Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCASTAWAYS_MARINA_PLOT_FINAL_EIR_RESPONSES1111111111111111111111 lill 1111111 CASTAWAYS_MARI NA PLOT_ FINAL EIR RESPONSES THE IRVINE COMPANY CASTAWAYS MARINA PROJECT SUMMARYf'- APPENDIX D June 2,1993 n LJ TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX D 1. "Castaways Marina Final Environmental Impact Report - Response to Comments Addendum" prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates, State Clearinghouse #88081016, November, 1991 2. "Report of Geotechnical Exploration - Proposed Castaways Marina - Newport Beach, California" prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County, Project No. 90-32155-01, July 19, 1990 3. "Test Excavation of a Portion of CA-Ora-84, Newport Beach, Orange County, California" prepared by RMN Paleo Associates, Project No. 89'-11801 May 9, 1990 4. "Castaways Marina, Engineering Study and Feasibility Report" prepared by Cash & Associates Engineers, Project No. 2492.01, August 26, 1987 • 5. "Castaways Marina Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedi- mentation" prepared by Rivertech Inc., July 16, 1987 6. Memorandum and Pacific Bell Plan regarding "Location and Status of Submarine Cable in Newport Say", November, 1992 i CASTAWAYS MARINA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM 11 is I• Castaways Marina a I E a 10a0o Final Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments Addendum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIVED • NOV 2 0 1991 CASH & ASSOCIATES CASTAWAYS MARINA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ADDENDUM State Clearinghouse #88081016 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 Contact: Patricia L. Temple Prepared by: L Michael Brandman Associates Carnegie Centre 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 250-5555 Contact: Beverly Bruesch, AICP 0 November 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS • Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1-1 • 2 LIST OF COMMENTORS, COMMENTS, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................. 2-1 3 ATTACHMENTS ....................................... 3-1 A. Comment Letters B. Conceptual Biological Mitigation Plan for Loss of Mudflat and Shallow Subtidal Habitat C. Additional References Cited D. County of Orange Ordinance No. 2200 J=0064001 I.TC 1 0 0 • SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Castaways Marina, and has prepared written responses to said comments. The "Response to Comments Addendum" becomes a part of the Final EIR for the subject project, in accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 2 of this document includes a list of those persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting of the Draft EIR. The list is followed by restatement of the written comments received on the Draft EIR, and the City's responses to the major environmental points raised by the written comments. Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are required, the responses indicate this by presenting the revised text (deleted material is shown with an overstrike [ and new material is underlined fas shown by this examolel). Also note that many comments are related to the project and do not raise environmental issues or request additional information. These comments are responded to with, "The comment is noted; no response is required." Section 3 includes attachments or supporting material referenced in the responses to comments, including (A) copies of the comment letters, (B) a copy of the conceptual mitigation plan for the loss of mudflat and shallow subtidal habitat, (C) a list of additional references cited in this addendum, and (D) a copy of the County of Orange Ordinance 2200. tB21ooe40ott.I. 1-1 SECTION 2 • LIST OF COMMENTORS, COMMENTS, AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS • 11 Following a list of commentors, this section includes responses to all written comments on the Draft EIR received during the Draft EIR review period. Each comment from each letter is restated in full, then is followed by a response. Copies of the comment letters are provided for reference in Section 3.A. JB2/00640011.2a 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTORS I. FEDERAL AGENCIES Comment and Response Page No, I.A. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... I-1 I.B. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service .......................... I-2 LL IL STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCIES II.A. Governor's Office of Planning and Research ................... II-1 H.B. State Lands Commission ............................... II-2 II.C. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 12........................................ II-7 H.D. California Department of Fish and Game ..................... II-8 II.E. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region .................................... II-9 M. LOCAL AGENCIES M.A. County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency ........................ III-1 M.B. City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services Manager .......................... III-2 IV. INTERESTED PARTIES N.A. Terrell Watt, AICP.................................. N-1 N.B. Friends of Newport Bay ............................... N-9 N.C. Sea & Sage Audubon ................................ N-12 N.D. Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D.............................. IV-14 N.E. Cliff Haven Community Association ....................... IV-19 N.F. James Kociuba.................................... IV-22 N.G. City of Newport Beach, Environmental Quality Affairs Committee ................... N-24 N.H. Bayshores Community Association ........................ N-25 • JB2\00640011.RTC 2-2 9 • I.A. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service (October 10, 1991) Comment I.A-1. Intertidal mudflats and shallow subtidal areas are among the highest habitat value and most scarce habitat types in southern California. They can provide food for very large numbers and many types of shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, and diving birds. The state and federal endangered California least tern breeds at Upper Newport Bay and relies on this "shallow water" habitat for food. The proposed marina expansion would destroy or degrade these important habitat types. Were a federal permit action pending, the Service would likely recommend denial of the permit application for the proposed project. On the other hand, we would have little objection to a project which included excavation of the new marina basin, little dredge or fill and few slips in the channel area. Response I.A-1. Comments are noted for the record. These comments do not address the Draft EIR; nor do they raise environmental issues not already addressed in the Draft EDi (i.e., habitat loss). Please note that alternatives to the proposed project have been evaluated in the Draft EIR which would reduce the amount of dredging compared to the proposed project (the 121- boat, 84-boat, and 50-boat alternatives are addressed in Section 6 of the Draft EIR). Also, see response to comment I.B-1 which evaluates a 60- boat alternative that includes a new marina basin but no pier. JB2J00640011.RTC I-1 0 • I.B. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NationaU Marine Fisheries Service (October 7, 1991) Comment I.B-1. We believe that avoidance or minimization of impacts to high value habitats should be vigorously pursued. As a consequence, we are concerned over the loss of mudflat and shallow water habitat that would occur with implementation of the proposed project and all of the alternatives described, with the exception of the no project alternative. In order to reduce these impacts, we believe consideration should be given to an alternative which includes excavation of the marina basin in the Lower Castaways area but eliminates all slips in the channel area. Dredging requirements, and subsequent impacts to high value intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, would be minimal with this alternative. Response I.B-1. N an alternative were considered which would eliminate the pier structure altogether, it would have impacts similar to those of the 121-boat alternative with the exception of impacts associated with in -bay dredging. Such an alternative would reduce the amount of in -bay excavation but would not substantially alter impacts to the mudflat and halibut nursery habitats since these habitats are located primarily at the mouth of the proposed new marina and would be dredged under any of the marina alternatives at this site. IWJW640011.RTC The following table presents data for a new marina basin (such as that in the 121-boat alternative, but without the pier structure (as conceptualized, it would include approximately 60 boat slips). New Marina Basin Without 121-Boat Slip Pier Structure Alternative Alternative Estimated amount of dredging Dry material (cu. yds) 56,000 56,000 Wet material (cu. yds) 6,450 11.000 Total (cu. yds) 62,450 67,000 Halibut NOY Nursery) Removed (acres) -0.24 -0.24 Created (acres) +0.03 +0.03 Net Loss (acres) -0.21 -0.21 Halibut (Juvenile) Removed (acres) 0.00 0.0 Created (acres) +2.50 +2.50 Net Gain (acres) 2.50 +2.50 I-2 • • • Mudflat Removed (acres) -0.29 -0.34 Created (acres) 0_00 0_00 Net Loss (acres) -0.29 -0.34 As shown from the above table, this alternative would result in less dredging than the 121-boat alternative (approximately 4,550 cubic yards less). It would result in the same amount of halibut habitat alteration as the 121-boat alternative, but less (approximately 0.05 acre) mudflat loss. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the 84-boat, 121- boat, and 125-boat alternatives but would not be economically feasible due to the costs of developing and maintaining the marina. Comment I.B-2. PagQ 5.4-1 . It is stated that the additional boats introduced by the project will increase the incidence of oil and fuel spills and, therefore, contribute to cumulatively significant water quality degradation in Newport Bay. The mitigation measures described on page 5.5-21, while reducing the potential impact, will not eliminate those effects. Additional mitigation to offset any remaining impacts should be proposed. Response I.B-2. No additional mitigation measures beyond those identified on pages 5.4-15 and 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR are available which can be implemented by the project applicant or City of Newport. The City will grant full consideration to any measures identified through the hearing process. The proposed Castaways Marina would involve minimal risk of a spill, because no fueling station would be located at the proposed marina, and the lease agreement would prohibit major boat cleaning (boat painting, scraping) and maintenance. These regulations will be enforced on a daily basis. Thus, the risk of a discharge of pollutants associated with the marina would be minimal, and the mitigation measures as proposed in the Draft EIR are considered adequate. Comment I.B-3. Paze 5.5-20. It is assumed that the new marina basin will be utilized by California halibut in a manner similar to the existing habitat proposed for dredging. Evidence from similar projects to support this statement should be provided. Response I.B-3. Preface: The data supporting the information presented on page 5.5-20 under "Halibut Nursery Loss" was reanalyzed during the preparation of the Draft EIR, and incorporated into Table 6-1 (Alternatives), page 64 but not updated in Table 5.5.4 and the text on page 5.5-20. The text on page 5.5-20 regarding Halibut Nursery Loss is hereby revised as follows (please see Attachment C in Section 3 of this document for additional references cited): ]B2/006WI t.RTC "A permanent deepening of the subtidal halibut nursery habitat will result from channel dredging. A total of 140,970 square feet (3.2 acres) of halibut nursery habitat at depths between -1.5 and -10 feet MLLW will be deepened to approximately -8 to -10 feet MLLW. The deepening of this habitat will reduce the available habitat are& quality, espeeially for newly settled young-of- I-3 the -year (YOY) less than EO nun in length whieh. These individuals • prefer depths less than 1 meter 0.21 feet . The net amount of affected area associated with YOY habitat loss is 12,175 square feet (0.28 acre). Juvenile and subadult halibut (greater than 50 mm in lenzth prefer water depths between 3.2 and 10 feet MLLW (Kramer and Hunter 1988). A total of 2.89 acres of this habitat in the main channel will be recontoured to a maximum channel depth of -8 to -10 feet MLLW, at —the e tPem- lower depth range preferenee within the depth ranges for juveniles and subadults. The -- The reduction of the shallow subtidal YOY halibut nursery habitat (0.28 acre) is a significant local impact but is not expected to be a significant regional impact. This impact is mitigable to below a level of significance by the in -kind mitigation of shallow subtidal YOY nursery habitat (depths between -3.21 and -1.5 feet MLLW) at Shellmaker Island in Upper Newport Bay and with maintenance of water quality and sediment quality in the Castaways Marina Basin that provides suitable nursery area for halibut. Habitat for larzer-Iuv_enRes and subadults in the deeper habitats in the channel will be temporarily affected by channel dredging. However, the depths to which the channel will be recontoured will remain within the ranee reported for iuvenile and subadult halibut in Upper and Lower Newport Bay (Allen 49891988 Hom and Allen 1981 Marine Bioloeical Consultants and Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (1980). Allen (1976). and Posejpal _ (1969) and other bays and harbors in Southern California (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1984). MEC Analytical Systems 1988) Kramer (1990) Ngr- t(12S. and Ford (1986). Therefore, no lone -term reduction or loss of juvenile and subadult halibut habitat is expected to occur in the main channel at depths between -3.21 and -10 feet MLLW and mitieation measures to replace this, habitat are not required The addition (creation) of the marina basin is a Rptentialiy beneficial impact because it increases juvenile and subadult halibut habitat in the Upper Bay by 2.96 acres if water _ and sediment quality are adequate to support and maintain fish Ropulations This beneficial impact however is not intended as mitigation measure for the loss of halibut nursery habitat. In addition, project design alternatives which could reduce halibut nursery impacts are discussed in Section 6.0." In summaa is acknowledged in the Draft EIR and provided for in the • restoration of shallow subtidal habitat (depths -3.21 to -1.5 feet MLLW) on Shellmaker Island, as described in the Draft Conceptual MV00640011.RTC 1-4 • Mitigation Plan for the Loss of Mudflat and Subtidal Habitats (EIP Associates 1991). Recontoured bottom depths in the main channel will still be within halibut nursery habitat would result, no long-term impacts to halibut populations are net expected and thus no mitigation is r uired• The addition of the subtidal habitat in the new marina basin is a used as a mitigation measure for YOY halibut nursery loss. The marina basin will potentially provide additional habitat for juvenile and subadult %shes if water quality and sediment quality are maintained. The use of the marina basin however, is not assumed to be as important channel again on a frequent if not regular basis This is likely to occur for two reasons: (1) the depths in the marina basin will be within the nth range of iuvenile and subadult halibut that occur in the main channels and side marina channels of both Newport Harbor and the wetland channels of Upper Newport Bay. and (2) based upon tidal circulation modeling performed for the Castaways project by Noble Consultants tidal exchange is expected to be adequate to maintain acceptable levels of dissolved oxygen needed to support marine life. A benefit of the project location is that the marina be situated within an area of the bay that is of relatively Food water quality and well flushed by tidal action. Previous studies support the hvpothesis that marina basins (and dredged boattharbor channels and dredged wetland channels) are capable of guppgrting California halibut when water quality and sediment quality are maintained These studies include marina basin studies for the Sunroad Marina Project in San Diego Bay, San Diego County (Ford 1986) and Huntington Harbour in Orange County MC MS 1972 personal observations) and Allen 4989 (1988). Ford (1986) conducted marine resource surveys in the West Basin (a developed marina basin) and East Basin (an existing site to be dredged for a new marina) of Harbor Island in San Diego Bay. The study compared marine habitats and biota found in the two areas, assessed the value of habitats that would be disturbed or modified by dredging for the Sunroad Marina Project and assessed the value of new substances and habitats that would result from the project. Fish sampling was conducted using beach seines, other trawls, and minnow seines Although eelgrass was found in the West Basin. sampling • was limited to areas of the Marina basin beneath and among the south shore marina boat slips where eelgrass (Zostera marina) was absent. 764I00640011.RTC I-5 Eelgrass was present within the sampling area in the East Basin Results • of both fish and invertebrate studies "indicate very clearly that both the East Basin and West Basin support assemblages of fish species t}pical of central and outer San Diego Bay. Particularly important is the fact that small and largeiuvenile fishes of nearly all species were found in both the East and West Basins These include Yung -of -the -year juveniles of the conditions exist in both the East and West Basins to support the development of these ygung stages" and "All of these results suggest very strongly that the West Basin with its large and very active marina supports an assemblage of fishes very similar to that of the East Basin, in terms of species composition abundance of individual specim and size characteristics of the individuals" (Ford 1986. pp A-1 to A-13). Huntington Harbour channels and marina basins were dredged between channels and basins at various stages of completion A total of 41 species the dredged marina basins and channels In 1972 water quality and biological conditions including fish and invertebrate catches were poor in cul-de-sac areas located on the eastern side of the harbor where circulation was limited More recently, iuvenile halibut were observed by divers in marina channels adjacent to the main channel. Halibut were present in • the Sunset Aquatic Park Access Channel during 1983 and 1988• in Bolsa Channel durine 1988 and Trinidad Cove in 1986 (personal observations: MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1985. 1986. and 1988). Recent area (Allen and Herbinson 1990). Allen (1988) conducted fish studies in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological located above the dike Results of icthyofauna and adult fish sampling conducted in dredged material indicated that the waters between Shelimaker Island and the dike are halibut nursery areas. Halibut. however, occurred as far inland as the newly created habitat near Jamboree bridge. The distribution of halibut was correlated to the deeper, cooler higher salinity waters of the Upper By. These environmental conditions occur in the channel next to the proposed Castaways marina site. and enhance the likelihood for recovery of the dredged channel bottom. Lastly. Allen (1976) conducted fish studies in both Newport Harbor and U per Newport Bay. Iris findings indicated that the percent of the total number of halibut captured was slightly greater in Newport Harbor than Upper Newport Bay. The areas most important to halibut measured on the basis of the Index of Relative Importance (IRA were the north and south sides of Lido Isle, and south of Balboa Island. These areas are JM/00640011.RTC 1-6 characterized by numerous boat moorings docks high levels of boat traffic, and harbor related business and homes lining the waterfront. • These studies indicate that Juvenile halibut are found in marina basins, harbor channels and artificially deepened wetland channels in Orange and San Diezo counties Young -of -the -year individuals are found in the shallower habitats less than 1 meter (3.21 feet) deep. whereas juveniles the main channel of Uoner Newport Bay and use the Castaways marina basin habitat as well. Comment I.B-4. Identification of the specific location of the proposed mitigation sites(s) should be included in the final document. Response I.B-4. A draft conceptual mitigation plan for the loss of mudflat and shallow subtidal habitat was prepared by EIP Associates and is included Attachment B in Section 3 of this document. Shellmaker Island is proposed as the mitigation area. Its proposal as the mitigation site for the project was made in consultation with, and conceptually approved by, California Department of Msh and Game biologists and the Region 5 Manager. The project will involve the removal of dredge material from the island, and lowering the existing contours to mudflat and shallow subtidal elevations. The specific mitigation site is located immediately north of an existing channel cut that bisects Shellmaker Island. Selection of the site conforms to the goals of the Department's Management Plan • for the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve to improve the fishery resources of the reserve by increasing nursery, foraging, and spawning grounds. There will be no net loss of sensitive wetland habitat as a result of this mitigation project. Comment I.B-5. ire 5.5-23. The proposed monitoring program should include sampling in the marina basin to ensure that the new habitat created in this area is in fact utilized by California halibut. If habitat equivalency between the new marina basin habitat and the former channel habitat does not exit by the end of the monitoring program (i.e., after five years) then additional mitigation should be proposed. Response I.B-5. As discussed in the response to comment I.B-39 the new marina is not proposed to be used as mitigation for loss of shallow subtidal halibut habitat and there is no net loss of juvenile and subadult halibut habitat in the main charnel. Therefore, sampling in the marina or the dredged habitat in the main channel is not required. JB2100640011.RTC The draft conceptual mitigation plan currently identifies a mitigation monitoring program that will involve sampling young -of -the -year and older age class halibut populations prior to and following habitat restoration at Shellmaker Island and comparing the results over a 5-year period with sampling conducted at another location in the bay that has been identified as a halibut nursery area. The selection of this site will be made with the assistance of the California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine F7sheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I-7 One option would be to locate a station in the main channel in the vicinity . of the proposed marina. Another would he to locate the sampling station nearer to the Shellmaker Island mitigation site. If habitat equivalency between the two sites cannot he demonstrated after 5 years of monitoring, additional mitigation measures will be proposed. 1] 0 JBV0064001 LRTC 1-8 0 • 0 H.A. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (October 79 1991) Comment MA-1. The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft anvtrnnmentn1 dncumentq_ pursuant to the California Environmental Oualitv H.B. STATE LANDS COMMSSION (October 3, 1991) • Comment II.B-1. There appears to be a general lack of significance criteria. Without these criteria the document resorts to conclusionary statements of impacts which are unsupported by evidence in the record. Furthermore, without significance criteria there is no way to measure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures and the residual impacts. Response U.B-1. Although significance criteria are not formally delineated in the Draft MR, the impact analysis discussion for each issue includes explanations as to why identified impacts are considered significant or not significant. Therefore, the significance criteria for each issue evaluated are implicit in the impact analyses. Comment II.B-2. The project description should include a clear discussion of liveaboards, public access, waste disposal and drainage provisions. It should also show past, present, and future (proposed project) bulkhead and pierlines. The impacts of any channel width reduction must then be analyzed for impacts to access and navigation. Response II.B-2. See response to Comment IV.A-14 regarding liveaboards, public access, _ waste disposal, and drainage. Bulkhead and pierhead lines are shown on Exhibit 3-3 of the Draft EEL Exhibit 3 3 also shows that the proposed pier would not reduce the width of the main and alternate navigation channels (each of which is 100 feet wide). The established lines are PJ considered acceptable by the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange. Comment II.B-3. We appreciate the fact that the no -project alternative is being considered by the City of Newport Beach. However, the EIR should, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)2, identify which of the remaining project alternatives is environmentally superior. Response H.B-3. 121-boat-slips alternative - As stated in the first paragraph on page 6-5 of the Draft EIR, this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, and would be economically feasible according to the project applicant. 84-boat-slipN alternative - As stated in the third paragraph on page 6-6 of the Draft EIR, this alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project; however, it is not economically feasible according to the project applicant. 50-boat-slips alternative - As stated in the last paragraph on page 6-7 of the Draft EM, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project; however, it is not economically feasible according to the project applicant. ]B2100640011.RTC II-2 Alternative project site location - As stated in the last paragraph on page • 6-8 of the Draft EIR, no site -spec comparison of an alternative project site within Orange County to the proposed project site is possible due to the unavailability of feasible site alternatives. Alternative haul road/lone-term site access design - As stated in the paragraph on page 6-11 of the Draft EIR, this alternative haul route/access design is considered environmentally superior to the proposed temporary haul road and access design. Comment II.B-4. The DEIR does not include a mitigation plan for the loss of 0.69 acres of mudflat or for the loss of 0.28 acres of habitat for "young -of -the -year" halibut. It is, therefore, not possible to determine if mitigation is feasible. The loss of mudflat and nursery area must be considered a significant adverse impact until y such time as the mitigation plan is approved by the appropriate agencies. The mitigation plan must include both monitoring and the remediation measures to be taken if restoration is not successful. 0 Response II.B-4. The Draft EEk concludes that loss of mudflat and halibut nursery habitats would represent a significant adverse effect until the mitigation program is successfully implemented (see page 5.5-19, 5.15-20, and 5.5-22 of the Draft EIR). If the mitigation program were unsuccessful, the impact would remain significant. Pages 5.5-22 and 5.5-23 of the Draft EIR identify basic elements of the mitigation plan to offset impacts to mudflat and subtidal halibut habitats. A draft of the conceptual mitigation plan is provided as Attachment B in Section 3 of this document, and includes further detail on remediation measures and monitoring requirements which are subject to further modification by California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service, and approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the federal permits process. Since these agencies have purview over the mitigation plan, and since the successful implementation of the plan is to be monitored over a number of years, the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Page 5.5-20, new sentence at end of second paragraph: "Due to the sensitivity of this habitat, the loss of mudflat is considered significant until the mitigation plan can be approved by the responsible agencies." Page 5.5-20, new sentence at end of last paragraph: "Due to the sensitivity of this habitat, the loss of halibut nursery is considered significant until the mitigation plan can be aooroved by the responsible agencies." JB21006WI l.RTC II-3 Page 5.5 24, new sentence at end of first full paragraph; page 8-1, new sentence at the end of fifth paragraph: "Due to the sensitivity of the mudflat and halibut habitats, the loss of these resources is considered significant until the mitigation plan(s) can be aooroved by the responsible agencies." Page 1-24, third column, second item; and page 1-25 third column, first item are hereby revised as follows: Not Potentially significant. a€tef mitigation Comment H.B-5. The enforcement of current regulations does not constitute a mitigation under CEQA. How is this cumulatively significant impact going to be reduced? Response U.B-5. The cumulatively poor water quality conditions of Newport Bay are primarily a result of urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, and illegal and accidental discharges of contaminants. The project applicant would reduce the incremental water quality effects associated with the project by regularly maintaining its marina facility, including the sewage pumpout station, and by notifying its tenants regarding the laws and regulations regarding vessel discharges of wastes, antifouling paint use, and refuse management as part of its lease terms. Cumulative water quality problems are controlled by the local agencies through the enforcement of such laws and regulations, and through the issuance of NPDES permits for point sources by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and, more recently, stormwater runoff, by local municipalities. Comment II.13-6. The estimate of annual sediment delivery is critical for both the economic viability and the environmental impact of this project. How does the estimated rate of 0.1 foot per year and the 5-year interval for maintenance dredging compare to the rates in nearby marinas? What is the basis for assuring that 80 percent of fluvial sediment is retained in upper Newport Bay. Does the estimated sedimentation rate take into account that sediment will not pass by the marina once, but will recycle to some degree with the ebb and flow of the tide? Response U.B-6. The rates of sedimentation and maintenance dredging requirements at marinas near the project site are expected to be different than the rate at the project site due to the different conditions at each site. The Newport Dunes Marina was recently dredged in conjunction with modification of the marina. Prior this dredging, it had been approximately six years since the marina had been dredged (E. Power, California Recreation Company, pers. comm., 11/7/91). The rate and characteristics of the sedimentation are based on studies which were prepared as part of the San Diego Creek sedimentation monitoring program (County of Orange 1988; and Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1982). The sedimentation rate assumes that most of the material that will be deposited beyond the project site will not be resuspended and be "recycled" passed the project site. JWJ00640011.RTC H 4 Comment 11.13-7. Total threshold limit concentrations (MC) for hazardous wastes are used to determine the potential for impacts to human health. Water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms are orders of magnitude lower than the TILC. The TTLC cannot be used to predict effects of dredging or disposal _ on aquatic organisms. The results of the sea urchin sperm tests and the tests using the marine worm (Nephtys caecoides) as well as the results of the bioaccumulation tests suggest the dredged sediment may not be suitable for ocean disposal. Response H.B-7. The first three statements of the comment are correct. However, this review comment is inappropriate because the statement made in the EIR did not compare TTLC and predicted effects. Rather the statement made in the EIR was that the trace metals present in the project area sediments were substantially below TTLC values. This statement is correct. The fact that the reviewer put the TTLC together with a prediction of toxicity to aquatic organisms is inappropriate. See further discussion in responses to Comments H.B-9, H.B-11, and HX 4. Comment II.B-8. What methods would be used to treat the discharged water if it does not meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards? What will be done if the water cannot be sufficiently treated to meet the standards? Response H.B-8. Water quality studies were conducted by MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. during the spring of 1990 in the main channel near the proposed Castaways Marina project site. The tests conducted utilized standardized methodology approved by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the testing was to determine the suitability of project dredged spoils for ocean disposal at the EPA LA-3 dredge disposal site offshore from Newport Harbor. Please see section 5.4 and Appendix F of the DEIR for a detailed analysis of the results of this study. The findings of the study indicated that the level of contaminants in the project area sediments are below the applicable standards for hazardous wastes. Thus, it is anticipated that the discharged water from dewatering of dredged material would meet all applicable standards. However, one potential problem could be the turbidity of the discharge water. Treatment for turbidity involves running the discharge into a desilting basin to allow the suspended sediment to settle out. In the event that the discharge does not meet EPA standards for toxic contaminants, the type of treatment would be dependent upon the contaminant which exceeds the standards. For example, one form of treatment would involve running the discharge through carbon filters (M. Adacakapara, Regional Water Quality Control Board —Santa Ana Region, pers. comm., 11/7/91). In the majority of cases, the discharged water can be treated to meet all applicable standards. Comment II.13-9. As noted above, the available data does not support the conclusion that disposal of sediments from the project has a low potential to degrade water quality and/or water quality at the disposal site. Response H.B-9. Data are presented in Appendix F of the Draft EIR, including both elutriate toxicity test results and sediment bioassay results, which support the conclusion in the Draft EIR. J32/00640011ATC 11-5 The conclusion was based on the interpretation of the data by • professionals in the field, and does not represent the regulatory agency's final conclusion. The U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers will make the final decision on significance. Comment II.13-10. Woody debris from construction should be picked up, not allowed to float out in the harbor. Response ILB-10. Please see Mitigation Measure No. 5.45 on page 5.416 of the Draft EIR. Comment II.B-11. The levels of toxicants must be compared to EPA water quality criteria for the protection of saltwater organisms, not TTLC. Response H.B-11. The results of the bioassays indicated some minor acute toxicity in the sea urchin bioassay, and solid phase toxicity in the mysid bioassay at one site and the polychaete bioassay at one site. The liquid phase bioassay results are compared to a limited permissible concentration as stated on page 5.4- 7 of the Draft EIR and were found to not exceed the LPC and were therefore suitable for disposal. Solid phase toxicity was observed in the mysid and polychaetes at one site. The interpretation of these results in the bioassay were based upon professional experience and not on regulatory interpretation. The significance of these results are determined by the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers and is placed in a regulatory response. To date, the agency's response has not been finalized. Comment II.B-12. How will maintenance dredging affect the quality of habitat for juvenile halibut? Response H.B-12. Maintenance dredging is expected to occur approximately every five years (see Section 5.3 of Draft EIR). During these short-term episodes, the quality of the halibut habitat in the immediate vicinity of dredging will be degraded. juvenile halibut will move away from the immediate area until the operations are completed if turbidity, noise, and vibration from the operation of the dredge equipment is intolerable. Dredging, however, could also expose potential •benthic invertebrate prey items (such as amphipods, ostracods, polychaetes, gastropods, pelecypods, and ghost shrimp) and gobies that might attract bottom=foraging juvenile halibut and other bottom foragers to the dredge area. In the long term, maintenance dredging is likely to keep sediment loads of organics and potential contaminants to a minimum. Clean, coarser sediments will be exposed every five years. This will help maintain the quality of the juvenile habitat in the long term. JWJ006"11.RTC If the commentor is referring to initial dredging required to attain channel depths, young -of -the -year halibut habitat (the shallow shoreline habitat) less than 1 meter (3.21 feet) will be deepened and replaced with habitat more commonly preferred by older juveniles and subadults. This reference to habitat "quality" should be more clearly referenced as habitat "loss" (0.28 acre). 1 r. Comment ]LB-13. If Southern tarplant is located on the site, it should be protected if at all possible. • Response ILB-13. Comment is noted; most recent site surveys found no southern tarplant on either the upper or lower parts of the Castaways site. Comment II.B-14. In Mitigation Measure 5.6-2 - change "should" to "shall." Response II.B-14. Comment is noted. Mitigation Measure No. 5.6-2 is hereby revised to read: n • "Dredging and construction activity should will be terminated between April 1 and September 30, the breeding season of California least terns, to minimize adverse impacts on their foraging habitat due to increased turbidity." JB2100640011ATC 11-7 H.C. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), • DISTRICT 12 (October 8, 1991) Comment II.C-1. Due to recent widening projects on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), Caltrans is concerned with any project which has the potential to adversely impact a State Facility or worsen local and regional traffic/circulation. It is necessary to reduce the traffic impact of the proposed project during construction and after construction on PCH to a level of no significance. Ibis can be achieved by implementing mitigation measures that would counterbalance the adverse traffic impacts of this project. Response H.C-1. The comment is noted; no response is required. Comment II.C-2. Caltrans favors the Alternative 1.3.5 on page 1-8 from a safety stand point. The benefits that would be achieved in using this alternative are more substantial than the other Alternatives presented. Response H.C-2. The comment is noted; no response is required Comment II.C-3. In addition, an Encroachment Permit is required for any work within Caltrans Right of Way. Consideration should be given to release of the surface runoff from the project directly towards the existing channel without reaching State Right of Way. The proposed project will have a negative impact on the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge mitigation measures. Offsets to these impacts should be addressed in the Final Document. • Response ILC-3. The proposed project would not be located within Ca►traw right-of-way. Therefore, no encroachment permits are required. While the proposed project is located upstream of Coast Highway, the project would not direct water flow onto Coast Highway during storms. The project would have a minimal amount of impervious surfaces and would utilize an existing 33- inch storm drain which discharges into Newport Bay under the Coast Highway Bridge. • As shown in Table 5.8-1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is projected to generate a total of 13 vehicle trips during the AM peak 2.5 hour period, and 20 trips during the PM peak 2.5 hour period. The ADT for the project is estimated to be 183. The trip distribution for the project along the Coast Highway Bridge is anticipated to be 25 percent of the total trips generated by the project (please see Exhibit 5.8-1 in the Draft EIR). Thus, during the AM peak 2.5 hour period the project would generate a total of 3 trips along the bridge. During the PM peak 2.5 hour period, a total of five trips would be generated along the bridge. Due to the relatively small number of trips generated by the project, and the minimal amount of project -generated trips on the Coast Highway Bridge, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Thus, no mitigation measures, other than those needed during the construction period, are required to handle project -related traffic. JB2/00640011.RTC 11-8 H.D. CAIHORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (October 15, 1991) 40 Comment II.D-1. The proposed project will result in a loss of 0.28 acre of what has been identified as "halibut young -of -year nursery habitat" (shallow subtidal habitat between -1.5 to -3.2 feet mean lower low water RdLLW] and 0.69 acre of mudflat habitat between -1.5 to +2.5 feet MLLW. These habitat losses have been identified as significant and mitigation for their losses would be required. The applicant has indicated that mitigation will be provided at a 1.5 to 1 ratio. However, no specific mitigation proposal, including monitoring, has been prepared and included in the EIR. The applicant has initiated discussions with the Department and other resources agencies regarding potential mitigation sites within Upper Newport Bay, however; no site -specific plan has been developed. Response H.D-1. A more detailed mitigation plan has been prepared and is included in Attachment B of Section 3 of the document. Copies of this document have also been distributed to the responsible local, state, and federal agencies for their review. Comment II.D-2. An area of concern, which has not been addressed in the Draft EIR, is the potential exclusion of sport fishermen from existing shoreline areas within the project area. This issue should be addressed in the Final EIR. Response H.D-2. The proposed project would not preclude fishing along the shoreline north of the new marina basin (below the bluffs of the Upper Castaways site). . Pedestrian access to this shoreline would be available via steps from the new parking lot down to the shore immediately north of the basin. Also, boats could also access this part of the shoreline by maneuvering behind the proposed pier structure. Comment II.D-3. The 121 boat marina would reduce loss of mudflat from 0.69 acre to 0.34 acre, and halibut young -of -year habitat from 0.28 acre to 0.21 acre. In addition, there would be a reduction in the gain of halibut juvenile habitat from 2.96 acres to 2.50 acres. The project has been altered to include the realignment of bayside boat docks and elimination of four boat slips of side ties, reduction of dredging within Newport Bay, and the construction of rock slopes (breakwaters) at the upper and lower boundary of the boat basin. This alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative, however; we would recommend a further reduction of in bay dredging to reduce impacts to mudflats by the elimination of boat slips from that portion of the marina in the area of existing mudflats. Response H.D-3. The comment is noted. Removal of the pier structure would somewhat reduce mudflat impacts. However, as noted in response to comment I.B- 1, most of the mudflat habitat loss is associated with the creation of the marina basin. Therefore, any alternative which would include a marina basin such as the one proposed would have a similar effect on the mudflat habitat in the study area. It should also be noted that the applicant does not consider the alternatives with the smaller number of boats as • economically viable due to the estimated costs associated with developing and maintaining the new marina. JB2I00640011.RTC II-9 H.E. CALWORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SANTA ANA • REGION (OCTOBER 24, 1991) Comment ME-1 The proposed marina, including the parking lot and structures, will increase the impervious surfaces and the amount of surface runoff. In accordance with the new stormwater regulations published by the EPA in the Federal Register (40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124), stormwater discharges from the facility must comply with the NPDES permit requirements. The DEIR has recognized these regulations, and we urge you to work closely with the City of Newport Beach and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency to m4geninimize the impact on water quality due to the increased stormwater runoff from the project site. Response ILE-1 The comment is noted; no response is required Comment II.E-2 The DEIR has identified the potential increase in the turbidity and suspended sediments from dredging and excavation activities associated with the project. A permit will be required from this Regional Board for dredging activities. The permit will incorporate requirements for the protection of the beneficial uses in accordance with the Basin Plan, the California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan (EBEP), and other State and Federal regulations. Response ILE-2 The comment i noted; no response is required. . Comment II.E-3 The discharge of any dewatering wastes will also require a permit from this Regional Board. Again, the discharge of wastes to Newport Bay shall be in accordance with the EBEP and other applicable regulations. Response ILE-3 The comment is noted; no response is required. Comment II.E-4 The toxicity tests with sediments from one of the test sites indicated acute toxicity (page 5.4-7). The DEIR also states that significant bioaccumulation of chemical constituents was found for both the marine worm and clam at all three test sites (page 5.4.9). It does not appear that these findings have been fully addressed in the DEIR. Response HXA The results of the bioassays were addressed in the Draft EIR. The acute toxicity to sea urchins was described and appropriately discounted using the least permissible concentration (LPC) analysis (see page 5.4-7 of the Draft EIR). The solid phase and bioaccumulation results are also discussed on page 5.4-7. The results of the toxicity studies do not appear to be significant based upon professional experience. however, regulatory review of these results may interpret them differently. The significance of the bioaccumulation analysis is often subjectively interpreted and the statements made in the bioassay report (see Appendix F of the Draft EIR) are based upon professional judgment and are not regulatory interpretations. Comment II.E-5 We note that specific facilities and policies to address the potential for illegal • vessel discharges are proposed by the project applicant. We commend the applicant for these proposals, which are described on page 5.4-13. These JBV00640011.RTC II-10 i include installation and routine maintenance of a vessel sewage pumpout station and certain conditions for use of the marina to be included in lease Isagreements (prohibition of waste discharges; requirement for holding tanks, etc.). We suggest that these proposals be added to the list of mitigation measures specified on pages 5.4-15 and -16 of the DEIR. Response H.E-5 The EIR hereby incorporates the following additional mitigation measure: 115.4-12 For the life of the project the project applicant shall include in • • holding_tanks desiened to retain all contents until they can be Comment I1.E-6 We commend the applicants' proposal to specifically prohibit painting, scraping and other boat maintenance activities at the marina and to provide routine compliance oversight. Again, we suggest that these measures be added to the list of mitigation measures on pages 5.4-15 and -16. Response 11.E-6 Please see the response to comment II.E-5. JBV00640011.RTC 11-11 M. COUNTY OF ORANGE • Environmental Management Agency (October 99 1991) Comment M.A-1. The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) identifies Route 55, a Class I (paved, off -road) trail in the project vicinity. The EIR should address subject trail and linkage with Route 25, a Class I trail along Pacific Coast Highway. Response MA-1. The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways identifies Route 55 for future construction as a -Class I bike trail (paved, off -road) that would run along the western border of Upper Newport Bay (across Upper Castaways and a portion of Lower Castaways). Route 55 is slated to connect at Coast Highway with Route 25, another Class I bike trail along Coast Highway. County officials indicate that the County is willing to work with the project applicant to reroute the Route 55 bike trail around the perimeter of the proposed project (Sherri Miller, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, pers. comm.10/29/91).. Route 25 on Coast Highway would not be impacted by the proposed project. Comment III.A-2. The proposed project will create a positive increase in regional recreational opportunities within Orange County by providing new boat slips in Newport Beach and public access to coastal areas through the construction of a public viewing area. • Response III.A 2. The comment is noted; no response is required. 7B2100640011.RTC 111-1 • M.B. CITY OF COSTA MESA, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER (October 10, 1991) Comment III.B-1. The City of Costa Mesa has no comments regarding the traffic/circulation impacts of the Castaways Marina project. Response M.11-1. Comment so noted; no response is required. JB2100640011.RTC III-2 s IV, TERRELL WATT, AICP (October 3, 1991) • Comment IV.A-1. At the foundation of an adequate analysis of environmental impacts is a thorough description of the environmental setting. In this case, an crucial piece of setting information has been omitted from the DEIR; the extent of public trust lands and the permissible uses under the grant of these lands and resources -to the County of Orange. This information is relevant for a number of reasons: 1. While the lands may have been granted to the County of Orange, such granted lands are monitored by the State Lands Commission to ensure compliance with the terms of the grant. The land grant may be highly restrictive of the permissible uses, and the extent of those uses, and of the lands and resources. Absent this information, it is not possible to determine whether the use proposed is consistent with the public trust restrictions governing those lands and resources. 2. Where competing public trust uses are under consideration (e.g., a marina vs. fishing and shoreline recreation), the least environmentally damaging alternative should be approved. No public trust use should be approved which precludes an existing public trust use, such as fishing or habitat. Without adequate setting information, this choice cannot be properly made. • 3. Finally, the DEIR should contain a map which shows the extent of the public trust lands and the upland area affected by development of those lands. All existing public trust uses should be described. Response 1V.A-1. 1. Pursuant to the 1975 amendment to the original 1919 tidelands grant to the County of Orange which included the project area (Section 1 of Chapter 415, Statutes of 1975), the portion of the project area within the tidelands grant can be utilized "for the establishment, improvement and conduct of a public harbor, and for the construction, maintenance and operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays, ways and streets, and other utilities, structures and appliances necessary or convenient for the promotion or accommodation of commerce and navigation ...". Therefore, the proposed marina development is consistent with the permissible uses in the tidelands grant. 2. The public tidelands grant does not include any direction to the effect that the least environmentally damaging alternative must be approved, or that no public trust use should be approved which precludes an existing public trust use. 3. A map of the area within the tidelands grant is available from the City of Newport Beach, Marina Department, Tidelands Administrator. • Comment IV.A-2. The State Lands Commission, a trustee agency, was missing from the list of agencies contacted during the preparation of the DEIR. This agency should 1B2/00640011.RTC IV-1 be contacted immediately and included in the dialogue about the appropriate • uses for the property consistent with the public trust. Also, the grant to Orange County should be described in the DEIR and the complete grant included in the DEIR appendix. Response IV.A 2. The Draft M was sent to the State Lands Commission for review during the public review period for the document, and the Commission submitted a comment letter (see Comment Letter II.B.). As discussed in Response MA-1 above, the tidelands grant to Orange County which includes the project area, specified pier construction as a permissible use in the project area. The original tidelands grant of 1919, and all subsequent amendments, are part of the public record and can be accessed by interested parties. These documents are not included in the appendix to the Draft EIR. Comment IV.A-3. Absent this information, the City cannot make a determination of what are the uses permitted on the property. Even if a marina use is permitted, if the impacts of that use on other public trust resources or uses would be significant, the marina use should be scaled back so impacts will be insignificant or the project denied. Response MA-3. Although potentially significant cumulative impacts to water quality, marine biological resources, and air quality are identified, all project - specific impacts can be mitigated to below a level of significance. Comment IV.A-4. What is the justification for a DEIR rather than a joint EIRMIS? The DEIR identifies significant impacts of the project that are related to the actions required of a number of federal agencies. For this reason SPON believes that the document should be a joint MIMS. Response IV.A4. While the proposed marina development does require permits from the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (see Section 3.5 in the Draft EIR); the project does not involve federal funds or development on federal property; therefore, an EIS is not required. Comment IV.A-5 If no EIS is being prepared, what environmental review process will be completed for the federal permits and what is the timing of that process? Response MA-5. Upon certification of the EIR, it will be utilized by all responsible agencies as supporting information for permit decisions. Each federal permit required for the project has an established review process. It is the intent of the applicant to apply for all federal permits upon certification of the EIR. These permits must be approved prior to Coastal Commission approval or the receipt of any grading or building permits from the City of Newport Beach. Comment IV.A-6. If a "Finding of No Significant Impacts" (FONSI) is being prepared for the • Federal actions, what is the rationale for this given the significant impacts identified in the DEIR? J=00640011.RTC IV-2 Response IV.A-6. As discussed in Response IV.A4, a federal environmental document is not 41 required for this project; therefore, no FONSI will be prepared. Comment IV.A-7. The impact analysis does not provide adequate information from which decision makers may choose between the proposed project alternatives. Specifically, the DEIR does not analyze the ability of the Upper Newport Bay/Newport Bay to accommodate additional marina development without significant negative impact on human, ecological or water quality benefits associated with the Bay; or in other words, is the Bay's carrying capacity adequate for this type and intensity of use? Response IV.A 7. