in said County of Orange lying outside of the then corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, in trust and for the uses and purposes therein set forth, including the establishment, improvements and conduct of a harbor and the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation. DOCUMENT No.9 LAND EXCHANGE PPOPOSAL PAGE 9-4 Board of Supervisors -2 May 20, 1963 2. By decree of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange dated May 6, 1926, and made and entered in Case No. 20436 entitled "Orange County, California, plaintiff vs. The Irvine Company, a corporation, defendant," said Court described, and quieted the title of the County to, the tidelands and sub- merged lands held by the County pursuant to the Granting Act and lying below the line of ordinary high tide in said Newport Bay, excepting the islands in said bay, and also excepting that portion of said tidelands covered by Tide- land Patent Location No. 204 and in said decree said Court further adjudged and decreed that the boundary of said tidelands and submerged lands described in said de- cree is the line of ordinary high tide of said bay and is the boundary between the contiguous upland belonging to The•Irvine Company and said tidelands and.submerged lands in said bay. According to this ruling title to the uplands, the three islands, and Tideland Patent 204 is vested in The Irvine Company. We are ad- vised by legal counsel that the State of California granted this Tide- land Patent to The Irvine Company subject to an easement to the public for fishing, navigation and commerce. Exhibit 1, submitted herewith, shows the present tidelands, islands and uplands in the Upper Bay. In studying this exhibit it becomes evident that it is not possible to develop adequate channels c -r a satisfactory tidal prism without major changes in the configi. ation of the water and land areas. The Irvine Company Engineering De- partment and the Orange County Harbor District have, after care- ful study, planning and analysis, arrived at an Upper Bay harbor design which will allow the maximum use of the Upper Bay and in- sure an adequate tidal prism. The harbor design already approved by the Harbor Commission and the City Council of Newport Beach setting forth the proposed bulkhead and pierhead lines is shown in Exhibit 2, enclosed. When this bulkhead line is considered with , regard to the present Upper Bay land ownership, it is evident that a major portion of the islands, certain uplands, and a considerable area of Tideland Patent 204 will be dredged away to make a de- sirable channel, and certain portions of the present tidelands and the balance of the Tideland Patent 204 area will be filled, forming land adjacent to the new waterway. PaoE 9 -Z 4] Board of Supervisors -3- May 20, 1963 In order to make possible the development of the Upper Bay by the exchange of islands and uplands for filled County tidelands, Orange County sponsored legislation in 1957 which became Statute '1957, Chapter 2044, the preface of which states: "An act declaring portions of the lands granted to the County of Orange by an act entitled 'An act granting certain tidelands and submerged lands of the State of California to the County of Orange in said State upon certain trusts and conditions,' approved May 25, 1919, as amended, which have been and which may be here- after improved, filled, and reclaimed, unavailable and unuseful for navigation, commerce, and fisheries, and excluding such portions from use for navigation, com- merce, and fisheries, and providing that such portions, and other portions of the lands granted by said a:.:, may be irrevocably alienated and conveyed free of puj,ic use and trust by the said county by exchanging such lands with the owner or owners of uplands contiguous thereto." Exchanges under this act must have the concurrence of the California State Lands Commission. In analyzing Exhibit 2, and shown in color in Exhibit 3 attached, the areas of Irvine Company lands which must be removed to make pos- sible the waterway (shown in crosshatched grey and blue) total 143. 7 acres. The tideland areas which would be filled (shown in orange) total 123.1 acres. The area over which the Tideland Patent easement would apply for the water area (shown in crosshatched yello k and blue) totals 130. 4 acres and the Tideland Patent area which U!ould be filled (shown in brown) totals 115.1 acres, All acreages shown on the enclosures are planimeter figures subject to + 51/6 change; the exact acreages will have to be determined by survey. For many years the Orange County Harbor District's and The Irvine Company's planning have proposed a regional park in the upper end of the bay and a community park located in the vicinity of 23rd Street. In the past, several attempts have been made to formulate an agreement which would provide a means for exchange of these lands. In each case, difficulties arose in attempting to piecemeal the proposed PAGE 9-5 R Board of Supervisors -4- May 20, 1963 exchange. The Irvine Company has studied the situation carefully and would like to propose to the County of Orange a method of re- solving the necessary land exchanges. If the conditions and pro - cedures outlined herein are resolved and agreed upon it is proposed (a) that The Irvine Company will convey to the County of Orange all of the upland area (shown as crosshatched.grey and blue) totaling 143. 7 acres shown on Exhibit 3, plus a 116 acre park which would have a water frontage of 13, 000 lineal feet at the northerly end of the Upper Bay, plus a 33 acre park at 23rd Street having a water frontage of 2000 lineal feet as shown (in green) on Exhibit 4, making a total of 292. 7 acres. This would follow the proposed immediate program of the Master Plan of Regional Parks under consideration by your Board for adoption; the 150 acres of park and the approxi- mate 418 acres of water area would provide a total facility of 568 acres; and (b) in return, the County will deed the filled tidelands area shown (in orange) on said Exhibit 3, consisting of 114.1 acres, to The Irvine Company, and will release to the Company, free of the public rights for fishing, navigation and commerce, the remain- ing portions of said patented tidelands not included in the two park sites and water areas of approximately 37. 7 acres (shown in Ex- hibit 4, crosshatched brown), making a total of 151. 8 acres. In the opinion of a competent appraiser, the net value of the exchange of the lands involved is definitely in favor of the County of Orange. We realize that The Irvine Company is giving up title to 292. 7 acres in return for only 151. 8 acres; however, The Irvine Company feels that the long planned parks in the Upper Bay are important to the public and wishes to insure their becoming a reality, as well as a well designed waterway. After your Board has reviewed this proposal and upon its accept- ance we suggest the following procedure: 1. An informal meeting of the parties involved with the State Lands Commission to determine their concurrence in the plan for exchange. 2. The preparation of an agreement between The Irvine Company and the County of Orange providing for the proposed exchange. 3. A formal presentation to the State Lands Commission for its approval of the proposed exchange. PAG E 9 -4 Board of Supervisors -5- May 20, 1963 4. Appropriate joint action by the County of Orange and The Irvine Company for presentation to the State Supreme Court for its decision on the question of the legality of the agreement as developed in Step 2 above. If a favorable ruling is obtained from the State Supreme Court the following action would be taken: 1. The signing of the agreement by the parties. 2. Adoption of the harbor lines by the Orange County Harbor District. 3. Submission of the harbor lines to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for approval under Section 404, Title 33 of the United States Code. Mr. W. R. Mason, Administrative Engineer, has been designated and authorized to proceed with representatives of your Board to carry out the details of this letter. In summary, under the above proposal, the County of Orange would have 420 acres of waterway, and three water oriented parks totaling 209 acres which would have a water frontage of 19, 240 lineal feet. This compares to the present County ownership of 310 acres of wat- erway, the County Dunes Park consisting of 60 acres having a water frontage of 4260 lineal feet. The Irvine Company trusts that your Board will give serious consi- deration to the above proposal as a solution to the development of the public waterway in Upper,Newport Bay. Very ^yours, Charles S. Thomas A PAGE 9 -5 Project: Upper Newport Bay Project No: G. A. 1008 AUGUST 6, 1963 SEE LANo PARCEL EymtemT A APpamom I: By: Burleigh 0. Burshem, M. A. I. Assistant Chief Right of Way Agent DOCUMENT No 40 LAND VALUATION ANALYSIS (PLAN A) PAGE 10 -1 A N A L Y S I S O F P R 0 P 0 8 E D L A N D E X C H A N G E AUGUST 6, 1963 SEE LANo PARCEL EymtemT A APpamom I: By: Burleigh 0. Burshem, M. A. I. Assistant Chief Right of Way Agent DOCUMENT No 40 LAND VALUATION ANALYSIS (PLAN A) PAGE 10 -1 COUNTY OF ORANGE M E M 0 RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT DATE August 6, 1963 TO Stanley E; Krause, Chief Right of Way Agent FROM Burleigh 0. Burshem, Valuation Division SUBJECT MATTER UPPER NEWPORT BAY, G. A. 1008 In accordance with the Minute Order Request from the Board of Supervisors, we furnish the .following information and recommendations regarding the valuation of lands proposed to be traded between the Irvine Ranch Company and the County of Orange. The basic problem is to estimate the current value of all lands to be granted by the Irvine Company to the County and, secondly, estimate the current market value of lands to be granted by the County to the Irvine Company. These estimates involve a number of assumptions and are based on a review of a memorandum by Goode & Goode to William Masan of the Irvine Company dated April 18,. 1963, and the Report on the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Proposal prepared by the Orange County Harbor Department. The copies of these documents are included in the Addenda. In addition, the Land Parcel Exhibit for Proposed Land Exchange Upper Newport Bay, U1O.2 -1, prepared by the Harbor Department and setting forth the planimetered areas of the various parcels involved in the exchange was reviewed in detail. Valuation was based on the assumptions to be discussed later and a detailed investigation of other water front and marina developments (including the Huntington Harbor Development and Key's Marina) and a general knowledge of land values on Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Lido Island. The principal assumptions which were made are as follows: 1. The islands and upland areas (to the adjudicated line) are owned in fee by the Irvine Company; however, Parcels 10, 12, 13, and 14, as shown on the above- referred- to exhibit, may be subject to some PAGE 40 -2 COUNTY OF ORANGE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT M E M DATE 8-6 -63 TO Stanley E. Krause FROM Burleigh 0. Burshem SUBJECT MATTER UPPER NEWPORT BAY, G. A. 1008 -2- prescriptive rights of the public due to probable continued navigation over some portions of these parcels during a long period of time. 2. County tidelands can be dredged by the County or by the Irvine Company (with the County's permission) in order to accommodate and enhance the public easement. 3. The County tidelands can be filled by the County and used for any purpose providing the project accommodates the public easement and does not impair navigational access to Irvine Company fee lands now enjoying same. 4. Under a design prepared to enhance navigation, the Irvine Company can at its own expense and with permission of the County dredge but not fill County tidelands; material may at the County's option be exported by the Irvine Company and placed upon fee lands. 5. County tidelands can be developed by the County as land and water areas incorporating .such land uses as are permitted in the Dunes lease, whether operated or leased by the County. 6. County tidelands can be rented for boat moorings, including the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, rents to be collected by the County. 7. Patent lands are subject to a public easement. This easement is sufficient to allow development of all of the patent lands to water or public aquatic park purposes by the County. PAGE iO -3 COUNTY OF ORANGE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT �v U DATE 8 -6 -63 TO Stanley E. Krause FROM Burleigh 0. Burshem SUBJECT MATTER UPPER NEWPORT BAY, G. A. 1008 - 3 - 8. The Irvine Company has no rights to develop land uses comparable with those involved in the Dunes lease. The patent lands of the Irvine Company are subject to an easement, which is tantamount to nullifying any surface use of the land by the Irvine Company other than for navigational purposes. In other words, the ownership rights of the patent lands by the Irvine Company are similar to the underlying fee ownership of a property owner in a dedicated street. 9. The public easement held and controlled by the County and State Lands Commission is such as to encompass most of the fee simple rights of ownership subject only to the underlying rights of the Irvine Company. 10. The Irvine Company, therefore, does not, in essence, have the same rights to develop and collect rents in the patent areas which the County has in the tideland areas. In fact, it is the County w1ho has the same rights to develop and collect rents in the Irvine Company patent areas as they do in the County owned tideland areas. 11. Lands to be received by the Irvine Company as a result of the proposed trades are assumed to involve fee simple title permitting normal development_ to highest and best use. 12. Lands to be received by the County as a result of the trades are assumed to be in fee simple where located landward of the c417khead line and are acquired in fee s:inple in connection with the development in the manner proposed where located seaward of the bulkhead line. PAGE t0 -4 COUNTY OF ORANGE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT RA EE m DATE 8 -6 -63 TO Stanley E. Krause FROM Burleigh 0. Burshem SUBJECT MATTER UPPER NEWPORT BAY, G. A. 1008 - 4 - The Irvine Company is to grant deed all interests in said lands without restriction. 13. Lands to be received by the Irvine Comany will have an elevation estimated at +1'. 14. Vehicular access to Parcels 11, 12, and 13, as shown on the above- described exhibit (the submerged islands), does not now exist. The Irvine Company has no easement rights to bridge County owned tidelands in these areas; however, it is assumed that suoject to approval of bridging plans by the County such easements could be obtained. For comparison purposes the above assumptions have been set up to coincide with the list of assumptions presented in Mr. Goode's memorandum; however, it should be noted that they differ considerably in several instances. As a result of our cursory investigation, as time has allowed, it is our opinion that the proposed exchange of land between .the Irvine Company and the County is equitable and that considering only the lands involved in the exchange there is an estimated advantage to the County of 1.6 million dollars. A detailed breakdown of this estimate is included herewith as Exhibit I. The results of a final valuation analysis of.the proposed transaction can vary greatly depending on the assumptions upon which the evaluation is based. It is our opinion that the assumptions used for the above analysis would generally favor the County of Orange in instances where there was considerable doubt. We believe, therefore, that the valuation advantage of 1.6 million indicated herein would tend to indicate a minimum amount within the range of reasonable probability. PAGE 4O -5 COUNTY OF ORANGE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT M E M 0 DATE 8 -6 -63 TO . Stanley E. _Krause FROM Burleigh 0. Burshem SUBJECT MATTER UPPER NEWPORT BAY, G. A. 1008 - 5 - This does not mean, however, that the proposed trade is not a favorable one for the Irvine Company. The consummation of the proposed transaction allowing the development of the Upper Newport Bay will benefit Irvine Company lands by many millions of dollars. A number of maps and other data used in this estimate have been retained in our file and are available for inspection. Burleig Burs em, M. A. Assistant Chief Right of Way Agent BOB:MH (PAGE 10-6 EXHIBIT I ESTIMATED VALUE OF ORANGE COUNTY AND IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTIES TO BE EXCHANGED IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY Total $797279300 Comparison: Irvine Ownership = Codnty Ownership Estimated Advantage to County 19 County Ownership 98.7 Irvine Ownership arcel Price 19.8 199800 Parcel Price 34.0 349000 No. Per Acre Area Total No. Per Acre Area Total 36 259000 57.1 1,427,500 20 $1009000 .3 $ 309000 10 $599000 29.9 $197649100 21 609000 14.9 8949000 11 649000 44.7 29860,800 22 65,000 24.2 195739000 12 549000 20.9 191289600 23 60,000 57.2 394329000 13 49,000 17.3 8479700 24 50,000 10.2 510,000 14 31,000 2.3 719300 26 35,000 1.3 45,500 15 240000 7.1 170',400 28 34,000 19.9 676,600 16 24,000 20.8 499,200 29 242000 7.3 175,200 17 1,000 5 -.5 52500 32 340000 11.5 391,000 18 1,000 25.2 25,200 Total $797279300 Comparison: Irvine Ownership = Codnty Ownership Estimated Advantage to County 19 1,000 98.7 98,700 30 19000 19.8 199800 31 19000 34.0 349000 33 19000 22.5 229500 35 309000 12.4 3729000 36 259000 57.1 1,427,500 $9,347,300 $9,347,300 $7,727,300 $1,6209000 SEE LANc> PARCEL EXHIBIT A APPENDIX ZE PA GF- 10777 � a ESTIMATEO VALUE OF ORANGE COUNTY ANO IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTIES TO BE EXCHANGEO IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY REVISED EXHIBIT I OF RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE REPORT, AUGUST 6, 1963. CHANGED TO SHOW VALUES FOR PLAN B. COUNTY OWNERSHIP IRVINE OWNERSHIP PARCEL PRICE PARCEL PRICE NO.. PER ACRE AREA TOTAL NO. PER ACRE AREA TOTAL 20 $100,000 .3 $ 30,000 10 $59,000 29.9 $1,764,100 21 60,000 14.9 694,000 11 64,000 44.7 2,860,800 22 65,000 24.2 1,573,000 12 54,000 20:9 1,128,600 23 60,000 57.2 3,432,000 13 49,000 17.3 847,700 24 50,000 10.2 510,000 14 31,000 2.3 71,300 25 60,000 0.8 48,000 15 24,000 7.1 170,400 26 35,000 1.3 45,500 16 24,000 20.8 499,200 28 34,000 19.9 676,600 17 1,000 5.5 5,500 29 24,000 7.3 175,200 18 1,000 25.2 25,200 38 34,000 4.9 166,600 19 1,000 98.7 98,700 30 1,000 19.8 19,800 31 1,000 34.0 34,000 32 1,000 11.5 1.1,500 33 1,000 17.6 17,600 35 30,000 12.4 372,000 36 25,000 57.1 1,427,500 TOTAL $7,550,900 $9,353,900 COMPARISON: IRVINE OWNERSHIP = $90353,900 COUNTY OWNERSHIP = $7,550,900 "SEE. LAND PARCEL EXH11j\T B ESTIMATED ADVANTAGE TO COUNTY = $1,803,000-* A DPENOIX lE DOGVMEIJT No 11 ESTIMATED VALUE OF PPOPERTIES PLAN B) PAGE: 4 March 4, 1964 Project No: G. A. 1008 Project: Upper Newport Bay ANALYSIS OF REVISED LAND EXCHANGE PROPOSAL UPPER NEWPORT DAY Date of Valuation: August 6, 1963 SEE. L.At4o PARCEL. E%v4%% T C APPENOIx = By: Joseph A. Mueller, N.A.I. r Assistant Chief Right of Way Agent DOCUMENT No. 42 LAND VALUATION ANALYSIS ( PLAN C) PAGE {2-f we O F MGE RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT 400 WEST EIOHTH STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 93701 TELEPHONE, 547 -0547 AREA CODE 714 March 4, 1964 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Courthouse Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: STANLEY E. KRAUSE CHItr MIGHT OI WAY ASLHt GEORGE H. COgMACK MAHAGCMENT DIVISION JOSEPH A. MUELLER VALUATION DIVI910H JOSEPH A. HENNESSEY ACOUI.ITIOH DIVISION Refer to: Project No: G. A. 1008 Project: Upper Newport Bay (Revised Land Exchange Proposal) Herewith is a valuation summary entitled "Revised Exhibit I" which indicates our analysis of the Revised Land Exchange Proposal between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company in connection with the development of the Upper Newport Bay Area. The "Revised Exhibit I" conforms to the revised Land Parcel Exhibit (#U10.2 -2) which was furnished to this department by the Orange County Harbor District on March 4, 1964. This report is a supplement to our original report dated August 6, 1963, covering the original land exchange proposal. This revised analysis is based on the same assumptions, conditions and valuation premises that are set forth in detail in our orig- inal report dated August 6, 1963. The revisions proposed in the land exchange do not appear to have.chaned the overall proposed trade to any proportion that would alter our conclusions regard- ing the equitability of the proposed exchange. The summation of the detailed breakdown of our estimates-of the value of the various parcels of land to be exchanged between The Irvine Company and the County indicates that the Revised Land Exchange Proposal would result in an estimated advantage to the County of $3,250,000. Due to changes in the proposed exchange, certain of the parcels indicated on the original land parcel exhibit map have now been divided into two or more parcels. For simplicity PA,G E {2 -2 Honorable Board of Supervisors -2- G. A. 100E purposes all such revised parcels have been assigned the average unit value as indicated in the original report, since a detailed breakdown of the various areas would result in only negligible differences in the valuation of the.various parcels. A number of maps and other, >data used in preparation of this revised estimate.have been retained in our files and are avail- able for inspection. SEK /t P truly Y T/ KRAUSE GHT OF WAY AGENT OF ORANGE. PAGE A2 -3 March 4, 1964 REVISED EXHIBIT I ESTIMATED VALUE OF ORANGE COUNTY AND IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTIES TO BE EXCHANGED IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY Date of Values August 6, 1963 County Ownership Irvine Ownership arce I lJr2.ce Farcei krice No. Per Acre Area Total No. Per Acre Area Total 127 $1009000 0.3 $ 30,000 101 $59,000 29.9 $13,764,100 128 652000 25.2 1,638,000 102 64,000 44.7 2,8602800 129 502000 2.3 115,000 103 54,000 20.9 10128,600 130 35,000 1.3 452500 104 49,000 17.3 847,700 131 35,000 0.8 28,000 105 31,000 2.3 71,300 132 60,000 26.6 1,596,000 106 24,000 7.1 170,400 133 60,000 0.2 12,000 107 24,000 20.8 4990200 134 60,000 26.3 1,578,000 108 1,000 19.8 19,800 135 609000 14.9 8943000 109 12000 32.6 32,600 136 349000 19.9 676,600 110 12000 2.0 2,000 137 24,000 7.3 175,200 111 12000 5.5 5,500 138 34,000 32.0 190889000 112 1,000 25.2 25,200 113 11000 98.7 98,700 114 35,000 59.0 2,065,000. 115 25,000 60.6 1,515,000 116 60,000 0.4 24,000 TOTALS $798769300 $113,129,900 COMPARISON: Irvine Ownership = $112129,900 County Ownership = 7,876,300 Estimated Advantage to County = $ 3,253,600 + PAGE .SEE LAND PARCEL. EXHIBIT G APPENDIX '�T-- 12 -4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA City Hail 3300 W. Newport. Blvd. 673 -2110 March 10, 1964 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen, The City Council of Newport Beach has given further study to the proposed trade of land between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company and has worked with the Harbor Department staff and The Irvine Company concerning the requirements of the City of Newport Beach in Upper Newport. .Bay. This is in accord with the resolution of your Board of December 18, 1963. The City Council continues to have reservations about the trade because of the transfer of- tidelands to private ownership. However„ this is a question for the Board of Supervisors itself to decides Parcels Nos. 11.0, 114„ 116, 118, and 120, shown on the drawing entitled Land Parcel Exhibit for Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan, March, 1964 - U 1002 -2, are minimum City requirements. It is essential that the control, development,. administration and use of these five parcels be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. The details to accomplish this may be worked out as the proposed trade is processed. With public access to the Bay provided at these addi- tional locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served, Very truly yours, M� zll aA� Charles E. Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach #SEE LAND PARCEL EXHIBIT- C AppmwoiX DOCUMENT No. 13 .CITY'S REPORT ON PLAN C PAGE 13 -1 March It, 1964 10:00 A.M. CONFERENCE NOTES A conference was held in the Harbor Manager's Office, Orange County Harbor District, to discuss a cooperative plan for dredging the main channels for Upper Newport Bay. In attendance: Mr. William R. Mason, Vice President, The Irvine Co. Mr. Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager Mr. James E. Ballinger, Harbor Engineer It was agreed that the following cooperative dredging plan* should be pre- sented to both The Irvine Company and the County of Orange as part of the Land Exchange Plan: 1. The County will be responsible for filling the public tidelands above the line of mean high tide as a statutory requirement for making the exchange. The fill material will be dredged from the future main channels, as shown on the Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit. 2. The Irvine Company will dredge from the future main channels the material required for filling their waterfront lands to a height required for development. 3. Main channel areas that can be excavated with land based equip- ment will be offered to the State Division of Highways, or other agencies desiring fill material. Any monies received for the sale of this material shall be credited to the County. it. The County will be responsible for dredging from the main channel areas the material required for filling the regional park area at the northerly end of the Bay. *See Dredging and Land Fill Exhibit, March 1964- Appendix E, DOCUMENT No. 1.4 COOPERATIVE DREDGING PLAN PAae 44-1 5. The main channel dredging, in addition to that referred to in Items 1 thru 4. will be shared on a 50150 basis between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company. 6. The Irvine Company will provide disposal areas within two miles of the dredge site for the excess materials removed from the public waterways. PAGE 44-T y N W V D Z W d d is See file for Appendices I - VIII 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 11 �1 �A. COUNCIL: /e -9 -43 i 1Z -14 - 3 �I�� oN.. j oisPCSiriar� : no�uua� FILE: S*pf-RlL afy UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEVELOPMENT A REPORT ON THE IRVINE COMPANY LAND EXCHANGE PROPOSAL PREPARED FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 4, 1963 PREPARED BY: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER I The City Council has instructed the City Manager to prepare in- ' formation relative to the proposal by The Irvine Company to the Orange County Board of Supervisors for a land exchange in and adjacent to Upper Newport Bay and to make such comments as he and his staff deem 1 appropriate. On May 20, 1963, Mr. Charles Thomas, President of The Irvine ' Company, by letter proposed a land exchange designed to move forward the development of Upper Newport Bay. 1 In accordance with instructions from the Board, the Orange County Harbor Commission on August 27, 1963, submitted a report of the studies and the recommended action to be taken regarding the Land Exchange Plan. Also, in accordance with instructions from the Board, the County ' Right of Way Agent on August 20, 1963, submitted an analysis of the Land Exchange Plan with recommendations regarding valuations. Since the Board of Supervisors has announced its intention to ' consider The Irvine Company proposal on December 18, 1963, and has in j vited the City of Newport Beach to comment, it is recommended that the City review the facts, determine its position, and prepare a presentat- ion for submission to the Board at that date. ' Included in the Appendix to this report is a listing of signifi- cant documents and reports which bear on the proposed plan. Copies of most of the material is on file in the Office of the City Manager. ' ESTABLISHMENT OF HARBOR LINES The general configuration of Upper Newport Bay has been studied and discussed for many years. R. L. Patterson's study in 1950 proposed I 1 1 1 1 1 1 a main channel based on a study of the tidal prism, the desirability of eliminating scouring action along the channel slopes and provision for navigation of both sailing and power crafts. The channel proposed was essentially the same as that studied and approved by the Orange County Harbor Commission on January 26, 1962, and by the Newport Beach City Council on February 26, 1962. Major differences are the rowing course and the water skiing area at the head of the bay. Although at this point ownership is not at question, it must be remembered that the establishment of Harbor Lines defines the channel- ward limit to which solid fill structures may be built. It should also be noted that the Harbor Lines as approved are substantially channel- ward of the existing cliffs rimming the Upper Bay. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DEVELOPMENT There are three identifiable aspects to the problem of the Upper Bay which are as follows: A. Establishment of Harbor Lines B. Ownership of abutting property C. Land Use of abutting property Keeping in mind these three aspects, the following four alternat- ives were explored. I. Take no action whatsoever on the basis that this is a County matter outside the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. II. Approve the Orange County Harbor Commission recommendat- ion of The Irvine Company proposal and urge its acceptance by the Board of Supervisors. III. Approve the proposal with modifications as to land owner- ship and use of properties. IV. Recommend the acquisition by the public agency of the swamp and overflow lands within the Harbor Lines. -2- ' Essentially The Irvine Company proposes a land exchange which would ' convey a total of 292.7 acres to the County of Orange DISCUSSION ' acres conveyed from the County to The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company ALTERNATIVE I. be granted by the ' This alternative presupposes no official interest by the City in Irvine Company the development of the Upper Bay on the basis that the City has no legal ' placed upon fee The Irvine Company in order to accommodate and enhance the intent and is content to accept whatever decision the Board of Supervisors ' may make. This is hardly a reasonable alternative. ALTERNATIVE II. ' Essentially The Irvine Company proposes a land exchange which would ' convey a total of 292.7 acres to the County of Orange in return for 151.8 ' acres conveyed from the County to The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company has estimates of the current market value of lands to be granted by the ' Company to the County and the lands to be granted by the County to the ' Company. The estimates are based on thirteen principal assumptions, designed so as as follows: development of ' (1) The islands and upland areas (to the ajudicated line) are owned in fee by The Irvine Company. (6) The County tide (4) The County tide lands can be dredged, but not filled, by The ing the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, Irvine Company (2) The County tide lands can be dredged by either the County or placed upon fee The Irvine Company in order to accommodate and enhance the so as to enhance Public easement. (3) The County tide lands can be filled by the County to accommo- ' date the public easement, providing the fill is located and designed so as not to unreasonably impair the development of Irvine Company fee lands. ' ' (6) The County tide (4) The County tide lands can be dredged, but not filled, by The ing the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, Irvine Company at its own expense, material to be exported or the County. placed upon fee lands. This assumes design of dredged areas ' so as to enhance navigation. ' (5) The County tide lands can be developed by the County as land and water areas incorporating such land usages as are per- mitted in the Dunes lease, whether operated or leased by the ' County. (6) The County tide lands can be rented for boat moorings, includ- ing the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, rents to be collected by the County. -3- ' (7) The patent lands are subject to the same public easement as are the County owned tide lands. ' (8) The patent lands can be dredged and /or filled to accommodate the public easement, potentially incorporating, but not exceed- ing, the spectrum of land usages permitted in the Dunes lease. ' The rental income from development thus created would accrue to The Irvine Company. Such rental income would have to derive from rates competitive with similar developments. ' (9) In the event The Irvine Company neglected to develop the patent I(13)The lands to be received by The Irvine Company will have an elevation estimated at +1 inch. Although estimates have not been detailed, the Irvine Company states that the dollar benefit to the County in the land exchange is between three and five million dollars. ' The County Right of Way Agent in his report to the Board of Super- visors has estimated value of properties to be exchanged based on four- ' teen principal assumptions, as follows: (for comparison purposes the ' assumptions have been set up to coincide with those presented by The Irvine Company. It is noted that they differ considerably in some instances.) -4- lands within a reasonable time, the County could then proceed to develop within the limits of the public easement, under which t condition all monetary proceeds would accrue to the County. This is neither probable nor realistic, but must be considered ' as a factor related to the phasing of development. (10) The Irvine Company has in essence the same rights to develop and collect rents within the patent areas which the County has ' in the tide lands area. tl P The lands to be received by The Irvine Company as a result of ' the proposed trades are assumed to involve fee title permitting normal development to highest and best use. (12)The lands to be received by the County as a result of the trades are assumed to be in fee where located landward of the bulkhead line, and subject to public easement where located seaward of ' the bulkhead line. I(13)The lands to be received by The Irvine Company will have an elevation estimated at +1 inch. Although estimates have not been detailed, the Irvine Company states that the dollar benefit to the County in the land exchange is between three and five million dollars. ' The County Right of Way Agent in his report to the Board of Super- visors has estimated value of properties to be exchanged based on four- ' teen principal assumptions, as follows: (for comparison purposes the ' assumptions have been set up to coincide with those presented by The Irvine Company. It is noted that they differ considerably in some instances.) -4- 1 ' (1) The islands and upland areas (to the adjudicated line) are owned in fee by the Irvine Company; however, Parcels 10, 12, 13, and 14, as shown on the above - referred to exhibit, may ' be subject to some prescriptive rights of the public due to probable continued navigation over some portions of these parcels during a long period of time. ' (2) County tidelands can be dredged by the County or by The Irvine Company (with the County's permission) in order to accommodate ' and enhance the public easement. (3) The County tidelands can be filled by the County and used for any purpose providing the project accommodates the public ease- ' ment and does not impair navigational access to Irvine Company fee lands now enjoying same. ' (4) Under a design prepared to enhance navigation, The Irvine Com- pany can at its own expense and with permission of the County dredge but not fill County tidelands; material may at the ' County's option be exported by the Irvine Company and placed upon fee lands. ' (5) County tidelands can be developed by the County as land and water areas incorporating such land uses as are permitted in ' the Dunes lease, whether operated or leased by the County. (6) County tidelands can be rented for boat moorings, including the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, rents to be ' collected by the County. (7) Patent lands are subject to a public easement. This easement ' is sufficient to allow development of all of the patent lands to water or public aquatic park purposes by the County. ' (8) The Irvine Company has no rights to develop land uses compar- able with those involved in the Dunes lease. The patent lands ' of the Irvine Company are subject to an easement which is tantamount to nullifying any surface use of the land by the Irvine Company other than for navigational purposes. In ' other words, the ownership rights of the patent lands by the Irvine Company are similar to the underlying fee ownership of a property owner in a dedicated street. (9) The public easement held and controlled by the County and State Lands Commission is such as to encompass most of the ' fee simple rights of ownership subject only to the underlying rights of The Irvine Company. ' (10) The Irvine Company, therefore, does not, in essence, have the same rights to develop and collect rents in the patent areas which the County has in the tideland areas. In fact, it is the County who has the same rights to develop and collect rents in the Irvine Company patent areas as they do in the County -5- I 1 1 1 1 J 11 1 1 G 1 1 owned tideland areas. (11) Lands to be received by The Irvine Company as a result of the proposed trades are assumed to involve fee simple title permitting normal development to highest and best use. (12) Lands to be received by the County as a result of the trades are assumed to be in fee simple where located landward of the bulkhead line and are acquired in fee simple in connection with the development in the manner proposed where located seaward of the bulkhead line. The Irvine Company is to grant deed all interests in said lands without restriction. (13) Lands to be received by The Irvine Company will have an elevation estimated at +111. (14) Vehicular access to Parcels 11, 12, and 13, as shown on the above - described exhibit (the submerged islands), does not now exist. The Irvine Company has no easement rights to bridge County owned tidelands in these areas; however, it is assumed that subject to approval of bridging plans by the County such easements could be obtained. Exhibit I in the Appendix gives the County Right of Way Agent's estimate of value of lands proposed to be exchanged. Parcel numbers may be identified on the map in the Appendix. The estimate of dollar benefit to the County is $1,620,000. While the two sets of assumptions are similar, they are dia- - metrically opposed in assumptions No. 8 and 10, with the Irvine Company asserting rights to develop the patent lands "within the spectrum of land usages permitted in the Newport Dunes lease" and to profit from such development. The County Right of Way Agent, on the other hand, asserts that The Irvine Company patent lands are "subject to an easement which is tantamount to nullifying any surface use of the land other than for navigational purposes." As a result, he has assigned a value of only $1,000 per acre to Irvine Company patent lands. Here- in is the difference between the two valuations. -6- I ' Both the Irvine Company and the County Right of Way Agent have considered current market value of the lands to be exchanged, ' but have made no estimate of the increased value of surrounding pro- ' perties resulting from such a land exchange. The County Right of Way Agent comments on this in his report when he says, "the results of ' a final valuation analysis of the proposed transaction can vary ' greatly depending on the assumptions upon which the evaluation is based. It is our opinion that the assumptions used for the above ' analysis would generally favor the County of Orange in instances ' where there was considerable doubt. We believe, therefore, that the valuation advantage of 1.6 million indicated herein would tend to ' indicate a minimum amount within the range of reasonable probability. ' This does not mean, however, that the proposed trade is not a favor- able one for The Irvine Company. The consummation of the. proposed ' transaction allowing the development of the Upper Newport Bay will ' benefit Irvine Company lands by many millions of dollars." In ad- dition, neither appraisal placed any value on the relinquishment of rights of commerce on the tidelands that fall within the Harbor ' Lines. The 1919 Tideland Grant as amended in 1929 provided that the lands could be used for commerce, navigation and fishing. 