Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet_12082025     A G E N D A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, December 8, 2025 ~ 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California LISA LANDAU MAYOR Third District NATHAN STEELE MAYOR PRO TEM Fifth District   JOE KALMICK COUNCIL MEMBER First District                                                           BEN WONG COUNCIL MEMBER Second District     PATTY SENECAL COUNCIL MEMBER Fourth District     This  Agenda  contains  a  brief  general  description  of  each  item  to  be  considered. No  action  or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda, except as otherwise provided by law. Supporting documents, including agenda staff reports, and any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this agenda are available on the City’s website at www.sealbeachca.gov.   City  Council  meetings  are  broadcast  live  on  Seal  Beach  TV-3  and  on  the  City's  website (www.sealbeachca.gov). Check  SBTV-3  schedule  for  the  rebroadcast  of  meetings.  The meetings are also available on demand on the City’s website (starting 2012).   In  compliance  with  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990, if  you  require  disability  related modifications  or accommodations, including  auxiliary  aids  or  services  to  attend  or  participate  in  the City  Council  meeting, please  call  the  City  Clerk's  office  at  (562) 431-2527  at  least 48 hours prior to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCIL ROLL CALL PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS •Oak Middle School Choir •Mothers Against Drunk Driving Proclamation •Winter Storm Update ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time members of the public may address the Council regarding any items  within the  subject  matter  jurisdiction  of  the  City  Council. Pursuant  to  the  Brown  Act, the Council  cannot  discuss  or  take  action  on  any  items  not  on  the  agenda  unless authorized  by  law. Matters  not  on  the  agenda  may, at  the  Council's  discretion, be referred to the City Manager and placed on a future agenda.   Those  members  of  the  public  wishing  to  speak  are  asked  to  come  forward  to  the microphone and state their name  for the record. All speakers will be limited to  a period of five (5) minutes. Speakers must address their comments only to the Mayor and entire City Council, and not to any individual, member of the staff or audience. Any documents for  review  should  be  presented  to  the  City  Clerk  for  distribution. Speaker  cards  will  be available  at  the  Clerk’s  desk  for  those  wishing  to  sign  up  to  address  the  Council, although  the  submission  of  a  speaker  card  is  not  required  in  order  to  address  the Council. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCES By  motion  of the  City  Council  this  is  the time  to notify  the public of  any  changes  to the agenda and /or rearrange the order of the agenda. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney    CITY MANAGER REPORT Patrick Gallegos, City Manager    COUNCIL COMMENTS General Council Member comments and reporting pursuant to AB 1234. COUNCIL ITEMS A.On-Call Agreements Overview - Receive and file.   CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items removed by Council Members. B.Approval of the City Council Minutes - That  the  City  Council  approve  the minutes  of  the  Strategic  Planning  Session  held  on  Saturday, November  8, 2025, the  Closed  Session, Study  Session  and Regular City Council  meetings held on Monday, November 10, 2025.   C.Demand of City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) - Ratification.   D.Monthly Investment Report (December 8, 2025) - Receive and file.   E.2026 Calendar of Meeting Dates - That the  City  Council  receive  and file the 2026  Calendar  of  Meeting  Dates, which  includes  the  cancellation  of  the  first meeting  in  July  (13 ) and  the  second  meetings  in  August  (24 ), November (23 ), and December (28 ).   F.Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1724 - That  the  City  Council conduct  a  second  reading, by  title  only, and  adopt  Ordinance  1724  titled  “An Ordinance  of  the  City  of  Seal  Beach  Adding  Chapter  4.60  (Parks  and Recreation  Facilities  Impact  Fee) to  the  Seal  Beach  Municipal  Code  to Authorize  Collection  of  Development  Impact  Fees  for  Parks  and  Recreation Facilities  and  Repealing  Section  10.50.010  (Park  Dedications  And  Fees) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code.”   G.Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. for Housing Element Update and Related Supporting Services - That  the  City  Council  adopt  Resolution  7715: 1. Approving Amendment  3  to  the  Professional  Services  Agreement  with  Lisa  Wise Consulting, Inc., for  Housing  Element  Update  and  Related  Supporting Services, extending  the  term  to  December  31, 2026; and, 2. Authorizing  the City Manager to execute Amendment 3 on behalf of the City.   H.Approving and Authorizing Amendment 2 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. - That  the  City  Council  adopt  Resolution 7716: 1. Approving  Amendment 2  to  the  Professional  Special  Counsel  Services  Agreement  with  Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. (formerly  known as Telecom Law Firm, P.C.) dated August  10, 2023, as  previously  amended  by  Amendment  1  dated  February 24, 2025, and previously extended by letter dated May 14, 2024, for additional professional legal services to support the billboard initiative; and, 2. Increasing compensation  for  such  additional  services  by  $20,000  for  a  revised  total  not- to-exceed  amount  of  $90,000; and, 3. Authorizing  and  directing  the  City Manager  to  execute  Amendment  2  on  behalf  of  the  City; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-06-02 in the amount of $20,000.   I.Updating and Designating Officers Authorized to Transact Banking Services with BMO Bank, N.A. - That  the  City  Council  adopt  Resolution 7717: 1. Updating the officers authorized to transact banking services with the City’s  bank, BMO  Bank, N.A.; and, 2. Designating  the  City  Manager  and Director  of  Finance/City  Treasurer  to  transact  banking  services  with  BMO Bank, N.A. on behalf of  the City.   J.Submittal of Yearly Expenditure Report to Orange County Transportation Authority for Measure M2 Eligibility - That  the  City  Council  adopt Resolution  7718: 1. Finding  the  yearly  expenditure  report  to  Orange  County th th rd th Transportation  Authority  (OCTA) for  Measure  M2  Eligibility  for  FY  2024-2025 was  prepared  in  conformance  with  the  M2  Expenditure  Report  Template provided  in  the  Renewed  Measure  M  Eligibility  Guidelines  and  accounts  for Net  Revenues  including  interest  earned, expenditures  during  the  fiscal  year and  balances  at  the  end  of  fiscal  year; and, 2. Adopting  M2  Expenditure Report  for  FY  2024-2025; and, 3. Directing  the  City  Manager, or  their designee, to  submit  the  M2  Expenditure  Report  to  OCTA  no  later  than December 31, 2025.   K.Homeland Security Grant Program Sub-Award Agreement with City of Anaheim for Transfer or Purchase of Equipment and Services or for Reimbursement of Training Costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Area Security Initiative - That  the  City  Council  adopt  Resolution  7719: 1. Authorizing  the  City  Manager  and/or  the  Chief  of  Police  to  execute  the  Sub- Award  Agreement  with  the  City  of  Anaheim  for  the  transfer  or  purchase  of equipment  and  services  or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal  Year 2024  Urban  Areas  Security  Initiative  (UASI) Homeland  Security  Grant Program; and, 2. Authorizing  the  City  Manager  and/or  Chief  of  Police  to execute  all  other  agreements  and  forms  and  take  all other  actions  necessary on  the City’s  behalf for the transfer or purchase of  equipment  and  services or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Areas Security Initiative  (UASI) Homeland  Security  Grant  Program, and  to  obtain  federal financial  assistance  provided  by  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  and sub-granted  through  the  State  of  California  and  Anaheim  and/or  Santa  Ana Police  Departments  in  its  capacity  as  the  Core  City  for  the  Anaheim/Santa Ana UASI.   L.Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7720: 1. Approving  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MOU) between  the City  of  Seal  Beach  and  the  Seal  Beach  Police  Officers  Association  for  the period  of  July  1, 2025  through  June  30, 2027; and, 2. Approving  Budget Amendment  BA #26-06-01  in  the  amount  of  $56,639.28; and, 3. Authorizing the  City  Manager  to  execute  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding  (MOU) between  the  City  of  Seal  Beach  and  the  Seal  Beach  Police  Officers Association.   ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING M.Appeal Request of the Planning Commission Approval for an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Minor Use Permit 22-03 to Allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic System at the Existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility - That  the  City  Council  take  the  following actions: 1. Hold  a  de  novo  public  hearing, allow  public  testimony, and  at  the conclusion  of  the  hearing, consider  all  testimony, comments  and  evidence; and, 2. Adopt  Resolution  7721  Denying  the  Appeal  and  Upholding  the Planning  Commission  Decision, Adopting  the  Initial  Study/Mitigated  Negative Declaration  (IS/MND) and  Mitigation  Monitoring  and  Reporting  Program (MMRP), and Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 Subject to Conditions of  Approval, to  Allow  the  Installation  and  Operation  of  a  1.5  Megawatt  (MW) Fixed-Tilt  Ground  Mounted  Solar  Photovoltaic  (PV) System  at  the  Hellman Ranch  Oil  and  Gas  Production  Facility  (OGPF) (SCH  #2025080495) (the Project); and, 3. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination.   UNFINISHED / CONTINUED BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS N.City Council Reorganization - That  the  City Council  approve  reorganization of the City Council and selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore for 2026.   ADJOURNMENT Adjourn the City Council to Monday, January 12, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. NOTE:  The December 22, 2025 meeting has been cancelled  due to the                Christmas Holiday. CITY COUNCIL NORMS:                               Adopted on June 12, 2023 •Maintain a citywide perspective, while being mindful of our districts. •Move from I to we, and from campaigning to governing. •Work together as a body, modeling teamwork and civility for our community. •Assume good intent. •Disagree agreeably and professionally.  •Utilize long range plans to provide big picture context that is realistic and achievable. •Stay focused on the topic at hand.  Ensure each member of Council has an opportunity to speak. •Demonstrate respect, consideration, and courtesy to all. •Share information and avoid surprises. •Keep confidential things confidential. •Respect the Council/Manager form of government and the roles of each party. •Communicate concerns about staff to the City Manager; do not criticize staff in public.                                                                                          CIVILITY PRINCIPLES: Treat everyone courteously; Listen to others respectfully; Exercise self-control;  Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;  Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; and, Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.  FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM FOLLOW US ON TWITTER/X                                          @CITYOFSEALBEACH                                                             @CITYOFSEALBEACHCA                                    @SEALBEACHCITYCA @SEALBEACHRECREATION&COMMUNITYSERVICES       @SEALBEACH_LIFEGUARD @SEALBEACHPOLICEDEPARTMENT                                    @SEALBEACHPOLICE                                                                                                   @SEALBEACHPUBLICWORKS                                                                                                   @K9YOSA                                                                                                   @K9.SAURUS   Agenda Item B AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT:Approval of the City Council Minutes ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Strategic Planning Session held on Saturday, November 8, 2025, the Closed Session, Study Session and Regular City Council meetings held on Monday, November 10, 2025. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This section does not apply. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Strategic Planning Session held on Saturday, November 8, 2025, the Closed Session, Study Session and Regular City Council meetings held on Monday, November 10, 2025. Page 2 2 2 0 2 SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: A. Minutes - Strategic Planning Session, November 8, 2025 B. Minutes - Closed Session, November 10, 2025 C. Minutes - Public Works Contract Study Session, November 10, 2025 D. Minutes - Regular Session, November 10, 2025 7 3 8 3 Seal Beach, California November 8, 2025 The City Council met in a Special Meeting at Fire Station #48 Community Room at 3131 North Gate Road in Seal Beach. Mayor Landau called the Strategic Planning Session to order at 8:15 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele City Staff: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Michael Henderson, Chief of Police Joe Bailey, Chief, Marine Safety Department Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority, Fire Division Chief Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Nick Bolin, Lieutenant, Marine Safety Department Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager Jennifer Robles, Management Analyst Lauren Barich, Management Analyst Deb Machen, Executive Assistant to the City Manager PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Wong led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Landau welcomed and thanked everyone for attending the Strategic Planning Session. City Manager Gallegos welcomed and thanked everyone for taking time out on a Saturday to attend the Strategic Planning Session. He also thanked Council as well as the City’s Executive Team for their continued investment in the strategic planning process and understanding the importance of the session. City Manager Gallegos thanked and introduced the Strategic Planning Session Moderator Chief of Police Michael Henderson. City Manager Gallegos also recognized and thanked City Support Staff Lieutenant Nick Bolin, Recreation Manager Tim Kelsey, Management Analyst Jennifer Robles, and Management Analyst Lauren Barich and Executive Assistant to the City Manager Deb Machen. Lastly, City Manager Gallegos acknowledged Matthew Hoban and Tim Stansbury from 7 3 8 3 SBTV-3 and indicated that the recording from the meeting would be uploaded to the City’s website. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: Catherine Showalter, Siddharth Mehta and Aurora Massari. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. Moderator Henderson gave a brief overview of the agenda for the day, announced the ground rules and noted that the session would be interactive between staff and Council. Lastly, he noted that this is a planning session and that nothing will be voted on during the session. PLANNING SESSION: Moderator Opening SESSION ONE: Billboards Lifeguard Headquarters/Police Substation Main Street o Beautification o Parking SESSION TWO: Business First Working Group/Outreach and Engagement Special Events and Olympics Working Group Debrief and Closing o Debrief o After Action Report/Next Steps Chief of Police Henderson moderated the Strategic Planning Session and discussions between the Council and staff, that resulted in the establishment of top priorities for FY 2025-26. There was also consensus from Council to form an Olympics Committee and a Business First Working Group. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the meeting at 12:08 p.m. to Monday, November 10, 2025, at 5:30 p.m., to meet in Closed Session if deemed necessary. ______________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach 7 3 8 3 Approved:_________________________ Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested:__________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk 9 9 6 7 Seal Beach, California November 10, 2025 The City Council met in Closed Session at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Amy Greyson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Barbara Arenado, Finance Director/ City Treasurer Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code §54957.6 City Negotiator(s): City Manager Patrick Gallegos Employee Organization(s): Police Officers Association Police Management Association ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 5:47 p.m. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Approved: Lisa Landau, Mayor 9 9 6 7 Attested: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Seal Beach, California November 10, 2025 The City Council met in a Special Meeting for the Capital Improvement Project Process Session at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Amy Greyson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Michael Henderson, Police Chief Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk David Spitz, Associate Engineer STUDY SESSION Public Works Director Lee welcomed everyone to the Study Session and provided an overview of the agenda and the goals of the meeting. She called upon Associate Engineer Spitz who provided an in-depth overview of the Capital Improvement Project Process in conjunction with Senior Assistant City Attorney Greyson. A discussion ensued between Mayor Pro Tem Steele, Associate Engineer Spitz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Greyson, Council Member Wong, City Manager Gallegos, Mayor Landau, Director of Public Works Lee and Council Member Senecal. Council’s questions and concerns were addressed by Director of Public Works Lee, Senior Assistant City Attorney Greyson, and Associate Engineer Spitz. Associate Engineer Spitz noted that there is a new Capital Improvement Project section on the city website that provides an overview of all ongoing Capital Improvement Projects. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: JO8N and Eugena Yasnogorodsky. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m., to meet in the regular session of the City Council at 7:00 p.m. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Approved: Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Seal Beach, California November 10, 2025 The City Council met in Regular Session at 7:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Council Member Senecal led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Amy Greyson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Michael Henderson, Police Chief Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority Division 1 Chief Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Nick Nicholas, Police Captain Brian Gray, Police Sergeant, Emergency Services Coordinator Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS Proclamation Honoring Dr. Elmo Agatep Pink Patch Project Veteran’s Day Proclamation – November 11, 2025 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: Chad Berlinghieri, Theresa Miller, Adam Larson, Teri Young, Scott Newton, and JO8N, addressed the City Council. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. Three (3) supplemental communications were received after the posting of the agenda; they were distributed to the City Council and made available to the public. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Council Member Senecal pulled item E for separate consideration. Council member Wong pulled Item F for separate consideration. 1 0 0 3 2 Mayor Pro Tem Steele moved, second by Council Member Kalmick, to approve the agenda. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Landau, Senecal, Steele NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Senior Assistant City Attorney Greyson reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the one (1) item on the posted agenda. All five (5) Council Members were present, and no reportable action was taken. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Gallegos announced that he attended the Trick or Treat on Main event and the Strategic Planning Session. Additionally, City Manager Gallegos announced that City Hall will be closed on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, in observance of Veterans Day. He noted that the next City Council meeting would be on December 8, 2025, and wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Lastly, City Manager Gallegos called upon Marine Safety Chief Bailey to provide an update from the Marine Safety Department. Marine Safety Chief Bailey announced that the Marine Safety Department received a $30,000 grant for an access mat that will be placed near the First Street parking lot. He noted that it will be installed in late winter or early spring. Additionally, Marine Safety Chief Bailey announced that the Marine Safety Department received a grant of $18,000 for a powered wheelchair. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Kalmick thanked the Marine Safety department for hosting the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) certification class. Additionally, Council Member Kalmick announced that he attended several Zoom meetings with the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Land Trust, and the California Coastal Commission, his attendance at Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) meeting, the McGaugh Elementary School Veterans Day Flag Ceremony, and the Strategic Planning Session. He thanked staff and his fellow Council members for their work on the Session. 1 0 0 3 2 Lastly, Council Member Kalmick announced that he visited a San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy project in Long Beach. Council Member Senecal reported that she met with the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Land Trust, and several College Park East residents about their concern with stormwater and dump trucks. Additionally, Council Member Senecal announced her attendance at the Citizen-Council Stormwater Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meeting, and the Strategic Planning Session. Thirdly, Council Member Senecal reported that she has been nominated as the Orange County Representative for League of California Cities Environmental Committee. Lastly, Council Member Senecal called upon Chief Henderson to provide an update on dump trucks on Lampson Avenue. Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the College Park West (CPW) Preserve Group First Saturday Graffiti Cleanup event, the CPW Haynes Pipeline Project meeting, the Farmers & Merchants Bank Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, the Leisure World Cares Fund meeting and the Strategic Planning Session. He announced that there was consensus from the City Council to form an Olympics Committee and a Business First Working Group. Additionally, Council Member Wong announced that the Haynes Pipeline Project Public Workshop is scheduled for Tuesday November 18, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. at the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center. Lastly, Council Member Wong invited his fellow Council Members and the members of the public to the Leisure World Sunshine Club event, where he will be speaking on Friday, November 14, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at Clubhouse 3 in Leisure World. Mayor Pro Tem Steele reported that he met with the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Land Trust about the Hellman Ranch Solar Project. Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Steele announced his attendance at the McGaugh Elementary School Veterans Day Flag Ceremony, the Farmers & Merchants Bank Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, the Strategic Planning Session, and the Costa Mesa City Leadership Luncheon. Lastly, Mayor Pro Tem Steele announced that he was provided a tour of the pump stations by Senior Utilities Supervisor Escobedo and Public Works Superintendent Talarico and as a result of the tour he has gained a better understanding of the Public Works department. Mayor Landau called upon Police Chief Henderson to discuss cement trucks on First 1 0 0 3 2 Street. Police Chief Henderson and Public Works Director Lee explained restrictions related to construction traffic. Additionally, Mayor Landau reported her attendance at the Lions Club Mixer and the Strategic Planning Session (SPS). She noted that there was consensus from the City Council at the SPS to nominate herself and Council Member Senecal to the Olympic Committee. Mayor Landau called on City Manager Gallegos about an important announcement. City Manager Gallegos called upon Recreation Manager Kelsey to announce the “Thank You, Seal Beach” event scheduled for November 13, 2025, from 4:30-7:30 at the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center. Lastly, Mayor Landau announced that the November 1, 2025, fundraiser event for lifeguard Isaiah Osorio was a huge success! She noted that a GoFundMe link for Isaiah can be found at the Instagram account, @strong.with.isaiah. Mayor Landau called upon Marine Safety Chief Bailey to provide an update on Isaiah’s condition. Marine Safety Chief Bailey provided a brief update on the condition of Isaiah. COUNCIL ITEMS There were no council items. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Wong to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar with the exception of Items E and F. A. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meeting held on October 27, 2025. B. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) - Ratification. C. City Council Appointment - It is at the request of Mayor Landau that the City Council appoint Leslie Carter to represent District Three on the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB). D. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1721, 1722, and 1723 - That the City Council: 1. Conduct a second reading, read by title only, and adopt Ordinance 1721 titled “An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending Title 11 (Zoning Code) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Establish the Mixed Commercial/Residential High-Density Zone and to Make Related Zoning Code Text Amendments to Implement the Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (Mc/Rhd) Zone;” and, 2. Conduct a second reading, read by title only, and adopt Ordinance 1722 titled “An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Approving a Zone 1 0 0 3 2 Change (Housing Element Implementation Rezoning Program) to Amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of Seal Beach to Implement the 2021-2029 (6th Cycle) of the Housing Element of the Seal Beach General Plan to Fulfill State Housing Law;” and, 3. Conduct a second reading, read by title only, and adopt Ordinance 1723 titled “An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach to Amend Portions of the Main Street Specific Plan to Allow Residential Uses to Implement the 2021- 2029 (6th Cycle) of the Housing Element of the Seal Beach General Plan to Fulfill State Housing Law.” E. Second Amendment to Communications Site Lease Agreement for 211 Eighth Street - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7710: 1. Approving the proposed Second Amendment for an existing cell tower site on public property to increase the rent and extend the term to June 2046; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment #26-05-01 accepting funds including the one-time payment and the increase in existing rents; and, 3. Directing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment on behalf of the City. F. Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with MRS Environmental Inc. for the Preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7711: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with MRS Environmental, Inc. to increase compensation by $2,500 for continued services for the preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, 2. Directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 on behalf of the City. The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items with the exception of Items E and F. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR E. Second Amendment to Communications Site Lease Agreement for 211 Eighth Street - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7710: 1. Approving the proposed Second Amendment for an existing cell tower site on public property to increase the rent and extend the term to June 2046; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment #26-05-01 accepting funds including the one-time payment and the increase in existing rents; and, 3. Directing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment on behalf of the City. Council Member Senecal’s questions and concerns were addressed by Interim Director of Community Development Temple. 1 0 0 3 2 Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Wong to adopt Resolution 7710: 1. Approving the proposed Second Amendment for an existing cell tower site on public property to increase the rent and extend the term to June 2046; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment #26-05-01 accepting funds including the one-time payment and the increase in existing rents; and, 3. Directing the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment on behalf of the City. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried F. Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with MRS Environmental Inc. for the Preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7711: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with MRS Environmental, Inc. to increase compensation by $2,500 for continued services for the preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, 2. Directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 on behalf of the City. Council Member Wong’s questions and concerns were addressed by Interim Director of Community Development Temple Council Member Wong moved, second by Mayor Landau to adopt Resolution 7711: 1. Approving Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with MRS Environmental, Inc. to increase compensation by $2,500 for continued services for the preparation of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, 2. Directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 on behalf of the City. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING G. Adopting the Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee, the Parks and Recreation Facilities Capital Improvement Plan, and the Associated Nexus Study, and Establishing the Seal Beach Parking and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Program - That the City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing; and, 2. Adopt Ordinance 1724 Adding Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) and Repealing Section 10.50.010 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code; and, 3. Adopt Resolution 7712, Adopting the Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee, the Capital Improvement Plan, the Nexus Study for Such Fee Program, and 1 0 0 3 2 Establishing the Seal Beach Development Impact Fee Program. Mayor Landau called upon Interim Director of Community Development Temple. Interim Director of Community Development Temple provided an in-depth overview of the staff report. Interim Director of Community Development Temple called upon Economic and Planning Systems Principal Jason Moody to provide an in-depth presentation of Item G. A discussion ensued between Mayor Pro Tem Steele, Economic and Planning Systems Principal Jason Moody, Council Member Senecal, and Director of Finance Arenado. Council’s questions and concerns were addressed. Mayor Landau opened the public hearing. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed the public hearing. Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Wong to adopt Ordinance 1724 Adding Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) and Repealing Section 10.50.010 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code; and, 3. Adopt Resolution 7712, Adopting the Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee, the Capital Improvement Plan, the Nexus Study for Such Fee Program, and Establishing the Seal Beach Development Impact Fee Program. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried UNFINISHED/CONTINUED BUSINESS There was no unfinished/continued business. NEW BUSINESS H. Approval of Updated Job Specification for Crossing Guard Classification - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7713 approving an updated job specification for the Crossing Guard (Part-Time) classification. Mayor Landau called upon Police Chief Henderson Police Chief Henderson provided an in-depth overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Mayor Landau, Council Member Senecal, and Police Chief Henderson. 1 0 0 3 2 Council Member Wong moved, second by Council Member Senecal to adopt Resolution 7713 approving an updated job specification for the Crossing Guard (Part-Time) classification. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried Approving the Adoption of the 2025 Seal Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Authorizing and Directing City Staff to Execute - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7714: 1. Adopting the 2025 Seal Beach Local Hazard Mitigation as presented to the City Council on November 10, 2025, as an official plan; and, 2. Authorizing and directing staff to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this resolution and implement the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including applying for grants to fund mitigation actions contained in the plan. Mayor Landau called upon Police Chief Henderson. Police Chief Henderson introduced Emergency Services Coordinator Gray and announced that Sergeant Gray would be addressing the preparation for the upcoming storm after the presentation. Emergency Services Coordinator Gray and Michael Baker International Consultant Noel Anderson gave an in-depth overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Council Member Kalmick, Council Member Senecal, Public Works Director Lee, Noel Anderson, Mayor Landau, Mayor Pro Tem Steele, Council Member Wong, Mayor Pro Tem Steele moved, second by Council Member Senecal to adopt Resolution 7714: 1. Adopting the 2025 Seal Beach Local Hazard Mitigation as presented to the City Council on November 10, 2025, as an official plan; and, 2. Authorizing and directing staff to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this resolution and implement the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, including applying for grants to fund mitigation actions contained in the plan. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried 1 0 0 3 2 Emergency Services Coordinator Gray provided an update on the upcoming rainy season and the impending storm. A discussion ensued between Council Member Kalmick, Mayor Landau, Council Member Senecal, and Emergency Services Coordinator Sergeant Gray. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council at 8:57 p.m. to Monday, December 8, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. She noted that the November 24, 2025, City Council meeting has been cancelled. __________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Approved:___________________________ Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested:____________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item E AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT:2026 Calendar of Meeting Dates ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council receive and file the 2026 Calendar of Meeting Dates, which includes the cancellation of the first meeting in July (13th) and the second meetings in August (24th), November (23rd), and December (28th). BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Annually, the City Clerk’s Office prepares the City’s Meeting Calendar to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Traditionally, the first meeting in July (13th) and the second meeting in August (24th) are cancelled due to summer schedules, and the second meeting in November (23rd) and the second meeting in December (28th) are cancelled due to the holidays. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. Page 2 2 1 9 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the 2026 Calendar of Meeting Dates, which includes the cancellation of the first meeting in July (13th) and the second meetings in August (24th), November (23rd), and December (28th). SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. 