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed marina development would represent an increase in boats in Newport Bay of approximately 1.5 percent. It is acknowledged in the Draft EIR, that the new marina would add incrementally to water quality problems in the bay which are considered cumulatively significant and not altogether avoidable, and that it would have adverse biological impacts which could be mitigated with an appropriate mitigation program which is under the purview of state and federal resource agencies. The need for a "carrying capacity" study for Newport Bay was not considered appropriate given the relatively small size of the proposed marina and because this marina would most likely represent the last new marina development in Upper Newport Bay. Comment IV.A-8. While the discussion of water quality is a good start, the discussion lacks adequate information to establish whether or not (1) the Bay (Upper and Lower) is already at capacity for this type of use and (2) this use would exceed the Bay's carrying capacity. Attached is a Carrying Capacity Analysis completed for the Sacramento River Marina by the State Lands Commission. SPON submits this study into the record as an example of the type of analysis required for the DEIR to be considered adequate. Response IV.A-8. The analysis in the Draft EIR is considered adequate to identify existing and potential water quality concerns associated with the proposed marina. The Draft EIR acknowledges that significant cumulative water quality problems occur in parts of Newport Bay, and that the proposed marina would contribute incrementally to these problems. Therefore, a need for a carrying capacity analysis is not considered necessary for this project. Comment IV.A-9. In addition, the conclusions reached in the DEIR that virtually all rp_oject_ related impacts are insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance after mitigation are not supported by evidence in the record. Specifically, how are the water quality and biological impacts found to be less than significant? For example, loss of any mudflat habitat, even if replaced, is significant. In this case, the efficacy of the mitigation measure is completely unknown since the "replacement plan" has not yet been developed and there is no known site that will suffice for "replacing" or creating new habitat of this kind. Response IV.A-9. Cumulative water quality impacts are not found to be "insignificant" in the Draft EIR (see page 5.4-17 of the Draft EIR). Also see response to Comment II.B-4. IBV00640011.RTC IV-3 r� U In consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, a site on Shellmaker Island in Upper Newport Bay has been identified as a possible mitigation site. See Attachment B in Section 3 of this document for the conceptual mitigation plan for mudflat loss. Comment IV.A-10. The lands proposed for this development belong to the public. As such, SPON believes that if the project will result in significant effects or contribute to cumulatively significant effects, the project as proposed should be denied. Response 1V.A-10. The land portion of the project site proposed for the marina development is in private ownership (The Irvine Company). The water portion of the project site is administered by the County as part of the public trust. The County would lease the area to The Irvine Company for the purpose of developing a marina on the site. Comment MA-11. This property is part of the public trust. As such, other public trust uses should be evaluated for the area. Such uses could include other types of public recreational uses including fishing and swimming. SPON believes that the alternative use of a swimming and fishing beach with associated support facilities upland should be evaluated for comparative impacts to the proposed project. Such a use would not require dredging and other disturbance associated with the project. Response IV.A 11. Development of a marina on the project site is a permissible public trust use under the tidelands grant of the area to the County. Comment IV.A-12. The analysis of the alternatives is cursory and should be expanded pursuant to the carrying capacity analysis called for above. In addition, SPON could find no evidence in the record to support the applicant's contention that the alternative marina's with fewer boat slips were infeasible. In the absence of financial information which demonstrates such reduced projects are in fact infeasible, CEQA provides that the environmentally superior project that meets most project objectives must be adopted. This is inherent in the action -forcing provisions of CEQA. SPON looks forward to reviewing the applicant's data related to project feasibility. Response IV.A 12. See responses to Comment IV.A-7 and MA-8 regarding carrying capacity study. An analysis of the economic feasibility of the project alternatives is on rile at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The analysis evaluated, among other parameters, the estimated costs of developing and maintaining the new marina, potential revenues from slip rental fees, and the estimated residual value of the property. It demonstrates that the 121- boat alternative would result in a rate of investment return of approximately 12 percent in 10 years, the 84-boat alternative would result in a 3.6 percent rate of return, and the 50•boat alternative would result in a negative rate of return. Thus, a 121-boat alternative would represent a reasonable, although relatively small, rate of return, and the smaller alternatives represent unacceptable economic returns. IB2i00640011.RTC IV-4 Comment IV.A-13. The analysis of off -site alternatives is inadequate. It is not sufficient to provide bare conclusions about the suitability of alternative sites. In the absence of even a map of these sites, the public cannot review the sufficiency of the statements at page 1-8 regarding the alternative sites. The DEIR must include comparative information about the specific sites purportedly analyzed so that the public can review this information. In light of the significant effects of the project and the severity of this deficiency, the DEIR should be recirculated once the information has been provided. Response IV.A-13. Page 1-8 of the Draft EIR is a part of the summary section. Section 6.3 on page 6-8 of the Draft EIR presents the more complete analysis, and Exhibit 6-6 presents a map showing the locations of the alternative sites considered in the analysis. Comment IV.A-14. Absent from the project description are the following items: 1. The number of liveaboards or the deed restriction that will preclude such use; (note: liveaboards may not be a permissible use) 2. Provisions for public access to the area; 3. Provisions for recycling; 4. Provisions for waste disposal; 5. Details of the drainage plan; SPON assumes that each of these aspects of the project will require environmental analysis at some point in the future if not presented in the DEIR at this time. Response IV.A-14. 1. Live-aboards (defined as people staying aboard a vessel at its birth for a period in excess of 48 hours) are not permitted under the California Recreation Company's Vessel Mooring Agreement. 2. As shown in Exhibit 3-3 in the Draft E1R, public access to the proposed project would be via the proposed entrance to the parldng lot. A public viewing area is provided at the northeast corner of the proposed parking lot. In addition, access to the shoreline north of the project would be provided via steps from the northeast corner of the parking lot. 3. The City of Newport Beach has developed a series of goals and objectives designed to meet the mandate of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The overall goal is to provide an integrated management system that emphasizes source reduction, recycling, and disposal of remaining waste such that the potential adverse impacts to the environment and public health are minimized (City of Newport Beach, Source Reduction and Recycling Element 1991). The City of Newport Beach has plans to require new projects to provide containers for the separation of recyclable JBV00640011.RTC IV-5 0 material onsite. Therefore, the Castaways project may be required to provide such facilities prior to approval of the building permits. 4. Trash containers will be located at opposing ends of the proposed project near the bathroom and shower buildings. The receptacles are accessible from both the sidewalk and parking lots. Solid waste generated by the project would be hauled by private refuse haulers to the County of Orange Bee Canyon Landfill. 5. A detailed master plan of drainage must be developed for, and approved by, the City of Newport Beach, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The master plan of drainage will be based on a detailed hydrology study prepared specifically for the Castaways Marina project, and will result in a drainage system which can handle storm flows as indicated in the hydrology study. Comment IV.A-15. The study area for the cumulative impact analysis is inadequate and therefore the list of cumulative projects fails to include projects that are likely to contribute to cumulative impacts. This in turn resulted in an inadequate discussion of cumulative impacts with respect to water quality, among other impacts. Response MA-15. As stated in Section 5.4.5 on page 5.4-16 of the DEIR, the cumulative impacts study area for water quality is the entire Newport Bay Watershed. By definition, this study area takes into account all projects and activities that contribute to the water quality of the bay. A watershed is a kind of catchment basin. It is an area bounded peripherally by a water parting feature which provides drainage into a body of water or watercourse. All potential and actual contributors to the water quality of the bay are _ located within this watershed. Therefore,the study area is adequate for the analysis of cumulative water quality impacts. 0 Comment IV.A-16. Specifically, the project study area appears to include only those projects directly adjacent to the Bay in Newport Beach. Projects outside of Newport generate runoff into the Bay. Such projects include but are not limited to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, projects in Irvine and Santa Ana within the watershed of the Bay. Runoff from development in these areas will also contribute to the degradation of water quality in the Bay and must be considered in the cumulative analysis. Response IV.A 16. Although not specifically identified, the Draft EIR acknowledges that cumulative water quality impacts are a result of urban and agricultural runoff throughout the Newport Bay watershed. This would include projects such as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and other development projects in the watershed (see page 5.4.16 of the Draft EIR). Comment IV.A-17. The DER should be revised to include a study area for water quality impacts that includes the area of runoff into the Bay at a minimum. The cumulative analysis should be based on this study area. IBV00640011.RTC WEI Response MA-17. The Draft EIR recognizes the cumulative study area is the entire Newport Bay watershed (see Section 5.4.5 on page 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR). Please see the response to comment MA-15. Comment IV.A-18. A number of key mitigation measures, relied on to reduce significant impacts to a level of insignificance are not true mitigation measures, but simply future plans or studies. These include the following: 1. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan for the loss of the .69 acres of mudflat habitat. (It is unknown whether there are any sites where true new habitat can even be created). 2. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan to replace the halibut nursery habitat. See above comment. 3. A landscape and irrigation plan. (This plan should be part of the project description and its impacts analyzed as part of the project since runoff from the site could impact the public trust resources. Also, why are grease traps not required as mitigation pursuant to the new EPA NPDES regulations? This issue must be analyzed in the DEIR and is not.) 4. Grading plan and soil engineering reports. These plans will not be subject to public scrutiny contrary to CEQA. They should be completed and evaluated in a recirculated DEIR. Response IV.A 18. 1. See Attachment B in Section 3 for a copy of the draft conceptual mitigation plan for the loss of mudflat and shallow subddal habitats. 2. See Attachment B in Section 3 for a copy of the draft conceptual mitigation plan for the loss of mudflat and shallow subtidal habitats. 3. The preliminary landscape plan is a part of the proposed project description (see Exhibit 34 of the Draft EIR. While it is anticipated that drainage from the site would continue to drain into Newport Bay (see page 5.3-7 of the Draft EIR); a detailed irrigation and drainage plan is required prior to the approval of the grading permit by the City of Newport Beach and will also be subject to the requirements of the municipal stormwater NPDES permit. 4. A description of the proposed grading and dredging activities are presented in Section 3 of the Draft EIR and evaluated in Section 5.2. A more detailed grading plan will be required prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit for the project. Soil engineering reports are presented in Appendix D of the Draft EIR, and are also discussed in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR. As noted above, a draft of the conceptual mitigation plan is now available for review by the public as a part of this Responses to Comments Addendum, and is therefore a part of the Final EIR. Also, the preliminary landscape plan and soil reports have been available for review JBV0064MI IATC IV-7 as part of the Draft EEL The more detailed grading and drainage plans • have not been provided to date. However, the concepts associated with both the grading and drainage elements of the proposed marina have been discussed and evaluated in the Draft EIR (see sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Draft EIR). These plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department prior to issuance of the grading permit. This is a standard practice of the City. Comment IV.A-19. Also, it is not apparent how the effect of an accidental spill can be reduced to a level of insignificance. If a spill happens, the impacts will be significant. n U • Response IV.A-19. The Draft EIR identifies accidental spills or leaks as having the potential to significantly impact local water quality. As stated on page 5.412 of the Draft EIR, spills or leaks associated with construction activities could lead to a potentially significant effect on the local water quality and marine life. In addition, on page 5.4-15, the Draft EIR identifies the spillage of hazardous materials such as lubricating oil, organic solvents, etc., associated with the operation of the marina as contributing to a cumulatively significant water quality degradation in Newport Bay. JBV00640011.RTC IV-8 IV.B. FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY (October 4, 1991) Comment IV.B-1. The proposed marina has a land frontage of approximately 450'. However, - the piers proposed for the marina extend approximately 1,000' along the waterway, approximately 550' more than the amount permitted by city policy. Most of the proposed piers are well out in the public water away from the marina property. We believe that the marina proposed by California Recreation Company should be limited to the 450' width of their property in keeping with public policy so that the remaining tidelands can be managed in the spirit of the tidelands trust for the purposes of commerce, fishing, navigation, access and recreation. A larger marina to increase the income of the California Recreation Company hardly qualifies as a compelling public benefit. Response IV.B-1. The additional land frontage to the north of the approximate 450-foot land frontage along the Lower Castaways Marina site extends along the Upper Castaways properly, which is also owned by The Irvine Company. Therefore, the entire proposed pier construction is within the land frontage of the same owner and is within the area permitted by City policy for pier construction. Comment IV.B-2. Exhibit 3-3 showing the locations of the U.S. bulkhead and U.S. pierhead lines is in error. These lines do not exist. • Many years ago the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted bulkhead and pierhead lines in anticipation of a land trade proposed by The Irvine Company. The lines never were adopted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. When the proposed land trade was abandoned, the lines were removed by a Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors. is If this project is to be considered, bulkhead and pierhead lines must be adopted by the county and be approved by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Any new harbor lines in this area must meet the U.S. Corps of Engineers requirements. Response IV.B-2. The bulkhead and pierhead lines shown on Exhibit 3-3 are those adopted and recognized by the County of Orange (see Orange County Ordinance No. 2200 in Attachment D in Section 3 of this. document). No evidence that these lines are not in force has been presented. Comment IV.B-3. Without the approved bulkhead and pierhead lines, it is unclear to me whether or not this project can proceed through the review process. Response IV.B-3. Please see response to comment IV.B-2. Review of the proposed project can proceed. Comment IV.B-4. In addition, this project fronts on and is in the tideland grant to the County of Orange. Therefore, does the city of Newport Beach have the authority to approve or disapprove the pier system of this project? JB2/00640011.RTC Ii= Response IV.B4. The land portion of the project site is under The Irvine Company ownership and is subject to the zoning regulations of the City of Newport Beach. The Irvine Company maintains an existing lease with the County for the tidelands portion of the project site. This lease was originally formulated in conjunction with the old marina that previously occupied the site. A new lease has been drafted in conjunction with the currently proposed marina development, which has tentatively been approved by the County and The Irvine Company, but has not yet been signed. Both leases allow development of a marina on the site. The marina will also be subject to the City's harbor permits. Comment IV.B-5. It is clear from the bulkhead lines, originally proposed by the county, that a wider channel was preferred. This project reduces theeffectivewidth of the channel to approximately one-half of the proposed channel width. Response IV.B-5. The U.S. bulkhead line is intended to be the farthest point into the channel that fill is allowed. The U.S. pierhead line is intended to be the farthest point into the channel that a floating pier extension is allowed. No fill is proposed as part of this project. Also, as shown on Figure 3-3 of the EIR (Proposed Marina Concept Layout), no floating extension of the proposed pier development would extend beyond the U.S. pierhead line. Therefore, the project design is not in conflict with the U.S. bulkhead and U.S. pierhead lines delineated in the site area. The original width of the channel was proposed when a small craft harbor was considered for Upper Newport Bay. . Comment IV.B-6. The piers would impact severely 600' of the 1800' now available for shoreline fishing. Since the tideland trust protects the public's right to fish, the marina should not extend beyond the land property line of the marina. • Response IV.B-6. Pedestrian access to the shoreline north of the proposed new marina basin would be provided through provision of steps from the northeast corner of the new parking lot down to the shore. Fishing along the shoreline from boats would not be precluded by the project since boats could maneuver behind the pier. Comment IV.B-7. Dredging at the marina site in the channel will remove significant amounts of mud flats. The EIR suggests that the lost mud flats be replaced by dredging in UNB. Some parts of Shellmaker island in the ecological reserve are being considered. I do not think that any part of the ecological reserve or any other part of UNB should be considered for this purpose. Response IV.B-7. Comments are noted. See Attachment B in Section 3 of the document for further description of the conceptual mitigation plan which includes Shellmaker Island. Use of this site requires the approval of the California Department of Fish and Game as manager of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. JWJ00640011.RTC IV-10 Comment IV.B-8. In the past, conventional wisdom held that the best use of wetlands and open water was the conversion of these resources to boat related activities. As a result, Newport bay is now the world's largest small boat harbor with 10,500 boats. When is enough enough? Response IV.B-8. The proposed marina project most likely represents the last major new commercial marina facility which can be built in Newport Bay given the lack of available shoreline in Upper and Lower Newport Bay, and the limitations on use of the ecological reserve in Upper Newport Bay. Comment IV.B-9. The EIR includes the marina basin dredged area (6.99 acres) as compensation for the loss of open water foraging for birds and bottom foraging for fish. This area should not be considered since the area principally is to be covered by boats and docks bringing pollutants such as the poison from bottom paints and other chemicals. It also is likely there will be a siltation problem similar to that in Dover Shores. The proposal in no way compares to an open channel, flushed and cleaned by tidal currents. Response IV.B-9. Please refer to response to Comment B-3. The size of the marina dredge basin is erroneously given by the commentor. The correct value is 2.96 acres. The EIR text has been revised to state that the marina is not being used as compensation area for young -of -the -year halibut habitat loss. The same can be stated for benthic foraging fishes. The basin will • provide additional habitat (2.96) acres more than the required amount of habitat to be mitigated for the loss of bottom habitat (0.28 acre). Water column foraging birds, including endangered species, commonly forage among boats and docks in Newport Harbor charnels and marinas and they are likely to do so in the new marina basin without significant impacts imposed upon them. • In regard to siltation issues, bedload sediments will be trapped at the juncture of the marina basin and the main channel, and will be removed during maintenance dredging operations approximately every 5 years. It is unlikely that the marina will experience serious sedimentation problems if the mitigation measures to remove accumulated sediments are carried out. Sedimentation impacts are addressed in the EIR in Section 5.3 (Hydrology/Sedimentation), Section 5.4 (Water Quality), and Section 5.5 (Marine Resources). Also, see results of hydraulic model prepared in conjunction with the EIR (Section 53 and Appendix E of the Draft EIR). Comment IV.B-10. We recommend that a modification of the 84 boat marina be built instead of the 125 boat marina, the modification consisting of limiting the pier to the frontage between the property lines (450'). This marina configuration will have a minimum impact on the ecology and public fishing rights in UNB. Response IV.B-10. Comment so noted; no response is required. 7B2I00640011.RTC IV-1I IV.C. SEA & SAGE AUDUBON (October 6, 1991) Comment IV.C-1. The long pier planned for the main channel would have significant potential to increase pollution in the upper bay. While waste discharges are not permitted in the harbor, it is well known that they do occur, and enforcement of the law has been difficult. Coupled with this is the chance for accidental discharge of fuel and oil. Because this pier borders the main channel a flood tide could easily distribute wastes and hydrocarbons over the entire ecological reserve in just a few hours, well before any containment response could be organized. This is a highly dangerous situation which dictates removal of this long pier from any project plan. Response IV.C-1. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the project would contribute to potential cumulative water quality effects. Restrictions on boat maintenance activities allowed at the new marina will reduce these potential effects. Also, no fueling facility will be provided at the marina. Based on the hydraulic model prepared for the project (Noble 1989a), flow patterns within the bay would not be substantially altered by the proposed pier structure. Comment IV.C-2. All alternatives listed for this project are clearly described as having less short term and long term environmental impacts than the proposed plan. The 84- Boat Marina alternative has the smallest pier and therefore the least impact on the chances for disastrous pollution of the upper bay. Why is there no • alternative described using only the Lower Castaways basin, with no protrusion into the main channel? Response IV.C-2. See response to comment I.B-1. Comment IV.C-3. The only mitigation measures offered for the dredging activity period seem to be that proper permits will be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, etc. Except for screening to reduce turbidity (as feasible the mere approval of these agencies does not give confidence that the effects of dredging will be insignificant. 11 Response IV.C-3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are likely to result in insignificant impacts related to dredging. Employing a dredge screen is one practice that greatly reduces turbidity impacts; other BMPs include: using appropriate equipment or machinery when dredging and transporting dredge materials; employing proper maintenance and operation on equipment or machinery, including adequate training, staffing, and working procedures; and lastly, restricting dredging operations to the period of September 15 to April 1 to avoid the California least tern Sterna albifrons brownii breeding season. Relative to impacts on halibut, dredging within the time period of September through February is likely to limit potential dredging impacts to young -of -the -year individuals, as they typically settle in embayments between March and July (Kramer 1990). J132100640011.RTC IV-12 The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) will determine permit conditions to maintain water quality during dredging. For example, waste discharge requirements imposed for the Sunset Bay/Huntington Harbour Maintenance Dredging Project, administered by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, included a specification that stated, "dredging in the channels and harbors... shall not cause the turbidity of the dredged harbors to be increased by more than twenty (20) percent." The SARWQCB will identify these measures. Turbidity monitoring during construction for the Castaways Marina may be included as a mitigation measure to ensure compliance with standards set by the Regional Board. Comment IV.C-4. At several points mitigation for mudflat and halibut habitat removal is offered, suggesting that this will, or may, occur within the upper bay. This plan contains the possibility of further heavy activity in the Ecological Reserve, and while not impossible, should be approached with extreme caution and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game. Response IV.C4. Comment so noted. See Attachment B in Section 3 of this document for a draft of the conceptual mitigation plan. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to issuance of any federal permits. We feel the disposal activity of dredged materials would be least damaging if the ocean disposal were to be used exclusively, removing the impacts on the local • Response IV.C-5. Conn • Comment IV.C-5. JBV00640011.RTC IV.D. JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. (Oetober 7, 1991) • Comment IV.D-I. A traffic signal, temporary or permanent, should be considered for the entrance into the project site, without connecting to Cliff Drive. Ibis signal would be 3-way, would not require a cut into the bluff facing Dover Drive, would obviate the need for the destructive temporary road across the Upper Castaways, and would allow the trucks hauling material away from the site easy access to PCH. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to Cliff Haven or Newport Heights. Response IV.D-I. North and south bound lanes on Dover Drive are separated by a divider at the current entrance to the Lower Castaways site. Thus, current access to and from the site is from northbound Dover Drive only. The suggested traffic signal is considered unacceptable by the City of Newport Beach because it would require the removal of a portion of the divider to create access to southbound Dover Drive, thus interrupting the left turn lanes on southbound Dover Drive. In addition, according to the City of Newport Beach, the current location of the access point to the site presents safety concerns associated with the proximity to the intersection of Coast highway and Dover Drive (approximately 200 feet). The proximity of the entrance to this intersection could result in conflicts between vehicles exiting the site and cars turning right or left from Coast highway onto Northbound Dover Drive (Webb, pers. comm. 8/8/91). Comment IV.D-2. Ways to remove the "temporary" road across the Upper Castaways should be . more thoroughly considered. An alternative is to haul the material up Irvine Ave. to the Coyote Canyon Land Fill, thus not requiring the trucks to make a U-turn on Dover or circle above on the temporary road to get back down to PCH. Response IV.D-2. This alternative is not considered appropriate, because the alignment would route trucks through a greater number of residential areas along Irvine Avenue. Also, this route would add a substantial amount of mileage to the haul trips along primarily smaller residential roads which were not designed to handle large-scale truck traffic. Please see discussion of alternative access route in Section 6.4 (page 6-9) of the Draft EIR. Comment IV.D-3. A "Minimum Grading Alternative" should be discussed in the EIR. The less grading, the fewer trucks are needed to haul the material away. Such a plan would mean no temporary road, no cuts into the bluff, no high retaining walls along Dover, minimum dredging of the bay. Response IV.D-3. The Draft EIR evaluates a 50-boat slip alternative that would reduce the amount of dredging activity by 79 percent over the proposed project (see Section 6.2.3 [page 6-6] of the Draft EIR). This alternative would substantially reduce the number of truck haul trips required to dispose of the material. The alternative has been evaluated and is under • consideration by the City of Newport Beach. JBV00640011.RTC IV-14 Comment IV.D-4. - • A 60 space marina with no floating docks protruding into the bay should be . analyzed. The floating docks appear to disturb current flow into and out of the bay north of the bridge (see Hydrology Study, Appendix E, Figures 5, 6, 7, 8): An alternative without docks protruding into the bay is not present in the EIR. Response IV.D4. See response to comment I.B.I. In addition, see Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR which addressed results of the hydraulic model study for the project (Noble Consultants 1989a). The pier.structure was not found to have significant effects on the flow into the bay north of the Coast Highway Bridge. Comment IV.D-5. An analysis of shoreline erosion of the bay below the Castaways bluffs should be in the EIR. Flood current (high tide) and ebb current (low tide) both will 1 act to scour the shoreline, increasing erosion of the shore (again, see Appendix E, Hydrology Study, Figures 7 and 8, Noble Consultants). Response IV.D-5. The analysis in Appendix E of the Draft EIR addresses existing and projected flow velocities and shoreline erosion. No significant effect on currents or shoreline erosion are expected due the proposed project. Comment MD-6. Exactly where the temporary road will go on the Upper Castaways, as well as where the dredge spoils will be dried out on the Upper Castaways should be in the EIR. . Response 1V.D-6. Please see Exhibit 3-8 in the Draft EIR for a graphic representation of the temporary haul road. Dredged material would not be dried on the Upper Castaways site; it would only occur on the Lower Castaways site (see pages 3-3 to 3-4 of the Draft EIR). Comment IV.D-7. The plans of the Irvine Company to dedicate the "nose" of the Castaways for open space as part of its Open Space and Circulation Development Agreement should be in the EIR. Portions of the "nose" appear to be negatively impacted by this project, including grading of the bluffs, the temporary road, the drying out site for dredged material. The EIR lacks assessment of the cumulative impacts of this project on the Upper Castaways and its ecologic resources. Response IV.D-7. Page 5.1-5 of the Draft EIR addresses the proposed Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company; and the preliminary land use plans for the Upper Castaways site. It acknowledges that park and open space uses would be placed along the bluffs of the upper site. The potential secondary effects on Upper Castaways' biological resources are addressed in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. On page 5.6-9, it is acknowledged that the proposed marina and temporary road construction may further degrade the condition of the resources on the upper site. In addition, under the discussion of cumulative impacts to biological resources (Section 5.6.5 on page 5.6-13), it is acknowledged that the proposed project would further diminish the quality of the habitat on the Upper Castaways site due to the increased human activity in these areas. Any future development on the Upper Castaways site would add to the cumulative impacts to onsite resources. JWJ00640011.RTC Iv-15 Comment IV.D-8. The project EIR lacks a cumulative impacts assessment on the communities of Cliff Haven and Newport Heights. Specifically, if a signal is placed at Dover • and Cliff, through traffic may increase on Cliff Drive, especially as traffic increases on PCH as a result of the other large projects planned in the general area, including the Hoag Hospital expansion, and the West Newport Oil - project at the Santa Ana River mouth. Response IV.D-8. A cumulative impact analysis of the project in conjunction with the City of Newport Beach approved and committed projects list was conducted for this Draft EIR (please see Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR and the traffic study in Appendix j). The analysis was conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) 1 percent analysis and included traffic assumptions for all approved and committed projects (mown at the time of this analysis (see Table 4-2 in the Draft EIR). This constituted the cumulative impacts analysis, and was conducted for the proposed access route in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR, and for the alternative access route in Section 6.4. Five intersections were chosen for analysis and approved by the City of Newport Beach. The study indicated that the projected peak 2.5 hour traffic volume generated by the proposed project would be less than 1 percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes (including approved projects) on any approach of any intersection analyzed, including the Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection. Thus, neither the proposed access route or the alternative access plan would have a significant impact on traffic flow at this intersection. . Comment IV.D-9. The Water Quality section does not appear to address the question of long term pollution of the bay, especially the Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve, because of oil, grease, and gasoline discharged into the bay as a result of operating motor boats. These pollutants will be directly swept into the Upper Bay because of the floating dock protruding into the flood current at high tide. This question was asked by the City's CEQAC's Subcommittee on EIRS, 26 March 1990, as well as other questions by CEQAC, but which were not answered in the EIR. 0 Response IV.D-9. Page 5.4-12 of the Draft EIR addresses the potential of the project to contribute to the degradation of water quality in Newport Bay. As stated on page 5.4.14 of the Draft EIR, project -related water quality impacts are identified as locally significant, but mitigable to a level of less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures on page 5.4.15. In addition, the proposed marina would not contain fueling facilities, and the lease agreement would prohibit boat painting, scraping, and engine maintenance. These regulations would be enforced on a daily basis. Therefore, the potential for discharge of pollutants into Upper Newport Bay which could result from boating activities occurring at the marina is considered minimal. Comment IV.D-10. A coastal bluff along Dover exists. The EIR does not appear to recognize the City's coastal bluff protections in the General Plan or LCP. Applicability of the Coastal Bluff ordinances to this project should be in the EIR. =00640011ATC IV-16 Response IVM-10. The Local Coastal Program for the City of Newport Beach (1990) defines a coastal bluff as any natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. When there is confusion as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. The coastal bluff along Dover Drive has been modified by previous construction of Dover Drive, Pacific Coast Highway, and by commercial activities on the site in the late 1800's. Because this bluff is not a natural bluff, it is not subject to the coastal bluff policies of the City of Newport Beach. Comment IV.D-11. Two wetlands appear to be impacted by this project: the wetlands containing halibut nurseries in the Bay, and wetlands along Dover which may be impacted by the temporary road. Because of the significance of Upper Newport Bay to the regional environment, the US Fish and Wildlife Service should have been notified and comments solicited. There is no evidence that USFWS was notified in the EIR. Response IV.D-11. Please note that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted during preparation of the Draft EIR and draft Conceptual Biological Mitigation Plan for the Loss of Mudflat and Shallow Subtidal Habitat, and received a copy of the Draft EIR and Conceptual Plan for review and input; please refer to comment letter I.A. Comment IV.D-12. Because of the potential current changes induced by this project, the US Army • Corps of Engineers should be more completely informed of the scope of this project. A modelling study of shoreline erosion, and possible changes in the tidal prism entering the Upper Bay north of the Coast Highway bridge, should be done by the Corps before this project is considered by the City. This project affects navigable waters and may affect navigation into and out of the Bay, affecting Dover Shores and the Dunes Aquatic Park. Response IV.D-12. See Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the Draft EIR for a discussion of potential current flow pattern effects associated with the proposed project. The primary currents are not expected to change; thus shoreline erosion characteristics are not expected to be significantly altered by the project. Comment IV.D-13. There should be a discussion of the permitting agencies involved in the approval of this project, including applicable sections of the Coastal Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Response IV.D-13. Section 3.5 on page 3-6 of the Draft EIR presents a list of the local, state and federal permits required prior to construction of the project. Comment IV.D-14. The project may be a violation of the Tidelands Public Trust administered by the State. It appears to turn public tidelands into a private venture. A discussion of the tidelands ramifications should be in the EIR. The position of the State Lands Commission should be more thoroughly researched than what is stated in the EIR. 0 Response IV.D-14. Please refer to Responses IV.A-1 and IV.A-2. JBV006"11.RTC IV-17 Comment IV.D-15. Halibut habitat for juveniles appears to be mitigated under the boats in the • marina. Is this mitigation acceptable to the resource agencies? It would appear that pollution from the boats, oil, gas, paint, and the frequent dredging of this area due to acknowledged siltation of the marina, would not make this area an acceptable mitigation site for juvenile halibut. Response IV.D-15. Please refer to the responses to Comments I.B-3, I.B-5, II.11-12, and IV.B-9. Comment IV.D-16. A desire to mitigate the halibut nursery somewhere in Upper Newport Bay is expressed in the EIR. Exactly where it is intended to be mitigated should be in the EIR, since the rest of Upper Newport Bay is itself sensitive habitat. Mitigating into an already high value wetland would result in the "net loss of wetlands" which is contrary to state policies and law. Response IV.D-16. Comments are noted. Please refer to Attachment B in Section 3 of this document which includes the draft of the conceptual mitigation plan for mudflat and halibut nursery habitats. A map of the proposed mitigation site—Shelbnaker Island —is included in the plan. Comment IV.D-17. An alternative showing a publicly useful marina, such as a ramp for trailers for small boats, should be in the EIR, since the land is public tidelands and should have public access. Such an alternative would require the least amount of dredging and would cause the least amount of environmental damage, yet be consistent with the City's desire for a marina there. • Response IV.D-17. It should be noted that the land portion of the project site is not with the public tidelands; it is in private ownership. The parking lot and view area of the marina will be available to the public. Comment IV.D-18. An effort to identify possible ways to transfer the site to public ownership should be in the EIR. Such a transfer would be most consistent with the effort to transfer the whole of the Castaways to public ownership, and would be the most consistent with keeping the nose of Castaways as natural open space. Response IV.D-18. The City is not considering acquisition of the Lower Castaways site; nor is it considering acquisition of the entire Upper Castaways site. The proposed land use is consistent with the City's General Plan land uses for the study area. 0 JBV0064001 IATC IV-18 • • • IV.E. CLIFF HAVEN COMMpNPPY ASSOCIATION Comment ME-1. The timing of the left -turn signal should be infrequent enough that traffic is discouraged from making left turns onto Cliff from northbound Dover, thereby negating any time saving that this "shortcut" might otherwise provide. We do not want Cliff Drive to pick up PCH traffic. Response IV.E-1. M'digation measure 5.8.4 on page 5.8-9 in the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows: "......to form a 4-way, signalized intersection. This signal shall be the extent possible." Comment ME-2. The signal should default to a green light in each direction for Dover Drive traffic — this should be the signal's normal position. Only when significant traffic accrues should the light change to stop traffic from freely flowing on Dover. This no only helps with a, above, but also will eliminate any potential backup of cars on Dover, at the Cliff/Dover intersection (we are especially concerned about backed up traffic on southbound Dover). Response IV.E-2. Please see the response to comment 1V.E-1. Comment ME-3. Speed bumps should be installed along Kings Place and Signal Road, between Cliff Drive and 15th Street. This will not only discourage people trying to make a shortcut from PCH to the Newport Heights area (Newport Beach and Costa Mesa), but will also help to reduce the existing problem Kings Place and Signal Road residents are experiencing with speeders. Further, "SLOW - Children at Play" signs should be posted on these streets. We welcome your suggestion of designing signs that are of more architectural interest (and thus more likely to be read) than the standard yellow diamond signs. Response IV.E-3. The proposed project is projected to have an ADT of 183. As shown in Exhibit 5.8-1 of the Draft EIR, seventy percent of project generated traffic will flow to and from the project site along Coast highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive. Forty five percent of project traffic is anticipated to travel along Newport Boulevard to and from the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55). Only 5 percent of project generated traffic is projected to use Dover Drive north of the project site. Thus, the majority of project generated traffic would avoid the area in question by predominantly using Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of this project and no mitigation measures are required for the area specified. JWJ00640011.RTC However, City of Newport Beach policy L-13 indicates that the City will IV-19 consider the placement of speed bumps in the area indicated. The Cliff Haven Community Association should 'submit an application for the placement of speed bumps through the Traffic Affairs Committee. In addition, City policy does not provide for the placement of non-standard warning signs along street right-of-way. Such non-standard signs can be placed on private property (Don Webb pers. comm. 10/28/91). Comment IV.E-4. A sign indicating "PCH - that -a -way" should be installed at the intersection of 16th Street and Irvine Avenue, so that PCH-bound vehicles do not proceed all the way to Cliff Drive. Response IV.E4. No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated at the intersection of 16th Street and Irvine Avenue (Please see response to comment IVX-5). Thus, no mitigation measures are required as part of the proposed project. If the Cliff Haven Community Association feels such a sign is necessary, the City will consider such a request. An application for the request should be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Affairs Committee. Comment IV.E-5. Crosswalks should be incorporated into the signal design for the Cliff/Dover intersection. Ideally, crosswalks should be located across all four comers of the intersection. If only three crosswalks are designed, the crosswalk across Dover should be located on the north end (i.e., connecting the medical offices to the access to Upper Castaways). Response IV.E-5. The City of Newport Beach provides for crosswalks as part of traffic signal instillation. The initial design of the traffic signal will provide for three crosswalks as described. A fourth crosswalk would be added if necessary. Comment IV.E-6. The requisite bluff retaining wall for the extension of Cliff Drive must be constructed in such a way as to minimize the `block' effect of such a massive structure. Ideally we would like to see a series of gradual setbacks, each landscaped in harmony with the proposed landscape plan for the marina/ P B & R's plans for the view park on Upper Castaways. Additionally, pedestrian areas to the Upper Castaways should be incorporated into the overall design. Our community should be involved in this architectural process as it develops. Response IV.E-6. The comment is noted. The City will include conditions on the parcel map to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Upper Castaways from Lower Castaways. Comment IV.E-7. Finally, the existing public walkway appearing on the Cliff Haven tract map that I pointed out to you during our meeting should be developed to provide access to the Castaways site for Cliff Haven residents. A significant number of our residents would have much greater access to both Lower and Upper Castaways were this existing public land to be used for the purpose intended. Obviously, given the heavily treed, rustic flavor of the area, the public walkway should respect the existing landscape and conform as much as possible. Jerry King informed me today that he has already begun exploratory • discussions with the City and The Irvine Company regarding development of this walkway. JBV00640011.RTC IV-20 'Response IV.E-7. The proposed walkway •is potentially controversial. Implementing the • walkway would impact the backyards of several homes in the surrounding area. The walkway is not part of the Castaways project, and therefore should not be included within the scope of the Draft EIR. However, if the Cliff Haven Community Association is interested in pursuing this walkway, the - City of Newport Beach is willing to work with the Association outside of the environmental process for the Castaways project. r 1 ►- J 0 W.F. JAMES KOCIUBA (October 4, 19.01 • Comment IV.F-1. The draft calls for a temporary road that extends from Dover Drive and Sixteenth Street to the marina area. This road was deemed necessary to allow Coyote Landfill bound dirt hauling trucks leaving the marina development site to access PCH without making a U-turn on Dover Drive. Alternately, the trucks could leave the development site's primary entrance headed north on Dover Drive, turn left on Westcliff Drive, turn right on Irvine Ave., turn right on Bristol, then proceed to the Coyote Landfill. This scheme eliminates the U-turn in question, thereby eliminating the need for the temporary road. This dirt hauling option needs to be examined. Response IV.F-1. This is not considered a reasonable option by the City of Newport Beach. Please see the response to comment IV.D-2. Comment IV.F-2. Why does the Upper Castaways development concept have a permanent access to the temporary road? Since the Castaways marina site is to be developed long before the Upper Castaways site, the Upper Castaways site does not need permanent access to the temporary road. Does the Upper Castaways permanent access to the temporary road mean the temporary road in the Castaways Marina draft EIR is not temporary? Response IV.F 2. The proposed Castaways Marina project does not contain proposals for the Upper Castaways site with the exception of the temporary haul road. Therefore, no permanent connection to the temporary road would be provided as a part of this project. Comment IV.17-3. If the temporary road is built, when will the temporary road be permanently closed? Response IV.F 3. The proposed temporary haul road on the Upper Castaways site would close at the end of the marina's construction. Comment IV.F-4. When the temporary road is closed, what will it be permanently replace with and when? Response IV.F4. Upon the closure of the temporary haul road, the road would be hydroseeded with compatible plant material. The plant material would be selected by a licensed landscape architect and approved by the City of Newport Beach. Comment IV.F-5. The Irvine Ave. and Westcliff Drive intersection, along with the Irvine Ave. and Sixteenth Street intersection, will be impacted by the Castaways Marine development. This impact needs to contained in the EIR. Response IV.F-5. As shown in Table 5.8-1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is projected to generate a total of 13 vehicle trips during the AM peak 2.5 hour period, and 20 trips during the PM peak 2.5 hour period. The average daily trips for the project is estimated to be 183. Coast Highway is anticipated to be the primary travel route for the proposed project. As shown in Exhibit 5.8-1 of the Draft EIR, 70 percent of project -generated JBV00640011.RTC IV-22 4) trips would flow to and from the project site along -Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive. Forty five percent of project traffic is anticipated to travel along Newport Boulevard to and from the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55). Only 5 percent of project generated traffic is projected to use Dover Drive, which provides access to the project site from Sixteenth Street and Westcliff Drive. During the AM peak 2.5 hour period, an additional .65 trip would be generated along Dover Drive, and during the PM peak 2.5 hour period, only 1 trip along Dover Drive would be generated by the proposed project. The majority of project -generated traffic would avoid traveling along Sixteenth Street and Irvine Avenue by using Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. Thus, no significant impacts to Sixteenth Street and Irvine Boulevard are anticipated, and no further traffic analysis is required. Comment IV.17-6. Finally, the traffic impact needs to be analyzed on Costa Mesa's East Sixteenth Street between Newport Blvd. to Irvine ave. This is a residential street segment that is not on the county's master plan of highways, and whose residents are sensitive to traffic increases due to this marina development. Response IV.F-6. Please see response to comment IV.F-5. JB2100640011.RTC IV-23 MG. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . Environmental Quality Affairs•Committee (September 2% 1991) Comment MG -I. The 121-boat alternative significantly reduces concern regarding wetlands destruction, primarily due to the reduced dredging. -(1.3.2, 6-3) Response IV.G-1. Comment is noted. This alternative is under consideration by the City and is considered economically feasible by the project applicant. 1] Comment IV.G-2. Traffic safety requires signalization of the project entrance at Dover Drive/Cliff Drive intersection. (6-9) Response IV.G-2. Comment is noted. As a part of the alternative access design, a traffic signal would be provided at the intersection of Dover and Cliff drives. Comment IV.G-3. Timing of the construction should be carefully planned to cause least disruption to the reproductive cycle of the birds and fish. Response IV.G-3. Comment is noted. XMigation measures 5.6-2 and 5.6-3 in the Draft EIR would reduce potential effects on sensitive bird species' nesting seasons. Comment MG-4. Attention should be given to changing "could" to "should" in the last paragraph regarding aesthetic impact of the Alternative Site Access Design. (6-9) Response IV.G4. Comment is noted. H this alternative access design is selected as part of the proposed project, the following mitigation measure will be implemented: IBV00640011.RTC "A_2. The landscape plan for the project will be modified to incorporate landscaping alone the cribwall and will be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of the grading permit." IV-24 • 1] IV.H. BAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (September 25, 1991)• Comment IV.H-1. The Board has voted to approve the project with the condition that the alternate access -plan as detailed in Section 6.4 of•the EIR be incorporated into -- the overall project. This requires the entrance of the marina to be located at the Cliff Drive extension to Dover Drive with the development of a new access road. Response IV.11-1. Comment so noted; no response is required. JB2/00640011.RTC IV-25 • • • SECTION 3 ATTACHMENTS A. Comment Letters B. Conceptual Biological Mitigation Plan for Loss of Mudflat and Shallow Subtidal Habitat C. Additional References Cited D. County of Orange Ordinance No. 2200 IB2100640011.RTC 3-1 A. • COMMENT LETTERS • ited States Department of the Interior ry pp pgyVPORT BEACH OCT 111991 17SII AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office 24000 Avila Road TAXI M—�-.pff AMMQ=Mmz ■� mom — •—' : Federal Building, Am P97�8)e(1��11 t1t2(3t4►�18 1.3TVA tg1VUg1.. California 92656 October 10, 1991 Ms. Patricia Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Castaways Marina Dear Ms. Temple: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received the referenced draft on August 29, 1991. Unfortunately, due to a staff shortage at this time we are unable to properly review the document. However, due to our prior effort£awo coordinate with the Proponents and the likelihood of a Federal per remarks seem warranted. are bighoRt Intertidal moflflats and shadow subt eouthe�in Calif rnia.ng a They can provide value and most scarce habitat types of shorebirds, waterfowl, wading food for very large numbers and many types endangered California least birds, and diving birds. The andte relies on theral shallow water" habitat tern broads at Upper NewportY for food. The Proposed marina expansion would destroy or digrade Service important habitat types. Were a federal Permit action pending, would likely recommend denial of the permit application for the proposed included excavation of the new Marina basin, little dredgeject morofillrand fewhich slips in the channel area. We regret that we are unable to respond further at this time. It is expected that we would respond to notices of pending California Coastal Act or Corps of �EngineersPermit may be ked atapplications- our Ostaff representative remains He. Rim Gould ice Supervisor • 1. A-1 I.A RECGiDEPAR'MEW PLAN%% EWPORS 30CI4 Q UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CRY OF % National Ocpa�nnnic and Atmospheric Administration }991 \ WJ NSOQUJA*W6StN Reglon SERVICE • Q�i� i 0 " 300 South Ferry Street $`9I% d2jJI2I%9t516 Terminal island, CA 90731 li It October 7, 1991 F/SWRI3:RSH Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 Dear No. Temple: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Castaways Marina, Newport Bay. We offer the.following comments for your consideration. General comments We believe that avoidance or minimization of impacts to high value habitats should be vigorously pursued. As a consequence, ss of mudflat and shallow water we are Concerned over the lo habitat that would occur with implementation of the proposed project and all of the alternatives described, with the exception of the no project alternative. in order to reduce these impacts, I. B-1 we believe consideration should be given to an alternative which includes excavation of the marina basin in the Lower Castaways area but eliminates all slips in the channel area. Dredging requirements, and subsequent impacts to high value intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, would be minimal with this alternative. 8neo *{o Comments • Pace 5 4-15. It is stated that the additional boats introduced by the project will increase the incidence of oil and fuel spills and, therefore, contribute to cumulatively significant water quality degradation in Newport Bay. The mitigation measures I. B-2 described on page 5.5-21, while•reducing the potential impact, will not eliminate those effects. Additional mitigation to offset any remaining impacts should be.proposed. n��o a-5-2o. It is assumed that the new marina basin will be utilized by California halibut in a manner similar to the I. B-3 existing habitat proposed for dredging- Evidence from similar 'projects to support this statement•should be provided. Identification of the specific 1•ocation of the proposed I. B-4 mitigation sites) should be included in the final document. p&ae 5.5-23_ The proposed monitoring program should include I B-5 sampling in the marina basin to ensure that the new habitat • � .qyR,i) I.B • created in this area is in fact utilized by California halibut. If habitat equivalency between the new marina basin habitat and I B-5 the former channel habitat does not exit by the end of the monitoring program (i.e., after five years) then additional mitigation should be proposed. We hope our comments are helpful to you as you continue the planning process for this project. Should you need any additional information regarding our position on this project, please contact Robert Hoffman of my staff at (213) 514-6663. Sincerely, -E.C. Fullerton Regional Director cc: USFWS CDFG • 0 MATE OF CAUFORNIA WERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET ACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Oct 07, 1991 PATRICIA TEMPLE NEWPORT BEACH CITY 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Subject: CASTAWAYS MARINA, NEWPORT BEACH SCH # 88081016 Dear PATRICIA TEMPLE: PETE WILSON, Gdvemor RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT r.ITY OF NEVdPORT BEACH 0CT 9 1991 FM AM 123456 gl$1911UIU11''1 11 1 1 1 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. • Please call Tom Loftus any questions regarding the contacting the Clearinghouse State Clearinghouse number • at (916) 445-0613 if you have environmental review process., in this matter, please use th so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, e When eight -digit David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance II. A-1 ILA Notice oi.Compietion Appendix F /(mbum:S=C7aunghoW-1400TathS=cfoSa=MCodn.G95814 9161445-0613 SCH+1 98081016 project Tltist- Onjact Cit=of Newoo=t Beach— 92663 cc-syP- 3300 Newport boulevard Phone: __--- Newport Beach, CA _ yF 92663 C000ty: _ - Project Location •1 Newport Beach ckyllian st Co®`r. • COY Orange r r Hiahwav 6 Dover Orive Tonl Aces: 4 acres Ctoe Saaam Sa:xiox Twq. Range: —Base Atwatls YamdNa ' 1 W Upper Newport BayAblxc- - avidm3Ata.c s orange CDunty --------------r—� —_—�sehoolc ---__— _ ---- oosumest TYPO CrL". E3NOP ❑SW*mmuSuWequmc Other: . ❑ oftDoommmot a1Do®mc (]Fatly Cos ❑MR(P6oCSCHl;m 13Dm&MS ❑Other ONetDes ❑atbme (]FONM Lsaal Aatlon TYPO ❑ Om:snl Plan Update ❑ Spmci& Pia •❑ Ransom.