HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Projectti
1 U newport bay
cooperative planning project
' � � P�
��� it
�I
•
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
MEETING ON 14 OCTOBER 1970
Place: Mariners Library, Newport Beach
Time: 3 P.M.
ar_Frma
A. Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . Staff Members
B. Sea Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Dawes
Attachments
• •
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
Progress Report
14 Oct 1970
Agenda
Item A
At the meeting on 10 July, a planning schedule was
established by the Project Members. The schedule was based
on a requirement to have a plan available for the Corps of
Engineers by April 1971 and on dates that certain supporting
studies would become available. Virtually all of these studies
have slipped beyond their anticipated dates.
Study
Flood Control
City Airport Impact
Traffic Circulation
Originally
Anticipated
September 1970
October 1970
December 1970
Now
Anticipated
Imminent
Awaiting Board of
Supervisors decision
relative to level of
airport service.
Phase I - February 1971
Phases II and III un-
determined.
Fish and Game Depart- Fall 1970 Completed by Fish and
ment Water Quality- Game Department. Will
Ecology Study be delivered to Water
Quality Control Board
in mid- October.
For the most part, the slippage does not significantly
affect the planning schedule. At this time, the City Traffic
Circulation Study is giving us the most concern. The original
scope has been altered to cover a larger area. The revised study
provides for three phases - identification of problems; determina-
tion of reasonable alternatives; and recommendations for specific
solutions. It is hoped that Phase I can be available in February
1971. Completion of Phase II cannot yet be projected. Traffic
circulation is, of course, a vital portion of the overall study
and it is still hoped that we can have sufficient data from the
consulting firm to make a significant input into the April plans.
- 1 -
• •
The technical staff has been continuing the work on data
collection and summarization. An extensive bibliography has been
established and summarization has been initiated in accordance with
the study outline. We are progressing well in areas of demographic
trends, geology, orientation, land use, ecology and parks and rec-
reation. We are somewhat behind in the other areas but not signifi-
cantly so.
Some of the data collected has been transferred to maps
and charts and will be on display at the meeting. Representatives
of the Fish and Game Department, County Health Department, The
Irvine Company, and the City will be available to discuss the
maps as desired by the Project Members.
- 2 -
0
•
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
Proposed Sea Grant Project
14 Oct 1970
Agenda
Item B
At the meeting on 10 July, it was reported to the Project
Members that plans can be developed by April 1971 that will meet
Corps of Engineer requirements for public hearings prior to 1 July
1971. It was stated that the alternate plans would be in accor-
dance with the approved objective and scope and would be based on
the best information available, including studies in certain areas
that were scheduled to be completed prior to April. It was further
pointed out that continuing studies would be necessary in the marine
related areas in order to validate or refine plans produced in April.
In the absence of more refined baseline date, the Corps of Engineers
would accomplish studies if the Federal Government participated in
the actual development phase of the Upper Bay. Such studies by the
Corps, however, would further delay development because it could
not commence studies until funds were actually on hand.
If the Federal Government does not financially participate
in the development phase, the studies will still have to be ac-
complished by some other means.
It was further reported that there had been some investi-
gation of other means of obtaining marine related studies but that
results were unsatisfactory at that time. Since that report, staff
personnel have continued to seek ways of obtaining necessary studies
and it now appears that Federal Sea Grant funding is highly probable,
with no present cash outlay from the participating orgainzations
and agencies, if the Project Members elect to apply for a Sea Grant.
The Sea Grant Program is based on Federal legislation adopted
three years.ago. The purpose of the legislation was to stimulate
and accelerate research into ocean and coastal marine matters. The
Sea Grant Program was initially under the National Science Foundation
but is in the process of moving to the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Agency in the Department of Commerce.
Sea Grants operate in two broad areas. A Sea Grant Program
is designed to stimulate the development of academic programs for
the education of personnel in marine - oriented fields such as oceanog-
raphy or marine biology. Grants for this purpose are usually made to
- 1 -
•
0
colleges and universities. Sea Grant Projects, are designed to foster
research and develop techniques involving specific aspects of interest -
for example, management of an estuary or development of coastal ocean
recreation. Grants for this purpose may be made to educational in-
stitutions, non - profit organizations or public agencies, or a combina-
tion of one or all organizations.
sea grants are made on the basis of the Federal Government
paying for two- thirds of the cost of a program or project and the
applicant funding for the remaining one - third. The applicant's
contribution can be in the form of funds, services, staff time or
a combination of all.
It is now felt that we can match our requirements for
technical assistance in physical oceanography, water quality and
marine ecology with Sea Grant interests in shorelines and ocean
recreation, the conservation and development of estuaries and
methods of solving multi- jurisdictional interests in the manage-
ment of coastal areas. It is further believed that a competent
study will cost a total of approximately $289,000 and require two
years for completion. We have estimated that staff time and ser-
vices of the participating organizations can, if acceptable to the
Sea Grant Foundation, make up the $100,000, or one -third share, of
the applicant.
Accordingly, a specific proposal has been drafted for the
consideration of the Project Members. The proposal provides for:
a. A contract with the Oceanics Division of Interstate
Electronics Corporation to administer a Sea Grant Project, if ap-
proved.
b. Interstate Electronics Corporation (IEC) is to per-
form necessary hydrodynamic, oceanographic and water quality studies
to support the objectives and scope of the Upper Newport Bay Co-
operative Planning Project. The Oceanics Division of IEC will ac-
complish this work through its inherent capabilities. The background
and experience of IEC is outlined in the enclosure.
C. IEC to sub - contract with the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory
of the California Institute of Technology for the basic marine ecology
research studies.
d. A management organization and plan that vests full
control of the project in a Board of Directors consisting of the
Mayor, a Supervisor and the President of the Irvine Company. Routine
management will be vested in a Program Manager and a Deputy Program
Manager. Mr. Richard C. Timme, General Manager of the Oceanics Divi-
sion will fill one of the billets. In order to assure complete
- 2 -
0 0
correlation and dialogue with the planning groups representing the
Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project, the technical staff
coordinator will fill the other billet. Regardless of who fills
which billet, Mr. Timme and IEC will perform the necessary accounting
and reporting functions required by the Office of Sea Grant Programs.
A description of proposed tasks is attached. Charts showing
management organization and the program approach will be displayed
at the meeting on 14 October. It is important to note, however, that
IEC has a two -fold function in regard to meeting the objectives of
the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project;
Collect, analyze and interpret existing
data and provide advice and consultation
for the alternate plans to be produced
by April 1971.
Continue to collect data to fill informa-
tion gaps and to refine existing data in
order to validate plans or provide a
basis for refinement of plans if necessary.
It should also be pointed out that the studies proposed
must necessarily include the lower bay. An additional benefit ac-
crues, then, to the comprehensive shoreline planning now in initial
stages by the City.
A draft of the proposal was sent informally to a representa-
tive of the Office of Sea Grant Programs in order to obtain the re-
actions and recommendations of that Office. It is anticipated that
reactions will be obtained in time for the meeting of 14 October.
Should the Project Members elect to formally pursue a Sea
Grant Project, it will be necessary to draw up and execute a joint
powers agreement between the County, the City and The Irvine Company
for formal establishment of a Board of Directors meeting the-require-
ments of the Office of Sea Grant Programs.
- 3 -
`INTERSTATE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
OCEANICS DIVISION
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
i .
Interstate Electronics Corporation (IEC) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the A -T -O
Corporation with headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. IEC is located in Anaheim,
California with major emphasis in the areas of information handling, test equip-
ment, analysis, and evaluation systems as. well as oceanographic services. The
primary emphasis since 1959 has been in anti - submarine and undersea systems. IEC
is a primary contractor on the Polaris - Poseidon Program responsible for all phases
of testing and evaluation of the system's interface between submarine and missile.
The OceanicS Division (OSD) of Interstate Electronics Corporation has been organized
as a group since 1956 when at that time and up to 1964 it was known as National
Marine Consultants. As a group, OSD is the oldest oceanographic firm in the
country, and its experience is cabuiarized in Atcactuncnt A. The significant pro-
grams pertinent to the proposed Sea Grant Program are as follows.
1. Bolinas Bay
Norman T. Gilroy & Associates, an architectural and engineering consulting
firm located in the San Francisco Bay area, was stymied in the development
of the Bolinas Bay /Lagoon development because of tidal flushing and sand
transport (littoral drift) problems at the entrance to Bolinas Bay.
Mr. Gilroy asked OSD to analyze and evaluate these problems to see if it
would be economically possible to develop this bay when considering the
above listed problems. After careful analysis, OSD was able to show that
the development of the lagoon was indeed feasible and as a result Mr. Gilroy
was able to obtain money from the Corps of Engineers and the State of California
to design an urban complex around the bay.
INTESTATE ELECTRONICS CORPOSION
OCEANICS I)WISION
2. Cojo Harbor, Department of Navigation & Ocean Development -, State of California
OSD /IEC has just completed a site selection study /survey to determine the
best location for the state's first small boat harbor of refuge. Site
selection was based on physical characteristics, ecological and economic
considerations as well as public access and small boat safety requirements.
This program is currently under review by the State and the design develop-
ment phase is scheduled to commence by 1 December 1970. Major emphasis was
made in the study of wave and tidal characteristics as well as surfers
requirements inasmuch as a prime surfing beach is located immediately adja-
cent to the Government Point (Pt. Conception) area.
3. Coronado Cag Company
This program was a study of the flushing characteristics and the feasibility
vi .. iu........b ur "uE, �..6 a '.-..r c. ..... -.. �.. 3 d, 1Cr^.: — . r�O;or_ in the
South Bay araa of San Diego Harbor. The computer model program resulted
in recommending to the Coronado Cay Company what depths and widths were
feasible and what could be expected under certain specified conditions,.
4, Dana Point, Koebig & Koebig, Inc.
As a sub - contractor to Koebig & Koebig, Inc., OSD provided the necessary
oceanographic, breakwater and marina design criteria which was the basis for
the existing breakwater and marina complex. OSD also supported the hydraulic
wave tank model study which verified the present design. Factors taken into
consideration were harbor surging, flushing, water quality parameters, and
beach erosion.
5. Newport Beach /Huntington Beach Sand Transport Study, Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers requested OSD to study and 'evaluate sand transportation
between the Huntington Beach Pier and the Newport Harbor entrance. At the
-2-
i
time the study was initiated, the concept was to build several off -
j
shore breakwaters along the coast to control beach erosion and
to recirculate sand from Newport to Suz.fside.
The year's study showed no evidence of 'sand entering Newport Canyon
and no evidence of a closed system of sand movement.from Surfside
to Newport. The study did point that the erosion was more of a local
nature centering around 40th Street..
• •
SEA GRANT TASK DESCRIPTION
It is proposed that the following approach to produce the
required objectives will be accomplished over a 2 -year investigation
period of the Upper Newport Bay.
1. Review and evaluation of pertinent past and
present physical, ecological, biological,
geological and oceanographic data.
2. Review of the past, existing and proposed
conservation and development plans for
Upper Newport Bay in order to establish
a general plan from which to proceed.
3. Identify the existing ecology and environ-
mental conditions of Upper Newport Bay.
4. Identify the physical and dynamic parameters
that are effective in Upper Newport Bay.
5. Develop a field survey monitoring program
to fill the existing data gaps in critical
water quality, physical, and ecological
parameters and extend this to obtain per-
tinent data over a year period.
6. Evaluate past, present, and newly collected
data to develop trends on which to base
sound judgments of the projected effects of
water quality changes on the ecology and for
the maintenance of ecological considerations
and coexisting development.
7. Analyze development alternatives to determine
types, sizes and shapes of possible conserves
and management programs necessary for their
maintenance.
8. Establish educational materials for professors,
students, scientists, engineers and managers
and a program for the best management/utiliza -
tion planning of estuarine zones.
9. Produce a final report on the total project
with recommendations as to how the techniques,
approach and results may generally be applied
to other areas.
i
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
IM
Distribution List
A - All participants, contributors or consultants.
Primarily used for matters pertaining to meetings
of the Policy Group (notices of meetings, agenda
packages, minutes of meetings).
B - Technical Staff and technical contributors only.
Drafts, information, working papers prior to approval
of the Policy Group. •
C Press and others interested in attending meetings
of the Policy Group. Notices of Policy Group meetings
only.
"4
1
Z Z
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
DISTRIBUTION A
NAME
ADDRESS
AGENCY REPRESENTING
Mayor E. F. Hirth
City Hall
Project Chairman
Councilman Carl Kymla
City Hall or 700 Kings Road, N.B.
City of Newport Beach
Robert Wynn, City Manager
City Hall
City of Newport Beach
Commissioner Curt E. Dosh (Plan.)
1606 Santanella Terrace, CdM
City of Newport Beach
Commissioner Hall Seely (PSBR)
2833 Carob, N.B.
City of Newport Beach
Commissioner Gordon Glass (Plan.)
2562 Waverly Drive, N.B.
City of Newport Bpach
Supervisor Ron Caspers
515 N. Sycamore, S.A., 92702
Orange County
Henry M. Roberts, Jr.
Chairman, Orange County Harbor Comm.
Orange County
Post Office 1
Cypress, Calif. (Ph. (714) 827 -7181)
Councilman Thomas O'Keefe
2721 Via Verbena,.San Clemente
Orange County
Robert Thomas
County Administrative Officer
Orange County
515 N. Sycamore, S.A.
Adrian Kuyper
County Counsel
Orange County
515 N. Sycamore, S.A.
Ken Sampson
Director of Harbors, Beaches B Parks
Orange County
Orange County Harbor District
1901 Bayside Drive, N.B.
Jim Ballinger
Orange County Harbor District
Orange County (ABS)
Forest S. Dickason
Planning Director
Orange County
211 W. 6th Street, S.A.
George Osborne
Orange County Flood Control District
Orange County
400 Civic Center Drive, W., S.A.
Richard Daily
Orange County Flood Control District
Orange County (AB4)
ikirvia
Russ Jansen
Robert Stone
Harland Schroth
William Mason
Ramond Watson
Richard Reese
Guy Claire
Warren Roche
H. J. Amos
Ron Hein
Ed Ehlers
Doyle Gates
- 2 -
ADDRESS
Orange County Planning Dept.
211'W. 6th Street
S.A.
Orange County Health Dept.
645 Ross, S.A.
Orange County Health Dept.
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California
550 Newport Center Drive
N.B.
550 Newport Center Drive
N.B.
Legal Counsel
550 Newport Center Drive
N.B.
550 Newport Center Drive
N.B.
Transportation Agency
Post office Box 2304
Los Angeles, California 90054
Dept. of Fish & Game
350 So. Magnolia
Long Beach
DISTRIBUTION A
AGENCY REPRESENTING
Orange County (A &Bj
orange County (A &Bj
Orange County (A &B)
The Irvine Company
The Irvine Company
The Irvine Company (A &B)
The Irvine Company
The Irvine Company (A &B)
State (A &B)
State (A &B)
Dept. of Navigation & Ocean Development State
1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, Calif.
(8 copies) Zip Code - 95814
Regional Manager, Marine Resources Region State (A &B)
Dept. of Fish & Game, Long Beach
01
t
DISTRIBUTION A
- 3 -
NAME ADDRESS AGENCY REPRESENTING
Robert Montgomery Regional Manager State (A &B)
Dept. of Fish & Game
350 So. Magnolia
Long Beach, 90802
Robert Baker Dept. of Parks & Recreation State (A &B)
128 Plaza Street
Los Angeles, 90012 (Ph. (2,13)620- 3342)
Richard Bueermann Regional Water Quality Control Board State (A &B)
6848 Magnolia Avenue, Suite .14
Riverside, California 92506
John Zasadzinski Regional Water Quality Control Board State (A &B)
Jack Spruill Dept. of Fish & Game State (A &B)
11735 Crystal Avenue
Chino, California 91710
District Engineer Corps of Engineers FedeT41
Colonel Harry Roper Los Angeles District
Post Office Box 2711
Los Angeles, California
Charles M. Holt, Sr. Corps of Engineers Federal (A &B)
Los Angeles District
Gene Wilson U. S. Game Management Agent Federal (A &B)
Post Office Box 326
Lemon Grove, California 92045
G. M. Dawes
City
Hall
City
of
Newport
Beach (A &E
Joseph Devlin
City
Hall
City
of
Newport
Beach
Calvin Stewart
City
Hall
City
of
Newport
Bgach(A &B)
Ben Nolan
City
Hall
City
of
Newport
B6ach(A &B)I
NAME
Rod Gunn
Bill Dye
Ron Whitley
Harold Ohanian
Bill Merselis
Richard Timme
Clifton C. Miller
George Zebal
0
- 4 -
City Hall
City Hall
City Hall (PB &R)
Interstate Electronics Corp.
Post Office Box 3117
Anaheim, California 92803
Interstate Electronics Corp.
Interstate Electronics Corp.
Director of Physical Planning &
Development, University of
California, Irvine, 92664
(Ph. 833 -5310)
Post Office Box 1822, N.S.
DISTRIBUTION A
AGENCY REPRESENTING
City of Newport Beach(A &B;
City of Newport Beach(A &B;
City of Newport Beach(A &B;
Additional (A &B)
Additional (A &B,)
Additional
16 Additional (A &B)
Additional (A &B)
' a .
NAME
Jim Ballinger
Richard Daily
Russ Jansen
Robert Stone
Harland Schroth
Richard Reese
Warren Roche
H. J. Amos
Ron Hein
Robert Montgomery
Robert Baker
Richard Bueermann
Doyle Gates
Orange County Harbor District
1901 Bayside Drive, N.B.
Orange County Flood Control District
400 Civic Center Dr., W.
Santa Ana
Orange County Planning Dept.
211 W. 6th Street, S.A.
Orange'Cqunty Health Dept.
645 Ross, S.A.
Orange County Health Dept.
645 N. Ross, S.A.
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Drive, N.B.
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Drive, N.B.
Transportation Agency
Post Office Box 2304
Los Angeles, Calif. 90054
Dept. of Fish & Game
350 So. Magnolia
Long Beach
Regional Manager
Dept. of Fish & Game
350 So. Magnolia
Long Beach 90802
Dept. of Parks & Recreation.
128 Plaza Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
(Ph. (213) 620 -3342)
9WRR onal Water Quality CConttrrol Board,
Magnolia Ave., Svite 14, Riverside
92506
-Dept, of Fish & Game
DISTRIBUTION B
AGENCY REPRESENTING
Orange County (A &B)
Orange County(A &B)
Orange County(A &B)
Orange County (A &B)
Orange County (A &B)
The Irvine Company(,, &B)
The Irvine Company(] &B)
State (A &B)
State (A &B)
State (A &B)
State (A &B)
State (A &B)
State (A &B
I
NAME
John Zasadzinski
Jack Spruill
Charles M. Holt, Sr.
Gene Wilson
G. M. Dawes
Calvin Stewart
Ben Nolan
Rod Gunn
Bill Dye
Harold Ohanian
Bill Merselis
Clifton C. Miller
George Zebal
2 -
0
DISTRIBUTION B
ADDRESS AGENCY REPRESENTING
Regional Water Quality Control Board State (A &B)
6848 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 14
Riverside, 92506
Dept. of Fish & Game
11735 Crystal Avenue
Chino, California 91710
Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
Post Office Box 2711
Los Angeles, California 90053
U. S. Game Management Agent
Post Office Box 326
Lemon Grove, 92045
City Hall
City Hall
City Ball
City Hall
City Hall
Interstate Electronics Corp.
Post Office Box 3117
Anaheim, California 92803
Interstate Electronics Corp.
Director of Physical Planning &
Development, UCI, Irvine, 92664
(Ph. 833 -5310)
Post Office Box 1822, N.B.
State (A &B)
Federal (A &B)
Federal (A &B)
City of Newport Beach(A &B) I
City of Newport Beach(A &B)
City of Newport Begch(A &B) I
City of Newport Be4ch(A &B)
City of Newport Begch(A &B)
Additional (A &B)
Additional (A &B)
Additional (A &B)
Additional (A &B)
it
NAME
Supervisor R. W. Battin
Urban Affairs.
Mrs. G. A. Hollingsworth
Jack Barnett
Colonel Ted R. Gillenwaters
Larry Miller
M
Mrs. Robert Fisher
Mrs. Morris
Bob Reed
City Clerk
ADDRESS
900 N. Broadway, S.A.
UCI, Irvine, 92664
League.of Women Voters of O.C.
1790 Pitcairn Drive, Costa Mesa
Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce
2166 E. Coast Highway, CdM
1731 Port Westbourne Place, N.B.
Chamber of Commerce
C/O Marina Dunes
101 N. Bayside Drive, N.B.
235 Carnation, CdM
(Ph. 675 -7627)
301 Avenida Cerritos, N.B.
City Hall
City Hall
DISTRIBUTION C
AGENCY REPRESENTING
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional
Additional (Press -5 copies)
•$ T T A C H M E N T
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
• is
NAME
Richard Rohrbach
Joan Sunderland
Mrs. H. J. Rroesche
Carolyn Fisher
ADDRESS
Senator Dennis Carpenter's
Administrative Aide
3912 Campus Drive
Newport Beach, Calif.
Orange County Planning Dept.
211 W. Santa Ana Blvd.
Santa Ana, California
254 B Cabrillo Street
Costa Mesa, California
Newport Cablevision
2624 W. Coast Highway
Newport Beach
DISTRIBUTION &
AGENCY REPRESENTING
Distribution A
State
Distribution B 6 ¢
Orange County.
Distribution C
Additional
Distribution C
Additional
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA ma
city Hsu
3300 Newport BM
(714) 673.2110
June 2, 1971
The Honorable Henry M. Roberts, Jr.
Chairman, Orange County Harbor Commission
Post Office Box 1
Cypress, California
Dear Mr. Roberts:
I know that you are aware that there has been a continuing
cooperative study of the future uses and conservation of Upper
Newport Bay for eighteen months. This study, known as the Upper
Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project, involves the cooperative
efforts of the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, and
The Irvine Company. We are also most fortunate to have the active
participation and support of the State Resources Agency and the
Los Angeles District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers.
At the last meeting of the Planning Project, it was concluded
that an invitation be issued to you, to have your Commission repre-
sented at the policy level in this forward looking and innovative
endeavor.
I have the honor therefore to invite you or, in the event of
your unavailability, a designee of your choice, to sit as a member
of the policy level of the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning
Project.
I have enclosed two documents which will help bring you up to
our current status. You will note that the Upper Newport Bay Coop-
erative Planning Project is not a decision making body, but is
designed to bring the decision makers together in a planning effort
that can result in the best possible, viable plans for this great
resource which affects us all. We plan to have another meeting of
the policy level group in about mid -June to review a proposed Joint
Powers Agreement and to view a number of alternative concepts being
worked on by the Technical Staff. The specifics on time and place
3r
MI
Mr. H. M. Roberts, Jr.
6/2/71
Pg. 2
will be forwarded to you or to your designee as soon as they
have been determined. I sincerely hope that your Commission
will be represented at this meeting. .
Very truly yours,
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
Project Chairman
EFH /GMD /db
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Thomas O'Keefe
Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers
Mr. William Mason
Mr. Ed Ehlers
Mr. Rod Gunn
IV
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA n"o
City Hall
8800 Newport Blvd.
(714) 878 -2110
June 2# 1971
The Honorable Thomas O'Keefe
Chairman, Orange County Ocean &
Shoreline Planning Steering Committee
Old Orange County Courthouse
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. O'Keefe:
I know that you are aware that there has been a continuing
cooperative study of the future uses and conservation of Upper
Newport Bay for eighteen months. This study, known as the Upper
Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project, involves the cooperative
efforts of the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, and
The Irvine Company. We are also most fortunate to have the active
participation and support of the State Resources Agency and the
Los Angeles District of the U. S. Corps of Engineers.
At the last meeting of the Planning Project, it was concluded
that an invitation be issued to you, to have your committee repre-
sented'at the policy level in this forward looking and innovative
endeavor.
I have the honor therefore to invite you or, in the event of
your unavailability, a designee of your choice, to sit as a member
of the policy level of the Upper Newport. Bay Cooperative Planning
Project.
I have enclosed two documents which will help bring you up to
our current status. You will note that the Upper Newport Bay Coop-
erative Planning Project is not a decision making body, but is
designed to bring the decision makers together in a planning effort
that can result in the best possible, viable plans for this great
resource which affects us all. We plan to have another meeting of
the policy level group in about mid -June to review a proposed Joint
Powers Agreement and to view a number of alternative concepts being
worked on by the Technical Staff. The specifics on time and place
� L
Mr. T. O'Keefe
6/2/71
Pg. 2
will be forwarded to you or to your designee as soon as they
have been determined. I sincerely hope that your committee
will be represented at this meeting.
Very truly yours,
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
Project Chairman
EFH /GMD /db
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Henry M. Roberts, Jr.
Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers
Mr. William Mason
Mr. Ed Ehlers
Mr. Rod Gunn
4 �
f
April 5, 1971
nil::; "),
' -)M-lie Cbmipy
12441 Pine Street
(7,ari' E Curve, (7;iIif7orn_ii 92640
71--ar 'fiss 7vji-ncv:
T
JT; �IICJOSir,- q Cop,, of a recent tn1l', T ,-Ivo on the
:),Ick Bay issue.
Tf v-;t wish 'fily furt7-v3r -1.1fomation on ally s')-cific
it-is, nleaso COTInCt us.
Very truly yours,
E. F. IMMI
Mayor
EFII:pg
Enclosure
THE BACK BAY
The future of the Newport back bay is of great importance to the people
of our community and beyond. It has been discussed for days.by scientists, lawyers,
students, politicians and interested citizens. I have..neither the ability nor
time to cover the subject but will just express a.few thoughts about the progress
of planning in this area.
The position of Newport Beach relative to the back bay is not widely
known. It lies completely within our boundaries so we are legally responsible
to plan its use. We believe it should have a balanced use to protect and.improve
the environment and allow for non- conflicting..public access and use.
This line of thinking is relatively new. Over half a century ago when the
State granted the tidelands in trust to the County it was quite different. At
the rate we are accumulating knowledge it is logical to assume the thinking will
be considerably different fifty years from now. So let us not be too hasty in
concluding our present concepts are the best ultimate answer.
When the State granted these tidelands to the County..it was under the
conditions that the County develop them into a harbor and at no. cost to the
State. It was in order to fulfill these requirements that the land exchange
was designed by the County and entered into with the Irvine Company. The general
desire has changed but the conditions of the grant have not.
Being aware of the change in desires,.a year ago the City of Newport Beach
initiated a study of the area. The purpose of the study was to develop plans for
the best use of the area. In order to promote future implementation of whatever
plan was produced, we asked the two landowners in the area.to, join in the study:
This is the County that holds the grant on the tidelands (the land under the
water) and the Irvine Company who owns the uplands. Then we asked the State and the
Coast Guard to join us. All these organizations accepted and joined the study.
So we have the participation of those who control the use of the:area and also
have the information and capability to conduct the study.
This activity has been in operation for a year with the meetings being
open to the public and press. Study reveals the many factors which effect the
preservation and use of the area. It is apparent that a study restricted to
one popular use could later be proven as wrong as following the old concepts.
The study indicates the need for more technical scientific data. For
instance, bird counts were made at various locations in the area. We.need to
know the requirements of the various birds. There is a special grass attractive
to an important species. Experiments are being conducted on transplanting
it to areas where it is lacking.
Likewise, Dr. North is experimenting with transplanting kelp to improve
the environments to support marine life. Some reports indicate.conditions in
portions of the lower bay are more desirable for propagation of fish than the
back bay. I am no scientist; I am just saying we need more information before
we act. We must act to even preserve what exists.
There are essentially no migratory birds here during the summer. To what
extent can we have summer recreational activities without hurting the ecology?
The increasing demands for use of the area are many and should be considered.
- 2 -
.. .
In order to obtain funds for - these scientific- studies, both.the.County
and the City have been talking with federal..officials...It.is. essential for the
success of such applications that the City and.the County work. .jointly. Any
disagreement or lack of State approval would kill any requests. , There.is consider-
able interest in Washington,.although there are no funds available for several
months at best.
Therefore, at this time we are requesting.the staffs of the Back Bay
Cooperative.Study Program to prepare_a. report on the data gathered during this
last year. It is hopeful there will be some phases, where sufficient information
is known to plan and initiate constructive action.
It will be necessary to provide protective measures to.save the area
from destruction by flood water. Perhaps we can plan such measures. .Supervisor
Caspers mentioned the desirability of opening North Star Beach..for recreation.,
We may be in a position to take such action.
At the same time we can continue our studies and development of a
balanced plan for the protection, improvement and use of the entire area.
MAYOR ED. HIRTH
EFH:pg
3/29/71
CITY OF NLIVPORT BLkQ1
Arch 30, 1971
TO: H/, WR X4D TIDBI N AS ADIINISTRATOP,
FROM: ;Mayor
SUT ECT: UPPIiR BAY C0OPTMTIVL•' PLANPiItiG i'R'3P::CT
In accordance with the expressed •desires of the other two
members of the governing board of this project, Supervisor Ronald Caspers
and Willian Mason of the Irvine Company, Ian requesting that the staff
proceed with the preparation of a report. This report should cover the
material which has been accumulated during the last year's study. There
should be a sua;k.,r and analysis of this material with any conclusions
or recommendations which it justifies.
It is hoped that we will be able to have sufficient :infor;a-
tion to undertake s(mic implamentation in the area while continuing to
study other phases of the problem.
This report should be prepared as rapidly as possible with
the hope, that we could have a Yneting of tae or u zaziCn for its presen-
tation and discussion early in 'Tay.
ERAPii
cc: Supervisor Ronald Caspers
Air. Itiillirua Mason
J bIC
A4,y'
V11AP 4- lW-1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
March 9, 1971
S: 1
IN RE: AGREEMENT PROSECUTION SERVICES CITY OF BUENA PARK
On motion of Supervisor Phillips, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the Chairman and the Clerk are authorized to sign the Agreement
dated March 9, 1971, between the County of Orange and the City of Buena
Park, for the District Attorney to provide prosecution services to the
City of Buena Park, as recommended by the County Administrative Officer
in his letter dated March 3, 1971.
IN RE: PROPOSED REPORT PROPOSED FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE OR ECOLOGICAL AREA IN UPPER NEIJPORT BAY
On motion of Supervisor Baker, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers is appointed to investigate the
proposed feasibility of establishing a National Wildlife Refuse or
Ecological area in Upper Newport Bay, and to present a report to the
Board of Supervisors on March 23, 1971, at 10 :00 A.M., on recommended
ways to proceed.
IN RE: APPOINT SUPERVISOR CASPERS TO UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE
PLANNING PROJECT
On motion of Supervisor Phillips, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, Supervisor Ronald Id. Caspers is appointed to the Upper Newport
Bay Cooperative Planning Project to represent the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: CLARIFICATION OF INTENT APPEAL FROM DISCHARGE SCOTT
On motion of Supervisor Clark, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the Board of Supervisors clarifies that its intent in the appeal
from discharge of Philip P. Scott, Utility Driver, is only to reverse
the discharge order and is not to be interpreted as an approval or
forgiveness of Mr. Scotts record. uuie ia_ 71
COPIES SENT I.
�nxePr
.t:,:orncy
W4n liweiA,
Prwni6{; I /lteciur
6�.
HIT may,., -
11013.2.2
%� EC �ot` �%u4 .•,..c -nom /7 —vZ '__
< 1411
02; ny Me CITY MOTWIkEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLF,N 7ING PROJECT
CITY 177 r
SCOPE OF PROJECT AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
35 "5�
l7
The 311jec vpUof the tipper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning
Project �i through cooperative and mutually ,supporting endeavors of the
County of Orange, The Irvine Company, the City of Newport Beach and the
State of California, to produce comprehensive general plans to gaide the
pattern of growth in the Upper Bay Area. These plans will be designed
to insure compatible land and water uses, preserve and enhance the natural
assets of the area and create the best possible total environment. The
plains will be developed on the basis of the proposed land exchange and
other alternatives.
Plans will be guided by goals of "Newport Tomorrow" and will be
directed toward achieving a marine - oriented environment featuring multiple
uses of the waters and shoreline and a hig.n <ual,ity residential atmosphere.
Accordingly, study plans ,;ill include, but not be limited to, consideration
of air, noise and water quality; :aultip-le recreational uses public access
to tidelands a d -.paters
factors; economic facto
ti( ?S a,ll ('1 �'Y +'i it CC�llYt ^1_(lil
2. SCOPE.
of the State; marine and wild fowl ecology; human
rs; a ^_staetics; and the necessary supporting activi-
qf /C�'PR'.4 ..
Each alternative plan will contain the following elements:
a.
Channel
development and
use 'plans
b.
Land use
and develop;nert
plans.
C. Transportation and traffic plans.
d.. Public facilities plan, including recreational and ecological
factors.
e. Public utilities plan.
f. Public land acquisition requirements.
g. Suggested funding and development schedule.
3. PLANNING CONSIDh;RATIONS.•
In connection with the nrcparation of the general plans, the follow-
ing factors affecting the development of the tipper Bay. area will be analyzed:
a•. County -wide demograplaic and economic trends.
b. Physical gharacteristics of the planning area including topo-
graphy, soils; tributary drainage areas, •andjclirnate.
- 2 -
C. Marine characteristics of the planning area to include water
quality, factors affecting water quality, and engineering considerations;
including channel widths, energy absorption requirements, and sedimentation
characteristics.
d. Ecological considerations for.the uplands ,littoral. &.water.zones.
e, }fir and noise pollution factors.
f. Analysis of recreational trends, requirements, and opportu
nities and constraints.
g. 'Public facilities and utilities.
h. Circulation and transportation._ t
i. Considerations of land acquisition and development costs to
potential revenues and benefits.
4, PLANNING ACTIONS,
It is intended that, whenever possible and appropriate, data from
ovicting c +ii rl 7. °_ °_ and reports r;r 11 .:� -�:.i
included in the planning considerations. New studies and reports, or up-
dating of existing studies, will be generated only in the absence of adequate
data. To this end, it is intended that tize participating organizations will
supply appropriate existing data for the common use of the project.
5. PLANNING PROGRAM.
Following acceptance of the Scope and Planning Considerations, it
is intended that plans will be developed as quickly as possible. An initial
chart of the planning program is attached. A first step in the planning
program is to.establish key target dates as a basis for a refined planning
program.
I ,
Attachment
i
i
I
J
1
I
I
i
I
I
1
)
I
1
F
1
I
l
1
I
F
I
1
i
I
1
I
1
i
•
LLJ Z l :4
H L7 I
[LW
O Jl�
1-. to -� e ¢ U cf - . - . � - - - -
- -�
<L Q W U I- I.
N
Q a � I
U O 1
W
a _
W >- to j 1
U F- `1 H U-
ZZ LL } 4 _ J
Q=om Q
�" 'Q - --- -- - --7
0
Cx O w �i c.) cat- 1 l
o U
to
I
w
-. C. L" Ili Lru-
U
4
I - -
' 1
I
I rj CD
c{ 2 o tt[[
ry
.rul
ry ¢ {
J w O.! y'T_
L'!
V � G
O y
!-
c.
Cif '
L2,
N �
1.23 "'_' li1 k O
I V
Z
[i0. U to
O C
0.
l
I Z
n
Q
i
:L C:)
d O
S
2
. z
O
¢
1
J
- 0.
U
W
V) QU
O O L9
i
I
J
1
I
I
i
I
I
1
)
I
1
F
1
I
l
1
I
F
I
1
i
I
1
I
1
i
•
LLJ Z l :4
H L7 I
[LW
O Jl�
1-. to -� e ¢ U cf - . - . � - - - -
- -�
<L Q W U I- I.
N
Q a � I
U O 1
W
a _
W >- to j 1
U F- `1 H U-
ZZ LL } 4 _ J
Q=om Q
�" 'Q - --- -- - --7
0
Cx O w �i c.) cat- 1 l
o U
to
I
w
-. C. L" Ili Lru-
U
4
I - -
' 1
I
I rj CD
c{ 2 o tt[[
ry
.rul
ry ¢ {
J w O.! y'T_
L'!
V � G
O y
!-
c.
Cif '
L2,
N �
1.23 "'_' li1 k O
I V
Z
[i0. U to
O C
Ci }
l
`- to [Y
n
Q
i
:L C:)
d O
S
cG
U
O
k
•
1
Y
U
�
i
I
J
1
I
I
i
I
I
1
)
I
1
F
1
I
l
1
I
F
I
1
i
I
1
I
1
i
•
LLJ Z l :4
H L7 I
[LW
O Jl�
1-. to -� e ¢ U cf - . - . � - - - -
- -�
<L Q W U I- I.
N
Q a � I
U O 1
W
a _
W >- to j 1
U F- `1 H U-
ZZ LL } 4 _ J
Q=om Q
�" 'Q - --- -- - --7
0
Cx O w �i c.) cat- 1 l
o U
to
I
w
-. C. L" Ili Lru-
U
4
I - -
' 1
I
I rj CD
c{ 2 o tt[[
ry
.rul
ry ¢ {
J w O.! y'T_
L'!
V � G
O y
!-
c.
Cif '
L2,
N �
1.23 "'_' li1 k O
I V
7L V
Q K
J H
a o
Ctf
U to Co
H Y H
J (Y U
G] O W
a :�: cc
a_
0
�o
H
d U
• w
C
0. O
Z
[i0. U to
O C
Ci }
l
`- to [Y
n
i
:L C:)
d O
_ O O¢
_J E)tn
KO< F--J
k
•
1
7L V
Q K
J H
a o
Ctf
U to Co
H Y H
J (Y U
G] O W
a :�: cc
a_
0
�o
H
d U
• w
C
0. O
Z
O C
N n
n
2=Lx: H ai= :7 '
_ O O¢
KO< F--J
O U' -•' Q::D
o m -ID Z O
V) QU
O O L9
>- w w (Y O
w H F Ow
O 'S
In H o"
C) Cl wQ
0. C-
0- 1—w
¢¢COIr
O
Z
1
W
1
U
1
W
1 i #
-J
1 f * it
L)
U
W
`7
O
s
a
un
Z
M
z
z
¢
J '
d
Q
W C'
> o
.. O
f- s
¢ a
Cf
W C3
d Z
O Z
L) Z
Q
r J
¢ a
m
w
s
O
d
3
W
Z
s
W
d
d
w
M031 NSVI
33V1S
>-
N
d
103rM
IVOINHO31
0
C N y C a
to = •r ai ci •r
as 4J E L
T
3: CD •r roE0
L
d> L 7 O•r
ro
r 00 U L
7
> L•r ro NO.
L
d d L > C
.0
W CL 0. ai
y
¢ N
LL
d•r
L �
00
ro
T N c 0
p�
L N iJ O •.r
L
to a c r 4J
E a-+ •r •r ro 0
T
E+-+ro roroN
L
7•r L 4J -0 •r
ro.
w C 4J ro •r L
7
7 N ro
c
3+-tC OE
ro
CD L 0 N E
rj
r O L) C 7
d d
> n O
L�
ai n L)
r
Wo
O
L
I�
C
rn
O N O
r
C N
C
r y L Y
L
C L O ro to
Q)
C o+ 0. a
a
ro0CD ro•r
0
i-W m n
4J
a a E
u
O
O
U
C
L r 4
ro
mro (DC
3 > E o+ 0
O
00 rov•r
r�
CL S.. L 7 as
-
r- CL c+mro
to
ro n O u
T
f¢ Loa •r
d �
7
^ a+ L •r
^7
E m m ID a+
to rn C 3 C
O
L v r O 'N
v
rn w nv
O m ai C
U
L s ro
c
1 oa E
ro o
^ N
ea •r
N C
N N d 1a
CL 0 E IM
> +J N ro
O•r ro C N to
O O. W 4J -0
U +? L r C L
O
IA ro T C O Ol
I�
L O C •r O
-
4-yI- roa+L
d 0 L C E
Ova roa
>>
d L
+J U U
f
rocro ^vro
> o •r m •r •r
O
0 4J CL 4J
N
L r O C •r
CL. uc U o c
d•r N U
Q N
ro
m
O
d
I�
>
_
a•+.r
C 4J
d U
,L
E 0i
a� •n
d
4J.0
d
ro o
4J
1D
N 4-
r
O
N
> W
30NO3 NSV1
33V1S
Y a
133COU
IVOINHO31
m
w
M031 NSVI
33V1S
>-
W�-
103rM
IVOINHO31
Y
O
Ol C
C •r
W L
ro
ai
0
O 2
N U
d•r
L �
O L
U 7
d
L
C
ro N
ro
L N
rl
0.
_
> a
>
c
c u u
O
d d
L�
C7Z
r
CL
L
O L
T N
n
¢ v
v-ro
Q
C
r
N
CD
O C
f ro
N
N
C
C
ro
ro
3a
41a
v
4-
r �
to
> to
L ro
d L
O L
C
C
v
N
O
U
c
ro o
ea •r
N N d 1a
> +J N ro
O O. W 4J -0
'
L W 4J C. C
CL ro w w
CL C c u E
d 0 L C E
v a 0 0
+J U U
ra .
RESOLUTION N0. 7137
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH STATING ITS INTENTION TO
INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STUDY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY
AND REQUESTING THE COOPERATION OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE AND THE IRVINE COMPANY.IN THE CONDUCT OF
SAID STUDY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
recently received recommendations from the Newport Tomorrow
Citizens Committee urging comprehensive planning studies for
the entire City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated a program
which has as its goal the creation of an up -to -date comprehensive
general plan for the City; and
WHEREAS, an essential part of such planning involves
the future use and physical development of the Upper Newport
Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the County of Orange and the Irvine Company
have entered into a land exchange agreement affecting the Upper
Newport Bay, which is presently in litigation; and
WHEREAS, depending upon the outcome of this litigation,
the Upper Bay will either be developed in accordance with the
existing land exchange agreement or under different circumstances;
and
WHEREAS, whether the existing land exchange agreement
is consummated or not, the City of Newport Beach has a
responsibility to formulate a long -range plan for the use and
development of .the Upper Newport Bay which will be based upon a
thorough study and analysis of all relevant information includ -'
ing esthetics, ecology, engineering and economics; and
WHEREAS, the County of Orange and The Irvine Company
have assembled information concerning the Upper Bay area which
-1-
_a
needs to be correlated with the City's data;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach, as follows:
1. It is the intention of the City to immediately
commence a comprehensive planning study`of the Upper Newport
Bay based upon:
(a) The assumption that the pending land exchange
agreement will be completed;
(b) The assumption that the pending land exchange
agreement will not be completed.
2. The City Council hereby invites the County of
r
Orange and The Irvine Company to assist the City in the
compilation and documentation of data, and to cooperate in the
conduct of the City's planning studies for the Upper Newport Bay.
ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 1970.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
.2-
2%19/70
_ Gam' --� C. ��. ✓i o: In
July 14, 1970
Mr. Norman B. Livermore, Secretary
The Resources Agency of California
Resources Building
1416 ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Livermore%
Your letter of 10 July outlining the participation of The
Resources Agency in the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning
Project was most welcome. The interest displayed by The Resources
Agency and the assistance already received are greatly appreciated,
and we thank you very much for your interest.
Very truly yours,
B. F. BIRTH
MAYOR
EFIi /GMD /dn
_ s-
NORMAti:N B. LIVERMORE, JR.
RONALD REAGAN
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
�, -- SECRETARY
GOVERNOR OF
RESOURCES BUILDING
CALIFORNIA
1416 NINTH STREET
95814
Department of Conservation
i
��
Air Resources Board
DePnrinnam of Fish and Game
Colorado River Board
Department of Harbors and Watercraft
State Lands Commissloa
D.Parsmeat of Par4s sad Recreation
Once of Nuclear Energy
Department of Water Resources
State Reclamotion Board
'Regional Water Quality
Control Boards
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
State Water Resources
Control Board
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
July 10, 1970 ,.
S RECEIVED
Honorable E. F. Hirth, Mayor b
JUL 13
I City of Newport Beach Glty I Newport
o Ne
3300 Newport Boulevard beach �\
Newport, California 92660
Dear Mayor Hirth:
Thank you for your letter of May 14 expressing your interest in
the Resources Agency of California becoming directly involved
with your Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project. I
believe that liaison between the State and your project would be
most helpful and have taken several steps to assure that full
assistance is provided.
I have established a Resources Agency Upper Newport Bay Committee
which will review elements of your plan as they are developed
for my guidance in reacting to your final plan. Mr. Edward Ehlers,
Program Development Officer, Department of Navigation and Ocean
Development,is serving as Chairman of this committee. Other
affected departments are serving as members.
With regard to the Resources Agency serving on your project com-
mittee, I feel that our appropriate role in this planning program
should be in an observer capacity. Our representatives will
provide technical assistance and monitor the work of your com-
mittee rather than sitting as members per se. The representatives
will not vote on any matters which come before your committee.
I have asked Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Robert Montgomery, Regional
Manager, Region 5, Department of Fish and Game to serve as the
primary and secondary representatives respectively. Mr. Ehlers
will attend key meetings of your policy body and Mr. Montgomery
will attend policy and technical meetings as they are held.
r
Honorable E. F. Hirth -2-
Both of these representatives wAl work together to assure that
the various units of the Resources Agency are contacted as neces-
sary to give your group all information considered to be pertinent
to the development of your plan.
I believe this procedure will serve both your interests and those
of the State of California and I hope that this arrangement will
be satisfactory to you. Thank you for your consideration.
CC: Hon. Alton E Allen
Hon. Robert Walker
Hon. G Ray Arnett
Sincerely,
N. B. Livermore, Jr.
May 14, 1970
Mr. Robert J. Ball
235 Iris Avenue
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Dear Mr. Ball:
Thank you very much for your letter of 3 May enclosing the
article from the magazine "BioScience ".
Indeed I am very much aware of ecological aspects of the
Upper Bay development, as are all the Councilmen, and you might
be interested to know two of our City staff members and I are
attending marine ecology courses at UCI to broaden our knowledge
in this field.
You may not be aware of the fact that on April 16 we had the
first meeting of the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative_ Planning Project__
I am the Project Chai"i"6fan, and the members of the committee include
the President of the Irvine Company, Supervisor Allen, a City Planning
Commissioner, a City PB &R Commissioner, another Councilman, and the
City manager. Additionally, Mr. Norman Livermore, Jr., California
State Resources Agency Secretary, has been invited to participates
and I feel sure that he will accept after we answer some questions
he has posed. Each of the participating organizations represented
on the committee has provided staff personnel. The Technical Staff
is coordinated by our own City Harbor & Tidelands Administrator.
I am enclosing a copy of the objective of the planning project
for your information. I hope you will note the emphasis on total
environmental factors,.not the least of which is the ecology of the
Upper Bay. I emphasize that this objective was mutually approved by
all participating organizations. we will have our next meeting on
the 20th of May when these objectives will have been expanded into
a comprehensive scope by the 'Technical Staff.
Your interest is greatly appreciated, and I hope you will not
d
Mr. R. J. Ball
5/14/70
Pg. 2
feel reluctant to contact either
Administrator, Mr. G. M. Dawes,
or want to keep closer in touch
EFFi /GMD /db
Enclosure
CC: City Clerk i`
me or our Harbor and Tidelands
should you wish further information
with the development of the project.
Very truly yours,
E. F. RIRTF:
Mayor
ilia�v 3,
favor Ed nirth
City of Neimort Beach
Newport Beach, C�.liforni.a
Dear Hr. Hirth,
As the diSbUted land s aan of the Back Dav con' i- nue =:, -ore and
:ore evidence accumulates that P,i.ves indication that bays and estuaries are
Of vital significance to our well being and to our ecological bank account.
It mould appear that the State Lands Division and the Orange County Board of
Supervisors were ormmature in their approval of such a swap. In the event that
the courts decide that the swaa is legal, and in the evert that the county
supervisors persist in their approval after the forthcominr election, it will
t'en ne up to the Plewport City Council to pass approval on the development of
this back bay. It is my fervent hope that tih.e council will be well informed
on all the ecologic aspects of this develop-,ent and the need for some "non —
development." I am enclosing copies of a fine summary of the need for undevel-
oped hay areas taken from the new issue of Bioscience and hope that each council -
ean can find time to read it. We hope the der a;er'. will not -turn out to he
another Irvine snort job.
Y/ j\
SSncere v,
\�V
\J
Robert J. Ball
235 Iris Avenue
Corona del Mar
�yV�Q ;�� California 9262$
Oki
v
1 APRIL 1970 VOL. 20 NO. 7
American Institute
of Biological •
R' Sciences
Cover Photo: The Christmas tree tanworm ..Spiro-
branches giganteus, is one of the most beautiful Biu5V-rw!Renc%:;
of the marine potychaete worms Found in tubes
imbedded in reef-building corals of the warmer
seas, it extends two colorful. spiraled series of
branchial plumes which react quickly when the
animal s disturbed. II is. therefore. seldom seen THE TEST. OF THE ESTUARIES
except by the most careful and quiet observe
The branchial plumes are about three- quanersof
an inch when fully extended_ (Photo by William J. Around our coasts, the focal point of etch watershed Is an estuary. There arc about 900 of
Jahoda. Eastern Connecticut State College. Wit- these sites of interaction bct wcen land drainage and the ocean, and they vary from the mouth
limantic.) of the mighty Mississippi to lagoons and the oulfulls of small rivers. Estuaries arc complex and
challenging. and they probably serve . more human uses than any other kind of aquatic entity.
Editorial Board Many arc vivid examples of environmental insult —the result of man's failure to achieve a
.i durable relationship with his environment.
Edward S. Deevey, Philip Grant, A. C. Leopold; In each estuary, an ecosystem hits emerged, with the biological components achieved
Eugene P. Odum, Meredith Runner, Howard A. through evolutionary selection and adaptation. Several biological characteristics contribute
Schneiderman, Philip Siekevitz, and Herbert to their high value for human uses -sand to their vulnerability to human abuses. Species which
Stern. - were available for invasion from the river and the ocean have been rigorously Selected in a
relatively violent aquatic environment, and the survivors are those which can tolerate. salinity
Editorial Stall variation, temperature fluctuations, high turhiditics, and other cnvironmenvd stresses. A rcla-
Publisher: John R. Olive lively small number of species has been successful. Those which survive, however, frequently
Editor: Francis S. L. Williamson possess caccllcnl adaptations which permit them to trap and utilize the large flow of nutrients
from the land. Scssilc bcnthic species, for instance, arc a much larger component than in most
Head of Publications and .aquatic systems. The successful species arc frequently very abundant indeed, and provide the
1 Associate Editor: crops of oysters, crabs, shrimp, menhaden, striped bass, and many other fish of the coastal
Robert S. Lelsner zone. In addition, many species which live principally in the pecan have an obligate depen-
dency on the estuary for part of their life history.. An even larger number of coastal fish enter
Secretary: the estuary periodically to browse on the abundant fauna.
Alice C. Mansfield But vulnerability stcurs from paucity of species and use by migratory forms: If environmcn-
tal circumstances arc intolerable fora single stage in the life history of one important species
Managing Editor: in the rather short food chain, all of the trophic levels .depending on that species will. decline.
Margaret U. Chambers The integrity of the entire estuary is of importance to a species which must move through the
estuary at ]cast twice. in its life history. and a pollutant which creates an intolerable condition
Editorial Assistant: were" one segment of the estuary may destroy the migratory pattern. In addition, there arc
f. Patricia M. Gerkin essential nursery areas in which water quality governs species success.
Features and News Editor: Many engineers, developers. and planners attempt to use some measurable physical or
Walter G. Peter III chemical characteristic of water as critcriu of quality. While such indexes arc useful and have
the merit of convenience. they frequently fail because they arc not oriented to the biological
Associate News Edltors: system as the primary base for most of our uses of estuaries. Commercial harvests, recreational
Jo Ann V. fowler fishing, and waste disposal capacities depend directly on the biota and its processes. Threats
Karen J. Fling to the estuary, except for objectionable aesthetic conditions, arc the changes which may dam.
age energy flow, community structure, or species success. Such damage can result from nu-
BUSinGsS Staff tricot overloading, dredging and filling, diversion of fresh water, addition of acute or chronic
Advertising Production: biocides, . excessive heat disposal, destruction of wetlands that provide nutrient hanks, dumping
of solid wastes, increased sediment output, and the rest of our " popullutien" effects.
D. Anne Harberger The biological system ofan estuary is vulnerable to environmental changes which have not
Institutional Subscriptions: been within the experience of the species involved. We arc exceeding those experiences in
Frank Lo Verde many ways simultaneously, and some of the result, could have been anticipated.. Our social,
economic, and governmental systems arc all involved in our present, unfortunate patterns of
Membership:. Joanna Buckle excessive concentration and careless disposal of waste. Biologists must take more active part
in comprehending the nature . and capacities of such ecosystems as estuaries and sounding a
Opinions expressed by authors are their own and clear klaxon when they are ihrcatcncd Dcspitc some excellent estuarine research in recent
do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the ycary we still do not know enough to describe or quantiry the flow of energy in any except a
American Institute of Biological Sciences nor the few estuaries. We cannot yet adequately assist the planner, the engineer, or the public agency
institutions with which the authors are affiliated. by providing useful predictions of the biological effects of specific environmental changes.
M4 Circulation to be audited by Verified
�-[I� Audit Circulation Corporation e do not yet sufficiently understand estuarine systems or processes and we have not yet
werica
Editorial and business address: American Insti- achieved our prpfcssional potential for protecting present values or enhancing future uses
lute of Biological Sciences, 3900 Wisconsin Rve,.
of c,tuuric,.
NW, Washington, D.C. 20016. Printed at Editors If c,tuuncs are to return ihcir unique biological chdraeteri:lics and high usefulness, Iastipg
Press; Inc., 6041 33rd Ave., Hyattsville, Mary solution, must be Hound to the related problems of waste disposal and environmental dis-
land 20782. National Advertising Representa:. ruptiun. 'Theis must not violate the capacities of the estuaries and these opacities can only
tives; Joseph Bourgholtzer, Inc., The JBI Build- be comprehended through appropriate biological research. Our estuaries offer a compelling
in& Mahwah, New Jersey 07430. Advertising lest of our ability to live in enduring harmony with our environment
rates and information mailed on request. L EUGENE CRONIN
395
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 9260
City Rau
3300 Newport B1Vd.
(714) 073 -2110
May 14, 1970
Mr. Norman Livermore, Jr.
Secretary for Resources
The Resources Agency
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Livermore;
Mrs. Marshall has given me your letter of April 28 containing
your questions relative to the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning
Project. One of the last actions of Mrs. Marshall during her admin-
istration as Mayor was to launch this important project, and I can
assure you as the new Mayor of the City of Newport Beach, and as
Chairman of the Project group, that I intend to pursue the Planning
Project with utmost vigor.
