Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_5226_STO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Director Subject: OXBOW CHANNEL A. INTRODUCTION May 11, 1981 STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM NO. _,_/_o __ _ At the Council meeting of April 27,, 1981, the Council directed the staff to report on the Oxbow Channel (old Santa Ana River Channel) in West Newport with regard to the status of litigation involving the channel and cleanup (dredgi.ng) of the channel. This subject has a long history, some of which is summarized below, and described in more detail in attachments to this report. The matter was most re- cently brought before the Council by a letter dated April 12, 1981 from several property owners in the area. B. LITIGATION AND TITLE The City has been involved, together with nearby property owners and the State Lands Commission, in litigation regarding boundaries of and title to the channel. This litigation is not concluded, thus title to the channel has not yet been resolved. The attached memo from the City Attorney has more information regarding this matter. C. DREDGING AND CLEANUP Because of the limited benefit to the general public, the City has consistently taken the position that dredging of the channel is the res pons i bi1 ity of those who would derive the benefit. Prior dredg- ing of the channel some ten years ago was done by the property owners without City participation. City participation in dredging is further complicated by the uncertain title to the slough area, and the fact that a portion of the area 1 i es outside the City 1 imi ts. The Orange County Flood Control District has declined to provide financial assis- tance in the past because the area is .outside their jurisdiction, and because of higher priority demands on the limited ava i 1 able flood control funds. Copies of previous correspondence and reports are attached for reference. D. DRAINAGE GATE (Connecting to Greenville-Banning Flood Control Channel) The Oxbow Channel slough drains to the ocean by means of a pipe con- necting to the Green vi 11 e-Banning Flood Control Channe 1. This pipe has a gate which may be opened or closed by manual operation. Any operation of the gate is performed by the City pursuant to an agree- ment between the City and the Flood Control District. The gate is May 11, 1981 Subject: Oxbow Channel Page 2 normally 1 eft fully open by the City to permit full access to the ebb and flow of the tide. The gate. would ordinarily be closed only if the water level in the Greenville-Banning Channel were so high as to pose a potential "back-up" threat to the Newport Shores area. This is not a likely occurrence. E. CONCLUSION The policy followed by the City of non,-participation in the dredging of the channel still appears to be appropriate. Pertinent factors are indicated below. l. There is little or no benefit to the general public City-wide. 2. Parti.cipation would constitute an on-going increased level of service, with important precedent implications for numerous other waterway areas having siltation problems. 3. Dredging in the past was performed by the property owners. (The cost a little over ten years ago was approximately $25;ooo.) 4. The City has no funds currently available for the work; and an application for Federal emergency aid (FEMA funds) has been denied. 5. The environmental and permit processes would be lengthy and com- plex. Available staff time is fully committed to the existing work load. 6. Title to the area is still unresolved and a portion of the area lies ·outside the City limits. F. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS l . Letter dated April 12, 1981 from property owners i ri Newport Shores. 2. Letter dated April 28, 1981 from the Utilities Director in response to the proper:ty owners ' letter. • 3 .. Report dated June 12, 1978 from the Public Works Director to the City Council regar<ling the .channel. • 4. Letter dated May 25, 1978 from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency to the Newport Shores Community Association. 5. Report from City Attorney. 6. Sketch of l oca tiori. = -0 .·.· .. Benj min B. Nolan ~ Public Works Director BBN :jd Att. -.J . ....__., lpri.l 12, 1981 -. : . .- . Honorable City CQunc.:U. • • City of-lfewport Beach ifewport'Beach,-California Dear Mayor and Members, Regarding our refusal to sign the pa-s►through agioements ~•nted by Mr. Glum in fa-,or of the City, we, feel that you ahoul.d have the 'benefit of· • our thinking in this matter.. • • • • • _ Our response was ~nimous to the -demands for a complet~ . "hold~harm-_ -lesa" agreement in return ·for approxi_mately 112~00 .per ye~.--·21hia. ia "tOQ much .for too little.", • • • • • • We feel this is·-an. opportunity -to express our dj,saatis:f'act-ion with the city and it:s lack of sympathy,·un~rstanding·and·c~peration on .the unique problems of Kewpor.t Shores:, particularly the·eo111Plete neglect o.f the_ o.z:.;.:eo., channel, which we consider to-be.extremely importan,t to our-community. ' . .• . . . . After· going th.rough all the channele .. availa·ble to us as_ citi~a;. the. total disregard for our prpblems baa ·1eft us with the feeiing. of being the -• step-children ot the .City. Our refuaal .to aip i.a s1!9ply_ our way of led.giag a protest against what we corisider .. to ~ second~u • citizensb:1,.p. . • •• • • . . ' . ·-. .-- key members of ·your honorable.aeaemblage ,iho.~ou1d ca~ t~·~ve'atigate our complaints would be· welc~d. We w_ould ~ deli-gll.hd: to ·meet with you . at any time. It would be a p1easure to show you how a· pl.easant little waterway, which. afforded substantl..lll.--rec;reational tacilitiea,-Reh as . swimming, sailing, rowing an.d ·other .water eporta, -be. become a filtl;tt', _ smelly, weed-infested. and :mu:4-choiracl .eyeaoz-e in Oil.JJ' .. two· ;reara. . -._.: i · _ ,, . We are at your_ diapoaal. Please feel. free to call at. ,uiy time. _ Ve are a-group of-concerned:citizena. >-7? • • .r-. • • • • · -· I -,-a.~ -_,: : Sal ·ta;0c&; --. - Mr. !.and Mr~. : ».ald Borthwick 205 Canal; ·223 Grant • Phone 646-9714 • • -A:1%;~gy Mr. and Mrs. James Graham 207 .Canal .'. • CI1"'Y o:F NEWPORT BEACH . . Utilities ·nepartment April 28, 1981 Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Brady 209 Canal; 218 Highland. Mr. & Mrs. Donald Borthwick 205 Canal; 223 Grant Mr. & Mrs. James Graham 207 Canal Mr. & Mrs~ Alan Milligan 203 Canal Dear Residents and Property ·Owners. in Newport Shores-: . : . ., 714) 640-2221 Your letter of April 12, 1981, regarding oil pas-s.;.through agreements and the neglect of the ·ox-bow channel has been received by the .. ·city Council and forwarded to this'· office for .a_ reply. • _ • The portion of the lett~r relating·to the oil pass_:through-rights has been referred to Mr. J"ohn C. -Cutler of Security Land & Right of Way Services, Inc. This is a priva·te ffrm, hired by the City to acquire. the oil producing pass-through rights ·in West Newport. • All ·:qu_estions • .relating to·value should be addre$sed to them. . _ • . • • As far as the 11 negl ect of the Ox-bow ·channe 1 ii is concer~ed, .·( am enclosing a copy of a letter dated November 17, 1977 to the Newport Shores CorrmunitY Association and a copy of a staff report dated June ·12, 1978 outlining the City's position on dredging the Ox-bo.w. • If you have any further questior), pleasefeel.-free. to call me a:t (714) 640-2220. • · • • ' ' Sincerely yours, Devlin . : • Director .. JTD:jb .. •. ' · /. xc: / City Mana~~r / •• • ·_i,;~\ City r}iu • ~3300 NeWport B,mlevard;. Newport B~ac:h, Califo.r~ia 9-2663 . Joseph T. Devlin, Public Works Dt.rector .. JTD.:jd • cc;,, Ctey Mlnar,er • I·' June 12, 1978 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.NO. H-8(a) TO: CITY COUNCIL • FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: NEWPORT SHORES CHANNEL DISCUSSION: • · At the May 22, 1978 meeting of the City Council, the attached letter (see Exhibit "A") from the Newport Shores Community Association was referred to the staff fl)r a .report back. • Listed below are answers to the questions asked in the letter: 1. Q. Who is responsible for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel? A. The City of New~ort Beach. 2. Q. When is it closed and/or opened? A. The gate is kept in· an opened position most of the time. 3. Q. Why is it closed and/or opened? A: It would be closed only if necessary to protect the Newport Shores area from high water in the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel. 4. Q. Was ..it used during the recent storms and ensuing runoff? A. It was open during the storms; however, it was-closed during the period after the storm when.the Santa Ana River flow was· contaminated due to the.failure of an upstream crossing of an Orange. County Sanitation District sewer main. 5 .. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the letter. A. Due to rainfall runoff, excess sediment periodically builds up in the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel. This summer as part of the Environmental Management Agency's project for interim improvements to the Santa Ana River, the excess sediment will be removed from both the Santa Ana River and the Greenville Banning Channel. It is estimated that 40,000 cubic yards of sedi- ment wi 11 be taken from the Green vi 11 e Banning Channe 1. 7 June 12, 1978 Subject: • Newport Shores Channel Page 2 The work will also include the removal of excess material around the Newport Shores side of 60" drain opening. The cleaning of the opening should help the.circulation in the Newport Shores canal. . • 6. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the letter. BACKGROUND: A. As part of the drainage system in the area, Caltrans • maintains a large ditch along the northerly side of Pacific .Coast Highway between Newport Shores and . Superi er Avenue, L 1 ke the Santa Ana R1 ver and the Greenv11le Channel, the ditch a 1 so fil 1 s up with • sediment from rainfall runoff. Every few years the State cleans the ditch as part of its routine maintenance to protect Coast Highway from flooding. The enlargement of the ditch refe.rred to in the. letter was simply part of the State's highway maintenance program. The Newport Shores.Tract was developed in 1961 (see Exhibit "B"). At the time of development, the drainage canal was dredged by the developer, and beaches were built along a portion of the canal adjoining the tract. The . canal and beach improvements were not a con di ti on of development and th~ work was done by the developer to improve the marketability of the homes. ln 1969 the canal was in need of dredging and the City of Newport . Beach was requested to do the work. At the time the City refused to partici- pate in the project for the fo 11 owing reasol)s: . . . . • • • .:: 1. In the .. opinion of the Council there was limited City-wide benefit. 2. I.t would involve the City in a long-term cost committment. 3. There was a question of canal ownership, and approximately one-half of the area to be. dredged was outside the City . 1 imi ts. • In 1970 the Newport Shores Community Association had the cana.1 dredged at a cost of approximately $25,000 (see Exhibit "C"). . • , ' ' The dredging method used by the Newport Shores Community Association was simply to position a drag-line on the northerly bank, scoop up the bottom material and spread it along the bank. The p.rocess was simple and relatively inexpensive. Now, because of all the environmental constraints and permit requirements, it is likely that the increase in the cost of doing the work would greatly exceed the inflati.on rate .. · • I ' ' June 12, Subject: Page 3 1978 Newport Shores Channel In addition to the increased casts, the time requirement in obtaining all of the necessary permits could easily add a year or two to the project's time schedule. • By way of example, the Dover Shares Community Association received approval from the City to dredge the Dover Sha.res Channels on April 11, 1977. It is now over one year later and the work has not proceeded because of con- ditions imposed by th~ Coastal Zone Commission. • In the. past the Newport Shores Community Association has also sought help from the County of Orange in having the canal dredged. A copy of the Association's letter to the Environmental Management Agency and a copy of their reply has been attached to this report (see Exhibits 11 D" and "E"). l-~·.· evlin ub1 ks Di rector ·Att. OF ANGE ' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION H, G. OSBORN! DJalCToa 400 CIYI.C: CENTER DRIVE WEIYTP,,,··,?!-f ~ s.o,-r;. ANA, CA, ,~ L J..J: 1 ) HAY 3 5 11118 ,,. -v TILl,HONE: 134-Z!OO A;III!,\ COOi 7f4 MAILINt AD-DHU Jl',O, 101107& IA,NTA ANA, c:·A, i270Z C.R. MELSON AHIITi',NT OllttCTOa OIY(·L(li,-MC:NT ✓'I:) I\ECEIVtll 'y ,usu& WQRKS ·:::-0 , .. MAY 3 0 !978 --l::. Mr. Don Borthwick Newport Shore■ Community 511 Canal Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Borthwick: Association, Inc, . •· CITY OF · /~ N£WP011l BEACH, 1..:3· CALIF. '/ ~-,.~ Receipt of _your letter of April 20, 1978 addressed to Mr. Mex Bridges of this office regarding the condition of the canal near your community is acknowledged. This is to reiterate previous statements our.· staff has made regarding your concerns, The gated structure, through which "the flow of tide water" enters the canal, is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach, The city is respon7 aible for operation of the gate regulatfng flow to and from the canal. Questions regarding gate operation should be conveyed .to the city's Director of Public Works, Mr. Joseph Devlin, • • During recent weeks our·staff personnel repeatedly recommended that.your associa- tion request assistance·through the Federal _Disaster Assistance Administration office at telephone.number 1-800-252-9364. 'However, as of Friday,'May 12, 1978 indications were you had apparently elected not to proceed with an application for assistance. • As previously stated,· this agency has no jurisdiction in the canal area .. There- fore, we are not able to recol!llllend that the Board of Supervisors provide financial assistance with your planned dtedging of the privately owned waterway, Enclosed are copies of three previous letters in this.matter dated Februarv 7, 1977, November 14, 1974, and November 7, 1973 which may be informative, along with a· copy of the agreement between City and the OrangeCounty Flood District. If you -have any further questions, please call me (834-2308) or Max Bridges (634-7016), WMB/CRN:hm ' Attachm11nts: Letters cc: Supervisor Riley / Mr. Joseph Devlin v ·very tru C!.;f. C. R; Nel Director 10 To: From: Subject: INTRODUCTION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY May 5, 1981 Ben Nolan -Public Works Director· City Attorney Oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough At the City Council meeting of April 27, 1981, the issue of the status of Oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough was discussed.· The purpose of. this memorandum is to provide you with current information regarding Oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough. • LITIGATION In 1971, Mr. & Mrs. Hunt.and Mr. Pembroke filed a lawsuit against the City of Newpor.t Beach· asserting that the former Santa Ana River (now called Oxbow Loop·-Semeniuk Slough) was tidelands adjacent to the Bay and Beach Trailer Park in the extreme westerly portion of Newport Beach. Mr. &Mrs .. Hunt own the trailer park and Mr. Pembroke. has been granted·. certain oil rights by Mr. & Mrs. Hunt in the Oxbow Loop area. The case has slowly progressed through the Court system and is currently nearly ready to be settled. The City of Newport Beach agreed with the Plaintiffs that portions of the former Santa Ana River near the trailer park were, in fact, tidelands and the City of Newport Beach further asserted that the. Plaintiffs had filled tidelands improperly. At this time; this office is working with the Attorney General to develop a boundary line agreement to establish a line that defines uplands and. tidelands in the area g·enerally westei:ly of Highland Street to the western City limits along the banks of the \ [ Ben Nolan Memorandum May 5, 1981 Page Two former Santa Ana River. We trust that this matter will be resolved within the next 12 to 15 months. The owner of the property northerly of the north bank of the former Santa Ana River, Beeco Ltd., and the City of Newport Beach have been negotiating for approximately five years to establish a boundary line along the north bank of the Santa Ana River. The Attorney General has been involved in khese n~gotiations as well. The negotiations regarding the north bank of the River were commenced as a result of litigation between Beeco Ltd. and Mr. & Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Pembroke dealing with their encroachment beyond the center line of the Santa Ana River into property allegedly owned by Beeco Ltd .. The City of Newport Beach has asserted that this property is tidelands and that neither the Hunts and Mr. Pembroke nor Beeco Ltd. have an interest between the banks of the former Santa Ana River. The boundary line agreement is essentially completed between the City of Newport Beach, State of California and Beeco Ltd .. However, the matter is not progressing at this time pending a resolution of the tidelands oil issue.. As you are aware, the City and the State Lands Commission h.ave entered into a Joint Powers Agreement which will result in·the condemnation of certain property northerly of the north bank of the Santa Ana River. The boundary line issue may be a part of the condemnation litigation and it was deemed prudent to terminate the boundary line agreement discussions until their ·implications on the tidelands oil issue can be fully studied. SEMENIUK SLOUGH On the. most easterly extension of the former Santa Ana River, the dry area known as Semeniuk Slough, the boundary line agreement with Beeco Ltd. would have resolved part of the title issue as to ownership of this dry area. On th~ westerly side of the former Santa Ana River in this area, the City is an abutting upland owner over a high percentage of its run. The City had not commenced negotiations on the south side of the Semeniuk Slough area r~garding a boundary line agreement pending a resolution of the north bank. Ben Nolan Memorandum May 5, 198i. Page Three REMAINDER OF 11 SOUTHERLY BANK" The stretch of the· former Santa Ana River running betwe·en Highland Street and the City owneiship in the Semeniuk Slpugh area involv~s many individual parc~ls. For the time being it was deemed imprudent to pursue a bounaa·ry line agreement on the south bank due to excessive costs involved in obtaining title information· as to the ownership of the various· 1o·ts ·in· question. •. As time passes, it may become more feasible.