❑ Arnexadam Redevelopment ❑ Cwed Pia Atnssdmall ❑ Pleaded bm Davaiaf� 13 Pr ❑ U Pre etmtt ® Costal Pecadt ❑Owed Ylw� E3Sia� ❑ Land DMA=(Subdi-im ®pty°'r aAinn Hxrher ❑Cam®sY PacdMap.Tr Mxp.ea) Permits cavelopmmaat TYPO ❑ Waat Fro'Qdet T t `:. l_ (. �. HGD_ ❑ Rsddedd: Dwhg_Acnr ❑ 0 .�. v�l ❑ kh_ Erpkyaat C3 �wcMI w� Ivst ❑'Scdowitu S4it•��Aoa 13 is Cl .Viri6- R l ® v %U0 12iU,ip Immune Discussed in Document �tojse3 C3A Lemd ® AndtmbakaYfi+meied gent 7was g3 �Dtinals/Absotptioe ❑ E<cso kilda ❑ Final ® nood FbidaM ouding ® Owiatie/Sei t ie C3 p�pulldyl�' g Belma m Public samicawfacIod" ® Rac ad°°lPatks ❑ sa:aettrcrairt� .. . ®sepen Sewer c�y ® WL Solid ®Taxictaxazavdaus T..wt ® Veaeedem . Went Quality Warr supply/Omwd ee wrdmdlRipaim vraus ctovth ludurmi Cumdadr0 �ESwa Other --_—_ Premsnt Land Ume(fadngmenerd plan Use Zoning: Planned Community Existin Land Use: Open Space Genera Pt an Ilse_.- Recreational 8 Marine Commercial --------------- project DOsadpllen 125-boat commercial marina located at site of an historical -wring (since removed). New wring to be developed by dredging appriximately 80,000 cubic yards of material from land and bay to provide adpuate channel depth. Support facilities to include: 106 parking spaces, rsstroums, shown, sewage pump -out station. storage anas, fin hydrants, and utilities. CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACTS Tom Lotus STATE REVIEW BSGAN: DEPT REV TO AGENCYt AGENCY REV TO SCH t SCH COMPLIANCE : LEASE NOTE SCE NUMBER ON ALL COMMENTS CHT SKY • X t PLEASE FORWARD LATE COi MTS DIRECTLY TO THE LEAD AGENCY ONLY AQMDIAPCD: (Resources: Off SNT f Co® ACanso Lands Cc= STATE CItJFaRNIA l E LANDS COMMISSION AL! oCARTMY. Lieutanant Governor PRAY DAVIS. Controller 1 WAS W. HAVES, DbeetorarFinenca October 31 1991 Ms. Carol Whiteside State Projects Coordinator The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Room #449 Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Patricia L Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mesdames: S8 Mmmto. CA 3eE Searem CNARLE9 WARREN Esecuiiw OHIu► Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) bas reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Castaways Marina Project (SCH 88081016). Based on this review, we offer the following comments. SLC Jurisdiction An Seueral background, the SLC has jurisdiction and authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. The SLC has an oversight responsibility for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code Section 6301). All tide and submerged lands, grunted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc. are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne co u ncrac, navigation, fisheries, open space, recreation, or other recognized Public Trust purposes. A lease from the Commission is required for any portion of a project extending onto State-owned lands which are under its exclusive jurisdiction and the SLC would be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, if development indirectly affects lands or resources under the jurisdiction of 40 the SLC, the Commission would be a Trustee Agency under the (CBQA). II.B • The proposed project is located on lands that have, been granted in trust by the LZOIAture to the CIty of Newport Beach, with minerals reserved to the state. Therefore, as indicated on page 3-6, the project is subject to authorization of the Commission. GENERAL COMMENTS There appears to be a general lack of significance criteria Without these criteria the document resorts to conclusionary statements of impacts which are unsupported by evidence I I . B-1 in the record. Furthermore, without significance criteria there is no way to measure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures and the residual impacts. The project description should include a clear discussion of liveaboards, public access, waste disposal and drainage provisions. it should also show past, present and future II B-2 (proposed project) bulkhead and plorlines. The impacts of any channel width reduction must then be analyzed for impacts to access and navigation. We appreciate the fact that the nu -project alternative is being considered by the City of Newport Beach. However, the EIR should, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section H. B-3 15126(d)2, identify which of the remaining project alternatives is environmentally superior. The DEIR dues not include a mitigation plan for the loss of 0.69 acres of mudflat or for the loss of 0.28 acres of habitat for "young -of -the -year" halibut. It is, therefore, not possible to determine if mitigation is feasible. The loss of mudflat and nursery area must I I B-4 be considered a significant adverse impact until such time us the mi tigatiou plazt is approved by the appropriate agencies. The mitigation plan must include both monitoring and the remediation measures to be taken if restoration is not successfuL SPECIFIC COMMENTS Page 1-19, paragraph 3 - The enfurcutucut of current regulations does not constitute a mitigation under II. B-5 CEQA. How is this cumulatively significant impact going to be reduced? Page 53-8 - The estimate of annual sediment delivery Is critical for both the economic viability and the environmental impact of this project. How does the estimated rate of 0.1 foot per year and the 5-year interval for maintenance dredging compare to the rates in nearby marinas? What is the basis for assuring that 80% of fluvial sediment is retained in upper I I . B-6 Newport Bay. Does the estimated sedimentation rate take Into account that sediment will not pass by the marina once, but will recycle to some degree with the ebb and flow of the tide? 0 -2- . Page 5.4-6 - Total threshold limit concentrations (rrLC) for hazardous wastes are used to determine the potential for impacts to human health- Water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms are orders of magnitude lower than the TTLC. The TTLC Cannot be used to predict effects of dredging or disposal on aquatic organisms- The results I I B-7 of the sea urchin sperm tests and the tests using the marine worm (Nephtys caccoides) as well as the results of the bioaccumulation tests suggest the dredged sediment may not be suitable for nccan disposal. Page 5.4-11- What methods would be used to treat the discharged water if it does not meet U. S. Eaviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) standards? What will be done if the water cannot I I I . B-8 be sufficiently treated to meet the standards? Page 5.4-11 and 5.5-13 As noted above, the available data does not iuppw t Ilig 4011 1010 that disposal Of I I I B-9 sediments from the project has a low potential to degrade water qualityand/or water quality at the disposal site. Page 5.4-11, bottom - Woody debris from construction should be picked up, not allowed to float out in the I I I . B-10 harbor. Page 5.5-13 - The levels of toxicants must be compared to EPA water quality criteria for the] II. B-11 protection of saltwater organisms, not TTLC. Page 5.5-20 - How will maintmtlauce dredging affect the quality of habitat for juvenile halibut? :1 I1- B-12 Page 5.6-11 - If Southern tarplant is located on the site, it should be protected if at all possible.] I I . B-13 Page 5.6-11 - In Mitigation Measure 5.6-2 - change "sh9vid" to "shall'. ] I I. B-14 -3- cc: 0 0 You for the opportunity to comment. .If you have any of the environmental document, please contact Dr. Mary Berge MIAN rz .CEIVED BY KING DEPARTMENT AND ,.pEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CT , 111991 � Tz pll S01 ►UWAAN STAIS Am 2 $ 4 5 6 SAWA ANA, CA TnQ5 _ 70191101U112111 I I 1 I A 0 E Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1769 Dear Ms. Temple: October 8, 1991 File: IGR/CEQA DER SCH #88081016 Castaways Marina Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft.Bnvironmental Impact Report for the Castaways Marina. The proposed Castaways Marina site is located in the City of Newport Beach north of the Coast Highway Bridge at the intersection a f Dover Drive and Coast Highway. The proposed marina will consist of floating, p upported, and land -base facilities. The- facilities will include restrooms, showers, trash and storage containers, utilities, and two on -site fire hydrants. Caltrans District 12 has the following comments: Due to recent widening projects on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); Calirans is concerned with any project which has the potential to adversely impact a State Facility or worsen local and regional traffic/circulation. It is necessary to reduce the traffic irnpact of the proposed project during constructibn and after eoustructian on PCH to a level of no significance. This can be achieved by implementing mitigation measures that would counterbalance the adverse traffic impacts of this project. Caltrans favors the Alternative 1.35 on page 1-8 from a safety stand point. The l benefits that would be achieved in using this alternative are more substantial than the H. C-2 J other Alternatives presented. In addition, an Encroachment Permit is required for any work within Caltraus Might of Way. Consideration should be given to rclease'of the surface runoff from the project directly towards the existing channel without reaching State Right 'of Way. ..The II. C-3 proposed project wiil'have. a negative impact on the Pacific Coast High y Bridge mitigation measures. Offsets to these impacts should be addressed in the Final Document. 116C Patricia L. Temple October 10, 1992 Page Two We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this NOR If you should have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Aileen Kennedy of my staff at (714) 724-2239. Sincerely, Robert F. J , Ch f Advance Planning Branch cc: Howard Lee, Hydraulics Jane Warren, Traffic Operations Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning r 0 RECEIVED BY STATE OF CAUFORMA-THE 730URCFS AGENCY PLANNINr, DFP-ApMAg PFE �+' =K G+—� DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME -COY OF NEWPORT BEACH . P.o box NINs 2? OCT 2 11991 SACRAMENTO, CA 942442M AM PM (•916) 653-7664 718191IDIu(12311218141516 October 15, 1991 Ms. Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Ms. Temples scu ee091016 - Draft Environmental Impact.Report (EIR) for the Castaways Marina, Newport Bay, Orange County Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the subject EIR for the construction of a 125 slip marina in Newport Bay. The project consists of the removal of an existing bulkhead and construction of a new bulkhead wall, dredging of about 56,000 cubic yards of material behind existing bulkheads and 24,000 cubic yards from the bay, and the construction of a floating dock system within the created marina basin and existing • bay. Landside improvements consist of restrooms, showers, storage facilities, parking area, and landscaping. Dredging will occur after bulkhead construction and will be accomplished by hydraulic dredge for in bay dredging and land based equipment for marina dredging. Dredge material will be disposed of at either Coyote Canyon Landfill or an approved ocean disposal site or a combination of both sites. • The document provides an adequate description of the proposed project and impacts to marine and terrestrial habitats and resources. The proposed project will result in a loss of 0.28 acre of what has been identified as "halibut young -of -year nursery habitat" (shallow subtidal habitat between -1.5 to -3.2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW)) and 0.69 acre of mudflat habitat between -1.5 to +2.5 feet MLLW. These habitat losses have been identified as significant and mitigation for their loss would be required. The applicant has indicated that mitigation will be II. D-1 provided at a 1.5 to 1 ratio. However, no specific mitigation proposal, including monitoring, has been prepared and included in the EIR. The applicant has initiated discussions with the Department and other resources agencies regarding potential mitigation sites within Upper Newport Bay, however; no site - specific plan has been developed. An area of concern, which has not been addressed in the Draft EIR, is the potential exclusion of sport fishermen from existing II. D-2 shoreline areas within the project area. This issue should be addressed in the Final EIR. ILD Ms. Patricia L. Temple October'I5, 1991 Page Two • In addition to the proposed project, the EIR provides an analysis of various project alternatives including the no -project alternative. Alternatives analyzed are: 1. 121 Boat Marina 2. 84 Boat Marina 3. 50 Boat Marina 4. Alternative project site locations within Upper and Lower Newport Bay, West Newport/Newport Shores, Dana Point and Huntington/Sunset Harbor The applicant rejected all alternatives except the 121 Boat Marina because they are either economically not feasible or unavailable. The-121 boat marina would reduce loss of mudflat from 0.69 acre to 0.34 acre, and halibut'young-of-year habitat from 0:28 acre to 0.21 acre. In addition, there would be a reduction in the gain of halibut juvenile habitat from 2.96 acres to 2.50 acres. The project has been altered to include the realignment of bayside boat docks and elimination of four boat slips or side ties, reduction of dredging within Newport Bay, and the construction of rock slopes (breakwaters) at the upper and lower boundary of the boat basin. This alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative, however; we would recommend a further -reduction of in bay dredging to reduce impacts to mudflats by the elimination of boat slips from that portion of the marina in the area of existing mudflats. • Based on our analysis, the Draft EIR is deficient in its discussion of mitigation to offset identified iiapacts, its potential impacts to sport fishing within the project area, and inasmuch as it fails to explore potentially feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives which would eliminate most impacts to existing mudflats. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend against certification of the Draft EIR. Should you -have any questions please contact Mr. Richard Nitsos, Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game, 330 Golden Shore, suite 50, Long Beach, California 90802, telephone (213) 590-5174. cc: Mr. Richard Nitsos Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California 0 Sincerely, 4,,,,J A Sc Pete Bontadelli Director II. 0-3 .,,ATECFCAUFONNIA - RECEIVEL isY PETE WILSON. Gorornor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SANTA ANA REGION 2010 IOWA AVENUE, SUITE 100 OCT 2 1991 ERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92507-2409 P� �i NE: (IER: 714) 7 0 718191101nI)2111213141M TELECOPIER: (714) 781-6288 October 24, 1991 1 Ms. Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR CASTAWAYS MARINA, NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, SCH # 88081016 Dear Ms. Temple: We have reviewed the above -referenced report and note that the DEIR addresses the principal area of concern to us, i.e., impacts to surface water quality in Newport Bay associated with 'the construction and operation of the facility including dredging and dewatering. However, please note the following: 1. The proposed marina, including the parking lot and structures, will" increase the impervious surfaces and the amount of surface runoff. In accordance with the new stormwater regulations published by the EPA in the Federal Register (40 • CPR Parts 122, 123, and 124), stormwater discharges from the II.•E-1 facility must comply with the NPDES permit requirements. The DEIR has recognized these regulations, and we urge you to work closely with the City of Newport Beach and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency to minimize the impact on water quality due to the increased stormwater runoff from the project site. 2. The DEIR has identified the potential increase in the turbidity and suspended sediments from dredging and excavation activities associated with the project. A permit will be required from this Regional Board for dredging activities. II. E-2 The permit will incorporate requirements for the protection of the beneficial uses in accordance with the Basin Plan, the California Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan (EBEP), and other State and Federal regulations. 3. The discharge of any dewatering wastes will also require a permit from this Regional Board. Again, the discharge of II. E-3 wastes to Newport Bay shall be in accordance with the EBEP and other applicable regulations. 4. The toxicity tests with sediments from one of the test sites indicated acute toxicity (page 5.4-7). The DEIR also states that significant bieaccumulation of chemical constituents was II. E-4 found for both the marine worm and clam at all three test • sites (page 5.4.9). It does not appear that these findings have been fully addressed in the DEIR. ILE n lJ 0 • Patricia Temple -2- October 24, 1991 5. We note that specific facilities and policies to address the potential for illegal vessel discharges are proposed by the project .applicant. We commend the applicant for these proposals, which are described on page: 5.4-11. These include installation and routine maintenance of a vessel sewage H. E-5 pumpout station and certain conditions for use of the marina to be included in lease agreements (prohibition of waste discharges; requirement for holding tanks, etc.). We suggest that these proposals be added to the list of mitigation measures specified on pages 5.4-15 and -16 of the DEIR. 6. We commend the applicants' proposal to specifically prohibit painting, scraping and other boat maintenance activities at H. E-6 the marina and to provide routine compliance oversight. Again, we suggest that these measures be added to the list of mitigation measures on pages 5.4-15 and -16. We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIR. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 714-782- 3238. Sincerely, Michael Adacakapara, Chief Regulations Section cc: Tom Loftus, State Clearinghouse AEA17/4015nwpt.eir RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OF OCT 15 1991 PM G E 718191101i111E1 A3141 6 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY OCT 0 9 1991 Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: DEIR for the Castaways Marina MICHAEL M. RUANE DIRECTOR, EMA 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 927n2-4048 TELEPHONE: (714) 834-2306 FAX N 834-2395 mLE NCL 91-130 Dear Ms. Temple: The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach on the Lower Castaways site. The site is immediately north of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge at the intersection of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. The project will construct floating, pile -supported and land -based facilities, which includes restrooms, showers, trash and storage containers, utilities and two onsite fire hydrants, a public viewing area, 106 parking spaces and up to 125 slips of four different sizes. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR resulting in the following comments: BICYCLE TRAILS The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) identifies Route 55, a Class I (paved, off -road) trail in the project vicinity. The EIR should address subject III. A-1 trail and linkage with Route 25, a Class I trail along Pacific Coast Highway. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION The proposed project will create a positive increase in regional recreational opportunities within Orange County by providing new boat slips in Newport Beach III A-1 and public access to coastal areas through the construction of a public viewing area. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have questions, please call Rari Rigoni at (714)834-2109. Very truly yours, Joan Golding, Program Manager Regional Coordination Office By: c isri A. Rigoni,.5r. P ner CH:sp/vmPRCO2-27(1277) 1100409112570 I11,A L" CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 9282&1200 P0. SOX 12°° RECEIVED BY 01 Am MINA DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER AM OCT 15 1991 PM 71819110,u,12111213141516 October 10, 1991 Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: CASTAWAYS MARINA DRAFT EIR Dear Ms. Temple: The City of Costa Mesa has no comments regarding the ]III. B-1 traffic/circulation impacts of the Castaways Marina project. Thank you for the opportunity to review the above -mentioned document. ` Sincerely, N PETER NA VI Transportation Services Manager c • VSC:cv III.B 77 FAIR DRIVE • (714) 754.5334 TERRELL WATT, AICP PLANNING CONSULTANT 1757 UNION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 (415) 563.0543 PAX (416) 463.8701 October 3, 1991 Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OCTAM 7 1991 1911DIll112111213141516 SUBJECT: Draft EIR for Castaways Marina Dear Ms. Temple: This letter is submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) for the purpose of informing the City of SPON's concerns related to the adequacy of the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the proposed Castaways Marina project. The Draft EIR, while a good initial attempt at exposing the issues relevant to the proposed project, falls short of providing adequate information to allow for an informed decision by the City in numerous respects. Set forth below is a summary of the deficiencies in the DEIR. SPON, in submitting these comments incorporates by reference the comments submitted by the Friends of Newport Bay. INADEQUATE SETTING INFORMATION The public trust is an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage in streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right to protection only in rare cases when abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust." National Audubon Society v. Superior Court 33 Cal.3d 419, 441 (1983) At the foundation of an adequate analysis of environmental impacts is a thorough description of the environmental setting. In this case, an crucial piece of setting information has been omitted from the DEIR; the extent of ,public trust lands and the permissible uses under the grant of these lands and resources to the county of Orange. This information is relevant for a number of reasons: 1 MA Patricia Temple October 3, 1991 1. While the lands may have been granted to the County of Orange, such granted lands are monitored by the State Lands Commission to ensure compliance with the terms of the grant. The land grant may be highly restrictive of the permissible uses, and the extent of those uses, and of the lands and resources. Absent this information, it is not possible to determine whether the use proposed is consistent with the public trust restrictions governing those lands and resources. 2. Where competing public trust uses are- under consideration (e.g. a marina vs. fishing and shoreline recreation), the least environmentally damaging alternative should be approved. No public trust use should be approved which precludes an existing public trust use, such as fishing or habitat. Without adequate setting information, this choice cannot be properly made. 3. Finally, the DEIR should contain a map which shows the extent of the public trust lands and the upland area affected by development of those lands. All existing public trust uses should be described. The State Lands Commission, a trustee agency, was missing from the list of agencies contacted during the preparation of the DEIR. This agency should be contacted immediately and included in the dialogue about the appropriate uses for the property consistent with the public trust. Also, the grant to orange County should be described in the DEIR and the complete grant included in the DEIR appendix. IV. A-1 IV. A-2 Absent this information, the City cannot make a determination of what are the uses permitted on the property. Even if a marina use is permitted, if the impacts of that use on other public trust resources or uses would be significant, the marina use should be IV scaled back so impacts will be insignificant or the project denied. What is the justification for a DEIR rather than a joint EIR/EIS? The DEIR identifies significant impacts of the project that are related to the actions required of a number of federal agencies. For this reason, SPON believes that the document should be a joint EIR/EIS. If no EIS is being prepared, what environmental review process will be completed for the federal permits and what is the timing of that process? If a "Finding of No Significant Impacts" A-3 �IV. A-4 IV. A-5 IV. A-6 0 Patricia Temple October 3, 1991 ("FONSI") is being prepared for the Federal actions, what is the rationale for this given the significant impacts identified in the IIV. A-6 DEIR? JJJ The impact analysis does not provide adequate information from which decision makers may choose between the proposed project alternatives. Specifically, the DEIR does not analyze the ability of the Upper Newport Bay/Newport Bay to accommodate additional IV. A-7 marina development without significant negative impact on human, ecological or water quality benefits associated with the.Bay; or in other words, is the Bay's carrying capacity adequate for this type and intensity of use? While the discussion of water quality is a good start, the discussion lacks adequate information to establish whether or not (1) the Bay (Upper and Lower) is already at capacity for this type of use and (2) this use would exceed the Bay"s carrying capacity. Attached is a Carrying Capacity Analysis completed for the Sacramento River Marina by the State Lands Commission. SPON submits this study into the record as an example of the type of analysis required for the DEIR to be considered adequate. In addition, the conclusions reached in the DEIR that virtually' all Aroiec =r fated impacts are insignificant or reduced to a level of insignificance after mitigation are not supported by evidence in the record. Specifically, how are the water quality and biological impacts found to be less than significant? For example, loss of any mudflat habitat, even if replaced, is significant. In this case, the efficacy of the mitigation measure is completely unknown since the "replacement plane has not yet been developed and there is no known site that will suffice for "replacing" or creating new habitat of this kind. IV. A-8 IV. A-9 The lands proposed for this development belong to the public. As such, SPON believes that if the project will result in significant effects or contribute to cumulatively significant effects, the IV. A-10 project as proposed should be denied. This property is part of the public trust. As such, other public trust uses should be evaluated for the area. such uses could include other types of public recreational uses including fishing and swimming. SPON believes that the alternative use of a IV. A-11 swimming and fishing beach with associated support facilities upland should be evaluated for comparative impacts to the proposed project. Such a use would not require dredging and other L • • • Patricia Temple October 3, 1991 disturbance associated with the project. The analysis of the alternatives is cursory and should be expanded pursuant to the carrying capacity analysis called for above. In addition, SPON could find no evidence in the record to support the applicant's contention that the alternative marina's with fewer boat slips were infeasible. In the absence of financial information which demonstrates such reduced projects are in fact infeasible, CEQA provides that the environmentally superior project that meets most project objectives must be adopted. This is inherent in the action -forcing provisions of CEQA. SPON looks forward to reviewing the applicant's data related to project feasibility. The analysis of off -site alternatives is inadequate. It is not sufficient to provide bare conclusions about the suitability of alternative sites. In the absence of even a map of these sites, the public cannot review the sufficiency of the statements at page 1-8 regarding the alternative sites. The DEIR must include comparative information about the specific sites purportedly analyzed so that the public can review this information. In light of the significant effects of the project and the severity of this deficiency, the DEIR should be recirculated once the information has been provided. Absent from the project description are the following items: 1. The number of livaboards or the deed restriction that will preclude such use; (note: livaboards may not be a permissible use) 2. Provisions for public access to the area; 3. Provisions for recycling; 4. Provisions for waste disposal; 5. Details of the drainage plan; SPON assumes that each of these aspects of the project will require environmental analysis at some point in the future if not presented in the DEIR at this time. J IV. A-11 IV. A-12 IV. A-13 IV. A-14 •Patricia Temple October 3, 1991 r • MI SPISIMN 0 ZW616V0) The study area for the cumulative impact analysis is inadequate and therefore the list of cumulative projects fails to include projects that are likely to contribute to cumulative impacts. I.V. A-15 This in turn resulted in an inadequate discussion of cumulative impacts with respect to water quality, among other impacts. Specifically, the project study area appears to include only those projects directly adjacent to the Bay in Newport Beach. Projects outside of Newport generate runoff into the Bay. Such projects include but are not limited to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, projects in Irvine and Santa Ana within IV. A-16 the watershed of the Bay. Runoff from development in these areas will also contribute to the degradation of water quality in the Bay and must be considered in the cumulative analysis. The DEIR should be revised to include a study area for water quality impacts that includes the area of runoff into the Bay at IV. A-17 a minimum. The cumulative analysis should be based on this study area. A number of key mitigation measures, relied on to reduce significant impacts to a level of insignificance are not true mitigation measures, but simply future plans or studies. These include the following: 1. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan for the loss of the 69 acres of mudflat habitat. (It is unknown whether there are any sites where true new habitat can even be created). 2. A detailed conceptual mitigation plan to replace the halibut nursery habitat. See above comment. 3. A landscape and irrigation plan. (This plan should be part of the project description and its impacts analyzed as part of the project since runoff from the site could impact the public trust resources. Also, why are grease traps not required as mitigation pursuant to the new EPA NPDES regulations? This issue must be analyzed in the DEIR and is not.) 4. Grading plan and soil engineering reports. 5 IV. A-18 •Patricia Temple October 3, 1991 i • These plans will not be subject to public scrutiny contrary to CEQA. They should be completed and evaluated in a recirculated IV. A-18 DEIR. Also, it is not apparent how the effect of an accidental spill IV. A-19 can be reduced to a level of insignificance. If a spill happens, the impacts will be significant. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed marina. Please keep this office informed of upcoming hearings on the project. L' Very truly yours, W&-- Terry Watt FRIENDS OF NENPORT BAY •P. 0. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 LJ Patricia L. Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Aft OCT 41991 7i819i@iui12I1I2A41516 SUBJECT: Castaways Marina, Draft Environmental Impact Report. The board of directors of Friends of Newport Bay (FONB) of which I am a member has asked me to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of the pro- posed Castaways Marina on their behalf. FONB was founded 24 years ago to pre- serve and protect Upper Newport Bay. Since 1968, the Friends have presented environmental tours as a free public service during the migratory season. Thousands of people, of all ages, have attended these tours, the purpose of which is to educate the citizenry regarding this critically important estu- arine ecosystem, including how to enjoy it without ruining it. FONB has a membership of approximately 1500 people, most of whom are local residents. While we recognize that the EIR is directed toward the details of the pro- posed marina, the project raises issues that involve the public policies of the city of Newport Beach, the county of Orange, the California Department of Fish and Game and other governmental agencies. Therefore, in the absence of a more suitable forum, we will address these issues so that more informa- tion will be available to everyone as this project moves through the reviewing process. THE CITY OF NE47PORT BEACH AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ARE REQUIRED TO MANAGE THE TIDELANDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE GRANTS AND ARTICLE X OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIO Early in this century the city of Newport Beach and the county of Orange re- ceived tideland grants from the state legislature. The county of Orange was authorized to develop a harbor in mm at no public expense. Both the county and city agencies are required to conform to the common law tidelands trust as stated in Article X of the state Constitution. This protects the public rights in the tidelands for commerce, fishing, navigation and access. These rights evolved from the Greek philosophers over 2,000 years ago. In 1970, the Supreme Court of the state of California included ecology and education as proper uses of the tideland trust. This ruling provided the basis of a 1975 state law that established the Upper Newport Bay State Eco- logical Reserve. Article X applies as well to all of the tidelands outside the ecological reserve. IV.B 2) Friends of Newport Bay - Castaways Marina, Draft EIR THE PROPOSED MARINA • DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The city of Newport Beach permits waterfront home owners to build piers in front of their property limited to the extention of the property lines. This policy allows property owners to build piers up to the width of their property. The proposed marina has a land frontage of approximately 450' However, the piers proposed for the marina extend approximately 1,000' along the waterway, approximately 550' more than the amount permitted by city policy. Most of the proposed piers are well out in the public water away from the marina property. We believe that the marina proposed by California Recreation Com- IV. B-1 pany should be limited to the 450' width of their property in keeping with public policy so that the remaining tidelands can be managed in the spirit of the tidelands trust for the purposes of commerce, fishing, navigation, access and recreation. A larger marina to increase the income of the California Recreation Company hardly qualifies as a compelling public benefit. THE U.S. BULKHEAD AND PIERHEAD LINES DO NOT EXIST • Exhibit 3-3 showing the locations of the U.S. bulkhead and U.S. pierhead lines is in error. These lines do not exist. Many years ago the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted bulkhead and pierhead lines in anticipation of a land trade pro- posed by The Irvine Company. The lines never were adopted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. When the proposed land trade was aban- IV. B-2 doned, the lines were removed by a Minute Order of the Board of Supervisors. If this project is to be considered, bulkhead and pierhead lines must be adopted by the county and be approved by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. Any new harbor lines in this area must meet the U.S. Corps of Engineers requirements. CHANNEL CONSTRICTION NORTH OF THE BRIDGE Condition Width 1) No marina (present condition) 450' 2) With proposed marina 300' 3) With the old proposed bulkhead 550' lines (abandoned by the Board of • Supervisors) 3) Friends of Newport Bay - Castaways Marina, Draft EIR Without the approved bulkhead and pierhead lines, it is unclear • to me whether or not this project can proceed through the re- IV. B-3 view process. in addition, this project fronts on and is in the tideland grant to the county of Orange. Therefore, does the city of Newport IV. B-4 Beach have the authority to approve or disapprove the pier sys- tem of this project? It is clear from the bulkhead lines, originally proposed by the county, that a wider channel was preferred. This project re- IV. B-5 duces the effective width of the channel to approximately one- half of the proposed channel width. PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FISHING WILL BE DEGRADED There are approximately 31.5 miles (166,3001) of waterfront in all of Newport bay. In the lower bay, there are 10 public piers available for fishing. These piers represent less than 400' available for fishing without a boat. The last significant shoreline beaches are in UNB. One is located at North Star Beach but was significantly impacted when the aquatic center was built. The other location is below the Castaways next to the site of the proposed marina pier extension. This beach is one of the finest fishing beaches on the southern California . coast because all fish entering or leaving UNB must pass this area. It is known that over 70% of the ocean's fish must spend part of their life cycle in an estuary such as UNB. The piers would impact severely 600' of the 1800' now available for shoreline fishing. Since the tideland trust protects the IV. B-6 public's right to fish, the marina should not extend beyond the land property line of the marina. MITIGATION Dredging at the marina site in the channel will remove signif- icant amounts of mud flats. The EIR suggests that the lost mud flats be replaced by dredging in UNB. Some parts of Shellmaker IV B-7 island in the ecological reserve are being considered. I do not think that any part of the ecological reserve or any other part of UNB should be considered for this purpose. This rich, diverse endangered environment became a state ecological reserve in 1975 as a result of the efforts of thousands of people nationwide, the unanimous support of all members of the state assembly and state senate, all governmental committees, the governor and an expend- iture of $3.48 million. An additional $13,000,000 was appropri- ated later for the restoration of the UNB. The intent of the legislature is clear. The UNB shall remain a • state ecological reserve in perpetuity. It shall not be destroyed 4) Friends of Newport Bay - Castaways Marina, Draft EIR by being converted into a vehicle existing merely to provide • handy mitigation. If this happens, the reserve will be digested bite by bite and all of its interrelated flora and fauna will be exterminated. The thousands of children and adults who now enjoy it and love it will be the losers. In the past, conventional wisdom held that the best use of wet- lands and open water was the conversion of these resources to boat related activities. As a result, Newport bay is now the IV. B-8 world's largest small boat harbor with 10,500 boats. When is enough enough? The EIR includes the marina basin dredged area (6.99 acres) as compensation for the loss of open water foraging for birds and bottom foraging for fish. This area should not be considered since the area principally is to be covered by boats and docks bringing pollutants such as the poison from bottom paints and other chemicals. It also is likely there will be a siltation problem similar to that in Dover Shores. This proposal in no way compares to an open channel, flushed and cleaned by tidal currents. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that a modification of the 84 boat instead of the 125 boat marina, the modification limiting the pier to the frontage between the pr (450'). This marina configuration will have a on the ecology and public fishing rights in UNB. Respectfully, Frank Friends of Newport Bay 0 IV. B-9 marina be built consisting of operty lines IV. B-10 minimum impact ea P.O. BOX 25 SANTA ANA. CA 92702 - - Audubon RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4age CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • • October 6, 1991 Patricia L Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: Comments on Castaways Marina Draft EIR Dear Ms. Temple; After review of the subject EIR, we have several major concerns are for the environmental health Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. These are given order or priority: AM OCT 91991 718191100164112131415 6 A comments. Our of the Upper in no particular i. The long pier planned for the main channel would have significant potential to increase pollution in the upper bay. While waste discharges are not permitted in the harbor,.it is well known that they do occur, and enforcement.of the law has been difficult. Coupled with this is the chance for accidental discharge of fuel -and oil. Because this pier borders the main channel a flood tide could easily distribute wastes and IV. C-1 hydrocarbons.over the entire ecological reserve in just a few hours, well before any containment response could be organized. This is a highly dangerous situation which dictates removal of this long pier from any project plan. 2. All alternatives listed for this project are clearly described as having less short term and long tl?bm environmental impacts than the proposed plan. The 84-Boat Marina alternative has the smallest pier and therefore the least impact on the chances IV. C-2 for disastrous pollution of the upper bay. Why is there no alternative described using only the Lower Castaways basin, with no protrusion into the main channel? 3. The only mitigation measures offered for the dredging activity period seem to be that proper permits will be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection IV. C-3 Agency, etc. Except for screening to reduce turbidity (as feasible) the mere approval of these agencies does not give confidence that the effects of dredging will be insignifcant. IV.0 t n 0 4. At several points mitigation for mudflat and halibut habitat removal is offered, suggesting that this will, or may, occur within the upper bay. This plan contains the possibility of IV. C-4 further heavy activity in the Ecological Reserve, and while not impossible, should be approached with extreme caution and approval of the California Department of Fish and Game. S. We feel the disposal activity of dredged'materials would be least damaging if the ocean disposal were to be used IV. C-5 exclusively, removing the impacts on the local neighborhoods and the Upper Castaways site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report, and your review of our comments. Sincerely, '-f, hl�ok Richard E. Kust for the Conservation Committee 6101 NEWMAN, SUITE C hvNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 0 JAN D.'VANDERSLOOT, M.D. DIPLOMAT£ A"fAICAN DOAA00! DEAMATOLOOY 2221 East 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 October 7, 1991 Patricia Temple Principal Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Re: Castaways -Marina EIR Dear Ms. Temple, (7141848.0770 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN OCT 10 1991 FM 7181911DIU112111213141516 Enclosed are my comments relative to the Draft EIR for the above project. Further alternatives should be discussed in the EIR: 1. A%traffic signal, temporary or permanent, should be considered for the entrance into the project site; without connecting to Cliff Drive. This signal would.be 3-way, would not require a cut into the bluff facing Dover Drive, would obviate IV. D-1 the need for the destructive temporary road across the Upper Castaways, and would allow the trucks hauling material away from the site easy access to PCH. Therefore,,there would be no adverse impacts to Cliffhaven or Newport Heights. 2. Ways to remove the "temporary" road'across the .Upper Castaways should be more thoroughly considered. An alternative is to haul the material up Irvine Ave. to �IV. D-2 the Coyote Canyon Land Fill, thus not requiring the trucks to make a U-turn on Dover or cisc9't above on the temporary road to get back down to PCH. 3. A "Minimum Grading Alternative" should be discussed in the EIR. The less grading, the fewer trucks are needed to haul the -..material away. Such a plan' IV. D-3 would mean no:.temporary road, no cuts into the bluff, no high retaining walls .along.Dover, minimum dredging of the bay. 4. A 60 space marina with no floating ducks protruding into the bay should be I analyzed. The floating docks appear.:to:.disturb.;current flow into and out of the bay north of the bridge (see Hydrology Study, Appendix E, Figures 5,6,7,8). IV. D-4 An alternative without docks protruding into the bay is not present in the EIR. 5. An asialysis of shoreline erosion of the bay below the Castaways bluffs should be in the EIR. Flood current (high tide) and ebb current (low tide) both will act IV. D-5 to scour'the shoreline, increasing erosion of the shore (again, see Appendix E, Hydrology Study, Figures 7 and 8, Noble Consultants). r 6. Exactly where the temporary road will go on the Upper Castaways, as well as where the dredge spoils will be dried out on the Upper Castaways should be in the IV. D-6 EIR. . 7. The plans of the Irvine Company to dedicate .the "nose" of the Castaways for open space as part of its Open Space and Circulation Development Agreement should be in the EIR. Portions of the "nose" appear to be negatively impacted by this IV. D-7 project, including grading of the bluffs, the temporary road, the drying out site for dredged material. The EIR lacks assessment of the cumulative impacts of 1V.^ JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. . DIILOMATE AMCnICAN DOAnO Of OCDMATOLOGY Pat Temple 6101 NEWMAN, SUITE C Castaways Marina EIR (7hj6t6•oT70 UNTINGTONBEACN,CA9t6+T October 7., 1991 page-2 this project on the Upper Castaways and its ecologic resources. 8. The project EIR.lacks a cumulative impacts assessment on.the communities of Cliffhaven and Newport Heights. Specifically, if a signal is placed at Dover and Cliff, through traffic may increase on Cliff Drive, especially as•traffic IV. D-8 increases on PCH as a result of the other large projects planned in the general area, including the Hoag Hospital expansion, and the West Newport Oil project at the Santa Ana River Mouth. 9. The Water Quality section does not appear to address the question of long term pollution of the bay, especially the Upper Newport Bay ecologic -reserve, because of oil, grease, and gasoline discharged into the bay as a result of operating motor boats. These pollutants will be directly swept into the Upper at high tide. IV. D-9 Bay because of the floating dock protruding into fhe flood current 26 March 1990, - This question was ibkdd by the City's CEQAC's Subcommittee on EIRS, as well as other questions by CEQAC, but which were not answered in the EIR. 10. A coastal bluff along Dover exists. The EIR does not appear to recognize �( the City's coastal bluff protections in the General Plan or LCP, Applicability IIV. D-10 of the Coastal Bluff' ordinances to this project should be in the EIR. J 11. Two wetlands appear to be impacted by this project: the wetlands containing halibut nurseries in the Bay, and wetlands along Dover which may be impacted the IV. D-11 ' by the temporary road, Because of the signifidance of Upper Newport Bay to regional environment, the US Fish and Wildlife Service should have been notified in the EIR. and comments solicited. There is no evidence that USFWS was notified 12. Because of the potential current changes induced by Chid project, the US Army this project. Corps of Engineers should be more completely informed of the scope of in the tidal" prism A modelling study of shoreline erosion, and possible changes bridge, should be'.doue by the IV. D-12 entering the Upper Bay north'of the Coast Highway Corps before this project is considered by the City. This project affects navigable ` waters::and may affect navigation into and out of the Bay, affecting Dover Shores and'the Dunes -Aquatic Park. 13.•There should be a discussion of the permitting agencies involved in the approval of this project, including applicable sections of the Coastal Act and IV. D-13 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: 14. The project Daiy.bxaviolation of the Tidelands Public Trust administered by the State. It appears to turn public tidelands into a private venture. A discussion the State IV. D-14 of the tidelands ramifications should be in the EIR. The position of in the EIR. .be Lands Commission should more thoioughly researched than what is stated 15. Halibut habitat' for juveniles appears to be mitigated under the boats in the it appear that marina. Is this mitigation acceptable to the resource agencies? would thins IV. D-15 pollution from the boats, oil, gas, paint, and the frequent dredging of make this area an area due to acknowledged siltation of the marina, would not acceptable mitigation site for juvenile halibut. 1101 NEWMAN, SUITE C WNTINGTON BEACH, CA 916/1 JAN D.'VANDERSLOOT, M.D. D)PLOUA,[ AMCMCAM SOAAD O, D[nMAYOLOGY Pat -.Temple Castaways Marina EIR 1714184e•0770 October 7, 1991 page 3 16. A desire to mitigate the halibut nursery somewhere in Upper Newport Bay is expressed in the EIR. Exactly where it is intended to be mitigated should be is the EIR, since the'rest of Upper Newport Bay is itself sensitive habitat. Mitigating IV. D-16 into an already high value wetland would result in the net loss of wetlands which is contrary to state policies and law. ` 17. An alternative showing a publicly useful marina-, such as a ramp for trailers for small boats, should -be in the EIR, since the land is publically tidelands and should have public access. Such an alternative would require the least amount of IV. D-17 dredging and would cause the least amount of environmental damage, yet be consistent with the City's desire for a marina there. 18. An effort to identify possible ways to'transfer the site to.public ownership should be in the•ETA. Such a transfer would be most consistent with the effort IV. D-18 to transfer the whole of the Castaways to public ownership, and would be the most consistent with keeping the nose of Castaways as natural open space. Sincerely-, / Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 9 kEGt1YLU DI L VNING DEPARTMENT Ty OF NEWPORT BEACH N #T . 8 1991 PM I1201011111211121 A516 Octobel 7, 1991 Ms. Pat Temple Advanced Planning Manager CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Pat: It was a pleasure to meet with you and Jerry King last week regarding the proposed marina development at the Lower Castaways site. As we discussed, the Cliff Haven community has a number of concerns relative to the development of both the Upper and Lower Castaways site. Our "position paper" regarding the Upper Castaways site was drafted and circulated this spring; I will forward a copy to you shortly. our concerns regarding development of the Lower Castaways site are listed below. It is our understanding that, as part of the development of Lower astaways, a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection f Cliff and Dover Drives, and Cliff Drive will be extended into the proposed marina project. While we welcome the idea of crosswalks across Dover to provide access to both Lower and Upper Castaways, we also fear that a traffic signal will inevitably create more traffic up Cliff Drive and the closest arterial outlet streets (Kings Place and Signal Road). Therefore, we request that the following mitigation measures be incorporated concurrently with installation of the traffic signal and extension of Cliff Drive: a. The timing of the left -turn signal should be infrequent enough that traffic is discouraged from making left turns onto Cliff from northbound Dover, thereby IV. E-1 negating any time saving that this "shortcut" might otherwise provide. We do not want Cliff Drive to pick up PCH traffic. b. The signal should default to a green light in each direction for Dover Drive traffic -- this should be the signal's normal position. Only when significant traffic accrues should the light change to stop traffic IV. E-2 from freely flowing on Dover. This not only helps with a. above, but also will eliminate any potential backup of cars on Dover, at the Cliff/Dover intersection (we are especially concerned about backed up traffic on southbound Dover). IV.E Page two C. Speed bumps should be installed along Kings Place and ' Signal Road, between Cliff Drive and 15th Street. This will not only discourage people trying to make a shortcut from PCH to the Newport Heights area (Newport Beach and Costa Mesa), but will also help to reduce the existing problem Kings Place and Signal Road residents are experiencing with speeders. Further, "SLOW - IV. E-3 Children at Play" signs should be posted on these streets. We welcome your suggestion of designing signs that are of more architectural interest (and thus more likely to be read) than the standard yellow diamond signs. d. A sign indicating "PCH - that -a -way" should- be installed at the intersection of 16th Street and Irvine IV. E-4 Avenue, so that PCH-bound vehicles do not proceed all the way to Cliff Drive. e. Crosswalks should be incorporated into the signal design for the Cliff/Dover intersection. Ideally, crosswalks should be located across all four corners of IV. E-5 the intersection. If only three crosswalks are designed, the crosswalk across Dover should be located on the north end (i.e., connecting the medical offices to the access to Upper Castaways). f. The requisite bluff retaining wall for the extension o Cliff Drive must be constructed in such a way as to minimize the block' effect of such a massive structure. Ideally we would like to see a series of gradual setbacks, each landscaped in harmony with the IV. E-6 proposed landscape plan for the marina/P B & R's plans for the view park on Upper Castaways. Additionally, pedestrian areas to the Upper Castaways should be incorporated into the overall design. our community should be involved in this architectural process as it develops. g. Finally, the existing public walkway appearing on the Cliff Haven tract map that I pointed out to you during our meeting should be developed to provide access to the Castaways site for Cliff Haven residents. A significant number of our residents would have much greater access to both Lower and Upper Castaways were this existing public land to be used for the purpose IV. E-7 intended. Obviously, given the heavily treed, rustic flavor of the area, the public walkway should respect the existing landscape and conform ac much ae poasible. Jerry King informed me today that he has already begun exploratory discussions with the City and The Irvine Company regarding development of this walkway. • Page three Pat, we sincerely appreciate the time and energy you and your staff have already invested in the proposed development of the Castaways site. As we all know, a great deal of work lies ahead. We are hopeful that through the participatory planning process that has evolved in three invipient stages, the development of Upper and Lower Castaways will become a model for future processes and projects. I, or other members of the Board of Directors of the Cliff Haven Community Association, am available to meet with you and/or other officials regarding this proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you desire further clarification of our concerns. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, wl-t: lled Q Mark G. Hoglund Vice President Cliff Haven Community Enclosures xc: Al Beaudette Jerry King Tom Redwitz 0 Association 10/04/91 Pat Tample, James Rociuba 2215 Sixteenth St - Newport Beach,CA (714) 646 - 6625 I have reviewed the Castaways Marina Draft EIR's traffic ` circulation element, and feel additions need to be made. 1) The draft calls for a temporary road that extends from Dover Drive and Sixteenth Street to the marina area. This road,was deemed necessary to allow Coyote Landfill bound dirt hauling tracks leaving the marina development site to access PCH without making a U-turn on Dover Drive. Alternatly, the trucks could leave the development site's primary oatrance headed north on Dover Drive, turn left on Westeliff Drive, turn right on Irvine Ave., turn right on Bristol, then proceed to the Coyote Landfill. This scheme eliminates the U-turn in question, therby eliminating the used for the temporary road. This dirt hauling . option needs to be examined. 2) Why does the Upper Castaways development concept have a permanent access to the temporary road? Since the Castaways Marina site is to be developed long before the Upper Castaways site, the Upper Castaways site does not need permanent access to the temporary road. Does the Upper Castaways permanent access to the temporary =cad mean the temporary road in the Castaways Marina draft EIR is not temporary? 3) If the temporary road is built, when will the temporary road be permanently closed? 4) when the temporary road is closed, what will it be permanently replaced with and when? 5) The Irvine Ave. and Wastcliff Drive intersection, along with the Irvine Ave. and Sixteenth Street intersection, will be impacted by the Castaways Marine development- This impact needs to contained in the EIR. 6) Finally, the trattic impact needs to be analyzed on Costa Mesa's East Sixteenth Street between Newport Blvd. to Irvine Ave. This is a residential street segment that is not on the county's master plan of highways, and whose residents are sensitive to traffic increases due to this ma=ina development. please answer all six issues in the EIR. If any issue is vague or unclear, contact me by phone or mail. IV. F-1 IV. F-2 IV. F-3 IV. F-4 IV. F-5 IV. F-6 IV.F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EO. BOX 1768, NEWWRT BEACH, cA 92659-1768 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS EIR SUBCOMMITTEE September 2011991 COMMITTEE gust 1 comments Volume I aways Marina Draft Environmental impact Report, Of 11- 1.. The 121-boat alternative significantly.reduces concerns regarding 6-3)]Iv, G_1 wetlands destruction, primarily due to the reduced dredging. (• 2- Traffic safety requires signaiization.of the project entrance at Dover IV. G-2 Drive/Cliff Drive intersection. (6-9) 3. Timing of the construction should be carefully planned to cause least � disruption to the reproductive cycle of the birds and -fish. Iv. G-s • (Tables 1.21, 5.4-4). - 4. Attention should be given to changing "could" to "should" in the last paragraph regarding aesthetic impact of the Alternative Site Access IV. c 4 Design. (6-9) May Lou Zoglin, Chairperson EIR Subcommittee i and Lue rs, Chairman Environmental Quality Affairs Committee 3300 Newport Boulevard, NewportBeach IV.G aBAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 2889 Bayahore Drive, Newport Beach, California 92863 r A4i September 25, 1991 718191101i-;ry; �S_n.