S am aware of the similar letter that you sent to Chairman
Alton E. Allen, of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. I regret
that the nearly simultaneous action of both participating organiza-
tions'in attempting to gain your support of the project has left some
doubt in your mind as to whether there are one or two planning pro-
jects contemplated. There is indeed only one comprehensive planning
project, and Supervisor Allen and I are working very closely on the
project, he as the official County representative, and I as one of
the City representatives and the Chairman of the entire project.
The project came about through the recognition of the City
Council of its obligations to ultimately produce land use and zoning
plans for the Upper Bay area, all of which are within our City limits.
We felt that the best way to produce such a plan would be to have
the active participation of the other two major organizations involved
from the very inception of planning. Thus we now have a cooperative
group consisting of the City, which must produce a land use plan,
the County, which is the trustee of the tidelands involved, and The
Irvine Company, which owns the littoral land. We know of the manifold
interest of the State Resources Agency, and it was felt by all that
your participation on the policy level would greatly enhance our
planning effort. In addition to the advice and guidance that you,
or your personal representative, could provide at the policy level,
c
4
Mr. N. Livermore, Jr.
5/14/70
Pg. 2
we would hope that this sort of direct participation would also lead
to our obtaining more direct and expedited support on the Technical
Staff level.
I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of our April 16 meeting.
I hope you will pay particularly close attention to the objective,
which has now been approved by all of the local participants and
which emphasizes multiple environmental factors. The Technical
Staff is now engaged in broadening this objective into a comprehen-
sive scope and planning program which will be discussed at the next
meeting on 20 May, at 3:00 P.M., at Mariners Library, 2005 Dover
Drive, Newport Beach. I sincerely hope that you or your represen-
tative can attend this meeting and obtain a better feel for the
entire project.
We do not at this time have a specific target date for the
completion of'the project. I am sure that we will discuss this
aspect at the meeting on 20 May, but all participants have already
indicated that this project is to be prosecuted as rapidly as
possible. I cannot yet give you a clear focus on the amount of
time that would be required on the part of yourself or your repre-
sentative should you accept the invitation of the group to participate.
However, it is not intended that the policy level group will meet
any more frequently than required to guide the efforts of the Technical
Planning Staff. A draft of our initial planning program is enclosed,
which may give you a little more insight into the direction we are
heading.
I truly hope that you will participate or be represented on
this very important project.
EFH /GMD /db
Enclosures
CC: Supervisor Alton E. Allen
City Clerk
Very truly you�s,
`Ny
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
MORMAN 8, LIVERMORE, JR.
SECRETARY
Deportment of Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Harbo'. and Wotercroft
Department of Parks and Recreelion
Dep rtmant of Waters Resoa...
RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNOR OF
CALIFORNIA
^jmll
i
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET
93814
Air Reeaarus Board
Colorado River Board
State Lands Commission
off. of Nucleon Energy
State Reclamation Board
Regional Water Gaolity Control
Boards
State Water R ... urtes Control
Board
April 28, 1970
.9
s
�
Mrs. Doreen Marshall, Mayor �(� 0 of
City of Newport Beach v "Vmv City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mrs. Marshall:
Thank you for your letter of April 21 inviting me or my
designee to work with the City of Newport Beach, the County
of Orange and the Irvine Company on the study of the Upper
Newport Beach area within the City Limits of the City of
Newport Beach.
As you may know, the Board of
recently passed a resolution 1
California, Resources Agency,
hensive planning study of the
Newport Bay. I have recently
respect to certain details of
react to that resolution.
Supervisors of orange County
which would include the State of
as a participant in the compre-
development potential of Upper
made inquiry to the County with
this study so that I can better
I presume that the portion of the study you have referred to
will be coordinated with and would be an integral part of the
overall effort. If the study you have referred to in your
letter is different than that referred to in the county
resolution, I would appreciate your advising me.
Sincer y,
N. B. Livermore, Jr,
%tea
w •K
April 21, 1970
Mr. Norman $. Livermore, Jr.
Secretary for Resources Agency
State of California
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Liven ere:
The Newport ]leach City Council, recognizing its le .-al and moral responsibility
to fonuhlate a long -range plan for the use and developcient of the overall
Upper Nei,l ;ort I3ay area, has recently initiat_•�d a Comprehensive plats ing study
of this area within its City lir,iits. ' is action was taken by the City
Council's unanimous adoption of Resolution No. 7137 on February 9, 19700
a copy of which is enclosed.
The City of Nmport 3each has invited the Coi.uity of Orange acid The Irvine
Company to cooperate in the conduct of this :study. both parties have accepted
this invitation and have named their representatives to participate with the
City in this Upper Newport bay planning project.
Ile respectfully invite you, as Secretary for Resources, or your designated
representative, to work with the City of Newport &:ach, the County of Grange
and The Irvine Company on this study. The participation of the State Resources
Agency is of vital importance to this study for reasons which, I arm sure, are
obvious to you.
A preliminary organizational meeting for this project was held on April 16,
1970, in Newport Beach. Colonel George Dawes, Harbor and Tidelands Administrator
for,the City of Newport Heath, has been named coordinator for this project.
1 enclose for your information a list of the persons present at this meeting;
the meeting agenda; the adopted statement of this project's objective uid
elements; and the organization chart for the conduct of this study. You will
note the placement of the.State Resources Agency and its technical staff on
this chart.
• - <.,
Mr. Norman B. Livermore, Jr. - 2 - April 21, 1970
The Newport Beach City Council believes that this comprehensive plan'ling
study will be of vital importance to the City, the County of Orange, and
the State of California regardless of the outcome of the land exchange agree-
ment between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company, now in litigation.
We look forward to the participation by the State of California in this
project, participation which will be very important to the project's final
success.
Very truly yours,
DOREEN NI MSHALL
Mayor
DM:pg
Enclosures
cc: Supervisor Alton E. Allen
Chairman
Orange County Board of Supervisors
11r. William R. Mason
President
The Irvine Conpar y
By she G'i'F �llU IL
CITY O Fr Iti=`. "! GRT G AChi
City Council of Newport Beach
City Hall
Newport Beach California
Members of the Corneils
April 2ov 197o
I am encouraged to Bee :,lie County of u4ange, the Irvine
Company; and the City oe N_ %%port "Beach working to gether on
the development of Upper Nesap *.rt Bay.
But I w.. dismayed at the composition of the study teF•q as re-
ported in the loc a.' press. No one from tha Friends of Newport
Bay, the Upper Bay afen. Be Fund, ar kjiozvled ;able privatf+ citizens
have been invited IN pe•5'tioipate in. this endeavor.
During the pest two N e.,:s 4, through the Friendq of the Bay, five
thousand people have visited the Upper Bay and expressed
concern for its Future, T e,�Igfest that Dr, Chala es Greening~
Cha >rman of the Priendo o'' the Bays participate in this. study
group, With his extensive knowledge of the Bay: , hietoryf, it' e
ecul ogi al and recreational velues,he le p rtioulax ly well suited
to afd the City as iro the beet coura a of development -In the
public's interest,
All of the members of the study team h<.ve approved the land
exchange, To avoid bias in the further planning for the B:iy:,
it as important that other points of view be Included. None
of the study tea-a nembers have researched the value of the Bay
to schools, the public or to wildlife,
In all fairness to in ure proper p.1n ani.ng and the presen aticn
of_al poSsnts of vies, I Huge that the City Council include
Dr.. Greening as a ,member of the study team,
SInceiely,
Gary RogeY:y
Corona del Magic high School
J
4
5
6
7
8
J
15
132 0
o" 16
.z
cZ
po 17
a
i" V-It za✓,
CMES SEffT
APP 2 7 'f91D Cy �•.�
Lc,- :,ef..ger
�f--;; r me
TY the EW OPT COUNCIL E SOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF `I ",+ Work, Dfr tm
iY OF N_WPORT BEACH C
D Pmnulog Dim^top/
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA C✓D,hef 1,V 10W �
April 7, 1970
On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and carried, the
following Resolution was adopted: —/j
BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution 70 -268, dated March 17, 1970,
is hereby amended to include the State of California Resources
Department as.a participant in the Comprehensive Planning Study of
the Development Potential of Upper Newport Bay.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Engineer of the Orange
County Flood Control District is included as one of the Orange County
representatives in the comprehensive planning study.
10
19
20 AYES
of
NOES:
h
vi ?T 13v5CH�
ti
SUPERVISORS ALTON E. ALLEN, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS ROBERT W.
BATTIN, DAVID L. BAKER, AND WM. HIR9TEIN
SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
23'
24 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
25 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
26 I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that
27 the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
said Board.at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of
28 Aril 1970 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said
oar ,
29
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto.set my hand and seal this
30 7th day of April 1.:19 70
W.. E'. ST JOHN
31 County Cle W and ex- officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors of
32 Resolution No. 70 -374 Orange County, California
Amend Res. 70 -268 -
P :tg Auth. Coop. in Compre-
hensive Planning-Study BY,
Upper Newport Bay Deputy
s
� =`dry
APR z 7 WU
ALLAN
By the CITY COUNCIL e
CITY OFAJPy/FCfflz44Cth the Upper Bay
Newport Beach City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Gentlemen:
SEEK
April 21, 1970
The City of Newport Beach endorsed the Upper Newport Bay
Land Exchange only after an understanding had been reached with
the County, as I understand it, that the Big Canyon park and the
two neighborhood parks on the west side would be dedicated to the
city. -- —
A legal question has now.been raised: Does the County have
the right to make such a gift of public property? The usual
practice when the County conveys ownership of a parcel to a city
is to charge the city half of fair market value. In the present
case, this might come to around 1i million dollars.
I would suggest that the City seek clarification of this
legal point as part of its current re- evaluation of the Upper
Bay Land Exchange:
Very truly yours,
Allan Beek
28 Beacon Bay
Newport Beach
California 92662
,U)
- r
App. 2 � MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
By fie CITY COUNCIL OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
April 15, 1970
IN RE: 1970 -71 BUDGET PREVIEW
On motion of Supervisor Hirstein, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the 1970 -71 Budget Preview is received and ordered filed as
presented by the County Administrative Officer.
IN RE: HEARING PROPOSED ADOPTION OF
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AS AMENDED
On motion of Supervisor Baker, duly
carried, the hearing on the proposed adoption
National Electrical Code, as amended, is cont
10:00 A.M.
THE 1968 EDITION OF THE
CONTINUED
seconded and unanimously
of the 1968 edition of the
Lnued to July 15, 1970, at
IN RE: CHIEF ENGINEER TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FLOOD AND WATER
QUALITY STUDIES FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UPPER NEWPORT
BAY PLANS
On motion of Supervisor Baker, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the Chief Engineer of the Orange County Flood Control District
is authorized to make recommendations for flood and water quality
studies for future use in the development of Upper Newport Bay plans.
//A
Nk
F 1013•x.2
2
41
9
10
11
12
13
J
15
zz
Ono
16
�Fa
c=�
�0 17
0
c
LE
20
21
22
23
24
M
29
30
31
?:tg
APR 27 Iyi0 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
the CITY COUNCIL ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
OF N2WPORT BEACH April 8, 1970
,u hey
C' .i;r Wor}e U1rM�
G �I1 r
t
other
L' "4<
On motion of Supervisor Phillips, duly seconded and carried,
the following Resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby affirm its intention
to continue with the present agreement with the Irvine Company for the
exchange of land in the Upper Newport Bay.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the request by Supervisors Battin
and Baker to terminate the agreement is denied.
IAYES: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, WM. HIRSTEIN AND ALTON E.
ALLEN
NOES: SUPERVISORS ROBERT W. BATTIN AND DAVID L. BAKER
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that
the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of
April 1970 , and passed by'a three- fifths vote of said
oar
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
8th day of April , 1.970 .
W. E. ST JOHN
Resolution No. 70 -382
Retain Land Exchange
Agreement w /Irvine Cu.
Upper Newport Bay
'.County Clerk and. ex- officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors of
cO,range County, California
eputy
April 21, 1970
Alys Anderson
1417 Ffariners Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Alys:
Thank you very much for your letter of April H. Although you did
not say in so Hoary words that you were concerned about the future
development and use of the tipper Newport Pay, I presume that this
is the matter to which you refer when you express concern about
possible destruction of wild life.
I want you to know that tine City of Newport Beach has just started
a plaraiing study with the cooperation of th- CouxLty of Orange and
The Irvine Company which will give consideration to the possibility
of preserving a good ecological balance in the development of the
Upper Bay. Much of the land in the kipper Bay area is privately owned.
and it is important for us who represent public agencies to plan
cooperatively with the private owner for a good development which
will consider preservation of the wild life, recreational needs, and
water oriented activities.
Thank you very much for writing to me and expressing your interest in
our City.
Very truly yours,
DDREFN MARSIXI
Mayor
IIM: pg
s�
rrn�t►�7[' 3).
Ad
v
Cf F
RECEIVED
APR 10 1971 ,t0
Mayor
City of Newport
>, reach h
7
April 17,:.1970
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Mayor
SHORELINE MANAGIMF 'f S -371 (NFJIDLX): Tully informs me that the State Senate
committee on Governmental rganization will be hearing this bill on Thursday,
April 23. He will be in Sacramento on the following day for a League Annex -.
ation Committee meeting. It would be helpful for him to go up a day early, in
time to attend the hearing on this shoreline management legislation which
could have such a drastic effect on our City.
Because this is an overnight trip, I feel the new Council should be advised
of Tully's possible attendance at its organizational meeting next Tuesday
afternoon for its concurrence and any possible instruction. I recommend op-
position to the Neiedly bill which would establish a permit system for all
substantial coastline changes (over $10,000) and regional commissions similar
to Milias AB 640. In addition, the bill conflicts with Lt. Governor Reinecke's
Task Force recommendations which we have supported by Resolution No. 7169.
COURT SITE PRESENTATION: Welton Becket's presentation, including model and
slides, to the and o Supervisors last Wednesday, was excellent. On the
whole, it seemed to be well received by the Supervisors. Only Dave Baker
was absent. Although the explanation of two possible procedures for describ-
ing the County's costs (same total dollars) was somewhat unclear in the
formal presentation, I believe the informal staff discussion which followed
clarified the matter.
We, of course, had to allow additional time for the County staff to analyse
and report on our proposal. However, time is running out and the next Council
will probably find it necessary to insist on a prompt decision.
I attach a clipping from today's Santa Ana Register on this subject.
CITY ARTS COMMITTEE: Please note the Committee is sponsoring a City Arts
Festival - a'}urie show - to be held on Sunday, May 17, in the Civic Center
Gallery.
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STUDY: The organizational meeting
held last Thursday a ternoon launched this important project in a positive
and successful manner. Members' attendance was 100 %. It was agreed to include
the State of California as a participant in the study. The Director of the
Natural Resources Agency will be invited by us to name a representative for
this purpose.
The proposed statement of objective was approved with the following minor
amendment: on line 113, insert the words "and State of California" after New-
port Beach.
a
_ .Z, _
The proposed summary of the study elements was approved with the following
minor amendment: substitute the words "human factors" for sociological trends.
The proposed organizational structure was approved with the addition of the
State of California Natural Resources Agency as a third cooperative or
participating agency with its respective technical staff. George Dawes
was named Project Coordinator as recommended.
It was agreed the first step must be to define in writing the project scope,
thereby establishing its boundaries. George has scheduled a meeting of the
technical staffs representing all participating agencies for next week.
They will prepare a statement of scope for review and approval by the entire
project committee.
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City.Clerk V
A-.
Memorandum
, �0-a`a
United States Department of the Interior .
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
SACRAMENTO REGION
2800 COTTAGE WAY STUDY SESSION
ROOM E•2753 ITEM NO. 4
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825
February 13, 1973 .
To: Members of the Title Evidence and Appraisal Work Group
Upper Newport Bay Field Committee
This memorandum will serve as a resume of the meeting of the Title
Evidence and Appraisal Work Group, Upper Newport Bay Field Committee,
held on February 9, 1973, in the office of the City Attorney, City of
Newport Beach. Unless comments are received suggesting revisions or
corrections to this memorandum it will serve as a basis for the report
by the Mork Group to the full Committee at the meeting scheduled on
February 23, 1973. „
The meeting of the Work Group was attended by:
Adrian Y,uyper, County Counsel, County of Orange
Robert E. McCarthy, bureau of Land Management, Sacramento
Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney, Newport Beach
James Trout, State Lands Division
Tom Smith, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland
Richard J. Dauber, Office of the Solicitor, Sacramento
The first subject discussed was the funding of the appraisal, surveying .
and title evidence which we had estimated to be in the neighborhood of
$15,000 for each participant. Mir. Trout advised that the State does not
have any money available for this purpose. He also stated that Mr.
Livermore was advised by Mr. Otis that the United States does not at
this time know Where it will obtain the $15,000. Mr..C'Neil advised that
he has fist yell apprt:;ached the City Council for, funds and thereiIore does
not know whether or not the City could fund its share of the appraisal,
survey and title costs.
Mr. Trout suggested an alternative to employing an independent appraiser
and an independent surveying company. His alternative was that the
State Lands Commission could make a staff appraiser available and that
the Federal Government might make a staff appraiser available and that
together, using the existing information available, they could jointly
prepare.an appraisal containing the maximum amount that would be required
to acquire the property and a minimum amount. The State could then go to
the Legislature for the necessary appropriation, and the United States
could take the necessary steps to fund the project.
i
�I
PA
It %las subsequently a.;reed that there would be an appraisal board set
up with a State appraiser, a Bureap..of Sport Fisheries and 'Wildlife staff
appraiser, and 'a County appraisers ;,the board. They would make an
appraisal of the property on th-e assumptions and legal bases furnished to
the^ by the Mork Group a,-,d s;
FEB 14 1973
Newport Beach City Council
By Me CITY COUNCIL
CITY AP NcwPPAT tEACN
Dear Councils:
19842 Frank St.
Orange, Calif. 92669
January 17, 1973
V ('t
l-/- t/ r� l
I am ver# concerned about the destiny of the area known as the Newport Back
Bgy. I sincerely hope that it is left in its nattrral state and /or made
mfficaally into a preserve. Orange County is very short of wildlife
preserves of any kind, and will be even shorter by proportion to popu-
lation as the popubation increases at its very rapid rate. The Back
Bay is precious to many forms of life; migratory birds, occupants.of
the estuary itself, and sealife. Buildings can be built anywhere.
Estuaries are a different matter.
Having expressed the essence of *y opinion I remain sincerely yours,
&'f— &Iyot-
e Erik Tootell
✓q�v j t�,� 1J
JAN 1 U....@73.
D.I.
.....................
COMES
SENT TO:
.Al pGr
ttun ¢der
1 +1 ur0ey
1'nulir \V mk ?. Directod
pnm nM Director
Dlher
��
��ouucilmest
U'
✓q�v j t�,� 1J
Mr. EdwardA. Smith
2501 Bamboo
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Edward:
i
Thank you•for your letter concerning the Upper Newt Say issue and the
transportWon problen in the City of Newport Beach.
The City is always very concerned about the fate of the Back Bay. As
directed by the Council, the City staff had been involved with the County,
the Irvine Company, Federal Department of Interior and the Army Corps
of Engineers to study the. -back Bay. This study is not aimeii.at develop-
ing the Back Bay but to preserve it for both the enjoyment of the citizens
of Newport Beach and the preservation of wild life. No decision has been
made on this vital issue because studies are still underway as to the
best way to preserve and enhance the natural attributes of the.Back Bay_
On October 12, 1970, the City Council appointed a Citizens Transportation
Committee to study all aspects of transportation in Newport Beach and to
take appropriate recommierdations to Council. An adequate network of
streets in order to provide easy access to all parts of the City, includ-
ing feeding into Costa Mesa, are being considered by the Transportation Com-
mittee. I am sure their recommendations when considered and implemented
will provide the better transportation system you are concerned about.
Thank you very much for your letter of concern.
Very truly yours,
DONALD A. MCINNIS
Mayor
DAMc:pg
c
I>
Dear Mayor McInnis,
My name is Edward L. Smith, I live in Eastbluff, and I've
heard you speak before at class (Civic s) this summer, you may
have recalled the two class you spoke to.
My main concern is over the upper Newp
this area. I'd appreciate a quick, personal
just as soon as possible. What is being done
ecology of the upper Newport bay, and promote
between Newport and Costa Mesa other than the
Jamboree blvd?
els
Drt Bay issue of
reply to this letter
to preserve the
better transportation
Coast Hwy. and
Thank -you very much, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Yours Tr,uly,,
Edward L. Smith
FEB
9Y Me CITY COUNCIL
iY C� llr at ?s,;-
BEACt•!
� _:r irs .
;5'S'
,1',01 Surrey 'Drive
,orora del Mar, ^a. 92625
2/1/73
Concerning the Newport Back Bays it is of the utmost
imnortanoe to save the surrounding areno as well as the bray
itself from development. Much wildlife abounds in these
areas, including the last family of :Poxes in Newport.
Tt would be aesthmtioally benifioial to all to -protect
theme -#hioh could be dame by using the funds formerly
arnronriated for the dredging of the islands near the bay
briw,�, 02 million). The are- -s in nuertion are the north
and west sides of tho bays Mok S%y Road# and the section
of '3ig Canyon west of Jamboree Road. "?eaeo give this
:matter your serious consideration.
inoerely�
Tkxvid Irwin
P
1 Y \`
\ r
'3
June 29, 1972
Mr. William M. Monroe
Secretary's Field Representative
United States Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
Pacific Southwest Field Committee
Post Office Box 36098
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Monroe:
Thank you very much for your invitation to participate on the
committee studying the recommendations of the Upper Newport
Bay Ta §l: Force. I will be very pleased to be a member of the
comwittee to investigate and develop the recommendations regard-
ing the Upper Newport Bay. The City of Newport Beach has contin-
ually cooperated with the County of Orange, the Department of
the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Irvine Company,
and other interested agencies which have been involved with the
planning of this vital natural resource.
I am looking forward to working on your committee.
Sincerely,
DONALD A. McINNIS
Mayor
DAM,: pg
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR b ,�irr`rC1VED
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY "uvN,zL$�9�21100
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION 0{
G�C1a�eW�� (((
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FIELD COMMITTEE'S
BOX 36098 - 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102
June 23, 1972
Hon. Donald A. McInnis
Mayor, City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Mayor McInnis:
On June 14, 1972, Secretary Morton concurred with the
recommendations of the Interior Task Force on Upper
Newport Bay. I have been directed to Organize a
committee with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife as the lead agency, to investigate and to
develop the recommendations of the Upper Newport
Bay Task Force.
We are most anxious to have the benefit of your
counsel on such a committee. Please accept this
invitation to participate. The Regional Director,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Portland,
Oregon, will be in touch with you shortly to set a
time and place for our first meeting. In all prob-
ability it will be in San Francisco during the week
of•July 24.
Sincerely,
rZ4illiam M. Monroe
Secretary's Field Representative
64 17
v
3s�
�I IN RE: RESOLUTION OF CITY OF NE6JPORT BEACH SUPPORTING rOSITION OF
APPELLANT AND INTERVENORS IN CASE OF COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL,
VS. V. A. HEIM INVOLVING BACK BAY LAND EXCHANGE
On motion of Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, Resolution No. 7725 dated June 12, 1972
from the.City Council of the City of Newport Beach supporting the positio
of the Appellant and Intervenors in the case of County of Orange, et al,
vs. V. A. Heim, involving the Back Bay Land Exchange is received and
ordered filed.
IN RE: LEASE AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER OUTPATIENT
CLINIC BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
On motion of Supervisor Caspers,-duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the Chairman and the Clerk are author-
ized to sign the Lease Agreement dated June 27, 1972, between the County
of Orange and the Board of Retirement of the Retirement System of the
County of Orange, providing for the Retirement System to finance the
construction of the Orange County Medical Center Outpatient Clinic by
means of a leaseback.
IN RE: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN, PHASE II
On motion of Supervisor Phillips, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the Planning Commission is requested
Lo consider as a proposed open space element the existing Master rlar. of
Regional Parks and Local Parks, and to report back to the Board on said
proposal in time for the hearing on Open Space and Conservation Elements
of the Orange County General Plan, Phase II, set-for June 28, 1972, at
10:30 A.M.
AYES: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS. 1=1D-L. BAKER AND
NOES:
ABSENT:
F 1016.1.9
SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS
RONALD W. CASPERS
R. W. BATTIN /y }?;';,^, .ry X!
RALPH B. CLARK
��4j
` I �
Date JUL 3. 1972
............................... r
COPIES SENT TO
p Mna en
11nn9CRT
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
p
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
El 1'.b% W'eAs Directap
p ,.,, n.i.K
June 27, 1972
p
p (:eaocLmeo
�I IN RE: RESOLUTION OF CITY OF NE6JPORT BEACH SUPPORTING rOSITION OF
APPELLANT AND INTERVENORS IN CASE OF COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL,
VS. V. A. HEIM INVOLVING BACK BAY LAND EXCHANGE
On motion of Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, Resolution No. 7725 dated June 12, 1972
from the.City Council of the City of Newport Beach supporting the positio
of the Appellant and Intervenors in the case of County of Orange, et al,
vs. V. A. Heim, involving the Back Bay Land Exchange is received and
ordered filed.
IN RE: LEASE AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER OUTPATIENT
CLINIC BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
On motion of Supervisor Caspers,-duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the Chairman and the Clerk are author-
ized to sign the Lease Agreement dated June 27, 1972, between the County
of Orange and the Board of Retirement of the Retirement System of the
County of Orange, providing for the Retirement System to finance the
construction of the Orange County Medical Center Outpatient Clinic by
means of a leaseback.
IN RE: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN, PHASE II
On motion of Supervisor Phillips, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the Planning Commission is requested
Lo consider as a proposed open space element the existing Master rlar. of
Regional Parks and Local Parks, and to report back to the Board on said
proposal in time for the hearing on Open Space and Conservation Elements
of the Orange County General Plan, Phase II, set-for June 28, 1972, at
10:30 A.M.
AYES: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS. 1=1D-L. BAKER AND
NOES:
ABSENT:
F 1016.1.9
SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS
RONALD W. CASPERS
R. W. BATTIN /y }?;';,^, .ry X!
RALPH B. CLARK
��4j
` I �
's ^s`
June 19, 1972
Honorable Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 687
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Subject: Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No, 7725, a resolution of the
City of Newport Beach supporting the position of the appellant
and intervenors in the case of County of Orange, et al. , vs.
V. A. Heim, involving the Back Bay land exchange; and offering
to cooperate with the County of Orange and all other appropriate
agencies, private land owners, and institutions in order to
arrive at the beet possible plan for the preservation and enhance-
ment of Upper Newport Bay.
Laura Legion
City Clerk
LL:dg
Encl.
June 19, 1972
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange
Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 7725, a resolution of the
City of Newport Beach supporting the position of the appellant
and intervenors in the case of County of Orange, et al_ , vs.
V. A. Heim, involving the Back Bay land exchange; and offering
to cooperate with the County of Orange and all other appropriate
agencies, private land owners, and institutions in order to
arrive at the best possible plan for the preservation and enhance-
ment of Upper Newport Bay.
Laura Lagios
City Clerk
LL:dg
Encl.
JUN 12 1972
By the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
May 23, 1972
—i
i;
IN RE: TERMINATION OF COMMUNICATTOnrS SERVICES 'Gn'" ? 'I'Tm
MISSION VIEJO COMPANY
On motion of Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the Communications Services Agreement
dated January 24, 1967, between the County of Orange and the Mission
Viejo Company is cancelled and she Auditor - Controller is instructed to
cancel billing statements against this agreement that may have been
issued subsequent to December, 1970, as recommended by the Director of
the Department of Transportation and Communications in his letter dated
May 17, 1972.
IN RE: PROPOSED HEAP.INGS ON ZONING DISTRICT MAPS 16 -3 -9 AND 21 -3 -9
ZC 72 -33 CITY OF YORBA LINDA
On motion of Supervisor Phillips, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the Planning Commission is requested
to hold the necessary public hearings on Zoning District Maps 16 -3 -9 and
21 -3 -9, ZC 72 -33, Ordinance No. 2593 and to report back to the Board of
Superviw ors.
IN RE: DISCONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE
PLANNING PROJECT
On motion of Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, the County of Orange discontinues its
participation in the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project.
IN RE: RESOLUTION URGING INDEMNIFICATION FROM OPERATORS OF JET- POWERED
AIRCRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
On motion of Supervisor Casoers,,, duly seconded and unanimously
carried by Board members present, Resolution No. 7694 from the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach dated May $, 1972, urging indemnifi-
cation from operators of Jet - powered aircraft, is received and ordered
filed.
1101$1x12
) I / )
RESOLUTION NO. 7725
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF
THE APPELLANT AND INTERVENORS IN THE CASE OF
COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL., vs. V. A. HEIM,
INVOLVING THE BACK BAY LAND EXCHANGE
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1968, the County of Orange and
The Irvine Company filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against the
County Auditor for the purpose of testing the validity of a proposed
agreement and statute to effect and permit the exchange of certain
property involving tidelands located in Upper Newport Bay and held
by the County of Orange in trust for the public under a State grant;
and
WHEREAS, following the intervention in the lawsuit by
certain citizen taxpayers and a subsequent ruling that the disputed
agreement was valid and constitutional, the County Auditor and the
intervenors appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal of
the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Newport Beach have
expressed concern over the loss of the natural values of Upper
Newport Bay, which natural values would virtually be eliminated if
the land exchange is completed; and
WHEREAS, although an environmentally healthy Newport Bay
is crucial to the well -being of the City of Newport Beach, the
environmental impact of this trade on the entire Newport Bay has
never been determined; and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy H -2 was amended on
February 14, 1972, to reemphasize the determination of the City
Council, through cooperation with the private land owners, the County
of Orange and the State of California, to preserve and create the
best possible total environment in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 7645 dated March 13, 1972, the City
Council joined with the County of Orange in requesting the Department
-1-
r �
of the Interior to investigate the possibility of preserving Upper
Newport Bay as a wildlife sanctuary and urging appropriate Federal
and State agencies to make necessary studies; and
WHEREAS, it is apparent that the land exchange agreement
between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company, which is the
subject of the appellate court litigation, would not be in the
best interests of the citizens of Newport Beach, nor would the land
exchange be in keeping with the Council's policy relative to the
future of the Upper Newport Bay;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach supports the position of the appellant
and the intervenors in their appeal before the California District
Court of Appeal;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport Beach
offers to cooperate with the County of Orange and all other appro-
priate agencies, private land owners, and institutions in order to
arrive at the best possible plan for the preservation and enhance-
ment of Upper Newport Bay.
ADOPTED this 12th day of June, 1972.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
Mayor
DON:mh
6/13/72
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY lj
OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF
THE APPELLANT AND INTERVENORS IN THE CASE OF
COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL., vs. V. A. HEIM,
INVOLVING THE BACK BAY LAND EXCHANGE
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1968, the County of Orange and
The Irvine Company filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against the
County Auditor for the purpose of testing the validity of a proposed
agreement and statute to effect and permit the exchange of certain
property involving tidelands located in Upper Newport Bay and held
by the County of Orange in trust for the public under a State grant;
and
WHEREAS, following the intervention in the lawsuit by
certain citizen taxpayers and a subsequent ruling that the disputed
agreement was valid and constitutional, the County Auditor and the
intervenors appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal of
the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Newport Beach have
expressed concern over the loss of the natural values of Upper
Newport Bay, which natural values would virtually be eliminated if
the land exchange is completed; and
WHEREAS, although an environmentally healthy Newport Bay
is crucial to the well -being of the City of Newport Beach, the
environmental impact of this trade on the entire Newport Bay has
never been determined; and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy H -2 was amended on
February 14, 1972, to reemphasize the determination of the City
Council, through cooperation with the private land owners, the County
of Orange and the State of California, to preserve and create the
best possible total environment in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 7645 dated March 13, 1972, the City
Council joined with the County of Orange in requesting the Department
-1-
of the Interior to investigate the possibility of preserving Upper
Newport Bay as a wildlife sanctuary and urging appropriate Federal
and State agencies to make necessary studies; and
WHEREAS, it is apparent that the land exchange agreement
between the County of Orange and The Irvine Company, which is the
subject of the appellate court litigation, would not be in the
best interests of the citizens of Newport Beach, nor would the land
exchange be in keeping with the Council's policy relative to the
future of the Upper Newport Bay;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach supports the position of the appellant
and the intervenors in their appeal before the California District
Court of Appeal;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport Beach
offers to cooperate with the County of Orange and all other appro-
priate agencies and institutions in order to arrive at the best
possible plan for the preservation and enhancement of Upper Newport
Bay, commensurate with public tidelands trust purposes.
ATTEST:
ty Clerk
ADOPTED this day of June, 1972.
Mayor
-2-
DON; mh
6/7/72
MAY 22 1972
BY +he CITY COUNCIL CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
Office of
CITY ATTORNEY
To: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney
May 22, 1972
Subject: Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Litigation
HISTORY OF THE LAND EXCHANGE
Most of the water area in Upper Newport Bay is owned by the County
of Orange as a result of a tidelands grant from the State of
California which occurred some time in 1919. Most of the land
surrounding the upper bay, as well as three islands in the center
of the bay, is owned by The Irvine Company.
Plans for the development of the upper bay were first conceived
over 30 years ago. During the early 1960s, it was decided that
the Upper Newport Bay would best be developed as a small boat
harbor, similar to the Lower Newport Bay. In part, the plan called
for the dredging of the back bay and the exchange of the tidelands
belonging to and held in trust for the public by the County for
some of the Irvine lands. Implementing the land exchange (trans-
ferring public tidelands to private ownership), however, was pro-
hibited by the express language contained in the tidelands grant,
as well as Article XV, Section 3 of the California Constitution.
1957 LEGISLATION
In 1957 the State Legislature enacted
which authorized the County of Orange
submerged land for upland owned by The
make possible the development of Upper
LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
a special legislative act
to exchange filled, tide and
Irvine Company in order to
Newport Bay as a harbor.
On January 13, 1965, two agreements were executed between the County
and The Irvine Company in pursuance of the proposed exchange: (1)
The land exchange agreement, and (2) the dredging and land fill
agreement.
Re: Upper Newport Bay Land
Exchange Litigation -2- May 22, 1972
EXCHANGE LITIGATION
In order to test the constitutionality of the 1957 statute, it was
necessary to have adverse parties before the court. It is custo-
mary in.this type of litigation to have a County official, such
as. the County Aduitor, refuse to carry out some essential step re-
quired to effectuate the purpose of the statute. In the case of
the .upper bay land exchange, the County Auditor refused to issue
a warrant to pay the County share of the cost of a soils investiga-
tion conducted pursuant to the dredging agreement between the County
and The Irvine Company.
On December 6, 1968, the County and The Irvine Company filed a law-
suit against the County Auditor in Superior Court to compel the
Auditor to _approve the payment of the charges incurred as a result
.of the soils investigation work. The real purpose of the suit was
to have the land exchange and dredging agrements declared valid,
as well as the 1957 statute held constitutional.
After filing of the action in Superior Court, a complaint in inter-
vention was filed by Frank and Frances Robinson, and others, as
residents and taxpayers of the County of Orange, alleging among
other things that the 1957 statute was unconstitutional and that
it violated certain provisions of the State Constitution which limit
and restrict transfer of tidelands to private persons or corporations.
The trial court approved of the Orange County and Irvine Company plan
of exchange and found that the 1957 statute was constitutional on
the grounds that the exchange was permissible in that it would be
beneficial and desirable for the public. The County Auditor and
the intervenors have appealed the trial court's decision to the
District Court of Appeals. Their principal contention is that the
tidelands should be used for public trust purposes and not for pri-
vate development consisting mainly of homes and commercial marinas.
In January of 1971, the membership of the Board of Supervisors changed,
and shortly thereafter the new board unilaterally rescinded the land
exchange agreement with The Irvine Company. The Irvine Company sub-
sequently sued the County for specific performance of the contract,
and that suit is presently pending in Superior Court.
CONCLUSION
It should be apparent from the foregoing discussion involving the
history and litigation connected with the back bay land exchange
Re: Upper Newport Bay Land
Exchange Litigation -3-
May 22, 1972
that the case deals with broad constitutional issues involving
control over .public tidelands. The appellant, County Auditor,
and the intervenors have filed their opening briefs with the
District Court of Appeals. The respondents, County of Orange,
and The Irvine Company, have until ,Tune 19 to file their briefs.
It seems unlikely that the County will file a brief in light of
its action in rescinding the land exchange agreement.
At this point, it is impossible to predict how long this litigation
will continue before it reaches a conclusion. It seems most probable
that the case will eventually wind up in the State Supreme Court.
DENNIS O'NEIL
City Attorney
DON dm
cc: City Manager
City Clerk
Community Development Director
I -
.D.1 . ..... 197?
COPIES SENT TO:
llnor
ED
❑ 1% uFkr ofro"m
Newport teach CCommc�a
3 300 Newpottt Bo u. at&*-
Nwpo,tt 'ISe,,A, CaUfo4n'ia
Newpott Beach:, CaUjo4nia
lay 3,t4 1 9 7 2
MAY 22 1972
By the CITY COUNCIL
CITY 0;1 ra a roc g7 RiACH
/&t� atte"twn 4.d, cau,--d to -the enc)xdz4
tym �atwtp- og the upper Back 6ml.
pant conttovotdieA on tki/, 4tZjec4
wob6u app&eciate. yo" coax&&"
We who .Live 6", can do waethinf, P hope, and
qou,t gtRat help 44 do needed, and app&ecicyted.
What can toe do to be he4jat ?
252 ! al r etdi4j
p / f•
ca lVon, bawi4 C. Ca,�? vlte2, SWtot
i�ob4C. &Aam, i944--464man.,
't pitot
Cdito,ti.t
H
46
i
!dcu e, you 4een the Back. I'cy tately ?
...............
R va.1t open apace denuded o$ water. r7 dt4" huce
✓2,-d hole that ,te'] 'b.re'4 ca auap hote. o2 awamp, Upopt .
which P "Aato tq btAd,. mP and hatch thew; ar4,1,
ao that othek migAxLto tq b.,,ula. "'ml do l..t ke
,I loop. of wtte& deAodati:on its the MuLd of rnowhet -,
yet in v,ieo of, and dwt&ounded by .iswcurnencdlle horre4
og' coatly dturcfivae, and hd;h t cea
H pot ticat football_(, etween two oopodinf po4itica.G
Jgct 'Ona, neiaw't op/wlueh deem ,,),y rateAto do, opt
aucr A atoll hire hetp jul,,, o2 azarwu tut, ao that it',
beow,&t aA a codo2$uG lake ( oa l3a j, ) wl be Ai t i,*
to -it'a hi.rhe'st pountr:aG got the benefit of aGL.
!'J.i th ao o eav parr, an -i t'a. nata4,at a Late. it could be-
coma beaut ,, vt path in a ,vooday aeabV, -o2 c.1 a
Mate 02 Coveanmvrafi conficolLed w Jd Gige przazwa
Jhr e ;'t i'J' --- a ti god it, aritesxd irm it to
be ).ovety Lot a, to behot4 to hate, and to protect.
'e aw, tovjlAi u:. bttai",i itcw_ a.,tently, aa. they have
throurrh -the eentarn� woitZlt -ca,Tinq into the huge
basin that once woi a gteat lake o2 b 1,
: Yuj lwA th A aAgat poternti.aL been bypaaaed ?
l!lhat meat good can be apptZed to -it'a. ue.e ?
C X.P.
Rave, you aeen the 6ae( gay lately ?
1144u, C..%1,C.
CA
A^I Vii' c
A/4
MAY 2z 197[
By the CITY COUNCIL
CITY � �14g "7 c �' ' PZACH
'ADRIAN KUYPER
COUNT' CO."...
CLAYTON H. PARKER
C4I%V ASSISTANT
ROBERT F. NUTTMAN
WILLIAM. J. MCCOURT
ASSISTANTS
;JOHN M. PATTERSON
ARTHUR C. WAHLSTEOT: JR.
JOHN W. ANDERSON
RADNAR R. ENGEBRETSEN
LAURENCE M. WATSON
THOMAS P. CONROY
VICTOR T. BELLERUE
JOHN R. GRISET ,
JO"-% F. POW ELL
CHARLES B. SEVIER
WALTER O. WEBSTER
IRYNE C. BLACK
.RALPH W. BENSON
MARVIN O. WEEKS
SPENCER E. COVERT. JS.
DEPUTIES
35 -r
OFFICES OF
THE COUNTY COUNSEL
County Of Orange
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • P.O. BOX 1379 • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 • 009.8300
b ]q1[
April 25, 1972
IN REPLY REFER TOI
B -505
H_ /. (N )
Honorable Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
515 North Sycamore Street
Santa Ana,.California
SUBJECT: Possible Prescriptive Rights Action
in the Upper Newport Bay Area
NARRATIVE: This is a recitation of the evidence leading
up to a recommendation. that the Board authorize
the filing of an action to determine whether
the public has prescriptive rights over certain
properties in and surrounding the Upper Newport
Bay.
Gentlemen:
By letter of May 28, 1970, this office reported to
the Board of Supervisors that there was evidence that there
were prescriptive rights existing over certain properti.es in
the Upper Newport Bay.. To confirm this evidence, authorization
j was sought to place advertisements in various newspapers to
secure witnesses. The Board, by minute order of June 2, 1970,
authorized such advertising.
At least several hundred persons indicated ability
to give evidence of continued, unobstructed use of such lands
for long periods of time, proving the existence of such pre-
scriptive easements pursuant to the 1970 California Supreme
Court decisions, Gion v. City of Santa Cruz and Dietz V. King,
2 C.3d 29.
A report was made to the Board June 19, 1970, but
no further action was undertaken until a new report was di-
rected January 12, 1971. On receipt of reports from this
office and that of the Department of Real Property Services,
a
Hon. Board of Supervisors
April.25, 1972
Page two
recommending the necessary action of surveys and legal
descriptions preparatory to a lawsuit, the Board on April 13,
1971,_ ordered the County Surveyor to prepare the necessary
metes and bounds descriptions. The County Surveyor's work
was completed and submitted to the Board March 28, 1972.
Because, in the interim, the Irvine Company had
brought a new lawsuit against the County concerning the re-
scission of the Upper Newport Bay exchange agreement of 1965,
and private counsel, Mr. Herman Selvin, represented the County
in such litigation, the.Board postponed action in this matter
until consultation with Mr. Selvin. This was done in execu-
tive session April 18, after which the Board requested this
summary and recommendation.
This office believes there still exists substantial
evidence that the public, for long periods of time, has freely
used private property in and around the Upper Newport Bay for
a wide variety of purposes, and, under the doctrine of the
Gion and Dietz cases, has therefore established ownerships of
easemetts tFereon. Litigation is necessary for a legal
determination of this fact.
RECOMMENDATION: That the County Counsel be directed to
institute litigation to establish public
prescriptive rights in and across private
property in the vicinity of the Upper
Newport Bay.
Respectfully submitted,
AK:sd
7
ADRIAN KtITPER
County C4insel
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Office of
CITY ATTORNEY
April 24, 1972
Tod The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney
Subject: Public Access Rights Across Irvine
Company Lands to Upper Newport Bay
At its meeting of March 27, 1972 the City Council referred a
letter from M. A. Sturges to the City Attorney for a report.
Mr. Sturges' letter requested that the Council direct the
City Attorney to file a court action to acquire certain pre -
scriptive easements across Irvine Company land for access to
the Upper Bay, on the theory of long -term public use.
Approximately one year ago, the Orange County Board of Super-
visors instructed the County Counsel to obtain maps and legal
descriptions showing potential areas around the Back Bay where
continuous public use over a number of years may have developed
prescriptive rights of access to the bay across the privately
owned property. In addition, the County Counsel was instructed
to prepare affidavits to be signed by individuals who had for
a considerable time been crossing over Irvine property to get
to the Bay.
The maps and affidavits were submitted to the Orange County
Board of Supervisors on March 28, 1972. The Supervisors in-
dicated that they would consult with the attorney who is
representing the County in the land exchange litigation be-
fore filing the prescriptive rights suit. Barring objections
from its special legal counsel that the new legal action may
have an adverse effect on the land exchange litigation, the
County will proceed with filing prescriptive rights suits
against the Irvine Company to test whether previous public use
has developed the prescriptive rights of access.
To: Mayor and City Council
Res Public Access Rights -2- April 24, 1972
I have discussed this matter with the County Counsel and he has
Indicated-that the.executive session with the Board's special
legal counsel will be held soon. I will contact the County
Counsel's office within the next week for a status report.
Based on the foregoing information, and in order to avoid a
duplication of effort, it would seem advisable to allow the
County Counsel to proceed with the filing of the appropriate
legal action. The City of Newport Beach could join with the
County at a later date.
e. Earn
cc: 'City Manager
City Clerk
ENNIS O'NEIL
City Attorney
N C17), F 192
p� E4VPpRT B
�Uf, racy 6
M. A. STURGES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2219 FORTUNA. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92660
City Council of Newport Beach / ✓ A F� % 1972
City Hall
Newport Beach, California BY the C;'fY CODUCIL
CITY CN AIRF'TVF.G) riZACH
355
6M -1557
u,fe MAR 15 1972
".........
M)NFS SENT TO:
I .eur
+scr
March 13, 199
�. i;. Nprka Ulrcegq
L;
❑ ouoc:lmeut
DEMAND FOR PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND TO BRING
AN ACTION TO BRING JUDICIAL DECISION THAT CERTAIN PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN
CITY LIMITS HAVE IN EFFECT BEEN DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USAGE,
Y4--1 (k
(1)
(2)
A few days ago I was driving in a westerly direction on Bayside Drive. A woman
pedestrian was proceeding also in the same direction next to the curb. I veered
slightly to the left to pass her when a car on my left overtook me and then veered
right, causing me to almost hit the woman. She fell against the woven wire fence
which is just behind the curb, Fortunately, I stopped in time. This fence was
illegally installed by the Irvine Co, This Tract 3867 (sheet 2) Improvement
Plans 1131172, provides for a set -back of 5 -1/2 feet from the curb (sidewalk).
As the fence now stands, it is a public nuisance and could lead to costly claims
of people injured by reason thereof
abated forthwith.
Demand is made that this nuisance be
For fifty odd years the general public has used lands at the head of the upper bay
for shooting, fishing and boating (before it silted up), picnicking and related
activities. Recently the Irvine Company, owner thereof has fenced off this
property effectively denying public access thereto. Demand is herein made that
the City Council, by appropriate action, direct the City Attorney to file action
in the Superior Court of Orange County for judicial decree that said land has,
by public use and passage of time, been dedicated to public usage.
:i A. SS ges
641.1557
Qi.'�7` WK M. A. STURGES
��h1R 1 ,j 1972.► 5 ATTORNEY AT LAW .
�t
CITY OF 2219 FORTUNA, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. .92660
-� NEWPORT BEACH, 6
p\ CALIF.
March 13, 1972
City Council of Newport Beach
City Hall
Newport Beach, California
DEMAND FOR PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND TO BRING
AN ACTION TO BRING JUDICIAL DECISION THAT CERTAIN PRIVATE LANDS WITHIN
CITY LIMITS HAVE IN EFFECT BEEN DEDICATED TO PUBLIC USAGE.
(1) A few days ago I was driving in a westerly direction on Bayside Drive. A woman
pedestrian was proceeding also in the same direction next to the curb. I veered
slightly to the left to pass her when a car on my left overtook me and then veered
right, causing me to almost hit the woman. She fell against the woven wire fence
which is just behind the curb. Fortunately, I stopped in time. This fence was
illegally installed by the Irvine Co. This Tract 3867 (sheet 2) Improvement
Plans 1131172, provides for a set -back of 5 -1/2 feet from the curb (sidewalk).
As the fence now stands, it is a public nuisance and could lead to costly claims
of people injured by reason thereof. Demand is made that this nuisance be
abated forthwith.
(2) For fifty odd years the general public has used lands at the head of the upper bay
for shooting, fishing and boating (before it silted up), picnicking and related
activities. Recently the Irvine Company, owner thereof has fenced off this
property effectively denying public access thereto. Demand is herein made that
the City Council, by appropriate action, direct the City Attorney to file action
in the Superior Court of Orange County for judicial decree that said land has,
by public use and passage' of time, been dedicated to public usage.
furges M, A.
I
TV O F
MAR 13 1972
Ai,N 43 F— By the CITY COUNCIL
�;7Y ter. I �:: :: t•�7 gGAQht
ROAD DEPARTMENT
February 15, 1972
Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Orange
Santa Ana, California
SUBJECT:
Gentlemen:
E
L. MCCONVI.LLE
ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR
ENGINEERING BUILDING
400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA. 92701
TELEPHONE 714 - 894 -9458
Report on fencing in Upper Newport Bay area and on maps
and legal descriptions for determination of public easements
pursuant to Board Minute Order dated December 21, 1971.
Field surveys by the County Surveyor have revealed -that some of
the fencing recently installed around Upper Newport Bay encroaches
upon public rights of way. The location and extent of these
encroachments are shown in red on the attached map. The rights of
way involved are those for Back Bay Drive, Irvine Avenue, and 23rd
Street. All of these rights of way are under the jurisdiction of
the City of Newport Beach. None of the fencing encroaches on county
property.
In regard to the maps and legal descriptions for the determin-
ation of public easements in the Upper Bay area all surveys and
computations have been completed and our estimated completion date
for the maps and descriptions is March 1st.
RECOMMENDATION: None.
Respectfully
Road Commissioner & County Surveyor
LMCCsRVWsik
Enclosure
coos Supervisors Battin, Baker, Phillips, Clark, Caspers
Mr. Thomas
Mr. Kuyper
C. EACH SUP,
AO y Co Co
r
J
FEB 2 5 1912
Dale
COPIES SENT lee
Moor
I,nnnger
vw' ;i Work. Dirmtom
.aieg Uireelaz
Illhrr
Comcilaep
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
February 22, 1972
,i 'ycl} 0/'
fo
o
\„ (9; 2�
�/ -- 0
I23 Da.Ti: REPORT FENCING III UPPER NEUlPORT BAY .".`iEA AI' D 0:T MAPS A,:D
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS
On motion of Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the report dated February 15, 1972, submitted by the Road
Commissioner and County Surveyor, regarding fencing in Upper Newport Bay
area and on maps and legal descriptions for determination of public ease-
ments, is received and ordered filed and the time for completing maps and
descriptions is extended to March 1, 1972.
The Clerk is instructed to forward a copy of said report to the
City of Newport Beach.
IN RE: NOISE REGULATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA AIRPORTS CONTINUED
O:2 motion of uupery isor Phillips, u"Uy oeconded and unanimously
carried, the matter of Notice Regulations for Cali�ornia Airports, sub-
mitted by the Director of Aviation in his letter dated February 7, 1972,
is continued to February 23, 1972, for a report from the Airport land
Use Commission.
IN RE: SOUTH COAST SCENIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
On motion of-Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the review of the South Coast Scenic Improvement Project by the
Ocean and Shoreline Planning Steering Committee, as set forth in their
letter dated February 14, 1972, is ordered referred to the Orange County
Planning Department and the Orange County Road Department for review and
report.
IN RE: ADDITIONAL REPORT POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF MEDI -CAL REFORM
(AB 949)
On motion of Supervisor Clark, duly seconded and unanimously
carried, the additional report dated February 14, 1972, from the Orange
County Medical Center on the Policy Implications of Nedl -Cal Reform
(AB 949), discussing a revised approach on Co- Payment requirements, is
received and ordered filed.
101 9.2.2
March 13, 1972
Misi Karen Olsen
208 Dahlia Avenue
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Dear Miss 01sen:
You may .rest assured that thii City is working diligently
on the best use of the Back Bay. We have had an activew`£
study in this field for two years and are continuing to w
search for the necessary information to solve the prob-
tems involved. We are well aware of the great ecological t
value of.,the i R`6ap °and are dedicated to work toward _, r
its preservation and enhancement and - you, mayr rest•asaured .'
it- x11.1 be protected: ,';'r„ .: v tiL f�� `r•
Your interested is appreciated,. le"
Sincerely,
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
EFH.:pg:
OA W L, a 7'111,
uarh
n � � Qil`1
rid
\c
, r
T�lui?4\i4.}u j�. -u1nG Gl _ fiC }(()rnd I)7P 13�e � !
)I)( {f2
fckl�.
j 1l \i -i�C }U L1 Ii L Il,th
i
6 4, v \ V,'TSE I CY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA nw
city HaIl
3300 Newport Blvd-
(714) 673 -2110
March 14, 1972
Dr. Ronald B. Linsky
Director, USC Sea Grant Program
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, California 90007
Dear Dr. Linsky:
Thank you for your letter of 28 February.
It is regrettable that you feel that our mutual interests
are not compatible at this rime. The City has, indeed, revised
its planning program along the lines mentioned in your last para-
graph. I am sorry that you cannot at this time be responsive to
the revision which will, in our view, establish a more deliberate,
better coordinated, long -range program.
We realize that time and effort has gone into our planning
program on both your part and the part of our staff. while we
must now bend our efforts toward obtaining competent consultant
services from other sources, I will be happy to meet with you upon
your return from the Far East.
Very truly yours,
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
EFH /G10 /db
cc: President John R. Hubbard
Community Development Director
ADRIAN KUYPER
CONN Y COUNSEL
CLAYTON H. PARKER
CXIE, ASS..,ANl
ROBERT F. NUTTMAN
WILLIAM J. MCCOURT
AEr ISIA.1S
JOHN M. PATTERSON
ARTHUR C. W HLSTEDT, JR.
JOHN W. ANDERSON
RICHARD J. RANGER
BARRY S. MICHAELSON
TIMOTHY L. STRADE +R
RAGNAR R. ENGEBRETSEN
LAURENCE M. WATSON
PATRICK J. DUFFY
THOMAS P. CONROY
VICTOR T. BELLERUE
JOHN R. GREET
DEPUTIES
OFFICES OF
THE COUN COIJN1 S E L
County Of Orange
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
AUU 1969
By the CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Honorable Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
515 north Sycamore Street
Santa Ana, California
AND
P. 0. Do 131! ",
L "X`L^�.1*�4:ITa. -:1 SANTA ANA.
July 30, 1969
Other Affected Governmental Jurisdictions'�
A��::1 wu3
C1v Of
<rE�VPOftT BXIAI
839.3300
IN REPLY REFER TO:
B- 340.4•
is BUNT TO:
—' 1'uLlir N`nrk- llirectsL
yI 19a miing Ilirecror
�:uuncilmen: %i7':LW01/
RE: Assessment of Property in the Vicinity of Upper Newport Ba.v
Gentlemen:
I am in receipt of a copy of a letter, addressed to the
Board of Supervisors, dated July 17, 1969, from the office of
the County Assessor which alludes to certain "distinct and
unresolved problem areas" in the assessment roll which he has
compiled and delivered to the County Auditor. (11is letter
claims copies were sent to "affected local governmental juris-
dictions" but in the event you did not receive a copy, I enclose
one.) The letter refers to two "problem areas." The first is
that the Assessor has not assessed the agricultural preserve
areas as such and intends to revalue such properties during the
coming months. The implication is that he has therefore over -
assessed such properties and the taxing entities relying on
these assessments should be prepared to face a loss of assessed
value in the revaluation.