1 Much of the area to be received by the County in the proposed exchange will be devoted to channel development which is necessary for proper public use of the Upper Bay, but such channel development ' is equally necessary for the highest and best use of private pro- ' perty which would result from the exchange. A look at the attached map will disclose the waterfront area which after the exchange could -7- I i be developed privately. Under this plan access to the waters of the bay is denied to the public on both ,sides of the bay from Newport Dunes ' northerly to the proposed public park areas. In this connection, The Irvine Company has expressed a willingness to work out a policy with ' the City which would meet the waterfront land use needs of the area in addition to the beach and regional park proposed as a part of the trade. Such uses include public beaches, marine repair facilities, small boat ' launching ramps, dry storage, etc. The City's legal control over such ' uses, however, would be limited to zoning and subdivision regulations. ALTERNATIVE III. Since the possibilities of modifications of the Land Exchange ' - Proposal are almost limitless, no effort has been made to discuss this alternative. If the Council looks favorably on this alternative in con- ' trast to No. 1, 2 or 4, it is suggested that the staff develop more ' specific proposals for Council review. ALTERNATIVE IV. ' The areas and values of the private lands within the proposed ' Harbor Lines as estimated by the County Right of Way Agent, are as follows: 1 Area Value Swamp and Overflow Lands 112.8 acres $7,601,200 Uplands 30.2 of 740,900 Tidelands Patent 129.4 it 129,400 Totals 272.4 acres $8,471,500 ' The resultant frontages of publicly and privately owned lands would be approximately as follows: (before land exchange) Public Private Tidelands 14,700, ' Tidelands Patent 16,800' Dunes 2,160' Uplands 15,100' ' Swamp and Overflow Lands 1,760' Totals 33,660' 16,860' -8- 1 Under the Land Exchange recommended by the Orange County Harbor Commission, the resultant frontages would be approximately as follows: ' Public Private Tidelands 2,080' 12,620' Tidelands Patent 11,600' 5,200' ' Dunes 2,160' Uplands 2,000' 13,100' Swamp and Overflow Lands 1,760' ' Totals 17,840' 32,680' ' Most of the value of the private lands within the proposed Harbor Lines consists of the islands, or swamp and overflow lands. ' The required private lands might be acquired by condemnation or ' dedication. In the development of Lower Newport Bay, a large amount of swamp and overflow lands around Lido Isle and Balboa Island were ob- tained and used for waterway purposes without cost to the public. The 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 dedication of the land by the private owners might be justified if the values of their abutting and surrounding private lands are enhanced in an equal or greater amount as mentioned by the County Right of Way Agent. If the harbor were developed in this.manner, it might be mutually advantageous at a later date to exchange certain lands to create more useable areas. Under this method of development, it would be neces- sary to consider the financing of the dredging operations. The Orange County Harbor Commission plan contemplates that abutting developments would be required to dredge to the center of the channel and that the Harbor District would finance the dredging of the speed and ski areas, rowing course, and the turning basin. Since private lands would only abut about one -third of the area if no exchanges were made, more of the dredging would have to be publicly financed. This might be ac- complished by the Harbor District or, perhaps, the U.S. Corps of Engineers. W= ►1 ' The primary advantage of this alternative is that the harbor ' development can be accomplished independently of the question of abutting land ownership and uses. A major disadvantage could be ' delay in completion of the Harbor due to financing and problems of ' dedication. 1 In our opinion the solution to Upper Newport Bay development 1 is the greatest planning challenge to our City today. The best 1 thinking representing all points of view is required to make sure that this natural resource is developed to its full potential. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 -10- 1 A P P E N D I X 1 A. State Legislation and Judgment's ' 1. California State Statute (Stat. 1919, Chap. 526) wherein the State of California granted to the County all right, title and interest of the State in and to all tidelands and submerged lands bordering upon and in Newport Bay in said County of Orange lying outside of the then corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, in trust and for the uses and purposes therein set forth, including the es- tablishment, improvements and conduct of a harbor and the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation. ' 2.. Superior Court decree dated May 6, 1926, made and entered in Case 20436, entitled "Orange County, California, plaintiff vs. The Irvine Company, a corporation, defendant," said Court described, and quieted ' the title of the County to, the tidelands and submerged lands held by the County pursuant to the Granting Act and lying below the line ' of ordinary high tide in said Newport Bay, excepting the islands in said bay, and also excepting that portion of said tidelands covered by Tideland Patent Location No. 204 and in said decree said Court further adjudged and decreed that the boundary of said tidelands and submerged lands described in said decree is the line of ordinary high tide of said bay and is the boundary between the contiguous upland ' belonging to The Irvine Company and said tidelands and submerged lands in said bay. 3. California State Statute (Stat. 1957, Chap. 2044) which declares portions of the lands granted to the County of Orange by an act en- titled 'An act granting certain tidelands and submerged lands of the State of California to the County of Orange in said State upon cer- tain trusts and conditions,' approved May 25, 1919, as amended, which have been and which may be hereafter improved, filled, and re- ' claimed, unavailable and unuseful for navigation, commerce, and fish- eries, and excluding such portions from use for navigation, commerce, and fisheries, and providing that such portions, and other portions ' of the lands granted by said act, may be irrevocably alienated and conveyed free of public use and trust by the said county by exchang ing such lands with the owner, or owners of uplands contiguous thereto. 'B. Documents ' 1. Land Exchange Proposal - Letter and accompanying maps dated May 20, 1963, from Charles S. Thomas, President of The Irvine Company to Board of Supervisors, County of Orange. ' 2. Valuation Premise - Upper Newport Bay Land Trades - Memorandum dated April 18, 1963, to William Mason, Administrative Engineer, The Irvine ' Company, from Goode and Goode, Appraisers. I 1 C. Reports 1. Analysis of Proposed Land Exchange. - A report and letter of trans- mittal dated August 12, 1963 from Stanley Krause, Chief Right of ' Way Agent, County of Orange to Board of Supervisors. 2. Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange. - A report and letter of transmittal ' dated August 26, 1963 by Orange County Harbor District to BoarcT of Supervisors. ' 3. Proposed Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County, - A report and letter of transmittal dated March 8, 1963 from Orange County Regional Parks Advisory Committee to the County Board of Supervisors. 1 - 4. Improvements of Upper Newport Bay, Newport Bay Harbor, Orange County. A report dated July, 1950 from R. L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer to County Board of Supervisors and County Harbor Commission. 1 1 1 7 �I 1 1 1 7 ORANGE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT ' AUGUST 6, 1963 ' EXHIBIT I ' ESTIMATED VALUE OF ORANGE COUNTY AND IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTIES TO BE EXCHANGED IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY Irvine Ownership arcel Price No. Per Acre Area County Ownership ' 10 $ 59,000 29.9 $1,7.64,100' Parcel Price 44.7 P 12 No. Per Acre Area Total 49,000 20 $100,000 14 30,000 2.3 71,300 15 .3 $ 170,400 21 60,000 14.9 894,000 17 22 65,000 24.2 1,573,000 ' 23 60,000 57.2 3,432,000 98.7 98,700 30 1,000 19.8 19,800 24 50,000 10.2 510,000 33 26 35,000 1.3 45,500 ' 28 34,000 19.9 25,000 57.1 1,427,500 676,600 ' 29 24,000 7.3 175,200 32 34,000 11.5 391,000 1 1 ' Total $7,727,300 Comparison: Irvine Ownership = $9,347,300 County Ownership = $7,727,300 1 Estimated Advantage to County = $1,630,000 Irvine Ownership arcel Price No. Per Acre Area Total 10 $ 59,000 29.9 $1,7.64,100' 11 64,000 44.7 2,860,800 12 54,000 20.9 1,128,600 13 49,000 17.3 847,700 14 31,000 2.3 71,300 15 24,000 7.1 170,400 16 24,000 20.8 499,200 17 1,000 5.5 5,500 18 1,000 25.2 25,200 19 1,000 98.7 98,700 30 1,000 19.8 19,800 31 1,000 34.0 34,000 33 1,000 22.5 22,500 35 30,000 12.4 372,000 36 25,000 57.1 1,427,500 $9,347,300 See file for Map of Land Parcel Exhibit for Proposed Land Exchange UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEVELOPMENT A REPORT ON THE IRVINE COMPANY LAND EXCHANGE PROPOSAL December 4, 1963 City of Newport Beach )U%CtL V. tz -tu �3 l '2 ' S-' n .. I- A�YVS;.i iU;V: The Mayor wa#'�itstructed to advise the Board of Supervisors thst,�e City Council of Newport Beach does not concur the suggested land trade for the reason of the lack of public beach along the shore- line of the Upper Bay; that the City Council feels that great consideration should be given to keep as much of the project public as possible. Councilman Cook made a motion that the Mayor represent the City in the hearing before the Board of Supervisors on December 18 and read a resolution, or statement, or whatever document is necessary to explain the City's position in this matter. Page 153, Volume 17 1 1LY J 2^ C I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEVELOPMENT A REPORT ON THE IRVINE COMPANY LAND EXCHANGE ' PROPOSAL PREPARED FOR-THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL ' DECEMBER 4, 1963 1 s city ' DEC, -> ' 8 CI 1963 khroq OF L CALIF, EACH PREPARED BY: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER I 11 [1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 The City Council has instructed the City Manager to prepare in- formation relative to the proposal by The Irvine Company to the Orange 1 County Board of Supervisors for a land exchange in and adjacent to Upper Newport Bay and to make such comments as he and his staff deem 1 appropriate. ' On May 20, 1963, Mr. Charles Thomas, President of The Irvine ' Company, by letter proposed a land exchange designed to move forward the development of Upper Newport Bay. 1 In accordance with instructions from the Board, the Orange County ' Harbor Commission on August 27, 1963, submitted a report of the studies and the recommended action to be taken regarding the Land Exchange Plan. Also, in accordance with instructions from the Board, the County tRight of Way Agent on August 20, 1963, submitted an analysis of the Land Exchange Plan with recommendations regarding valuations. Since the Board of Supervisors has announced its intention to ' consider The Irvine Company proposal on December 18, 1963, and has in- vited the City of Newport Beach to comment, it is recommended that the City review the facts, determine its position, and prepare a presentat- ion for submission to the Board at that date. Included in the Appendix to this report is a listing of signifi- cant documents and reports which bear on the proposed plan. Copies of most of the material is on file in the Office of the City Manager. ' ESTABLISHMENT OF HARBOR LINES The general configuration of Upper Newport Bay has been studied ' and discussed for many years. R. L. Patterson's study in 1950 proposed I ' a main channel based on a study of the tidal prism, the desirability of eliminating scouring action along the channel slopes and provision ' for navigation of both sailing and power crafts. The channel proposed ' was essentially the same as that studied and approved by the Orange ' County Harbor Commission on January 26, 1962, and by the Newport Beach City Council on February 26, 1962. Major differences are the rowing ' course and the water skiing area at the head of the bay. 1 Although at this point ownership is not at question, it must be remembered that the establishment of Harbor Lines defines the channel 1 ward limit to which solid fill structures may be built. It should also ' be noted that the Harbor Lines as approved are substantially channel- ward of the existing cliffs rimming the Upper Bay. ' ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DEVELOPMENT ' There are three identifiable aspects to the problem of the Upper Bay which are as follows: ' A. Establishment of Harbor Lines B. Ownership of abutting property C. Land Use of abutting property Keeping in mind these three aspects, the following four alternat- ives were explored. I. Take no action whatsoever on the basis that this is a County matter outside the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. II. Approve the Orange County Harbor Commission recommendat- ion of The Irvine Company proposal and urge its acceptance by ' the Board of Supervisors. III. Approve the proposal with modifications as to land owner- , ship and use of properties. IV. Recommend the acquisition by the public agency of the ' swamp and overflow lands within the Harbor Lines. -2- I DISCUSSION ALTERNATIVE I. ' This alternative presupposes no official interest by the City in the development of the Upper Bay on the basis that the City has no legal ' intent and is content to accept whatever decision the Board of Supervisors ' may make. This is hardly a reasonable alternative. t ALTERNATIVE II. Essentially The Irvine Company proposes a land exchange which would ' convey a total of 292.7 acres to the County of Orange in return for 151.8 ' acres conveyed from the County to The Irvine Company. The.Irvine Company has estimates of the current market value of lands to be granted by the ' Company to the County and the lands to be granted by the County to the ' Company. The estimates are based on thirteen principal assumptions, as follows: ' (1) The islands and upland areas (to the ajudicated line) are owned in fee by The Irvine Company. ' (2) The County tide lands can be dredged by either the County or The Irvine Company in order to accommodate and enhance the ' public easement. (3) The County tide lands can be filled by the County to accommo- date the public easement, providing the fill is located and designed so as not to unreasonably impair the development of Irvine Company fee lands. ' (4) The County tide lands can be dredged, but not filled, by The Irvine Company at its own expense, material to be exported or ' placed upon fee lands. This assumes design of dredged areas so as to enhance navigation. (5) The County tide lands can be developed by the County as land ' and water areas incorporating such land usages as are per- mitted in the Dunes lease, whether operated or leased by the ' County. (6) The County tide lands can be rented for boat moorings, includ- ing the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, rents to be collected by the County. -3- P ' (7) The patent lands are subject to the same public easement as are the County owned tide lands. ' (8) The patent lands can be dredged and /or filled to accommodate the public easement, potentially incorporating, but not exceed- ing, the spectrum of land usages permitted in the Dunes lease. ' The rental income from development thus created would accrue to The Irvine Company. Such rental income would have to derive from rates competitive with similar developments. ' (9) In the event The Irvine Company neglected to develop the patent Although estimates have not been detailed, the Irvine Company states that the dollar benefit to the County in the land exchange is ' between three and five million dollars. ' The County Right of Way lands within a reasonable time, the County could then proceed report to the Board to develop within the limits of the public easement, under which Super- ' condition all monetary proceeds would accrue to the County. be exchanged This is neither probable nor realistic, but must be considered ' as a factor related to the phasing of development. (10) The Irvine Company has in essence the same rights to develop and collect rents within the patent areas which the County has t in the tide lands area. tt.TiT.he lands to be received by The Irvine Company as a result of ' the proposed trades are assumed to involve fee title permitting normal development to highest and best use. ' (12)The lands to be received by the County as a result of the trades are assumed to be in fee where located landward of the bulkhead line, and subject to public easement where located seaward of the bulkhead line. (13)The lands to be received by The Irvine Company will have an ' elevation estimated at +1 inch. Although estimates have not been detailed, the Irvine Company states that the dollar benefit to the County in the land exchange is ' between three and five million dollars. ' The County Right of Way Agent in his report to the Board of Super- visors has estimated value of properties to be exchanged based on four- .1 teen principal assumptions, as follows: (for comparison purposes the 1 assumptions have been set up to coincide with those presented by The Irvine Company. It is noted that they differ considerably in some instances.) 1 -4- ' (1) The islands and upland areas (to the adjudicated line) are owned in fee by the Irvine Company; however, Parcels 10, 12, 13, and 14, as shown on the above - referred to exhibit, may be subject to some prescriptive rights of the public due to probable continued navigation over some portions of these parcels during a long period of time. ' (2) County tidelands can be dredged by the County or by The Irvine Company (with the County's permission) in order to accommodate ' and enhance the public easement. (3) The County tidelands can be filled by the County and used for ' any purpose providing the project accommodates the public ease- ment and does not impair navigational access to Irvine Company fee lands now enjoying same. ' (4) Under a design prepared to enhance navigation, The Irvine Com- pany can at its own expense and with permission of the County ' dredge but not fill County tidelands; material may at the County's option be exported by the Irvine Company and placed upon fee lands. ' (5) County tidelands can be developed by the County as land and water areas incorporating such land uses as are permitted in ' the Dunes lease, whether operated or leased by the County. (6) County tidelands can be rented for boat moorings, including the area between the bulkhead and pierhead lines, rents to be ' collected by the County. (7) Patent lands are subject to a public easement. This easement ' is sufficient to allow development of all of the patent lands to water or public aquatic park purposes by the County. (8) The Irvine Company has no rights to develop land uses compar- able with those involved in the Dunes lease. The patent lands of the Irvine Company are subject to an easement which is t tantamount to nullifying any surface use of the land by the Irvine Company other than for navigational purposes. In other words, the ownership rights of the patent lands by the Irvine Company are similar to the underlying fee ownership of a property owner in a dedicated street. (9) The public easement held and controlled by the County and State Lands Commission is such as to encompass most of the fee simple rights of ownership subject only to the underlying rights of The Irvine Company. (10) The Irvine Company, therefore, does not, in essence, have the same rights to develop and collect rents in the patent areas which the County has in the tideland areas. In fact, it is ' the County who has the.same rights to develop and collect rents in the Irvine Company patent areas as they do in the County -5- 1 Sh owned tideland areas. ' (11) Lands to be received by The Irvine Company as a result of the proposed trades are assumed to involve fee simple title permitting normal development to highest and best use. (12) Lands to be received by the County as a result of the trades ' are assumed to be in fee simple where located landward of the bulkhead line and are acquired in fee simple in connection with the development in the manner proposed where located ' seaward of the bulkhead line. The Irvine Company is to grant deed all interests in said lands without restriction. {13) Lands to be received by The Irvine Company will have an elevation estimated at +l ". ' (14) Vehicular access to Parcels 11, 12, and 13, as shown on the above - described exhibit (the submerged islands), does not ' now exist. The Irvine Company has no easement rights to bridge County owned tidelands in these areas; however, it is assumed that subject to approval of bridging plans by ' the County such easements could be obtained. Exhibit I in the Appendix gives the County Right of Way Agent's ' estimate of value of lands proposed to be exchanged. Parcel numbers ' may be identified on the map in the Appendix. The estimate of dollar benefit to the County is $1,620,000. ' While the two sets of assumptions are similar, they are dia- metrically opposed in assumptions No. 8 and 10, with the Irvine Company asserting rights to develop the patent lands "within the ' spectrum of land usages permitted in the Newport.Dunes lease" and to ' profit from such development. The County Right of Way Ag�ent,'on the other hand, asserts that The Irvine Company patent lands are "subject to an easement ' which is tantamount to nullifying any surface use of the land other than for navigational purposes." As a result, he has assigned a value of only $1,000 per acre to Irvine Company patent lands. Here ' in is the difference between the two valuations. -6- Both the.Irvine Company and the County Right of Way Agent have considered current market value of the lands to be exchanged, but have made no estimate of the increased value of surrounding pro- perties resulting from such a land exchange. The County Right of Way Agent comments on this in his report when he says, "the results of a final valuation analysis of the proposed transaction can vary ' greatly depending on the assumptions upon which the evaluation is based. It is our opinion that the assumptions used for the above analysis would generally favor the County of orange in instances ' where there was considerable doubt. We believe, therefore, that the valuation advantage of 1.6 million indicated herein would tend to ' indicate a minimum amount within the range of reasonable probability. ' This does not mean, however, that the proposed trade is not a favor- able one for The Irvine Company. The consummation of 'the..proposed transaction allowing the development of the Upper Newport Bay will ' benefit Irvine Company lands by many millions of dollars." In ad- dition, neither appraisal placed any value on the relinquishment of 1 rights of commerce on the tidelands that fall within the Harbor ' Lines. The 1919 Tideland Grant as amended in 1929 provided that the lands could be used for commerce, navigation and fishing. 1 Much of the area to be received by the County in the proposed exchange will be devoted to channel development which is necessary for proper public use of the Upper Bay, but such channel development ' is equally necessary for the highest and best use of private pro- ' perty which would result from the exchange. A look at the attached map will disclose the waterfront area which after the exchange could 1 -7- LJ 1 1 1 be developed privately. Under this plan access to the waters of the bay is denied to the public on both sides of the bay from Newport Dunes northerly to the proposed public park areas. In this connection, The Irvine Company has expressed a willingness to work out a policy with the City which would meet the waterfront land use needs of the area in addition to the beach and regional park proposed as a part of the trade. Such uses include public beaches, marine repair facilities, small boat launching ramps, dry storage, etc. The City's legal control over such ' uses, however, would be limited to zoning and subdivision regulations. ALTERNATIVE III. ' Since the possibilities of modifications of the Land Exchange ' Proposal are almost limitless, no effort has been made to discuss this. Uplands alternative.. If the Council looks favorably.on this alternative in con- ' 129,400 ' Totals 272.4 acres $8,471,500 trast to No. 1, 2 or 4, it is suggested that the staff develop more ' specific proposals for Council review. ' ALTERNATIVE IV. ' Private Tidelands 14,700' The areas and values of the private lands within the proposed ' Harbor Lines as estimated by the County Right of Way Agent, are as follows: ' Area Value Swamp and Overflow Lands 112.8 acres $7,601,200 ' Uplands 30.2 740,900 Tidelands Patent 129.4 129,400 ' Totals 272.4 acres $8,471,500 The resultant frontages of publicly and privately owned lands would be approximately as follows: (before land exchange) ' Public Private Tidelands 14,700' ' Tidelands Patent 16,800' Dunes 2,160' Uplands 15,100, ' Swamp and Overflow Lands 1,760' Totals 33,660' 16,860' -8- f' Under the Land Exchange recommended by the Orange County Harbor ' Commission, the resultant frontages would be approximately as follows: ' Public Private Tidelands 2,080' 12,620' Tidelands Patent 11,600' 5,200' ' Dunes 2,160' Uplands 2,000' 13,100' Swamp and Overflow Lands 1,760' ' Totals 17,840' 32,680' ' Most of the value of the private lands within the proposed Harbor Lines consists of the islands,, or swamp and overflow lands. ' The required private lands might be acquired by condemnation or ' dedication. In the development of Lower Newport Bay, a large amount of swamp and overflow lands around Lido Isle and Balboa Island were ob- tained and used for waterway purposes without cost to the public. The ' dedication of the land by the private owners might be justified if the values of their abutting and surrounding private lands are enhanced in ' an equal or greater amount as mentioned by the County Right of Way Agent. ' If the harbor were developed in this.manner, it might be mutually advantageous at a later date to exchange certain lands to create more useable areas. Under this method of development, it would be neces- sary to consider the financing of the dredging operations. The Orange County Harbor Commission plan contemplates that abutting developments ' would be required to dredge to the center of the channel and that the ' Harbor District would finance the dredging of the speed and ski areas, rowing course, and the turning basin. Since private lands would only abut about one -third of the area if no exchanges were made, more of the dredging would have to be publicly financed. This might be ac- complished by the Harbor District or, perhaps, the U.S. Corps of Engineers. -9- i ' The primary advantage of this alternative is that the harbor ' development can be accomplished independently of the question of abutting land ownership and uses. A major disadvantage could be ' delay in completion of the Harbor due to financing and problems of ' dedication. In our opinion the solution to Upper Newport Bay development 1 is the greatest planning challenge to our City today. The best ' thinking representing all points of view is required to make sure that this natural resource is developed to its full potential. 1 1 1' 1 -10- I A P P E N D I X A. State Legislation and Judgment's ' 1. California State Statute (Stat. 1919, Chap. 526) wherein the State of California granted to the County all right, title and interest of the State in and to all tidelands and submerged lands bordering ' upon and in Newport Bay in said County of Orange lying outside of the then corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach, in trust and for the uses and purposes therein set forth, including the es- ' tablishment, improvements and conduct of a harbor and the promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation. 2. Superior Court decree dated May 6, 1926, made and entered in Case 20436, entitled "Orange County, California, plaintiff vs. The Irvine Company, a corporation, defendant," said Court described, and quieted ' the title of the County to, the tidelands and submerged lands held by the County pursuant to the Granting Act and lying below the line ' of ordinary high tide in said Newport Bay, excepting the islands in said bay, and also excepting that portion of said tidelands covered by Tideland Patent Location No. 204 and in said decree said Court ' further adjudged and decreed that the boundary of said tidelands and submerged lands described in said decree is the line of ordinary high tide of said bay and is the boundary between the contiguous upland ' belonging to The Irvine Company and said tidelands and submerged lands in said bay. ' 3. California State Statute (Stat. 1957, Chap. 2044) which declares portions of the lands granted to the County of Orange by an act en- titled 'An act granting certain tidelands and submerged lands of the ' State of California to the County of Orange in said State upon cer- tain trusts and conditions,' approved May 25, 1919, as amended, which have been and which may be hereafter improved, filled, and rer ' claimed,unaval'able and unuseful for navigation, commerce, and fish- eries, and excluding such portions from use for navigation, commerce, and fisheries,' and providing that such portions, and other portions ' of the lands granted by said act, may be irrevocably alienated and conveyed free of public use and trust by the said county by exchang= ing such lands with the owner . or owners of uplands contiguous thereto. ' Bo Documents ' 1. Land Exchange Proposal - Letter and accompanying maps dated May 20, 1963, from Charles S. Thomas, President of The Irvine Company to Board of Supervisors, County of Orange. 2. Valuation Premise - Upper Newport Bay Land Trades - Memorandum dated April 18, 1963, to William Mason, Administrative Engineer, The Irvine ' Company, from Goode and Goode, Appraisers. 1 C. Reports 1. Analysis of Proposed Land Exchange. - A report and letter of trans- mittal dated August 12, 1963 from Stanley Krause, Chief Right of ' Way Agent, County of Orange to Board of Supervisors. 2. Upper Neweort Bay Land Exchange. - A report and letter of transmittal ' dated August 26, 1963 by Orange County Harbor District to Board of Supervisors. ' 3. Proposed Master Plan of Regional.Parks for Orange County, - A report and letter of transmittal dated March 8, 1963 from Orange County Regional Parks Advisory Committee to the County Board of Supervisors. ' 4. Improvements of Upper Newport Bay, Newport Bay Harbor, Orange County. - A report dated July, 1950 from R. L. Patterson, Consulting Engineer to County Board of Supervisors and County Harbor Commission. 