HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2441(D) - Upper Newport Bay Sediment & Restoration Project, Unit I, Joint Power Grant Agreementa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gave ,
CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1330 EROADWAY, SUITE 7100.
OAKLAND, CA 94612
AT55 561 -1015
TELEPHONE 415/464- 1015
December 23, 1986
Mr. John Wolter, Cooperative Projects Engineer
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
SUBJECT: Agreement No. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A, Amendment 1
Dear Mr. Wolter:
Attached for your records is one fully executed copy of"the
above - referenced agreement.
Please continue to contact Reed Holderman regarding
this project, but direct all u gets, nvo ces, and requested
modifications regarding this agreement to me at the above
address. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
6AI't' 44a?ll
Karen Rust
Contracts Manager
enc.
/
STANDARD AGREEMENT "„°aRNEY GENE BY THE CONTRACTOR
❑ STATE A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GENCY
STD. 2 (REV. 6/81) ❑ DEPT. OF GEN. aER.
❑ CONTROLLER
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 5th day of November 19 86 ❑
in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, ❑
qualified and acting ❑
TITLE OF OFFICER ACING FOR STATE AGENCY NUMBER
Executive Officer State Coastal Conservancy 84- 019- 77 -38 -A
hereafter calted the State, and Amendment 1
City of Newport Beach
hereof ter called the Contranor.
WITNESSETH: That the Contractor for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the State
hereinafter expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materials, as follows:
(set forth service to be rendered by Contractor, amount to be paid Contractor, time for performance or completion, and attach Flans and specifications. if any.)
The State Coastal Conservancy (hereafter called "Conservancy ") and the City of
Newport Beach (hereafter called "Grantee ") agree to amend their existing
Agreement No. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A by extending the "Co:,pietion De.te" from
November 30, 1986 to January 30, 1987.
All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement shall remain in
effect.
The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CONTRACTOR
AGENCY
Coas 1 C sery cy
CONTR%or rtState
of wp BeaBY
IAVTNORC[ED
Executive Officer
CONTINUED ON _ SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS
test I City Clerk
Department of General Services
Use Only
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
$362,000.00
PROGRAM /CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE) F D TITLE
Support onservancy Fund
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE
E)PTIONILL USE)
I certify that this
Professional & Consultant - External
ADJ. INCREASING ENCVMSRANCE
REM
CHARTER
STATUTE
FISCAL YEAR
184/85
grant amendment is
exempt from Department
3760-001-565(b)
258
1984
"DJ- DECREASING ENCUMm,ANCE
DELIECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TTLM
of General Services
approval.
S 11
Upper Newport Bay Enhancement
I hereby certify upon my oom Femonal knowledge that budgeted funds are T.B.A. NO.
B.R. NO
awdable for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above.
SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER
DATE
Eby certif tha i or ion set forth in State Administrative Manual Section 1209 ham
been urleh a t is ezerRFt from review by the Department of Finance.
MaNATURC OF f AGENCY
DA
A y� AGREZ 5�� APPROVr.O L•
fATC OP CALI OHNIA
�. 2 lue v. ♦. /RII
111S A(;KF,EMEN r, made anti cntert•d iitt(, this l}_ __ JaI,
1 tn_• tibtlr of Califnrilm, b) ' aril bc•hveen Slate uF Calihimia, thr.,
ualified and acting
rLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR STATE i AGENCY
'r - -- - -• ltl NG,
el,',lell Or "p(!♦Initl'd.
Ia- Jli)ER
City of Newport Beach —
i, r,f$er railed the Corlraetor.
I'Cf, ESSETII: That the Contractor for and iu cortsideraiion of the covenants, cnnditioas, agreenunG, and stipulations of the Statr
ercinaftcr expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materiak. as follows:
It forth xeraire to be rendered by Contractor, amo,ou to 6e paid contractur, time for performance yr rurapWson• and attach p!an.s rrdspe.,firations• if am /.J
JOINT POWERS GRANT AGREEMENT 11
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservancy
(hereafter called the "Conservancy")I hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach
(hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sun not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand
dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds
shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as
part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed (the "Plan ")
described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 18, 1984,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides
for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implement the Project in
cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "Joint
Powers Agreement" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.
(continued on following pages)
The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement.
WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COMT4IAC1011
r
1.1
SrntE AOhNr.Y
Gr,
DEPT. OF (;FN. SEP.
u
CONTROLLER
Ll
TITLE
Ma o "
Ia- Jli)ER
City of Newport Beach —
i, r,f$er railed the Corlraetor.
I'Cf, ESSETII: That the Contractor for and iu cortsideraiion of the covenants, cnnditioas, agreenunG, and stipulations of the Statr
ercinaftcr expressed, does hereby agree to furnish to the State services and materiak. as follows:
It forth xeraire to be rendered by Contractor, amo,ou to 6e paid contractur, time for performance yr rurapWson• and attach p!an.s rrdspe.,firations• if am /.J
JOINT POWERS GRANT AGREEMENT 11
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservancy
(hereafter called the "Conservancy")I hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach
(hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sun not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand
dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds
shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as
part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed (the "Plan ")
described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 18, 1984,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides
for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implement the Project in
cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "Joint
Powers Agreement" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.
(continued on following pages)
The provisions on the reverse side hereof constitute a part of this agreement.
WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CONTRACTOR
-^,CY
CONIRACTOR (IF OTHER THAN AN tNUI IOV.It, STATE WMET).ER A COUFOVATON.
State Co al o vancy
°ARCYlY 67'Newport Beach
(AUTHOR$ O 1 E
BY {AUTHOR¢EO S :GNATUREI
t E
Exe tine Officer
TITLE
Ma o "
ADDHWtesy
HL 1.
�_TINt1ED ON �_ SHEETS. EACH BEARING NAME OF CONTRACTOR
-.CG
' J r
I
AMOUNT ENCOMac REO
-
PROGRAM /CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE, FUND TITLE '-
Department of Ganeral Services
!`$e Only
IS 362,000 _
UNENCUMeFRED 13ALANCC
Support Conservancy Func
10?�L USE)
Professional & ConsultLlnt - External
_
AJJ. INCREASING ENGUMbHANCE
ITL.N CA_TER ;TA_
H'
F'SCAL YEAR
S
_
376 -001 -565LBI $4 51
^r
ADJ DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE
4
OyE �T OF E'(RENDITURC iCOOE AND TITLE)
Upper Newport Bay Enhancement
1, t'hlt budgeyd r....
J rrrhfy npnn n1n r$t II pi run :al .lrzo•c .d; e f
R.H, NO
rrn!nhly forth.'prrind rid pnrp...•uf d.. vrr.HI�L!u.tu :eJ nhn'e
_
FIC,JA IT'Tle DF ACS
I� I ♦
_�__
�� I.'r,'h., �� ,t�,.,tl,r,,,,1,r.,;,,H.;f,..� pn.., „r :f „• the, :Stafe.t :Lnl.vi . r- �t$.Y.r.,n,l,,tsr�n,l „tau :,r :,ll.
Irrn I aL• It I: Ifh, : ... 1 Liar d, .nl ......... �irv:,l re, wu by the ft'pu- 1r :r,,: of F -inu n: e.
�IGIIAIIIIIL 'I::
I
E
fl? T'HE OTY U-JUNWL
;.1TY OF KwWORi 601"1.
• NOV 24 '1986
T0: CITY COUNCIL —APPROVED
FROM: Public Works Department
0
November 24, 1986
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. F -3(b)
SUBJECT: UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
AGREEMENT NO. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A (C -2441)
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the amendment to the
California State Coastal Conservancy Agreement No. 84- 019- 77 -38 -A.
DISCUSSION:
On November 13, 1984, the City Council approved an agreement with the
• State of California Coastal Conservancy to fund a portion of the Unit I Upper
Newport Bay Sediment Control and Restoration Project. Under terms of that
agreement, the Unit I Project, the Unit I Project Final Report, and the 1985/86
San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Report were to be completed by November 30,
1986.
This amendment extends the term of the agreement two months, to
January 30, 1987, in order to allow for completion of both the Project Final
Report and the 1985/86 San Diego Creek Sediment Monitoring Report.
Benjamin B. Nolan
Public Works Director
JSW:jd
0
SEW PORT
O B
a
C7Q FOft
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
Public Works
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: February 11, 1985
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SUBJECT: Contract No. C- 2441(D)
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
J714) 640 -2251
Description of Contract Joint Powers Grant Agreement -
UDner Bav Unit I - State Coastal Conservancy
Effective date of Contract (See Agreement or John Wolter)
Authorized by Minute Action, approved on November 13, 1984
Contract with Executive Officer
Address State Coastal Conservancy
Amount of Contract
(Exhibits are in City Clerk's Office)
Wanda E. Andersen
City Clerk
WEA:Ir
attach.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
3
TO: CITY CLERK
FRO11- Public Works Department
SUBJECT: UPPER
L C�tA'kff
Attached are five copiesalof the subject agreements. Please
have executed on behalf of the City, retain your copy and return the
remaining copies to this departme"P'&-.
John Wolter
Project Engineer
Jw:eM
Att:
JOINT POIr1ERS GRANT AGREEMENT
SCOPE OF AGREEM.EV
Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservarry
(hereafter called the ''Conservancy "), hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach
(hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sum not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand
dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds
shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as
part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed_(the ''Plan ")
described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 16, 1984,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides
for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implea,ent the Project in
cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "joint
Powers Ayreeiiient" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.
(continued on following pages)
•rhe provisions on the reverse Side hereof constitute a part of this agreement.
IN WITNP:SS bi'ttERF;Oh; thisagreennent has been ekv(uted by the parties hercto, upon the date first abovi writterl.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA C
CONTRACTOR
CpNf: "t .. ^ "'nN
❑ STA'i Li AGt. NCY
'.ltt- rta"1(' �: r,.: •.� °ihl VtA
State GD S
•'•, •., a. i s v, p•
I1 DEPT. U= GEN. SER.
bfi' Newport Beach -
1...r-1 co`�rROLL EH
lo::de: old e•nlend iri ".I[I i,_..__Le t_h _._._ daN (If _.00t i l het'. .. ___...._.Iii
-F4 E_
iu 1'r• `,rl;e n; f:a;il, •Inn, by and I'rI%.. ell Sta'c of California, lhron.411 it,, dull ('It,-t('(I or nl,llniiih,I.
(.I
11 lF -O: ;.l Cr4 ACT- \GF—<'.lA: (Ar NY
INIM1 1
L_State_Ccasal Conservar-
184 U19_7./ „33 A_
1_EYxecutu 1i�lfflter_,.____.
OF CONTRACTOR C
... Ci y_pj i;e or;t_Beach
J v
--
I::'fraffer ralb'd th, Ontll,wlor.
JGRAWC IEGORY (COCI'c AN° TITLfI J 1'VNU .'1TLfi
%%'I' FIN FSvF I'H: "I'hat the Conhactnt for and in consideration of the CUr'enants, cuncliCorls, H
{n'Clllenti, and .stipulations of the llau
hen`in;dtcr evpn•swil, AV -s hen`hy agree to furnish to the State services and materials, .,s follows.
s -
I'it't forth .et r[W, In he With , s d l'y CononrLU, nmoant h, la' paid Cn,drarlor, lime far perfermmnre or lornplt Hon, and allnrh plan, and .+pet ijif ations. if any.,
a
..__._.._.— _.. -_. s
JOINT POIr1ERS GRANT AGREEMENT
SCOPE OF AGREEM.EV
Pursuant to Section 31251 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, the State Coastal Conservarry
(hereafter called the ''Conservancy "), hereby grants to the City of Newport Beach
(hereafter called the "Grantee ") a sum not to exceed three hundred and sixty -two thousand
dollars ($362,000), subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. The funds
shall be used to construct an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel (the "Project ") as
part of the Comprehensive Sediment Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed_(the ''Plan ")
described in the Conservancy Staff Recommendation and Project Synopsis of October 16, 1984,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. This Agreement provides
for a grant of funds by the Conservancy to help the Grantee to implea,ent the Project in
cooperation with other public and private entities, and does not constitute a "joint
Powers Ayreeiiient" within the meaning of Government Code Sections 6500 et seq.
(continued on following pages)
•rhe provisions on the reverse Side hereof constitute a part of this agreement.
IN WITNP:SS bi'ttERF;Oh; thisagreennent has been ekv(uted by the parties hercto, upon the date first abovi writterl.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA C
CONTRACTOR
AGENCY C
CONTRACTOR 0G OrNtR THAN AN m moW,L STAY' nH ,'P .n CORIORABON.
State GD S
bfi' Newport Beach -
_ S
_ -
_ B
BY AUI (° b
a o
l T
-- _
- --
NUE° O
C II -
OF CONTRACTOR C
O
_ T
r- - -- J
JGRAWC IEGORY (COCI'c AN° TITLfI J 1'VNU .'1TLfi
use One —
000_ _f Sul ort Conservancy F;mc
s -
f (
..__._.._.— _.. -_. s
- -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - ----
l$__.... - -
- -- � ._. 376- 001-- 565_._�Q_).._.. — - '7.8_ -.._ $4 -'— - t_gr.41 5-
- -
'kA 'E I VIU f OF CYPGN TL, F WC, . AND lto_F( U
Upper Newport Bay Enhancement
.• J
1%J'rtl,I rhe, 1.. "
"!"I . •.::+•r „�fill::li::.'inr';:rb:. IUp!, .re'I: 1'A.O .
ltJf”. r:,•• V, ,Indt,4:,..f,r,�Ir,:,.:J : -(,'.- ,.. -, L,r::,:: ,..,r11::anats,.n • s( ?el
_ •ill, ,.,n .' ,l•., , _':, II. ,' r ✓ "I, of;Y ..'-- ._.._.
c .
l( e 1 F CNNC r r 1•, r. N.�l C
> �� 1..
r �
Contract #84- 019- 77 -38 -A
Page 2
The project constitutes one component of the Plan, which is designed to
reduce the rate and amount of sediment that is being deposited in Upper
Newport Bay. The Conservancy, in cooperation with the Department of Fish and Game
Game, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, Orange
County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, and the Irvine Company, will
fund Element D, Unit I of this Plan: expansion of an existing sediment
basin and a sediment and navigation channel in the Upper Bay. Construction
costs of the in -bay basin and channel will be borne as follows:
PARTY COST
Dept. of Fish and Game $2,300,000
The Irvine Company 623,325
State Coastal Conservancy 362,000
City of Newport Beach 124,310
Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District 118,990
City of Irvine 11,170
County of Orange 7,992
TOTAL $3,547,787
All additional funding sources other than the Conservancy have made a
commitment to project funding and implementation through the Agreement
attached to the Staff Recommendation (Exhibit 1) as Exhibit E, and the
availability of such additional funding, in the amounts set forth above,
is an express condition of this Agreement.
Prior to the construction of the Project, the Grantee shall submit detailed
construction drawings and bid documents for review and approval by the
Executive Officer of the Conservancy (hereafter called the "Executive
Officer "). After a contractor(s) has been selected, the Grantee shall
submit a detailed project budget substantially consistent with Exhibit 1
for review and written approval by the Executive Officer. This budget
shall contain a breakdown of project costs for each component of the
Project to be funded under this Agreement. The Grantee shall expend funds
for the Project in accordance with the approved project budget.
Any construction contractor(s) engaged to complete any portion of the
Project to be funded under this Agreement shall furnish a performance
in favor of the Grantee in the following amounts: for faithful performance,
one hundred percent (100 %) of the contract value, for labor, and materials,
one hundred percent (100 %) of the contract value.
The Grantee shall erect a sign or signs at the Project crediting the
Conservancy for its funding assistance. The sign or signs shall be
permanent and easily visible to persons traveling on adjacent roads. The
number, design, placement and wording of such signs shall be submitted to
the Executive Officer for review and approval. Final payment may be
withheld pending placement of the sign or signs in the manner approved by
the Executive Officer.
Contract #84- 019- 77 -38 -A
Page 3
The Grantee shall obtain at its own expense any permits and approvals
required to implement this Project and agrees to comply with all applicable
laws and regulations.
Upon completion of the Project described above, the Grantee shall supply
the Conservancy with evidence of such completion by submitting a final
inspection report by the Grantee's Public Works Director certifying
completion of the Project according to the plans and specifications
submitted to the Conservancy and a "Request for Reimbursement of
Expenditures" form (Exhibit 2) requesting payment of funds.
The Grantee shall also supply the Conservancy with the results
of monitoring studies conducted on the Project site, as described
in the Plan.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO PAYMENT
No disbursement of funds shall be made under this Agreement until the
following conditions have been met:
1) The Executive Officer has approved in writing the detailed construction
drawings and project budget as required under this Agreement.
2) The Grantee has submitted for the written approval of the Executive
Officer, evidence that it has obtained all necessary funding, including
the Grantee's contribution, for the completion of the Project as
described.
3) The Grantee has determined that the Plan is consistent with the
certified Local Coastal Program land use plan for this area.
4) The Grantee has certified in writing that the Grantee has obtained any
permits, approvals, and findings by Grantee and responsible agencies
necessary to complete the Project under applicable local, state, and
federal law, including compliance with the California Environmental
Act (CEQA).
5) The Grantee has provided written notification to the Conservancy of all
contractors for this Project and written evidence of compliance with
the bonding requirements described in the "Scope of Agreement ".