The second "problem area" is the assessment of properties
in the vicinity of the Upper Newport Bay. Although the Assessor
does not promise, nor indicate a need to revalue such property,
he does allude to a "final resolution?' which "will. have property
tax revenue effect." I can only assume that he is again implying
these properties are overassessed and he is therefore warning
that reliance upon the figure he has placed on the roll may be
somewhat misplaced.
*(List of recipients of this letter shown on last page.)
Hon. Board of Supervisors and
Other Affected Governmental Jurisdictions
Jul;, 30, 1969
Page two
You may or may poi: be aware of the history of the Assessor1s
position, regarding the properties within the Upper Pay, p< ^rtic*kl-
larly Curing the past year. I would not trouble you with sv ^h
history except that the m^tter h:.t now reached the state -,here
sizable portions of assessable prope Ly may be irretrievably
lo=t to those governia -enual agencies depe- aden.t upon property
taxation for their -support.
I do riot quarrel with his vale. !t .on.. That is not my province:.
M-at concerns me is that in ccap'Aing the roll this year, the
Assessor has deli_b erat(-ly included. properties which are clearly
tax - exempt with properties -,which are clearly taxable.
In Februnry of this year The Irvine Company, as part of the
Upper Fay Exchange, crrly yed to the Ccurity of Orange certain of
its properties in tha Upper Newport Bay. The Assessor has in-
cluded in substantially one parcel not only the land so conveyed,
but also properties belongint; to the Company that were heretofore
taxable and were not included in the conveyance. The Assessor
1,as al`-Q, included hail prel;liq:!,.`Sll v,1:�,r: i,, and
in the Upper Ne;,per: Bay neveryasscssed to any crtity. Tire
Assessor- hzis also included the area kncwn as Newport Dunes,
which are tidelands owned by the County of Or_.nge, develop :id by
the County and its lessee, in which The Irvine Company never had
and, in the foreseeable future under any agreement, never will
acquire airy interest. All these lands are assessed to "Tire
Irvin. Company, e*_ zl."
I believe that there is substantial doubt th4t these p.-reels,
as such, are assessable to the Company. They are not assessable
to the County. County lands are exempt by the Cal £o'rr.ia Consti-
tution, Article 13, Section 1. It is the Assessor's duty to
assess property whichh is riot tax - exempt. Sections 405 and 61.6.
Revenue and Taxation Code. There is authority to the effect
that unless he makes sufficient descriptions of the new parcels
-- that is, the parcels clearly remaining in private ownership --
the assessments will be void Smith vs. CitZ_2f Los Anjeles,
158 C. 7022 707, Lake County vs -Sir -Fiix° Rar1k Quicksiivet iTi.riinna
Co., 66 C. 17; Si.rai vs 2iu1�$�i +.K- L 'LTf,"ZTi -2 Sccs.
T1I and 602(b), uev. an-lc T3:. Code. Mingling lands which are
exempt with those assessable may void the entire bssessmcnt.
San Pedro, etc.. Railroad Co. vs Los Angeles, 180 C. 1.82 27.
On May 27, 1969, the Board of Supervisors ordered ca;icel-
lation of taxes on the property conveyed. by The Irvine Company
to the County. The Auditor has refused to cancel the taxes, but
ro
Hon. Board of Supervisors and
Other Affected Governmental Jurisdictions
July 30, 1969
Page three
it should be made clear that the subject of this letter is a
different issue. The Assessor has now, in effect, combined
various properties so as to include some clearly remaining in
private ownership and some clearly never heretofore assessable
with those which were private and were conveyed to the County
and over which the aforementioned dispute of tax cancellation
arose.
I feel it is my duty to underscore the implied admissiOTLS
in the Assessor's letter of July 17 as to the jeopardy of these
assessments. There is every indication that these deliberate
acts of the Assessor to comingle, and to refuse to describe new
parcels, may render these new assessments void.
Respectfully submitted,
ADRIAN KVYIPER
County Counsel
AK:sd
encls.
cc: V. A. Heim
A. J. Hinshaw
R. E. Thomas
H. G. Osborne
K. Sampson
Other Affected Governmental Jurisdictions:
City of Newport Beach
Newport -Mesa Unified School District
Orange Coast Junior College District
Orange County Cemetery District No. 1
Orange County Mosquito Abatement District
Orange County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5, 6, and 7
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Orange County Municipal Water District
Costa Mesa Water District
Orange County Water District
Irvine Ranch Water District
Coastal Municipal Water District
Cs' L=
OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR
July 17, 1969
Honorable Board of Supervisors
Administration Building, Room 605
515 north Sycamore Street
Santa Ana, California
Gentlemen:
ANDRIM J. 111NSHA17
COUNTY ASSE550R
TELEPHONE: 834.2727
AREA CODE 714
630 NOSjH BROADWAY
P. O. DOX 149
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702
For your information I delivered the 1969 Orange County Assessment
Roll to the County Auditor on July 14, 1969. This Roll shows a
total assessed valuation of $3,283,915,223.
I have attached a detailed breakdown of this year's Assessment Roll
with appropriate comments and comparisons with last year's Assess-
ment Roll.
The 1969 Assessment Roll includes assessed valuations of two distinct
and unresolved problem areas to which I wish to specifically direct
your attention.
The first of these is the valuation for those lands which have been
designated as Agricultural Preserves and for which Agricultural. Pre-
serve agreements have been signed.
Assessed valuations for these properties are presently showing on the
Assessment Roll as if they were not so designated as Agricultural.
Preserve lands.
The reason for this is that the Agricultural Preserve designations
and final written agreements were not executed on a basis timely
enough to permit proper scheduling of appraisal workload and the
acquisition of sufficient additional appraisal staff to over.ceme the
added burdens posed by these agreements.
It -is the intention of this office -to revalue these properties during
the coming months. We will use the mechanics of the assessment
equalization process to make any warranted adjustments in the present
assessed values of such lands.
1_ e--*, Boaret. of Supervisors
July 17, 1969
Page 2
Listed below are the Agricultural Preserve areas for which agreements
have been signed:
Name
Size
1969 LAND 4
Appraised Value Assessed Value
1.
Lacouague
260
acres
$ 598,520
$ 149,630
2.
Douglass - Sunkist
92
acres
1,388,320
347,080
3.
E1 Toro
80
acres
549,520
137,38.0
4.
Platz
118
acres
130,880
32,720
5.
Nohl
2,360
acres
1,368,480
342,120
6.
Larson
10
acres
105,600
26,400
7.
Mission Viejo
28,976
acres
1.5,082,160
3,770,540
8.
Irvine
49,253
acres
98,936,920'
24,734,230
TOTAL
81,149
acres
$118,160,400
$29,540,1.00
The second problem area is the assessment of those properties in the
Upper Newport Day area which have become involved in the proposed
trade of public tidelands between the County of Orange and The Irvine
Company. For your ready information I have attached a copy of my
letter to you dated Play 19, 1969. I formally presented this letter
to you at the Board of Supervisors' meeting on May 20, 1969. This
letter adequately summarizes the differences of opinion which exist
between your Honorable Board and the Assessor's Office on this sub-
ject matter.
I feel I woulel be remiss in my duties if I did not value and place on
this year's Assessment Roll an assessment for these lands in view of-
all of the ramifications of this entire matter.
Therefore, you sliould be advised that the total market value listed
on the current Assessment Roll for the lien date, 1969, of the prop-
erties in question, is $65,491,440.
In conformity with our 25 percent assessment ratio policy, these
lands have been placed on the 1969 Assessment Roll at $16,221,36b.
I wish to bring these two problem areas to your.specific attention,
and by copy of this letter to the attention of other zffected.local
governmental jurisdictions, because the final resolution of each
problem area drill have property tax revenue effect, of which you
should be *,dare at this budget and tax rate adoption time.
'� Poard. of Sup; rvisors
July 17, 19G9
Page 3
I am not prepared nor could I conjecture at this time as tc the
assessment adjustments for any budgeting agencies.
Sincerely,
4
ANDREF%1 J..HINSHAW, County Assessors
AJII c gf I
Enclosures
reoruary t, igiz
Mr. RogNr J. Desautels
President
Archaeological Research, Inc:
1641 Monrovia Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92627
Dear Mr. Desautels:
Your letter outlining the activities of the Irvine Company
in supporting the archaeological research is greatly ap-
preciated. Such 'activities are certainly worth general
recognition.
Your request for encouraging other organizations along this
line will be borne in mind. If an opportunity does arise,
we certainly will follow your request.
Very truly yours,
E. F. MIRTH
Mayor
EFH.pg
i
i
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INC.
1641 Monrovia Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92627
(714) 645 -0835
ROGER J. DESAUTELS
President & Chairman.
FILE RTH S. ERICKSON
Executive Vice President
JACK C. COLLINS
Vice President
Public Relations Di,.
Orange County A,D
RICHARD A. SHIMMONS
Director, EDP Research
Systems Analyst, P$S, Inc.
CLAUDE WARREN, Ph.D.
Chrm. of Advisory Committee
Department of Anthropology
University of Nevada
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
LOWELL T. ANDERSON
Attorney at Law
ERIC T. HARDESTY
Project Director, ARl
MARGARET L. WEI DE, Ph.D.
Department o f An thropology
California State College
Long Beach
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
KEITH A. DIXON, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
California State College
Long Beach.
RICHARD V. FISHER, Ph.D.
Chairman, Dept. of Geology
University of California
Santa Barbara
DAVID E. FORTSCH.
Vertebrate Paleontologist
L.A. County :Museum of
Natural History
TIMOTHY S. HILLEBRAND
Anthropologist
Occidental College
OLE A. MATHISEN, Ph.D.
Marine Biologist - lcthyologist
University of Washington
DWAYNE L. MERRY, Ph.D.
Department ofAnlhropology
Orange Coast College
TODD OLSON
Paleoanthropologist
University of California
Berkeley
JAMESPRAGER
President
Trans Republic Insurance
CHARLES E. ROZAIRE, Ph.D.
Director, Archaeology
L.A. County Museum of
Natural History
DAVID L. WEIDE
Geomorphologist
UCLA
STUART L. WARIER, Ph.D.
Biologist - Ornithologist
California State College
Long Beach
MICHAEL O. WOODBURNE, Ph.D
Paleontologist
University of California
Riverside
PAUL G. CHACE
Museum Technician
Anthropology
Bowers Museum
FRANKLIN E. FENENGA
Professor of Anthropology
C. S.C.L.B.
Historical: Advisor
Mayor Edgar Hirth
Newport Beach City Hall
3300 Newport Beach, Calif.,
Dear Mr. Hirth,
TIFIC CORPORATION
RECEIVED � =_\
JA�12`� 1972
Maio' la
of MAP ;
ix City, PD each , \
25, 1972
The Irvine Company has announced a new 1972 grant to Archaeological
Research, Inc. to coordinate scientific activities and projects on
Irvine lands. This grant comes as a result of the successful com-
pletion of a trial grant awarded during 1971. The program proved
so successful and beneficial to the public interest that it will be
continued through 1972. During the past year the salvage and
protection of irreplaceable scientific resources on Irvine properties
has included the following:
(1) The removal and preservation of a unique paleobotanical
discovery now displayed at Chapman College. A large
( 16 tons) specimen of this rare and possibly extinct
tree species was donated by the Irvine Company to the
County of Orange for exposition and future scientific study.
(2) The investigation , salvage and preservation of important
paleontological specimens found in a deposit on the east
bluff of Upper Newport Bay. These unique specimens are
currently housed and being studied at the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History by several Southern
California Universities.
(3) The salvage of what has proven to be a uniqie archaeological
site ( Ora 64) on Irvine lands. This site was excavated
with the cooperation of California State College at Fullerton.
The Irvine Company has since been commended by the college
for its interest and cooperation.
(4) For the first time in its 40 year history the Orange County
Historical Society presented its annual award to a com-
mercial organization - The Irvine Company. The award
was made to Irvine for it's efforts in preserving the county's
scientific resources.
These outstanding achievements have been coupled with a continuous
survey and inventory of scientific resources on the property.
I am writing to urge your cooperation in implementing and encouraging
similar programs with other private companies in California. The
example set by the Irvine Company in 1971 proves how worthwhile and
beneficial such programs can be when sponsored by private developers.
If all companies were to exhibit similar concern we would have very
little worry concerning the fast diminishing scientific resources so
important to the public and more importantly, to future generations of
Californians.
Sincerely,
R#gr Desautels
President
Archaeological Research, Inc'...
RJD /nlh
FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY
BOX 4088, IRVINE STATION '-
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92664
NEWSLETTER
JAN 2 41972
,,
7 12 7"'►
c
ry �
Nf{y F
C F EA &y ;!
By fhe CITY COUNCIL ' *`
CITY ?! 4PWPm1kT REACH nni
DECEMBER MEETING... INSTRUCTIVE AND BEAUTIFUL...
ARY 1972
excellent films
were viewed by a good - sized audience at the Membership Meeting on
ASS
December 6. One of the films showed the extent of public and official
involvement in a move to clean up Monterey Bay and protect it from
pollution. The second was a lyrically beautiful series of scenes
along the Pacific shore. In addition, your president, filling in for
a speaker who couldn't make the meeting, presented a brief review and
update on the status of the Upper Bay.
IT'S YOUR BAY- - -USF. ITI!1 A woman attending the December walking tour
of the Upper Bay expressed surprise upon learning that she could come
back any time she chose. It isn't known how many people feel, as she
did, that she couldn't visit the bay without an invitation. But one
of the most important facts to establish firmly for the Department of
Interior is the high level and wide variety of uses of the Upper Bay
even in its present damaged state. Back Bay Drive is a public street,
and the tidelands (most of them) and the waterways are public property.
You are urged to use it for hiking, nature study, fishing, canoeing,
biking, etc.
WINTER & SPRING TOURS SET... Dates for the next three walking tours
of the Upper Bay have been set by Tour Chairman Hans Ewoldsen. They
are all Saturdays at 9 A.M. - -- January 1$, Feburary 19, and Marclp „, ,I1�AN 111977
... ........ .. .......... _.._.�
They will start at the corner of Eastbluff and Back Bay Drives. COPIES SENT TO:
L. � racy
IN Warke UpeelW
01 -nndng Wi tm
ff1Ither aA -fry
.n
- ---------
FRIE:!N OF NEV.frO^,T BAY
Fe�. - , : -1 1 1,-
301.1 '
NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 9ID664
Tor
MAYOR ED HIRTH AND
CITY COUNCIL
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
................. .......................
----------
92660
53-6r
CITE" OF NEWPORT BEACH
U' �° a CALIFORNIA quo
�41pov \r city hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 073 -2110
bcc: City Clerk
January 7, 1972
Dr. J. R. Hubbard
President
University of Southern California
Los Angeles,. California 90007
Dear Dr. Hubbard:
The City of Newport Beach wishes to take this opportunity
to make a formal request for the assistance and services of the
Office of Sea Grant Programs, University of Southern California,
in its long -range planning study for the Shoreline Element of the
City's General Plan. The City of Newport Beach has met with
members of the USC Sea Grant Program Staff including the Director,
Dr. Ronald Linsky, and discussed this project in considerable
detail. We have found a wide range of mutual interests and were
particularly impressed by the match -up of capabilities of the
USC Sea Grant Program and its personnel with the needs and objec-
tives of our project.
The Shoreline Element of the General Plan requires technical
studies upon which to base decisions regarding construction of a
new harbor, an additional entrance to the existing harbor, effect
of a new harbor on uses in the existing harbor, and the optimum
marine uses of three miles of undeveloped shoreline. Economic,
environmental and social aspects, as well as physical aspects,
.will be required as a basis for decision making.
It is our hope that an initial feasibility study of the pro-
posed new harbor can be completed by July, 1972, in order to make
key decisions in other areas of our general planning effort.
% Mr. George M. Dawes, our Harbor and Tidelands Administrator,
is the project officer for our Shoreline Element. Should you
approve this request, Mr. Dawes will contact Dr. Linsky in order
to proceed with the necessary details.
Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated
Very truly yours,
E. F. HIRTH 1
Mayor
EFH/GMD/db
cc: Community Development Coordinator
CALIFORNIA
city Hall
$300 Newport
(714) 673 -2110
January 5, 1972
Dr. John R. Philp
Mr. H. George Osborne
Mr. Kenneth Sampson
Gentlemen:
I've received Mr. Stone's letter of 30 December containing
recommendations to the UTewport Bay Water Quality Project
leas: -. I agree with Mr. Stone and his associates that we adopt
an organization to proceed with the project. The organization
proposed in his letter appears to be suitable.
I also agree that the designation of one person from our
team as a chairman will serve to simplify administrative func-
tions that are sure to follow. My feeling at this time is that
Dr. Philp would be the logical choice in that his Department
will have the major capability for executing a long term water
quality monitoring program.
I have separately replied to a letter from.Mr. Bueermanh
volunteering the services of the T4whnical Advisory Committee,
and have recommended to the Board of Supervisors that this offer
be accepted.
I am delighted to hear that Dr. Erman Pearson has been
selected as a Project Advisor and that he will commence work on
the 10th of January. I.regret very much that I will be unable
to meet him at the 3:00 p'.m. meeting on 10 January due to a
.Council meeting which involves a highly complicated and contro-
versial subject. However, Mr. Dawes will represent me.
I am looking forward to a meeting with you in the near future
in order to pursue this very important project.
Very truly yours
, - "'e, Lz
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
EFH /GMD /db
cc: Mr. Paul White
i
December 15, 1971
To The Honorable Board of Supervisors
Orange County
P. 0; Box 933
Santa Ana, Cali'forni'a 92702
Gentlemen-,
The City Council on Dece0er 13, 1971, considered your
recent action with respect to the protection and enhance-
ment of the total environment of NIpor *•&ay• The Council
wither to congratulate the Board on this farsighted action
which is sorely needed.to protect and enhance this valuable
public asset.
.The Council noted the request that the Mayor of Newport
Beach serve on the Steering Committee. I am haony to do
so and would urge an early meeting in order that this
important program can be co"nced.
Sincerely,
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
EFH:ep
cc: Kenneth Sampson, Director
Harbors and Beaches
J
r
J
COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES
?it9'i C�O'o
ZZ f OCP� BOG N 9N
L CALL November $, 1971 INDEX
10. The following Budget Amendments were approved:
BA -37, $1, 705. 95 transfer of Budget Appropriations
and decrease in Unappropriated Surplus for the City's
share of the construction and right -of -way cost for
the widening of Tustin Avenue from University Drive
to Palisades Drive, from Unappropriated Surplus,
State Gas Tax to Budget Appropriation, Widen Tustin
Avenue between University and Palisades, Gas Tax
Fund. (A report from the Public Works Director was
presented.)
BA -38, $890 transfer of Budget Appropriations for
office equipment in the Community Development
Department for new positions being recruited for PEP
program from Salaries to Office Equipment, Com-
munity Development, General Fund. (A report from
the Community Development Director to the City
Manager was presented. )
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
1. A report was presented from the City Manager re-
Christm�-
garding Christmas decorations and Christmas parking
DecoratiJ;
c ont r of .
A display of Christmas lights and decorations by com-
munity and /or business associations on City streets
Motion
x
was approved, subject to the following conditions:
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
(a) a written request from the participating community
Absent
x
and /or business association, (b) approval of the
Traffic Engineer, and (c) approval of the Utilities
Superintendent; the display of Christmas lights and
decorations at the intersection of Balboa and Newport
Boulevard by Forgit Hardware was approved subject
to the receipt of an insurance policy satisfactory to
the City Attorney; and the covering of parking meters
in the Balboa Peninsula business areas was approved,
subject to the receipt of a letter from the related busi-
ness association requesting a change in parking con-
trol.
2. In compliance with Councilman Croul's request, it was
Uppex
agreed that the staff would bring back a report to
Npt E
Council on December 13 regarding barbed wire fence
Fer,c.
around Upper Newport Bay.
Motion
x
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 P.M.
Ayes
xxxxxx
Absent
x
Volume 25 - Page 306
Lyyrii L�(2 �c G�- Z..1GL
b
By +he CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NSWPaRi BEACH /b ? r o, 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF �i> o /
2 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
3 November 30, 1971
4 On motion of Supervisor Caspers, duly seconded and carried, the
5 following Resolution was adopted;
6 WHEREAS, this Board has received an environmental study regarding
7 the waters of Newport Bay; and
$ WHEREAS, it is apparent that work needs to be done to preserve
9 and improve the water quality and environmental protection of Newport
10 Bay.
11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows;
12 (1) This County formally adopts a policy to protect and enhance
13 the total environment of Newport Bay through a planned program of water
14 quality monitoring and environmental protection.
J
,Z 15 (2) This Board approves in principle, and authorizes i.mplemen-
oo;
EFZ16 tation of the environmental quality monitoring concept for Newport Bay
oz<
uo 17 and related watershed areas by the Health Department and the Flood Control
18 District, as described in the Health Department's report entitled "An
19 Environmental Quality Study of Orange County's Bays and Estuaries - A
20 Proposed Study Outline, November 16, 1971."
21 (3) It is the intent of this Board to employ a recognized
22 advisor in the field of estuarine environmental quality under a short -
23 term contract, to review the environmentdl problems of Newport Bay,
24 appraise the Current plans for.monitoring and control and advise the
25 Board on a total environmental program for all of Newport Bay and its
26 related watershed areas.
27 (4) This Board doss hereby appoint a project team consisting of
28 the Health Officer, the Chief Engineer of the Flood Control District,
29' the Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks and the Mayor of Newport Beach
30 to oversee and review the monitoring program, implement the recommenda-
31 tions of the above - mentioned advisor and submit quarterly progress
32 reports for the Board's approval.
ICHPrph Resolution No, 71 -1389
Approve 4 -Point Plan - Mater Quality
Monitoring and Environmental 1.
Protection of Newport Bay
1 AYES: SUPERVISORS RONALD W. GASPERS, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, DAVID L.
BAKER, RALPH B. CLARK AND R.W. BATTIN
2
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
3
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
4
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
'
6 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
7 I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board
81 of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the
E
131
141
d
' 15,4
E"
°
` ° 17
o
u
18
191
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 30th day of
November , 19 71, and passed by a unanimous vote of said
Board
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
30th day of November , 19 71,
FI°31 -24
W. E. ST JOHN
County
of th Clerk and ex- officio Clerk
e Board of Supervisory df;;:;,
Orange County, California "'. "•
By
pepu tt'
c� ...........
1�
2.
,
Eel
W. E. ST JOHN
COUNTY CLERK
U Wr Y C) - F
@ TELEPHONE: 834-2206
AREA CODE 714
Ad
^1M 43 R COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
_L 515 NORTH SYCAMORE
P. O. Box4me 4j2? 7
(S) SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
AND
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
April 19, 1971
Laura Lagios, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
3300 W. Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mrs. Lagios:
I am enclosing herewith a certified copy of Resolution
No. 71-415 adopted by the Orange County Board of Super-
visors on April 14, 1971, authorizing the County Counsel
to take action to secure a court determination that the
Upper Bay Land Exchange Agreement has been rescinded.
mcm
Enc.
Very truly yours,
W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk
and ex-officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California
By
Deputy Clerk
YOU CAN'T VOTE .... UNLESS YOU'RE REGISTERED
'A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
311 April 14, 1971
5
7
On motion of Supervisor Battin, duly seconded and carried,
the following Resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED that the County Counsel is directed to take
appropriate legal action for the purpose of securing a court
determination that the Upper Bay Land Exchange Agreement has been
9� rescinded.
0
13
J
�_= 15
o�
o° le
or
o
; 0 17
U
19II
20, AYES-
211
NOES:
22
ABSENT:
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
MP: tg
SUPERVISORS R. W. BATTIN, RALPH B. CLARK, DAVID L. BAKER.,
WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, AND RONALD W. CASPERS
SUPERVISORS NONE
SUPERVISORS NONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
sq.
`COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that
the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of
A ril 1971 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said
.oar .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set_)my.•;hand and seal this
14th day of April 1971
W. .E. ST JOHN
C,ourity-.Clerk and -ex- officio Clerk
of.? th-e Board of Supervisors of
Resolution No. 71 -415 vi'ange County, California
Co. Co. to Renew Motion {;
for Dismissal - Upper /j
By
Newport Bay Land Exchange
Deputy T-
W. R. MASON
PRESIDENT
A F F, 1971
By -he C'iT'f'
Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Orange
515 North Sycamore
Santa Ana, California
Gentlemen:
IrvineI Builders of7omonov eGties... Today
12 April 1971
This letter is written in the interest• of resolving differences between
the Orange County Board of Supervisors and The Irvine Company
concerning Upper Newport Bay. It is prompted by the need, in our
judgment, to explain fully the nature and results of recent efforts by
The Irvine Company to resolve those differences; to make clear the
Company's present view of the entire subject; to emphasize the
Company's desire to work cooperatively with the County for a mutual
solution, and to suggest a course of action.
It is requested that this letter be officially received and considered
at your meeting of April 13, 1971, if, as appears, your agenda will
include discussion of matters affecting Upper Newport Bay.
The Board of Supervisors took actions last January which purportedly
cancelled unilaterally the Upper Newport Bay land exchange Agree-
ment, effective April 25, 1971. Those actions were taken without
prior or concurrent discussion with The Irvine Company concerning
their implications or the possibilities of a mutual rescission. The
Irvine Company promptly and necessarily disputed the County's
right to cancel unilaterally, and refused to accept certain deeds
tendered by the County.
During subsequent weeks, the Company initiated five meetings with
County representatives in a sincere and serious attempt to identify,
define and resolve the complex issues involved in cancellation of the
Agreement. Meetings were held January 29 and March 1 with
Supervisors Battin and Caspers, the County Counsel and others.
Additional meetings were held with staff representatives of Supervisors
Battin and Caspers, at two of which the County Counsel was also
present. Wile APR 13 1971
............................
COPIES SENT TO:
exror
:u,,:ger
i. "nev
Rimer Works Direegy
Ly1'�hnnninK Wmeteer
Q Ulher P�:Q ��N
' G The Irvine Company • 550 Newport Center Drive -Newport Beach, California 92660
QouacDmeet ��
Bd. of Supervisors -2- 12 April 1971
Our understanding of the County's viewpoint, as expressed at the
last meeting with Supervisors Battin and Caspers on March 1, is
as follows:
The County considers any renegotiation of the Agree-
ment to be politically unacceptable;
The County desires to terminate the Agreement and
re- establish conditions between the parties as they
existed prior to execution of the Agreement in 1965;
Accordingly, the County recognizes the legitimate
concern of The Irvine Company that it be "made whole"
financially for costs incurred in reliance on the Agreement;
The County desires to acquire virtually all Upper Bay
lands below the bluffs by condemnation;
The County will work promptly and cooperatively with
The Irvine Company to resolve the issues inherent in
mutual rescission of the Agreement. -
The Irvine Company's point of view was stated at the March 1 meeting,
as follows:
The Irvine Company has endeavored for over 20 years
to respond to County requests for cooperation in
evolving an acceptable land exchange plan;
The Irvine Company recognizes changed conditions and
has no desire or intent to try to force the public to accede
to the exchange or the present plan for development by an
action to specifically enforce the Agreements.
The Irvine Company accepts the desirability of negotiating
a mutual rescission of the Agreement, and will cooperate
in resolving the problems which must be solved in order
to make such a mutual rescission legally and practically
possible;
The Irvine Company will cooperate in achieving public
acquisition of its lands in the Upper Bay by condemnation
at fair market value as determined by a court of law.
In the course of the meetings, The Irvine Company responded promptly
to specific requests by County representatives. It delivered on
February 25.a discussion paper setting forth its views on the development
of a possible new plan for the Upper Bay by public agencies.
Bd. of Supervisors -3- 12 April 1971
In reply to a later request, The Irvine Company provided on March 23,
a more definitive memorandum dealing with the Company's expendi-
tures to date, made in reliance on the Agreement, the complex property
tax issues resulting from the comingling of properties by the County
Assessor and in -lieu payments contemplated by the Agreement, as
well as lost income and other factors. The memorandum stressed
the need for time to negotiate solutions to such problems.
Finally, in order to expedite consideration of public acquisition of
Irvine lands, the Company prepared and supplied on March 23 a
special, large -scale map of the Upper Bay area depicting suggested
initial and optional parcels for condemnation.
Throughout this time, we have been led to believe that a meaningful
dialogue about substantive issues would evolve. Unfortunately, it
has not. The County's response has consisted mainly of two memo-
randa from Supervisor Battin's office(dated March 1 and April 8)
which purportedly state Board policy regarding the Upper Bay, but
in no sense deal with those elements of a mutual solution cited by
The Irvine Company. The latter memorandum seems to say that
there is "no authorization" for joint discussions until the present
Agreement is unconditionally terminated.
If this be the case, The Irvine Company respectfully suggests that
the Board of Supervisors act immediately to authorize a committee
of its members to carry on formally the heretofore informal and
unproductive process of negotiating mutual rescission of the Agree-
ment. If the Board prefers to pursue negotiations by some other
appropriate, authorized procedure, we will cooperate. It is in the
public interest that this matter be resolved expeditiously. To that
end, The Irvine Company hereby pledges to meet anywhere, any
time -- around the clock if necessary -- for serious negotiations
with duly constituted and authorized County representatives. In so
doing, we will work diligently toward the objective, if this is'the
County's goal, of mutually rescinding the Agreement and achieving
public ownership of Upper Newport Bay through condemnation.
In our more recent discussions with County representatives we have
emphasized frequently a time constraint on reaching needed under-
standings. If the County persists in unilaterally cancelling the
Agreement effective April 25, the Company will be placed in the
awkward, undesired, but necessary position of having to litigate the
issue of unilateral cancellation and related damages in order to
avoid the possible waiver of its rights. We have urged, and hereby
again do so formally, that the Board of Supervisors agree to mutual
postponement of the noticed date of cancellation to a future date certain.
At the suggestion of a County representative, the Company's Legal
Counsel prepared a draft of an agreement which would mutually extend
Bd. of Supervisors -4- 12 April 1971
the noticed date. Such an action would in no way diminish the rights
or obligations of the parties. It would simply afford the additional
time essential to negotiation of a mutually agreeable rescission.
Once again, The Irvine Company wishes to emphasize its willingness
to proceed with negotiations in whatever manner is determined by
the Board of Supervisors, and respectfully awaits your reply.
Sincerely,
W.R MASON
W. R. Mason
cc: Honorable Robert Battin, Supervisor 1st District
Honorable David Baker, Supervisor 2nd District
Honorable William Phillips, Supervisor 3rd District
Honorable Ralph Clark, Supervisor 4th District
Honorable Ronald Caspers, Supervisor 5th District
City Council, City of Newport Beach
Honorable Dennis Carpenter, Senator 34th District
Honorable Robert Badham, Assemblyman. 71st District
Honorable John G. Schmitz, Congressman 35th District
Norman Livermore, Secretary of Resources, State of California
3s s °
CITY C.ERY
April 19, 1971
CITY CLERY.
RESOLUTION 110. 7405 ADOPTED APRIL 12, 1971
Attached are six executed copies of Resolution No. 7405
reaffirming Cotmcil's intention to participate in
cooperative and coirprehens;.ve planning for the future of
the Upper Newport Bay.
Please transmit to the appropriate agencies.
_.aura L.aoios
City Clerk
LL: swk
enc.
ti r
V
RESOLUTION NO. [ 4 0 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH REAFFIRMING ITS INTENTION TO3 C{I
PARTICIPATE IN COOPERATIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
initiated a cooperative and comprehensive planning study for
Upper Newport Bay by Resolution 7137 of 9 February, 1970; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Orange agreed unanimously to participate by a resolution of
17 March 1970; and
WHEREAS, The Irvine Company likewise agreed to parti-
cipate; and
WHEREAS, the pooled efforts of the City of Newport
Beach, the County of Orange and The Irvine Company have been
greatly enhanced through regular participation and advice from
State Departments under cognizance of the California Secretary
for Resources and from staff personnel of the Los Angeles
District of the U.S. Corps of Engineers; and
WHEREAS, the foregoing combination of local, state
and federal agencies and the private sector is an innovative
and productive approach to preserving and enhancing the environ-
ment of the City and the County of Orange, and an interim report
is now being prepared to guide our next steps; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Orange has recently adopted resolutions emphasizing its concern
with preservation and enhancement of the environment in general
and Upper Newport Bay in particular; and
WHEREAS, the future of Upper Newport Bay is one of the-
most compelling environmental problems facing the City at this
time;
-1-
z �
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach as follows;
That the City Council reaffirms and reemphasizes its
desire to cooperate with the County of Orange and other appro-
priate agencies and institutions, as guided by the interim report
now being prepared by the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning
Project, in order to arrive at the best possible plan for the
preservation and enhancement of Upper Newport Bay.
ADOPTED this 12th day of April, 1971
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
GD:mh
-2- 4/12/71
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
%Q�V �ISH AMID WILDLIFE SERVICE
` G C3UREAl� OF SPORT FISHERIES AND V;ILDLIFE
EL
AD4RF'�C. ONLY Tt}r.
REGIONAL DIFEa;OR qq 1 L \J [ R 730. N.r 'O' COI>:137371``tT
PORTLA::D. OREGON 97206
P.eference:.
G` February 5, 1971
District En�inccr
Les Ans,cics District. Corps of'Engineers
P. 0. Box 2711
Los AnFcles, California 90053
Dear Sir:
During a recent field inspection of southern California coastal wet-
lands and estuarine areas, the problem of erosion of adjacent uplands
and resultant sedi.mentatiou of Net,.port Pay came to our attention.
Land LISe practices are having a direct and indirect impact on Upper
Newport Bay as a self- renewing resource. The bluffs, from GU to 10Q.._
feet in haight, 5L1rr0ultdi.Mn U1'11,er Nc°.aport .hav have provided a natural
buffer zone a,,,ainst landfillo and structural eacio %chment into the .
bay's salt uarnccs and tidcln -31s. ::Ob: -twee, recent lark ,scale develop-
ments on the blxufis adjacent to the upper pay have in:olvedMassiv6
reshnpin;; of the bluffs and ;lopes and. the gross removal of native
vp dative^! cover. '
Follo:✓ino this denuding, the rains of the winter of 1963 -69 took their
toll; c:cccssive erosion of the bluffs and upland areas resulted in
massive ..^ounto of mud, silt, and other debris bcin. ^, dumned into
Upper 11c'.cport B,y, coverin; the salt marshes and tideflats and .:rccl, ins;
the salt worl.s. reeding nnd rc- -tir. teas u >tl ;,.c:! b;' .... ^etoua species
of migratpry birds, including %aatcrfowl, marshbirds, and shorebirds
were de5,radcd or destroyed. bottom organisms within the bay were
covered by a layer of silt.
The bulldozing and denudin- of bluff areas and slopes has continued
and accel.crnted. The Storrs of Pecenber 1970 wreaked havoc on these
man- r..odified bluffs and slopes. Mud, silt, end debris have covered
parts of the public road aronnd.the back; bay. Ir, Idditi.on, substantial
amounts: of mud and silt flo'::cd into the bay covering marshlands and
Zluciau.i >.
This sediment is a nany- faceted problem; It'is a deposit that must
be removed from the main channel and tributary channels in order to
provide an area for recreational no.vigiltion, it degrades water quality,
�: .....3 t1'c r•^. bctt,M. e.-,.- .rite...,.: ter ili••r. :� 1��.,, r—y .gi n..rirS of fish and
migratory birds and destroys vegetation important to wildlife for both
food and shelter.
We believe that this environmental degradation of Upper Newport Bay
could have been avoided. Planning concepts and techniques to prevent
such environmental losses are available', feasible, and practical.
The public trust doctrine of commerce, navigation, and fishery applies to
the tidelands of Upper Newport 'Bay. This, to us, means that there is
a public trust with respect to the quantity and quality of waters over
tideland and submerged lands that must he protected by State and Federal
governments. It also means that people have the right to fish in those
waters, to pass over the tidelands free from obstruction or interference,
and to expect the preservation'of the ecological parameters important
to fish and wildlife resource and the public us(-- of these resources by
State and Federal go•�,crnmcnts.
It occurs to us that the Refuse Act of 1899 may very well apply in this .
case. In our opinion the one exception to the Act, refuse and debris
"Flowing from streets and scwe rs'and passing therefrom in a liquid ... .
state," cannot be interpreted to include the mud, silt, and othee debris
from the uplands surroundin" Upper Newport Bay.
Assuming that you have authority to take legnl action sad prosecute•
offenders under the Refuse Act of 1599,.we believe you should investi-
gatc this matter and take wnatever legal means are necessary to control
or prohibit silt, mud, and other debris from catering the bay's navi-
gable waters. This Mould be a useful tool for the conservation of -the
ecological values and public uses of Upper Nct:port Bay and help insure
that this body of water is developed along shared use guidelines.
We would appreciate your i : :ve. ^..tii,?tlon of -hi- matter. Please idv{se
us of your findings and su csted treasures for controlling further
siltation of Upper Newport Bay.
Sincerely yours, '
/ Jac. I% 11cmnhill
/ 1' l :cgional Director
2
a _ .
UPPER NEWPORT SAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
SCOPE OF PROJECT AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. OBJECTIVE.
The objective of the Upper Newport Say Cooperative Planning
Project is, through cooperative and mutually supporting endeavors of the
County of Orange, The Irvine Company, the City of Newport Beach and the
State of California, to produce comprehensive general plans to guide the
pattern of growth in the Upper Bay Area. These plans will be designed
to insure compatible land and water uses, preserve and enhance the natural
assets of the area and create the best possible total environment. The
plans will be developed on the basis of the proposed land exchange and
other alternatives.
Plans will be guided by goals of "Newport Tomorrow" and will be
directed toward achieving a marine- oriented environment featuring multiple
uses of the waters and shoreline and a high quality residential atmosphere.
Accordingly, study plans will include, but not be limited to, consideration
of air, noise and water quality; multiple recreational uses; public access
to tidelands and waters of the State; marine and wild fowl ecology; human
factors; economic factors; aesthetics; and the necessary supporting activi-
ties and transportation systems.
2. SCOPE.
Each alternative plan will contain the following elements:
a. Channel development and use plans.
b. Land use and development plans.
C. Transportation and traffic plans.
d. Public facilities plan, including recreational and ecological
factors.
e. Public utilities plan.
f. Public land acquisition requirements.
g. Suggested funding and development schedule.
3. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS.
In connection with the preparatior. of the general plans, the follow-
ing factors affecting the development of the Upper Bay, area will be analyzed:
a. County —wide demographic and economic trends.
b. Physical characteristics of the planning area including topo-
graphy, soils, tributary drainage areas, and climate.
- 2 -
C. marine characteristics of the planning area to include water
quality, factors affecting water quality, and engineering considerations;
including channel widths, energy absorption requirements, and sedimentation
characteristics.
d. Ecological considerations for the uplands.,littoral.& water.zones.
e. Air and noise pollution factors.
f. Analysis of recreational trends, requirements, and opportu
nities and constraints.
g. Public facilities and utilities.
h. Circulation and transportation.
i. Considerations of land acquisition and development costs to
potential revenues and benefits.
4. PLANNING ACTIONS.
It is intended that, whenever possible and appropriate, data from
existing studies and reports will be utilized in analyzing the factors
included in the planning considerations. New studies and reports, or up-
dating of existing studies, will be generated only in the absence of adequate
data. To this end, it is intended that the participating organizations will
supply appropriate existing data for the common use of the project.
5. PLANNING PROGRAM.
Following acceptance of the Scope and Planning Considerations, it
is intended that plans will be developed as quickly as possible. An initial
chart of the planning program is attached.. A first step in the planning
program is to establish key target dates as a basis for a refined planning
program.
Attachment
i
U
W
7
H
�I
w
�
a
G
w
CD
r
Q
r--
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
i
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
t
f
I
i
i
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
•
Z 1'� •
W
L i¢ W 1` U U F-
�--� 1- U �� W N 1
-
Q I
a U o ! 1
]; W 1 !
o
�c:>
O (->
f I
~ J I
ZzW � 1
...Y., J
-• � 4J l> UF^ I
rR rX �.
I I U o
QZ 1 K
F- U) t I O
�¢ 2 �JE 1 .+YI-
_ {{ o w d J CY U
mow I
L'
Zi .d l'
O
z S 1-
�Q 2 N
-.0 L.>
2=
0 z
4,
1 m �
J
N
O
O,
—
Of d U N N N
4 k N (/a F-
:_ O Oa
N d^ 1 w O a. F- J
�..w
O NN
Q O
J U N m m Z O
0. N QU
* m c7
>ww�d
CD : -
�-+ O O w Q
CZ) d 0. F-W
<< C) w
0
� 1
w J
H
U
W
7
O
w
6.
C7
Z
Z
Z
Q
J
a
W
H
w
a
O
O
U
}
m
O
d
3
W
Z
W
d
d
E
CD
O
d
cs
z
Z
z
J
d
0
ddViS
> w
v
h
T7 Ql m elf V •r
O�
C 1/1 Ql C Y
r
r0 •� N 'QI •s-
O
Y Y E s-
>1
O
i.
Ql > i O O •�
p
0 0
O
�> L •S- dl a
L
>
Ql d L > d'
1]
O_ a Q
Q
Q
IL
ox
O C
d -�
h
T v
c O
O
Z V Y
0.-
r
U O
Y
IE
Y ID
T
E Y m
M M N
i.
O •� L
Y -0 •�
!p
N C Y
m•r i
rp
i VI
c
3 Y C
O E
0
a i o
E
0(-)
c
> n
O
Ql O_
U
i
a O
T w
O
Q Q
h
C
0
G V O
r
C Y
•Y
TJ n
Q) i
0
Z
C L O m m
'QI
C Qt O_ Y r-
m O as M.-
O
- a' O O_
a a E
V
O
q
U
L r
Y
Q
N C
3 >
E C)0
O
00
•
h
O 'i
S-
i O Y
G d
Mm /0
M O_
O U
>1
g ¢
L ex3 •�
C7
a 4-
O
^Y
rJ
E Ql
Ql Ql +>
m m
c 3 c
COD
i b
O N
Q O
} dV
O. U
O
C a U E C U E
¢ o i C E
U Q O O
a �
E
Ql
v C
n0 E
0.- ro c (n ro
O
N r0 C O Qf
h
�
S. o . O C O
_
4- L rp Y i
V 0
O d r R a
T
d S-
0
O U +> O_ t n Y
N
L O C •r
a V C. U O C
O_•� rK N U
i ¢ N
m
O
Q
h
>
_
y •�
C Y
r
Q U
E N
s
a •n
d
Y
m0
4.
D
N 4-
r
O
�o IdOd xS vi
3Ms
I
01rold
IVOINHO31
lodU NStli
ddViS
> w
103COdd
IVOINHO31
Y Q
O
Qt C
C •�
w
4 v
ox
� U
d -�
L r-
O .
U O
d
i
rp
i VI
_
> d
C V
O
a 61
L —
CD Z
CL M
i
O_ L
T w
O.
Q Q
4- ID
¢
C
TJ n
ED
O C
C
C
3a
Ya
Ql
4-
� r-
> 0
SO
QI i
m
� Z
� Ql
QI
C
C
Q
C7
ED
C
0 O
r ca •-
Q a Y
> Y to
O 0
d Q Y TJ
L Q Y O_ C
O. U
C a U E C U E
¢ o i C E
U Q O O
Y U U
Ql
City Clerk
December 23, 1970
Harbor & Tidelands Administrator
City Clerk
Resolution No. 7346
Attached are twenty -five (25) copies of Resolution No. 7346,adopted at
the Council meeting of December 21, 1970, and expressing Council's
interest in obtaining a sea grant for the purpose of studying the Upper
Newport Bay and stating that the Council is willing to enter into a joint
agreement with the County of Orange and The Irvine Company. Please
transmit to the appropriate agency.
Laura L.agios, City Clerk
Deputy
dg
Att.
RESOLUTINO. 7346
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH EXPRESSING ITS INTEREST IN
OBTAINING A SEA GRANT: FOW =;'1_ #�E: PURPOSE OF
STUDYING THE UPPER NEWPOiFR' BAY AND STATING
THAT THE COUNCIL IS WILLING TO ENTER INTO A
JOINT. AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND
THE IRVINE COMPANY
ii
r
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
initiated actions which ultimately have led to the creation of the
Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project for a comprehensive
planning study of Upper Newport Bay in cooperation with the County
of Orange and The Irvine Company; and
WHEREAS, the technical capabilities and staff time
available to the participating bodies are not adequate for the
collection and analysis of data concerning marine ecology, water
quality, marine hydrodynamics and marine recreation; and
WHEREAS, a Sea Grant Project can provide the above data
and analysis; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to execute a joint agreement
with the County of Orange and The Irvine Company in order to
obtain a Sea Grant Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach RESOLVES as follows:
1. The City Council desires a Sea Grant.Project as an
integral part of the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative
Planning Project.
2. The City Council is willing to enter into a joint
agreement with the County of Orange and The Irvine
Company, subject to details of the agreement, for the
purpose of obtaining a Sea Grant Project.
ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 1970.
.�
ATTEST: Mayor
I THS:adw
t Clerk 12/22/70
Thursday, April 1. 1971
Sea Grant Funds Not Available
Sea Grant funds are not
available at the present
time for an environ-
mental study of Upper
Newport Bay.
When Mayor Ed Hirth
was in Washington, D.C.
recently on citybusiness,
he found out that Sea Grant
money, which used to be
allocated by the National
Science Foundation, has
now been transferred to
the jurisdiction of the
Department of Com-
merce -- and the com-
merce department will
have no funds other than
for completion of current
projects until July.
A Sea Grant is being
sought by the Upper New-
port Bay Cooperative
Planning Committee,
comprised of repre-
sentatives of Orange
County, the city of New-
port Beach and the Irvine
Co., for a joint study to
provide guidelines for the
future development of the
Upper Bay. Scientific
data are needed to deter-
mine to what extent.
multiple use development
can coexist with conser-
vation of the estuary..
"Some kind of program
is needed, "said Mayor
Hirth, to preserve the
Upper Bay's present
wildlife population, and
we will go ahead in co-
ordinating what infor-
mation we havefromvar
ious studies and attempt
to reach some con-
clusion."
3 DAYS ONLY!
r URSDAY- FRIDAY 8:30 A.M. o 9:30 P.M.
CATIIPh AV R-in A M To s-nn P 1,
no REGISTER Friday (m) March 27, 1970
Upper DDevelopment Is Vital
By FRED MILLER
Register Boating Editor
The development of Upper
Newport Bay is vital to the
recreational requirements of
Orange County and its social
ecology.
The land swap between the
Irvine Co. and the County of
Orange 'does much what oc.
curred on the lower bay in the
1930's when federal dredging
converted a sandbar - choked
mouth of the Santa Ana River
into the aquapolis it is today;
the nation's largest marina
and the playport of the Pacif.
ic.
The sandbars which were
sucked up by the federal
where they would be an asset
instead of a liability; be-
coming a badly- needed wid-
ened ocean front beach south
of Newport Pier on one hand .
and islands for residential de-
velopment on the .other.
The miles of accessible pub-
lic beach and the fabulous
navigable waterway which
has become one of the yacht-
ing. capitals of the world has
benefited millions of people
ever since.
As far as the upper bay is
,concerned, the dredging will
not be accomplished by the
federal government but by
private enerprise. During the
1930's Newport Bay was to be
primarily a port for commer-
cial fishing, thus the federal
involvement.
Over the years the bay has
become almost entirely a port
for yachts and yachting and
other marine recreation for
the general public. Because of
this and because of the un-
feasibility of commercial fish-
ing operations in the upper
bay, the federal government
could not justify (legally or
otherwise) a similar dredging
and development of the upper
bay.
The County of Orange and
the Irvine Co. both of whom
owned land either under or on
the upper bay, . would have to
develop it on their own. The
two agreed they would. (By
chatter, of course; the County
is obligated to develop it even
if Irvine didn't offer a dime.)
But, for all the benefit this
dredging and development
would be, as exemplified by
the lower bay, there have
been those who didn't like the
idea. And, through continued
legal and political manuever-
ing, they have actually pre-
vented it for many years.
Except for the Newport
Dunes area the County devel-
oped at the south end of upper
bay, plus some adjacent mari-
nas and housing developments
there, the vast upper bay re-
mains today the unsightly,
smelly (at low tide), virtually
useless expane of shallow wa-
ter, mudflats and reeds.
Some of those who oppose
the Irvine Co. County of Or-
ange agreement do so for
sheer spite. Their efforts have
peen rewarded — the Irvine
Co. has had to pay property
taxes on all that useless prop-
erty all the while. Some are
tronservat..on.
iStB;"`�` =M .Interested n
the eplants and ani-
mals than" - ecology of man,
which they have right to be.
But, at whose cost?
The significance to fife cy-
cles an upper bay preserved
in a primeval state has play-
ed or could :play mast be
infinitesimal in t) @ face of
today's death - dealing air pol-
lution and oil slicks. -
No amount of ecological
good of the former could ever
offset the liarm of the latter.
Further, the planet's occupied
by birds more than any other
creature. The sea bird variety
(the only animal to rase the
upper bay who gives any sig-
nificant effect to operation of
life cycles per se) just hap-
pens to be the toughest of
them all and is so resourceful
he doesn't really need any
help from anyone for his ecol-
ogy.
B e s i d e s, last winter's
storms annihilated whatever .
fresh food supply he was get-
ting up there, according to
Dr. Wheeler North.
To try to maintain a marine
life sanctuary in the very
same bay which houses the
nation's largest marina (10,000
boats) is as ridiculous as
trying to grow oysters or
p r a c t i c e aquaculture or
aquafarming in the middle of
the world's biggest and busiest
commercial seaport, Dr- Disy
Lee Ray of the Pacific Science
Center and the Presidential i
Task Force on Oceanography
Clearly, the best possible
use of the upper bay and its land is not as marine saner _
tuary. Even if it were, the
upper bay is in the wrong
place for it, as Dr. Ray would
confirm.
On any weekend on the lower
bay, the water is filled with
sails. A good ninety per cent .
of today's sailboats are small
centerboard boats launched
whenever they are to be used
and .kept out of the water the
rest of the time.
At the moment, last and
only public launching ramp on
the lower bay is being torn up
down at the corner of Lafay-
ette and Balboa Blvds, with
bulkheads and slips going in.
All other public launching
ramps are in the upper bay
behind the low Pacific Coast
Highway bridge which won't
come out for seven years.
hlost of the sailboats to use
this former ramp were dighy
types with no motors or
places to mount .. them, much
less store them.
To use a Huntington Har-
bour type rig, which allows
the mast to be titled back to
clear the low highway bridge
there, you must have power -
of some sort to get under the
bridge. When your mast is
down; so's your sail and your
means of propulsion.
There are a number of com
mercial crane launch facili-
ties on the lower bay, but
their round-trip fees are steep
($15 for anything 18 feet and
over) and many cannot .ac-
commodate the many multi -
hull craft in use today be-
cause of their wide beam (8
feet on even. a Roble cat).
There wouldn't he .any cri-
sis if the upper bay were
dredged.. and navigable, as it
could have been so long ago;
all of these sailboats could
simply use the part of New-
port Bay where the launching
ramps are now, and where all
future ones will be, until the
Coast Highway bridge is re-
placed with the high -level one
to go in there.
Like that okl beer commer-
cial went, "It's the water that
makes it good!" But a small
minor i t y, most of whom
probably would never use
ny part of Nevuport Bay any-
t
aime in their Lives, wants mud
instead.
I think I speak for the vast
majority of yachtsmen, water
skiiers, rowersand 1971
on the subject; we need
water mom . than the sea birds
need:tk*A_Tond, ^
oxe+R:Emuem
❑CgLIIOECWMN
wievirr.�osnoEwiw
owNERshiip AFTER TRADE
THE AGREEMENT between the County of Orange (which
saves $10 million by it) and the Irvine Company (which
pays the bill) to develop Upper Newport Bay is basically
this land swap graphically shown here for the first time.
After the new ownerships are accomplished by dredg-
ing and filling, then both parties (third map) are free
to do with their respective shorelines as they wish. As
can be seen in the ownership - before -trade map, all the
County (and public) has in the upper bay north of New-
port Dunes at present is a lot of useless mud at low tide
and shallow water at high tide, and the Irvine Com-
pany has some equally useless mud and reed islands it
doesn't want, but a lot of shoreline it does want if the
County's mud and their mwj can be dredged up and
dumped along the share. To t:(is end, Irvine gives some
of its shoreline it wants and mud it doesn't to the County
for public use.. LOsWnersl t °i.1O°p
January 5, 1871
Mr. Robert Shelton
359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Enclosed is Resolution No. 7137 which is the
latest resolution adopted by the Council in
connection with Upper Newport Bay. Also enclosed
is an excerpt from the November 9, 1970 meeting
setting forth the Council's action regarding
amending the Council Policy Statement entitled
"Upper Bay Land Exchange."
The staff is currently amending the Policy State-
ment in complianoe with Council action. ^ince a
completed copy is not available, I am also sending*
you the material that is to be incorporate; into
the Statement.
LL :swk
enc.
ROBERT SHELTON
Dec. 31, 1970
Laura,
Would you be good enough to
send me the latest version of the
Council's position on the Upper Bay
Land Exchange.
Many thanks.
OVA
I
lIr
359 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE SUITE 200
NEWPORT CENTER
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
(714) 644 -5900
i.
U
COUNVL
UZACH
May 20; 1970
1970 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
MINORITY REPORT
ON
UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE
i
After analyzation of the Upper Newport Bay land exchange,
and assuming there has been no misrepresentation, which can
be documented one way or the other, this group wishes to go
on record as endorsing the exchange as it stends as of this
date.
The group feels that failure to endorse the exchange
would result in:
1. Tax loss, due to delay of development.
2. Increased cost due to inflation.
3. Further delay in recreation facilities.
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
George . Honol , Foreman
Dale
CIP71H SENT TA:
Vn(or
miter
Lj c:=d{. work= Directot
Cjyrmmieg Uireetowr-,��_
Wher //it
IdComeilmem� ow
ID
I fro—
LET; f,�Ci�F�
✓1,, GZ44
T
NE)ynQ Iy OF ..1,) .y.