1 1 .1 1 1 I 1 ORANGE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT ' AUGUST 6, 1963 ' EXHIBIT I ESTIMATED VALUE OF .ORANGE COUNTY AND IRVINE COMPANY PROPERTIES TO BE EXCHANGED IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY ' Price Per Acre County Ownership 10 ' Parcel Price 11 64,000 44.7 No. Per Acre Area Total ' 20 $100,000 1,000 $ 30,000 5,500 18 1,000 .3 25,200 ' 21 60,000 14.9 894,000 1,000 22 65,000 24.2 1,573,000 34.0 23 60,000 57.2 3,432,000 22,500 35 30,000 12.4 372,000 ' 24 50,000 10.2 510,000 26 35,000 1.3 45,500 28 34,000 19.9 676,600 ' 29 24,000 7.3 175,200 ' 32 34,000 11.5 391,000 1 1 t 1 Irvine Ownership Parcel No. Price Per Acre Area Total 10 $ 59,000 29.9 $1,7:64,100' 11 64,000 44.7 2,860,800 12 54,000 20.9 1,128,600 ' Total $7,727,300 ' Comparison: Irvine Ownership = $9,347,300 County Ownership = $7,727,300 Estimated Advantage to County = $1,620,000 13 49,000 17.3 847,700 14 31,000 2.3 71,300 15 24,000 7.1 170,400 16 24,000 20.8 499,200 17 1,000 5.5 5,500 18 1,000 25.2 25,200 19 1,000 98.7 98,700 30 1,000 19.8 19,800 31 1,000 34.0 34,000 33 1,000 22.5 22,500 35 30,000 12.4 372,000 36 25,000 57.1 1,427,500 $9,347,300 See file for Map of Land Parcel Exhibit for Proposed Land Exchange ip V Records which pertain to.a meeting held January 10, 1964, at which Right- of -Way..Agent Stanley Krause was i present at Mayor Hart's request, to discuss the proposed land exchange in the Upper Bay. The meeting was held at 2:00 P.M. in the Conference Room. Mayor mHart, i Councilmen Cook and Gruber, Walter Charaza, Donald i Simpson, and Margery Schrouder were present. Mr. Krause spoke at length, answering questions and explaining the general assumptions made upon which the land values were determined by his office. (6 records) See file for The 6 Gray Audograph Dictation Records of the 1/10/64 Meeting See file for The Upper Newport Bay Harbor Lines Uctoler S, 1967 Mr. Edward P. Allen, President Orange Coast Civic Association; Inc. P. 0. Pox 2144 Newport 1''each,.Californi.a SiZ663 Dear Mr. aier.: Please forgive the delay in responding, to your letter of September 16th regarding 'the lard eXL]') `gam- et`r:Qen Ciravl ?g• l;Cl n �i.:l t11C nr -Tie COT, Y, approved i•y the >.tatc T'u'.lic hands Comrdssinn nn .;epterher L;, 1 -167. The City Council was iir-,f,1e to receive and take action upon_ your letter until after the trace i:ac c:een approved by t:c Colmission. Therefore, any comments relative to the City's position on the trade wl ict-: you desired for suLvn.ittal to t <e Mato Fablic ;, ^a. ; Cmr.ission would 1;e superfluous. = 'r. e 1ty rolinc" ciiu sustain its position of October 2965 of s_nnortinR *_ e laud trade in principle. The details of the tr< " "; 1C w lit CT r)i ells arC? Vet to be fUll'r resolved. At t1 is polnt in tine. It o.�,11�; 'i5 S thOlagi: a frletii.iy• le�al h suit will be ^ac to deLcnrdiie, in full, it lceality of such trade, after which:tim the ?rvine Corpany and the County will prepare detailed develop - ment plans. The City hopes ' -' ;at it will 1; in a position of sumlitting its thinking for comiecrl: zion whey: that -ooint arrives, rl':ere. are many different interest groups and organizations with differe-nt ideas as to how the Upper 7?vy should be developed ane we trust the County and the Irvine Company ivi.11 give appropriate con=ideratien to all points of view in their develoTment sr—heme. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let us know. Very truly yours, JAMES P. DE CITAINF Administrative Assistant to the City Manager JPD:ep a rx Ld Y�irttnge Glnttsf @Iiuic LAsaoriafion, Pile. A NON- PROFIT OHOANIiATION P. O. BOX 2144 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNU G2al3 The City Council Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: �� 16 September 1967 The Orange Coast Civic Association is studying alternate plans for the development of the upper bay with the intention of submitting some ideas to the State Public Lands Commission. Ne are interested in your position on the Contemplated land exchange and wonder if you feel enough room has been provided for public access? Just one ex- ample of our concern comes from a report in Economic Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, of the Newoort National Bank. It bores that the back bay land swap will provide facilities for 1,200 trailered boats per day. Would not parking facilities alone for 1,200 bars and trailers �jeop -, ardize what little land is available for perks and beaches? Yours truly, Edward P Allen President i K- 3 6 er NEWSPAPER 0 26, 1967 Daily lOc— Sunday 20c 62nd Year — Number 301 K's Land Swap r Newport Bay Writer issess ammunition sessor Andrew J. ----- ------- .---- - - - SWAP I N BRIEF arprise witness, to ias urged by "a asor (unnamed) to County of Orange to receive: tents low (on Up. Ten parcels of island and upland property roperty) because covering 266.5 acres and valued at $18,547.000. ;ome .problems in Six parcels of submerged tidelands owned in fee covering 183.8 acres and valued at $919,000. r I rake no official In total; the .county will assume ownership of trade," Hinshaw 450.3 acres appraised in 1966 at $19,466,000. it is my opinion Irvine Co. to receive: mwing the county Nine parcels of tidelands owned in fee coveting y t,enefit at all 97.9 acres and valued at$9 381,500. range. The entire Easements on three parcels of tidelands cover - ing 59.2 acres and valued at $2,072,000. owners of the In total, the company receives 157.1 acres valued At 811.453;500: charged_ Evans A2, Cohnon 11� (Osage (mast (Qibir Azooriation, c31ar. P NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION P. o. BO% 2144 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 ln' Seotember 1 ;67 The City Council Yewrcort Peach City Hall Newrort Sesch, California 92660 Gentlemen: The Oran-- ^,e Coast Civic Association is studyinh; alternate plans for the development of the upper bay with the intention of submitting some idea; to the State Public Lands Co-nauission. 'i%'e are interested in your :)osition on the contemplated land exchange and wonder if you feel enough room has been provided for public access? Just one ex- amele of our concern cores =rom a renort in Economic Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, of the Newrort National Bank. It hones that the back bay land swap will provide facilities for 1,200 trailered boats per day, ?could not parking facilities alone for 1,200 bars and trailers jeop- ardize what little land is available for parks and beaches? -%y n Yours truly, Edward P Allen President F0 P ati STATE OF CALIFORNIA —STATE LANDS COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STATE LANDS DIVISION ROOM 305 STATE BUILDING 9 217 WEST FIRST STREET LOS ANGELES 90012 r. 9 'a N 0 T I C E c RONALD REAGAN, Governor CAN 5[. , 1667' CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH, ;� Rile No.: W.A. 4926 September 1, 1967 A meeting of the State Lands Commission has been scheduled for Monday, September 25, 1967, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1138 Junipero Serra Building, 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles. The Commission at that time will consider the proposed land exchange in Upper Newport Bay, Orange County, between the County of Orange and the Irvine Company, in addition to other matters. The meeting will be open to the public. HORTIG Executive OfflA r ASM:ed I n ~� 439 Begonialenue Corona del boar, Calif. 92625 August 22, 1967 State Lands Commission Sacramento, Calif. Rat Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange %L Dear airs, Please allow me to once again voice my opposition to the exchange of lands as now proposed between the Irvine Company and the County of Orange. This opposition is based solely on the horrible inequity of Orange County citizens acquiring Irvine Co. lands based on a market value of $100,000 per acre on which the Irvine Co. paid their share of County taxes based on a market value of $60 per acre in 1964 -1965, $400 per acre in 1965 -1966 and $6,000 per acre in 1966 - 1967. The $100,000 per acre market value was given parcel no. 104 in the Evans appraisal. Parcel no. 104 is the 17.3 -acre northerly island in the Upper Bay Land Exchange. The present and past Assessor assessed this same parcel at $15 per acre in 64-65, $100 per acre in 65-66 and $1,500 per acre in 66-67. Both Assessors publicly stated their assessments were at 25% of market value, hence the market values of $60, WO and $6,000 per acre respectively. Other parcels of Irvine land involved in the Exchange have born similar ridiculously low assessments and taxes for years. (Please refer to my letter of Oct. 8, 1965 to this commission.) The Irvine lands in this Exchange are not entitled to any Constitu- tional or statutory partial or full exemption and I am informed by com- petent counsel that no legal basis exists to warrant their being assessed on any basis other than the standard ratio of assessed value to market value, prevailing on all other taxable property in the County. If, however, the Exchange is approved, the least the citizens of Orange County should expect is that you will (in your other official cap- acities) take appropriate steps to see that all lands acquired by the Irvine. Co. in the Exchange are assessed in the immediate future on bare land market values as set forth in the Evans appraisal which values have not been publicly questioned by any government agency involved in the Exchange. Yours truly, klarren W. Crow, Jr. - 23_G•' `ra i .y GLENN M• ANDERSON NA1'9r%ION MEMBCn ALAN ORANSTON Chairman ADDRESS REPLY TO: STATE LANDS DIVISION 90S STATE BUILDING LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 00012 7 Yr 1' N O T I C E P. J. NORTIO E%ECDTWE OFFICER REFER TO FILE No. w. n. 4926 November 29, 1966 K /157 A planning report concerning the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange will be presented to the State Lands Commission at its meeting to be held on December 14, 1966, in Room 2170 State Capitol, Sacramento, California, at 10:00 a.m. The report recommendations will be reviewed by the Commission at the time of any future consideration of the proposed Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange. Copiers of the report will be on file in the offices of the State Lands Division, Room 305 California State Building, 217 West First Street, Los Angeles, and 1516 "LD Street, Sacramento, California. JEF;JS ✓ NM.N //1+2'11 CITY WEpXVjjWr PF F'.�, 'HORTIG Executive Officer COMM: DISPOSITION: FILE,u'aSi �u�JPx.r STATE LANDS DIVISION DEPARTMENT of FINANCE STATE OF CALIVOUN1A STATE BUILDING LOS ANGELES 00012 N O T I C E P. J. NORTIO E%ECDTWE OFFICER REFER TO FILE No. w. n. 4926 November 29, 1966 K /157 A planning report concerning the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange will be presented to the State Lands Commission at its meeting to be held on December 14, 1966, in Room 2170 State Capitol, Sacramento, California, at 10:00 a.m. The report recommendations will be reviewed by the Commission at the time of any future consideration of the proposed Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange. Copiers of the report will be on file in the offices of the State Lands Division, Room 305 California State Building, 217 West First Street, Los Angeles, and 1516 "LD Street, Sacramento, California. JEF;JS ✓ NM.N //1+2'11 CITY WEpXVjjWr PF F'.�, 'HORTIG Executive Officer COMM: DISPOSITION: FILE,u'aSi �u�JPx.r 4 , CITY;OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA The Newport Reach city Council r000gnises the great long range recreation and economic vatUn .Alt ithe Upper nay development "a would like to go on record in aloport. of the Upper Dap land ex- change now pending before the State Lando Commission. While it is acknowledge that the Upper Bay d"elopment can assumes a variety of Physical €+asst, and while financing may be accomplished by various methodt, it is felt that the basic elements of the present .plan which has been developed over a fifteen year period are the best that have emerged to date and should be acted on without further delay in order that the people of California and Orange County might take advantage of this natural asset at an early date. We might spend another does" developing other plans and have no assurance that they would have any more or less suppoe-t or opposition than the current plan. The details of development, economics and administration can be worked out and modified as development takes place. However, in order to have the opportunity to develop theoe details and refine- ments we should'move ahead on a basic plan. For the reasons stated, we believe at this time it is in the best interests of the general public and the people of Newport Beach - _16 Page -2- that %*.0gWort the land exchange is now before the State Lands comiegion. (Z move that we authorise the mayor. In his discretion, aP- propriately,to* so advise the Governor. Assemblyman Unruh, the State Lands Commission and the Orange Cogaty Board of Supervisors. I further move that we authovLXe the Mayor and the City Manager to land whatever personal support,js considered appropriate at the Proper time and in the proper manner. This world involve personal aPPOaranoss before the State Lands Ccmission and other actions domed advisable. T=ZLAND ACKWISTRATIVE COMMOL CGMMrTTZZ Councilman Doreen Marshall, Chairman Councilman Doe Cook Councilman Robert Shelton y3 DIS P%'ITION' . , ' .. I -- — March 14, 1%6 CQ Al PUB I MY COAST IISSOHIR Iffe 314 Fifth Street g P.O. Box 272 )f Huntington Beach, Calif. Area Code 714 — 536 -6564 and 536.6565 March 1� 1966 Dear Member: N tc Unless those of us who are concerned with proper �! development do something about the Upper Bay plan it will not be developed to the best interest of the people of Orange County. It would cost the public $27,660,000 to condemn The Irvine Company's interest and develop the Upper Bay and parks as proposed. The estimated cost to the people under the land exchange program is $3,567,500, or a savings of $24,092,500. It is imperative that you write the State Lands Commission voicing your support of the exchange. Enclosed is a copy of an editorial from the Daily Pilot and a pamphlet from the Orange County Coast Association which can be used for information in writing your letter. The letter should be sent to: Mr. Frank J. Hortig, Executive Officer State Lands Commission 302 State Building Los Angeles, California 90012 Write today, it is important; Sincerely, J me s W. Decker, President Frank G. Michelena, Secretary- Treasurer — A Non Profit Association Representing the Coastline of Orange County, California — y� s • DAILY PILOT EDITORIAL ftGE february 22, 1966 Back Bay Stalemate In recent days, statements from Sacramento and elsewhere suggest that the proposed Upper Newport Bay land exchange between Orange County and the Irvine Company is headed for a governmental stalemate. Assembly Speaker Jesse M. Unruh, in an interest- ing exercise in timing, released a statement. from Sace- mento declaring his opposition to the so- called land swap.' His comment came only hours before a scheduled forum of proponents and opponents of the exchange at Costa Mesa City Hall on Feb. 16. Unruh said he favored setting up a citizens' com- mittee to study the Back Bay problem and perhaps hav- ing the State Division of Beaches and. Parks in charge of the bay development. The Assembly Speaker also asserted that Orange County government "failed to explore alternatives" in approving terms and proposals in the tidelands exchange. In brief summary, the Upper Bay land exchange was conceived by the Irvine Company and approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as a means of re- arranging public and private holdings. It was cal- culated to create a navigable waterway and clear owner- ship for public recreation and private land development. The cost to the taxpayers is estimated at $3.5 million. The public advantage in holdings after the swap has been estimated to be from $3.5 million to $8 million. The exchange is currently before the State Lands Commission for approval or disapproval. Unruh, as chairman of the Joint Legislative Com- mittee on Tidelands, is likely to have a significant in- fluence on the commission's action. The commission has held up action pending a recommendation from Unruh's tidelands committee. Now, Unruh's latest statement of opposition doesn't come as any real surprise. His criticisms have been ob- vious since his tidelands committee launched its inves- tigation. The committee probe has developed several constructive criticisms.. Other statements, however, have served as little more than slues against the Irvine Company. For ex• emple, during the Feb. 16 forum, Unruh's chief tide- lands consultant, Charles Baldwin, was asked from the floor if people seemed to fear the wealth and influence of Irvine Ranch. It was one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife ?" questions. Baldwin should have properly passed it off as such. But he chose to answer that all the peo- ple he interviewed feared giving public testimony on the land exchange. Such condemnation by innuendo is like somebody asking Baldwin, "Will you lase your job if you turn in a recommendation that is contrary to Unruh's opinion ?" More properly, discussion of the ultimate develop- ment for Upper Newort Bay should be addressed to the issues. Orange County has been criticized for failure to propose a bond issue to buy lands surrounding Upper Bay for public use. Yet Orange County voters have failed to support even modest bond issues for projects like a County Jail. The purchase of public lands in the same quantity as proposed in the swap have been esti- mated to cost some $27.6 million. Development along present lines of ownership is generally agreed to be an unacceptable alternative. If the concept of a land exchange is unacceptable to state government, then.those state officials involved should forthrightly declare how Upper Newport Bay should be acquired and developed. Unruh and his aides have been blunt and candid in their criticisms of the proposed program. They have been much less clear and forthright in declaring bow much state money.they would or could make available to enrich recreational opportunities in Upper Newport Bay. Additionally, they might answer on this one: How many more generations of Californians will look upon the mudflats of Back Bay and wonder when it will be- come a splendid harbor and recreational center? History .. . FIFTY -TWO YEARS AGO the South Coast Improvement Association was organized to act as a "per- manent institution — One for All — All for One," to upbuild the community and to assure a solid foundation for progressive enter- prise and increasing growth. The first Board of Directors came from communities extending into what is now Long Beach at Naples and the 40 -mile length of the Orange County coastline. Some fifteen years later the name of the organ- ization was changed to the Orange County Coast Association. Inc. Orange County Coast .4ssociation As its Fact Sheet cial advantageoeight million over presdnt situation. UPPER BAY EXCHANGE 2.- lineal feet has approximately 26,000 additional lineal feet adjacent to the water, .approximately 150 acres more of water area and approximately between 200 acres in additional park areas. Orange County If The Irvine Company is allowed to develop the Upper Bay as it presently exists, access to the and a The Irvine Company - bay would be through street ends and the pre. sent Dunes area. 4. If the County condemns the land necessary for 1. The Irvine Company owns the three islands and the channel and park areas, it will be necessary all of the area surrounding the Upper Bay, with for them to raise approximately twenty million the exception of The Dunes and the small, rocky dollars for this condemnation. This would neces- mound island adjacent to The Dunes. sitate a bond issue and it is extremely doubtful 2. The County of Orange holds the water area (tide- that it would be passed by the Orange County lands) in trust for the State of California who, citizens. in turn, holds it in trust for the federal govern- 5. The County of Orange is not losing any tidelands ment. through the exchange. It is merely the reloca- tion of the water way area to create a central 3. There are three alternative plans for the deve- channel of sufficient width to allow for good lopment of the Upper Bay: boating and use of the water way area, and the a. Develop the Upper Bay as it presently exists, relocation of The Irvine Company islands and developing the three islands as residential uplands to the edges of the channel adjacent to communities such as Balboa and Lido Islands the presently owned upland areas. In this ex- and have various types of development ad- change the County is gaining two acres for one. jacent to the shoreline. 6. A totally public park in the Upper Bay for its b. Condemn all the necessary lands from The entire length as suggested by the Tidelands Irvine Company to create the harbor as out- Legislative Committee is impractical since the lined in the proposed channel design. accessibility between The Dunes and the rowing c. Consummate the agreement between The course is very limited due to the high bluffs and Irvine Company and the County of Orange small amount of area at the channel level. for the exchange of lands as presently pro- 7. The lower Newport Bay harbor is a great harbor posed. because it mixes a number of different uses va adjacent to the channel water way areas. The ADVANTAGES OF THE EXCHANGE OVER THE Upper Bay solves the one shortcoming of the lower bay by providing accessibility to the major OTHER TWO ALTERNATIVES park areas in three locations: lower, the Harry 1. Through the exchange the County does not. ex- Welch Memorial Park; central, Big Canyon; pend any actual dollars for acquiring additional upper, the regional park with the marina and water way areas or park areas, and has a finan- rowing course. TOr CI`PIFS OF ORANGr COUNTY FRCMs THE LEAGUE OF WCA VOTFRS THB ORWIF COAST CIVIC ASSCCIUION Dear Mayor: Would you please bring the following meeting to the attention of the I Since the land swap involves the County Harbor District and tidelands in trust, we believe that you will be interested in hearing the facts various points of view. / Thank you for your attention. s \111 gdEWP ��'p 14. HEAR YE V� WHEN: WHERE: • 0 y HEAR YE.' HEAR YE1 co F y- PUBLIC FORUM V, E ov OF Wednesday, February 16, 19663 8 :00 PM ,L NENPO IF Costa Mesa City Hall Council Chambers, 695 West 19th Street TO BE DISCUSSED: THE BACK BAY LAND PANEL OF SPEAKERS CHARLES BALDWIN .................Consultant, State Tidelands Committee WILLIAld MASON.. ......Vice President, Irvine Company KEN SAMPSON .....................Manager, Orange County Harbor District DR. GROVER STEPHENS .............Conservationist and Ecologist BOB VOORHIES ....................First Vice President, California Boating Council SPONSORED BY: GIS The League of Women Voters The Orange Coast Civic Association — ARE YOU A TAXPAYER? BE CONCERNED.' FACTS - QUESTIONS - ANSWERS CORONA del MAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CORONA del MAR, CALIFORNIA January 25, 1966 L 9„9de, `Loin• esacu.. 4 611, CEAc/ COJYA MC,A N�w�s.f COA014 LeGG.a BsACw- 170.,0. annr OcC- GUJ /06- L.A ✓0644 �i %fnaZ 19ax Sau c /r <o �t Newport Beach City Council City Hall Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce held Monday, January 17, 1966, it was unanimously resolved to approve the Upper Bay land exchange between Orange County and the Irvine Company, We are pleased to inform you that this action was taken after reference to a committee who examined all phases of the exchange and reported favorably to the Board of Directors. Very truly yours CK :lg CARL S. KEGLEY President, Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce 6 f- r fns 07Y ct NEW C PITY g66� ORT E CH, i:. I1� P("IrF. � / November li, Lt. Governor Glenn ;i. Anderson Chairman State Lands Commission State Capitol Saernmento, California Dear Lt. Governor Anderson: You may soon be considering the land exchange between the Country of Orange and The Irvine Company for development of the Newport Beach upper bay. Our organization, parti- cularly through its Marine Division, has followed the formation of this plan closely for the past two years. The Board of Directors have repeatedly voted unanimously to support this plan. After considering various ways of developing the upper bay, the Orange County Herbor District chose this design. It gives maximum use of the waterwa -r. The staff and officials of the City of Newport Beach studied the pla . extensively and incor- porated certain alterations to increase public access. As a result, you now have a plan conceived and finalized by competent representatives of the city and county. 'ith the topography of the area, including high cliffs around much of the bay* best use is designed for the surrounding area. Public access is provided in level sections lending themselves to Vais use. The exchange provides a practical procedure whereby the area can be ideally developed at a minimum cost to the taxpayers. With your approvol, operations can get started to provide these M Lt. Governor Glenn M. An('.:-rson November 17, 1965 Page 2 acilities which Are already desperately needed. Lack of prom-.;,: approval could cause years o ,A - --ay in avail b -ility of this -_eat resource in this boominz Therefore, we urge you to approve this land exchange. Sincerely yours, Edg r F. Hirth, Prcicl - Aelnt Newoort Harbor Chamber of Commerce do CC! Mr. Bale Chamrion City Council - Newport Beach Mr. Alan Cranston The Irvine Company Mr. Kenneth Sampson w November 2, 1968 Mrs. Marian Harris Orange County Harbor District 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, California Dear Marian, In compliance with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the letter directed to Alan Cranston by Warren W. Crow, Jr. regarding the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange. I am also enclosing a copy of the letter from Senator George Murphy to Mayor Gruber regarding the proposed desaliniza- tion plant to be located in Orange County. Yours very truly, Margery Schrouder City Clerk MS:lcl Encl. ?V U ph Says Beach Trusts l ardjgd K � vcLq ls+«. ypgg Ue d Register Capitol Capitol Bufeau I a lengthy hearing Into the pro- - SACRAMENTO — Assembly posed tideland trust regulation Speaker Jesse M. Unruh three- changes. Seymour and city offi• tened revocation of the tidelands vials contended the bill, which trusts for Newport Beach and would give 85 per cent of all - Orange County if a proposed . tidelands income to the state landswap with the Irvine Co, is and 15 per cent to the district, or completed. city holding the trust, was ine -� During a hearing on proposed gettable.*" code changes,. Unruh lashed out Seymour pointed out that in at Newport Beach and county 1964 -65 the trust netted Newport officials charging exchange of Beach $180,470, while expendi. property to be used for private docks totalled $362,355 for a. net development' constituted a loss of $181,877. breach of tidelands regulations. He also told the committee, He reminded representatives which. includes Assemblyman that under existing law, the James E. w'hetmore, R- Garden - state may revoke tidelands ; - .. . trusts at any time by legislative. ,prove, the existing bill would action. ,require all trusts to adopt. the Unruh has said he would in -. 5-15 formula. "That may bed 'troduce legislation to revoke 'ne for larger trusts such as that.. trust should the landswap `Long Beach, or for undeveloped be made. Ile contended develop• tidelands areas, but it isn't fate ment of private homes on tide for the taxpayers of , Orange land property would be illegal, County and many other older. and also that a portion of the re -. trusts," Seymour said. - maining. Irvine property would He pointed out... that the origi -: benefit directly from a proposed nal trusts were given. to they channel widening planned by County in 1919, and that devel- the city and'couhty. opment of recreation areas has; Unruh also charged that Or- cost the city and county several ange County circumvented tide- million: dollars since then. Most? - lands laws which preclude use of this came before . any tidelands of funds for development for revenues were available, anything which does not benefit- - the general public by permitting development of the Balboa Is- land and Beacon Bay communi- ties'"on tideland property.. .Unruh said' -that while tide- '. lands" revenues may not be put in the city and-or county general _ funds, the taxes on such develt opments can and are, thus cir- cumventing the intent of the - trust. The wrangle between Unruh 5 and "Tully Seymour, Newport Beach:city.attorney,.came after 0 f J 4 0 . 0 October 13, 1965 10 :30 a.m. Mrs. Lyons from Mr. Charles Baldwin's office, Consultant to the State Joint Committee on Tidelands, called to inquire about a report entitled, "Upper Newport Bay Development - A Report on The Irvine Company Land Exchange Proposal, " dated December 4, 1963. We have just two copies in the files so I told her that you were out of the office today, so did not know if we could send her one of our copies, but suggested that we could make a zerox copy for her and mail it to them. I told her there would be a charge. She asked if we would let her know tomorrow as Mr. Baldwin is making a study in preparation for new legislation concerning tideland grants, and he would like some background of Newport Beach in relation to this. I don't have the address, but the telephone number is 213 - 273 -6042. lcl 0 Mr. Alan Cranston State Lands Commission Sacramento, Calif. • 439 Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar, Calif. October 8, 1965 Res Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange, G. A. 1008 l� RECEIVED '�� V. Dear Mr. Cranston, i The Orange County Board of Supervisors has just released the appraisal prepared by Bernard G. Evans, Me A. I., of the lands involved in the proposed exchange between Orange County and the Irvine Co. I understand that 2 copies of this report, authorized by the Board of Supervisors at the request of Mr. F. J. Hortig, Executive Officer of the State Lands Commission, were forwarded to Mr. Hortig at the Los Angeles office. As a California - licensed Real Estate Broker, now inactive, I have no quarrel with the appraisal made by Mr. Evans even though substantially higher than that prepared by the Orange County Right -of -Way Dept. in August 1963. The Evans appraisal is a thorough and exhaustive study (made 2 years after the self- styled "cursory investigation, made as time allowed" by the Right -of -Way Dept.) of a changing project in a rapidly - developing area. As a citizen protesting Orange County tax assessment inequities for the past 5 years through the legal channels provided, I do protest vigorously the assessed values placed on the Irvine Co. lands involved in the proposed Exchange. A collateral reading of the California Constitution; the Revenue and Tax Code; DeLuz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego (45 a 2nd 546, Nov. 1955); A. Fe Gilmore Co. ve County of Los Angeles (186 CA 2nd 471, Nov. 1960); California Attorney General's Opinions, Vol. 40t Page 2610 Dec. 1962; and Michels v. Watson (229 CA 2nd 404, Aug. 1964) indicates that all property, not specifically exempt or otherwise provided for,- shall be assessed at a standard percentage of its market value as defined bylaw. Michels v. Watson specifically states that the Assessor shall de- termine the fair market value of each taxable property in the County and then apply the'.same percentage`..(as near as practicable to the State- wide average) to each to determine its assessed valuer A continuing study during the past 6 years indicates that our homes and small businesses in.the Newport Beach- Costa Mesa area are assessed at 20% to 25% of fair market value as indicated by sales, leases, competent appraisals and condemnations. , v J I .. c J 2. It further indicates that most undeveloped, unimproved, partially de- veloped and /or partially improved larger land parcels are assessed at 1% to 6% of fair market value as indicated by sales, leases, competent appraisals and condemnation, with some as low as 3/100 of 1 %. This land so underassessed is not only "agricultural" land but land which is not zoned for agriculture; land which has not been used for "agriculture" in years; land which will never again be used for agri- culture; land zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use; land in process of acquisition by school boards for immediate use; land on which plans for subdivision have been submitted to city or county plann- ing commissions; land for sale on which signs advertise "apartment site" or "14 -1 factory, sites" or "commercial property ", etc., lazed adjoining the County airport and fronting on major highways; land recently pur- chased at market value; land especially suitable and highly desirable for residential, commercial or industrial development and readily saleable to available developers and investors at current market value; land adjoining or near highly developed areaso, etc. For example, none of the Irvine Co. lands in the proposed Exchange qualify for the limited protection granted agricultural land by section 402.5 of the Revenue and Tax Code or for any other full or partial ex- emption. Yet these lands are prime examples of assessment favoritism . as follows: Evans Appraisal, Parcel No. 102 This parcel is shown on the Harbor Dept. map and the County Right - of-Way Dept. appraisal as Parcel No. 11. It consists of 44.7 acres of the south island in the Upper Bay. The R/W Dept. appraisal gave it a fair market value of $64,000 per acre for a total value of $29860,800. The Evans appraisal of current fair market value is $115,000 per acre for a total of $5,140,500. For 1963 -1964 and 1964 -1965 our past Assessor assessed it at $120 per acre which is approximately 2/10 of 1 of the R/W Dept. appraisal and 1/10 of 1 0 of the Evans appraisal. An assessment of 25% is 250 times one of 1/10 of 1 %. Evans Appraisal, Parcel No. 103, Shown on the Harbor Dept. map and the R/W Dept. appraisal as Par- cel No. 12, it is 20.9 acres of the middle island. The R/W Dept. gave it a fair market value of $549000 per acre for a total value of $19128,600; the Evans appraisal,. $105,000 per acre to total $291949500. For 1963 -1964 and 1964 -1965 it was assessed at 415 per acre or 4311 for the whole 20.9 acres. This is 3/100 of 1%of the RIW Depto appraisal and 14/1,000 'of 1�� of the Evans appraisal. Taxes on the 20.9 acres for 1963 -1964 and 1964+1965 were :approxi- mately 423 each year. 3. An assessment of 25% is 19786 times an assessment of 14/1,000 of 1%. Evans Appraisal, Parcel No. 104 Shown on the Harbor Dept* map and the Right —of —Way Dept. appraisal as Parcel No. 13, it is all 17.3 acres of the north island. The Dept. gave it a fair market value of $49,000 per acre for total value of $847,700; the Evans appraisal, $100,000 per acre to total $19730,000. For 1963 -1964 and 1964 -1965 our past Assessor assessed it at $15 per acre or $260 for all 17.3 acres, which is 5/100 of 1,$of the RIW Dept* appraisal and 15/1,000 of 1% of the Evans appraisal. Tuxes for 1963 -1964 were $18.87; for 1964- 1965,thbyiwsre $19.66. An assessment of 25% is 1,667 times one of 15/1,000 of 1%. If this parcel had been assessed for 1964 -1965 at 20% to 25% of its fair market value as shown by the Evans appraisal ($1,730,000), the assessment would have been $346,000 to $4329500 and the taxes would have been $26,150 to $32,700 instead of $19.66. If they had been based on the Right —of —Way Dept* appraisal made in 1963, the assessment would have been $170,000 to $212,000 and the taxes $12,800 to $16,000 instead of $19.66. Most of the other parcels in the proposed Exchange also were assessed for 1963 -1964 and 1964 -1965 taxes (as wallas previous years) at fractions of 1% of fair market value. The difference in what these properties should have paid and what they did pay was shifted to all other properties which were properly assessed, including our homes and small businesses, causing them to pay a larger and disproportionate share of the total tax burden. There are hundreds of other properties in Orange County assessed at 1 %, 2 %, 4% etc. of market value as indicated by sales, leases, com- petent appraisals and condemnations of the subject and similar properties. Many examples have been submitted to the County Board of Equalization in the past 5 years and are available for your consideration. However, since you have the Evans appraisals before you now, the':Exchange lands seem most appropriate for discussion. These figures are especially interesting in light of the Los Angeles Times articles regarding recent assessment scandals where it was stated that various assessment officials were bribed to assess property at 122p of market value instead of the regular 25 %. Many of the figures given in this letter were obtained from the Assessors public records. His office has been very helpful and co- operative. I urge you to contact him for further information on assessment of the Exchange.lands or for information bearing on assessment policies and methods. Our new Assessor has stated marry times his intention of bringing assessments of all properties up to 25% of market value according to law. 4. This year he made the first step toward raising these grossly under— assessed properties to thei"roper level. The owners of these underassessed properties and particularly,the Irvine Co. have complained loud and long at just this first step to bring them to the same level we homeowners and small business owners have been living with for years. Their appeal was presented in broad generalizations by letter to the Board of Supervisors instead of formal complaint to the County Board of Equalization listing de4*44ei detailed figures on specific properties as required of all other complaining taxpayersg thereby avoiding quest- ioning and rebuttal by the Assessor, Board members and County Counsel. The impression created was that their assessments might not stand the light of day and robbed their complaint of any validity it might have had. l It is common knowledge in Orange County that large tax— favored landholders are gathering a sizeable "war chest' to defeat the newly— appointed Assessor at the polls next year:'" It seems to me that it would be a lamentable happening if they were to be successful in ousting a qualified man from office for the sole reason that he proposes to do his job according to law. Yours truly, ' .