· CONCLUSION At·this time, it is the City's position that the former Santa Ana River, including Semeniuk Slo.ugh, is tidelands and subject to the tidelands trust. The exact definition of the extent of the· tidelands has not been resolved_ in any of the areas along the River, but is presently in various stages of.negotiation, as set forth above. Hugh· R.:. Coffin HRC/pr 1 1 ) .. \ • ½ t ~ ~ •• ~ bi ~ ~ I J I \ January 10, 1986 OXBOW LOOP DREDGING I. Excavate to (-)5 MLLW, 50 ft. wide A. Easterly portion Io =1 C. Y ./Ft. 5.4 S.I. x 50 S.F. + 27 10 C.Y./Ft. x 2,200 Ft. = 22,000 C.Y. B. Westerly portion ' 8.1 S.I. x 50 S.F. + 27 = 15 C.Y./Ft. 15 C.Y./Ft. x 2,800 Ft.= 42,000 C.Y. C. Cost C,Y. T3!J,J 22,000 + 42,000 = 54,000 C.Y. Assume price range of $3 to $10 djsposal and off-site disposal, per -G-i-t-y for local respectively. 64,000 X $3 = $192,000 64,QQQ X $10 = $640,000 II. Excavate to (-)3 MLLW, 30 ft. wide A. Easterly portion Nominal quantity 10,000 C.Y. B. Westerly portion 4 S.I. x 50 S.F. + 27 = 7.5 C.Y./Ft 7.5 C.Y./Ft. x 2,800 Ft. = 21,000 C.Y. C. Cost 10,000 + 21,000 = 31,000 C.Y. 31,000 X $3 = $93,000 31,000 X $10 = $310,000 (Note: At meeting of January 9, 1986, the Council Tidelands Affairs Committee voted to recommend a $10,000 appropriation for maintenance dredging in the area immediately easterly of the Greenville-Banning Channel.) / To: From: Re: MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY January 10, 1983 Agenda Item No. F-9(e) Honorable Mayor & Members of the City council Robert H. Burnham -Assistant City Attorney Hunt/Pembroke v. City of Newport Beach (Oxbow Loop Litigation) INTRODUCTION On June 15, 1971, Halsted Pembroke, Clarence Hunt and Mamie Hunt filed a lawsuit against the City of Newport Beach,- County of Orange and State of California seeking a judicial declaration as to the right, title and interest to certain pro- perty located just to the west of the Santa Ana river and im- mediately to the south of the north bank of the waterway which was once a part of the Santa Ana river and is now commonly known as the Oxbow Loop. In 1972, Halsted Pembroke filed another lawsuit again seeking to establish the boundaries of real property located in the west end of the Oxbow Loop. The Plaintiffs, in both of the lawsuits mentioned above, admit that certain property that forms a portion of the west end of the Oxbow Loop consists of tidelands and, as such, falls within the jurisdiction of either the City, County or State. It is unclear what prompted Plaintiffs to file these lawsuits, although it appears that the impetus was provided by the denial, by the State Lands Conmdssion, of an application submitted by Mr. Pembroke to recover oil and gas from the tide- lands. The application had been denied by the State Lands Commission because of its uncertainty as to the title to real APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL DATE ( -10-f/J Honorable Mayor & "'"'--mbers of the City Council January 10, 1983 Page Two Re: Hunt/Pembroke v. City of Newport Beach (Oxbow Loop Litigation) property in and around the west end of the Oxbow Loop. Apparently, Mr. Pembroke felt that by this litigation, he could establish the nature of the boundaries and then resubmit his application for production of hydrocarbons. It is also apparent that neither the City nor the State knew quite what to make of this litigation, since Pembroke and Hunt had admitted that a significant portion of the property was tidelands, and that title to the property thus vested either in the City, County or State. To add to the confusion, either Hunt/Pembroke or their predecessor-in-interest, had filled a significant section of the tidelands and they were and are, using the filled tidelands in conjunction with their mobile home park located between the south bank of the Oxbow Loop and Pacific Coast Highway. If Hunt/Pembroke were successful in the lawsuit, they might well lose the right to occupy the property. In response to the lawsuit, the City of Newport Beach filed an Answer and a Cross Complaint against the State, Hunt/Pembroke, Bill Banning and Beeco, Ltd. The City, in this Cross Complaint, also requested a judicial declaration that all property located below the mean high tideland belonged to the City of Newport Beach, in trust, pursuant to the tidelands grants of 1919, 1927 and 1929. The matter was then set for trial in 1974, but, was continued to an unknown date at the request of the State due to its concern over the impact of a then-recent Supreme Court decis- ion. In spite of the fact that the Attorney General, at the time, apparently, determined that the Supreme Court decision did not affect this litigation, it seems that all parties lost in- terest until March, 1977. In March, 1977, Hunt/Pembroke filed an amendment to their complaint alleging a vested right to the west end of the . Oxbow Loop because of various actions, and failures to act, on the part of the City of Newport Beach and the State of California. Thus, six years after the litigation was commenced, the Plaintiffs finally realized that, if they were successful, they stood to lose a significant amount of property that they then occupied. For reasons which I cannot explain, all of the parties to the litigation allowed Hunt/Pembroke to file this amendment to the complaint without any opposition. Honorable Mayor & ambers of the City Council January 10, 1983 Page Three Re: Hunt/Pembroke v. City of Newport Beach (Oxbow Loop Litigation) Since 1977, and possibly before, the parties to this litigation have discussed settlement of the lawsuits, and, in 1979 or 1980, a tentative settlement was reached. That settle- ment, which was subject to approval by the City Council, would have allowed Hunt/Pembroke to continue to use the fill tidelands for mobile home park purposes, for a period of 25 years. The right to occupy the land was in the nature of a license and was personal to the Hunts. At the conclusion of the 25 year term of the license, or sooner, if the license terminates earlier, the City would assume jurisdiction over the whole of the tide and submerged lands, including that portion filled by Hunt/Pembroke or their predecessor-in-interest. The responsibility for drafting the settlement agree- ment fell upon Hugh Coffin and Susan Wiley, a Deputy Attorney General representing the State Lands Commission. There were, apparently, delays in drafting the agreement, and further delays in refining the terms and conditions thereof. The settlement agreement was finally submitted to Hunt/Pembroke on June 10, 1982, approximately three years after an agreement was first reached. Hunt/Pembroke have now advised the City and State that they are unwilling to enter into a settlement agreement, although the reasons for their decision are unclear. Thus, after 12 years, this litigation is in, substantially, the same position as when the lawsuits were first filed. DISCUSSION My review of the material in the files maintained by this office relative to the Hunt/Pembroke litigation has been somewhat brief due to the fact that the files were, until the date of this memo, maintained by Hugh Coffin in his offices. My immediate reaction is that the City and State should file with the Court a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment combined with the request that the Court appoint a special master to take evidence and make recommendations to the Court with regard to the appro- priate boundary line. A Motion for Summary Judgment asks the Court to decide, prior to trial, a question of law or fact. The Motion for Summary Judgment that I propose, would ask the Court to determine that all of the tidelands located in the west end of the Oxbow Loop belong to the City of Newport Beach by virtue of the tidelands grants referenced above and the re-grant of tide- lands contained within the Beacon Bay Bill. We would ask the Court to determine other legal issues such that the only issue .-- . • ' Ho-nor able Mayor & -A'~mbers of the City Council January 10, 1983 Page Four Re: Hunt/Pembroke v. City of Newport Beach (Oxbow Loop Litigation} that remained would be the location of the mean high tide line. That issue would be resolved by the app,ointment of a special master who would take evidence in an administrative context and make recommendations to the Court. The procedure outlined above can be accomplished in a very short period of time. The Motion for Summary Judgment could be filed within 60 days and, if successful, could result in the resolution of this case within six to eight months. Another option available to the City would be to file an At Issue Memorandum and seek to obtain an early trial date due to the age of Plaintiffs, the age of the lawsuit and the pre- ference to which a declaratory relief action is entitled. My reason for not recommending this course of action is my belief that. the issues presented by this litigation are more appro- priately resolved by a law and motion judge, prior to trial, and my feeling that it will be much more. expedient to present evi- dence regarding the mean high tide line in an informal proceeding before a special master. RECOMMENDATION If it is the desire of the City Council to bring this litigation to a conclusion, it is the recommendation of this off ice that the City Co~ncil direct the City Attorney to do the following: 1. Contact the attorneys representing -the State Lands Commission and the County -of Orange and discuss with them the propriety of filing a Motion for Summary Judg- ment and a request for the appointment of a special master in an effort to promptly resolve this litigation: 2. Prepare a draft Motion for Summary Judgment and appoint- ment of special master, 3. Report to the City Council on the status of this litiga- tion at the Council meeting Of February 8, 1982. RHB/pr MMP/Oxbow Rbbert H. Burnham Acting City Attorney February 18, 1982 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: OXBOW LOOP--SEMENIUK SLOUGH CHANNEL INTRODUCTION: At the meeting of February 8, 1982, the City Council discussed a communication from CEQAC regarding the Oxbow Loop--Semeniuk Slough channel in the Newport Shores area. The Council directed that the staff prepare a reply, with a copy to ·the Council prior to mailing. Staff was also requested to respond to the tidal .gate problem and to include background information regarding the present legal status of the slough. • Attached for reference and background information are copies of the following documents: l. Report dated June 12, 1978 from Public Works Director Joe Devlin to the City Council regarding questions asked by the Newport Shores Community Association about the channel. 2. Reports dated February 12, 1982 and May 5., l 981 from the City Attorney's office regarding the legal status of the channel. 3. Report dated February 10, 1982 from the General Services Director regarding operation of the gate in the drainage connection be- tween the Oxbow Loop channel and the Greenville-Banning flood control channel. 4. CEQAC memo dated January 18, 1982, without attachments. DISCUSSION: The questions asked in the CEQAC memo are reproduced below, together with brief responses. nl. Ref.: Letter from Thomas F. Riley to Mr. Robert L. Wynn, April l, 1980, and letter from Marian Bergeson to Ray Quinn, April 4, 1980. Disaster assistance relief funds were applied for by the City, apparently with support from the Orange County Board of Super- visors and our State Assemblywoman. A portion of the funds were to be used for removal of silt from the slough. Question: Were these funds received by the City? Why was the silt not removed from the slough as planned?" Answer: Disaster relief funds for removal of silt from the slough were not approved. Oxbow Loop--Semeniuk Slough Channel Page 2 ~2. Ref.: Report to City Council from Public Works Department June 12, 1978. Seemingly the source of silt in the slough is runoff from the Greenville-Banning channel during storm conditions when the flood gate was unattended. The City is responsible for opera- ti on of the flood gate. · Quest ion:· Wi 11 the City accept respons i bi 1 i ty for damage resulting from negligence in this situation?• Answer: The assignment of responsibility for damages, should such occur, and the determination of negligence are legal questions which probably cannot be an_swered except in-relation- ship to a specific factual situation. - With respect to operation of the ttdal gate~ please refer to both the June 1978 Public Works Department report and the . February 1982 General S.ervices Department report. It should be pointed out that the tidal gate and the larger diameter pipe were installed by the -County in .1968 at the request of the City and the residents for the purpose of improving water cir- ·culafion in the slough·. The gate ·iS normally left open. It was never intended that the gate would be manned and operated during every rainfall, nor would it be practical to do so ( see Genera 1 Services memo} . • ~ 3. Jurisdiction of the slough itself is questionable, part City, part County, etc. H_owever. the homes in Newport Crest that are potentially imperiled by this situation are squarely in tlie Cfty of Newport Beach. Question: Will the City take the initiative in alleviating the situation?~- Answer: The slough is a natural drainage course (formerly a channel of the Santa Ana River) which receives runoff and silt from the surrounding area. • _It was dredged in 1961 by the Newport Shores developer for marketing reasons, and by the Newport Shores Community Association in 1970 for esthetic reasons. The City has taken the position that dredging of the channel is the re- sponsibi1ity of those benefitted, and th'at the City would not participate. As indicated in the 1978 Public Works Department report, the following reasons were involved: l. In the opinion of the Council there was limited City-wide- benefit. 2. It (dredging) would involve the City in a long-term cost commitment. 3. There was a question of canal ownership, and a portion of the area to be dredged was outside the City. Oxbow Loop--Semeniuk Slough Channel PageJ CONCLUSION: Dredging of the slough at th.is time will be a far more costly and difficult undertaking than in the past. The permit and environmental processes may take several years to complete. It appears that the situation has not materially changed since 1978 when the matter was previously considered by Council, and the dredging would not be a proper City responsibility because of the limited Ci.ty-wi de benefit. • If the adjacent property owners and the Association are willing to bear the necessary costs, the most productive approach to resolving the problem might be for the Association to retain a knowledgeable firm, such as Moffatt & Nichol, to handle the environmental and permit processes and to prepare plans for contracting the work. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN: jd Att. TO: CITY COUN_CIL June 12,. .1978 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. • H-B{a) . FROM: Public.War-ks Department SUBJECT: NEWPORT SHORES CHANNEL DISCUSSION: _ At the May 22, 19]8 meeting of the City Council. -the attached. letter • (see Exhibit 11A11 l froni the Newport Shores Com!Tlunity Association was referred to the staff for a report back. •• • .... . . .. .. Listed below.are answers to the questions asked in the letter: 1. Q ... Who is responsi bie for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel? • A .. The City of N·ewport Beach. 2. Q. ~hen is it closed and/or opened? A. · _The gate is kept in an opened-position most of th"e time. 3. Q. :why is it closed and/or opened? . A. It would be closed only if necessary to-protect the Newport Shores area from high water·in the Santa ·Ana River-and Greenville Banning Channel. 4. Q. Was it used during the recent storms and en-suing_ runoff? - A. I~ was open during the storms; however, it was closed during the period after the storm when the Santa Ana ·River flow was contaminated due to the failure of an upsiream crossing of an Orange County San•itatio.n District sewer main.. • • 5. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the letter. A. Due· to rainfall ·runoff~ excess sediment periodically - builds up in the Santa Ana River and Greenvill~ 8anning Channel. This summer as part of the Env-ironmental Man-agement Agency's project for interim impro·vements to the Santa Ana River, the excess sediment wi 11 be removed from both the Santa Ana River and the Greenville Banning Channel. It is estimated that 40,000 cubic yards ·of sedi- ment will be taken from the Greenville Banning. Channel . I, ·-• 'June 12, 1978 'j._.'J. ~~~~e~t: -Newport Shores Channel The ·work wi 11 a 1 so inc 1 ude the removal of excess ma·teri al arou.nd the Newport Shores side of 6011 drain openi-ng. The cleaning of the opening shou_ld help the circulation in the Newport Shores canal. 6. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the let_ter. BACKGROUND: A. As part of the <irairiage system in. the area, Cal trans_ maintains a large•djtch along the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highw~y between Newport Shores and • Superi·or Avenue .. Like the Santa Ana River and the·· Greenville Channel, the ditch also fills up with sedimen.t from rainfall runoff. Every few years the State cleans the ditch as part of its routine maintenance to· protect Coast Highway from fiooding. The enJargement of the di.tch referred to in the letter was simply part of· the State's highwa;Y maintenance program. • The .Newport Shores 'Tract was dev-eloped in .1961 (see Exhibit •11811 ) .