COST AND PAYMENT
Subject to determination by the Executive Officer that all "Conditions
Precedent to Payment" have been fully met, the Conservancy shall disburse
funds on the basis of costs incurred in a total amount not to exceed three
hundred and sixty -two thousand dollars($362,000). Payment shall be made in
accordance with the approved project budget on the basis of costs incurred,
less ten percent (10 %). The Grantee shall request payment no more than
monthly by filing with the Conservancy a completed "Request for Reimbursement"
Contract #84- 019- 77 -88 -A
Page 4
0
form (Exhibit 2) which contains the name and address of the Grantee, the
number of this Agreement,the signature of an official authorized by the Grantee
to sign such invoices, the date of the submittal, the amount of the invoice,
and an itemized description of all work done for which payment is requested.
Additionally, the invoice shall be accompanied by any invoices or other source
documents from subcontractors hired by the Grantee to complete any portion of
the Project funded under this Agreeement. Upon completion of the construction
of the Project, as established by a final inspection report and by inspection
of the project site by Conservancy personnel, the Grantee shall submit a final
"Request for Reimbursement" form for the remaining amount of the grant and
any amounts previously withheld.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall run from the above written effective date
of this Agreement and shall continue until November 30, 1995 unless otherwise
terminated or amended. The Grantee agrees to complete construction
Project by November 30, 1986 ( "Completion Date "). On or before the
Completion Date, the Grantee shall submit to the Executive Officer the
final inspection report described in the above "Scope of Agreement" along
with a final "Request for Reimbursement of Expenditures" form (Exhibit 2).
Prior to the Completion Date, either party may terminate this Agreement for
any reason by providing the other party with seven (7) days notice in
writing.
In any event of termination by the Conservancy, prior to the Completion
Date, the Grantee agrees to take all reasonable measures to prevent further
costs to the Conservancy under this Agreement, and the Conservancy shall be
responsible for any reasonable and non - cancellable obligation incurred by
the Grantee in the performance of this Agreement until the date of the
notice to terminate, but only up to the unpaid balance of funding authorized
in this Agreement.
In any event that the Grantee terminates this Agreement during the Term of
Agreement as defined above, Grantee shall beliable for repayment to the
Conservancy of all amounts paid by the Conservancy under this Agreement.
The Conservancy may at its sole discretion consider extenuating circumstances
and not require payment for work partially completed.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Conservancy shall not be liable for any costs of maintenance, management,
or operation of the Project, except as may be set forth under separate agreement.
The Grantee may be excused'from its obligation of operation and maintenance
or the project during the term of the Agreement only upon express approval
in writing by the Executive Officer.
The Grantee agrees to use best efforts to assure that the Project is
maintained as an ecological reserve for at least the term of this Agreement.
The Grantee further agrees that, throughout the Term of this Agreement, the
Project shall be used only for purposes consistent with this grant and that
Contract #84- 019- 77 -88 -A
Page 5
no other use of the property shall be permitted except by specific act of
the Legislature.
AUDITS /ACCOUNTING /RECORDS
The Grantee shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents and
records for the Project and shall make them available to the Conservancy
staff for auditing and inspection at reasonable times and intervals. Such
accounts, documents, and records shall be retained by the Grantee for three
years following the termination of this Agreement or completion of
construction, whichever is sooner and shall be subject to examination and
audit of the Auditor General during this period.
The Grantee may use any generally accepted accounting system, provided such
system meets minimum requirements as established by the State of California.
LIABILITY
The Grantee waives all claims and recourse against the Conservancy including
the right to contribution for any loss or damage arising from, growing out
of or in any way connected with or incident to this contract except claims
arising from the concurrent or sole negligence of the Conservancy, its
officers, agents and employees.
The Grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Conservancy its
officers, agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages,
costs, expenses or liability arising out of the existence or failure of
this grant project including, but not limited to, the acquisition of
property and the design construction, operation, or maintenance of
improvements.
If the Conservancy is named as a co- defendant with the Grantee pursuant to
Government Code Section 895 et seq., the Grantee shall represent the
Conservancy unless the Conservancy elects to represent itself. If the
Conservancy undertakes its own defense, it shall bear its own litigation
costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
INCORPORATION OF EXHIBITS TO THIS AGREEMENT
The three attachments to this Agreement entitled "List of Assurances"
(Exhibit 3) "Indemnification and Standard Provision" (Exhibit 4), and
"Non- discrimination Clause" (Exhibit 5), describe additional rights and
responsibilities of the Conservancy and the Grantee arising out of this
Agreement. Each of these Exhibits is an integral part of this Agreement,
and each is incorporated herein by this reference.
COORDINATOR
All actions and approvals required to be taken by the Conservancy under
this Agreement shall be taken by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy
or his designee. Wendy Eliot is designated the Conservancy's project
coordinator for any problems or questions which may arise concerning the
implementation of this Agreement. John Wolter is designated the Grantee's
Contract #84- 019- 77 -38 -A
Page 6
project coordinator for any problems or questions which may arise concerning
the implementation of this Agreement.
RESOLUTION
The signature of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy on the first page
of this Agreement certifies that at its October 18, 1984 meeting, the State
Coastal Conservancy approved a grant of three hundred and sixty -two
thousand collard ($362,000) to the Grantee for the development of the
Project described in the attached Conservancy Staff Recommendation and
Project Synopsis (Exhibit 1).
This Agreement shall be deemed executed and effective upon the receipt
in the offices of the Conservancy of this Agreement which has been signed
on the first page by an authorized representative of the Grantee and which
is accompanied by a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach agreeing to accept the grant funds authorized herein and to
abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
This Agreement is deemed to be entered into the County of Alameda.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
iy ney
Date:
EXHIBIT 1
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
Staff Recommendation
fxtnber 18, 1984
UPPER NEWPORT BAY PROJECT
File No.: 77 -38 A
REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of an enhancement plan for Upper Newport Bay
and authorization to disburse $362,000 to the City of
Newport Beach to implement a portion of the Comprehen-
sive Sedimentation Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed.
SHORT DESCRIPTION: Enhancement of Upper Newport Bay through construction
of sediment collection basins in the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve designed to concentrate and facil-
itate removal of sediment.
LOCATION: North of Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Newport
Beach, Orange County, Southern California Coast District
(see Exhibit A, Vicinity Map).
PROTECT CATEGORY: Coastal Enhancement
ESTIMATED COST: Total cost of Project: $3,547,787
Conservancy share: $362,000
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Conservancy adopt the following
resolution pursuant to Sections 31251 -31270 of the
Public Resources Code:
"The State Coastal Conservancy hereby:
(1) approves the Comprehensive Sedimentation
Control Plan- Newport Bay Watershed ('the "Enhance-
ment Plan ") contained in Exhibit B of accompanying
staff report, and authorizes transmittal of the
plan to the City of Newport Beach for determina-
tion of consistency with the certified Local
Coastal Program; and
(2) authorizes disbursement of an amount not to
exceed $362,000 to the City of Newport Beach for
the enlargement of a sediment basin and excava-
tion of a navigation and sediment channel in
Upper Newport Bay, (as described in the attached
Exhibit C), to help implement the approved Enhance-
ment Plan, subject to the following conditions:
no
(a) no funds shall be disbursed until all
necessary permits for the project are obtained
from appropriate regulatory agencies, includ-
ing California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and State Water Quality
Control Board;
(b) funding in the amount of $3,185,787,
sufficient to complete implementation of the
project (estimated at $3,547,787) is author-
ized by the following additional funding
sources: Department of Fish and Game, the
Irvine Company, City of Newport Beach, City
of Irvine, Orange County Harbors, Beaches,
and Parks District, and the County of
Orange; and
(c) the City of Newport Beach has determined
that the plan is consistent with the Local
Coastal Program."
Staff further recommends that the:Conservancy make the
following findings based on the accompanying staff re-
port:
"1. The Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan -
Newport Bay Watershed is consistent with the purposes
and objectives of Chapter 6 of the Conservancy Act
(Public Resources Code Secion 31251- 31270) regard-
ing the enhancement of areas of the coastal zone
which, because of indiscriminate dredging or fill-
ing, improper location of improvements, or incom-
patible land uses, have suffered loss of natural
or scenic value.
2. The sediment basin enlargement and channel en-
largement project as described in Element D,
Unit I of the Enhancement Plan and Exhibit C,
is consistent with Sections 31251 et seq• of the
Public Resource Code and will help to accomplish
the purposes and objectives of Sections 30231 and
30233 of the Coastal Act.
3. The Conservancy has reviewed the Environ-
mental Impact Report and addendum to the EIR
prepared for the Enhancement Plan (Exhibit F) and
finds that changes have been incorporated in the
project which will reduce potential adverse
impacts of the project. The Conservancy further
finds that the significant environmental effects
which cannot be avoided are outweighed by the
benefits of the project because the project will
halt the loss of wetlands and enhance marsh
habitat in Upper Newport Bay.
M
STAFF SLMAARY: The Up Newport Bay Ecological Reserve was founded
in 1995, due to a concerted effort by citizens and
public agencies to preserve the marsh from rapidly
encroaching urban development. The Department of
Fish and Game owns and manages the 741 acre estuary,
which comprises one of the few remaining large wet-
lands on the south coast. The Reserve harbors 8 rare
or endangered species and is a critical feeding and
resting habitat for millions of birds on the Pacific
FlyAay.
The continued existence of the marsh is imperiled by
the combination of two recent develcpnents in the
surrourlirg watershed that are promoting the deposit
of substantial amounts of sediment in the Reserve:
intensive development increasing the amount of
erosive surface area, and extensive channelization of
drainage patterns multiplying the rate and amount of
sediment that is transported into Upper Newport Bay.
The accelerated rate of sediment deposition in the
Resere has already converted sane wetland areas into
upland meadow. without effective action to impede
the deposition, the future of the critical wildlife
habitat values of the reserve can not be assured.
The Enhancement Plan prepared by the City of Newport
Beach (Exhibit B) recommends two strategies to re-
duce the amount of sediment imported into the Bay:
1. land management practices to reduce sediment at its
sauces, such as improved agricultural and construction
lam managment practices and 2. structural measures
to localize sediment deposition and facilitate its manage-
ment, such as in -channel and in -bay basins. Three
sedimentation basins, in San Diego Creek and Upper
Newport Bay, constructed as part of the city's Early
Action Plan, have already reduced the average annual
sediment rate reaching the Pay form 85,000 to 60,000 tons.
The City has requested Conservancy assistance in helping
to implement the next stage of this process: the
construction of an in -bay sediment basin and channel.
Many of the elements of the Enhancement Plan implementa-
tion will be funded and implemented by local juris-
dictions, landowners, and developers (see Exhibit D).
The Conservancy would participate with the Department of
Fish and Game, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, Orange
County, Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District,
and the Irvine Company to implement one element of the
Enhancement Plan. The Conservancy's contribution would
constitute 13.5% of the state share of funding for im-
plementation of Element D, Unit I - -the construction of
an in -bay sedimentation basin and channel'tas 'described o
in Exhibit C). The Conservancy grant would augment the
$3,185,787 already committed through the funding, agree-
ment signed by other participating parties. The Conser-
vancy is not a party to this agreement. Construction of
the basins in addition, to tae other plan elements will
trap 94% of the existing average annual sediment flow
into Upper Newport Bay.
ME
STAFF
DISCUSSION:
Site
DESCRIPTION- The project site includes Upper Newport Bay and the sur-
rounding wateshed. Upper Newport Bay is supplied with
freshwater primarily by the San Diego Creek watershed
(120 square miles) and the Santa Ana -Dehli Channel water-
shed (17 sq. mi.). These systems carry substantial
amounts of water only during the winter rainy season.
Three geographic areas can be delineated in the water-
shed: steep foothills, flat alluvial Tustin Plain, and
the coastal plain. Each geographic region is differ-
entiated by its land use and contributes in varying
degree to the discharge of sediment into UNB. The foot-
hills region rises above the coastal plain with slopes
ranging from 15 to 75 %. Steep slopes and relatively
high rainfall intersities coupled with agricultural
land uses make this region subject to major erosion
hazards.
The alluvial plain ranges in slope from 0 to 15% and
is dominated by high value agricultural production
including citrus fruits, truck crops, grain and nurser-
ies. The highly erosive soils in this region consist
of fine silty particles, which are carried through the
channels and ultimately come to rest in UNB.
The coastal plain is largely urbanized and contributes
a large portion of runoff, but very little sediment, to
the Bay. At the heart of the watershed lies the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, an important wildlife
habitat and scenic resource, but presently threatened
by upstream development.
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
The Reserve is surrounded by intense urban development
and was itself once slated for a residential marine
development. Only through a concerted effort by local
citizen groups and the Department of Fish and Game,
combined with the growing awareness of environmental
preservation, was the 741 acre reserve spared from
development. The Reserve was created by the California
Department of Fish and Game in 1975 and is managed for
wildlife habitat protection and enhancement.
Upper Newport Bay is an estuary, an environment con-
sidered one of the most productive ecosystems on earth.
It is sandwiched between the pacific tides entering
through Lower Newport Bay and freshwater streams flow-
ing out of the foohills. The reserve consists of a
complex of diverse wetland habitats and organisms
uniquely adapted for life in an environment of fluctu-
ating salinities. Six habitat types are located in
M
0
0
the Upper bay: marine, intertidal, brackish water,
freshwater marsh, riparian and upland.
UNB supports a large migratory bird population
during the entire year, with the greatest use spanning
the months from September to April. As pact of the
Pacific Flyway, millions of birds, particularly Uater-
fowl, feed and rest in the productive marshes. The
reserve provides breeding, nursery, and feeding areas -
for eight endangered or rare species including the
California least tern, light footed clapper rail,
belding's savannah sparrow, the brown pelican, the
peregrin falcon, and the black rail. The Reserve
contains two endangered plants: the saltmarsh bird's
beak and the Laguna live- forever.
The mix of habitat types in the reserve provide habitat
for other organisms as well. Seventy -eight species of
fish find a home in the bay including many coastal
species who rely on the sheltered waters of the bay
for spawning and nursery grounds. Mammals, amphibians
and reptiles flourish in the area, each selecting a
niche suited to their specific habitat needs. Bay
mudflats and shallow waters harbor a wide variety of
invertebrates, some of which are a major food source
for the huge flocks of migratory birds.
Just north of the Reserve is San Joaquin Marsh, owned
and managed by the University of California. The
marsh is the only remaining major freshwater marsh in
Orange County and a remnant of a once extensive wetland.
Site History- Upper Newport Bay has been altered both by natural
geomorphic changes, and through the actions of devel-
opment since its creation. Originally directly connected
to the ocean, the bay was.isolated during the winter of
1861 -62 by storm sediment deposition. This event
created the division between Upper and Lower Newport Bays
and increased the influence of freshwater on the Upper
Bay.
The lands in the watershed were parts of three Spanish
ranches and used primarily for cattle grazing up to
1900. Following the advent of extensive commercial ag-
riculture, a complex of drainage and irrigation
systems were developed which accelerated drainage rates
in the watershed.
In 1934, solar evaporative ponds were constructed in the
upper portions of the bay, destroying 130 acres of marsh
and restricting tidal influence. The post war housing
boom resulted in burgeoning development in the area.
Flood control channels were constructed on several of
the rivers in the watershed, including San Diego Creek.
Flooding of this creek in 1969 was disastrous. The salt
Ma
• •
works were destroyed and 400,000 cubic yards of sediment,
washed from fresh construction scars and agricultural
fields, came to rest in Upper Newport Bay.
Erosion and sediment transport is not a recent phenomena
in the UNB watershed. Continuing geomorphic changes (such
as sea -level rise) and adjustment contribute base levels
of erosion to the drainage systems. Under "natural"
conditions, estuaries fillwith accumulated sediment and
and are succeeded by upland meadows. Recent changes in
land use have dramatically accelerated this process an
imperil the ecological health and productivity of the
UNB Reserve. It has been estimated that over a fifteen
year period, 1,000 years of sediment have been deposited
in the bay. The continuation of this accelerated sedi-
ment depostion will eventually transform Upper Newport
Bay from a productive and diverse wetland habitat to an
upland meadow unless action is taken to halt the process.
Intensive agricultural and urban land uses have exacer-
bated already increased erosion and ®ediment transpoft
processes. Removal of the natural cover in the water-
shed for agricultural pruposes increases the susceptib
bility of the land to sheet and rill erosion. Irriga-
tion and severe floods strip the loose soil from barren
fields, orchards and construction sites and choke the
channels with sediment. The addition of material be-
yond channel load capacities results in aggradation, or
deposition, downstream in the watershed. The present
mix of land uses in the watershed and their contributions
to sediment production are:
LAND USE WATERSHED AREA TONS /SQ.MI.
(8) M
agriculture 23 17
urban 47 -
open space 23 14
construction 2 69
Although construction sites occupy the smallest portion
of the watershed, they produce the largest portion of
the sediment per area.
Conversion to urban land uses as permitted by the Irvine
General Plan, will reduce the aTaunt of erosive surface
but will. increase the amount of runoff from impervious
surfaces. This corrosive force moving through existing
0
channels will scour riparian banks and carry sediment
down the watershed to the Reserve. Thus channel stabil-
ization must proceed in tandem with the other methods to
decrease sediment transport and erosion. The ultimate
mix of land uses projected by the Irvine General Plan are:
LAND USE WATERSHED AREA TONS /SQ. MI.
