HomeMy WebLinkAboutJ-1 - Dock Construction - Newport Aquatic CenterCity Council Agenda
Item No. J-1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: May 8, 1989
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PARKS, BEACHES and RECREATION DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DOCK CONSTRUCTION - NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER
Recommendation:
Y T F7 ZY COUNCIL
CITY �)I AEMPORT BEACH
Approve the following conditions regulating the construction of
a dock by the Newport Aquatic Center on North Star Beach. The
conditions were formulated after review of this matter by the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission at their meeting of
May 2, 1989 and approved by a vote of 5 to 2.
1. Permit the Aquatic Center to deposit dredge material on the
portion of the site which forms the foundation of the build -
expansion designated as Phase Two. Deposited dredge material
shall not exceed 1,500 cubic yards.
2. Prohibit grading within 15' of the existing block wall con-
tiguous with North Star Lane.
3. Permit the Aquatic Center to grade excavation material within
the limits of fill upon verification of its compatibility
with the existing material as determined by soils analysis.
The extent of grading will be limited to an elevation change
within the limits of fill not to exceed 12".
4. The material resulting from any future maintenance dredging
shall be accommodated offsite at the Aquatic Center's expense.
5. All material to be deposited onsite shall be monitored by
appropriate state and federal agencies and that documentation
shall be available for public inspection.
Background:
In February, 1989, the Department became aware of plans proposed
by the Newport Aquatic Center to construct a dock on a portion
of North Star Beach for launching and general use of rowing and
paddling craft. The project has been reviewed and approved by
environmental agencies which regulate activity in the Upper Bay
with the exception of grading and dredging permits authorized
by the City. Conditions placed on the project by the environ-
mental review process required that a portion of the beach be
excavated and dredged in order to not impinge on the Fish and
Game preserve. None of the agencies involved in the regulatory
process conditioned the removal of the excavation and dredge
material from the site. The option to dispose of the material
on or offsite was left to the discretion of the Aquatic Center
or the City and/or the County of Orange as joint owners of the
property.
In its consideration of the material disposal issues, the
Commission concluded that use of the dredge material as the
foundation for the Phase Two building should pose no environ-
mental concerns as long as the material is compatible with the
existing soil as verified by soils analysis. The Commission
was also concerned that the toxicity of all material be moni-
tored appropriately and available for public inspection. The
Commission continually referred to the community recreation
benefits resulting from Aquatic Center programs as grounds for
accommodation of all material onsite. The Aquatic Center cited
the prohibitive costs of offsite disposal, ranging from $60,000
to $125,000 depending on the volume and method of removal.
The Commission's action is objected to by individuals concerned
about the environmental quality of the.beach, particularly Frank
Robinson, a long-time environmental advocate and a resident of
the Westcliff area. Mr. Robinson contends that deposits of
dredge material and excavated material below 5 feet further
degrades North Star Beach. The Aquatic Center contends that the
soils analysis verifies the compatibility of both dredge and ex-
cavation material with the existing beach material. The existing
material is composed approximately of 90% soil and 10% silt.
To provide the City Council.with additional information on this
matter, attachments are provided as listed.
1. An internal staff memo that describes the project.
2. An.internal staff memo that documents regulatory agencies
review and approvals of the project.
3. A recent February 13, 1989 Marine Department report to the
City Council approves the dock construction project.
4. A soils analysis provided by the Newport Aquatic Center
that indicates the quality of material found in the excava-
tion area.
RONALD A. WHITLEY
RW: cd
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: March 21, 1989
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
FROM: Recreation Superintendent
SUBJECT: North Star Beach
Recommendation:
Present to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission for transmission to the
City Council the opportunity to approve or deny the dock construction project at
North Star Beach. The Commission's review will provide public discussion of this
project proposed by the Newport Aquatic Center. The project raises some environ-
mental concerns due to on-site dredging and excavation and whether or not such
activity will degrade the beach. The answer to this fundamental question appears
to be both technical and political.
Background:
In February the Department became aware of imminent plans proposed by the Newport
Aquatic Center to construct a dock by dredging and excavating a small portion of
North Star Beach. The area proposed for dredging and excavating totals 10,000
cubic yards. The Aquatic Center proposes to spread the material over 5.79 acres
located on the site, resulting in an elevation change of (+) 12". The Aquatic
Center believes that the material dredged and excavated will be similar to the
presently existing material consisting of an approximate ratio of 90% sand and
10% silt.