• -\t the-·time of development, the drainage can·a1 was dredged by the developer, • .md • beaches were.' built along a portion of the canal adjoining the-tract .. The . canal and beach improvements were not a condition of development and the work _was done by. the d~ve_l oper -to _ improve the ma rketa_bi 1 i ty of the_ homes. -• . . . In 1969 the canal was in need of dredging and the City -0f Newport · Beach was requested to ~o the work. At the time the-City refused to partici-• pate in· the project for,. the foll ow.i ng reasons: • l. In ·the opinion of the Cou.ncil there was 1 imited City-wide bene-fit. 2. It would involve the City in a long-tenn cost conm1ttment. 3. _There was a question Of canal ownership, and approximately one-half of the area to be dredged was outside the City i imi ts. In 1970 the Newport Shores Corrmunity Association had the canal- dr~dged at a ~ost of ·approximately $25,000 {see Exhibit "C11 ) •. -. The dredging method used ·by the Newport Sh.ores Corrmunity Association - was simply to ·position a drag~line·on the northerly bank, scoop up the bottom material and spread-.it along the bank. The process was simple and relatively inexpensive. Now, because of all the env.ironmen-tal constraints a·nd pennit • requirements, it is likely that the .increase in -the cost of doing the work would greatly exceed the inflation rate. ,_ ,.. _ _,,-- ', ~2,,. June 12, • "'./J Subject: 1978 -Newport Shores .Channel Page 3 \ .. In addition 'to the increased costs, the Jime requirement .in obtaining a-11 of the necessary pennits could easily add a year or two to the project's t-ime schedule. By way of example, the-Dover Shores -Corrmunity Assodatio.n received approval from the City to dredge the Dover' Shores .Channels on April 11, 1977. It is now over one year later and the work_has not proceeded because of con- ditions imposed by the ~oastal Zone Co1t111ission. -• _ _· _, In the past the Newport Shores Conmunity Association has al s_o sought help from the County of Orange in having the canal_ dredged. A copy of the Association's letter to the -Envir9nmental,Man;,gement Agency and a copy of- their rep1y has _been attached to this report (se.e Exhibits 11 011 and 11 E11 ). vlin s Director Att. To: ' From: Subject: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM February 12, ,.-19 8 2 / Robert L. Wynn -City Manager/ Michael H. Miller -City Attorney Semeniuk Slough Pursuant to your request for a status report on the legal issues concerning the above subject for transmittal to the City Council, you are advised that said subject is impacted by substantial legal questions, including tidelands trust, and is impacted by litigation. The file reflects a proposed settlement agreement on the boundary line dispute between the State of California, the City of Newport Beach, Clarence and Mamie Hunt and H. M. Pembroke. See attached letter It appears from a memorandum from the former City Attorney dated May 5, 1981, that just part of the above subject is included in the settlement agreement. See memo dated May 5, 1981. MHM/pr Attachments Michael H. Miller To: From: Subject: IN'PRODUC'T'ION • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY May 5, 1981 Ben Nolan -Public works Director City Attorney Oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough At the City Council meeting of April 27, 1981, the issue of the status of Oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough was discussed. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with current information regarding Oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough. LITIGATION In 1971, Mr. & Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Pembroke filed a lawsuit against the City of Newport Beach asserting that the former Santa Ana River (now called oxbow Loop -Semeniuk Slough) was tidelands adjacent to the Bay and Beach Trailer Park in,the extreme westerly portion of Newport Beach. Mr. & Mrs:-Hunt own the trailer park and Mr. Pembroke has been granted certain oil rights by Mr. & Hrs. Hunt in the Oxbow Loop area. The case has slowly progressed through the court system and is currently ;:;.early ready to be settled. The City of Newport Beach agreed i·1lth the Plaintiffs that portions of the former Santa Ana River near the trailer park were, in fact, tidelands and the City of Newport Beach further asserted that the Plaintiffs had filled tidel~n.ds i:nproperly. At this ti~e, this office is working with the Attorney General to develop a boundary line agreement to establish a line that defines ~?lands and tidelands in the area generally westerly of Highland 3~reet to the western City limits along the banks of the ---. Ben Nolan Memorad 1 May 5, 1981 Page Two former Santa Ana River. We trust that this matter will be resolved within the next 12 to 15 months. The owner of the property northerly of the north bank of the former Santa Ana River, Beeco Ltd., and the City of Newport Beach have been negotiating for approximately five years to establish a boundary line along the north bank of the Santa Ana River. The Attorney General has been involved in these negotiations as well. The negotiations regarding the north bank of the River were commenced as a result of litigation between Beeco Ltd. and Mr. & Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Pembroke dealing with their encroachment beyond· the center line of the Santa Ana River into property allegedly owned by. Beeco Ltd. . • The City of Newport Beach has asserted that this property is tidelands and that neither the Hunts and Mr. Pembroke nor Beeco Ltd. have an interest between the banks of the former Santa Ana River . . The boundary line agreement is essentially completed between the City of Newport Beach, State of California and Beeco Ltd .. However, the matter is not progressing at this time pending a resolution of the tidelands oil issue. As you are aware, the City and the State Lands Commission have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement which will result in the condemnation of certain property northerly of the north bank of the Santa Ana River. The boundary line issue may be a part of the condemnation litigation and it was deemed prudent to terminate the boundary line agreement discussions until their implications on the tidelands oil issue can be fully studied.· SEMENIUK SLOUGH On the most easterly extension of the former Santa Ana River, the dry area known as Se:neniuk Slough, the boundary line agreement with Beeco Ltd. would have resolved part of the title issue as to ownership of this dry area. On the westerly side of the former Santa A"'a ?,iver in this area, the City is an abutting upland owner over .a high percentage of its run. The City had not commenced negotiations on the south side of the Semeniuk Slough area regarding a boundary line agreement pending a resolution of the north bank. < Ben ·Nolan Memorar ~-,m May 5, 1981 Page Three • REMAINDER OF "SOUTFERLY BANK" The stretch of the former Santa Ana River running between Highland Street and the City ownership in the Semeniuk Slough area involves many individual parcels. For the tim~ being it was deemed imprudent to pursue a. boundary line agreement on the south bank due to excessive costs involved in obtaining title information as to the ownership of the various lots in question. As time passes, it may become more feasible. CONCLUSION At this time, it is the City's position that the former Santa Ana River, including Semeniuk Slough, is tidelands and subject to the tidelands trust. The exact definition of the extent of the tidelands has not,,.sbeen resolved in any of the areas along the River, but is presently in various stages of negotiation, as set forth above. HRC/pr \ February 10, 1982 TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: TIDE GATE INTO SEMENIUK SLOUGH { NEWPORT SHORES CHANNEL) REFERENCE: Item F3 (d), Consent Calendar, City Council Minutes, 2/8/82. 1. In response to your verbal request for General Services Department input for a staff report on the condition of Seneniuk Slough, with emphasis on the operation of the Tide Gate, the following is sub- mitted: a) Before the installation of the present 060" tide gate by the Orange County F1ood Control under the supervision of Mr. Kurt Brittain, in November 1968, there were only some open 30" RCP going thru the levee from the Banning Channel into the Slough, with no tidal struc- ture. When the tide receded, as much of the slough water as could ran out the pipes and into Banning Channel. When the tide rose, the flow was reversed and the water level in Newport Shores was con- siderably higher. If the pipe was restricted in any way, then of course the flow was reduced in both directions. I am unaware as to exactly when or by whom the decision was made to replace the existing open pipes with the single 60" gate. b) After installation of the 50" gate by the County, responsibility for both opening and closing of the gate was placed with General Services. Originally, this was accomplished manually, by hand crank, and one complete opening and/or closure consumed approx- imately 48 minutes. A short time later, a tool that fit the crank mechanism was designed so that it could be inserted into a lar:ge, -3/4"..chuck, slow speed, electric drill motor. By means of this device, and a portable generator on the storm drain service truck, the time interval required for opening and closing the gate was considerably reduced. c) An SOP was established for the tide gate by the previous Director. I have seen no reason, nor received by instruction, to change this SOP. Originally and currently the tide gate is still left open continuously at the express request of the Newport Shores Assn. for maximum flushing of the slough water by the tides backing up into Banning Channel. The only time the gate is closed is again by request of the Assn. That occurs supposedly only after or during periods of sufficiently heavy rainfall, in quantities such that the Banning Channel runs full enough to cause possible flood damage in Newport Shores thru the gate. General Services does not make the determination in these cases. Public Works Director February 10, 1982 page 2 d) There is a regular maintenance program for the 60'1 gate. It is greased regularly by means of a fitting in the side of the valve stem housing, and operated at least bi-weekly to insure that the gate does operate. Repairs are made if necessary during this same maintenance period. 2. To my knowledge, there have been very few times since the gate was installed over 13 years ago that the gate has been requested to be closed. It is left open at all other times. I have no further knowledge regarding this tide gate, although I do re- call that Orange County really had to fight the tides in order to pour the structure that contains the gate. I hope the preceeding information will be of some value to you. Should you have further questions, please call before Friday, February 12, 1982, or after Monday, February 22, 1982; I will be on vacation for the period in between. As a matter of information, I am neither staffed nor funded to close this valve every time it rains. Wade S. Beye l er WSB/ib ::mgi 1,ND·l CI1"'Y OF' Nl~WPORT BEACH CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY January 18, 1982 Date -/~$.-£~ COPlESSENTTO: riayQr □ G..gimcilmen ~anager o Attorney -□ Bldg. Dir. _ The Honorable Mayor Heather Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard □ GenServ Dir. D PB & R Dir. o Planning Dir. . □ Police ~hief ·'. 1 · P.O. Box 1768 -□ P. w. Otr I . d Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 □ Other ·_ I ~:,( ~;;,.; Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the~y Council: The condition of Seminak Slough (also known as Oxbox Loop, Newport Shores Channel, etc.) has come to the attention of CEQAC. Attached is a copy of the letter to CEQAC that outlines this situation. Upon receipt of·the letter, and other background information (copies • also attached) CEQAC • • formed a sub-committee to further familiarize this Conuni ttee with, and address, . the subject situation. One need only scan the exchange of -letters to conclude ihat a problem of accumulated silt does indeed exist and that that problem has· not been adequately attended. First hand observation of the slough and closer inspection·of the letters prompt the following questions: 1. Ref.; letter from Thomas F. Riley to Mr. Robert L. Wynn, April 1, 1980, and letter from Marian Bergeson to Ray Quinn, April 4, 1980. Disaster assistance relief funds were applied for by _the City, apparently with. support -from the Orange County • Board of Supervisors and our State Assemblywoman. A portion of the funds were to be used for removal of silt from the slough. QUESTION: Were these funds received by the City? wny was the silt not removed from the slough as planned? i 2. Ref.; report to City Council from Public Works Department June 12., 1978. Seemingly the source· o·f silt in the slough is runoff from the Greenville-Banning Channel during storm conditions when the flood gate was unattended. The City, .is responsible for operation of the flood gate. QUESTION: Will the Cityaccept responsiblity for damage resulting from negligence in this. situation? 3. Jurisdiction of the slough itself is questionable, part City, part County, etc. However, the homes in Newport Crest that-are potentially imperiled by- this situation are-squarely in the City ofNewport Beach. City Hall • ~3300 ·Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 January 18, 1982 City Council Page 2 QUESTION:. Will the City take the initiative in alleviating the situation? City Staff can ·surely interface with the ~ppropriate agencies more effectively than the private individuals that have tried previously. It is the recommendation of this Committee that the City Council provide the .resources necessary to accomplish the four measures outlined in the West Newport Beach Community Association letter; that is, 1. dredge the channel, 2. extend the rock jetties, 3. arrange for closure of the gate during storms, and 4. trap and filter runoff. Thank you for your attention to this matter. information or assistance.we may provide. Yours truly, cc: Kathy Anderson-WNBCA • Don Borthwick-Newport Shores CEQAC Members Please call on CEQAC for any June 25, 1982 TO: JUDY COOPER, CHAIRMAN CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: Public Works Di rector SUBJECT: SEMENIUK SLOUGH At the meec1ng of June 14, 1982, the communique from CEQAC to the City Council regarding Semeniuk S1ough was referred to the Pub1ic Works Department for reply. As you may be aware, legal title to the slough is still undetermined. The boundary line agreement and potential litigation involve the Attorney General, the State Lands Commission, the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange, and a number of property owners. Because of the uncertainty regarding both legal title to the area and whether or not portions of the slough would lie outside the City's corporate limits, it is felt that establishment of a task force would be premature at this time. When the legal issues have been resolved, the efforts of such a committee could be much more productively utilized. ~@U Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN:jd cc: Mayor Heather Councilwoman Plummer City Manager City Attorney Environmental Coordinator 7 . (:. C .. . CITY OF NEWPORT BE.LJ\CH June 2, 1982 P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH.CA 92(163-3884 CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Honorable Mayor and City council Members City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the City Council: COUNCJL AGENDA NO.~=i" { zl} The members of the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee, City of Newport Beach, have become aware of th~ need to resolve the is~~es regarding SEMINIUK SLOUGH in West Newport Beach. The Need As the record indicates, dating back to pre-1973, there have been discussion regarding the maintenance and quality of SEMINIUK SLOUGH. The slough is located within t.11.e community of Newport Shores and in its current state is unhealthful from an envirorunental standpoint and offensive from an environmental quality and aesthetic standpoint. Due to the misfunctioning of a floodgate mechanism during the heavy storms of 1978, the slough was filled with considerable sediments, decreasing the water depth and contributing to the current environmental problems. We believe the following·recommendations outline a method to achieve the improvement of the slough whi;te providing an opportunity for the realization of the campaign commitments. The Method It is our recommendation to establish a Task Force comprised of a designated representative of the Newport Shores Homeowners' Association, a representative of the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee, a member of the City Council and appropriate staff for the purpose of identifying specific alternatives for the improvement of the channel. The Task Force would develop and evaluate specific technical alternatives for clearing the channels of the existing sediments and returning the channel to its. previous healthy conaition. While determining technical solutions, the Task Force would outline responsibilities between the City, and the Ho~~owners' Association and various other agencies required to maintain the slough in the future. We have discussed this concept with the Newport Shores Homeowners' Association and they have indicated their overwhelming support of the project. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach June· 2, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Newport Beach Page 2 Coordination with Other Agencies We recognize t..