M (B)
open space 11 50
urban 81 3
rural* 8 47
* rural is low density residential
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: The Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine entered into a
cooperative agreement with the Southern California Associa-
tion of Governments (SCAG) using Section 208 Water Quality
Planning funds for a two and half year study culminating
in a comprehensive stormwater sedimentation control plan
for the San Diego Creek watershed.
The final plan, Comprehensive Sedimentation Control Plan-
Newport Bay Watershed, is attached as Exhibit B. Staff
is recommending that the Conservancy grant $362,000 to
the City of Newport Beach for the in -bay basin project
described as Element D, Unit I of the plan, and set
forth more particularly in Exhibit C.
The Department of Fish and Game is the lead agency in
implementing this project; however, the City of Newport
Beach has largely been responsible for coordinating
and securing funding sources. The in -bay basin con-
struction will be funded and implemented in two phases,
Unit I and Unit II. Conservancy funding has been re-
quested for Unit I only, and will cover construction
costs only. Construction of the in -bay basins in con-
cert with the existing Early Action Plan Basins, will
trap 94% of the existing average annual sediment flow
into UNB.
Unit I includes two sediment control measures, a basin
and channel excavation in Upper Nevmort Bay.
A. In -Bay Basin
An existing basin, constructed as part of the Early
Action Plan, will be enlarged and deepened to a capa-
city of 661,000 cubic yards. The basin will capture
sediment discharged by San Diego Creek, provide a
Em
I
large tidal prism at the upper end of the Bay to en-
courage tidal scouring of fine sediments, trap fine
sediment resuspended in other parts of the Bay and carried
in by the tide, and provide open water habitat.
B. In- Channel Basin
A channel will be excavated from the basin to the main
dike at the Narrows, yielding an additional capacity
of 79,000 cubic yards. A navigation channel will be
dredged to allow equipment access to the excavation
sites. The channel will facilitate sediment discharge
from San Diego Creek through and out of the Bay, en-
hance tidal scouring and provide open water habitat.
The cost for construction of the channel and basin is
itemized below:
Element - Cubic Yards Rate Cost
A. Saltworks Improvements
A -1 Island Removal 41,000 $3.50 $ 143,000
A -2 Deepen Basin to
-4.0 MLLW 330.000 5.00 1,650,000
A -3 35 acre expansion 290.000 4.00 1,162,000
661,000 $2,955,000
C. Subtidal Channel -
enlarge and deepen
channel from saltworks
down to main dike at
the Narrows 79,000 $ 592,787
Total 740,000 $3,547,787
*Costs based on 1984 estimates
Construction is expected to begin in November and will be
completed by November 1985. Maintenance dredging of the
four foot deep basins will be required every four years,
and interval specified by Department of Fish and Game
to minimize disturbance to Bay wildlife. An agreement
has been signed by the Department of Fish and Game, the
Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange,
Orange County Harbors and Parks District, the Irvine
Company for restoration, construction and maintenance of
the in -bay basins in UNB. Grants from all parties to this
agreement have been secured. The state is responsible
for the largest hbare of the cost (42 %) on the assumption
that enchancement of the Reserve is of primarily state-
wide benefit. The Conservancy contribution will be
applied toward construction only,with maintenance
funding to be provided by parties to the agreement in
the same proportion as for the initial funding.
M-M
0
The Department of Fish and Game will request maintenance
funds, as needed, form the other parties according to the
scheduled described in section 14 of the 10 year agreement
(attached as Exhibit E). If necessary, the agreement may
be extended beyond the exisitng teens.
Permits were required by the California Coastal
Commission (CCC), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWOCB). Applications for all three permits have
been made. Issuance of the RWQCB permit is expected
on September 21, 1984. The CCC and the COE permits are
pending the completion and certification of the Draft
Addendum EIR. An EIR was prepared and certified by the
City for the Enhancement Plan; the Addendum incorpor-
ates minor revisions to the project. The EIR was
adopted by the City of Newport Beach on September 10,
1984.
PROJECT FINANCING: The cost of Unit I of the in -bay basins includes project
documents, administration, engineering, construction,
approvals, rights of way and inspections. Conservancy
funding will be applied to construction costs. Costs
are apportioned as follows:
Party
Apportionment ($)
Department of Fish and Game 2,662,000
The Irvine Company 623,325
State Coastal Conservancy 362,000
City of Newport Beach 124,310
Orange Co. Harbors, Beaches, Parks
District 118,990
City of Irvine 11,170
County of Orange 7,992
TOTAL 3,547,787
LOCAL SUPPORT: The Project represents a cooperative effort among
local and state agencies and the private sector. The
state, the Irvine Company, the Cities of Newport Beach
and Irvine, the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks
District, and the County of Orange have all committed
funding to the project. In addition, the project is
supported by the local County Board of Supervisors
who requested assistance from the Conservancy.
APPLICABLE
COASTAL ACT
POLICIES Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states that the bio-
logical productivity and quality of coastal waters,
streams, wetland, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to
maintain optimum populations of marine organism and
for the protection of human health should be maintained
and where feasible, restored through, among other means,
1
Section 30233 (a) (7) permits the dredging of open
coastal water, wetland, or estuaries where there is
no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative
and where feasible mitigation measures have been pro-
vided to minimize adverse environmental effects, for
purposes of restoration. The dredging associated with
the enhancement of UNB has been located and designed,
according to the recommendations of the Department of
Fish and Game, to minimize the adverse impacts on the
Reserve. The Enhancement Plan considered, a range of
alternative sediment control measures, prior to adopt-
ing the subject plan.
CONSISTENCY WTIH
CONSERVANCY ENABLING
LEGISLATION The Conservancy is authorized under Chapter 6 of its
enabling legislation (Public Resources Code Section
31251 et seg.) to. award grants for the enhancEment of
coastal resources which have suffered loss of natural
and scenic values. As described above, the proposed
project will halt the loss of wetland and create
additional wildlife habitat in Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve. As required by Section 31253,
the Conservancy is contributing the amount not avail-
able from the other funding sources that is necessary
to complete the project. Consistent with Section 31252,
Upper Newport Bay is identified by the City of Newport
Beach Local Coastal Program as an environmentally
sensitive area that will require continuing work with
other agencies to achieve a solution to the sediment
problem that is impairing the wetland. Appropriate
finding of the plan's consistency with with the certified
Local Coastal Program will be made by the City following
Conservancy adoption of the Enhancement Plan, as required
by Section 31258.
CONSISTENCY WITH
PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The project is consistent with Conservancy enhance-
ment guidelines, as follows: -
1. Need, urgency and significance: The proposed pro-
ject is essential to halt continued filling of Upper
Newport Bay and to preserve and enhance one of southern
California's few remaining important welands.
2. Cooperation: The project illustrates cooperation
between state, county and local public agencies, pri-
vate landowners and developers.
3. Scope and comprehensiveness: The proposed project
will protect irreplaceable wetland resource that are a
critical link for migratory birds. The plan addresses
sediment control within the Bay and throughout the
watershed.
0
0
4. Readiness to act: The City is fully prepared to
proceed with project implementation this November.
5. Managment and maintenance: All parties to the
initial funding agreement (not including the Conservancy)
have made a committment to longterm management and main-
tenance of the sediment control facilities in the Bay.
CONSISTENCY WITH
CEQA:
The City of Newport Beach made the determination that
the implementation of the proposed Comprehensive Sedi-
mentation Control Plan will have significant effects on
the envirorment. As a result, a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and distributed for
public review on May 6, 1981. Casnents received on the
DEIR were addressed in the final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). The City of Newport Beach approved the
project subject to certain mitigation measures which are
described in the EIR and will be incorporated into final
construction plans. Certification of the EIR occurred on
June 22, 1981. The City has since addedd an addendum to
the EIR regarding minor technical modifications to the
in -hay basin and channel plan canponents. The addendum
oas approval by the City on September 10, 1984 (see Exhibit
F); these modifications it describes are reflected in the
attached Enhancenent Plan.
The EIR identified environmental impacts that would result
fmam implementation of this project and proposed changes
that were incorporated into the project to reduce these
impacts. Reductions in shorebird resting sites and light -
footed clapper rail foraging habitat will be mitigated by
the expansion of saltmarsh and brackish marsh and creation
of sbctebird and waterfowl habitat in the Excavated basin.
Although temporarily increased heavy metal concentrations
will result from dredging, increased tidal flushing as a
result of the project, will ultimately lessen this impact.
Construction will be scheduled to minimize disturbance to
nesting birds.
Some unavoidable impacts were identified by the EIR; staff
believe these impacts are overweighed by the overall benefits
of the project. Excavation and dredging will destroy riparian
vegetation, mudflats and salt marsh. Ultimately, however,
the project will increase the amount of salt and brackish marsh
in the bay and provide important endangered species habitat.
Temporary disturbances to wildlife during construction and
dredging will occur. However, the project will resolve
sedimentation problems that have been seriously impairing
wildlife habitat for decades. Additional wetland will be
crested and existing marshes will be enhanced by improved
tidal flushing and reduced sediment. The Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve serves a critical role in providiuxg
wildaife habitat for migratory, as well as resident species,
making this project of overall state -wide benefit.
.E
EXHIBIT
Air-
=r CUIb°Ytson
Adams &
-�� Associates
pp a _ .e i,
-91-
rUR:
i
EXHIBIT B
17)
tj
Pi'Me 1E '203 'Plan Arnandmem
f4
. 4
9
-92-
I
VA
BArxr,Rni mn
Large amounts of sediment have deposited in Upper Newport Bay in recent
years, adversely affecting the Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve.
It is considered urgent that effective actions be taken to reduce the
inflow of sediment to the Bay so that the Ecological Reserve may realize
its objectives.
The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is a 741 -acre state reserve owned
and managed by the California Department of Fish and Game. This combina-
tion of lands and tidal marshes is a part of the system of ecological re-
serves in California. The Department of Fish and Game has a,program of
rehabilitating portions of the reserve to increase a diversity of habitat
that will benefit marine aquatic organisms and other wildlife that are
dependent upon tidal marshlands for their continued existence. Also
included are provisions for construction of public use facilities that will
be used for aesthetic, educational, and scientific purposes. .
A study was conducted under the Federal 208 Continuing Planning Program
(Phase III) to provide a basis for effective actions toward reducing the
inflow of sediment into the Bay. The following were the objectives of this
study:
1. To develop an Early Action and Interim Sedimentation Control Plan for
Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek and its tributaries which would
provide early relief to the sedimentation problem in Upper Newport Bay
pending completion of the sedimentation analysis and the development of
a comprehensive stormflow sedimentation control plan.
2. To analyze and characterize the causes, nature, and extent of the
sedimentation problems adversely affecting Upper Newport Bay.
3. To develop a comprehensive watershed erosion and stormflow sediment
control plan, with emphasis on a downstream desilting system along San
Diego Creek that could be implemented in the near -term.
The Early Action Plan involved the construction of two in- channel debris
basins within the San Diego Creek flood control right- of -aay and an
excavated basin in the old salt evaporation pond areas within the Bay.
Sediment storage capacity is provided below the design invert elevations of
the flood control channel.
The in- channel basins provide approximately 175 acre -feet of sediment
storage capacity and are expected to reduce by approximately 2911 the
average annual sediment inflow into the Bay when operating at full trap
efficiency. The excavated basin has a capacity of 320 acre -feet, and it is
estimated that it will trap an additional 25% of the sediment that enters
the Bay.
Construction of this project took place between April and November of 1982
at a total cost of approximately 53.7 million. Funding was provided
through grants from the Energy and Resources Fund, State Assistance Pro-
gram, and the Department of Fish and Game with matching funds provided by
-93-
the City of Newport Beach. The Orange County Flood Control District has
the responsibility for maintaining these basins.
As an additional component of the Early Action and Interim Sedimentation
Control Plan, Orange County and Irvine in cooperation with SCAG, conducted
studies on, respectively, Agricultural Best Management Practices and
Construction Best Management Practices for the 'Watershed. The results of
the studies were developed into Phase II 208 Amendments, formally adopted
by SCAG into the 208 Plan for the South Coast Region in October of 1982,
_and certified by the State and the U.S. EPA in February of 1983. various
commitments in the form of resolutions and revised ordinances and
administrative procedures were obtained from the jurisdictions in the
Newport Bay Watershed. The Comprehensive Plan, or Phase III 208, is
further extension of the Phase II recommendations on land managment
practices.
As indicated by the sediment sources analysis, agricultural and
construction - related activities are significant contributors of sediment in
the Watershed.
Sediment yield from a watershed is the result of the interaction of two
considerations. The first consideration is the supply of sedimen
originating from upslope areas which enters the stream system. Thi:
includes sediment contributed by sheet and rill erosion, gully erosion and
landslides. The second consideration is the transport of sediment through
the stream system. The fine sediment is usually transported by the stream
without much deposition. In contrast, the transport of coarser sediment is
dependent on the transport capacity of flows in the channels.
Changes in land use over historical times have accelerated the processes of
erosion and sediment transport. The lands in the study areas were parts of
three Spanish ranches and used primarily for cattle grazing. More
extensive commercial agriculture became important after 1900 and extensive
drainage and irrigation development began.
Land use in the watershed has become progressively more i-rtensive in the
years since 1930. This more intensive use relates to agricultural use as
well as urban use.
When the natural cover in the watershed is removed for agricultural
purposes, especially for clean - cultivated crops, the land becomes more
susceptible to sheet and rill erosion. With the provision of drainage
ditches, both local and trunk, this eroded material is more efficiently
transported through the watershed and sedimentation tends to occur in the
lower reaches of the watershed rather than locally. The delivery of
sediment into Upper Newport Bay was undoubtedly greatly increased with the
improved channelization of the outlet of San Diego Creek into the Bay in
the 1960's.
When urban development occurs, there is a limited period during the
construction phase when the land is highly susceptible to erosion.
However, when these urban developments mature with paved surfaces,
landscaping and stabilized channels, sediment production is greatly reduced
as compared with natural conditions.
-94-
Sediment production in the watershed was estimated on the basis of five
land use categories: agriculture, open space, urban, rurual (low- density
residential development), and construction areas.
At present (1979 -80 data) (figure 2), the approximate percentages of
various land use categories in the watershed are:
Agriculture - 23 percent
Urban - 47 percent
Open Space - 28 percent
Construction - 2 percent
100 '
Under anticipated ultimate land use conditions (Figure 3),
percentages were estimated as:
Urban - 81 percent
Rural - 8 percent
Open Space - 11 percent
100
these
No land under ultimate conditions was assumed to be in agricultural use.
However, the City of Irvine General Plan indicates an area of about 4,000
acres in permanent agriculture. This reservation was prompted by the noise
problem related to the E1 Toro Marine Base. On the basis that changed
conditions in the future may cause changed attitudes as to the need for
this agricultural reserve, the analysis for sediment production and
delivery assumes that it will eventual:y be in urban use.
The sediment source analysis yielded the following conclusions:
o Significantly greater quantities of sediment are produced in
foothill areas. This is largely due to the relatively steep slopes
in these areas.
o Construction areas have the highest sediment production rate,
followed by agricultural, open space, and urban areas.
o Total sediment production under existing land use condition5'appears
to indicate that open space and agricultural areas produce similar
quantities of sediment. However, this is only because more of the
open space areas are in the steeper foothills.
o The average rate of sediment production from urban areas is higher
under ultimate land use conditions. This is because in the future
more urban development will occur in the foothills.
o Total sediment production for the basin as a whole is less under
ultimate conditions. This is because construction and agriculture,
both high sediment-producing land uses, were assumed to be
eliminated under ultimate land use conditions.
-95-
e •
r 1
1
Ni
w
w
w
uj
- ..
CIO
Ir
LU
UJ
it
Cyr. -
> C u
ul
C3 m Cc z
=3 ¢ U 7 z
jr V,
i LU
o
•
z
............
. .........
CIL
ui Iq -1 .......
LU
cr
_jw LLJ
Mz
0 LU
>
UJ
LU
LU a z
C LU
�: 0- in LLJ >-
0 ul 0 Z cc
_j Lu— Mm
w Z <0 LL co
Z Z > Mo
z ulz
m m M a
cc cc
D LUE5-j <0
z Ul
m 0. a. 3:m
LU
ui
z
W
co
LU
z
............
. .........
CIL
ui Iq -1 .......
LU
cr
_jw LLJ
Mz
0 LU
>
UJ
LU
LU a z
C LU
�: 0- in LLJ >-
0 ul 0 Z cc
_j Lu— Mm
w Z <0 LL co
Z Z > Mo
z ulz
m m M a
cc cc
D LUE5-j <0
z Ul
m 0. a. 3:m
Without any measures instituted to manage the sediment in the watershed,
forseeable changes 4ould occur. As clay and silt continues to accumulate,
the Upper Say will become a mud flat, and eventually sand will reac'n t'ne
Lower Bay during large storms. The seven elements of the Comprehensive
Plan, set forth in this amendment, are intended to prevent these
undesirable changes from occurring.
Ma
PLAN ELEMENT A: IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
LNTRODUCTI
Agricultural lands currently contribute approximately 41 percent, or 54,000
tons, of the sediment produced in the watershed on an average annual basis.
This element is intended to decrease sediment production from agricultural
lands and thus reduce costs of sediment removal from downstream channels,
sedimentation basins, and Newport Bay. Downstream structural measures will
still be needed to manage the sediment produced, but maintenance costs will
be reduced as the effectiveness of land management practices is' improved.