�F • ,J Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. ` Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Castaways Marina Draft EIR Coast Highway & Dover Drive Dear Patty: The Board of Directors of the Bayshores Community Association has met and reviewed the Draft EIR on the Castaways Marina project. The Board has voted to approve the project with the condition that the • alternate access plan as detailed in Section 6.4 of the EIR be incorporated into the overall project. This requires the entrance of the marina to IV. H-1 be located at the Cliff Drive extension to Dover Drive with the development of a new access road. Should you require any further information or clarification, please feel free to give me a call at (714)833-7657. Very truly yours, BAYSHORES COMM,,UU�NNITY ASSOCIATION Kevin M. Green President KMG:pt cc: Christine Padilla Jack Teal • IV.H B. CONCEPTUAL BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN FOR LOSS OF MUDFLAT AND SHALLOW SUBTMAL HABITAT ~BIOLOGICAL -' MI TIGATION OFM Oss" '* UDF DRTHEL 4,f,( LLM'. U BTI DAL HABITAT... j sways a n IF" rnnm6n MD 11 dcf Repo -3, 'w ... . . p ASSOCIATES OCrOBER 9, 1991, DRAFT CONCEPTUAL BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE LOSS OF MUDFLAT AND SHALLOW SUBTIDAL HABITAT CASTAWAYS MARINA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse #88081016 Prepared for. Michael Brandman Associates 2530 Redhill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 250-5555 Contact: ]EL Lee Jones Director, Resources Management L I Prepared by: EIP Associates 80 South Lake Avenue Suite 600 Pasadena, California 91101 (818) 568-1363 Contact: Robert R. Ware, Senior Associate October 9, 1991 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1- 1.1 Objectives and Goals of the Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan .................... 1.2 Document Organization ............................................... 1-1 2 CASTAWAYS MARINA OVERVIEW ..................................... 2-1 3 PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA ........................................ 3-1 3.1 Site Selection...................................................... 3-1 3.2 Site Description.................................................... 3-1 3.3 Existing Condition ................................................. 3-2 4 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DESIGNS ...................... 4-1 4-1 4.1 General. ................................................ • 4.2 Proposed Habitat Design .............................................. 4-1 4-1 4.3 Alternatives....................................................... • 5 OPPORTUNITIE4 AND CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................... 5-1 5-1 5.1 Opportunities ...................................................... 5-1 5.2 Constraints....................................................... 6 PROJECT TASKS .................................................... 6-1 6.1 Agency Coordination ................................................ 6.1 6.2 Preparation of Final Conceptual Design 6-1 6.3 Permitting 6-1 6.4 Construction Level Specification ........................................ 6-1 6.5 Salt Marsh Transplant ................................................ 6-1 6.6 Habitat Construction ......................................... 6 ....... 6-2 6.7 Post -Construction Topographic Survey .................................... 6-2 6.8 Monitoring and Habitat Restoration Evaluation .............................. 6-2 7 PROJECT SCHEDUL NG.............................................. 7-1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) • 8 PROJECT STAFF ......... ..................... ..................... 8-1 9 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ................................. 9-1 10 LITERATURE CITED ................................................ 10-1 n U 0 LIST OF TABLES Table Pape 2-1 Estimated Dredging Requirements For Shallow Subtidal and Mudflat Impacts forAlternative Marina Designs ......................................... 2-3 4-1 Alternatives to Proposed Project Design ................................... 4-3 5-1 Existing Habitats in the Project Area and Projected Losses of Each Habitat Type ................................................ 5-2 iii I• I• LIST OF FIGURES Emm Pao 2.1 Project Vicinity Map ................................................. 2-2 3.1 Shellmaker Island and Proposed Mitigation Site .............................. 3-3 3.2 Habitat and Vegetation Types .......................................... 3-6 4.1 Proposed Habitat Design .............................................. 4-2 4.2 Plan View of Proposed and Alternative Designs .............................. 4-5 4.3 Alternative 1 Habitat Design ........................................... 4-6 4.4 Alternative 2 Habitat Design ........................................... 4-7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Partial Topographic Survey Map of Shellmaker Island iv 0 L INTRODUCTION Ll OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE DRAFT CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN The Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan has been prepared to augment the Castaways Marina Find ML The objective is to design a conceptual mitigation program that meets county, state, and federal guidelines for the no net loss of in -kind habitat resulting from the removal of intertidal mudflat and shallow subtidal fishery babitat at the proposed Castaway Marina site. The mitigation plan goal is to restore mudflat habitat for use as shorebird foraging habitat and shallow water nursery habitat for young -of -the -Year (YOTY) halibut, Parahchthvs califomicus, within Upper Newport Bay. The Project Applicant, California Recreation Company (CRC), has entered into a preliminary agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) to restore additional shallow subtidal habitat. Funds for this put of the restoration work will be contributed by the CDF&G through a maintenance dredging mitigation built administered by the City of Newport Beach 0 L2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION 0 The cornxpnul mitigation plan is divided into six sections. • Section 2 reviews the proposed marina development project and expected marine biological impacts that require mitigation. • Section 3 identifies an on -site mitigation area in Upper Newport Bay and describes the existing biological conditions within the proposed mitigation area. • Section 4 describes proposed and alternative concept designs for the restoration of mudflat and subtidal habitats. • Section S identifies -potential opportunities and constraints related to the mitigation effort • Section 6 outlines tasks that will be required from the selection of the final concept design through the completion of mitigation monitoring. • Section 7 provides the phasing for the tasks outlined in Section 6. 91333 1-1 2. CASTAWAYS MARINA OVERVIEW California Recreation Company (CRC) proposes to comsuuct and operate a marina at the lower Castaways site in the City of Newport Beads, Orange County, California. The site is immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge at the intersection of Dover Drive and Coast Highway (Figure 2.1). The proposed marina project will consist of floating, pile -supported, and land -based facilities to support a total of 125 boats. Sixty-one of the boat slips or side ties will be located within a marina basin and sixty-four wr71 be located in the main channel of Upper Newport Bay. The construction and operation of the marina will require the dredging of 24,000 Cubic yards of bottom sediments from the main charnel of Upper Newport Bay using a ciamshell dredge. Based on marine biological habitat and community impact analysis for the project ER Mchad Brardman Associates, 1991), dredging will result in the permanent reduction in the amount of intertidal mudflat areas that are foraging habitat for shorebirds, and a permanent reduction in shallow subtidal channel habitat that ,is considered to be not only important fishery habitat in general. but particularly important nursery habitat for young -of -the year (YOTY) halibut. These losses are considered to be significant, long tens impacts that can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the successful restoration of these habitats within the Upper Newport Bay system. In accordance with California Emromnemal Quality Act guidelines, alternative marina designs were analyzed in an attempt to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the project. These are reviewed in the E1R. A summary of the reduction in habitat losses associated with the various marina design alternatives, compared to the proposed project, is provided in Table 2.1. Of the three alternatives considered, the 121 slip alterative is environmentally superior to the proposed project because it reduces the amount of "wet" material dredging required and the loss of shallow subtidal and mudflat habitat by approximately 46 percent. Consequently, this alternative was selected to be the model for the conceptual mitigation plan. The 121 slip option is also considered to be an economically feasible alternative by the applicant and along with the proposed project (125 slip marina), is under consideration by the City of Newport Beach as a viable project in the DEIR. Despite the significant reduction in the amount of dredging required under the 121 slip marina altemative (46%), unavoidable losses of mudflat and shallow subtidal halibut nursery habitat are still expected to occur. These losses can be mitigated to an insignificant impact upon the successful compensation of 2-1 Project Vicinity Map Shellmaker Island Mitigation Project Figure 2.1 TABLE 2-1 ESTIMATED DREDGING REQUIREMENTS AND SUBTIDAL AND MUDFLATJMPACTS FOR ALTERNATIVE MARINA DESIGNS Proposed Project 121-Boat 84-Boat 50-Boat (125-Boat) Alternative Alternative Alternative A. Estimated Amount of Dredging Dry Material (cy)' 56,000 56,000 56,000 3,500 - Wet Material (cyp 24,000 11,000 11,000 13,000 Total (cy) 801000 67,000 67,000 16,500 B. Hellbut (YOTY Nursery) Removed (acres)° -0.34 -0.24 -0.28 -0.28 Created (acres) +0.06 +0.03 +0.02 +0.02 Net Loss (acres) -0.21 -0.21 -0.26 -0.26 R Halibut (Juvenile) Removed (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Created (acres) +2.96 +2.50 +2.50 +0.10 Net Gain (acres) +2.96 +250 +250 +0.10 D. Mudtlat Removed (acres) -0.74 0.34 0.65 0.65 Created (acres) +0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Net Loss (acres) -0.69 -0.34 -0.65 -0.65 cy . cubic yards YOTY - young of year • 'Dry Material" is material behind existing bukhead. b "Wet Material" is material on bottom of bay. • •Removed refers to the total amount of habitat that is altered to depth contours outside the defined range for each habitat type. 'Created refers to the total amount of habitat that is altered to depth contours within the defined range for each habitat type. Source: Cash and Associates, 1991. 0 2-3 2. Castaways Marina Overview • mudflat and halibut habitat. The pmjec t applicant proposes to compensate the loss at a ratio of 1.5 times the amount of habitat removed as a result of dredging. u 2-4 • 3. PROPOSED MITIGATION AREA 3.1 SrM SELECTION Shetbnalcer. Island was selected as the mitigation site as a result of discussions between the project applicant and their consultants, the City of Newport Beach, the California Department of Fish and Game, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) during meetings held at the project site on January 29, 1991. The specific mitigation area on Shelimaker Island is located immediately with of a tidal channel cut that bisects the island In keeping with a primary objective of the'CDF&G Upper Newport Bay Management Plan to manage the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve for tidal and mudflat habitat use by fishes and shorebirds (CDF&G, urqublisbed report), this project provides an opportunity to restore a dredge -spoil disposal area to productive shallow water and intertidal mudflats by recomouring existing elevations and removing the dredge spoils from the island. • 3.2 SITE DESCRIMON Shellmaker Island Is located one mile northeast of the proposed Castaways marina site, and immediately north of the Dimes Marina launch ramp facilities (Figures 2.1 and 3.1). It is located at the southern boundary of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve which has been under the stewardship of the CDF&G since it was acquired from the County of Orange and the Irvine Company in 1974. For many years, Shellmaker Island was used as a dredge spoil disposal site and dredge operations staging area. Consequently, portions of the salt marsh and mudfLus were eliminated and transformed into higher elevation open sandy areas, colonized by upland vegetation. The southern one-fourth of Shellmaker Island is joined to the mainland by a dirt mad. Buildings formally occupied by the Shellmaker Dredging Company are currently occupied by the CDF&G and are situated atop dredge spoils that in some areas are as high as +17 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The southem part of the island was initially the preferred mitigation site by both the project applicant and the CDF&G because it was easily accessible by large vehicles, highly degraded. and it was close to the proposed center of the California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Campaign interpretive facilities. CDF&G subsequently determined that the site was the only designated dredging staging area for future • Upper Bay projects. Therefore, this section is not currently available as a mitigation area. (Richard Nitsos, CDF&G, personal communication, September 12, 1991). 3-1 3. Pmpowd Muigation Area • At the same time, CDF&G also recommended a second mitigation site on Shellmaker island, which is now the preferred mitigation area. It is located immediately north of a tidal channel cut that bisects'Shellmaker Island (Figure 3.1). The tidal channel and surrounding mudflat areas was contoured by CDF&G in 1986. Since that time, salt marsh vegetation has colonized the middle and high intertidal zones. 33 EXISTING CONDITIONS Fleld iecoun issanc a surveys of the Shaninaker Island mitigation site were conducted on August 19 and September 19, 1991. The surveys were undertaken to verify existing topographic map data of Shellmaker Island that was produced in 1984 and 1985 for the Upper Newport Bay Restoration Project, and secondly, to identify existing plant and animal communities in the project area. Additional information was obtained from the CDF&G regarding the distribution of the state and federally endangered plant salt marsh bird's beak (Cordvlanthus maritimus spp. maritima and from the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the distribution of the light-footed clapperrail (Raft lonaimstris levines) and Belding's savarmah sparrow (Ammodmmus sandwichensis beldin ' , both of which use Shrnm"rer Island for breeding and foraging purPoses. 33 t T000araohrr and Soil Types, There are no current topographic survey maps available for the project area. The most recent information was obtained from the "City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Sediment Control and Upper • Newport Bay Restoration Project Access Chat nel Plan" (1985; M 5249-5, Sheets 6 and 7 of 28; scale 1 inch=100 feet), and a Jamrary 1991 aerial photograph of the Shellmaker Island area from Aerial Fombank Inc„ Stanton, California (scale i inch = 200 feet). A partial reproduction of the topographic survey map in the vicinity of the proposed mitigation site is provided in Appendix 1. Data provided from this map and photograph were verified during a site visit by EIP Associates and Cash & Associates on September 19, 1991. From the topographic information collected during that survey. the elevations within the proposed mitigation site appear to be about one foot lower in elevation than what was determined during the earlier topographic survey. Tie west facing side of Shellmaker, bordering the Upper Bay main channel. is steeply sloped at the southern end of the project area and varies from salt marsh elevations (approximately +3.5 feet MLLW) at the bottom of the slope to about +10 feet MLLW along the berm. Elevations on the plateau of the island are quite variable because of dredge spoil deposition, and range from about +7 feet to +17 feet MLLW. Most of the area proposed as the mitigation site averages about +13 feet MLLW. Salt marsh and mudflats on the eastern section of Shellmaker Island (separated from the mitigation site by a dirt mad) and areas north of the mitigation site are high -quality marsh habitats. The northernmost area of the island has been partially developed as a least tern nesting area, but to date, tems have not used the site. • 3-2 ` •+ r ,, INI. t a' a .a .\7ri�'iFFF•'".:1� ' ' fig . J. ,t. I .. r1.•E I. j., 4 .... }.,� .r.., �,' _s aA: qc r ri A`- [^Ti .1 f:+.r•� fw a h}s '�^ v• ,�lsj Amy_ � w. .�t tip ,,qq��I 3. proposed Mitigation Ana • In the immediate area of the project site, mudflat contours (+3.5 to -iS f feet MLLW) extend 50 to 200 feet beyond the marsh. The wide mudflats conform to the shape of the island and reflect past deposition patterns prior to the chancel dredging projects within the Upper Bay. Shallow subtidal halibut nursery habitat 0.5 to -32 feet MLLW) extends another 15 to 50 feet into the main channel. Mudflat and salt marsh sediments consist of fine stilts and sands. These sods grade into coarser dredged material, composed of sands mixed with shell debris that make up the slopes, berm, and plateau of Shellmaker Island. High salt marsh and upland vegetation are dominant on this soil type. These soils likely overlay firner marsh sediments with a much higher content. 3..3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat and Vegetation Types in the Mitigation Area Habitat and vegetation types in the mitigation area are shown in Figure 32. Upland Vegetation Communities Sandy, upland areas (above +8 feet [ LLM) constitute 125 acres in the mitigation area. These soils are covered by a sparse cover of ntderal grasses and forbs, a few shrubs, and patches of strand transitional vegetation (sea -fig, Caroobrotos aeaut7atencs). Telegraph wad (Heterotheca arandiflo , coastal wooly -bead (Nemamulis denude , western tansy -mustard 0 cscurainia ion , and filarce (Erodiurn sp.) comprised most of the forbs at the time of the survey. Other are h7tely to be presen, but were not found due to the late m of the flowering season. Small patches of mulefat • tBaccharis set icifoli , coyote brush accaris vilulari , and saltbush Atri lex sp.) dominate the highest elevations (+13 to +17 feet MLLW) in the southwestern comer of the site. Anoyo willow QIM lasioleoisl, and myopocum (Mv000tum laetum occur in the highest areas, just north of the site, in the middle of the sandy upland habitat at elevations between +10 to +13 fat (MILW). Salt marsh. Salt marsh vegetation occurs between the mid -tide zone (+3.5 feet MLLW) and the Extreme High Tide mark (about +7.8 fat MLLW). Salt marsh plans typically ocean in three broad, overlapping zones based on their response to awiratmentai factors. These zones are the low salt marsh, middle salt marsh, and high salt marsh. For this discussion, the zones are grouped into low to middle intertidal salt marsh, and middle to high intertidal salt marsh. For mapping purposes, the zones are combined into a general salt marsh category. The salt marsh growing along the CDF&G tidal channel, south of the mitigation site, is relatively new growth and has colonized the intertidal areas within the last few years. Low to mid -intertidal areas are dominated by Bigelow's pickleweed Salicornia bi elovii with occasional patches of cordgrass S artina folios . Saltwort (Batas maritime and common woody pickleweal Salicomia virginice am more common in the mid -intertidal regions but extend into both the lower and upper salt marsh zones. On the steeper slopes of the western and southern shores, high intertidal, transitional strand vegetation, and upland annual grasses and forbs occur just above the picideweed zone. The gentle slopes of the eastern and • northern shores outside the mitigation area are vegetated by a wide band (up to approximately 33 feet wide) of high salt marsh, most of which is a salt cedar (Monanthochloe littoralis meadow'that occurs 3-5 Habitat and Vegetation Types Shellmaker Island Mitigation Project Figure 3.2 El 3-6 OP WI3 3. proposed Mitigation Area above the pickleweed zone. in several areas north of the project site, the lower elevations of the salt cedar meadow support salt marsh bird's beak (Cordvlanthus maridmus spp. maritime , a federal- and state -listed endangered species (CDF&G, 1991; pens obs). None however, was located within the confines of the project area Above the salt cedar zone, a dense cover of transitional strand vegetation [salt grass (Distichlis spirate and, secondarily, sea -fig, and alkali heath (Frankenia saline)] merges with upland grasses and forbs. Salt marsh vegetation in the project area is limited to the western margin of the mitigation site, along the main charnel and consists of a mixture of middle and upper salt marsh vegetation. It covers an area of about 0.11 acre. Mudflats. Mudflats are found between the Extreme Low Water mark (4.8 feet MLLW) and the Mean Low Bigh Water mark -the begimring of salt marsh vegetation. In the mitigation area, about 1.88 acres of mudflats occur along the main channel of the Upper Bay. Mudflats are critical sbonbird feeding areas and important fish foraging habitat when the mudflats are inundated by the tides. Diatom and grecri algal teats often cover the surface of the mudflats and are considered to be important because these plants account for a huge part of the primary production in southern California coastal wetlands (2edler 1982). Additionally, the green algae is used as a food source by herbivorous invertebrates, fishes, and birds. Shallow Subtidal Environment The shallow subtidal habitat of Upper Newport Bay is an important musery habitat for halibut as wen as other fishes such as gobies, topsuidt, anchovies, croakers, diamond turbot, and sand bass. Halibut are consistently found between the Coast Highway Bridge and the dike. Allen (1988) reported most individuals spurred between Sbeiimaker Island and the dike were YOTY (less than 80 men in length) and second -year individuals (80 mm to about 160 mm). Additionally, halibut abundances were positively correlated to increasing salinities (AIIat 1988). The shallow subtidal habitat within the boundaries of the project site is limited to 0.67 acre, located in the main channel of the Upper Bay. Avian Use. A bird survey was conducted in the vicinity of the project area on August 19, 1991. Birds were abundant along the channels, over the open water, and roosting on mudfiats and in the low and middle salt marsh. Among the water birds, the marbled godwit imosa fedoa , elegant tern Sterna ele , and Forester's tern Sterna forsteri were the most numerous, especially on the mudflats and in the pickleweed habitat along the tidal channel bisecting Siullmaker island Other commonspecies seen included snowy egret Chula , killdeer Charadrius vocifenu , willet (Catootronhorus semioaimatus), whimbrd umenius phaeopu , and caspian tam Sterna is . Other observed were pied -billed grebe (Podilvmbus podic , great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black -bellied plover (Plwy scruatarril , greater yellowlegs Crringa melanoleucus), long -billed curlew 04menius amerimm , long - billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scotonaceus), ring -billed gull (L=s delawarensis), California gull amus califoroicus), and western gull ens occidentalis). Others that are expected to be present include various 3-7 3. Proposed MtiPdon Area ducks, semipaimatedplover(Chandrius seminaimatus), short -billed dowitcher(Limnodmmus t<riesus), and common tern (Sterna himndo . Substantially higher aboodances and diversity are expected during the late fall through spring overwimnng period of transients and winter. residents• The types of birds and numbers of birds are also ezp aW to vary depending on the time of day and tidal conditions. The site supports very poor habitat for lad birds; only the mounting vee Qmu ids mtmacro (w was observed in large numbers. The doves were feeding on the dredge spoilamong Y) vegetation in from of the CDF&G buildings. in addition to mourning doves, the American crow (COIYN brachvfivchos), northern mockingbird (Ml_mus i o , European starling (Strums vul¢ad , and house sparrows (Passer domesticus) were present. A number of bank swallows (lnnmdo mstica) were observed hawking in== over the island, but were also foraging over nearby marshes and over the open water Several turkey vultures artes aura were sees soaring over the open water and the island, and might occasionally use the site should a food source be present. Other locally common land birds, such as the blacks: phoebe (Savorriis id ' an and house fmch (Caroodacus meek are cgx=cd to be occasionally present The preseoce of sensitive species of birds on Sbellmaker Island Is discussed below. Sensitive Species. A California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) search was conducted to determine the potential for sensitive species to be food in Upper Newport Bay and on Shellmaker Island. Other informational sources included communications with California Depart nest of Fish and Game personnel (John Scholl), USFWS personnel (Dick 7embal), and records of it = occurring on the Bayside marsh peninsula near the De A=a mobile home park (Marsh 1985). Several coastal insects have been classified as sensitive by Nagano (1982) because a reduction in their coastal dune and mudfiat habitats has reduced their populations. Although no sensitive insects surveys have been conducted on Shellmaker Island, there is suitable habitat, such as the dredge spoil "dune" habitat and mudtlats surrounding the marsh, that could support sensitive insects. Sensitive insects that have a potential to be found include the wandering skipper butterfly (Panocruina rem inoides errans , globose dune beetle (Coelus pjobo , Gabb's tiger beetle mcindela bbi , sandy beach tiger beetle & hirticollis gravids , and the sand dune tiger beetle (rc latesi . The most hWy species to occur on Shellmakr are the wandering skippm which associates with the high intertidal salt grass habitat, and the globose dune beetle. Both were found on the Bayside peninsula during insect surveys conducted in 1984 by Gordon Marsh, of the University of California (Marsh 1985). The distribution of the federal- and state -listed salt -marsh bird's beak (Cordvlanthus maritimus spp. maritime) was recently mapped by Fred Roberts, of the University of California, Irvine for the C DF&G. Stands of salt-marshh bird's beak are found in high salt marsh meadows on Shellmaker island dominated by salt cedar, but begin about 500 feet north of the project site and extend to the northern tip of the island. 3-8 3. Proposed Mitigation Area 0 0 The California brackish water snail Crrvonia imitator is a federal endangered species category 2 candidate. It occurs in Upper Newport Bay and prefers shallow, coarse sediments in low salinity (brackish) areas at the mouth of the Santa Ana -Delhi civaruael and the San Diego Creek. It is also recorded from the main channel off of Shellmaker Island, but in significantly lower densities and mostly during winter and spring when storm water runoff reduces the salinity in the main channel (Marine Biological Consultants and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project 1980). Two endangered species of birds nest and forage on Shelimaker Island. The federal- and state -listed California light-footed clapper rail Mallus loneirostris Levi nests in the cordgrass habitat north and east of the proposed mitigation area. Belding's savannah sparrow (Ammodramus fPasserculusl sandwichensis 1 in i , a state -listed species, new and forages in the piddeweed habitat on ShWmaker Island. Territories of these birds may include habitat located new the mad or in the salt marsh growing along the main channel. The state -listed California least tam (Sterna antillarum browni may forage in the waters near the island; efforts by CDF&F to induce this species to nest on Shelimaker Island have not been successful. CalMmia brown pelicans lecamrs occidentalis also forage in the Upper Bay. The California black nil axerallus jamaicensis cotumiculus) was listed in the CNDDB as present in Upper Newport Bay in 1970, its status on Shellmaker Island is currently unknown. 3-9 4. PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT DESIGNS 4.1 GENERAL The loss of shallow subtidal fishery habitat and intertidal shorebird foraging habitat will be mitigated at a compensation ratio of 13 to 1. A total of 0.51 acre of mudflat habitat will be restored for the loss of 0.34 acre: 032 acre of subtidal halibut nursery habitat will be restored for the loss of 0.21 acre. Compensation for habitat losses at this ratio will insure that all habitat functions and values are restored to the Upper Bay. Additional subtidal habitat will also be created with funds made available from the CDF&G. Under the proposed habitat designs, approximately 1.01 acres of Shellmaker Wad will be recontouted to shallow subdW elevations (iS to -3.2 feet RdLLWJ) and mudflat elevations (-1S to +23 lv LW). Additional rarontounng (0.48 acre) will be necessary to bring elevations up to existing grades between the mudflats and upland areas which will create salt marsh and transitional strand vegetation babitat 43 PROPOSED HABITAT DESIGN The proposed habitat design is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and includes: • Creating halibut mnsery habitat by excavating a 25-foot wide semi -circular. permanent subtidal channel from existing dredge spoils colonized by sparse nrden d vegetation; • Lowering the island's upland elevations around the proposed tidal channel to mudflat elevations between -1-5 feet and +2.5 feet MLLW, • Re -grading above mudflat elevations to heights between +2.5 and +7.0 fed OILLW) for the eventual colonization and establishment of a salt marsh community: and • Creating a small marsh island as a consequence of constructing the tidal channel. The proposed design acreages are summarized in Table 4.1 and include approximately 0.25 acre of upland habitat with a maximum elevation of +83 feet MLLW,, 0.33 acre of salt marsh habitat at elevations between +2.5 and +7.0 fed MLLW, 0.51 acre of mudflats at elevations between +2.5 and -1.5 fat MC.LW', and 0-50 acre of halibut nursery habitat at depths between -13 and -3.2 feet MLLW. The project applicant will be responsible for the mitigation of 0.32 acre (64 percent) of the subtidal fishery habitat The additional amount of subtidal habitat to be,restored (36 percent, 0.18 acre) will be created with funds from the CDF&G mitigation bank. 4-1 Proposed Habitat Design •1 Altamathrw to Proposed ProJeet Design Habitat type and Acreage Salt Channel Upland Matslt t+Audtlat • ToWI Proposed Project 0.25 0.33 0.51 0.50 1.59 Alternative #1 0.30 0.29 Om 0.69 1.81 Ahamative ;!C2 0.12 0.49 0.51 0.73 1.85 • Project applicant wig be responsible for the restoration of 13,939 ttz (0.32 acre) of subtidal channel habitat. Remaining area will be restored with turxJs provided by the California DepaRrtant of Fish and Gana. Table 4 • 4-3 4. Proposed and Altema6ve Project Designs . Proposed elevational grades vary with habitat type, depending on the width of the habitat (Figure 42) but average about 1:4 for subtidal areas, 1:6 for mudflats; 1:6 for salt marsh, and 3:1 for transition areas between the salt marsh and the existing elevations. 43 ALTERNATIVES 43A Alternative Designs Alternative site designs were developed for the same location on Shellmaker island Tbese am illustrated in Figures 42 through 4.4. The design differences are related to how much additional subtidal habitat can be constructed with CDF&G funds. The proposed project provides a conservative estimate of CDF&G involvement; Alternatives 1 and 2 sequentially increase the amount of subtidal habitat to be added to the site. Alternative 2 also lowers the elevations on the island from primarily upland habitat to entirely salt marsh elevations. 43.2 Alternative Site Locations Two other locations in Newport Bay were considered as possible mitigation areas. The fits[ site alternative was the area on Shelimaker Nam south of the tidal channel, but it was rejected because it is • a staging area for fume dredge activities in the Upper Bay. Arras farther north on Shellmaker Island in the vicinity of the uninhabited least tam nesting sites were also considered, but were rejected based on the high biological sensitivity of the site associated with the presence of salt marsh bird's beak. CI Them are no other available sites that could be recontouted concurrently for both halibut nursery habitat and shorebird foraging areas. The CDF&G Upper Newport Bay Restoration Site, northeast of the dike was considered as a possible site. However, it was rejected because the bracidsh (low salinity) water conditions limit the use of the subtidal channels by juvenile and young -of -the -year halibut. 4-4 u • • Plan View of Proposed and Alternative Habitat Designs +12' +7 +2 -3 r 1 A. Propbsed Project 13' Existing Conlours 13' 1 — — — — — — — — us n' 10, 10"�—�� UPland' SaN Slarsy y Upland Mudlyt Mu60+1 Sall llfarrb Sublldal Channel 45' 25' ` 25' 2S' 123' 10' 1 10' B. Alternative 1. 13' Existing Conform 13' ----------- 10" .�.��. Upland sits'Ifi r+4 Mudtyt SubIWY Ciarnd 1 60' 1 10' 1 25' 1 37.5' C. Alternative 2.' +12' +7 Salt Marsh +2 -3 40' 1 1 0' 20' Horizontal Distance (FetQ (West to East) I • Figure 4.2 11'* ------- 5--..—_ UPlsnd �\tMa MudOal 2S' 13" Existing Contours' 13' 125' 11' . .-------------�.--------------- --�1 10' 7Fansllkm $altMecst' Mudlht Subildol MUM% Charred 15' 373' 25' 25' 12S' 60' 80' 100' 12W 140' 160' 10' — Alternative 1 Habitat Design Shellmaker Island Mitigation Project c A Figure 4.3 Alternative 2 Habitat Design Shellmaker Island Mitigation Project Salt Marsh Upland 4-7 Salt Figure 4.4 Salt l Marsh Channel Legend Chsmd n Mudfla sakmarsh Upland m ama eip S. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT SA OPPORTUNITMS The srrccessw completion of the project will compensate for the significant loss of subtidal halibut nursery habitat and mudflat areas at the Castaways Marina site and will restore wetland habitat to Shellmaker Island. Expected benefits will include an increase in numbers of invertebrates living on or in the mudflats, which will enhance shorebird utilization of the area as a foraging habitat Newly created subtidal channel area will provide protected, shallow watermursery and/orforaging habitat for Califomia halibut, otherflat5shes, rays, sandbars, mullet, topsmelt, and sudperches. The proposed mitigation project will also increase the amount of salt marsh habitat on Shellmaker island, which will add critical habitat for both the light-footed clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow. • The design of the mitigation project will be integrated with future interpretive and educational facilities of the California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Campaign and the County of Orange Upper Newport Bay Regional Park program and will provide educational and raaeatim al opportunities for the public, and a chance for researchers to study the short-term and long-term restoration of wetlands in the Upper Bay. S.2 CONSTRAINTS 5.2.1. Bioloeicai Constraints. Expected habitat alterations to Shellmaker Island are listed in Table 5.1 and include: • Replacement of 1.25 acres of open sandy habitat, and coastal dune scrub, and transitional vegetation with higher quality salt marsh, mudflat, and subtidal channel habitat; • Replacement of 0.11 acre of middle and upper salt marsh habitat that will be removed in the process of creating a tidal inlet and 5-1 n U E uplandrrmnsitional 'sax marsh 'MudOats 'Shallow subMal Total 1. Sak marsh 2. Mudeats W 3. Depth rang 5. Opportunities and Consiraints Associated with the Proposed Project • Deepening of 0.17 acre of mudilat habitat to shallow subtidal halibut nursery habitat depths (-1.5 It to -3.2 ft MLLW) in the main charmel. The restoration project involves construction activities that could potentially disturb populations of Belding's savannah sparrow, the light-footed clapper rail. and the California least tem that may rat and/or forage nearby, outside the mitigation area. To avoid impacts to these species, all construction activities will be limited to non -breeding periods of the year (September through February) for time species. Construction activities will be avoided in areas colonized by the endangered salt marsh bird's beak. The USFWS has expressed some concern that open sandy habitat in the vicinity of the salt marsh bird's beak stands may be important for ground -nesting bees that pollinate the salt marsh bird's beak (Dick Zembal, USFWS. personal communication, September 20, 1991). Although this concern may be justified, there will still be a significant amount of open habitat for ground -nesting bees north of the project site, once the project is implemented. To minimize damage to the other existing plant life in the area and disturbance to wilWe, construction equipment and personnel movements will be restricted to the specified mitigation site. Salt marsh plains must be removed fortbe construction of the tidal channel. Plants that are in the affected habitat (approximatety (111 ace) will be collected and replanted in suitable habitat on Shellmaker Island as designated by the CDF&G. This action will result in the full restoration of salt marsh plain that are removed in the construction of the tidal channel. $.22, Eneineerine Constraints. Vehicular access to the proposed mitigation site on the north side of Shellmaker Island is unavailable because the tidal charnel bisects the island. A temporary bridge, capable of withstanding loads from trucks, bulldozers, bacidwes, and other vehicles must be built across the tidal inlet. Regulatory permits may be required for this action. Soils on Shellmaker will be excavated and then transported offsite for disposal in a Comity of Orange landfill or on Irvine Company property. The City of Newport Beach has also expressed preliminary interest in the dredge spoils as potential beach replenishment material (Tony Mellum, City of Newport Beach, personal communication, August 13, 1991) A State of California Title 22 Hazardous Materials Analysis will lilmly be required to determine the suitability of these materials for subsequent use or disposal in a County landfill. Clamsheil dredging, employing a barge and a crane may be required to contour the mudflat elevations to lower subdW elevations because these areas may not be accessible using land -based equipment. The • suitability of dredged "wet" sediments for land or ocean disposal, or use as beach replenishment material 5-3 5. Opportunities and Constraints Associated with the Proposed Project • must also be determined, potentially by bioassay testing methods if the material is to be disposed at an offsbore dumpsite (LA-3). 0 5.43 Re¢ulatory Pernrittine Constraints E)dsting upland and wetland habitats must be recomoured to lower intertidal and subtidal elevations. These alterations will require the acquisition of environmental permits from local, state, and federal agencies. Permits that could be required include: • Section 10 permit to locate a temporary bridge or to use dredge spoils for beach nourishment; • State of California Coastal Development Permit for the developing in the coastal zone; • State Lards Commission Permit for dredging in state tidelands; • California Environmental Protection Agency/Regional Water Quality Control Board/NPDES discharge permit to prevent the degradation of water quality during dredging activity; • C learmx to use a County of Orange Landfill; • City of Newport Beach grading and harbor permit; • Section 404 permit fiom the U.S. Array Corps of Enginms for the disposal of dredged material at an offshore dumpsite (if needed) or for use of the excavated sobs as beach nourishment material; • United States Environmental Protection Agency permit to use IA-3 Disposal Site, if an offshore dumpsite is used; • U.S. Coast Guard Aids to Navigation permit, if barges are involved; and • Special written permission to remove salt marsh vegetation or to work within the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve from the State of California Fish and Game Commission and from the California Department of Fish and Game Region 5 Manager. F#7 & PROJECT TASKS Tasks required for the planning, implementation, and monitoring of the Shellmaker island Mitigation Project are defined below. 61 AGENCY COORDINATION Planning meetings will be held with resou= agencies (CDF&G. USFWS, and the NMFS), regulatory agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the CaMmia Coastal Commission), the County of Orange (Department of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks), and the City of Newport Beach These meetings will be used to refine mitigation goals and objectives, and evaluate the results of each phase of the mitigation pmgnm at key project milestones. These meeting will also address issues of compliance with state and federal mitigation and regulatory permitting requirements. 40 6.2 PREPARATION OF THE FINAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Prior to preparing eonstrttc Lion level plans, a hydrologic and hydraulic study will be prepared. The purpose of this document is to evaluate and refine the initial design contours such as channel widths, and prqxned slopes, and provide'improvements to the hydrological or hydraulic design of the site plant. D u Permit applications for the project will be submitted to all regulatory agencies following the completion of the final concept design. It is anticipated that Lire permitting process will be integrated into the overall permit process for the Castaways Marina Project C4 CONSTRUCTION LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS Based on the final conceptual design plans, engineering level plans will be produced that will include specifications for site construction. These will be produced by a qualified coastal engineering firm and include, but not be limited to, the final grading per, disposal specifications, and site monitoring ., ill rl 4 6.5 SALT MARSH TRANSPLANT Prior to habitat construction, salt marsh plants in the areas to be excavated for the tidal channel opening will be removed and relocated m another area of Shellmaker island approved by CDF&G. 6.1 6. Project TMb 6.6 HABITAT CONSTRUCTION The existing elevations of the Shellmaker Island site will be excavated by a qualified contractor with expericnce in wetland habitat construction, and in accordance with the mitigation plan and design specifications approved by the regulatory agencies. A qualified biologist -and coastal engineer will be unite during the construction phase to monitor project progress, insure that the proper site contours are attained, prevent damage to nearby sensitive habitats habitat. and to provide technical assistant to the contractors. In additionthe project biologist will monitor wildlife use of the area during habitat construction. 6.7 POST -CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A post -construction habitat topographic survey and diver reconnaissance survey of the shallow subtidal habitat will be conducted within 60 days after site contouring is completed to evaluate the results of habitat contouring. H original site specifications are not met, then the contractor will be requited to take corrective measrres. Once the correct site contours ate attained, then the site contours will provide a benchmait for topographic monitoring to be conducted during hoer mitigation monitoring phases of the project U MONITORING AND HABITAT RESTORATION EVALUATION ' Habitat and wildlife use monitoring surveys will be required to determine the degree to which the project meets the goals and objectives of the mitigation project. 641 Touoemphic Surveva Additional topographic surveys will be conducted at intervals at one year and two years following site com-u=on. These will be conducted to assess the need for additional site remediation, based on sediment accretion and erosion at the site. 6JU Shorebird and Fish Monitorinr Surveys Mitigation monitoring surveys will be conducted to assess the use of the Shellmaker mitigation area by fishes and shorebirds prior to and after habitat construction Shorebird use of the mudflats will be monitored prior to and during construction, quarterly for the first year following creation of the mudflats, and ammaily for the remaining four years (ten surveys). Monitoring sites will include the mitigation area and a nearby mudflat, but outside the mitigation area. Shorebird feeding activity will help determine the rate at which muudflat community function is being restored and the degree to which the sediments are being colonized by bemhic hrvertebrates. Fish surveys will be conducted prior to site constriction, quarterly during the first year, and armually for the remaining four years (nine surveys) following site construction. In addition. the 60day, post- 6-2 6. Project Tasks construction diver survey will be used to visually assess the use of the area by fishes. The primary purpose of the monitoring surveys is to determine if the newly created subtidal habitat is functioning as a halibut nursery and secondarily, as a nursery area for other fishes. Appropriate methods for sampling YOTY halibut will be determined; however, it is expected that the most efficient way to sample these young individuals is by otter beam trawls. Other methods, such as beach seining may also be needed. The degree to which subtidal areas within the mitigation area are being used by halibut will be compared with another site in Upper Newport Bay that is ]mown to be utilized by YOTY halibut 6 43 Area Maintenance and Additional Site Monitoring Periodic maintenance at the mitigation site is recommended to clear debris, unwanted vegetation, and monitor the development of the salt marsh plants once,they become established within the newly created habitat Site maintenance should occur at six month intervals, or after large storm events that deposit debris within the system. Studies that document the development and recolonization of the salt marsh could be projects for CDF&G Wildlife Campaign and Upper Newport Bay Regional Park educational and interpretive programs. 6.8.4 Mitigation Success Criteria Short-term and long-term success criteria will be developed in association with wildlife agencift The evaluation criteria will take into account the degree to which habitat contouring meets the criteria for use by shorebirds and fishes. projected seasonal use of the area by birds and fishes, and expected abundance and distribution of shorebirds and halibut in Upper Newport Bay. 6.M Reporting Pre -and post -construction field survey results will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers and the resource agencies in written report format within 30 days of each survey. The report will present field findings, rate the level of mitigation success, determine wrlWe use of the area, and propose recommendations and alternatives if the restoration project is not meeting mitigation success requirements. A final project report at the end of the five-year period will be prepared, analyzing the long term success of the project and making a final determination of restoration success. 6.8.6 Remedial Measures Additional actions may be required if the mitigation success criteria are not met After each monitoring survey, regulatory agencies and the pmject applicant will meet to determine if the project successfully meets the objectives of the mitigation at that stage of the project If the objectives are not being met, then remedial steps, such as additional site contouring will be taken. &3 6. Project Tasks 6.&7 OR -site Mitigation • In the event that the restoration site is determined to be unsuccessful by the regulatory agencies, off -site mitigation measures will be implemented. Additional restoration measures could taken off -site in other local Orange County wetlands such as the Huntington Beach (Talbert) Wetlands, Bolsa Chica, or Seal Beads Wildlife Refuge. • 64 • 7. PROJECT SCHEDULING The mitigation project schedule will be incorporated into the project schedule for the development of the Castaways Marina. Mitigation work on Shellmaker Island will be implemented prior to the initiation of the construction for Castaways Marina. 7be following conceptual schedule is recommended Phase 1-Final Planning • Conduct a topographic survey for the project area. • Prepare final exmxpt plans. • Conduct California TStie 22 Hazardous Materials sediment analysis and dredge bioassays if sediments an to be disposed at offshore dump site. • Prepare wastniction level plans. • Obtain regulatory permits. • Conduct pre -construction site monitoring surveys for shorebirds and fishes. • Phase 2-Habitat Construction • Construct an'access bridge across the tidal channel to the mitigation site • Survey in required contours. • Remove and transplant affected salt marsh plains to another area of Shelimaker Island • Excavate dredge spoil material from Shellmaker Island (from ]arid) and transport material to land511 or the City of Newport Beach for beach replenishment. • Deepen contours to shallow subtidal habitat along the main channel of the bay (by barge and dredge if required) and transport to landfill or offshore dumpsite. • Open tidal channel inlet. • Monitor habitat construction practices and conduct wildlife survey. 7-1 7. Project Scheduling • Phase 3-Post-Construction Monitoring and Repotting • Conduct post -contouring topographic and bathymetric surveys 60 days following habitat conctrumon, one year, and two years following site construction. • Monitor project progress at quarterly intervals during the first year and annually for the remaining four years evaluate allematives if restoration is not meeting mitigation criteria. • Take remedial measures or proceed with off -site mitigation options. • • 7-2 & PROJECT STAFF California Recreation Company Edward V. Power EIP Associates Robert R. Ware Senior Associate/Pmject Director Mike Lott Staff Ecologist Ellen Bush► Publication Coordinator Dennis Mahaffey Word Processing Michad Brandman Associates • HJ. Jones Director. Resources Management Vince Coleman Staff Ecologist Mike Patten Staff Ecologist Curt Campbell Staff Ecologist Cash and Associates Randy Mason Coastal Engineer, Vice President • 8-1 n L.J 9. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED California Recreation Company ................................... Edward V. Power Cash and Associates ............................................... Randy Mason City of Newport Beach MarineDepartment .............................................. Tony Mellum County of Orange Department of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks ............................. Nancy Borland State of California Department of Fish and Game ..................................... Fred Worthley Richard Nitsos Ead Laupee John Scholl John Anderson University of California, at Irvine .................................... Fred Roberts TheIrvine Company ............................................ Sat Tamaribuchi United States Army Corps of Engineers .................................. Jerry Sales United States Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service ................................... Bob Hoffman United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................... ............. Richard Zembal Nancy Gilbert 9-1 • 10.. LITERATURE CITED Allen L. G. 1988 (December). Final Report. Results of a Two -Year Monitoring Study on the Fish Populations in the Restored Uooermost Portion of Newport Bay, California: With Emphasis on the Impact of Additional Esmarine Habitat on Fisheries -Related Species. Prepared for the National Marine FUberies Service in fulfillment of Contract #WASC-85-OM16. California Department of Fish and Game. (CDF&G). Upper Newport Bay Management Plan. Unpublished Manuscript California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1990. Data Base Record Search for information on Threatened, Endangered, Rame, or otherwise Sensitive Species and Communities in the Vicinity of the Newport, Long Beach, and Los Alamitos Quadrangles. Caltfomta Department of Fish and Game, State of California Resources Agency Sacramento, California. Marine Biological Consultants. Inc. (M BQ and the Southem California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRp). 1990 (December). Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program. Final Report. October 1979-August 1980. Marsh, Gordon. 1985 (June). insects and related teneshdal arthropod assessment of the sand/spit marsh ptininsula Chapter III in DeAnza (Bayside) Marsh Peninsula Marina Feasibility Study -Biological Resources Assessment and Evaluation Prepared by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, Costa Mesa California, (and) Karlin and Gordon Marsh, Biological Consultants, SRverado, CA. Michael Brandman Associates. 1991(August). Castaways Marina Draft Envimnmental Impact Report Volume I of II. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Mellum, Tony. Cty of Newport Beach. Meeting held with Robert Ware, EIP Associates. August 16,1991. Nagano, C. N. 1982. Population status of the tiger beetles of the gems Cincindela (Coleoptera: C,mcindelidae) inhabiting the marine shoreline of southern California. Atala 8(2):33.42. Nitsos, Richard California Department of Fish and Game. Letter to R. Ware, E 3? Associates. September 13, 1991. 10.1 9. literature Cited `J Scholl, John. Califomia Department of Fish and Game. Map of salt marsh bird's beak distribution sett to R. Wan:, E1P Associates, September 25, 1991. Zedler, J. B. 1982. The Ecology of Southem Califomia Coastal Salt Marshes: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program, Washington D. G. FWS/OBS.81/54. 110 pp. Richard Zembal, U.S. Fish and WOdlife Service. Personal Communication, telephone conversation with R. Wan:, EIP Associates on September 20, 1991. 10-2 Appendix 1. Partial Topographic Survey Map of Shellmaker Island (Sheet 6 of 27 of "City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 1985 Sediment Control Plan and Upper Newport Bay Restoration Project Access Channel Plan). Elevations are relative to Mean Sea Level (MSL) and can be converted to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) by adding a factor of 2.73 to each contour. Scale 1 "=100 ft. Approximate limits of the Proposed Mitigation Site, and California Department of Fish and Game Restoration Area are shown. elp a 41 V We 7 I 9;0� fA 10 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES CITED • Allen, L. G. 1976. Abundance, Diversity, Seasonality, and Community Structure of the Fish Populations of Newport Bay, California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Fullerton. 108 pp. Allen, L. G. 1988. Final Report, Results of a Two -Year Monitoring Study on the Fish Populations in the Restored, Uppermost Portion of Newport Bay, California; with Emphasis on the Impact of Additional Estuarine Habitat on Fisheries -Related Species. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service in fulfillment of Contract #WASC-85-00216. Allen, M. J., and Kevin T. Herbinson. 1990. Settlement of Juvenile California Halibut, Paralichthvs californicus, Along the Coasts of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties in 1989. Ca1COFI Rep., 31:84-96. EIP Associates. 1991. Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Loss of Mudflat and Shallow Subtidal Habitat. Castaways Marina Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for Michael Brandman Associates, Santa Ana, California, and California Recreation Company. Ford, R. F. 1986 (Oct). Marine Resource Survey, Harbor Island East and West Basins, San Diego Bay, California. Appendix A in Final Environmental Impact Report. Sunroad Marina, Harbor Island. Prepared for Phillips Brandt Reddick, San Diego, California. Hardy, R. A. 1970. The Marine Environment in Upper Newport and Sunset Bays, Orange County, California. California Department of Fish and Game Report. MMR Reference No. 70-10. • 84 pp. Horn, M. H., and L. G. Allen. 1981. Ecology of Fishes in Upper Newport Bay, California: Seasonal Dynamics and Community Structure. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Technical Report No. 45. 102 pp. • Kramer, S. H. 1990. Habitat Specificity and Ontogenetic Movements of Juvenile California Halibut (Paralichthy,californicusl, and other Flatfishes in Shallow Waters of Southern California. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-90-22. National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California. 157 pp. Kramer, S. H., and J. R. Hunter. 1988. Southern California Wetland/Shallow Water Habitat Investigation, Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1988. Prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California. 8 pp., plus appendices. Marine Biological Consultants. 1972. Baseline Study of Huntington Harbour. Unpublished report prepared for the Huntington Harbour Corporation. 73 pp. Marine Biological Consultants and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1980. Irvine Ranch Water District Upper Newport Bay and Stream Augmentation Program, Final Report. (October 1979 to August 1980). MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1984 (Oct). Outer Long Beach Harbor-Queensway Bay Biological Baseline Survey. Prepared for the Port of Long Beach. JB2/00640011.REF MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1985. Mola Corporation Eelgrass Transplant Project. Site • Reconnaissance Studies, Phase 1 surveys. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1986. Mola Corporation One- and Two -Year Eelgrass Transplant Monitoring Survey Results and Evaluation of Transplant Success. 