\ �9CiF4"
c 5
RESOLUTION NO. 4
;'j ?!U RESOLUTION OF THE 1970 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
OPPOSING THE 1101EDIATE COMPLETION OF THE
gy ,;,., c: s cOI u L , PRESENT UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE
CITY OF BEACH
The 1970 Orange County Grand Jury opposes the immediate
completion of the present Upper Newport Bay land exchange for
reasons developed below.
The Grand Jury has read extensively the considerable
documentation that has accumulated over the years on the
problem of Upper Newport Bay. It has also heard the views
of interested citizens, several County Supervisors and key
staff members and other experts on different phases of the
problem, representatives of The Irvine Company, and other
informed and concerned persons. The Jury offers the follow-
ing statement and suggestions in the hope of clarifying the
issues, of assuring that important options are not foreclosed
by piecemeal actions and decisions, and of assuring that final
action will be aided by a serious study of the many inter-
related facets of the situation.
1. The Jury urges that no building, bulk-
heading, or other development activities be under-
taken until appropriate feasibility studies and an
integrated plan are available. This is not intended
to preclude dredging or other engineering activities
desirable for flood, ecological, or other control or
restoration of the natural environment.
2. The Jury ur es a full feasibility and plan- '" � O
ning study (including model studies on the flood W. WS SENT TO:
situation) such as,are now possible under the
auspices of the commission set up by the Council; „;, „R«
of Newport Beach and Involving the County, The
Irvine Company, the State, and other concerned ED I WAi. W,k.
groups. The Jury commends Newport Beach for �!lm.Wg of ,Q.r
initiating this group.
pc...Glmew ad
3. In view of the above considerations, this
Jury resolves that this statement be released to
the public and called to the attention of those
responsible for decisions. The Jury recommends
against any further decisions until the flood
control problems, the ecological, pollution and
related environmental problems, the legal issue
(including a decision on prescriptive rights b
the California Supreme Court), the financial
aspects, and the public attitudes are more
clearly studied and considered and a master
land and water use plan is developed.
• ,1.
�LFp✓9 BoF 7� �r 9
4. The following supplementary statement
presents a summary of the Juryls analysis of the
situation.
The Jury believes that much of the debate over the Upper
Bay land exchange, and most of the recrimination, has resulted
from failure to distinguish clearly the consequences of two
very different uses of the area. If the ordinary building
developments are permitted, assessed land values are high; if
a natural estuary is retained, salable land values may be
negligible. This basic decision should be made before
quarreling over acreage and assessment of lands in a pro-
posed swap -- or even over whether one is called for.
Presumably the City of Newport Beach, by action of its
Council and zoning ordinances or direct vote of its citizens,
has the primary voice in this decision, but the County, State,
federal government, and perhaps other entities (as the Harbor
District) may have some legal say, through patent lands and
tidelands trust -- as they surely have a legitimate interest.
A decision to let nature take its course (aided by sound
channel engineering moves, perhaps dredging away islands for
adequate flood control) would help preserve the ecological
balance of wild life, would leave the upper tidal flats as a
"lung" to help oxygenate and purify lower bay waters, would
keep a precious recreation resource for people, and would
insure proper flood control. It would also deprive Newport
Beach and the County of Orange of important tax revenues,
perhaps overrun Newport with visitors, require some upkeep,
and prevent present private owners of land, essentially The
Irvine Company, from realizing legitimate expectations in
profit from development. It would seem to make a land ex-
change or purchase meaningless, since land values could
remain low and contours uncertain under the influence of
floods and flood control measures; but some compensation of
The Irvine Company would be morally called for and probably
legally required.
Whether the exchange agreement as now formulated favors
the public or The Irvine Company depends on what assumptions
are made as to particular parcels and values; now appraised
in the millions on each side of the trade. But if develop-
ment is not to be permitted, these values presumably collapse
to negligible levels and a trade would be meaningless. Actu-
ally, the public is in a position to demand the removal of
the Irvine islands for flood control, to claim shore access
along the bay by virtue of existing public roads and tide-
lands trust, and may be able to take prescriptive possession
of upper bay flats and to assert its lien on these lands for
developing flood, fishing, navigation and other reserved
2.
a
rights; thus, in effect, expropriating The Irvine Company.
A court test would then seem almost inevitable -- not only
to firm up any legal issues but surely to establish a valid
and fair compensation level.=:_Such a court test would be
quite different from the constitutional issue now pending
before the courts on the constitutionality of the exchange
enabling legislation of 1957; the latter would not be crucial
if public lands were not to be exchanged but should perhaps
still be carried through to clear the air.
The Jury concludes that, if a natural estuary is to be
preserved, a trade is meaningless. Money must then be found
to compensate The Irvine Company as the courts may decide.
Which public funds (e.g.,federal, State, and County) should
bear these costs and how they should be raised are important
but subsidiary questions. The present mood of the public,
concerned with preservation of the environment, would seem
to preclude development of the upper bay entirely for real
estate and yachting; but some partial development along
these lines, say up to the narrows, might be possible with-
out sacrificing the main goals of beaches and recreation,
flood control, wild life preservation, and pollution mini-
mization. This would allow the present public lands to rise
in value while still restraining most of the private ones.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 1970
Orange County Grand Jury held on the 20th day of May, 1970.
: 3 Chi /l. e-a e
FORE OF THE 1970 ORANGE COUNTY
GRAND JURY
3.
Notice of Meeting
You are invited to attend a meeting of the Upper Newport Bay
Cooperative Planning Project at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 May,
at the Mariner's Library Multipurpose Room, 2005 Dover Drive,
Newport Beach
Agenda
1. Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April.
Copy of minutes attached.
2. Participation of State Resources Agency
3. Technical Staff Progress Report
4. Consideration of the Scope of the Project.
Draft of Scope and Planning Considerations
attached.
5. Project Planning Schedule
6. Date of next meeting
EFH/GMD:pg
Attachment
Mayor Ed Hirth
Mayor Ed Hirth
Mr. George Dawes
Mr. George Dawes
Mr. Rod Gunn
Mayor Ed Hirth
E. F. HIRTH
Chairman
Project Task Force
June it 1970
Mr. H. G. Osborne
Chief Faigineer
,..Orange County Flood Control District
400 Civic Cuter Drive West.
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Osborne:
Your suggestions for incorporating the services
of the ecologists
in our Back Bay study is appreciated. George Dawes has been in
contact with Dr. Fielding, I know, and perhaps
others of this
group on this subject. As we get further into
the material and
learn what more is needed, we undoubtedly will
wish to receive..
information from these scientists.
Your help on this committee is very important because adequate
provisions for flood control are going to be a
key issue. We do
appreciate your assistance.
Very truly yours, .
E. F. HIRTH
Mayor
EFH:pg
cc: Mr. George Dawes
Harbor 6 Tidelands Administrator
®" APR 131970
t By tho CITY COUNCIL
tnvu, works mro°tef CITY OF NEWPORT EEACH "t
Vlnnning Uirectot
O""'er - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD or SUPERVISORS OF Ir/ Il y
❑ c °"°`" ' " "" °� ORANGL COUNTY CALIFORNIA CITY 0
❑ ' N WHRT K.AM,
March 17, 1970 2 ' A
On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and carrie
following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS; the City of Newport Bench has requee*_ed cooperat-i011.
of this County in a comprehensive planning study of the development
potential, of Upper Newport Bay; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Board, the County should
participate in such a study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby
proclaim its willingness to cooperate with the City of Newport Beach
in a comprehensive development study of the Upper Newport Bay.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrative Officer,
the Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, the Planning Director and
the County Counsel are hereby appointed as the representatives of the
County of Orange in cooperating in the comprehensive planning study.
AYES: SUPERVISORS ALTON E. ALLEN, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, ROBERT W.
BATTIN, AND WM. HIRSTEIN
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the
said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of March,
1970, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this
17th day of.March, 1970.
W. E. ST JOHN .
Resolution No. 70 -268
Auth. Cooperation in
Comprehensive Planning
Study - Upper Newport Bay
County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors of
Orange County, California
op.
Deputy
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — RESOURCES .AGENCY RONALD REAGAN, Go"mor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
1416 NINTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
APR 1 31970
G. Ray Arnett - DireciPor the CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 1T, 19TO
TO recipients of the Upper Newport Bay Report:
Bays and estuaries constitute a valuable but scarce part of
California's coastline. They are not only an important part
of the environment but are also high quality fish and wildlife
habitat.
Man's activities are often incompatible with bay and estuary
ecologic systems. These areas are filled, dredged, polluted and
changed in many ways.. Aesthetic qualities may reduced or
lost and general public use often restricted or blocked.
Because of the changes that have taken place or are planned by
single interest entities, the Department of Fish and Game is
examining and evaluating all of the State's bays and estuaries.
Our objective is to develop plans proposing programs that will
protect California bays and estuaries for the use slid enjoyment
of present and future generations.
Sincerely,
for Director
J
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92660
_'' city Hall
3300 Newport . Blvd.
(414) 843.5110
April 10, 1970
Honorable Doreen Marshall
Mayor of the City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California
Dear Doreen:
Thank you for your letter of March 27th regarding the
planning study for the Upper Newport Bay area.' The
Commnission appointed me to serve on the City's Project
Task Force in connection with this study, and I will be
at the first meeting, Thursday, April 16 at 2:30 p.m. in
the Mariners Multipurpose Room.
Again, thanks for your courtesy in asking the PB $ R
Commission's participation in this most important project.
Sincerely,
ALEXANDER N, JR., CHAIRMAN
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
ACC:h
,'R"�'el: �. (`.' O �T/'��� C�-F�I'YL.'J'f !, e'r „ � ^.. ?'i ✓w,a L.
�/ 3
r1eF
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA mo.
City Han
3300 Newport Blvd
(714) 673 -2110
April 3, 1970
Mayor Doreen Marshall
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Doreen:
At the Planning Commission meeting on
April 2, 1970 the following Commission
members were appointed to'serve on the
City's Project Task Force in connection
with the comprehensive planning study
for Upper Newport Bay area.
Curt Dosh
Gordon Glass, alternate
Sincerely
Jb# J. Jaly4s y, Jr.
Chairman, pplanning Commission
(k,� A
JJJ: h RECEIVED PR 8 19700° K
Mayor
City of Newport
Beach %
c i
U11.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
UPPER BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROTECT
Date: April 16, 1970
Time: 2:30 P.M.
Place: Mariners Multi- Purpose Room
2002 Dover Drive, Newport Beach
1. Opening comments and introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . Mayor Doreen Marshall
2. Review proposed statement of objectives . . . . . . . . . Councilman Ed Hirth
3. Review proposed organizational structure and procedure Harvey L. Hurlburt
City Manager
4. Review proposed outline of study program . . . . . . . . George Dawes, Harbor and
Tidelands Coordinator
5. Review scheduling matters, including ]mown time
limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey L. Hurlburt
City Manager
6. Summary review of existing development proposal
between County of Orange and The Irvine Company. . . . . James Ballinger, Special
Projects Engineer for
Kenneth Sampson, Director
of Harbors, Beaches & Parks
7. Position of Board of Supervisors regarding Upper
Bay development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor Alton E. Allen
8. Implication of any further delays in current develop-
ment plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . William Mason, President
The Irvine Company
9. Review of City's responsibility in development of
Upper Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laurence Wilson
Planning Director
10. General Discussion
LIST OF INITIAL PARTICIPANTS IN COOPERATIVE UPPER NEWPORT BAY PLANNING PROJECT
PROJECT CHAIRMAN: Mayor Doreen Marshall
PROJECT TASK FORCE;
COOPERATIVE AGENCIES:
Orange County
Councilman Ed Hirth
Harvey L. Hurlburt, City Manager
Curt E. Dosh, Planning Commissioner
Alexander Cameron, Parks, Beaches $ Recreation Commissioner
Supervisor Alton Allen
Robert Thomas, County Administrative Officer
Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel
Kenneth Sampson, Director of Harbors, Beaches F, Parks
Forest S. Dickason, Planning Director
The Irvine Company
William Mason, President
Raymond Watson, Senior Vice President of Land Development
Richard Reese, Vice President of Planning
Guy Claire, Legal Counsel
CITY TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP:
George Dawes, Harbor $ Tidelands Coordinator
Joseph Devlin, Public Works Director
Laurence Wilson, Planning Director
Calvin Stewart, Parks, Beaches $ Recreation Director
a
OBJECTIVE
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
The objective of the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project is,
through cooperative and mutually supporting endeavors of the County of Orange, The
Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach, to produce comprehensive general plans
to guide the pattern of growth in the Upper Bay Area. These plans will be designed
to insure compatible land and water uses, preserve and enhance the natural assets of
the area and create the best possible total environment. The plans will be developed
on the basis of the proposed land exchange and other alternatives.
ELDENTS
Plans will be guided by goals of "Newport Tomorrow" and will be directed
toward achieving a marine- oriented environment featuring multiple uses of the waters
and shoreline and a high quality residential atmosphere. Accordingly, study plans
will include, but not be limited to, consideration of air, noise and water quality;
multiple recreational uses; public access to tidelands and waters of the State;
marine and wild fowl ecology; sociological trends; economic factors; aesthetics; and
the necessary supporting activities and transportation systems.
K
H
U
W
O
K
C.
C7
Z
..
Z
Z
Q
J
d
..
H
Q
W
C.
O
H
O
C.
3
w
w
n
CL
r-
i
I
I
I
I
I
C7 W} N H LL
Z' C7
W ZZ�
CD QOd'
Q w O W W N
m CL
W N
.. H
H W }.Z
Q ZZ W -j LL
..QO QQ
N W N I C7 w
O O W Z O
Z C7
� 9 W
O Q K
fJ O
0 N
QZ I 0 uV)m
Q
TW WJ I Jd'U
F-C.7 OW N mOw
.. Q cam O 3 w
Z
W _ w
U J U w O
w .. W H
O U Z to ~ °a U
U- Z Q H W
Z m w
O Q _
N i J
¢ V)
F N
# Z
O
H a W # U
U f Z
W m O
7 O ..
O *el U N
z
L7 1
Z N w
Z i Z
z'i O
Q O ..
J U N
Z
..
O
Q
..
N
}
x
�
U
O
Q
H
Q
m
O U z O
U
E
H
O
C.
3
w
w
n
CL
r-
i
I
I
I
I
I
C7 W} N H LL
Z' C7
W ZZ�
CD QOd'
Q w O W W N
m CL
W N
.. H
H W }.Z
Q ZZ W -j LL
..QO QQ
N W N I C7 w
O O W Z O
Z C7
� 9 W
O Q K
fJ O
0 N
QZ I 0 uV)m
Q
TW WJ I Jd'U
F-C.7 OW N mOw
.. Q cam O 3 w
Z
W _ w
U J U w O
w .. W H
O U Z to ~ °a U
U- Z Q H W
Z m w
O Q _
N i J
¢ V)
F N
# Z
O
H a W # U
U f Z
W m O
7 O ..
O *el U N
z
L7 1
Z N w
Z i Z
z'i O
Q O ..
J U N
Z
O
..
N
N J
SOU
w O Q O
O U z O
d U
N m
O O
Y
T W W O
Y
h W
\
O z z
O z M
+OOQ
o
M a.aw
d Q Q 2
O
.i
1
r,
z
1
r
LJ
I
lD
LD
ul
I
r
AGENDA
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
UPPER BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROJECT
Date: April 16, 1970
Time: 2:30 P.M.
Place: Mariners Multi- Purpose Room
2002 Dover Drive, Newport Beach
1. Opening comments and introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . Mayor Doreen Marshall
2. Review proposed statement of objectives . . . . . Councilman Ed Hirth
3. Review proposed organizational structure and procedure Harvey L. Hurlburt
City Manager
4. Review proposed outline of study program . . . . . . . . . George Dawes, Harbor and
Tidelands Coordinator
S. Review scheduling matters, including known time
limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvey L. Hurlburt
City Manager
6. Summary review of existing development proposal
between County of Orange and The Irvine Company. . . .
7. Position of Board of Supervisors regarding Upper
Bay development . . . . . . . . . .
8. Implication of any further delays in current develop-
mentplan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9. Review of City's responsibility in development of
UpperBay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10. General Discussion
James Ballinger, Special
Projects Engineer for
Kenneth Sampson, Director
of Harbors, Beaches $ Parks
Supervisor Alton E. Allen
William Mason, President
The Irvine Company
Laurence Wilson
Planning Director
LIST OF INITIAL PARTICIPANTS IN COOPERATIVE UPPER NEWPORT BAY PLANNING PROJECT
PROJECT CHAIPMAN: Mayor Doreen Marshall
PROJECT TASK FORCE;
COOPERATIVE AGENCIES:
Orange County
Councilman Ed Hirth
Harvey L. Hurlburt, City Manager
Curt E. Dosh, Planning Commissioner
Alexander Cameron, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commissioner
Supervisor Alton Allen
Robert Thomas, County Administrative Officer
Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel
Kenneth Sampson, Director of Harbors, Beaches & Parks
Forest S. Dickason, Planning Director
The Irvine Company
William Mason, President
Raymond Watson, Senior Vice President of Land Development
Richard Reese, Vice President of Planning
Guy Claire, Legal Counsel
CITY TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP:
George Dawes, Harbor & Tidelands Coordinator
Joseph Devlin, Public Works Director
Laurence Wilson, Planning Director
Calvin Stewart, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director
U
4J
'7
O
1!0
C7
Z
Z
Z
Q
J
d
H
Q
d
W
d
O
O
U
}
Q
m
H
d
O
d
3
W
u
L
n
CM
(n J
f O U
Hf�-z
�oQ�
O U f O
d U
tn m
O O
Y
>- W W m
Y
ui
n===
f
(n . . .
d d H
� d d W
Q 4•'C �
O
z
1
J
W
ip
W
p
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 18, 1970
TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Ed Hirth
SUBJECT: BACK BAY STUDY
Tuesday, the County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved
joining Newport Beach in the Back Bay Study and assigned the following
staff to participate. -- County Counsel, County Executive Officer,
Planning Commissioner, Parks and Harbors Manager. As you know, The Irvine
Company has expressed their willingness to cooperate in the study.
Here are the proposed objectives and elements of the study, along
with an organization chart. We are aiming to set up a meeting of all those
involved on about April 10 at the Mariners Library. At this time the ob-
jective and organization will be approved and a procedure for starting will
be established.
If you have any objections, questions or suggestions, please raise
them under Item 1 on the Study Session Agenda.
EH:mm
Attachments (2)
ED HIM
i
OBJECTIVE
UPPER NEWPORT BAY COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROTECT
The objective of the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Planning Project is,
through cooperative and mutually supporting endeavors of the County of Orange, The
Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach, to produce comprehensive general plans
to guide the pattern of growth in the Upper Bay Area. These plans will be designed
to insure compatible land and water uses, preserve and enhance the natural assets of
the area and create the best possible total environment. The plans will be developed
on the basis of the proposed land exchange and other alternatives.
ELRAENTS
Plans will be guided by goals of 'Newport Tomorrow" and will be directed
toward achieving a marine- oriented environment featuring multiple uses of the waters
and shoreline and a high quality residential atmosphere. Accordingly, study plans
will include, but not be limited to, consideration of air, noise and water quality;
multiple recreational uses; public access to tidelands and waters of the State;
marine and wild fowl ecology; sociological trends; economic factors; aesthetics; and
the necessary supporting activities and transportation systems.
V
W
z
F
J
C.
rr
F
W
C.
Y
C.
3
W
Z
w
W
C.
C.
Im"
f
V O
Q
V f I
� I
¢ I
2 C
Y
H
W >- v)
z zz>
W
C' O uj -
¢
L.) CL L Li N
W N I
.- ELL.
H wW W J C.. C- W iN N
O �+Ow
o V �
Y
H
.r
V
W 1
V J
O V
LL Z
M
O
Y V
N �t
H
K 1
N
H
V f
W m z
'� • O
O a. V
�
C
ri-ij
N
p
Z
J
W
p
r-i
H
I
I
N
H
Z
H
J
V)
N
it Z
+ O
it V
C7 C=
Z O
C. Z V
� � W
O ¢
0 J
C7 d p
Y D:
p V N O
H J V
N m 0 O W
O 3 �
J � H
Q p
V
Z
2 •4:
V O
W H
H op V
.W
m w
C. M
Z
O
N
N J
� O U
C_O¢O
O Uf O
C. U
C. Y Y
=-mm>-
N m
m p
Y
Y W W o
Y
W
O Z Z Z
f
N ""1 H •-.1
Q.
OOQ
C
>
O d d w
¢ ¢ < a
0
z
I
�
W
I
ip
ca
e
March 27, 1970
Mr. Alexander Cameron, Jr.
Chairman
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission.
1524 Dolphin Terrace
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Dear Sandy:
As you nay know, the Newport Beach City Council recently initiated a comprehen-
sive planning study for the Upper Newport Bay area. This action was taken on
February 9, 1970, by the adoption of Resolution No. 7137 which I have attached
for your information.
The County of Orange and -the Irvine Company have been invited to cooperate in
the conduct of this study. Both partie's have expressed their willingness to
work with the City on this program.
I would like to request the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission to appoint
one of its members to .serve on the City's Project Task Force in connection with
this study. Councilman Ed Hirth has been appointed to represent the City Council
on this Task Force. A representative from the Planning Commission and the City.
Manager will complete the membership on the Task Force. I am enclosing a diagram
which shows the tentative organizational structure for this Upper Newport Bay
cooperative planning project.
We have scheduled the first meeting of the principals and staff to be involved
in this cooperative study for Thursday, April 16 at 2:30 p.m. in the Mariners
Multipurpose Room. I hope that the representative from your Commission will be
able to attend this initial meeting. It will be at this time that the objectives,
criteria and time schedule for this planning study will be discussed and out-
lined in detail.
We look forward to your Commission's participation through its representative
on this very important project.
Most sincerely,
DOREEN MARSHALL
Mayor
E :Pg
cc: E. F. Hirth, Councilman
Gal Stewart,'Parks, Beaches F Recreation Director
Mr, John J. ..'Jakosky, Jr.
Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
1718 Terrapin way
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear John:
As you may know, the Newport Beach City Council recently initiated a comprehen-
sive planning study for the Upper Newport Bay area. This action was taken on
February 9, 1970, by the adoption of. Resolution No. 7137 which I have attached
for your information.,
The County of Orange and the Irvine.Company have been invited to cooperate vi
the conduct of this study. both patties have expressed their willingness to
work with the City on this program.
I would like to request the Planning Commission to appoint one of its members
to serve on the City's project task force in connection with this study. Council-
man Ed Hirth has been appointed to represent the City Council -on this Task Force.
A representative from the ParksiAeaches and Recreation Commission and the City
Manager will complete the membership on the Task Force. I am enclosing a diagram
which shows the tentative organizatiohil structure for this Upper Newport Bay
cooperative planning project.
We have scheduled the first moeting of the principals and staff to be involved
in this cooperative study for Thursday, April 16 at 2:30 p.m. in the Mariners
Multipurpose Room. I hope that the representative from your Commission will be
able to attend this initial meeting. It will beat this time that the objectives,
criteria and time schedule for this planning study will be discussed and out-
lined in detail.
We look forward to your Commission's participation through its representative
on this very important project.
Most sincerely,
DOREEN MARSHALL
Mayor
DN:pg
cc: Councilman E. F. Hirth
Laurence Wilson, Planning Director
REPORT ON NATURAL RESOURCES
OF
UPPER NEWPORT BAY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING THE BAY'S DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 1970
RE50URGEb AULNUY
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
i
}a
^��.
e:'t.
.� 7
�-
i r3
t i
�f a } ._Q
if�-�.: �
,��`;..
r,`'I.
4
• >
{
i
1
�...
- .FyKi+'r.
,� {.
d
2
}� ® ®® y
Yt;y..
�.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Summary . ............................... 6
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Resources
' Description of Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Bay and Marshland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Associated Upland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Present and Future Uses
Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Sport Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Nature Study and Birdwatching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Scientific and Educational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Industry and Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Aesthetic and Scenic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
- 3 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Cont'd
Conflicts in Proposed Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Proposed Plans for Development of Upper Newport Bay . . . . . • 35
Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Proposed Development . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • 36
Effects on Living Resources . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • 38
Upper Newport Bay Proposed Park Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Effects on Living Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Upper Newport Bay Proposed Alternate Plan . . • . • • • • • • • . 41
References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . .
46
Appendix
A
- PLANTS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . • • • • • • . • . •
49
Appendix
B
- MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . . . . . .
50
Appendix
C
- MARINE FISHES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . . . . . . . . . .-
59
Appendix
D
- REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . . . . . .
61
Appendix
E
- BIRDS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
62
Appendix
F
- Mk41ALS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
- 4 -
6-
INTRODUCTION
Several.planning studies and reports have been completed in the past
for Upper Newport Bay. These proposals and plans were primarily directed
toward developing the bay as a marina - residential complex with provisions
for water- associated recreational activities and commercial installations
to provide the associated services. In each of these proposed plans,
minor attention was given to the natural beauty, scenic quality, and
natural resource values, although these are some of the most important
basic values of the area. The far- reaching ecological consequences that
could result from the bay's development certainly were not considered.
This report discusses the natural resources and present uses of Upper
Newport Bay, and some problems that should be considered when determining
'how best to develop the area. Three proposed plans for developing the
bay are reviewed and the ecological effects of each is discussed. Sugary
.comments and recommendations by the California Department of Fish and Game
are presented.
- 5 -
A
Upper Newport Bay is without doubt the most outstanding example of a.
relatively natural estuary in southern California; in fact, in the area
it is one of the few remaining examples of this type habitat.
Studies to determine how best to develop Upper Newport Bay were made
as long ago as 1924 and various proposals have been made over the years.
Few of these considered the ecological consequences of modifying the bay.
Increased public awareness of the coastal areas, particularly the fragile
bays and estuaries is requiring that conservation and preservation of
these areas receive adequate consideration.
Upper Newport Bay supports many resident and migratory birds; many
species of plant and animals are found here; and the bay is a nursery
ground for numerous marine organisms. In addition, the area now satisfies
many recreational demands for boating, water skiing, nature study, bird -
watching, and fishing, as well as providing for scientific and educational
use. Its high aesthetic and scenic values are apparent.
This report is primarily concerned with the bay and the immediately
adjacent areas, although future modifications of the nearby region also
must be considered because of their impact upon the bay. Biotic communi-
ties of Upper Newport Bay are described, and species lists are presented.
Over 60 species of fish, 159 species of birds, along with numerous plants
and invertebrates are found in the bay.
The bay provides wintering and resting grounds for numerous migratory
shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as nesting areas for a number of resi-
dent birds. A census conducted by the California Department of Fish and
Game in 1967 and 1968 revealed an estimated 4,000,000 bird use days for
the bay. The bay also receives moderate use by various educational insti-
tutions in southern California.
- 6 -
.
With the increased demands for boating, swimming, and other
recreational facilities, and the growing demands for marine -type residen-
tial areas, the development of Upper Newport Bay has become a critical
issue in recent years. Since so many different factions are interested
in the bay, conflicts have arisen concerning its development. Some of
these are considered in this report.
Three divergent proposals for developing the bay are discussed and
the ecological consequences of each are considered.
The Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange concept proposes that the total
bay be developed as an urban- marina - commercial aquatic complex with
several public parks strategically located. Unfortunately, the implemen-
tation of this proposal would have far - reaching deleterious ecological
effects as a result of the extensive habitat modifications.
A proposed Upper Newport Bay Park Plan suggests the bay be developed
as a park and nature interpretation center maintaining its present config-
uration. This complex could be operated by either a city, county, or
state agency, and public access would be guaranteed to most parts of the
bay. Ecological values would remain high.
An Upper Newport Bay Proposed Alternate Plan is the third discussed
in this report. This plan provides for cbannelization and urban - commercial
development in the southern part of the bay and the establishment of a park
and nature interpretation center in the northern end of the bay. This pro-
posal establishes a number of islands in the northern part of the bay to
replace those that are lost in the southern half. This plan proposes that
4 fish and wildlife values be maintained, at least at the present levels.
Some.recreational facilities would be provided, and public access to most
areas in the northern portion of the bay would be guaranteed.
- 7 -
Basically, the real problem involved with selecting one of the many
proposals concerning the development of Upper Newport Bay is answering
the question, "What kind of a legacy does this generation want to leave
to those of the future ?"
RECM ENDATIONS
The California Department of Fish and Game makes the following
recommendations concerning the development and use of Upper Newport Bay:
1. In order to maintain the fish and wildlife values at the
highest possible level, the Department recommends that the
Upper Newport Bay Proposed Park Plan (page 40) be adopted.
This proposed plan maintains the present aesthetic
and scenic values of the bay and provides for
possible enhancement of the fish and wildlife
values in the bay. It insures continued public
access through public ownership and provides for
some financial benefits to the community through
establishment of a park.
(In a memorandum to the State Lands Commission, dated August 23,
1966, the Resources Agency transmitted recommendations of the
Department of Fish and Game to preserve certain unique ecologi-
cal features in Upper Newport Bay, The Department's recommen-
dations essentially proposed the construction of three man -made
islands to preserve some of these features. In a memo to the 1
County Board of Supervisors of October 4, 1969, the Resources
Agency notified the Board, "The Department of Fish and Game
and the Department of Parks and Recreation have carried out
2
intensive studies to determine the natural resource values
of the gay. We have found that our "three man -made islands"
proposal of 1966 will not adequately protect the Bay's
ecology. If the plans, which formed the basis of the land
exchange, are carried out as conceived, most of the natural
resource values will be destroyed. ")
i 2. Final plans adopted for developing Upper Newport Bay should
insure that the water quality remains high regardless of
the modification.
3• Flood control developments in Upper Newport Bay should take
into consideration maintenance of the ecological values of
the bay.
Flood control proposals for Upper Newport Bay are
being formulated. Maintenance of habitat for fish
and wildlife during and after construction or modi-
fication is essential.
4. Public access for fishing and viewing of wildlife shall be
provided throughout the reaches of Upper Newport Bay.
- 9 -
0
Description of Area
Upper Newport Bay is located in Orange County. This picturesque bay
is the northerly arm of Newport Bay Harbor which is located about 24 miles
southeast of the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbor and approximately 72 miles
northwest of San Diego. The early Spanish name of Bolsa de Quigara, bay
with high banks, aptly describes the narrow winding cuspate bay with its
vertical cliffs. Upper Newport Bay is comprised of about 1,000 acres of
tideland and salt marshland, and extends about 3.3 miles northerly from
Pacific Coast Highway (Figure 1).
While the primary area encompassed by this report includes only Upper
Newport Bay, it is necessary to consider a much larger area in order to
evaluate the effects upon wildlife of habitat modifications that may
occur in the bay. This larger study area is bordered on the north by
Barranca Road; on the east by Culver Road to University Drive, to MacArthur
Boulevard, to Pacific Coast Highway, to Poppy Avenue; on the south by the
Pacific Ocean; and on the west by Newport Boulevard and the Newport Free-
way (Figure 1).
Shoreline
The water frontage for the existing Upper Newport Bay waterways
measured along the high tide line is 70,049 feet. Of this, 6,088 feet
(8.7 %) are publicly owned. However, the right of public access exists
for a much greater portion. Public access is available along the east
shore where a 40 -foot easement on Back Bay Road (formally called Palisades
Road) intersects the tidelands (Orange County Board of Supervisors, 1940).
On the west shore, public access exists along North Star Lane (City of
Newport Beach Planning Department, 1968).
- 10 -
a
FIGURE 1
UI►ER NfWFGIT MY STUDY AREA
Along both sides of the bay there are nearly vertical cliffs which
reach a maximum height of 100 feet. At the base of the bluffs of Upper
Newport Bay is a bench cut into ancient marsh deposits. In some areas,
this is less than a foot wide, while in others its width is well over
100 feet. This bench averages 38 inches above the present marsh on the
western shore and about 62 inches on the eastern shore, which has a road
F
running along the shoreline from the "salt basins" at the northeast end
of the bay toward the southern part of the bay.
The southern end of Upper Newport Bay has been modified to such an
extent that its present shoreline bears little resemblance to the original
conformation.
Bay and Marshland
A narrow extension of the San Joaquin Hills forms the east headland
at the mouth of Upper Newport Bay. This area and the large marsh at its
base have been extensively modified and bear only slight resemblance to
their original condition. For this reason, these areas are not considered
in this plan.
About one mile south of the bay's northern end, the bluffs on the
sides of the bay are about 400 yards apart. This construction is called
the Narrows. Between the Narrows and the lower end of the bay, there are
two offshore islands and an extension of the eastern headland that form a
northward - extending peninsula called Shellmaker Island (Figure 1).
There are numerous salt marshes, mud flats, and sand flats in the •
bay. The two islands and the northern portion of Shellmaker Island com-
prise the major marsh areas in the upper bay. Marshlands also extend
from the base of the bluffs into the bay at various locations.
- 12 -
Extensive mud.flats occur north of the Narrows, and a dikes /which
runs southeasterly from the mouth of the Delhi Drainage Ditch, bisects
the northern half of Upper Newport Bay. Salt ponds= occupy the north-
eastern part of the bay.
Associated Upland
Upper Newport Bay is practically surrounded by bluffs from 40 to 100
feet in height. Beyond them, to the west, the mesa land has a gentle
slope, and to the east it rises in terraces to the San Joaquin Hills.
Gently rolling land lies north of its upper end. On the mesa, to the
vest, there is a rapidly developing residential area adjacent to the
bluffs. The fast growing city of Costa Mesa lies a little further to
the west. East of the bay residential and industrial complexes are in
various stages of development. The University of California Irvine
Campus is located about 1.5 miles northeast of the upper end of the bay.
To the north, industrial and residential areas are also rapidly devel-
oping. The Orange County Airport is situated about 1.5 miles north,
northeast of the upper end of the bay, which is in the plane take -off
flight pattern since the prevailing winds are from the southwest.
Drainage
The principal drainage into the upper bay is from San Diego Creek.
This creek receives water from a 109- square -mile area consisting of
mountains, farm land, and urban development (residential, University of
California Irvine Campus, industrial). The maximum peak flood discharge
on record was estimated at 10,000 second feet (1969 discharge data are
1% The center of this dike was washed out by floods during the
early part of 1969.
2% These ponds are no longer being operated since their dikes
were destroyed by the 1969 flood.
13 -
not included). An earth fill dam on San Diego Creek was constructed by
the Irvine Company in 1946 about 1.1 miles northeast of the upper bay.
This dam has a capacity of approximately 3,000 acre feet and is used to
regulate flood runoff. It also helps retard silting in the upper bay.
The Bonita Creek drainage area of 5.7 square miles discharges into
the drainage ditch below the San Diego Creek dam. A dam constructed by
the Irvine Company on Bonita Creek forms Bonita Reservoir.
Big Canyon, with a drainage area of 2.2 square miles, discharges
into the central part of Upper Newport Bay from the east. The Delhi
Drainage ditch discharges into the northwest corner of the upper bay..
Ecology
Climatically, Newport Bay may be classified as Mediterranean or
dry- summer sub - tropical area. This climate is characterized by a concen-
tration of the moderate annual precipitation during the winter season,
with nearly or completely dry summers, warm to hot summers and mild
winters, and reception of a high percentage of the possible sunshine for
the year, especially in the summer months. The mean yearly temperature
is 600 F., with an average range of 13.50 F., and the normal rainfall is
14.55 inches. As along the rest of the southern California coast, this
area characteristically has much early morning fog and low stratus clouds.
Usually the cloud layer dissipates in the late morning hours, and the
relative humidity drops to 25 or 30 percent in the afternoon.
Hydrographic conditions are relatively simple in Upper Newport Bay.
There is no continuous inflow of fresh water, nor is the bay wide enough
to form the mixing and circulation patterns which occur in larger bodies
of water. The principal currents are from the ebb and flow of tides,
- 14 -
although minor surface currents occur frequently from winds. The bay has
been affected by occasional strong tides and floods, and is influenced by
the daily tides as well as runoff from the coastal plain.
Water temperatures are exceedingly variable in Upper Newport Bay
because of its general shallowness. They show a diurnal range of about
150 F., but small seasonal variation. Heating and cooling are affected
by three factors: Tides, insulation, and absorption or radiation from
the bottom. The tide plays the most important role of these three.factors
in influencing water temperatures. Throughout most of the year, water
temperatures in Upper Newport Bay are generally higher than those of the
open ocean outside the Newport barrier island, but are lower during the
three winter months.
.The bay forms a;vital link in _the ecological system:of southern.,
California,, especially for marine fish and wildlife...With...the; continued,
thrust �pf urbahization, , which already has resulted.in the-loss.of.most-.-
,es tuar Aee habitat in southern California, the role of Upper.,Newport..Bay: -,
is becoming extremely important. It.is - necessary to look at,a.ruch,.,
larger geographical area to gain insight, concerning the ecological . impor -
tance.,of the,.bay. :.
At the start of this century, there were 28 sizeable estuaries .in, ,
southern California. Three of.the estuaries have disappeared,and 0
others, have been, drastically modified. Most of the remaining.l5 are
either in,:the.process.of being severely changed or are scheduled for
prof ound,alteration. In.all of California, over 6q% of sRch .estuarine
y ar•,eas,.- already: have been destroyed. Upper Newport Bay. is. the last major_
baylike body of water remaining in a fairly pristine.condition, along „400
miles of co ast..between..Morro Bay and Estero de Punta Banda in Mexico.
- 15 -
Upper Newport Bay unquestionably plays many ecological roles. It
receives drainage from a sizeable expanse of land. Sediments, dissolved
materials, and organic substances are carried in, modified, and deposited
or discharged into the sea. The bay contains a specialized fauna and
flora adapted for life in the quiet shallow waters.
A wide variety of plants are found in Upper Newport Bay and the lands
Im mediately adjacent to it because of the environmental changes between
terrestrial and marine conditions. The water over the deeper parts of
the bay contains phytoplankton which live near the surface. The marshes
and the adjoining shallow water contain the bulk of the plant life, and
two major groups of plants are common, flowering plants (phanerogams) and
attached algae (Appendix A). The algae are primarily marine species but
are tolerant of exposure to air and variable salinity. The flowering
plants on the marshlands and islands are adapted to high salinity and to
variable amounts of submergence by tidal water. Between the bluffs and
the bay, a community of terrestrial plants exists that is never inundated,
even by the highest of tides. However, this group of upland plants is
fully exposed to salt spray and moisture -laden marine air.
Numerous species of marine invertebrates also inhabit the bay's
waters and substrates (Appendix B). Many of these form vital links in
the food chain of the "higher" animals, particularly the birds.
The bay also serves as a nursery ground for numerous species of
marine fishes. Most of the known 61 species of marine fishes that occur
in Upper Newport Bay are found south of the Narrows (Appendix C). There
are 19 species of amphibians and reptiles found in areas adjacent to the
upper bay (Appendix D).
The mud flats, marshlands, and the adjacent coastal habitat of Upper
Newport Bay, support large aggregations of shorebirds. Wintering
- 16 -
s
populations of dunlins, western and least sandpipers, willets, short -
billed dowitchers, long- billed curlews, and marbled godwits are among
the more numerous of the shorebirds utilizing the area during their
migrations. These birds are most dependent upon mud flats and tidal
marshlands. Some shorebirds spend more than three - fourths of the year
in migration and on the wintering grounds.
The bay's gentle slopes and the rise and fall of the tide expose
many acres of tidal land for foraging by shorebirds. In all, the bay
provides over 450 acres of excellent habitat for water oriented birds.
Higher densities of birds are most commonly found on the islands and in
the northern portion of the bay. There are about 70 species that are
commonly seen in or adjacent to the bay, with an additional 89 species
that may be occasionally seen (Appendix E). over 10 species of mammals
commonly occur adjacent to the bay (Appendix F)..
Habitat
While there are 1,282.9 acres in the primary area (Figure 1), an
additional 14,704.9 acres also are considered (Table 1) when looking at
possible ecological consequences of developing the upper bay. A number
of habitat types or zones are found, and in the following discussion only
the primary area will be considered; nevertheless, in assessing effects
on the living resources that may result from altering existing habitat
in the primary area, man's modification of adjacent areas certainly must
be considered.
- 17 -
Upper Newport Bay Habitat Areas
* These lands are rapidly decreasing as the area becomes
more urbanized.
The primary area contains six habitat zones or types:
1.
Primary Area
Adjacent Area
Total
Zone
(Acres)
(Acres)
Acres
Marine
170.0
520.8
690.8
Littoral
574.5
15.0
589.5
Maritime
262.8
330.6
593.4
Salt Ponds
130.0
0.0
130.0
Upland
50.0
2,419.0
2,469.0
Agriculture
0.0
2,767.7
2,767.7
Urban /Industrial
95.6
8,316.0
8,411.6
Duck Ponds
0.0
335.8
335.8
Totals
12282.9
14,704.9
15,987.8
* These lands are rapidly decreasing as the area becomes
more urbanized.
The primary area contains six habitat zones or types:
1.
Marine
4.
Upland
2.
Littoral
5•
Salt Ponds
3.
Maritime
6.
Urban /Industrial
The first four are "natural" in occurrence, while the last two are
the result of man's activities.
The marine zone in Upper Newport Bay is continually submerged under
seawater (Figure 2) and encompasses 170 acres. The littoral zone may be
defined as that area subjected to submergence by tidal waters, and com-
prises the largest portion of the upper bay (574.5 acres). This is
undoubtedly the most critical zone as far as alterations by man are
concerned. The Upper Newport Bay mudflats, exposed at low tides, and
all the marshlands make up this habitat type that is most rapidly being
lost in California. Adjacent to the littoral zone there is an area that
is never inundated, even during the highest spring tides, but is fully
exposed to salt spray and moisture -laden marine air. This area is called
- 18 -
}
Z
N W
W G
6
�0
W
N
W
z
0
N
H
L
uC
Q
S
the maritime zone and includes the dunes and bluffs, and consists of
262.8 acres. The upland zone is found beyond the maritime zone and 50
acres of this type habitat are located in the primary area.
There are 130 acres of salt ponds in the northeastern corner of Upper
Newport Bay while the southern portion of the bay contains 95.6 acres of
urban/industrial development.
Each of these zones has its characteristic flora and fauna (Stevenson
and Emery, 1957; and Barnard and Rush, 1959; Vogel, 1966), and any modifi-
cations to these habitats result in biological changes, some predictable.
Fisheries
The waters of Upper Newport Bay are used for spawning and nursery
purposes by a number of fish species. For example, the spotted sand bass,
California halibut, and California barracuda use the bay as nursery
grounds. In all, 61 species of fish have been reported from the bay
(Appendix C). While a number are common, the deepbody anchovy, topsmelt,
and round stingrays are very common in certain areas.
Numerous shellfish occur in the deeper channels as well as on the
tidal flats (Appendix B). Smooth chiones, wavy chiones, bay mussels,
rough -sided littlenecks, common littlenecks, and rosy razor clams are
very common in certain areas. Numerous "bait species" of invertebrates
also are common in the littoral zone.
Wildlife
The primary group of wildlife using Upper Newport Bay is the migrant ,
water- associated birds. While the greatest use is from mid- September to
April, birds are found on the bay all year. A census conducted by the
Department of Fish and Gagne during 1967 and 1968 revealed the low period
- 20-
of bird use occurred during June. On February 14, 1968, an estimated
1
56,250 birds were tallied; by June 14, 1968, the count was only 550 birds
(Table 2).
Based upon the 1967 -68 census, a conservative estimate of close to
4 million bird day use was calculated. Shorebirds accounted for 74% of
this use. They were in greatest abundance between mid - September and
April. Use by ducks accounted for the other 26%. Their peak number
occurred between mid - September and March. These use figures are based
upon the bay proper and the adjacent marshlands, and do not include use
of the areas immediately adjacent to the bay. There are a number of
resident and migrating birds that use these habitats.
Numerous amphibians, reptiles, and mammals are found in areas just
adjacent to the bay; however, there are no data available concerning
population sizes.
Land Ownership
The uplands adjacent to Upper Newport Bay are privately owned.
The bay is under both private and public ownership, The Irvine Company
owns 346.3 acres while 411.8 acres are owned by Orange County (Table 3).
The water frontage for existing Upper Newport Bay waterways measured
along the high tide line is 70,049 feet. The Irvine Company owns all
water frontage except 6,088 feet located at Harry Welch Park. In other
words, the public owns 8.7p of the bay's water frontage (Sampson and
Ballinger, 1964), while 91.3% is in private domain. There is a 600 -foot
21 -
RX-TEDW
ESTIMATED BIRD DAY USE OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
Based on 1967 -68 Census
1 -26 -68
10,553
10,500
Percent *-
Adjusted
Number
Total
1 -31 -68
10,778
Adjusted
No. Ad-
Bird
Days in
Bird Day
Date
Census
Census
justment
Numbers
Period
Use
9 -07 -67
4,554
4,500
50
9,000
1
9,000
9 -08 -67
5,683
5,500
50
11,000
118
1,298,000
1 -o4 -68
8,550
8,500
50
17,000
6
102,000
1 -10 -68
4,339
4,500
50
9,000
15
135,000
1 -25 -68
17,224
17,000
50
34,000
1
34,000
1 -26 -68
10,553
10,500
50
21,000
5
105,000
1 -31 -68
10,778
11,000
20
13,200
5
66,000
2 -05 -68
20,192
20,000
25
25,000
9
225,000
2 -14 -68
45,241
45,000
25
56,250
6
337,500
2 -20 -68
15,929
16,000
25
20,000
6
120,000
2 -26 -68
7,322
7,500
30
9,750
7
68,250
3 -o4 -68
21,621
21,500
30
27,950
16
447,200
3 -20 -68
18,206
18,000
30
23,400
5
117,000
3- 25-68
11,446
11,500
25
14,375
8
115,000
4 -03 -68
13,998
14,000
25
17,500
7
122,500
4 -10 -68
13,783
14,000
30
18,200
8
145,600
4 -18 -68
15,252
15,000
25
18,750
11
206,250
4 -29 -68
2,318
2,500
15
2,875
9
25,875
5 -07 -68
11279
1,200
15
1,380
38
52,440
6 -14 -68
483
500
10
550
14
7,700
6 -28 -68
1,077
1,000
10
1,100
14
15,400
7 -12 -68
1,397
1,500
30
1,950
49
95,550
8 -30 -68
5,116
5,000
25
6,250
7
43,750
9 -o6 -68
12,813
13,000
25
16,250
1
16,250
Total
3,910,265
*- Estimated percentage of census area not included in count.
* This 118 -day period occurs when the bird population in Upper
Newport Bay normally is increasing; therefore, this is con-
sidered a conservative figure.
- 22 -
county beach on the east side of the ski area in-the bay. The slope of
this beach is on lands owned by Orange County; however, the back portion
is on Irvine land. A 20 -foot easement over Irvine lands provides public
access to the ski area.
TABLE 3
* UPPER NEWPORT BAY OWNERSHIP
Public Ownership
Exclusive Public Ownership
County Tidelands (Tidelands Grant, 1919; 1929) 403.7 acres
Harbor District (Coney Island Purchase, 1956) 8.1
Total 411.8 acres
Limited Public Rights
** Public Easement (Tidelands Patent No. 204) 243.0 acres
Under Public Ownership or Prescriptive Rights 654.8 acres
Private Ownership
Irvine Company
*# Tidelands Patent No. 204 243.0 acres
Fee Owned Islands 103.3
Total 346.3 acres
* Source: Sampson and Ballinger, 1964
The County of Orange was granted a public easement and rights
of fishery and navigation over the Tidelands Patent No. 204
in Superior Court Decree No. 20436.
The northerly end of Upper Newport Bay was granted to James Irvine on
January 25, 1901, by Tidelands Patent No. 204. These lands are subject to
a public easement for navigation and fishing. The boundaries of this par-
cel were adjusted by the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Orange in its Decree No. 20436, dated May 6, 1926, that
defined the line of ordinary high tide and further defined the title granted
in the tidelands patent. This parcel consists of 243.0 acres.
- 23 -
The upland adjacent to the bay and the three islands in the bay are
mined in fee by the Irvine Company. The line of ordinary high tide for
the uplands and the northerly island was adjudicated by Superior Court
Decree No. 20436. The other two islands were referred to in the decree
as being excluded from the county tidelands; however, the line of ordin-
ary tide was not included in the adjudication. The two islands were not
awned by the Irvine Company at that time but have since been acquired.
Aerial photos and government charts of the area indicate the mean high
tide line along the islands has been relatively unchanged from early maps
to the present; therefore, the estimated size of the area owned by Irvine
Company is reasonably accurate. The three islands comprise 103.3 acres.
Orange County owns 411.8 acres of.Upper Newport Bay. The State of
California granted 403.7 acres to the County on July 25, 1919 (Statutes
of California, 1919 and 1929), and the Orange County Harbor District
purchased 8.1 acres, known as Coney Island, through an eminent domain
action on March 6, 1958, for $U2,310. Portions of the County's Coney
Island were included in the 69.5 acres leased to Newport Dunes, Inc., in
1958, for the development and operation of an aquatic park.
Harbor
The southern end of Upper Newport Bay now provides anchorage and
berthing facilities for a number of small craft. There are some private
boat facilities associated with the residential area on the upper bay's
southwestern shore (Dover Shores). The present berthing capacity is
approximately 500 boats. There are launching facilities for trailered
boats which have a daily capacity of about 900 boats.
- 24 -
Lower Newport Bay is really the center of boating activity and has
both private and public boating facilities. It also is the base of
operations for sport and commercial fishing activities.
PRESENT AND FUTURE USES
Parks
Harry Welch Park is located on the southeast shore of Upper Newport
Bay. This county -owned 69.5 -acre aquatic park is under lease to Newport
Dunes, Inc., and includes swimming beaches, picnic grounds, boat launch-
ing ramps, and a large trailer park. Landscaping is sparse and the signs,
toll gates, and extensive paved areas give the park a distinctly commer-
cial character. The 28.5 -acre Harry Welch Paris Lagoon provides public
swimming facilities along a 6,058 -foot beach. This facility now provides
over 1 million user days annually and has an estimated daily capacity of
about 24,000 people (based on a 100% turnover in 1 day).
A 600 -foot county beach is located on the eastern shore of the bay
by the water ski area. This beach is used by a number of people, primar-
ily in association with water skiing activities. This area was not in
use during 1969 because of contamination problems caused by floods in
January.
The population continues to grow in southern California and demands
for "quality" swimming and recreational areas remain high.
There is a rapidly increasing demand for maintaining the natural
environment. As more and more of the agricultural areas become urban-
ized, people are asking that additional undeveloped areas be set aside
to help maintain the quality of their environment. The concepts of recre-
ational areas and undeveloped areas need not be in conflict; with proper
- 25 -
planning areas for "low density' recreation activities (parks, bird -
watching areas, fishing areas, etc.) and marine and wildlife reserves
are highly compatible. Upper Newport Bay has the natural resources as
well as being ideally located for meeting fixture "low density' recrea-
tional demands.
In 1965, over 7.7 million ;people were living within two hours
driving time of Upper Newport Bay. This does not include San Diego
County. By 1990 the same area will contain an estimated 15.5 million
people. This population increase plus a shorter work week, more leisure
time, and higher incomes will certainly increase the demands for "low
density" recreation.
Sport Fishery
The upper bay is a spawning grounds and nursery for some sport
species. Sportsmen fish from the bank at several spots along the eastern
side of the bay. They catch spotfin croaker, spotted sand bass, California
corbina, queenfish, opaleye, white seaperch, shiner perch, diamond turbot,
and California halibut. There is some sport use of the clam resources in
the bay. While present sport use of Upper Newport Bay is relatively
light, 5,700 man -days fishing annually, demands will increase in the
future. These demands can be met if adequate public access is maintained
in the future. The public enjoys access to much of Upper Newport Bay for
the purpose of fishing, and with growing recreational demands, this access
should be considered in any development plan for the upper bay.
Nature Study and Birdwatching
The marshlands, mud flats, and uplands attract many species of birds
to Upper Newport Bay. Since the bay is the only remaining inlet on the
26 -
southern California coast that is neither developed nor in Defense
Department ownership, it is the ideal spot for sightseeing and bird -
watching. No hunting is permitted in the bay so it is an ideal resting
and feeding area for migratory shore and water birds as well as an excel-
lent habitat for resident birds. There are 159 species of native birds
that are known to occur in the area as well as a species of flamingo.
(These birds escaped from Sea World in San Diego several years ago and
are regularly seen in bays and estuaries along the southern California
coast.)
Presently there is- moderate use of Upper Newport Bay by bird watchers;
however, this nonappropriative activity is becoming much more popular. On
February 15, 1969, over 1,200 people visited the upper bay to view the
birds and wildlife. The attendance records of nature study areas empha-
size the interest in this activity in southern California. The Tucker
Bird Sanctuary in Orange County has approximately 35,000 schoolchildren
visiting it each year (Table 4).
TABLE 4
USE OF SOME NATURE ORIENTED FACILITIES
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA
Facility
San Dimas Park
La Verne, California
Robt. M. McCurdy Nature
Center
Pasadena, California
Operated
Acres By
Los Angeles
138 County
Los Angeles
185 County
Audubon Center of
Southern California
E1 Monte, California 127 Audubon Society
Tucker Bird Sanctuary San Fernando
Orange County 10 Audubon Society
- 27 -
Annual
Visitor -Days
175,244
7,569 in groups,
no record for indi-
vidual attendance
46,138
34,114
With the increase in population and the decrease in undeveloped areas
in southern California, the demands for birdwatching areas will rapidly
increase. Even in relatively undeveloped areas like northern California
this nonappropriative use of living resources is becoming very popular.
For example, at Gray Lodge ( a Fish and Game Wildlife Area in the Sacramento
Valley) July 1968 through June 1969, records indicate there were 11,377
hunters, 7,370 fishermen, and 11,172 visitors who came to view wildlife.
During the same period at the Imperial Wildlife Management Area near the
Salton Sea, there were 9,288 hunters, '5,154 fishermen, and 8,481 other
individuals who came to see the wildlife. Department of Fish and Game
records indicate that statewide approximately 72,000 hunters, 74,000
fishermen, and 31,000 wildlife viewers visited State Wildlife Management
Areas which are removed from population centers.
The demands for nature areas in Orange County is certainly going to
increase, and Upper Newport Bay can help meet them.
Scientific and Educational
There are considerable zoological,, botanical, geological, and archeo-
logical resources in Upper Newport Bay that are of scientific value and
interest. The broad mudflats, marshlands, marine waters, and their asso-
ciated biota represent an ecological complex that is rapidly passing out
of existence in southern California. The proximity of the University of
California at Irvine and Orange Coast College to the bay make it very
accessible for use by these institutions of higher learning. In addition
to these nearby institutions, California State College at Fullerton,
California State College at Long Beach, and several junior colleges make
considerable use of the bay for research. Annually the Marine Biology
Program at California State College at Fullerton is provided approximately
- 28 -
..