Under ultimate land use conditions it is anticipated that nearly all
agricultural lands in the watershed, except for approximately 4,000 acres
around E1 Toro .Marine Base in Irvine, will be converted to urban uses.
Consequently, under "ultimate" land use condition, agricultural lands are
considered to be a less significant contributor of sediment.
FINDINGS
1. Current Application of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
At the present time, Best Management Practices
varying degrees on agricultural land throughout
high erosion hazard areas in the foothills a s
"Erosion Hazard Map" (Figure 4), each field has
BMPs applied, with an average of about six.
hazard areas in the foothills, each field has
BMPs appli -d, with an average of about five.
(BMPs) are in place in
the watershed. In the
identified on the SCS
between four and seven
On the moderate erosion
between three and seven
These
almost entirely for the production of oranges, lemons,
About one -half of the area is planted on the contour
areas
and
and
percent is irrigated with drip irrigation systems. Other
general use are crop residue use, cover and green manure
stabilization structures, grassed waterways and terraces.
are used
avocados.
about 90
BMPs in
crops, grade
In the Valley area 'with less erosion hazard, each field has between one
and seven BMPs applied, with an average of more than three. BMPs in
general use are crop residue use, permanent furrows in orchards,
irrigation water management including drip irrigation, grade stabili-
zation structures, grassed waterways, and floodwater diversions. Most
of the orchards in the valley area have heavy canopy which provides
protection from direct rainfall impact.
Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan.
The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA), in March,
1981, completed a study report entitled, "Newport Bay 'Watershed:
Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control Plan" which
identifies agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and recommends
a management plan. An inventory was made of BMPs now being applied on
each field, and the effectiveness of these practices was evaluated.
Erosion problem areas requiring additional BMPs were identified, such
as: orchard access roads, orchards with weed -free nontillage and slopes
..
r
W
j /
r,
l
r-
�J
s�
.S1
`•rte � ` ~+1•.
0
�s
0
� J
0 .y
LU u F-
X L1 E`t.,
O
Y a°
W
F- b
G ILI G3 'C
I- U J
UJ W >
Ca } 4
z
1
S ' • ^I
0
r .p tr�• ti� ^` may. ,/
i
1�t� � �... ^- • \�'-C .' •Y�i 1: % lam' _ ` - '"
i�\ e
ua
U
rS
L'1
d)
7_
O
h
4
}
a
u
fn
Z
O
U
J
a
oi
W
U
O
co
ca
�J
0
W
0
r
t+l
greater than 1-1/210, and some old orchards ,4hich were planted down the
slope. Other problem areas include bare, rough, and smooth tilled
fields, compacted strawberry furrows, flooding from the upper water -
shed, and stream bank and invert erosion.
3. Administrative Actions to Date
As a result of a U.S. EPA Certified 208 Phase II Amendment, "Newport
Bay Watershed Agricultural Activities Interim Sedimentation Control
Plan ", the City of Irvine was designated as a management agency by the
State Water Resources Control Board. The City, through local
ordinances, would encourage and enforce the implementation of a
management strategy to mitigate sedimentation in Upper .Newport Bay.
This was to include the development of resource conservation plans
(RCPs) and the implementation of these plans to obtain accelerated
application of best management practices (BMPs) on agricultural areas.
The City of Irvine is finalizing its ordinance to implement the
recommendations in the SCAG 208 Amendment. The City of Newport Beach
has indicated through a resolution its support of the recommendations,
but has virtually no agricultural lands within its jurisdiction.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors, on April -12, 1983, adopted
Resolution No. 83 -34 to implement the recommendations in the SCAG
Phase II Amendment. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Agreement was drawn
up between Orange County and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The County is requesting landowners to prepare RCPs
according to a specific timetable, following guidelines set forth in
the 208 Amendment. The County will prepare a tr.i- annual report on the
progress of BMP implementation to be submitted to the Regional Board.
The Regional Board will assist the County in review of the RCPs and in
monitoring their implementation.
ACTIONS
1. The City of Irvine and the County of Orange shall adopt ordinances re-
quiring landowners to prepare RCPs. The ordinances shall give first
priority to preparation of RCPs for areas with high' erosion hazard
areas as identified on the SCS "Erosion Hazard Map ". RCPs for these
areas shall be submitted by November 1983 and implemented by November
1984.
RCPs for the other remaining areas shall be submitted by November 1984
and implemented by November 1985.
The ordinances shall require landowners to submit annual reports on the
progress of RCP preparation and implementation.
2. The RCPs shall be prepared by the USDA, Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), or a registered Agricultural Engineer. The RCPs shall include:
o A land use map indicating fields by number for identification.
o Identification of soil types and slope characteristics of each field
which would indicate the inherent erosion potential.
-101-
o A list of 'OMPs presently in place.
o A narrative statement o` the erosion prableans, if any, in each ,f
the fields.
Priority shall be given to providing solutions to the problem areas
identified in the CCE4A Report.
The following SNPs are specified:
(1) Develop access roads in foothill orchards along the -ridge and
closer to the contour to provide access, safety and erosion
control. Provide waterways adjacent to the roads.
(2) Grass tail ditches from nontillage orchards in recognized
problem areas.
(3) Mulch old valencia orange orchards with slopes greater than
1 -1/2 percent in recognized problem areas only.
(4) Switch orchards, especially on the steeper slopes, to drip
irrigation where econcmically feasible.
(5) Install filter strips around low ends of bare fields.
(6) Construct valley sediment control basins rather than individual
field basins.
(7) Employ, where possible, double- cropping in the winter with an
associated change in the rotation of the crops.
(8) Provide erosion susceptible winter -bare fields with temporary
debris basins.
(9) Install drop boxes and /or chutes with votective lining on
fields where the present means of conveyance to the drainage
ditch is producing erosion.
In addition, for winter conditions, priority shall be given to SMPs,
such as:
(1) Crop residue use
(2) Cover and green manure crops
(3) Conservation cropping for soil conservation and erosion control
on all lands
(4) Contour planting
(5) Terraces
(o) Planned access roads
-102-
(7) Stabilized waterways on the steeper slopes
Second priority shall be given to BMPs which are site - specific and
include:
(1) Channel stabilization measures
(Z) Streambank protection
(3) Diversions
(4) Grassed waterdays '
(5) Improved irrigation water management
(6) Range management
In addition, Appendix A provides a listing of resource management sub -
systems/BMPs and the component conservation practices specific for each
of the agricultural land uses in the 'Watershed. RCPs shall include a
list of BMPs recommended from the list in Appendix A and a schedule of
implementation.
3. The County of Orange and the City of Irvine shall monitor the progress
of RCP preparation and BMP implementation, and submit progress reports
to the Santa Ana Regional 'Water Quality Control Board (SAR'WQGB). The
progress reports shall list plans that have been prepared during the
period, and the agricultural land user's self - established time schedule
for BMP implementation (but not later than the dates set in the
ordinance).
The reports shall also include:
o The percentages of each erosion hazard area for which RCPs have been
prepared
o The adequacy of the RCPs
o An update of the extent of implementation of BMPs for each RCP that
has been prepared
o A technical evaluation of the effectiveness of the RCPs applied
o A determination of additional BIMPs required
o Schedules and /or criteria, if applicable
The completed RCPs will be subject to approval by the City /County.
4. The California State Water Resources Control Board (CS',JRCB) shall
withdraw its designation of the County /City as management agencies if,
in its opinion, the County /City is not successful in implementing an
effective agricultural sedimentation control strategy.
-103-
5. If the CS'WRCB withdraws its designation of the County/City, the SAP'gQC3
shall, based on its existing authorities under the Porter - Cologne Act,
establish limitations on the amount of sediment discharged frcn
specific water conveyance structures to the waters of the State. I`
will require that the landowners obtain National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPOES) Permits which will implement this 203 Pian
and require installation of specific Bh1Ps included herein, and
monitoring of the results. The SAR'WQC3 shall issue clean -up orders for
violations, hold a regulatory Board hearing and refer cases of
noncompliance to the Attorney General for enforcement and collections
of monetary damages.
-104-
PLAN ELEMENT B: IMPROVED CONSTRUCTION
LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
Lands under construction are estimated to contribute approximately 15
percent, or 19,500 tons, of the sediment produced in the watershed on an
average annual basis. When urban development occurs, there is a limited
period during the construction phase when the land is highly susceptible to
erosion. On average, these construction sites are the highest producers of
sediment, with approximately 9,200 tons /sq. mile produced in the foothill
areas, and 6,000 tons /sq. mile produced in the valley areas. sigh erosion
rates on construction sites occur only during a limited period. Local
jurisdictions, through either their grading or zoning codes, require
developers to stabilize all constructed slopes and open space with land-
scaping. During the construction phase, land management practices will
decrease sediment production from these areas, resulting in reduced costs
of sediment removal from downstream channels, sedimentation basins, and
Newport Bay. Downstream structural measures will still be needed to manage
the sediment produced, but maintenance costs and most environmental impacts
to the Bay will be reduced as the effectiveness of land ;management
practices is improved.
FINDINGS
Construction Activities Best Management Plan and 208 Phase II Amendment
The City of Irvine in 1981 completed a report on the Newport Bay
Watershed entitled "Construction Activities Best Management Practices
Plan for Sediment Control ", that investigated reducing sediment
produced at construction sites through the application of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs consist of structural measures
used at sites described in the Report, and nonstructural measures
involving administrative and regulatory processes.
Based on a review of applicable BMPs and their present use, twenty-
seven practices are recommended for occasional -to- frequent use, ranging
from sandbags and silt fences to dust control and temporary sediment
traps. Four of the practices are now used only rarely in the
watershed: silt fences, level spreaders, vegetation protection, and
topsoiling. The Soil Conservation Service also recommends that the use
of vegetation protection and topsoiling be encouraged.
Current Requirements for Construction Site MPs
The three major jurisdictions in the Watershed- -the cities of Irvine
and Newport Beach and Orange County - -and the City of Costa Mesa,
maintain relatively uniform ordinances, standards, and procedures
requiring erosion control measures in connection with grading
activities. Erosion control plans are required by these jurisdictions
for any grading occurring between October 15 and April 15. Fees to
defray the costs of plan checks and inspections are paid by the
developers. Stop work orders are issued for violations of approved
-105-
i
plans.
Orange County's guidelines for erosion control plans in- .1 -ide t;ne
objective of minimizing the amount of sediment_ transported from
projects under active grading pen its to sensitive receiving waters.
The three major jurisdictions in the Watershed have grading manuals
and /or standards which accompany their grading ordinances. These
manuals are approved and adopted by the relevant governmental body
(Board of Supervisors, City Council) through a resolution. For
example, the Orange County Grading and Excavation Code Section 7 -1 -301,
Grading Manual, authorizes the Director of the Environmenzal Nanagement
Agency to formulate rules, procedures, and interpretations necessary to
carry out the provisions of the grading ordinances or codes. The
grading manuals can be amended only through resolution. A building
official (or City Engineer) has the authority to require of the
developer specifics regarding grading permits, etc., as stated in the
manual.
The City of Orange is applying an extensive set of standards in its
approach to erosion /sedimentation control. The success or failure of
this approach will have little effect on Newport Bay because the
drainage area within the City is small compared to the total Watershed.
The City of Tustin, which has a relatively large undeveloped foothill
area, does not have sedimentation control regulations.
The Irvine Company develops annual specific programs for control o`
erosion on construction sites within the Company's jurisdiction. The
purpose, as stated in the 1982 -83 Program, is, ". . . to comply with
the City /County ordinances, State law, and to fulfill the Company
commitment to control erosion and transportation of sediment from our
construction projects."
The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board reviews, aporoves,
and monitors erosion control plans for projects under the jurisdiction
of the County of Orange and the cities of Irvine and Newport Batch.
3. Administrative Actions To Date
As a result of the Phase II 208 Amendment, entitled "Upper Newport Bay
Watershed: Construction Activities Best Management Practices Plan ",
the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were designated as management
agencies by the State 'dater Resources Control Board. The cities are
responsible for carrying out the recommendations in the amendment,
including establishing requirements for sediment control plans,
training programs, and facilitating working relationships with
developers and contractors. Both cities passad resolutions in support
of the 208 Amendment in November of 1981. Newport Beach currer:tly has
a stringent ordinance regulating erosion from construction activities.
Irvine is in the process of finalizing its ordinance which will adhere
to the recommendations set forth in the 208 Phase II Plan Amend.�ent.
4. Due to the inherent limitations, estimated capital and maintenance
costs for improved construction land management practices cannot be
determined. This is because the extent and therefore the costs of the
BMPs that will be applied will be site- specific. The extensive
analysis required to obtain any useful cost information was not Nithin
the scope of this study.
ACTIONS
1. Cities in the watershed shall adopt water quality protection as a goal
of their grading ordinances.
2. The City of Tustin shall institute an erosion /sediment control program
at the earliest possible time.
3. The City of Irvine and Orange County shall enforce their grading
ordinances through the collection of debris deposits or other types of
bonds that are effective.
4. Jurisdictions shall include sediment reduction as an objective in
siting and building design approvals for developments in hillside
areas. The Hillside Slope Development Manual prepared by the City of
Irvine is an example of a way to achieve this objective.
The control of erosion on hillside areas shall include special
considerations such as the following:
o Fitting development to the particular topography, soils, waterways,
and natural vegetation at the site;
o Exposing only the smallest practical area of land for the shortest
possible time;
o Minimizing earth movement and establishing protective vegetative
cover after final grading;
o Locating buildings and driveways to minimize land disturbance, and
leaving steep slopes undisturbed;
o Including design features that would potentially minimize grading
requirements; and
o Locating, designing, and stabilizing drainage channels to prevent
erosion.
5. Jurisdictions in the Watershed shall incorporate a provision in their
grading ordinances that would require landowners to correct existing
significant erosion caused by construction activities.
6. Jurisdictions shall prohibit major land clearing except immediately
prior to grading and construction.
7. Jurisdictions issuing permits for erosion control plans shall implement
the following:
-107-
0
(a) Require that review, approval, acd inspection of eros4On,
control plans be by personnel trained in the application of
erosion control measures.
(b) Actively promote and participate in erosion control training
programs for their staff, such as those sponsored by SCS and
workshops conducted by organizations such as the Association of
Bay Area Governments and SCAG. The Santa Cruz County RCD has
developed successful training programs and guidelines for use
by other jurisdictions.
(c) Improve communication between plan checkers ' and site
inspectors.
(d) Require all plans to be site specific.
(e) Require more detailed analyses for sites with steep slopes
and /or highly erodible soils.
(f) During the rainy season, prohibit major grading on high erosion
hazard sites as identified an the SCS "Erosion Hazard %lap"
which, due to steep slopes and /or easily erodible soils, are
potentially high producers of silts and clays, unless it can be
demonstrated that the approved erosion control plan will be
effective in preventing transportation of substantial
quantities of silts and clays from the site.
8. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board shall maintain an
active supervisory role by performing periodic site inspections and by
requiring annual reports from local jurisdictions when water quality
goals are not being met.
0
•
PLAN ELEMENT C: THREE ADDITIOIAL IN- CHANNEL BASINS
INTRODUCTION
With land management practices applied to agricultural lands and construc-
tion sites at the present rate of intensity and effectiveness, and with the
"Early Action Plan" functioning, approximately 60,500 tons of sediment on
an average annual basis will be delivered to Upper Newport Bay frr:n the
Watershed. With the application of additional land management practices as
recommended, the amount of sediment %elivered to Upper Newport Bay would be
reduced. Ultimately, when the agricultural lands are de0eloped and
construction activities are relatively insignificant in the 'Watershed,
35,000 tons of sediment on an average annual basis will continue to be
delivered to Upper Newport Bay. The intent of this plan element is to trap
additional amounts of sediment upstream of the Bay so that less sediment is
discharged into the Bay.
FINDINGS
1. The installation of the two in- channel basins in San Diego Creek as
part of the "Early Action Plan" has been demonstrated to be an
effective partial solution to the problem of sediment inflow to Newport
Bay. During the 1982/83 rainy season these basins, with a combined
capacity of 282,000 cubic yards (175 acre -feet) below the invert
elevation of the San Diego Creek flood control channel, trapped large
amounts of sediment that would otherwise have discharged into Newport
Bay. However, it was also demonstrated during this season of high
runoff that additional basin capacity is required to assure effective
trap efficiencies during major storms.
2. The three additional in- channel basins, when combined with the two
existing in- channel basins (Figure 5), will intercept 32,800 tons of
sediment on an average annual basis, thus reducing the average annual
inflow into Newport Bay to 52,700 tons.
3. Sediment deposition in in- channel basins will result in less frequent
disturbance of the Ecological Reserve for sediment removal.
4. Additional in- channel basins would be the most cost - effective
structural measures for downstream control of all sand particles and a
portion of the silt particles. The cost for constructing three
additional in- channel basins is estimated to be $2 million.