20 pp. • • MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1988 (Oct). Portofino Cove Condominiums Eelgrass Bed Survey. Prepared for Portofino Cove Condominium Association. MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 1988. Biological Baseline and Ecological Evaluation of Existing Habitats in Los Angeles Harbor and Adjacent Areas. Draft Report. Volumes I -IV. Posejpal, M. A. 1969. The population Ecology of the Benthic Icthyofauna of Upper Newport Bay. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Irvine. 146 pp. Soule, D. F., and M. Oguri (editors). 1988. The Marine Environment of Marina del Rey in 1987. A Report to the Department of Beaches and Harbors, County of Los Angeles. Prepared by Harbors Environmental Project, University of Southern California. Part 20 D. Ware, R. R. Personal observations made during Huntington Harbour and Sunset Bay underwater studies of eelgrass beds and unvegetated soft -bottom habitats between 1985 and 1988, while employed as a marine biologist for MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. JB2l00640011.REF D. COUNTY OF ORANGE ORDINANCE NO.2200 0 • - • -x.etf 11COpL fUilY v.pN AY fYttY [[ lY u :ns-i¢ cowmi oiYfwa [ulrntYQ°umvucs Y .. mN.! Nrn1[W .t W YW).e N.Yw mN.nY. 4 .ttW N M1IIW! t:.::01. Na[W L.OU .[ W WUW Wiwx N zM Aut[.f GNj.4 M[.y WYN Y IW N GII.Nt M1[ W NW...f tW OIWW. W Yv. W IWu. Mrv4 4tW Wllr YW. [Y wW .{wy W4.W a[MM.y W. W r.dy. en.Y q[ f[Vei fln.tWs. p..W N W J.IaaatY a.tl.f w fuya urY 4W r pY• le4[. pl.[vY w W pu..r.[Y(a.rt r aY.r..e W NYi m11Yt0 Y tOIOIIfY rW W YYY[ NrtuY[ .t W N.W NWI v.M O4vYt. FYpY I.it xtv Y MiYYY lWR [I.tWI {W! r MIN[ 1W.. SY YIW.I {W 4. lW wYly W .Wr.IYY lYlb Y [W\ w{N tat.... q M wt". [M [ W Wt 1W 4(IW W .t.«.try 11e1[ U YY\ .w ItM r IW[w .w.w r1 Y NUR W M1N[ W. [.[W. W IW u YYe W WI/. MI[\«.W.l Y rl.• vYN. IY1110 W' .1[Ifu.. YN 4 .NY[ . tNNI .IW uWl.e YYllwt YY Wv Y). IYIYWi r«..q YlNl «.«lW y WeWO. WW[.{ W .W r.YW[ Y W IrWWI NY...t MwlWr W Wll W WI[f.. wN1YW W.wW r[W.Yr Y.WyW M.N WWNW6IIN SYW YI...sr Y.q MY.1 Y.q NYYy[ W VY. ItY1s IW0 W f0ot WIY tW IY NY W W[ [q W lW.t M WMiMI[. r .M [Ll w. «� f Y (WaW atsss W .rYw Y...N. YNw...1 rAama «xw Y& .. N W Yt«. WI[W W.R trA,\. tWt x.n WU[y. aWO. WL Yr. Ylt [..{tx N w Ywl YLG W Wtw f WYI Orn.Y..t. w W NM. [t S.tYttW MNM u [Y..nv. x I...It[IY WY..NN Y GtrtW u N N[.M WnY. WCL W1W..[.n 4xw[W .f NYu(.It YN x aM tY NI1«1yt IN . W[W w W YtYI ([I . gp.II.MUWIl)WStr YwnV x. r.WWI .YW w[IYN .WI x.x ..YW W YUF r(.l[ 1..IWM .[ y YY\ W YUW.ft Y .rwllYr MY..[. u IY ......... ll..lt. W[p[ Y 1 Wq rr. .11 NVx 4.14\ [M [W IN..Y IJY. wW[ a r. W n[an .e rx n4[ t W 1W .t W WUY O.W W 1w fvr y.v{rY...Y[w IW[ NtW «.W.W. W W Wf q Yt W {N1. 1[W • r.( Nu mt me ... tttN4y .( wmy .Y.R UCIYR WtW ll.oN .eW WYw 0r11.a....NtM GYn N GW. Y Nny �YY u (W M 4tYYl ba UAII. [\r.4r awW[ W W W «.InnU Wu. All aNray aYYy W W.NNnM .(W. p.WN 1 Wt [Y MJ\1W { W. Y w[ Y.Yr Wll M Y .w.Y.w NIYY[ IW. y..lV.wll Y IWTry{N .(YR .(.) aN Wn Y.0 .(Y.. 1 r. 1Ywl W11 M W.xIlla Y W NI4Y .t w PYYYs w NIY WMtW. 4 W .N.t fWNI [NlW{ w .Y(NN 1 W. Nn N[ I... ..WIYw• pY.I4t I4(Y4 {1r. W wwY Iw. Y) M wUN y Ywr Wy W W .11 e14W 04YNll Y YNW u 4 W [YYW W Yn4N.[.f w YNM. Y[tt .we tW u .W .n .y.twN y W NIW.. W [Y(YN {W. NWIYW tY W INwtl NR1Y 1. WtW [i.OUNWWIIW MWru .I tM [WyN a-- YYWr.YNY(WY411.Y1 lwr U.ON. NIWY w [Y.W/ llw. 1ry«r Y.y.n Yf• T+ NIYY[ W lY(MN 11W Gr YMr WN.rt YYr . Mn W a MMs Yvq [n ..WI4W Y OYUYt W WY W YYre... IYY W w Nll[..[M n W .{wW Y.Nyr NRW I. It w w[W..WNatY. M M,t, r.. .Yw.m W....1 YY WtYY.44r w{ Mat ftYWN. uYwYrl tt t.r.lYr we wYW WIl M NL«t W N W W tt waYYYd:ln.f [M� tMY[y Mnw .1 NY pn1YY.. au Wtt .( ly.ntw Y(Yr w WY Wt l[ vYN Nry M..N YY W WY. a« w wtW. .Y.NIWr NnY.[tr ww.r .Yw..r [.vW WiYt. Yn.M[IN .! W Wa W[ r.r «n .f W waYYr W WN w W tlwlwl N Yn1Y. ,=M 1. lW WIs...Ylt tW .IW t W N Y (u{t Gn. tw[Y (yl Yx fW w.Wt 14 WNpr W M4N W r.Y« tYt N ({I'(UI YY.-I—W W.W WWI.YllMNWW wY«(NWw YW GYn .f WM.�sIYt..I GaWWR NWn .t w WN .I iw..tl..(. MW Nr W W Wt W YY. QiLRr'. Y! it 1 G F6}i ! Nrry uYn� ulWw YYu Ai1af}1 Yw[ Cl�iea. ltv Y CYa{ [CVY. � rNWIYi..Y N mnYGL " ) u ttY'1[ Y tYY[ 3 ' V, t. R rW. fast Cl«Y r «Nf[YY Cl«[ N W Wat « Jraaarfaan. Y MNr.aa.ry Wa «. xpW waW « tY W« .f fy«[4«a of N«I. Y+rT f.{ff«W YY « aY anan Y>af � 1NY WY..IaW WWr..wlWf _tlr. I� awYw1. W wYnN waW y wtla.. W YlWty waa fsfa pmYtmr Um r. tluf. YM L YOR [IItaY r, rtvrlH. lusW Oft f!Y[MY YY YOfi JYY9[Y W. OtYV Ulf s 1IlOfV.[ N« Ww. M. r YY W NIIW [M Nfur Yl wl .(W W.. at ly«[W V .f W GYq N pnY4 f4Y.f GtW.W�tW aLi 4I a! 1111, ww.CIV.. t. aJ.1 ft4Y Cox <fWl •t •I•wx.flwnwN .[ v..fa GrN. u1w.[la MII«I W«IW Vaas« y rNl f.y.n.. I• y sip is ORDINANCE NO. 1403 ,(lido Clark of ❑to Board AN ORDINANCE PSTABLL:H. of 8u=it at oBoard INO .PIER AND BULKHEAD County. GofomlA. BLAUM FOR UPPER NEWPORT BY MABRLL .mia. Y. R. CASIMI The DmM of suae."i.....r (SEAL)Deputy nine marxeo Exhibit "A" and made a part of ND Ordl• ' tit eaatloM Was Mealderld section by section. and that the MM. Including all data, gold Ordinance WAS man passed eYmboL and delineation con: upon gold drawing and and adopted go A Whole by me following rote: ma me AYES: SUPERVISORS C. M. 'hall take effect And be In full MNA C P101. p9, WMRLH. 'era@ thirty (Sd) days from Ind after Its parwge, and be. HIRSTEIN AND WILLIS IL WAR• HER One the @epentlan of fifteen 15) days atlor the passage NOESI SUPERVISORS None. ABSENT: SUPERVISORS None. hereof shall be published N101 A In newaPewp r publish. have WITNESS hereunto et malty hand and d 1. the county of Orange. Affixed the official seal of the let@ of California, together rlth the nAmn of the them. BgoM of SUMMIS01 at the County of Orange. State of Gel• mot the Boats a1 Supervp• forma. this Jet day of July, IB59. n voting for and .Phut the Ma. , L R WALLACE, WILLIS IL WARNER. Chairman of the Board County Clerk and ex• effido Clerk of the Boardper rvte Of SuPeon at Orange County, Callfamlg. of SuvWn of Orange County. California. BY MABEL L CASTRIX, ATTEST. (SEAL Deputy L R WALLACE. County Clerk and ex. Publish In fit, Newport 16rMr Ensign. July 911959. I0 0 0 NSMM EXHIBIT ". 0 0 E CASTAWAYS MARINA REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED CASTAWAYS MARINA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 0 11 CCOC Project No. 90-32155-01 July 19, 1990 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED CASTAWAYS MARINA NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: CASH & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS 2599 EAST 28TH STREET P.O. BOX 38 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 PREPARED BY: R. Radhakrishnan Staff Engineer REVIEWED BY: William Beckley P E 41771 Project Engineer APPROVED BY: Thomas J. Scheil R.G.E. 753 Vice President & Principal Engineer Eng Converse Consultants OC Consulting and Geologists srfi Geologists '^ Suite Jeronimo Road Suite 123-A Irvine, California 92718 • Irvine: 714 859-5587 Oceanside: 619 720-0059 July 19, 1990 LJ Mr. Randy H. Mason, P.E. Project Manager Cash & Associates Engineers 2599 East 28th Street P.O. Box 38 Long Beach, California 90801 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration Proposed Castaways Marina Newport Beach, California (CCOC Project No. 90-32155-01) Dear Mr. Mason: Presented herein are the results of our geotechnical exploration performed for the proposed Castaways Marina to be located in the Upper Newport Bay at the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive in Newport Beach, California. This work was conducted in accordance with our proposal dated May 31, 1990, which was accepted by you on June 6, 1990. Thank you for the opportunity of working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please contact us at the number above. We look forward to assisting you during site grading and foundation construction. Yours truly, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS ORANGE COUNTY Raghuram RadAakrishnan Staff E gin r Thom J. Scheil, R.G.E. 753 Vice resident & Principal Engineer RR/WB/TJS:vy Dist: (6) Addressee Gvyxlr�'ft el— William Beckler, P.E. 41771 Project No. 41771 A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of The Converse Professlonal Group W i r c U • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................... 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................ 1 Background...................................................... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .......................... 2 Field Exploration ............................................... 2 LaboratoryTesting .............................................. 3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................... 3 Site Conditions ......................................... 3 Subsurface Soil Conditions ...................................... 4 Groundwater..................................................... 4 ENGINEERING EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 5 Excavation& Dredging ........................................... 5 SiteGrading ............................................... 6 Building Foundations ......................................... 7 Building Lateral Resistance ..................................... 7 Steel Sheet Pile Bulkhead ....................................... 8 PileSupported Pier ..................................... 9 Floating Docks and Boat Slips ................................... 10 Lateral Loads For Piles ......................................... 10 RetainingWalls ............................................. 11 Corrosion Potential .......................................... 13 Liquefaction Potential .......................................... 13 Paving......................................................... 14 Utilities....................................................... 15 CLOSURE........................................................... 15 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND DRAWINGS TABLES Page No. Table 1 Soil Parameters for Bulkhead Design .............. 8 Table 2 Allowable Bulkhead Anchor Capacity ............... 9 Table 3 Lateral Pile Design Criteria - Steel Pipe Piles .. 11 Table 4 Retaining Wall Equivalent Fluid Presures ......... 12 Converse Consultants OC =J • FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 r Figure 5 l Figure 6 DRAWINGS Drawing No. 1 WA mKq TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Site Plan Subsurface Profile A -A' Subsurface Profile B-B' Subsurface Profile C-C' Driven Single Pile Downward Capacity Driven Single Pile Uplift Capacity Location of Borings LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX • A Field Exploration - Boring Logs - CPT Logs B Laboratory Testing C Logs of Previous Borings (shown on Drawing No. 1) U Follows Text Follows Text Follows Text Follows Text Follows Text Follows Text Follows Text A-1 to A-36 B-1 to B-15 C-1 to C-23 Converse Consultants OC IN • INTRODUCTION ` This report presents the results of our geotechnical exploration performed for the proposed Castaways Marina located in Upper Newport Bay at the north- east corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive in the City of Newport Beach, California. A site plan is presented as Figure 1. r PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed Castaways Marina development will consist primarily of excavating and dredging to and below sea level of a current land area. The resultant water body will be rimmed by an anchored sheet pile bulkhead system, and will include floating boat slips and gangways, a sanitary pump -out station, three shower and/or storage structures, parking areas and a retaining wall. An existing concrete bulkhead will be removed and a new bulkhead with tied -back anchors or tension batter piles will be installed as shown on Drawing No. 1. The majority of the planned marina will be situated • west of the existing bulkhead with the pile supported pier and some floating boat slips extending east of the existing bulkhead into the bay. About 60,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated and dredged and disposed of off - site. The planned new dredge line will vary between EL.- 8 ft. to EL.- 10 ft. (MLLW). We also understand that one of the shower/storage structures is planned to be part of a pile supported pier extending to the U.S. Bulkhead Line. Reference is made to a drawing dated December 12, 1989, prepared by Cash & Associates entitled "Concept Layout" which provides details of the development discussed in this report. • PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY The purposes of this study were to: (1) obtain information on the subsurface conditions within the project area, (2) evaluate the data, and (3) provide conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the facilities as influenced by the subsurface conditions. Converse Consultants OC . To accomplish these objectives, we: 1. Collected and reviewed project.data available to us and prepared an exploration program. 2. Engaged two contractors to perform 8 test borings and 8 cone penetration test (CPT) probes (soundings), located the borings and probes in the field, obtained soil samples, and provided full-time observation of the contractors' work. 3. Performed laboratory tests to aid in classification of the materials sampled and to determine their engineering properties. 4. Correlated, interpreted, analyzed, and evaluated the data obtained, and prepared this report of our conclusions and recommendations. Background • Two previous preliminary geotechnical investigations had been performed at the site for two other planned developments. One report was by Converse Consultants Inc. (Project No. 82-02161-01) dated August 16, 1982 and the other by Converse Consultants Orange County (Project No. 86-32245-01) dated August 11, 1986. From our observations during the field exploration, review of previous reports and photographs of the site, and conversations with utility personnel, this site had previously been used as a construction laydown/storage area and a mobile home park. Apparently abandoned sewer and telephone lines exist across the site. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Exploration A total of 8 test borings were drilled and 8 cone penetration test probes were performed on the site at the locations shown on Drawing No. 1, entitled "Location of Borings." Boring locations were based on the structure configuration shown on the Concept Layout dated December 12, 1989, prepared . by Cash & Associates Engineers, Long Beach, California. The borings were L Converse Consultants OC 3 . drilled with a rotary wash drill rig'to depths ranging from 20 to 60 feet and the cone penetration test probes were advanced with a CPT rig to depths ranging from 10 to 60 feet. Logs of the subsurface conditions as encountered in the test borings were recorded at the time of drilling and are presented on the boring logs included in Appendix A. Logs of previous borings at the site are enclosed in Appendix C. Cone penetration test probes (soundings) are a rapid method of obtaining subsurface soil information, especially frictional resistance of the soil. We incorporated the use of CPT probes to supplement the borings regarding the bedrock conditions around the site, primarily depth to competent bedrock. Results of the CPT probes are also included in Appendix A. Relatively undisturbed and disturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at appropriate intervals below the ground surface and were taken to the laboratory for observation and testing. A brief description of the drilling and sampling operation is included in Appendix A. • Laboratory Testing Representative samples were tested in the laboratory to obtain information on the engineering properties of the soils. Laboratory tests included unit weight, moisture content, shear strength, consolidation, expansion index, R- value, sulfate and chloride content tests and corrosivity and resistivity tests on selected samples. More detailed descriptions of the laboratory tests along with a summary of the laboratory test results as well as some individual test results are presented in Appendix B. Soil samples are discarded 30 days after the date of this report, unless this office had received a specific request and fee to retain the samples for a longer period of time. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Conditions At the time of our field exploration the site was relatively level • approximately at elevation +10 MLLW and enclosed by a chain -link fence. The Converse Consultants OC 4 central portion of the site was devoid of vegetation and covered with a compacted sand and gravel mixture. The outer portions of the site were partially covered with grasses, shrubs and trees. A bluff estimated at 60 to u 80 feet high forming the Newport Beach highlands begins just inside of the northern property line and extends up the western side of the bay. Slopes from the bluff down to the marina site, in the vicinity of the northern property line, are estimated to be from 3:1 (H:V) to nearly vertical. Subsurface Soil Conditions ` Based on previous and recent test borings and CPT probes, beneath an upper layer of compacted sandy gravel, the site is generally underlain by a hydraulic fill, alluvium and bedrock. The upper compacted sandy gravel was similar to a miscellaneous aggregate base material and extended to a depth of about 1 foot. Underlying the sandy gravel, except in Borings B-2, B-4 and B-5, were marine deposits and alluvium consisting primarily of loose to very dense sands and very soft to stiff clays to depths ranging from 9 to 52 feet. In Borings B-2, B-4 and B-5 a dredged fill consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sands was encountered beneath the sandy gravel and overlying the marine deposits and alluvium. The dredged fill ranged in depth from approximately 7 feet in Borings B-2 to approximately 20 feet in Boring B-5. Beneath these soils, bedrock consisting primarily of siltstone of the Capistrano formation was found. Bedrock varies from the ground surface at the northern portion of the site to approximately 52 feet below the ground surface at the southern portion of the site. The previously mentioned dredged fill also includes miscellaneous fill materials, marine sediment deposits, and alluvial deposits. Because of the similarity of these materials and deposits, the contacts between these deposits were not easily distinguishable. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in all of our test borings at the time of our field exploration in June 1990, at depths ranging from approximately 3 to 10 feet below the existing grades. The groundwater level at the site is • approximately at sea level, and is affected by tidal fluctuation in the adjacent bay harbor channel. Converse Consultants OC I C 5 • ENGINEERING EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory tests combined with our engineering analysis, experience and judgement, it is our opinion that the site may be developed as planned. The major geotechnical considerations are the 60,000± cubic yards to be excavated and dredged, the installation of the sheetpile retainage, the variable characteristics of the dredged fill, the installation and allowable lateral loads on the guide piles, and the potential for liquefaction. Areas that contain loose sands are susceptible to liquefaction and loss of shear strength during strong earthquakes. As a result bulkheads that pass through such areas may encounter loss of support in the event a strong earthquake occurs. The primary areas of loose sands, as encountered in the borings, that are prone to liquefaction are in the western and north western portions of the site. Excavation and Dredging As shown on Drawing No. 1, a new sheet pile bulkhead system will be installed . around the marina perimeter and the subsurface material on the bay side of the marina will be excavated or dredged to achieve a dredge line elevation of -8 to -10 feet (MLLW). The dredge line towards the land portion of the marina is planned to be -8 feet MLLW, and the dredge line towards the bay portion of the marina is planned to be -10 feet MLLW. We recommend that this transition be constructed at a 6:1 (N:V) slope. The total volume of material to be excavated or dredged is estimated at approximately 60,000 cubic yards. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of this material is above the groundwater level. The remaining approximately 45,000 cubic yards will be below or sufficiently near the groundwater level to warrant dredging operations. Most of the material to be dredged is previous dredged fill, alluvial deposits, marine deposits or bedrock. Portions of the bedrock may be difficult to dredge, especially where the bedrock is close to the existing ground surface. Converse Consultants OC 0 6 The CPT probes did not indicate a distinguishable difference between the weathered bedrock or competent less weathered bedrock. However, the CPT probings did indicate that portions of the bedrock within the marina site contained dense layers. A subsurface profile along the proposed bulkhead as encountered in our borings is presented as Figures 2, 3, and 4 (X-Sections A -A', B-B' and C-C'). Site Grading Recommended site preparation measures include the removal of all vegetation, existing or abandoned utilities and any other deleterious materials in the shower/storage structures and parking areas. On -site soils in the shower/ storage buildings and parking areas and to 3 feet beyond the building and parking areas should be removed and recompacted to provide at least 1 foot of compacted soil beneath building slabs and pavement sections. The exception being the shower/storage structure on the pile supported pier. The excavated on -site soils above the groundwater level may be reused as compacted fill provided they are free of deleterious substances and have a suitable moisture content to obtain proper compaction. Dredged soil would have to be dried significantly before it could be used as compacted fill. Also dredged soil may contain significant chlorides and sulfates such that it may be corrosive to metal or concrete. Any soil imported from off -site sources should be nonexpansive and be approved by the Soil Engineer or his representative prior to placement. Acceptable fill material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness when loose and should be properly compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. On -site materials should be compacted with the water content at least 2 percent above optimum as determined from ASTM Test Method D1557. The placement and compaction of all fill should be performed under the observation and testing of the Soil Engineer representative. Converse Consultants OC • Building Foundations Because of the variability of the dredged fill and the areas of potential liquefaction we recommend that the shower/storage structure on the west side of the site be supported by a mat foundation. Even though the structure is anticipated to be relatively light with short spans, total settlement is estimated to be approximately 1/2 inch because of the loose sands. However, during a strong seismic event, if liquefaction occurs, total settlement could be 1 inch or greater. The use of a mat foundation would virtually eliminate idifferential settlement and, in the event of liquefaction, the structure would most likely still be functional. Mat foundations can be designed using an allowable net bearing value of 1500 psf. The northernmost shower/storage structure can be supported by spread footings founded on bedrock at least 2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. These footings can be designed using an allowable net bearing value of 2500 psf. • The floor slab for this building can be supported on a 1-foot zone of compacted fill overlying bedrock. ( We recommend that a moisture barrier such as a 8-mil visqueen be used under interior slabs. The moisture barrier should be covered with 2 inches of coarse sand to facilitate concrete curing and to protect the visqueen. tl 0 Adequate provisions are to be made to limit and/or prevent moisture content changes in the subgrade beneath footings and floor slabs. These should include positive drainage away from building foundations with a minimum gradient of 2 percent and properly sealed joints for interior piping beneath interior and exterior slab areas. Building Lateral Resistance Resistance to lateral loads for the shower/storage structures can be assumed to be provided by passive earth pressure and by friction acting on structural components in permanent contact with the subgrade soils. Converse Consultants OC 901 8 W • Passive earth pressure on the sides of footings may be assumed equal to that exerted by an equivalent fluid weighing 200 pcf, subject to a maximum pressure of 2000 pcf. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be assumed with dead load forces of slab -on -grade or footings in permanent contact with subgrade soils. Steel Sheet Pile Bulkhead A sheet pile bulkhead system is planned to be installed in a "U" shape around the site. Tieback or batter pile anchors are planned to be installed r as part of the bulkhead system. L 0 IL During a significant seismic event loose sand layers below the dredge line may liquefy and loose passive resistance which may result in toe kick -out of sheeting not installed sufficiently deep. Therefore, for sheeting design purposes, we recommend that passive resistance be neglected between -15 and -25 MLLW for the western and southern sides of the proposed bulkhead. The steel sheet piles may be designed using the allowable parameters presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 SOIL PARAMETERS FOR BULKHEAD DESIGN Equivalent Fluid 11 Pressure (psf) 11 Active Earth Pressure 40 At Rest Earth Pressure 50 Passive Earth Pressure 200 Driving steel sheet piles may encounter hard driving when attempting to penetrate bedrock. The use of vibratory hammers as well as impact hammers may be considered. Tiebacks can consist of drilled grouted anchors, deadman anchors or driven batter piles. Drilled grouted anchors obtain resistance along the anchor length while deadman anchors obtain resistance from passive earth pressure against the anchor face. Driven batter piles obtain their resistance from the Converse Consultants OC r iza 9 W • frictional component of the soil -pile interaction. Anchor resistances for the drilled grouted anchors, deadman anchors, and driven batter piles should be calculated beyond a 35 degree line extending upward from the point of zero moment in the bulkhead. Anchors to be located below the groundwater level should be installed with techniques to prevent soil disturbances or the area should be dewatered and observed by the soils engineer's representative prior to placing grout or concrete. Drilled grouted anchors should be prestressed to 150% of the design load prior to applying the working load. If drilled ` grouted anchors as described above are not feasible, we recommend the use of t deadman anchors or driven batter piles. 0 The allowable capacity of tieback anchors, deadman anchors, and driven batter piles are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 ALLOWABLE BULKHEAD ANCHOR CAPACITY Drilled Grouted Anchors* 750 DL Deadman Anchors Driven Batter Piles** Notes: 200 A 70X + 2.5X2 D = Diameter of drilled anchor L = Length of drilled anchor beyond the 35 degree line A = Area of deadman parallel to bulkhead X = Length of pile beyond the 35 degree line • = For tiebacks drilled 20 degrees from horizontal '* = For batter piles driven 20 degrees from vertical Because of the liquefaction potential of loose sands near the groundwater level at the western and northwestern portions of the site, we recommend the use of deadman anchors in these two areas. Pile Suaoorted Pier The pile supported pier can be supported by driven piles consisting of prestressed -precast concrete piles, pressure -treated timber piles, steel-H r r_ Converse Consultants OC piles or concrete -filled steel pipe piles. Even though the on -site soils and saltwater are corrosive to steel, concrete -filled steel pipe piles because of their ease of installation with anticipated variable length piles, have significant advantages over the other pile types. Allowable vertical single pile capacities for 12-inch-diameter concrete -filled steel pipe piles are presented in Figure 5. Uplift capacities of single piles and capacities of batter piles are presented as Figure 6. Center -to -center spacing between adjacent piles should be at least 3 pile diameters. For piles spaced less than 3 pile diameters apart a pile group efficiency factor will have to be incorporated. We recommend that the hammer to be used to drive the piles have a driving energy of 24,000 ft-lbs or less if the pile selected is a 12-inch-diameter pipe pile. If another type or size pile is selected we can evaluate the possible range of hammer energies or hammers selected. Floating Docks and Boat Slips The proposed floating dock guide piles are intended to provide lateral support [ for the floating docks and boat slips due to waves, currents, and vessel impacts. For these guide piles we have only considered 12-inch-diameter concrete -filled steel pipe piles. These guide piles have been evaluated as individually free standing piles. We expect very similar driving conditions as previously stated under the section "Pile Supported Pier". The only difference being that the depth to sound bedrock for the guide piles is l expected to be more variable than for the piles supporting the pier because of the larger area involved. Lateral Loads For Piles A laterally -loaded pile analysis was conducted using pile properties for a hollow 12-inch-diameter steel pipe pile along with soil properties evaluated for the subject site. The piles were assumed to have free heads with a maximum horizontal deflection at the mudline of 0.5 inch. Two cases were considered: (1) pile in bedrock; (2) pile in sand. Converse Consultants OC F L isa 11 W Resulting lateral capacities, depths to maximum and zero moments, and minimum pile embedments are presented in Table 3. The design values for sand soils given in Table 1 generally are based on the assumption that the soils penetrated by the driven piles will be at least firm and/or medium dense in consistency. Some of the sediments may, in fact, be loose or soft, and therefore, piles could be dislocated or knocked out of plumb by lateral loads caused by a seismic event or other forces. We understand that piles so affected will be reset and redriven. If the piles are filled with concrete, the lateral capacity will be greater and could be analyzed if more lateral capacity is desired. TABLE 3 LATERAL PILE DESIGN CRITERIA STEEL PIPE PILES Case 1 Case 2 Free Head (Pilo in Bedrock) (Pile in Sand) Lateral Capacity, P, kipsa 2.0 1.5 Maximum Moment, ft.-kipsb 40.0 30.0 Depth to Maximum Moment, ft.a 1.5 3.5 Depth to Zero Moment, ft.a 12.5 14.2 Minimum Pile Embedment Length, ft.' 13.0 15.0 a) Lateral capacity is based on 0.5 Inch deflection at mudline. b) Moment is for the horizontal load, P, applied at the top of pile; If the horizontal load Is in kips, the moment will be in foot•kips. c) Below mudline Retaining Walls The earth pressure behind any buried walls depends primarily on the allowable wall movement, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, i Converse Consultants OC isa 12 W surcharges, and any hydrostatic pressure. The equivalent fluid pressures presented in Table 4 are recommended for vertical walls with no hydrostatic pressure, and no surcharge. Also the equivalent fluid pressures recommended for the hydraulic fill assumes a level backfill whereas the pressures recommended for bedrock assumes a 2:1 (H:V) backfill. TABLE 4 RETAINING WALL EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURES Wall Movement Hydraulic Fill Bedrock (pcf) (Pcf) Free to Deflect 40 60 Restrained 60 SO • These values are applicable for backfill placed between the wall stem and an imaginary plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edge (heel) of the wall footings. The surcharging effect of anticipated adjacent loads on the wall ( backfill (e.g., traffic, footings) should be included in the wall design. Depending on whether the wall is free to deflect or restrained, 35 or 50 percent, respectively, of a maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the height of the wall should be used in design for lateral earth pressures. Rockfalls or ravelling of the exposed weathered bedrock can expected along the bluffs at the northern property line due to the steepness of the slope. We recommend that consideration be given to an extension of the wall above the slope (free board) and that a rockfall catch fence also be considered over those portions of the retaining wall where debris could come down the slope. Except for the upper 2 feet, the soil immediately adjacent to backfilled retaining walls above the groundwater level (minimum horizontal distance of about 2 feet measured perpendicular to the wall) should be free -draining Converse Consultants OC u ASA 13 W is filter material. Weep holes and/or drain pipes should be installed at the base of these walls. In lieu of filter material, crushed stone protected from C clogging with the use of synthetic fabric between the natural soil and the gravel may be used. II Corrosion Potential Laboratory chemical tests previously performed on soil samples from the site indicated sulfate concentrations between 385 and 398 ppm, chloride concentrations generally between 408 and 1215 ppm, and pH between 7.65 and 7.8. Laboratory resistivity tests indicated values between 600 and 850 ohm -cm for the on -site soils. Soils with sulfate concentrations less than 1000 ppm generally are considered to have a low corrosive effect on ordinary concrete, and, therefore, a Type I portland cement may be considered for concrete that will be exposed to the on -site soils. Soils with a chloride concentration more than 700 ppm and less • than 1500 ppm generally are considered to have a severe corrosive effect on mild grade steel. The resistivity test indicate that the on -site soils generally are conducive to severe electrolytic -type corrosion. A corrosion consultant familiar with the marine environment should be retained for the development in light of the use of concrete bulkheads, pipe piles, and steel sheet piles in the bay. Liquefaction Potential The term "liquefaction" describes a phenomenon in which a saturated cohesionless soil loses strength and acquires a degree of mobility as a result of strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and depth, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Liquefaction potential is reduced with increasing depth of overburden and is generally not a concern at depths greater than 40 feet. However, since our • borings encountered loose sands below groundwater within the upper 20 to 30 feet, liquefaction potential is moderate to high during strong ground shaking. Converse Consultants OC ai 14 W • The areas of potential liquefaction are primarily on the western and southwestern portions of the site. We recommend that in these areas shower/ storage structures be supported by a mat foundation and the bulkhead be anchored by deadman anchors or batter piles. Paving All areas to be paved should be graded in accordance with the general recommendations for site grading presented under "Site Grading". Prior to placing base course or subbase material, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, moisture conditioned as required to obtain optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Based on the laboratory R-value test of 10 obtained from a previous exploration at the site for the on -site soils (the R-value will depend on the ` actual soil at the subgrade level after grading) and selected traffic index values indicated below, the following minimum flexible pavement sections were . computed. Our computations were based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 4th edition. Pavement Components (TI = 4) (TI = 6) Asphalt Concrete 3 3.5 Aggregate Base 6 11.5 Total Pavement Thickness 9 15.0 Additional pavement sections can be presented upon request for imported fill subbase or for different traffic index values. Selection of the traffic indices should be made by your civil engineer based on his knowledge of traffic flow and loadings. Base course should be crushed aggregate base or processed natural material conforming with Section 200-2.2 or 200-2.4 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Converse Consultants OC isa 15 W • Utilities The on -site sandy soils are suitable for backfill of utility trenches from one ` foot above the top of the pipe to the surface, provided the material is free of organic matter and deleterious substances. It is anticipated that most natural soils will provide a firm foundation for site utilities. Any soft and/or unstable material encountered at pipe invert should be removed and replaced with an adequate bedding material. r The on -site soils are not considered suitable for bedding or shading of l utilities. Therefore, we recommend that nonexpansive granular soils be imported for that purpose. Trench backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Cash & Associates • Engineers to assist the Project Engineer in the design of the proposed development. It is recommended that we be engaged to review the final design drawings and specifications prior to construction. This is to verify that the t recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project specifications. If we are not accorded the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. I r • We recommend that we be retained to provide soil engineering services during construction of the excavation and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. The findings of this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the results of the laboratory testing program. The soil conditions on the subject Converse Consultants OC 7D 16 W • site have only been determined at the specific boring locations. Conditions between or beyond the borings may vary, and interpretation or extrapolation of the results may not be appropriate, especially at shallow depths. • C E If the project plans change significantly (e.g., locations, building loads or type of structures), we should be retained to review our original design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practice in geotechnical engineering. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Converse Consultants OC t E.m Baerri 33 Lrgnt <ir 'Lln.,��nr� 1�I�A 34— i ;, O Jgor- Harbor 4< QJQr C Ught Bay Ir- park`. `'� �'�� 1`�'i 1' ",}•\' 23•::r.; •'.' `' 7n' ' V. aq )a vie\• Par£%, .. AM Coney . RRHehOort 'IsTarrd 1. iF _ trvme CoS: j'',__ 7"—�\ ` BM Country Cl 'err--- .T --"-Be¢COn�•��' :Irvine 7 Collins L—.mT--a�,r- nin �nrnrr-.l`rJi• _ tee ch N _ boa 1/ ark/n r f �W R y ;i7gQ�h� L.'%P - _36 <...' Light•`'I� c. , Reference: U.S.G.S., Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1965 (Photorevised 1972) p'1 ti Scale: 1" = 2000' Note: Map may be distorted due to reproduction process SITE 'MAP Castaways Marina Project No. Newport Beach, California 90-32155-01 For: Cash & Associates Engineers Figure No. �... Converse Consultants Orange County 1 0 AT East POINT 01 OFFSET 30 08 04 40 -10 06 0 I Dredge Marine Deposits or Alluvium Bedrock Capistrano Formation SB Yee 1DV GV. DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE, FEET SUBSURFACE PROFILE A -A' Castaways Marina Newport Beach, California For: Cash & Associates Engineers Converse Consultants Orange County July 1990 Project No. 90-32155-01 Figure No. 2 0 AT East 0 North SO 260 AT East 26e North SO POINT 03 es -28 OFFSET Dredge Fill (possibly ly some Dredge Fill (possibly some 6- bridge abutment fill in the bridge abutment fill in the g of B_5' vicinity of B-51 v1C vicinity 10- IS - ze Marine Deposits PRE and Alluvium WW 3e- 40- Bedrock 46-= Capistrano Formation 60 B60 - BE 0 20 40 Be Be 108 12e 148 ISO ISO 200 220 240 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE, FEET SUBSURFACE PROFILE C-C' JUIW 1990 Castaways marina Project No. Newport Beach, California 90-32155-01 For: Cash & Associates Engineers Figure No. 3 County Converse Consultants Orange 0 0 AT East 30 North 0 350 AT East 30 North 350 POINT 03 02 01 OFFSET 10 10 -S e Dredge Fill se .' Marine Deposits ' and Alluvium 1 2e 2 F 30 W _ w x 0, p, 3 w A • ae Bedrock a Capistrano Formation 60 S 60 6 0 SB 100 1.50 200 2S0 300 350 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE, FEET SUBSURFACE PROFILE B-B' July lase Castaways Marina Project No. Newport Beach, California 90-32155-01 For: Cash & Associates Engineers �/►� Figure No. Converse COnsultants Orange County 4 m n 15 i 20 ^ 25 ++ a 30 c 35 40 a u_ a ALLOWABLE VERTICAL DOWNWARD CAPACITY (kips) FOR SINGLE 12-INCH-DIAMETER PIPE PILES in is 20 25 30 WSJ DRIVEN SINGLE PILE DOWNWARD CAPACITY (kips) Project Na Castaway's Marina Newport Beach, California 90-32155-01 For: Cash & Associates Engineers Figure Na Converse Consultants Oeotechnlcel Engineedng 5 orange County and Applled Sclences 0 a I i� 15 20 25 4j v w � 30 a w 0 35 40 ALLOWABLE UPLIFT CAPACITY (kips) FOR SINGLE 12-INCH-DIAMETER PIPE PILES 5 10 15 20 25 30 DRIVEN SINGLE PILE UPLIFT CAPACITY (kips) Castaway's Marina ProjmtNa Newport Beach, California 90-32155-01 For: Cash & Associates Engineers Figure Na Converse Consultants Deolechnleal Engineering 6 Orange County and Applied Sciences n Z� 0 EXPLANATION \ p Br Number and approximate location of boring by Converse Consultants. �./ Orange County for this report \" f o•30.CCOC-1- . Number and approximate location of boring by Converse Consultants R woo, 9 .- Orange County, see report dated August 11, 1986 • -' -� .�,•./ ,' !� - !' � Oran L G 35' CCI-1+ Number and approximate location of boring by Converse Consultants, Inc see re rt d ted A �. •. po a ugust 16 1982 J At i i r \ '� Number and a penetration test (CPT) \ ` 1 C-1 approximate location of cone �. � ,' !.• 2G.89' y I R. 110.00"AD � ` \ �- r'1 ` �, � ,.( 1, \ 1 � sounding by Converse Consultants for this report. Contours of approximate top of bedrock elevation (feet NLLN)/ -01 000, 00 60 ' 4 N�3' IO' 58 E •�� _ B-B \. • \ / 4•ll•19'07" R•37930' L+ "74 93' d•47.33•Q6" • 7 1 00' • sa.e3' �; r , CCI-5101IZ5.F (RAP) 5. -C-4 CCI-4 C 1A \ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHOWER/STORAGE STRUCTURE, V CCI-30. 8 ss,�°r \ Approximate Location of CCI-6 Art \ Proposed Bulkhead B-7 eA Qp i" -5 \ CCI-1 Tom' 4zoo - c Scale:_ IN = 40- i CCI-7 \ \ - CCOC- 8 EA D L IN E \CCOC-1 APPROXIMATE, P U 5. t3UL,K14 LOCATION _. e EXISTING, OF APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF B-5 \ CCI-?_ - u gtoo.4� � BULKHEA PILE SUPPORTED PIER AND SHOWER/STORAGE STRUCTURE C, It &V to 6,4 �.�•p •LINE _�• Note: This drawing is part of Converse Consultants Orange County CCOC-2 project number 90-32155-01 and report dated 7/19/906, LOCATION OF BORINGS Castaways Marina "as shown Newport Beach, California °'~ 7/19/90 90-32155-01 For: Cash 8 Associates Engineers "•andby LHG °rn"DN0 Chockod 424 Converse Consultants Orange County �, RK j I L C A-1 FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration included a site reconnaissance and subsurface drilling. During the site reconnaissance, the subsurface site conditions were noted and the approximate locations of the test borings were determined. The test borings were advanced using a CME 55 rotary wash drill rig equipped for soil sampling. The soils were continuously logged by technical personnel from our office, and visually classified in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions have been modified as appropriate to reflect laboratory results. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained at appropriate intervals in the borings using a drive sampler (2 1/2-inches inside diameter, 3-inches outside diameter) lined with sample rings. The thin -walled steel sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with • successive drops of a 140-lb hammer falling 30 inches. The blows for each six inches of penetration were recorded and are shown on the Boring Logs. The soil was retained in the brass rings of 2.50 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height. Where noted on the boring logs, standard penetration test (SPT) samples were obtained using a 32-inch long split -spoon sampler, 2 inches outside diameter, driven with successive drops of a 140-lb hammer falling 30 inches. The blows were recorded from each 6 inches of penetration for a total penetration of 18 inches. The sum of the number of blows for the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration is referred to as the "N" value. The core penetration test is a method whereby the soil characteristic is correlated to measurements taken from instruments within a core that is ` continuously pushed below the ground surface at a constant rate. The results of the soundings present sleeve friction (FS), tip resistance (QC) and the ratio between these two measurements. From the results the soil type and • correlation to soil strength can be made. A-2 • Elevations of the ground surface were determined at the boring location at the time of drilling by estimation from a topographic map, dated November 29, 1989, prepared by Cash & Associates Engineers. The datum for the topographic map was evaluated to be Mean Low Low Water (MLLW). A key to soil symbols and terms, and logs of the borings are presented in the following pages of this Appendix. Included on the logs are the soil C descriptions, and pertinent field observation data. r1 U • Page A- 4 904 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 01 • �0 Orange County Sheet 1 of 4 C Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/7190 tN c 7 • Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 6.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. SUMMARY OF BORING .oa This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants 4.1 E Orange County for the named project and should be read together wiEh that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies the time drilling. ub- Remarks a only at the location of this boring and at of surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at 1 C a a N j this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a A y L j1 m L simplification of actual conditions encountered. O N m O V) 7 el D E S C R I P T I O N A.C. = 3 inches A.B. = 6 to 12 inches SC Alluvium/Marine Deposits Clayey Sand- loose, moist, brown to dark gray, micaceous, fine- to medium -grained, rootlets 3 4 5 5 4 4 = = Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltstone; very weak, wet, dark gray, bedding 10 = spacing .25 to 2 inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, claystone and sandstone interbeds, jointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum along bedding and joints, forams, micaceous 49 50/2" = weak to moderately, strong, dark olive green and drown interbeds, laminated 15 50/3" Page A- 5 L 04 Converse Consultants • tO Orange County • 0 LOG OF BORING NO. 01 Sheet 2 of 4 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/7/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 6.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. tu 0. 0 ❑ ttl S E • to to a" 0 -+ m H -a a C E L 71 ON .Oa ❑ m I Lt a to L 70 SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named protect and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. OESCRIPT ION Ramarkz Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltsione; weak to moderatel strong, wet, dark y2 light brown gray, bedding spacing .25 to inches, to brown where highly weathered, claystone and sandstone interbeds jointed and fractured, staining at Joints, gypsum along bedding and joints, forams, micaceous 3 4 = very weak, brown sandstone lenses, trace caliche 5 25 7 8 30 4 8 9 35 10 12 Page A- 6 404 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 01 • �V Orange County Sheet 3 of 4 f Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/7/90 r 0 11 r • I Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Rlevstinn +10 MLLW ft Denth +1 41 W O U. 10 U) f0 3 ^i m U IL L 7 O N H 0 E W U) 7 U) L D O r DI 15 26 47 45 50/5" 50 13 44 50/5" 55 Page A- 7 C r r L r Converse Consultants Ig K06 Orange County 0 LOG OF BORING NO. 01 Sheet 4 of 4 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/7/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Deoth to Water 6.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. +i Y si Ia O n. i pl 3 H at H ti a i M ON -' a E N m I N L 0O SUMMARY OF BORING This his part of the report prepared by Convene Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that re ort for complete interpretation. This summary applies p S only nE the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. ub- surface -conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I PT I0N Remarks End of boring at 60 feet Free groundwater encounteredat 6 feet Hole backfilled with drill cuttings on 6/7/90 65 70 75 Page A- 8 r 0 0 Converse Consultants Orange County LOG OF BORING NO. 02 Sheet 1 of 3 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/6/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Depth to Water 6.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. -' SUMMARY OF BORING n° This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants +i a Orange County for the named project and should be read together N 0 with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies p 9 time drilling. Remarks .., only of the location of this boring and at the of ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at 41 a a a a to M this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a n. a E e o 0 e e L a U a N a simplification of actual conditions encountered. O nl m om t9 D E S C R I PT 1 0 N A.B. = 6 to 12 inches SP Dredged an Fill Sand; loose, wet, brown, medium- to coarse -grained 3 5 5 Sz 2 SC llvtm nn clayey Sit= loose, wet, dark gray, medium- to 3 fine-grained, rootlets 10 17 medium dense 5 15 I 1 2 CL Silty Clay; soft, wet, olive Page A- 9 ,04 �n Converse Consultants V Orange County LOG OF BORING NO. 02 Sheet 2 of 3 f Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/6/90 IC r 0 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Rlevatlnn +R MLLW £t Deoth to Water 6.0ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. SUMMARY OF BORING a This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants +i E Orange County for the named project and should be read together t a ti to C. with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling 8ub- may differ at other locations and may change at Remarks .r e M t a U I E U)j n surface conditions this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a G. ~N simplification of actual conditions encountered. o N O N OL D E S C R I P T I O N CL Atluvi}tm/MarituL ppms 5 Silty Clay; Wit, wet, olive 4 firm, olive green and dark gray, some gravels, 4 trace fine-grained sand 25 3 SP Sand; loose wet, dark gray, medium- to fine-grained, some olive silty clay 2 30 4 CL Silty Clay; firm, wet, olive green, some dark gray 5 sand 35 2 ML 3 Sandy Silt and Clayey Silt; firm, wet, olive, some 4 dark gray sand and olive green clay Page A- 10 0 0 4�04 Converse Consultants .n� V Orange County LOG OF BORING NO. 02 Sheet 3 of 3 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/6/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Deoth to Water 6.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. -' SUMMARY OF BORING aThis log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants 4+ E orange County for the named project and should be read together u .., U) with that re ort for complete interpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. 3ub- may differ at other locations and may change at Ramarka un. 3 a a m j surface conditions this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a IL a e a D „{ 9 t: 4 ]I o D m a simplification of actual conditions encountered. o N m O N n O D E S C R I P T 1 0 N ML Alluvium//Marine Deoaci� Sandy Silt and Clayey.Silt; firm, wet, olive, some dark gray sand and olive green clay 14 = Bedrock Capistrano Formation 15 = Siltstone; very weak, wet, dark gray, bedding spacing .25 to 2 inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, claystone and sandstone interbeds, jointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum = along bedding & joints, forams, micaceous 45 8 16 7 50 11 = olive, thinly bedded 12 55 6 12 dark brown with dark gray sandstone layers, _— End of boring at 58 feet Free groundwater encountered at 6 feet drill on 6/6/90 Hole backfilled with cuttings Page A- 11 LConverse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 03 KoOrange County Sheet 1 of 4 ( Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 616190 I r A Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7 8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Depth to Water 10.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. -' SUMMARY OF BORING a+ r This to is part of the report prepared by Convene Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together ,, H .a W with that reFort for complete interpretation. This summary applies p 9 only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling ub- Remarks 0 surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at u0 3 E 0 N ] this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a n. u E E 0 o e L a U o V a simplification of actual conditions encountered. O N in ON Mfg D E S C R I PT I0N A.B. = 6 to 12 inches Alluvium/Marine Deposits SC Clayey Sand; loose, moist, olive gray, medium- to fine-grained 2 3 5 5 12 SP Sand; medium dense, wet, dark olive gray, medium- 14 L7 to fine-grained to = 10 13 14 l5 13 SM Silty Sand; medium dense, wet, dark olive gray 19 Page A- 12 r FI • A 04�.n� Converse Consultants � / Orange County LOG OF BORING NO. 03 Sheet 2 of 4 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/6/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Depth to Water 10.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. -' SUMMARY OF BORING aThis log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants +� E Orange County for the named project and should be read together N N with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies the time drilling. Remarks ..� as onlpy at the location of Chia boring and at of ub- aurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at a=i o. 3 I N E this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a a 0 E a 0 E L a to 0 N L simplification of actual conditions encountered. O N m O N :) O D E S C R I P T 1 0 N SM Alluviym/Marine Deposits Silty Sand; medium dense, wet, dark olive gray 1 1 SC Clayey Sand; very loose wet, dark olive green, medium- to fine-grained 2 25 2 CL Clay; soft, moist, olive green, plastic 3 30 2 5 stiff, some olive brown sand 5 35 13 16 — aedr rock Capistrano Formation Page A- 13 404 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 03 •��2n Orange County Sheet 3 of 4 ( Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/6/90 : • • Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7 8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Deoth to Water _1.0.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. +1 w : 0. e [! O. E E N 3 0 ,a m 0 : a I E L a O ttl M E to N 1 U 0 N s DO SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants orange County for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies onlyy at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling ub- aurfacc conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T 1 0 N Remarks Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltstone; very weak, wet dark gray and olive green, bedding spacing E to 2 inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, laminated, tointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum along bedding & joints, forams, micaceous 4 5 7 — olive, brown staining, olive green sandstone 45 = lenses 25 50/4" so — weak to moderately strong, dark gray to black 17 28 48 55 503„ = some caliche Page A- 14 404 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 03 KV Orange County Sheet 4 of 4 I Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 616190 I a • Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Depth to Water 10.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. aLi tt u Cl i e a fD a" 0 -1 0 a .n0 • e S. 7 ON -' .oD to 11 0 D al t. 70 SUMMARY OF BORING This his part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R 1 PT 1 0 N Remarks End ogfr boring at 60 feet Hole 6/6/90 backflled with drillicutttingslonf 65 70 75 Page A- 15 r t L 46./n�n' Converse Consultants .� V Orange County • 10 LOG OF BORING NO. 04 Sheet I of 4 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/11/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 8.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. Q SUMMARY OF BORING .on This his part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants be together +i E Orange County for the named project and should read with that repart for complete interpretation. This summary applies the time drilling ub- Remarks t + a 3 a .0 it)0j only at the location of this boring and at of surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a IL E o Y e 1.. 71 o 0 In L simplification of actual conditions encountered. O N m co N n O D E S C R I P T I O N A.B. = 6 to 12 inches predg SP �Snd medium dense, moist, brown and gray, fine-grained, some silt and clay medium- to 2 7 9 5 Q 41 45 Sc Alluvium/Marine Deposits Clayey Sand; dense, wet, brown, some silt, to very medium- to fine-grained I CL Sandy Silty Clay; very soft, wet, brown, plastic, I fine-grained 15. 8 8 = 13 dr k Capistrano Formation 0 Page A- 16 404 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 04 WOrange County sheet 2 of 4 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6111190 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 8.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. .L 0. a ❑ r a e sl N a 0 -1 m ti .1 a a sl E L 3 O N - M N N j to 0 to L O SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that re ort for complete interpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drillinq� ub- au yace conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented Is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T I O N Remarks Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltstone; very weak, wet, brown and gray, bedding spacing .25 to 2 inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, claystone and sandstone interbeds, jointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum along bedding & joints, forams, micaceous 2 3 = laminated 4 =_ zs 11 4 1 30 5 — 6 6 35 = sandstone lenses weak to moderately strong, trace caliche 28 50/4" Page A- 17 I C 9 i.