-Warren W. Oross, Jr ccs Glen Anderson Hale Champion Board of Supervisors Newport Beach City Council Assessor Sent to Supervisor Alton Allen on 8/13/65 in care of Jim Ballinger, Harbor District. -.4 . r CERTIFICATION OF EXCERPT FROM MINUTES.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ad mirnad R eu1� Meeting held Key 17 0 IL263 (Regular, Special, or Adjourned) (Date) COUNCILMEN PRESENT Stoddard, .Forgit. Cook, Gruber. Elder. Marshall. Parsons COUNCILMEN ABSENT None EXCERPT "Review of Upper Bay matters diaried on May 10th for consideration on May 17tht The Cit Limager presented the Council with an agenda for the tipper Bay =ev and a chart of Upper Sap park sites, the estimated development Goats, the annual maintenance cost, the amoral revenue,, the area in- volved the water frontage, and the location. The City Manager and the Pudic Works Director presented an outline of present am proposed Bay configuration. Maps were display" o indicate the Irvin Company ouan-rship, the pprropose7l gropers e:o�gs, and the recreational areas. William Mason. Vice President of the Irvine Company* spoke from the audience and gave a description of the Upper Bay Development Plans." (On the motion of Councilman Cook, the following action ws unanimously taken:) "The mating vas adjourned at StSS P.M. to an Euosautive Session for the purpose of discussing with counsel the legal aspects of the Upper Bay land exchange. The Council reconvened with all mashers present at 10 P.M. Mayor Gruber stated that the council is satisfied, on the basisvof the information gressntl� available, that the land exehmge agreement is fair and equitable and the Council has full confidence in both the Irvine Campa* and the County of Orsnga in relation to the trade agreement; Mayor Gruber further stated that, after careful consideration, she Council decided that it Mould not be in the public interest to litigate the questio>nkof ownership of the Upper say tidelands." (On motion of Councilman Stoddard, the following action umis unanimously taken:) STATE OF CALIFORNIA) (Ses second page) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) .I, Margery'Snhrouder, City Clerk -and ex- officio Clerk.of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,. California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a.full, true and correct copy of the. minute entry on record in this office. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 13th day of August ,, 19 65 Margery Schrouder, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California CERTIFICATION OF EXCERPT FROM MINUTES.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Adjourned Resular Meeting held Mar 17, INS (Regular, Special, or Adjourned) (Date) COUNCILMEN PRESENT Stoddard, Forait, Cook, Graber, Sider. Marshall, parsons COUNCILMEN ABSENT None EXCERPT "The City Manager was directed to make a thorough financial analysis of the U Dar relative to parks that are nnaeaedded and revenues which might be forthcoming from theca Carus and from the development of the Upper Be in genera 3 in doing tca it will be necessary for his to review t�is setter with the staff of the Irvine Caspany and proper officials of the Connt in order to gat a clearer picture of the financial aspects of this developssntt it will also be necessary . for his to arrive at an understanding with the County on the division of responsibility for providine and administering parks in the Upper Say; at such mesa as ti►a Cier has an aadsrstsnding of these setters. he is to report = to City Council." STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF ORANGE .I, Margery Schrouder, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk -of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,. California, hereby certify the foregoing. to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 13th day of Augasg " 1963 . Margery Schrouder, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California Y To: From: Subject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT City Clerk City Attorney Upper Bay parks May 6, 1965 (11 - �� - Transmitted is a Chronological Outline of Documents Concerning the Negotiations for City Parks in the Upper Bay, with attached Exhibits A through I. It is requested that this matter be placed on the agenda for the Council meeting of May 10, 1965. THS:mec Encs. cc - City Manager u Tull H. Se o City Attorney 'GU i ;l1_: -/ o_ FILE: THS.mec 5/5/65 CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE OF DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR CITY PARKS IN THE UPPER BAY The following documents concern the negotiations conducted by the City of Newport Beach with the County of Orange regarding the CityBs requirements for park sites in the Upper Bay. The docu- ments referred to are attached as exhibitso L Letter of December 18, 1963, from Mayor Charles Hart to the Board of Supervisors objecting to the land exchange proposal in its initial form and.stating the CityBs position that additional public ownership of shoreline along the lower portion of the Upper Bay should be provided. (Exhibit A) 2. Minutes of City Council meeting of January 6, 1964, held for the purpose of discussing the Upper Bay land exchange proposal. (Exhibit B) 3. Letter of March 10, 1964, from Mayor Charles Hart to the Board of Supervisors stating the City's minimum requirements for park sites in the Upper Bay. (Exhibit C) 4. Letter of May 6, 1964, from Mayor Paul Gruber to the Board of Supervisors requesting conveyance of certain park sites to the City. (Exhibit D) 5. Editorial from May 14, 1964, edition of the Daily Pilot sup- porting the City's position that the County should make a definite commitment regarding park sites in the Upper Bay prior to submission of the exchange agreement to the State Lands Commission. (Exhibit E) 6. Memorandum of June, 1964, from Mayor Paul Gruber to the City Council reporting on a meeting concerning the park sites with Supervisor Alton Allen and other County representatives. (Exhibit F) 7o Memorandum of December 15, 1964, from City Manager Robert Coop to Mayor Paul Gruber reviewing certain meetin s held with Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Director. (Exhibit G� 8. News article from Daily Pilot edition of 12/16/64 reporting on Council action authorizing Mayor Gruber to seek a public commitment from the Board of Supervisors. (Exhibit H) 9. Letter of December 17, 1964, from Mayor Gruber to the Board of Supervisors requesting that the Board make a public com- mitment to convey the park sites to the City, (Exhibit I) Footnote: Other documents relating to this problem which may be of interest to the Council Ste described below. They have not been included in the attachments because of their length and because most of them have previously been distributed to the members of the Council. These documents and additional reference material may be obtained from the City Attorney or the Public Works Department. a. Upper Newport Bay Development. A Report on The Irvine Company Land Exchange Proposal. December 4, 1963. Prepared by the City Manager. b. Preliminary Report on Newport Beach City's Request to Modify The Irvine Company's Upper Newport Bay Land Proposal. December 6, 1964. Prepared by Harbor District Staff. C. City Attorney's opinions Tidelands in Upper Bay. February 24, 1965. 2. concerning ownership of August 20, 1963, and Y w i CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH To The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House i Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: CALIFORNIA December 18, 1963 City Hall 3300 W; Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 / 673 -2110 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach at an adjourned meeting held on December 10, 1963 further reviewed, the land trade proposed to your honorable body by The Irvine Company. At that meeting, after lengthy public discussion and review, the Council unanimously directed me to advise your honorable body that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does not concur in the subject land trade pri- `marily because of the lack of publicly owned shoreline along the lower portion of the Upper Bay.. The Council feels that major consideration should be given to keep as much as possible of.this shoreline in public ownership. Our review of the proposed land trade clearly dis- closed that access to the waters of the bay will be denied to the public on both sides of the bay from the County owned Newport Dunes property northerly to the proposed public park areas in the upper section of the bay. To deed away title to existing publicly owned tidelands, even though accomplished through a land exchange, we believe is not in keeping with the spirit of the tideland grant of easement to the County which is held in trust for the people of California nor is it realistic in view of the shortage of publicly owned water front in the State generally. We further believe that the land exchange, if approved, will not result in a sufficiently prompt and efficient develop- ment of the Upper Bay as a useable and useful area for navi- gation, commerce or recreation. As you know, under the recommendation of the Orange County Harbor District, the private developers of the lands adjacent to the proposed harbor Exhibit A Board of Supervisors- -page 2 -- 12/18/63 lines would be required to dredge the bay to the center of the channel. Under such a plan the bay could develop in a haphazard manner and the timing of the projects would be left entirely to the discretion of the land owner or owners. Rep- resentatives of The Irvine Company have admitted that under such a plan the Upper Bay might not be completely developed for the next twenty -five years. We take no issue with the County's desire to establish regional parks at the northerly end of the bay, for we recog- nize that public facilities must be available to those not fortunate enough to live nearby. We do believe, however, that all public recreational facilities should not be con- centrated at the northerly end of the bay as now proposed to the exclusion of any public areas in the lower portion of the bay. Newport Beach residents, within whose City boundaries all of the Upper Bay is located, should have access to public areas along the shoreline. We believe that the people of Newport. Beach expect that their elected representatives will protect their right to reasonable access to the waters of the Upper Bay and their right to the use of reasonable areas of shoreline for recrea- tional purposes. We are aware that The Irvine Company is willing to, discuss the varied uses of property abutting the Upper Bay and to talk to community groups regarding the leasing of beach facilities on the bay. We are also aware, however, that changing economic conditions, both within and outside The Company, can force a change of plans by The Company for the development of the bay. Such a realization in no way impugns the public- minded motives of The Irvine Company at this time. The fact remains, however, that public 'ownership of areas along.the shoreline is the only way to assure that such areas will be perpetually available for future public use. Because we agree that in opposing the proposed land trade, we have an obligation to propose.a method for the solution of the problem, we offer, if requested, to immed- iately cooperate with The Irvine Company and with representa�- tives of your honorable body in the master planning of the area to the end that the development of the Upper Bay can become a reality.in as short a time as possible. Board of Supervisors- -page 3 -- 12/18/63 We request, therefore, that your honorable body defer action on the proposed land exchange for a period of ninety days in order to provide an opportunity for the Count of Orange, The Irvine Company, and the City of Newport Beach to work together to develop a mutually acceptable plan for the improvement of the Upper Bay. In closing,, may I quote from the conclusion of the report submitted to the City Council by our administrative staff - The solution to Upper Newport Bay development is the greatest planning challenge to our City(and perhaps to the County) today. The best thinking, representing all points of view, is required to make sure that this natural resource is developed to its full potential." Thank you for the opportunity to present the City of Newport Beach's point of view. We ask you to weigh it care- fully. Sincerely, 4TY OF NEWPORT BEA(* COUNCILMEN Volume 17 - Pager 164 Minutes of REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCI Date of Meetings January 6, . 1964 a Index °$ Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. URAFT MINUTES m r "� v $ r A N N a� Exhibit B i+crx Roll Call: Present Nxxxxxx Mayor Hart stated that. the adjourned meeting was being held for discussion of the proposed Upper Bay tidelands land exchange between Orange County and The Irvine Com- pany. A memorandum dated January 3,. 1964, was presented from the City Manager entitled "Upper Bay," submitting Lower Bay public and private ownership comparisons and a pro - posal for the development of the Upper Bay, being the gen- eral recommendations of the administrafHe'. staff,'. including the.Parks,,,Beachesand Recreation Director, the.Planning Director, the Public Works Director, and the City Manager enumerating ten specific points. Each Councilman was 'requested to present his views on the proposed action. A letter was presented by Councilman Cook from Don Sloper; President of the Balboa Island Improvement Asso- ciation, which letter states that the Association supports the position taken by the Council that. insufficient public access to the water was provided in the original Irvine plan for Upper Bay development and that the acquisition of more public beaches. for the City of Newport- Beach -is of the ut- most concern. Regarding the ten points submitted in the memorandum aforementioned, the Council tentatively agreed as follows: - (1) The Council approved Point 1, that the proposed chan- nel width of 700 feet to 1000 feet is necessary for proper water flow and proper boating use. (9) The general consensus of the Council is that they are particularly questioning the advisability of having the secondRegional Park, Parcels 33 and 35, a recreation- al area, and also the Council would prefer to use that area or an equivalent for beaches. in other areas, and the Council feels, it does not need to be specific at this :time; or', in other words,it was agreed that the second Regional Park, Parcels 33 and 35, be made into smaller areas located where they presently are and in other areas on the bay. (3) and (4) It was agreed that Points. 3 and 4 were County decision matters. (5) It was agreed that the mouth of Big Canyon,. 1500 feet of beach frontage, plus park area, be dedicated for public park purposes. ;� �EcEivEiJ JAN v Page 164 Exhibit B IRTY OF NEWPORT BEA(* Volume 17.- Page 165 Index T.,....., .... L 1nLA COUNCILMEN N (6) It was agreed that Point 6 as at was satisfactory. (7) It was agreed that Point. 7 was satisfactory. (8) It was agreed that Point 8 was satisfactory. but that a figure was needed from the Park Department as to.the number of square feet per person generally required. (9) It was agreed that Point 9 should be "That the proposed northerly Regional Park is well located to permit hea out -of -town access without abuse to local.residential streets." (10) Consideration was given to Point 10 and a discussion ensued. The City 'Manager . presented a letter from Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager, stating-.that the Board of Supervisors had instructed "That.the Harbor District staff immediately, in cooperation with the City of New- port Beach and The Irvine Company, make a study of the City requirements. - in.the area other than that. por- tion.thereof to be used for regional park purposes and to report. to this Board within ninety, days from the date," December 31,.1963. Since some members. of the Council wished to indicate that the proposed plan is, .not in:the public interest, not to the County's advantage and that the public is shut out of the plan,. the timeli- ness of consulting with the Harbor district staff and The Irvine Company as to planning, was questioned. The following people participated in the discussion: Ray Watson and William Mason of The Irvine Company, and Calvin Stewart, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director. Mayor'Hart was. instructed to appoint a Committee to Motion x work with the Harbor Department and The Irvine Com- All Ayes pany.to work out some formula under which the City would be assured neighborhood beaches, that the repor be submitted to the City Council for transmission.to the Board of Supervisors;. it was further directed that the Board of Supervisors be advised now, prior to the ex- piration of the ninety days, that the Council feels that the equity of the trade is not sufficiently in favor of the County or the public, as shown by a study of the. County Right -of -Way Agent's report. MayyrHar3 appointed Councilman Gruber and Council- ' - " "' '- "" - man -Cook to serve with him on said Committee. Page 165 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. 673 -2110 March 10, 1964 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House . Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: The City Council of Newport Beach has given further study to the proposed trade of land between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company and has worked with the Harbor Department staff and The Irvine Company concerning the requirements of the City of Newport Beach in Upper Newport Bay. This is in accord with the resolution of your Board of December 18, 1963. The City Council continues to have reservations about . the trade because of the transfer of tidelands to private ownership. However,, this is a question for the Board of Supervisors itself.to decide. Parcels Nose 110, 114, 116, 118, and 120, shown on the drawing entitled Land Parcel Exhibit for Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan, March, 1964 U 10.2 -2, are minimum City requirements. It is, essential that the control,'development, administration and use of these five parcels be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. The details to accomplish this may be worked out as the proposed trade is processed. With public access to the Bay provided at these addi- tional locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served. Very .truly yours, Charles E. Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach Exhibit C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA May 6, 1964 Honorable Board of.5upervisors County of Orange County Court House Santa.Ana, California Gentlemens City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 873.2110 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Honorable Body,today..representing the City of Newport.Beach. With all of the Upper Bay lying within the City Limits of Newport Beach, it is.cer- tainly,appropriate that the proper.s.olut.ion of the development of Upper Newport Bay be a joint decision of the County of ..Orange, the Orange County Harbor District and the City of Newport Beach. We keenly appreciate your Honorable Body's acknowledgement of.-this joint responsibility by delaying the decision -last December• until our.respective governmental agencies could discuss the matter further and come up with an acceptable basic solution. As a result. of.thesa discussions, you have before you the report .titled Upper Newport_Bay Land Exchange Plan dated March 31, 1964, which includes Land Parcel.Exhibit C.- U 10.2 -2. Parcels 110, 114, 116, 118 and 120 shown on Exhibit C are the areas which we feel should be avai.l- able,,for public use. We believe that.the control, development, ad- ministration and use of the five parcels.so designated be vested exclusively in the.City.in perpetuity. Wea believe that it makes Exhibit D 0 • Honorable Board of Supervisors May 6, 1964 Page. -2- little or no difference whether or not the conveyance for such proms party comes from the Irvine Company or from.the County of.Orange.to the City. .There appears to be no problem in connection.with the conveyance of the property to the City without charge .because of the .agreed . upon public usage of such property. The details to ac- complish such conveyance could be worked out as.the proposed over- all-solution is processed. With public access to the Bay provided .at these locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be .better served. We support the.proposed amendments to the original land trade proposal and urge your Honorable Body's acceptance of them. Cordially, y L J. GRUBER 1/m Mayor 0 E ,. DAIL'Y ]PILOT EDIT®RIAL• AGE Id O wo',K Y estio"Its Officers of local government and the Irvine Com- however, suggests the tidelands title may have auto pan; have now moved another step toward seeking an matically transferred to city control when Newport equitable division of public and private ownership of Beach annexed the Upper Bay in 1955. r holdings in Upper Newport Bay. If Newport decides it is necessary in the public The action came last week when Orange County interest to advance a lawsuit for city control of the tide ms lands, such action might delay harbor development for supervisors and Irvine Ranch officials agreed on ter "'. of a complex tidelands trade that could result in multi- years as legal arguments slowly wend their way up the t million dollar development of the Back Bay as a "second judicial ladder. harbor" in Newport. The future potential for public recreation, private Briefly, the ranch company agrees to give up, its development and needed expansion of tax base would islands to allow channel development and to donate 29() probably be retarded pending the final court decision acres of waterfront property for public parks: In turn Perhaps the key to avoiding such a tragic delay cen Irvine gains title to all remaining water frontage around . ters on a local agreement for an equitable division of the Upper Bay. 'city-county control over the public areas to be created. Before the exchange can become reality, however, It is reasonable that the county should operate the " it must be found legal and in the public interest by the 122 -acre regional park facility at the far end of Upper State Lands Commission and the California Supreme Bay. It is equally reasonable that Newport Beach'should Court control and operate the two small West Bluff parks and e While it may appear the trade is now ready to move the Big Canyon facility, all of which are surrounded by up to the state level, at least two key questions remain city residential areas. - unanswered:. Unfortunately, there are now clear indications that 1. Does either the County of Orange or the City of...: `,;; some county officials want to hedge on any solid com-. . !'= Newport Beach actually control the tidelands of Upper mitment granting the, city jurisdiction over any .park Newport Bay? areas. 2. What will be the division of authority between The time has come when city and county officials " the city and the county: on public areas after the. ex must speak with candor and clear the air on the tide- ! ' ° change is an accomplished fact? lands and parks issues. C. Since negotiations opened on a possible realign If the county is willing or unwilling to grant park r" ment of Back Bay holdings,. these two questions have areas to the city, county officers should say so now hung like a pall. If Newport Beach plans to sue for the tidelands If the two issues can be resolved on the local level, under any circumstances, then, the city should say so perhaps some major pitfalls can be avoided, thus as now. sating early harbor development. The. prudent course of action would seem to be a Orange County has always assumed that it controls city- county agreement that could forestall a long and the Upper Bay tidelands Another body of legal though, tidelands lawsuit Exhibit E -. TO: FROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Paul J. Gruber The following information is furnished in connection with the Upper Newport Bay Land of Orange and the Irvine Company as it affects .J June, 1964 concerning developments Exchange between the County the City of Newport Beach. On Friday, May 15, the undersigned, together with City Manager Robert Coop, Councilman Doreen Marshall, City Attorney Walter Charamza, Adrian Kuypers of the County Counsel's Office, Kenneth Sampson, Orange County Harbor District Manager, met with County Supervisor Alton Allen in Santa Ana at a luncheon conference in response to his invitation to- meet and discuss elements involved in the development of the Back Bay Land Exchange and, in particular, the City's position with respect to the parcels which the City has stated should be available for public use and the control, development, administration and use to be vested ex- clusively in the City in perpetuity, Supervisor Allen stated at the outset of this meeting that the County Counsel did not believe that it was possible to convey the five parcels, Nos. 110, 114, 116, 118 and 120, shown.on Exhibit C -U. 10.2 -2 of the report titled "Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan" dated March 31, 1964, to the City of Newport.Beach and that it was felt that it should not be a part of the Land Exchange between the Irvine Company and the County as placed before the State Lands Commission and the courts. He stated that after the exchange had been approved by the - courts and the State Lands Commission that something could possibly be worked out for Newport Beach with relation .to the two beach areas on the west side of the bay, perhaps through a lease arrangement or something similar. The County was only interested in developing the two park areas. It was pointed out to Supervisor Allen that the`City Council of Newport Beach had from the beginning of the discussions with the Harbor District and the Irvine Company felt that the two beach areas on the west side of the bay, as well as the Big Canyon area extending from Jamboree Road to the water's edge, should be under the control for de- velopment,-administration and use of the City of Newport Beach in per- petuity, with the exception of a small area on the water front of Big Canyon of some two acres or so, or whatever size was required for the use of the Harbor District operations in the Upper Bay, to be retained by the County. It was felt that a definite agreement as to all of these parcels should be made between the County and the City prior to the matter of exchange being submitted to the State Lands Commission and to the courts. Exhibit F:. Memo Tot Members Page -2- • • of the City Council Mr. Allen stated that the Board of Supervisors felt that the matter could be more easily handled before the above agencies if it was presented as a land exchange between the County and the Irvine Company without any other factors involved. Also, that the question of the ownership of the tidelands should not be an issue in these presentations. Supervisor Allen was advised that ownership of the tidelands may become an issue and that the same might be initiated by private individuals who had an interest in such a determination. He- stated that the Supervisors would not raise the question of ownership of the tidelands and that he was aware, however, of the fact that the City Attorney of Newport Beach had advised the Council on this matter. It was agreed that in the event the matter of tidelands ownership did become an issue through any kind of development, that the City of Newport Beach could raise this issue in a court action without appearing to be arbitrary insofar as the Board of Supervisors is concerned. During these discussions it was plainly stated that the City felt that some method of conveyance of all the parcels to the City could be - worked out. During the ensuing discussion Kenneth Sampson, Orange County Harbor District Manager, requested to know what the City would do with the waterfront area at the Big Canyon. It was stated in answer that the City would develop a part of the waterfront in depth as a beach and that a portion would be developed eventually as a marina with piers and slips and that the income from this, together with that derived from parking charges, would be used to pay the development and operational expense as was being done so successfully with the Corona del Mar State and City Beach Park. The cost of developing the Big Canyon area would be.consider- able and the income mentioned would be necessary for this development. A -City beach and park in this location was ,needed as the Big Canyon area was soon to be entirely surrounded by residential development now going forward at a fast pace. Special attention was directed to the fact that the beach areas on the west side of the bay, as well as Big Canyon, would be for the use of all of the people as administered by the City the same as it would be if it were administered by the County. As to the County's plan to develop the regional park at the upper end of the bay, it was stated that the City had always considered this satisfactory, but that it was hoped that a "Dunes" type operation would be avoided in this development. Supervisor Allen stated that he could understand the City's position and that the County really had no interest in any park development other than the large regional park and that Big Canyon was not considered suitable as a County park site. In closing the discussions it was agreed that Walter Charamza, City Attorney of Newport Beach, and the County Counsel would work together Memo To: Members o• he City Council Page -3- in an effort to devise a means of conveying the parcels included in the two beaches on the west side of the bay and all of the Big Canyon, includ- ing the waterfront, except for the small area needed by the Harbor District, to the City of Newport Beach and that Kenneth Sampson, Harbor District Manager and Robert Coop, City Manager of Newport Beach, would work to- gether with their staffs to work out details of uses of these'Upper Bay areas. It was agreed that it was essential that the orderly development of the Upper Bay was necessary and that no unnecessary delay be had in connection with this development. It was agreed a joint statement would be released to the press concerning the discussions. This statement was prepared by City Manager Robert Coop in accordance with details agreed upon at the conference and released after the same was approved by telephone to Supervisor Allen on May 15. Arrangements have been made through Assemblyman Badham's office to secure the agenda of the State Lands'Commssion for the next several months in order to be aware of any action which the County may make in placing this before the State Lands Commission. Supervisor Allen on June 4th stated that the agreements between the County and the Irvine Company had not as yet been signed -as they were in the process of being prepared and that he did not have any knowledge as to the date when the same would be forwarded to the State Lands Commission. PAU J. GRUBER Mayor / CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: MAYOR GRUBER FROM: Robert Coop In accordance with our agreement reached in our meeting in May with representatives of Orange County, I have met on two occasions with Ken Sampson and his staff relative to the matter of Upper Bay beaches. Cal Stewart, P, B & R Director, has pre= ' pared sketches for the development of the three Upper Bay beaches and these have been reviewed with Mr. Sampson. At the administrative level it has been agreed that both of the Upper Bay beaches on the west side would be under com- plete jurisdiction and control of the City of Newport Beach. The Big Canyon beach and recreation area would also be under the complete jurisdiction and control of the City of Newport Beach, Mr. Sampson's office, however, does not agree with regard to the operation of the Marina portion of the Big Canyon Recreation area. It is his feeling that all, or part, of tie revenue- produc- ..ing Marina should be under the jurisdiction of the County. The development of Big Canyon Recreation area will be very expensive, but pretty much worthwhile.' It will represent one of the major open areas of the City and should eventually extend all the way from Big Canyon Reservoir down to the Upper Bay. I think it is quite likely that negotiations with the Irvine Company will prove very fruitful for eventual dedication of this to the City. The only question, of course, is the Marina portion at the Upper Bay itself. It's my feeling that the City should stand firm and should not only acquire, but control, all marine facilities at this public a area and I see no reason why the County should be involved in what will be a local park. The distinction should rest between ir. local parksand regional parks, and it is quite obvious that the regional park planned at the head of the bay will serve in tri- County and, therefore, should be under the direction of the County and the responsibility should rest with the County for its develop ment and operation. I Exhibit G .