$240,000 of federal support monies for research mainly conducted in Upper
Newport Bay. The Bay also is used by several high schools in the area
for field trips. While the use by educational institutions may now be
described as moderate, the future demands for scientific and educational
use of Upper Newport Bay certainly will increase since this is one of the
last places in southern California where mudflat- marshland environment
exists.
Boating
Recreational boating is a very popular activity in the Newport area.
A large portion of the business activities in the lower portion of the bay
is devoted to this pastime. A private marina complex, Dover Shores, is
located on the southwestern shore of the upper bay. A number of vessels
are berthed in this area. Across the bay on the eastern shore, over 500
boats are berthed in the Harry Welch Park area. In addition, there are
facilities for launching trailered boats not only at Harry Welch Park, but
at several other places on the southern end of the bay. There is also a
launching area at the mouth of Big Canyon. This facility services the
water ski area just north of the Narrows.
The demand for boating areas and facilities will continue to increase
in the Newport Bay region, as well as throughout southern California. At
the present time much of this demand is being satisfied in Newport Bay;
however, facilities in this area are reaching their maximum use, and addi-
tional facilities are sorely needed. Upper Newport Bay could help satisfy
at least a part of this demand.
- 29 -
r;
Urban
,a-
Almost the entire perimeter of the west side of Upper Newport Bay
contains costly, single- family homes. The northern end is also rapidly
becoming an urban area of single- family dwellings. On the east side,
north of Big Canyon, there is a well - planned, high quality town house and
garden apartment development known as "The Bluffs ". The Newporter Inn is
located just to the northeast of Harry Welch Park, but at the present time
the area between the inn and the southern side of Big Canyon is not devel-
oped. It is only a matter of time until this area too will become another
residential or commercial complex. The sparkling bay, with its pictures-
que banks and islands, covered with marsh grasses and other plants, provides
a pleasant contrast to the surrounding hard - surfaced, man -made developments.
The Irvine Company plans to build a complete new city on the portion
of its vast Orange County holdings nearest Newport Bay. In addition to
the residential development around the upper bay, a golf course, cemetery,
and several research and development plants now are located on Irvine lands.
The center of the University of California at Irvine is about 1.5 miles
northeast of the upper bay, while the Orange County Airport is situated
approximately 1.5 miles north of the bay. Agricultural lands in the vicin-
ity are rapidly being urbanized since this is one of the fastest "growing"
urban areas in southern California.
Industry and Commerce
The Western Salt Company had a series of evaporation ponds in the
northeastern portion of the upper bay. These ponds were washed out during
the floods in early 1969. The ponds have not been repaired, and the asso-
ciated structures have been dismantled. This operation had been in exis-
tence for a number of years on land leased from the Irvine Company.
- 30 -
Most industry in Upper Newport Bay is located on the eastern bank of
its lower end, and is associated with the tourist or recreational trade.
The Newport Dunes Corporation operates Harry Welch Park where boat launch-
ing facilities, trailer boat storage, picnic grounds, swimming beaches,
and a large mobile home park are located. There are several other commer-
cial parking and boat launching facilities located between Harry Welch
Park and the Highway 101 bridge. A bait shop, snack bar, and several
other small businesses face Highway 101 on the western shore of the lower
bay. A trailer court is located just to the north of these establishments.
The privately operated Upper Bay Boat Launch and Auto Park is located
at the mouth of Big Canyon. This facility is used primarily to launch
boats for the ski area. The private concession on Irvine lands has not
been in operation,since the floods of 1969.
The Newporter Inn is located just to the northeast of Welch Park. A
golf course is operated in conjunction with the tourist facilities at this
installation:
With the ever increasing demands for boating and tourist facilities
in the Newport area, there is a need to increase the number of establish-
ments catering to these demands.
Aesthetic and Scenic
The green marshlands, the clear water, the numerous shore and water
birds feeding on mudflats or moving among green foliage, the multi- colored,
almost vertical cliffs rising majestically on both sides of the bay, and
I the peaceful serenity of the bay all contribute to the aesthetic quality
of Upper Newport Bay. This area receives moderate use by people driving
along Bayside Drive just to enjoy the scenery. Cherished by residents of
the area is the bay's natural beauty, and this aesthetic value is translated
- 31 -
into the real estate values of the area. With the rapidly evolving urban
complexes throughout southern California and associated loss of "open
space ". public demands for areas with the scenic qualities of Upper Newport
Bay will become greater and greater as other natural areas are changed by
developments.
Other
Water skiing is another recreational activity in Upper Newport Bay.
A ski course north of the Narrows was used heavily prior to the January
1969 floods. A considerable volume of sediments was deposited in the ski
area at that time, and the waters were contaminated to.a point where body -
contact sports were prohibited. As a result, no skiing activities occurred
in the upper bay in 1969. There is a large and increasing number of people
water skiing, and demand for areas in which to ski is growing. Upper
Newport Bay could satisfy some of this demand.
One potential use of Upper Newport Bay is an emergency landing area
since the upper end of the bay is in the flight pattern of the Orange
County Airport (Figure 1). With urbanization of the immediately adjacent
areas, the bay's value for emergency landings continues to increase. This
safety factor should be considered in any development plan for the area.
CONFLICTS IN PROPOSED USES
In California, particularly in southern California, recreational
boating has experienced phenomenal growth during the past two decades.
This growth has placed heavy pressures on existing small craft harbors
and marinas. In addition to the increased interest in boating and asso-
ciated water sports, the population growth in southern California has been
tremendous. Add to this a very affluent society, and the result is a high
- 32 -
demand for residential - marina complexes. Developers in response to these
economic opportunities are modifying California's coastline, resulting in
a severe loss of tidal wildlife habitat. Today this loss of wildlife
habitat has reached a critical point whereby any additional alteration
of bays, estuaries, and lagoons without taking steps to maintain ecologi-
cal values will result in severe damage to certain wildlife species.
While there has been an increase in the demand for boating facilities
and marina complexes, there also has been a sizeable increase in demand
for wildlife and marine life reserves to make sure that certain of our
living resources will survive. People are becoming very concerned about
their present environment and the legacy they will leave their children
and their children's children. They have become aware of the sensitivity
of the ecology to even minor alterations in the environment, and are demand-
ing that steps be taken to protect, and where possible, to improve the
quality of our present environment.
Upper Newport Bay is the only bay.in southern California that still is
in a relatively pristine condition. Since 1924, there have been a number
of studies to determine how best to develop the area. Most of these
studies have been conducted by engineers and each succeeding report essen-
tially modified or refined the previous one. General Lansing H. Beach,
U. S. Army, Retired, in an "Engineering Report on Newport Bay ", dated
April 1925, proposed a channel to Upper Newport Bay. In 1942,
R. L. Patterson prepared a "Preliminary Report on Upper Bay Development"
which suggests the development of the Upper Bay should be for yachting and
recreational use. Again, in July 1950, R. L. Patterson submitted a report
"Improvement of Upper Newport Bay, Newport Harbor, Orange County, California ",
in.which he details a general development plan for Upper Newport Bay. In
March 1964, K. Sampson and J. E. Ballinger submitted the "Upper Newport Bay
- 33 -
Exchange Plan ", in which they proposed harbor lines they felt would
provide the best possible channel for the ultimate development of Upper
Newport Bay, based on the current (1964) recreational boating needs.
Some of these reports considered the need for parks and recreation
areas adjacent to the upper bay. None, however, initially considered the
living resources nor the ecological consequences of completely modifying
the upper bay.
When the first of the development plans was prepared (1924), Upper
Ne`rport Bay was "in the country ", and most of the bays, estuaries, and
lagoons in southern California were undisturbed. Even in 1950 this was
still reasonably true; however, it wasn't true in 1964, and certainly
isn't true today. Roue of the proposals considered what effects develop-
ment of Upper Newport Bay would have on the ecology of nearby areas, Iec
alone all of southern California. In 1924, it wasn't considered necessary
to examine these effects, but it certainly is today.
Public access is certainly an important factor that must be considered
when looking at the future of Upper Newport Bay. One of the major problems
facing the general public today in southern California is access to recrea-
tional areas. While many coastal areas, beaches, and bays are in public
ownership, the routes of access are restricted by private ownership of
adjacent lands. At present, the public enjoys access to most of Upper
Newport Bay's waterfront and tidelands.
There is a number of special interest groups concerned with the future
of Upper Newport Bay. Each has reasons for urging a particular use of the
bay. These special interests should be considered in planning for the bay's
future.
- 34 -
I) al 1' lai 1 •1Y
The development of Newport Bay has been of concern since the early
part of the 20th Century. With the increased demands for boating, swim-
ming, and other recreational facilities, and the growing demand for
marina -type residential areas, the development of Upper Newport Bay has
become a critical issue in recent ,years. There has been a number of pro-
posals concerning the development of the upper bay. Some of these
primarily represent the needs of single- interest groups such as boating,
while others were much broader in their approach, but none, until recently,
considered more than superficially the ecological effects upon the fish
and wildlife resources of southern California. Furthermore, due to
increased urbanization of nearby areas, any proposal must take into
account flood control measures.
Three proposals are presented and reviewed in this section. Particular
emphasis is placed upon the ecological consequences of each.
Upper Newport Bay land Exchange Proposal
On March 31, 1964, the Orange County Harbor District transmitted to
the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, a report prepared in compliance
with Board Resolution No. 63 -1808 of December 18, 1963 (Sampson and
Ballinger, 1964). The purpose of this report was to present the City of
Newport Beach's requirements for an acceptable land exchange plan. These
requirements were:
1. That two neighborhood beach parks, averaging three acres each,
be located on the westerly side of the channel, and a large
park with a minimum of 1,500 feet of main channel frontage be
located on the easterly side of the channel at Big Canyon.
- 35 -
2. That a continuous roadway be provided alcnr, the water
on both the cast and west sides of the channel.
3• That the control, development, administration, and use
of these parks be vested_ exclusively in the city in
perpetuity.
The main concern of the Newport Beach City Council members at that
time was the lands immediately adjacent to the bay, since they had
approved, on February 26, 1962, the harbor lines as proposed for the Upper
Newport Bay by the Orange County Harbor District, dated January 26, 1962.
The land exchange negotiations were initiated by a letter dated May 20,
1963, from the Irvine Company to the Orange County Board of Supervisors
that proposed an exchange of fee owned islands, uplands, and patented
tidelands for portions of the County tidelands, in order to permit the
development of Upper Newport Bay. This proposal was essentially the same
as the plan recommended for approval by the Orange County Harbor Commission
in the Upper Bay Land Exchange Report, dated August 26, 1963•
Proposed Development
The proposed plan consists of developing Upper Newport Bay into a
marina - residential comple;c with provisions for water- oriented commercial
and recreational facilities. The development calls for dredging a 10 -foot
deep, 800 -foot wide navigable channel to the north end of the bay, and
using the spoils to fill tidelands to the foot of the bluffs. The pro-
posed land configuration would create a waterway extending about 2.5
miles north from the highway bridge (Figure 3). At the northern end of
the bay, the waterway would widen into a turning basin. A mile -long
rowing course and a marine stadium, separated by a long arm of parkland,
are proposed. The north side of the stadium and the rowing course is
- 36 -
UPPLH NtWYUKI UAi VKUF'UJtU LANU tAL,"AIMUt 1'LAIII
designated for park use, but much of this area probably would be used for
parking. The proposal designates that 1,600 feet of channel frontage on
the east side of the bay, in the Big Canyon area, would be devoted to a
70 -acre public park that would extend up the canyon to Jamboree Road.
Two small parks would be established on the west side of the main channel.
The balance of the filled tidelands, with about 3+,000 feet of water front-
age (measured along the proposed harbor lines) would be developed for
private residential and aquatic commercial uses.
Effects on Living Resources
The results of these extensive modifications of Newport Bay upon the
present biotic community will have far- reaching ecological consequences.
Changes to the biota may be even more dramatic because of habitat modifi-
cations now taking place in many other coastal areas of southern California.
While faunistic changes that would be brought about by this modification
of the bay cannot be ascertained fully, there are many that can be pre-
dicted. Many of the aquatic animals would be able to adapt to changes.
Certain of the fishes and invertebrates found in a little deeper water
probably would move into the area as permanent residents. There would be
an increase in areas for spawning and for a nursery which might influence
more aquatic animals to reside in the area. Some of the migrating water-
fowl, grebes, gulls, and diving ducks, would continue to use the bay as a
resting area until boating activities increase. With the urbanization of
the area, there would be an increase in the number of songbirds taking up
residence in the tree and shrub landscaping.
Many of the animals that might benefit from the proposed habitat
alteration would do so only if the water quality renains at least at the
present level. There is considerable concern at present about the physical
- 38 -
and chemical features of water that might exist after channelization and
development of Upper Newport Bay. The accumulation of petroleum polutants
resulting from boating activities, and possible decrease in flushing
action in the upper bay, as well as in the lower bay, could lead to degra-
dation of marine water quality in the area. In fact, before dredging and
landfill operations begin in Upper Newport Bay, a study should be conducted
to insure that there will be adequate flushing action in the bay.
Deleterious effects on the living resources can be predicted if Upper
Newport Bay is developed as proposed by this plan. A number of inverte-
brates found on the mudflats or on the islands will no longer occur in the
bay. Several of these occur only in this bay and would become extinct.
(Laurence and Reish, 1959•)
In the proposed bay modification, over 950 acres of littoral, maritime,
and salt pond habitat would be lost from the environment. This is over two -
thirds of the primary area under consideration. As a result, over 60
species of birds would no longer occur in Upper Newport Bay (Appendix E).
Unfortunately, for a number of these species, there is very little suitable
habitat left in southern California so there will be further reductions in
their already diminished population sizes. Many of the waterfowl may con-
tinue to use the area for resting; however, it no longer will serve as a
feeding area for many of these birds. This bay modification, along with
alterations proposed in other coastal areas, will have far - ranging ecologi-
cal effects on birds that use the Pacific Coast Flyway.
Plants that comprise the salt water marshland flora will be gone.
Once again, these represent a habitat type that has all but disappeared
from southern California. Without question, ecological degradation would
result from developing Upper Newport Bay along the lines outlined in the
Land Exchange Proposed Plan.
- 39 -
Upper Newport Bay Proposed Park Plan
Because of its wildlife, inherent high aesthetic and scenic values,
and proximity to the University of California at Irvine and to the rapidly
developing urban areas, Upper Newport Bay would lend itself extremely well
to development as a park (city, county, or state) and a nature interpre-
tation center. This is referred to as the Upper Newport Bay Proposed Park
Plan. Because of the uniqueness of this type of fast dwindling and essen-
tial habitat, it would be desirable to maintain the upper bay in a
condition somewhat resembling its present configuration and to keep the
marshlands, islands, and mudflats intact.
Proposed Development
A park could be developed along the following lines:
Nature interpretative facilities could be developed to allow each
visitor the opportunity to appreciate and understand the ecological
importance of a salt marsh and mudflat. Without question, educational
institutions (elementary, secondary, and collegiate), as well as the
general public, would make extensive use of these facilities. Other
areas that have been developed along similar lines enjoy heavy use
(Table 4). A limited amount of laboratory and storage space would be
provided for the use of scientific investigations. Some on -site parking
would be provided. This installation would be situated unobtrusively so
as not to conflict with the wildlife or the visitor's experience. A site
adjacent to the salt beds would be ideal.
Bicycles and pedestrian paths, complete with catwalks, would be
constructed along the estuary's edge and to the islands. Vista points
would be provided at various points along the bay's periphery. The north-
eastern part of the upper bay, which was used for salt evaporation, would
- 40 -
be reestablished as an estuarine environment. The northern half of the
upper bay would be preserved as a wildlife habitat, and only a few small
footpaths would penetrate the area. The lower half of the upper bay
would provide facilities for boating, water skiing, and swimming.
Effects on Living Resources
With the reestablishment of a marsh - mudflat environment in the
northeast section of the upper bay, wildlife values would be enhanced.
The carrying capacity of the area for migrating and resident birds would
be increased. The living marine resources would be maintained at about
the present level. The flushing action of the bay probably would be
improved and water quality would remain high. The southern part of the
upper bay would help satisfy some of the demand for water- associated
sports. The park would provide certain financial benefits to the nearby
communities.
This type of development for Upper Newport Bay would provide the
public with maximum benefits and usage, as well as maintain the high
ecological values inherent to the area. It would not only maintain public
title to tidelands and waterways, but would insure continued public
access to all the upper bay. This development does require the acquisi-
tion of patent lands (now subject to public easement), the salt beds, and
the fee owned islands now under private ownership (the Irvine Company).
Upper Newport Bay Proposed Alternate Plan
The two proposed plans already presented in this document represent
divergent viewpoints.
The Upper Newport Land Exchange proposal recommends the total
development of the bay into an area of low to medium density housing with
- 41 -
associated boat mooring facilities, commercial areas, a marine stadium,
bathing beaches, a rowing course, and several parks. It does not take
into consideration the far- rea6aing ecological consequences that would
result from its implementation.
The Upper Newport Bay Proposed Park Plan retains the bay in its
present configuration. It recommends the bay be maintained as a park
(city, county, or state), with the northern half being preserved as a
wildlife habitat and the lower half providing boating and swimming
facilities. This proposal does consider the ecological consequences in
its "development" of the bay, as well as the growing recreational needs
of the general public. It also maintains or even enhances the aesthetic
and scenic values of the area; however, it makes no provisions for any
additional housing or commercial development.
There are alternates to these two views. One of these provides some
residential and commercial development, and yet maintains to a degree the
ecological integrity of Upper Newport Bay. This is really a compromise
whereby the upper bay can be developed for residential and commercial uses
south of the Narrows, and north of this point it can be developed and
maintained as a park and nature interpretation area (Figure 4). This
alternative would require at least 5 years to implement from the time
development commences. It does not consider present land ownership
patterns or acquisition problems, but does stipulate that after develop-
ment, the area north of the Narrows, including the salt beds, be under
public ownership and the area south of the Narrows, including Big Canyon,
be in private ownership (except the Harry Welch Park).
Dredging and landfill operations south of the Narrows would proceed
as outlined in the Upper Newport Land Exchange Plan (Sampson and Ballinger,
1964) or a modification thereof; however, north of this point there would
_42_
r
4
-- FRI
FIGURE 4
ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PROPOSED
FOR UPPER NEWPORT BAY
be considerable divergence from the 1964 proposal. The basic concept in
"developing" this area is to return it to as near a natural condition as
possible, then provide a number of islands to serve as replacement habitat
for those species that will be dispossessed by the destruction of the
islands south of the Narrows. The exact number, placement, configuration,
and composition of the " replacement" islands Will be determined through
an extensive study conducted by experts in the fields of geology, botany,
ornithology, marine biology, wildlife management, ecology, and engineering.
After the islands are constructed and the representative flora planted, a
period of 5 years will be required to make sure they have reached an ecologi-
cal equilibrium with the islands south of the Narrows. If at the end of
5 years, equilibrium has been reached, development of the southern half of
Upper Newport Bay may proceed.
A Nature Interpretation Center could be established in the area
adjacent to the southside of the salt beds. A considerable amount of
habitat manipulation would be necessary in the salt bed area to return
it to a near natural state; therefore, it easily lends itself to establish-
ing a number of representative habitats that are found in the Newport area.
Interpretation Center facilities would include a parking area, exhibits,
some laboratory space, and trails and walkways to the habitat and wildlife
interpretative areas. This site is ideal for interpretative purposes
since it forms a continuum between the saltwater- mudflat- marshland environ-
ment and the freshwater -marsh habitat represented by San Joaquin Marsh
located less than one mile to the east.
The dike that divides the northern end of the bay would be removed
and the mudflats would be retained in their present condition. The ski
area just north of the Narrows would be maintained. A road around the
- 44 -
entire periphery of the park with parking provided at appropriate spots
will insure public access to the area. Green areas and picnic facilities
could be incorporated in the design of some of the parking areas.
This proposed plan for developing Upper Newport Bay, while a compromise,
does maintain the ecological integrity with little or no loss of wildlife
values. Marine resources would possibly be enhanced to some extent, and
water quality would remain high since the bay would retain its present
flushing action. The Nature Interpretation Center would attract thousands
of people annually and the bay would still sustain heavy use by the academic
institutions.
The facilities of the park would satisfy many recreational needs of
southern Californians, and still provide a low density area in the flight
pattern of the Orange County Airport. The area south of the Narrows will
help satisfy the demand for boating facilities and will provide for a
marine -type low density housing development. There would be some loss
of the scenic and aesthetic values now inherent to the area, but by main-
taining strong architectural control over building designs, the development
could be made very pleasing to the eye.
- 45 -
REFERENCES
Adams, D. A. 1963. Factors influencing vascular plant zonation in Herth
Cardine salt marshes. Ecology, 44:445 -456.
bane, Gilbert W. 1968. Fishes of the Upper Newport Bay. Mus. Systematic
Biol., Univ. Calif., Irvine., Res. Series., (3):1 -114.
Barnard, J. Laurens, and Donald J. Reish. 1959. Ecology of Amphiopoda and
Polychaeta of Newport Bay, California. Allen Hancock Found. Publ.,
Occas. Paper, (21):1 -106.
Boughey, Arthur S., Grover C. Stephens, and Robert H. Whittaker. 1967. A
proposal for the development of Upper Newport Bay. (Not formally
published). 4 p.
Bruff, S. C. 1946. The paleontology of the Pleistocene molluscan fauna
of the Newport Bay Area., California. Calif. Univ., Pubs. Geol.
Sci., 27 :213 -240.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1953. Biological survey of Lower
Newport Bay. Report to Santa Ana Regional Water Pollution Control
Board (Code No. 52 -8 -8). 9 p.
California Department of Parke and Recreation. (Preliminary, subject to
revision). Upper Newport Bay. 10 p.
Chapman, V. J. 1960. Salt marshes and salt deserts of the world. Univ.
Press., Aberdeen. L. Hill, Ltd., London. 392 p.
City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 1968. Street Index Map.
October 1968. 1 p.
Darby, R. 1964. The last chance lagoon. Westways, 56:30 -31.
Hall, E. Raymond, and Keith R. Ke:lson. 1959. The mammals of North America.
2 vols. Ronald Press. N. Y. 1083 P.
Hardy, Robert A. (In Press). The marine environment in Upper Newport and
Sunset Bays, Orange County, California. MRR Reference Series.
- 46 -
Hinde, H. P. 1954. The vertical distribution of salt marsh phonerograms
in relation to tide levels. Ecological Monogr., 24:209 -225
Ingles, Lloyd G. 1954. Mammals of California and its coastal waters.
Stanford Univ. Press. 396 p.
Livingston and Blayney. 1966. Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange Plan:
Report to State Lands Commission. 10 p.
Martin, William D. (Foreman). 1969. Press release of the 1969 Orange County
Grand Jury on July 17, 1969. 1969 Orange County Grand Jury. Santa
Ana, Calif. 4 p.
Munn, Philip A., and David D. Keck. 1968. A California flora. Univ. Calif.
Press. Berkeley. 1681 p.
Orange County Board of Supervisors. 1940. Minutes of the Board of Supervisors
of Orange County, California. April 2, 1940. Deed of right of way
Palisades Road.
Patterson, R. L. 1950. Improvement of Upper Newport Bay, Newport Bay Harbor,
Orange County, California. Report to Orange County Board of Super-
visors and Orange County Harbor Commission. 100 p.
Pough, Richard H. 1957. Audubon western bird guide. Doubleday. N. Y.
316 p.
Purer, E. A. 1942. Plant ecology of the costal salt marshlands of San
Diego County, California. Ecological Monogr., 12:81 -111.
Recher, Harry F. 1966. Some aspects of the ecology of migrant shorebirds.
Ecology, 47(3):393 -407.
Reish, Donald J. 1959. An ecological study of pollution in Los Angeles-
Long Beach Harbors, California. Allen Hancock Found.. Publ.,
Occas. Papers, (22):1 -119.
Reish, D. J., and H. A. Winter. 1954. The ecology of Alamitos Bay, with
special reference to pollution. Calif. Fish and Game, 40(2):105 -121.
Richetts, E. F., and J. Calvin. 1956. Between Pacific Tides. Stanford
Univ. Press. Stanford, Calif. 502 p.
- 1 -
Robbins, Chandler S.,',Bertel Bruun, and Herbert S. 2im. 1966. A guide to
r
field identi''ication. Birds of North America. Golden Press. N. Y.
340 p.
Sampson, Kenneth, and flames E. Ballinger. 1964. Upper Newport Bay Land
,)!
Exchange Plad,. Orange County Harbor District. 73 p.
1
Schmidt, Karl P. 1953..' A check list of North American amphibeans and reptiles.
Am. Soc. Icht�yol. Herpetol., 280 p.
Sherman, H. L. 1931. A history of Newport Beach. Los Angeles Times - Mirror
Press. L. A.,, Calif. 215 p.
Speth, John. 1969. The fuss over coastal wetlands. Outdoor Calif., 30(4):6 -7.
Stebbins, Robert C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians.
The Riverside Press Cambridge. 279 p.
Stevenson, Robert E., and K. 0. Emery. 1958. Marshlands at Newport Bay,
California. Allen Hancock Found. Publ., Occas. Papers, (20) :1 -109.
Vogal, Richard J. 1966. Salt -marsh vegetation of Upper Newport Bay, California.
Ecology, 47(1) :80 -87.
- 48 -
s
APPENDIX A
PLANTS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
These species have been collected in sublittoral, littoral, and maritime
ecological zones of Upper Newport Bay.
KEY
V = Very common (Makes up over 50% of flora in given area)
C = Common (Makes up from 5% to 49% of flora in given area)
R = Rare (Makes up less than 4.9% of flora in given area)
ALGAE
Green Algae
Enteromorpha intestinatis
Enteromorpha tubulosa
Ulva lactuca
Ulva lobata
Ulva sp.
Brown Algae
Colpomenia sinuosa
hlacrocystis integrifolia
Macrocystis pyrifera
Ralfsia sp.
Red Algae
Antithm mion sp.
Cryptosiphonia sp.
Gigartina canaliaulata
Gracilaropsis sp. .
Gracilariopsis sjoestedii
Lophosiphonia sp.
Nienburgia andersoniana
Polysiphonia sp.
PoZysiphonia pacifica
Porphyra perforata
Pterosiphonia dendraidea
yT
T
u
C
R
R
R
R
C
V
V
V
R
C
R
V
C
V
APPENDIX A
PLANTS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
PHANEROGAMS (Flowering Plants)
Filaree
Erodium botrys
C
Frankenia
Frankenia grandifolia
C
Bladderpod
Isomeris arborea
R
Sand spurrey
Spergularia marina
R
Ice plant
i4esembryanthemum crystallinum
C
Sea fig
Mesembryanthemum chiZense
R
Salt brush
Atriplex matsonii
R
Salt brush
Atriplex canescens
R
Glasswort
SaZicornia subterminaZis
C
Annual Pickleweed
SaZicornia bigeZovii
V
Pickleweed
SaZicornia virginica
V
California seablite
Suaeda caZifornica
C
Sand verbena
Abronia maritima
R
Saltwort
Batis maritima
V
Sea lavender
Limonium caZifornicum
C
Saltmarsh dodder
Cuscuta saZina
R
California desert thorn
Lycium caZifornicum
R
Live forever
DudZeya stoZonifera
R
Sweet clover
N eliZotus indica
C
Deerweed
Lotus scoparius
R
Beach evening primrose
Oenothera cheiranthifoZia
V
var. suffruticosa
Coastal encelia
Bncelia caZifornica
C
Beach sandbur
Franseria chamissonis
R
laumea
Jaumea carnosa
R
Eriophyllum
Eriophyllum confertifZorum
R
Telegraph weed
Heterotheca grandifZora
V
Goldenbush
HapZopappus venetus
R
Coastal sagebrush
Artemisia caZifornica
R
Arrow grass
TrigZochin maritima
C
Eel grass
Zostera marina
C
Cat -tail
Typha ZatifoZia
R
Spiny rush
Juncus acutus var. ephaerocarpus
R
California bulrush
Scirpus caZifornicus
R
Salt grass
DistichZis spicata
C
Ripgut grass
Bromus rigidus
R
Cord grass
Spartina foZiosa
V
-50-
APPENDIX B
MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
These species have been collected in Upper Newport Bay.
KEY
V = Very Common
C = Common
R = Raze
a Sponges
Sponge
Geodiidae (unid.) R
Crumb -of -bread sponge
Halichondr;.a panicea C
Sponge
Hyrreniacidon sinapium V
Sponge
Leucetta losangelensis C
Sponge
Leuconia barbata C
Sponge
Leuconia heathi R
Sponge
Sycettidae (unid_) R
Sponge
Sycon sp. R
Sponge
Tetilla mutabilis C
Jellyfish, antimonies, and hydras
Anemone
Actinaria (unid.)
C
Hydroid
lglaophenia diegensis
V
Aggregate
Anthopleura eleoantissima
C
Solitary anemone
Anthopleura xanthogmwrrt ca
C
Moon jellyfish
Aurellia sp,
R
Anemone
Cozynactis sp.
R
Anemone
Diadzenene sp.
R
Anemone
Di.adumene franciscana
V
Colonial hydroid
Tubularia crocea
C
V Hydroid
Corymorpha pa&na
R
Sea pen
Stylatula elongata
R
Flatworm
Flatworm
Ribbonworm
- 51 -
Polycladida (unid.) C
Nemertea (unid.) V
Phoronid worm
Roundworms
Bryozoans
APPENDIX L' - contd.
MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
Phoronidea (unid.) C
Menatoda (unid.)
[N
Bryozoan
Bugula rerYi:tina
C
Bryozoan
Bugula pacn:fica
R
Bryozoan
Diaperoecia floridina
V
Bryozoan
Filicrisia - er?iculata
R
Bryozoan
HoZoporella b wnnea
V
Bryozoan
Scrupocellaria bert1=oletti tenuirostris
R
Bryozoan
Scrupocellaria califor2ica
V
Bryozoan
Scrupocellar2a dieaensis
V
Segmented worms
Polychaete
Ampharetidae (unid.) R
Polychaete
Anaitides sp, C
Polychaete
Aretonoe vittata R
Polychaete
Armandia bioculata V
Polychaete
AxiothelZa mbrocircta V
Polychaete
Capitellidae (amid.) C
Polychaete
Capiralla eanitelZa y
Polychaete
Chaetopteric variopedatus R
Polychaete
Cirratulidae (unid.) R
Polychaete
Cirriformia Zu=-iosa C
Polychaete
Cossura candida V
Polychaete
DorvilZea orticulata C
Polychaete
Epitobous sp. R
Polychaete
Eteone spp. C
Polychaete
&chore Zimnicola C
Polychaete
EudistyZa poZymorpha C
Polychaete
Eunicidae (unid.) R
Polychaete
Eusyllis sp. V
52 -
APPENDIX B contd.
MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NWPORT BAY
Polychaete
Exogone Zourei
c
Polychaete
Fabricia limnicOZa
V
Polychaete
Flabelligeridae (unid.)
R
Polychaete
Halo sydna,johnsoni
c
Polychaete
h'apZoscoZopZos eZongatus
V
Polychaete
Lumbrineris sp.
V
Polychaete
Lumbrineris erecta
R
Polychaete
Lumbrineris minima
R
Polychaete
Marphysa spp.
c
Polychaete
Marphysa sanguinea
c
Polychaete
Marphysa stylobranchiata
R
Polychaete
Megaloma pigmentum
c
Polychaete
Nainereis sp.
R
Polychaete
Nainereis dendritica
c
Polychaete
Neanthes caudata
c
Polychaete
Nereis eakini
R
Polychaete
Nereis sp.
R
Polychaete
Nerinides pigmentata
R
Polychaete
Notomastus tenuis
R
Polychaete
Ophiodromus pugettensis
R
Polychaete
Phyllodocidae (unid.)
c
Polychaete
Pista sp.
c
Polychaete
Pista alata
C
Polychaete
Platynereis bicanalieulata
c
Polychaete
Polydora sp.
V
Polychaete
Polynoidae (unid.)
R
Polychaete
Prionospic heterobranchia nemportensis
c
Polychaete
Sabellidae (amid.)
c
Polychaete
Saccocirrus papiZlocercus
V
Polychaete
Serpulidae (unid.)
R
Polychaete
Sphaerosyllis pirifera
c
Polychaete
Spiophanes missionensis
R
Polychaete
Streblospio benedicti
c
Polychaete
Syllidae (unid.)
V
Polychaete
Syllis gracilis
R
Polychaete
Terebellidae (unid.)
R
-53-
APPDiDIX B contd.
MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
California caerum
Many -named caecum
Nuttall's hornmouth snail
California hornsnail
Hornsnail
Carpenter's miniature ce:rith
Slipper shell
Onyx slipper shell
Pacific half- slipper shell
Cup- and - :saucer limpit
Nudibranch
Nudibranch
Nudibranch
Rough keyhole limpit
Nudibranch
Tectibranch
Stern's lamellaria snail
Hardedged keyhole limpit
Gem murex
Keeled dove snail
Frieze- covered dove snail
Channeleddog whelk
Muddog whelk
Tectibranch
Poulson's dwarf triton
Western three - winged murex
Barrel bubble
Snail
Scaly worm shell
Festive rock snail
Black top shell
Bay scallop
Agate chama
Banded chione
Caecum eaZifczr:i.ezon
Caecum erebricinctum
C�ratost`oma nuttalli
Cerit�riccza ewli; °o�rzica
Ceritli.opsis sp.
Ceriti.s;opsis c�r_penteri
Crepic'!Za sp.
Crepidula or;x
Crepipa'tclLi Zingulata
C'rucibulzun S p -1,
Dendrodoris aZboounetata
Dendrodoris fuZva
DiauZula sandiegensis
Diodora aspera
Dorididae (unid.)
H=inoea vesica�Za
LcaneUaria ster- ai
Lucapinella caZZomarc(inata
MaxweZlia ge,,ma
hlitrella carinata
Mitrella gausapata
Nassarius fossatus
Nassarius teguZus
Navanax nermis
Ocenebra pouZooni
Fteyynotus triaZatus
Retusa sp.
R,ssoella sD.
SerpuZorbis squamigerous
Sb askyus °estivus
Tegula funebraZis
Adquipecten circularis
Chama pellucida
Chione eaZ•iforniensis
-56-
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
V
C
V
C
C
C
C
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
C
R
R
C
C
C
C
V
C
APPENDIX B contd.
MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
Smooth chione
Chione fZuct fraga
V
Wavy chione
Chione wevatella
V
Rough - nestling clam
HiateZla aretiea
V
Basket cockle
Clinocard iP7 nuttalli
R
Wedge clam
Doraax califcrnicus
R
Sunset clam
Gari californica
R
Little egg cockle
Laevicardiu,'7 substriatum
R
Kelp -weed scallop
Leptopecti'n. Zatiauratus
C
California panershel;.
Lzcnsia caZi °ornica
R
Bent -nose clam
Macoma nasuta
R
California mactra
Mactra californica
C
Bay mussel
Mgtilus edulis
V
Native oyster
Ostrea Zurida
C
Goeduck
Panope generosa
R
Speckled scallop
Plagioctenium circularis
R
aequisulcatum
Rough -sided littleneck
Protothaca Zaciniata
V
Common littleneck
-Protothaca starinea
V
Thin-shelled littleneck
Protothaca tenerrima
C
Rosy razor clam
Solen rocaceus
V
Purple clam
Sanguinclaria nuttalli
R
Narrow dish clam
SpisuZa catillifor,nis
R
Hemphill's dish clam
Spisula hemphilli
R
California jackknife clam
TageZus californianus
C
Gaper
Tresus nuttalli
R
Spiny cockle
Trachycardiwn quadragenarium
C
Fat horse mussel
VolselZa capax
R
Straight horsemussel
VolselZa recta
R
Giant horsemussel
VolselZa fZabellata
R
Ribbed horsemussel
VolselZa demissa
R
octopus
Octopus bimaculatus
C
Starfish and sea urchins
Brittle star Amphipholis squamata R
Brittle star Amphipholis pugetana C
57 -
APPENDIX B contd.
MARINE INVERTEBRATES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
Pale sea urchin Lyteahinus pictus C
Brittle star ophiactis simplex V
Sea bat or sea star Patiria miniata C
Red sea urchin Stronaylocentrotus franciscanus R
Chordates
Ascidian
Amaroucium sp. R
Ascidian
Amaroucium californicum C
Ascidian
Ciona intestinalis V
Ascidian
StyeZa baxwharti V
Ascidian
Styela montereyensis R
Ascidian
Styela truncata V
-58-
APPENDIX C
MARINE FISHES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
These species have been collected in Upper Newport Bay
ff,-VA
- 59 -
V = Very common
C = Common
R = Rare
Sharks and rays
Gray smoothhound
Mustelus caZifornicus
C
Brown smoothhound
Triakis henZei
R
Leopard shark
Triakis semifasciata
C
Thornback
Platyrhinoidis triseriata
R
Shovelnose guitarfish
Xhinobatos productus
R
Diamond stingray
Dasyatis dipterurus
R
California butterfly ray
Gymnura marmorata
R
Round stingray
UroZophus haZZeri
y
Bat ray
MyZiobatis caZiformicus
R
Bony fishes
Bonefish
AZbula vuZpes
R
Threadfin shad
Dorosoma petenense
R
Pacific sardine
Sardinops eaeruZea
R
Pacific thread herring
Opisthonema Zibertate
R
Deepbody anchovy
Anchoa compressa
V
Slough anchovy
Anchoa delicatissima
R
Northern anchovy
EhgrauZis mordax ,
R
California killifish
Pundulus parvipinnis
C
Bay pipefish
Syngnathus grisecZineatus
C
Salema
Xenistius caZiformiensis
R
Kelp bass
ParaZabrax cZathratus
R
Spotted sand bass
ParaZabrax maculatofasci.atus
C
Sand bass
ParaZabrax nebuZifer
C
Striped bass
Roccus saxati.Zis
R
Sargo
Anisotrenrus davidsoni
R
Opaleye
Girella nigricans
C
Pacific mackerel
Scomber ,japonicus
R
Black croaker
Chei:Zotrema saturnum
R
- 59 -
APPENDIX C contd.
MARINE FISHES OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
White seabass
Cynoscicn nobiZis
R
White croaker
Genyonemus Zineatus
R
California corbina
Menticirrhus unduiatus
C
Spotfin croaker
Roncador stearnei
R
Queenfish
Seriphus poZitvs
C
I
Yellowfin croaker
Umbrina ro.cador
C
Barred surfperch
Amphistichus argenteus
R
Shiner perch
Cymatogaster aggregata
C
Black perch
Embiotoca jacksoni
C
Silver surfperch
Hyperprosopon e Uipticwn
R
White seaperch
Phanerodon furcatus
C
'Rubberlip perch
Rhacochilus toxotes
R
Pile perch
Rhacochilus vacea
R
Walleye surfperch
Hyperprosopon argentewn
R
Arrow goby
CleveZandia ics
C
Longjaw mudsucker
Gillichthys mirabilis
C
Shadow goby
Quietula y -cauda
C
Rockfish
Sebastdes
R
Giant kelpfish
Heterostichus rostratus
C
Reef finspot
Paracli>tus integrippinis
R
Bay blenny
Hypsoblennius gentilis
C
California barracuda
Sphyraena argentea
C
Striped mullet
MugiZ cephaZus
R
ropsmelt
Atherinops affinis
V
California grunion
Leuresthes tenuis
R
Specklefin midshipman
Porichthys myriaster
C
PZainfin midshipman
Porichthys notatus
R
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Leptocottus armatus
C
Pacific sanddab
Citharichthys sordidus
R
Speckled sanddab
Cithariehthys stigmaeus
R
California halibut
Paratichthys califcniicus
C
Diamond turbot
Hypsopsetta guttulata
C
Spotted turbot
Pleuroniehthys ritteri
C
California tonguefish
Symphurus atricauda
C
-6o-
APPENDIX D
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
These species have been observed adjacent to Upper Newport Bay.
California newt
Taricha torosa
C
California slender salamander
Batrachoseps attenuatus
V
Western spadefoot toad
Scaphiepus h=.,ondi
R
California toad
Bufo boreal halophilus
V
Pacific treefrog
Byla regiIla
V
Bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana
R.
Red - ].egged frog
Rana aurora
R
Weeternpond turtle
ClenrVs mamorata
R
Coast horned lizard
Phnjnosoma coronatw
C
Western fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
V
California side - blotched lizard
Uta stansburi a hesperis
V
Western skink
Ewwces skiltonicnus
C
San Diego alligator lizard
Gernccnotus mucticarinatus webbi
C
California legless lizard
Annie Ila
pulchra
C
Western yellow- bellied racer
Coluber constrictor mormon
R
California kingenake
Lmnpropeltisgetuluecaliforniae
C
San Diego gopher snake
Pituophis melanoleueue anneetens
V
Long -nosed snake
Rhinocheiius lecontei
C
California red -sided garter snake
Tharmophis sirtalis infernalis
C
KEY
C = Commonly observed,.
V = Very common
R = Rarely observed
- 61 -
APPENDIX E
BIRDS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
These species are known to occur in or adjacent to Upper Newport Bay
- 62 -
..
KEY
A = Abundant
* = Breeding birds (known
or presumed)
C = Common
t = Expected loss with dredging and
U = Uncommon
bulkheading.
0 = Occasional
0 = Breed in adjacent freshwater marsh
R = Rare
$ = Marsh breeders (salt
or fresh /
V = Vagrant
brackish)
Shorebirds
Semipalmated plover t
Charadrius semipalmatus
C
Snowy plover * t
Charadzius alexmzdrinus
U
Killdeer * t
Charadrius vociferus
C
American golden plover t
PZuviaZis dominiea
V
Black- bellied plover t
Squatarola squata_rola
C
Ruddy turnstone t
Arenarie interpres
U
Black turnstone t
Arenoria meZmnocephaZa
R
Common snipe t
Capella gallinago
0
Long- billed curlew t
Nzenenius amerieanus
C
Whimbrel t
Numenius phaeopus
U
Spotted sandpiper t
Aetitis macularia
0
Solitary sandpiper t
Tringa solitaria
0
Wallet t
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
A
Greater yellowlegs t
Totmzus melanoleucus
C
Lesser yellowlegs t
Totatus flavipes
0
Knot t
Calidris cmzutus
U
Pectoral sandpiper t
Erolia melanotos
R
Baird's sandpiper t
Ero Zia bairdi i
R
Least sandpiper t
Erolia minutilla
C
Dunlin t
Erolia alpina
C
Short - billed dowitcher t
Limnodromus griseus
A
Long- billed dowitcher t
Limmodromus scoZopaceus
U
Western sandpiper t
Erezmetes mauri
A
Marbled godwit t
Limcsa fedoa
A
- 62 -
..
,
APPENDIX f,-contd.
S'anderling t Corcethia aZba U
American avocet * t Recurvirostra americana C
Black- necked stilt * t Himantopus mexicanus C
Red phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius 0
Wilson's phalarope Steganopus trico$or C
Northern phalarope Lobipes Zobatus C
Grebes, loons, pelicais and cormorants
Red - necked grebe
Podiceps grisegena
V
Horned grebe
Podicepa auritus
C
Eared grebe
Podiceps caspicus
A
Western grebe
Aechrnophorus occidentaZis
C
Pied - billed grebe * t 0
Podilymbus podiceps
C
Common loon
Gavia irrmrer
0
Arctic loon
Gavia arctic a
0
Red- throated loon
Gavia stellata
0
White pelican
PeZecanus erythrorhynchos
0
Brown pelican
Pelecanus oceidentaZis
U
Double crested cormorant
PhaZacrocoraw auritus
C
Brandt's cormorant
Pha'Zacrocorax penicilZatus
U
Miscellaneous marsh birds
Clapper rail * t 0
Rallus Zongirostris
C
Virginia rail * t 0
RalZus Zimicola
U
Sora * t 0
Porzana caroZina
U
Black rail t
Laterallus damaicensis
V
Common gallinule * t ¢
Gallinula chZoropus
U
American coot * t p
Fulica Americana
A
Wading birds
Great blue heron t
Ardea herodias
C
Green heron t
Butorides virescens
U
Common egret t
Casmerodius albus
C
Snowy egret t
Leucophcyx thula
A
Reddish egret t
X chromanassa rufescens
R V
APPENDIX E- contd.
Louisiana heron t Hydranassa tricolor R
Little blue heron t FZorida caeruZea v
Black- crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax C
American bittern t Botaurus Zentiginosus U
White -faced ibis t PZegadis ehihi V
American flamingo t Phoenicopterus z,iber Y
Gulls and terns
Glaucous- winged gull
Lards gtxucescens U
Western gull
Larus occidentaZis C
Herring gull
Larus araentctus C
California gull
Larus calif ornicus A
Ring- billed gull
Larus delaaarensis A
Mew gull
Larus eanus U
Bonaparte's gull
Larus phiZc& - Zphia C
Heermann's gull
Larus heernann C
Gull- billed tern
GeZochelidon niZotica V
Forster's tern
Sterna forsteri A
Common tern
Sterna hirundo U
Arctic tern
Sterna paradisaaa R
Least tern * t
Sterna aZbifrons C
Royal tern
Thalasseus maximus 0
Elegant tern
ThaZasseus eZegazs U
Caspian tern
Hydroprogne caspia U
Black tern
Ch$idonias niger 0
Swans
Whistling swan t
Geese
0Zor coZz&bianus R
Canada goose t Branta eanadensis R
Black brant + Branta nigricans 0
White- fronted goose t Anser aZbi frons R
Snow goose t Chen hyperoorea R
- 64 -
APPENDIX E- contd.
Surface ducks
Mallard * t
Anas platyrhynchos C
Gadwall t
Anas strapera V
Pintail * t
Areas acuta A
Common teal t
Anas crecca V
Green - winged teal t
Anas carnlinensis C
Blue-winged teal t
Anas discors 0
Cinnamon teal t
Anas cyaroptera C
European widgeon t
Mareca penelope U
American widgeon t
Maraca americcgia A
Shoveller t
Spatula clypeata C
Diving ducks
Redhead
Aythya americcma
0
Ring- necked duck
Aythya collartis
0
Canvasback
Aythya vaZiaineria
0
Greater scaup
Aythya marLZa
V
Lesser scaup
Aythya affinis
C
Common goldeneye
Busephala clangula
0
Buff lehead
Bucephala aZbeola
V
White - winged scoter
McZanitta degZandi
V
Common scoter
Oidearia nigra
U
Surf scoter
McZanitta perspicillata
A
Stiff - tailed ducks
Ruddy duck * t Oxyura jamaicensis C
Mergansers
Hodded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus R
Common merganser Mergus mergraa<ser 0
Red - breasted merganser Mergus serrator C
Vultures
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura C
- 65 -
APPENDIX B- contd.
Hawks, falcons, and eagles
White- tailed kite *
EZanus Zeucurus U
Sharp- shinned hawk
Accipitcr striatus U
Cooper's hawk *
Accipiter cooperii U
Red - tailed hawk *
Buteo ,jamaicensis C
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni R
Rough - legged hawk
Buteo Zagapws R
Golden eagle
Aquila ohrysaetos R
Marsh hawk
Circus cys.aus U
Osprey
Pon dion haliaetus R
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrirUS R
Sparrow hawk *
Falco soarverius C
Birds occurring in the immediate areas adjacent to Upper. id!'K2 ort Bay.
Ring- necked pheasant
California quail
Mourning dove
Spatted dove
Roadrunner
Barn owl *
Burrowing owl
Short -eared owl
Anna's hummingbird
White- throated swift
Belted kingfisher * t
Red- shafted flicker
Western kingbird
Black phoebe * t
Horned lark *
Cliff swallow
Common crow *
Common bushtit
Cactus wren *
Long- billed marsh wren * t t
T
=66-
Pnasicmus co"Zchicus
U
Lophcrtjx caZiforrnicus
C
Zenaidura macr,oura
A
Streptopelia ehinensis
0
Geococcryjx tali fo.r+iianus
R
Tyto aLba
C
Steotyto czmicularia
C
Asia fZcnnrneus
U
CaZypte a::na
A
Aeronautes sazataZia
U
MegaceryLe aZcyon
U
CoLoptee .cafer
C
Tyrannus verticaZis
U
Say orris nigricans
U
Eremophila aZpestris
C
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
C
Corpus brachyrhynchos
C
PsaZtriparvs rrininus
C
CarpyZorhynchus brwineicapillum
R
Telmatocu+tes paZustris
U
APPENDIX E_contd.
Mockingbird
Mimus poZygZottos
C
Ruby - crowned kinglet
Eeau.Zus calendula
p
Water pipit
Anthus apinoletta
C
Loggerhead shrike *
'Lanius ludovicianus
C
Starling *
Sturnus vv.Zgaris
A
Audubon's warbler
Dendroico. audubcni
C
Yellowthroat * t
Geothlypis tri ^_has
U
House sparrow (English sparrow) *
Passer domeatiaue
A
Western meadowlark *
Stur e N a neGZacta
A
Red - winged blackbird (* freshwater
AgeZaius phoer¢iceus
C
marsh only)
Tricolored blackbird
AgeZaius tricolor
U
Brewer's blackbird
Euvhagus cyanoeephalus
A
House finch *
Carpodacu.s mexicanus
`A.,
American goldfinch
Spinus tyYLstis
p
Lesser goldfinch
Spinus psaZtria .,
C
Brown towhee *
Pipilo fuscus
C
Savannah sparrow * t
PassercuZus sa,dwichensis
C
i. "nite- crowned sparrow
Zonotriehia Zeucophrys
A
Lincoln's sparrow
McZospiza Zireolnii
U
Song sparrow * f
McZospiza meZodia
C
Lazuli Bunting *
Passerina wt?oena
U
Blue grossbeak
Guiraca caeruZea
U
-67 -
APPENDIX F
MAMMALS OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY
These species have been observed on or adjacent to Upper Newport Bay.
Raccoon
Striped skunk
Ground squirrel
Valley pocket gopher
Black- tailed jack rabbit
Deernice
House nouse
Pacific kangaroo rat
Dusky- footed wood rat
Audubon cottontail
:.
Procyon Zotor
Mephitis mephitis
CitelZus beecheyi
Thomomys bottae
Lepus californicus
Peromyscus op.
Mus musculus
Dpodomys agilis
Reotoma fuscipes
S'ilvilagus auduboni
4
Mr. Williain Mason
President
The Ir+rin, Cntn *lar,,
550 Newport_ Center' Drive-
Newport Beach, Califoriia
Dear Di-11:
92660
__; : -.
t,.
I wish to thank you very= much for arranging such a wonderful.beach tour -.
for me last Monday afternoon. It was great fun to walk from Cameo Shores
to E1 Morro Lay, aW 1 am sure that I learned a great deal i!nrc about the
terrain and its possibilities, along the way. I thank you in particular
for making it possible for Dick Reese to give me such an excellent ;niided
tour with appropriate C(r nentary And expinjiati.on,
I'am enclosing two short :articles I notice;' in. the last issue pf the Bulletin
of the Sierra Club, Southern Chapter, in which I.am a rather inactive membe .
I thootght you rtif;ht find them interesting. ;
May 1 also take this opportunity to inform you that the City Council offici-
ally varied Councilrian Id Birth to serve as its representative on the com)re-
hensive planning study of the Upper Bay area now being organized...<The
Council.:, shall look to hits to provide the necessary- liaison.. I hope to
work with Ed as long as I MR able on the fo ^native stages of this study,
We very v.uch appreciate the cooperation offered ry the Irvin,, Company on this
study project.
Most sincerely,
e—�' MIN .
DM:Pg
`max
Mr. Williain Mason
President
The Ir+rin, Cntn *lar,,
550 Newport_ Center' Drive-
Newport Beach, Califoriia
Dear Di-11:
92660
__; : -.
t,.
I wish to thank you very= much for arranging such a wonderful.beach tour -.
for me last Monday afternoon. It was great fun to walk from Cameo Shores
to E1 Morro Lay, aW 1 am sure that I learned a great deal i!nrc about the
terrain and its possibilities, along the way. I thank you in particular
for making it possible for Dick Reese to give me such an excellent ;niided
tour with appropriate C(r nentary And expinjiati.on,
I'am enclosing two short :articles I notice;' in. the last issue pf the Bulletin
of the Sierra Club, Southern Chapter, in which I.am a rather inactive membe .
I thootght you rtif;ht find them interesting. ;
May 1 also take this opportunity to inform you that the City Council offici-
ally varied Councilrian Id Birth to serve as its representative on the com)re-
hensive planning study of the Upper Bay area now being organized...<The
Council.:, shall look to hits to provide the necessary- liaison.. I hope to
work with Ed as long as I MR able on the fo ^native stages of this study,
We very v.uch appreciate the cooperation offered ry the Irvin,, Company on this
study project.
Most sincerely,
e—�' MIN .
DM:Pg
February 11, 1970
To the Honorable Board of Supervisors
Cotuity of•:Prange
515 North Sycamore
Santa Ana, California
Gentlemen:
The Newport Beach. City Council,. recognizing its legal and moral responsi-
bility to formulate a long -range plan for the use and development of the
overall Upper Newport Bay area, has expressed its intention to begin im-
mediately this planning program: The City Council believes that such a
comprehensive planning study will be of vital importance to the City of
Newport Beach regardless of the outcome of the land exchange agreement be-
tween the County of Orange and the Irvine Company, now in litigation.
We respectfully invite the County of:Orange to cooperate with the City of
Newport :Beach in the conduct of this Upper Newport Bay planning program
and to assist in the compilation.of data necessary for the study. To this.
end, we should appreciate it if your Honorable Board would designate its
appropriate representatives to work with our City staff on this project;.
We are also inviting the Irvine Company to cooperate in the conduct of this
project.
You will find enclosed our Resolution No. 7137 adopted by the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach at its meetingiof February 9, 1970. This
Resolution is entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City 6f
Newport Beach stating its intention to initiate a comprehensive plarming
study of the development potHntia3 of the Upper Newport Bay and requesting
the cooperation of the County of Orange and the Irvine Company in the conduct
of said study."
We look forward to working with the County of Orange on this very important
program.
Very truly yours,
DOREEN MARSHALL
Mayor
DM:Pg
February li, 1970
Mr. William R. Mason.
President
The Irvine .Company
550 Newport-Center Drive
Newport Beach, California__
Dear Bill:
The Newport ileach City Council, recognizing its legal and moral responsi-
bility "to fonmxiate a long -range plan for the use and development-o£ the
overall Upper Noq)ort Bay area, has e,"ressed its intention to begin m-
mediately this planning program. .The Gity Council believes that such a
comprehensive planning study will be of vital importance to the City of New-
port Beach regardless of the outcome of the land exch mge agreement between
the County of (range and The Irvine,Cc pany, now in litigation.