~at several other agencies and jurisdictions will need to become involved in the process, including Orange County, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Depart."nent of Fish and Game, surrounding landowners, an.d others to be identified. Their involvement will be sought at the appropriate time. Upon selection of the task force participants, a Chairman should be identified and an organizational meeting held. It is our recOl"'..mendation that the task force meet as often as required, however, it is likely that a monthly or bi-monthly meeting will be sufficient. Monthly status reports forwarded to the Homeowners• Association and the City Council should be sufficient· to inform all of the Task Force• s progress and tq ensure adequate communication between the City, the Task Force and the Homeowners' Association . .i'· Preliminary Costs Our preliminary investigation has indicated that dredging or drag-lining of the channel to remove sediment is estimated to cost between $25,000 and $401 000. Funds necessary to accomplish this important project could be generated in various ways from several sources. The task force should investigate sources and uses of necessary funds .. The Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee welcomes this opportunity to participate wi t.h. the City and the Newport Shores Homeowners ' Association in a joint effort to resolve the long-standing problems regarding SEMINIUK SLOUGtl. We believe the above outline process is a pragmatic approach to resolving these problems, and encourage the expeditious selection of a Task Force. Respectfully submitted, / I I . 1--Y r.r. ·In <drf_MJ Judy Llo4 Chairman Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 15, 1982 TO: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: REPONSE TO CEQAC It is my belief that you should respond to the attached by emphasizing the l egal complications of the boundary line agreement. The Attorney General is involved, the State Lands Commission, the City, the County, and a number of property owners . Until the boundary line agreement is approved, the Seminiuk Slough may not belong to the City and may not even be in the corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach. Bob Burnham could assist in the legal language if you desire. Until these legal problems are resolved it would be meaningless to create a working subcommittee. Members of CEQAC c/o Mr. Dave Goff . BOARD OP DIRECTORS PR.. JENT .......••. Cn:hy AndM"SIOf'I 5"0;J S-,..o,. Ori.. 645-G&78 1st VICE PRESIDENT ..•. Bruce Nordlund 5710 W. Ocun F"'nt 642-3871 2nd VtCE PRESIDENT ..... Rog■r Morin 5404 s-snore on... 645-4905 SECRETARY ........•... Dick Ctuea 4403 Seashore OriY8 673..3762 TREASURER ••••..•••.•. J■n OeBav 5107 Sealloro Oriw 645-0919 Jon -Borthwick 205 Can•t .SttN1' Daw Goff 5212 Riwr Awnu• Gwr"le l(raua 6502 W. Ocean Front Bill McLaughlin 67 Batbo• Cows WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA Subjec~: Newport Shores Channel Dear Members: 646-9714 642-5949 646-4081 575-3732 There are three channels terminating at the ocean bet.ween Newport Beach and Huntington Beach; the Santa .Ana River in the center, the Huntington/'.Palbert channel on the north side, and the Greenville/Banning channel on the south. The Newport Shores channel, which is known by several names, including Oxbow Loop and Seminak Slough, is a tidal channel fed through a gate in the levee of the Greenville/ Banning channel inland from the bridge. It is our understanding that the gate and the N~wport Shores channel are the responsibility of the city of Newport Beach -this ·.ng part of the agreemen.t. when the cost of the gate was shared by the city and the ,mty. Because the gate was not closed during the winter storms of '77 and '78, about 15,000 cubic yards of .silt accumulated in.the first fifteen hundred feet of the channel. This has reduced the depth (at low tide) from approximat.ely 6 feet to O feet, creating a huge obstruction to normal tidal flow and restricting the flow of runoff water from the·entire area. (All of Newport Shores, nearly all of the Banning Ranch,· Newport Crest, etc,)· An artificial channel has been constructed on the southerly· end which brings runoff water down from Superior to eventually dump into the channel at its upper end. All of this is further complicated by the sf'tuation at the terminus - where Greenville/Banning meets the ocean. The outfall does not project far enough to keep the channel mouth fr-0m sanding up and becoming blocked several times a year. This situation remains until the Flood Control District cuts a trench down the middle. This allows only a minimal flow. All of the difficulties will, of course, be greatly increased by the proposed construction on a portion of the Banning Ranch as normal runoff is expected to be increased by (at least) 20%. It appears that everyone in this area wants to use the Newport Shores channel for purposes of flood control and the channeling of surface water to the ocean, but no one wants to take any responsibility. The intended route of the runoff silt. sediment. and pollutants is through the channel -the ocean. These materials will remain in the channel and will not be flushed out as ended and further damage will surely result to the west end of the bav, Lido Sands, and Newport Shores, unless the following work is undertaken immediately: 1. Dredge the Newport Shores channel for the first 1500 feet (from the gate) to the original depth of 6-feet (approx. 15,000 cubic yards). 14- December 1, 1981 Page 2 ......... . 2. Extend the rock jetties at the outfall where all three channels meet the ocean, to the length of the Huntington/Talbert channel. (The Huntington/Talbert channel jetty extends perhaps 20 yards further to sea and remains clear and free flowing when the river and the Gree.nville/Banning channel are regularly blocked by sand build-up.) 3. Protect the channel and the 500 plus homes it surrounds by arranging for closure during storms. (Or add a short groin in the channel protecting the gate from out-flow). 4. Trap and filter the runoff now being indiscriminately dumped into the channel from Upper Banning and the Cal-Trans ditch. 02 -rALBEJ?rCHLltU -PAC/PIC . CITY OF ·• COSTA MEGA ·l . C OA..IT.Y . . HEW..Q?er §1-/0ReS T2ACT ~~-====~::;;;.-- .............. ■ ···-····-·· ......... _ ......... ------· .......... __ .... .. PA C/F IC I I ' o c£A JJ CITY OF NEWPORT· BEACH DRAWN #8. OATE..iL4L.../:l..Zd_ PUBLIC WORKS OE'.PARTMENT APPROvF.o 1----.;.___,;..:.....:..,...__:_~~_..;:_::..;_:...;.:...;..~=.:.:..:,__~----1 A./i!::V'/PORr -SHORES C4A./4 L. PUBLIC WORKS OIRECTOR RE.NO. __ September 26, 1979 TO: CITY ATTORNEY FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: POSSIBLE DREDGING OF SEMENIUK SLOUGH This is in response to your memo of September 24, 1979, regarding the possible dredging of Semeniuk Slough, and the concerns of the adjacent trailer park owners. The City does not have a project, either active or in the planning stages, for such dredging. Residents of Newport Shores have been interested in performing some dredging; however, I do not believe they have succeeded in putting a project together. I have checked with the Marine Director, who indicates that he is not aware of any current dredging activity. -·1 /, ., . / -·, . /:,, ---7 ./✓-/ Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN:jd cc: Dave Harshbarger To: From: Subject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORN:SY ~lie Works Director Marine Safety Director Acting City Attorney September 24, 1979 Possible Dredging of Semtniuk Slough I am led to believe that the City is presently studying, in some fashion or another, the dredging of the Seminiuk Slough around Newport Shores. As you are probably aware, we have had ongoing discussions and, for that matter, litigation with the owners of the trailer park located in the extreme westerly cor- ner of the City. They complain that the dredging may result in an accelerated flow of waters affected by tides and thereby damage the filled tidelands on which a portion of their trailer park resides. I would appreciate receiving information from either or both of you in regard to the status of any project for dredging of Seminiuk Slough and, in particular, the possibility of providing any protec- tive devices for portions of the trailer park filled tidelands which may be subject to damage as a result of increased tida l flow. Should you have any questions, please don't hesiate to contact me. I //\ I I I ' -..,,_ .. -·- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY September 24, 1979 To: Public Works Director From: Acting City Attorney Subject: Preparation of Line of Agreement Pursuant to our conversation of September 20, I am requesting that your survey crew "stake" with wooden survey stakes a line within the trailer park at the extreme west end of Newport Beach along Coast Highway. The property, as you know, is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Hunt who may be reached at 642-2679. They have given permission for the City to enter on their property to set the staked line, but desire to be contacted by telephone prior to the City actually sending surveyors to the field. The line to be staked is a line to commence discussions for a final surveyed and monumented line which would be a line to sepa- rate uplands from tidelands in that part of Newport Beach. I am sending a Xerox copy of a small portion of a map prepared for the City by RB&F of this particular area and shown thereon is the approximate location of the line. The starting point of the line is approximately 10 feet beyond the end of Highland Street, where the centerline of Highland Street intersects with the extension of the northerly boundary of Block 10 of Tract 772. Said line would then proceed in a generally westerly direction to intersect a point 40 feet from the end of Nordina Street (vacated) as shown in El Morro Tract, extending the westerly line thereof 40 feet. At that point the line should continue in a westerly direction and intersect a point where the easterly sideline of Summit Street (vacated) intersects the northerly side of Lot 1 of Block D, El Morro Tract. The line is generally indicated as the "a" line on the map attached to this memorandum. As another part of my requested work to be done by your surveyors, the line should be staked in several locations and the distance measured from said'staked locations to the "mean high tide line" (_ It Public Works Director September 24, 1979 Page Two as indicated on said map. We have information that the area indicated on the map may have changed over the last several years due to accretion or evulsion. A rough approximation of said line overlaid on the map I am transmitting to you would be helpful since the City is contemplating making an arrangement whereby the trailer park operator may continue to use a part of the filled tidelands for a period of time in consideration for a settlement of this longstanding dispute. If you have any questions on the foregoing, please don't hesitate to contact me. attachment xc: Sue Wylie Jack Rump ~3·.· @ • . . • - ® OUNTV'OF t:. 'f ~ ._ "RANGE H. G. OSBORHE DIIIECTOII C.R. NELSON ASSISTANT OIRECTOII ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 400 CIVIC CENTE" O~IVE WEST SANTA ANA. CA·. HAY 2 5 S'8 TELEl'IIDNE: 834-2300° AIIJ;A CODE 714_ MAH.ING ADDRESS l".O. aQX 107S s·ANTA A"NA, C:A, 92702 O!:VEl.01' .. ENT P'ILIE Mr. Don Borthwick Newport Shores Com.-rnunity Association~ Inc. 511 Canal Street Newport Beach, CA 9.2660 _ Dear Mr. Borthwick: Receipt of your letter of April 20, 1978 addressed to Mr. Max Bridges of thi.s office regarding the conditi:on of the canal near your community ·is acknowledged. This is to reiterate previous statements our staff has made regarding your concerns.· The gated structure, through which "the flow of tide water" enters the canal, is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. The city is respon- sible for operation of the gate regulating flow to and from the canal. Questions , regarding gate operation should be conveyed to the city's Director of.Public Works, Mr. Joseph Devlin. During rec_e~t w~eks our staff personnel repeatedly recommended that your associa- tion request assistance through the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration office at telephone number l-800-252...:9364. ·However, as:of Friday, May 12, 1978 indications were you had apparentiy elected not to ·proceed with.an appiication for assistance. • /Vef 7'J2.'-"e / ( - _ . " • • • . . _ • As previously stated, this agency has no jurisdiction in the canal area. There- fore, we are not able to recommend that the Bo~rd of Super-visors provide financial assistan.ce with your planned dredging of the privately owned waterway. ? -l</t{o_? Enclosed are copies of three previous letters in this.matter dated Februarv·7, 1977, November 14, 1974, a~d Noi:rember 7, 1973 which may be informative, ·along with a copy of the agreement between City and the Orange County Flood District. If you have any further questions, please call me.(834-2308) or !-!ax Bridges (634-7016). WMB/CR..."i:hm ·Attachments: Letters cc: Supervisor Riley Mr. Joseph Devlin Very trul\ y~urs, .c7./( yz~f;1-,i...~ C. R. ·Nelson, Assistant Director Development ' . ORAf'.!C:,~ COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT •oo CIVIC Ct ~Tt f.t c,1-,1v1 Vlt ~.T SANTA ANA. CA.LlrORNIA ' .. u••t.UrG .too•tss: H. C. 0580RHE CHlf'.I" L:NGl•H~.ll T!i,LCPHONE, al4-ZJOC AREA CODE 71<1 ... o. 0011. 1011 ·. $A"ITA ANA, CAI.IF'O"I_NIA UJIII ;· NOV 1 4 1974 rn.c 003.;00 .. , Mr. Stephen C. Drummy, President Newport Shoi•cs Community Association 424 62nd Street • Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: This is in response to your letter about the sand blockage of the ocean mouth of the Greenville-Banning Channel as it affects Newport Shores canal (Scmiriuk Slough). Water level control ij the Newport Shores Canal is the subject of a written agreement between the City of N wpor!: Be.:1ch and Orange County Flood Control Dist_r1c-t and the aper- :) a_cion of the gated st ucture providing hydraulic continuity lofith the Greenville-Banning Channel is basically . he city's responsibility. Hm.1evcr, the flood control district _does ':I" assist .and monitors tl11e quality of the waters for the p·urpose of maintaining satisfactory environmental quality! and a good neighbor policy. • • bur ·regular inspection on October 17, 1974. revealed continuity with the ocean. and a ' rP-~On,'Jble level of dissolved oxygen (dissolved oxygen content of approximately two • ; per million is~ desired minimum for sustenance of healthy biota). However, on 1-._ --Jay, October 21, 1974 we became aware that littoral drift of beach sand typical of this season had blockJd the mouth of the channel. Enclosed is a plot of dissolved oxygen conten; illustrating tur _monitoring which suggested a need for ocean continuity to im-j prove water quality. The mouth of the channel was opened by bull.dozer on .0cto'•er 24 an again on October 29. Following a light rainfall the constituents of st-arm rum,ff from V the urban water shed contributed to a degeneration of water quality which was mitigated on November· l by reopening the channel to ocean co_ntinuity. . Subsequently, the enclosed plot indicates satisfactory water quality. The general service that the flood control district attempts to provide: is that which-· will economically sustain a healthy marine biota in the channel and prevent serious f o.f fens~ to the aesthetic: senses of adjacent residents. Each day of bulld1;1zer transport 1 and operations costs approximately $200 and the cumulative annual recent cost experience indicates a _cumulative cost of little more than $2,·ooo annually. Other soluti,.,ns haye 1· been s~udied and summarized in a November 7, 1974 letter to the City of Newport ·Beach , (copy E?nclosed) which concludes that the capital and operational costs for the al-ternates • studieq appear unjustified if we are .to utilize your flood control tax dollars most. ec:o :.. omically. p----~ucccss of our pragmatic approach is illustrated by the enclosad booklet "Marine J. l~ of the Santa Ana River". We appreciate your advisory and "7111 continul! t:o work c::a. ... .,.e:ly with your city public: works staff in maintaining reasonable levels of flood protection and environmental quality. ··· 'CRN: er Enclosures cc: · Mr. Joseph Devlin,' ·.:· • Director of PublJ c Works City of Newport n~nrh Very truly yours, H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer 51i-C.::l::.I Sttc1 .. t -.C!uol.uU::.! .::r..1 F:ccrc:.tio~ Are~r.:icilitia:i _N~w;i~t 3;;.Jc: •• Or.J.":i;.l Couri-.:_y. C.Jlii.:>i":Ji.> 92~ZQ .:::5=1q-8CCD ---·· •. . ~~""' j • f · 'i,.'-- April 26. 1978 Honorable City Council: • Regarding the matter of the Greenville· Bar.ning Channel. (sometimes "known ·_ as Oxboo)Tidelands) and the letter we previously sent you -in O.ctober.·and your. r_es.pons~~ we are once again requesting your r.elp. There are many large hor.!2s situated on :t~is 1 ittle ·waterw~y. and theii"' value and the value_of the entire co1t1i11unity hinge, at least in_part. on the presence anJ_ccndition of the channel surrounding_us. . . . Now, we realize that we don't OWl1" this channel. anymore ·than the folks on the Grand Canal of-Balboa ow:, that, or.the·hcmeowners on Lido or Harbor Isle own tr.c harbor·.· but· we do have a vested interest in all of the wateniays • of our city, and particularly the one wa live on~ We, as·· a_n Association were not satis-fied with the. letter we received from the City Attorneys' offi·ce. in anS\'ler to our p.lea for help. It is the feeling of this Association that our· letter was probably filed in the stack ·iabeled ''knotty little prob.le:ns .to be. address~J at a later·date, since this is only the.first complaint we've re-- ceived•~. We have ·some. new questions to ask of you_: 1. l~ho is r.esponsible for activatir.g the gate that· controls the flow.· into our channel. ~ ~ . 2. When is it closed and/or·opened: -• 3. ~lhy is it closed_ and/or-ope'~ed? 4. Was i1: used during_ the recent storms and the ensuing runnoff? . •. .. Tons of additionaJ s.ediment were a1low2d to µass the gate and deposit into·· ollr ch;:mnel during the recent· storms, adding trem~ndous.ly to a problem \-Jhich it·.i'.;..... WJS a1i~e~ciy approaching a critlc~l stage. :10-make m~tt<:_rs wor~t?