� /N•Vl� ,�1 �. r ' In bilef,-tbe trade; *bicH will not take place until the high court makes its ruling,1 �1 ed� "calls for Irvine granting four 1 waterfront parks for public use in exchange • for f Cj illed tidelands free of public rights afor fishing, navigation , and ou[�t ;commerce. i Principal purpose of the ex- 'change is to pave the w a y for major development of the Upper Bay by the Irvine NB Seeks VOW Company. ". Newport Vice Mayor Don. Park Ti l e aid Elder this week suggest. On Pa . ed that in view of imminent state action on the swap; By JEROME F. COLLINS county supervisors should tie Of IM ONry Pilo Slat, asked publicly to .commit thel Newport Beach city coun• county to convey to the city, Oilmen were on record today title to three of the four.Parkl demanding sites. g public pledge "The transfer. of t it 1 e," t transfer m from oa County super- said Councilman J a e s B. visors to transfer to the city Stoddard, "should be simul- three parks included in t h e taneous with state, approval CountyIry ne Company Back that's not Bay tidelands exchange, of the exchange. If that s not Mayor Paul J. Gruber, in possible,, there should be Unanimous City Council ac- some kind of commitment to lion, has been authorized to give us the parks after the Send a letter to the Board of trade is approved at the state level." Supervisor seeking the com- mitmpnt. The council then formally t Muncipal lawmakers acted voted to make the request of (after City Attorney T u I 1 county supervisors. (Seymour reported t h a t the ' The three proposed parks tidelands swap, approved at are a 37 -acre facility. in Big the county level last May, is. Canyon below the East Bluff, a Slated to go before the State,'w acre West Bluff park below Lands Commission within two • Rigel Circle, and a weeks. If the complex ex • two -acre park south : of 23r . change of lands is approved Street. by 'the commission, it is ex• The city is not s'e e k i n petted to go before the Cah Iurisdic Ion over a f o u r t I fornia Supreme Court for a park site included in the.exy '*t of .its; legality, <'; r: change Exhibit H 11 A. December 17, 196 t. Orange County 30ard of Supervisors . P. O. Box 8]9 Santa x� 8aata Anse California �_�� . We recently received informatien that an agreement for Z exehango of lands in Uppor Newport Bay between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company will soon be ready for prssentatloa to the State Loads Commission. ! The Newport Beach City Council has instructad tno to request th+t the .. Board of Supervisors clarify its position in rogard to the City's proposal K:. which was previously transmitted to you that three neighborhood park sites, two located on the West Bluff and one on the East Bluff, be conveyed to the City is conjunction with the land exchange agreement. We, therefore, suggest the following alternatives to you. The City Council would prefer that the transfer of the l =h sites to the City be included as a part of the had exchange agreement prior to its submission to the Brats Lands Commis'aion. however, if this is not a feasible meewd of accomplish- ing the tranefor of the park sites to the City, the City Coaaeil respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors adapt a resolution expressing its intention to trauster title to the park sites to the City after the exchange of lands between the County and The Irvine Company has besn.appro *4 by the State Lands Commission and the courts. The City Council would be pleased to send ldpresentstivss to vaset with you to discuss this matter further should you so desire. Very truly yours. Mani J. Gruber Mayor City of Newport Beach PJGsmte♦ , /6 Exhibit I . 0 AGENDA UPPER BAY REVIEW 1. Introduction of subject (Hurlburt) 16 May 17, 1965 2. Outline of present and proposed bay configuration (Devlin) 3, Irvine Company property ownership (Devlin) 4. Property exchange (Devlin) 5. Recreation areas (Hurlburt) 6. Description of Upper Bay Development plans (Bill Mason) p� �rD tD hLn w H N Wa a w x w a a D S i , C 1 41 w m ro [ v o N H J-1 O W rn O •.1 : 4) w w o m- .0 X o w a N 41 ro r-1 3 N v v U A w o CO .0 •,I to m a w m m ors, 41 C O 11 11 J-1 W W W W N O O O W O O Ln ` 41 1D d' LD ro r-1 3 u u u u ro 4 9c w N Ln o Ln FC V N O N r .a Ul � o b (.' Ln - 0 0 QI n in o N N O a C, N .-1 O O O O O ro 41 O O O O O Ln 0 0 000 11. r-1 41 C w O O O O 41 O O O O Q N O O O O O U) U O Ln O rn O vrn r-4 A v a-1 x x •.1 In m m x a a m w ro ro a ro 0 0 W . 11 a N r-4 N 0 44 it it riY. 44 , Ac U b x z z A ° tr •� rn m v v •.+ ro z z m w S i , C 1 P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Orange County board of , Supervisors P'. O. Sox M Santa Ass. California December 17, 1464 Gentleman: Ws recently.received information that an agreement for the Ayvchange of lands in Lipper Xewpoat Bay bct veer the C::urty of Grange zmd The Irvine Company will soon be ready for presentation to the State Lands Commission. The Newport Beach City Council has instructed me to request that the Board of Supervisors clarify its position in regard to the City'.@ proposal which was previously traierrAitted to you that three neighborhood park sites, two located on t:he Rest Bluff and one on the East Bluff, be conveyed to the City in conjunction with the land exchange agreement. We, therefore. suggest the following alternatives to you. The City Council would prefer that the transfer of the park sites to the City be included as a part of the land exchange agreement prior to its submission to the State Lands Commission. However, if this is not a feasible method of accomplish- ing the transfer of the park sites to the City, the City.Council respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution expressing its intention to transfer title to the park sites to the City after the exchange of land@ between the County and The Irvine Company has been approved by the State lands Commission and the courts. The City Council would be pleased to send representatives to meet with you to discuss this matter further should you so desire,_ Very truly yours, Paul J. Gruber Mayor City of Newport Beach PJG:mew DRAFT ' THS:mec 12/17/64 (2) n,. To: The Honorable Board of Supervisors of Orange County Gentlemen: We recently received information that an agreement for the exchange of lands in Upper Newport Bay between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company will soon be ready for presentation to the State Lands Commission. The Newport Beach City Council has instructed me to request that the Board of Supervisors clarify its position in regard to the City's proposal which was previously transmitted to you that three neighborhood park sites, two located on the West Bluff and one on the East Bluff, be conveyed to the City in conjunction with the land exchange agreement. We, therefore, suggest the following alternatives to you. The City Council would prefer that the transfer of the park sites to the City be included as a part of the land exchange agreement prior to its submission to the State Lands Commission. However, if this is not a feasible method of accomplishing the transfer of the park sites to the City, the City Council respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution expressing its intention to transfer title to the park sites to the City after the exchange of lands between the County and The Irvine Company has been approved by the State Lands Commission and the courts. The City Council would be pleased to send representatives to meet with you to discuss this matter further should you so desire. Very truly yours, Paul J. Gruber Mayor, City of Newport Beach M_ ;;� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Mayor Paul J. Gruber Alt, June, 1964 o / The following information is furnished concerning developments in connection with the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange between the County of Orange and the Irvine Company as it affects the City of Newport Beach. On Friday, May 15, the undersigned, together with City Manager Robert Coop, Councilman Doreen Marshall, City Attorney Walter Charamza, Adrian Kuypers of the County Counsel's Office; Kenneth Sampson, Orange County Harbor District Manager, met with County Supervisor Alton Allen in Santa Ana at a luncheon conference in response to his invitation to meet and discuss elements involved in the development of the Back Bay Land Exchange and, in particular, the City's position with respect to the parcels which the City has stated should be available for public use and the control, development, administration and use to be vested ex- clusively in the City in perpetuity, Supervisor Allen stated at the outset of this meeting that the County Counsel did not believe that it was possible to convey the five parcels, Nos, 110, 114, 116, 118 and 120, shown on Exhibit C -U. 10 >2 -2 of the report titled "Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan" dated March 31, 1964, to the City of Newport Beach and that it was felt that it should not be a part of the Land Exchange between the Irvine Company and the County as placed before the State Lands Commission and the courts. He stated that after the exchange had been approved by the courts and the State Lands Commission that something could possibly be worked out for Newport Beach with relation to the two beach areas on the west side of the bay, perhaps through a lease arrangement or something similar. The County was only interested in developing the two park areas. It was pointed out to Supervisor Allen that the City Council of Newport Beach had from the beginning of the discussions with the Harbor District and the Irvine Company felt that the two beach areas on the west side of the bay, as well as the Big Canyon area extending from Jamboree Road to the water's edge, should be under the control for de- velopment, administration and use of the City of Newport Beach in per- petuity, with the exception of a small area on the water front of Big Canyon of some two acres or so, or whatever size was required for the use of the Harbor District operations in the Upper Bay, to be retained by the County. It was felt that a definite agreement as to all of these parcels should be made between the County and the City prior to the matter of exchange being submitted to the State Lands Commission and to the courts. Memo Toe Members of the City Council Page -2- Mr. Allen stated that the Board of Supervisors felt that the matter could be more easily handled before the above agencies if it was presented as a land exchange between the County and the Irvine Company without any other factors involved. Also, that the question of the ownership of the tidelands should not be an issue in these presentations. Supervisor Allen was advised that ownership of the tidelands may become an issue and that the same might be initiated by private individuals who had an interest in such•a determination. He stated that the Supervisors would not raise the question of ownership of the tidelands and that he was aware, however, of the fact that the City Attorney of Newport Beach had advised the Council on this matter. It was agreed that in the event the matter of tidelands ownership did become an issue through any kind of development, that the City of Newport Beach could raise this issue in a court action without appearing to be arbitrary insofar as the Board of Supervisors is concerned. During these discussions it was plainly stated that the City felt that some method of conveyance of all the parcels to the City could be worked out. During the ensuing discussion Kenneth Sampson, Orange County Harbor District Manager, requested to know what the City would do-with the waterfront area at the Big Canyon.. It was stated in answer that the City would develop a part of the waterfront in depth as a beach and that a portion would be developed eventually as a marina with piers and slips and that the income from this, together with that derived from parking charges, would be used to pay the development and operational expense as was being done so successfully with the Corona del Mar State and City Beach Park. The cost of developing the Big Canyon area would be - consider- able and the income mentioned would be necessary for this development. A City beach and park in this location was needed as the Big Canyon area was soon to be entirely surrounded by residential development now going forward at a fast pace. Special attention was directed to the fact that the beach areas on the west side of the bay, as well as Big Canyon, would be for the use of all of the people as administered by the City the same as it would be if it were administered by the County. As to the County's plan to develop the regional park at the upper end of the bay, it was stated that the City had always considered this satisfactory, but that it was hoped that a "Dunes" type operation would be avoided in this development. Supervisor Allen stated that he could understand the City's position and that the County really had no interest in any park development other than the large regional park and that Big Canyon was not considered suitable as a County park site. In closing the discussions it was agreed that Walter Charamza, City Attorney of Newport Beach, and the County Counsel would work together 'c Memo To: Members ofthe City Council Page -3- in an effort to devise a means of conying the parcels included in the two beaches on the west side of the bay and all of the Big Canyon, includ- ing the waterfront, except for the small area needed by the Harbor District, to the City of Newport Beach and that Kenneth Sampson, Harbor District Manager and Robert Coop, City Manager of Newport Beach, would work to- gether with their staffs to work out details of uses of these.Upper Bay areas. It was agreed that it was essential that the orderly development of the Upper Bay was necessary and that no unnecessary delay be had in connection with this development. It was agreed a joint statement would be released to the press concerning the discussions. This statement was prepared by City Manager Robert Coop in accordance with details agreed upon at the conference and released after the same was approved by telephone to Supervisor Allen on May 15. Arrangements have been made through Assemblyman Badham's office to secure the agenda of the State Lands Commission for the next several months in order to be aware of any action which the County may make in placing this before the State Lands Commission. Supervisor Allen on June 4th stated that the agreements between the County and the Irvine Company had not as yet been signed as they were in the process of being prepared and that he did not have any knowledge as to the date when the same would be forwarded to the State Lands Commission. PAU J. GRUBER Mayor ,Tune 15, 1964 Mr. Charles E. Hart 404 - 40th Street Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Hart: Mayor Gruber has requested that a copy of the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County adopted May 6, 1964, be forwarded to you. Said Resolution ' commends you and others for your cooperation and construc- tive attitude toward the "Upper Newport Bay Development Project." Of course we miss you vary much around the City Hall. I bnow that you are enjoying your full calendar of activities but hope that you have time to say hello now and then. Sincerely, Harger c o er City Clark MS /vm we OF NCaE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT May 25, 1964 City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: W. E. ST JOHN COUNTY CLERK TELEPHONE: 54] -054] AREA CODE 714. COURTHOUSE P. O. BOX 838 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 64 -633 dated May 6, 1964, adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, commending the City of Newport Beach, its officers, employees and especially the Committee members for their cooperation and their constructive attitude toward the Upper Newport Bay Development Project. mjn Enc. C1 0WO N�PORZ BfACN1 ,/^ COUt0L: wspb '0 Very truly yours, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California By 7� Deputy Clerk i 11 I RESOLUTION OF TFig E©A1t11 OF SUPERVISORS of 2 ARMGE COMM, CALrr(miA 3 6s 1 4 51 On cwrion of Supervisor All=, duly seconded and carried, the 6I following Resolution was aadoptedte. 71 WHEiRJEAB, the Upper ?�wport Bay Development Project is of 81 vital importance to the cony inued growth of Orange County as an 9 outstRadins recreational center and as one of the ,most desirable 101 places in tlhi� !baited States in which to live and work; "I W10aEASy the City of Newport Beach and Its officers and em- 12 ployees, and especially Vwyor Paul J. Gruber, former Mayor (Searles 13 E. Hart end Councilman bee Cook, as members of the Upper Newport 14 Bay Committee, have devoted many hours during the past several years ,Zz 15i to consideration of said project and its potential and problems; and °'S >.m r>." lsl WHEREAS, this Board has this date approved the Upper Newport < �00 171 Bay Land Exchange Report; 18 NOW9 TROXFORB, BE IT RESOLVED that on this historic occasion, 19 culminating fourteen years of efforts, the City of Newport Beach 20 and its officers, employees and especially the above -named Committee 21 members, be and the saes are hereby commended for their cooperation 22 and their constructive attitude toward, the Upper Newport Bay Develop- 23 ment Project 24 25 AYES: SUPERVISORS At -TON E. ALLEN, DAVID L. BALER, WN. HIRSTEIN 26I AND C. M. FEAT"atRLY 27 NABS; SUPERVISORS NONE 28 ABSENTt SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS 29 30 31 32 Resolution No. 64-633 SCP :l 1. II ill STATE cw "LiFCMTA 2 COMM OF mum 3 Is W. B. ST Jai, County Mark and ex- officio Claris of the 4 Soared of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify 5 that the above and foregoing Resolution am duly and regularly adopted 6 by the said Hoard at a reSular m"ting thereof held on the 6th day 7 of May, 1%4 and passed by a unanimous vote of said Hoard members 8 present, 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto not my hand and real this 10 6th day of Kay, 1964. 111 W. S. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk 12 of the Hoard of Supervisors of 13 Orange County„ California J 14 , m� 15 Deputy, „zz ° "o ° 16 ° n i ° °Z< Do 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange County Court House Santa Ana, California "'CALIFORNIA May 6, 1964 RECEIVE')� c, VV q City Hall 9300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 873.2110 Gentlemen • I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Honorable Body today representing the City of Newport Beach. With all of the Upper Bay lying within the City Limits of Newport Beach, it is -cer- tainly appropriate that the proper solution of the development of Upper Newport Bay be a joint decision of the County of Orange, the Orange County Harbor District and the City of Newport Beach. We keenly appreciate your Honorable Body's acknowledgement of this joint responsibility by delaying the decision last December until our respective governmental agencies could discuss the matter further and come up with an acceptable basic solution. As a result of these discussions, you have before you the report titled Upper Newport.Bay Land Exchange Plan dated March 31, 1964, which includes Land Parcel Exhibit C - U 10.2 -2. Parcels 110, 114, 116, 118 and 120 shown on Exhibit C are the areas which we feel should be avai1- able for public use. We believe that the control, development, ad- ministration and use of the five parcels so designated be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. Wa believe that it makgs 0 0 Honorable Board of supervisors May 6, 1964 Page -2- little or no difference whether or not the conveyance for such proms perty comes from the Irvine Company or from the County of Orange to the City. There appears to be no problem in connection with the conveyance of the property to the City without charge because of the agreed upon public usage of such property. The details to ac- complish such conveyance could be worked out as the proposed over- all ..solution is processed. With public access to the Bay provided at these locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served. We support the.proposed amendments to the original land trade proposal and-urge your Honorable Body's acceptance of them. 1/m Cordially, WL J. G .Mayor ri ^1` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACIV CALIFORNIA May 6, 1964 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange County Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 873.2110 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Honorable Body today representing the City of Newport Beach. With all of.the Upper Bay lying within the City Limits of Newport Beach, it is.cer- tainly appropriate that the proper solution of the development of Upper Newport Bay be a joint decision of the County of Orange, the orange County Harbor District and the City of Newport Beach. We keenly appreciate your Honorable Body's acknowledgement of this joint responsibility by delaying the decision last December until our respective governmental agencies could discuss the matter further and come up with an acceptable basic solution. As a result of these discussions, you have before you the report titled Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan dated March 31, 1964, which includes Land Parcel Exhibit C - U 10.2 -2. Parcels 110, 114, 116, 118 and 120 shown on Exhibit C are the areas which we feel should be avail - �::.,. ..x .. �.•x. -�:.. ,- ;..... .-. .- r er .:..a,.vc rte.. :..:w.,.�w able for public use. We believe that the control, development, ad v., ministration and use of the five parcels so designated be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. W:= believe that it makes Honorable Board of Supervisor* May 6, 1964 Page -2- little or no difference whether or not the conveyance for such pra- perty comes from the Irvine Company or from the County of Orange to the City. There appears to be no problem in connection with the conveyance of the property to the City without charge because of the agreed upon public usage of such property. The details to ac- complish such conveyance could be worked out as the proposed over- all solution is processed. With public access to the Bay provided at these locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served. We support the proposed amendments to the original land trade proposal and urge your Honorable Body's acceptance of them. 1/m Cordially, J. GRUBER Mayor Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA May 6, 1964 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange County Court House Santa.Ana, California Gentlemen: City Hall 9300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 879-2110 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Honorable Body today representing the City of Newport Beach. With all of the Upper Bay lying within the City Limits of Newport Beach, it is -ce.r- tainly appropriate that the proper solution of the development of Upper Newport Bay be a joint decision of the County of Orange, the Orange County Harbor District and the City of Newport Beach. We keenly appreciate your Honorable Body's acknowledgement of this joint responsibility by delaying the decision last December until our respective governmental agencies could discuss the matter further and come up with an acceptable basic solution. As a result of these discussions, you have before you the report.titled U2 er Newport.Bay Land Exchange Plan dated March 31, 1964, which includes Land Parcel Exhibit C - U 10.2 -2. Parcels 110, 114, 116, 118 and 120 shown on Exhibit C are the areas which we feel should be avail- able for public use. We believe that the control, development, ad- ministration and use of the five parcels so designated be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. We believe that it makes Honorable Board of Supervisors May 6, 1964 Page -2- • little or no difference whether or not the conveyance for such pro- perty comes from the Irvine Company or from the County of Orange to the City. There appears to be no problem in connection with the conveyance of the property to the City.without charge because of the agreed upon public usage of such property. The details to ac- complish such conveyance could be worked out as the proposed over- all .solution is processed. with public access to the.Bay provided at these locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served. We support the proposed amendments to the original land trade proposal and urge your Honorable Body's acceptance of them. 1/m Cordially, ­C5-�':rWL J. GRUBER Mayor 1 RBSOLi3TIC)R OF TRX BOARD OF SUPERVISORS pP 2 MMGR CODNWO CALIFORNIA 3 May bs IWA 4 2111 members, be and the same are hereby commended for their cooperation 22 and their constructive attitude toward the Upper Newport Bay Develop - 23 meat Project. 24 25 AYESt SUPEAVISCRZS ALTON Z. ALLEN, DAVID L. BAKER, WK. RIRSTBIN 26 AND C. M. YEATdERLY 27 NOSS% SUPERVISORS NONE 28 ABSENT2 SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS 29 3011 1. 31 a,: 3211 Resolution NO. 64 -633 1. 5 On motion of Supervisor A.11ens duly seconded and carried, the . 6 following Resolution was.,adoptedt 7 WHEREASs the Upper Newport Bay Development Project is of 8 vital importance to the continued growth of orange County as an 9 outstanding recreational center and as one of the most desirable 10 places its the United States in which to live and work; 11 WHERgAS, the City of Newport Beach and its officers and am- 12 ployeess and especially Mayor Paul J. Crubar, former Ywyor Marles 13 8. Hart and Councilman Des Coots, as members of the Upper Newport 14 Bay Committees have devoted many hours during the past several years m, 15 to consideration of said project and its potential and problems; and 0'a t. 16 WREREASs this Board has this date approved the Upper Newport ez< �0 17 Bay Land Exchange Report; 18 NOWs THEMORB, BE IT RESOLVED that on this historic occasions 19 culminating fourteen years of efforts, the City of Newport Beach 20 and its officerss employees and especially the above -named Committee 2111 members, be and the same are hereby commended for their cooperation 22 and their constructive attitude toward the Upper Newport Bay Develop - 23 meat Project. 24 25 AYESt SUPEAVISCRZS ALTON Z. ALLEN, DAVID L. BAKER, WK. RIRSTBIN 26 AND C. M. YEATdERLY 27 NOSS% SUPERVISORS NONE 28 ABSENT2 SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS 29 3011 1. 31 a,: 3211 Resolution NO. 64 -633 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 W m� 15 z Y== bus 18 Ez! 17 u 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1— May 6, 1964 ` On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the County of Orange approve and it does hereby approve the exchange of lands between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company, as shown on Exhibit C in the Orange County Harbor District report filed with this Board on March 31, 1964, entitled, "Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Report ". 2. That the Orange County Harbor District Manager and the County Counsel, be and they are hereby instructed, in cooperation with The Irvine Company, to prepare and present to the Board for its approval, a formal Agreement between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company to effectuate the exchange of property. 3. That when the said Agreement for exchange has been approved by this Board of Supervisors and The Irvine Company, said Agreement be presented to the Lands Division of the State of California for its approval and, if approved by said Lands Commission, such action be taken as will cause said matter to be presented to the Supreme Court of the State of California to determine the legality of said exchange of property. AYES: SUPERVISORS ALTON E ALLEN WM HIRSTEIN DAVID L BAKE R NOES: ABSENT: AND C. M. FEATHERLY SUPERVISORS NONE SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS Resolution No. 64 -630 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 c M 1] 1. 1: 14 `zz 15 °moo °u r 16 0o 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 • a STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. 11COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of May , 19 64 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of May 1 1964 W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, Califoz�n;ta ; , -1 y B "Deputy'' i L P 1: 2. J 3, 1964 Orange County Board of .Supervisors Civic Center Santa Ana► California Attention: The Honorablc ' =1111aa J. Phillips, Chairman Gentlemen: The Orange < .'ouaty Coast Association membership is working in this Its 50th year for tM protection, orderly development, sad uplift of the Orange County eeastliaa. Development of vek r Newport so a consittee project over twenty years ape Little oz no visible progress has been sad*. new with the Univel ity of California- Irvine construction pro- greasing rapidly it becomes, is our opinion, iesediately argent that all issues be resolved. li i x In the best interests of the public good we appeal for every possible expediency on the part of the County, The Irvine Reath Company, and the City of Newport (leach in a satisfactory agreement for the exchanges of ;�roporty proposede and jurisdictional decisions, to eliminate all possible delay is this planned development. It is important that public confidence be maintained and restored in the light of positive aareemeats to bring about this much needed upper bay orderly development to coincide with the developments now materialising on both bluffs and terminated in the University marina roving course. For the Fifty ban Board of Directors, r- President, ang :County Coast Association r. j r MINUS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERARS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 31, 1964 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, also sitting as the Governing Board of the Districts governed by the Board of Supervisors, was held March 31 , 1964, at 9 :30 A.M. The following members being present: William J. Phillips, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, David L. Baker, Wm, Hirstein, Alton E. Allen and the Clerk. IN RL: REPORT PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY THE IRVINE COMPANY On moti;im of Supervisor Allen,, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the report dated March 31, 1964, on Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan prepared by the Orange County Harbor District, in cooperation with the City of Newport (leach and the Irvine Company, is received and the hearing In set for May 6, 1964, at 2 :00 P.M. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. County of Orange I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 31st day of March 196M1. W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, . California F1013 -1 O F Cie OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT March 20, 1964 _Z3_ City of Newport Beach Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs, Schrouder; W. E. ST JOHN COUNTY CLERK TELEPHONE; 547 -0547 AREA CODE 714 COURTHOUSE P. O. BOX 338 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA a atil' elf ttuwam AQ1 I am enclosing two copies of a minute order from the meeting of March 17, 1964, of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, pertaining to an extension of time for the report on the proposed Upper Newport Bay land exchange. Very truly yours, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. B y Deputy erk JB/encl . MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERIORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 17, 19C;' A regular meeting of the Board of Supe Mors of Orange County, California, also sitting as the Governing. Board of the DjActs governed by the Board of Supervisors, was held March 17 , 1964, at 9:30 A.M. The following members being present: William J. Phillips, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, David L. Baker, Wm. Hirstein, Alton E. Allen and the Clerk. IN RE: EXTENSION OF TIME REPORT ON PROPOSED UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANOE On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and unanimously carried, a time ension to March 31, 1964, at 2:00 P.M. for making a report to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed Upper Newport Bay land exchange as set.forth in Resolution No. 63 -1803 dated December 18, 1963, is- granted and so ordered. z r STATE OF CALIFORNIA, rss. County of Orange I, W. E. ST JOHN; County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California; hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on* record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and .seal this l? "G'1 day of March, 1964. W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California F1013 -1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERAORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1964 A regular meeting of the Board of Supei"tiisors of Orange County, California, also sitting as the Governing Board of the Districts governed by the Board of Supervisors, was held _I rch 17 , 1984, at 9:30 A.M. The following members being present: William J. Phillips, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, David L. Baker, Wm. Hirstein, Alton E. Allen and the Clerk. IN RE: EXTENSION OF TIME REPORT ON PROPOSED 'UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANW On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and unanimously carried, a time extension to March 31, 1964, at 2 :00 P.M. for making a report to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed Upper Newport Bay land exchange as set forth in Resolution No. 63 -1803 dated December 18, 1963, is granted and so ordered. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ge. County of Orange r I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 17, th day of MrCh, 19% W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California F1013.1 .. .. a' March 171 1964 Mr. W. R. Mason Vice president The Irvine Company 13042 Myford Road P. 00 Box 37 Irvine, California Dear Mr. Mason: In caM liana with the request of Mr, W. Worth Bernard, a copy of his latter dated March 9, addressed to the Council of the City of Newport Beach, is enclosed for your records. Very truly yours, Margery Schrouder City Clark City of Newport Beach MS: Enclosure x i4 -.?°* , s 8th & French, P.O. Box 1496 Newsmagazine of LIFE 0 SAI������. TRY Santa Ana, Calif. • KI 7 -5535 H onorable Mayor and Council City of Newport Beach 6eatlemenr Publisher oJ' ORANGE COUNTY YEARBOOK- DIRECTORY W. WORTH BERNARD, Pv.blisher and Editor President, CALIFORNIA DIGEST„ INC. March 9, 1964 As a taxpayer in both the lower bay and upper bay areas, I urge your honorable body to approve the plan for development of the Upper Hay as most recently negotiated and give the County Hoard of Hupervisorm the green light to permit their signing of a formal agreement between the County and The Irvine Company improvement of the Upper Hay. The Upper Hay has for many years been nothing but a shallow mud pondo as eye -eerep a hasard to navigation and lifor a blot on the escutcheon of Newport Beach, an embarrassamoat to both the resideuts of Newport Beach and all the people of Orange County. !hose of as who bawe understood the problem! have Axplained that development of the Upper Hay has been delayed pending legal clarifications and engineering studios and negotiations between the County of Orange and the Irwin* Company Now that years of legal and engineering study and opougainded negotiations by all parties concerned have resulted is s plan for development of the Upper Hay into a rsmarksbly besttital sseslit is time to give the groom light and get going on the improvement of this vast area of the City of Newport Beach. Is the paste the Upper Bay has contributed little to the tax support of the City of Newport Beach. However, with development called for in the plea now before your honorable body, a great new tax bass will be added to the City of Newport Beach with the result that in the years ahead, all of as taxpayers should see our taxes redutod. I urge youp tonight, to approve the Upper Hay development plan now before youp and permit the County of Orange to move ahead as quidly as possible to turn the big lowd pond into a beautiful, tax - producing asset for the good of Newport Beach. $eepootfullyp . c h Deshard Formerly known as ORANGE COUNTY Industrial .NEWS... Since 1957, th. monthly digest of important develop- ments across the fastest growing major county in the U.S.A. a Publisbed by CALIFORNIA DIGEST; Inc. March 12, 1964 Mr. Kenneth Sampson Harbor Manager Harbor Department 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, California Y Dear Mr.. Sampson; At the request of Mayor Hut twelve copies of his letter to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 10, regarding the Upper Bay Land Exchange, are en- closed. One copy of the letter to the Hoard of Supervisors is being mailed to the Hoard today. Very truly your@, Margery Schrouder City Clerk City of Newport Beach MS:mv Ence. • � -� � �EWPp�T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e.� CALIFORNIA cqC /p�RN�P City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. 