5. The estimated costs of removal of sediment from in- channel basins is $3
per ton as compared to $7.50 per ton from the Bay. The average annual
maintenance costs for the basins would be $59,700 under existing land
use conditions. In the future, as sediment is reduced by the
recommended improved land management practices on agricultural lands
and construction sites, urbanization of agricultural lands,
stabilization of channels, and construction of some foothill basins,
less sediment will be deposited in these in- channel basins and in
Newport Bay, resulting in reduced maintenance costs. Under ultimate
-109 --
0
p .5 1 1.5 MILES
JOHN WAYNE
AIRPORT
ORANGE
COUNTY
e
0
MKI
_MAIN S
Lel
W m
I_lU
II 4
II O
fl
fR�`iD �
TREAT -ENT/ /
\ PLANT / ,
f�
e�
O /FGOO
J �- SIPHON
21
SAN CROSSING
JOACUIN
MARSHA gP
i
/ O2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFCRN1A
IRVINE
-O
LEGEND
PART I -
EARLY ACTIOM AND Ii4TIERM PLAN
UPPER
1O -
EXCAVATED BASIN
NEWPORT
2� O -
IN- CHANNEL BASINS
BAY
PART IIt-
PROPOSED
OOO- IM- CHA ?INEL BASINS
SOURCE: BOYLE ENGINEERING
�g ; q
Ld `` NS � t] AIAA
y^�� g
3 ig0�Ja eTS
land use conditions, the average anneal maintenance cost for the basins
is estimated at 518,600. These costs 'nave been extrapolated from the
actual contract costs for the "Early Action Plan" and from recent costs
Orange County has experienced in contracts for removal of sediment from
channels. These costs will vary widely depending on whether or not
there is a market for the deposited sediment.
ACTION
Install three additional in- channel basins in San Diego Creek channel
between the upstream "Early Action Plan" basin and the junction with Peters
Canyon Wash with a combined capacity of 273,000 tons (169 acre - feet). The
total in- channel basin capacity, when combined with the "Early .fiction
Plan ", will be 555,000 tons (344 acre - feet).
-111-
i
PLAN ELEMENT D: IN -BAY BASINS
INTP,ODUGTIG i
With land management practices applied to agricultural lands and construc-
tion sites at the present rate of intensity and effectiveness and the throe
in- channel basins constructed, approximately 52,700 tons of sediment on an
average_ annual basis will continue to be delivered to Newport Say. With
the application of additional land management practices, as recommended,
the amount of sediment delivered to Upper Newport Bay will be reduced. The
remaining sediment will consist of fine silt and clay particles that are
not conducive to entrapment in in- channel basins because of the relatively
short detention time. The in -bay basins are intended to localize the
deposition of sediment entering the Bay and facilitate its management.
FINDINGS
1. When stream flows mix with ocean waters to the -extent of one or 4,,q
parts or more ocean eater to 32 parts s tream water, the clay part-:
become cohesive. Eighty percent of the clay and fine silt_ part'
entering the Bay are retained in the natural basin between The Nar. o.,s
and the old salt works dike (Figure 5). This natural basin will
continue to fill with sediment and its effectiveness in trapping fine
sediment will diminish, resulting in deposition of sediment lower- in
the Bay.
2. As part of the "Early Action Plan" an excavated basin was constructed
in Upper Newport Bay imrediately downstream of Jamboree Road. The
basin has a surface area of 50 acres, a bottom elevation of -3.0 fe_t
mean sea level (MSL) and side slopes of 10:1. The amount of sediment
storage capacity below 0 ,MSL is about 142,000 tons (88 acre - feet). If
sediment is allowed to accumulate above 0 MSL, tidal movements into the
area will be inhibited, thus reducing coagulation, and deposition of
clay particles. It has been estimated that all of the-sand particles
and 20 percent of the silt and clay particles entering Upper Newport
Bay will be trapped by this basin. With the recommended additional
in- channel basins installed, approximately 14,000 tons of sediment will
be deposited in this basin on an average annual basis.
3. The combined sediment storage capacity in the Bay basins below 0 MSL
would be 445,000 tons (2766 acre - feet). With the installation of the
recommended in- channel and Bay basins it is estimated that 94 percent,
of the existing average annual sediment inflow of 85,500 tons to Upper
Newport Bay will be trapped.
4. The capital cost for the installation of the in -Bay basins is estimated
to be 53,525,000, with average annual maintenance costs of 5359,250
under existing conditions and $207,000 under ultimate conditions.
However, these costs will vary depending upon the locations of the
basins, the methods of remo ✓al and the availability of disposal sites.
0
SANTA ANA
DELHI CHANNEL
SANTA-
ISABELA
CHANNEL
SHELLMAKER
ISLAND
UPPER MLWPORT BAY
�N DIEGO
CREEK
rrr.!o- c
ACTIONS
1. Construct add it cnal basins in Upper Ne,,iport Say with a surface area of
approxi ,mately 54 acres. The basins ;hall have a depth of -4 feet MSI.
and 10:1 side slopes.
2. The additional basin or basins shall be located adjacent to the "Early
Action Plan" basin, or in the "natural basin," area between The Narrows
and the old salt works dike.
3. The exact location and configuration of the basin or basins shall be
compatible with the State Department of Fish and Game Managemint Plan
for the Ecological Reserve.
-114-
INTRODUCTION
0
PLAii ELEMENT E: CNs,:iNEI STABILIZATION
This element is intended to reduce the sediment originating in channels
within the Newport Bay Watershed. Under existing land use conditions, the
estimated average annual channel erosion is 38,800 tons, and under ultimate
conditions of development without channel stabilization measures, it is
estimated to be 90,700 tons. A large percentage of this eroded material is
composed of sand particles that will deposit in downstream channel reaches
or in the recommended in- channel sedimentation basins.
FINDINGS
1. Under existing land use conditions, with all channels stabilized, the
average annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Bay would be reduced by
at least 6,100 tons. Under ultimate land use conditions, the average
annual sediment inflow to Upper Newport Say would be reduced by at
least 17,400 tons with all channels stabilized.
Sediment produced from channel erosion increases the amount of sediment
discharged into the Bay, decreases channel capabilities, and increases
costs of deposition removal from downstream channels and the
recommended in- channel sedimentation basins.
Channels in undeveloped areas are difficult to .stabilize because the
ultimate location and type of drainage facility is a function of the
future abutting development. Neither private property owners nor
public agencies are willing to finance stabilization measures for
channels that are not permanent.
4. There are some existing channels in dedicated rights -of -way that are in
permanent locations that are not fully stabilized. Examples of this
condition are San Diego Creek from Upper Newport Bay to Culver Drive
and Peters Canyon Wash from the confluence with San Diego Creek to the
Santa Ana Freeway. The beds of these channels are not eroding, but the
sideslopes are not lined or vegetated and thus are subject to erosion.
5. Capital costs for channel stabilization have not been estimated.
However, they will be substantial. In the undeveloped areas, most of
the stabilization costs are expected to be borne by developers. The
costs of stabilizing existing dedicated channels will be dependent on
the extent and type of measures required. It is estimated that on an
average annual basis, removal of deposition from channels would cost
from $214,800 under existing conditions and from $3,300 under ultimate
conditions.
ACTIONS
1. Jurisdictions in the watershed (Figure 7) shall require as conditions
of approval for channel dedication that all channels be stabilized to
minimize sediment production within and adjacent to a proposed
development.
-115-
C-,., I "
n
zl�
'... L. ... I /
z
Iola
Ci
Oel
6".
LU
W
V13
.2
cc
M
O"D
2. Jurisdictions in the .watershed shall inspect existing dedicated
channels and inventory unstabilized conditions.
3. Jurisdictions shall prepare a lis: of dedicated channels requiring
improvements and shall establish priorities among these channels based
on the severity of erosion. +^aasures to be considered for stabilizing
channels shall include concrete lining, guniting, rock surfacing, or
vegetating side slopes and stabilizing flow lines by drop structures.
Consideration should also be given to correcting localized erosion at
bridge structures, drop structures and channel inlets.
-117-
PLAN ELPENT F: FOOTHILL EAaI`iS
INTRODUCTION
Installation of foothill basins reduces peak stormfi .ws and consequently
reduces erosion of unstabiliZed channels, decreases sediment transported
through the drainage system, and improves effectiveness of downstream
channel basins. However, sand particles trapped by the foothill basins
would tend to be replaced by sand particles eroded from unstabilized
channel sections downstream. A major economic ber:efit that would result
from installing foothill basins would be the reduction in costs for
downstream channel improvements. (See Figure S for location cf potential
foothill basin sites.)
FINDINGS
1. The installation of foothill basins will be beneficial for both
sediment control and flood control.
2. It is not probable that many of these basins .will be installed in the
near -term because their economic justification will be related to
downstream urban development.
3. The County of Orange has prepared
localized areas of the Watershed.
tion Corridor is being planned.
a number of master drainage plans for
In addition, a Foothill Transporta-
4. The cost for the installation of foothill basins (excluding costs for
land rights and relocation of utilities) is estimated to be S10,37S,S00
under ultimate conditions. These figures are based on estimates that
were made for previous studies of the basins. Capital costs
attributable to flood control as opposed to sediment management have
not been assigned.
ACTIONS
1. Pmend and /or adopt local master drainage plans for regional facilities
in the Watershed to include sediment control by installation of foot-
hill basins.
2. Coordinate the construction of foothill basins with the proposed
Foothill Transportation Corridor.
3. Foothill basins constructed for flood control purposes shall include
capacity for sediment control.
-178-
r
`-,' ` -
O
z1J Uj
Uj
W
J
C]
1
O z \ w
mom_
� W
S
NOANVO
� -••• 3NVNS3'111`!kf �
O \
�i•
J
y
O O
z z
Z
0
r
z
C
U
N
C
w
w
d
Z
0
r
z
Q
U
N
C
w
H
w
G
2
O
r_
U
w
Y
G
z
cn
W
J
F-
G
C
Z
0
r
Z
C
U
lit
U Z U U
N !
Y Y Z Z
w O O
G O O O
U C7 Z
W G C
G C C
0 C C C
U O w W
G d N '.I]
�cl,sl?���G15
L�
r
L
Sa3t3d
.
Fwi
L^m
z
O
C3 O o z z
Y Y
W W
w w
Lu
r z ¢
r r o
Z O Z Z r U
¢ r ¢ < z
C C
U U
q
lid
U Z U U
N !
Y Y Z Z
w O O
G O O O
U C7 Z
W G C
G C C
0 C C C
U O w W
G d N '.I]
�cl,sl?���G15
L�
r
•
r�
L
PLA;d ELEMENT G: SEOI.IENT MONITORING
NTRODUCTION
A comprehensive sediment_ monitoring program within the tatershed and
Newport Bay is essential to verify the results of this study, to determine
the effectiveness of installation of the recommended structural measures,
and to assess the effect of changing land uses on sediment production.
FINDINGS
1. Monitoring of sediment transport in channels in the 'Watershed can be
based on established procedures developed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). In 1932 the USGS contracted with the Cities of Newport 3each
and Irvine, and The Irvine Company for a sediment monitoring program in
the channels upstream of Upper Newport Bay. Monitoring of sedimen`
transport, deposition, and scour in Newport Bay will be complex an.
costly.
2. Since sediment production is a function of storm return periods, a time
span of 10 years or more may be required to obtain useful data.
3. The upstream monitoring cost is estimated to be 534,000 under both
existing and ultimate conditions. This cost estimate is based on the
current USGS contract. The estimated cost of the recc,,,mended Say
monitoring has not been determined.
ACTIONS
1. Continue the monitoring program established with the U.S. Geological
Survey. This program shall include operation of continual stream gage
and daily suspended - sediment stations at representative locations,
collection of samples of sediment deposits from installed sedim entaticn
basins, and maintenance of records on volumes of material removed from.
sedimentation basins.
2. The Department of Fish and Game shall establish a monitoring program
for Upper Newport Bay. The first priority shall include regular
hydrographic surveys, topographic maps, and measurements of cross -
sections of the channels at intervals of 5 to 10 years. If it is found
that the management plan proposed by the Department requires prediction
of suspended solids concentration or rates of deposition or erosion, it
would be necessary to construct a model.
0
SUvWRY OF RECUMMENDED ACTIONS: SCHEDULE AND COSTS
A. Improved Agricultural Land Management Practices
Resource Conservation Plans (RCPs) for improved agricultural land
management practices (BMPs) are recommended for completion and_imple-
mentation as follows:
o High erosion areas
o Remaining areas
Landowners /users complete
RCPs by Nov. 1983
Implement BMPs by fIov. 1984
Landowners /users complete
RCPs by Nov. 1984
Implement BMPs by Nov. 1985
B. Improved Construction Land Management Practices
The recommended actions for the major jurisdictions in the watershed
(Irvine, Newport Beach, and Irvine, unless otherwise noted) should be
implemented as follows:
o City of Tustin - institute
an erosion /sediment control
program.
o Grading ordinance changes
(a) Water quality protection
(b) Debris deposits or bonds
(c) Correction of existing erosion
(d) Prohibition of major land
clearing in advance of grading
(e) Prohibition of grading on high
erosion hazard sites during
rainy season.
o Other Administrative Procedures
o Erosion control training programs
C. Install Three Additional In- Channel Basins
By Sept. 1984
By Sept. 1984
By Sept. 1984
Begin Jan. 1, 1984
The "Early Action Plan" basins are completed and functioning. However,
the recommended additional basins will provide improved effective trap
efficiencies during major storms. Construction of these basins can be
accomplished in phases, and will require implementing and funding
agreements as follows:
o Cooperative Agreement Oct. 1, 1983
o Implementing Agreement July 1, 1984
-121-
E
o Construction of Basins
D. Install In -Bay Basins
Begin May 1, 1985
Complete all basins by 1938
The primary purpose of the In -Bay Basins is to localize the deposition
of sediment and to facilitate its management. The basin constructed
below Jamboree Road, as part of the "Early Action Plan," will trap
approximately 20 percent of the silt and clay particles flowing into
the Bay. Construction of the recommended additional basins can be
accomplished in phases, but will require implenenting and funding
agreements and coordination with the Department of Fish wand Game
Management Plan for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
o Adoption of Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve Management Plan Jan. 1, 1984
o Cooperative Agreement Oct. 1, 1983
o Implementing Agreement July 1, 1984
o Construction of Basins Begin May 1, 1935
Complete by 1990
E. Channel Stabilization
Stabilization of channels in undeveloped areas should be required as a
condition of development approval. Stabilization of existing channels
in dedicated rights -of -way should be accomplished by the public juris-
dictions requiring special funding.
o Undeveloped areas
Jurisdictions require
stabilization of channels as
a condition of dedication.
c Dedicated channels
Inventory of required measures
Installation of stabilization
measures
F. Foothill Basi
November 1933
July 1, 1984
Begin July 1, 1934
Complete 1983
Construction of foothill basins will result in reduced costs for do:1n-
stream channel improvements, and will result in significant reductions
of sediment production when downstream channels are stabilized.
o Incorporation into local October 1935
master drainage plans
o Construction' Concurrent with
-177-
stabilization of downstream
channels
G. Monitoring
A monitoring program for the channels, conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey, was started in 1982. The local funding is shared by the cities
of Irvine and Newport Beach, and The Irvine Company. It is recommended
that this monitoring as well as a Bay monitoring program be included in
a cooperative agreement.
o Cooperative Agreement Oct. 1, 1983
o Bay Monitoring
Develop program Jan. 1, 1984
Implement program July 1, 1984
-123-
PROJECT I.7?PLE;,ENTATIO,4 AND FUNDING
Implementation of the recommended actions will require funding for the
installation of the proposed measures and for.their continued maintenance.
To provide equitable financing of the capital investment and maintenance
costs requires recognition of both the sources of sediment being deposited
in Upper Newport Bay and the benefits that will accrue to public and pri-
vate interests of preventing further degradation and /or restoring desirable
conditions in the Bay.
The average annual amounts of sediment produced by land uses under existing
conditions of land use management in the Watershed are summarized as
follows:
Types of benefits that will accrue from the implementation of the recto -
mended Plan and some of the beneficiaries are:
Types of Benefits
o Protection and enhancement of the
Bay as a wildlife habitat
o Maintenance of design capacities
of flood control channels
o Improved aesthetic values of
Upper Newport Bay
o Protection of recreational and
commercial uses of Upper and
Lower Newport Bay
A. Potential Implementor
Beneficiaries
State Dept. of Fish Game, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Orange County Flood Control
District
Adjacent property owners in City
of Newport Beach, motorists and
visitors
Boat and slip owners, Orange County
Harbor District, City of Newport
Beach, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Implementation of the recommended actions must be accomplished by one
or more of the public agencies with jurisdiction in the Watershed with
the cooperation and participation of the Irvine Ccmpany, the major
landowner. The public agencies with jurisdiction in the basin are:
City of Newport Beach
City of Irvine
-124-
Sediment
Produced
Percent
Land Use
1,000 Tons
of Total
Open Space
56.5
42.0
Agricultural
54.6
41.0
Urban
3.3
2.0
Construction
19.5
15.0
133.9
100.0
Types of benefits that will accrue from the implementation of the recto -
mended Plan and some of the beneficiaries are:
Types of Benefits
o Protection and enhancement of the
Bay as a wildlife habitat
o Maintenance of design capacities
of flood control channels
o Improved aesthetic values of
Upper Newport Bay
o Protection of recreational and
commercial uses of Upper and
Lower Newport Bay
A. Potential Implementor
Beneficiaries
State Dept. of Fish Game, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Orange County Flood Control
District
Adjacent property owners in City
of Newport Beach, motorists and
visitors
Boat and slip owners, Orange County
Harbor District, City of Newport
Beach, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Implementation of the recommended actions must be accomplished by one
or more of the public agencies with jurisdiction in the Watershed with
the cooperation and participation of the Irvine Ccmpany, the major
landowner. The public agencies with jurisdiction in the basin are:
City of Newport Beach
City of Irvine
-124-
City of Costa Mesa
City of Santa Ana
City of Tustin
County of Orange
Orange County Harbor District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
State Department of Fish and Game
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The portions of the cities of Costa Mesa, Santa Ana and Tustin within
the Watershed are mostly developed, and consequently are not signifi-
cant sediment sources. The Orange County Harbor District, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although having
interests in the basin, are not staffed or constituted to --".ement
either the construction or maintenance aspects of the proposed pi-an.
The cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, and the
State Department of Fish and Game can most logically implement the
various elements of the Plan. The State Department of Fish and Grime is
the. owner of the ecological reserve where the in -Bay element of the
Plan will be installed, and the Orange County Flood Control District is
the owner of the San Diego Creek channel .There the in- channel sedimen-
tation element of the Plan will be constructed, and ;there most of the
channel deposition occurs. The District removes sediment deposits from
this channel as well as from other major channels in the County.
As a joint powers agency could not include The Irvine Cc*npany, which is
not a public agency, cooperative agreements are proposed. In addition,
cooperative agreements would preclude the need for the State legisla-
ture to adopt legislation in order for the State Department of Fish and
Game to be a party to them.
Construction and maintenance costs of the recemmen.ded actions should be
assigned on the basis of sediment, the benefits to be received by con-
trolling the sediment deposits in the Bay and the flood control chan-
nels, and channel maintenance practices for other watersheds within the
County.
An equitable share of the costs to be borne by public agencies would be
the portion represented by sediment produced from "natural conditions."
Except for the foothills, most of the Watershed has been disturbed by
man. Since man has constructed channels and converted large portions of
the Watershed to agricultural and urban uses, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to determine the amount of sediment that would have reached
the Bay before the man -made changes. However, the construction of man-
made ditches and the improvement of natural channels provided an effi-
cient means of transporting sediment produced in the foothills to Upper
Newport Bay. Forty -two percent of the sediment produced is fran open
space, which has not been significantly changed by man. Therefore, a
reasonable allocation would be to assign to the public agencies costs
for management of sediment produced from open space, and to the land-
owners .ne costs 'or Tanaoement of sea -.'meat oroduced by
-19r-
I
lands and construction sites.
In addition to funding the capital and
recommended actions, it is important that
Watershed bind themselves together for the
aspects of the recommendations, evaluating
ness of the various elements, and to crea
cussion.
Cooperative Agreements
1. Umbrella Cooperative Agreement
maintenance aspects of the
the various entities in the
purposes of implementing all
and assessing the effective -
ting a forum for public dis-
The purposes of the "umbrella," or initial, cooperative agreement
are to adopt and implement the recommended actions and evaluate and
assess their effectiveness; assure uniformity of erosion control
ordinances and applications of agricultural and construction land
management practices; create a public forum for discussion of
Watershed sedimentation problems; and maintain and fund sediment
monitoring programs for the Watershed and the Bay.
The parties to the Umbrella Agreement would be:
o County of Orange
o City of Irvine
o City of Newport Beach
o State Department of Fish and Game
o The Irvine Company
The Umbrella Agreement should also establish a policy committee
that would meet at least semiannually and would be responsible for
determining whether adequate and reasonable progress is being made
in implementing the recommended actions. A copy of the Umbrella
Agreement is included as Appendix B to this amendment.
2. Implementing Agreements
The purpose of the Implementing Agreements would be to fund the
construction and maintenance of the recommended three in- channel
sedimentation basins and the in -Bay basin or basins. This purpose
could be accomplished with either one or two agreements.
The parties to the implementing agreements would be:
o County of Orange
o City of Irvine
o City of Newport Beach
o State Department of Fish and Game
o The Irvine Company
Orange County will act as lead agency for
The State Department of Fish and Game will
in -Bay basins. Removal of sediment from
channel basins will �e the resoonsi�ility
-126-
the in- channel basins.
be lead agency for the
channels and from in-
of the Orange -ounty
Flood Control District.
to
The Implementing Agreements should provide for a technical advisory
committee to make recommendations on technical aspects of imple-
menting the proposed actions.
Based on the sources of the sediment produced, the various benefits
derived, the ownership of the ecological reserve, and the present
policies for sediment removal, the capital and maintenance costs
for the in- channel and in. -Bay elements of the Plan should be
assigned as shown on Table 2, Percentage Allocation of Implemen-
tation Costs.
Efforts should be made by the parties to secure grants as they
become available. The grants can be justified as a means of paying
for some of the overriding public benefits which have been
enumerated but not assigned a cost share in the formula. Funds
received from these sources could be used to reduce the local
contributions recommended.
Funding of the other elements of the Plan should be as follows:
Element
o -Improve agricultural land
management practices
o Improve construction land
management practices
o Channel stabilization:
o Undeveloped channels
o Dedicated channels
o Foothill basins
0 Capital Cost
o Sediment removal
Fundina
Landowner
Landowner
Developer
Public agencies having
jurisdiction
Downstream beneficiary of
cost savings resulting
from reduced channel
sizes
Public agencies responsible
for removal of sediment
from downstream facilities
A summary of the estimated capital and maintenance costs for
implementation, of the Plan is shown in Table 3.
-127-
TABLE 2
PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
PERCENT OF
ENTITY SOURCE OF SEDIMENT .COSTS
In -Bay Basins -- Capital and Maintenance Costs
a Department of Fish and Game, City of Open Space.
Newport Beach, and Orange County
Harbor District
o Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, Urban Areas
and County of Orange
o Landowners Construction Sites
o Landowners Agricultural Sites
TOTAL
In- Channel Basins -- Capital Cost
o Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, and
County of Orange
o Landowners
o Landowners
TOTAL
Open Space and Urban
Areas
Construction Sites'
Agricultural Lands
Sediment Removal from Channels and from In- Channel Basins
o Orange County
-128-
42
2.5
14.5
41
100
44.5
14.5
41
100
100
W
F
0
0
-129-
In
a
.d+
o
S W
q
2
Q V
J
W G
¢ w
v
o
d
CL Y-
y
u
O
W Z'
rndl
y
O
O
O
O
O
q^
£
Y
u
b
C
N
Kl
4ll
Of
Q
41
C)
'
X q
W
W
M
N
W �
•9
Y
W
a
u
u
O
d
O
O
2
G
Z
Z
C
N
d
N
d
>
�
V
O
N
I
C
cc
u
i
Y
u
O
N
u
n
^ •+ O
Y
O
O
a
��
NUOI
u
u
Y
E
u
C
L
"!
W U.
O
D
M
O
W
v
O
✓�
q
z
z
z
�
iC
q
C
3
a
C
q
q
L
d
W
N
N
O
N
N
u
C
CJ
d
O
t
^
C
y
L
q
L
K
V
U
O
O
q
L
q
L
O
C
•
G�
N
S
d
d
q
C
a
Y
R
Gl
Cl
N
P
N
q
q
N
Y
C
n
H
n
Y
q
q
C
^ Y
I
d
ti
Ol
J
J
q
C^
V
N
q
G
L-
1
-129-
r. EXHIBIT C
Exhibit
Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control Facilities
This Exhibit identifies the Sediment Control Facilities (Table 1) to
be constructed as part of the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement Program
(Figure 1). These facilities are designed to localize the deposition
of fine sediments delivered from San Diego Creek. At the same time
they will provide benefits to the fish and wildlife resources of the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve.
The construction of the Sediment Control Facilities is phased in two
units (Tables 2 and 3) . Implementation of both units will be required
_ to provide efficient sediment capture and protect the wildlife values
of the Bay.
Following construction of Units I and II periodic maintenance will be
required to maintain the efficiency of the system. Maintenance
operations will be insL-ituted when the average invert elevation of
either the saltworks basin or the "Narrows" channel reach -1.0 MLLW
( -4.0 MSL). This elevation has been selected as the trigger for
initiating maintenance operations to insure the preservation of fish
and wildlife values associated with lower intertidal and subtidal
elevations. At this elevation, the saltworks basin will have a
capacity of 150,000 cu. yds. while the "Narrows" channel will have a
capacity of 130,000 cu, yds.
Maintenance dredging may not be required more often than once every
five years. This is an estimate based upon projections contained in
the 208 Sediment Source and Delivery Analysis prepared by Boyle
Engineering. With installation of three additional upstream
facilities the Boyle report indicates that approximately 50,000 cu. yds.
of sediment will be delivered to the bay on an average annual basis.
If the in -bay facilities were 100s effective, maintenance would be
required every five years. Boyle though has calculated that the
saltworks basin is only 30% effective indicating that maintenance
would not be required more frequently than once every 7 to 10 years.
Periodic maintenance based upon the criteria outlined above may
require the removal of approximately 250,000 cu. yds. of material.
Based upon 1984 cost estimated for hydraulic dredging and ocean
disposal ($7.50 /cu. yd.), this would require the expenditure.of
approximately $1,875,000.
Figure 3 provides a phased implementation schedule for construction
and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities.
-130-
-131-
Table 1
UN ➢ER Sediment Management /Enhancement
Project; Quantity
and Cost Estimates*
Element
Cubic Yards
Rate
Cost
A. Saltworks Improvements
A -1 Island Removal
41,000
$3.50
$ 143,000
A -2 Deepen basin to -4.0 MLLW
330,000
$5.00
$1,650,000
A -3 35+ acre expansion
290,000
$4,00
$1,162,000 .
6611000
$2,955,000
B_ Channel widening saltworks
- main dike; 500 feet wide
to -0.0 MLLW
100,000
$5.00
$ 500,000
C. Subtid�l Channel Main Dike
-
- Narrows: 500 feet wide to
-4.0 MLLW+
330,000
$7.50
$2,475,000
D. Remove 1,000 foot section
of main dike
26,000
$5.00
$ 130,000
E. Down -bay dredging to provide
dredge access+
50,000
$7.50
$ 375,000
Project Totals
1,167,000
$6,435,000
*Costs based on 1984 estimates
+Yardage estimate may change following survey
-131-
-< H
4 G
.. a
c q C
a � ¢
V3 ;iL. x
I
-132-
a
.V-• .
/ +JI
\1 y17
m
0
y
rl
ri
U
U CT•
Q 0
U F
P O
G U
k] 4�
4 U
w q
F
O V r
]
I
U �
F L�.
o eo
0.
O. I-,
a 0.
U
F
7
a,
W
�
y
A
E
a
z r
a
Ft�
F O
+
1
+'
O
Gv
00
O
U
U a
O U
Y r
b
o
c
a
eo
E O
1 S! •rl
W
F
av
E•o
'v o
r-I •c+
g
3
'
d s
o +3
o
O
rm -I
3
3 U
N
r1
•c
U
>
z
-P
co
.
ai
o
F P
F
0
-H
1 C
O 0
'O
e.,
'.
F l
m
"
C
r•+ a n
c..1
..
c
•c+
v >
_
� o >,
ra
•O
U Y
c 'O
E
U
O •O
U-
U
'O
+� r U
t C
U +
N
CL) O
U •r.
+� N
O j a O
0
C U
N
F G O
C E
>
>
I
N
CJ W -
U
W
i
u
r1 rti r-I
-O U
U 0
E
G w] �O
•-i L
x p
U
O
U
t:7 •^ .v
i -�
k1 L�
�
q
�c
�
ci
ci
w
-132-
a
.V-• .
/ +JI
\1 y17
m
0
y
rl
ri
U
U CT•
Q 0
U F
P O
G U
k] 4�
4 U
w q
F
O V r
]
I
U �
F L�.
o eo
0.
O. I-,
a 0.
U
F
7
a,
W
- •
•
Table 2
Unit I
tipper Newport Bay
Sediment
Control Facilities*
Element
Cubic Yards
Rate
Cost
A. Saltworks Improvements
A -1 Island Removal
41,000
$3.50
$ 143,000
A -2 Deepen basin to -4.0 MLLW
330,000
$5.00 -.
$1,650,000
A -3 35r acre expansion
290,000
$4.00
$1,162,000
661,000
$2,955,000
C. Subtidal Channel
enlarge and deepen channel
from saltwork.down to
main ddke at the Narrows
79,000
$ 5922787
Total
740,000
$3,547,787
*Costs based on 1984 estimates
-133-
�l1JU
L1 i1 D•
-134-
a
rl
+� U
N C
P ri
ci
_ N O
T. C
4 U
� C
. H O
• E
4 � �
r U
)
N
U
' N
ti
4
.-i
W
EN
O
'O
M
r-i
v
q
O
ti 1
i� 3
J
t •
S—
O V3
N O
00
O S-
v
4-3
� r
•r
0
b
40
vv
Y
-C iv
S4
Y W
0 o
y
a
oO
Y
S— u7
N O
r Ql
p
O
( Y
4 O
ca C7
C
C
U
U
m
¢7
c E
CL)
r� v
-n a�
C C
r L
CQ
3 4)
<
C7
-134-
a
rl
+� U
N C
P ri
ci
_ N O
T. C
4 U
� C
. H O
• E
4 � �
r U
)
N
U
' N
ti
4
.-i
W
• Table 3
Unit II Upper Uewport Bay
Sediment Control Facilities*
Element Cubic Yards Cost
B. Widen channel between saltworks 100,000 $ 500,000
and main dike
C. Complete subtidal cjiannel
main dike — Narrows 251,000 $1,882,500
D. Main dike removal 26,000 $ 130,000
E. Down bay dredging to
provide dredge access as
necessary 50,000 $ 375,000
Total 427,000 $2,8£7,500
*Costs based on 1984 esgrimates
lCost and yardage estimate depends upon amount of material removed in
Unit I
2Cost and yardage may vary depending upon hydrographic survey and material
removed as part of Unit I
0
-135-
H
f-0
O
l+
w
0
Y
q
Y
C
U
G U
M IH 8
4: H
W O
c� z
D4 I�
k: q
a e
Y
v
m
b
w
b
w
.i I . . . .
C)
0
N
O
O
O
N
O�
D\
Q\
O�
Q\
W
O�
n
O�
n
Q\
b
Q�
b
In
D•
Q\
Ln
ON
U�
v _
rn
M
m
M
\
N
a
a
N
U�
�+
o,
•11 O
\
u
0
u
•� u
c�
0
rn
�6
N
lJ
7
fy
rn
•] CJl J
m
rn
T
m
L
.-I
\
Y
..i u
co
•�
m
in
w
u '� .�
R7
C
C
'•'�
C C
C Q C.
A
q
,
n
j
w'
m
u U .,
�
3 -..J..� -136-
b
�o
co
\
co
h
co
\
Tt
C
a
�+
H
•11 O
u
u
•� u
�6
N
lJ
7
fy
cD J
•] CJl J
�•
L
.-I
U
Y
..i u
Cl .+ ^J
•�
S�
in
d it
u '� .�
C
C
'•'�
C C
C Q C.
,
j
w'
U
u U .,
�
3 -..J..� -136-
C;
0
_
N
w
Z
<
w
n
w
Z
r
r
sw
w
C+
O
_
_
•O
(D
_
c1
w
0
_
O
•+(
(D
(D
m
_
S
w
0
(D
-2
(D
_
C+
.Q
w
_
z
1•+
w
a
C+
0
c
_
c+
r-(
O
M
C+
S
O
(D
E3
(D
_
c+
1
O
a
r
0
N
64
f-•
Q1
A
W
N
O
O
fib
m•
m
C
Fe ,J W
n
w
fl,
_
(n
n
w
d
a ..
(D
0
o
-
_
�a
CL
o
a
o
3
(CD
CD
'•wc
w <
<
=7
t0 (D
la CD
c+
-�
O-
W
(D
(D
n
w
=
Ei 0
= w
0-
c+
o
m o
(D to
o
w
w
m
= =
= -5
=
VI
C
=
c+ N
(T
N
c+
0
N
6
L-5
-
O
F
w
-1 C
.S J
5
N
w n
w c+
w
n c+
f) C
_
=
j
Z
0
N
0 O
j w
o
n
CD
�
m
m
N
N
F 0
C
C
C f)
w N V1
a a'O Z w
Q, 0
w =
= c+
_ (+
O j (D =
w 0
"O c+•
w � -5 (D a
(D
(D 0'
a O'
= e-F (+
-(• N
-a C
w ='O j -0
= 1'
n•
l(D IA w J
(D
a j
0
H
-
0-1
o _
N
(D (D
3 C+
r
r
l< ti_
d J
J
�� N=
C+
0
C SY� N
(D 7
(DIn
c+
'O N
w N
d••
7
C
w
= �- -5 La
N
N t+
c+ j
Z C ()
O O C
c+ a (D O
w �
O
a �•
(D
(D C) 00
N O
='a
- 0 0 -�
a S
w=
_
(0 w -.0
=
O ==
Z (D C= O
(D
O
-1
• _ = c+
O
�
w •S a -5
Z=
-h
(D O
O0
== -5
OM
0O
2
n 0O a
(D c+
w M
E -h
(O (D 2� C
W'O --h
= (D :E
J
•O
O
0
(D
0 Ct
(O
-00 0
0 0 (D w
O O
O
S
X
i S --••
O 0
(D O
(D C O Z=
Z=
e+
w
N
w 0
(D
=
N (D = 0 0
ci+ �.