-, ca1 Tra~s _. • W.:'15 so:n::n011 al1owed to enlarge tne trench 1n t_lie area ot Supenc;,r and Pac1f1c :_.!/· ,.:_7_f"Coast 1-iwy. ~!hich carry flood waters into our-chirnnel, thus dumping much more :SStf"-"-s."!dim711t_and_trash than w.?_c?n copa with. It ~-ppears that ~o one but this M;:iy, asso.:1at10!"! 1s concerned w1tn the channels' marnter.anc~> and we are sorely 1,,;:,n:i;::·:r p1·cp.:ir(;d to do anything about it. • f> \'/ c:-:-::c,r Ci.:r;:t' :·1 !l,;: .;;:,r CJ:hcr .. ,. 511 C.::m:il S.:.:ict -Club!1ct;::..? -::ir.:l P.cc:c.:ition Arci1'/i=a::ilitias l'l!~wport Sc.1d1. Or.i:sta C.:i:.:r.ty. ~:i;o:ni.a 92aGO Apri 1 26 1 l 978 . This valuable wetland and habitat is rapidly appro.achirig the stage we ·described in our last communication--an ugly._ -evil sr.12lling ·rnud hole. Some;,. th i n'.J must !:m done for the animals, the fish. _our-ch i1 c!:""en,, and for us •.... and soon, or the problem will escalate.from a little job to~-large complex preije:ct tnat would requira tremendous arnour.t of funds. • • _ • The BoJ.rd of Directors would also like·to go on record as endorsing the Marina concept in West Newport Beach. • _ cc: He would sincerely appreciata your assistance .. we·await' your r 7sponse .. .Yours truly, i.lon ric Innis QC Board of Superv1sors Flovd Control _ us Coast Guard Dept. Fish and Game OC Environmental· Management Heal th Depart1,1ent OC Sheriff~Coroner Harbor Patrol Coastal Commision Parks and Rec. Newport Shores Com.11:.inity Assocfation- Board of ilirectors . ' State Senator 36th Distr1ct,, !Jennis _ Car_penter Daily Pilot Signal Lar,dmark Bceco L T:J • City Council General Crude I ,.· ., l\!EWi'ORT. SHORES COMi'/-'-1ITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. April 20,1978 Wo t:0i-c ~-rrit:!.r..;;. to :rch.1. on bch.?.l.f 0£ the 500 p1.ns '1."r-r.iiJ.ic:,; ~::11.o live :i.n the a.ror:.. o'I'. E01rport S?l.oro2 in-?fot-r::,or·~ 3en.eh. T~!. CO.n".:lilV.nity_ is nO!'.'.l"'}.y s•U"rou.nd.ed by Wl!O.t rc.:1d!ls 0£ the C'::-:l~in.".l San:i:;a Ana River C.!1~:nnel kn.01.-:n as· O::r.001;· Loop. Until_ tho ~ovo:!:'o .,.,_ .......... .,.,.,d !l"""~; nr.--...... ~~04'"~ o:f .... , .. o 1 .. -·-,.,.st r..;; n-v c-A, .. .,.on .,..._.,.; ... -"· .. ~ ... 1,,0 ........... c..,,. e __ .;,.., ___ 0 ... """ ... _.1.-..,_... """"""'· , ... _ .. ... .......... , ... --..,, .1 ..... a plc·as::._Tj:I:; • little ehari.ne1 used by e21 the re~ident·s e~nd. vis:~. tor::: to the area for s1-:i.r.i.-ni:P_z.,, boating., etc. The f:1.oirr o'S: tic.a wnter comes throu.gh a r;atc in t_he levee o:r the Greonville-!3D.-"l'lltln,s Channel (D03) nnd tho i"lood ,-r:::,_ters t"ro:m. thc!"e and rrom tho I·· Santa An~ 3i ver ho.vo a11 but Q~e-stroycd_ w}:l..at once was a. vory ri..ico •-rccreationaJ. are!l and ~ri1d life ref't.tge: ,, --We •i-r..s ·c. colil!!l.".J.ni ty are 't-."il1in$ to ·do cvcrythl.It__z • wo c~ to re-. turn th.is are~ to its f"o~er be2.uty end use.fi:tJ.nss$, b1..1:'G t-rc need ass5.~tance end the e~c~·cise 0£ your -agency t.o • proceed.. ,z,1r. 1·Ii11o=-d Z.:!arsl"i or y_o1.1.r st;:U:f' has 1--oco:ntJ.y vi.s5.-tod the area. ·t1-"ld was very syinpat;hetic ·anc.. encouraci:nz. lie t_ook J'>hotos 0£ tl10 :f"lood· dr-.mage :ro1"" his :file, o.nd indic·1ted th!! t l:ro _sho".2.J.d coim.nu..."'li- cato with yott :fo:-ad.dJ,. tiontl hel::, E.!ld guidtl.-"l.ce. As :prevS~ous~.:y s"i;atod,. t-:e, e.l'"e r.iorc tha..Tl -will.in3 ,to do -OUY'" ,:)a.rt to re.~:~or:'1' the .cb"'1..'l"lel to· .. its !'orr.ier state, but wo des};or~toly- need -assistance :rro:rn t}:te • ex:p_orts. It ~·s not . a biz· job;, ro1~ov:::J.. . of' a.."'l cstir.iated nine to ten thm.1.sand cubec .t'cet o:r s:i.lt i'rom about -i'i:ft:ccn ht~dred f"eet o'£ channel,._ but • we ~re -a1-1nrc th .... '\"t. t-tork or thie. kiri.ci i:; not the sim9le procedure it used to be .. Wo have done so!!!.o ~reli!I'!~~ nary wcm.;•;· .roit! the c:i. ty ritaf':r hn.:; pro:i•.t:tsod to assist. There a.J.zo exists., '! .. ·e .u_-r1dcr3t~11d, the p.os- :;;ibili t"-J or t-hc 1-rork being covered bY. the provi3ions. o-S: the li'odcrtl Distt.:::tcr i1e::!.iof' Act Adl:•·i n; st.ered by tho Co.J.i.to::..--ni:,,,. Of'!':i.ce o'£ Em.e!'r:;ency Sor.~,d.ccs for po:'?t:i.ons o:r tho Cm\11ty n.fi'cctcd by storm d.n....-n~..ge. !·:0 ask f'or your help in detcrmin.;_nc 1:r such is the co.:::.e. Ho ho.vo alrel'.dY, be.sun the tD.cl~ of' cacur:~n:; J.;hc n~~ic- tince-~no. coo:,cr:it:ton o:r all thoso d~ircctly ;_nvoJ.vcd ( __ _ ·' NEWr'ORT SHORES COMML .. rv ASSOCIAT1C:'ll. Im:. :-.r..d we -need to l:nm-r the extent o! ,the hol.p yo1..~ a.Geney -c~-:oro-vide. -• • Wo thn.nk you in ~dva:ice,-:?.nd· :n-ro.it you:r re~l:y-. Nc:t-~ort Shore·s ·co?!!MUil.i ty Associl':~ion Boe.rd • o-£ Di:::-ectors .• Don Borthwick C"'.a:ume1 Co~d ttee cc: Bo~rd or Supervisors· :?l.ood Con·tz:-ol D.l.s·t:"ict U.S. Const Gue.rd I . . • De;,t. E'1.sh n-"11.d· Goll?~ Hetl th Deuar·Gr.lont • • OrZ.."lGO • co: Gz-ec:ibel t Co:r.rrl.s ~ion _ Ortmec Co~ , -Shcr:t:r.:r:..coroner {J-farbor Pc.trol) .~to.ta. Reefona.2 .W~ter Gual5.-ty Co=.t:?:"ol Bee.rd Sa..."'lta .P.n~ Re3ion ··.1 -. • • Ste.ta Coa.st·tl Zone Conservation Cori..!.tls:doh Sta to.· !'arks .And !t.ecreo:~.ion Dept. -Or:i.....,,,ge Qo~st Area St~to Senator Dc~..nis Carpenter Sto.te As:1 ert.bl-yi~1an 7l~th Diotrict !?c!>crt Bc.d:t'Z!?l Daily Pilot • U.S. 1',.r:n:y Cor11s ot Engineers Siv;iri!.-La..."'lci.:n.o.r:-c Gc~orZ?.J. Crude B~eco Ctli.forr-: n. lr::t.1 ... inc l'ar2:s 2.nd !In.r~orc A::.zn. Inc. City o:t: Hc-:-.;,,)O!'t Ber?.ch .. ..::.....--.... -----l .I-· • • ft:' , ._ pie Ho:1or,t ble T"n~mas _ F. Riley Su;e,rvisor 5th Distr.1.ct Cou_~ty of Orange, Ca. • Attention. Mr. Peter ~erman " ...... _,. ... ": Our hor~s for assistance were greatly enhanced.by your response and sympithetic attitude during our brier telephone conversation last 'Week. As you can see by the at ta tched communications, ( just a· h:w.d:ful from our file) we have attempted. to secure assistance .from any and all that w thought 'might have jurisduction in this area. lhe .fev answers w recieved were o.f the "yes1., you do .l:iave a problem-but we can 1t halp you" type. The problem -we have tried to describe is a_minf'r one compared to some, rut>a ·major -one to us. It is, o.f course, storm damage., caused b7 the1977-78 Yinter storm. Th.is area was proclaimed to be a disaster area by the governor.,wich paved the way :for funds to be alloce.ted to the F.J.ood Control District under the Federal Disaster Relief Act •. These funds are administered through the State Office o.f ~ E.mergency Services and wre intended, in part, to remove debris and repair drains and channels damaged by the February and March storms and in~lig runof.f. On top o.f the f'rustrat;ions of attempting to deal with l:urea.ucrats who haven't seen this area, and don't knov where it is and don't care; lol8 novbave insult· added to injury. ·The leest tern bas alwys nested and i'ea in and around our channel, and because -oi' the lack of water and. the startling reduction of small .fi::µi-they have le.rt - the area. Nov -we are. treated to the sight of a nev nestitjg/.feeding area being • • ·artificiiuly created righ.1. on· the other side o.f the river, and , we are eertain -at a cost far in excess:of what it would cost to repair a storm-damaged channel already here. • We are hopeful that you and yo_ur office can help us cut the red tape and assist us in our e.ff'orts to save a vuluable wetlands, wild life refuge and recreational area. We \roUld be pleased to meet -with you and/or members of your staff a; any tiI.:eto discuss the problem in greater depth. We have much more material, including sn~pshots, if it vould be o.f any help. We stand ready to assist you in~ w.y w can. By Dan 3o:thwick Canal 6h:=.irman 205 C'ln:.l St • . Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Alrnti. tin•g your reply, Ninf~ Jarvis President, NSCA Inc. 511 Canal St •. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ._,,7· Honorable Thomas_ Rile} Dear Sir, ije ·have a ve-ry serious problem in Newport Shores that I would like to bri.."lg to your attantion. We ·have previously sent you a letter and some picturest which "'. hope you have had time to look over. I am writing, both as a:n individual home .nmer, and as a. member· of the Neupor-t. Shores_ Community Association. _ . . THE PR03LElh Our Newpo:=t ShoresJ.-:1:.z.nnel ha.s silted up, to the point that we have less than 1 foot of water in some areas, at low tide.-We.constantly have a. problem keeping the mouth a£ our channel from silting up, and have to search for a. public agency to clean the opening up, at lea.st onee a. year. • When.· the· opening is clog~ed, our marine life suffers, an algae builds up, and the wa.t·er looks like a swamp. I'HE CAUSE: In 1977 a wi7lter storm caused a. severesiltin.g up problem· in. the Greenville Banning channel, which is next to ouz-channel, and we receive our tidal exchange from. ·Toe ga.te that. separates the two, was left open, and we received our share of the Ellt •. SOLUTION REQUESTED: We would like to have the gate at the mouth o! our channel -removed, to gua.:rantee a free flow of the tides, and increase our chances of being included in any dredging the EMA might undertake. We also need our channel dredged now, and would appreciate any ·suggestions as to where we might obtain some puolic assistance. • ---•,e :feel that if the mouth of the channel dii.i. not r.ave a. gate, (w!i.i_ch wa-s insta.lled , the El-IA), we would have been included 1n the d.redgng project now taking place .m the Greenville Banning channel. -::e.ca.use. o£.:"tl:ds ga.te, and the fa.ct that .no .- one knows who ha.s responsibility, o:r ownership of this watenra.y, no one wants • . to recognize that they might be responsible for this mess~ Our community a.ssocia·· tion nor our homeowners, have the funds to do this, nor do we feel-that we should be held responsible for acts caused by others, who .shoul.d have ·prevented this. We have also discussed the possible dang-er to our homes from a 100 year flood,· and feel tha.t if there is one severe enough to damage our community, that gate will do nothing to protect µs. The ·City o{ Newport. Bea.ch 1.s respon- sible for opening and closing this gate, which· i3 virtually never: done. At ? lea.st once ~ year, we have to find someone to rescue us from. s~fna.t;t water. The result is only te.:nporary, and we need to find a perm:mem:. .. s1JlutJ.on.. In Js addition to this problem, C~l Trans has provided. a nice drainage,,for N'ewport· • "7 Crest 1.-.ito the Easterly end of our channel, and we expect to ha.ve a problem ; a.t that end in a few years. • fJ , l1utJ1 Pl.ease help us. Yours truly• '. ':)L / ff) J . Ninfa Jarvis -h 'f 2 3"f S7J t/k-a tl/2-Jjtf ~::,. \__, n·~ . €JI) ~gv • E ... l .a.•.::: •_;r~. 4.. • .-A, -•• ••• '.:,• .:02 ;.'.: ,. I :::7 D•,)·· n., i ,-:n ......... ., .. f _ .. ~:c:r ,_, r ~ S;_:o r cs C L:::::::m i ty _\:-,:::; 1.)C l J. t lOn _c, 1 1 r :i n ;1 l St r c-c~ t -~:c.,·1:01·t Bc~ch, Ca 92660 Th,1r1k you for your recent letter regarding tJrc tidal and flood control cha.nnel lac a ted near the com::11.1:ni ty of XcKport Shores. As you nay know, my Administratiye Assistant iecently spoke with ~r. Borth~ick regarding this matter. We have since been in com- :::un ica ti on 1-:j th :,Jr. Bob. l·:ynn of the C :i. ty of Ne,.;por-t Beach to of- f er our assistance in urging the appro\·al of disaster assist,:rnce fun<l ing to dredge the -channel. ~1r. i','ynn indicated that he 1~·ould keep me informed of progress on this matter. I .:1:~prcciate hearing from you rcg;.1r,ling this situation and trust that i:1ainten2ncc of the channel will s-oon be underway. Cordially:, ~L\RI AN BERGESON ····-;sseinblyiwman 7 74th District cc: SUPERVISOR. FIFTH DISTRICT THOlr1AS F. RILEY ORANGE COUNTY ao.-.RO OF SUPERVISORS OR.-.NGE: COUNTY H.-.LL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC C£NTER PI.AZA. P.O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA.CALlf"ORNIA 92702 PHONE:: 83-35$0 IAREA CODE 7141 April 1, 1980 Mr. Robert L. Wynn Newport Beach City Manager· 3300 West Newport Boulevard New po rt Beach, Ca 1 if orn ia 92663 Dear Bob: I have been informed that the C.i ty of Newport Beath, in its application for federal disaster relief _funds, 'will include among projects for requested funding dredging of the Newport Shores Channel. As you know, this channel, wh·ich runs off the Santa Ana River mouth, rece-ived substantial sediment as a result of our recent storms·. It is important that this silt be removed and that the water circulation in the channel be restored. Any assistance you may lend in accomplishi'ng the silt.removal project in the Newport Shores ChannfFl wi-11 bee" most appreciated. I thank· you for your attention regarding this matter. Sincerely~ ~ • dtl.K supervis trict TFR:mbr cc: Mr. D#n Borthwick l\:~v.~::.c;=:7 Sl--:G.:;:;s c~;:.:.-:u. Y ASS~~I.!.. Ti.ON, lncl Si~ C .. n .. l Stroet -Ciu,j:1ouse an;:! R.:c:-e.:tion Are .. /~acilitias N.;.w~;;;:t s~ .. ch, Cr.anf::i C.:.;;.:ty, C~:ifornia S26;;;0 Oct.Oucr 27, 1977 ~-~r. h;.;gh Coffi n--Ass is tant City Attorney Ci ~Y o'f i.;ewport Beach i~e•:ipcr-t·B~ach, California Dear Sir, . €42-5374 Recer.t:y, the Board of Director1 s of Newport Shores Community Association directed correspondence to your Honorable City Council relative to th~ Greaiiv~1:e-Banning channel. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your conver.ience and review. Fo:--various reasons it has becoif;e increasingly difficult to explain to the res_ide:1t~ of our community ,the current status of this waterway. More iiilportant, however,_ is the apparent lack of. concern for it1 s unique natural beauty and the recreational benefits it provides. In the hope of obtaining a knowledgeable opinion regarding this matter, ~e cordially invite you to attend our next regular meeting, Tuesday evening Novenber 8th at 7:3'0 p.m. in our Recreation Facility -511 Canal Street, Newport Beach. We would appreciate your atidressing an salient points y~u may deem appropriate in addition to those covered in our letter to the City touncil. / Anticipating your attendance and assistance. Cordi ally, Board of Directors~ Newport Shores ____ .._____ ________ ,, __ .. _,_ ----·--· , __ ,_..... . ... S"!"'A.Tt Oi4P•TC,;... !3'5~'4 ";'1,.;..El",-.,'.)~111;1: 't-916• 4.45-S631i DENNIS E. CARPENTER 0?.A.t-;::iE AN:) SAN O!EGO COUNTIES CALIFORNIA -LEGISLATURE ~.enat.e October 19, 1977 Board 6f Directors Newoort Shores Cornrnunitv Association Sll~Canal Street ~ Newport Beach, California 92660 To the Board of Directors, CHA.rRMAN .JOlNT L.EGISLATIVE; 8uoc£.T COM,.lTTEE COMMrTTis:E5 F1NAl'-I.CE INOUST .. !&L RELATIONS · INSURANCE Afl!O F1N.1r,NCJAL , INS"tlTUTJONS .Ju0rc1.ARY CAL.lf'ORNIA [~J:"OJ:f'-.iATION SYSTE:MS IMPLEME!'IIT.ATION' BOARDS WILCLtF!: CCN5ERVAT101'.f· • BOAR·o Thank you for seeing that I received a copy of your recent letter to the members of the Newport Beach City Council relating to your interest in improving the situation of the Greenville-Banning Channel which surrounds the community of Newport Shores. In reviewing the various people and agencies to whom you sent copies of your letter, I feel quite certain that the appropriate one will be contactated and hopefully act upon it. As a California State Legislator, there is little -I can do in this area since the rules and regulations governing the ·conduct of the type of activity you seek are well-documented and under·the control of agencies which have been established for some time. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time you have taken to keep me informed on this subject and would like to receive additional communication from your organization relative to this issue if anything arises where I may be of assista1.2....-i;aloJ'--4/-<..A..,_,,.,,_ DEC:Cic DENNISE. CARPENTER Senator, 36th District ...... ,· .. I ..... f I ,i HOV 1 197.3 No. 003.42 ~.r · • Mr. Joseph Devlin C lP y Di.rcctc,r of Public Works City of ?{ewport Scac:h P. o. Box 1935 Newport Beach, Califor~ia 92660 Dear Sir: Tho, report of ?!offatt 6 Uichol, !nr;incera, oa. •~ater Quality Control Methods for the lie\~pQrt Shore!J/Greenvillc•.ilanaing Channel'' ha.R been re- ceived a.ad reviewed by th·e district I s stnff. Thet rer,art d•::scrihes in oomc detail five a.ttern.itive cethoda of ~odifyin~ the tic!.al entrance oo •• to improve circulat~on, r.1ai.nr.ain a healthy cnvirot')r.tentnl qwiU.ty i:ithin th~ tidal prism, and prcve·nt tha vu:!oua problct!ts that occur \-.•hen drifting sand block, the tid.11 entr.11nce. A nutther of additiona.l alternatives ware con- sidered but ra-.1ec~cd without ~urther aoalyais. Tha· coses for the more promiaing alternatives are summarized in the following table: -In1.t1al A.nnua t l-t~int:ena.nca • Alternate Cont Cni:rt l· $6.000,000 Not evaluaced 2 $ 104,000 $ 10,000 3 .. ., 46,000 $ 6,000 4 .$ 32,000 $ 20,000 , $ 100,000 $ 4,000 Unfortun.:itoly the projections of succcaa of .any of the abo·.rQ: altet"ttiitiva• •. ~ ara quite spccul:lt1ve. In view of the pro!:iability th11t rr.ajor moJif1cat1ona of 1 the tidal entr~ace will eventually be required under the Corpo o( Engineers• • project for Prado D4m aad tho lower Santa Ana Riv~r, a significnnt capital ·.,; project 10.veatcent docs not saein justified at this til!le. ,t., -: I ·; i ' .. In addition, we have reviewed the district's costs for·opening the tidiil entrance by bulldozer on thooe r.ire occasions it was rcciuirC!d durins fiaeal 1972 0073. The total cost to the ·flood control district, including overhCll.d 1 for the ycnr was ·$'-,221.00. Thia tnily have been an unusually lo,J•cost yenr due to the t.orp• of Enr;1neers 1 beach rcpleniahment operation ta. which a one•tima 1n&Jor ea.ad haul occurr·ad. . . ·t '1.1 .,;: ',t l4'. ·,i, .. :. .c .JP Mr. .fr,trt>ph bto.J l f n rtty of Uov~ort ncach rz,.-ga 2 • In view of the ·relati,•a succe:ss cr.pcrienccd for the-r.:11.:t yc~r \Jith regular 11':0nitorin~ of cor.di~ioas, we de not propo~o At thi:1 t~ to iciplo- • 1:1~n.t tho epeculative proposals of the coasultanta, but will ccntinua the _ more modoat operation. which hes functio~.ed well for tbe poet_year. Vary truly yours, B~ G. Osborne, Chief Engineer .. i, I 'i I I I 1 ' I Jy t c. a. ~cl&on. Aaai3ti1At Chief EngiDeer f cc: !