When this project came to the attention of Frank Robinson, various environmental
and engineering issues were raised. The issues were discussed at two meetings
attended by staff members from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation, Marine and
Planning Departments, Aquatic Center Boardmembers and Mr. Robinson. The meetings
resulted in an impasse due to Mr. Robinson's insistence that material dredged and
excavated should not be accommodated on site. Such material should be disposed
of, preferably by sea, since accommodation on site by grading could further
degrade the quality of the beach. The Aquatic Center insists that the compati-
bility of the existing material with material dredged and/or excavated allows
for accommodation on site. Further, disposal by sea would be cost prohibitive.
The Aquatic Center also reasoned that the dredging itself is an environmental
requirement, conditioned by the State Department of Fish and Game in order to
replenish a portion of the Upper Bay Preserve.lost due to the dock construction.
In fact, the Aquatic Center has received approvals from all required Federal, State
and local agencies involved in environmental regulation of the Upper Bay. The only
permits still required are a grading permit issued by the City's Building Depart-
ment and a dredging permit issued by the Marine Department. Both approvals are
being withheld pending a resolution of this matter.
Based on the approvals already received by the Aquatic Center, including an amend-
ment to the Center's Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission in August of
1988, it appears that the project is permissible from an environmental and engineering
standpoint. However, Frank Robinson believes that the volume of dredging and
excavation proposed for accommodation on the site is not acceptable due to the
2 following reasons:
-2-
1. Additional elevation changes may impair future beach restoration/
enhancement projects.
2. Possible inaccuracy of soils testing, which could mean that material
dredged or excavated consisting of more than 10% silt may be deposited.
3. The historical precedents established by stopping previous attempts to
deposit similar material at North Star Beach.
It bears repeating that Mr. Robinson does not oppose construction of the dock;
his opposition is to use of North Star Beach as a site to accommodate dredge and
excavation material. Therefore, resolution of this issue seems to require a
policy review by both the Commission and the Council.
A1fPrnAtivac-
Three main alternatives should be proposed for review by the Commission and the
Council. These alternatives are based on the issues presented during the two
meetings:
1. Allow the excavating and dredging fill to be spread on the 5.79 acres
as long as the elevation change does not exceed 12" and subject to veri-
fication of a soils report proving compatibility with the present material.
2. Allow spreading of the excavation fill only subject to verification of its
compatibility with the existing material; require the Aquatic Center to
dispose of the dredge material. It is estimated that the excavation fill
constitutes 7,500-8,000 cubic yards.
3. Deny any spreading of excavated or dredged material and require its disposal
off site.
I will be happy to respond to any questions or concerns regarding this report.
The interested parties are anxious to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
cc: Tony Melum, Tidelands Administrator
9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n /
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department (/
DATE: March 22, 1989
TO: Tony Melum, Tidelands Administrator
FROM: Mark Deven, Recreation Superintendent
SUBJECT: Aquatic Center Permits
Attached are permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and the California
Coastal Commission for the dock construction. It appears that the Aquatic
Center has received the necessary approvals. According to Curt Fleming,
the Corps of Engineers acted as the lead regulatory agency, consolidating
the required conditions of State Fish and Game, Federal Fish and Wildlife and
local agencies with the exception of the Coastal Commission and the City.
The Coastal Commission permit was received independent of the Corps.
Comments regarding the Center's permit status with regulatory agencies based
on the attached permits may be helpful at Tuesday's meeting.
Ma Deven
cc: Ronald A. Whitley, Director
Dave Harshbarger, Marine Director
6-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permittee:
Newport Aquatic Center
ATTN: Curtis Fleming
One White Cliff Drive
Newport Beach, California 92663
Permit Number:
88 -305 -GS
Issuing Office:
Los Angeles District
NOTE: The term "you,, and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any
future transferee. The term Itthis office" refers to the appropriate district or division office
of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate
official acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description: dredge approximately 4000 cubic yards of. material for an entrance channel;
excavate approximately 5100 cubic yards of material for the launching area; place rock rip -rap
for erosion protection on the slope of the launch area
Project Location: Upper Newport Bay at a location adjacent to the existing Newport Aquatic
Center at 1 Whitecliff Drive in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California.