S
=
Cf
d = =
C) a
tY 0
00 (D
C+
_
(p
(D =
Z -
S c+
—c+< f+ N
co O
(D
_ (D O
(D �
Z -5
W O
Di -5
� �
(D (D
O C
"^
(<
N
C)
=
7c' =
C 0
'G
=
S
t0
c+
(O c+
....
c
w
w
= rD
=
SM
C+
d
=
C
_
D
O
W
=
N
C
a
a
-0
C-) C) f7(7O
C)m C)
UI
O
(D
C
O Z -•• -+• (D •S
w 0 -(• -•
w
w
M
:E
<
C
C w c+ c+-0 <
= C c+ c+
(/)
=
(D
= = c< (< w
a = (< K
a
a-
0
�
e+t0 Z=
O e
O
O
c+
O
n
« (D O O c+ (D
f (< O O
$
i
N
(D
-+) -h
N
N
w
O C)��
f')
O
(=D
0
(D
�-
NO<S
N
=
O• <a
C
0
Z =---a O w
Z -+••O
(D
w w = O '-h =
w= O
_
(D
= Z (D -5 (<
_ (D Z
(D
N
t0 C e+ J
(a t?
-h
(D O
(D
E
-1 CA V
W
0
N S
(D
r•
C+
o w
w
c�
C
0 D
N
C+
w O
N
0
O
N
(A O
00
Cr C+
O
Ch
CF
1 iA
c+ C+
c+ c+
�
W
N
=
�
w
V
w
w
m
C
C+
4T
W A
c+
(D
(D
W V
fD
(D
CL
C
N
d
V
O
C
d
d
O
v
=
O
N 00
N V
_
W
w M+
E
f+
h•
c+ t0
w 0 O
w w 0 O
l0
k (o 0 (0
( L0
O
t0 D
(D
W
c9• _
(D =
co
W CO
00
3 (O
W
(D Cf
(D C)
A
Co CTI
W
w
W
w
w S
(D 1
w e
s c
w
w
N-5
N -{
w
= (D
0
O
="z
='Z
=
�•0
C *_
D
m m
a
= o
.+
C
a =
a =
(0 In
1--• �•
rr
(•+
n
°c
M:E
roof
< (D
<
<
C+
z
CD
M =
-137-
.,.
0
0 .
c
oD w
_
O
n Ti
C
_
5 d
_
C-) C')
O w
N �
ct �
(n
C1
w
a
C_
(D
m
x
x•
a:
Q
• EXHIBIT E •
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, THE CITY OF IRVINE, THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, THE ORANGE
COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT, AND THE IRVINE COMPANY FOR
RESTORATION AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES
IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED -SAN DIEGO
CREEK COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
This AGREEMENT entered into this day of 1984 is
made by and between the State of California, acting through its Department
of Fish and Game, hereinafter referred to as "State "; the City of Newport
Beach, hereinafter.referred to as "Newport Beach "; the City of Irvine,
hereinafter referred to as "Irvine "; the County of Orange, hereinafter
referred to as "County "; the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks
District, hereinafter referred to as "District "; and The Irvine Company.
The six entities are hereinafter sometimes jointly referred to as the
"Parties ".
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, Newport Bay is located entirely within Newport Beach, and the
environmental and scenic values of the Bay are important attributes of the
City, providing fisheries, navigation, recreation, birdwatching, and other
amenities related to a coastal salt -water wetland environment accessible to
a large urban and suburban population; and
WHEREAS, State owns and operates the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve,
hereinafter referred to as "Reserve ", comprising the upstream portion of
Upper Newport Bay, and is responsible for master planning, development,
operation, and maintenance of the Reserve; and
-138-
WHEREAS, the State of California has granted ,tidelands within Upper Newport
Bay to County and Newport Beach for public uses including navigation and
recreation; and
WHEREAS, the sedimentation of Newport Bay threatens to impair the
navigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, scenic and water quality values
of the Bay, to the detriment of Newport Bay and the surrounding community;
and
WHEREAS, the.jurisdictions of Irvine, Newport Beach and County include
portions of the watershed tributary to Newport Bay, and administer
ordinances related to control of erosion and sedimentation; and
WHEREAS, District and Newport Beach operate boating and recreational
facilities in Newport Bay that will be adversely affected by continued
sedimentation; and
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company owns extensive land holdings in the watershed,
including agricultural land and construction sites, and is willing to
participate in the construction and maintenance of sediment control
facilities in Upper Newport Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Parties share a concern for the protection and maintenance of
the Bay as a high quality environmental resource; and
WHEREAS, the sediment affecting Newport Bay originates from natural open
space land as well as from land disturbed by man for agriculture and urban
uses; and
-139-
WHEREAS, Newport Beach and Irvine have previously entered into an agreement
with the Southern California Association of Governments to conduct studies
to achieve three objectives:
1. To develop an Early Action Plan, hereinafter referred to as
"EAP ", for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek which could
be.implemented to begin controlling sediment while the studies
continued.
2. To analyze the causes,-nature, and extent of the sedimentation
problems adversely affecting Upper Newport Bay.
3. To develop a Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the EAP proposal was implemented and consists of two in- channel
basins excavated in San Diego Creek upstream of Jamboree Road and an
excavated basin in Upper Newport Bay below Jamboree Road; and
WHEREAS, Newport Beach, Irvine, The Irvine Company, County, Orange County
Flood Control District and State have contributed toward the construction of
the EAP facilities, County is operating, administering and maintaining the
two existing in- channel basins in San Diego Creek constructed as part of the
EAP, and State is operating, administering, and maintaining the excavated
basin below Jamboree Road in Upper Newport Bay constructed as part of the
EAP; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of the causes, nature, and extent of the sedimentation
problem has been completed and information on the sources and amounts of
sediment is now available so that a sedimentation control program can be
implemented; and
-140-
• WHEREAS, the Newport Bay Watershed -San Diego-Creek Comprehensive Stormwater
Sedimentation Control Plan, hereinafter referred to as "Sedimentation
Control Plan ", has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the recommended facilities phase of the Sedimentation Control Plan
includes building additional in- channel facilities in San Diego Creek and
additional sediment control facilities below Jamboree Road; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that a separate agreement will be executed for
the construction of additional in- channel facilities in San Diego Creek; and
WHEREAS, the other elements of the Sedimentation Control Plan along with
additional in- channel facilities and additional sediment control facilities
in the Bay below Jamboree Road comprise an economical plan for reducing the
further sedimentation of the Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the need for a Management Plan for the
Reserve which incorporates a Sediment Control Element along with enhancement
of the Bay and other features necessary for the Reserve. This Agreement is
intended to implement only the sediment control facilities as shown on
Exhibit A attached hereto and hereinafter called "Sediment Control
Facilities "; and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to join together to accomplish the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Sediment Control Facilities will restore and enhance
fish and wildlife values in the Bay.
-141-
!9 .1.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
4
conditions hereinafter stated, the respective Parties hereto do agree as
follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
Capital Outlay: That portion of the budget devoted to the'design; and
construction of Sediment Control Facilities.
Local Funds: Funds provided by Newport_Beach, Irvine, County, District, and
The Irvine Company, as distinguished from State funds, grant funds, and
other financial support.
Maintenance: Work required to restore the Sediment Control Facilities to
their as -built capacity and condition, including periodic removal of
sediment and repair of damage.
Management Plan: A plan for the Reserve which incorporates but is not
limited to the facilities required for sediment management in Upper Newport
Bay as shown on Exhibit A.
Phased Implementation Program: The scheduling of the construction and
maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities over a sufficient period of
time to obtain State funding, grant funding and other outside funding, to
the extent possible and to allow the Parties to plan and budget their
financial contributions.
Sediment Control Facilities: The Sediment Control Facilities contemplated
in this Agreement are shown on the attached Exhibit A which by this
reference is made a part of the Agreement. The Sediment Control Facilities
-142-
as shown on Exhibit A include a plan for construction, cost estimates, a
Phased Implementation Program, and an operations plan. The Sediment Control
Facilities are divided into two units which are defined as Unit I and Unit
II on Exhibit A. They may not be changed without the written approval of
all Parties. They are deemed to be those facilities that will substantially
ti
control the fine sediments which will not be trapped by the in- channel
facilities in San Diego Creek.
Sedimentation Control Plan: The study prepared for Newport Beach, Irvine,
and the Southern California Association of Governments entitled, "The
Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater
Sedimentation Control Plan ", August 1983 by Boyle Engineering Corporation. r
Section 2. Purpose. This Agreement is made for the purpose of
constructing the Sediment Control Facilities, and providing a permanent
mechanism for operating and maintaining them.
Section 3. Management Plan. The State is developing a
Management Plan for the Reserve which incorporates a Sediment Element which
will include the Sediment Control Facilities attached as Exhibit A.
Since State owns the Reserve and is fully responsible for its development
and operation, State will be Lead Agency in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Since it is the intent of this Agreement that
the other Parties provide financial assistance to State toward the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the Sediment Control Facilities,
State has consulted with the other Parties in developing the Sediment
Control Facilities, and will not adopt or later modify those portions of the
-143-
Management Plan without the written concurrence of all the other Parties.
With termination of this Agreement State will be free to modify the
Management Plan without prior approval of the other Parties.
State will bear the cost of the development of the Management Plan and will
process all environmental documents, obtain all permits, conduct all
hearings, and secure all approvals required. The other Parties will assist
State in the development and public processing of an acceptable Management
Plan and Sediment Element, to the extent resources are available to'the
other Parties as they shall determine in their sole discretion.
Section 4. Eligible Facilities. Sediment Control Facilities as
shown on Exhibit A are eligible for financing of projecfradministration,
construction and maintenance under this Agreement.
Section 5. Executive Committee. This Agreement will be
administered by the Executive Committee provided for in the agreement
entitled COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SAN DIEGO CREEK /UPPER NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED,
dated September 30, 1483. It is the intent of the Parties to recognize that
the County representative to the Executive Committee shall represent the
County and the District. The Executive Committee shall meet as necessary,
and in accordance with the objectives of Section 14, but at least once every
six months. The Executive Committee shall make recommendations to the
Parties toward accomplishment of the objectives of this Agreement; approve
budget recommendations to the Parties for capital outlay, operation and
maintenance, contract administration; provide communications among the
Parties; evaluate policy options; develop strategy; implement decisions; and
monitor performance. The Executive Committee may appoint subcommittees as
needed.
-144-
Section 6. Phased Implementation Program. The Phased
Implementation Program incorporated in Exhibit A is adopted by the Parties.
The Phased Implementation Plan shows the construction of Unit I of the
Sediment Control Facilities as first priority work to be initiated within
eighteen months from the signing of this Agreement. Unit II of the Sediment
Control Facilities is shown as work to be carried out over several years
following completion of Unit I. The Executive Committee will review the
Phased Implementation Program each year. The Phased Implementation Program
shall be adjusted as necessary to reflect progress made in implementation,
availability of funding, and the funding requirements for maintenance work;
however, in any event it is the Parties' objective that the construction of
both units of the Sediment Control Facilities shall be completed within ten
years after its original approval.
Section 7. Financing for the Construction and Maintenance of
Units I and II.
(a) Unit I. It is agreed that upon execution of this Agreement
each Party will fund in its 1984 -1985 fiscal year budget or otherwise make
available in the 1983 -1984 or 1984 -1985 fiscal year its apportionment of the
construction of Unit I as set forth in Section 8 and deposit its
apportionment by October 1, 1984 with the Party administering the project.
(b) Unit II. It is agreed that the budgeting and depositing of
funds for the construction of Unit II will take place through the routine
annual process described in Section 14. The Parties agree to undertake in
good faith to finance their apportionments for the construction of Unit II
as set forth in Section 9. The final determination as to the availability
of funds shall be in the sole determination of.the Party in question.
-145-
(c) Maintenance. It is agreed that the budgeting and depositing
T
of funds for the maintenance of Unit I and Unit II will take place as
described in Section 14 and in accordance with the apportionments set forth
in Section 10. The final determination as to the availability of funds
shall be in the sole determination of the Party in question.
Section 8. Distribution of Costs for Construction of Unit I
of the Sediment Control Facilities. The Parties agree that the cost of
constructing Unit I of the Sediment Control Facilities will be apportioned
as follows and that the cost of construction includes all the costs for
project documents; administration, engineering, approvals, rights of way,
and inspections: '
P_ arty
State
The Irvine Company
Newport Beach
District
Irvine
County
Apportionment
$2,662,000
623,325
124,310
118,990
11,170
7,992
Total $3,547,787
Should the funds available for Unit I from State within eighteen months of
the signing of this Agreement be less than $2,662,000 as shown above, Unit I
will be reduced in scope to meet the available funds and the Local Funds
contribution for Unit I will be reduced proportionately and a new exhibit to
be called Exhibit B showing the new scope, costs, and schedules of Unit I
and Unit II, will be developed immediately by State and submitted for
:1E M.
t A
approval by each of the Parties. When approved by all of the Parties,
Exhibit B will be attached to this Agreement and replace, for the purposes
of this Agreement, Exhibit A. Should portions of the State funds identified
in this Section be made available at different times, Unit I may be
'
subdivided into more than one project and each of the Parties will pay their
share in the same proportion as shown above.
Section 9. Distribution of Costs for Construction of Unit II
of the Sediment Control Facilities. The Parties agree that the cost of
constructing Unit II of the Sediment Control Facilities, to the extent they
are not covered by Federal funds, will be apportioned as follows:
,a.
Party Percentage
State 75.00
The Irvine Company
Newport Beach
District
County
Irvine
17.58
3.51
3.36
0.23
0.32
100.00
It is understood that State funds include all State appropriations or
grants.
Section 10. Distribution of Costs for Maintenance of Unit I
and Unit II. The Parties agree that the.cost for maintaining Units I and
II, to the extent that they are not covered by Federal funds, will be
apportioned as follows:
-147- '
Party. Percentage
State 75.00
T;,e Irvine Company 17.58
Newport Beach 3.51
Oi str•'ctr•, 3.36
County .. 0.23
Irvine , : 0.32
100.00
Section 11. Adjustment of Apportionments. The percentages set
forth in gc Jon 9 and Section 10 may be adjusted by unanimous vote of the
Parties. D,ny ,Party requesting an adjustment must submiteA nformation
supportinc; thg need to reapportion the distribution of costs set forth in
Serfic,� S an:d Section 10 based on new information being provided or change
og' tltP*-L• • It is agreed that adjustments in the type and extent of land
use and jcri,dictional boundary changes will be among the bases for the
adjustmenr ofepercentages in Section 9 and Section 10.
Section 12. Reimbursement of Party's Advances. An advance
contri'rut..anrapf $8,680.26 has been made by The Irvine Company to facilitate
h- •Mr7•: :cxperts to assist the State in developing Exhibit A. These funds are
to be cre : ?ite4 to The Irvine Company's share of the first project to be
built. Si•ou.14 additional advances be proposed by any Party and approved by
the Execu'.ive:;Committee they will be credited to the contributing Party's .
eontri'.t pntfor the next project.
Section 13. Contract Administration. The following applies to
co:,cr•z: C ;-dmis.istration for construction or operation and maintenance of
projects:
MM
,E
(a) The Executive Committee will designate one of the public
agency Parties to administer the project or projects approved.
Administering a project includes arranging for the preparation of project
documents including but not limited to soils analyses, surveys, plans,
specifications, bid documents, approvals, rights of way, development of
agreements between the Parties as required, collecting and disbursing funds
and other administrative functions normally associated with public works
projects. The cost of project documents is eligible for financing under
this agreement provided that such costs are in the approved Executive
Committee budget. All Parties will be consulted in the development of
project documents. When,ppids have been opened, if the lowest responsible
bids for the projects exceed the amount budgeted, the public agency Party
administering the projects will not award contracts without deposit of the
necessary additional local funds by each Party in proportion to its
percentage. Should all such deposits not materialize the administering
public agency Party may with the approval of the Executive Committee proceed
with a contract at a reduced level, may arrange for other Parties to
voluntarily contribute the deficiency, or may terminate the project.
(b) Prior to advertising any contract for construction or
maintenance of Sediment Control Facilities, the public agency Party
administering the project will enter into agreements as required and collect
the contributions from the other Parties. State will accomplish the advance
of its share through a joint powers agreement with the public agency Party
administering the project. State procedures prevent such a transfer of
funds to private parties.
(c) Upon completion and acceptance of each contract the public
agency Party administering the contract will render a final accounting. If
-149-
the cost is less than the amount on deposit, the Party will issue a refund
to the other Parties on a pro rata basis in relation to their original
contribution.
(d) The public agency Party administering the project will
maintain complete and accurate records for the term of the project and three
years thereafter and make them available to any of the other Parties for
audit. The Party's necessary and reasonable administrative costs for
administration of the project shall be reimbursable under this Agreement and
shall be budgeted as part of the project costs.
Section 14. Budgeting. The following provides the objectives for
the annual budgeting for construction of Unit II and operation and /or
maintenance:
By March 1, or as soon thereafter as possible, State will identify a project
or projects to be implemented (capital outlay or operation and maintenance)
in the fiscal year commencing approximately sixteen (16) months later and
for the year thereafter based upon the Phased Implementation Program. State
will present an analysis of funding requirements to the Executive Committee
including the estimated cost of the proposed projects for both years,
estimated grant funding, estimated funding to be provided by the Parties,
and estimated contributions of the Parties.
By April 1, or as soon thereafter as possible, State will request a budget
meeting of the Executive Committee and present a budget recommendation.
Adoption of the budget will require the unanimous approval of the Executive
Committee. The Executive Committee will recommend the budget to the Parties
and designate a Party(ies) to administer the project(s) for both fiscal
years.