-,ir. Ja:i:r.ea \l, Dunham Moffatt & Nichol I• • ..•. I I" . ' .. -· f- l i . .. I I • -..... ·-... .. . --.... ----· . -•• '.T~-. -~-· ' . . . . .~ • /.~:JL~-- NEWPORT SHORE~ COMML, .. 1TY A~SOClATlON, Inc./) 511 Canal Street -C:ubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities ;I'-" ;- £ N:-::~.-J~~T SMO;:::::~, New;,ort Beach. Orange County. California 92660 • September. 19, 1977 The iiouorable City Council City of Newport Beach Newpo~t ~each~ California Ne,vpor-t Shores, being soraew};la t removed from the c·ity proper, mr.y not have a-ttracted the attention in past years that has .. been accorded other more prosper0.us an·d vocal areas. Now, however, we need help; and-we·a.re calling on every political·· • subdivision and agency that may be involved: to assi-st us .. 642-5374 The Community of Newport Shores· is partially surrourided by .the·· Greemrille-Banning Channel. ·This channel is a foca_l point of our community (in addition to our club fa.cil1ti.es and .t-he beach), is 1:.hc site of many ,are.i activities, and h::i.s begun to attract a. staa.d.ily· increasing number of visitors~ We are certain that you w.ill ni~rce tha:t this relatively uncrowded recreation area will con i; i mh.: • to bo. a.n a ttran tic>n and n.n an:-;ot • to our bun.uti.ful city no m:4-tter what tho ~uturo holds for it. • • • Thcrt) are almost 100 homes -which abut the water and ·over 500 fr.r.·.i 1 i(is who live in close proximity. An estim·ated two thousand- r(•si ,k·nt~ o.nd visitors ·regularly use this pleasant li 1:tlc water- way for·bo:1.tini;, swimming or·-j.ust relaxing and enjoying the· ducks and other wildlife. A·u1.jli l n::i :~ht . years ago ·the membership of the Nowport -Shorc::s Cornmuni ty' Association paid 1:he cost of drcd;;inti that part of the ch:-..nne1 that had silted up·over many years~ Althqugh the proj (:Ct· wo..s ex::t;ensi ve ( for a purely local eff art) ani;i expensive ( ::;_,pi-oximately twenty.:..four thousand· dollars), it was-undertaken and p::i.id for by Newport Shores reside~ts. • - All of the city streets ·1n the area drain into the chann~l (with accompgnying.sedjment) and severe siltin~ is caused by the sourcc--the flood control channel known as D.O. #3 which lies p~raliel to the Santa Ana River. The gate through which· our. -c,idc water flows is in "the s.outherly dike approximately 11,1., •• ,.;i~hth mile landward from the jet_ty and next to t·he bridge •. Wo.: l"i ·,1 l l ~·.,i, Lhil L Lln1 ,:1,-,I. ,1.1,U :c-=:l,&.1..i'lt.;; .,_,,..,,; .,, I Ii. ,,,i, I .:1, 1.1~ .. Ji,I, w:::..s .. ~cc0rnplishcd eigt:i.t yc;:,.rs ag;o a.re not r,os~.:iible n0w· with the new :tulcs ::.nd new agencies involved. • It is not a large under- t~kin:;, but we no longer have the e:Xper-cise and cannot bear Tlili CI':'Y COu--XCIL September 19, 1977 the financial burden alone. It must be done again and soon. A-t low tide the depth at the end of Highland Street is minus. In order to proceed, we must hav_e a pledge· of cooperation f.ro:n all agencies involved; and we respectfully request that an answer to our plea be forthcoming as soon as practicable. We particularly need to know the legal status of the channel (at. least that portion which wc.•uld require c.redging). Has this waterway been determined to be tide lands? If so, under whose jurisdiction does it fall? It is imperative that we receive answers and commitments as soon as 1;0.ssible. We must be.;;in soon or the City of Newport Beach will have the dubious distinction of having a large number of valuable water-front homes surrounded by a. m,;.d hole .. Please help; we don't ask for much! cc: Board of Supervisors Flood Control District U.S. Coast Guard Dept. Fish ·and Game Newport Shores Community Association Board of Directors Orange County-Environmental Man. Agency Heal th Department Orange County Greenbelt Co:nmission Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (Har·oor Patrol) State Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission State Parks and Recreation Department -Orange Coast Area State Senator 36th District Dennis Carpenter State Assemblyman 74th District Robert Badham Daily Pilot U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Signal-Landmark General Crude .Beeco -2- ' . @ ·······--.. © 0UNTV OF C\ , f ~ H. G, OSBORNE DIP.ECTOR C.R. NELSON DEVELOPMEIIIT ·,: ANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 40'0 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST 5,>.NTA AN,>.. C,>.. DEC 1 Z 1577 Ms. Ninfa Jarvis, Vice-President Newport Shores Community Association, Inc. 511 Coral Street Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Ms. Jarvis: TELEPHONE,834-2300 AREA CODE 7 I 4 .. MAILING ADDRESS P'.O. BOX J:078 S.,_HTA MIA, CA. _92702 FIL£ This is in response to your inquiry regarding a sedimentation problem in the Newport Shores slough which borders your Gommunity. Subsequent conversation between you and our staff indicated you are specifically interested in the removal of the ga~ed structure which controls flow between the slough and our Greenville-Bann--ing Channel (D03) and in the modification of the D03 ocean outlet. , Apparently, you believe •• .. this action would mitigate your sedimentation problem in the slough and would permit boat travel, which you consider desjrable, between the slough and the ocean. The control gate structure was constructed in 1968 iri accordance with -a formal agreement between the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Newport Beach.· According to -the terms of this agree~ent the City of Newport Beach is responsible for control and_operations of the structure. Any questions regarding the O!feration should be directed to the city. The question of possible ocean access to the Newport Shores comm.unity was addressed in a letter (dated February 7, 1977) I•wrote to Mr. W. M. Wilson of your community. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your infor- mation. FAF:hm Enclosure: Letter cc: Supervisor T. F. Riley Director of Public Works, Joseph Devlin> Newport Beach Very tr~l~0urs, • /J ·2 ' /?_ C.-:--·I _/!. -C_e;,.,u,L __ C.R. Neli6n, Assistant Director ~ ----·- _,. ._ ...... r.r. ' . FEB-0 7 1977 . ' 003_00 ·, • ' -· New1:x;;rt Beach, California [ Mr. ·1-1. R. Wilson 215 Canal Street 92660 1Dc.ar ?--ir. Wilson: ,._____ __ ) This is in r~sponse ... -. to your letter regarding the possibilities for securing New}?Ort Shores area in t~he lon.g term, ·and in t.J1e near~ ·~ you refer to as "a larger floodgate £or a better tide •flow." ![~1• 1~:;:1 t:c:~:~:ow~1~ 1 ~or the 1ong term, we see no possibility of a major oc~an ace•~• for narina .:-_:.:.,-development along the easterly side of the Sarita Ana River until and unless CUPY the Corps of Engineers-authorized study for the west Newport area is completed, _ showing justification for federal fw1ding of a harbor entrance on. the magnitude ' [---1 }5hv.-1n on the feasibility study pla..'1. prepared by l·bffat and lli~hol, Engineers, L . .J which was enclosed with your letter. Although the study was authorized, it j __ _,. apparently has not been funded by congress. Further, the recently completed • Corps of r:nginecrs study for flood control improvements on the Santa Ana River would most certainly take precedence over and to some extent conflict with the ?·bffat and Nichol plan. '"\ ( ' -\\ / 1'1'his is not to say that a marina/harbo plan could not be developed, only to j(1 indicate that there ure some formic!able barriers I not the least of which is \ the probable necessity to preserve at least a part of the salt marsh area _ [ as a fish and wildlife hilbitat, thus reducing the number of slip5 that LJ coultl be construct.:c<l and perhaps af£ecting the economic feasibility of a major ma.rina. As to the near term prospect for changing tlie size of tJ1e floodgate, this is to advise that less than ten -yea:r:s ago the· city of lfowport Beach and the flcx;tl control district completed a cooper~tive project constructing the c::;r.i~ting gute which, to our knowledge, has functioned moderately well for • preserving t.hc qua.lity of the Newport Shores estuary for U1e sustenance of aqu.:::..tic life. If t.he Hcwi;,ort Shores Association is serious about further dredging, enlarge- ruent. of yo1J1:-estu.-1 r.f are,"!, and .i.ncreas.in(J the volur,:e of tidal flow, it _would ai:,1)61.r nec1;~rna.ry t..o rot~in an en~inccr in l)rivatl! f•ractice. to d~velop a Mr. N .. R. Wilson Newport Beach, CiJ.liJornia Pago 2 prelirr~nary plan and an estiwate of cost for what you propose. T'nen, if the costs appear within the capability of the association to finance, you would need to have am environmental impact report prepared for processing through the city of Newport Beeich, and concurrently work with the Stato Department of Fish and Ganv~· to secure their concurrence in the plan pursuant to the State l:'ish and Game Code regarding roodification of the bod and ba.-iks of the waterway. Pin.ally, after clearing up these considerable details, if your association 0-=:;-,wishes to proceed, you would then need to apply for a permit to construct Ua =dificd floodgate structuro thro\lgh tho levee of the flood control dis-, r trict' s Greenville-Banning Channel. ApplicCJ.tion for such a permit may be i I . :maLlc through our centr{_1l perulits division by addressing a letter, co;a;)lete ~ ...... ,)with plans, specifications, and written concurrence of the city of l~cwport • -Beach and tho Sta to Dcpartic..cnt of 1:'ish and Gar.i.e. with your application. ,(,---··,\If all of the fo2:egoin9 arc Batisf~ctory fur i:J.s ua.nce of a rlood control per- / f ~ !mit, a conceptu:i.l approval can be given by tho county, a.fter which you would I! , 1nce::d t_o UJ)_ply to tJle Hf;.<Jional Con.sL:11 Zone Conservation Com.-nission for per- ! ! ! '.mission to proc21\J.. ~J) ~ • -It is our w1derGtanding that your association has very limited property rightt3 in tho c.<.>tuary, and this should be explored in detail with Hr~ Hancock ri-:;-\Danning, tho adjacent pro pert.;, owner, prior to attern;.,ting to carry the project : : jfurthor. ll ij --Vary truly yours, ,;i. Or;g11 ,al SigneJ By C. R. Nelson \\//c. R. Nelson, Assistant Director I ( CRN:mb .J ccs, Supervisor Thomas Riley, 5th District Hr. Han=ck B"-Ilning III Boeco, Ltd. P.O.B. 1028 Newport Beach, California 92663 .-. t ' . .; ;.f ~ ·,·' :,;. To: From: Subject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Assistant City Attorney June 12, 1978 H-S(b) Status of Former Santa Ana River Channel (Semeniuk Slough -Oxbow Loop -Trailer Park Tidelands - Litigation) The purpose of this memorandum is to bring the City Council up to date with the current status of the litigation and other factors involved in the former Santa Ana River Channel {also known as Semeniuk Slough -Oxbow Loop or Trailer Park Tidelands litigation). The issues can be divided into four basic parts which are as follows: Trailer Park (Mr. and Mrs. Hunt'and Mr. Pembroke) As the Council is aware, there is currently pending litigation regarding the tidelands status of the trailer park area in the extreme west end of the City along the Santa Ana River. Trial is presently scheduled for July, 1978. The Council will recall that several years ago the City hired the firm of Robert Bein, William Frtrst and Associates to do survey work for the City. The work has been\cornpleted and presently negotiations are underway among the City\ the State Lands Commission and this office to settle the tidelands issue in a boundary-line agreement. The owners and operators of the trailer park have filled former tide- lands. The proposed boundary line agreement will establish a line dividing tidelands from uplands, approximating a 1951 line shown on a map prepared by the trailer park owner and operator. A difficulty arises in the settlement because the settlement will, as a matter of Gourse, go beyond the "centerline" of the River as established in a 1927 lawsuit. Any settlement would have to involve a settlement with the owner of the north bank of the River, Beeco Limited. Thus, the negotiating problem becomes more complex when the owner of the north bank has to agree-with DY ClTY COU,1C\L JU~. ~l~L~~·~ DA~,--_____ _ June 12, 1978 Page Three Status of Former Santa Ana River Channel (Semeniuk Slough -Oxbow Loop -Trailer Park Tidelands Litigation) Title Company to give us title information from Lancaster Street south to the Coast Highway. When the title information is received, we will know with whom to negotiate to establish a line on the southerly side of the former Santa Ana River in the Semeniuk Slough a·rea. Remainder of South Bank We have received a proposal from a title company to give us a litigation guarantee for the remainder of the south bank from Lancaster Street to the trailer park to enable us to complete a boundary line agreement for the whole south bank. The fee would be approximately $22,500. We are not reconunending the City pursue the boundary line agree- ment for the remainder of the south bank of the River at· this • time. This would leave the location of the line between uplands and tidelands in a state of limbo. However, there appears to b~ no substantial City benefit to be gained by the expenditure of this money for the title information. At· some later date it may become important as private property ownerships along the s.outh bank need a final determination as to ~he establishment of this line. However, it appears imprudent to follow this course at this time. Conclusion The "trailer park" area is presently in litigation, and the matter is scheduled for trial in July of this year. We suspect we can enter into a boundary line agreement with the owners prior to the trial. We have substantial agreement on the boundary line on the north bank of the River with Beeco Limited. We are preseintly seeking title information as to the area from Lancaster·street south to Coast Highway. Finally, we are recommending no additiona~ wo:k be done on the remainder of the south bank of the ·River as I this does not accrue to City benefit at this t· : ; HRC:kb June 12, 1978 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO . H-8(a) TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: NEWPORT SHORES CHANNEL DISCUSS ION: At the May 22, 1978 meeting of the City Council, the attached letter (see Exhibit 11A11 ) from the Newport Shores Community Association was referred to the staff for a report back. Listed below are answers to the questions asked in the letter: 1. Q. Who is responsible for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel? A. The City of Newport Beach. 2. Q. When is it closed and/or opened? A. The gate is kept in an opened position most of the time. 3. Q. Why is it closed and/or opened? A. It would be closed only if necessary to protect the Newport Shores area from high water in the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel. 4. Q. Was it used during the recent storms and ensuing runoff? A. It was open during the storms; however , it was closed during the period after the storm when the Santa Ana River flow was contaminated due to the failure of an upstream crossing of an Orange County Sanitation District sewer main. 5. Q. Re . Paragraph 5 of the letter. A. Due to rainfall runoff, excess sediment periodically builds up in the Santa Ana River and Greenville Banning Channel. This summer as part of the Environmental Management Agency's project fo r interim improvements to the Santa Ana River, the excess sediment will be removed from both the Santa Ana River and the Greenville Banning Channel. It is estimated that 40,000 cubic yards of sedi- ment will be taken from the Greenville Banning Channel . 1?£1' -= ) _) . --A-~~ BY CITY COUNCIL JUN 12 1978 DAT..,_ ______ _ June 12, 1978 Subject: Newport Shores Channel Page 2 The work will also include the removal of excess material around the Newport Shores side of 60" drain opening. The cleaning of the opening should help the circulation in the Newport Shores canal. 6. Q. Re. Paragraph 5 of the letter. BACKGROUND: A. As part of the drainage system in the area, Caltrans maintains a large ditch along the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Shores and Superior Avenue. Like the Santa Ana River and the Greenville Channel, the ditch also fills up with sediment from rainfall runoff. Every few years the State cleans the ditch as part of its routine maintenance to protect Coast Highway from flooding. The enlargement of the ditch referred to in the letter was simply part of the State's highway maintenance program. The Newport Shores Tract was developed in 1961 (see Exhibit "B"). At the time of development, the drainage canal was dredged by the developer, and beaches were built along a portion of the cana.l adjoining the tract. The canal and beach improvements were not a condition of development and the work was done by the developer to improve the marketability of the homes. In 1969 the canal was in need of dredging and the City of Newport Beach was requested to do the work. At the time the City refused to partici- pate in the project for the following reasons: 1. In the opinion of the Council there was limited City-wide benefit. 2. It would involve the City in a long-term cost committment. 