� Converse Consultants �2 Orange County LOG OF BORING NO. 04 Sheet 3 of 4 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6111190 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7 8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 8.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. t a a o 4 E a N a 3 ,� m U .y .� r 0 li 2 L 3 O N y N 0. to a in L 30 SUMMARY OF BORING This his part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Ornnge County for the named project and should be read together with that repart for complete interpretation. This summary appplies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling Sub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T 1 0 N Remarks Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltstone; weak to moderately strong, wet, dark inches, light brown to gray, bedding spacing .25 to 2 brown where highly weathered, claystone and sandstone interbeds jointed and fractured, staining at Joints, gypsum along bedding & joints, forams, micaceous 15 35 50/5" 45 32 — brown sandstone lenses 50/5" so = 20 5015" 55 — dark gray sandstone lenses 40 50/3" Page A- 18 04 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 04 10 Orange County Sheet 4 of 4 [ Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6111190 r 0 i Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 PUmntinn +10 MLLW ft Denth to Water 8.0 _ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. ++ yLi 0 0. O G. E y tll (0 3 0 m H ..� a 0 E y a O N -� a E 31 W N Q. p D r<! s_ =0 O SUMMARY OF BORING Thie log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named protect and should be read together wikh that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a Simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T I O N Remarks End of boring at 60 feet Free groundwater encountered at 8 feet Hole back£illed with drill cuttings on 6/11/90 65 70 75 Page A- 19 0 C c Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 05 K0Orange County Sheet 1 of 3 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/8/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7 8 Elevation_+8 MLLW ft Depth to Water 7.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. 41 4. X Y O 0 6 I 10 to 3 m 4 .a p• ,p L a O N -' A B to j N 0 D O SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Convene Consultants Orange County for the named protect and should be read together with that re ort for complete interpretation. This summary appliea p 3S only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T 1 0 N Remarks A.B. = 6 to 12 inches r i SP and; loose, moist, brown, some gravels, shells, medium -grained, clay, micaceous 8 7 5 4 SZ 1i medium dense, wet, dark gray to 26 27 dense 15 12 7 medium dense Page A- 20 404 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 05 • tO Orange County Sheet 2 of 3 j Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 618190 M1 f Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7 8 L'lnvet;nn aR MT.T.W ft T)enth to Water 7.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. a+ .c C. a 0 E a A U ti m 12. E L a O W - a E n, U O In L n 0 SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that refort for complete interpretation. This summary appplies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Sub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T 1 0 N Remarks SP Alluv um/M rine Deposits Sand; medium dense, wet, brown, some gravels, medium -grained, micaceous 25 very dense 50/5" ' 25 14 26 dense 30 37 50/5" . very dense, coarse -grained a 35 6 SC 13 ]4 Alluvium/Marine Deposits Clayey Sand; medium dense, wet, gray and olive mottled, some cobbles ON Page A- 21 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 05 • Orange County Sheet 3 of 3 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/8/90 r L n • A Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +8 MLLW ft Depth to Water 7.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. ' SUMMARY OF BORING .3 This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants H N Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies location this boring and at the time of drilling ub- Remarks a ti C a only at the of may differ at other locations and may change at .c G o, E a o 0 S 0 S m 11 ii D surface conditions this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a u E t W 0 simplification of actual conditions encountered. o to m 0In 3o D E S C R I PT I0N SC Alluvium/Marine Deposits Clayey Sand; medium dense, wet, gray and brown mottled, some cobbles 3 CL Silty Clay; firm, wet, olive green, micaceous, some 4 shells 45 5 3 SC Clayey Sand; loose, wet olive green to dark gray, micaceous, medium- to Fine-grained, some silt 3 50 5 — Bedrock Capistrano Formation 5 = Slltstone; very weak, moist, dark gray, bedding spacing .25 to 2 inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, laminated, jointed and fractured, staining atjoints, gypsum along bedding & joints, = forams, micaceous 55 3 3 6 End of boring at 58 feet Free groundwater encountered at 7 feet Hole backfilled with drill cuttings on 6/8/90 Page A- 22 C Fa r 0 0 n� Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 06 �.V Orange County Sheet I of 3 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/8/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Denth to Water 10.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. -' SUMMARY OF BORING S1 This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants +J a Orange County for the named project and should be read together 4 - t\D to y with that re ort for complete interpretation. This summary applies p 9 the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. ub- Remarks tn. s .a only. at surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at 4. E 3 0 C E U u this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. s O a 0) m a 71 m a ON DO D E S C R I PT I0N A.B. = 6 to 12 inches Alluvium [[Mgrt ep3,00sits CL Sandy Clay_; stiff, moist, brown, mottled, some gravels, shells 6 5 SC ClSand; loose, et, brown and dark gray, 3 mottledayey, some shells, swome silt 5 2 10 24 = Bedr Capistrano Formation 37 — rock Sfltstone; weak to moderately strong, wet dark ggray, brown and olive bedding spacing .23 to 2 inches, li ht brown to brown where highly weatheredt claystone and sandstone interbeds, laminated, jointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum along bedding & jolnts,forams, micaceous 15 11 21 27 C Page A- 23 I r Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 06 Orange County Sheet 2 of 3 ( Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/8/90 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Denth to Water 10.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. 4 .N p O a 9 (a _ 3 ..3 M n. ,00 i 0 ON 13 -3 J3 rn j so L 0O SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary appliea only at the location of this boring and at the time of drillin8 9ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may Change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I PT I0N Remarks Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltstone; weak to moderately strong, wet, dark gray, bedding spacing .25 toy inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, claystone and sandstone interbeds jointed and fractured, staining 36 — at joints, gypsum along bedding & joints, forams, 15 = micaceous 25 5 8 15 30 — 20 27 35 — 13 23 38 Page A- 24 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 06 • Orange County Sheet 3 of 3 i Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 618/90 `] r Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Denth to Water 10.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. a+ 0. • 0 • a 11 IN fD a" 0 -+ in H ..� a a • e L 71 ON M N j 0 0 N L 70 SUMMARY OF BORING This to is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named pprotect and should be read together with that report for compleke intarprekation. This summary appplies andy at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Sub - surface Conditions may differ at other locations and may Change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I PT 1 0 N Rsmairks — Bedrock Capistrano Formation siltstone; weak to moderatelyy strong, wet, dark gray, bedding spacing .25 to 2 inches, light brown to row bn where highly weathered, claystone and 29 = sandstone interbeds jointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum along bedding & joints, forams, 50/4 — micaceous 45 — 19 30 49 50 34 50/5" Ss 15 33 50/5" _= End of boring at 58 feet Hole backf led on 6/8/90ered at 10 feet Page A- 25 J It 0 Converse Consultants Orange County LOG OF BORING NO. 07 Sheet I of 2 Project Castawav's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6111190 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 8.5 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. ~ Z 4. a O C E o 7l a" a 4 41 ti .i a ,a S E 4 E ON -' J3 N to j 0 0 V 4 7t7 SUMMARY OF BORING This his part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary appplies only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Sub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I1)T I0N Remarks Bedrock Capistrano Formation Siltstone; very weak moist, brown, bedding spacing .25 to 2 inches, weathered, lointed and fractured, bedding & joints, staining at joints, gypsum along forams, sandstone and claystone lenses 3 4 5 _— 5 Sz 23 = wet, gray brown, laminated 24 10 44 50/5" _— weak to moderately strong 15 38 50/5" Page A- 26 ,04 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 07 • KO Orange County Sheet 2 of 2 6 Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/11/90 r L A Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7 8 Elevation +10 MLLW ft Depth to Water 8.5 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. y 0. e [I EL e e N 3 0 ,a m a e E s. ON a In 7 Ct 0 m a 70 SUMMARY OF BORING This to is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultant Orange County for the named protect and should be read together with that re ort for complete interpretation. This summary applies onlyy at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. ub- aurfaee conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I PT 1 0 N Remarks End of boring at 20 feet Free groundwater encountered at 8.5 feet Hole backfilled with drill cuttings on 6/11/90 25 30 35 0 Page A- 27 401 Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 08 • iw Orange County Sheet 1 of 2 [ Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/11/90 r l I r • • Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10.5 MUNWt Deoth to Water 3.0 ft After hrs on Geoi/Engr R.K. SUMMARY OF BORING M This to is part of the report prepared by Converse Consultants be together 4+ E to Ora nge County for the named project and should read with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies the time drillin6 Remarks s a ti a : only at the location of this boring and at of ub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at No. C to 11 this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a u a -3 a a L simplification of actual conditions encountered. a (a m O N ::1O D E S C R I P T I O N A.B. = 6 to 12 inches Alluvium/Marine Denosits Clayey Sand; loose, moist, brown, micaceous, SC rootlets Q 3 4 5 s 2 10 2 CL Sandy Silty Clay; soft, wet, brown 2 2 firm, olive green 3 15 6 = r ck Capistrano Formation 9 0 Page A- 28 u:�Converse Consultants LOG OF BORING NO. 08 • -i Orange County Sheet z of z E Project Castaway's Marina Project No. 90-32155-01 Date Drilled 6/11/90 L • r 0 Drilling Company/Driller Datum/Keith Equipment Rotary Wash Drill Driving Weight (lbs) 140 Average Drop (in.) 30 Hole Diameter (in.) 3 7/8 Elevation +10.5 MLLWft Depth to Water 3.0 ft After hrs on Geol/Engr R.K. 43 w jC Q. a O Q. e • to - as 0 -f m a a � 3 L 3 ON -' a N j O o to L 30 SUMMARY OF BORING This log is part of the report prepared by Convene Consultants Orange County for the named project and should be read together with that report for complete interpretation. This summary ap lies p pp only at the location of this boring and at the time of drilling. Sub- surface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. D E S C R I P T I0N Remarks Bedr Capistrano Formation rock Siltstone; very weak, wet, dark gray, bedding spacing .25 to 2 inches, light brown to brown where highly weathered, ciaystone,and sandstone interbeds, jointed and fractured, staining at joints, gypsum along bedding & joints, forams, micaceous 7 7 8 25 End of boring at 25 feet Free groundwater encountered at 3 feet Hole backfilled with drill cuttings on 6/11/90 30 35 SLEETONS/SC (FS) TIP TANCCEE fOC) FRICTION/SG RCENT ATIO (F6/OC) FON TREE FT 4 2 0 0 60 I00 ISO 200 0 4 8 0 0 10 - 10 20 20 90 30 m m y � x x 40 40 z z m m m 60 50 60 60 70 70 60 60 CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-1 PROJECT NAME CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION : NE4PORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY C CORPORATION PROJECT NUMBER : 90-230-6604 DATE 06-11-1990 C r I SLEEVE FRICTION (FS) TIP RESISTANCE (0C) FRICTION RATIO PERCENT (FS/OC) TONS/SO FT TONS/SO FT 4 2 0 0 SO 100 ISO 200 0 4 8 0 0 10 IO 20 20 30 30 co rn 0 m —�i x x 40 z z 40 m rrn n SO SO 60 60 70 70 60 60 CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-1A PROJECT NAME CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION NEWPORT BEACH � THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY d CORPORATION PROJECT NUMBER + 90-230-SB04 DATE 06-i1-1990 C I' c I' I SLSSTONSRICTFON (FS) TIP (GC) FRIC71ONN RATIO (FS/OC) TONS/SO FT 4 2 0 0 SO 100 ISO 200 0 4 S 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 o m � y 2 z 40 _ 40 Z n rn m m -a SO SO 60 60 70 80 BO CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-2 PROJECT NAME : CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION NEWPORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY PROJECT NUMBER : 90-230-SSO4 DATE 06-11-1990 C CORPORATION I' SLEEVE FRICTION (FS) TIP RESISTANCE (GC) FRICTION RATIO PERCENT (FS/GC) TONS/SO FT TONS/SG FT 4 2 O 0 50 _ LOO ISO 200 0 4 S 0 0 LO 10 20 30 30 m 0 m s x _ 40 40 z Z m m m - SO SO SO SO 701 L 70 80 90 TOP 2.0 FT IS OISTU"M 601L CONE PENETRRTION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-3R PROJECT NAME : CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION NEWPORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY ECORPORATION PROJECT NUMBER : 90-230-5604 DATE : 06-11-1990 I I I SLEEVE FRICTION (FS) TIP RESISTANCE TONS/SG IGCI FT FRICTIONN RATIO PERCENT (FS/OC) TONS/SO FT 4 2 0 0 SO l00 ISO 200 0' 4 8 0 0 10 10 ZD 20 1-7 30 30 o � x x 40 _ 40 = z rn m f H SO SO SO SO 70 70 80 80 CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-4 PROJECT NAME CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION = NEWPORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY PROJECT NUMBER 90-230-5604 DATE = 06-11-1990 CORPORATION 1 r 0 SLEEOOTTN(FS) SLEEVE TIP RESISTANCE IOC) FRICTIOPRATTIIO PERCENT (FS/GC) TONS/SO 4 2 0 0 s0 t00 ISO z00 0 4 8 0 O 10 t0 zG za 30 30 �i FR x 40 Z — 40 z n m m m so s0 80 80 70 70 80 80 CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C—S PROJECT NAME CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION : NEWPORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY C CORPORATION PROJECT NUMBER 90-230—SSO4 DATE s OS—I1-1990 r I• SLEETONS//FRICTION (FS) TIP FT (OCl FRICTION RATIO (FS/GCI CEN SG FT TONSSTANCESO 4 2 0 0 SO too ISO zoo 0 4 8 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 m x _ 40 z 40 = m m+ m SO SO 80 60 70 70 80 80 CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-S PROJECT NAME CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION = NEWPORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY PROJECT NUMBER 90-230-5604 ORTE t 06-11-1990 CORPORATION ) m r L L SLEEVE FRIC FTN (FS) TIP RESISTANCE (GC) FRICTIOTONS/8 PERATIO (FS/GC) FT 4 2 0 0 SO 100 ISO 200 0 4 6 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 30 m m -I = 40 40 z z m m m - SO SO 60 60 70 70 SO SO CONE PENETRATION TEST SOUNDING NUMBER: C-7 PROJECT NAME s CONVERSE/CASTAWAY LOCATION NEWPORT BEACH THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY C PROJECT NUMBER: 90-230-6604 DATE 06-11-1990 CORPORATION is n u 1 r LABORATORY TESTING General Comments A laboratory test program is designed for each project to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of the soil and rock materials encountered at the site during the field exploration program. This appendix summarizes the purposes of and procedures followed in performing the most frequently assigned tests. The laboratory testing program for this project did not L include all of the tests described herein. Results of the tests performed for this study are included at the end of this appendix. i r The soil samples stored in CCOC's laboratory for this project are discarded 30 days after the date of this report unless a request and retainer to store the samples for a longer period of time has been received within that 30-day period. Classification • Classification testing is performed to identify differences in material behavior and to correlate the results with shear strength and volume change characteristics of the materials. Classification testing includes moisture content, unit weight, grain -size analysis, sand equivalent, and Atterberg limits. The classification tests are performed in general accordance with procedures of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Test ASTM Method Moisture Content D2216 Unit Weight 02937 Grain Size Analysis Sieve C136 Hydrometer D422 Sand Equivalent D2419 Atterberg Limits D4318 Volume Change Consolidation tests are performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D2435 to determine the load -deformation characteristics of the soils. The soil specimen, contained in a 2.42-inch-diameter, 1.00 inch high sampling ring, is placed in a loading frame under a seating pressure of about 0.1 ksf. G [M • The pressure is then increased to about 0.5 ksf, and the specimen is allowed to consolidate. The specimen is subsequently loaded in increments equal to the previous pressure and allowed to consolidate under each increment. The vertical deformation is recorded as a function of time. When the pressure reaches a pre -selected effective overburden pressure and the specimen has consolidated under that pressure, the laboratory technician adds water to the test cell and records the vertical movement. After the specimen reaches equilibrium with addition of water, the technician continues the loading process, usually up to a pressure of about 8 ksf. The results of the test are presented in terms of percent volume change versus applied vertical stress. The potential for soil and rock expansion due to wetting is evaluated from results of an expansion index test performed in general accordance with r Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2. In this test, a specimen is compacted to a degree of saturation between 40 and 60 percent in a 4.01-inch-diameter, 1.00 inch high ring. The specimen is subjected to a seating pressure of 144 • psf, water is added to the test cell, and swell is monitored until the expansion stops. The volume of swell is converted to an expansion index. r Other methods to measure expansion potential due to wetting include a swell test and a swell -pressure test. In a swell test the sample, either at natural moisture content, air dry, or remolded to 90 percent of maximum density at optimum moisture, is subjected usually to a seating pressure of 60 psf. Water is then added to the test cell, and the expansion of the soil is monitored. The final expansion is reported as percent swell. L In a swell -pressure test, the specimen, contained in a sampling ring and at natural moisture content, is placed in a loading frame and subject to a seating pressure of about 100 psf. Water is added to the test cell, and the volume change is recorded until it essentially ceases. After the swelling is complete, the technician loads the specimen in increments equal to the previous load and allows the specimen to consolidate under each load. The W specimen is consolidated back to zero volume change; the corresponding pressure is called the swell pressure. The swell pressure test is sometimes performed on a remolded specimen compacted to about 90 percent of maximum density and at optimum moisture content. Shear Strength Estimates of undrained shear strength of cohesive soils can be obtained with a hand (pocket) penetrometer. In this test, a small diameter, hand-held probe [ is pushed a specified distance into a soil sample, and the shear strength is estimated from the compression of a calibrated spring. The direct shear test, performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080, is used to measure the shear resistance of both cohesive and granular materials. In this test, the specimen, in a 2.42-inch-diameter, 1.00 inch high ring, is usually allowed to soak under a seating pressure of about 100 psf. A vertical stress is applied to the specimen, and the specimen is allowed to reach an equilibrium state (swell or consolidate). The specimen is then sheared under a constant rate of deformation. The rate of deformation for a slow test is • selected from computed or measured consolidation rates to allow full drainage (full dissipation of any tendency for pore water pressure changes) during r shear. The rate of deformation for a quick test is usually taken as 0.05 in./min, which results in failure being reached within two to three minutes. Residual shear resistances of fast tests are obtained by shearing the specimen past the peak shear resistance, resetting the specimen to zero displacement, shearing to a constant resistance, and repeating the process three to five times until the shear resistance has stabilized. In the case of slow tests, the residual shear is measured by cycling the specimen between deformations of about ±7 percent of the specimen diameter until an equilibrium shear stress is reached. Three methods are used to obtain data points to construct a failure envelope from quick direct shear tests. Tests are performed on three or more specimen, each under different vertical stresses; three or more tests are performed on a single specimen, but the specimen is shifted for each test under different vertical stresses so new surfaces are sheared each time; three tests are performed on a single specimen in a multiple stage test. In a multiple stage Is M IL M I test, we stop the shear test near but before failure is reached. The displacement is reset to zero, a higher vertical load is applied, and the shear process is repeated. Finally, the displacement is reset to zero, the largest vertical load is applied, and the specimen is sheared to failure. In the case of slow tests, usually three or more specimens are used, each at different consolidation pressures to generate a failure envelope. Pavement design includes an assessment of subgrade resistance, which is measured by an "R"-value or a bearing ratio test, CBR (California Bearing Ratio). The R-value test is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1883. Compaction Compaction tests provide information on the relationship between moisture content and dry density of the soil compacted in a given manner. The maximum density is obtained for a given compaction effort at an optimum moisture content. Specifications for earthwork are in terms of the unit weight (or • density) expressed as a percentage of the maximum unit weight and the moisture content compared to the optimum moisture content. The compaction test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D1557. Sulfate Test Soluble sulfate concentrations of soils are measured in general accordance with California Department of Transportation test procedure 417 to provide information on the potential for concrete in contact with the soil to deteriorate because of soluble sulfates. I" m own E I r r 0 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES Castaway's Marina - Dover Dr. 8 PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 POINT DEPTH ASTM LL PI FINES WATER DRY VOID SATUR- MA%.DRY OPT. PHI CORE- CONSOL IDENTIF- CLASSIF- CONTENT DENSITY RATIO ATION DENSITY MOIST. ANGLE SION ICATION feet ICATION R % % % pcf SG=2.7 % pcf % deg. ksf ............................................................................................................ 01 9.80 31 01 19.80 28 01 29.80 77 62 63 1.6895 100 01 39.80 66 60 1.7902 99 01 59.80 35 82 1.0556 90 02 2.30 47 02 12.50 17 02 22.50 44 02 32.50 40 80 1.1158 98 02 36.80 82 59 02 42.50 37 83 1.0290 98 02 52.50 52 64 1.6203 87 03 3.80 27 20 03 9.80 23 03 19.80 23 . 03 29.70 63 1.6576 17 0.19 03 29.80 51 69 1.4368 96 03 39.80 47 73 1.3015 97 03 49.80 55 66 1.5592 95 03 59.80 43 78 1.1613 100 04 9.80 21 106 0.5835 95 04 19.80 61 04 39.80 53 67 1.4977 96 04 49.80 38 77 1.1995 86 04 59.80 49 70 1.3970 95 05 2.50 20 05 12.50 SP-SM NP NP 5 19 05 22.50 21 104 0.6258 90 05 32.50 19 110 0.5264 95 05 42.50 88 55 66 1.5349 97 05 52.50 51 70 1.4020 99 06 2.50 18 06 12.50 97 51 67 1.5213 91 22 0.73 06 22.50 53 67 1.5202 95 06 32.50 79 53 2.1906 97 06 42.50 72 57 1.9581 99 06 52.50 47 72 1.3528 94 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS June 1990 1of2 I u t3 • I SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES Castaway's Marina - Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 POINT DEPTH ASTM LL PI FINES WATER DRY VOID SATUR- MAX.DRY OPT. PHI COME- CONSOL IDENTIF- CLASSIF- CONTENT DENSITY RATIO ATION DENSITY MOIST. ANGLE SION ICATION feet [CATION % % % % pcf SG=2.7 % pcf % deg. ksf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 07 9.80 44 74 1.2783 93 07 19.80 39 79 1.1434 92 08 9.80 30 93 0.8175 100 08 19.80 64 50 2.3388 74 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS June 1990 2of 2 w 9m • r i I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS & I GRAVEL I SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE ICOARSEI MEDIUM I INE COBBLES I U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. HYDROMETER 3 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 0 10 20 8C t- o H m W 3 W 3 40 6 } ?, m m p O Z W Z M N H H N 6 W D: a 60 4 Z W W U K W W a IL aD 2lilt 1 t00 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 CIRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring LL PI Symbol Number Depth, ft D/o Mo Descrintion ❑ 01 29.8 Olive Sand with Silt (SP-SM) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Converse Consultants Orange County A Min • U UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS & GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. I HYDROMETER 3 3/4 3/8 4 0 20 40 60 140 200 0 10 8C 20 H r, m H H W W 3 6 3 40 } r m m o m Z W Z H NI H F N W IL D: 60 t 1- 4 z Z W U W U O: W a' a IL 2 80 11100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring LL PI Symbol Number Depth, ft °/D /b Description ❑ 02 36.8 Dark Bn Clay with Sand Organic (CL) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION • Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Converse Consultants Orange County IN B-9 i • A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS & GRAVEL I SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. I HYDROMETER 3 3/4 3/8 10 20 40 60 140 200 0 10 20 8 F- U m M ~ W W 3 3 40 6 r r m m o m z W z N H G W IL x I- 4 4 60 t W U W U � Ix W a IL 80 2 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 OR(AIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring LL PI Symbol Number Depth, ft D/D % Description O 03 3.8 Gray Bn Silty Sand Lumps of Clay (SM-SC) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Converse Consultants Orange County W • 0 0 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS & GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY I COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. HYDROMETER 3 4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 140 200 0 10 20 80 2 � m W N W W 3 6C 3 40 y Y m m m r, Z W z H 41 M Q Fa- W IL 60 I 4 i W W U U m D W a IL 80 2 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring LL PI Symbol Number Deoth, ft % % Description ❑ 05 12.5 NP NP Dark Gray Sand with Shells (SP) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Consultants D-11 • F r 4 r UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS & GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES' U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No, HYDROMETER 3 3/4 3/8 4 0 20 40 60 140 200 0 10 8 20 F S m m �y LU W 3 3 6C 40 } Y m m m CI 2 W = m to ~ F W a a 60 F 4C Z W U W V lu W W W a IL 80 2 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring LL PI% Svmbol Number Depth, ft % Description ❑ 05 42.5 Dark Gray Silt with Organic (ML/MH) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Converse Consultants Orange County if-14 PJ UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS & GRAVEL I - SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. I HYDROMETER 3 3/4 3/8 4 0 20 40 60 140 200 0 1Oc E-20 ac F m H ~ W W W 3 6 3 40 } r m m m m z W z M tD ~ F to W a D: 60 F 4 z Z W V V it a u 80 2 100 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Boring LL PI Symbol Number Denth, ft % % Description ❑ 06 12.5 Dark Bn Consol. Silt (ML) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Castaway's Marina Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach Converse Consultants Orange County Project No. 90-32155-01 D-1J 0 1 F x O H W x Z 5 H W C7 Z Q x U F Z W U Q W a 1 11 1 0.1 1 10 100 VERTICAL STRESS, ks£ Boring Number : 07 Description Dark Bn Silty Clay Lenses of Sand (CL-ML) Depth, It 9.8 Liquid Limit Specific Gravity : 2.70 Plastic Limit Moisture Dry Density Percent Void Content, % pcf Saturation Ratio Initial 48.1 72.2 97 1.336 Final 73.9 47.3 78 2.564 Note: Sample was Saturated @ 1.50 ksf CONSOLIDATION TEST . Castaway's Marina Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach Converse Consultants Orange County Project No. 90-32155-01 C r 1. dF I I I I I I I L .0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.e 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 NORMAL STRESS, ksf Boring Number : 03 Description Olive & Gray Silty Clay (CL-ML) Depth, ft 29.7 Cohesion, ksf 0.19 Specific Gravity : 2.70 Friction Angle, degrees 17 Moisture Dry Density Void Normal Shear Content, % pcf Ratio Stress, kef Stress, ksf 62.3 62.2 1.00 0.49 61.3 63.4 2.00 0.80 58.5 64.7 4.00 1.40 Note: Rate of Deformation 0.05 in/min Plot Corresponds to Peak Values DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS . Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Converse Consultants Orange County B-15 r r 6 4 4 3 el 1 1 1 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.6 0 3. 6 4.0 NORMAL STRESS, ksc£ 0 Boring Number : 06 Description Dark Bn Consol. Silt (NIL) Depth, ft 12.5 Cohesion, ksf 0.73 Specific Gravity : 2.70 Friction Angle, degrees 22 Moisture Dry Density Void Normal Shear Content, % pcf Ratio Stress, ksf Stress, ksf 58.0 64.2 1.00 1.11 57.5 61.8 2.00 1.53 56.9 64.3 4.00 2.30 Note: Rate of Deformation 0.05 in/min Plot Corresponds to Peak Values DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Castaway's Marina Project No. Dover Dr. & PCH, Newport Beach 90-32155-01 Converse Consultants Orange County C-1 { 1 B O R I N G N O ,. Converse Consultants SHEET Orange County •CASTAWAYS 1MVRINA oar 5/21/86 PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. 86-32245-01 DRILLING COMPANY INTERSTATE DRILLING gWIPMENT HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRIVING WEIGHT 140 # I AVERAGE DROP (IN.) 300 HOLE DIAMETER 5. ELEVATION -1' GROUNoWA7ER EN4LG-I;o GND 10 It R Y O F B 0 R I N G VISUAL W W S U M M A FIELD SY E- ^ N✓•A1E11 lA(LV Mt] ]WHAT YN.IE] PLY AT TIE lM• TIOI 6 TMI] t13111G MO AT T,E wT fI1iEF11 1T OTHG •.-.TIPa4 W h W LL j 2 V~. Y LL ¢ P SYMtI(L PIILLIW. ]UOSWfKE fyCMIMI lP!' TIPI VI iN tlE fAlftlE P. TiK. T14 NTA a C W A O 1• y H g n = AW wY PY.AT AT TNI! ]fMIIfIUT1P1 fi IC1Y4. OafT:W] AC MRM- EI O C _ i Ni]FNITD fT A `"'o PERCENT cLL a' "x DE SCR I PTI CN morn ]uo-.nE LL" a BORING 1' BELOW WATER SURFACE wet med. 0-95-5 SP TOP OF ense SAND medium gray, fine sand, micaceous, trace non plastic fines, no visible organics, but NR moderate organic odor II I shell bed 1" thick CL SANDY CLAY 1 light gray, some fine sand, medium plastic, micaceous, slightly organic odor CLAY 2 trace sand Is" thick medium sand, interbedded with 1/2 to 3/8" thick light brown & olive gray clay streaks, 1/161 thick organic layer at 10 fine sand slyers 1/32" thick between clay band partings (intensely laminated) 15 2 intensely laminated clays as above torganic layer 1/8" thick in tip of sample *22 0-30-70 10.51 35.1 91 141- 8 1. 0-5-95 L �. jer intensely laminated clay with sand streaks 3 organics at 19.6' 1/16" thick i * Corrected N-Values 1f Pocket Penetrometer Test 4 (Continued) n Sample sheared at normal loads *23 7.8174.51 59 13F4.5 *25 Pk Converse ConsUttants Count 1 C-2 SHEET 2 CP 3 Orange 3 GarF 5/21/86 PROJECT NAME CASTAWAYS HARINA � GRILLING COMPANY INTERSTATE URILLINO PROJECT N0._,$f> 32215- i " DRIVING WEIGHT HOLLOW STEI1 AUGER :1401 j �IaMENr 5' ELEVATION GROUNDWATER ENP(GEO 6ND 7 AVERAGE DROP PIN.) 30" HOLE DIAMETER 1 SUMMARY OF B0R I NG VISUAL FIELD W W �E w '-' ESTIMATE a o E [i1aY f„[f y,�w,ir f+rLtcf w.r �i rre �punw a r"n ealro �.a AT f,c caotnwf ,.r O1i:41 AT OM. L6fTWA W y y a 3 i u r y W i a y SYulM1. TI,E P OiiLLIW. fSMA,iILE YO INr OWL£ 1T 1Ntf LQASIOt Yt T1 rK TTWI V T AM M tY1lf 0 .11t1I1 OQ[i[IYq p@MTRi,D• F W C > Z p4LliNim [T ]IMl[ItGrtlfa O C. u O PEA T 'd. ,• L i n O J _ ❑ E S C R I P T I 0 N 2 Y,fYF L•f.O•I f1E W LL LL M J Y y CL CLAY ois very of, 0-5-95 trace sand, alternating medium brown, olive green medium plastic clay 1/2" to 3/8" thick thick) to hard `occasional gray to light green, 1/8 1 1/16-1/8" fine sand at partings ' 25 30 35 medium sand ;-�" thick along partings clay beds 95%+ fines sand beds 90p+ sand 41 I 1/16- 1/32" sand layers, fine grained along partings BEDROCK - CAPISTRANO runewllun DOLOSTONE dark gray, hard, massive to 37' n 1 I CLAYSTONE & SANDSTONE dark brown clay, trace fine sand, slight gray sand, trace fines, hard drilling 40 (Continued) * Corrected N-Values a Sample sheared at normal loads of 1 n 17a and 4.0 kSf. 0-10-90 17.8 �9.5 1 85 *50 40.6 *65 ■ f ► Converse Consultants Orange County ...3Auavc MARTNA B 0 R I N-G N 0 s. 1 SHEET�3 PRO.ItI:,I_rvu. - 140 HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRIVING WEIGHT ELLUIPMENT • GRCUNOWATER ENOLL GND (IN.) �• HaLE CIAMETER 5__.--ELEVATION AVERAGE DROP S U M M A R Y O F B O R I N G i VISUAL FIELD j a M SyaE w ESTIMAT-e 0 :_ E C p16F IE3 paY .T TE , a T"IS pOIIM SIC AT TK THIS Sl.wr war OI::Y< AT L53TIW e N C W a ] - F a a „ Z SYwSd. TT%M' T116 Q p61LLIM. THt S�]IFKi CRatTI[+�f IW. TkC. MSY Gu,6 AT THIS lGC3TIOS vi1N S,f F.lSSOfi G: TI!£. 1HI DATA 2 T = = x a a - 5 ^ a .,a Px3dna IS ! 3{,Il1FIGT{OI V IC1W1. CJCIZlCS3 pfdNRSFII. O � PFALSSIT a 3 J y Y O E S C R Z P T I C N 9 U O 0 AM-3YO•II,E G LL G M CAPISTRANO FORMATION mots hard 0-5-95 I BEDROCK - to 0-95-5 CLAYSTONE 8 SANDSTONE very 0-5-95 CLAY ONE dark olive green, moderately weathered, soft, (hard to very stiff), slightly moist, massive, forams, consistantly hard drilling below 41h' 45 6 End of boring at 45' S" 50 L-4 1 B 0 R I N G N O 2 Converse Consultants orange County SHEET 1 OF 1 oar 5/22/86 PROJECT NAME CASTAWAYS MARINA PRo.IECT No. 86 32245-01 DRILLING COMPANY INTERSTATE DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRIVING WEIGHT 140 # gggp ENT 6N0 AVERAGE DROP (IN.1 30- HOLE DIAMETER 5. EL NATION -8.0't GROUNDWATER ENQ/GEO S U M MAR Y O F B O R I N 6 VISUAL V to a- FIeLD ° -s IK ' Ai 11R IGEATid O txl3 ATINTYtl A TfIE (1 ITfLLIM. SUIHAfACE CdWl OIiREII Ai 0111ER IT • UATAT TXIS LWTI°. VITH TE •.lSb! Y TIIE. TE tulA'O W 2IS A SIX•LIIIGTIfM V AC1UK C>GlTtdf CfSM.FOp��TWw3- '�' a 0 E S C R I P T I 0 N wfvfl•!uo-•IlE G N a< X 3 ., x CL TOP OF BORING 7' BELOW WATER SURFACE wet irm 0-5-95 SILTY CLAY dark olive brown, trace of fine -sand, very intensely laminated with 1/32" thick fine sand streaks BEDROCK - CAPISTRANO FORMATION CIAYSTONE 10 dark olive brown, trace fine sand, soft (verstiff to claystone, interbeddedmwithv1 4-1/8beddin9 In " sandstones 1 sandstones 1/16" thick, spaced 6", 2 abundant forams in claystone 15 End of boring at 141 6" 0-5-95 *10 7.11 49 170 (1.2 a 2.7 * ' Corrected N-values ■ Sample soaked prior to shearing at normal loads of 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 ksf. (I 1, 4 A L L� C—b ^ B 0 R I N G N 0 8 isl Converse Consultants' Orange County s/86 PROJECT NAM.. CASTAWAYS MARINA GATE 5/28/86 86 32245 O1 ORILLINO COMPANY INTERSTATE DRILLING PROJECT N0. 140 # IPMENT HOLLOW STEM AUGER ORIVINO WEIGHT r,u t 30' HOLE DIAMETER 5! ELEVATION —5.0lt GROUNDWATER ENR/GED GNO S U M M A R Y O F B O R I N G ` F VISUAL L a t � SHSLE ]r THE Lounw o THn ealw uu ]r TE 111 H � ESTIMATE- > m LL 3 � ,]se]]t war SYMIQ. THIa llwRr ]].LIE] w.r TIM wILLIrO. !IMl1PIY.'E cTaITIw] WT OIfIEA IT OTHER L63' TIT! TE �]ff.CE fP TI,E. TM "TA W r W O u an p S Y y ¢ p 1; y yp Wr O.Yf6 1T THI! L=TIW VIM , RESd1ID IS I. ]IML]FIGTid rf .LTW- O XTIC,] ]%yMTERtD. O C yEP(',plT > Y 9 ¢a t y D E S C R I P T I D N 9 c] C Im]vEt ]uo-n.E sl. loos 0-80-20 SH FILL SILTY SAND moil light brown, fine to medium sand, 1-2 fragments of shale *18 1 noist firm 0-10-90 CL SILTY CLAY olive brown, mottled orange, trace fine 9.2 0.3 81 $4.5 1 sand 5 2 shale fragments to 1" *18 claystone fragments in silty clay matrix 4.0 34.9 73 44.5 2 t0 3 shells & clay in tip *13 15 BEDROCK - CAPISTRAND FORMATION hard 0-5-95 42.1 51.2 66.3 3 CLAYSTONE light gray to dusky yellowish brown trace fine sand, moist, soft (very stiff to hard), abundant forams `� (Continued) C-6 B O R I N G N O f. 6Converse Consultants '�Orange County S� 2 2 °F Dare S1781SA PROJECT NAME CASTAWAYS MARINA PROJECT NO. 86-32245-01 DRILLING COMPANY IMTRSTATE ORILLIN6 EyRJIPMENi HOLLOW STEM AUGER ORIVINO WEIGHT 140� AVERAGE DROP (IN.) 30- HOLE OIAMETc7i 5% ELEVATION GROUNOWATER ENG/GEO ENO 25 L* r S U M M A R Y O F B 0 R I N G W sAf.Lc it+t� raao f„ta furAr fPM.l:a var AT T,6 Lourxw a. T"la ewva fro Ar x,e — srNEC(, Tx� OatLL11O. 3U017FfIr3 CO9tTlwa w, otFYEII Ai oilU1 L1"Lnwf = uO wT O,.ILY AT Tnxa L=Ttw vfM Tt TE �fffYX 6 ,4. tlE WA > Ie sm= If A fl�iF,GTtw of aC1UAL COiTtOtf OCCMIEam• J C E 5 C R I P T I 0 N 3 � BEDROCK - CAPISTRANO FORMATION' 4 CLAYSTONE dusky yellowish brown, with h" thick green clayey sandstone interbeds, spaced 6" apart, sand streaks along claystone partings spaced 1-4", slightly moist, soft, forams throughout, massive bedding in claystones 4 @ 27-30' alternating 4-6" layers, hard & soft End of boring at 31.5' y VISUAL y ca FIELD m Z rT- ESTIMATE t H - n a n PFN.F71T - Y W O > y SI C U O ORAK1•fY0•.I,E O LL LL Y E J if Y 0-10-90 7.1 �2.8 155 2.1 a 2.1 4.0 *74 a a a Sample soaked prior to shearing at normal loads of 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 ksf. SUMMARY A3 0-7 BORING NO. B-1 DATE DRILLED: 7-14-82 THIS SDMMARY AFFLIE! ON FACE AT THE ILLATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DlI LLING. SUSSURFACC CONDIPONS MAY OIFiE SATOTMEN LOCATIONS S( J THE DATA a�i p�}'I/ (t}p +'te, / JS F' DEPTH �. G; AND MAT CHANGE AT THIS LOGTION HPd THE PASSAGE OF TIME. PRESENTED 1! A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS IONS ENCOUNTERED. �� `LPS} C�TS }}} / Sp1?'D Ae FEET ` 4 ep� 9.1't � CIO'yi ELEVATION• SM dry loose light FILL -SILTY SAND to yellow fine to medium medium gray with abundant shell moist dense fragments (Pectens & II Gastropods) & moderate l with interbeds of Sandy 15 5 1 moiverst gray II Clay and Silt brown with Carbonized root (?) v fragments - I wet I $M — loose green BEACH DEPOSITS -SILTY i ML gray & SAND -fine to medium moderat� with abundant shells and 7 Z red occasional lens of firm brown Sandy Clay and Clayey loose to Silt, and occasional ! 11 medium rock fragments # # dense micaceous I moderatedark BEDR -CLAYEY 51LT- hard green STONE -with occasional 31 black ( Silty Sand seams 85 711 t 5 1 & dark moderately fractured gray slightly weathered green laminated micaceous 31-50 dip of beds I very 1 moist 95• 44.0 71 20 dark occasional shell fragments or green to I . 66 black 108 //* 1 .47 47 11" 45.9 69 4.90 rl 2 i 03 25 free ground water end of boring at 25.0' encountered at 6.5', 28 t hours after time of drilling � o 2 a i n ' 1 v I 30 *Sample soaked & drained before shearing a at 1.0, 2.0, & 4.0 ksf PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE holed Nc. Newport Beach, California 82_02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. 634 ConveCse Consultants A-t O j' SUMMARY BORING NO. B-2 DATE DRILLED: 7-14-82 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT TN[ .k T I MCOFDRILLING. SUCSURFACE GONG I T I ON S MAY O IF r E A A T OTH CA L OCAT IO AS AHD MAT CMANOE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA DEPTH t}1% p�' /IIES ENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION Or ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUHTEIIEO. l IN p T�° 6,3' FEET S `O 0A ELEVATION f 0 7��dry very light FILL -SILTY SAND loose gray fine to medium sli htl yellow with little fine Gravel, i1 IN HE is 20 25 moist y brown trace coarse Sand 7dus'yabundant shells 8 shell froc trace Silt with occasional thin layers moist SID v. moist oae Sandy Silt, few red Carbonized root fragments & trace shells wet brown loose medium BEACH DEPOSITS- SILTYSAN to green fine, with abundant shells medium gray I micaceous dense medium SAND Sp gray clean, fine, micaceous with occasional Silty Sand layers trace medium Sand I few shells micaceous dense I P gray to green Olive medium gray dense m. dense gr. grn. & stiff & It gra fine to medium with occasional thin layers of Clayey & Silty Clay Ic1 21 23 67 45 IMMIMA A4 C-8 D9 �4y ?9fy�OS !pA w�AA '^Acf 30 (Continued) PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE ?roleo: No. Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-2 a SUMMARY BORING NO. B-2 (Continued) T", SUMMARY TIME Or OE LLLIN0.CATION 's UCSUII r AC E CONO ITI,$ ONLY AT TME IOMS MAT 051 AaC ATOOT M[S LOCATIONS * TIME MAY CNAMOE ATAlo THIS LOCATION WITN TM[ rAtl AGC Or TIML. TNC OAT• DEPTH bT'S� °v RESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION Or ACTUAL CONOITIOMS ENGOUIN xi CAL O. N FEET 5y1 L011 y ° 30 SW wet medium gray ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS ML dense green I CLAYEY SILT & SILTYCLAI CL & & light interlayered (1/8" to 211 stiff gray & �h,jc a Ooo she Is, distin- moderate CLAYEY SILT&SILTYCLAY ML stifLng f (olive I JCL green with some Sandy Clay interlayered 35 EN 45 50 55 C SILTYCLAY&CLAYEYSILT ML I interlayered with occasional very this Silty Sand layers gray I green to dusky with interla ered Sand olive Y gray I olive BEDROCK-CLAYEYSILTSTONE green micaceous, with gray abundant forams laminated, moderately & moderate weathered - moderately fractured brown with occasional hard I thin beds green _ slightly weathered black I unoxidized, with occ. thin Sand seams along bedding, distinctly bedded with 1°-3° dip 60 free 1 ground water encountered at 6.3' 01 MlL1.[ mf+er drillina L-y 0 Jra,�9 e 4eSa 'c+O�ss mo�,'�q �"t f 12 20 41.2I 77 I0,65� 1.38 1.68 31 10711 end of boring at 60.01 ;")ample soaked and drained before shearing at 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 ksf PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Newport Beach, California for: The Irvine Company Converse ConsultantsAPPIIIIIII 82-02161-01 Figure No. A-3 SUMMARY BORING NO.B-3 Ab C-10 M r, DATE DRILLED: 7-15-82 THIS lUMMAPY APPLIES GHLT AT THE LOCATION OF THIS EONINO AMO AT THE {. TIME Of AT S,%SQR F AC E C O HOITIOHS MAY OIfFEN AT OTN[N LOCATIONS 0( J TIME MAY CHANGE AT TNIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE Or TIME. THE DATA 7EPTM QNy,SF'pov PN[S CNTCO IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CGNOITIONS ENCOUNTERED. ?f FEET yf�`o'l'e" ELEVATION: 7.21E e I SM dry 71oosemedium FILL -SILTY SAND dusky fine to medium, with moistveIlow I occasipngll Gravel SM ver light red with some k.. tayey a it I �ML moist brown I interlayers 7 to gray 5 olive green SP medium medium Itsc+ n VLI VJl I - dense gray fine, with little medium t & lid occasional light an35 2I gray I coarse Sand and Silty Sand lenses 10 fine to medium. with few rock fragments t 28 3 ____ _ abundant_shell zone at14'to15' 15 medium moderate finer some medium Sand dense to gray occasional shell frogmen dense micaceous I (clean Sand) 33 4 20 I SCICL looseALLUVIAL DEPOSITS &firm CLAYEY SAND&SANDY 5 5 CLAY -with fine to coarse Sand 25 medium SAND -SANDY CLAY SW JCL green gray & fine to coarse interlayered medium dusky lg 6 gray 30 (Continued) 01 '9_ 'AAAy tF. PTolee: NO. PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Newport Beach, California 52-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company o. ______gure No.N Fi Converse Consultants A-4 A ll SUMMARY BORING NO. B-3 (Continued) A7G-11 DEPTH IN FEET SQ O { M f 35- Ir 40- 7 r rr 45- ! IT 1i It 'IJ f 50- 55• THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION Or THIS BORING AND AT THE TIMEOr DRILLING, sussuRrACE C ONO IT IONS MAY o VrER AT OTHER LOCATIO NS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. p° la t , �4fsss ss c •f Qtis 3`DT,�9 7 ` gSW wet loose & firm •grn gr dusk r. ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS SAND & SANDY CLAY 17 soft medium BEDROCK gray green ( CLAYEY SILTSTONE moderately weathered very fractured micaceous, with oxide stains along fractures 1 laminated slightly weathered_ -- Sand - with occasional Sand_ stone interbeds micaceous abundant forams 16 61.7 61. 0.677 0.54 1.92j ig t gray & gray green & dusky ellow rown — thinly laminated to laminated moderately fractured slightly weathered with very thin Sandstone interbeds abundant forams nearly horizontally bedded (well bedded) 1°-2° dip of beds 12 gray green & light I gray & dusky yellow med. brn.1 light ra & medium gray green & very moist moderate hard dark gray thin laminated in dark olive olive I uly 89 9 1 p79 1 �a g free water encountered at 8.2' end of boring at 59.5' * Sample soaked and drained before 22 hours after time of drilling shearing at 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 ksf PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE ?IoleDt ro Newport Beach, California for: The Irvine Company 82-02161-01 Ficure No. Converse Consultants A-5 1 • n L� SUMMARY BORING NO. B-4 DATE DRILLED. 7-1 5-82 THIS SUMMARY ALLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS SORJNO AND AT THE .k TIME Of ORILUxO, S U83URFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AXD MAT CNAxGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA DEPTH tQS� PR ESEXTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. IN ♦ 0 8P71,y, FEET `+Q La I;' ELEVATION, 0 I SM dry case gray - LT A ND green fine to medium moist I IT with some shells AB C-12 9 ' O<p (qy + fSs ¢ s,D 9yy vOf '� s}fT I SP very medium SAND moist red fine to medium brown with trace coarse Sand 5 occasional shell SM wet I SILTY SAND fine o N ip 2 I $P medium dense medium BE gray SANDECH EPOSITS fine, micaceous 31 I I trace Silt in lenses & pods, with occasional rock fragments is I 23 3I 'gray 20 15 medium gray 4i 25 fine to medium with trace Clayey Silt lenses 11 medium gray to dark gray & I 5 green gray with Clayey Sand layers 30 (Continued) PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE ?mlect ND. Newport Beach, California 62-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No, Converse Consultants A-6 I I I I I� SUMMARY BORING NO. 4 (Continued) Ag C-13 DEPTH • N FEET 30 - 35 - r 40 - r r 45- ro If �r z a 0 a 50 - 55 - 60 . THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION Of THIS OOOING AND AT THE �. TIME Of DRILLING.. SUBSURFACE CO NDI TI DNS MAY OIFTERAT OTNEN LOCATIONS 1(G AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THC PASSAGE OI TIME. THE DATA ,$ OV PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUHTERED. y aka JpJ gAyo ? �pf y, s?f� 4 s gym soTyq { f�LNA4 TAA. ff cr e 1 SP wet medium medium - BEACH DEPOSITS 9 27.1 92 0.80 dense gray to SAND 1.63 ' dk. gray with Clayey Sand layers 3.00 & green gray CL soft gray ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS green & SILTY I-NDVP�� bi medium 5 SM loose gray SILTY SAND -- SANDY SILT i MIS gray MH black ( with Clay 3 7 I soft light BEDROCK gray CLAYEY SILTSTONE & green & SILTY CLAYSTONE & medium I interbedded very weathered 5 58.0 gI olive very fractured gray thinly laminated to I laminated well bedded 20-40 dip moderately weathered very moist I moderately fractured 12 to wet micaceous thinly bedded v 8 1 kL.arlrinucul ; Jamplu 5UUKGu UIIu shearing at 1.0, 2.0, and 4,0 ksf PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE rrclec: Newport Beach, California for: The Irvine Company 82-02161-01 Figure No. Converse Consultants A-7 SUMMARY BORING NO. B-4 (Continued) A10 C-14 DEPTH IN t TO FEET '9 `p 9A 65 70• i 75 1• ME ti Lm 0 a THIS SUMMARY TIME Df ORtLL APPLIES ONLY 'MG.3UR3URf AT THE LOCATION ICE C ORDI TIONS LOCATION WIT. THE OF THIS SORiNO AND AT THE MAYDVI CRAT OTHER LOCATIONS J� ,f PASSAGE Of TIME. THE DATA O;�i 4A,Ij ,YD�@ O CSG •4� AND MIT CHAHDE PRESENTED AT THIS 13 A SIMPLIFICATION OE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. �l ��C 09 �d yA A} ery soft light BEDROCK CLAYEY SILTSTONE & foist green SILTY CLAYSTONE o gray & with occasional thin ret green Sandstone bed olive moderately weathered gray I moderately fractured & thinly laminated to dusky laminated gray I well bedded 2D-4D dip Sand interbeds are medium -grained trace Silt moderate dark CLAYEY SILTSTONE eery noist hard green slightly weathered black moderately fractured distinctly bedded unoxidized with abundant forams 76 ;round water encountered end of boring at 76.5' of 7.2', 18 hours after time of drilling Project No. PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-8 It f it SUMMARY All C-!b BORING NO. B-5 DATE DRILLED. 7-16-82 THIS SUMM/Av Of OEILUNG, APFLICS ONLi SUSSDN,AC AT THE LOCATION OF TNIS S011IxG AND AT THE E CO NDITION!MAI OI(fCP AT LOCATIONS d( 1,, THE DATA O�J Q<O 'F}dj <'p} D OC' + fy,S .yP T4 �. TIME AMO MAr CHANGE IS AT TNIS A SIMPLIFICATION Time. LOCATION .ITN THE PASSAGE Of TIMC. or ACTUAL CONOIT ION! CNCOUNTLCCO. ?J }is f0C'F' f. 01 DEPTH FEET "R. EPS� p'� dx241 PNESLMto ELEVATION' 9.41y �'A} jCf SM dry loose brown FILL SILTY SAND gray fine to coarse slightly dark moist dusky with abundant shell gray I fragments brown moist very vs medium 7 = 1 wet yellow brown BEACH DEPOSITS $W loose to SAND medium fine to coarse I 10 dense with shell fragments 21 2 brown — with trace fine Gravel gray — — — — — i I dusky fine to medium, trace gray coarse, micaceous brown oose SILTY SAND JALLUVIAL 1s 3i 3 I blue DEPOSITS SILTY SAND & SANDY r gray & gray SILT -with some Clay green I & occasional fine Gravel, micaceous 20 SANDY SILT 8* ML light 1 blue with some Clay gray fine to medium Sand CLAYEY5ILT&SANDYSILT H �ML with few shells laminated I gray blue 25 2 very porous 4* 47,8 72 0.27� 'x micaceous Q:b3 30 (Continued) * Sample soaked & drained before shearing at 1.0, 2.0, & 4.0 ksf PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Newport Beach, California g2-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-9 DEPTH IN FEET 30 35 401 50 55 60' SUMMARY BORING NO, B-5 (Continued) THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THC LOCATION Or THIS BONING AND AT THE * TIME Or DRILLING. SUBSURrAC E CO NOITIONSMATOIrrERATOTHCRLOCATIONS AND AT CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE Or TIMC. THE DATA I,'ESENTED 13 A SIMPLIPICATION Or ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. SQt 2.1 �0 Al2C-16 4 :pO eq} 4}yy, 6A� �y,�ftiy, �, a�Yti4 1 , MH/ML wet loose ALC TS 3 I 4 graay & AYEYSILTO&ISANDYSIL purple gray soft blue BEDROCK gray & CAYEY SILTSTONE & medium gray SILTY CLAYSTONE with occasional thin 9 I 5 green Sandstone lenses & light thinly laminated to gray laminated micaceous well bedded with 10-30 dip very weathered I moderately fractured � i 11 i medium dusky 6 red brown I moderately weathered very mod. II moist hard green with occasional thin black I Siltstone & Shalebeds & light unoxidized gray d (Continue ) PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE ProjectNo. Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-10 SUMMARY BORING NO. B-5 (Continued) A13 0- 1- II THIS SUMMARY AI/LIES OHLT AT THE LOCATION OF THIS CONIHO AHG AT THE ATIONS THE DATA e�ply�i' STHIS f, (q} }qf S\ Oq} ACG.�,F' qS DEPTH * AMOEMA YCMANOE ATL.,ATIOON WITMHTHEAF ASISAOE OF TiwC. FMCS CHTCD IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS CMCDUNTCIILD. ?f oy�jq �,5� ,C Gq F IN FEET E�y� Cr QS �,0 S 41 F. rF Lp y; .. 60 verymod. green BEDROCK 7 hard black CLAYEY SILTSTONE 83 moit g, with interbeds of light Sandstone fine to medium grained gray thinly laminated to very thinly bedded moderately weathered 65 8I I moderately fractured 110 ground water Tend of boring at 66.5' lfree encountered at 5.8' 5 hours after drilling 70 PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE PICIeC: NO. Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-11 M it 11 t V iI �o C 0 SUMMARY B-6 A14 C-1 BORING NO. w •T DATE DRILLED: 7-16-82 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION Of THIS SORINO ANO AT THE IONS MAYO IF FERATOTMER LOCATIONS q * TIME Of D RILLINO. SUCSURF ACE CONOIT MAYCNTCD IS 1 lIMPLIfIGTIOAT THIS N Of ACTWL CONDITIONS TIONS ENCOUNTERED. ON V IN THE PASSAGE Or TIME. THE ATA J% �? (}�iSA LNL �(•O gD1'f�1 /c'S'�P DEPTH IN �(Sw Ow' Ql �a `+ P'0 I 9.2 f T}} rf FEET LG yA ELEVATIONS o SM dry loose gray FILL- SILTY SAND to brown wit Suaave1F—ft=--. Sp moist medium light SAND dense yellow fine, very micaceous 15 1 brown horizontally stratified with occasional shell very fragments moist 5 SM wet medium SILTY SAND dusky fine 11 v OH�T brown BEACH DEPOSITS soft & CLAY -with Peat gray SILTY & (totally carbonized roots) I to black stratified,_ laminated to Sp medium medium SAND 1 dense brown fine, very micaceous with abundant shells 38* 26.0 98 gray I is soft olive BEDROCK t green CLAYEY SILTSTONE & 3 gra &y SILTY CLAYSTONE 6 i green & thinly laminated to edi laminated very weathered 20 medi gm very fractured olive green & c very miaceous abundant forams i gray well bedded 20 4` green I 25 very od, dark CLAYEY SILTSTONE-with with interbeds of f• to m. ; moist and olive thin Sandstone layers 129 _I glien mod, weathered, mod. fractured, thinly lam, i to v, thinly bedded o—d - (dip I free ground water encountered end of boring at 28.5' I at 8.21, 68 hours after drilling PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Prolec; ND Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-12 �O SUMMARY A15 C-19 BORING NO, B-7 GATE DRILLED: 7-16-82 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT TMC LOCATION 0/ iNl3 10111NG AND AT TNC .Q4 S �e}Q �jACLf.s'•S �. TI ME of ON ILL I NO. !UlSYRf ACE CONO ITIOHS MAY OIff ENAT OTNEN LOCATIONS A� /. ASP ANo MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION IT" THE PASSAGE Of TIME. [RE DATA C}'% �O, CLti S YT'P DEPTH �pSF' Ov I. sc.TEo I! A SIMPLYICAT10N Of ACTUAL CONDITIONS IONS ENCOUHYFN [RED. f,S} G) D (. IN t 7.11y FEET SQ LO` d ELEVATION: 0 5- In WE 15— 20 — 25 — 30 - y SM dry loose brown gray FILL SILTY SAND fine to coarse moist with abundant shells very moist 1) ML YSM SANDY SILT&SILTY SAND with some Clay & trace rock fragments y 29 medium black wet Sp j imedium 25 dense medium BEACH gray I DEPOSITS SAND fine, very micaceous with occasional trace Silt & abundant shells 2I I fine to medium 17 3I p /SW medium gray to light gray Sp fine, with trace medium Sand layers & occasional shellzones ense & rock fragments (Continued) PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE PTolecc No. Newport Beach, California for: The Irvine Company 82-02161-01 Figure No. CConverse Consultants A-13 IL SUMMARY A16 C-20 BORING NO. B-7 (Continue q�. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION Or THIS CORING AND AT THE ORILLIMO. SUSSURFACECOMDITIONSMAYOIFFLRATOTHE i1MC 0I R LOCAT IO NS Of TIME. THE DATA A S CLti DEPTH AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION Y/ITM THE PASSAGE PRESENTED IS A SIMPL IF ICATIOM OF ACTUAL COMDIT IONS EXGOVMTCREO. �1EQ}�OOv 4 FEET (10 41 30 4 Sp VSW wet dense medium gray to BEACH SAND SAND 56 35 40 50 55 im, n 0 0 light gray medium gr ay & dusky fine, with trace medium Sand layers & occasional shell zone & rock fragments indistinctly stratified green fine to coarse SW Foose with trace Silt loose medium I ____ SM gray & I SILTY SAND light with trace Clay green fine to coarse CL soft olive IALLUVIAL DEPOSITS gray SILTYCLAY &SANDYCLA with Sandy Silt interlayered SANDY SILT MH dark dusky with some Clay gray fine to coarse brow —_ SILTY CLAY light %OL gray I with Sandy Silt green micaceous, organic light gray & IBEDROCK CLAYEY SILTSTONE-with medium Silty, fine, Sandstone gray interbeds, thinly larr green & to lam., disturbed in dusky zones, well bedded olive (mod. to steeply 00 mrodPr f9act4ured very weathered (Continued) 4 5 E PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE PIDIeC: No. Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-14 SUMMARY A17 C-21 BORING NO. B-7 (Continued) w 10 DEPTH IN FEET r 60 65 ! 70 r 75 ZIN Q 0 9 THIS SUMMARY ArIUC3 ONLY AT THE LOCATION or THIS 30RING AMO AT THE �QrO Ce} if.]14. T< TIMED' ORILLIHO. SU3SHIITACECOHOITIONSMAYo1rFERATOTHER LOCATIONS0�.(•f TIM MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION MIT% THE PA33AGE Or TIME. THE DATAAND yQt ��QS�QOr PRESENTED I] A SINrLl1ICATION Or ACTU?L CONDITIONS EHCOUXT[RLO. 4-�'CS}P ` a'h} OAS �o y+ wet soft light i & BEDROCK CLAYEY SILTSTONE-with gray dusky Silty, fine, Sandstone olive interbeds, thinly lam. green rMV to laminated distinctly bedded at medium gray 20°-30° dip 13 8 olive micaceous with abundant forams green I & occasional Sandstone lenses & pods very weathered moderately fractured dark laminated very mod, moist hard olive unoxidized 1 green moderately weathered to slightly weathered moderately fractured I 13�9 free ground water end of boring at 76.5' encountered at 7.2' 22 hours after drilling ProjeCl No. PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Newport Beach, California $2-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-15 L F1 DEPTH IN FEET 0 S. fa 15 KIII 25 3C SUMMARY BORING NO. B-8 DATE DRILLED: 7-19-82 THIS SUMMARY APRLICS ONLY AT THE LOCATION Or THIS BORING AND AT THE ANDCMA TCHANIGE BATS THIS LOCAT IU5URf ACE CON WITH THEONG IT IOS AR SYO ISAOC Or TIMfFCR AT E. LOCATIONS THE DATA r ROENTED IS A SIMPLIr ICATION Or ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 60 D a � O A18C-22 w . aTD eqj +ttyS .pAfT �} f�4As ' LD I;I SM ELEVATION dry 0.4 loose light FILL -SILTY SAND & GRAVEL brown fine to medium. moist gray to micaceous medium with occ. shell fragments brown very _� moist SAND SP fine to medium 1I wet micaceous 8 shells abundant in zones soft & medium BEACH DEPOSITS ML loose reen SANDYSILT&CLAYEYSILT &SM !gray live SILTY SAND loose to 2 4L medium ra medium fine, with medium to coarse Sand layers 16 dense gray & trace Clay brown ( oose soft medium ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS CH blue SILTY CLAY 4 57,1 3 green with some Clayey Silt micaceous I trace Sand i soft BEDROCK i light CLAYEY SILTSTONE 7 75.3 4 blue very weathered green & very fractured light disturbed in upper zone green I gray micaceous very thinly laminated to laminated with very thin . Tuffaceous beds (?) 