Permit Conditions
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the autho(ized activity ends on November 15, 1991. If you find
that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a time
extension to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance
with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you
abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in
compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized
activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a
modification from this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing
the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have
found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains
warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
I
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the
new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the
transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must
comply with the conditions specified in the certification as. special conditions to this permit.
For your convenience, a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any
time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished with the terms and
conditions of your permit.
Special Conditions: See attached sheet
Further Information:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described
above pursuant to:
Structures or work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States - Section 10,
River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
Discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States - Section 404,
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or IocaI
authorizations required by law.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights.or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal
project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume
any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or
unpermitted activities or from natural cause_.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future
activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or
structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies with the permitted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this
permit. -
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit
is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at
any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but
are not limited to, the following:
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been
false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the
original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension,
modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such
as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for
the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of
your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to
pay for any corrective measure ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such
directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170)
accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity
authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion
of -the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will
normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit.
Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms
and conditions of this permit.
-1--- r 9- 0 N��-
(PE P.M I IIEE ) (DATE )
This permit becomes effective when the Fedora: official, designated to act for the Secretary of
the Army, has signed below.
1,�" "S"
CHARLES M. HOLT
Chief, Regulatory Branch
(for the District Engineer)
(DATE )
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time the
property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit will continue to be binding on
the new owners) of the property. To validate the transfer of this permit and the associates
liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign
and date below.
a (TRANSFEREE)
(DATE )
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
PERMIT NO. 88 -305 -GS
1. All activities must be a minimum of 60 feet from the nearest boundary
of the riparian zone.
2. No excavation shall in any way damage vegetation or change the
elevation of the vegetated wetland zone.
3. The pickleweed and cord grass areas adjacent to and on the south side
of the mouth of the existing riparian zone are generally in the +1 to +2 foot
elevation of the intertidal zone and shall not be touched under any
circumstances. When the square footage figure is available for the area
between the pickleweed and cord grass and the proposed mouth of the dock
basin, at the +1 to +2 (MLLW) contours plateau shall be created adjacent to
the existing cord grass and pickleweed so as to enhance those plant
communities.
4. The dock and related structures must not impinge upon or effect in any
way the property of the ecological reserve.
5. The intertidal zone is defined from -1.5 to +7.5 foot MLLW. Any
removal, loss, or destruction of wetlands wihin the intertidal zone shall be
mitigated by the creation of a like quantity and quality of intertidal
habitat, as is reflected on sheet one of two which is attached to the permit.
6. The dredge spoil and fill material removed during construction of the
dock basin shall be spread over the remaining portion of the site at the south
side of the building or moved off site. Fill material shall not be placed
where it will destroy wetland habitat.
7. That this permit is not valid until the California Coastal Commission
concurs that this project is consistent with the State of California's Coastal
Zone Management Program.
8. That the permittee shall: Notify the Commander (oan) Eleventh Coast
Guard District, Union Bank Building, 400 Ocean Gate, Long Beach, California
90822, (213) 499-5410 at least 2 weeks prior to start of the activity and 30
days if buoys are to be placed. The notification should include the following
information: 1. The location of the work site; 2. The size and type of
equipment that will be performing the work; 3. Name and radio call signs for
working vessels, if applicable; 4. Telephone number for on-site contact with
project engineers; 5. The schedule for completing the project. The Aids to
Navigation Branch should be advised of any hazard to navigation. The
applicant should also contact the Aids to Navigation Branch concerning
requirements for marking the dock.
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Goremor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION -
:SOUTH COAST AREA
'265 WEST BROADWAY, SURE 380 Page 1 of 2
LONG BEACH, CA 90802 Date: January 5, 19
(213) 590-5071 Permit No. 5-84-786A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
On November 16, 1988, the California Coastal Commission granted to
Newport Aquatic Center & City of Newport Beach
this permit subject to the attached Standard and Special conditions, for
development consisting of
more specifically described in the application file in the Commission offices.