We respectfully invite The Irvine'Company to cooperate with the City of
Newport Beach in.the.conduct of this Upper \1ewixn*t } y planning program
and to assist in the compilation of data necessary nor the study. To this
end, we should appreciate it if you:wbuld designate the appropriate rep-
resentatives,to work with our City staff on this project.
We are also inviting the Orange County Board of Supervisors to cooperate in
the conduct of.this project.
i
You will finii enclosed our Resolution No. 7137 adopted by the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach at its neeting of February 9, 1970, ThiA
Resolution is entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Newport Beach Stating its Intention to Initiate a Comprehensive Planning
Study of the Development Potential.of the Upper Newport Bay and Requesting
the Cooperation of the. County of Orange and the Irving Company in the Conduct
of Said Study."
We look forward to working with The Irvine Company on this very important
program.
Very truly yours,
DOREEN MARSHALL
Mayor
D4:pg
A
i
THE IRVINE COMPANY
660 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH-ZA r""41L92000
The Honorable Doreen Marshall
Mayor of Newport Beach
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Dear Doreen:
101 d
9�Q`�
16 February 1970
Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1970, forwarding a
copy of the City Council's Resolution #7137, setting forth a
— comprehensive planning study of the Upper Newport Bay. We
are looking forward to meeting with the City and the County of
Orange to assist you in the planning process.
It would seem appropriate to have a first meeting which would
consist of the principles and their staffs to establish the objectives,
criteria and time schedule so that the respective parties would
have a clear understanding of what was to be done. At such a
meeting, I would like to suggest that R. L Watson, our Senior
Vice President of Land Development, R. A. Reese, our Vice
President of Planning, and myself participate. Based on the
information developed at the meeting, we will assign others to
meet on a regular basis to develop the necessary background data
for the general plan.
We would like to commend the City Council on their forward looking
action on this important project.
Sincerely,
fir? //Iv�
W. R. Mason
WRM :nc
City Clerk
February 11, 1970
Ialme, Iagioa, City Clerk
Attadmd are two certified copies of Rene 17 %,tim, tb. 7137
regarding the L) Wr NoMazt Bay stiAy f�c trarodttrl
Board to the of Superviso:w m,-..1 T6� er+
Also enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution No. 7135
regarding °Oont to Crest" Salta Ana River study for
trensaittal to Via Board of S'ti;pervisare.
CITY G'F I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Attorney
epartment
To: Members of the City Council Date: Feb. 9, 1970
From: City Council Upper Newport Bay Committee
Subject: UPPER NEWPORT BAY
Pursuant to your instructions we have had discussions with
representatives of The Irvine Company and the County of
Orange concerning the future of the Upper Newport Bay. It
is the conclusion of your Committee that the City should
immediately commence a comprehensive planning study of the
Upper Newport Bay in order that the City will be in a position
to work closely with the County and The Irvine Company in
formulating a development plan which will best serve the
City's interest.
We believe that such a planning study is an essential
prerequisite to informed decision - making concerning the Upper
Newport Bay by the City Council, regardless of whether the
present land exchange is consummated or development occurs
under other circumstances.
The resolution which appears on your agenda is recommended
for adoption by the undersigned.
Mayor Doreen Marshall
Edgar F. Hirth
Robert Shelton
DM:mh
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 7137
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH STATING ITS INTENTION TO
INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STUDY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY
AND REQUESTING THE COOPERATION OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE AND THE IRVINE COMPANY IN THE CONDUCT OF
SAID STUDY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
recently received recommendations from the Newport Tomorrow
Citizens Committee urging comprehensive planning studies for
the entire City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated a program
which has as its goal the creation of an up -to -date comprehensive
general plan for the City; and
WHEREAS, an essential part of such planning involves
the future use and physical development of the Upper Newport
Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the County of Orange and the Irvine Company
have entered into a land exchange agreement affecting the Upper
Newport Bay, which is presently in litigation; and
WHEREAS, depending upon the outcome of this litigation,
the Upper Bay will either be developed in accordance with the
existing land exchange agreement or under different circumstances;
and
WHEREAS, whether the existing land exchange agreement
is consummated or not, the City of Newport Beach has a
responsibility to formulate a long -range plan for the use and
development of the Upper Newport Bay which will be based upon a
thorough study and analysis of all relevant information includ-
ing esthetics, ecology, engineering and economics; and
WHEREAS, the County of Orange and The Irvine Company
have assembled information concerning the Upper Bay area which
-1-
needs to be correlated with the City's data;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach, as follows:
1. It is the intention of the City to immediately
commence a comprehensive planning study of the Upper Newport
Bay based upon:
(a) The assumption that the pending land exchange
agreement will be completed;
(b) The assumption that the pending land exchange
agreement will not be completed.
2. The City Council hereby invites the County of
Orange and The Irvine Company to assist the City in the
compilation and documentation of data, and to cooperate in the
conduct of the City's planning studies for the Upper Newport Bay..
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 1970.
\)��411�1 a i Aliu�L\L
Maydr
THS:eg
-2- 2/10/70
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH STATING ITS INTENTION TO
INITIATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STUDY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY
AND REQUESTING THE COOPERATION OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE AND THE IRVINE COMPANY IN THE CONDUCT OF
SAID STUDY
recently recei ed
Citizens Commit e
entire City of N
WHEREAS
which has as its
general plan for
fr S
the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
recommendations from the Neu4ort Tomorrow
urging comprehensive p
Beach; and
the City Council has
the creation of
City; and
WHEREAS, fin\
the future ��phyy,sical de
WHEREAS, the
have entered into a land
Newport Bay, which is pre
studies for the
tiated a program
up -to -date comprehensive
ential part f such planning involves
opment of per Newport Bay;
and
unty of 0 ange and The Irvine Company
e change agreement affecting the Upper
se ly n litigation; and
WHEREAS, depending
the Upper Bay will either be
existing land exchange agree;
and
WHEREAS, whethelt the
the outcome of this litigation,
loped in accordance with the
or under different circumstances;
consummated or not, th ity of New
to formulate a long -ra ge plan for t
Newport Bach wil be based upon
analysis of all rel ant information
land exchange agreement is
Bea ch hays a responsibility
evelopment of the Upper
thorough study and
luding esthetics, ecology,
engineering and a nomics; and
WHERE , the County of Orange 'ad The Irvine Company
have assembled information concerning the Upper Bay area which
needs to be correlated with the City's data;
-1-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Newport Beach, as follows:
1. It is the intention of the City to immediately
commence a comprehensive planning study of the Upper Newport Bay
based upon:
(a) The assumption that the pending land exchange
agreement will be completed;
(b) The assumption that the pending land exchange
agreement will not be completed.
2. The City Council hereby invites the County of Orange
and The Irvine Company to assist the City in the compilation and
documentation of data, and to cooperate in the conduct of the
City's planning studies for the Upper Newport Bay.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ADOPTED this day of , 1970.
Mayor
THS:mh
-2- 2/6/70
February 2, 1970
Honorable Alton E. Allen
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
orange County
515 North Sycamore
Santa Ana, California 92702
willLam Mason, President
The Irvine Company
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing a draft resolution concerning the Upper
New
with you Bay, which was prepared following our discussion
you by a committee composed of myself and Councilman
Robert Shelton and Edgar Birth. It is our intention to
present this resolution to the City Council for their
consideration and possible action at the Council meeting
scheduled for the'evenLng of February 9th.
Before discussing this resolution with the other members
of the City Council, we would appreciate having any
comments on the resolution that you would,care to make*
Very truly yours,
DOREEN MARSHALL
Mayor
DM:mh
Encl.
bec: Councilman Robert Shelton
Councilman E. F. Birth
2 2%70 J
_2_
1
l
{j
ry
v i<
2 2%70 J
1
l
{j
F R a '1970
February 2, 1970
Newport Beach City Council
City Hall
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California
Gentlemen:
After reading press releases and attending a work shop at Irvine
University relating to the Upper Newport Bay land exchange I, as
a private citizen and member of the Izaak Walton League of
America, commend for your serious consideration the further in-
depth examination of what now appears to be MORE than a "land
swap "* between Orange County and the Irvine Company. The word
"swap" certainly seems more applicable than "land exchange" as
the latter implies something of an even break.
The information presented at the work shop was more revealing
than anything which I have read anywhere in the press. Therefore,
I can only conclude that there has been a deliberate attempt on
the part of someone to conceal some vital statistics and to dis-
tort other relevant information.
Your support in bringing to light all of the facts and action in
the interest of the citizenry whom you represent will be deeply
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
RLB:mf R. L BAKER
1915 North Baker St.
Santa Ana, California
*Santa Ana Register January 30, 1970
>� L-2 f
January 26, 1970
Mr. William Mason
President
The Irvine Company
550 NepWrt Center Drive
Newport Beach, California
Dear Bill:
I ara enclosing a copy of the City Council's policy in regard
to the tipper Bay land trade. This was originally adopted on
March 14, 1966, and reconfirmed on ldovember 25, 1968 and, as
you know, will now be reexamined.
Very truly yours,
DGPXU,1 NM911ALL .
Mayor
LH:pg
Enclosure
iaid 5 1970
By tho CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January .4. 1970
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM :. Ed Hirth
SUBJECT:- STUDY OF BACK BAY
Attached,is a rough draft of a resolution calling for
a study of the Back Bay. There has never been a report published
to show just how,the area could and should.. be developed. If the
County and the Company were aware of doubts on our.part, perhaps
they would be willing to order such a study to prove the acceptability
of the exchange.
ED HIRTH
. I
I
DRAFT
1/4/70
SUGGESTED DRAFT FOR RESOLUTION TO REQUEST
CURRENT STUDY OF BACK BAY DEVELOPMENT
y, r
WHEREAS, the area known as the Back Bay is a great natural resource
and its wise use and development is of extreme importance to present and
future citizens of this region; and
WHEREAS, the people, through the County, hold title to certain lands in
this area, and The Irvine Company holds title to certain lands in this area
and all these rights must be protected; and
WHEREAS, a general plan for the development of this area incorporating
the exchange of some of these lands has been approved and is now being tested
in the courts; and
WHEREAS, this plan was first devised many years ago and much has been
learned and increasing concern has developed in this field in recent years; and
WHEREAS, the general nature of the plan leaves grave questions as to the
exact nature of the contemplated development; and
WHEREAS, the 1969 Orange County Grand Jury recommended further study of
this matter; and
WHEREAS, Supervisor Battin has offered an alternative plan for consideration;
M
WHEREAS, the Orange County Manager of Parks and Harbors reported to the
County Administrative Officer that it would be the intention of the County
and The Irvine Company to jointly obtain'a combined ecological, engineering and
economic study of the area prior to development; and
WHEREAS, on the initiative of °The Irvine Company joint planning is under
way with the Company, the County and the City of Newport Beach on the develop
went of the ocean front; and
9
i
Page -2-
COMPUTATIONS OF BACK BAY DRIVE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJUDICATED
LINE
Several years ago, the County Surveyor surveyed the adjudicated line and
filed a Record of Survey showing bearings, distances and coordinates of all recovered
monuments. This survey is filed in Book 89, pages 1 and 2 of Record of Surveys.
The coordinates are California Coordinate System, Zone VI as established by the
California Public Resources Code 8801 to 8816.
Coordinates are a method of defining the location of a given point as being
a specified number of feet north and east of an established origin. The use of
coordinates to plot points is far superior to plotting points from bearings and
distance, as each plotted coordinate point is independent of a previously plotted
point. Whereas, when plotting from bearings and distances, any error made is
carried forward to all subsequently plotted points.
The metes and bounds of the centerline of Back Bay Drive as set forth in
the deed, were placed in the GE Time Sharing System computer to determine the
coordinates on the same basis as the adjudicated line. From the data developed by
the computer, it was then possible to plot the adjudicated line and the right -of -way
line on the same drawing showing their relationship with a fairly high degree of
accuracy. Additionally, with the aid of the computer it was possible to calculate
the distances from the right -of -way line to the stations of the adjudicated line.
From plotting the information from the computer it was, also, possible to determine
the degree of overlap between the westerly right -of -way line of Back Bay Drive
and the adjudicated line. This plotting was done on a scale 1" equals 1001. The
amount of overlap between these two lines is listed as follows:
-2-
At or Near Adjudicated Station
- Distance of Overlak
32
6'
33
41'
34
821
37
193'
38
21
41 and 42
176'
43 and 44
90'
45 and 46
126'
47 and 48
90'
51 and 52
162'
53
157'
54
81
55
821
1215'
The deed for Back Bay Drive in no way states the relationship or the
amount of overlap between Back Bay Drive and the adjudicated line. There is a
map contained with the deed which
shows the width of the right -of -way line at a
larger scale than the scale indicated, causing some of the confusion. The
adjudicated line is only shown diagrammatically on the same drawing with no
intent by the draftsman to show the amount of overlap between the two.
Outline of Upper Bay Presentation November 24, 1969
Orange County holds the tidelands in trust for all the people of
the State. It has shown itself to be unworthy of this trust.
It is bartering away public lands without any plan: It does
not know if it needs the lands it is getting; it does not know
if it can afford to lose the tidelands it is giving up forever.
However, it is easy to see that County authorities know the land
exchange is unfavorable for the public, because:
1. In order to obtain State approval, the County misrepre-
sented the facts in its report on the exchange.
2. The County has never dared ask Federal help on this
project (but plenttiq at Dana Point) because Federal help
is only for projects in the public interest.
3. The exchange gives the muddy, polluted end of the bay
to the public.
(}. County spokesmen refuse to debate the topic. They
accuse us of mistakes, but don't show up to correct us.
5. Some say, "Leave it to the courts." But their position
in court is to block introduction of evidence.
To find a good plan, these problems must be studied for each of
several alternative plans for the use of the bay:
I. Pollution filtering function of upper bay.
2. Assure sufficient spawning area for sport fish.
3. Tidal erosion (in both upper and lower bay).
4.. Are the islands mere obstructions to navigation?
5• Boat carrying capacity of the lower bay.
6. Beach requirements (both local and visitor).
7. Practicability of sailing in the upper bay.
6. Development costs and sources of funds.
Since the County has shown itself to be untrustworthy, the City
should take over the tidelands. A lawsuit is required to do
this, but legally the tidelands should be run by the City.
1. The legal precedent has been set by Ivtorro Bay.
2. The City- State partnership has worked very well at
Corona del Mar beach park.
3. The City should enter the lawsuit promptly, and assume
the lead immediately in planning Upper Bay use.
There are no insuperable problems.
1. Access: Now over 7000 feet of access, not counting
the Dunes.
2. Parking: Only 60 acres needed (6% of total bay area;
or, one road with two -side diagonal parking
clear around the bay.)
3. P, ?oney: Federal picks up 2. State picks up 4. County
always gets matching funds and has a $100
million Parks & Beaches program with no bonds.
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
2166 E. COAST HIGHWAY • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 • (714) 675 -6300
JACK BARNETT
EXEC'j H'JE II'AII.AIH� S tl
November 17, L.Y -69G
I
Newport Beach City Council
Newport Beach, California
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to strongly restate your Chamber's complete
support of the Back Bay Land Exchange.
We have watched with dismay over the past months the flood of half -
truths, fiction and irrelevant comments which have poured forth from
a very vigorous, if ill- advised, -minority.
It is our utmost hope that our city's leadership, represented by our fine
council, will not become a party to this highly organized though mis-
directed campaign. Great deliberation has been given to this matter
by thoughtful leaders at state, county and city level over the past years.. .
let us not now negate those decisions or provide the means to frustrate
them at this late date.
When stripped to its essentials we are looking at only one issue—
alternatives. Although there is much said about who is getting the better
end of the bargain, that too is really irrelevant in the long run. The real
question, in our opinion, is what happens if the trade doesn't pass? Is
the public interest served? We say - no! There has been an attempt to
discredit the Irvine Company's options without the trade. We maintain
that the company's options are many, very real and potentially lucrative.
The point that the company may make more money if the trade does occur,
does not in our opinion have any bearing upon the issue. The real ques-
tion is —what are the options available to the public? Condemnation? We
think not. Facts would lead us to believe this is improbable from a.
practical viewpoint. Deny the trade? This would only force the Irvine
Company's hand and forever bar, for practical reasons, the creation of
what could be a major water recreation area to be enjoyed by all.
THE CITY OF NEWFOiT BEACH I$ CC�oFOSE0 OF TYE FOLIDWING AREAS
BALBOA • SAL30A ISLAND • CORONA DEC MAR • LIOQ ISLE • MARINER'S MILE NEWPORT CENTER • UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK • WEST NE \SPORT • WESTCLIFF
a7
V 'r
Newport Beach City Council
November 17, 1969
Page 2
We strongly urge this council's reaffirmation of the thoughtful deliberation
given on this matter by prior councils and to assist by all possible means
the speedy finalization of the exchange.
As you are aware, the Irvine Company has wisely chosen to present its
case in court during the pending litigation. It does not feel free to present
its case, once again, in public, with trial pending. This leaves the fight
to logical, concerned citizens, such as you, to make sure that this most
important issue is not frustrated by confusion in the interim.
Sincerely yours,
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER, OF COMMERCE
Richard S. Stevens
President
G 1
o \
nfT ^ 71969
1007 Nottingham Road By the CITY COUNCIL
Newport Beach, California, 920MY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 22, 1969
Mayor Ibreen Marshall
Honorable members of Newport Beach Citr Council
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California
Subject: Proposed tidelands exchange in Upper Newport Pay
Honorable Mayor and Gentlemen:
Our opposition to the proposed tidelands exchange in Upper Newport Bay
first eras expressed in correspondence to the Honorable Council, dated
August 22, 1963.
As you know, our continued interest in this matter led to our filing a
Petition in Intervention which requested the Superior Court to permit us
to enter the tidelands liti,�ation.
Permission was granted to us to become Interveners in the suit on Hay 1,
1969, by Judge Claude Owens. As a result, we now are allied with County
Auditor, Victor A. Heim, who is challen .ging the constitutionality of the
tidelands exchange.
Inasmuch as six years have elapsed since the question of the Unper Bay
has been brought before the Honorable Council, we should like to re-
quest an opportunity to present the viewl.)oint of the Interveners, The
recommendations of Newport Tomorrow seem to indicate that there is wide-
spread community interest in the future of the Upper Bay, and it seems
to us to be a topic deserv:.ng of further stud and publicity.
Our presentation -gill take approximately one hour. Although it i -Duld
be possible to appear at an afternoon study session, we would prefer to
present this information in the evening to accommodate those who 7,!ork
during the day, if an evening should meet xrith your approval.
Respectfully.
< o
� l
r
Isar. and Yxs, Frank Robinson � 0(),>,
Crr�O
'! 5 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
".ITY of NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY
apartment
To: The Honorable Mayor and Date
Members of the City Council
From: City Attorney
j -Z
Sept. 8, 1969
Subject: Litigation concerning the Upper Newport Bay
I. INTRODUCTION:
In 1957, the State Legislature enacted a special legis-
lative act which authorized the County of Orange to exchange
filled, tide and submerged lands, held by the County in trust
pursuant to a grant from the State in 1919, for uplands owned
by The Irvine Company, in order to make possible the develop-
ment of Upper Newport Bay as a harbor. The legislation provides
that such filled, tide or submerged lands conveyed to The Irvine
Company shall be deemed free from the public use and trust for
navigation, commerce and fishing. The lands received by the
County in exchange are to be used by the County only for purposes
of statewide interest. Finally, the act provides that before the
exchange can occur, the State Lands Commission must determine
that the lands to be exchanged are no longer useful for naviga-
tion, commerce and fishing, and that the lands to be received in
exchange by the County are at least of equal value to the lands
conveyed to private ownership.
On January 13, 1965, two agreements were executed between
the County and The Irvine Company in pursuance of the proposed
land exchange: (1) the land exchange agreement, and (2) the
dredging and land fill agreement. The operative provisions of
the land exchange agreement were amended on November 12, 1968,
to provide as follows: Following approval of the land exchange
agreement by the State Lands Commission and the establishment
of harbor lines, the County prior to December 15, 1968, was to
deposit in escrow deeds conveying filled tide lands and submerged
lands to The Irvine Company, to be delivered and to become
effective following the conclusion of the litigation concerning
the constitutionality of the land exchange and the completion of
the filling and reclamation work relating to said lands being
conveyed. The transfer of lands from the company to the County
has been completed, but the deeds were made subject to the condi-
tion that the property will revert to The Irvine Company, if the
litigation concerning the constitutionality of the 1957 statute
3
Re; Upper Newport Bay -2- Sept. 8, 1969
does not result in a judgment establishing legality of the
land exchange, or if the work of filling and reclamation is
not substantially completed within three years after the date
when the said deeds were deposited in escrow, or if the work
is not completed within two years after the final adjudication
of litigation concerning the constitutionality of the 1957
statute, whichever date is later. The County Assessor has
refused to recognize the transfer of property from The Irvine
Company to the County.
The dredging agreement authorizes a soils investigation
and the preparation of a dredging and filling plan subject
to the mutual approval of the Orange County Harbor District
and The Irvine Company. The agreement defines the respective
responsibilities of The Irvine Company and the County as to
the actual dredging work and apportions the costs for the
engineering and dredging work between the two parties.
II. DISCUSSION OF THE LITIGATION:
In order to test the constitutionality of the 1957
statute, it is necessary to have adverse parties before the
court. It is customary in this type of litigation to have
a County official such as the County Auditor refuse to carry
out some essential step required to effectuate the purpose
of the statute. In the case of the Upper Bay Land Exchange,
the County Auditor refused to issue a warrant to pay the
County's share of the cost of a soils investigation conducted
pursuant to the dredging agreement between the County and The
Irvine Company. In June of 1968 an effort was made to bring
an action testing the constitutionality of the land exchange
directly in the California Supreme Court, thus avoiding the
lengthy delay which could result from beginning the litigation
in the Superior Court, which is the first level trial court.
Following the refusal of the Supreme Court to assume juris-
diction, the County and The Irvine Company filed a lawsuit
against the County Auditor in the Superior Court on
December 6, 1968. The joint petition of the County and The
Irvine Company requests the court to order the County
Auditor to issue the warrant paying the County's share of
the soils investigation work, and also to determine (1) that
the 1957 statute is valid and not in violation of any provision
of the State Constitution; (2) that the Land Exchange Agreement
and dredging agreement are valid, binding and enforceable; and
(3) that former tidelands and submerged lands conveyed by the
County to the company and tidelands retained by the company
Re: Upper Newport Bay
-3- Sept. 8, 1969
pursuant to a land exchange agreement will be free from the
public trust for navigation, commerce and fishing.
After filing of the action in the Superior Court, a
complaint in intervention was filed by Frank and Frances Robinson,
Harold and Joan Coverdale and Wesley and Judith Marx, as residents
and taxpayers of the County of Orange. Their complaint makes
the following major contentions: (1) That the 1957 statute is
unconstitutional and that it violates provisions of the State
Constitution which limit and restrict transfer of tidelands to
private persons or corporations; (2) That there was an unlawful
delegation of legislative powers to the State Lands Commission
which is an executive branch of the government; (3) That the
State Lands Commission abused its discretion by approving the
exchange since the County did not receive lands of equal value as
required by the statute; (4) That no provisions have been made
or assurances received that the lands received by the County will
be used only for purposes of statewide interest; (5) That most
of the uplands to be received by the County from the company are
not lands "desirable for the improvement, development and conduct"
of the harbor in Newport Bay as required by Chapter 2044; (6)
There was no substantial evidence examined by the State Lands
Commission as to whether or not the lands to be exchanged were
no longer useful for commerce, navigation and fishing. The
complaint concludes by requesting that the court determine that
the 1957 statute is invalid and as a result the land exchange
contracts are unenforceable.
III. CONCLUSION:
At this point it is impossible to predict how long this
litigation will continue before it reaches a conclusion; however,
it would not be surprising if it extended for 4 or 5 years.
There is no question that the intervention of the taxpayers'
group who oppose the land exchange will complicate and prolong
the completion of the litigation.
THS:mh
cc: City Clerk
City Manager
4L h/ ,
TULL Ho S OUR.
City Atto y
ALAN SIEROTY
.ASSEMBLYMAN, FIFTY NINTH .DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
September 5; 1969
c4MMn: LI s
L:iIn111AL I NELAVIIC
INOU.I -" HELATIS.
NAT AND P UDLOD WOR PLANNING,
AND PV3LIL WONRC.
JOIIIT COMM ITTEEON RBYIGIOH
OI THE PENAL CODE
M M
E CAL IFORNIA ARTS COMMIGGIOX �J
/✓✓�� ^ U1
Mr. Tally H. Seymour .
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Dear Mr. Seymour:-
I'm enclosing a copy of the Legislative
Counsel's Opinion regarding the necessity of
State Lands Commission review of the Upper
Newport Bay Land Exchange.
Y rs si cere)Ia n
Fifty
AS:mlw
Enclosure
District
SThTE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 86014
• 19101 449.7030
OIBTRILT OFFICE
1166 50. R0069TO BLYO.
( \ y
LW ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90039
(119) 170.2501
ADYENIETRATIVE ASSISTANT
TT �r 'y TT jjµµ,, DD 'hh'pp TT yEY��4y/YE CC �u11s D
ALAN SIEROTY
.ASSEMBLYMAN, FIFTY NINTH .DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
September 5; 1969
c4MMn: LI s
L:iIn111AL I NELAVIIC
INOU.I -" HELATIS.
NAT AND P UDLOD WOR PLANNING,
AND PV3LIL WONRC.
JOIIIT COMM ITTEEON RBYIGIOH
OI THE PENAL CODE
M M
E CAL IFORNIA ARTS COMMIGGIOX �J
/✓✓�� ^ U1
Mr. Tally H. Seymour .
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
Dear Mr. Seymour:-
I'm enclosing a copy of the Legislative
Counsel's Opinion regarding the necessity of
State Lands Commission review of the Upper
Newport Bay Land Exchange.
Y rs si cere)Ia n
Fifty
AS:mlw
Enclosure
District
41ERNAR16 CZESLA
CHIEF DEPUTY
L`
J. GOUT D
OWEN K. KUN9
RAY M. WHITAKER
KENT L. OECHAMDEAU
ERNEST M. KLNZI
'STANLEY M. LOURIMORE
SHERWIN C. MACKENZIE. JR.
'E;' APO F. NOWAK
EOW ARD K. PURCELL
PRINCIPAL DEPOTI[E
ANN M. MACKEY
DEPUTY IN CHANCE
LOS ANGELES OFFICE
3021 STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO 915814
110 STATE BUILDING
LOS ANGELES 90012
e4Lci��YX
GEORGE H. MURPHY
Sacramento, California
September 2, 1969
Honorable Alan Sieroty
Suite 3
1144 South Robertson Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90035
Orange,County Tidelands - X617535
Dear Mr.'Sieroty:
FACTS
GGNAI.D R.I. AnAMR.
MAR IIN L. AKIN R , ON
CAIU M11..ANNUI R
JAN, "L. A.IR 11.111
JVRIN L. "A9f1, IT
EDWARD Ule.nATSKY
JOHN CORZINE
CLINTON J. OCWITT'
RODENT CULLEN GUFFY
CARL A. EiHKSUN. III
ALGCRTO V. ESTEVA
LA.WRGNCt- H. FEIN
JOHN F. FoSCETTE
HARVEY J. FOSrCR
BION M. GRCGORY
ROUCRT D. GR 0 119
FRANK A. JCLINCH
L. DOUGLAS KINHCY
VICTOR 1401.1eL461
AR 11.N R. LINK
EUG I:Nr W. MCCAOR
CLANK G. MALONCY
Rost, OLIVGI
TRACY O. POWELL. II.
MARGUERITE BOTH
CAREY W. ROYSTER
MARY SHAW
ROY K. SIMMONS
RUSSLLL L. SPARLING
JOHN T.$TUDEDAKER
JAMES E. WAOLEIGH
BRIAN L. WALKUP
THOMAS D. WHVLAN
JIMMIC WING
USPOTIES
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2044 of
the Statutes of 1957, Orange County and a private owner
negotiated an agreement on January 13, 1965, for an exchange
of certain tidelands administered by Orange County for cer-
tain lands of the private owner. The agreement in its
initial form had been approved by the State Lands Commission.
The agreement was not finally executed because
of tax complications and the parties executed a supplement
to Che agreement on September 5, 1967, and a number of amend-
ments to the agreement on November.12, 1968. You advise-us
that under the agreement as supplemented and amended, the
same lands will be exchanged although the timing-of the
transfer is changed. You have submitted-the,-agreement,
together with its supplement and amendments for our perusal.,
QUESTION
You have asked us whether the proposed exchange
may be executed without again submitting the agreement, as
supplemented and amended, to, and obtaining the approval of,
the State Lands Commission.
Honorable Alan Sieroty - p. 2 - #17535
OPINION
In our opinion the agreement, as supplemented and
amended, must be resubmitted to the State Lands Commission
for its approval.
ANALYSIS
Chapter 2044 of the Statutes of 1957 declared
certain tide and submerged lands granted in trust to Orang=
County which had-been filled and reclaimed in adapting the
granted lands for the development of a harbor, and such lards
as are so filled and reclaimed in the future, to be no loner
available or useful for navigation, commerce, and fishing,
no longer in fact tidelands, and free from the public trust
for navigation, commerce, and fishery.
Section 3 of Chapter 2044 provided as follows:
"Sec. 3. That any and all of said por-
tions.of said lands hereinbefore referred to,
which have been or which shall hereafter be
improved, .filled, and reclaimed, as herein -
before provided; if,and when so improved,
filled, and reclaimed, may be irrevocably
alienated and conveyed free of the public uses
and trusts in said acts, by.the said County of
Orange, with the approval and concurrence of
the State Lands Comm�issTion,tto tip or
respective owners o�Fe uplands lying contiguous
thereto in exchange for lands of such owner or
owners necessary or desirable for the improve-
ment, development and conduct of said harbor
upon a finding bb the State Lands Commission
that the �� located i—'r the area copy
Yn—own as Upper Newport Bay wFi cTare;to to ex-
cTian ed are no longer useful for navigation,
commerce, an _ -iL r F1 a�Ehatt ie. i�rc s —to be
recr e d in. exc a�i n e are at -feast oua1 value
thereto. The received by tie county in
excnge shall be used by the county only for
purposes of statewide interest. Upon any con-
veyance as herein provided all right, title,
artd interest of the state and said County of
Orange in the land exchanged shall vest in the
grantee or grantees thereof." (Emphasis added)
Honorable Alan Sieroty - p•, 3 #17535
We think it is clear from the underscored language
that, in accomplishing an exchange of lands located in Upper
Newport Bay for contiguous lands of the owner or owners of
the uplands, the State Lands Commission :s required to make
two findings: (1) That the lands in the bay are no longer
useful for navigation, commerce, and fishing, and (2) that
the lands to be received in exchange are at least of equal
value to the lands transferred by the county.
Although you have informed us ;hat the State Lands
Commission has approved the initial exchange agreement between
the parties, indicating that the commiss.on has already made
the required findings with respect to su!h agreement, we do
not think that the commission has discha-ged its duties under
the statute until it has studied the subsequent supplementa-
tion and amendments to the agreement and has determined that
the final exchange agreement reflects thy: findings previously
made by it. Since the statute only authorizes the conveyance
"with the approval and concurrence of tho State Lands Commis-
sion," we do not think:that the commission can approve of the
transfer until the final agreement of the parties has been
brought to its attention. In light of the commission's obli-
gation to determine that the lands to be received in exchange
are at least of equal value to the lands transferred by the
county, we observe that the initial agreement was executed
over four years ago and land values may well have undergone
some change since that time.
Thus, it is our opinion that the agreement as sup
plemented and amended must be resubmitted to the State Lands
Commission for its approval.
Very truly yours,
George H. Murphy
Leg is lative.Co -4nPsel
Robert Culleg Duffy
Deputy Legislative ' ounsel
RCD:km
RES0LUTION Or THY', 1969 GIJ.ND JUDY
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
July 16 1969
WHEREAS, public opinion and concern are now dominated by
conditions and factors that were not pertinent at the time when
the Land Exchange Agreement between The Irvine Company and the
County of Orange was signed; and
WHEREAS, these factors and conditions include the dwindling
public ownership of, and access to, beaches and shorelines, i.n••
creasing dater pollution, ecological unbalance, loss of natural
scenery, and expanding recreational needs of high- density popu-
lations; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the public -at -large
should be allowed to consider alternate plans for the exchange
of public tidelands with The Irvine Company; and
WHEREAS, it is possible that an alternate plan might provide
more public waterfront and access to the tidelands which were
given to the County to be held in trust for public use; and
WHEREAS, the original agreement between the County of Orange
and The Irvine Company has been substantially amended; and
WHEREAS, this Grand Jury feels that the litigation involved
in the present Tidelands Exchange is costly in time and poney,
And that an alternate Exchange Plan might el- iminate some of the
problems that are before the Court;
N0VI, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Grand Jury does
-hereby request that the present Upper Bay Land Exchange be
studied further for the purpose of providing more water frontage,
and access to the tidelands for the public, recognizing that
this further study may entail the expenditure of public funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that since this Grand Jury has pre-
viously adopted a Resolution stating that transactions concerning
the disposition of public lands should be able to .withstand public
review, we' therefore feel that the above conditions'warrant_ the
reconsideration of this Land Exchange Agreement.
WDM:rl William D. Martin, Foreman
A
i.
ELSTL _PL i. OF i3(410 _L.L P''.rl ',C POi_ ORlji ?GB C�U''T1r 1963
iJaeaZ)nent ;:1, J ary, 1966
Pi I UTY :; =1
19x5 -1970
Lc _tiisitioil Cost,
anpro;c.
$ 7, 7118000.
Bic:irt sites
Dove 1orxie;it Cost,
approx.
13.549,655.
Totcl
$218260,655.
P:'!(IITY ;II
1970 -1900
F:ccuisition Cost,
appro;'.
1085648000.
sight sites
Develonmeiat Cost,
appro:
-2-
liLST-21 PL:''-I 07-` For, CQU71ily
ELo JI =Y-i
of 1959, t:..'e ac c%--nC. 'evclopmai�- o' the '-)ro',)ozec-
- I- - U I .. -,
2-3 new sit-as were moviiic,- c :"ze2(f on .-c:-.eCula,
in. .C.C.ition, the o' '"unei:virors, in 4:7Cy, 19s",
•1.6
000 Zor a
L,.-e Stu .V fo--,- t'-.,e ^_1 --COL it,7 70-raile
lo".zc� to --tretcii t'-.i:oucjll l-ive--.-ziC.e : ;Z.n Orc."ace
,--oy.i lAc:
Lzkc to t:%e iaoint-i-i o-f `c:.io SaPAC-a Liac% T,,ivex.
]-'oc.r:d of Or'u,,�ervisoi:0 C.130 approved. c. recomm-nCic'.ti.o.n. to al�Ply
for fizanciarj to c.Cvelol� t".a
;,3i:oj(:,.ct. The slaicl.NY is to lw>c
co,:,,.i,)lcteC, joint-ly
wit"., tare two ot-L-er COILlUtipa i--.-) time to %nrly O=
c2evelo:-�anent -2-oxiC.s
9:)e ore Zhe :Ipl:il
150 1970,
U.S. De";.)artment of 'clousing and Ur-)aa
Develo"piae-at.
Cost
I
Fedea:,-1 ;S t C. t c Colullt7
Villa Dma
$5178500 1,,
291 acres
$105578036.
110cuestoc! to
to nm:C.',c�se
079-025 in u tie
I L;ju-a."U-Q n2us
177 acres
IG9
JIL11,78 ?.. tl�e SILIM
fron Irvine
-from PeC. 1 1 Fxoin Fed"
eelli
C 0 --ap Z..
Gov't.
colir., 170-
1 71 u d et
135 acre-
zl3:ecZ.y
$36CS000 upay't in 'GO, to re
oi.rneC..
.'1000 CcIraare. I,:Jcra costs
will ".)e Zoa: dc--icn. c',1--�'r ;as to co-
trill
Villa
-2 D cxa 11c.1-k 1-.0-jace",vt
ilile .3c:um:e-
000 pe3:
Reci,-Uanted ate' $4,-'70 173
leas-eC.. ::royj
year. lec.,se.
$5-A,98000. ($274.0673, face 1;
VCd' -, Cov I -.0 .
$2.5 :aillion
$2.-2,500, nt-c(-e 2)
To ":c C.a-
est. cost Of
1'z,.t-c!.-e0. ".w
veloiDeCL over
dovolol-u-aent.
Totals 'ah.,oSt $1.
3 'ye. -r peziocl,
railliol- oil Iml( # -El l
'69. $1...5
.- •'ut e-w-,,Dec'u-eC. to co:aL:
fi:oia lea.-es t-o con-
cas-siu,-- Ciu-l-ii--17 =irs
state of Cev,
C.!:;DOr
$1.5 raillia,
-
peat $C7C,950 as of ne, 1955.
-��unL;e�;-
1--t stn e; t:
i $7000 000. Tlaree
33 c:c.
.7vi * lie 6c.
.A-.--e-pl:or:rarLj :n? I
Z- 0 --.1
$1.0 �" m i 11 j. on
Stz�te, DiSt-r-ict
il- , '63
ad("it-iol-I'll to
2ir--z r)"'Icl-ce $1.5 nillion
l7eco-
clew. e.-tra. 1C ,:d
tc:Ics 3
'-o reillr-q
;ien acclii�:ed.
ut-ilit-Jess, ciev.
e Z..t 10 C o C t a (' 0 r a
'C.t
:.nc Colt77
'-j c o $1.0' million V -
$103 000 .
-cc: 1
22, 7Jou,�'Iit
-21:0.'1 1--vinc co;
$7611000.
Univc>--it•l Pr::Ir $5. million-, Fee,' 1. cjov"t
$6!2,000,'
.Co ..-a C,.cvclo7-;ed ($3.5 !.-Iil. is ro-17u--ed to
($229F5001
state --UID.
over 21--.1car Zol: Par% C.ev.; co:ltril:)Ute
1--t-
P1.us coca
ner -io(:.. Coul-ty $500,000 ::or
$21215001
0; of
cewcr--;G-. renter;
2n.0
ot-Ii Uni-
cort-'%111 1,11111- over $5001000
approvecL
VC2:51it-v
.1111.1 dev. each 20L loac.0).
.-)NY 2CL; o'�-
Dr. L
5 or pariz
Supr 4-1
1'atllmm
1:Ovoa:tO to ir
Dr. &X11
vino Co. 17,-0
C"IlIvor -".V.
a::o
Z.Cro----
(Z:z of Sept.,
1 S9) tl,e
3"1-5 aca:ez.
0 T the interest is ie fact I-faereas-
t-I'le 1.'ar.Dor 111amlager
iia-- stated t7hat the entire cost of the.par%--
i..n priority
croup I
l
will he $1515161177 (L. .. Time IM. 1S69), ie
also !,as
st.iC (same article) 'C.iat- 'L�Ii-- 01 a U17iver-i-y - is
e--il-Lz.j-ed
to cost $25. million over zl 15-year nerioC..
S-ince t-Iic $5.
. e-e-
vclo.yL,jej-jt -r:jcjLj----c liz.-s 1.)ec-i vo;:i-.Hc& ':-y a Baer' d-r of t:e Doa
d of
V 25, 1969), the
1"25,
raillioi?
.ic 111-0 re'--r- to Z:.O.Ili--ionai stzucturcs' Sucil
C'.3 Y-xa--elms'
etc.
Tyllicil it was -i:lcicatek.I nic.1-It be c'-1.)ectec! to
7:)e Conate(f.
::)y various
CI-.arit-C.7,le fonadc-'tions.
10 vilorto",, Dp-ia $1.25 r.-iillion Yo--
125 (52
lc seC. a,1:01.1 01:. Co.
FlooC (:on-,3:01 Dist.
$1.00 I,= ?car.
33 acres uplanc.3
i-.017 .:)eill(, accmlired
tlu-u cone-.oaination.
L:r-u.mwz 7:ic;ual
120 c.c--. Coiw,.ted
.-Dy Lc-c"Iin- "I'figuel
cor,3. error, xls
'-9 �-c. lcllce 017110CI
i1oul-01-1-2iglin1
$1.2 mill-ion
Plus $21351000
to "bily 1C.1,0 if
cwailable. Co.
Flood cont)Lol
$10u'-DOO for.
-L:ic CLal-., aroal
ree'.11cing ti?e
$235*000 :-)Y .
that -Silount.
$590,000. "atcn tae
tate Sum
Fed' 1 --m.
Yes $29,000, 17z'.t-ch
", L'tr.-,
stujc 11 fate s
plus Z'
..)lus
tioaal re- 20C.' 1 sum.
c-uc--t-- in eve-ale
Future. e�-nec-'-ed
fzolj ':-oat
S 111:)S, fto�
60ncexim
7
_
UDIDOr echo -t s aV
Colt
?ec.eral
be t
Ccunt
.
:ec:io -na:l 'rr:r':
$1.7 mill1,0r.
ie f-un.ds
ilavc 'jee_l
rer_aeG ec ?, se-
266 c.c_e.^,
estinateC.
caube r o
n1.::: ha,
=on e;3hrec'•.._
-
of 1ar-6 C: water
at e_tre;ze nor`t." l
Y
enc.- Of taie may.
T_: Cl;_,lIOi OF 1:..I2 i1:GI0111.1, P_.a.I. Jr, P12DICi:T:D Oi+ i,_„ 2 ; :C °.ii_':',
Gi' TIDAL :'r DS IF UPPi31 rZ_i "M!T LW ten`' I' i UPL[".i_iD 1a i11:: ii
F01. CLLa i. a
Gr 1__L I1.VIia' Cv1iP:;i:+:,
SIGL I IC2XTLY, T': L i6i`.C7aUi ('i, PP GPCS77L :i1V= SuJi;S 170T Ci:L_' i ::IG
a.LGIG1 [..L 1:.1.1. _i U. 2.LZ;0 3 1+.T 1 1..Z1.o .. 67 acres C:C .�.>1CC C C.'a'1`�7Oily Of
whic:1 :79 acre; 170111c'i lie ilut Oi 'i.:le liVlIle C011tr1'.�Ll'C1011 t0 t..0
1. Z :C.e; acres =Or c aeaeil pa:c e.c i iC el Circle OD. t_le West ..el'il:;
cnC: 2 acres for a. ;;each mark ci: 23rd S`creet oil t.'_e r7eet ?:'.?''. -.: -
._ -c three other iwirlCC care not to : e '_ounC. on any of tale Priority
fiats of 11.1:, 11..i1''1: YL.1: Ui' i<vG__Gi!..L 1111-.RrC P01. URi':i -C`1; COU1::T` .
r,.-d.-es Certa..i_.. tale st10a0, such C..,. 1:11ei1, if ever, c1_oeS tae
Cors;.ty i'_,tend to C.evelop 'talese par'.cs a C. -.t 11:i.:t coat? Does the
County intend to trang' =er he 'ciCle of these par ?a to t-ne City Of
1, et:y+0_t i ea6i!': l SO, [Till the City 1-ave a rig-at t0 2.ily revellme
11i i6i1 nay ;)e derivec' from the .e par %sl:
Tate $1.7 million w,-Acll is the eoti!.IateCi CoSt,Of this pc:rl:
refers ally to tile imp ovenet is 1/ liC': C ?111 no adCteC'. r. -ft-e_ t-'e ilSrl:
is creator% !Icxumillcj tart the ti(fjelC. i.C.o e ?ccliange is apps Oved
to ?C. C011r'%C, th13 nariC i:£!O to '.)e C_eztec i.)y Cl_ed �'inc— =11C' llli' to
conotruct th'a artificial i)ellinsula l:eCO1llleaced ill the oo- culled
C1e;-lerL1 plait fOr file ile.r:)oa: C evele )lne'.'c.
..OW i;lo.rly years Will
trlat -'fill tiie t-OCa1
c. -)1e to receive tae
into it aild Otill
va -3i ti-s': Trill it
OLlt t.._i'el ?t '.� a:: ?e ;lay
it -je 2:,)efore t?lis nark :ecomec a reali'c7`1
costa actually be? will the rolliiicr course :_)e
1'1L;tera Of, tiie J 10.0d colltzOl C'L?1_e1 1.':.:161 iJOLlr
lnction Lis a .i:OL'liiic: couzoe for the VCtl -J Ous 11_li-
7,e 1leCeaj3arj7 to re -route talo--a °100e, [late a
via ni-oea O_ some kind Of circLlli.tlilC' ° Otei.l7'
Tito tern is Of Calla 1-)roi)oaed par' is the s,1oa `Cult (aacjaCeiit)
woicii is s0 unst8i.)le that it Caused co:istru.Ction O-� t-he ja'.'L0ree
atoe_c: l- icce to De delayed many l:oatais. DevelO_xaent of the
1nny ,)t'n VA ."':.r Lu) e. ror,,i,Iy 'i".1 . ;.n antici *fated.
il:*'-4Ti32 PLLI." OIL, DI=WLL
Prioritv TIM.'Dor's
Tile--e tiiree haa:'�orr .are as i,% 190-3. In -SI-a lc"GJ
zmenc.c(ft _71 .n, 17-- c'Ic--nr7oc-. to 'uuc;c-'- -11jor
U110 name of Sull-
,.cl atic Pi.i:,,- and '.-ie filar?: .1a2,:-:01: eleveloi)m'unt wero con: A-, C(f..
Tjl'Y�el: eCllO t Day tyat; '10 lollcor z..-- - ilar'.)03: lDrioritw L-1 t'ae
amepc.Qd lDlan of: 196GO ..�I:.t ac tae Uppor i Yno 2: t Z ay
Da.-.c, Iloint- :-ar'-)or waS un(f.e-;- construction '.)y 1966 and, tiiere--oro,
coaced to lLe listed czmon,-� t priorities.
i:reu co--t Federal State 22L-I—ii_a
u et See Lvinset 11'ar:Dor 7icru,,.-t.i-c-. Parlz, pc _.2 Est. 0
63 acres o_ $1. T'.1il.
L-,wf. '!5 in 19G3.
,-,C;:Q� 0�:
- I Fate::
i-)alla Point- $22.5 - $30. 414.0 uilliovl
2GO z.cras (167" millizoil. Part 'Dzeal-water t-:: i c t-
<',C. of wantor 6, Irivat-a -Funds.
000,COO
93 ac. of lLnd,). Czaft Cleavy ca-1-
--tru.c.'u-ion)
C o T,-Lr.i . $.Z'.# 793175D
i.
a-. -�G:�
$1.6 1.1il.
access
--Oac-
utilitie5.
CO...D2 -=D 2C.0 LCT2- 0' i:P,- C7,Pa'O71 L- 0' 11! -:_CE� - OF
1-n-ovide acces- ;:oac. for Army Corns of Engineers;.
"1.5 LIILLIO�: 'o
1-ia-- --t-ateC. t-lat- the tco-,: rate I.,Till 9,30 Zeducee.
-U: - !",Or -n accuirod. Earnings
frost now i:7; �1-�t the Zund-- -:,0--.- t"i A�, Ilave �De 0-
tile -fuIIC-- on deporit are $3001000 per yocx. To cluote Govorv.or
(;-,a re erred to t1 'irie..ce i}owly c;oYx-.)le-'U-cCt 'Jcti?ocn an Diego
Coculinclo islcind) w,;lere t'leralr a 1.7illf U7-01:013 c way. If:-.e
Count-Y cLil4f! :�Iznr.'�:or District set a for t',e C'.evaloix-aent
of Dana Point- Inc. �rtz�.tc
t:ien recuactec.. roceivoc.
an(f. raise(f.. t11e County rate to r.ccuirc othor nece.oc
to inr-or j ^ic ;Iu-ers mono w rj)ent to Cavelon
or rat-1.13nin 2.1 Over a 20--,,C.nr no-i7iod. -L.,
4 c3 .,atc(f. zetniz-a at
Dz.nz-, Point is ��r:r moa:e tlli,a tliatt. hr, of I.:ny, 1969, oporr.-'Cinc.-; 0;--
,. $160,000 anlluallv , o :1 ilc al-Inual (-;ro-- re-
venue is Cotimatod. at $8651000.*
2eclerc'.1
$7/110.00 cot.
foi:
lity _-tuc..v.
,,201000 'co
...c rectiesteO.
i_-L 19691
Coll
I.,o u"
S: 10CL-1 fUlle-Z.
_11 ctevelopixent 0f
,11i"s
oil tiC.clenrl
Iii Ji.jPO"T,'�""' OPU-3 CGUI'Yf �-,D
UPPE'_ Z:�.]`POPT I-)I�Y I� IL�TM 1
T: UTT,
I*,LL:01? LOUT�M-"M'T CLLIPOP�'j- J:7 :1 So 1 7p�rj
2,ECILMI�TIOZ.;.L STbDY.
DOLSL -.'4_P!jOr reforre(" to a-, _"Llnset-1;010z� TTa. S -not oli.tae
y)riorit-v list in 1963, 1-10Z.- on 'u-110 priority list in 1966,
nor li_-teel ii-i the P=Pj]LTIOi? '67 re:)ort Ly 'C"ie Grance County
plczlnin�' De_Dartl,.,,ent. it "1.a!;i ui-) froi-a aowhere anC
tllcOe are tine fZc",Cs .2."Out- it:
recle--al State C ou 1 t"
con
$1591000 for fca_-i-
$24,. mi 11ioI A ..
Coct
�.ov. 7.
1,fo cost-r,
0 �
I -�o
P - ject-cc..
entire 07.oreliiie
,,.o J.Aan
LYIC Watc_oriented
ence ::or
throut,h
-s
&
"eelzint" coosx_-;:ation 0»
of 157
Corno o" JM-.(jinoers
Jc parl,
pronozzil.
Lcrc.0 of f-illed
Coun-U-7 t--ic.01a1ic.3
$4.9
ca c-m
pLtanic azea"s for
/50 acreS of ir-
vi;,10 a
r.lazOl: iLlanC.O.
2eclerc'.1
$7/110.00 cot.
foi:
lity _-tuc..v.
,,201000 'co
...c rectiesteO.
i_-L 19691
Coll
I.,o u"
S: 10CL-1 fUlle-Z.
_11 ctevelopixent 0f
,11i"s
oil tiC.clenrl
Iii Ji.jPO"T,'�""' OPU-3 CGUI'Yf �-,D
UPPE'_ Z:�.]`POPT I-)I�Y I� IL�TM 1
T: UTT,
I*,LL:01? LOUT�M-"M'T CLLIPOP�'j- J:7 :1 So 1 7p�rj
2,ECILMI�TIOZ.;.L STbDY.
DOLSL -.'4_P!jOr reforre(" to a-, _"Llnset-1;010z� TTa. S -not oli.tae
y)riorit-v list in 1963, 1-10Z.- on 'u-110 priority list in 1966,
nor li_-teel ii-i the P=Pj]LTIOi? '67 re:)ort Ly 'C"ie Grance County
plczlnin�' De_Dartl,.,,ent. it "1.a!;i ui-) froi-a aowhere anC
tllcOe are tine fZc",Cs .2."Out- it:
QUL,L;r:,M.7.;i - - -
.01.1 cc �11 ..:::e cx-:-i7(e r'ouiitv, ',_;ocrc! o---- Su'llervicorz jticti_�
tile c.,.ponC.itvre� -zor to I-C !,)a:o)ecc Wilicil is 1�.ot o;. t-110 pj:iori-Ny
116 C I.K,el) j,- is C,
aimcel t".1c-t- t;le couxlt-:: cannot a orc. _0 ,Vc
� C, lop
jocont to tiloce
Off !)L,.,711c
ifill tili-S YlcXint ',)e mainly for .-)!:1vata Or Dvc:Uic U-0
recle--al State C ou 1 t"
L0_-Si7,ly -J,-1 O;:cc!3_, of
$1591000 for fca_-i-
$24,. mi 11ioI A ..
4
1111i ty st7vfly ($051 000
�.ov. 7.
receives_; $40,000 z.c-
ditional fro3a CcJi.z.
C:reC.r.,LY. C: fillincj, into
17avigztional cmlfer-
LYIC Watc_oriented
ence ::or
Cuts 2
c:. umnel improveneT)tr) .
to occLn to
"eelzint" coosx_-;:ation 0»
-4aZVO .71MI,
Corno o" JM-.(jinoers
Jc parl,
$4.9
QUL,L;r:,M.7.;i - - -
.01.1 cc �11 ..:::e cx-:-i7(e r'ouiitv, ',_;ocrc! o---- Su'llervicorz jticti_�
tile c.,.ponC.itvre� -zor to I-C !,)a:o)ecc Wilicil is 1�.ot o;. t-110 pj:iori-Ny
116 C I.K,el) j,- is C,
aimcel t".1c-t- t;le couxlt-:: cannot a orc. _0 ,Vc
� C, lop
jocont to tiloce
Off !)L,.,711c
ifill tili-S YlcXint ',)e mainly for .-)!:1vata Or Dvc:Uic U-0
r
r
-7--
v4L.LVJTIZU „�.R4 r 4.2 Zi,40 21,11IL 11T G Z7,C,i CU V:•11 1.J 61J -196J
n n
In addit)on to the parks in Priority .1, the County ox Ore.i:re
is purchasing lilizo.Beach (4 acres) iii Laguxz> for $607,000.
`.Ohe.Cow,ty paid $30,000 doi:r1 an will Plaice ilnn, .1 Y°�.iAtErlt3 O'L
$65,Q00, wi'ta a hall payment of $25,000.
i:�..ove the Cost of taic :.CCulsition of rliso Lc QC= !,-117 t`:e co
of e. $C00,000 -isninc,• pier.. :.pj)licatioiY is bei:ic n. =:C,e to the
VeC,erc.l governraciit for $3008000, G., of the cost). If is
Cjiveii .iy.tue 2cde'r l gOver:+r \Oil.t, the _T,1i: )l is Pts"ri.r.i. r:�e'n FTill
yay $150,000 C:;). E:11C1 tlic .+`Le`:'y;0 (tTiYOtic:;i1 t'el6 i)iP.aC
serVE.tlon Lund), E.l,ot'ner $150,000 �'vy). If ul-Gds are r)ot :_-Oreh-
COrdl'Ll1- ro?:? the r^eCleral governTaesit, tcie 101;c7t:1 of the 171ei will
��e 2ACC:e at_orter. `l'C _ii::riDOr Dl --tL1Ct I. 111.1 L5 L,, $2115,000, C.1C! tue
OtE.te `.iilCtli£a Conservatioa 2vaiC.1 $2001 000.
iOCS frori pi_r�ilil�, CC1:P71YI'' +, c:.i_C! pier concoorioils Z. e erpecteC_
to retur:: a profit to the County Of $1.25 "or every $1.00 e; -
pellc':ec' .