5 dip 100-150, occ, very 12 thin Sandstone seams & lenses CLAYEY SILTSTONE & light olive SANDSTONE interbeds gray kV ul ll l I lu CiuI Project No. PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE Newport Beach, California 82-02161-01 for: The Irvine Company Figure No. Converse Consultants A-16 SUMMARY 11 , _J% DEPT IN FEET 30 35 40 45 50 55 .m A19C-23 BORING NU. o—v �� VIII IIIVc / • THIS S°MM1XY AP/LIES ONLY AT TNC LOCATION Ol TNIS EONING ANO AT THE .09; (0}° 4.9LFS01/I. * TIME OF ONILLI NO. SGlSUNFAEE CONDITION!MAT DIFFCN AT OTNES LOCATTONS J� } SS , ANO MAY CHANGE AT THIS to -IT" THE PASSAGE of TIME. THE DATA C�'i ,yO CL.�, �'F 77,Q i ,,e19�00v IRESENTCD IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL CONOITIONS CNCOYNTENCO. �CO ��}} D -F }F Q` y?F S Lo2 9{ wet soft light BEDROCK 10 6 olive CLAYEY SILTSTONE & gray SANDSTONE interbeds & fine to medium grained medium well bedded (50-10°dip) gray thinly laminated to brown thinly bedded moderately fractured 10 i 7 very weathered with abundant forams micaceous CLAYEY SILTSTONE & SILTY CLAYSTONE 8! micaceous thinly laminated to 15 medium gray laminated (5°-10°dip) green I & with abundant forams and occasional green Sandstone lense gray very moist dark CLAYEY SILTSTONE & mod, hard green SANDSTONE brown fine to coarse & dark bed thickness to 611 distinctly bedded 70 9 olive with very thin fine Sand green lenses in Siltstone thinly laminated to thinly bedded dip 1°-4° micaceous 117 1 9" free ground water end of boring at 56.5' encountered at 8.01 40 minutes after drilling PROPOSED CASTAWAYS COMMERCIAL SITE PrD,EEIN°' Newport Beach, California for: The Irvine Company 82-02161-01 Figure No. Converse Consultants A-17 CASTAWAYS MARINA TEST EXCAVATION OF A PORTION OF CA-ORA-84 NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 X (�EGEIYED Cp'14 &'S TATES 0 Test Excavation of a Portion of CA-Ora-84, Newport Beach Orange County, California PREPARED FOR: Michael Brandman Associates Carnegie Center 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 PREPARED BY• RMW Paleo Associates, Incorporated 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, California 92691 (714) 770-8042 FAX (714) 458-9058 RMW Project Number 89-1180 AUTHOR• Ronald M. Bissell 9 May 1990 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY A portion of archaeological site CA-Ora-48 was explored through surface examination, posthole excavation and excavation of one controlled unit. The work was undertaken in that part of the site which will be impacted by a proposed road. CA-Ora-48 was found to be a well developed shell midden containing very few artifacts. The midden averages about 30 to 40 centimeters depth in the studied portion of the site. Any ground disturbance necessary to construct the proposed road should be observed by an archaeologist prepared to document and recover any significant material which may appear. • ii cm; INCH EQUAL-5 FORTY fEET A PORTION OF ARCHAEOLOG-ICAL SITE CA— OA A— f a I • O PosTNOLE O EXGAVATIol/ '/Nrf ARcH19CO IL"'CA 4 srrd 8o&pv0ARY Ic .9 tc' 1C i � 3c 3c O* tc 0 7.6 \r rC , 1 ti 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, CA 92691 r 1 I RMW PaleoAssociates • During early August 1989 employees of RMW Paleo Associates completed a cultural resources reconnaissance of property known as the Castaways Marina, Newport Beach, Orange County, California. One of the archaeological sites discussed in that report (Becker 1989) was CA-Ora-48. This deposit was determined to be an extensive shell midden, but no excavation was accomplished, so its exact subsurface extent, content and degree of preservation were unknown. Surface remains indicate that the site extends from the bluff top at the eastern extent of the property to the rear of existing construction extending into the property from the west. See the Site Location Map on the following page. Proposed work at the lower (southern) part of the property requires that a road be installed which will cross the western • part of CA-Ora-48. The proposed approximate routing of this road is also shown on the page 2 Site Location Map. The proposed road will impact CA-Ora-48, but the extent of the impact could not be assessed due to the lack of excavation data. The project described in this report was designed to determine the impact of the road construction. No grading will be necessary in that portion of the proposed road which crosses CA-Ora-48, but clearing and surface preparation will be required. The current project consisted of a detailed examination of the surface, excavation of a series of postholes and excavation of one controlled unit measuring one by one meter in surface extent. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The field portion of the project was accomplished by Ken 1 • P �Jir��_. �_r�rerm �/• '1 KILOMETER F!4 SITE LOCATION MAP: A portion of the USGS 7.5 minute Newport Beach quadrangle, 1965. Photorevised 1981. Approximate site locations are marked. 23352 MADEROm SUITE J MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 (714) 770-8041 J Becker, RMW Paleo Associates Field Director and Stuart Evans, RMW . Paleo Associates Archaeologist. The author of this report served as Principal Investigator. Mr. Chris Crespin was the project Native American Monitor. Becker holds a Bachelors degree in Anthropology and Evans holds a Bachelors degree in History. The author holds a Masters degree in Anthropology and is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologists as a Field Archaeologist. Various shell remains were noted during the surface examination, but no artifacts were seen. The surface shell was not collected. Twenty two post hole excavations were made. These began at the northern extent of the proposed road and proceeded to the south and east along the right of way across CA-Ora-48. Holes were placed in the center of the right of way and at the eastern and western extent of the right of way. The attached map depicts the location of the excavated postholes. Each posthole was approximately 30 centimeters in diameter. • Excavation was accomplished using hand operated clamshell digging equipment. All material was screened through one eighth inch wire mesh. A rough level was maintained by steel tape measure from the lip of the hole as each excavation proceeded. The only artifact recovered during the posthole excavation was a brick fragment encountered in one of the southernmost holes. However, shell was recovered in sufficient quantities to permit definition of the studied portion of the site. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the distribution of midden shell. Table 1 shows that the site boundaries are fairly well defined in the area to be impacted by the road. The project map contains the site boundary as determined by the post hole excavation. One excavation unit was placed within the densest concentration of midden shell. This unit was one by one meter in surface extent and was excavated in arbitrary levels of 10 centimeters. All material was screened through 1/8 inch wire 3 • TABLE 1: Shell Distribution in Posthole Excavations Hole Number lA 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C 7A 7B 7C Range of Shell Depth Shell Quantity Surface Very light None None None None Surface Surface to 85 cm Surface to 60 cm Surface to 60 cm Surface to 80 cm Surface to 80 cm Surface to 70 cm Surface to 80 cm Surface to 60 cm Surface to 60 cm Surface to 50 cm Surface to 30 cm Surface to 40 cm None None Surface to 50 cm 4 Very light Moderate Moderate Moderate Heavy Heavy Heavy Very Heavy Moderate Moderate Moderate Light Moderate Very light mesh. No artifacts were encountered in the excavation, but • quantities of shell were recovered. The test unit also revealed that the shell midden is easily differentiated from the underlying soil, which is a distinctly lighter color and contains only very few shell fragments. In the area where the excavation was placed the shell midden varied from about 15 centimeters to as much as 35 centimeters depth. The change in soils can be distinctly seen in the photograph which appears on the following page. CONCLUSIONS 1. CA-Ora-48 is a well developed shell midden. Artifacts are rare in the deposit. 2. The deposit at CA-Ora-48 begins at the surface and is dense to a depth averaging 30 to 40 centimeters in the central part of the studied portion of the site. 3. The proposed road will impact a portion of CA-Ora-48. Any scraping to remove vegetation or scarification to prepare • the road surface will disturb the archaeological deposit. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. An archaeologist should observe all ground disturbing activity within the site limits as depicted on the project map accompanying this report. 2. The archaeologist must be prepared to fully document and recover archaeological data from any significant material which appears. Such recovery work may necessitate some delays in grading if complex deposits are encountered. 3. All work should be described in written reports which receive sufficient distribution to insure their availability to future researchers. 4. All material collected during the project should be donated to a local institution which has the proper facilities for curation, display and use by interested scholars and the general public. • 6 L11111ir �C& ';F.46 EA -Sr WALL "�r li E Ronald M. Bissell Principal Investigator REFERENCE CITED Becker, Kenneth M. 1989 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Castaways Marina, Newport Beach, Orange County, California. On file at the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles and at RMW Paleo Associates. • ENGINI AUGM 1$�i IA. Ross Cash E 9Elliott H. Boone Randy H. Mason Wilfrido B. Simbol CASH &ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS August 26, 1987 AGL,OR4NCgVpMigV 2599 East 28th Street P.O. Box 38 .ong Beach, CA 90801 (213) 426-6145 California Recreation Company/ The Irvine Company 1137 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Attention: Mr. Ed Power Subject: CASTAWAYS MARINA, ENGINEERING STUDY AND FEASIBILITY REPORT (C&A Project No. 2492.01) Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith are six copies of "Castaways Marina, Engineering Study and Feasibility Report - Final". A draft report was submitted to you on June 15 for review and comment and the Final Report has incorporated the comments received to date. A report- entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Castaways Marina", dated August 11, 1986, by Converse Consultants is in your possession from a previous transmittal and is referred to in this report but is not contained herein. An estuary evaluation entitled "Castaways Marina Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation" is included herein as Appendix 6.2. Our comments and recommendations responding to the estuary evaluation have been added in Section 2.2 in the body of the Report. A list of agencies and persons contacted in the course of the study in included herein as Appendix 6.3. The schedules, shown as Exhibits 30 and 31 have been changed to weeks and months, respectively, instead of specific dates as in the Draft Report. The Final Report is essentially unchanged from the Draft Report except for the added items mentioned above. We have enjoyed this project and look forward to helping in the process of obtaining permits which will enable the Marina to become a reality. Very truly yours, CASH LarAND ASSOCIATES ry . / Nye, Project Manager LWN: gla Enclosures CASTAWAYS MARINA ENGINEERING STUDY AND FEASIBILITY REPORT PREPARED FOR THE IRVINE COMPANY 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Letter of Transmittal 1.2 Table of Contents 1.3 List of Exhibits 1.4 Scope and Purpose of Report 1.4.1 Scope 1.4.2 Purpose 1.5 Site Description 1.5.1 General 1.5.2 Historical 1.5.3 Access 1.5.4 Recent Use as a Marina Construction Staging Site 1.5.5 Vertical Clearance at Bridge 1.6 Description of Recommended Scheme 2.0 TECHNICAL ISSUES 2.1 Geotechnical 2.2 Estuary Analysis 2.3 Structures and Facilities 2.3.1 Bulkhead 2.3.2 Guide Piles 2.3.3 Slips 2.3.4 Floating Main Walks 2.3.5 Floating Slip Fingers 2.3.6 Pile Supported Pier 2.3.7 Pierhead Line 2.3.8 Parking 2.3.9 Buildings 2.3.10 Fire Protection 2.3.11 Lighting 2.3.12 Landscaping and Planting 2.4 Dredging 2.5 Utilities 2.5.1 Water Service 2.5.2 Sanitary Sewer Service 2.5.3 Telephone 2.5.4 Electrical • is Table of Contents (Continued) 3.0 PERMITTING 3.1 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3.3 California Coastal Commission Permit 3.4 State Regional Water Quality Control Board 3.5 City of Newport Beach Building Department 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 4.1 Developmental Constraints 4.1.1 Coastal Bluffs 4.1.2 Intertidal Zone 4.1.3 Easement for 30" Water Line 4.2 Construction Operations 4.2.1 Dredging, Dewatering and Disposal 4.2.2 Construction Traffic 4.2.3 Construction Noise and Dust 4.3 Wildlife 4.4 Traffic Generation 4.5 Coastal Access 5.0 MARINA DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES 5.1 Alternative Schemes 5.2 Recommended Scheme 6.0 APPENDICES 6.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report 6.2 Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation 6.3 Castaways Contacts • • Exhibit No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 LIST OF EXHIBITS Description Project Location Existing Topography Aerial Photograph Newport Bay Prior to Development Lower Castaways Site Used as a Marina Site Construction Staging Developmental Constraints and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Tidal Zones P.C.H. Bridge - Vertical Clearance Former Castaways Marina Recommended Float Construction Existing Utilities Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme A Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme B Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme B-1 Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme C Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme C-1 Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme D Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme E _ Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme F Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme G Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme H Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme J Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme A Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme L Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme M Recommended Scheme Scheme M Cross -Sections Summary of Estimated Project Costs Cash and Associates Letter of May 29, 1987, Castaways Marina, Estimated Costs and Schedule Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate - Scheme M Schedule for Acquisition of Permits Construction Schedule Alternative Marina Buildings Preliminary Design Concept • 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1.1 Letter of Transmittal 1.2 Table of Contents 1.3 List of Exhibits 1.4 Scope and Purpose of Report 1.4.1 Scope The scope of this report, as originally outlined in our proposal of March, 1986, is as follows: 1. Conduct a study of all existing utilities at Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway to determine: a. Location b. Existing capacity c. Easements d. City or County future plans 2. Meet with The Irvine Company project manager in -charge of development of the Castaways site to determine: a. Utility requirements for on -site development b. Proposed site layout and restrictions for marina related improvements. 3. Meet with the County of Orange Tidelands Administration, California Coastal Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, City of Newport Beach Planning Department and California Water Quality Control Board regarding design considerations and constraints for the: a. Marina b. Deflection barriers c. Dredging d. Site utilities 4. Administer a geotechnical investigation to enhance the previous geotechnical report prepared for the site. This investigation will include the proposed northerly extension water area, the existing water area and the proposed land development area between PCH bridge and the bluff. The purpose of the investigation is to establish design criteria for all marina structures. 1 • 5. Administer a qualitative estuary evaluation of the proposed site. This evaluation will be on the basis of existing data and knowledge of site conditions. No measurements or modelling will be conducted in this phase of the evaluation. The evaluation will identify potential problems associated with the site, but will not provide quantitative data sufficient for final design. 6. Administer a topographic survey of the project site including soundings at the proposed water areas, elevations at the land development area, and locations of existing structures. 7. Provide a report consolidating the results of all research. S. Provide conceptual drawings with alternative plans, if applicable, for the following: a. Marina (docks) including practical limit of northerly extension b. Bulkhead c. Barriers d. Utilities 9. Provide calculations, if necessary, to support the concepts indicated in item 8 above. • 10. Meet with the Owner to discuss our findings and concepts. 11. Provide an Opinion or Probable Construction Cost for the Marina development recommended in the report. During the course of the investigation, the following items were added to the scope: 1. Coordinate the Lower Site Schemes with the Upper Site Concept Studies. 2. Study the land parcel for use as a Marina only, without commercial use. a. Evaluate parking, access and traffic b. Locate and plan Marina buildings c. Evaluate geotechnicai conditions for the land parcel 3. Investigate developmental constraints for the bluff areas and lower site. 1.4.2 Purpose The purpose of this report is to assist The Irvine Company in • evaluating the marina development option for the Lower Castaways Site. The report attempts to establish design criteria, identify permitting issues and estimate costs associated with pursuing the construction of a marina at the site. K 1.5 Site Description 1.5.1 General The site is generally referred to as the Lower Castaways Site. It is an area of just over 4 acres bordered on the south by Pacific Coast Highway, on the west by Dover Drive, on the north by an abrupt 60 foot high bluff and on the east by Upper Newport Bay. Refer to exhibits 2 and 3. The site is essentially level at an_elevation of about +8 above mean sea level. The site is presently clear of structures, except a concrete bulkhead seawall on the east. 1.5.2 Historical Previously, the site was utilized as a trailer park and included a marina with space for 67 boats and a boat hoist. When the present Pacific Coast Highway Bridge was constructed, approxi- mately one half of the water area of the former marina was covered by the bridge. The marina structures and launching ramp were demolished, leaving only the seawall. The trailer park was removed prior to the construction of the bridge. Prior to the construction of the existing seawall, much of the Lower Castaways Site was a part of the back bay. The seawall was built and soil was dredged from the bay and deposited behind the seawall, creating the level site which now exists. Lack of compaction and fill material selection account for the present structural weakness . of the soils at the site. Existing bedrock contours confirm the existence of an ancient inlet in the bay. Along the northerly edge of the Lower Castaways Site, skirting the toe of the south -facing bluff is the roadbed of the original Pacific Coast Highway. This area is level, at an elevation of about +12 above Mean Sea Level. Soil conditions are generally better in this area from the remainder of the site because of its prior use as a roadbed. The original highway crossed the back bay at the north eastern corner of the site. Debris from the demolition of the original bridge still exists on the bottom of the bay and can be seen at low tide. The location of the original roadbed probably accounts for the steep, exposed sandstone face of a portion of the existing south facing bluff. The original highway was built very close to the bluff to avoid the inlet which existed at that time south of the roadway. The bluff was probably cut to provide good roadway alignment at the bridge approach. 0 1.5.3 Access A bicycle path/sidewalk, which was constructed in conjunction with the new PCH bridge, borders the site on the south and west. It extends under the bridge to the south and along Dover Drive to the north. A driveway exists at the north west corner of the site. It is incorporated into a turnout for an existing bus stop. The proximity of the driveway to the intersection of PCH and Dover, make safe access to the site an issue. The site access will probably be limited to "right turn in" and "right turn out". This should not pose a problem for a development which is limited to marina traffic only. 1.5.4 Recent Use as a Marina Construction Staging Site The Lower Castaways site has recently served an important role in the local harbor community as a marina construction staging site. Marina contractors have constructed or assembled float structures at the site and lowered them into the bay via a land based crane over the existing seawall. The floating structures are then towed to their point of use. Exhibit 5 shows such an operation which was conducted in 1987. Access to the water for prefabricated marina components is essential to the Newport Harbor area both for new construction and for maintenance. While Scheme M, the scheme recommended in this report, will essentially eliminate the site for use as a construction staging area, it will still _provide access to the water for prefabricated floating structures. A crane located in the westerly parking area could lift components from trucks and place them in the fairway area along the southern edge of the proposed basin. 1.5.5 Vertical Clearance at Bridge The new PCH bridge provides a vertical clearance of 20 feet for boats navigating between the lower and upper bays. Refer to Exhibit 8. This limits boat traffic to power boats and very small sail boats. Thus, the proposed marina consists of 35 to 45 foot slips for power boats. This is consistent with current demand for slips, as reported by California Recreation Company. 1.6 Description of Recommended Scheme Exhibit 24, entitled, "Castaways Marina, Preliminary Design Concept Scheme M" shows the proposed Castaways Marina in the configuration currently recommended. This configuration is the result of exhaustive site analyses, discussions with the Irvine Co., discussions with governmental agencies, cost analyses, geotechnical evaluation, and • concern for the environmental aspects of developing the site. This scheme represents a viable development option for the lower castaways site which has the potential to satisfy the goals of the Irvine Co. rl • without compromising community or environmental concerns. In Section 4.0 of this report, the relevant environmental issues and developmental constraints are discussed. Scheme M is a concept drawing and a wide range of variations within this basic concept are possible. 2.0 TECHNICAL ISSUES 2.1 Geotechnical Geotechnical investigations were conducted in 1982 and 1986 by Converse Consultants. The 1982 report is entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Proposed Castaway's Commercial Site, Newport Beach, California", Converse Project No. 82-02161-01, August 6, 1982. It was conducted for the Irvine Company. The report focused upon the land area west of the existing bulkhead and was conducted for the purpose of establishing foundation design criteria for structures in the event the site is developed for commercial purposes, i.e. restaurants, offices, shops, etc. The 1986 report is entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Castaways Marina East of Dover Drive and North of Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California", Converse Project No. 86-32245-01, August 11, 1986. It was conducted for Cash and Associates Engineers. The report focuses upon the area immediately waterside and landside of the existing bulkhead and the water area from the bulkhead northerly along the bluffs approximately 1400 feet from the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. The purpose of the investi- gation and report is to establish design criteria for marina structures, i.e. pilings, bulkheads, etc. and to extend the previous report. The reports indicate that the site is generally underlain by sand and silty sand marine sediment deposits over bedrock. The bedrock varies greatly in depth. At the landsite, the bedrock varies from elevation -46 near Pacific Coast Highway Bridge to elevation 0 at the bluff. In the channel, the bedrock varies from elevation -50 at the center of the channel to elevation 0 at the base of the bluff. (Elevations in the geotechnical report are referenced to 0 = Mean Sea Level, MSL). The soils at the land site include compacted fills, noncompacted fills, dredged fill, beach sand, alluvium and marine terrace deposits. The soils are considered weak, compressible and subject to liquefaction. Groundwater exists at the land site at approximately elevation 0 MSL. The 1984 report recommended that support for structures on the landsite be by piles, driven to bedrock, designed as end bearing units. Pile lengths were estimated at between 15 and 75 feet. • The 1986 report analyzes three cases for guide piles for floating structures; 1. pile driven into bedrock, 2. pile in clay soil, 3. pile in sandy soil. Minimum imbedments and approximate lateral capacities are given in Table I of the report. Bulkhead design will be strongly affected by the potential for lique- faction of the retained saturated sands during a significant seismic event. The recommended Marina Scheme, Scheme M, places the bulkhead line near PCH on the south, near Dover Drive on the west and near the bluff on the north, reflecting the concept which would dredge out most of the land site and create a water basin for marina float construction. This concept had not been considered prior to the geotechnical investigation. As a result, borings were not taken specific to the presently proposed bulkhead locations. If the bulkhead is to be built in accordance with Scheme M, additional borings will be required along the bulkhead line. We believe that the additional geotechnical investigation will result in construction cost savings since geotechnical conditions may be better for bulkhead design at the proposed location than along the existing bulkhead as was originally anticipated. 2.2 Estuary Analysis The estuary analysis was provided by Rivertech, Inc. with assistance and advice from Dr. Frederic Raichien, Professor of Hydraulics at the California Institute of Technology. The report of the analysis is titled "Castaways Marina, Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation" and is included as Appendix 6.2 to this Feasibility Study. The conclusions and recommendations from the estuary analysis are discussed below. 2.2.1 Wind and wave effects on the Marina structures will be addressed in the final design of the Marina. 2.2.2 Flood and tidal current velocities will be included in the parameters for the final design of the Marina. 2.2.3 The 760 long section of floating docks, including slips 61 through 125, can easily be divided into three sections by providing a short, hinged bridge between sections. However, the utilities will require flexible connections which will add to the cost of the Marina. This effect will be studied during the final design. 2.2.4 A "guiding van", or deflector structure, can be designed as a fixed structure or floating structure held in place by guide piles. The effect of the construction of such a structure on the wildlife must be evaluated. Also, the efforts to restrict the entry of floating debris to the upper bay may reduce, or elimi- nate, the necessity of the deflector. We recommend that this structure not be built until the experience of the marina with floating debris indicates that it is required. 6 • 2.2.5 As noted in paragraph 1.5.5, the use of the Marina will be essentially restricted to power boats which, in general, have shallower draft than sail -boats. The recommended water depth of six feet (see paragraph 2.4) is based on the criteria developed in "Layout and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Berthing Facilities" provided by the State of California, Department of Boating and Waterways. This criteria has proved to be adequate in other marinas for power boats of the sizes which Castaways Marina will accommodate. However, we recommend that the consideration of improving tidal exchange rates should be included in the final design. We estimate that the additional dredging costs to provide the depth recommended in the Estuary Study will add less than $70,000 to the Total Estimated Construction Cost. 2.3 Structures and Facilities 2.3.1 Bulkhead Our recommendation 'for bulkhead construction is a tied -back steel sheet pile wall with concrete cap and deadman. This is because the depth of bedrock varies greatly. Steel sheet piles can be driven into the bedrock or into the sand, to varying depths as required. Coating and cathodic protection will be required. 2.3.2 Guide Piles Our recommendation for float guide piles is a combination of prestressed concrete piles and composite (concrete encased steel H-section) piles. This is due to the varying depths of bedrock. Prestressed concrete piles can be driven in sand or clay, composite piles can be driven into bedrock. The rock -imbedded portion of the piles would be exposed steel H-section in this case. All of the piles will appear to be the same from an aesthetic standpoint; number and placement of piles will be determined from calculations performed in the design phase of the project. Scheme M shows the estimated number and locations which have been used to develop the preliminary cost estimate. 2.3.3 Slips The recommended scheme consists of 35 foot to 45 foot long single berth powerboat slips. Recommended berth widths are as follows: Slip Length Clear Slip Width 35, 15'-0" 38, 15'-6" 40' 15'-6" • 42' 16'-0" 45' 17'-0" 7 • 2.3.4 Floating Main Walks The recommended minimum mainwalk width is 61. The recommended design is similar to Exhibit 10, incorporating precast concrete floats, glue laminated wood stringers, wood plank decking and wood fascias. Scheme M shows a main walk extending northerly of the pier and gangway a distance of 750 feet. This is the maximum float length recommended by the State of California, Resources Agency Department of Boating and Waterways. 2.3.5 Floating Slip Fingers The recommended finger width is 4' for slips in the 35 foot to 45 foot length range. The recommended design is similar to Exhibit 10, incorporating steel torsion bar, plastic floats, glue laminated wood stringers, wood plank decking, and wood fascias. 2.3.6 Pile Supported Pier The pier structure indicated on Scheme M is required to provide gangway access to the slips in the bay without restricting flow of water from the near shore area north of the pier. By providing an adequate opening in the marina structures, via the clear area under the pier, water quality in the near shore area north of the pier will be maintained and _. debris which may flow from the back bay will be allowed to flow through the marina area rather than collect. It should be noted that future debris from storm flow into the back bay should be significantly reduced by the construction of sediment and debris collection basins upstream in San Diego Creek. This construction is being accomplished within the Upper Newport Bay Enhancement/Sediment Management Project. We recommend that the pier be constructed of pressure -treated wood framing on concrete support piles with either pressure - treated wood or concrete decking. 2.3.7 Pierhead Line No pierhead lines are established in the project area. The existing bulkhead is very close to the "Adjudicated Line of Ordinary High Tide", which is a line established to differentiate legally between the land and the water. This line runs around the entire back bay. Corps of Engineers, County and City officials were questioned by Cash and Associates regarding placement of the pierhead line. None responded with any preference, except that adequate navigational lanes should be maintained. Scheme M shows the limit of structures along a line twenty feet west of the navigational channel designated in the Back Bay Enhancement Dredging Project. The navigational channel is typically 100 feet wide, but widens to 200 feet at the PCH Bridge, corresponding to the clear spans between three bridge piers. 2.3.8 Parldng The City ordinance requires 0.75 parldng spaces per slip for marinas. Thus, since no commercial or other non -marina activity is planned at the lower Castaways site, a marina with 125 boat ships, similar to Scheme M, would require a minimum of 94 parldng spaces. Scheme M indicates 108 parking spaces. The 14 additional spaces, while not required, could help satisfy requirements for service, maintenance, or parking for public access to the pier, should this be required. 2.3.9 Buildings The marina requires restroom facilities, showers, storage for supplies, a screened trash bin area, and housing for main electrical and telephone equipment. Scheme M indicates two buildings. The larger of the two would contain restrooms and showers for men and women, plus facilities for storage, trash accumulation and utilities. The smaller building would contain only minimal restroom and trash facilities. The smaller building . is recommended because the distance from the extreme northerly slips to the large building exceeds county guidelines and is inconvenient. An alternative plan for restrooms to that shown on Scheme M is to construct a building on the pier structure incorporating restrooms, showers and storage areas for the marina plus an elevated public viewing platform. Refer to Exhibit 32, "Preliminary Design Concept". This plan would provide an additional architectural element and focal point for the development, while providing an enhanced view of the back bay. Providing public access to this area may be a condition of approval. Refer to Section 4.6, Coastal Access. 2.3.10 Fire Protection Fire protection for the floating structures and boats will be provided by fire hose cabinets with 75 foot hoses. The cabinets will be spaced a maximum of 150 feet apart and within 75 feet of the extreme limits of structures to provide full coverage via the fire hoses. Water supply for fire protection must be capable of delivering 40 GPM at 40 psi at any fire hose cabinet. The land area will require a minimum of two fire hydrants placed so that all structures are covered. Number and location should be verified with the Newport Beach Fire Department during design. 9 0 2.3.11 Lighting The marina floating walkways, gangways, bulkhead walkways and building areas must be provided with lighting sufflcient for safety and security. On the floats, lighting should be provided via low fixtures mounted on or adjacent to walkways. These fixtures should be integral with dock boxes or power pedestals. Parking lot and building areas should be lighted by' a combination of pole and wall mounted fixtures. All lighting design should utilize down -lighting or shielded fixtures to prevent disturbance of the residential views from above and the roadways adjacent to the site. 2.3.12 Landscaping and Planting All non -paved areas of the site should receive irrigated landscaping with the exception of the bluffs. Plant materials and ground cover for the lower bluff areas which are affected by this project should be drought resistant so that minimal irrigation is required on the bluff area. All lower bluff areas exposed by grading operations should be stabilized immediately and receive ground cover planting. An assortment of trees remain on the property from the previous trailer park development. Most will be displaced by the new construction. The palm trees are relocatabie and may be utilized in the new landscape plan or moved to another site. 2.4 Dredging Scheme M, the recommended scheme, requires dredging in the existing water area to achieve sufficient water depth and on the existing land area to create a basin for marina float construction. The minimum recommended water depth for power boats in all navigable areas is six feet. Thus the recommended bottom elevation is -8.0 feet referenced to "Mean Lower Low Water" or -10.7 feet referenced to "Mean Sea Level". The material removed from the land site must be disposed of at an upland disposal site. Disposal cost will be greatly influenced by the distance to the disposal site. The preliminary cost estimate assumes Coyote Canyon landfill as the disposal site. The status of Coyote Canyon at the time of construction is, therefore, a matter to be pursued. An alternative to the Coyote Canyon site is Irvine Co. property in the vicinity of the project site. The structural quality of the material should not limit its use as fill at an upland site. Its weakness at the present site is due to saturation in the tidal groundwater environment and uncompacted placement when the site was originally filled. 10 • Since the soil at the site is generally wet below elevation 0 MSL, the dredging and disposal process will require spreading and drying at the site prior to hauling. This increases the time and the cost. The material which will be dredged from the bay may be either disposed of at sea at an EPA approved dredge disposal site, or hauled to an upland disposal site. The upland alternative would require spreading and drying at the site prior to hauling. The disposal at sea alternative would require bioassay, bulk elutriate and grain size analysis of the material, particularly beneath the former castaways marina floats. Upland disposal would probably require bulk elutriate and grain size analyses only. Bioassay, including bulk elutriate and grain size analysis could cost between $30,000 and $45,000. The cost for bulk elutriate and grain size only could be about 2/3 this cost. 2.5 Utilities Refer to Exhibit 11, Existing Utilities, incorporated herein. 2.5.1 Water Service Water service is readily available at the site. The site is bordered on three sides by City water lines. On the north, a 30" water main runs west to east from Dover Drive across the site and across the channel. An existing fire hydrant is served from the 30" line. On the west, a 24" water main exists in Dover Drive. On the south, a 24" water main exists along the northerly edge of Pacific Coast Highway. An 8" lateral and fire hydrant is served from this line. Use of this lateral to supply water service to the site would not require trenching in the street. 2.5.2 Sanitary Sewer Service An underground gravity sewer main exists in Dover Drive. The project site is low with respect to the street. Onsite sewers from the proposed toilet buildings will be gravity sewers to a point adjacent to Dover Drive, then a pump station will pump the flow, under pressure, to the Orange County Sanitation District sewer in Dover Drive. 2.5.3 Telephone An underground telephone conduit system and two manholes exist on the site. The system is in use now, serving an existing submarine cable. This cable will be abandoned soon by Pacific Telephone Co., rendering all of the onsite telephone facilities inactive. The existing underground duct systems may be utilized or abandoned as the project dictates. The value of the existing facilities is in the fact that the underground . conduit is connected to the main system in Dover Drive, therefore no trenching in the existing street will be required. 11 • 2.5.4 Electrical An underground electrical conduit system exists in Dover Drive. When Dover Drive was recently rebuilt, a 4" conduit was extended from a So. California Edison Co. vault to the Castaways site. The conduit is immediately north of the existing driveway and can be utilized to supply power to the site. Therefore, no trenching in Dover Drive should be required for electrical power. 3.0 PERMITTING Refer to Exhibits 27 and 29, C&A Letter of May 29, 1987 (Exhibit 28) and Schedule for Acquisition of Permits (Exhibit 30), respectively. 3.1 City of Newport Beach Planning Department The permitting process begins with application to the Planning Department. The following items and information should be included in the submittal: 3.1.1 Plot Plan of Proposed Development 3.1.2 Cross -Sections looking north and west through the new basin and looking north at the bay. • 3.1.3 Preliminary floor plans and elevations of the proposed buildings. 3.1.4 A preliminary drawing of the bulkhead and float detail. 3.1.5 Cut, fill and dredge quantities. 3.1.6 Parking requirement and provision. 3.1.7 Calculations of site areas dedicated to paving, buildings, landscaping, water. Filing fee is $3,250. Use plan fee is $700.00. The City Planning Department will make a determination that the project • a. is categorically exempt, b. is not exempt, but has no potential for significant effect on the environment (Negative Declaration), c. does have the potential for significant effect upon the environment, therefore requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. 12 • Based on conversations with the Planning Department, we believe that this project will require an E.I.R. The City Planning Department will develop a scope for the environmental document and will solicit proposals from a short list of firms qualified to do the work. With the concurrence of the Irvine Co., the City will select a firm and authorize the commencement of the work. The Irvine Co. will be required to deposit funds with the City equal to the cost of the E.I.R. plus 10% prior to the commencement of the work. The scope of the E.I.R. should include concerns for such issues as water quality, dredge disposal, traffic, wildlife habitat, and coastal resources. 3.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit is required under Section 10, of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for any work within the navigable waters of the United States. The Corps permit process may be coincidental with the City Planning Department permit process. However, since the state and federal wildlife agencies are within the review and comment loop of the Corps permit process, it is considered prudent that the pertinent environmental information developed in the E.I.R. be included in the Corps submittal. For this reason, the submittal of an application to the Corps of Engineers should be delayed • until the E.I.R. is complete and accepted by the City. 3.3 California Coastal Commission Permit A standard permit from the C.C.C. will be required. Application to the C.C.C. requires prior "approval in concept" from the City. Therefore, this permit process cannot begin until the E.I.R. has been reviewed and approved by the City. The final E.I.R. must be reviewed by the C.C.C. also. Verification is required that an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been submitted and that state and federal agencies within the Corps permit loop have reviewed the project. Thus the submittal of the C.C.C. permit application must follow completion of the E.I.R., submittal to the Corps, and review by key state and federal agencies. The C.C.C. permit filing fee for this project will be $1,500. 3.4 State Regional Water Quality Control Board This agency will require a permit for discharging water from hydraulic fill and dewatering operations during construction into the bay. 3.5 City of Newport Beach Building Department After acquisition of City planning approval, Corps of Engineers permit • and C.C.C. permit, the project may proceed to the preparation of construction documents (i.e., working drawings and specifications). The construction documents, along with a final geotechnical report and design calculations must be submitted to the City of Newport Beach 13 • 40 Building Department for review and approval. Upon approval, the Building Department will issue a building permit and construction may proceed. The fee for project. The building Is customarily paid by his bid price. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES plan checking is approximately $6,600 for this permit fee will be approximately $10,000. This the Construction Contractor and is included in 4.1 Developmental Constraints Exhibit 6, entitled "Developmental Constraints and Environmentally Sensitive Areas" shows elements of the site which limit or effect any plan for development. 4.1.1 Coastal Bluffs The bluff faces are discussed in the City of Newport Beach, Land Use Plan. Natural coastal bluffs (defined as steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical and higher than 25 feet) are considered a significant scenic and environmental resource. In general, grading and development are limited on or adjacent to these areas. The east facing bluffs meet the definition for steepness and height and are natural. The south and, west facing bluffs do not meet the definition for steepness, except where previous grading for old Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive have left portions of the bluff steeper than 2 to 1. Even though these areas are not "natural" bluffs meeting the strict definition of "Bluff" in the LCP, they may be considered scenic resources by the Coastal Commission. This issue should not impact the project as currently proposed since no develop- ment is proposed on the bluff faces. Minimal grading will be required near the toe of the south facing bluff to accommodate parking. 4.1.2 Intertidal Zone The intertidal zone indicated on Exhibit 6 is a narrow mudflat area lying along the toe of the east facing bluff. At .present, the area is accessible to pedestrians from the lower castaways site during low to medium tides. During high tides the area is inundated and essentially inaccessible. The proposed project would remove a small portion of this intertidal area near the intersection of the south and east facing bluffs. The proposed bulkhead railing would render the remaining intertidal areas inaccessible. Exhibit 7, entitled "Tidal Zones", indicates mudflat habitat in the intertidal zone between elevations +2.7' MLLW and -2.0' MLLW. Referenced to Mean Sea Level, this range is from 0 MSL to -4.7' MSL. 14 • The issue of most concern with regard to the mudflat area is its use for loafing and feeding by endangered bird species, particularly the least tern and the clapper rail. The concern involves two elements: 1. Removal of a portion of the intertidal area 2. Disturbance to a portion of the remaining intertidal area through the introduction of people and boats associated with the extension of a floating mainwalk and slips north of the proposed bulkhead. The "value" of the area to the endangered birds is a function of their frequency of use. No information exists with regard to actual use of the area by the endangered species. The National' Marine Fisheries Service has indicated that they would prefer replacement of the intertidal areas which are to be removed on a one-to-one basis in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve as an acceptable means of mitigation. Mitigation for the loss of value to the remaining intertidal areas is not so easily approached since its present value is not known and since the degree of disturbance is not easily quantified. One important mitigating measure inherent in the proposed project is that the direct access of pedestrians to the intertidal area will be • removed by the bulkhead railing. The pedestrians and boat traffic associated with the marina floats will be physically separated from the intertidal area. The boat traffic is not a newly introduced element, since the area in question is open to navigation presently. The difference with respect to disturbance lies in the increase or decrease in boat traffic near the shore. The change is not easily defined because the near shore traffic will be limited to those boats which are moored at the 25 shore side slips. The marina will actually shield the intertidal area from casual boat traffic which currently is allowed to navigate in the near shore area. 4.1.3 Basement for 30" Water Line A 30" diameter City of Newport Beach water line traverses the property west to east near the toe of the south facing bluff. The City has requested an easement 24 feet wide along the water line route. No permanent structures would be allowed within this easement. This easement would facilitate excavation of the water line for repair and minimize possible damage to structures in the event the line ruptures. The present alignment of the pipeline presents a problem for the proposed bulkhead near the northwesterly corner of the proposed basin. It may be necessary to relocate a portion of the water line to avoid difficulty in constructing the bulkhead tie -back system and, of even greater importance to protect the bulkhead from • possible future damage. 15 4.2 Construction Operations 4.2.1 Dredging, Dewatering and Disposal Construction dredging involves three types of operations: a. Suction dredging in the channel to achieve water depth. b. Excavation of dry material at the land site. c. Bucket dredging of material saturated in ground water at the land site. Our preliminary recommendation is to haul all of the excess material to a land disposal site. This will result in the necessity to dewater and dry all of the material obtained in dredging operations a and c above. The dewatering process will involve discharging waste water into the bay. This will require a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit and measures to control the quality of the effluent. One possible procedure for carrying out the dredging and disposal project is as follows: a. Excavate dry material at the site to create a dewatering basin. b. Suction dredge in the bay and deposit the material in the basin. • c. Dewater, dry, excavate and haul the material to the disposal site. d. Dredge the material which is below the water table and deposit it in dewatering basins. e. Dewater, dry, excavate and haul the material. The disposal issue will be addressed in detail during the permitting phase. 4.2.2 Construction Traffic Most of the traffic generated during the construction project will be during the dredge material disposal phase. Because of the dredging, drying and hauling sequence required this traffic will not be concentrated, but will be spread over a relatively long period of time. The entire disposal phase could take 16 weeks and could require 6,000 truck trips to Coyote Canyon or an alternative site. This traffic issue including route and timing will be addressed in detail during the permitting phase. 4.2.3 Construction Noise and Dust Construction noise and dust should not be major issues because the site is not closely bordered by sensitive uses. The residential area to the west across Dover Drive is a • consideration, but is buffered by traffic noise generated by Dover Drive. These issues will, however, be dealt with in the permitting phase. 16 4.3 Wildlife Wildlife issues at the site are predominated by concern for the endangered bird species indigenous to the back bay. No known nesting sties for endangered bird species exist within the project area. Mudflat areas are a valuable resource with regard to the endangered birds. The mudflat areas are used for loafing and feeding during low tide conditions. The actual value with regard to use of the mudflats affected by this project is not known because no site specific studies have been conducted. Conversations between Cash and Associates and the National Marine Fisheries Service have revealed that an acceptable form of mitigation for mudflat areas eliminated by the project would be replacement in kind somewhere within the back bay ecological preserve. Mitigation for disturbance of remaining mudflat areas is a question to be resolved in the permitting process. Refer to Section 4.1.2 for a discussion of the disturbance issue. The marine environment can be both enlarged and enhanced by this project. The simple fact that more sub -tidal marine habitat will exist as a result of the project is a plus for fish species. In conversation between Cash and Associates and the California Department of Fish and Game, the concept of creating a basin in the Lower Castaways site drew favorable response from responsible C.D.F.G. personnel. They expressed concern for water quality within the basin. Thus, water quality will be an issue to be addressed in the permitting process. It appears that the recommended • project, with proper attention to wildlife issues, could result in significant gains in wildlife habitat value over the present undeveloped site. 4.4 Traffic Generation Traffic generated by the proposed development of the Lower Castaways site is a locally sensitive issue. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive is highly congested. The proximity of the lower Castaways entrance to this intersection is an item of concern for the City. The City will strongly favor right turn in and right turn out as the means of ingress and egress. There is local neighborhood resistance to signalizing the intersection of Dover Drive and Cliff Street to serve Lower Castaways from Upper Castaways. For these reasons, the development of Lower Castaways for marina use only is a concept which should meet with little or no resistance from the standpoint of traffic generation. Restricting ingress and egress to right turn in, right turn out will not degrade the property for marina use, whereas this would be a problem for most commercial uses. To address the traffic generation issue adequately, data is needed to quantify and substantiate the amount of traffic which will be generated by the "marina only" development concept. The City does not have traffic generation data for marinas without mixed uses such as . commercial. It is anticipated that traffic generated by the marina alone will be substantially less than any mixed use. Thus, it would 17 E 0 0 benefit this project to obtain traffic counts or allow the City to obtain traffic counts at a local Irvine Co. Marina where traffic is limited to that generated by the marina alone. 4.5 Coastal Access The recommended scheme does not limit public access to the parking areas, bulkhead walkways, or pier. The floats will be accessible only to marina tenants. This restriction will be accomplished by locked gates at the gangways. Marina tenants will be issued keys. Restroom facilities will also require a key for entry. Thus, the public is not restricted from the coastal view provided by the bulkhead and pier. This coastal view could be accentuated and enhanced by the construction of a viewing platform on the pier. Conversely, the public could be restricted from the site through the use of a fence and traffic control gate. The issue of public access will be addressed in the City Planning Department Review process and the California Coastal Commission permit process. If public access is provided or required, an allowance for parking must be made. Scheme M includes fourteen spaces which are not required for the marina, but little opportunity exists to provide more parking because of the limited space at the site. 5.0 MARINA DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES 5.1 Alternative Schemes Exhibits 12 thru 25 show alternative schemes which were developed during the study activities. When the study began, the Lower Castaways Site was being considered by the Irvine Co. for commercial development. Thus, the marina was essentially restricted to the existing water area as shown in Schemes A and B. Scheme C proposed the creation of a basin at the Lower Castaways site and was an attempt to coordinate the development plans for the upper and lower sites. The creation of the basin and the dedication of the entire lower site to marina use will ease many of the concerns over traffic generation and wildlife habitat degradation which are inherent in most development plans. This plan also makes it possible to go ahead with the development of the lower site since it is not dependent upon or interactive with any upper site development plans. A marina at the lower site is compatible with and will enhance almost any future upper site development. Cost estimates were prepared analyses were performed by the that the minimum costs associate for a marina require a slip count d for some of the schemes. Payback Irvine Co. Generally, it was found with construction of support facilities in excess of 100 slips. 18 ! 5.2 Recommended Scheme Scheme M, Exhibit 25, was developed through a one year iterative process and is the result of many meetings and discussions with the Irvine Co. Agencies which have been contacted directly by Cash and Associates regarding the project include: o City of Newport Beach Planning Department o City of Newport Beach Engineering Department o City of Newport Beach Marine Department o County of Orange o California Department of Fish and Game o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service o National Marine Fisheries Service o California Coastal Commission o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o Orange County Sheriff's Department - Harbor Patrol While none of these agencies has responded officially to the project, no real opposition has been voiced. Concerns have been expressed and they are addressed in this report, but it appears that a project similar to Scheme M would not meet with strong resistance by any of the agencies involved in the permitting process. Exhibit 26 is a preliminary construction cost estimate for Scheme M. 6.0 'APPENDICES 6.1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Transmitted previously under separate cover) 6.2 Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation (Estuary Analysis) 6.3 Castaways Contacts. A list of persons contacted during the study. 19 - POOR. QUALITY ORI'GINAL (S) r'r 0 E CAST A`J�'AYS MARINA OUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HYDRODYNAMICS AND SEDIMENTATION PREPARED FOR CASH & ASSOCIATES - ENGINEERS RI VERTECH .i..._..