673 -2110 March 10, 1964 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen; The City Council of Newport Beach has given further study to the proposed trade of land between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company and has worked with the Harbor Department staff and The Irvine Company concerning the requirements of the City of Newport Beach in Upper Newport Bay, This is in accord with the resolution of your Board of December 18, 1963. The City Council continues to have reservations about the trade because of the transfer of tidelands to private ewnership� However, this is a question for the Board of Supervisors itself to decide. Parcels Nos. 11.0, 114, 116, 118, and 120, shown on the drawing entitled Land Parcel Exhibit for Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan, March, 1964 U 1002 -2, are minimum City requirements. It is essential that the control, development, administration and use of these five parcels be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity, The details to accomplish this may be worked out as the proposed trade is processed, With public access to the Bay provided at these addi- tional locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served. Very truly yours, Charles E. Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach i See file for Map of Land Parcel Exhibit for Proposed Land Exchange 9 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .CALIFORNIA City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. 673 -2110 March 10, 1964 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen- The City Council of Newport Beach has given further study to the proposed trade of hand between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company and has worked with the Harbor Department staff and The Irvine Company concerning the requirements of the City of Newport Beach in Upper Newport. Bay. This is in accord with the resolution of your Board of December 18, 19630 The City Council continues to have reservations about the trade because of the transfer of tidelands to private ownership. However,; this is a question for the Board of Supervisors itself to decides Parcels Nos. 110, 114, 116, 118, and 120, shown on the drawing entitled Land Parcel Exhibit for Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan, March, 1964 - U 10.2 -2, are minimum City requirements. It is essential that the control, development, administration and use of these five parcels be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. The details to accomplish this may be worked out as the proposed trade is processed. With public access to the Say provided at these addi- tional locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served. Very truly yours, Charles E. Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. 673 -2110 March 10, 1964 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen The City Council of Newport Beach has given further study to the proposed trade of land between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company and has worked with the Harbor Department staff and The Irvine Company concerning the requirements of the City of Newport Beach in Upper Newport Bay, This is in accord with the resolution of your Board of December 18, 19630 The City Council continues to have reservations about the trade because of the transfer of tidelands to private ownership. However,. this is a question for the Board of Supervisors itself to decide. Parcels Nos. 110; 114, 116, 118, and 120, shown on the drawing entitled Land Parcel Exhibit for Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan, March, 1964 - U 10.2 -2, are minimum City requirements, It is essential that the control, development, administration and use of these five parcels be vested exclusively in the City in perpetuity. The details to accomplish this may be worked out as the proposed trade is processed. With public access to the Bay provided at these addi- tional locations, the City Council feels that the public interest will be better served, Very truly yours, Charles E. Hart Mayor, City of Newport Beach THE IRVINE COMPANY 13042 MYFORD ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 37, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, LINCOLN 4 -01120 March 9, 1964 N City Council City of Newport BeachA California' C� Gentlemen: `y Since the land exchange between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company has been altered to some degree through the negotiations with the subcommittee of your honorable body, it seems appropriate to set forth the details and facts on the new proposed exchange. These facts are as follows: 1. The Irvine Company im exchanging its fee title to 447 acres, which are made up of 263 acres of uplands and 184 acres of patented tidelands, for 97 acres of filled tidelands and the release of the easement for fishing, navigation and commerce of only 59 acres of our 243 acres of patented tidelands. 2. The public waterway (tidelands) is being increased from the present 341 acres to 495 acres, or an increase of 155 acres, or 45 %. 3. The public water frontage is being increased from 4260 feet at the Dunes to a total of 19,860 feet. 4. The public parks are being increased from one park of 70 acres (the Dunes) to a total of three large parks and two neighborhood beaches, comprising 259 acres. 5. The figures which have been compiled by the Orange County Right of Way Department appraisers show the value of the foregoing exchange in excess of $3,000,000 in favor of the County of Orange. The appraisal figures obtained by The Irvine Company are materially in excess of this amount. These are the only two factual appraisals that have been made by recognized appraisers on this exchange. L� l 4 {- WRM ab • P Very truly yours, W. R. Mason Vice President IIII ; HL -T-Y - - I -- Newsmagazine of LIFEBUSINESS &1114 Ip IY / Sth & French, P.O. Box 1496 n , n Santa Ana, Calif. • KI 7 -5535 RECEIVED 2 her of >5 CITY CLERK O GE COUNTY YE BOOK- DIRECTORY MAR - l�ib4 " "0 W. H BERNARD, Publisher and Editor H onorable Mayor and Council E. CRY OF Pr rot, CALIFORNIA DIGEST, INC. City of Newport Beach NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. Mgrch 9, 1964 Gentlement As a taxpayer in both the lower bay and upper bay areas, I urge your honorable body to approve the plan for development of the Upper Bay as most recently negotiated and give the County Board of Supervisors the green light to permit their signing of a formal agreement between the County and The Irvine Company improvement of the Upper Bay. The Upper Bay has for many years been nothing but a shallow mud pond, an eye —sore, a hazard to navigation and life, a blot on the escutcheon of Newport Beach, an embarrassment to both the residents of Newport Beach and all the people of Orange County. Those of us who have understood the problem, have 2xplained that development of the Upper Bay has been delayed pending legal clarifications and engineering studies and negotiations between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company. Now that years of legal and engineering study and openCminded negotiations by all parties concerned have resulted in a plan for development of the Upper Bay into a remarkably beatnful area,it is time to give the green light and get going on the improvement of this vast area of the City of Newport Beach. In the past, the Upper Bay has contributed little to the tax support of the City of Newport Beach. However, with .,,.;... 1 development called for in the plan now before your honorable 3 I body, a great new tax base will be added to the City of r. J... Newport Beach with the result that in the years ahead, all �fti E of us taxpayers should see our taxes reduced. I urge you, tonight, to approve the Upper Bay development plan now before you, and permit the County of Orange to move ahead as quidily as possible to turn the big mud pond into a beautiful, tax — producing asset for the good of Newport Beach. Respeatfully,� orth Berhard Formerly known as ORANGE COUNTY Industrial NEWS... Since ].957, th monthly digest of important develop- ments across the fastest growing major county in the U.S.A. • Published by CALIFORNIA DIGEST, Inc. WALTER B. MELLOTT 1111 BAKER STREET - COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA - KimsERIy 91161 March 9, 1964 Honorable Charles E. Hart, Mayor, City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California keg ` ERA, Op c�GF��c�l (i.p Dear Charlie: During recent weeks, I have followed, with great interest, the progress of Upper Bay negotiations between the City, the Harbor Department and the Irvine Company. You and Councilmen Cook and Gruber are to be congratulated on your skillful participation in these negotiations. From what I have have read in the press, you have been emi- nently successful in representing the public in recreational beaches around the Upper Bay. I further believe that the Harbor Department and the Irvine Company have demonstrated a high degree of responsibility to the community in endeavoring to work out a plan mutually acceptable to all parties. In my opinion, this is the most important project that has been undertaken in years and it should bring endless benefits to Newport Beach. There- fore, I urge the Council to avoid any further delays which could be caused by detailed planning discussions and to get this Upper Bay improvement under way by giving it your official approval. Best pgrsonal Wal erl . Mellott WB ma —_ 0 46 3433 VIA LIDO, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA March 7, 1964 Honorable Charles E. Hart, Mayor Newport Beach California Dear Charlie: TELEPHONE ORIOLE 3 -6360 of Pct, f It is my feeling that the early development of Upper Newport Bay is absolutely necessary if we are going to meet the recreational needs of our fast growing population. The boating fraternity as well as the swimmers and water - skiers are going to require more facilities, beaches and waterland than Newport Beach has to offer at the present time. Therefore, I hope that our City Council will give the plan for developing the Back Bay a vote of confidence and make it possible for our young people and oldsters to enjoy this new water playground within a very few years. This is my 30th year in town, Charlie; and it has been good to me. So, naturally, I am always hopeful that the plans for the future will provide the best advantage for the strength and security of a most out- standing community. My duty is to support what I think is right according to my best judgment. Sincerely, O. W. Richard s i February 24, 1964 ,y Newport Beach City Council cj r 3300 North Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California *p�Cg1� Subject: The proposed Tidelands Exchange in Upper Newport Bay Gentlemen: Today we have been discussing a proposal covering the recreational L. /> needs of the City of Newport in the Upper Newport Day. I find it difficult to participate in this discussion without being concerned with the validity and fairness of the entire trade. The reasons for my concern are as follows: 1. The fairness of the trade. The recent sale of the South Coast Boatyard for a sum in excess of one million dollars would imply a value of ap- proximately one -half million dollars per acre. The evalua- tion of the County dock property for leasing purposes implies a value of approximately one -half million dollars per acre. Waterfront lots on Lido Isle and Balboa sell for about $3,000. per front foot which resolves into a value of one -half mil- lion dollars per acre. Yet the filled tidelands adjacent to the Dover Shores de- velopment is valued at only $60,000, per acre. Since 123 acres of filled tidelands are involved in the whole trade, a value for these lands in excess of $50,000,000. would not seem out of order. The appraised value of $7,700,000.00 as set forth by the County seems unreasonably low. If my figures are fairly correct, a more comprehensive appraisal is required instead of a "cursory" examination as done by the County Right -of- Way agent. 2. The validity of the trade. If the Enabling Act of 1957 is found to be valid in the courts even though this act violates the $xmst conditions of the 1919 act of the legislature, I believe the proposed trade does not meet the conditions of the Enabling Act of 1957. I ag ote "the lands . . . which are to be exchanged are (1) no longer useful for navigation, commerce and v 2 fishing, and (2) that the lands to be received in exchange are at least of equal value thereto." While the harbor department has been busily rendering the tidelands unusable for fishing and navigation by filling them, are these filled lands now unsuitable for commerce? What is commerce? Is it docks, marinas, real estate de- velopment? By what authority does the Harbor Department make these waterways held in trust for the public unusable for fishing and navigation? I would appreciate your legal counsel's views on these questions. 3. Moral responsibility. My third concern is the moral responsibility of each and every one of us toward the preservation of our natural resources whether they are irreplaceable tidelands or oil under the harbor as in Long Beach. It is >W opinion that the pressure of County -wide business has left the County Supervisors with insufficient time or personnel to examine the Irvine Company's proposal in depth. The evaluation prepared by the Right -of -Way Department is a mere 10 pages long, full of conditional statements, and admittedly "cursory", whereas the proposal for leasing the County dock property (2.7 acres only) is the size of a long novel. Why does a property of 2.7 acres receive so much more attention than 123.5 acres involving tens of millions of dollars? Since this city and its various agencies have been attempting to '§work out" problems of the Upper Bay with the Irvine Company, the city appears to be the only public agency both interested and capable of understanding the needs of the people, even though the authority to act is presently invested in the County Supervisors. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that theCity of Nevport: 1. Withdraw from their negotiating position which I think has been made impossible through only having 90 days for study. 2. Faercise its authority to take over the trusteeship of the tidelands in Upper Bay held in trust by the County, begause there was no municipality at the time of the assignment of the trusteeship. 0 Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: 4 21 February 1964 Subject: Upper Bay Land Exchange Referrence: Letters to Honorable Board of Supervisors, Orange County, California (a) Dated 18 Dec. 1963 as read at Public Hearing 18 Dec. 1963, Santa Ana, Calif. - (b) Dated 24 Dec. 1963 forwarding to the County- Clerk attachments to (a) and additional information. J Copies of references (a) and (b) above are forwarded herewith to place same in the City Council =Records. A copy of Reference (a) was made available to the City Manager shortly after the presentation at the County level. Reference (b) was delivered to the City Clerk 31 Dec. 1963 for transmittal to the Joint Committee. The Council have not to date recorded them as officially received. We ask that they be entered into the record for reference. RECEIVED CITY CLERK "�r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. Resp tfu George F R r Ak • o�� A.? 47 63 Ae I o b ins it I ? S� Ar 24 December 1963 (Delivered 31 Dec. 163 to County Clerk, Santa Ana) To. Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange County Courthouse Santa Ana, California Subject: UPPER ;BAY LAND EXCHANGE Reference: (a) - Public Hearing 18 Dec. 1963 (b) - Letter as read into Record 18 Dec. 1963 To: Honorable Board of Supervisors Subject: Public Hearing 18 Dec. 1963 Upper Land Exchange Signed: George Friedl, Jr. Attachments* (A) One (1) marked copy Newport Harbor Area :IT & Street Guide .�pbowing "Proposed Harbor Lines" inked in to tb.is scale per Exhibit 2 - Letter 20 flay 1963 from The Irvine Company to Board d Supervisors, (B) One (1) marked print - U10.2 -1 (18+, x 22 size) land Parcel Exhibit for Proposed Land Exchange Upper Newport Bay Orange County Harbor District Shoving Alternate Project 50150 per pages 3 and 4 Ref (b). (C) Fire (5) copies - one for each Supervisor Each sheet showing three outline drawings of Proposed Bulkhead Lengths - Private /Public Proposed Pierhead Len.;ths - Private /Public Project 50150 Bulkhead Lengths - Private /Public Attachment A is to place in the record a copy of the reference as passed out to each Supervisor during the public hearin.- on 18 Dec. 1963. Reference (a). Attachment 3 is to place in the record in reduced size the exhibit dis- played during the public hearing on 18 Dec. 1963 - Reference (a) depicting an alternate elan Project 50150 delineatin^ private and public bulkhead lengths, Attachment C granhically illustrates the figures tabulated on pages 1 and 4 of letter Reference (b). The following data are also presented for reference. Per Land Exchange ,rroposa.L Irvine County Within Tideland Patent Area No, 204 02,746,loo ;1,288,300 South of Tideland Patent Area No, 204 TOTAL X66,601,200 5)6, 439,000 Estimated Advantages to County .;;x,457,800 162,200 579,347,300 47,727,300 ;71,620,000 Per Alternate Project 50/50 (2) Irvine 12,066,300- ;;6,600,500 ,8,666,800 County 9"1,288000 1131460,000 :14,748,300 Estimated Advantages to County 776,000 ,x3,140,500 w3,918,500 (1) Orange County Flight of Way Department 6 August 1963 (2) Estimates based u-1on above and Attachment B. A number of comparisons can be made. One which is not in the public interest is demonstrated by the fact that the "Estimated AdvaniagO to County" under the Laid D=honCe Proposal by The Irvine Company is only ;1162,200 for the prime land "South of Tideland Patent Area No. 204 ". Respectfully Submitted, George Friedl, Jr. (Signed) Distribution: Supervisor: C. D. W. W. A. li. L. J. H. E. Featherly, 1st. District Balser, 2nd. District Philli s, are. District Firstein, 4th District Allen, 5th District Joint Committee: City of Xcwport Beach Orange County Harbor District The Irvine Company File 1007 Nottingham Road \ Newport Beach, Calforn f Fbbruary 20, 1964 Newport Beach City Council C\ 3300 North Newport Blvd. /�®�,�/ ' OF CN, Newport Beachp California - G� �- C�CF�( gFA Gentlemen: tiJ I, We are enclosing for your records a copy of a letter mailed by us to the State Lands Commission, relative to the proposed land ex- change in the Upper Newport Bay. According to an article in The Register, February 18, 1964, the latest compromise proposal made by the Irvine Corporation to our Council committee studying the matter is one which eliminates en- tirely the planned regional park at 23rd Street and Irvine Avenue. We think this is grossly unfair to the people in that area marry of whom purchased their homes there because of the promised park. We think the compromise, to leave a small beach at the etension of Hampshire Lane, is unfair also to the two hundred families who signed a petition in August, 1963, to retain for public use the presently owned County property north of North Star Lane. Oar councilman, Mr. Paul Gruber, requested the retention of "North Star Beach" as well as 300 additional feet at the end of Mariners Drive. These two beaches were to be small; but because of the fact that the North Star area was to be a finger, with access to the water all around, a distance of approximately 900 feet, coupled with the 300 feet at Mariners Drive and the 23rd Street park, the needs of the community for shoreline access may have been met. The 650 feet at Hampshire Lane are far less usable, much less ac- cessible, and in our opinion, are totally inadequate. How can the Council committee which appears willing to accept this compromise justify giving up the North Star Beach and the 23rd Street 33 -acre park and taking in exchange the 09 acres below Big Canyon? We agree that the Big Canyon site is excellent for a park, but its worth as marketable property is questionable. We understand the City Council will not grant a zoning variance to build on the property, because it lies below an earth -fill dam. What builder would pay even $1.;0 an acre for property where he can't get permission to build? The North Star Beach, on the other hand, if we use the current market prices of waterfront real estate, could be said to be worth almost $1,000,000.00 an acre. The City- County dock property, 2.7 acres, has an appraised value of over $2,000,000.00. A two -acre parcel on Lower Bay sold in January for almost $2,000,000.00. There are, we • i r � 6 9 have been told, approximately 20 acres in the County property north of North Star Lane; so its worth mast be - it is prime waterfront in a sparkling clean new area - at bast $15,000,000.00. Indeed, one businessman already publicly stated in a prior Council hearing that he would take all he could get at $2,000.00 per front foot. By the creation of "fingers ", the amount of waterfront is enormously increased. It seems reasonable to us that all the residents of the Back Bay com- manity should have as ready access to the shoreline and waters of the Upper Bay as do the residents of Balboa, the peninsula, and Lido Isle have to their Lower Bay. Having studied thoroughly all the aspects of this proposed land trade, we mast go on record as favoring retaining all of the public tidelands in the public domain. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department suggested one plan whereby the public could keep all the tidelands, and we believe further consideration should be given to this suggestion. cc: State Lands Commission cc: The Registier, Santa Ana cc: The Daily Pilot Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. J. Dank Robinson ' 1007 Nottingham Road Newport Beach, California C 0 P Y January 24, 1964 State Lands Commission State Lands Division 305 State Building Los Angeles 12, California Gentlemen: On December 18, 1963, the orange County Board of Supervisors approved "in principle" the trade of Upper Newport Bay property between the Irvine Company and the County of orange. We oppose this trade involving tidelands held in trust for the public, because we believe it violates the trust. Our objections are as follows: 1. Tideland available to the public is rapidly diminishing throughout the entire state. In this proposed Upper Bay trade, water frontage belonging to the public is reduced from 14,000 linear feet to 2,000 linear feet along the new channel. 2. No master plan of land usage has been developed by the County or any other public agency. No tidal study model has ever been built. 3. The Southern California Regional Recreational Study, a survey of potential recreational areas in the ten Southern California counties, listed Upper Newport Bay as highest priority in Orange County with a weighted value six times greater than Sunset Bay.a Upper Newport Bay also was deemed to be the fourth most important area for re- creational, development in all of the southland. Note that Orange County has less than .1% of the parks and recrea- tional area of the state for a population that has already exceeded 1,000,000 and will double in the next few years. This emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive study of the possible public usage of the filled tideland along the channel. 4. The park areas as proposed by the Irvine Company are so inhibited and restricted in their use as to be virtually useless for the general public. Some of these.restrictions are: a. The rowing course for the University of California. b. A "speed and ski" area that not only makes swimming there ex- tremely dangerous but is too small to accommodate more than 20 boats at any one time. The Irvine Company has just estimated an eventual population of 2'11,000 in their new developments east of the bay. Of what use will an area for only 20 boats be? c. Flood control channels are in all the proposed parks, thereby reducing the net area to be "given', by the Irvine Company. There is needed a complete re- evaluation of the regional park, water -ski, rowing - course plan. . . 0 0 5. The result of these and other restrictions will be to make a private lagoon for the real estate developers maintained with public thuds. 6. After working on this trade for years with the Irvine Company, the Orange County Board of Supervisors have given the City of Newport Beach only 90 days, from December 18, 1963, to work out recreational requirements for the City within the framework of this trade. We believe that it is impossible to negotiate from this basis since the Supervisors have supported and participated in the proposals made by the Irvine Company. It seems to us that the Orange County Board of Supervisors' ap- proval of the land exchange should be disqualified; because having been a participant in the planning, they can hardly be thought to be objective when also serving as judge and jury. As an example, Chief Justice Farl Warren disqualified himself from serving as judge in the California- Arizona water dispute, 7. The report of the County Bight -of -Way Department shows a gain of $1,600,000.00 to the County. We think this figure is wMY ridiculous. A better estimate of the value of the waterfront might be found in a real estate transaction which took place during this month of January, 1964. A parcel of only two acres with some frontage on the Lower Bay sold for almost $2,000,000.00. The County holds in trust for the public 125 acres along the new channe =1 In a conversation with Mr. Krause, County Right -of -Way agent, he informed us that an accurate evaluation would require perhaps a $25,000.00 engineering stud*. This would seem a small price to pay for a project involving millions of dollars. 6. parcel of land that the Irvine Company proposes to give to qCounty in this exchange has either a lien (as in the patent lands), "prescribed rights to navigation" (as in the islands), or some inhibiting factor such as flood control channels that would make the lands less attractive to a real estate developer than the Prime lands along the channel. The Right -of -Way report only partially recognizes these facts. Y. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach, in studying all the aspects of this trade, which it opposes, has considered several alternates. Of particular interest is a suggestion by the Parks and Recreation Commission to leave the islands where they are and to create a meandering channel around them. e ' t This Would eliminate the nee&U surrender any of the public tidelands. Their value is eternal and incalculable. It is impossible for anyone ever to put a price tag on them. Certainly the possibility of le eping all of the tidelands in the Upper Bay in the public trust should be thoroughly explored. This land exchange in Upper Newport Bay, if completed, wilVmrn over to a private business the finest natural undeveloped bay in the Southland. In view of the fact that alternates have been proposed which better fit the public need, we urge you to refer the matter back to a committee of your choice for at least a full year of further research. We will appreciate your notifying us when this trade will be discussed in public hearing. Very sincerely yours, J. Frank Robinson Frances B. Robinson 0 0, RHOA MEN POINT AMI] ION BOX B26 • BALBOA, CALIFORNIA January 2 *, 1964 To the Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: my CLUK Off of CAi?i. The Board of Directors, on behalf of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, wishes to express its whole- hearted support and concurrence with the views of the Newport Beach City Council in reference to the proposed Back Bay Exchange. As residents of Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and Southern California - we disapprove, in principal, of deeding away title to existing publicly -owned tidelands held in trust for the people of California. The shortage of publicly -owned water front in the State demands ample public ownership of the shore- line to provide reasonable access and recreational facilities for the people of Southern California. You shall have our support in an equitable solution to this proposed Upper Bay Development. MM: cla Sincerely, Board of Directors Balboa Peninsula Point Association By: Marion McDonald cc: Orange County Board of Supervisors State Lands Commission G -' I MIN 74P S OF THE BOARD OF SUPEAV7SORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 21, 1964 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors,_of Orange County, California, also sitting as the Governing Board of the Districts governed by the Board of Supervisors, vas held January 21 " ,1964 , at 9:30 A.M. The following named members being present: William J Phillips, Chairman; C.M. Featherly, David L. Baker, Wm. Hirstein, Alton E. Allen and the Clerk. IN RE: LETTER PROPOSED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY UPPER BAY CITY OF NEWPORT VEACH On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the letter dated January 20, 1964, from Charles E. Hart, Mayor, City of Newport, regarding the proposed exchange of property in the Upper Bay area, between the County of Orange and the Irvine Company is received and ordered filed. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA. County of Orange 1� 1, W. E. ST JOHN, IL County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange. County. California. hereby certify the foregoing to ben full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and seal this 21st day of January, 1964. W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California January 20, 1964 To The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen. As a result of your action on December 18, 1963, under the direction of the City Council I have appoint- ed a committee to work with the Harbor Department and the Irvine Company to develop some arrangement under which the City could be assured of small beach areas in the Upper Bay which would be available to the public. This committee is now at wort: and expects to submit its report for Council action prior to the ninety day period which your Honorable Body granted for further discussion of the problem. In addition, the City Council, after further re- view of the proposed trade, has directed that I advise your Honorable Body that the Council believes that the equity of the proposed trade is not sufficiently in favor of the County or the public at this time. Sincerely, CHARLES E. HART 1/m Mayor t Mayor -H ".rt was instruct - '_ to appoint a Committee to work with the Harho:, Japartment and The Irvine Company to work out some formula under which the City would be assured neighborhood beaches, that the report be submitted to the City Council for transmission to the Board of Supervisors; it was further directed that the Board of S .pervisors be advised now, prior to the expiration of the ninety days, that the Cou:n.ci' _eels that the equity of the trade is not sufficiently in favor of the County or the public as shown bq a study of. the County Right of Way Agent's report, r q� Q► RAN C U DISTRICT . , f F fiARpOR Crf/?ItiS610F} Mm C �lY"}* OO ' lIBkN�'tM 4l.MPWOw R!cntrtU C i1GVtk (:Tat:RUtN -.' -. ,, C> �gTA+s'/ aWMft4e -a#pO�F k +r ay..R[W,YKt.Cptf)lbtar ' 11Aisxe� ptraa .t0 RCS NFI. - .. a2ta'►19tY iatC'11� £�Y`FCOIW }t ' .t: C rttga )'w^OOtttr. "Ftt ` 4 , Y ' if tFf+SNC r4tls y'T9 f4t® 'T oil; .- - i . AK i vL rvty; �Js i!Yi& G_'�°,{.},@TY95i§z Utt$lJ "' a4� i tC Owl v^ Tt�3,i3 wl1L i I of $+ _ l � A ii "$CFS3na*�w.,l.Li> �i1rs. y,�L{.8t¢ { {} ♦a �:yFs� #rYIy��tea +'$�F £ailliilg cl 1(i'y{�f�if t<FI �:�L.i } I ','L� lZ•6»r•(jr4 } ♦h¢}� .. } {�Q Egrt`. .nits .lip{ t� *' ra8 Ot3YQ'�. ton fFPEL'' 84"t ?�}• 6.a'.S: r' i iv±f.SFi,Y if � '.:i (ii rely ;: 3 Eft Cdt t7etrC =xri': r: _4 y y a�ffs p cur 4 { tYl�i� 'ifit t �f 1c Vb )j(1 �5y}y "A - -' . "S Qtl '$C m't q4jig {I,4'1#�CI¢'i�iPG:f 'aa4#,f' :YdX{i)idf�M {{p �' xj�. ... ale d+x >Sr QaeS #t tii8 Ff if€ dl Cgfit' i8 a,.uiip eS 50�3cF :a5 C'+,$�'s {Did -. ,; T t) i 4pO' Ouf tlar�q� ±S jli'7 $ 'jt U11:i4yEl, :- . iftfi$FUt -- upsYRton stl#Iyksn;Yat15�': 0iy -41oo Ftte 1fff7@ rt sPl fi rL9ta 8` �a fl , ;' .t t7 � R i►� 13rdseSi tLS tNtEaY+j Cs tfxncatVe.`.4c+iuf.,; PcrsFx at beSE tlxfi�TµS qr a p5t_ #"tt ttdsri AN happ - t'r� aP a 1iGE.Y Y I f'.1fi.:., slis d T+^ v c SF "+` d[" ��Y !^a+!5�'`e'i�: °t��'V'Fjyi,�... � sue. T9Vf'�wt'Sr,�.- .. ... �^tv'�tn'. � `e.a VI'Y1r35c�v' "`+b tiY'Y`rt:••_�t.j�4'.'!'Y�.. t:: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA City Hail 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code. 714 December. 18, 1963 673 -2110 To The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California. Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Newport, Beach at an adjourned meeting held on December 10, 1963 further reviewed the land trade proposed to your honorable body by The Irvine Company. At. that meeting; after lengthy public discussion and review, the Council unanimously directed me to advise your honorable body chat the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does not concur in the subject land trade pri- marily because of the lack of publicly owned shoreline along the lower portion of the Upper Bay, The Council feels that major consideration should be giver. to keep as much as Possible of this shoreline in public ownership. Our review of *he proposed land t3:.--,de clearly dis- closed that access to the waters of � :he hay will be denied to the public on both sides of the bray from the County owned Newport Du..nes property northerly to the proposed public park areas in the upp�. -. section of the bay, To deed away title to existing publicly owned tidelands, even though accomplished through a land exchange, we believe is not in keepina with the spirit of the tideland grant of easement to the County which is held in trust for the peoplF: of California nor is it realistic in view of the shortage of publicly owned water front in the State generally„ We further believe that the lard exchange, if approved, will not result in a sufficiently prompt and efficient develop- ment of the tipper Bay as a useable and useful area for navi- gation, commerce or recreation. As you know. under the recommendation of the Orange County Harbor District, the private developers of the lands adjacent to the proposed harbor . A . ' N • Board of Sapervi.soz°s--paae; 2-- 12/18/6-1 lines would be required to dredge _.,the bay to the center of the channel. Under such a plan the bay could develop in a haphazard manner and the timing of the projects would be left entirely to the discretion of the lard owner or owners. Rep - resentatives of The Irvine Company have admitted that under such a plan the Upper Bay might not be completely developed for the next twenty-five years, We take no issue with ^_ County's desire to escabl:sh regional parks at the northerly end of the bay., for we recog- nize that public facili:t .es m-, ,s- he available to those not fo t.ur..a e enough to live ineaeby, We do believe, however, that all ptb.Ii.c recreational fac:'_ities should not. be con- centrated at the northerly end of =:he bay as now proposed to the exclusion of any public areas 9.n the lower portion of the bay. Newport Beach resident, within whose City boundaries all of the Upper Bay Is icca•:e:.d; should have access to public areas along the shoreline. We believe that the people of Newport. Beach expect that their elected representatives will protect their right to reasonable access to the waters of the Upper Fay and their right to the u.e of reasonable areas of shoreline for recrea- tional purposes. We are aware that. The Irvine Company is willing to discuss the varied uses of property abutting the Upper Bay and to talk to community groups rega:•;dina the leasing of beach faci.lities on the bay: We are also aware, however, that ch a-igina economic conditions, both within and outside The Company, car. force a change of plans by The Company for the development r�f the bay. Such a :realization in no way impugns the public - minded motives of The Trvine Company at this time. The fact remains, however, that public ownership of areas along the shoreline is the cnly way to assure that such areas will be perpetually available for fu'ure public use. Because we agree that in opposing the proposed land trade, we have an obligation to propose a method for the solution of the problem, we offer, if requested, to immed- iately cooperate with The Irvine Company and with representa- tives of your honorable body in the master planning of the area to the end that the development of the Upper. Bay can become a reality in as short a time as possible. Board of Supers: i :`,ors -. -page 3 -- 12/18/653 We request, therefore; that your honorable bod defer action on the proposed lard exchange for a period of ninety days in order to provide an opportunity for the County of Orange. '_he Company; a :'�'ze City of Newport Beach to work t.ogethe to develop a mu-�.ually acceptable plan for the improvement of the. Upper Bay. in closing., may : quote from the conclusion of the repor`_ submitted to the C.'