::_t Sul s3;' iii:C °.:., Sae .c-a rd o;: 5u''pervisors tic-,n voted to conc.eral
13 C,Cr CO o;t ilrol`czty , c -1O:iC li:' tC tl ?e ucutilO.r:l P:..ci`iC P.i?ilro:ld
.Or -.Dur ;Fsas O: Je7icl narkln(,- lot. Cost Of_� `ccui Citl On ili2C
2,eveloprlent is esi;iiu:ted. ztc $2.5 ::lillion.
Y �:1Ti
lot 15 to �e LiCe ':j Uv.11j f Ole COtJtt gas
Ci
(;:11e COU1ty 2Z1.AniStrz:t0: !Ariz st::tC(:1 ti ;at tilc _ r1 Or Diz :t:r1Ct
COL ?lt ", :Q,^�C LlJ t0 54.27, 500 from tl::e.^.e ; ui- !C:.^.) i.)lLlu Z. _ou Ost to tLe
'CC.CrC1 Le:i1Ci v ?7 C: ::.tcr ConnerVC:iioll sCi: iunot :'or $10695,000.
parnialllties :°Or .:.Cninistr Ctor
11 "e8 L ?Ol -1f� $912,500 1:: _..C;�::)Oi' 1�1Etl'1C'i, - t ?:'(i:0 a.C': li1C::Cc'ISli1C' t'.o
tz�:. rl.te .Jy C i
n
J1. � CC:a:+ to CCCUEtilcae. S-2CO, OOO, ..0 t,_,.•�:t efi tL�a
$1.9 million Could i.;C rai.^.00i .y 120-Lis C_;,: �e mat:.:Ocs.
iri T'.2, G(4 Ui.y L'RGld ,_ ..I =jG LOT _.1 +. LJ 111,:.1LD _il b::30V59.
oajc m;,jor rues'cio:. ehould i _)e C -skeG r!itii reC:c:rd t.o tae 13 . ?cres
CT.liC1! t+10 COUi1L`y is pua:ch:c,^,il7,g. _:::V1PG L111: USZ Or 77.1"
n n n 7 i /i-vr - TwT.o
PG ,.Rili7.:PC11 „i1C_;, llCi:;� S_..,� C.P. .allrOad liOC7 019:1 t =:(:
nrcrort'� =^ It is. +ao.^,Ci;,Jg, gsper. ^:.: ?i.p h. ^a reveriec`. to 'tcle rmb11C.
n
Cl:'.n'('e col::iitylo C•:'_e<.tes-i: __c.turr:.l '_- O-ourcc,
of li C. 1C,a E_C tL ?:'clly Owl_' ,. OYil �7 j./' ".1110: 0:7 •,..10_.^ -_ 1i't ^.
out o2 ti,e 62 wiles Flit,-ii) `c:ie Cou _ty. 24.2 miles are
pLZ' lic, mZdI:.ly ci"cy
: ?.i: Clenen.te rece.t-ly purcl %aseel 389,Su linOC4.-KI741�
"],as^_a(je 01 e ; IOC FBI '20i7C! issue J9%.r'�, 000) �::?.ri 1. Cr At
l 2i ? , ter Coiserv..tioz =LU c i2CO3:25). ie wt- :ce Laud
LC:c;u.;.,. LC::Cfl, 1:;1 19'i3 , `_'CC ?LareCs %;. 5111Q of
'-or 3. ..zillion , -)r a rc.-cc o; $15.000.000
In view of tae trcilendous neec for pn' ?lic s.:Oreline, it is di--
':1C:?lt to compreiiend Flay the .soard of >upervioors has not a- CoPtoe;
a vigorous i3Oli Cy Of protocting the public's zzccess t0 tho u'.'iore.
[a G')per iew':)Ort :£;y anc at .`ic_lt Creek, the BOarc4 of SupervisoiS
see iv una ;_le or unwilling to protect t,is access.
0-or, �.z_1
2 ',o:zc L tiSe n �lei)C� i_ave ::ee: i ?: ri_vute ac. *T:e_ i �, recess to
1- trio
avc:ilc.:le vii. ;gat Free:; ..o.c; z_ nar., o"_ a.�
I. J'.i.:.0 a_-OZt 10,10 Of t't_:e
i3C ".C;;e "y)1an .i0_' state �)C.r:,�•
C. O SupeYv_i "O: o V c'telt
t:.ie It C:. eei; i'.d _!i ' , 1 Co 1 , ' i r7i' :1
�o tae L;::C "L._: . i_ r :,o.ca"c :o;' .c>
c;uiiCc. tSiC ,'.)1:'iit.. 1]rnC ?: t'• :_.rOia .�:C �. C. ^.!.:CO ).. C'. •J11_�" YCCC1VCt' t.,
'_r02 t116 io.x'' of ��l•'�c3i"V1601 +, tiic L,-!';L +.--r. �,tel O_�,o- 'sic±:'.
ii0 ioi_'ef "Iori.litS u.Ge U' t!'o roa( f'o i:110 )Ll. iic t0 Cot to ti1C
i'._C corpiOr C:tiOi). I y ?_'L an`1 for C':.CVC� O!�7!1lCi_t O'' %c "_C_r i:�r Oiler' _'
.e e,ctei. ive, ir_clilr'i.i ?� LuilC;inc FLE! Lca7c'sr, -tile croc'. c1C
'a£lt wz. t'er 1F3rmn t0 !3e - urrou:, Qd .7`' .:v tC91S c.iiCi p'GCC1-
G OF.'._tOrC %C:1 VCiiL'i:i.0:+
The O _--� it? 2 dC.ilCoi7_c.l- 'i.:7o :; 1- )Ic crce% d.
%71"i_;loull- La "Ll .11C 7:COA CritlCi ^0L: - "'t' ti1C fit -�C :!Il tN.•"
Ju y C-fao ilcve .'one oii rccorCL zis recOi.u.:c:7cinc t:�,t .nz_lic
t0 pP::)11C 1'C:iCa :.:`e 1acc mal-: iaorv.
Cit-i.Ons 're i7UC9 suir"j t0 compel tlic! County t0 provide, cCCCss•
z 2 c; u 2 a grr o a..
2 . mzla tl�c
: e c to i ,em 2 £a mon G r a yo= : »,
(2avolo,ty'.101-it- -proc =m,
2� G e e ak, % % ee 2 Ge 6m :
1905 Coen ;ot iuclude co o 2 m :� :zrn, t:, e to will
O-lceec, &&6«6000. z e,romG= ,;.
3) Co, mi !ou 5e Ml o aa1 = c% >ni:: e: -
:
zt 1. : aria
D o
=1�.DaQ
m t = 9:
a & e&
lot
oupervinozo to me , : w
(2C.0 aczec 0 G: S Q, m1 sin
»md,e "=ah(am :for
6) The c L :_�O l0. : m mct-.� ,m to
d �
zory;mc2:' mzzgo:cit
=7 , or G to m ele
cos Cle_loant, in O.etriraental to to sic
i m ;G e e: 'u-ill _ m :t oz £: e _ ±
in Cm u <pu� a, in at=e Ue
� . Of tilic lvilac .crc , ! !«& 31a1
cow o� ioll
6) ecu 5 1 lr c a aGt Creel ;� :sml =?
&±3 puLak:co «£a:eam;e��1em:G
gym=
to C.0
so.
. .
s)
weA
.=12o:mJmJevz£
=7 , or G to m ele
cos Cle_loant, in O.etriraental to to sic
i m ;G e e: 'u-ill _ m :t oz £: e _ ±
in Cm u <pu� a, in at=e Ue
� . Of tilic lvilac .crc , ! !«& 31a1
cow o� ioll
6) ecu 5 1 lr c a aGt Creel ;� :sml =?
&±3 puLak:co «£a:eam;e��1em:G
.P . . .. .
-1()-
n r,�
"T E, r, ':L_!' - :� 1
_�U-_Llc
L I a Smuc-,., Z:s orC.".,,( 0 Collin- I - ", �-
zuic.
UY C..cVQ1O-.)Z2QI;t
i n a-
_;a: _.lp aztimat0a to cost in e,:cosr� Of $100. 'AllioIol -
CQQ C ( Oil "-C1IQC-_jjj,- -L_,-jQ J_1SQ O� ��.I,y -;O11(-2 1.101.10'7 J-7
C!Doolutciy Ila morit ill -0-2:7 a -" -U,:)Gz:vif;o----, contuentio-il t-lC_t
-'-a (�Gvolo!-� 1-lic Upl.?Qr C-.-7 Jjj`-11OjLIt J-"'ja `-jCt
u . u ., - - U�.
u _ �- call' j. ) -)asr a L)ond 'issua.
-
"'IQ Cleve 1OtDz1Q,1jju- a:! U:1?1)0-- 1701.1-oo't
.- , - - :',
0:,c C" I c a 1-10-t O"111N7 is CIC!011.011
:J'at actually is
t1lI:G"- for c_11 OtLloz I-)aZ-co Z,.Ild/or
in Ors : ic2a Coillity Ciamon-
rt3:,--tes t7-at tlic Coullt,_7 Of 0j:aII(jo a.,- .-acts raverluo Clerivcd froy.i
ti"ICOC V)rOjQCtS ultirlately to 1:01.)LI7 co ts, tlio revoiluo iI:om hest or
'all I-lore IG co-J-0 Of- th.C,- eevolo-n.-Lo-n-
DiStzict of�icic.15 -!:Q (1210JU-0C, Z.1 tilat _Darl:i O.
a spczcu: -Jr: t7-.a C.Qvololx.lant :=03: U-,%r)Lll:
, -1-"� cil)z ',:c C'ecZec.so in tho a-.- .J-G) 1.)Y
1. �_ - - C_ majol: L d istrict r " t o (t, 1:z � 4
tlia 1969-70 f i 0 C F_ 1 -170Z:.:: (Los- 2.1-luelas Tir.10- i.1.rc.. 21, 1SG�).
C;;_)VjO-,1"-j17 flLUIC-.- 1-1111 :.)a 110ac. to covelo
ticf.allailc:o O;-C-n na,-J"a jU--JU- C.s tMrO LILOCI to (LQVQ10) tc'Q
r c,- t D,,�.v. i-- will .:a rc.i-QC- -",-a 1)i0-
vice mo-.I.w7.
r IQ Qzan(�G colur" 0 ar C-
�C"lazcforc the c7,j.QZ." reanol� cited ;_)y U, Cy
Of -_,U1)G!:Vi_-Ol:S as J-0 jfjl'7
j1aZle117 tl.Clt t_TIQ1,y C-1 !IQ-"- C.QVQ101.? t.10 Ul)7)10Z Witil0Lt t,"O a,,,-
C. LainC:o :)oc-.Uso jCj,Qy ca-inno-"u- affore. it- iS to.
Surl:ea (=G; Of most Oi U11
sjlOI:QjjIIQ -a -Z;1IQ -zville
CO7.jj'K_':'7 oil jL-.Io prato"t OZ laol, O._Z fun'(f."s c al-1110 t ;-..;a justiZiec'.
. - , I - --
IT 0,"ID-J31, 07
11L PU LIC 1-1-1.ERM171
T:Z.T:
QVQ107) On- a,-
$4.00,000 il
_y Gi:'iaSC t_ /. ''c:C .., -_r01: Di 1:1
1S�63-1969 for tile st rt 0J.- t_.IQ ul);)Ql: 1-low11oI.-t- Day
x6301000 ilar, ziccl.11.1111citoc il, Count", Tic.01C.11CIS a-
1 A:c
To< fot!�n i -:io o Cl Yo accotints totcl ovo�
T1.
rii 1.1,j 011. This i, r:iora tIzc.i-i for Z-. proper plzul.
-1.1-
2) cG ,C'.CIl71Ca 10-11 of a,." 7 i)r0?l.^_r leo 0U 1C, 'CO 'le i1CCCC^C. "L r :0O_
tiC 1JC:V , S C'.CVClOJLlCAt: COi131Ciei"CC•. 2I1C': ayJprOVCC'i. PreceC.eilt3. ,o ;:
COi Z..eu: -. CttioI , Dzna Point- I-lo.r :-)or rullertoil J)t:fii 71ocional 1'c.i:?C�
' unsct 101,.C':i y'azlzin(j lot.
3) 'uiiC °.ii. :je rCC uE's'i;eC. 21 ^0:1 the e:i )p;:0171'i �.i;0 (;ovCril lCilta1
c`.C:CilC1C s, C:3 h<C :)eCi1 0 -on-, in ever] purls Ca..' iiarlJOr nlC.il t17rougfil-
out Oran a COumt7, 101-'Gl ti-Le C:COCyCio 1 of UPPor LeEpo V,- '-'ay.
�
elccti.ve coa.C.einnationI at prices iil c.CCore. with tile
.^,c:7r,,oZl3 -,Val Uat-i0;1, will po:mit- the entire UI7YX ;_ -lay
1:0 :. -)C retaiII06% 1:1 ti:C !JU:Jl1C F_OL3C_lll lit yJC1 "iJC cU
ri'.'.p.. Ot:C_ rCa. ^.O'z7 Cli:CC''. ]: s7 '�;,l:e i+0 arc Oi°. rSi U'_JCi V13g1 " "� - t0
I7s_ 7 tnO'y tiiirll thi3 t:, -a0.e i3 _..CCC30a1';I 13 1C.C1L G, aC Ce 3.^i0r tit@
pu:JIic 'Co tIle 3110roliaa. -'C-11_Ou it the Irvine uplanC.3. This ar1 ,-u-
,.Ient "z:2 Very lit-lo valie'dt°
icCCZS3 n1C L li S- ,IGl.P:LItLr' Or TJPPLi' ;:fL7IPCP. ^1 ;Jfal' CUY.rCil�;l <r 13
availa-olC i oIn tle iaplc:ixl.s: 1) on the Ca. t 31C:C v1 -:
1)r1VC (iL1:017i= D::ivC) . 2) 031 the C7C. ^.t side, C.t i'.Ortl
::tar Lc:lio. Frorl hero, it i3 posL;1:31C t0 tl;:ovice acce3c to ti_e
:.1e3:C an C. Idost 0- . "Conziva tldelanc.. are,-. on l;i'.e 17C.—C 3idof l.'it? 110
COi1Cse= .'.ilatl0:] .
G;:;` 112r "5L z1:ilIC.131) r)..:1.2L_4 1L,; 1L- ,D .
:i =`. L[:i;3 - ;r: P%. Ci:2 ^" :` " -2 L- C L L rvtilL, 2`1' Pi LPiS:a il
�_L17 ir10I.: 1::1. :D PPl.
.iNr -:2. O urIGL C(DIT1:1?' I'..PC 1. 'm-` r' l P 1 l "S Or -11 D-
0 DI 1 -IC1 O- Ui C I TD AD
01 I T= OT-12M I:-!-D 7L 1• :P 1V � - - - T rr nrn U13 ,.l .'u
, n . I. - .., ,: . -.
Cx` 'Pi:" FLOOD COI ?9' = OL CIUZELL, IL; S IOTiZ' Oil 2-11-1
p C r rr',. r ` :� ert-
LJ •.Ll.aiUr./ _G 1cu. 1' G_OUlJl7
if 'i:'iC Stz.te LanC.3 Co miisriO_S VerC W01'1Li11C; '=roLi t'- ,o Lin)C'.
il•- .i"CCl , 'i"IeN7 T'TOul(:. !Doliova t-i "rat we 11C.ve no _ CC.°,.G3 :.)ecauSe
1-m:)3Cnca o!': is e +..:i.:1:J1' of 'c a tS'70 F,'i:roet. l aiC7 urC t!le
PI- 17dic'5 majoz poil,..tz 0:' Ci!t_n t0 the shore 1;ilroug-1 ti1C unlanQ3.
P.CCe3o to t'10 311010 O _ tc_e ITCCt ?a nli ma-7 1 ?C Com;la3 :0c, t0 is ?C AC CvEC
PG1:lt S'Ii]C "C iSj. j CE,_ ^,.^, ar:,7 C 1"OC:CiS'7C.Ir ..,. elt-,or
=rtCy n,' r[c.. �].ove7 rYvSoa't {-_
-12-
al
COULD' :iuLt 10 Ph _.::<, t__L C% Ui L'1\
i�, � j r'T > XZZ:? TIM n' ,r THE > "T
L:;;l::'O .,.'.l [ =.L.D 1ll.I\J. t033I iLli t\i.L. 11'G ii_J:t �t'ti I:. 1J. LUELC J ?GtJLaI_
The COUnty has recelveCs c._-jj)1"opri.utlon-- �YOY:l ic-Lo •t o to cro ar,<?ilrinc
%or other County projects.
1. O_:ea Space ;_ct (PeC:eral L, %ilCi and Coiiservr.ti oi) . !Finarl, )
T:,is - ecuire. 50" VeCcra:l; 25% .-tat-e; 2505, local.
2. .taste Small craft i.a.r..iors Colar iSsion.. iaarChan it -]r
loans ei,tendiizr7 over 20 -50 ye\_s.
3. �St.a.t.e Dept. o wl. -ter Ile.Ource
t., U. S. 2.rny Corps of En - ineers.
5. U. S. '.ureau.oi Pec:lanation.
G. Cr,'.lif. Delacil, Par::, ant' accre- _.tiotz ;)oa0. amci. (Stcae Pc.r::s
7. State Ciilc:life Con ;erV8tion oar2 -.
o. - .�J -t101- 1 f21V0rO Ci7Cl :.a.r ?OrC CollCjl'C_^,., - c. ctl Ci- Oi°::3_Cial O_:_1An-
1 �.t10:1 �9I ?lcii recoililCiiC', fu-.j.eL a:11ocn:tlolls t0 api)r0_)1'late COn-
r;ressio '-1 committees. (i''.p Jea.l ma6.e here for Daiii. Point).
S,
U. 5. 2isa a. °tat ';7i1C lire ,service.
10. U. N. Con ress - '.:Ouse riar� ions Corn".iitte'e.
11. i'eclerl -1 Ticaer hollu-i;ion Control A alliii Str,ati011
12. 20rt 2LUt01 - Cail .1.1Cy w 1 - 1.1e(. to '?OrrOL9 i o--aey to ;'Aly lzne,
a.:,v lease it ':'a:ctc to va -rious ' "irms.
13. :
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
PRESS RELEASE
COMMITTEE
GRAPH OF THE RESOLUTION:
MRS. ROBERT N. WEED
ACAF<ICJyLTJWRE 5 SPCUAL.
CNAIRMAN
MRS. JOSEPH. ROSE NE R, JR-
WILL!AKi O. 1. {ARTIN
UiSiNIGTS COMUAITTEc
Bay Land Exchange as the result of correspondence it
LAUR ENCE A. REYNOLDS
JAMES S. SAYER
received in March. To obtain as much information as
For.. M.N
VIHCIL 5IMPSON
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Sampson and James Ballinger, Harbor Department;
WARREN E. BLOOM
+� Ann -..•ra .rrlrn
,•[OREMAN.fPRO
C441UNAN
...
_ - -,•IJ
TLM'
MRS. HENRY M. KLIPSTEIN
CO.CNAIRMAN
%:..
BLOOM
REN AD. AT . WEED
MRS. JOHN HENRY RUSSELL
COCHAIRMAN
o+yJ'T.,.:
,.
Cory; Supervisors, Allen, Baker, Hirstein, Phillips,
JUSTICE COMMITTEE
DONALD 1. HUDO LCSTON
-
_
yyj``'
AMODRRE E R. WHITE
CO- CNAIRMAN -
SECRETARY
MANUEL J. JURAOO
MERMAN L. LENT
u1
I;
'
MRS. JOSEPH ROSENER, JR.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
1969
GRAND JURY
HERMAN L. LENZ
SCRGLANT- AT.ARMS
AUDIT COMMITTEE
-
HILTON L. DALESSI
P. O. BOX 1863
CHAIRMAN
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702
WILLIAM H. VAN NATTA
CO- CHAIRMAN
HORACE CAOEN
DONALD I. NUOOLESTON
July 17, 1969
AMORE R. WNITE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
PRESS RELEASE
COMMITTEE
GRAPH OF THE RESOLUTION:
MRS. ROBERT N. WEED
CNAIRMAN
MRS. JOSEPH. ROSE NE R, JR-
The 1969 Grand.. Jury has been studying the Upper
CO- CNAIRMAN
:MRS. KENNETN L. CARIES
Bay Land Exchange as the result of correspondence it
LAUR ENCE A. REYNOLDS
JAMES S. SAYER
received in March. To obtain as much information as
WILL JAM ANDRE A. WNITE NATTA
possible some of those contacted were: Kenneth
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Sampson and James Ballinger, Harbor Department;
WARREN E. BLOOM
William Mason, President, Irvine Company; Andrew
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Hinshaw, County Assessor; victor Heim, County
MRS. KENNETH L. CAINES
Auditor - Controller; Adrian Kuyper, County Counsel;
CNAIRMAN
RIC Hp RD C. MERNANDEZ
Forest Dickason Count{ lrank Robinson
S 4 4
CO.CNAIRMAN
Intervener; John Killifer and Elsie Kroesche,
BLOOM
REN AD. AT . WEED
members of 1966 . Grand Jury which recommended
SOCIAL SERVICES
approval of the Land Exchange; Assemblyman Kenneth
COMMITTEE
Cory; Supervisors, Allen, Baker, Hirstein, Phillips,
JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Battin. -
LAURENCE K. REYNOLDS
CHAIRMAN
'
analy
S p ese conversations plus analysis of documents
AMODRRE E R. WHITE
CO- CNAIRMAN -
provided by various agencies, led to the accompanying
MERMAN L -. LEN2
MRS. JOSEPN ROSENER. JR.
Resolution.
VIRGIL. SIMPSON
WILLIAM N. VAN NATTA
'
1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO EACH PAM-
PUBLIC INFORMATION
GRAPH OF THE RESOLUTION:
COMMITTEE
MRS. JOSEPH ROSENER.JR.
CNAIRMAN
C. R
RUSSELL
RUSSELL
Grand Jury feels that there is a new public
E Y
MRS. JOHN NENRY
MRS.
awareness that public waterfront and access are limited,
and that once public tidelands are traded or sold, the
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
County will have lost forever these very precious re-
WARREN E. BLOOM
sources so important to the recreational needs of the
CHAIRMAN
SAYER
people. It is felt that the cost of development of
JAMES S.
CO-CNAIRMAN
the tidelands should no longer he considered then only
MRS. MAX "M`LLER.
major factor. When the Trade was originally planTred;
County officials proposed the Land Exchange as the
best way to develop the Upper Bay at minimum expense.
SOCIAL SERVICES
However, this Grand Jury believes that providing and
COMMITTEE
maintaining public control of waterfront and access
M CNAIRMAN JURAOO
must now be added to economic considerations in the
MRS. HENRY M. KLIPSTEIN -
evaluation of any Land Exchange.
CO- CNAIRMAN
MILTON L. OALESSI
RICHARD C. NEANANOEE
MRS. MAX MILLER
MR4. JONN NENRY RUSSELL
'
1.
N
19G9 r_RAND JURY
PRESS RELEASE
July 17, 1969
As the population of Orange County grows, the need for public
waterfront and access to the Newport Bay expands. Since the pro-
posed Exchange Agreement does not guarantee what, if any, provisions
will be made to provide for future needs in this regard, it is felt
that a land -use study and economic feasibility study need to be
made.
This Grand Jury feels that at the time of signing the Agree-
ment in 1965, pollution and ecological imbalance were not con-
sidered serious problems in Orange County. They are now, and
therefore it is felt that technical studies should be made to in-
sure that the proposed Land Exchange will result in the best pos-
sible design of the Bay to avoid pollution and ecological imbalance.
There is general agreement that only one "Plan" for the ex-
change of tidelands with The Irvine Company has ever been con-
sidered by the parties to the Agreement. There have been modi-
fications made to the basic "Plan." However, these modifica-
tions primarily were related to uplands or park lands subse-
quently asked for by the County, rather than alternate arrange-
ments of filled tidelands which would have suggested varying
percentages of waterfront or access for the public and The
Irvine Company.
The Grand Jury feels that there are many opportunities
available to the County to fill in these tidelands now held in
trust, which would provide more public waterfront and access.
Although a case may be made for the statement that the County
does not have money to develop these tidelands now, this in no
way means that future development is impossible. This Grand
Jury, rather than suggesting any one plan, wishes to point out
that there are limitless ways of conserving waterfront and
access for public use. It is felt that the Board of Super-
visors, as trustees of the tidelands, should consider as many
alternatives as possible.
This Grand Jury is aware that the 1966 State Lands Co-,=is-
sion did not approve the Upper Bay Trade stating as one of its
reasons the lack of any alternate "Plan." In spite of this, the
same Exchange Agreement was taken before the 1967 State Lands
Commission with no attempt to develop an alternate "Plan," yet
it was approved.
The Grand Jury has some questions concerning the Amendment
of November of 1968, to the original Agreement of January, 1965.
A basic requirement in the original Agreement was that the "Depart-
ment of the Army" define the Harbor Lines. This requirement was
2.
r
1969 GRAND JURY
PRESS RELEASE
July 17, 1969
changed in the Amendment to read, "appropriate governmental
agencies." The significance of the Amendment is that by chang-
ing the basic requirement (or rules of the game) The Irvine
Company and the County agreed that neither could withdraw from
the Trade. (The Irvine Company's request to withdraw in October,
1968 was based on the fact that that basic requirement had not
been fulfilled. By changing the one requirement that had not
been fulfilled, the Agreement would bind both sides to the
Trade.) Why the basic requirement was changed has not been
answered to this Grand Jury's satisfaction. If it was impor-
tant to have the Department of the Army define the Harbor Lines
in 1965, what changed to make it no.longer necessary? If the
change was felt necessary to clarify whether or not the Agree-
ment was bindin on both parties, there is a question as to why
the vague term appropriate governmental agencies" was substi-
tuted for the precise "Department of the Army."
This Grand Jury notes that both The Irvine Company and the
County have voiced concern over the loss of time and money due
to present litigation on the Land Exchange. In no wa does this
Grand Jury wish to pass judgment on matters befor Court.
However, it would like to suggest that should the public be pro-
vided more waterfront and access to the tidelands which the County
holds in trust, some of the objections of the Interveners would be
eliminated.
The Grand Jury feels that further efforts should include an
engineering and economic feasibility study of the proposed main
public beach area. It also feels that there should be (1) a cost
study of the filling of some County -held tidelands and /or purchase
of small areas of Irvine land adjacent to tidelands; (2) methods
of financing the Harbor development. As far as this Grand Jury
can discover, such studies have not been made.
Additional studies will mean the expenditure of public funds
but this Grand Jury feels that the Upper Bay, as a natural resource,
is so important that the alternative of waiting to make these studies
until after the Exchange is consummated is ill advised.
One of the prime reasons for this Resolution is the Grand Jury's
concern that the public is not aware of what it now owns in terms of
unfilled tidelands, what development possibilities exist, and what
it will own and /or lose should the present Land Exchange be consum-
mated.
3.
7969 GRAND JURY
PRESS RELEASE
July 17, 1969
ADDITIONAL POINTS:
In answer to the possible comment that neither the County
nor The Irvine Company can withdraw from the Agreement at this
time, it must be stated that if an alternate "Plan" could be
developed which would facilitate a more rapid consuRmatiom of
the Tidelands Exchange, both sides might agree to withdraw and
re- negotiate.
In answer to the argument that it will take too much time
to develop an alternate Plan" for the exchange of the public
tidelands, this Grand Jury would answer that it feels it is
better for the County to retain control of as much waterfront
and access as possible, even though the County -held lands
might not be developed until some future time when adequate
funding can be.arranged.
Finally, this Grand Jury feels that the cost of further
studies would be justified to determine the best possible use
of the tidelands which the County holds in trust for all the
people in the County of Orange.
WDM•rl
Enclosure
William D. Martin,
Foreman
4.
October 7, 1969
TO: City Manager
FROM: Harbor and Tidelands Administrator
SUBJECT: Upper Bay Land Exchange
ENCLOSURE: Material from Mr. Frank Robinson
Mr. Frank Robinson has delivered the enclosed material
to me with a request that it be transmitted to the Councilmen for
their information only.
I have read the material and I suggest that you commence
reading on Page 10 before reading the details presented in the first
part of Mr. Robinson 's paper.
GMD /db
cc: Councilman Gruber.
Councilman Hirth
Councilman McInnis
Councilman Rogers
Councilman Shelton
Mayor Doreen Marshall
vice Mayor Parsons
Public Works Director
Planning Director
Parks, $eaches & Recreation Directo:
i
IS THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY TIDELANDS EXCHANGE REALLY A PUBLIC BENEFIT?
It is alleged in the appraisal
used for this trade that the ex.
change of 157 acres of County
owned tidelands (appraised at
$11 million) for 450 acres of Ir-
vine uplands and islands (ap-
praised at $19 'million) will re-
sult in a public benefit of $8
million.
What are the real facts concern-
ing these properties?
FLOOO CONTROL HARBOR
CHANNEL LINES•4
County owned tidelands and
assement on patent lands
which will be transferred
to the Irvine Company.
� Irvine waterfront after the trade..
-w� County waterfront after the trade.
High Tide
Lines
North
Star
L one
FLOOO CONTROL CHANNEL NtPOb,
V 000-
_C
UTURE FLOOO
CONTROL
CHANNEA,,",,
"FACTI ONLY 54 ACRES (13% OF THE 450
ACRES). MARKED�� AP-
PRAISED AT $272.000.00. REMAIN AS
Bluff
FACT! THE APPRAISAL EVALUATES THE
TIDELANDS PRIOR TO THEIR BEING
Line
FILLED TO i" ABOVE MEAN HIGH
TIDE.ANACTION TO BE PERFORMED
BY THE COUNTY AT COUNTY EX-
PENSE BEFORE THE TIDELANDS
LEGALLY MAY BE TRANSFERRED..
BAYSIOE OR.
`FACT! OF THE 450 ACRES WHICH THE
COUNTY RECEIVES. 276ACRES (60 %)
BAYSIOE OR.
MARKED. -. APPRAISED AT
f- --
$14 MILLION. MUST BE REMOVED
/
BY DREDGING AS A CONDITION OF
THE TRADE.
WATERFRONT AND WILL HAVE A
'FACTI 120 ACRES (27 %) OUT OF THE 450
ACRES. MARKED CE3= AP-
VALUE. AFTER THE REQUIRED
PRAISED AT $5 MILLION. HAVE
LITTLE OR NO FRONTAGE ON THE
FILLING. OF A MINIMUM OF $100
BAY.
UTURE FLOOO
CONTROL
CHANNEA,,",,
"FACTI ONLY 54 ACRES (13% OF THE 450
ACRES). MARKED�� AP-
PRAISED AT $272.000.00. REMAIN AS
Bluff
OOVER
PUBLIC LANDS ACTUALLY ABUTT-
Line
ING. THE WATER.
SNORES
BAYSIOE OR.
*FACTI ALL 157 ACRES WHICH THE COUNTY
NEW NARBJR
IS DEEDING. TO THE IRVINE CORPOR-
f- --
LINES
ATION WILL REMAIN AS PRIME
WATERFRONT AND WILL HAVE A
VALUE. AFTER THE REQUIRED
FILLING. OF A MINIMUM OF $100
THE UNES
MILLION.
AYSIOE
47.
VILLAGE
X470
UPPER NEWPORT BAY OEFENSE FUNO
IQ
P.O. Box 4030. Irvine Station.
COAST HIGHWAY
��
Newport Beach. Calif. 92664
Upper Newport Day Defense t—unJ
POST OFFICE BOX 4030, . IRVINE. STATION • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, 92664
(71..4) 525.1.371 (714)833.1348 (714) 646 -8009
CHAIRMAN
Dr. James L. McGaugh
TREASURER STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Ann Colman
SPONSORS rMrs.
Mr. & Mrs. Don Barton
UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEFENSE FUND is a volunteer effort b citizens who sup-
Y
John ..Johnson
port legal action to retain the public tidelands of Upper Newport Bay in the public domain. This
Dr. & Mrs. Charles Greening
Mr. &Mrs. John Kelley
case is critical) important with regard to the statewide problems of tideland trusts.
Y P 9 P
George Kuyper
Robert Kausen
The proposed tidelands trade between the Irvine Company and Orange County which would
Mrs. Weston Walker
forfeit the Upper Bay to predominant private benefit and demolish its irreplaceable resources is
Fern Zimmerman
Dr. & Mrs. Richard Ball
being challenged through a Complaint in Intervention entered in behalf of six citizens by Attor-
Ellen Stern Harris
Evelyn Gayman
ney Ralph Perry. This Complaint, which we endorse, questions:
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Croker
Dr. Richard Vogl
1) Approval of the trade by the State Lands Commission despite the California State Con -
Rodney Johnson
stitution which assures public access. to Our shore and prohibits the sale or grant of any public
E Ina Bakker
Dr. Mildred Mathias
tidelands lying . within two miles Of an Incorporated city.
Dr. Boyd Walker
Mr &Mrs.Wendell Stanley,Jr.
2) The constitutionality of the Enabling legislation authorizing the exchange which un-
Allan Beek
Isabel Andrews Pease
lawfully delegates to the State Lands Commission authority properly exercised by the L eglSla-
BarbaraEastman
ture and which operates in favor of a single party: i.e., the Irvine Company.
Mary E. Burton
Dr. Peter Dixon
Paul W. Colbum
3) The alleged public benefit of a. trade which would transfer 157 acres of filled County -
Mr. &Mrs. William L. Stabler
owned tidelands to the Irvine Company,. resulting In Irvine ownership of almost seven miles of
Gary Rogers
Dr. Charles Jenner
prime waterfront along newly created harbor lines, while providing three miles or less of margi-
T. Duncan Stewart
Mr. & Mrs. George Fried). Jr.
nal waterfront for the public.
P
4) The value of 450 acres of private lands to be received by the public, 276 of which will
be under 10 feet of water and 12D acres Of which will not abut the bay directly, leaving only 54
acres out of the 450 acres as actual waterfront property. (Note that all of the 157 acres of filled
County Tidelands to be transferred to the Irvine Company.are waterfront property.)
5) The appraisal, used to justify the trade, which Is based on numerous erroneous as-
sumptions, including evaluating the properties to be exchanged in terms Of acreage rather than
waterfrontage — the single most important criterion for establishing a value for waterfront pro-
perty. Based on waterfrontage, there will be an advantage to the Irvine Company of approxima-
tely $100 million through this trade, rather than an advantage of $8 million to the County.
6) The agreement to enter into the exchange of County tidelands for Irvine uplands with-
out any plan for the bay development's being formalized and presented for public scrutiny, a
matter of great concern to property owners in the Lower Bay, as well as to the general public.
7) Disregard for prior recommendations of the staff of the State Lands Commission, for
the report by Livingston and Ellayney (planners retained by the State Lands Commission), and
for studies by the staff Of the Joint Legislative Committee on Public Domain, all Of which re-
jected the alleged public benefit of the trade.
8) Approval by the State Lands Commission of the trade, without any real change in the
underlying facts, one year after the identical proposal was denied by the previous Commission.
9) Disregard for the irreplaceable values of Southern California's last substantial es-
tuarine environment and the birthright of thousands of fish, shellfish, shorebirds and waterfowl.
h
7
Hopefully, the action of the six Interveners wlffi;�ribute to a decision which will Pro-
tect our many tideland trusteeships throughout California from such destructive trades, even if
this case must be taken to the California St"Ins Court.
So urgent is the need, statewide, to safeguard our public tideland trusts that the Executive
Committee of the Sierra Club has authorized Mr. Perry to intervene in this action on their behalf.
Rejection of the exchange by the courts will offer a magnificent opportunity to develop a
plan based on realizing, aesthetically, the full potential of Upper Newport Bay as a model of
marine recreation and conservation, and which will accommodate the varied Public interests.
We invite your financial participation in our endeavor to guarantee that this last great un-
developed bay on the Southern California coast will be preserved in the public trust in perpetu-
ity for the enjoyment of the generations to come. We believe this to be the intent of the tideland
trusts.
Contributions will be used to defray costs of legal fees incurred by the six Interveners.
We welcome all donations, in any amount; in cash, or by check made payable to UPPER NEW-
PORT BAY DEFENSE FUND,P.O. Box 4030, Irvine Station, Newport Beach, Calif. 92664.
Your sharing this statement of purpose with others will enable us to contact more people,
at less cost. Your help is much needed and greatly appreciated. For further information, please
call (714) 525 -1371, 833 - .1348, or 646 -8009.
Dr. James L. McGeugh
Ch ai rm an
UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEFENSE FUND
P.S. The ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY, on July 16, 1969, passed a Resolution enumera-
ting several reasons why the Land Exchange Agreement should be reconsidered. The Grand Jury
press release stated, "One of the prime reasons for this Resolution Is the Grand Jury's concern
that the public is not aware of what it m terms of unfilled tide /ends, what development
possibilities exist, and what it will own o/ r lose should the present Land Exchange be consumated."
The unprecedented Resolution by the Grand Jury seems to us to indicate the urgency of supporting
the citizens (Frank and Frances Robinson and Harold and Joan Coverdate of Newport Beach and
Wesley and 'Judith Marx of Irvine) who have intervened in the suit.
UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEFENSE FUND, P.O. Box 4030, Irvine Station, Newport Beach, Calif. 92664
❑ 1 want to help retain the public tidelands of Upper Newport Bay. My gift of $
is enclosed.
❑ 1 cannot make a donation today, but i will pledge $ to be paid by 1969.
❑ I will be glad to distribute copies of this material to people I think might be interested
Name
Address
`/ t-
`2i
OFFICE OF TIIE ASSESSOR
May 19, 1969
Honorable Board of Supervisors.
Administration Building, Room 605
515 North Sycamore
Santa Ana, California
Gentlemen:
ANDRUI J. VIMSNf.Y1
COUNTY ASSESSOR
TELEPHONE: 634 -2727
AREA CODE i14
630 NORTH BROADWAY
P. O. B6X 149
SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702
I think it appropriate to review the agenda item which is presently
before you, i.e. the cancellation of property taxes on certain prop-
erties currently assessed to The Irvine Company. These are the
properties which are involved in the land trade between the County
of Orange and The Irvine Company, more commonly referred to as the
Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange.
It is a matter of public record that I first became aware of the
plan to provide The Irvine Company with relief from its obligation
to pay property taxes on its lands involved in this proposed land
trade in January, 1968.
My reaction to this tax relief proposal was stated in a letter to
the Board. of Supervisors, dated January 30, 1968. That letter de-
clared as follows: "A copy of County Counsel's letter to you of
January 18, 1968 regarding the.Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange, was
furnishecl me for my information.
"Seri.ous. questions arise in my mind as to the legal situations which
would. be created if the proposed Amendment to Agreement is consummated.
The Assessor's responsibility in this matter could be resolved only
by a legal adjudication of the questions flowing from this Amendment .
to Agreement."
On October 8, 1968, the proposed Amendment was offered to the Board
of''Supervisors in modified form with the expressed justification that
lower dredging costs would ensue if the proposed Amendment was rati-
fied by the County. This modified proposal was rejected by the Board
of Supervisors.
6
Board of Supervisors May 19, 1969
Page 2
The following day, October 9, 1968, the SoaYd of Supervisors moved
to reopen and to rehear the rejected Amendment proposal at its
October 15, 1968 meeting. On October 14, 1968, 'I wrote the Board
of Supervisors as follows:
"I have reviewed the Amendment to Agreement presently scheduled on
your agenda on Tuesday, October 15, 1968.
"This agreement is similar in intent to an agreement considered by
you earlier this year.
"On January 30, 1968, 'I wrote you a letter (copy attached) that „that
proposition had serious legal implications for the Assessor'.s Office.
"The Amendment to Agreement now before you has not extinguished those
legal implications affecting my office. Those questions of a legal
nature include three (3) items which warrant your attention:
"1. It would be legally improper to permit cancellation
of current taxes levied on these properties.for the follow-
ing reasons:
"a) The Irvine Company, by nature of the Amendment to
Agreement, would still have an element of title to the
properties "conveyed” to the County because of its
reversionary interest, and
b) Therefore, The Irvine Company would be liable for,
as a minimum, a tax on their possessory interest on
the subject properties.
"2. The Amendment to Agreement on page 5 contemplates a
formula for setting tax amounts for the years in which the
"title" to the subject lands would vest in the County'.
This formula grossly misstates the probable assessed values
and probable tax dollars.
"Both you as a Board of Supervisors, and The Irvine Company,
..have been.advised several times that we are embarked upon a
six -year reappraisal program. The properties to be consid-
ered by you on Tuesday are included in that six -year re-
appraisal program scheduled for completion in 1970 -71.
"For your information, the approximate assessed values for the
lands in question for each of the years 1965 through 1968
have been as follows:
1965 - $ 65,000 1967 - $ 630,000
1966 - $100,00 -0 1968 - $1,535,000
Board of Supervisors May 19, 1969
Page 3
"Our 1968 valuation is based upon an estiiaated market value of
approximately $42,000 per acre.. I estimate that at the com-
pletion of our six -year reappraisal program these properties,
would be valued at a minimum of the approximately $100,000 per
acre which is used as the valuation basis (in the so- called
Evans Appraisal of September 15, 1965) for the trade of the
Orange County lands for Irvine Company lands.
"This would indicate that as a minimum, the 1970 -71 market ,
value would be'$2,5 00,000; therefore, you can readily see the
"tax formula" on page 5 of the Amendment to Agreement grossly
understates the tax liability which would be incurred by The
Irvine Company during the next several years.
"3. It is my belief at this time that the Assessor's Office
must have a clear expression from the courts before it could
agree to any cancellation or proration of current taxes levied
on this property, as well as a clear statement from the court
as, to the removal of the properties from the assessment roll
in whole or in past."
The Board of Supervisors took the proposed Amendment to the trade
agreement off calendar at its October 15, 1968 meeting.
On October. 23, 1968, The Irvine Company declared its desire to with -
draw completely from the proposed trade, citing as its essential
reason for such intended withdrawal, ..increasing and excessive
holding costs imposed by the County which will be compounded by the
now apparent delays to the extent that it is economically unfeasible
for the company to continue to hold the property in an undeveloped
state."
This request to terminate the proposed trade by The Irvine Company
resulted in a resolution on Noveraber 12,. 1968 by the Board of Suoer.-
visors on a 4 to 1 vote to accept the Amendment terms proposed by
The Irvine Company.
The next series of actions in this complicated transaction were:
a) Two corporation Grant Deeds were filed in the Orange County
Recorder's Office which are intended to carry out the plan
approved by the County to provide The Irvine Company with relief
from property taxes on those lands involved in the land trade.
These deeds are recorded in Book 8885, pages 409 -415 and '.
Book 8886, pages 947 -949. They are approved as to descrip-
tion and content by the Director of the Orange County Harbor
District. They have been accepted on behalf of the County of
Orange by the Department of.Real Property Serivices.
Board of Supervisors
May 1.9, 1969
Page 4
b) On March 24, 1969 the Department of Real Property Services'
initiated a request for cancellation of taxes for the properties
described in the deeds referred to above.
c) On March 26, 1969 these requests for tax cancellations were
referred to the Assessor's Office for routine checking and
verification.
On May 13, 1969 T wrote Mr. Kuyper, Orange County Counsel as
follows:
"I am returning the forms initiated by the Department'
of Real Property Services requesting the cancellation
of property taxes on those certain Irvine.Company prop-
erties involved in the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange
which, as a matter_of routine, were referred to my office.
"On January 30, 1968 and again on October 14, 1968, I
wrote to the Board of Supervisors stating that cancella-
tion of property tares on these Irvine Company owned lands
would be improper, copies of which are attached.
"My views regarding this matter have not changed and I
again emphasize them by stating that it is the firm con-
viction of the Assessor's Office that The Irvine Company
continues to have an assessable (and thus taxable) interest
in the properties which are the subject of the deeds re-
ferred to in the attachments returned to you with this
letter.
> "It should be pointed out that the. deeds referred to above
contain conditions subsequent and therefore do not, in
my opinion, convey the fee simple absolute title necessary
to permit cancellation of property taxes on these prop-
erties.
"Sincerely,
"ARDREW J. HINSHAW, County Assessor"
For your information, the Assessor's Mapping Section receives copies
of all recorded deed transactions affecting properties in Orange
County. In conformity with the professional standards prevailing
throughout the State of California the Mapping Section checks and
verifies the information contained in those documents received by
this Section of the.Assessor''s Of'fi.ce. This checking proceeture in-
cludes references to official surveys of record.
When copies of the deeds involved in the proposed land exchange.
routinely reached our Mapping Section, the legal descriptions were
Board of Supervisors May 3.9, 1969p
Page 5
plotted so as to see what properties they included. The report sub-
mitted to me by my Mapping Section showed among other things that
primary problems still confront the Mapping Section. They are:
1) This Section has no evidence of a recorded document
describing the land parcels involved in the proposed land
exchange between The Irvine Company and the County o�:Orange
as shown on the map, Exhibit D (1 -4 -65) in the appraisal made
for the County by Bernard G. Evans and submitted to the Orange
County Harbor District on September 15, 1965.
2) The bearings and distances used on the tractional Town-
ship No..6 South, Range No. 10 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, as surveyed by the United States Surveyor General
and recorded on June 30, 1890 for Lot 2, Section 26, Township
6S, Range 1019 does not "close ". All subsequent maps for this
sectional. lot (which is now referred to as Parcel 102 in the
Upper Newport Bay'Land Exchange) refer back to and are based
on this original United States Government Surveyors map and
apparently have continued what appears to be a defect in the
original survey of 1890.
3) Parcel 114 as shown on the Exhibit D map of the Evans
Appraisal as containing 59 acres of unimproved uplands appears
to have been drawn on the 60 foot contour.. This does not
provide for a sufficient description for a determination, of
exactly what land is included in this Parcel 114.
4) The Parcel 5 described in the deed recorded in Book 8885,
page 409 from The Irvine Company to the County of Orange, which
is apparently intended to be the same as the Parcel 13.4 as
shown on the Exhibit D map of the Evans Appraisal., used a metes
and bounds description and is computed to contain 59.66 acres
and thus does not conform precisely to Parcel 114 as shown on
the Exhibit- D map in the Evans Appraisal which parcel shows an
acreage of 59 acres.'
5). Parcel 115 as showm on Exhibit D map in the Evans Appraisal
as containing 60.6 acres does not have a precise description.
The Parcel`4 described in Book 8885, page 409 which is apparently
intended to be the same as Parcel 115 as shown in the Evans
Appraisal used a metes and bounds description and is computed
to be 56.5 acres - not the 60.6 acres as shown in the Evans
Appraisal.
6) The Parcel 1 described in the deed recorded in Dook 8885,
page 409 is confusing in that-it does not refer to Record Sur-
vey 89 -1 from which an adjusted bearing apparently was taken.
It is further confusing in that it makes no mention of Superior
Court Case No.,20436 in the County of Orange between The Irvine
Company and The County of Orange but is an adjusted line that
Board of Supervisors May 19, 1969
Page 6
ties only to Tract 4227.
My Mapping Section has suggested, in order to eliminate the con-
fusion between lines drac.,ii on paper and those physically in existence
on the ground, that we should request the County Surveyor to survey
all the land parcels involved in the Upper Newport Bay Land Ex-
change and to record that survey.
I also wish to apprise you of a few of the questions which have arisen
in the Assessor's Office as a result of the Amendment to the land
exchange agreement and the corporation grant deeds previously referred
to. They are as follows:
l) What is the nature of the "consideration" stated in the
deeds that the County of Orange gave to The Irvine Company
in return for whatever rights the County received as a result
of the execution of the deeds in question?
2) What is the nature and extent of the property rights
described in these deeds which The Irvine Company has retained
for itself in the event there is no culmination of the proposed
exchange?
3) To what extent has The Irvine Company relinquished all of
the custody, occupancy, controls and possession it has exer-
cised over these lands?
4) To what extent does the orange County Harbor District
and /or the County of Orange now assert itself as a. result of
these deeds in the exercise of the complete custody, occupancy,
controls and possession consonant with fee simple absolute
title?
5) What are the precise legal descriptions of both the per-
imeter of the Upper Bay and all of. the land parcels involved
in the land exchange?
It. is the opinion of the Assessor's Office that until the above
questions have been resolved by a competent court, this Office is
unable to proceed in any segregation of the assessed valuations.
Further, that to order the Assessor's Office to proceed without
definitive information as to the location and ownership of all the
property rights presently involved in this natter would be asking
this Office to assist in developing the mechanics ultimately leading
to a gift of public money.
This I cannot do.
Board o Supervisors
May 19, 1969
Page 7
We believe the recitations contained in the Amendment to the land
exchange plan and the language contained in the deeds previously
referred to have created a situation whereby the County of Orange
not only has acquired some yet -to -be defined property rights in
The Irvine Company lands but that the Irvine Company has, in return,
acquired some yet -to -be defined use and control over the lands the
County of Orange holds in trust for the people of the State of
California.
The deeds previously referred to purportedly transfer title of
certain lands from The Irvine Company to the County of Orange. The
legal descriptions in these deeds inc]_ude.lands which the County of
Orange already owns. Stated another way, it would appear The Irvine
Company seeks to convey interests in lands it does not own to the
County of Orange, and which lands the County holds in trust for the
people of the State of California.
Thus, it would appear not only has The Irvine Company,caused a slander
of title of those lands the County of Orange holds in trust for the
People of the State of California, but also The Irvine Company has
breached the warranty of its own lands described in the deeds pre-
viously referred to and which warranty is necessary if passage of
"title" is to be effective.
In view of the foregoing, the Assessor's Office, with respect to the
1969 assessment roll currently in preparation, intends to proceed as
follows in this matter:
1) Ownership of all the property rights in and to all the
lands involved in the Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange have
become so clouded, in the opinion of the Assessor's Office,
that it is the intention of this Office to assess all these
lands to The Irvine Company and to the County of Orange as
co- assessees for the 1969 -70 assessment roll.
2) This assessment will be on the same basis of valuation
and with the same justifications relative to,this proposed
land exchange as are contained in all of the pertinent docu-
ments developed by The Irvine Company, the Orange County
Harbor District, the County of Orange, and the State Lands
Commission.
It also is my intention to request the County Surveyor.to sur-
vey all of .these lands so as to provide a reliable and accurate
description of the entire Upper Bay, which currently is not
available from any one single survey of -the subject propert:i.es.
Sincerely,
ANDFC J. hTN FiAS7, County Assessor
AJFi : g f
FRO:, Ti{E O. F1 CE. Oi
Os.ns! , -- cooi:E•; nsrl_ssor:
j1CK!ii'128, 17- INAN(lf- BUILDING
.63Q NOKI -11 BPOAD';lAY, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
GARY N. COTTRELL, ASSISTANT CHIEF DEPUTY
834 -2736
NARl.'1A VALUE OF COUNTY TOPS 13.5 BILLION
'1 4
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY IN ORANGE COUNTY CLIMBED TO $13.5 BILLION
FOR THE 1969 -70 ASSESSMENT YEAR, COUNTY ASSESSOR ANDREW J. HINSHAW REPORTED
TODAY. HINSHAW REPORTED AN ASSESSED VALUE OF $3,283,918,223, WHICH REPRESENTS
AN INCREASE OF $349,505,553 OVER LAST YEAR'S COMPARABLE FIGURE OF
$2,934,412,670 OR 11.9 PERCENT, AFTER ALLOWING FOR A REDUCTION OF
$43,074,440 IN ASSESSED VALUE OF HOUSEHOLD PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND NON—
REIMBURSABLE EXEMPTIONS.
THE BREAKDOWN OF VALUES IS AS FOLLOWS:
ASSESSED VALUATIONS '(NOT INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY)
CATEGORY 1968 -69
.LAND $10084,002,510
IMPROVEMENTS
PERSONAL PROPERTY
GROSS:
11630,846,490
04.282.270
1969 -70
$11222,166,976
1,760,960,300
4.1191-SIRN Mo.
$ INCREASE
$138, 164,'t66
130/113,810
82,548,810
$3,019,131,270 $3,369,958,356 $350,827;086
% IN-
CREASE
12.7
8.0
27.1
11.6
' LESS:EXEMPTIONS
- (84,718
600)
- (86,040,133)
a_(1,321_,531)
(1.6)
NET ASSESSED VALUE
$2,934,412,670
$3,283,918,223
$349,505,553
11.9
THE 11.9 PERCENT INCREASE IN ASSESSED VALUES FOR THE CURRENT ROLL YEAR
COMPARES WITH 8.6 PERCENT INCREASE RECORDED IN 1968 -69 OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR-
THE INCREASE IN VALUE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THESE MAJOR FACTORS: (1) INCREASE
IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, _PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY (2) POSE
AUDIT PROGRAM WHICH HAS RESULTED•IN A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ESCAPED ASSESS-
MENTS (3) INCREASE IN EQUIPMENT AND INVENTORY VALUATIONS AND (4) REVALUATIO`!
Of COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES AS WELL AS TRANSITIONAL LAND IN THE
COUNTY.
VALUE NOTICE POSTCARDS WERE MAILED TO EACH TAXPAYER IN ORANGE CO +UNTY, ON
JULY 8. THESE POSTCARDS PROVIDE EACH TAXPAYER WITH INFORMATION CONCERNING
THE VALUATION OF HIS PROPERTY. "TAXPAYERS WHO MAY HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING
THE APPRAISAL OF THEIR PROPERTY ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT OUR OFFICE BY
.LN .PERSON IPLMEDIATEI,Y" SAID HINSHAW. THE "hSSESSOR'S OFFICE IS
LOCATE LL . BROADtdAd SAr,TA,wTA. TEL
• s
Ci
ANAHEIM
BREA
BUENA PART:
COSTA MESA
CYPRESS
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FULLERTON
GARDEN GROVE
VALUATIONS FOR CITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
CITIES
(LOCAL SECURED
AND UNSECURED ONLY)
22,736,196
Adjusted for Loss of
Household Personal
Property
3,109,131
6.4
Dollar.
1968 -69
1969 -70
Increase
14,542,650
16,596,1,40
$ 378,605,540
$ 418,332,087 $
39,726,547
38,066,520
42,164,820
4,098,300
117,569,950
129,306,320
11,736,370
143,292,850
153,916,749
10,623,899
36,897,710
- 47,999,345
11,101,635
49,837,420
56,709,507
6,872,087
201,577;340
234,609,504
33,032,164
172,201,940
184,488,157
121286,217
HUNTINGTON BEACH
LAGUNA BEACH
LA HABRA
LA PAL14A
LOS ALAMITOS
NEWPORT BEACH
ORANGE
PLACENTIA
SAN CLEMENTE
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
SANTA ANA
SEAL BEACH
STANTON
TUSTIN
VILLA PARK
WESTMINSTER
YORBA LINDA
SUBTOTAL
UNINC. AREA
GRAND -TOTAL
Percent
Increase
10.5
10.8
10.0
7.4
30.1
13.8
16.4
7.1
232,588,910
255,325,106
22,736,196
9.8
48,805,540
51,914,,671
3,109,131
6.4
68,444,440
75,130,683
61686,243.