The development is within the coastal zone in Orange County at
One Whitecliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA
Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by
PETER DOUGLAS
Executive Director
By:
Title: Staff Analyst
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide
by all terms and conditions thereof.
The undersigned permittee acknowledges that Government Code Section 818.4 which
states in pertinent part, that: "A public entity is not liable for injury caused
by the issuance. . . of any permit. . ." applies to the issuance of this permit.
IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH
THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED I THE COMMISSI OFFICE. 14 Cal.
Adm i Code Section 13158(a).
Date Si ature of P rmittee
A6: 4/88 / C
1("
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
TANDARD CONDITIONS:
Page 2 of 2
Permit No. 5-84-786A
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and
development shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the
permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and
acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not commenced, the permit will expire two
years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application.
Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a
reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be
made prior to the expiration date.
3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the
proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special
conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be
reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval.
4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition
will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission.
5. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and
the project during its development, subject to 24-hour advance notice.
6. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided
assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and
conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be
perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to
bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms
and conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
NOTE: Unless specifically altered by the amendment all conditions attached
to the previously approved permit remain in effect.
1. Prior to issuance of coastal permit, the applicant shall submit to the
Executive Director for review and approval, revised plans which incorporate:
all of the items enumerated in the letter dated October 6, 1988 from the DFG
(exhibit 2 of this report);
an agreement stating that representatives from the Department of Fish and
Game and/or US Fis and Wildlife Services will be present on-site during the
construction activities;
written approval by DFG that the revised plans are in accord with their
concerns.
8509A
page i
February 13, 1989
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Marine Department
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Marine Department
_>nda Item F.13.(c)
FEB 13 1989
SUBJECT: HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION 109-420 BY THE
NEWPORT AQUATIC CENTER TO BUILD A NEW RAMP
AND FLOAT AT THE AQUATIC CENTER BAYWARD OF
420 NORTH STAR LANE
Recommendation:
---------------
If desired, approve this application subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of the Army Corps of Engineers
2. Approval of the California Coastal Commission
3. Approval of the plans and specifications by the
City Public Works Department
4. That the appropriate City Department review their
insurance and determine that they are sufficiently
insured in light of the fact that the pier and ramp
have no hand rails.
Discussion:
This application is before the City Council as required by Section
5.B. of the Harbor Permit Policies, which states:
5.B. "Prior approval of the City Council will be required
before the Marine Department may issue any permit that does not
conform to the Standard Drawings and the adopted Harbor Permit
Policies."
The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, on August 18,
1988, approved Use Permit #3104 for the Newport Aquatic Center to
build a launching dock bayward of their facility on North Star
beach. This construction requires a Harbor Permit from the City of
Newport Beach.
page 2
The purpose of this pier and float will be to facilitate the
launching of rowing and paddling boats. As a result of the
length, shape and fragility of the boats that will be launched
from this location, the standard pier and float details required
by the City drawings are not appropriate.
In particular, the pier, down to the floating portion of the
structure, must be built without handrails to facilitate the
carrying of the boats from the uplands down to the dock to be
launched. Prior to the construction of the pier, it would be
recommended that the insurance provided by the Newport Aquatic
Center be reviewed to satisfy Condition #4 above.
Tony M lum
Tidel nds Administrator
page 3
TRAUTWEIN BROS. SUBJECT: !/«7US�//L�iQ_k%�I`��OvU� _�'i�.,c SHEET No.