3. There was a question of canal ownership, and approximately one-half of the area to be dredged was outside the City limits. In 1970 the Newport Shores Community Association had the canal dredged at a cost of approximately $25,000 (see Exhibit "C"). The dredging method used by the Newport Shores Community Association was simply to position a drag-line on the northerly bank, scoop up the bottom material and spread it along the bank. The process was simple and relatively inexpensive. Now, because of all the environmental constraints and permit requirements, it is likely that the increase in the cost of doing the work would greatly exceed the inflation rate. June 12, 1978 Subject: Newport Shores Channel Page 3 In addition to the increased costs, the time requirement in obtaining all of the necessary permits could easily add a year or two to the project's time schedule. By way of example, the Dover Shores Community Association received approval from the City to dredge the Dover Shores Channels on April 11, 1977. It is now over one year later and the work has not proceeded because of con- ditions imposed by the Coastal Zone Commission. In the past the Newport Shores Community Association has also sought help from the County of Orange in having the canal dredged. A copy of the Association's letter to the Environmental Management Agency and a copy of their reply has been attached to this report (see Exhibits "D" and "E"). JTD:jd Att. evlin ks Director I ' " Honorable City Council: 511 Cii:-&J.I Stire.:::t -C?ubhou:..:: ar.d Recreation Area/~.a::.cilitia:; Newl)ort B-e;ich, Oranf;J! Coum:'J. C:im"o.nia 92~SO April 26, 1978 Regarding the matter of the Greenville Banning Channel, (sometimes known as Oxbon Tidelands) and the letter we previously sent you in October, and your response, we are once again requesting your help. There are many large homes situated on tl)is little waterway, and their value and the value of the entire community htnge, at leitst in pitrt, on the presence and.condition of the channel surrounding us. No~,, ~;e reitlize that we don't own this channel, anymore than the folks on the Grand Canal of Balboa own that, or the· homeowners on Lido or Harbor Isle mm the harbor, but we do have a vested interest in all of the waten-1ays of our city, and particularly the one we live on; He, aS' an Association were not satisfied with the letter we received from the City Attorneys' office, in answer to our plea for help. It is the feeling of this Association that our letter was probably filed in the stack labeled "knotty little probJems .to be addressed at a later date, since this is only the.first complaint we've re- ceived". He have some new questions to ask of you: l. Who is responsible for activating the gate that controls the flow into our channel. ', 2. When is it closed and/or opened: 3. ~lily is it closed and/or opened? 4. Has it used during the recent storws and the ensuing runnoff? Tons of additional sediment v:ere al101~ed to pass the gate and deposit into our channel during the recent storms, adding tremendously to a problem which \! ._ ins a 1.·eaciy approaching a cri tica 1 stage. To make matters worse, Ca 1 Trans • Wits soaieho\1 allowed to enlarge the trench in the area of Superior and Pacific 001, •-:_2fCoast fiwy. ~iilich carry flood waters into our channel, thus dumping much more COPi'~-{TO----s2dime11t and trash than we can cope with. It appears that no one but this F/M~~~' • association is conc;i:-ned with !he channels' maintenance, and we are sorely 0 1,,an,g·or prepc1r0d to do anytnrng about 1t. [J Atto~r:~y ~ p \'/ c;~:tor (] Ct.:r;;[I~-, [!;;:,;1,-,r [] 0'.hc, D EXHIBIT ·:4··. I - NEWPORT S;-IORES COrf;MUNSTY ASSOCiATiON. Inc. 511 C,mal Str~et -Club!,cus-~ ar.;:J Recrc.ltion Arc.i/faciljtias Newport BcJct,, Oranga County, Cs:i;ornia 92~SQ April 26> 1978 . . 642-5374 This valuable wetland and habitat is rapidly approaching the stage we Jescribeci in our last communication--an ugly> evil SI.telling mud hole. Some- thing must be done for the animals, the fish, our chilGren, and for us .... • and soon, or the problem will escalate from a little job to ~ large complex proje:ct that would requir.: tremendous amour.t of funds. The BoJ.rd of Directors would also like to go on record as endorsing the Marina concept in West Newport Beach. • cc: \-le would sincerely appreciate your assistance. We await your r 7sponse. i)on i"ic Innis OC Board of Supervisors Flood Control US Coast Guatd -.. ilept. Fish and Game OC Environmental Management Health Deparb~ent OC Sheriff-Coroner Harbor Patrol Coastal Commision Parks and Rec. Yours truly~ Newport Shores Com.11unity Association Board of ilirectors , . State Senator 36th Distr1ct, Dennis,Carpenter Daily Pilot Signal Landmark Beeco LT~ City Counci 1 General Crude .... 02A llGE. -TL1 L BE.l?TC#AtU - CITY OF .. COSTA MESA ~/¥POOT C/TY BEACH ...... . Hc::J_{(Uo.4·e·y ...... .., ... .... ... .. .......... ~--.,..- .... ... -............... -· ............................. ~-·-···" ........ .+ ..... "'·•-.. ·-·· .,, ,. •••• P.L1C/PIC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A/ewPoer sHoees C'4A./.4 L DRAWN. /f(B. DATE A,,1,dy 12.Z~ APPROVED PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RE. NO. 225·canal Newport Beach, Calif. 92(.60 June 1, 1970 This.letter will provide official notice that the New;,ort Shores Corr.munity Association is ready to proceed with Operacion "Deep Ditch", namely dredging of the Newport Shores canal. A sum.~ary of the project by location is attached; additional per-. tinent documentation requested after the first notice in February .are included. In absence of further questions or discussion with the under- signed before June 15th, the anticipated start· date, concurrence with the project is concluded. It is anticipated that work will be complete on or about July 25th .. The foregoing notice is in consonance with all prior discussions and agreements among the parties concerned. DAB:b:n AttachC1ent Very truly yours, NEWPORT SHORES \'.!O}l:-1UNITY ASSOCIATION Don A. Beckley, President EXHIBIT: Location Canal> East End- 61st -62nd Street Clubhouse Canal Street to Highland Hunts & Pembroke Banning to Levee Contractor Engineer Consultation: BER..~ Landscaping: Leng.th (Ft) 1>'800 900 600 180 Boat R?.ck & Launching ·Ramp: PROJECT "DEEP DITCH" ·volume (Ycl3) 1>100 f_ - 16>700 t t Coxco > ·1nc. Drawer C Coament :Build cp lip; clean up deb:ds; minor grading to control over-flow.· Remove sand bars 5/1 slope; restore and contour both banks; depth - 5 feet. Remove sediment S/i slope; beautify with sand north side; depth -5 feet. Remove sediment 5/1 slope both sides; build BER.i.~ Banning property; aepth - 5 feet. Same as Canal;,o except throat., 3 foot depth. 5/1 slope> no flat bott:o;n> depth -·' • 5 feet; Stanton> California 90680 Raub> Bain~ Frost & Associates 136 Rochester Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 'J;'o be let T,o be let April 20,1978 I-Jr. Max Bridges NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. Inc. 511 Canal Strqet -Club:1ouse and Recreation Area/Faci:ities Newport Beach, Orans,, County, California 92660 :-~nviron.mont;a.1 i{n.nac;ement· Agency County of 6ra.ngo Dear Sir, l:!o e~rc .,_..;rf ti!'..r.;. to :ro:.1 on bch~_lf c:f the 500 plns f'."?:m.ilic::: :1i1.o live :tn the .are~ or l!ct-!}-:;ort Shores 5.n f\Te1-1port Be:).ch. This corn.munity is no.::,..rJ.y s,::_-r-rou.nded by who..t r~1n.ins or th.c 0r:t3in0.l San~ca ,\:nu Rivc1"' Channel knoi-m as Oxbow· Loop. Until the ~ovcro storms and ensu.5.ng nmo.ff of the le.test rainy sec.son, t~!is w~s a plcas::ur!; li ttlc char>.nel used by oll the resident;s i>.nd vis:l tors to the area for s1-~ir.1rniP-2;, boa.t;ing, etc. The .:fJ.ow of tiC.e wn:t.er comes through a c;atc in the levee of' the G:recnville-.B0-.n11ins Channel (D03) and the :tloo6_ w'."lters :f'rom there and .fro:m t:hc l,, Santa .Ana :Ji ver ho.vc e.11 but '5'.estroycd what once was o. very !'..ice ,_ recreational areft a...'"!d wild lif'e re:fuge. We :.·• as n conLmu.!l..i ty are ·h'illing to 'db every-Ch:i_i,-5 we can to re- turn this are.~ ·to its f"ol"T!.er bea.uty 2nd use.ft.U.ness.,. ht.1.t ·we noed assi$"cance ai,"1.d the e~ertise o.r your agency to proceed.a Erj'; ~!illo.rd Earsh o-J: you.r st;a.ff has rcccntJ.y vis5 .. ted the area and ·i-ras very syrnpat;lletic and encouragil'l_g. He took 11hotos o-£ tho f'lood druno.ge f'or l:J.:i.s file, o.nd indicated that we should cor.l!nuni.- cate with you for addi tiona1 hel:;i end guida..7J.ce. As previously s·l;ated, 1-:e are more than willin6 to do our l)art to restore the .chc".nnel to·,its f'orr:ier state, but we des"i;cratoly need assistance from the exoorts. It1·s not a big job, rc1>1ov:tl. or a.."l esti:r.iated nine tO ten-thousand cub6c reet o:f s:i.l t .from. about fif·ceen hundred feet of' channel, bu.t we arc auare tha·r; work of' this kind is not the simp1e proced .. lre it used to be. We have done some preli!l'l .. 5-nary wc11<:, .a~D .. the m .. i;y staff' hn_,; !>ro:i1,:tsed to assist. There als·o exists, we 1L.l1dcrst211.d, the pos- sibility of' the .-rork bei:ng covered by the provisions oi" the li'oderaJ_ Disa.~ter xlelief" Act Adn1in; s.lcered by the Galiro1.,nie_ Of:t:ice of Emergency Sor,ices f'or po:,:,',:;j_ons of' tho CoP.11.ty affected oy storr:i da.'"llage. \·.'e ask f'or your help in determirLi.IlG ii' such is the caseo l·lo have alreo.dy begun the task of :::ccur5_n3, -'cha ncsic- t.<:,.nee and cooperation of' all those directly invoJ .. vcc1 EXHIBIT "r;'' C NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIO.-J, Inc. 511 C2~ai Street -CiuO!iou;e and Recreation Are:i/Fac:titfos Newpo:t Ceac-h., Orang9 County., California 92660 642-537(. ['_nd we -need to know the extent of ,the :help you.r agency C-'.'.r. pro- vide. 1.vo thank you in advance, and await yov.r re;,ly. Nc1-~ort Shores. Com:mu.ti"l ty Associe."Gion. Boe.rd o:f Directors Don Borthwick Cha:rmel Comr.rl. ttee cc: Board of Supervisors· Flood. Gon-"Grol Dist;rict U.S. Coast Guard De~t. Fish and· Go.me· Hetl"Gh DO})ar"Gr.1cnt Or2...&.~GO Co. Greenbelt Co:nttls3ion Ora,.~gc Co. Shcrif'f.-Coroner {He..rbor Patrol) . State Rer;ional :-r-,_ter Gual:l. ty Control Boord Sa...J.ta lt-l'la Region ·. Sta:'ce Co~st·al Zone Coriser-vation Cormi..issioh Sta to c>arks And !tocre,:i:i;ion Dept. -:Ora..l'lge Coast Area State Senator Dennis Car~enter S'cate Asser:1.blyrnan 7Lrth Di::itrict Robert Bao.:t:?.!ll D2.ily Pilo·1; u .. s .. f.,.:rmy· Cor~;s of Engineers Sien,n.2-Lanct--narl< Go:r!or~.l Crude Bseco Californ:to.. i-Iar·in.o Parks e.nd Ilnr:>orn Assl1~ Inc. City of" l'lm!J)ort .Se2.ch 5 D ©. f~TV OF '@ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION H. G.OSBORME DtlUCTOlt C.R. NELSON A$519Ti',NT OllltCTOlt DEVELOPMENT Mr. Don Borthwick TELEPHONE: 834-2300 AltEA CODE 7'4 400 CIVI-C CENTER DRIVE WEST_, -(? ;r~ MAILING ADDRESS SANTA ANA, CA. <; \J. _JM, P.O. eox 1078 HAY 2 5 1918 \.<;_,y---/~ (/ SANTA ANA, CA. lil2702 l\l&UH.U '~ ~ PUBLI& '11IIRKS, -:a''" MAY 3 0 1978 ,.. :-: Newport Shores Community Association, Inc. 511 Canal Street CITY OF NEWPORT BEI\CH, CALIF. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Borthwick: Receipt of your letter of April 20, 1978 addressed to Mr. Max Bridges of this office regarding the condition of the canal near your community is acknowledged. This is to reiterate previous statements our staff has made regarding your concerns. The gated structure, through which "the flow of tide water" enters the canal, is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. The city is respon- sible for operation of the gate regulating flow to and from the canal. Questions regarding gate operation should be conveyed to the city's Director of Public Works, Mr. Joseph Devlin. During recent weeks our staff personnel repeatedly recommended that your associa- tion request assistance through the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration office at telephone number 1-800-252-9364. ·However, as of Friday, May 12, 1978 indications were you had apparently elected not to proceed with an application for assistance. As previously stated,· this agency has no jurisdiction in the canal area. There- fore, we are not able to _recommend that the Board of Supervisors provide financial assistance with your planned dredging of the privately owned waterway. Enclosed are copies of three previous letters in this matter dated Februarv 7, 1977, November 14, 1974, and November 7, 1973 which may be informative, along with a copy of the agreement between City and the Orange County Flood District. If you have any further questions, please call me (834-2308) or Max Bridges (634-7016). WMB/CRN:hm ' Attachments: Letters cc: Supervisor Riley j Mr. Joseph Devlin Ve~~ C.R. Nelson, Assistant Director Development .... , -' ,' 'I ,; ' ~ • I ' ' '. : " f ~ , '~ I ...... FEB O 7 1977 r 003.00 Mr. M. R. Wilson ~ 215 Canal Street . Newport Bea.ch, califomia d) Dear Mr. Wilson i 92660 Thie is in response ocean acoe$s to the •rn :~:.::::.:~two.see no possibility of a major ocean acces• for marina to your letter regarding the possibilities for securing Newport Shores area in the long term, and in th~ near YoU refer to u "a larger floodgate for a. better tide ,_,,. ~ development along the easterly side of the Santa Ana River until and wiloss ., the Corps of Engineers-authorized study for the west Ne\"!X)rt area is completed, showing justification for federal funding of a harbor entrance on the maqnitude r·J shc:Mn on the feasibility study plan prepared by H:>ffat and Highol, • Enginc!ers, --which was enclosed with your letter. Although the study was authorized, it apparently has not been funded by congress. Further, the recently completed Co.tps of Engineers study for flood control improvements on tho Santa Ana River would most certainly take precedence over and to soma extent conflict with the M>ffat and Nichol plan. ', \(,·This is not to say that a marina/hazbor plan could not be developed, only t.o \ V indicate that there are some formidable barriers, not the least of which is • the probable ne,:::essity to preserve at least a part of the salt marsh area as a tish a:nd wil,Uife habitat, thus reducing the nWtber of slips that could Le consticted and perhaps affecting the economic feasibility of a inajor marina. As to the near term prospect for changfog the size of the floodgate, thin is to advise that less than ten yea.z:s ago the city of Newport Beach and the flood control district completed a cooperative project constructingthe existing gate which, to our knowledge, has functioned :t.Ddurately well ~or preserving tho quality of the Newport Shores estuary for the sustenance of aquatic life. I If the Newport Shores Association is serious about further dredging, enlarge- ment o~ your estuary area. and increasing the volume of tidal flow, it wc,uld appear neoe•~r to retain an engineer in private practice to develop a I Mr. M. R. Wilson '- NeWFOrt Beach, C&lifornia Page ·2 __ j 11ro11liminary Jil•n and an e■til'llAt• of coat. for what you propose. Then, if the co■ta awear within tho capability of the aa~ociation to finance, you would need to have an environmental impact report prepared for procossing through the city of Hewport Beach, and concurrently work with the State Department : .. ,,; o! Fish and Game to secure their concurrence in the plan pursuant to the _., ·; State Fish and Gama COde regarding rm,dificatioJt of the bed and bank• of the d ;i waterway. ., Finally, after clearing up these conslderable details, if y-our association wi•hos to proceed, you would then neod to apply for a permit to construct [ a uodified floodgate structure through tho levee of the flood control dis- trict's Greenville-Banning Channel. Application for such a perm.it may be ma<la through our central permits division by addre.ssing a letter, complete Jwith plans, specifications, and written concurrence of the city of Newport Beach and the State Department of Fish·and Ganie with your application. If all of the foregoing are satisfact,ory for issuanco of a flood control per- mi t, a oonceptml approval can be given by the county, after which you would need to apply to the Regional Coaata.l Zona Conservation commis•ion for per- mi••ion to p~cead. ' i . . . . It is our understanding that your association has very limited property rights in the estuary, and thi• should be explored in detail with Mr. Hancock Banning, the a1jacent properttr owner, prior to attenpting to carry the project further. vary truly 1• c. R. Nelson, Assistant Director CRN1mb cca; Supervisor Thomas Riley, 5th District Mr. Hancock Banninq III Beeco, Ltd. P.O.B. 1028 Newport Bea.ch, California 92663 ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 400 CI\IIC Cf NT[H (lfll\lf Wi:'.T SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILl~G .,1,OOR[SS: P, 0. 80)( 1019 H, G. OSBORNE CHlF;I' l.:N(HNf ~-11 T£LEPHONE: 834-2300 AREA COOE 714 SANTA ANA, CALIFOl'INIA 92102 Mr. Stephen C. Drummy, President Newport Shores Connnunity Association 424 62nd Street Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: NOV 141974 F'ILC DO 3. 