-150-
By August 1, upon approval of the budget by the Executive Committee, State
will present a statement to each Party indicating the Party's contribution
toward funding the project budget for the following fiscal year.
By October 1 of the fiscal year in which construction is proposed, the Party
administering the project will collect from each Party its share of the cost
of the project.
Payment of any Party to the Party administering any project shall be subject
to the provisions of Section 7.
Section 15. State, Grant and Other Financial Support. State
will be the Lead Agency Me State, grant and other financial support
applications. The other Parties will support the lead agency's efforts in
preparing applications and in encouraging favorable consideration of the
applications by funding agencies at their own expense. It is contemplated
by the Parties that substantial financial assistance in the construction,
operation, and maintenance of approved Sediment Control Facilities will be
forthcoming.
Section 16. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence
upon approval and execution of this document by each and every Party and
shall continue for so long as is necessary to carry out the purposes of this
Agreement but not to exceed ten years from date signed. It may be extended
beyond ten years upon written unanimous approval of the Parties.
Section 17. Termination and Amendment.
(a) This Agreement may be terminated or amended at any time
by the unanimous consent of the Parties, or as.otherwise provided herein,
-151 -�
except that no termination or amendment may be made which is contrary to any
contract and /or grant agreement entered into by Party(ies) for the purposes
approved by the Executive Committee or with any other Department or branch
of the State or with the United States of America or any other outside
source of funds for the purpose of implementing this Agreement.
(b) Subject to Section 17(a), the failure of the Executive
Committee to adopt a budget as provided in Section 14 shall terminate this
Agreement, unless the Executive Committee has concluded that no funds are
needed in the ensuing Fiscal Year for capital outlay, operation and
maintenance, and Administrative Costs.
(c) This - Agreement may be suspended for one or more years by
Unanimous vote of the Executive Committee should any Party not be able to
contribute its share of the funds and if the other Parties do not wish to
assume the unmet contribution. At the time any suspension is agreed to, the
length of time of the suspension will also be agreed to and the Executive
Committee shall be responsible for reinitiating its functions as described
herein following the suspension period.
Section 18. Additional Parties. Additional entities may
become parties to this Agreement with the unanimous consent of the Parties.
Section 19. Liability. It is mutually understood and agreed
that merely by virtue of entering this Agreement each Party neither
relinquishes liability for its own actions nor assumes liability for the
actions of the other Parties. It is the intent of the Parties that the
liability, if any, of each Party shall remain the same while this Agreement
is in force as it would be without the Agreement. This Agreement represents
-152-
f .
a cooperative effort to accomplish the construction of an important public
project. It is based upon compromise taking into account the benefits to
and interests and responsibilities of the Parties. Neither the Agreement
itself, nor.any provision herein, shall constitute an admission or be used
by any person as evidence of liability of any kind against any of the
Parties.
The public agency Parties designated to administer the projects will require
each and every contractor involved with the project to obtain and to
maintain throughout the term of their contract, the following insurance
policies:
1. Comprehensive General' Liability including
Completed Operations, Comprehensive Automobile
Liability, and Contractual Liability $1,000,000
Combined Single
Limit
2. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Statutory Limit
Each insurance policy required by the contract shall contain the following
three clauses:
1. "This insurance shall not be cancelled, limited in scope of
coverage or non - renewed until after thirty (30) days written
notice has been given to all Parties." .
2. "It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the Parties will
apply in excess of, and not contribute with, insurance provided by
this policy."
-153-
3. "As respects operation of the named insured performed on behalf of
the Parties, the following are added as insureds: State of
California Department of Fish and Game, County of Orange, Orange
County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, City of Newport Beach,
City of Irvine, and The Irvine Company."
o
The Party administering shall have the contractor agree to deposit with
them, at or before the effective date of the contract, certificates of
insurance necessary to satisfy the insurance provisions, and to keep such
insurance and certificates therefor on deposit with Party during the entire
term of the contract.
ate=
Section 20. Availability of Funds. The obligation of each
Party is subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this purpose,
and nothing herein shall be construed as obligating the Parties to expend or
as involving the Parties in any contract or other obligation for the future
payment of money in excess of appropriations authorized by law.
Section 21. National Labor Relations Board Certification. In
signing this agreement, each Party certifies under penalty of perjury that
no, or that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court `
by a Federal court has been issued against that Party within the immediately
preceding two -year period because of the Party's failure to comply with an
order of a Federal court which orders the Party to comply with an order of
the National Labor Relations Board.
Section 22. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of
this Agreement, the Parties shall not unlawfully discriminate against any
-154-
employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital
status, age (over 40) or sex. The Parties shall insure that the evaluation
and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free of
such discrimination. The Parties shall comply with the provisions of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section 12900 et seq.) and
the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Administrative
Code, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations•Df the
Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Section
12990, set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California
Administrative Code are incorporated into this Agreement_. by reference and
made a part hereof as if set forth in full. The Parties shall give written
notice of their obligations under this section to labor organizations with
which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement.
The Parties designated to administer the projects shall include the
non - discrimination and compliance provisions of this section in all
contracts to perform work related to the project.
-155-
• I ,
i �•
I'
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this
'
Agreement the day and year first above written.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Dated: .1984
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Dated: r/_1/ ,1984
ATTEST:
;,.City Clerk
CITY OF IRVINE
Dated:h, l�_ ,1984
ATTEST:
City C � i it
By
S
APPROVED AS TO FOR,:
it Attorney of ewport Beach
By �r
mayor
-156
COUNTY OF ORANGE and ORANGE
COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS
DISTRICT
Dated: ,1984
By
airman of e Board of upervisors
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED ADRIAN KUYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD .,ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
OU
By /! / t,�
Voris Hilbert,
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of Orange County, California
THE IRVINE COMPANY .►.
Dated: ,1984 By
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'oaf
By
Attorney fo a Irvine Com any Senior Vice President
-157-
• EN=IT F i.
TL
Rq�JOI
tarly /-\\cLion InLe:rim. IGLn
O
ge Ile,
��L e
en r r a
L: L
i
ADDENDUM
0
TO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
State Clearinghouse 681012960
EARLY ACTION AND INTERIM PLAN
SAN DIEGO CREEK COMPREHENSIVE
STORM WATER SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN
Addressing
A COOPERATIVE- PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH
A SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT AND UPPER NEWPORT BAY
RESTORATION PROGRAM, UNIT I
Prepared for: Iris. Pat Temple, Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
3300 West Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
(714) 640 -2197
Prepared by: Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Inc.
26141 Nzrguerite Parkway, Suite C
Mission Viejo, California 92692
(714) 643 -1622
Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach
-159-
N
S
0
c
r T
d J
d rNj
a d
rD -
m y
a
F m
n�
O J
N
n
0
rD
m
T
d
n
N
w
CD
m
O
M
n
0
N
ct
Vf
M
N•
rD
m
z
0
o.
N
1 --4 + N
3 rD SO O
CL n rD C
O rD rD Z
aO o M
n w 3
coca O
O c -5 n
o_ D n c
CD rf- rD :3
1 3 m
m
3 S 7 c+
v.rD N d
C Z 7
5 O' m o_
rD O
M (D C S
CL m m
w n
nmr+o
j7 rD Z
e+ rl o_
O rD
o z d o
rD -S -y
CL m
-•• d w
O < <
0 d CD
o rD
J
war+
n m
n ro
c m m
C •5
C 0 eF
S O
O m
0 d 7
C 4
I d.
I
rt
N n -r d d V
�•o = =n-%
Lo 3 m O.SO
O
m E m CD
M
^ d m O O< n
rr Z G m ri
C �c n a
CL J n h
c+O : d
m M i O N
M O_ F
rr d w in
0
S n d
d m a �
ro
O• m O
rD T Z O
m S J.
O ei- m
O rt
. 0, d
- O <
(D y p
m V
CL n S
O to d
S O w <
G d r-F m
N
T N O
Q 0 w m
m O G m
m c n
O 0 • o
ra
I rD O r 0 w
' 3
d N rt rt
O n w
c+ —' N
rr
C
m 0 C) w
s+
rD
-�• � o c
3 �rD
i --5 ..
S m <
m D d
m
rDmn
o n
i n N
m S
nC w
C (D
Z Zm
rD —.0
O rF ry
c+ S
lC rD O
m 0
ra N
2J .
rD i
m S
r • J.
rD
m
a . -D
rD
• z
• • 1
O
CL
• .r
fA b4 b`T
i
r
o
N
r
3
W
O
O 0
0
O
+
C
d
d
C
n
O
+
M
'
'
w
rD
w
rD
o
r` ti
r(
N
Z
m
S
'�
rD
S
0
O
r+
O
<
7
d
N
0
S
N
N
rt
C:)
o
m
r
rD
rr
'<
m
rr
n
u i
Qo
N
�
Z
e+
m
c
m
N
w
o
m
rr
w
Z
rD
a
ll
N
Z
J
=r
m
a
w
3
m
rD
c+
^3c-0O
t-+ O CL -0 e+
�cLo -aw
3 rD O
e+ r+ <
m m
nn
^s -O
vJ•O N
N C(D rF
rD n O
m tT fi
r
0
CL
�t
C-) m v
10 rD •5
W N •D m
rt O y
N
C O
c
a an
0 r70
O O O
N
e+ w
O d
G N -
(D
m
O
O N
w -i
7c wD
ro-a
z m m
O CD C)
on Do
ap
a: r
rn n
N C
� N
m c
� p
C) Z
on
O 1
w
n
CD
M
.O
c
m
N
m
CD
A
m
r�
m 3
Xn
= C
Ln
N
m
X
N Z
O
m
m
x
M
M
z
0
c
m
N
o
m
r
rr
o
m
rr
N
rD
Z
N
m
c
n
B
o
rr
Z
rD
a
ll
m
N
Y
V
A
L
Y
C
O
V
a
N
N
Y �
N
N (.J j N
N O Y
m S-
o
S m
@ Y
d �
J C
Y O
c E
v
E
CL
Q U L
LLf N
O a
v > E
c c �
� z
N
r
L
d d O
Y N Z
V N
L •O
O L
O
.O
O
Y L
N O
r.. 4-
�- L
'U
Ll
6
ix
N
d
O)
O
d
C
O
V
O
i
d
d
N
L
f-'
Y
V
v
•n
0
i
d
w
0
Y
N
O
U
ti
Y
c
H
t'.
v
W
L
C�
Q
_N e
t
tp V i
Y #
O
Y
Y
N
C
U
O
4
N
O
O
61
C
>
N
C O
r
N
U
N
r
U
f
O O
� Z
N
Y
V
A
L
Y
C
O
V
a
N
N
Y �
N
N (.J j N
N O Y
m S-
o
S m
@ Y
d �
J C
Y O
c E
v
E
CL
Q U L
LLf N
O a
v > E
c c �
� z
N
r
L
d d O
Y N Z
V N
L •O
O L
O
.O
O
Y L
N O
r.. 4-
�- L
'U
Ll
6
ix
N
d
O)
O
d
C
O
V
O
i
d
d
N
L
f-'
Y
V
v
•n
0
i
d
w
0
Y
N
O
U
ti
Y
c
H
t'.
v
W
L
C�
Q
_N e
t
tp V i
Y #
O
• EXHIBIT 3
LIST OF ASSURA CES
The applicant hereby assures and certifies that it will cu:ply with Conserv:n y
regulations, policies, guidelines and require -nts as they relate to the acczq -
tance and use of Conservancy funds for this project. Also, the applicant qi a s
assurance and certifies with respect to the grant that:
1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance and
construct the proposed facilities; that where .appropriate, a resolution,
motion or similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of
the applicant's governing body, authorizing the filin7 of the application,
including all understandings and assurances contained therzin, and directing
and authorizing the person identified as the offical representative of the
applicant to act in connection with the application and to provide such addi-
tional information as may be required.
2. It will have sufficient funds available to meet its own share of the cost
for projects. `. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ faYs will be available — ppeje& ,T ee— mi=R --
to _-_ -We o=dorti atla .,d } of the G- 'lity f � assune "P o a" y—I for the
E / '�
gtPHe ed K &lJ�
3. It holds sufficient title or interest in the property to enable it to
undertake lawful development and construction of the project. In the case
where the Grantee is acquiring an interest in the property as a part of the
project develo,pmant such title documentation shall be reviewed by the
Executive Officer of the Conservancy.
4. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in the site
and facilities except as permitted by the Conservancy.
5. It will give the Conservancy,.through any authorized representative, access
to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related
to the grant.
6. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a reasonable time
after receipt of notificaiton from the Conservancy that funds have been approved
and that the project will be carried to completion with reasonable diligence.
7. It will, where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the State's
Braithwaite Act (Chapter 1574, Statutes of 1971 and related statutes), which
provides for fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons.
B. It will where appropriate, comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
9. It will comply with all requirements.imposed by the Conservancy concerning
special provisions of law, and program requirements.
• EXHIBIT 4
INDENN IFICATION AND STANDARD PROVISIONS
1. The Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State,
its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses
accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors,
materialmen, laborers and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials or supplies in connection with
the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses
accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be
injured or damaged by the Grantee in the performance of this contract.
2. The Grantee. and the agents_..and, employees—o-f Grantea.,_.in the performance
of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as
officers or employees or agents of the State of California.
3. The State may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of the payment
of any consideration to Grantee should Grantee fail to perform the
covenants herein contained at the time and in the manner herein
provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with
the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. The cost to the
State shall be deducted from any sum due the Grantee under this
Agreement, and the balance, if any, shall be paid the Grantee upon demand.
4. Without the written consent of the State, this Agreement is not assignable
by Grantee either in whole or in part.
5. Time is the essence of this Agreement,
6. No alteration or variation of the terms of this contract shall be valid
unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral
understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding
on any of the parties hereto.
7. The consideration to be paid Grantee, as provided herein, shall be in
compensation for all of Grantee's expenses incurred in the performance
hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so
provided.
EXHIBIT 5
NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
(ocr - 2)
1. During the performance of this contract, the recipient,
contractor and its subcontractors shall not deny the
contract's benefits to any person on the basis of religion,
color, ethnic group identification, sex, age, physical or
mental disability, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully
against any employee or applicant for employment because
of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry,
physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition,
marital status, age or sex, Contractor shall insure that
the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants
for employment are free of such discrimination,
2. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Government Code, Section
12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder
(California Administrative Code, Title 2, Section 7285,0
et sm ), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1,
Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Government
Code, Sections 11135- 11139.5) and the regulations or stand-
ards adopted by the awarding State agency to implement such
article.
3. Recipient, contractor and its subcontractors shall give
written notice of their obligations under this clause to
labor organizations with which they have a collective
bargaining or other agreement,
4. The contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and
compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts
to perform work under the contract,
STD. 176 (=W 3.881
RESOLUTION NO. - 1 113 I
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT FOR GRANT FUNDS BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT
CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach a certain Agreement which provides for the transfer of $362,000
from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to the City of Newport Beach
in connection with construction of the Unit I Upper Newport Bay Sediment
Control and Restoration Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees to abide by the terms and conditions
of said Agreement and accepts the grant funds,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach that said Agreement above described is approved, and the Mayor
and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the same on
behalf of the City of Newport Beach.
ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
City Clerk
r
1984.
• BY THE Cili CUUNCIA November 13, 1984
CITY OF NEWPORT SEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. F-2(g)
NOV 13 1981
• T0: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AN' RESTORATION PROJECT --
AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution approving the subject agreement, accepting the
grant funds and agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of
the subject agreement.
DISCUSSION:
On April 9, 1984 the City Council authorized the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute the implementation agreement for the in -bay facilities.
Since that time, the City, acting as the lead agency, has pursued preparation
of the plans and specifications, permits and funding for the Unit I Project.
This agreement provides for a portion of the funding for the Unit I Project
• from the State of California Coastal Conservancy.
Principal terms of the agreement are as follows:
1. Description of Unit I Project:
a. Removal of central island from Early Action Plan basin in
bay.
b. Deepen Early Action Plan basins.
c. Expand Early Action Plan basins.
d. Widen and deepen subtidal channel from outlet of basin to
main dike.
2. St
a.
b.
•C.
d.
ate Coastal Conservancy shall:
Grant to City a sum not to exceed $362,000.
Review and approve plans and project budget
Name authorized representative.
Review and approve project final report.
3. City shall:
a. Collect deposits from the parties to the in -bay agreement.
b. Assemble bid documents to permit accounting for funds ex-
pended on project.
( -3X)
Page 2
SUBJECT: UNIT I UPPER NEWPORT BAY SEDIMENT CONTROL AND RESTORATION PROJECT --
AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL CONSERVANCY
November 13, 1984
• c. Advertise for bids.
•
d. Provide contract administration, design engineering and
construction engineering for project.
e. Furnish State final cost estimate for project.
f. Erect sign at project crediting Coastal Conservancy
for funding assistance.
g. Prepare final project report.
h. Obtain all permits required for project.
4. It is mutually agreed that:
a. Terms of agreement:
(1) November 30, 1995.
(2) Unit I completion date November 30, 1986.
b. City will use its best efforts to assure that project is
maintained.
c. Records and documents shall be maintained for three years
following completion of construction.
d. This agreement may be amended by mutual consent of both
parties.
The agreement has been approved by the Coastal Conservancy. Funding
for the City's portion of the project ($124,500) has been provided in the 1984-
85 Capital Project Budget.
Benjamin B. Nolan
• Public Works Director
JW:jw