WATERFRONT CONSTRUCTION �Di'Z % /U€��r�o 27f a�(� Ui471c c�,u:Z JOB No.____.__._____..__
General Engineering ContractorsC`i �iAc�2Y ��Cta OPPc
2410 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663
(714) 673.1960 By- DAT
DAT
PPIAX
515 0 +Z4 CHKD. BY ___ DATE _
X,
0
P 2 (06 14AMO2Ait) -, 2 -,e36 i \
(L
AAA J' X/ f� (►� O r J7pClC�
�No �-rnNv2ni��
Typre-'AZ- u
/o'F/9'°omrpr
PL ASU
,t=
----------- ---
!6'
Page
( a2�
F
(LEASE—L/NE_
i A/9BSLOPE �TYP�,��y
-
rc
OOOi //.fO TC11.4
m' �
00 re
u 9f 7c . rc s99 7Ca, /c /z re / � /i e Tc • �„ 1
rlx 39 FS ,Iy /062 FS-,.. /Q 58 FL
/o -to Fi
/0. 76 FL I� /Q fO Fi /O.l4 FG_' 9.DO FL p � w 9.80
A,4 U
5
��7
.�y y
\, �'Ip�N `'ti tip�rry•'S 'O � z-.�. p� r3�J � y �<✓
v;o
fG
...0 N /249 7c
„99 Frj
SI
IA
�-,�"3`Sa
U7 R
z �I rrs�l 1 l■1�1's w�l/1
00
tS tVN A _ -k
OD
L17,I -. - --- I til'b I\ lin\ iry
La
Ij
"' ,�_�.y his e� � I� � �� ��a I � •% � /n-
/M/T OF_._f
OIiEiYEXC_9ri9T/O/v
g6.' t„
ffECOMP,9CTj02/: �f.n f w
I �R� i M
Tj
as �.
i '7irs rc /ec' /oda rc
r D .Vf BB 7c y rtQi Fj Ia.�f vs; /ore N I
07BF[, HP I�h
osiFLt I 77C W !, Iw v991J 7c'
/047 FL GSOi�FG' .tSs I,��
�:eN LEASE L I'VE
1057-71
<�r4S 4
}, o
i gra _
pp �d
ti
W
Harding Lawson Associates
May 2, 1989
17678,003.11
Newport Aquatic Center
c/o Mr. Curtis Fleming
Grubb & Ellis Company
4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1500
Newport Beach, California 92660
Gentlemen:
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Dock Excavation and Dredging
Newport Aquatic Center
Northstar Beach
Newport Beach, California
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Messrs. Curtis Fleming and George Jenkins of the
Newport Aquatic Center, Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) has performed
a supplemental geotechnical investigation to assess the grain size
characteristics of the soils within the area to be excavated (8,000
cubic yards +) and dredged (900 cubic yards +). HLA previously
reported the results of a geotechnical investigation for the facility
on March 10, 1986, and the results of our observations and testing
during grading/construction on September 4, 1987.
The scope of our services for this investigation included:
1. Drillinga single boring with hollow stem auger equipment to a
depth of approximately 14 feet (elevation -5 feet + MSL);
2. Obtaining samples of the soil at depths of 3 to 4 feet and 13 to
14 feet to represent soils expected to be exposed during
excavation and dredging, respectively;
3. Performing grain -size analyses on the two samples for determin-
ation of soil classification and for comparison with grain size
analyses from previous samples/borings at the site; and
4. Preparing this report transmitting the results of our investiga-
tion and our conclusions and recommendations.
Engineering and 15621 Redhill Avenue, Suite 100, Tustin, California 92680 714/259.7992 2131617.7232
Environmental Services A Subsidian of Harding Associates • Ofres Nationwvdr
May 2, 1989 Harding Lawson Associates
17678,003.11
Mr. Curtis Fleming
Grubb & Ellis Company
Page 2
EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
On April 27, 1989, a single test boring, designated B-8, was drilled
to a depth of 14 feet with hollow stem auger equipment operated by
Datum Exploration of Long Beach, California. Plate 1 illustrates the
location of the boring in relation to the proposed excavation/dredge
area. The ground surface elevation at the boring location was approx-
imately 8.5 feet MSL.
The boring was logged and sampling operations directed by our field
geologist. Soil samples were obtained at depths of 3 to 4 feet and 13
to 14 feet using a Sprague and Henwood, split -barrel sampler driven
with a 140 -pound drop hammer. Soils were visually classified in the
field using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488-84) and
confirmed in the laboratory (ASTM D2487-85). A brief log of the
boring is presented below:
LOG OF BORING B-8
Depth, Feet Soil Description
0 to 7.5 Light Brown SAND (SP), loose, dry to moist,
with shell fragments
7.5 to 14 Dark Gray SAND with silt (SP -SM), medium
dense, wet, with shell fragments
No appreciable organic matter or organic -stained soils were -encoun-
tered. Free groundwater was observed at a depth of approximately 7.5
feet (elevation +1 + MSL).