00 This is in response to your letter about the sand blockage of the ocean mouth of the Greenville-Banning Channel as it affects Newport Shores canal (Seminuk Slough). Water level control i! the Newport Shores Canal is the subject of. a written agreement between the City of N wport Beach and Orange County Flood Control District and the oper- :::::> ation of the gated st ucture providing hydraulic continuity with the Greenville-Banning Channel is basically . ;he city's responsibility. However. the flood control district does -=:, assist and monitors tl11e quality of the waters for the purpose of maintaining satisfactory environmental quality\ and a good neighbor policy. • Our regular inspection on October 17, 1974, revealed continuity with the ocean and a ::--~"!.asonable level of d:}-ssolved oxygen (dissolved oxygen content of approximately two rts per million is ~-desired minimum for sustenance of healthy biota). However, on -/"-,-mnday, October 21, 1974 we became aware that littoral drift of beach sand typical of this season had blockAd the mouth of the channel. Enclosed is a plot of dissolved oxygen content illustrating ~ur monitoring which suggested a need for ocean continuity to im-i prove water quality. / The mouth of the channel was opened by bulldozer on Octo·,er 24 an~ again on October 29. Following a light rainfall_the constituents of storm runoff from I ) the urban water shed tontributed to a degeneration of water quality which was mitigated on November· 1 by reopening the channel to ocean continuity. Subsequently, the enclosed plot indicates satisfactory water qualitr. The general service that the flood control district attempts to provide is that which will economically sustain a healthy marine biota in the channel and prevent serious · f offense to the aesthetic senses of adjacent residents. Each day of bulldozer transport i and operations costs approximately $200 and the cumulative annual recent cost experience indicates a cumulative cost of little more than $2,000 annually. Other solutions have 1· been studied and summarized in a November 7, 1974 letter to the City of Newport Beach 1 (copy enclosed) which concludes that the capital and operational costs for the alternates ' 'studied appear unjustified if we are to utilize your flood control tax dollars most eco ~ omically. ~';e success of our pragmatic approach is illustrated by the enclosed booklet "Marine irnals of the Santa Ana River". We appreciate your advisory and will continue to work closely with your city public works staff in maintaining reasonable levels of flood ·protection and environmental quality. > CRN: er Enclosures cc: Mr. Joseph Devlin, :· 1 Di.rector of Public Works City of Newport Bench Very truly yours, H. G. Osborne, Chief Engineer ·J ~ ORANGE '-'OUNTY FLOOD CONTRGL, DlSTRlCT ~~ i LE MOY 7 1973 No. D03.42. ',/. ;_ ~ ';t.' ;·.;.;t 1 i'·f }lr. Joseph Devlin C y Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach P. 0. Box 1935 Newport Beach. California 92660 Dear Sir: The report of ?foffatt & Nichol, Engineers, on "Water Quality Control Methods for the Newport Shorea/Greenvillc-Ban.ning Chanuel'1 haR been re- ceived aad reviewed by the district 1 s staff. The report d,~scrihes .in some detail five altern~tive methods of modifying the tidal cnt~ance no as to improve circulation., r.lliintain a healthy environr.1entnl qunlity l'-'ithin the tidal prism, and prev·ent the various problc1:1s that occur when drifting sand blocks the tid~l entrance. A number of additional alternatives ware con• sidered but re.1ected without further analysis. '£he coats for the more promising alternatives are summarized in the following table: In:f.tial Annual Haintenanco Alteroate Coat Co$t l $6,000.000 Not evaluated 2 $ 104,000 $ 10,000 3 ,§ 4-6,000 $ 6,000 4 .$ 32,000 $ 20,000 s $ 100,000 $ 4,000 Unfortunately the projections of eucceoe of any of the above alternatives are quite speculative. In view of the probnbility th11t n-.ajor rooJifications of the tidal entrance will eventually be required under the Corps of Engineers' pro.1ect for Prado Dam and the lower Santa Ana R1v'3r, a significant capital project investment docs not seem justified at this time. In addition, we have reviewed the district's costs for opening the tidal entrance by_bulldozer on thooe rare occasions it was required during fincal 1972-73. The totol cost to the flood control district. including overhead, for the yctir was $2,221.00. This may have been an unusually low-cost year due to .the corps of Engineers' beach replenishment operation in which a one•time major sand haul occurred. • •, .c 0 .p ORANGE ·~~UNTY FLO•~JD CONTRof ~ISTRICT '11c .(Mtot,'h bf'.J;frr CHy of uowport Bela.ch Paga 2 In view of the relative success cY.pe~ienccd for the r3&t ycnr with regular monitoring of conditions, we do not propo~c At thi3 ti~c to ioplo• rnent tho speculative proposals of the consultanta, but will ccntinue the 111.ore tn0deet operation which has functioned well for the past year. Vory truly your&, 11. G. Otborne, Chief Engineer r i I i I i l ' By c. R. Nelson, Assistant Chief Engineer /. cc: Mr. Jatr,el Y. Dunham Y40ffatt & Nichol i ' , I i i. ,··' ' ,, , l f I '. -i I 2 ..., 0 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 25 27 28 29' :30 !I ··1 !l 0 i: ( ( Agreement No. C344 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this _____ day of---,----------' BY AND BETWEEN. A.l~D ORANGE COUN1Y FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT,here- inaf ter ref erred to as ''DISTRICT," CI1Y OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter referr- ed to as "C:(1Y." ,.. RECITALS A. DISTRICT, as a part of its Greenville-Banning Channel improvement, immed- iately north of Pacific Coast Highway, ·constructed a double 30-inch RCP inlet on the east side of the channel to replace a previously existing tidal slough.· B. CITY desires that the waterway area of the inlets be increased to pro- vide greater tidal flows to increase water circulation. c. A revised inlet with increased waterway area could also be of greater flood control benefit if such an inlet were provided with a positive closing flood gate, TERMS NOW;, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits, covenants and con- ditions to be derived by the parties hereto it is agreed as follows: 1. DISTRICT shall prepare plans for the modification of the existing double 30-inch RCP inlet on the Greenville-Banning Channel immediately north of Pacific Coast Highway and submit said plans to CI1Y for approval. 2. Upon approval of plans by CITY, DISTRICT by contract or by its mainten- ance forces shall promptly proceed with the rec.onstructi-on of the inlet. 3. Upon completion of construction, DISTRICT shall bill CITY for its share of the construction as set out below; 4. CITY shall pay to DISTRICT within 30 days after receipt of invoice from DISTRICT 50% of the cost of construction, except that in no·event shall CilY pay more than $5 1 000. In the event construction is by contract construction, .the total cost • of the project shall be the amount paid to the contractor. If construction is accom- plished by DISTRICT'S maintenance forces the total cost of the project shall be the of DISTRIGTt S cost of labor, equipment, and materials necessary for the project., _::_;,, , •'--:.--... ( ___ ~ __:;,, I I 1 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 16 17 21 22 23 25 29 \ l construction> plus 15% for overhead. In either event, the cost of engineering, t ing and inspection shall not be considered in determining total cost of the project. 5. Tidal and/or stonn water flows into and out of the channel are con- trolled by the gate setting of the structure. CIT'l shall be responsible for the gate opening, closing, or setting at any intermediate location. This responsibility shall be CI1Y1 S regardless of whether flows are storm water or tidal. 6. DISTRICT shall make provision for CITY'S access to the gate for the purpose of controlling and setting same. 7, CITY shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any damage or liability occuring by reason of the gate operation •. ,,.-,-· IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized> on the date set out opposite the signatures. Date: Date: H. G. 0s~rne, C~er APPROVED AS TO FORM: ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Deputy v DATE: ORANGE COUN'IY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT By-------,-------------~ ATTEST: W. E~ ST JOHN> County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By ___________________ _ Deputy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mayor 30i\ DATE: 31 j! Clerk 32 ! I i"'S~0-13 . 1. r il - 2 - Honorable City Council: NEWPORT SHORES .COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. 511 Canal Street ..., Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities tiiewport Beach, Orange County, California 92660 March 16, 1978 ,;,-,;i 9-Joe& 642-5374 Regarding the matter of the Greenville Banning Channel. (sometimes known as Oxbon Tidelands) and the letter we previously sent you in October, and your response, we are once .again requesting your help. There are many large homes situated'on this little waterway, and their value and the value of the entire community hinge, at least in part, on the presence and condition of the channel surrounding tis. Now, we realize that we don't own this channel, anymore than the folks on the Grand Canal of Balboa own that, or ·the homeowners on Lido or Harbor Isle own the harbor, but we do have a vested interest in all of the waterways of our city, and particularly the one w.e live on. We, as an Association were not satisfied with the lette·r ·we received from the City Attorneys 1 office, in answer to our plea for help. It is the feeling of this Association that our letter was probably filed in the stack labeled 11 knotty little problems to be addressed at a later date, since this is only the first complaint we've ,re- ceived". We have some new questions to ask of you: 1. vJho is responsible for activating, the gate that controls the flow into our channel. 2. When is it closed and/or opened: 3. Why is it closed and/or opened? 4. Was it used during the recent storms and the ensuing runnoff? Tons of additional sedimeht were allowed to pass the gate and deposit into our channel during the recent storms, adding tremendously to a problem which was already approaching a critical stage. Tomake matters worse, Cal Trans was somehow allowed to enlarge the trench in the area of Superior and Pacific Coast Hwy. Which carry flood waters into our channel, thus dumping much more sediment and trash than we can cope with. Jt appears that no one but this association is concerned with the channels' maintenance, and we are sorely prepared to do anything about it. • NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Inc. 511 Canal. Street -.Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities • Newport Beach, Orange County, California 92660 March 16, 1978 This valuable wetland and habitat is rapidly approaching the stage we described in our last comrnunication---an ugly, evil smelling mud hole . .Some- thing must be done for the animals,-th~ fish, our children, and for us .... and soon, or the problem will escalate from a little job.to a large complex project that would require tremendo_us amount of funds. cc: We would appreciate a prompt rep )Y. ·. Don Mcinnis Board of Supervisors Flood Cont~ol District . U.S. Coast Guard Dept. Fish and Game Yours truly, Newport Shores Community Association • Board. of Di rectors • Orange County Environmental Man. Agency Health Department , Orange County Greenbelt Commi-ssion Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (Harbor Patrol) State Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region State Coastal Zone Conservation Corrunission State Parks and Recreation Department-Orange Coast Area State Senator 36th District Dennis Carpenter State Assemblyman 74th District Robert Badham Daily Pilot • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Signal-Landmark General Crude Beeco City Council Co. Marine Parks and Harbors West Newport Homeowners NEWPORT SHORES COMMUN ITY ASSOCIATION, lnc.3 511 Canal Stroot -Clubhouse and Recreation Area/Facilities Newport Beach, Orange County, California 92660 September 19, 1977 The Hono r a b le City ouncil City of Ne wport Bea h Newpo rt Be ach, Cali ornia Gentlemen: Newpo r t Shores, bei1g s omewhat r e moved from the city proper, may not have attra.c ed t h e attention in past years that has been a ccorded other more prosperous and vocal areas. Now, how e ve r , we need help; and we are calling on every political s ubdi vis ion and ag ncy that may be involved to assist us. The Commu nit y of N wport Shores is partially surrounded by the Greenville-Banning Chanri el . This channel is a focal point of 642-5374 o ur commu nity (in ddition to our club facilities and ")::he beach), i s the s i t e of man area activities, and has b e gun to attract a steadily increasin number of visitors. We are certain that you will agree that th·s relatively uncrowded recreation area will cont i nue to be an ttraction and an asset to our beautiful city no matter what the future holds for it. Ther e are a l most 1 0 homes which abut the wate r and over 500 fami lies who live !n close proximity . An estimated two thousand r esident s a nd visi ors r e gularly use this pleasant little water- wa y f or boating, s imming or just relaxing and enjoying the ducks and other wil dlif e. Abou t eight ye a r s go t h e membersh ip of t he Newport Shores Community Assoc i at·on paid. the cost of dredging that part of the channe l that h d s i lted up over many years. Although the project was extens·ve (f or a pure ly local e f f ort) and expensive (approxima tely twe ty-f ou~ thousand dollars), it was undertaken a nd paid f or by Ne port Shores res i dents. All o f t he city eets in the are a drain int o the channel (with acc omp anying s ediment) and s eve r e silti ng is caused by the s ou r c e--the flood control channel known a s D.O. #3 which lies para l lel to he Santa Ana River. The g a t e through which our tid e water fl ws is in the southerly dike approximately one-eighth mile 1 ndward from the jetty and next to the bridge. We rea l ize that t was a ccomplished ne w rules and new taki ng, but we no e c ost a nd relative e ase wit h which the job ight ye a rs ago are not poss ible now with the agencies involved. It is not a large under- longer ~ave the expertise and cannot bear THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL September 19 ', 1977 the financial burden alone. It must be done again and soon. At low tide the depth at the end of Highland Street is minus. In order to proceed, we must have a pledge of cooperation from all agencies involved; and we respectfully request that an answer to our plea be forthcoming as soon as practicable. We particularly need to know the legal status of the channel (at least that portion which would require dredging). Has this waterway been determined to be tide lands? If so, under whose jurisdiction does it fall? It is imperative that we receive answers and commitments as soon as possible. We must begin soon or the City of Newport Beach will have the dubious distinction of having a large number of valuable water-front homes surrounded by a mud hole. Please help; we don't ask for much! cc: Vuv\_ /v\ Q~~'-'4 Newport Shores Community Association Board of Directors Board of Superv1sors Flood Control District U.S. ·coast Guard Dept. Fish and Game Orange County Environmental Man. Agency Health Department Orange County Greenbelt Commission Orange County Sheriff-Coroner (Harbor Patrol) State Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission State Parks and Recreation Department -Orange State Senator 36th District Dennis Carpenter State Assemblyman 74th District Robert Badham Daily Pilot U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Signal-Landmark General Crude Beeco c~~&i~ . {},fft-{(vtv12 {lu -+ \~~vui , \" ,r[\\,-f' ~'.JM • l}!JJJII , \i'1 -2- Coast Area TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Dennis D. O'Neil, City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Current Status of Oxbow November 4, 1977 In response to the request from the Newport Shores Homeowners Association I offer the following comments regarding the current status of the Oxbow-Tidelands situation. I will divide the memo into three distinct portions indicating the current status of each aspect. ~railer Park Property -Extreme Southwest End We have reached an agreement in principle with the owners of the property to establish a line approximating the former mean high tide line of the Santa Ana River adjacent to their property. The line will reduce by approximately twenty-five percent the total land area owned by the trailer park operators. In return the City will grant a lease back to the trailer park operators for a term of years, yet to be ascertained. A small portion of the area involved goes beyond the "centerline" as previously decreed in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 22797 in 1927. Thus, certain consents or permissions must be obtained from the owner on the "north bank" prior to any final agreement between the City and the trailer park operators. North Bank \'le have obtained an agreement in principle from the owner of the north bank property, Beeco, Ltd., to establish a mean high tideline roughly approximating existing high water mark along the north bank of the river from the westerly city limit line to its intersection with Coast Highway near Bitter Point Dam. We contemplate entering into a boundary line agreement within the foreseeable future. Current negotiations are at a standstill since work has to be done by the State Lands Commission and the State Division of Oil and Gas regarding communitizing the oil under the Oxbow together with information regarding adequate consideration for pass through rights should oil be lawfully drilled or extracted from the City of Newport Be-ach. / We currently estimate that it will take three months to ascertain / the technical data needed prior to finalizing agreements with Beeco, Ltd. South Bank From the trailer park property along the south bank to the intersection with Coast Highway near Bitter Point Dam considerable work will have to be done prior to any settlement. We are· currently working with a title company seeking information as to ownership of property adjacent to the former Santa Ana River. It is contemplated that considerable time will pass prior to having this data available. We contemplate entering into a boundary line agreement recognizing, in most circumstances, the current high water mark on the south bank. There are, however, some encroachments into the water area which will have to be dealt with on an individual case by case basis. It is too early, at this time, to accurately estimate when actual negotiations can commence due to time delays beyond our control caused by title company inaction. General Conclusions It appears from the historic and engineering work that has been done that the full length of the former Santa Ana River from the westerly city limit line to Bitter Point Dam is in fact tidelands. Further, to a large extent the river in its current configuration (with .the exception of fill area in the trailer park location and the dry area near Bitter Point Dam) is substantially as it existed in its last natural state. Based on that fact, it appears that the State Lands Commission will support an appropriate boundary line agreement with all adjoining property owners. \'ihen the boundary line agreement is finally executed, the City will become the owner of .the river bed and the underlying fee subject to the tidelands trust. Unfortunately, the title information which is essential prior to forming any boundary line agreement is, at best, very slow in forthcoming and, more importantly, may prove to be exce dingl exp sive. HRC:yz