� o INC JULY 1987 _= Rl VERTECH i p INC CONSULTANTS IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING July 16, 1987 Mr Larry W. Nye, P.E. Cash & Associates Engineers 2599 East 28th Street P.O. Box 38 Long Beach, CA 90801 Dear Mr. Nye, Rivertech Inc. Is pleased to submit our attached report entitled "Castaways Marina, Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation". This report has been prepared with assistance and advice from Dr. Frederic Raichlen, Professor of Hydraulics at the California Institute of Technology. We have enjoyed working with you on this project and look forward for the • opportunity to work with you again. Sincerely, • A-Ia'ERTECH INC. L714101 �,�o L, — , Hasan Nour4/ President 1400 QUAIL STREET / SUITE 210 / NEWPORT BEACH; CA 92660 1 (714) 752 - 8722 • DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 TIDE CYCLE 2 DEPTH CONSIDERATION 3 WAVE CONSIDERATION 3 CURRENT AND CIRCULATION CONSIDERATION 4 EROSION AND DEPOSITION CONSIDERATION S FLOATING DEBRIS CONSIDERATION 6 • • AND RECCMMENDATIONS • Based on a qualitative analysis and a reconnaissance level study of sedimentation and hydrodymamics of the proposed Castaways Marina, Rivertech makes the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. Wind and ship generated waves are significant design parameters for the proposed Castaways Marina. Their magnitudes should be computed and their dynamics should be considered in the design. Although the designer is cautioned about their presence and magnitude, nevertheless, they do not pose a major problem. 2. Flood and tidal current velocities along the navigation channel could be very high. It is recommended that the design of the marina be based on the occurrence of the simultaneous events of the 100-year storm and the mean ebb tide. 3. To provide better tidal exchange rates between the marina and the navigation channel and to improve the flexibility of the 750 feet long floating dock, it is recommended that it be divided into three seperate components. •' 4. To prevent excessive influx of sediment and floating debris into the, marina a guiding van should be installed at the north end of the marina extending from the shoreline. 5. Assuming the marina will be used by vessels requiring a draft of 4 feet, it is recommended that the bottom of the marina be dredged to elevation - 12.5 feet (MSL). This would allow a clearance of 3.6 feet between the bottoms of the basin and the vessel during the occurrence of extreme low tide. Adequate clearance will also improve tidal exchange rates between the marina and the main estuary. -1- n INTRODUCTION Cash & Associates Engineers has recently completed a report entitled "Castaways Marina, Engineering Study and Feasibility Report". The report was prepared for The Irvine Company and its draft copy was submitted on June 15, 1987. Cash & Associates Engineers has asked Rivertech to prepare this report which qualitatively analyzes the hydrodynamics, water quality and sedimentation aspects of the recommended scheme. The Irvine Company with assistance from Cash & Associates Engineers is evaluating the development of a 4-acre site in Newport Bay to a marina. As shown in Figure 1 (also Figure 5), the site is located just north of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge in Newport Beach. Results of the qualitative analysis described in this report are based on information obtained from field observations, previous reports, meetings, telephone interviews and Rivertech's experience with similar estuaries. TIDE CYCLE The tide cycle at the mouth of Newport Bay with the Pacific Ocean are diurnal having an approximate period of 24 hours. These type of tides are produced by the phase relation of the sun, the moon and the earth. The relative ranges of the two daily tides continuously vary from small to large over a 28-day period. . The characteristics of tide cycle in Newport Bay at the Pacific Coast Highway (Project site) is approximately the same as that at its mouth. The following represents the estimated parameters of the tide cycle in the project site. • Mean lower low water = 0.00 feet Mean high water lunitidal interval = 5.13 hours Mean low water lunitidal interval = 11.15 hours Mean range of tide = 3.69 feet Mean tide level = 1/2 (mean high water + mean low water) = 2.79 feet Mean sea level = the mean of the hourly heights = 2.76 feet Mean high water diurnal inequality = 0.75 feet Mean great diurnal range = 5.40 feet Diurnal tide level = 2.70 feet Mean high water = 4.65 feet Mean low water = 0.93 feet Mean higher high water = 5.40 feet Highest observed = 7.86 feet on January 28, 1983 Lowest observed = 2.14 feet on December 29, 1955 The actual elevation reached by a particular tide is further influenced by wind set-up on the ocean and in Newport Bay. In addition, magnitude of stormwater runoff from the area tributary to Newport Bay affects its elevation considerably. -2- n / NORTH I �I � MILES —, 0 <� Santa Ana — E--- Peters Canyon Wash ? \ Detht Channel Q Newport Bay San ) Diego Watershed Boundary r�Creek 2� r2 // A Vr s NDIeG0 •DOVER OR a Sand Canyon Wasb t— Newport Bay el 1�7 / O PACIFIC COAST HWY r t; t L� PROJECT SITE Pacific �Qeah RI VERTECH FIGURE 0 INC LOCATION MAP 0 • DEPTH CONSIDERATION The recommended scheme which is depicted in Figure 2 (Scheme M shown as Exhibit 25 in Cash & Associates' report) describes that the basin for the Castaways Marina will be dredged to a depth of - 10.7 feet mean sea level (MSL). Assuming a draft of 4 feet for the vessels, this arrangement at extreme low tide will allow a clearance of only 1.8 feet. This is shown in Figure 3. The corresponding clearance for the floating docks is estimated to be 2.8 feet. Rivertech believes that these clearances may not be adequate. It is recommended that the marina basins be dredged to an elevation of at least 12.5 feet (MSL). This would permit adequate clearance as well as allowance for any sedimentation which may occur. The extreme high tide has been measured to be 5.1 feet above mean sea level. Thus, one could expect a tidal excursion of the order of between 10 and 11 feet. This is not as much of a concern as the extreme low tide but is mentioned here as just the fact that there should be awareness of this tidal range in designating the various components of the marina. WAVE CONSIDERATIONS A brief review of literature in evaluating the problem of boat generated water wave revealed that there are some related concerns that the designer of the Castaways Marina should consider. Area "A" which is between the 750 feet floating dock (slips 61 through 125) and the wetlands, shown in Figure 2, is more critical since excessive wave generation could promote erosion, disturb the marine life and reduce the habitat values along the shoreline. Our reconnaissance level analysis revealed that a cabin cruiser of about 3 tons displacement would generate waves with maximum wave heights between 6 inches and 1 foot at a distance of 100 feet away from the sailing line of the vessel when it is traveling at speeds of 5 to 6 knots. For the same speed, a 40-foot U.S. Coast Guard cutter generates maximum waves that are about 1 foot high about 100 feet away from the vessel. For both of the above cases, the wave period is about 2 seconds. Slips 61 through 98 would be subject to ship generated waves, since there may be more high speed activity along the navigation channel. For example, at a ship speed between 10 and 15 knots a 4-foot U.S. Coast Guard cutter generates wave heights of 2 feet at a distance of 100 feet from the sailing line. Similarly, a 3-ton cabin cruiser generates waves of the order of 0.7 feet at the same distance and speed. Another type of wave which may be present at the proposed marina are those generated by wind. Spring and fall Santa Ana winds blow down the Newport Bay estuary and can generate waves upto 2 feet high at high tide when the fetch is long. Lesser waves would be expected at lower tides. Still another type of waves as that generated by on -shore breezes. Their range is estimated to be up to 6 inches. Although we do not believe that any one of the type of waves described above is a problem for the proposed Castaways Marina, nevertheless, one should consider them in the design analysis. -3- r �J 3 11 n a 9 (j1 z � i .G u 99F9 •< v x / x x x NOTES IQ oamm a xw-AD To BE RacvED 2O PROPoED BASW DREDGED To-10 M5L ® PROPOSED sIEEIL si$r PILE at+a•eAD x z x ® /�pvp�\ Rocx PROTEC7p aCPe Q5 I PROPOSED ROATAIG DOCKS © �ROPOS®I GANGWAYS YO SAWr PIAPOUf STATION © PROI-OSEDIPiE S.FPORTED PER x x fPR� LZRIGAY® PLANTING ' r�veurt 12 RECONSiRL aTr:D 1MNEWAY 13 SIDEWALK — ® et'asT"'G Bra PATH 5 oaSTM BRIDGE ib E)05nNG PROPER'I7{p.)c� x z FRMP D RETAWM WALL / — I) PROP0SED TOQ.Ef aMMM / �IussrsTDva 19 PROPOSED RAn G. M aC�L.pT Wi_ � • GUIDE VAN / PROPOSED BY RNERTECN ov 17 y .p 9 as .� �• � a � i / / �--'-- > J ' y { S a 19 3% { / / /� / / SCHEME N a n • { 9 � '� 1x e � q' { z / / m SLIP COUNT ,! I SaE rawer Tara FcmT 0 / / / / 45' SLIPS 52 2250 ~ s / o s ` _ / / / 47 SLIPS 39 1638 38' SLIPS 19 722 Is z 35' SLIPS 8 280 / b / SIDE TIES 7 280 TaT� 125 5270 94 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED € 108 PARKING SPACES r" 20VIDED 3 FIGURE 2,��2_� r 2.76' 2.14' Q VESSEL -V7EXTREME LOW TIDE 4.0' DRAFT 3.6' CLEARANCE RECOMMENDED BY RIVERTECH --I FEASIBILITY REPORT ESTIMATED BOTTOM • Rl VERTECH v IN MSL=O MLLW CLEARANCE LIMITS SLIP 3.0' 4.6' CLEARANCE I FIGURE 3 • CURRENT AND CIRCULATION CONSIDERATION The rise and fall of the ocean, combined with the presence of pools and constrictions that characterize upper and lower Newport Bay produce tidal currents at various locations in Newport Bay. These currents are strongest at constrictions such as the section of the bay at Pacific Coast Highway and weakest at locations where the estuary widens. Velocity measurements made on December 20, 1983 by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge are shown in Figure 4. On this date, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) station in Newport Beach shows the following tidal measurements. Low water = 2.50 feet at 02.0 hours Higher high water = 7.15 feet at 08.5 hours Lower low water = 0.96 feet at 15.9 hours High water = 3.76 feet at 22.3 hours A comparison of these measurements with the mean tide cycle values, described previously, indicates that on this date very high and low tides were present in Newport Beach. In fact the higher high water elevation is only 0.71 foot less than the highest recorded value which occurred in January of the same year. Therefore, the measured values shown in Figure 4 are close to the upper limit of velocities which may be present at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge in the Bay. This figure shows that tidal velocities exceed 3 feet per second in the navigation channel and reduce to zero close to the bridge abutment. Velocities may increase significantly at the navigation channel'in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge during major storm events. During the storm of March 1, 1983, the harbor master has estimated the current speed to be in excess of 10 knots (17 feet/sec.). His estimate was based upon engine revolutions required to maintain a steady boat position in the channel. Rivertech believes that this estimate is probably higher than actual. It is possible that wind resistance was also a contributing factor. The designer of the proposed Castaways Marina is cautioned to note the proximity of the high velocity field of the navigation channel to the marina. The floating dock which houses slips 61 through 125 would be most susceptible to damage by high velocity currents. A review of the velocity field at the bridge shows that velocities quickly reduce to negligible values when the location changes from the channel to the abutment. In addition, field observation indicated evidence of sediment deposition adjacent to the western bridge abutment. Construction of the proposed marina probably would not alter these currents appreciably. Therefore, the desired level of circulation in areas "B" and "C" of the marina shown in Figure 2 may not be achieved at all times. The opening under the gangway which is located adjacent to slips number 1 and 39 allows surface water circulation and should enhance the water quality. Rivertech recommends that the channel adjacent to the pile supported pier • (labeled as 8 in Figure 2) be maintained as large and unobstructed as possible. This is because the marina in the vicinity of the pier has a major constriction which would probably cause excessive velocities. —4— r-1 3 C11 0+00 10+00 11+00 12t00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 DISTANCE IN FEET 3 J W W 1L 2 O h 0 Q W J 0 W .0 .0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 C� 10 RIVER v ANC TIDAL VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION AT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE OVER NEWPORT BAY (LOOKING NORTH) REMAXIMUM J�t • Assuming economy permits, we recommend that the 750 feet long floating dock be divided into three sections. This is to improve the tidal currents between the navigation channel and the shoreward located mud flats. We recommend that the region of berths 111-112 and 86-87 be replaced by a walkway connecting the two sections. In addition, in the region of berths 122-123 and 75-76 a similar break in the dock be provided. With these openings the following advantages can be achieved: 1. Tidal exchange rates between the navigation channel and Area "A" will be increased. 2. The tidal and flood velocities at the pier, labeled 8 in Figure 2, will be reduced. 3. Improved flexibility for the 750-foot long floating dock. The above recommendation is of particular significance since the 750-foot long dock would be subject to high flood velocities as well as wind and boat generated waves. • EROSION AND DEPOSITION CONSIDERATIONS During the past few years, an effective and rigorus sediment control management has been practiced in the Upper Newport Bay. If current practice of sediment control management in Upper Newport Bay continues, very little maintenance and dredging will be required in the Lower Newport Bay and in the vicinity of the proposed Castaways Marina. San Diego Creek Channel (see Figure 1) is the major source of sediment yield to Newport Bay. Its sediment load can be classified as : - o Wash load o Suspended load o Bedload Nearly all of the bedload and suspended load settle in the sediment traps constructed in the lower reaches of San Diego Creek Channel or Upper Newport Bay. During the last few years, large quantities of sediment deposits were removed from the sediment traps and from the Upper Newport Bay. If the existing trapping efficiency in the sediment traps and in Upper Newport Bay is maintained, it would be very unlikely for bedload and suspended load to reach Lower Newport Bay or the area in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast Highway. Washload, however, behaves differently. In freshwater, wash load particles repel each other because their ions have like charges. Once freshwater is mixed with saltwater, ion exchanges occur and particles become cohesive. In this manner, aggregates are formed and estuarine deposits are produced. When this accumulation grows thicker, the weight of the deposit crushes the lower aggregates in the bed, making the b--- more dense and stronger. -5- • The interface between freshwater and ocean water can happen anywhere in Newport Bay upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway, depending on the volume of stormwater and phase of tide cycle. Therefore, the phenomenon of cohesion and aggradation can occur anywhere in the Newport Bay upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway. The new deposits are often disturbed and resuspended by wave action that occurs during windy periods and passage of vessels. Subsequently, tide currents redistribute this suspended material into regions where wave action and turbulence is less intense. It is the preceding process that would cause deposition of material in the proposed Castaways Marina. Field observation at the proposed marina site showed very little evidence of organic or fine material deposits. The high currents which are present in and in the vicinity of the navigation channel may be the reason behind the absence of this type of deposits. At some isolated locations, such as the area adjacent to the bridge abutment evidence of deposition was noted. This is probably because the combination of the existing bulkhead, bridge pier and bridge abutment has caused a stagnation zone and hence has promoted the process of deposition. The area to the west of the proposed 750 feet long floating dock will probably have the tendency to erode rather than to deposit. As explained previously, this area is subject to strong wave action and is a relatively higher velocity zone. The division of the 750 feet long floating dock into three components, would provide better tidal communication between the navigation channel and the marina area west of the dock. In addition, we recommend that some type of a guide van be installed at upstream of this area. Its approximate location is shown in Figure 2. Installation of such a guide van will have the following advantages: o Reduces wave action in Area "A" o Enhances the habitat values of the mud flat along the shore . o Reduces the high velocity currents which may exist at the pier between Area "A' and Area "B" during major storms and during ebb of spring tides (high range tides). o Reduces the chance of sediment and floating debris entering the marina area. FLAATING DEBRIS CONSIDERATION Although the problem of floating debris is not a major concern in Newport Bay, nevertheless, it would probably become a problem in the future. The watershed which is tributary to Newport Bay is currently experiencing the dynamics of the development. With the continued rate of development in the watershed, floating debris will probably become a major problem in Newport Bay in the future. • As far as floating debris is concerned, the marina areas designated by "A" and "B" in Figure 2 should have minimal problems. This is because currents are strong at they— entrance and in all- probability would transport the floating debris away from the proposed marina. sm • The City of Newport Beach has installed a debris trapping boom in Upper Newport Bay to mittigate this problem. The location of this boom is shown in Figure 5. The direction of current at this location is such that the boom has to be extended into the Bay only for about 1/3 of the channel width. Most of the floating debris is carried to the North Star Beach and is trapped by the boom. • 0 -7- FLOATING DEBRIS NORTH STAR BEACH 14 BACK DEBRIS TRAP BAY BOOM PROPOSED CASTAWAYS MARINA RIVERTECH W ESTCLIFF OR DOVEERR BALBOA ISLAND NORTH Pacific Ocean 1 MILE SURFACE DEBRIS TRAP AT UPPER NEWPORT BAY Upper Newport Bay EAST BLUFF DR Newport Bay BACK BAY DR NEWPORr CENTER FIGURE 5 CASTAWAYS CONTACTS AGENCY PERSON TYPE OF CONTACT TOPICS DISCUSSED 1. County of Orange Bob Wingard Meeting Permitting, Pierhead line Tidelands Admin. 2. County of Orange Steve Blanchard Telephone Bulkhead line; County/City Tidelands Admin. (714) 567-5104 jurisdictional boundaries 3. City of Newport Beach, John Wolter Meeting City dredging projects; Permitting; Engineering Dept. Pierhead line 4. City of Newport Beach, Patti Temple Meeting Permitting; Environmental issues; Planning Dept. Environmental documentation S. City of Newport Beach, Tony Mellum Meeting Navigation; Pierhead line Marine Department 6. City of Newport Beach, Jim Upton Tale hone Fire protection of structures; Fire Department (714) 644-3109 Access; Fire water sources X-3106 7. City of Newport Beach, Gil Gomez Telephone Water sources Water Department (714) 644-3011 08. Telephone Sewer Manhole County Sanitation connection; District (714) 962-2411 reference elevation 9. City of Newport Beach, Jeff Staneart Telepphone 30" Water line reconstruction Engineering Department (714) 644-3311 10. Pacific Telephone Co. Chuck Gibo Telephone Location and status of underground Marylin Cole (714) 966-6231 facilities; Maps of underground facilities 11. Southern California Telepphone Maps of underground facilities Gas Company (714) 634-3117 12. Southern California Chris Cartwright Meeting Service, maps of underground Edison Company facilities 13. California Department Dick Nitsos Meeting Wildlife issues (Marine) of Fish and Game Earle Lauppe 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Jack Fancher Meeting at Site Wildlife issues (Intertidal) Service 15. National Marine Bob Hoffman Meeting at Site Wildlife issues (Endangered Birds) Fisheries Service 16. California Coastal Praveen Gupta Tale hone Permitting Coamission Chris Kroll (213) 590-5071 1 *AGENCY PERSON 17. U.S. Army Corps of Dan Muslin Engineers Cheryl Hill Glen Lukos TYPE OF CONTACT TOPICS DISCUSSED Tale hone Permitting; Pierhead line (213) 894-5401 (213) 894-5606 18. Cal Trans John McNeil Telephone Drawings; Right -of -Tray; Utilities Chuck Barthel (213) 620-3760 19. Orange County Sheriffs Captain Gage Meeting Pierhead line; Navigation Dept. Harbor Patrol 20. Bill Harris Telephone Dredging (714] 644-0550 21. Irvine Company Ed Power Meetings Daryll Landrum Jim Kelley Sam Couch Charles Nilson David Dmowhowski 22. WZ!H Group, Inc. Paul Barnard Meetings Coordination with Upper Site David Goodale Development Schemes 0 2 Y=> �^J, �•� a r,.�. J k a J sx. .,: �i.-`V..:.:.J,n � �' %,� _ _ 4=� _ _ � - - _ .,} ,i •'�i _ <•i i`_... � ' ,v.•-- - - - - - - — cs i e • i T = O [u J 1 1 f Z a> 4 ¢ EXISTING TOPOGRAPAIY 1 e o • MAY 18ee i O< _EXHIBIT 2 M.�:, r: .-P _' ��. - - S • _ .. .ye ci - 'sty' - jp: . ). - _ _ . < _s_'. �p � avu« aov N92.Ot \ `:� -• , _ _ `�?':�::_S•�ruL - _'��... _-_ _ _ _ _ \_- - TA>cs='..=✓•:•C.X a�.,.-: -.. -IL•_.. .ny -- � 6 s.._.l'.'a.�_.�_..._ ,.4 w,rrr _. ._ _ __ _ . _ _._. _ —_ . -. c = -rw —z_5•_ _ _ _ _ _.,_^_:7•x: r_.. � Ott ��—>tr--r-,^r'_'T."-r-`- _,� _ _ .Yd _ v.;rf .� J.�xi`•" :iYs•3 ^ _'S. J.A_a.xa s:T�y� ..4. "JA-•;.a.r: "_ ... _ •h•- _ •ram a•i alrr - - `,- __•_ Y Y � ��'� �!i•.=c •'eJ ` .!^' -may -' ... - _ _gyp �• '.p..-.• 'x i- !. Y^V =�S S 'r Tr4. •-AA • Y _ •yam �;, - • - ..mod PIMURiT A � O T e O .J O - i E 2492.01 ' v_ - 1�]Fairfew 4 0 $4 OJEWPORT BAY- & .UP-AER :NEWPOR PRIOR :TO DE ELOPMENT Y �alon EXHIBIT }tt� - - v. -�X_�:_� ;?�./_ ..+•.a..�. ��-. - P ir: pR �.-_.� �v �� r:'t�_ 1 ?_` _ = � �.+'-!'. i• t ti�� 1yi� °��' � .� � 1�� F-�"�,�',1� .`` t'�f.� s -, - _ �Mj,i _ -�' .._ 7 ...�� i S-`.�e�•L ,:.= �r . .. fli _. .�� ^-.i'V-.� �•}� _-<rM1'--z=�.;- _ � r.:.:��._... •.^�mj t �.._��.... X-� - .:�r,a„�.wr •-��;". .�e�""�� T' _ _—�' - � {1 a1'�t; - c t t` f c;?✓•y1a`y�,�[�i�•' •fir3: .-,�_Yc.--__ _, '> �S• _ -' V i -.y ,fJ Fy. _5+1 :'. .r{'S:l-C.4+�._.:`• .,T-_l'.. _ - th - 1 ]e H yi a m z-777-,-� - th - 1 ]e H yi a m z-777-,-� a a , i � LEGEND •' tt � �� O G>T •aI wfw/wtT efAu wa Tfw _ tw6 Al9)NTLNMICC LAsfmLN7 - > > i /j/ � < CI F gmYNu<TtlRAL DILfL GLUFFe 6 W } - O® IMTWAL GLU/H /TtlrfL TAW 2r. � (L:II � Z � � 0 . WfM w YbITILY. TiY b 2G //GT q( wLATLA qLe c.r> b NFMh[T d -. aMCA LLW,>AL 1fCiNAM� C W •, p' +O —' 5\/ acorE /U tiry e✓ AeFraKT afTc.l laa. COA•JTAG /INaSYall S I• O O � \ O /NTGICTIO.OL NUf I i 4 O � �uDTIGq, /nATurf wb.TwT <� <.>i - Q < 32w Cut 1 O 414vL1L NlW ARL>•i W f0= � • � (Kt CaY P/ AlMMCIAO/A[.A arYAt CCiSTAL I<ofiltMll - } i`a , i>L � © < 2a , -DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND + o ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS•EXHIBIT O GOrI/1' ICAY JfA _- noun• 2493.07 f r:- .� - . :� v�k�; �-. Dislichlis �'"------------'Extreme High Water Monanthochloe Y • � ��' 68tis • Salicornia P SALT MARSH Spartina 'N IVs MUDFLAT Eelorass AARINI ZONE ELEVATION 4 MEAN • LOWER 3 LOW 2 WATER TIDAL ZONES EXHIBIT 7 0 Ids ABUT �o e t ABUT PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 4 PIER 5 PIER 6 , PIER 7 PIER 8 �q3 COAST Iae 1 v`Z INSTALL BRIDGE a+� PIER PROTECTION, NEWPORT BAY SEE SP CIIALTION PROVISIONS. PLAN I" = 100, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY4RIDGE 'B'T 8 oe o 0 YlbgWi[ LnMy6 d En✓1�u4 CnA/JT . -2 w� I " FORMER CASTAWAYS MARI SLIPS •67 \ I 1 NA I / / --- -/ / Fcnu E ERLASTAWAYSi1ARINA• EXHIBIT . m 0 1 1 , ^.' "ua¢;r -t:+=' a=x':'ti-w_ _ _- _ a;s:. .'.YaC�;. :ce. '.e :,: _ _ ?./: =.f ]_- _ '.Y:"•:'� max: „L.•-.:i_:- 'sv-: :Tn. ..�_r __- - �:i_r`r- _ F_% M . - _ .>n a"-S.. /pan 44 _ -��r,�� w' "7_G t�• _ .�. rv': -- _ir;'\: •e.:-_�'�_ -Ti - :� '+•i r,i•F.' ':."ty�.- - - _ y„ - f 1 -t r:::_ - ',i-"_:.. =- :T •t'L `"'' - .:- _ „i:• - -_ - ?•"�'%'<- 'a:`y-•i5s.P:•Y r: __ - ;r- :-✓. '•� ..2rr _ -_ ,.. _ •sr x __ _�vyT; ,.c,<-� - /p(, ktaAT/R1oN-x -•iF�7ATat• 'fr- _ �:- •1 .� �ri �s.. �-Kt r - r , y< .1 •'Rri 3 - p _ •[' of - - •' ' '1. - i q :j 3 1< < \ = s• - V 3 t •t - r _ - t •3 J-t ^' / •t �' �2 r ;• y, r C�� i 1.• t_r Yi i 7Ao'fio rf•,` 'f4moo r •2:3` '1 i ,y 4 2 `� r3 " _ - ''ls •'1 a;-•1,<i.�.�_' _ x •d..: 'f'+•••s._ ,qr ••-x~ 1 ��" � ,�L' yii 91. � ./•'1 - .�' ?- ,) - •f' .,� 4... 'x 0 .i 9 - �r/,(n7J'T'fP ..�`C"-`_i 8_ - li f i' t' S H' =.H'y ;�1�y _ �• t f LL - #: "i- - r 6'•P 'fb)'fa.75 RlaYlf P. a; F'.. r.r t�iw 7 • - :-,�1 _ - - - t. it : ^" . __.__—_ �._ .'V !�nr:- _ j KNEE BRACE. f FINGER' FRAMING PLAN _.. � Wit_=�"r�.__w-s: c-�:?`,•::, � =' _ � - _ ._ - - - �i ._ •-�..��- + --2<G OECxW6 (90 GLK. DWI,24. potnq� " f G✓Arli • r� 2t/Z FRNR ea. Arrfew IV 6t .GAM • - - _ .`_� ` '-' - ..TL . }y. _ - - Yf •f esA: Got r! �tf• 1Z 1 1 (9-T-. tl •�- '--D$Cw9 GLU-LAM Srt/NECK 117,* LAM-,) _ .C!/N/. -rwp ICGJi, 9A994 -... ti.¢ z<:• LOU4 La eox-7e a `- KOArAr/ON U/✓,/r f/LLiO M'AN PoLYIrV.ICNQ , , • `\.. \ _�`DtNr )LI tyi CIf+G PE %Op) \\ 3- _ FINGER SECTION 3%f <SCA eo vipr-, ra vr. '' j �. � . - _ _ . _ -' _.. _ . �. I r 6 C�>•Yunrsov uvrS I r •, +^' - r• —__ •• __ __'• •T .G-y_-___-.....-.._'_- 1TTACWJ TD CA49 tf,l- C•LU LAM - r` • __ _—hii—i JJJ __—�.-__ • ' � • -LKfl, 'fAGtA i - - •� rep - - : MA1N.WALK.,SECTION i EXHIBIT:.:,�'O- .' 4"_ l -CASTAWAYS MARINA ;- NONE a arr. •q :_THE IRVINE COMPANY: -CONCEPT 3 FEASIBILITY -STUD' 249201 .pitf: _ - - ClfOMt>noR- - p _ - sE"^"'�•'•'•-'• - ::.RECOMMENDED- FLOATDETA!LIA: -- - tu3)4"m LPQf - _.. . "�-� - Mpµ MMtft • tiit tl. -t M• - _ .. i'r .. � � • .ice .. . - - s.`SY, 1\ YN, /WVIll�T1O4 . Hcrtl. a rnu.w / 1/ x oulel�> � EXISTING UTILITIES • a UTILITY PLAN oil 1 1 I If �� PI✓NOM•M1t wrtr a to»nra4 �•nDFv.T •4YLi ' 1 i1 224 tY2=t •- �` lW p' GVfF LJ � ' . /- Y/b+wt! 1.paRLL b lrnTY4 `u9/✓.T ••yn.�t 1 A10, QUA/ S < i ¢ U 00 \i'1 �\� �/� Wvi4�TlOu GrrvrE� / ' ► O SCHEME PHASE 1 \ 9 0 • \\ \` - �OF, / TOTAL 93 SLIPS -. - - _ _ .♦ ,- ��/ - EXHIBIT 12 ...>�.. 0 E C{ ti+i/f X, '\ x //pAp�.�SW.lQ! y Yu.vl� el-5%iw. t.aMAT SGt1tMc o TOTAL III SLIPS 312 i > y � t z ( n 6 O W> I U WO W � ~ _2 F m > ¢ W t U 2 1- I - ( t 5 S • • m � ( I 3 ,u ' � ♦ W � m S t m = m I i r+u Q HE EXHIBIT 13 .t Vi - • �• _ �aY • d M.1p l �- Yrb\Iwtt 1Wib d ewyTlwl(w •Yqy{ yyyTs'1 SCHEME -8V-t _ I EXHIBIT 14 z4as.Ot 1 t I LI •� �rT�. 51]�iHF1�Y ' 1-sdxee'x.-zsroRy a11tLo+ds="360o5.F- fAFwt�6 I�aIRIaGMt:tlr !2s (.,D � •9¢ sPALbS �. ' R�tA(tRAF:T; 1D,Oa7 5•F G¢055 �, Zaoo'_ s.f NEf PARKItJ4�EQUIi�HErdf'OOD�M° 17SSfALES - >71171F14 �AAPAcI"fY 3330 tpiAt- PAP.KHJG R6Qawr=D 944. I,S 2L9 5pALrS '(OTAL PAaKINb moo tgv 712'5 MCAMOCrAL USE MOM- T"1zG9•03 / 6yJFt�Q r 1d ,a - � M{W. N>�SG OF HaWLAj� l ttalk , ,A O W ire IS 6VA {. SN o+ 1' � LHAf1i7EL let �• / / SCHEME C / I EXHIBIT i5 .� F t I f } F .� I 10 f[f[f[ • 1. l � • ,� *�NFtNO 0"OEs Uu��llStNO �W-NNF�O / � Yf4p��M11! 1u41� Cf !AI•Ji�4V u0/JT WO�tAT� �•� t0 .1 LLW� I ' - I Q�CNE/ ; 1 04 r � o � U IL p 2 � .m O ft{ 2402.01 's• ' YI-O��Mtt[ tNrt4 CI C�Al�uf�'u1fJi w6p.. Ltd i (• �v la . a uLL.I� / I I a -/ SCHEME E EXHIBfT 18 C � 1 W� Z h O i 0 •'y( I O x x x x x x x x x ♦ c� i x x x x 9 sr y SCHEME F 82 - 45 BLIPS 11 SIDE TIES ' •65 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 75 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED EXHIBIT IS. I 1 \ x x n x x \ / ��•� x x / / P \ / \ x x op i d { { { & 4 a, Q // SCHEME G P 4 - 46 SLIPS 63 - 36 SLIPS 17 - SWE TIE8 / / 4 63 PARKING SPACES REOUIR�D 76 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED x s M1< GAO EXHIBIT 20 A`� : i x x x NOTES IQ EXISTING B AKI-EAD TO BE REMOVED \ x x O PROPOSED BASINOREDGm To -lo MSL i .` Q PROPOSED cONCRETE aia•EAO 43o LP) ` ® ROCK PRoTECTID SLOPE ' OO BOATING DOCKS © GANGWAYS 0 SANITARY PLbF-OUT STATION i ® PILE SLPPORTED PIE32 Q� OILET BU i s- x / x x x lJ ` IRRIGATED PLANT x i / 12 ING DRIVEYNAY © STING SIDEWALK -'.`•' ' : / \ . ' , Ib 1NG BIKE PATH , I5 STING BRIDGE i ��:• - ,/G /� 16 STWG PROPWTY-CiPE-- 2 / / w 1 // xx x J / y j J {` • x P O $/ x Ib ``�,`` J,9 3. OAS 1Il erwm / / a + P— — -- -- -- 9 A i' i Jjjj 1p SCHEME x < m SLIP COUNT � m SIM NA TOTAL FOOTAGE W F 45' SUPS - 51 2340 •.\ - .c�__ —'T_� /O`\� %7 \ 'P `�� ^ 3, "38'$IPS - 61 2318 = a 35 SLIPS - 9 315 > o . _ SIDE TIES - 8 320 } COq —' i TorAi 129 I C 96 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED — 96 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED m W x EXHIBIT z�ax_oT _„_ 2 7 13 i �u i F r� 4 d x 9 L6 3 . d Fri, - x -.-w M x P 'x x x x x -.-w M x P 'x x x x x NOTES d EXISTFB B14-Fq TO HE Remoym 2O. PROPOSED HASV DREDGED TO -IOMSL x 30 PROPOSED CONCRETE DLW-EAD CUO LF1 ® ROCK PROTECTED SLOPE - Q AT RO@VG DOCKS © GANGWAYS Q $ANTTARY PIIyP-OUT STATION © OSED PA.E SLPPORTED V" 91FDOSTLNG DRNL�IAY ® SIDEWA4K WE PATH =QE`rARa4G- ROPE�Zmr:LY - - WAIL i i% � x x c i p i ? I op 8 d ----------- 4+ & r /�,� dd S �;8 a i<•�,�3_ SCHEME J •S ,p x SLIP COLNT �' 'S✓ E N16M TOTAL FOOTAGE +e -E p 46 SLIPS 52 2250 38' SLIPS 58 2204 35' SLIPS 8 1 280 x _ x SIDE TIES 7 ' 280 =AL 125 5014 i' - 94 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED -- -- 94 PARKING SPACES P20VIDED \— vvi x NE EXHIBIT 22 2402.01 . rrrr 1 / NOTES • - - " "i - - - - IQ.O EXISTM B AXW-AD TO W QE%4OVW •'• - %_ 2p- PROPOSED BASW DREDG® TO d0 MSL PROPOSED CCNCWM w 1 IaFAD C240I n x ROG: PWFECiiD SLOPE ' 0 FLOATWG DOCKS • _ ,© GANGWAYS i 7O SANITARY R-M -OW STATION . y ®Pl.E SLPPORTEO P932 ® STWG ORIVEAAY % ® WG SIDEWALK ® SAM PATH . - n © WRI 6 BDGE A ` _ ` ® STWG PROPEZLY lME' 41 s •'a 5 � � �16 ` for o'``` , � a a J � x ss------------------ > \• a 9�xso . 4 .SCHEME K O v> \ SLIP COUNT 10 - Y\ .•� e . "d a�J:/- 6 C a 5� TorALI'OOTA6EVI - o '45• SLIPS 52 2250 s 39 SLIPS 55 2090 35' SLIPS8 250 i SIDE TIES 7 280 00 122 4900 Lf. `> x • d - �,�i�'"'•\ I -� 92 PARKING SPACES REGUIRED i w 92 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED < _ 2492.01 EXHIBIT 23 ......... NOTES (D oasrwsa� eAo To eEr�uovm 0 PROPDXM BASW DREDGED TO -10 MSL . x (9) PROPOS® CONCRETE BLLKI-EAD 0008 LP) ' ® ROCK PROTECTED SLOPE 05 FLOATWG DOCKS - © GANGWAYS . - TO SAMTARY PL P-CUi STATION ' - ® PLLE SI.PPORTED PIS32 3 i - I - x x x '"�'�" x : I{32IGAT7® PLANT'Q ISTWG DRIVEWAY ® SIDEWALK .� • - i ® STING Ma! PALM — �{ \ ® STWG BRIDGE I \�6 / \ I� Sl'W6 PROP6tTY-Lm i - x } O j x - x _© RETAW WC+ WfLLi / B M34S AND WOM36 TOILETx 13 2 1 II y \ -/ / s / ? \4PP SCNEME L O W) F 3 s �s x i W r �• SUP•CQUNTcr W m ,1.1 •- '�> : ;7 S_ - 9 7scm _ wi. p *1 a / / • / 45' SLIPS 52 2250 o I�iaiC �' �, • ! i 3 \ i / - / / / / / 47 SLIPS 39 1638 38' SLIPS 19 722 ` .i4 �. • 15 x—' I x / 35' SLIPS 8 280 i -- - SIDE TIES 7 280 m TOTAL 125 '' 5270 ; •-' E$f{ 1 / � W 1 PARKING SPACES RECLI[ReD 104 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED `o 0 EXHMT y•TM `r- • _ -: -- •• e.� __ _ _ - ry^. _ X X X % NOTES OnsTm al*eA io eeQexwID " 2O PROPOSED BASIN DREDGED TO.10 MSL 30 PROPOSED Si®. SIFT PN.E B t ri_an ® ROOK PROSEC• ` D SLOPE E Q5 FLOATING DOCKS © GANGWAYS ' Q SANITARY FLLfF OUT STATION PLE SLPP_ OPTED PIB2 . 0 PROOPOSED OLEf OSED IRRIGATED F'LLJN'T 2 OPOSED QECON5TRUCTED IVEWAY Q IST6i1G SIDEWALK 1® ING BIKE PATH IS ISTM ERIDGE ® Sf1NG PROP6ITY-hNE' i SED RETAWRJG WALL ' PROPOSED TOILET BUILDING l / \\ � -- / 19 PROPOSED RAIUdG `mane.+eo.r� •� C'6mwIIr wires � i Ta �- iNf i It A 17 , / + P X ---.X- \ 16 Toeo- urr / 4 ♦ ♦ /— — — — — \ II \ P / — bly SCHEME M SLIP COUNT /SCE MAIXR TOTAL. ♦OQiA� 45' SLIPS 52 2250 • ` / / / / / 42• SLIPS 39• 1638 / y / 38' SLIPS 19 722 35' SLIPS 8 280 SIDE TES 7 ' 280 I \ 0 TOTAL: 125 5270 < S y� I i 94 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED o \� B - 108 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED o o r - 2492.01 " - . , EXti1t3lT 25 .. 7 Is To -10 ELIVATIGM SHIPlitENCED ""MIR MOM,! E.0 T 1.0 N. C L 0 0 K A N G -N 0 R T H 75 SS 0 PACIFIC -COAST HMW AY. 20 Irf to S E..0 T 1 0 N. A L.0,0 K I.N.6 W E S T 33 ------------- COVER DRIVE 77444 WNT xn 4 �-T �xr- ff"WAYMNS "FEAEK=P TO 0-MEAM SEA LEVEL 'S E C T 1.6 N. L 0 0 K I N G N 0 R T H 2 I 0 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Engineering Study and Feasibility Report City Planning Department Fees E.I. R. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filing fee Documentation for Corps permit Dredge Material Tesing for disposal California Coastal Commission filing fee Documentation for C.C.C. permit Consulting Engineers fee during permitting Total Estimated Permitting Cost Engineering Fee for Construction Documents City Plan Check Fee City Building Permit Fee •Estimated Construction Cost Engineering Services During Construction • Total Estimated Project Cost $ 75,500 3,950 30,000 100 12,000 30,000 1,500 11,000 23,000 $ 111,550 $ 150,000 6,600 10,200 4,454,000 45,000 $4,852,850 *Refer to Exhibit 28 Cash a Associates letter of May 29, 1987 for a discussion of these costs. EXHIBIT 27 `J PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Project: Castaways Marina Preliminary Design Concept - Scheme M Client: The Irvine Company CAA Job No: 2492.01 Date: Rev. 5/28/87 Item Quantity Unit Price Total 1. Mitigation for Tidal Hab. Loss 4,000 CY $ 12.00 $ 48,000.00* 2. Demo. Exist Blkhd. 8,016 SF $ 4.50 $ 36,072.00 3. Demo. S.D. Headwall 1,000 SF 4.50 4,500.00 4. Upland Dredging, Dry 25,000 CY 10.00 250,000.00 5. Upland Dredging, Wet 31,000 CY 12.00 372,000.00* 6. Water Dredging 20,000 CY 12.00 270,000.00* 7. New Bulkhead (S.S.P.) 1,000 LF 800.00 800,000.00* (Incl. Cathodic Protection) 8. Rock Revetted Slope 5,000 SF 6.00 30,000.00* 9. Grading 78,000 SF .10 7,800.00 10. . 11. Retaining Wall Sidewalk 750 4,750 SF SF 15.00 2.25 11,250.00 10,690.00 12. Curb 2,250 LF 4.00 91000.00 13. Paving (3" A.C. on 6" C.A.B.) 37,500 SF 1.35 50,625.00 14. Bulkhead Railing _ 815 LF _ 50.00 40,750.00 15. Landscaping 41,000 SF 3.00 123,000.00 16. Lighting 6 Poles 8,000.00 48,000.00 17. Storm Drain System L.S. 15,000.00 18. Sanitary Sewer System L.S. 25,000.00 (Incl. Lift Station) 19. Water Supply System L.S. 20,000.00 20. Fire Hydrants 2 ea. 2,000.00 4,000.00 21. Electrical Power Supply L.S. 20,000.00 22. Piles 162 ea. 2,400.00 389,000.00 23. Pile Supported Pier 1,200 SF 21.50 25,800.00 24. Floats 32,500 SF 35.00 1,137,500.00 25. Gangways 4 ea. 81000.00 32,000.00 26. Pump -A -Head 1 ea. 10,000.00 10,000.00 27. Toilet A Shower Building 2,500 SF 80.00 200,000.00 28. Toilet Building 800 SF 80.00 64,000.00* Subtotal $4,053,987.00 Contingency 10% 400,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $4,453,987.00* EXHIBIT 29 I• 01 0 Schedule Name: 'E IRYI►E CIL, CASTAM MARINA ProInt Kalloer: LAW ME As of date: 2-7uir87 1:47= Schedule File: B:0 TAWAl CITY OF NEWPDRT BERC14 CORPS OF ENGDEERS AND CA C88STAL CO0! PERMITS WEEKS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 A/ CITY PLANNING PER C K A101 OWES. FOR CITY CIA C A201 SUBMIT M CITY CIA C A20/ t . . . A25/ CITY REVIEW CIA C PZ/ � . 00/ DEIt7dMINATION C A30/.f . A35/ MIRON. DOCUIE CIA C .Am/ A40/ CITY REVIEW CAA R . . A40/ A451 CITY COIIENIS CiR . . A45/ 110001mm . . . A50/ ANSWER CITY CiA . . A50/ . . . AM/ FINAL REVIEW CiA R A /. 470/ C.U.P. ISSUED . . . 470! P( Bl CORPS PERMIT B/ K B10/ CORPS DRW6.S CiA 810/ 815/ CORPS ENNIRON. oC . . . B15/ B201 DREDGE KATL. TE CIA EeO/. 35/ SLOUT TO CORPS CIA C . . B25/ . B301 CORPS REVIEW CiA C . . B30/ . B35/ AXIC NOTICE CiA RC . . B351 a . .. . . . . . . B40/ AGENCY REVIEW CiA C _. B40/ B45/ CORPS REVIEW CL4 C . . . . B451.� B50/ ANSWER CORPS CIA AC B50/ i . . . . B55/ ADDITIONAL INFO C&4 C . . . . . B55/ . B60/ RELIC HFA INGS CiA DC . . . . . B601 ■ . . 865/ COE PERMIT ISSU PC . . . . 865/ N . C/ CA MAST COW PER . . . C/ N CIO/ AM IN CONCEPT n . . C101 m . C15/ SLC LETTER p . . . C15/ ■ . . C20/ EVID. CIE 9JNL o . . C20/ 1t . C251 REV. WILDLIFE A pp . . C25/.■ I C30/ SU& TO CA CO C p . . . . .C30/.§ C351 CCC REVIEiW Cis/ ummmmmmmmmmi-, C40/ NEARING n . . . . . 045/ DETERMINATION p . . . . . CC/ i C50/ RESPONSE . . . . C5D/ � . . C55/ ISSIE PERMIT . . . . D Dore +• Task - Slack time (as' or C critical ass Started task Resource delay (—w R Resource conflict K Nilestone ) Conflict D (Martial dependency Scale: Each character equals I day I TIE LINE Gantt Chart Resat strip ITIE LINE Gantt Chart Rem Strip 2 EXHIBIT 30 Schedule Name: THE IRVINE CO., CASTAWAYS MARINA • Protect Manager: LARRY NYE As of date: 29-May-87 12:57om Schedule File: B:CASTAWA2 WORKING DRAWINGS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION I • • 10/ IRVINE CO. NTP 20/ CONSTR. DOCIS. 30/ SUBMIT TO CITY 40/ CITY REVIEW 50/ PC REVISIONS GO/ ISSUE BLDG PERMIT 65/ BIDDING PHASE 70/ CONSTRUCTION 75/ OCCUPY MARINA MONTHS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C ■ C&A+ C C&A+ C 30/ ■ . CNB+ C 40/ , C&A+ C . . 50/. . CNB+ C GO/ i . C-P C 65/ C-P C 70/ C D Done � Task - Slack time (i ), or C Critical ■■■ Started task Resource delay C on) R Resource conflict M Milestone > Conflict o Partial deflendency Scale: Each character equals 1 week TIME LINE Gantt Chart Report 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75/. ■ Strio 1 -,!ME LINE Gantt Chart Report Strin 2 EXHIBIT 31 I • E L E V A T I O N P L A N L, BULKHEAD S RARING BULKHEAD A RAILING �I t c, ' ABmo C}.Y . s= GANGWAY 5Q, STO7-� E L E V A T I O N m f, A%0aQ 5 • EIMERS (213)"41 s ;i . MEN - ..... OMEN JAN Ili � GANGWAY it O ° I P L A N N .I q o 0 1& OCALE IN FEET EXHIBIT 32 CASTAWAYS MARINA / CONCEPT S FEASIBILITY STUDY G ALTERNATIVE MARINA BUILDINGS 2492.01 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPT savaximm REVI L-A 9 CASTAWAYS MARINA QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HYDRODYNAMICS AND SEDIMENTATION 0 r U CASTAWAYS MARINA QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF HYDRODYNAMICS AND SEDIMENTATION PREPARED FOR CASH & ASSOCIATES - ENGINEERS R/ VERTECH ,siftev INC JULY 1987 0 RI VERTECH lN[ CONSULTANTS IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING July 16, 1987 Mr Larry W. Nye, P.E. Cash & Associates Engineers 2599 East 28th Street P.O. Box 38 Long Beach, CA 90801 Dear Mr. Nye, Rivertech Inc. Is pleased to submit our attached report entitled "Castaways Marina, Qualitative Analysis of Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation". This report has been prepared with assistance and advice from Dr. Frederic Raichlen, Professor of Hydraulics at the California Institute of Technology. We have enjoyed working with you on this project and look forward for the opportunity to work with you again. Sincerely, RIVERTECH INC. asa�Nou� ` President 1400 QUAIL STM 1 ■ TABLE OF CONTENTS • DESCRIPTION PAGE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 TIDE CYCLE 2 DEPTH CONSIDERATION 3 WAVE CONSIDERATION 3 CURRENT AND CIRCULATION CONSIDERATION 4 EROSION AND DEPOSITION CONSIDERATION 5 FLOATING DEBRIS CONSIDERATION 6 Pi 0 r� AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Based on a qualitative analysis and a reconnaissance level study of sedimentation and hydrodymamics of the proposed Castaways Marina, Rivertech makes the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. Wind and ship generated waves are significant design parameters for the proposed Castaways 'Marina. Their magnitudes should be computed and their dynamics should be considered in the design. Although the designer is cautioned about their presence and magnitude, nevertheless, they do not pose a major problem. 2. Flood and tidal current velocities along the navigation channel could be very high. It is recommended that the design of the marina be based on the occurrence of the simultaneous events of the 100—year storm and the mean ebb tide. 3. To provide better tidal exchange rates between the marina and the navigation channel and to improve the flexibility of the 750 feet long floating dock, it is recommended that it be divided into three seperate components. • 4. To prevent excessive influx of sediment and floating debris into the marina a guiding van should be installed at the north end of the marina extending from the shoreline. • 5. Assuming the marina will be used by vessels requiring a draft of 4 feet, it is recommended that the bottom of the marina be dredged to elevation — 12.5 feet (MSL). This would allow a clearance of 3.6 feet between the bottoms of the basin and the vessel during the occurrence of extreme low tide. Adequate clearance will also improve tidal exchange rates between the marina and the main estuary. —1— IN INTRODUCTION Cash & Associates Engineers has recently completed a report entitled "Castaways Marina, Engineering Study and Feasibility Report". The report was prepared for The Irvine Company and its draft copy was submitted on June 15, 1987. Cash & Associates Engineers has asked Rivertech to prepare this report which qualitatively analyzes the hydrodynamics, water quality and sedimentation aspects of the recommended scheme. The Irvine Company with assistance from Cash & Associates Engineers is evaluating the development of a 4-acre site in Newport Bay to a marina. As shown in Figure 1 (also Figure 5), the site is located just north of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge in Newport Beach. Results of the qualitative analysis described in this report are based on information obtained from field observations, previous reports, meetings, telephone interviews and Rivert-ech's experience with similar estuaries. TIDE CYCLE The tide cycle at the mouth of Newport Bay with the Pacific Ocean are diurnal having an approximate period of 24 hours. These type of tides are produced by the phase relation of the sun, the moon and the earth. The relative ranges of the two daily tides continuously vary from small to large over a 28-day period. The characteristics of tide cycle in Newport Bay at the Pacific Coast Highway . (Project site) is approximately the same as that at its mouth. The following represents the estimated parameters of the tide cycle in the project site. • Mean lower low water = 0.00 feet Mean high water lunitidal interval = 5.13 hours Mean low water lunitidal interval = 11.15 hours Mean range of tide = 3.69 feet Mean tide level = 1/2 (mean high water + mean low water) = 2.79 feet Mean sea level = the mean of the hourly heights = 2.76 feet Mean high water diurnal inequality = 0.75 feet Mean great diurnal range = 5.40 feet Diurnal tide level = 2.70 feet Mean high water = 4.65 feet Mean low water = 0.93 feet Mean higher high water = 5.40 feet. Highest observed = 7.86 feet on January 28, 1983 Lowest observed = 2.14 feet on December 29, 1955 The actual elevation reached by a particular tide is further influenced by wind set-up on the ocean and in Newport Bay. In addition, magnitude of stormwater runoff from the area tributary to Newport Bay affects its elevation considerably. -2- a Santa Ana — Delhi Channel DOVER DR PROJECT SITE R/VERMCH ..�g8M�j v Sand Canyon _. Wash Newport Bay • PACIFIC.COAST HWY jOQojfi0-\ San Diego Creek NORTH MILES 0 11 2 Peters Canyon Wash Newport Bay Watershed Boundary LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 DEPTH CONSIDERATION • The recommended scheme which is depicted in Figure 2 (Scheme M shown as Exhibit 25 in Cash & Associates' report) describes that the basin for the Castaways Marina will be dredged to a depth of - 10.7 feet mean sea level (MSL). Assuming a draft- of 4 feet for the vessels, this arrangement at extreme low tide will allow a clearance of only 1.8 feet. This is shown in Figure 3. The corresponding clearance for the floating docks is estimated to be 2.8 feet. Rivertech believes that• these clearances may not be adequate. It is recommended that the marina basins be dredged to an elevation of at least 12.5 feet (MSL). This would permit adequate clearance as well as allowance for any sedimentation which may occur. The extreme high tide has been measured to be 5.1 feet above mean sea level. Thus, one could expect a tidal excursion of the order of between 10 and 11 feet. This is not as much of a concern as the extreme low tide but is mentioned here as just the fact that there should be awareness of this tidal range in designating the various components of the marina. WAVE CONSIDERATIONS A brief review of literature in evaluating the problem of boat generated water wave revealed that there are some related concerns that the designer of the Castaways Marina should consider. Area "A" which is between the 750 feet floating dock (slips 61 through 125) and the wetlands, shown in Figure 2, is more critical since excessive wave generation could promote erosion, disturb the marine life and reduce the habitat values along the shoreline. • Our reconnaissance level analysis revealed that a cabin cruiser of about 3 tons displacement would generate waves with maximum wave heights between 6 inches and 1 foot at a distance of 100 feet away from the sailing line of the vessel when it is traveling at speeds of 5 to 6 knots. For the same speed, a 40-foot U.S. Coast Guard cutter generates maximum waves that are about 1 foot high about 100 feet away from the vessel. For both of the above cases, the wave period is about 2 seconds. • Slips 61 through 98 would be subject to ship generated waves, since there may be more high speed activity along the navigation channel. For example, at a ship speed between 10 and 15 knots a 4-foot U.S. Coast Guard cutter generates wave heights of 2 feet at a distance of 100 feet from the sailing line. Similarly, a 3-ton cabin cruiser generates waves of the order of 0.7 feet at the same distance and speed. Another type of wave which may be present at the proposed marina are those generated by wind. Spring and fall Santa Ana winds blow down the Newport Bay estuary and can generate waves upto 2 feet high at high tide when the fetch is long. Lesser waves would be expected at lower tides. Still another type of waves as that generated by on -shore breezes. Their range is estimated to be up to 6 inches. Although we do not believe that any one of the type of waves described above is a problem for the proposed Castaways Marina, nevertheless, one should consider them in the design analysis. -3- 0 • O 0 x ST6 x x e to- w x � x x x x NOTES IQ EXISTING a L *,-AD TO Be REMOVED 2Q PROPOSED BASIN DREDGED TO -10 MSL 3Q PROPOSED STE-'. S-EcET PILE B-UaZAD x ® aS ROOK PROTEC21 SLOPE QSt jmep PROPOSE FLOATMG DOCKS © ` PROPOSED GANGWAYS 7Q FROPOSE9 SANITARY PLMP- Lrr STATION ® PROPOSED PLLE `3PPORTE7 Pa2 U�iPROPOSED IRRIGATED FLANi1NG x IZ yPROPOSED REC.M6TRUCTED DRIVEWAY 13 9 smi G SIDEWALK I® �tlSTIN— G BII� PATH I5 E aSRNG BRIDGE I6 EXISTING PROPEa TX-6R•E— 1 L PROPCSEO RETAINING WALL / / �1x--- — is PROPOS= TOIIF EUILDING msrove 19 PROPOSED RAIUNC• P ®NLGi YLiI_ � / Z UIDE VAN PROPOSED BY RIVERTECH -� 1 x / , t>L / wnurxa x Cows IB R40 t d / �$d a / / tp 9 de+ \/� 19 �rSSj �O S / / / / / / SCHEME A/ O a / U ^' 0 a 7 r / / / SLIP COUNT A Jj 6 �c / / m r / / C sr� N.r.+� :orn�r-oornre s hI ,p 45• SLIPS 52 2250 47 SLIPS 39 1638 38' SLIPS 19 722 35• SLIPS 8 280 / SIDE TIES 7 280 / roves 125 5270 94 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED 108 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED FIGURE 2 2;o2.o, MSL=O 12.76' - - VESSEL ------------------- EXTREME LOW TIDE MLLW 3.0' SLIP I 4.6' CLEARANCE 3.6' CLEARANCE RECOMMENDED BY RIVERTECH FEASIBILITY REPORT ESTIMATED BOTTOM RIVERTECH INC CLEARANCE LIMITS FIGURE 3 i NlFq CURRENT AND CIRCULATION CONSIDERATION • The rise and fall of the ocean, combined with the presence of pools and constrictions that characterize upper and lower Newport Bay produce tidal currents at various locations in Newport Bay. These currents are strongest at constrictions such as the section of the bay at Pacific Coast Highway and weakest at locations where the estuary widens. Velocity measurements made on December 20, 1983 by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge are shown in Figure 4. On this date, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) station in Newport Beach shows the following tidal measurements. 0 Low water = 2.50 feet at 02.0 hours Higher high water = 7.15 feet at 08.5 hours Lower low water = 0.96 feet at 15.9 hours High water = 3.76 feet at 22.3 hours A comparison of these measurements with the mean tide cycle values, described previously, indicates that on this date very high and low tides were present in Newport Beach. In fact the higher high water elevation is only 0.71 foot less than the highest recorded value which occurred in January of the same year. Therefore, the measured values shown in Figure 4 are close to the upper limit of velocities which may be present at the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge in the Bay. This figure shows that tidal velocities exceed 3 feet per second in the navigation channel and reduce to zero close to the bridge abutment. Velocities may increase significantly at the navigation channel in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge during major storm events. During the storm of March 1, 1983, the harbor master has estimated the current speed to be in excess of 10 knots (17 feet/sec.). His estimate was based upon engine revolutions required to maintain a steady boat position in the channel. Rivertech believes that this estimate is probably higher than actual. It is possible that wind resistance was also a contributing factor. The designer of the proposed Castaways Marina is cautioned to note the proximity of the high velocity field of the navigation channel to the marina. The floating dock which houses slips 61 through 125 would be most susceptible to damage by high velocity currents. A review of the velocity field at the bridge shows that velocities quickly reduce to negligible values when the location changes from the channel to the abutment. In addition, field observation indicated evidence of sediment deposition adjacent to the western bridge abutment. Construction of the proposed marina probably would not alter these currents appreciably. Therefore, the desired level of circulation in areas "B" and "C" of the marina shown in Figure 2 may not be achieved at all times. The opening under the gangway which is located adjacent to slips number 1 and 39 allows surface water circulation and should enhance the water quality. Rivertech recommends that the channel adjacent to the pile (labeled as 8 in Figure 2) be maintained as large and possible. This is because the marina in the vicinity of the pier • constriction which would probably cause excessive velocities. —4— supported pier unobstructed as has a major 0 t I SUBSEA NUMBERS r-1 3 0 z 0 2 w F W W LL z_ } F- U 0 1 w 0 X Q 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 16 1T 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 \/ N. io.f 8.0 6.0 4.0 2-0 0 MAXIMUM TIDAL VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 1 _2 _4 _0 AfTl 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 DISTANCE IN FEET 3 J J F W W LL z_ z 0 .o > w J O W .0 .0 0.0 2.0 4.0 16.0 RI VGRj GCH ./ t 2 INC MAXIMUM TIDAL VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION AT PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE OVER NEWPORT BAY (LOOKING NORTH) FIGURE 4 Assuming economy permits, we recommend that the 750 feet long floating dock be divided into three sections. This is to improve the tidal currents between the navigation channel and the shoreward located mud flats. We recommend that the region of berths 111-112 and 86-87 be replaced by a walkway connecting the two sections. In addition, in the region of berths 122-123 and 75-76 a similar break in the dock be provided. With these openings the following advantages can be achieved: 1. Tidal exchange rates between the navigation channel and Area "A" will be increased. 2. The tidal and flood velocities at the pier, labeled 8 in Figure 2, will be reduced. 3. Improved flexibility for the 750-foot long floating dock. The above recommendation is of particular significance since the 750-foot long dock would be subject to high flood velocities as well as wind and boat generated waves. EROSION AND DEPOSITION CONSIDERATIONS During the past few years, an effective and rigorus sediment control management r has been practiced in the Upper Newport Bay. If current practice of sediment control management in Upper Newport Bay continues, very little maintenance and dredging will be required in the Lower Newport Bay and in the vicinity of the proposed Castaways Marina. San Diego Creek Channel (see Figure 1) is the major source of sediment yield to Newport Bay. Its sediment load can be classified as C o Wash load 0 o Suspended load o Bedload Nearly all of the bedload and suspended load settle in the sediment traps constructed in the lower reaches of San Diego Creek Channel or Upper Newport Bay. During the last few years, large quantities of sediment deposits were removed from the sediment traps and from the Upper Newport Bay. If the existing trapping efficiency in the sediment traps and in Upper Newport Bay is maintained, it would be very unlikely for bedload and suspended load to reach Lower Newport Bay or the area in the vicinity of the Pacific Coast Highway. Washload, however, behaves differently. In freshwater, wash load particles repel each other because their ions have like charges. Once freshwater is mixed with saltwater, ion exchanges occur and particles become cohesive. In this manner, aggregates are formed and estuarine deposits are produced. When this accumulation grows thicker, the weight of the deposit crushes the lower aggregates in the bed, making the bed more dense and stronger. -5- r The interface between freshwater and ocean water can happen anywhere in Newport Bay upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway, depending on the volume of stormwater and phase of tide cycle. Therefore, the phenomenon of cohesion and aggradation can occur anywhere in the Newport Bay upstream of the Pacific Coast Highway. The new deposits are often disturbed and resuspended by wave action that occurs during windy periods and passage of vessels. Subsequently, tide currents redistribute this suspended material into regions where wave action and turbulence is less intense. It- is the preceding process that would cause deposition of material in the proposed Castaways Marina. Field observation at the proposed marina site showed very little evidence of organic or fine material deposits. The high currents which are present in and in the vicinity of the navigation channel may be the reason behind the absence of this type of deposits. At some isolated locations, such as the area adjacent to the bridge abutment evidence of deposition was noted. This is probably because the combination of the existing bulkhead, bridge pier and bridge abutment has caused a stagnation zone and hence has promoted the process of deposition. The area to the west of the proposed 750 feet long floating dock will probably have the tendency to erode rather than to deposit. As explained previously, r this area is subject to strong wave action and is a relatively higher velocity zone. The division of the 750 feet long floating dock into three components, would provide better tidal communication between the navigation channel and the marina area west of the dock. In addition, we recommend that some type of a guide van be installed at upstream of this area. Its approximate location is shown in Figure 2. Installation of such a guide van will have the following advantages: o Reduces wave action in Area "A" o Enhances the habitat values of the mud flat along the shore . o Reduces the high velocity currents which may exist at the pier between Area "A' and Area "B" during major storms and during ebb of spring tides (high range tides). o Reduces the chance of sediment and floating debris entering the marina area. FLOATING DEBRIS CONSIDERATION Although the problem of floating debris is not a major concern in Newport Bay, nevertheless, it would probably become a problem in the future. The watershed which is tributary to Newport Bay is currently experiencing the dynamics of the development. With the continued rate of development in the watershed, floating debris will probably become a major problem in Newport Bay in the future. As far as floating debris is concerned, the marina areas designated by "A" and "B" in Figure 2 should have minimal problems. This is because currents are strong at their entrance and in all probability would transport the floating debris away from the proposed marina. —6— 0 The City of Newport- Beach has Bay to mi.ttigate this problem 5. The direction of current extended into the Bay only floating debris is carried to 0 0 installed a debris trapping boom in Upper The location of this boom is shown in at this location is such that the boom has for about — 1/3 of the channel width. Most the North Star Beach and is trapped by the —7— Newport Figure to be of the boom. m L i FLOATING DEBRIS NORTH STAR BEACH DEBRIS TRAP BOOM r. BACK BAY DR DOVER DR W ESTCLIFF DR r" Upper ' Newport Bay EAST BLUFF DR BACK E-BAY DR NEWPORT CENTER BALBOA H ISLAND ll PROPOSED Newport CASTAWAYS Bay MARINA NORTH pacific Ocean 1 MILE RI VERTECM SURFACE DEBRIS TRAP FIGURE y ,NC AT UPPER NEWPORT BAY 5 CASTAWAYS MARINA LOCATION AND STATUS OF SUBMARINE CABLE IN NEWPORT BAY 0 M E M 0 R A M D U M TO: Randy Mason (C&A) FROM: Jim Pence (C&A) DATE: November 1992 SUBJECT: Location and Status of Submarine Cable in Newport Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I have met with Mal Brown (Engineering Department of Pacific Bell 714-25974478) and he gave me a schematic drawing (see attached) of the telephone manholes on the proposed site of the new Castaways Marina. Their records show the manholes are still in place and the cable that goes across Newport Bay was disconnected and abandoned in place. Their records now indicate that this cable is not in use. E �L(I , t= ( I ' I I. I I • I I I lO.a K� I. nsi 007 I . I . I - I I _ I I I I i I I I . I 1 1 • - 1 i i i i 'i c -I 0 '2o �P g NN PP � �C i r� 1 C I N I I I r . ISSUE 10-17—� SEG. NO. 1410 7636 CZ AM SEE=CEFT " 9O THE PAC. TEL AND TEL CO. HIFTIOO OF: 5306 (rWTJ DIVISION _AN T N 4,JF. EXCHANGE NCYIPORT BEACH (LE IB) C.O. DISTFUCT COSTA MESA L( G CA SCALE: G SHEET NO. r 7 MOUE