Plate 2 presents the results of the grain -size analyses performed on
the two samples. The results of these analyses indicate that the
soils encountered in the excavation/dredge area are generally poorly
graded sands with silt fractions ranging from 2 to 12 percent. Six
grain -size analyses from previous borings revealed similar soil condi-
tions, with all six samples found to be poorly graded sands with silt
(SP or SP -SM) or silty sands (SM) with silt fractions ranging from 2
to 13 percent.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this investigation indicate that the soils in the exca-
vation/dredge area are highly similar in grain -size distribution to
the soils currently exposed at the surface of the site. It is our
!f
May 2, 1989
17678,003.11
Mr. Curtis Fleming
Grubb & Ellis Company
Page 3
Harding Lawson Associates
opinion that, when spread evenly in designated fill areas and allowed
to dry, no visually discernable differences in soil type will be evi-
dent to the untrained eye.
The exploration and testing conducted as part :of this investigation
were designed to provide confirmation of conclusions drawn from pre-
vious data and, as a result, were limited in scope. To accomodate the
possibility that soils will be exposed during excavation that differ
from those encountered in this and the previous HLA investigation, we
recommend that 'contingencies be allowed for disposing of unsuitable
soils. For example, highly organic soils or soils with high clay or
silt content, if encountered, could be buried on site and capped with
existing near -surface sandy soils, or could be disposed of off site.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this pro-
ject. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES
Bartlett W. Patton
Geotechnical Engineer 672
BWP:ja
Enclosures: Plates 1 and 2
Harding Lawson Associates Particle Size Analysis PLATE
imEngineers and Geosaentists Newport Aquatic Center 2
. Newport Beach, California
DRAWN JOB NUMBER AP ROV DATE REVISED DATE
HK 17678,003.11 5/89
li�lll��l�l��iiOF
��l����lllllll■
Is
�III�WII��IIA1��111■�IIIIOII�
IINI�II��IIInA�'�11��11111111�
I���Illi�lll�i�lllll��lll�
�EI101�111�
II�R��I�II�111111
ILII■�11911�NIII1lnllll1�111�
11111■��
�fllflll►��Ialll■�I�
��el
illl��!l1111�11�1�SAMPLE
SOURCE
CLASSIFICATION8-
8 at 3.51
BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)B-
8 at 13.51
GRAY SAND WITH SILT (SP -Sm)
Harding Lawson Associates Particle Size Analysis PLATE
imEngineers and Geosaentists Newport Aquatic Center 2
. Newport Beach, California
DRAWN JOB NUMBER AP ROV DATE REVISED DATE
HK 17678,003.11 5/89
��� GgJP , F� - - - t
R
t�Q Ga�05 Q RSG:.' EXPLANATION
120
E p� W `�'
GO tJp
�HLA boring, Previous investigation `` " y
— B -a
�' 4 HLA boring, this investigation
_A�\ N ` v✓6
VA
Scale 0 20 40 feet
41 N
it
to
-�Y-� `� . mss. ^�.—,
B 2 60
Is
J ''�..-F v-- c� T7 v-•" �d \� (D i V QW \ �, j � � � �`o t"` '�T � k� -
oy�L9
B-5-
\,\
'` \ ter\ 1 V C .I N� � o �` }x �• :� �d`� •r � '� kP
ti
'\�Y/Qy / � w �� \ i � Fye <� � •�j �/'� -;r � " ''`
Z�In
0 ~9c W %1.481 iG s�j\ t F�
�i: �a I�t'i � ����. $ N l\ '✓ '1 r p ' � tl ., : O \ N / 9P. !• •„'ti. � �.. 'f� 1"
.r ��� / c ' ; L - 1 :� �•:' 7.F , s. a� i;'s c P/ r� �0
• � `•4� -�\ \ � •L�� N B-4\
1�1�F� 2 Harding LawsonAssociatss
520 h LOCATIONS OF BORINGS PLATE
�.0 11.791 ti 1 1 Engineers, Geolog Geologists En
8 Geophysicists Newport Aquatic Center
Z0 F'/' O Newport Beach, California
B— • \ 1 100
�
3 ~`9`� DNJ78 NUMBER APPROVED DATE REVISED
tl D4F
tl 17378,003.1 1 5-2-89