-,:y Council by our administrative staff -- xhe solution to upper 'Newport Bay development is the g:re -atest planning challenge to our Cityi,ard perhaps to the C,c . : *:y? today, he best thirxK!_n.g, representing all po'nt.s of view, is re3uired ��o make sure th.t this natural resource is c9.evelopEa to its full pot.e :nia.l. Shank you for the cpportu.nity to present the City of Newport Eeach`s, point of view. We ask you to weigh it care- fully. Sincerely; c;, arles E. Hart January 15, 1964` Mr. Warren W. Crow, Jr. 439 Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar, California Dear Mr. Crow: The City Council has noted with interest your rather detailed report on assessment practices in connection with the Upper Bay development. It is apparent that you have done a tremendous amount of research in developing the figures on this and the members of the Council wish to compliment you on your activity in this field. As you know, the City Council is concerned about assessment practices in this pant of the County and believes that the more information that can be brought to light the better chance there is for improvement in this field. Thank you for making the information avail- able to the City. Cordially, ROBERT COOP 1/m City Manager OU�JOII: �v ITION 11 City Demands More i Back Bay Beaches By TOM MURPHINE Newport Beach city coun- [men Monday night recom- ended development of a se- es of parklike community ?aches dotting the shoreline Upper Bay as a key to city )proval of the Orange Coun- Irvine Company land swap. After nearly four hours of .scussion, the council con - uded that the tidelands ex- iange as now proposed fails the county. They also iarply criticized the lack of iblic access to the Back ay shoreline. The most blistering vocal .tack on the trade was o u n t e d by Counclman Imes B. Stoddard who at ie point alleged the swap "a gigantic swindle He ter softened his criticism. I intended to say it's a gi- intic give- away," Stoddard Ranch property which is cal- culated to pave the way for Back Bay harbor develop- ment. "We're in the difficult po- sition of trying to pull some- body's chestnuts out of the fire," Stoddard declared. "I think this is a gigantic give- away because if the channel) is developed as proposed without any trade, the county would end up with 14,700 feet of water frontage. "With the trade, the coun- ty ends up with 2,080 feet of SEES LOSS Stoddard said he "can't buy" the heavy loss of coun- ty tidelands. "What's being traded is far more valuable than what's being given. I'm against it. "' Stoddard insisted. He added, "I don't think it's necessarily up to this council to come up with the As the special Upper Bay answer. The county is sup study session concluded, Vice posed to be protecting the pub - Mayor Hans Lorenz won ap• (Spe. BAY. Page 21 proval of his motion ti-1,: Mayor Charles E. Hart ap -; point a three - member com- mittee to work with the Orange County Harbor Dis trict on means to obtain neighborhood beach :parlts.. Lorenz' motion also called for the city to advise the Orange County Board of Su•I pervisors that the councill� now feels the equity of the trade is not sufficiently in j favor of the county after a. city study of the county right , of-way department's apprais- al report." The Indne Company's Wil- liam Mason, . vice president of engineering, and chief planner Ray Watson witness- j ed the council's study ses- sion but offered little cod.-, - men) on behalf of the ranch. They declined comment on five or three occasions when directly questioned by the Following the session, Ma- son said he had no corm nt. But he added 'It's tot) bad the councilmen didn't leave advantage of many con'!er- ence discussions and negotia- tions between the Count; Su- pervisors and the Irvine Com- pany. They misinterpreted in- formation in their own ata'f's report and in the co.n'Y's harbor district report." Throughout the long evc- ping. Stoddard was the most: relet? "C8: in his critie`sri ,!: county tidelands and Irvine) 4 M 0 FrOj »e: Page 7 i 'N ~ + v Upper Bay Park- Beaches Urged as Swap Condition lie interest in this case and'publie and 30 Per cent ori- I don't think they're doing rt 1vate. After the trade. 30 per "These are harsh words. vale. Aft ad or the tre. he said tBut thafs my private open- it would be reversed. 30 per `ion.,, cent public. and 70 per cent Vice Mayor Lorenz noted private. that as of .now, 70 per cent Turning to Mason, Lorenz of the .Upper Bay frontage is suggested, "f don't think Mr. ason would want to chal- rge these figures.' "I do," Mason answered, it he didn't elaborate Speaking for his West Bluff nslituents, C o u n c i ]man iul Gruber said he wanted see the trade end with about 1,200 feet of beach frontage at North Star Lane made available to the public.. Councilman Dee Cook, speaking for East Bluff, fa- vored about 1;500 feet of pub- lic beach frontage at the mouth of Big Canyon. Upper reaches of the canyon are 'nKPdsed as a greenbelt area ifor reservoir flood n protcv- 1 tio Throughout the evening, Lorenz tended to favor small- i, er association -type beaches, ;but Councilmen Doreen Mar - •:.shall and Stoddard opposed this approach unless the beaches are publicly- owned. Mrs. Marshall noted there is no way to assure future uses of such beachfront un- less the city or county holds I title. 41TY OF NEWPORT BEA(* COUNCILMEN Volume 17 - Page 164 Minutes of REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY Date of Meeting: January 6, 1964 Time of Meeting: 7:30 P. M. COUNCI1k na nu r na nu r Roll Call: Present Xxxxxxx Mayor Hart stated that. the adjourned meetin was being for discussion of the proposed Upper Bay ti a ands _held land exchange between Orange County —and The Irvine Com- �— - .. -. --- _ ............ ----- -- -- pany. A memorandum dated January 3, 1964, was presented from the City Manager entitled "Upper Bay," submitting Lower Bay public and private ownership comparisons and a pro- posal for the development of the Upper Bay, being the gen- eral recommendations of the administratiye' staff,' including the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director, the Planning Director, the Public Works Director, and the City Manager enumerating ten specific points. Each Councilman was requested to present his views on the proposed action. A letter was presented by Councilman Cook from Don Sloper; President of the Balboa Island Improvement Asso- ciation, which letter states that the Association supports the position taken by the Council that insufficient public access to the water was provided in the original Irvine plan for Upper Bay development and that the acquisition of more public beaches for the City of Newport Beach.is of the ut- most concern. Regarding the ten points submitted in the memorandum aforementioned, the Council tentatively agreed as follows: (1) The Council approved Point 1, that the proposed chan- nel width of 700 feet to 1000 feet is necessary for proper water flow and proper boating use. (2) The general consensus of the Council is that they are particularly questioning the advisability of having the second Regional Park, Parcels -33 and 35, a recreation al area, and also the Council would prefer to use that area or an equivalent for beaches in other areas, and the Council feels it does not need to be specific at this time; or', in other words,it was agreed that the second Regional Park, Parcels 33 and 35, be made into smalle areas located where they presently are and in other areas on the bay. (3) and (4) It was agreed that Points- 3 and 4 were County decision matters. (5) It was agreed that the mouth of Big Canyon, 1500 feet of beach frontage, plus park area, be dedicated for public park purposes. Page 164 a�. OITY OF NEWPORT BEA* COUNCILMEN Volume 17 - Page 165 \,"'t �o po y 0D, O C : Index Tnnnary A IQA4. �rN A�\A (6) It was agreed that Point 6 as stated was satisfactory. (7) It was agreed that Point 7 was satisfactory. (8) It was agreed that Point 8 was satisfactory. but that a figure was needed from the Park Department as to the number of square feet per person generally required. (9) It was agreed that Point 9 should be "That the proposed northerly Regional Park is well located to permit heav out -of -town access without abuse to local residential streets." (10) Consideration was given to Point 10 and a discussion ensued. The City Manager presented a letter from Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager, stating,that the Board of Supervisors had instructed "That. the Harbor District staff immediately, in cooperation with the City of New- port Beach and The Irvine Company, make a study of the City requirements in the area other than that por- tion- thereof to be used for regional park purposes and to report to this Board within ninety days from the date," December 31, 1963. Since some members of the Council wished to indicate that the proposed plan is not in the public interest, not to the County's advantage and that the public is shut out of the plan, the timeli- ness of consulting with the Harbor district staff and The Irvine Company as to planning, was questioned. The following people participated in the discussion: Ray Watson and William Mason of The Irvine Company, and Calvin Stewart, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director. Mayor Hart was instructed to appoint a Committee to Motion x work with the Harbor Department and The Irvine Com- All Ayes pany to work out some formula under which the City would be assured neighborhood beaches, that the repor be submitted to the City Council for transmission to the Board of Supervisors; it was further directed that the Board of Supervisors be advised now, prior to.the ex- piration of the ninety days, that the Council feels that the equity of the trade is not sufficiently in favor of the County or the public, as shown by a study of the County Right -of -Way Agent's report. Mayor Hart appointed Councilman Gruber and Council- man Cook to serve with him on said Committee. Page 165 } -'- WITY OF NEWPORT BEAM COUNCILMAN Volume 17 - Page 166 fm Py Z 9 O m 9 Index r__..____ I 1 n1A January 1 /VZ Councilman Lorenz stated that Tom Childs was leaving the employ of the City after many years of service and Council- man Lorenz proposed the following action,. which was un- animously taken: Mayor Hart was instructed to write a letter to Thomas Motion x Childs, Assistant to the City Manager, thanking him for All Ayes seven long and efficient years of service to the City. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 17 P.M. Motion x All Ayes I Page 166 • 9 BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSN P. O. #64 _ BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA The City Council of Newport Beach 3300 We Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, Calif. Honorable Councils Jan. 4, 1964 J �s / /1 IIi� With regard to the plane for the development of the Upper New- port Bag we wish to inform you of our appreciation and commend You on your position at the recent hearing with the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The acquisition of more public beaches for the City of Newport Beach is of the utmost concern to use As you well know, the congestion problem, on Balboa Island's beaches during the summer, has been a headache to us all. With the thousands of people moving into the Upper Bay Area in the coming years, the problem on Balboa Island could become even worse if those people had ne nearby public beach facilities of their own to use. We are behind you 100% in your position that not enough public access to the water was provided for in the original Irvine Plan for Upper Bay development. We are eagerly looking for- ward to any alternate plan which will provide the very need - ed public beaches in the developing of this tremendous water areae Sincerely, Don Sloper, President Be I. I. A. DStelm • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 3, 1964 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: UPPER BAY In order that the City Council may have more information upon which to base its position with reference to the Upper Bay development plan, we are submitting the following statements. I._ Lower Bay public and private ownership comparisons. Area Total lower bay water front (jetties not included) City owned or controlled City owned - Public Use Street ends "N" Street 10th Street 19th Street Channel Park Balboa Island China Cove City owned - Leased Lido Isle County Dock Balboa Bay Club Beacon Bay Balboa Yacht Basin "N" Street South Coast Co. American Legion County owned County Dock Harbor Dept. Sea Scout & Rowing Base Linear Feet of Total 78,000 100 % ( 32,500) (41.6°x) 18,500 23.7% 14,000 17.9% 2,300 02.9% State owned 400 00.5% Total - Public Agencies 35,200 45.0°% Total - Private Use 42,800 55.0% II. The general consensus of the administrative staff, including the P, B & R Director, the Planning Director, the Public Works Director and the City Manager is as follows: m , 1. That the proposed channel width of 700' to 1,000' is necessary j -% for proper water flow and proper boating use. 2, That the two proposed Regional Parks should be connected at the shoreline for best use by the public. 3. That no charge should be made for pedestrian access to the t.. Regional Parks. Parking charges could be made similar to the Corona del Mar State and City Beach Park. y 4. That the County should develop a preliminary master plan for l . the proposed Regional Parks. 5. That the mouth of Big Canyon be dedicated for public park purposes. 6. That Back Bay Drive be preserved or relocated as a scenic 4,J view road for access to water oriented activities (i.e., commercial areas, boat slips, marinas, beaches, parks, rest- aurants, etc.) , \. 7. That some or all of the filled tidelands northerly of North Star Lane on the west side of the Upper Bay be dedicated for public park purposes. 8. That "Association Type" beaches (parks) be provided with size ° related to area served. 9. ThatIt-he propo §ed i 'al Par a�well located to permit '. . heavy out -of_to access without abuse to local residential streets. 10. That if agreement as to public and private water frontages is reached, the Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach immediately start the preliminary land use planning and major street layout of property abutting the Upper Bay with- in the City limits. III. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission feels that all tide- lands should remain in public ownership and has so recommended to the City Council. IV. City Department Heads will be present at the Council meeting on January 6. Copies of all reports and maps will also be available. 0 ORANGE CO HARBOR COMMISSION'"` �1 RICHARD C. HONER, CHAIRMAN ROT EDWARDS, VICE-CHAIRMAN TED KUCHEL CHIP CLEARY C. C. (JACK) WOOLLEY December 31, 1963 Mr. Robert Coop, City Manager City Hall Newport Beach, California 0 DISTRICT • ��'�,tr KENNETH SAMPSON "That the Harbor District staff immediately in cooperation with the City HARBOR DISTRICT MANAGER of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, make a study of the city require- ments in the area other than that portion thereof to be used for regional 1001 BAYSIDE DRIVE park purposes and report to this Board within ninety (90) days from the NEWPORT BE ACH. CALIFORNIA #n it is our understanding that this matter is to be the subject for discus- TELEPHONE (714) 673 -6440 Dear Bob:h On December 18, 1063 the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, 'instructed: a "That the Harbor District staff immediately in cooperation with the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, make a study of the city require- ments in the area other than that portion thereof to be used for regional park purposes and report to this Board within ninety (90) days from the , date hereof:" it is our understanding that this matter is to be the subject for discus- 4 sion at an adjourned meeting of your City Council on January 6, 1964. we are most desirous of proceeding with this study as soon as possible. To this end, our Harbor Engineer, Jim Ballinger, together with his staff, has been instructed to give the project top priority and to work; in close co- `U operation with representatives of the City and The Irvine Company in the preparation of the report requested by the Board of Supervisors. Would J you be so kind as to inform Mr. Ballinger who will represent the City in 3 this matter in order that the necessary conferences may be scheduled - Personal best wishes for a most productive and happy 1964. Sincerely yours, '1 N KENNETH SAMPSON, Harbor Manager -:1 2 s KS :mph COUNCIL: i G z"y r . DISPOSITION: FIL l: � . rr 1+111 IWa_TL(I y rc �CC'.�i b� `ice. tkar�'zd- >�5.. -Y �. �..�- c;•'Sc..>l �r,.l!x)� ja.1.;M iv `1Dsl.a. 1 7 ct.t . &AJ4 r'tviA"� n�.2 iA %hwd a # December 30, 1963 Mr. Charles S. Thomas President The IrvitA�Caanpany P. O. Box 37 Irvine, California . Dear Mr. Thomas: The Council of the City of Newport Beach on December 23 ad- journed its meeting to 7;30 P. M. on January 6th, 1964 to con- sider the proposed land exchange in the Upper Bay between The Irvine Company and the County of Orange. Because of the plan to adjourn, the Council had earlier in the meeting ordered filed your letter dated December 19 to Mayor Hart, enclosing a Copy of a letter to Kenneth Sampson, Manager. Orange County Harbor Department, indicating the desire of 'rho Irvine Company to meet with the Harbor District staff and representatives of the City of Newport Beach to study the City's requirements. Very truly yours. Margery Schrouder City Clerk City of Newport Beach MS:mv O F G E OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT December 23, 1963 Margery Schrouder, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California I� L W. E. ST JOHN COUNTY CLERK TELEPHONE; 547 -0547 AREA CODE 714 COURTHOUSE P. O. BOX 838 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA t Dear Miss Schrouder: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 63- 1808�,��i which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange \--I, Yi County on December 18, 1963, regarding the proposed j exchange of property between the County of Orange and the Irvine Company. Very truly yours, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk C•�)�,,1 and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of a„ Orange County, California By Deputy Clerk' JA Enc. �r4'J }I 1 1 14 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 11 The Irvine Company 10042 Msroan Roes • POST OFFICE Box 07 IRvixE,GeriFonNie 19 December 1963 The Honorable Charles E. Hart Mayor of Newport Beach California My dear Mayor Hart: Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Mr. Kenneth Sampson and which is self - explanatory. This carries out the wishes of the Board of Supervisors as expressed in its Resolution as of yesterday. With kindest personal regards, Since" yours, Charles S. Thomas a OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT The Irvine Company 13042 MYFOBD ROAD • POST OFFicz Box 37 IBVINB. GALIFOBNIA. 19 December 1963 Mr. Kenneth Sampson, Manager Orange County Harbor Department 1901 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Sampson: We were pleased, as I am sure you were, that the Board of Supervisors saw fit yesterday to take the first step toward the creation of what could be one of the greatest boating and recreational areas in California. As has always been our desire, the development of Upper Newport Bay should take into account private and public interest alike. Toward that end, and in the manner set forth by Supervisor Allen, we are anxious to meet with the Harbor District staff and representatives of the City of Newport Beach to study the city's requirements. It is our hope that an early program may be worked out whereby the citizens of this county can benefit by and enjoy this great recreational waterland. We are available to meet at your pleasure. Sincer yours, Charles S. Thomas i t December 18, 1963 To: Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Courthouse Santa Ana, California Subject: Public Hearing 18 December 1963 Upper Bay Land Exchange The proposed land exchange plan as related to the tentative nerr harbor lines does not appear to be in the public interest because: The design proposed: 1. Does not rive attention to preserving and improving the dedicated road along the East Banlc. This road is variously knovm as Bayside Drive, Back Day Road, etc. 2. No attention has been given to, creating a perir:.eter road along the West Shoreline, such shoreline area being created by filled land and channel dredging. 3. Bulkhead and pierhead lineal feet fronting private and public lands do not represent a reasonable balance. XMHEAD PIFlUMD Lin.. FF-.— % Lin. Ft. % Priwate 34,200 66 28,400 85 Public 18,100 34 4,900 15 Total 52,300 100 33,300 100 It should be noted that bulkhead and pierhead lines do not define "Frontage" and that bulkhead lines do not mean solid bulkheads. F- eai- ations, i. e. basins, as extensions of the tidal area may be crested. Me ratio of "frontage" len^,th to " bulkhead line" length and "pier frontage" to ";ierline" len. th can run 5 to 1 or ;core. This a „-plies to lot fronta-e as well. Dover Shores is an example. Curiously enough, this expansion gi.u,dck may be regarded as good land usage, but in the proposed desiEn it may be applied mainly, if not only, to the proposed private parcels - not to the newly identified public areas. The Dunes is an area where the fronta -e to bulkhead line length has been generated to a 2 -plus to 1 ratio. It is interesting to note that the pierhead line along the public lands is limited to: 411 ft. On S1 tip of proposed peninsula 2,020 At proposed 23rd Street Park 2,191 Across mouth (north end) of Dunes 4,622 ft. 265 Harbor District Pad. 4,907 TOTAL 4. No new public land is proposed at the south end of the Upper Bay. 5. Gives no visibility of providing for the public interest regarding: (a) Public boat berthing at the south end of the Upper Bay. Each section of private bulkhead line and related filled water -level land is designed to be contiguous with private mesa land sag- S - 2 - gesting development similar to Dover Shores; also private clubs and beaches, leaving limited arm writhout pre- planned location of county- operated and /or lessee operations serving the public interest. The leasing of private slips is unlawful. The recent discussion in llewmort Leach City Council re ,-arding approval of slips at the develop;�ent on the old Christian's Hut site revealed. that the crowded condition of Lm-Ter Bay facilities has resulted in un- orthodox practices. Developnent of the Upper Bay should be designed to relieve con-. ditions - certainly not to encourage bad practices. The County should. endeavor to Provide "Pay As You Co" marinas - County operated as is the County Airport - where an owner can tie down a craft for as little as ::15.00 a month - as are other harbors in this county and adjacent counties. Some operations should; of course, be on a lease basis. References to the Dunes lease as a model lease are unclear. (b) Public boat berthing at the 23rd Street Park. (c) Small boat dry storage (d) Itrine services - ways - repair yards - gas docks, etc. (e) Public piers. (f) Boat launching ramps and trailer parking. Alternates - "Set Up Project 50 -5011 As one alternative under Project 50 -50, forerunner of Project 21, the fol- lowing is praposed for detailed analysis. 1. Assuming the general harbor lines along the south end and north - south c nnel to be adequate and a-�provable by the U. S. Amy Nhgneers, reallocate the bulkhead lines to better serve the public interest writh regard to: (a) Assuring preservation and improvement of Dayside Drive as a water-level route on the Fast side. (b) Plan for maximum water -level roadway on the West side. (c) Provide public land area at south end of bay. Upon very rough projection of this approach, the following is noted: 3UL :I AD PIZFCITAD Lin. Ft. 7. Lin. Ft. Private 17,000 49 Not Public 18,500 51 Calculated 2. Realign the harbor lines at the nort;i end to- (a) Eliminate the cul-de -sacs created by the narrow peninsula of questionable usefulness. (b) Reduce to a minimum the creation of contaminated water areas. (c) Improve the general usefulness of the water area, utilizing buoys for lane control rather than a land mass - pencil peninsula. 3. Reduce danger hazards as may be caused by co- mingling Ugh speed skiing paddle boarding -3- sirimming small boat sailing high speed sailing lare sailboat and cruiser traffic and restrictive, unenforceable time - sharing. Attention to date has been programmed to the Design - amership - Planning schedule. With regard to the Design phase: Harbor Lines: Preliminary steps have been taken by the Harbor Commission and Tierport Beach City Council. Final approval resides with the Army Engineers. Private Development has gone forward in detailed land use planning and pro- motion based on this reference. Public Development has been referred to in ;eneral terms only - namely, Regional Parks. Little in regard to functional harbor use. Ho :public land use planning has been detailed. Both of these facets of public interest in regard to the Upper Bay seem to be pursued in a unique manner different from concurrent projects, i.e. the SWAP PLAN. The ownership phase over -rides and obscures all good design and planning analysis. For example: Regional Parlts The Proposed plaster Plan of Regional Parks prepared by the Regional Parks Advisory Committee as presented to the Hoard of Supervisors on 8 iay. 1963 includes: Sunset Bay Upper Newport Day Dana Point Harbor in the Priority Group I, Iivaediate Program 1962 -1970, but identifies these three (3) as harbor District Projects not included in Approxi- mate Costs of Group I or the entire program. Group Period Acquisition Cost I 1962 -1970 Q 4,490,000 II 1970 -1980 63170,000 III 1980 -1983 8,965,a)o TOTALS 19,625,900 Sunset Bay VOTAL COST EST. 11800,000 Development Costs Source of Funds Private County 1,000,000 State x Federal x Consultants Development Cost ;i 4,934,150 9,717,350 8,646,450 + 23,297,950 Total 9,424,150 15,887,350 17,611,450 42,922,950 Dana Point Upper Newport Bay 14,000,000 9,500,000 plus 4,000,o00 Private s X • - 4 - (Consultarls con't) Sunset Bay Army Engineers Model Basin Test Design Consultants 11arbor Dept. x Ownership SWAP Purchase x Eminent Domain Prescriptive rights County 1kinaged x Concessions "Pay as you Go'' Completion Date 1967 plus Program Phasing x • Dana Point Upper Newnort Bay x x x x x x X x 1970 plus x The Upper Newport Bay rouses curiosity as to why the program is handled so uniquely, i.e, by Land Exchange only. The :Manning of Land Use, funding for Acquisition and Development costs, throu .ah County, State and Federal resources, the use of private consultants and the Army En incers are the usual pattern in harbor and park programs and also on Airport 7s rell as other County projects. The Inter - County Recreation Planning Committee in the Southern California Regional Recreational Study to the Southern California ReCional Association of County Supervisors have generated a Recreation Area L Site Evaluation Form as �1ell as an Area Evaluation Method Formula, Ratings based upon application of this formula are tabulated. The following are typical: The California State Park System Facilities Chart of the State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Eeaches and Purlcs, lists other State Parks within Orange County. Rating County Parks Existing Potential Sunset Bay 33,283 48,270 Dana Point 37 102 Dane Cove 2,270 30,479 Newport Dunes 101,956 0 Upper Neer,ort Day 874 274,533 If these ratings are valid, curiosity is naturally armsed as to how ap- plication of development funds is consistent with the public interest. State Parks Acres Existing Potential Corona del 11ar 30 31,414 0 Doheny F.each 62 23,013 2,660 Huntington State Beach 78 214,116 0 The California State Park System Facilities Chart of the State of California, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Eeaches and Purlcs, lists other State Parks within Orange County. 9 0 -5- Bolas, Chios 45 acres San Clemente 109 acres 154 acres The total acreage of State Parks within Orange County is indicated as being 324 acres, which is less than 0.05% (one half of one tenth percent) of the reported 700,000 park acres in the State. This suggests that it would be reasonable to apply to the state to create the proposed parks at the northern end of the Upper Bay - especially as these parks may be very costly to develop because of the terrvin and also because of the proximity of the new University of California Irvine and the land contract on Patent Tidelands ido. 204. Another reference regarding "Ratings" per formula relates to: 1- iinicipal Beaches Huntington Beach Seal Beach Newport Beach Existing Potential 135,477 0 55,471 0 443,760 0 It will be noted that the existing facilities of Newport Beach, 443,768, and the potential rating of 274,533 for the Upper Day are the highest. This should be regarded as significant. The County public interest should be served by maximum development of public services in the Upper Bay, with due re.aid to balanced development of private interests. With Regard to the Oumership Phase While no attempt will be made to discuss the legal or valuation aspects of this case, it is tinely to mention the folloving: Constitutional Convention of 1878 -1879 Ref, to Section 3: Statements are made supporting the viewpoint that the purpose of this section was to preserve public ownership and control of tidelands against private monopolization. NOTES OF DECISIONS RE ART. nV, Section 3 1144hat are Tidelands? The Court will take judicial n +•tice of the coat lines tritnin the State and will resort to publications issued by the Dept. of Commerce describ- ing and delineating the United States Coast and Geodetic Surveys. Lands lying bettreen the lines of ordinary high and low tides, which are covered and uncovered successively by the ebb and flow thereof are tide - lands and belong to the State. That portion of the land which borders upon tidL-.•rator and which is below ordinary high - water mark, belonZs to the State. The term "high -water mark" means neither an extremely high nor an ex- tremely low water line, but refers to the ordinary high watermark." It is interesting to note that -- Coast Z: Geodetic Chart No. 5108 - Newport Bay - shous most of the area of the three islands as '?•karsh" flat Ifean Lower Low hater." Air photos show most of the area of the three islands "under wa =.ter ". These islands carry an estimated value price tag of . }4,837,100. The matter of "prescriptive rights" and the differences in valuation as applied to assessment practices versus market price are very spe- cialized subjects which warrant review separate from this presentation. - 6 - With Regard to the Pla.mAnn phase L7 It is implied that Use Planning is untimely until the Ownership phase and the Design Phase are settled. This is not a valid approach. It is not unusual to set an "End Result" such as a, "balanced plane - Project 50 -50 - with due regard for sharing available resources for private interest as well as public interest and then design and adjudicate oamersh9.p to that "End Result ". This does not deny best use for private interest, but it can assure balanced recognition of the public interest. Semantically one may pick different words for the three phases: Design Ownership Planning But inasmuch as these have been used as referents they serve well and should be retained. Recornnendations The following recomiaendations are respectfully presented to the Board of Supervisors: 1. Do not accept and /or a -pprove the present proposal at this tine. 2.. Refer the report of the I1aarbor Commission 'rback to com.dttee" for review of alternative designs by the Harbor District to provide a balanced Project 50 -50 Plan which will better serve the public interest of the County residents. 3. Update each table included in the 1950 Patterson Report, inte- grating the development of the Upper Bay as a logical, graceful extension of the Lower Bay. Relate, for comparison data, 1963 Lower ray and Planned Upper Bay for each alternate design. Data to include, for example! Table 14 Table 15 Lineal Ft. and % -- Public Use Community Beaches Sea Scouts American Legion Yacht Clubs Municipal Trailer Parks Reddential Boat i:norings Commercial Commercial Fishing Pleasure Craft Slips for Rent 0 - 7 - Private Piers Bay iloori.ngs - Local Residents - County Residents - Other Residents Commercial Boats - Slips & Shore Facilities rasc.- Sail - Boats - Shore Moorings Boats kept at home on trailers - City of Newport Beach - County Dry Storage - Suall Sail Private Facilities City Facilities County Facilities - Other Boat Private Facilities City County 4. To conserve time, engage a firm of consulting engineers. 5. Relate each altern4te design to: Bayside Drive The new Coast Freeway Bridge and access roads A "Second Bridge" over Upper Bay and Other road improvements related to the entire area involved. 6. That the County of Orange retain, create, or acquire lend for boat basins, beaches, marine services and either construct and operate the boat basins or lease the land to private operators for that particular purpose - frith financial guide lines to protect the public. 7. That the plan of improvement be submitted to the District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Los Anseles District, to determine Federal interest in the project. Also explore the benefits of con- ducting Vicksburg ;noeel basin tests to study contamination, water flow, flushing action, currents, beach erosion, strategic location of fixed bulkheads (for example: at the "Narrows "). u. That the State Division of Parks and :caches and /or other State Agencies be consulted with regard to their assistance in the ac- quisition and development of Recreation Centers. 9. That this development be integrated and publicized in a Lister Plan of area land use. 10. That the County Staff Departments be asked to report on various phases of the physical, planning, engineering, economic, and legal aspects of this development. For example: Flood Control It is understood that 88,000 acres drain into Delhi and San Diego flood control channels. 'lath rapid urbanization, water run -off could be much .neater and may affect }kirbor design. Roads Planning Health - 8 - U Water contamination, especially at Northern end. Mosquito Abatement 11. Advise the public of: (a) Development cost, as in other regional parks projects and other harbor projects. (b) 'Tune Schedule - PhasinS of Design - ODanership - Planning This need not be sequential. Each phase should go on siml- taneously. Only the relative degree of emphasis varies as the project advances. Target dates should be sot for various actions and events with completion dates for various features and facilities, as well as abandonment dates of facilities such as the launching rarip at Bayside Village -- also for dredging and road improvements by sub- dividers. 