9.8
14,542,650
16,596,1,40
2,053,490
14.1
16,350,950
18,280,180
1,929,230
11.8
218,164,190
253,279,404
35,115,214
16.1
.134,740,770
149,332,259
141591,489
10.8
33,623,760
37,573,249
3,949,489
11.7
43,417,230
45,783,158
2,365,928
5.4
12,624,990
14,993,670
2,368,680
18.8
286,474,540
312,890,049
26,415,509
9.2
59,169,910
64,126,080
41956,170
8.4
26,672,690
27,847,796
1,175,106
4.4
30,706,200
40,390,757
9,654,557
31.5
5,538,730
7,627,910
2,089,180
37.7'
75,427,990
841572,303
9,144,313
12.1
19,825,590
23,149,920
3,324,330
16.8
$2,465,168,350
$2,746,339,824
$281,171,474
11.4
469_L244, L2.0
537,578,399
68,334,079
1.4.6
$2,934,412,670
$3,283,918,223
$349,505,553
11.9
law
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
(TOTAL LOCAL SECURED AND UNSECURED, EXCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY)..
*Not Adjusted for Loss of Household Personal Property
DOLLAR PERCENT
DISTRICT *1968 -69 1969 -70 INCREASE INCREASF,I
ANAHEIM
BUENA PART:
CENTRALIA
CYPRESS
FOUNTAIN VALLEY
FULLERTON
HUNTINGTON BEACH
LA_HABRA
LOS ALAMITOS
LOWELL JOINT
MAGNOLIA
OCEAN VIEW
SAN JOAQUIN
SAVANNA
SEAL BEACH
TRABUCO
TUSTIN
WESTMINS^1ER
YORBA LINDA
$287,437,660
74,765,180
61,577,350
46,44.8,860-
53,499,300
189,113,030
105,872,130
70,598,290
52,549,130
23,152,910
51,991,300
104,450,300
114,086,560
19,267,100
54,246,400
1,325,780
114,542,000
88,510,820
22,169,090
$307,918,418
85,485,460
65,363,299
54,223,525
59,234,950
217,110,584
111,952,764
75,222,393
57,205,030
25,045,100
53,754,326
116,220,402
146,1401760
20,086',790
54,141,320
1,610,060
131,832,677
94,882,903
23,011,900
$20,480,758
10,720,280
2,785,949
7,774,665
5,735,650
27,997,554
6,080,634
4,624,103
4,655,900
1,892,190
1,763,026
11,770,102
32,054,200
819,690
(?05,080)
284,280
17,290,677
6,372,083
842,810
7.1
14.3
4.5
16.7
10.7
14.8
5.7
6.5
8.9
8.2
3.4
11.3
28.1
4.2
(.2)
21.4
15.1
7.2
3.6
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
„ (TOTAL
LOCAL SECURED AND
UNSECURED, EXCLUDING
PUBLIC UTILITY)
*Not
Adjusted for Loss
of Household Personal
Property
DOLLAR
PERCENT
DISTRICTS
*1968 -69
1969 -70
INCREASE
INCREASE
ANAHEIM
$519,271,400
$557,551,388
$ 381,279,988
7.4
FULLERTON
379,798,500
425,875,437
46,076,937
12.1
HUNTINGTON BEACH
406,578,950
436,432,339
29,8.53,389
7.3
TUSTIN
229,954,340
279,583,497 -
49,629,157.
21.6
a -•
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
(TOTAL LOCAL SECURED AND UNSECURED, EXCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY)
*Not Adjusted for Loss of Household Personal Property
. DOLLAR PERCENT
DISTRICT *1968 -69 1969 -70 INCREASE INCREASE
BREA - OLINDA
CAPISTRANO
GARDEN GROVE
LACUNA BEACH
NEWPORT -MESA
ORANGE
PLACENTIA
SANTA ANA
$ 62,044,280
110,245,490
253,091,860
74,539,780
375,215,920
189,599,880
114,568,870
261,670,170
$ 65,357,960
125,301,888
267,760,004
'78,032,846
413,414,203
210,308,593
1301482,979
293,817,949
$ 3,313,680
15,056,398
14,668,144
3,493,066
38,198,283
20,708,713
.15,914,109
32,147,779
5.3
13.7
5.8
4.9
10.2
10.9
13.9
12.3
JUNIOR COLLEGES
(TOTAL
LOCAL SECURED AND UNSECURED, EXCLUDING
PUBLIC UTILITY)
*Not
Adjusted for Loss of
Household Personal
Property
DOLLAR
PERCENT
DISTRICT
*1968 -69
1969 -70
INCREASE
INCREASE
NORTH ORANGE
$1,075,683,050
$1,179,267,764
$103,584,714
9.6
ORANGE COAST
781,794,870
848,990,722
67,195,852
8.6
SADDLEBACK
397,174,120
483,774,051
86,599,93.1
21.8
SANTA ANA
261,670,170
293,817,949
32,147,779
12.3
IS THE UPPER NEWPORT BAY TIDELANDS wEXCHANGE REALLY A PUBLIC BENEFIT?
,.[ FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
It is alleged in the appraisal
used for this trade that the ex.
change of 157 acres of County
owned tidelands (appraised at
'$11 million) for .450 acres of Ir•
vine uplands and islands (ap•
praised at S19 million) will're-
sult in a public benefit of $8
million. .:
What are the real facts concern-
ing these .properties?
`\ FLOOD CONTROL
CONTROL
CHANNEL;
County owned tidelands and
patent lands which will be trans-
tarred to the Irvine Company,
Irvine waterfront after the trade.
County waterfront after the trade,
High Tide
Line_
14 / G?
G01"Ato
NEW ��.f, q.'�
HARBOR i
'FACTI THE APPRAISAL EVALUATES THE
LINES N __
TIDELANDS .PRIOR TO THEIR BEING
_ FILLED TO 1" ABOVE MEAN HIGH
-
TIDE,ANACTION TO BE PERFORMED
-BY THE COUNTY AT COUNTY EX-
'
PENSE BEFORE THE TIDELANDS
- LEGALLY MAY BE TRANSFERRED.
•FA'CTI OF THE 450 ACRES WHICH THE
"
COUNTY RECEIVES, 276ACRES (600 %)
BAYSIOE OR.
MARKED ®, APPRAISED AT
$14 MILLION, MUST BE REMOVED
'
- BY DREDGING AS A CONDITION OF
THE TRADE.
.
M1FACTI 120 ACRES (27 %) OUT OF THE 450
ACRES, MARKED AP-
PRAISED AT $5 MILLION, HAVE
-
LITTLE OR NO FRONTAGE ON THE
\
- BAY.
C4 ..
Ny
UTURE FLOOD
CONTROL
CHANNEL
"FACTI ONLY 54 ACRES (13% OF THE 450
ACRES), MARKED " -'��": AP.
Bluff 4- PRAISED AT $272,000,00, REMAIN AS
Line ^i OO'V NG THE LATER ACTUALLY ABUTT-
SHORES
•FACTI ALL 157 ACRES WHICH THE COUNTY
/ EW HARBOR IS DEEDING TO THE IRVINE CORPOR-
LINES ATION WILL REMAIN AS PRIME
WATERFRONT AND WILL HAVE A
VALUE., AFTER THE REQUIRED
FILLING, OF A MINIMUM OF $100
THE ONES Q� - MILLION.
' BAYSIOE
VILLAGE
, UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEFENSE FUND
COAST p7C,,wgr
P.O. Box 4030, Irvine Stellon,
Newpart Barren, Ce111. ORW
I
Hopefully, the action of the six Interveners will contribute to a decision which will pro-
tect our many tideland trusteeships throughout California from such destructive trades, even If
this case must be taken to the California Supreme Court.
So urgent is the need, statewide, to safeguard our public tideland trusts that the Executive
Committee of The Sierra Club has authorized Mr. Perry to intervene in this action on their behalf.
Rejection of the exchange by the courts will offer a magnificent opportunity to develop a
plan based on realizing, aesthetically, the full potential of Upper Newport Bay as a model of
marine recreation and conservation, and which will accommodate the varied public Interests.
We Invite your financial participation in our endeavor to guarantee that this last great un-
developed bay on the Southern California coast will be preserved in the public trust in perpetu-
ity for the enjoyment of the generations to come. We believe this to be the intent ofAhe- tideland
trusts.
Contributions will be used to defray costs of legal fees incurred by the six Interveners.
We welcome all donations, in any amount, in cash, or by check made payable to UPPER NEW-
PORT BAY DEFENSE FUND, P.O. Box 4030, Irvine Station, Newport Beach, Calif. 92564.
Your sharing.this statement of purpose with others will enable us to contact more people,
at less cost. Your help Is.much needed and greatly appreciated. For further Information, please
call (714) 525.1371, 633 -1345, or 646.6009.
Or. James L. McGaugh
Chairman
UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEFENSE FUND
UPPER NEWPORT BAY DEFENSE FUND, P.O. Box 4030, Irvine Station, Newport Beach, Calif. 92660
❑ 1 want to help retain the public tidelands of Upper Newport Bay. My gift of $
is enclosed.
❑ I cannot make a donation today, but I will pledge $ to be paid by 1969.
❑ I will be glad to distribute Doples of this material to people I think might be Interested
Name
Address
_ Y-
ALTERNATIVES TO ELIMINATING DEFICIT
RESULTING FROM ASSESSMENT OF UPPER NEWPORT BAY LAND EXCHANGE
1. Ignore discrepancy
2. Reduce Capital Improvements
3. Reduce Operating Budget
A- 3
4. Combination of k and 9
5. Borrow from Cash Basis Fund (see attached definition of Cash Basis Fund)
6. Levy Utility Tax
7. Revise Business License Fees
8, Increase Tax Rate:
Preliminary
Necessary
Total
Fund
Tax Rate
Increase
Tax Rate
General
.8092
.0165
.8257
Park and Recreation
.1488
.0012
.1500
Library
.1190
.0091
.1281
Retirement
.1480
.0111
.1591
Total
1.225
.0379
1.2629
W
I e�&
CASH BASIS FUND
The City Council may maintain a revolving fund, to be known as the "Cash
Basis Fund ", for the purpose of placing the payment of the running ex-
penses of the City on a cash basis. A balance may be built up in this
fund from any available sources in an amount which the City Council deems
sufficient with which to meet all lawful demands against the City for the
first five months, or other necessary period, of the succeeding fiscal
year prior to the receipt of ad valorem tax revenues. Transfers may be
made by the City Council from such fund to any other fund or funds of
such sum or sums as may be required for the purpose of placing such funds,
as nearly as possible, on a cash basis. All money so transferred from
the Cash Basis Fund shall be returned thereto before the end of the
fiscal year.
•
UPPER BAY LAND EXCHANGE POLICY
The Newport.Beach City Council recognizes the great long range recreation
and economic value of the Upper Bay development and would like to go on
record in support of the Upper Bay land exchange. While it is acknowledged
that the Upper Bay development can assume a variety of physical forms, and
while financing may be accomplished by various methods, it is felt that the
basic elements, of the present plan which has been developed over a fifteen
year period are the best that have emerged to date and should be acted on
without further delay in order that the people of California and Orange
County might take advantage.of this natural asset at.an early date. We
might spend another decade developing other plans and have no assurance
that they would have any more or less support or opposition than the
current plan.
The details of development, economics and administration can.be worked
out and modified as development takes place.. However, in order to have
the opportunity to develop these details and refinements we should move
ahead on a basic plan.
For the reasons stated, we believe at this time it is in the best interests
of the general public and the people of Newport Beach that we support, the
land exchange.
• Adopted - March 14, 1966
Amended - November 25, 1968
-11
0)
W
C7
C
S
U
X
w
O
Q
J
}
Q
m
d
3
W
Z
K
W
0.
d
tL
O
F
Z
W
f
in
N
W
V)
V1
Q
<L
C7
z_
F
J
N
W
F
U
W
O
u
a) ++ O U
N O +�
C J
U
U
CD 0) G) A)
C L •
Ol •� L. 0 O
t L
L. -
*'oo.
++av aro
eo t O
++cc o
o • r
V i N �
a) 0
arwa
++
O
O
O
In
Ln
V C O
Y
Y U
In
lD
0)
M
V'
0)) eo 10
Z 4-
M
W
M.I
0�
E U w i C
G)
^
N
N
1�
I
0 0 O
O
U a) Q. O
N N N 6
Y
it LV 0
G)
rl
i
V.
``'•00��
41 E a) r
E
0
0) N G)
u
U e0 N 0
N
1.[)
1.[)
7 O
o
N N L (0
0
lD
1
1
1
loll
^ )
L OJ 3
T
G) •� G) E
00
1
1
1
W
++ C V
i
J> a) •�
C N •� N
-
c
C
w w o
M
M
� O 0==
w
+1 U C+ F
E
N e0
L •� Gl
V V Y
N
0 O G) N O
L
Y f r l
d
G I
I
++
)n
O
00
Ln
O
�+ V G) E rn
E
•U
W
N
O)
C O. O kD
0
N U
M
m
l0
O)
M
N
� e0 U O)
m
W
ill.
R
M
W
M
O
V 0 O
N
CD 0)
mr
N
N
a) ++ V Y i
+�
O
C C O
U
o (OD W
'N
E E J
E
G) L V
l F
Y > G) •, a)
G)
0 O t 7 41
N
i
o
lA
L,,
CL G) 0)
L
0)
1
1
1
c
C E lF L V
e0
N r
1
1
1
e0 O 7
G)
0 d
L 0-0
T
J 7
M
t0 r C 0
l0
V)
Y 0
O
0,04-0
0) n a)
+
r e0 L r 0
L
U 0 N
e0
CO 6R
d
N
a) a)
O
O
O
O
LO
LN n
L t - a)
O
eo
rl
00
C'i
W
Y eO Y
+1
Y Y
W
lD
0)
M
Y
O L
O O0 V
V
F
W
S
^
eo
0
V)
O
nv O v 3
n
X a) N t
d
N >64 - 0)
O
N
O C
++ L
L 4- O
i
O
e0 a) >
O
O
eo CL N b
N
'N -P E O
N
1
1
1
N
(0 N>
>)
d •, a) 1
D)
I
1
I
O)
L U r
i
d eno O
.1�
n
Y o e0 L lD
to
CJ i i
mr
mr
eo 3 r O
U
2 CO
a) eo 0
EU
L t- N
r•r
C
'.0) U N
lF
V• � C
Er
E
X
0)= C t O
0)
c 3 v +j ,
lD
ar
N
F
a) O
O
O
O
LO
Ln
a)
a) O L C U
00
eo X 0 (0
lA
W
N
lD
N
N
-0 N (0 •, a)
lD
Y eo C ++
O)
lD
m
M
00
N
++
LO a) V)
0)
O F a) L
w
w
w
eo
C
y >,'D •�
r
F- > O
1l
M
00
M
M
q1
al 00
N C
^
N
N
01
E
0 1l to Y V.
lF
^' V)
N
N
C 6q U C
O
U
>
N a) 0
, w
i
G>) (CO 3 4-
a)
2
L t O 0) X
e0
�=
E
v
�+
!T
110
X a)
00
O
O
L
) V 0 0
lF
eo Y
m
O
O)
W
l.[)
a)
O S C, eo
F e0
O
V'
LO
?
l0 ++ 7 (0 C7
V
Cif
00
N
^I
1l
a)
(0 LL
N
O
V)
^ i N N
>
+ •� (0
C)
4- a eo
G)
N
eo
O O GaJJ O +�
U
V
Vi
•�
M E ) V)
N
C
U
++ C
N O
i
N
N
w> w y
00 00
1n
L.
c
a)
aa))
O
In
L E C
C
Y
1l
a)
Y
C
N
O N t
>
eo
7
X
O
4- r F V
N
i
e0
N N e0 N
i
C
C
y)
F
C., Y
U
++
N
(a.,
v)
W
N
W
C
e0
^
N
L GO 0)
O
eo 1l V.
'
U
e0
e�
i
N
F-
LlV O)
N
L
e0
L
U
L C a) lD
N
m
CD
0.
J
z
z
p
p
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
February 24, 1969
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: City Harbor Coordinator
SUBJECT: NATIONAL ESTUARINE POLLUTION STUDY
REFERENCE: CITY MANAGER MFMORANDLM TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
10 February 1969
ENCLOSURE: DRAFT STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC MEETING OF February 25 -26, 1969
In accordance with Reference A, I attended the public meeting
conducted on February 18, 1969 by the California State Water Resources
Control Board and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in
San Francisco. The object of the meeting was to consider socio - economic'
ecological, demographic and industrial trends and the application of new
technology in our estuaries. It was unfortunate that a hearing on oil
pollution problems in the Santa Barbara area was simultaneously scheduled
in Sacramento. It is believed that the Sacramento hearing drew off many
witnesses who would otherwise have appeared at the San Francisco meeting.
As it was, the San Francisco meeting was recessed more than it was in
session due, plainly, to lack of witnesses to comment or testify.
Those witnesses who did testify were:
Congressman Mailliard, 6th District, California
who expressed xpr�esse just general interest in the subject
and impressed the audience with the importance of
the subject.
Joseph Bodowicz, Executive Director of the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commiss-
ion.' Mr. Bodowicz discussed the organization of
.the Commission and the importance in the case of
the San Francisco Bay area, of a regional agency
composed of all levels of government.
Mr. Wri ht, State Department of Fish and Game.
Mr! ri t discussed a long -range study that was
being conducted by the State Department of Fish
and Game. Of particular interest to the City of
Newport Beach is that one element of the study is
devoted to Upper Newport Bay. I asked Mr. Wright
when this element would be available and he stated
that it would probably be available in July but
that he might be able to furnish me more informa-
tion prior to that. I left him my card with a
request that he do so.
L
Page 2
"Mr. Sidney Brooks, Executive Director of the Association
Of Monterey Bay Area Governments. Mr. Brooks discussed
the role of this organization, which is a voluntary
organization, and which is concerned with voluntary
efforts to combat pollution in the Monterey Bay area.
Dr: John Harville, California State College Marine
Laboratory at moss Landing. Dr. Harville is an
Ecologist and discussed, in general, the role and
importance of estuaries.
Mr. Robert Fisher, Director of Marinas and Recreation of The
Irvine Company, also attended the hearing. In his case, he attended both
days and the evening session of the hearing. Upon his return, he reported
that there was no additional testimony of any interest other than what
we had already heard.
I was disappointed in the meeting for I had hoped to have received
some information on the application of new technology and some information
on such subjects as marine and boat pollution and pollution surveillance
systems. However, I do feel that this meeting was subverted, though un-
intentionally, by the meeting in Sacramento and I recommend that I attend
the meetings scheduled for 25 and 26 February in Los Angeles.
In connection with the meeting on 25 and 26 February, I recommend
that the City of.Newport Beach submit a statement to the two agencies
cooperating in this study. A draft of the proposed statement is enclosed.
GMD:ep
enc.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STATBEN1' FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING ON
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FOR ESTUARIES
The City of Newport Beach is a coastal city with a population
of 46,000. It hosts approximately seven million visitors a year on its
six miles of beaches and its harbor berths approximately nine thousand
boats. The City has thus far been fortunate that there are no major
pollution problems confronting it at this time. However, the City is
interested in keeping its finger on the pollution problem and doing any-
thing feasible to maintain high water quality standards or to improve
the present standards.
In this connection, the City of Newport Beach has long held a
stand against the drilling and production of oil off its beaches. The
City Charter prohibits the production of oil within the City limits. The
City has also been protected by the Cunningham -Shell Act which was enacted
in 1955 and provides that the coastline between the Santa Ana River and
the Mexican border shall be protected against off -shore drilling. In
substance, this Act requires that before any lease can be made by either
the State or a local governmental agency for oil development on tidelands
within the protected area, the State Lands Commission must review and
approve the proposed lease. If approval to drill is granted, it is subject
to the requirement that all wells must be slant drilled from an upland
location. In March, 1967 an unsuccessful effort was made by the oil inter-
ests to have the Legislature repeal the restrictions of the Cunningham -
Shell Act. Newport Beach expended considerable effort toward defeat of
this attempt. We anticipate that continued strong lobby attempts will be
made to repeal or weaken the protection of this Act..
z
Page 2
On December 12, 1968 there was a public hearing conducted in
Newport Beach by the California State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Planning and Public Works. During this public hearing, the City of Newport
Beach again made known its stand relative to off -shore drilling. Many
witnesses appeared at this public hearing, including Mr. Henry W. Wright
who represented the Western Oil and Gas Association. Mr. Wright made two
points: the first point was that there was basically no danger of pollution
in off -shore drilling. When reminded that there had been pollution from
off -shore drilling before, he stated that in his opinion that this was due
to the negligence of the companies concerned and that modern technology
had enough safeguards to preclude any further problems in this regard.
He further stated, in response to the Newport Beach position that we did
not desire off -shore drilling in the vicinity of Newport Beach, that he
did not think that the major oil companies had any real interest in oil
in the area of Newport Beach and -he remainder of the area covered in the
sanctuary by the Cunningham -Shell Act.
It is also notable that amongst those testifying was Capt. A. J.
Bush of the U. S. Coast Guard who is Captain of the Port in Los Angeles -
Long Beach. Capt. Bush went to great length to explain that there was
no present means of containing massive oil pollution of the type that has
characterized that off of Santa Barbara. Scarcely two months after the
hearing, and despite Mr. Wright's testimony, the disaster occurred at
Santa Barbara and, as predicted by Capt. Bush, the massive oil slick was
certainly not contained despite the heroic efforts of Lt. George Brown
of the U. S. Coast Guard who was the on -scene commander of the efforts to
control the situation in the vicinity of Santa Barbara. As if this were
S
Page 3
not enough, on the 13th of February the City Council discovered that the
State Division of Lands of the State of California had granted permission
to several oil companies to do some geological exploratory drilling off
the shores of Newport Beach, barely over one mile from the harbor entrance.
In the light of previous efforts to undermine the Cunningham -
Shell Act, the City Council can view these so- called exploratory drillings
as nothing but a precursor to commencement of oil production in the sanct-
uary now afforded between the Santa Ana River and the Mexican border.
The position of the City of Newport Beach is that it is opposed
to any new off -shore drilling in the sanctuary provided by the Cunningham -
Shell Act. It is further opposed to any drilling in Federal lands off-
shore of this sanctuary. In regard to the second part of this position,
the Council is convinced that any drilling from adjacent Federal lands
will inevitably result in the State subsequently authorizing drilling on
its lands rather than see a valuable resource be drained at no profit to
the State.
The City Council is also of the very strong opinion that pro-
ducing oil companies should be required to follow the standards for safety
established by the State of California and that these companies should be
subject to inspection by the State of California as well as Federal author-
ities. This position is based on the fact that the State of California
standards are considerably more rigorous than those of the Federal Govern-
ment and that those producing companies who have adhered to the State of
California regulations have not had the type of problem exemplified by
that just off -shore of Santa Barbara. The City is also firmly of the
opinion that the oil companies must be required to provide the necessary
Page 4
equipment to contain any massive oil pollution and must be required to take
the steps necessary to clean up after any incident that would result in
pollution.
The City of Newport Beach recognizes that oil is an essential
commodity. The City is also aware that there are Federal reserves of oil
established in pools well inland of our shores and suggests that there
should be a vigorous study to determine if the inland oil reserves can be
used in the immediate future to serve our petroleum needs and, in lieu
thereof, designate our off -shore areas as oil reserves. The disastrous
effects of blow -outs on inland wells are significantly localized and the
time gained before our reserves have to be tapped can be used to advance
the technology of off -shore drilling.
While massive oil pollution presents the dramatic problem, as
stated previously the City of Newport Beach is greatly concerned about
maintaining and enhancing the quality of water within Newport Harbor.
There is a plethora of information on socio- economic, ecological and
demographic trends. We have heard a great deal about protecting pre-
sently undeveloped estuaries. But in Newport Harbor, we are presented
with the problem of an already highly developed harbor. We are inter-
ested now in such subjects as pollution surveillance systems, technology
and equipment for the protection and enhancement of water quality and
ideas for the future multiple use of our harbor and other estuarine areas
in the immediate vicinity of Newport Beach. We would hope that the
National Estuarine Pollution Study would progress beyond general state-
ments and would provide detailed operational data for the benefit of
those communities who are faced with the same sort of problem that we are.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: NATIONAL ESTUARINE POLLUTION STUDY
3
011711"Pe 71
i
'rf ;ebruary 10, 19 g
The Federal Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 provided three million
dollars for a study of national estuarine areas. The objective was to complete
a study and submit it to Congress by 1 November 1969. The study is being con-
ducted in cooperation with state agencies; in our case, this would be the.
California State Water Resources Control Board.
The scope of the study is to consider socio - economic, ecological, demo-
graphic and industrial trends and the application of new technology in our
estuaries. There will be supplemental studies on such subjects as marine and
boat pollution and pollution surveillance systems. The assumptions for this
study, in part, are that protection of water quality is essential and that there
will be requirements for land use restriction; that there will be pressure for
multiple use of estuarines and that there must be a management partnership amongst
Federal, state and local agencies. The study will be expressed in terms of trends
in 1975, 1985 and in 2000.
In Newport Beach and environs, areas which fit the definition of estuar-
ine in accordance with the Federal Act, are the Santa Ana River mouth, the slough
in Newport Shores, all of our beaches, our lower harbor and the Upper Bay. Specific
interests of Newport Beach would be:
a. Increasing attention of the State Legislature towards water
pollution control;
b. The multiple use of Upper Bay, particularly in view of population
trends;
c. Pollution surveillance and control methods;
d. Marine and boat pollution; and
e. Input into the Goals and Objectives Committee of all of the above
factors.
There are two public hearings scheduled in the month of February, both
of them being joint endeavors of the California State Water Resources Control
Board and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.. The first will be
in San Francisco on the 18th and 19th of February; `the second will be in Los
Angeles on the 25th and 26th of February. The Orange County Harbor District
Mayor and City Council Page 2 February 10, 1969
is planning to attend the Los Angeles meeting and is now considering whether or
not they should submit a statement relative to the Upper Bay development.
With the background of current interest in air pollution and noise
control, I can anticipate that the City will ultimately be involved heavily in
water pollution control and other estuarine affairs. I feel that there is
value in George Dawes.attending the first day of the meeting in San Francisco
in order to determine the approach and attitude of the State Board and Federal
Pollution Control Administration. We will then be prepared on 24 February to
discuss with you the recommended positions to be taken at the hearings in Los
Angeles where we can expect considerable local participation.
HLH /GM:ep
HARVEY L. HURLBURT
Y
L
.... FOR THE NATION'S ESTUARIES
ew
tT N:
I N V I T A T I O N F T
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON A /
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FOR ESTUARIES
As a cooperative endeavor, the California State Water Resources Control
Board and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will co-
sponsor two state -wide estuarine public meetings in February 1969, The
meetings are scheduled for 9 a.m. at the following locations, on the dates
listed-.
San Francisco, California February 18 -19 1969
Room 1194
State of California Building
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102
25
Room 113$
Junipero Serra Building
State of California
107 South Broadway
Los Angeles, California 90012
/n
i
Under mandate of Congress, the U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration is responsible for the preparation
of a comprehensive report on the status of pollution in the Nation's estu-
aries. The report will include:
1. an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the economic
and social well -being of the people of the United States
and of the effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment
of such estuaries;
2, a discussion of the major economic, social and ecological
trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation; and
3. recommendations for a comprehensive national program for
the preservation, study, use and development of estuaries
.... FOR THE NATION'S ESTUARIES
GUIDELINES FOR PRESENTATIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS
ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FOR ESTUARINE AREAS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
San Francisco, California February 18 -19, 1969
Los Angeles, California February 25 -26, 1969
The estuary system of California includes its tidal waters, the shore and
adjacent land, and the biology and ecology of the coastal areas. It is this
total resource on which we wish to receive information at the February 1969
public meetings.
We will be particularly interested in your answers and position on the fol-
lowing types of questions:
What are the values (aesthetic, personal, recreational,
dollar, etc.) of an estuary?
How have they been damaged by pollution, and how much?
What do you think the future of our coastal zones should be?
What are the best uses of our estuaries?
What system of management -- local, State and Federal - -will
best provide for development and protection of our
estuarine resources?
You may have other pertinent points to raise. We are interested in hearing
what you have to say on the subject of pollution, its effects, and its con-
trol in our estuaries.
To provide for an orderly meeting with time available for all, the following
guides are established:
1. Statements should be concise and based upon the subjects of
estuarine pollution and its effects on beneficial uses. It
is suggested that lengthy statements be filed in writing for
inclusion in the meeting record, and a brief aummary of the
statement presented orally.
2. A screen, blackboard, easel and projection equipment (2" x 2"
35 mm slides) will be provided for those wishing to accompany
their presentation with visual aids. Special visual aids will
be the responsibility of those making presentations.
i
r `
4-*- r +j-4
�+ {#
y�+
+
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL ESTUARINE POLLUTION
STUDY
Office of Estuarine Studies
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
July 1967 (Revised March 1968)
INTRODUCTION
The early history of the Nation emphasizes the importance of
estuarine zones and their resources—food for the colonists, avenues
of commerce for the emerging colonies, revolutionary battlefields, and
service entrances to the western goldfields. (The terms, "estuary,"
and "estuarine zone" are defined in Appendix A.) Now the estuaries
provide opportunities for recreation, cooling water for power stations
and industry, and operating bases for the greatest naval force in the
world. Generally, they must continue as necessary habitats for fish
(both fin and shellfish) and waterfowl during important phases of their
respective life cycles.
Belatedly, the Nation recognized that the estuarine zones have
finite boundaries and that a combination of pollution and poor manage-
ment practices has gradually eroded their value for many beneficial
uses. In too many instances, the estuarine zones have become only
an open sewer carrying the wastes of industry, agriculture, and
municipalities into what was thought to be the boundless dilutional
capacity of the oceans.
The technical aspects of pollution control and water quality
enhancement in estuarine areas are infinitely more complicated than
in fresh -water rivers and lakes. The almost unlimited combination
of fresh and salt waters, with variable densities and responses to
river flows and tidal conditions, greatly complicates estuarine pollu-
tion abatement and surveillance. To understand the scope and depth
of the complexities requires the development of a great body of tech-
nical information oriented specifically to the estuarine environment.
These chemical and hydrologic complexities are further com-
pounded by a wide range of climatic conditions ranging from Alaska's
arctic seas to the tropics of Puerto Rico and Hawaii, by tides of 1 to
50 feet, and by a host of geographic forms including the convoluted
marshes of South Carolina and New Jersey, the drowned coast of
Maine, and the fjords of Puget Sound and Alaska.
The public response to the transformation of the estuarine en-
vironment has paralleled the public interest in the pollution of our
fresh -water streams and lakes. This concern manifested itself in the
1965 "shellfish" amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act and in the "Estuarine Study," required by the Clean Water Restora-
tion Act of 1966. (See Appendix A).
The current extent of national interest in sea resources is also
indicated by the passage of the Sea -Grant College Act and the Marine
Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 and by the
release of four major national reports in 1966- 1968. Each report,
listed below, focuses attention on the problems of estuarine pollution.
Oceanography -1966 National Academy of'Sciences -Na-
tional Research Council.
Effective Use of the Sea President's Science Advisory Com-
mittee Panel on Oceanography.
Marine Science Affairs, The First report of the President to
A Year of Transition the Congress on Marine Resources
and Engineering Development.
Marine Science Affairs, The Second Report of the President
A Year of Plans and Progress to the Congress on Marine Resources
and Engineering Development.
i
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 directs the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct a study of the Nation's estuarine zones to
determine the present state of pollution; delineate pollution problems;
evaluate the effects of pollution on beneficial uses; document the
values of estuarine zones; and provide a basis of action for the j
beneficial management of this unique natural resource (Appendix A).
The plans for this estuarine study are presented in outline form.
NATIONAL ESTUARINE POLLUTION STUDY
Authority:
Title 11, Section 5 (g)(1),of the Clean Water Restoration Act of
1966, P.L. 89 -753, November 3, 1966, amending the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seg.)
Objectives:
To prepare a report for the Secretary of the Interior to the Con-
gress which will: (1) document and analyze the various aspects of
estuarine pollution; (2) make recommendations for a comprehensive
National program for the preservation, study, use, and development
of the estuarine zones; and (3) recognize the respective roles of
Federal, State, and local governments plus public and private interests.
Scope:
The Act calls for: a comprehensive study of the effects of
pollution, including sedimentation, in the estuaries and estuarine
zones on beneficial uses and a consideration of use- trends which
will influence future pollution problems, The Act also calls for the
assembly, coordination, and organization of all existing data, the
conduct of surveys to provide supplementary data in representative
estuaries; the identification of problems and areas in need of further
study; analyses of economic and social values of the estuaries; and
a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological trends
as they may influence future pollution problems. The Act directs that
the study be made in cooperation with other government agencies,
private organizations, institutions, and individuals.
Target Date:
The Act directs that a report be submitted to Congress within
three years after enactment. The attainment of this goal requires the
establishment of the following sub - goals:
Cut -off date for project data
— Feb. 1, 1969
Completion of Preliminary Draft — April 1, 1969
Completion of Final Draft
- June 1, 1969
Approval by Secretary
— July 1, 1969
Submission to Congress
— Nov. 1, 1969
The time Schedule i5 tight. Initial delays in project implementa-
tion in FY 1967 preclude any inclusion of additional time for Slippage.
Project Director:
Eugene T. Jensen, Chief
Office of Estuarine Studies, DTS
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U.S. Department of the Interior
633 Indiana Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20242
Telephone: 963 -5872 or IDS Code 13 X35872
FWPCA REGIONAL ESTUARINE PROGRAM COORDINATORS
Mr. John S. Farlow
Mr. Marvin wood
Northeast Region, FWPCA
South Central Region, FWPCA
14th Floor — John F. Kennedy
1114 Commerce Street
Fed. Bldg.
Dallas, Texas 75202.
Boston, Massachusetts 02208
Telephone: (214) 749.2161.
Telephone: (201) 846.4646
Mr. J. Gary Gardner
Mr. James McCarty
Middle Atlantic Region, FWPCA
Southwest Regional Office, FWPCA
800 West Main Street
Room 1802 — 100 McAllister Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (703) 296.1264
Telephone: (415) 884 -3402
Mr. F. J. Silva
Mr. Earl Kari
Southeast Region, FWPCA
Northwest Regional Office,'FWPCA
Room 404 — 50.7th Street, N.E.
Room 570.— Pittock Block
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (404) W-7275
Telephone: .(503) 226 -3914
Method of Study:
Information and data will be obtained through five principal
avenues.
1. Data already in the files of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Field staff of the Administration will be
requested to collect other Statistics or data necessary to
complete certain elements of the report.
2. Consultation with other elements of the Department of the
Interior.
3. Consultation with other Federal, interstate, and State agencies,
private organizations, institutions, National organizations,
and individuals. The following actions are contemplated:
a. Direct consultation with other Federal agencies interested
in estuarine resource problems. (Appendix B)
b. Consultation on a State -by -State basis with agencies in-
terested in estuarine resources and pollution control. (Con-
sultation will be limited to the 24 coastal States, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
District of Columbia; See Fig. 1). The assistance of the
several governors in arranging agency meetings has been
requested through the Office of the Secretary. Subsequent
contacts will be made through the Regional Offices.
c. Direct consultation with interstate agencies and com-
missions, institutions, and National organizations. Institu-
tions will be interpreted to mean universities, colleges,
and private foundations interested in marine Sciences.
National organizations will be interpreted to mean profes-
sional organizations interested in pollution control, con-
servation, and natural resources; non - professional, general
interest organizations Such as General Federation Of
Women's Clubs;'user organizations Such as the National
Association of Manufacturers and interested labor unions.
A tentative list of Selected agencies and organizations
is included. (See Appendixes C & D.)
d. Public meetings in many coastal States, under the direct
sponsorship of Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, hopefully in each case with the assistance of the
Governor's office.
4. Contracts will be used as the primary Source Of information
for socio- economic values, ecological, demographic and in-
dustrial trends, and application of new technology. A National
Conference on Estuarine Research Needs will be Scheduled
for early in 1969 to provide interested engineers, Scientists,
and public administrators with a "last minute" opportunity to
outline and discuss research and Study needs and areas of
opportunity.
5. Supplemental in- house technical Studies, to be concentrated
in the Chesapeake Bay area, will be focused On those aspects
of the Bay which may be typical of estuarine pollution prob-
lems such as;
Management of thermal waste waters
Marine and boat pollution
Management of nutrients
Pollution surveillance systems
Modeling and data display systems
Residual sludge or sediment deposits
Petroleum handling and transport
Allocation of Resources:
Approximately 75% of appropriated funds are used for contracts
with universities, corporations, non- profit institutions, and other
Federal agencies.
Frame of Reference:
The following assumptions will be used in the conduct of this
study:
1. Estuaries have high economic and social values.
2. Attainment of maximum public return from estuarine system
depends on:
a. Protection of water quality
and
b. Land use "restriction"
3. Pressure for multiple use of the estuarine system will increase.
4. There is a need for a continuing, articulated research program
with broad geographic scope.
5. Attainment of maximum public returns calls for a management
partnership among Federal, State, and local agencies.
6. Estuaries cannot be considered independently of their water-
sheds or the Continental Shelf.
Relationship to H.R. 25 et al. (Inventory and Study of
Estuarine Areas)
The testimony on H.R. 25 et al. supported the thesis that es-
tuaries are a valuable natural resource component of the Nation's
total wealth and that special measures are needed to preserve, pro-
tect, and manage this resource. (House Document 90 -3). H.R. 25
also provides that the study and inventory shall be carried out in
conjunction with the comprehensive National Estuarine Pollution
Study.
Preparation of Report:
1. Tabulation of all pertinent data, related to the description of
estuarine zones and the degree of estuarine pollution, will be
undertaken by the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration.
2. Tentative conclusions with respect to National Management
policies will be developed by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration and discussed with the Department of
the Interior Estuarine Advisory Committee.
3. The report will be prepared in three parts:
1 PART I— An Executive Report, approximately 12 pages, in-
tended for broad public distribution.
PART II — A formal Report to the Congress, including the
following sections:
a. introduction, including authority for the study.
b. Action recommendations.
c. Summary and conclusions.
d. Description of the Nation's estuarine system.
e. Effects of pollution on the estuarine system.
f. Effects of use trends on water quality. (Trends will be ex-
pressed in terms of the years 1975, 1985, and 2000).
g. Socio-economic characteristics and values of the estuarine
system.
h. Ecological role of the estuary.
i. Demographic trends.
j. institutional systems for estuarine management. includes
Federal authority.
k. Research and study. needs.
!1 PART III — Supporting data, including full reports from in-
dividual contractors, responses from States and other interested
groups, etc.
A. Sufficient copies of each Part will be prepared for distribution
to all interested parties, public and private, as required by
the Act.
Mator5na Tether, t
polluuom study. the
70 stet, as93
75 stat, x053 the
79 stat, 9031 am
33 MC sees. tw
on
the
the
be i
for
the
TITLE II
Act is amended by adding at the and thereof
tions:
v shall. in enumeration with the Secretary of
ens, Ioowil fuels,
d anderoeimr c
sates, moon the t
tow
mtemxwte nver or areas or mute
into.] connection with open sus
measurably diluted with fmah we
old ether uses of mtaaries and
i of the waters therein.
,idy, the,Seamtary stall asesmbk,
ing perunarK inffoorral6on on the
M; carry out a program of'investi-
saiding information in repreasnt-
a and identify the problems and
i�y+te tegni
L to the ('engreea a final report of aspen to
dos not Inter than three years after commas,.
action. (,%I a of the. report shall
poh ies,. public and private. The
ed to-
ortance of eetoariesto the economic
)ple of the I inited States and of the
at and enjoyment of such estuaries-
jor economic, will, and xologicaj
as lanes of the Nation ;
a can hehensive national projpam
e, and development of estuaries of
e iesponeibililiol which should be
d local governments and by public
ht ruprimed the sum of $],IMM3,1MM1 Appropriation.
nddmg J one 30, 1967, June 80, 19843,
wrposes of this eubeaction.
bextion, the term `estuarine zones` ^ratarina
onaismg of an estuary and those erne.;
nHly influenced oregxted by water
imiled to, salt in
salt and
Dons, inshore waters, and cha nel%
part of the mouth of a navigable or •sera,,,,
body of water having vnimpumj
and within which the lea water is
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Atomic Energy Commission
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Army
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Health. Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Federal Power Commission
General Services Administration
National Academy of Sciences— National Academy of Engineers
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
Water Resources Council
APPENDIX A
Public Law 89 -753
89th Congress, S. 2947
November 3, 1966
21n 21a
'
sO. sTAT. 1216
To aweeL de Federal water Potation Control stn In order to Improve and make
mom ed4etim ."at. orposs w puraoat 0 late AeL
Be. it enacted by the Senate and /loose of Representatives of the
United Seabee 0 Ama,ka in Oemgreu ase,mbled That this Act may
*lean.IVater
clean oter No-
m
be cited as the 966-
Restoration Act of 1
torasion met or
1966.
Mator5na Tether, t
polluuom study. the
70 stet, as93
75 stat, x053 the
79 stat, 9031 am
33 MC sees. tw
on
the
the
be i
for
the
TITLE II
Act is amended by adding at the and thereof
tions:
v shall. in enumeration with the Secretary of
ens, Ioowil fuels,
d anderoeimr c
sates, moon the t
tow
mtemxwte nver or areas or mute
into.] connection with open sus
measurably diluted with fmah we
old ether uses of mtaaries and
i of the waters therein.
,idy, the,Seamtary stall asesmbk,
ing perunarK inffoorral6on on the
M; carry out a program of'investi-
saiding information in repreasnt-
a and identify the problems and
i�y+te tegni
L to the ('engreea a final report of aspen to
dos not Inter than three years after commas,.
action. (,%I a of the. report shall
poh ies,. public and private. The
ed to-
ortance of eetoariesto the economic
)ple of the I inited States and of the
at and enjoyment of such estuaries-
jor economic, will, and xologicaj
as lanes of the Nation ;
a can hehensive national projpam
e, and development of estuaries of
e iesponeibililiol which should be
d local governments and by public
ht ruprimed the sum of $],IMM3,1MM1 Appropriation.
nddmg J one 30, 1967, June 80, 19843,
wrposes of this eubeaction.
bextion, the term `estuarine zones` ^ratarina
onaismg of an estuary and those erne.;
nHly influenced oregxted by water
imiled to, salt in
salt and
Dons, inshore waters, and cha nel%
part of the mouth of a navigable or •sera,,,,
body of water having vnimpumj
and within which the lea water is
APPENDIX B
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Atomic Energy Commission
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Army
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Health. Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Federal Power Commission
General Services Administration
National Academy of Sciences— National Academy of Engineers
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
Water Resources Council
7
Y'
APPENDIX C
INTERSTATE AGENCIES AND COMMISSIONS
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Delaware River Basin Commission
Gulf River Basin Commission
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
New England River Basin Commission
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Pacific River Basin Commission
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL
A. Water Pollution Control, Conservation and National Resource
Atlantic Estuarine Research Association
American Conservation Association, Inc.
American Fisheries Society
American Littoral Society
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc.
Artie Institute of North America
Boat Owners Council of America
Boy Scouts of America
Citizens Committee on Natural Resources
The Conservation Foundation
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Ecological Society of America
Izaak Walton League of America
National Association of Soil and Water Conservation
National Audubon Society
National Parks Association
National Waterfowl Council
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Council of America
The Nature Conservancy
Outboard Boating Club of America
Outdoor Writers Association of America, Inc.
Oyster Institute of North America
Resources for the Future, Inc.
Sierra Club
Sport Fishing Institute
Water Pollution Control Federation
Wilderness Society
Wildlife Management Institute
Wildlife Society
B. General Interest Organizations
The Garden Club of America
General Federation of Women's Clubs
League of Women Voters of the U.S.
Districts
C. User Organizations
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.
National Association of Manufacturers
National Fisheries Institute
D. State and local governments
American Institute of Planners
American Society of Planning Officials
Council of State Governments '
International City Managers Association
National Association of Counties
National League of Cities
United States Conference of Mayors
E. Interested labor unions
U. % GOVERNMWT PRINTING OFFICE: IBBB 0- 909 -413
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the United States
Department of the Interior works to ensure that nonrenewable re-
sources are developed and used wisely, that park and recreational
resources are conserved for the future, and that renewable resources
contribute fully to the progress, prosperity, and security of the United
States —now and in the future.
<
i
� k
National Estuarine Pollution Study, USDI, FWPCA
July 1967 (Revised March 1968)
ERRATA SHEET
FWPCA REGIONAL ESTUARINE PROGRAM COORDINATORS
Mr. James McCarty
Pacific Southwest Region, FWPCA
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 556 -6082
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA City Hall
3300 W. Newport Blvd..
Area Code 714.
673 -2110
November 12, 1968
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Orange
Gentlemen:
Statement of
Mayor Doreen Marshall
of the City of Newport Beach
concerning the Upper Newport
Bay Land Exchange
I appreciate this opportunity to convey to you the views of
the Newport Beach City Council concerning the disagreement
which has arisen between you and the Irvine Company about the
Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange.
As you know, the City Council has consistently supported the
Land Exchange Agreement and general development plan. We
sincerely believe that it is the only financially feasible way
of developing the Upper Bay within the foreseeable future in
a manner which provides substantial public benefit as well as
private benefit. It is obvious that the water area owned by
the County will continue to be of little use to the public
until such time as access is provided from the surrounding
upland areas. If the proposed plan is carried out, the follow-
ing benefits would accrue to the public;
1. The area under public jurisdiction would be increased from
about 400 to 750 acres, or more than 86 %.
2. The area available for public park and beach use would be
increased from 70 to 261 acres or by 273 %.
3. Public access to the waterfront would be increased by 193 %.
It was pointed out at the hearing on September 25, 1967, before
the State Lands Commission by its consultants that a massive
expenditure of public funds to acquire land presently in pri-
vate ownership surrounding the Upper Bay would be necessary in
order to pursue any alternative development plans. None of
the critics of the proposed land exchange has suggested any
realistic method of securing such funds.
We were distressed to learn of the Irvine Company's intention
to withdraw from the exchange agreement and to proceed to
r 9
Honorable Board of Supervisors -2- November 12, 1968
develop as residential islands the land under its ownership
which was to be exchanged with the County. If this intention
is carried out it would seriously impair the objective of
developing the Upper Bay in a manner which adequately provides
for public use.
It would be regrettable if the dream of developing the Upper
Bay were to be abandoned after the many years of effort that
have been devoted to bringing it so close to realization. We
wish to commend your Board for its dedicated efforts to achieve
the goal of developing the Upper Bay, and to assure you of our
wholehearted support and cooperation. We urge you to persevere
in your efforts to work out a mutually acceptable solution to
the pproblems which are preventing completion of the Upper Bay
development.
Doreen Marshall
Mayor, City of Newport Beach
DMamh
- yt
JISTP— TI on/
0UUncC1 (_
C` ( 1- `� /Yt l t a�( ✓}Gtr
C try e LLf/t y(
6 co P,ws -p
�'UK Y'STIZr�(JTroN
< s TM, 3 0
L.. tl}
h'l l>- y owr s
/l— 01-6 d'
/R-r 14 e-4kr- • N G-
., a
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA City Hall
3300 W. Newport Blvd.
Area Code 714
673 -2110
November 12, 1968
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Orange
Statement of
Mayor Doreen Marshall
of the City of Newport Beach
concerning the Upper Newport
Baz Land Excw_MAI '
Gentlemen:
I appreciate this opportunity to convey to you the views of
the Newport Beach City Council concerning the disagreement
which has arisen between you and the Irvine Company about the
Upper Newport Bay Land Exchange.
As you know, the City Council has consistently supported the
Land Exchange Agreement and general development plan. We
sincerely believe that it is the only financially feasible way
of developing the Upper Bay within the foreseeable future in
a manner which provides substantial public benefit as well as
private benefit. It is obvious that the water area owned by
the County will continue to be of little use to the public
until such time as access is provided from the surrounding
upland areas. If the proposed plan is carried out, the follow-
ing benefits would accrue to the public
1. The area under public jurisdiction would be increased from
about 400 to 750 acres, or more than 86 %.
2. The area available for public park and beach use would be
increased from 70 to 261 acres or by 273 %.
3. Public access to the waterfront would be increased by 193 %.
It was pointed out at the hearing on September 25, 1967, before
the State,Lands Commission by its consultants that a massive
expenditure of public funds to acquire land presently in pri-
vate ownership surrounding the Upper Bay would be necessary in
order to pursue any alternative development plans. None of
the critics of the proposed land exchange has suggested any
realistic method of securing such funds.
We were distressed to learn of the Irvine Company °s intention
to withdraw from the exchange agreement and to proceed to
Honorable Board of Supervisors -2. November 12, 1968
develop as residential islands the land under its ownership
which was to be exchanged with the County. If this intention
is carried out it would seriously impair the objective of
developing the Upper Bay in a manner which adequately provides
for public use.
It would be regrettable if the dream of developing the Upper
Bay were to be abandoned after the many years of effort that
have been devoted to bringing it so close to realization. We
wish to commend your Board for its dedicated efforts to achieve
the goal of developing the Upper Bay, and to assure you of our
wholehearted support and cooperation. We urge you to persevere
in your efforts to work out a mutually acceptable solution to
the problems which are preventing completion of the Upper Bay
development,
Doreen Marshall
Mayor, City of Newport Beach
DMsmh
rr !� "
On behalf of the Newport Beach City Council, I i4sh to express our con
tern over the breakdown in negotiations between. the County and the Irvine
Company which has jeopardizes, completion of tlha Upper Newport Bay1and
Fxcl .
For many years this City Council has closely followed progress of negoti-
ations an& legal steps Miich have led to the present stage in the program
for the planned development of the Upper Day. On several occasions the
Council has publicly expressed its support for tine proposed development
plans, mid puis urged the approval of the Land. Exchtu:ge Agreement by the
State Lands Commission. We have consistently stated the position that
the plans for development of the Upper Bay, based upon the Land Exchange
Agreement_, offer the only feasible method for development of the Upper
Gay within the foreseeable future, in a manner which strikes an equitable
'balance between public and private interests.
lie believe that it would be a tragedy if the existing plans for the develop-
ment of the Upper Bay are not carried forward to completion, and we urge
your Honorable Board to make every effort to work out a solution to the
problems which are impeding further progress.
Very truly yours,
DOHpEEN MARS1iAU
Mayor
al:pg
cc: Mr. Alton E. Allen, Supervisor Sth District
Mr. William Mason, Irvine Company
Can Swap Flop?
County Hoping to Save Land Pact
By TOM BARLEY
Of fh5 Oai1Y Pibt Staff
Can the Irvine Company back out of
the back bay land swap?
That was the question being . asked lo-
day.around Orange County Civic Center
as County Counsel Adrian Kuyper's aides .
feverishly scrutinized the Upper Newport
Bay agreement.
Kuyper and County Administrator
Robert Thomas have no comment to
make other than to vonf }rm supervlM.
Chairman C. Al. Featherly's "ernest
hope" that "the problems outlined in the
Irvine Company's letter can he satisfac-
torily solved through mutual effort and
we can continue on to a successful com-
pletion of the project we have all en-
visioned."
Featherly made the statement Monday
after discussing the three -day old Irvine
letter of withdrawal with his four col-
leagues who returned Monday from a
weekend conference at. ld}dly ild in
BAS' SW Va.
Riverside County.
Featherly called the Irvine Company's
decision to give 99 days notice of its
withdrawal — as provided for in the 1965
pact — a tragedy.
"This project has been many, marry
years in its creation and involved the ef-
fort of many people," Featherly said.
"The lower Newport Bay is the finest
recreational harbor on the WeA Coast
(See BAY SWAP, Page 2)
and it is logical and natural that the Up-
per Bay should compliment and extend
this fine recreational facility..."
Featherly said he would `personally
deplore" the loss of the "opportunity to
develop the great recreational asset
simply because of certain costs which,
though substantial, pale before the multi-
million dollar benefits which this ex-
change can make possible,"
Featherly added that he hoped the
Irvine Company "would see, its way" to
now reviewing it position.
But Irvine Company President William
R. Mason today refused to comment
further on his notice of withdrawal.
"We have not yet been approached by
the county," he said. "And until we are I
have nothing to add to what we outlined
'a • "parch 16, 1n68
City Council
Newport Beach
May we cordinlly invite you to send a representative
to a meeting which i_ -. -of the Orange County Group, Sierra Club,
the Sea and Sage Audubon Society and the Orange Coast Civic
g
asociation- -are sponsoring toet'aar ? Topics of discussion will
be water quality and wildlife at Upper Newport Bay, and we thought
that the city of Newport Beach might be interested in these
general areas of discussion.
We would appreciate knowing who the City's representative
might be and would be glad to furnish more information about this
meeting.
Your call will be appreciated.
Sincerely Yours
2507 Via Marina
Newport Beach
California 92660
,
`� :
9
rLL r•:q --e
Mrs. Howard S. Babb
II E R N E W P OR T B A Y
Orange County's most priceless resourcA
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLE'S
WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOWEdT2
� O s
I
IN
1 1
� 1
N1
1
J F Solid line indicates
s�
natural bay boundary.
l�
>,�
Sy Dotted line indicates
planned realignment.
We cordially invite you and your friends
to attend our jointly- sponsored. meeting
Monday, March 11, 7s30 P.M.
Little Theater, Corona del liar High School
2101 Eastbluff Dr., Corona del Mar
# A panel of experts will discass the consequences
of present plans for recreation and ecology, *
We will enjoy being your hosts for this informative evening, j
Mr. Kenneth W. Tanksley, president, SEA AND SAGE AUDUBON SOCIETr
Rev. Edo-rard P. Allen, president, ORANGE COAST CIVIC ASSOCIATION
NIrs, Howard S. Babb, conservation committee, ORANGE COUNTY GROUP
SIERRA CLUB
(Those who come south from Santa Ana on MacArthur Blvd, should-turn
right on Ford Rd. At the intersection with Jamboree Rd., the name
changes from Ford Rd. to Eastbluff. - - Those who come south on
Coast Highway from Newport Beach, or north from Laguna Beach, should-
turn north on Jamboree Rd, to Eastbluff Dr., then turn left to Corona
I