12. Provide areas within our Harbor Area as a p --rmanent home for Marine Ways and Service operations required to keep this Harbor the best on the Coast. By following a good, sound, logical, prudent course, a good, sound, fair, reasonable deal should evolve with due respect for the public interest. George Friedl Jr. (Signed) To The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: CJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 December 18, 1963 ; 673 -2110 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach at an adjourned meeting held on December 10, 1963 further reviewed the lard trade proposed to your honorable body by The Irvine Company. At that meeting, after lengthy public discussion and review, the Council unanimously directed me to advise your honorable body that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does not concur.:r. the subject land trade pri- marily because of the lack of publicly owned shoreline along the lower portion of the Upper.Bay_.. The Council feels that major consideration should be given to keep as much as possible of this shoreline in public ownership. Our review of the proposed land trade clearly dis- closed that access to the waters of the bay will be denied to the public on both sides of the bay from the County owned Newport Dunes property northerly to the proposed public park areas in the uppc�: .section of the bay. To deed away title to existing publicly owned tidelands, even though accomplished through a land exchange, we believe is not in keeping with the spirit of the tideland grant of easement to the County which is held in trust for the people of California nor is it realistic in view of the shortage of publicly owned water front in the State generally. We further believe that the lard exchange, if approved, will not result in a sufficiently prompt and efficient develop- ment of the Upper Bay as a useable and useful area for navi- gation, commerce or recreation. As you know, under the recommendation of the Orange County Harbor District, the private developers of the lands adjacent to the proposed harbor Board of Supervisors- -page 2 -- 12/18/6,3 lines would be required to dredge the bay to the center of. the channel. Under such a plan the bay could develop in a haphazard manner and the timing of the projects would be left entirely to the discretion of'. ;the land owner or owners. Rep - resentatives of The Irvine Company have admitted that under such a plar. the Upper .Bay might not be completely developed for the next twenty - five years, We take no issue with the County's desire to establish regional parks at the northerly end of the bay, for we recog- nize that public facilities must be available to those not fortunate enough to live nearby. We do believe, however, that all public recreational facilities should not be con - centrated at the northerly end of the bay as now proposed to the exclusion of any public areas in the lower portion of the bay. Newport Beach resi,e.rtt:s within whose.City boundaries all of the Upper Bay is located, should have access to public areas along the shoreline. We believe that the people of Newport: Beach expect that their elected representatives will protect their right to reasonable access to the waters of the Upper Bay and their right to the uae of reasonable areas of shoreline for recrea- tional purposes. We are aware that. The Irvine Company is willing to discuss the varied uses of property abutting the Upper Bay and to talk to community groups regarding the leasing of beach facilities on the bay. We are also aware, however, that changing economic conditions, both within and outside The Company, can force a change of plans by The Company for the development ^f the bay. Such a realization in no way impugns the public- minded motives of The Irvine Company at this time. The fact remains, however, that public ownership of areas along the shoreline is the only way to assure that such areas will be perpetually available for future public use. Because we agree that in opposing the proposed land trade, we have an obligation to propose a method for the solution of the problem, we offer, if requested to immed- iately cooperate with The Irvine Company and with representa- tives of your honorable body in the master planning of the area to the end that the development of the Upper Bay can become a reality in as short a time as possible. Board of Super '�:-iso °r. >- page 3--12/18/63,.. We reque.s;, thhYe:fo-_e� that yoar °aonorable body defer action or the propose:± %r:r excza-ae for a period of ninety 3:ays in order to prolv"ae ar opportunity for the County of Orange, he Irvine Company, and the, City of Newport Beach to work oqe bier to develop a zpn:�ually acceptable plan f ©r the impfc 7E-ner_- of the Upper Bav< In c os nq Y quote from r.he corclL:sion of the _repo_'_ submirted to �qe C:,wy Council ry our administrative staff -- ... The so.lurior -.o Upper newpo.vt .Bay development is the a:ea,.est planrin.g c- ialler_ge to our C,tyt'and perhaps to the Cotntyl today., 'he best thinking, representing all points of view, is reaui.red to make sure that this natural resoL.rce is 'd.evelope-4 to its full poc ".F_ntial." Shark you for the opportunl't v to prevent the City of Newport Eeach`T, point of v .ew, we ask yo`,; to weigh it care- fully. SiirLcerely, -ha.rles E. Hart MAYOR n, 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J 15 ,zz J a UU 16 oZK Eo 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 321 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF `k ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 18, 1963 On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED that the County of Orange hereby approves in principle the proposal of The Irvine Company submitted to this Board on May 20, 1963, to exchange certain uplands owned by said Company for certain filled lands owned by the County of. Orange upon the following conditions a. The improvements to the centerline of the main channels in areas adjacent to private development are to be accomplished by the developers. The Irvine Company is to agree to make this`a requirement for the developers, with the City and the Harbor District exercising control of the dredging and bulkheading permits. b. The berthing of boats is to be prohibited in the public water- ways adjacent to the Rowing Course and Marine Stadium. c. The Irvine Company is to provide disposal areas for the excess materials from the Rowing Course, Marine Stadium and the Turning Basin, the area to be within two miles of the dredge site. d. That the Harbor District staff immediately in cooperation with the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, make a study of the city requirements in the area other than that portion thereof to be used for regional park purposes and report to this Board within ninety (90) days from the date hereof. e. That all of Parcel 32 as shown on "Land Parcel Exhibit" of the proposal be conveyed to the County of Orange, and that portion of Parcel 33 shown on said Exhibit, as delineated on Exhibit B, be retained by The Irvine Company. AYES: SUPERVISORS ALTON E. ALLEN, WM. HIRSTEIN, DAVID L. BAKER, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS AND C. M. FEATHERLY NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE Resolution No. 63 -1808 1. I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as. COUNTY OF ORANGE } I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the . said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 78th day of December 19 63, and passed by a unanimous vote +. of said Board , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18th day of. December , 1963. W. E. ST JOHN,.. T.a..+`t0' G County Clerk and e* offidid ".Clerk, 6 of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County California ar By�'�'� .7. t S ` i I I: W S I 2• i 1 RESOLUTION OF THE Bow OF supmmsoRB or 2 ORA =W COUNftt CALIFORNIA 3 __ DoaMber 18 1963 4 On motion of Supervisor Allen , duly seconded 5 and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: 6 RESOLVED that the County of Orange hereby approves'iu principle the proposal of The Irvine Company submitted to this Board on May I09 8 1963, to exchange certain uplands o>.rned by said Company for certain 9 filled lands owned by the County of Orange upon the following conditions; 10 a. The improvements to the centerline of the main channels in 11 areas adjacent to private development are to be accomplished by the 12 developer, The Irvine Company is to awes to make this a requirement 131 for the developer, with the City and the Harbor District exercising 14 control of the dredging and bulkheadizng permits. 15 b. The berthing of boats is to be prohibited in the public water .Zx 0'S 161 ways adjacent to the Ruing Course and Marine Stadiums. ��; 17 c. The Irvine Company is to pros,s der disposal areas for the excess 18 mstarials from the Rowing Ccurses M=ina St.adi= end the Turning Basin, 19 the area to be within two miles of the dredge site. staff 20 d. That the Harbor District/immodiately in cooperation with the 21 City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company make a study of the city 22 retSiremmts i�tip o ixt �� that 8 tioB._thas o, be uaezi fob 23 re _p^ y oQes and report to this Board within ninety (90) days 24 from the date hereof. oe That all of Parcel 32 as sham on "Land Parcel Exhibit" of the 2611 proposal be conveyed to the County of Orange, and that portion of Parcel 2711 33 shown on said Exhibit, as delineated on Exhibit 8, be retained by The 28 Irvine Company. 29 AYES: SUPERVISORS 30 31 32 NOES: SUPERIVISORS ABSENT: SUPERVISORS Resolution No, All None 1 UVUIIUIL: /C-Z3 December 16, 1963 County or Orange Board of Supervisors P,O,'Box 838 Santa Ana, California. Gentlemen: Herein please note the following motion from the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted on with unanimous approval today at their regular Board meet- ing* That the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors approve the following resolutions To wit: "That the Orange County Board of e sors approve at their De er 18th hearing,, plans submitted to it by the Irvine Company %r the development of the Upper Bay ", Respeetfully submitted; Fred Schoepe, President Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce. FS:jm /\ py }r a53 ®i_. 439 Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar, Calif. Board of Supervisors County Courthouse Santa Ana, Calif. Subject: Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Dear airs: Dec. 13, 1963 RECEIVED `fit Clly CLERK £ DEr 1 61963 CITY . OF N PORT BEA(, Z,i CALIF. Among the Irvine Co. land parcels involved in the proposed Exchar.e are 2 islands designated as parcels 12 and 13 on the County Harbor Dept. map and the County Right -of -Way Dept. appraisals. Parcel 12, 20.9 acres of the middle island, has been give a current market value of $54,000 per acre for a total value of $1,128,600.by the Hight -of -Flay Dept. The Assessor has assessed this entire 20.9 acres at approximately $311 which equals Z15 per acre. This assessment is less than 3/100 of 1% of the R/W Dept. appraisal of current market value. The County Tax Collector will collect about $23 total taxes this year from this property valued at $1,128,600. Each acre valued at $54,000 will pay $1.10 taxes. Parcel 13, all 17.3 acres of the north island, has been given a current market value of $49,000 per acre for a total value of $847,700 by the Right -of -Way Dept. The Assessor has assessed the whole 17.3 acres at $260 which equals $15 per acre. This assessment is approximately 3/100 of 1% of the R/W Dept. appraisal of current market value. The Tax Collector will receive $18.87 total taxes this year from this property valued at $847,700. Each acre valued at $49,000 will pay $1.09 taxes. The Assessor has stated many times that he assesses property at 207'0 to 250 of value. Since he has assessed the middle and north island at $15 per acre, he has given.them.a-market value of-460-to $75 per acre. The County Right -of -Way Dept. has given these same parcels a market value of 149,000 and $54,000.per acre. I understand that the R/W Dept. figures are substantially confirmed by the Goode and Goode appraisals made for the Irvine Co. Several well - qualified Realtors in this area have advised me that the R/W Dept. figures are conservative. Either the Assessor or the Right -of -Way Dept. is completely wrong. No rationalization of the meaning of the word "value" can possibly hold that both are right. It is up to you to decide whether the Assessors estimates of fair market value are correct at $60 to $75 per acre. It has been suggested that estimates of fair market value made by the County Assessor, accepted by the owner and approved by the County Board of Equalization should be one basis for establishing market value when the County later considers acquisition. This suggestion certainly has merit since it seems logical ` • — 2 that the County should have only one standard of value on which assess- ments are based and acquisitions made. If you decide the Assessors evaluations are correct and could sustain the decision, direct acquisition would be quite inexpensive. However, if you decide the Right- of- :'','ay Dept. and the Goode and Goode appraisals of market value are correct at $49,000 and $54,000 per acre, then the Assessor is once again guilty of placing unbelievably low assessments in proportion to market value on some properties (in this case 3 /100 of 1%) while assessing the majority of other properties including pine at 20% to 25% of market value. This forces the majority of propert,owners to carry a tremendously larger and disproportionate share of the total tax burden. This is direct violation of the Consti- tution, the Revenue and Taxation Code and many court decisions. In sum, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors and /or the County Board of Equalization are taking a most untenable position when they call upon the taxpayers to accept the Assessors estimates of market value of $60 to $75 per acre as a basis for sharing the total tax burden and a few months later call upon us to accept the Right —of —Way Dept. estimates of current market value of A9,000 and $54,000 per acre as:a basis for acquisition of the same property. Yours truly, -;� / Warren W. Crow, Jr. � f cc% Alton Allen David L. Baker C. M. Featherly William H. Hirstein William J. Phillips Hugh J. Plumb Richard Nevins W. Allen Grubb W. A. Coleman Mrs. Miary Burton Nayor Charles Hart Ensign Daily Pilot Register Afterthoughts The Assessors Parcels involved aret AP 120 -100 -01 AP 120 -100 -02 AP 120 -090 -22 0 Newport Beach City Council City Hall Newport Beach, California Dear Council Members: 0 December 12, 19• We wish to thank you for'your very wise decision regarding the upper bay of Newport Harbor, and of the upper bay road. You showed far- sightedness in preserving our natural resources. Thw potential value of the upper bay as a recreational area for all residents of Orange County to enjoy is unlimited. We believe your decision to, maintain control of the upper bay for the general public was sound and informed. The thoughtful, careful planning for tpe ultimate development of the upper bay harbor should result in an area of value and beauty unsurpassed in California. Yours v jy truly, Mrs. J. H. Caldwell 223 Evening Canyon Road Corona del Mary California CC - State Land's Commission J l DEC 17 1963 cm of 14EWPORT SEW, CALIF. ; ! 1 DE( . ry clry of CALIF. EACH Mr. Dee Cook Newport Beach City Council City hall Newport Beach, California 0 9 r �ackwifc{� ° � 1337 �JYLa¢ine2 s �¢ive S'S� �Z1g63 ewpo¢f Beach, Califoinia FILE: CI I( BUCK, CA LIF. NEWP � December 11, 1963 Newpor each City Council City Hall' Newport Beach, California. Gentlemen: Re: UPPER. BAY — IRVINE COMPANY land trade. Glad you are taking a stand opposing the trade offer of Irvine Company regarding Upper Newport Bay. You are to be commended for your favorable interest in the majority of citizens which you represent. It is so important that scarce water frontage be retained for the benefit of all of our people, and not be placed into private ownership. Thank you for keeping alert in the publics behalf. Respectfully yours, 44 `tea` �3 x ME 3'a NYC: r±-Ss ::+.tole bai 'A rh theft - 115 -ut T_a mtp4Aa : h :' j51d �Rt�N4 see ~ y ';e Y he.:l�ares.sf w2P. �{ s::r beach amid- Itt. tke �gr6e aitie ,: C e9 > . w': th 439 Begonia Avenue Corona del Mar, Calif. Dec. 10, 1963 To: the Newport Beach City Council Subjects Upper Bay Land Exchange Dear sirs: Some months ago the Irvine Co. submitted a proposal to the Board of Supervisors for an exchange of lands between it and Orange County in the Upper Newport Bay. The proposal included maps, assumptions and an appraisal of the lands involved prepared by the well -known firm of y %/ appraisers, Goode and Goode of Santa Ana. �h t In reply to a request from the Board of Supervisors the County Right -of Way Dept. prepared a report entitled "Analysis of Proposed Land Exchange, Upper Newport Bay ". It reviewdd and revised the Goode and Goode report and included a revised estimate of the current market value of the subject land parcels as detailed on a map prepared by the County Harbor Dept. The records of the County Assessor were checked by me to get hie opinion on the value of the lands involved. There is a wide difference of opinion between the Right -of -Way Dept. and the Assessor as to the values of the subject lands. For example, among the Irvine Co. parcels are 3 islands in the Upper Bay which,for convenience, I have called South Island, Middle Island and North Island. The portions of each of the islands involved in the land exchange have been designated parcel numbers 11, 12 and 13 respectively on the Harbor Dept. map and on the appraisal by the Right - of-Way Dept. Parcel 11, 44.7 acres of the South Island, is valued by the R/W Dept. at $64,000 per acre for a total value of $2,860,800. The County Assessor has assessed 41.7 acres at $120 per acre and 3 acres at $500 . per acre for a total assessment of $6,500 for the 44.7 acres. This assessment is approximately 2/10 of 1% of the $2,860,800 appraised current market value. The County Tax Collector will collect approx. $472 total taxes this year from this property valued by the R/W Dept. at nearly 3 million dollars. This is approx. the amount of taxes you would pay on your home in Newport Beach with a market value of $30,000 to $35,000. Parcel 12, 20.9 acres of Ndddle Island, is valued by the R/W Dept. at $54,000 per acre for a total of $1,128,600. The Assessor has assessed this entire 20.9 acres at approx. $311 which equals $15 per acre. This assessment is less than 31100 of 1% of the $1,128,600 appraised current market value. The Tax Collector will collect about $23 taKkx total taxes this year from this property valued by the R/W.Dept. at more than a million dollars. The City of Newport Beach will receive about $3.75 as their share of taxes from this million- dollar -plus property. .2 - • - 2 To put these figures another way, each acre valued by the R/W Dept. at $54,000 will pay total County taxes this year of $1.10 and the City of Newport Beach will receive 18 cents of this as its share. If you own a home in Newport Beach worth $54,000, compare your taxes. They will probably be $700 to $900 instead of $1.10 and the City will receive about $115 to $150 instead of 18 cents. Parcel 13,all 17.3 acres of the North Island, is valued by the R/W Dept. at $49,000 per acre for a total of $847,700. The Assessor has assessed the whole 17.3 acres at $260 which equals $15 per acre. This assessment is approx. 3 1100 of 1% of the $847,700 appraised current market value. The County Tax Collector will collect $18.87 total taxes this year from this near - million- dollar property. From each acre valued at $49,000 the County will receive $1.09 taxes this year of which the City will get 18 cents. If the current market value of your home is $49,000 I ask you to compare your taxes with the $1.09 paid by each acre valued at $49,000. The Assessor has stated many times that he assesses property at 20,% to 25% of value. Since he has assessed the Middle and North Is- lands at $15 per acre, he has given them a value of $60 to $75 per acre. The Right -of -Way Dept. has given these same islands a value of $49,000 and $54,000 per acre. I understand that the R/W Dept. appraisal of current market value of these islands is substantially confirmed by the Goode and Goode appraisal made for the Irvine Co. Several well- qualified Realtors in this area have advised me that the R/W Dept. appraisals -are conservative. Either the Assessor or the Right -of -Way Dept. is completely Wrong. No rationalization of the meaning of the word "value" can possibly hold that both are right. It is up to you to decide whether the Assessors evaluation of fair market value at $60 to $75 per acre is correct. It has been suggested that property evaluations made by the County Assessor, accepted by the property owner and approved by the County Board of Equalization should be one basis for establishing value when the County later considers acquisition of the property. This suggestion certainly has some merit since it seems logical that the County should have only one standard of value on which assessments are based and acquisitions made. If you decide that the 2#ktxafxWsq evaluations of the Right- of- Way Dept. and Goode & Goode at $49,000 and $54,000 per acre are correct, then the Assessor is once again guilty of placing unbelievably low assessments in proportion to market value on some properties(in this case 3 1100 of 1 %) while assessing many other properties including mine at 20,% to 25% of market value. This forces many, of us to carry a tremendously larger and disproportionate share of the'total talc burden. I1'M asking that this Council help in efforts to have tax assess- ments levied in proportion to market value as required by our State Constitution and 'laws. ti Perhaps you will answer that you are not legally responsible for property tax assessments and can't do argthing about them. I do not know whether you are legally responsible,but particularly because you are a taxing agency, I believe you are morally obligated to do all you can to see that the tax burden is distributed equitably, and you can help by adding your voice of protest when it is not. I respectfully request this Council to make a public protest of ' such practices byithe Assessor. ; ASSESSORS REOORDS South Island a. Consists of 3 parcels 1- AP 12o- too-44 2- AP 120 -100 -17 .3- AP 120 - 100 -18 Total b. 44.7 acres taken Si acres 46.13 " 2.99 " 49.84 f rom Taken From Size 2.99 A. AP120- 100 -1 2.99 A. 41.71 A;—AP-120-100-17 46.13 A. W. A. Total Middle Island a. Consists of 2,parcele Size 1- AP -120 -6100 -01 .93 acres 2- AP 120: 100-02 1.67 " Total " b. 26.9racres from-i""= Assessed Land Land Value Taxes T-37-U. 5,540.00 4o1.43 10500.00 108.65 Assessed Land Taxes Taxes Assessed Value on on Land of Part Whole Part Value Taken Piece Taken 1,500.00 1,500.00 101" F. 108.65 5,540,00 05,_ 09.00 401.43 363.00 ,500.00 471065 Assessed Land Value Taxes- 4520.00 437.66 ": . 50.00 361 Assessed band Taxes ":�'• Assessed Value on Land of Part Whole Taken From Size Value Taken Piece 20.9 +.,A. .-- AP1.20 -100 -01 3W.93 A. 520.00 311.00 37 South Island a. Consists of `1 parcel Assessed ❑' Size" .'hand Value'-r Taxes 1- AF 120 090-22 17.73 acres '' .00' %5 418.87 Taxes on Part Taken 23.00 0.. M ilayor Hart City Hall 33x0 Newuort Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Trayor Hirt: P 1007 Nottingham Tvoad Nevn.crt Beach, ". alifornia September 19, 1963 Ode are enclosing as a courtesy to you, for your records. a carbon copy of a letter irhich accompanies our petition to the Orange County Board of Sup;:rvisors. You will find also a list of the people who have signed the petition, approximately 160 families, e appreciate the Council's calling the open study meeting last ilonday evening, i9e were very pleased with the response, because we thought it verified our opinion that ethers besides us are concerned that there are not enough provisions for public access around the perimeter of the Upper Bay. Ue are counting on the Council to conTinue to review the problem and to do their- utmost to work out a solution agreeable to the most people over the longest period of time. - Z3--�,3' Sincerely youra, T's, and Tirs. J. Frank Hobinson 0 AM 0 i Mr. C. M. yeatisi Santa Aft, Caliteeft Dear Mr. Featkaaillys It was oar Intention to paw rasp@=* to the petition was so %mraus gelding signatures after by then that we had an adegastw tue e� q. in persoe this petition. The overiftelulM that ve did toot the first day or two. We felt plis� sas of the smtiaeiat ist bummuch as Va gsestion of the Tidelands eaoahaW o li basalt come up on the agemil and as ale you AM dikem peatly stashing the matter, we think ym ray be Interested in rel this nor in order to have it on record. mo- . ,:> ee a R f�. s.: Ali :r: :ne „t..; Y. � v e a • . _ i Jill ry3, f i:43! S ia'. f 1 R'.` ":1; i •'(iJ i '•I f Y'l^4:! R. :: R: e.' Il: When we first Circulated the petition, we hadsOt as yep comfirfeed the feet that the CommW actually asap the 1=0 norlti of Ngft Star itite., Cc+nsegaeat'is, we ortgSosl, adosd that yon; retata for pal io nee arty of the bssobtas on Pal Drive. We anaer+ stand now that the Irvine Co. owns ouMUK the three 9aa23 beacheq and we do not ask the Comely to retain then for p ftle nee. Ths acre vie OVIOrs the possibilities of this particular berme, north of Marth Star, with its s4tatlegis location eddeiligy &Ion Us Baft Bey, t m vRt2 A we are coadale” that it is nummil ffimal to boep it in the pmblie t:TUst, eves Masi metbing to ever &W about developing it. We doast, in fret, sae aq season to develop it, It serves an ems leaf parpose -!that of anwing people ascees to the water for a Variety of activitio*.lin its ustaaral. abate. Conowning the lack of sasses rasft, for which reason Mr. Say Watson of the Irvine tlosVW feels the area dfsentb snot publls rev quits, we want to paint oat that the access is col far aaperior to that of Corona del MLr and Little Ceram. Sincerely yoare, l�. cos Mayor Hart, Newport Beach Yxs. Cleve Goring, 1530 Anita lane "Mrs. H. L. Meisinger, 1606 Anita Mrs. Donald Yoder, 1612 Anita Tars. Maurice P. Walsh, 1618 Anita r. & firs. J hn S. Flower, 1310 Estelle Ln. 11rs. Robert 'd. Goedharb, 1621 Anita R. Imhoff, 1609 Anita G. Cullen, 1601 Anita Mrs. .Jillian U. D ll.iard, 1533 Anita Mrs. Leland C. Pleoer, 1521 Anita firs. Donald D. Baker, 1515 Anita Air. John E. idilliams, 1509 Anita Er. c Ers. J. Ton Laurie, 1100 Nottingham Rd. Mr. & sirs. John Croul, 1306 Cambridge Lane Dr. &- 2rs. `4n, R. Snyder, 1227 D-ev:,n Lane 11r. ' �'ss. !L trard T. Chapnan, 1224 Devon Lane Mr. Xs. Harm H. Freder=ick 32 07 Devon :ane Air. & I?rs. ii. John Kensey, Jr, 1312 Cambridge Lane Mr. R. irs. Irving A. Shedd 1200 Essex Lane Mr. &. rhrs. Can U ckburn, 1101 Devon Lane Mr. ul %ors. ;falter T. Moore, 1118 Devon Lane Mr. R "tra. J. C. Sheppard, 1233 Devon Lane Mrs. Violet C. Corkhill. 1231 8ssex Lane Mr. & i•irs. Cressy P- harray, 1230 Essex jane Mr. & Mrs. John C. Anderson, 1218 Devon Mr. & i�rs. J. C. Beaumont, 12.50 Devon Lane Jack '.alker, 1101 Berkshire Jane Lee F1cNanmW, 1106 Berkshire Dorothy K. River, 1115 Berkshire fir. "tirs. Jm. Saxton, 1118 Berkshire Mr. &. Mrs. Gerald S. Silsbee, 1206 Berkshire Jean Carson, 1201 Bei:h�shire Mr. & c rs. Helmut ',iciss, 1230 Berkshire Jack Tresthail Rita .4ri hton, 1216 Berkshire Mrs. John F. Coyle, 2353 Irvine Av. Lars. Reba A. Griffin, 2335 Irvine Av. Mrs. Marilyn O'Rourke, 2326 Tustin Av. Mrs, Russell Jiseman, 2395 Tustin Av. rs. George Wolfe, 2397 Tustin Av. Airs. Barbara J. MacPherson, 2332 Tustin Firs. C. E. Holsinger, 2415 Tustin, C.I'. Robert F. Gervais, 1704 Minorca Y1., C.M. Mrs. L. J. O'Brien, 2338 Tustin Av. TSrs. Faith L. Warren, 2329 Irvine Av. Stephen '.•ialsh, 690 Joann, C.N. 1)n D. Smith, 114 Gm al Avq, Balboa Ia Barren E. Howland, 311 Vings Rd. Dixie N. Leichtfuss, 2215 Irvine Av. Lois 2, Faulkner, 2236 Heather Lane Parcel7a J. Watters, 2245 Heather Lane Windfred Johnston, 2233 Heather Lane Grace E. Grant, 2221 Heather Lane H. rilyn A. Nelson, 2231 Irvine Av, firs. B. Phillips, 2201 Heather Lane as. R. R. Prosier, 2414 23rd St. John R. Reilly, 2420 23rd St. Florence C, Reilly, 2120 23rd St. Ellen :I. Cross, 2421 Tustin, C.11. Robin C. Davidson, 205 Albert Pl., C.M. John Gillette, 3030 Country Club _7r.. C.M. Rose M. Iackkwitch, 1337 .iariners Dr. 'Im. J. Mackiritch, 1337 mariners Dr. 1rW4 the undersiZm;d, petitAhe Cran :e County BoarO.. of Sup tors, in view of y the proposes! Tidelands exchan,e, to retain for public use the property presently owned by the County on the Upper Pav, northerly of North Star Drive." Mrs. Frank Cpmstock, 1U15 Nottingham 'Lid. 3r. &. Mrs. George Barnett, 1006 Nottingham Mrs. Max M. Russell, 1107 Mgrian Zane Charles R. Spillers, 1524 Anita Lane Lar•ne E. Spiller, 1524 Anita Lane Ervin R. Heald, 1624 Anita Lane Mary E. Heald, 1624 Anita Lane E. L. Beahm, 1636 Anita Lane Marihelen W. Beahm, 1636 Anita Lane Robert J. Goedhart. 1621 Anita Lane J. i�r.an1: Robinson, 1007 Nottingham fie. L. E. Dribble, 1515 Dorothy Lane Marjorie Gribble, 1515 Dorothy Lane Beverly M. Kay, 1515 Wanai.ck Lane Jeanne F. Burge, 1521 ;Jarwick Lane Rosemary Schulman, 1601 `8anai ck Lane Francis Franciscus III, 1607 :^Jarvick Beverly Franciscus, 1607 Waniick Robert E. Kraemer Anne L. Kraemer Sara Dorfman Dr. & Ers. Robert C. t;oodruff, 1606 :,'.arPrlck H. Bernita Gthmcr, 1520 i an;ick Victor A. Gill, 1514 'ilanrick Gretchen B. Cunningham, 1506 J_in -ick Kenneth S. Ross, 1230 Somerset Lane Barbara M. Ross, 1230 Somerset lane Mary E. Rosenast, 1207 Somerset Lane Jane G. Ryfel, 1115 Somerset Joan stilton Campbell, 1100 Devon Lane John B. Coontz, 1215 Deevon J hn F. Dean, 1136 Hi. ^hland Dr. Katherine 14. Dean, 1136 Highland Benita Keele, 1021 Nottingham fi Prone Lauber, 1227 Highland Dr. Howard A. P.Teans, 1214 Nottingham Rd. -.ric S. Johnson, 1306 `aottin -ham Allan S. Johnson, 1400 Nottinghai Sally L. Johnson, 1400 Nottingham Howard S. Petersen, 1412 Nottingham Itry C. Petersen, 1-)412 Nottingham .sther L. Unwell, 1401 Nott.ngham Elinor K. Sm:.th, 1225 Nottingham E. W. Milum, 1215 Nottingham Knowlton Fernald Jr., 1201 Nottinghar Mar.-aerite J. Fernald, 1201 N ^ttin"gham Tommy S. Sharp, 1101 'ottin7ham Harry J. Babbitt, 1008 :Jestcliff Dr. Dorothy J. I'•Ieaver, 1112 Dover Dr, Lester C. Jones, 1218 Dover Dr, Allyn E. i -_ub, 1300 Dover Maruerite hors, 1312 Dover Ruth H. Coble, 1500 Dover Fray E. Coble, 1500 Dover Gladys L. T•icRae, 1508 Dover H. A. Schakt, 1514 Dover C. C. Bagstad, 179J Dover I`Iilo Lea, Ains:•mrtTa, 1712 lover E. T. Buhley, 1812 hover F. r. Ball, 1906 Dover Bra. :lsy K. Schwarz, 2106 ;)over Frances Robinson, 1007 Nottin ham Rd. Ass. '.J. Ferrell, 1560 = 'orothy Lane R. L. Jenstrn, 1514 Dorothy Mrs, R. L. Johnson, 1526 Dorothy Iixlph B. Conn, 1600 Dorothy 1,1artha S. Conn, 1600 Dorothy Joan G. Andres, 1w6 Dorothy Frank J. Venclik, 1614 Dorothy John A. Allard, 1324 tcllcs Tane 7435 Torinerrs Dr. Jill. A. G:�zld, 1400 Estelle Lane R. S. Greenslade, 1627 Dorothy John C. TUpane, 1621 Dorothy Donna Loscc,�, 1527 Dorothy Mr. ', ',irs. Earl W. Beeman, 1521 Dorothy 11r. ? Airs. Danny McKeever, 1507 Dorothy Jun,: i i. Peterson, 1000 Nottingham Rd. Annette F. Boydston, 1300 Alottin, ^ham John F. Fletcher, 1107 Essex Lane Li, H. Robinson, 1301 Oxford Lane iirs. ':Darren Turner, 1105 Oevon Lane J. *J. Hess, 1212 Cambrid;Ce Lane Firs. B. A. B::tcheller, 1006 Cambridge Elaine Lapworth, 921 Nottingham R:', Florence Pac'<ard, 1012 Iiott'.ngharm Mrs. Robert H. Curt.n, 1101 '.Rrian Lcne Yx. F; 1-rs. ';. D. Armstrong, 1101 Oxford Lane 11 ,'r. i rs. J, J, Buell, 1207 Essex Lme Mr. °: Yrs. Y. Snell, 1100 P'estcliff Dr, E. Tyrrell, 1206 ','estcliff :rs, h. E. Tyrrell, 1206 .estcliff Barbara Lesher, 1000 Uestcliff Herbert Lcsher, 1000 '.'estcliff Herbert Sagermin, 1501 highland Dr. Yrrs, 11, S. Brown, 1509 Highland Dr. ilr. _. Krs, Janes A. Lee, 1532 Highland Iir.-&. Tars. Bob ?:loon, 1606 Highland Ira. Rc nrs. Don r,vxdlcy, 1612 Highland Mr. firs. Charles E. Pettingill, Jr,, 1618 H;.�7,hls.nd )r, .r. nt I rs. John P achillan, 1624 Highland 'Mrs. Frank E. :Tilton, 1624 Highland I "r. °. Ass. R. Roedling, 1700 Highland I "r, E Firs, L, '-.Fl lace , 1706 Iii bland Mr, Y: I?ss, ':. P. Campbell, 1300 Estelle Lane I:r, Iirs, Guy A, Smith, 1306 Estelle Lane Mr, & Mrr. G. W. Hafner, 1500 Anita lane 'r. & Yrs. R. L. Crutcher, 1506 Anita Hr. :': Mrs. A. A. Id1 off, 1512 Anita Mrs. F. d, Neimeyer, 1518 Anita Newport Peach City Counc C;N Of City Hall € NEWpOBT BFACH,� Newport Beach, California /j,. CAIff. Dear Sirs:r r' ptember 6, 1963 1 '1_ .A few weeks e, o I wrcte the City Council ' , y the back bay road was not m�iintained properly for public use, ae. this is a public, dedicated read. Heretofore it has ben kept passable, with chuck holes filled, at not great expense. I received a letter dated July 9, 1953, from t,ar. Coop - a letter -Full of platitudes and alle -zations, such ae "unstable conditions," "high tides inundating it," etc. I have lived in this area for thirty years and have taken that route *zany times a week, all year long and have never found it impaFsable. I am horrified at one sentence in Mr. Coop's letter. he says, "Eventually, as this area develops, a completely new street in this location will be built Even now part of our road is gone! Already we, the public, have lost about 1/4 mile of this beautiful scenic road. The upper end has been covered over completely by the big earthmovers, and the road is to 6o up over the hill somewhere as access to private lands up above. This must already have been planned before Mr. Coop answered my letter, but no mention was made of it. ;,here else are we to lose part of oul road - with no n -rtion of it un"il it is too late`% I am convinced private interests have much to do with this situation. I an very much against any trade w_ t oever of our public roads and tidelands - a trang_.tt will leave the taxpayin4 pu is with a ig area —I -d a pu ic_ park replete with r�o°ulated p�rka-n p3rotay °aC1:UG per car, keep o£f- the -grass signs, private beaches, etc: This in exchange for"our 5'eautiful, scenic drive up the back bay where the public can drive free of charge, stop and enjoy bathing, fishing, and unregulated enjoyment of the view, the boatin;, water skiing, birds, etc. I have talked with many residents of hewport Beach, and. have found not a single person in favor of a trade. Mr. Coop is a newcomer here in i�ewpoet beach and perhaps we can understand his indifference to our loss, but most of the Councilmen have lived in this area for many years. How can they reconcile the loss of their public land to private interests - land their children and Erandchild.ren should be able to enjoy - -- and not have private beaches, private moorings, and bulkheads built out into the main channel of the bay (witness activities or, the wept ehose of the bay where the public is out of luck except to e,rive along a street that will look into garap-e doors, and beaches with "Io Trespassing" signs.) To we want this condition on the beautiful public lands on the east side of the bay? but w �r Let the private interests develop their own vast acreage, let us keep for ourselves what we, the public, own! < t ff� � c kr v I ".r =. J. Darold Caldasell 23 Evening Canyon .3d. Corona del Ntar, California 1'otirs truly, c !'�\ Sri �•� lit � r i ".: i � . \ \� %� »` & =J� % � o $)� : g \ �\ } §/6 3 \ 2 / KN \ ) \ \ \ \j\ a R ©# //\ \ ±/ 2 _ ƒ / l 6 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA August 28, 1963 To: Members of the City Council FROM: Mayor Charles E. Hart Last week's package contained a memorandum from the City At torney regarding ownership of tidelands in the Back Bay. This is an extremely complex matter and the ultimate decision would probably be nude by the State Supreme Court. Mr. Charamza advises me that he believes his office could represent the City without outside assistance. Ownership would be very valuable to this City and should not be lost by inaction, or default. If you agree, we will arrange a special study session to discuss this with Mr. Charamza, the meeting to be on an attorney - client basis. Walt has maps of the proposed land exchange which will be available at the meeting. Please let me hear from you. CEH:ms Charles E. Hart, Mayor Y A" Art A14, 741 I e-o-C n2 (:fit •�. �J le �� 9