2026 Calendar of Meeting Dates CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2026 ~ MEETINGS JANUARY FEBRUARY S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Holidays 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New Year's Day (Observed Jan 1) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MLK Day (Jan 19) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Presidents' Day (Feb 16) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Memorial Day (May 25) 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Independence Day (Observed July 3) Labor Day (Sept 7) MARCH APRIL Veterans Day (Observed Nov 11) S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Thanksgiving (Nov 26) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 Day after (Nov 27) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Christmas Eve (Observed Dec 24) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Christmas Day (Observed Dec 25) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 CITY COUNCIL 2nd & 4th Monday - 7:00 p.m. Postponed Meetings: May 26th MAY JUNE Cancelled Meetings: S M T W T F S S M T W T F S July 13th, August 24th, November 23rd and December 28th12123456 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PLANNING COMMISSION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1st & 3rd Monday - 7:00 p.m. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 Postponed Meetings: 31 January 20th, February 17th and September 8th JULY AUGUST S M T W T F S S M T W T F S RECREATION & PARKS 1 2 3 4 1 COMMISSION 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4th Wednesday - 6:00 p.m. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (except July, August, and December) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SEAL BEACH HISTORIC RESOURCES FOUNDATION 30 31 3rd Thursday - 4:30 p.m. SEPTEMBER OCTOBER CITY TREE ADVISORY BOARD S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Meetings as required 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Quarterly (February, May, August & November) 3rd Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SEAL BEACH CABLE FOUNDATION 3rd Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 Agenda Item F AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT:Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 1724 ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council conduct a second reading, by title only, and adopt Ordinance 1724 titled “An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Adding Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) to the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Authorize Collection of Development Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation Facilities and Repealing Section 10.50.010 (Park Dedications And Fees) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code.” BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: At its meeting on November 10, 2025, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance 1724, “An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Adding Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) to the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Authorize Collection of Development Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation Facilities and Repealing Section 10.50.010 (Park Dedications And Fees) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code.” This item is to conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance 1724 in compliance with State law and the City Charter requiring that ordinances be adopted at least five (5) days after introduction at a regular or adjourned regular meeting. Upon adoption and pursuant to City Charter Section 414, the Ordinance will be published within fifteen (15) days after adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the fees may have a significant effect on the environment, in that this ordinance and resolution contains no provisions modifying the physical design, development, or construction of residences or nonresidential structures. The Page 2 2 1 9 9 Ordinance is not a project under CEQA because it will have no physical impact on the environment, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) are also not subject to further environmental review. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The proposed Ordinance has been reviewed as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a second reading, by title only, and adopt Ordinance 1724 titled “An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Adding Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) to the Seal Beach Municipal Code to Authorize Collection of Development Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation Facilities and Repealing Section 10.50.010 (Park Dedications And Fees) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code.” SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance 1724 1 ORDINANCE 1724 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 4.60 (PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPACT FEE) TO THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND REPEALING SECTION 10.50.010 (PARK DEDICATIONS AND FEES) OF THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Seal Beach (“City”) Charter vests the City Council with the authority to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in the Charter and in the Constitution of the State of California, and the power to exercise any and all rights, powers and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted or prescribed by any law of the State, by the Charter, or by other lawful authority, or which a municipal corporation might or could exercise under the Constitution of the State of California ; and, WHEREAS, cities may apply fees for proposed developments to cover the cost of public facilities by way of its police power as codified in the California Constitution Article XI Section 7; and, WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. ("Mitigation Fee Act") authorizes the City to collect fees in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities reasonably intended to mitigate impacts caused by the development project; and, WHEREAS, development impact fees must be supported by a nexus study which calculates the purpose of the fee, the use to which it will be put, the relationship and rough proportionality between the fee and the development, and establish the need for the fee pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and constitutional principles; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department commissioned a development impact fee nexus study with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.; and, WHEREAS, the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element projects an increase in the population and residential dwelling units in Seal Beach; and, WHEREAS, the future residential growth will create additional demand on the City’s infrastructure for park and recreation facilities; and, WHEREAS, this Ordinance would add Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) in order to authorize the City to collect development impact fees for parks and recreation facilities to cover the cost of parks and recreation facilities needed to serve the needs created by new residential development; and, 2 WHEREAS, Section 10.50.010 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, which is the City’s existing parks fee based on the Quimby Act, is no longer necessary or applicable with the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee (Chapter 4.60 Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee); and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to repeal Section 10.50.010 (Park Land Dedications and Fees), to remove it from the Seal Beach Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 10, 2025 in the Council Chambers at 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the nexus study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Ordinance contain substantial evidence to support the imposition a nd collection of the development impact fee established herein; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the parks and recreation facilities impact fee established herein and finds that the fee will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential development in the City. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) is hereby added to the Seal Beach Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit “A” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Section 2: Section 10.50.010 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) is hereby repealed and removed from the Seal Beach Municipal Code in its entirety and is of no further force or effect , except that any fees due and owing as of the effective date of this Ordinance shall be collected. Section 3: The recitals provided in this Ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this Ordinance. Section 4: The City Council finds the introduction and adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) 3 and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law. Section 7: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach held on the 10th day of November 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach this 8th day of December 2025. Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 1724 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2025, and was passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025, and do hereby further certify that the Ordinance has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach Charter and Resolution Number 2836. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit “A”: SBMC Chapter 4.60 (Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee) Exhibit “A” CHAPTER 4.60 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPACT FEE § 4.60.005. Purpose. To implement the goals and objectives of the capital improvement program for parks and recreation facilities and equipment of the City of Seal Beach, and to mitigate the impacts to the City's park and recreational facilities caused by new development in the City, certain public facilities and equipment must be constructed and/or acquired. The public facilities and equipment are specifically identified in the City's capital improvement program for facilities and equipment as adopted by the City Council and as amended from time to time. The list of recreational facilities and equipment may be added to or deleted from the approved program. The City Council has determined that a development impact fee is needed to finance these public improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the costs of these improvements. § 4.60.010. Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall mean: “Multifamily housing or dwellings” is a building used and/or designed as residences containing two or more residential dwelling units including mixed-use developments that combine residential dwellings with nonresidential uses in the same building or development site. “Public Facilities” means those park and recreation facilities, land, buildings, improvements, or infrastructure and similar facilities utilized for park and recreational purposes including vehicles and equipment. “Residential development” includes all residential dwelling units constructed for the first time or when existing structures are remodeled and added to or otherwise altered to increase the number of dwelling units. A mixed-use development containing dwelling units is considered a residential development. “Residential dwelling unit” is a room or group of internally connected rooms that have sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation facilities, but not more than one kitchen, which constitute an independent housekeeping unit, occupied by or intended for one household. “Single-Family Dwelling unit” is a building or portion of a building used and/or designed as residence for one family. § 4.60.015. Establishment and administration of park and recreation facilities impact fees. A. A parks and recreation facilities impact fee is established on issuance of all building permits, for residential development within the City to pay for the City’s buildings, furnishings, vehicles, equipment and similar facilities utilized for park and recreational purposes as shown in the adopted capital improvement program for facilities and equipment. B. The City Council shall, in a council resolution, set forth the specific amount of the fee, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is imposed, list the specific public improvements to be financed, describe the estimate cost of these facilities, describe the reasonable relationship between this fee and the various types of new residential developments and set forth time for payment. The City Council shall review this fee as required by law to determine whether the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of developments and whether the described facilities are still needed. C. The finance director shall establish a park and recreation facilities impact fee fund. All fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in this fund and shall be expended towards expanding the City’s parks and recreation facility capacity to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in the City. D. A fee is imposed in the amounts set forth in this chapter and shall be applicable to every dwelling unit as defined in section 4.60.010 constructed in the City after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter and shall be known as the park and recreation facilities impact fee. § 4.60.020. Payment. The fee imposed by this chapter shall be due and payable no sooner than issuance of building permits and no later than issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit(s) subject to the fee in accordance with applicable law. No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued until the development fee has been paid in full. The amount of the fee shall be calculated at the time the fee is paid, based upon the rate then in effect. § 4.60.025. Fees. The fees imposed by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the City Council. § 4.60.030. Fee exemptions. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. § 4.60.035. Use of fees. The city council finds that there is established a park fund where all sums collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited and shall be used to expand the City’s parks and recreation facilities to mitigate the impacts of new residential development in the City as set forth in the Seal Beach Parks Impact Fee Update Nexus Study. Those public facilities and other assets are identified in the capital improvement plan adopted as part of such study. Agenda Item G AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. for Housing Element Update and Related Supporting Services ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7715: 1. Approving Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., for Housing Element Update and Related Supporting Services, extending the term to December 31, 2026; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment 3 on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. has been assisting the City with the development of the Housing Element Update and related implementation services, including the Zoning Code updates. These efforts were key components of the City’s Housing Element work plan and were required to receive certification of the Housing Element from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The Housing Element and related Zoning Code updates have now been completed, including the required Environmental Impact Report analyzing potential impacts. The proposed Amendment 3 will extend the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2026 to support any residual administrative tasks or ongoing planning projects managed by the Community Development Department for implementation of the Housing Element. No other changes to the Agreement are proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Proposed Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines which states that CEQA only applies to projects that Page 2 2 1 9 3 have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Approval of Amendment 3 will not have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL ANALYSIS: This item has been reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Amendment 3 represents a time extension only, adequate funding was included in the adopted FY 2025-26 Annual Budget and will be included in the FY 2026-27 Annual Budget. STRATEGIC PLAN: Completion of the Housing Element was previously identified as a City Council Priority for the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7715: 1. Approving Amendment 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., for Housing Element Update and Related Services, extending the term to December 31, 2026; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment 3 on behalf of the City. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Shaun Temple Patrick Gallegos Shaun Temple, Interim Director of Community Development Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared By: Megan Bolton, Management Analyst Page 3 2 1 9 3 ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7715 B. Amendment 3 to Professional Services Agreement Housing Element Update and Related Services C. Amendment 2 to Professional Services Agreement for Housing Element Update and Related Services D. Amendment 1 to Professional Services Agreement for Housing Element Update and Related Services E. Original Professional Services Agreement for Housing Element Update and Related Services RESOLUTION 7715 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENT 3 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. FOR HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND RELATED SUPPORTING SERVICES, EXTENDING THE TERM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2026 WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (City) and Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (Consultant) are parties to a Professional Services Agreement dated September 11, 2023, as previously amended by Amendment 1, dated December 9, 2024, and Amendment 2, dated August 11, 2025 (collectively the “Agreement”) for the development and implementation of the Housing Element Update and related supporting services, and Consultant has also performed services in connection with related Zoning Code updates to implement the Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element and related Zoning Code updates have now been completed; and, WHEREAS, the Agreement expires on December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City and Consultant have determined that additional time is required for Consultant to provide continued support services relating to any residual administrative tasks and ongoing planning projects managed by the Community Development Department for the Housing Element Update, including any further Zoning Code updates, and wish to extend the Term of the Agreement through December 31, 2026. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves Amendment 3 to the Agreement, extending the Term through December 31, 2026, to support residual administrative tasks and planning projects related to the Housing Element and Zoning Code updates. Section 2. The Council hereby directs the City Manager to execute Amendment 3 on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: 1 0 6 8 0 AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7715 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Amendment 3 for Housing Element Update and Related Supporting Services Between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. 983 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 595-1345 This Amendment 3, dated December 8, 2025, amends that certain agreement (Agreement) made as of September 11, 2023 by and between the City of Seal Beach (City), a California charter city, and Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (Consultant), a California corporation (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 3 RECITALS A. City and Consultant are parties to the Agreement, pursuant to which Consultant provides professional services related to development and implementation of the Seal Beach Housing Element and related supporting services. B. City and Consultant wish to amend the Agreement for Consultant to extend the executed document from December 31, 2025, for a one-year extension to conclude on December 31, 2026. AMENDMENT 3 NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Section 2.0 (Term) of the September 11, 2023 Agreement is hereby amended for a one-year extension to expire December 31, 2026, to read as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on September 11, 2023 and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2026 unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. Section 2. All references to the term “Agreement” throughout Sections 1.0 through 35.0 inclusive, of the Agreement are hereby modified to include the this Amendment 3, dated December 8, 2025, as if all of those terms are fully set forth therein. Section 3. Except as expressly modified or supplemented b y this Amendment 3, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect. Section 4. The person executing this Amendment 3 on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute this Amendment 3 on behalf of said Party, and that by his or her execution, Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment 3. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: ___________ _ Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Attest: By: ___________ _ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Approved as to Form : By:~~---~--- Nicholas Ghirelli , City Attorney CONSUL TANT: Lisa Wise Consulting Inc., a California Corporation By: rx ~ id0- Name: Lisa Wise, Its: By: Name : H Its: (Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from each of the fallowing categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Amendment No. 1 for Housing Element Update and Related Supporting Services Between F SEA( B Itipm6c.o; r# 0,0 City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. 983 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805) 595-1345 This Amendment No. 1, dated December 9, 2024, amends that certain agreement Agreement) made as of September 11, 2023 by and between the City of Seal Beach City), a California charter city, and Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (Consultant), a California corporation (collectively, "the Parties"). RECITALS A. City and Consultant are parties to the Agreement, pursuant to which Consultant provides professional services related to development and implementation of the Seal Beach Housing Element. B. City and Consultant wish to amend the Agreement for Consultant to extend the term by nine months, to expire on September 30, 2025. AMENDMENT NO. 1 NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Section 2.0 (Term) of the September 11, 2023 Agreement is hereby extended by nine months to expire September 30, 2025, to read as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on September 11, 2023 and shall remain in full force and effect until September 30, 2025 unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. Section 2. All references to the term "Agreement" throughout Sections 1.0 through 36.0 inclusive, of the Agreement are hereby modified to include the this Amendment No. 1, dated December 9, 2024, as if all of those terms are fully set forth therein. Section 3. Except as expressly modified or supplemented by this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect. Section 4. The person executing this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of said Party, and that by his or her execution, Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 1. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. 2 of 3 CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONSULTANT: Lisa Wise Consulting 411747-*-- Inc., a California Corporation By: By: Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Name: Lisa Wise, AICP Manager Its: President and CEO A pF SEp! Attes NC RPpAgjb,9 By:o Name: Henry Pontarelli 4t ; ! __Its: Vice President and Secrets rYBJ Gloria D. H 1.114 `__-=pQ_' (Please note, two signatures required for tITY`a c corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from Approved as to Form:each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, By: any assistant secretary, the chief Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO BIND CONTRACTING PARTY REQUIRED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT for Housing Element Update and Related Supporting Services between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 0 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. 983 Osos Street San, Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805) 595-1345 This Professional Service Agreement ("the Agreement') is made as of September 11, 2023 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., a California Corporation ("Consultant'), and the City of Seal Beach ("City"), a California charter city, collectively, "the Parties"). RECITALS A. City desires certain professional services related to amending the Housing Element and related supporting services to implement the Housing Element including revising and updating portions of Title 11 of the Municipal Code hereinafter collectively the "Project'). B. Pursuant to the authority provided by its City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code § 3.20.025(C), City desires to engage Consultant as an independent contractor to provide professional services in the manner set forth herein and more fully described in Section 1.0. C. Consultant represents that the principal members of its firm are qualified professional municipal consultants with expertise in developing housing elements and are fully qualified to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner; and it desires to perform such services as provided herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1. Consultant shall provide those services (collectively "Services") set forth in the "Scope of Services" attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.4. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Consultant hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Consultant hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. The City relies upon the skill of Consultant, and Consultant's staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in accordance with such professional standards, and Consultant and Consultant's staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Consultant shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and 2 of 21 all applicable professional standards of care. The acceptance of Consultant's work by the City shall not operate as a release of Consultant from such standard of care. 1.5. Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions up to the amount approved at the time of award by the City Council in accordance with Subsection 3.2. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term 2.1. The term of this Agreement shall commence on September 15, 2023, and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 2024. unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. 3.0 Consultant's Compensation 3.1. City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A for the Services but in no event will the City pay more than the total not -to -exceed amount of $160,600 (One hundred sixty thousand, six hundred dollars) for the Original Term. 3.2. Payment for any additional work authorized by the City during the Original Term pursuant to Subsection 1.5 will be compensated in accordance with the hourly rates shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A and shall not exceed the cumulative amount established by the City Council at the time of the award for the Original Term. 4.0 Method of Payment 4.1. Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for all Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the Services were rendered and shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period, including but not limited to, the number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the line item tasks and services performed in the period. City will pay Consultant within 30 days of receiving Consultant's invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant. 4.2. Upon three business days' notice from City, Consultant shall allow City or City's agents or representatives to inspect at Consultant's offices during reasonable business hours all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. 3 of 21 City's rights under this Subsection 4.2 shall survive for three (3) years following the termination of this Agreement. 5.0 Termination 5.1., This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, or by Consultant based on reasonable cause, upon giving the other party written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days' notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to provide satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 5.3. Obligations upon Termination. Unless otherwise specified in the notice of termination, Consultant shall cease all work under this Agreement upon the date of termination indicated in the notice of termination issued pursuant to Subsection 5.1 or Subsection 5.2. Upon termination, City shall be immediately given title to and possession of all Work Product (as defined in Subsection 12.1 of this Agreement) produced or developed pursuant to this Agreement up to the date of termination. Provided that Consultant is not then in breach, City shall pay Consultant for any portion of the Services completed prior to termination, based on the reasonable value of the Services rendered. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. In no event shall Consultant be entitled to payment for unperformed services or services within the Scope of Services performed prior to the effective date of this Agreement; and Consultant shall not be entitled to receive more than the amount that would be paid to Consultant for the full performance of the Services up to date of termination. Consultant shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation or damages. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City's representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. David Bergman is the Consultant's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. David Bergman shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. Consultant may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4 of 21 7.0 Notices 7.1. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To. City: City of Seal Beach 211 -8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager To Consultant: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. 983 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: David Bergman 7.2. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 8.0 Permits and Licenses Consultant and all of Consultant's employees and other personnel shall obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all necessary licenses, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services under this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. 9.0 Independent Contractor 9.1. Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. All work or other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or by Consultant's employees or other personnel under Consultant's supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details by which Consultant's employees and other personnel will perform the Services. Consultant shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 9.2. All of Consultant's employees and other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant and Consultant's personnel shall not supervise any of City's employees; and City's employees shall not supervise Consultant's personnel. Consultant's personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Consultant's personnel shall not use any City e-mail address 5 of 21 or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Consultant's personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Consultant's choice, except (1) as otherwise may be required for the performance of Services on City real property, facilities, vehicles or equipment; (2) as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Consultant's personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Consultant's performance of any Services under this Agreement, or (3) as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Consultant from time to time for Consultant's personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. 9.3. Consultant shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Consultant's personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS") as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 9.4. In addition to all other provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant's personnel practices. or to the extent arising from, caused by or relating to the violation of any of the provisions of this Section 9.0. In addition to all other remedies available under law, City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section. These duties are in addition to Consultant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. 6of21 10.0 PERS Compliance and Indemnification 10.1. General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Consultant agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall assure compliance with the Public Employees' Retirement Law ("PERE"), commencing at Government Code § 20000, as amended by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA" ), and the PERS regulations. Without limitation to the foregoing, Consultant shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the PERL, PEPRA, or any other applicable retirement laws and regulations. 10.2. Indemnification. In addition to all other provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, and its City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant's violation of any provisions of this Section 10.0. These duties are in addition to Consultant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. 11.0 Confidentiality 11.1. Consultant covenants that all data, reports, notes, surveys, studies, drawings, plans, maps, models, photographs, images, video files, computer files, electronic files, media, discussion, information and Work Product (as defined in Subsection 12.1) developed or prepared by Consultant or provided to Consultant for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure.. Consultant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary", provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 7of21 11.2. Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and/or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any parry regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 12.0 Ownership of Work Product 12.1. Unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, all draft and final reports, drawings, specifications, documents, and other written material of any kind, and any and all images, ideas, concepts, designs including website designs, source code, object code, electronic data and files, and/or other media whatsoever created or developed by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement collectively "Work Product") shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use, duplication or dissemination by City. All Work Product shall be considered "works made for hire," for the benefit of City. Upon completion of this Agreement, or in the event of termination or expiration of this Agreement, all Work Product and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City upon payment being made in accordance with Subsection 5.3, and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by City for any purpose without Consultant's consent, provided that Consultant will not be held liable for any use, reuse or modification of the Work Product for purposes outside this Agreement. Consultant shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any Work Product. _ 12.2. Consultant hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Work Product that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to Subsection 12.1. 12.3. Consultant warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Work Product produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Work Product for any purpose. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City's use of any of the Work Product violates 8 of 21 federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Consultant shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Work Product produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Work Product or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Consultant, at its expense, shall: (1) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (2) modify the Work Product and other deliverables so that they become non -infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. These covenants shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 12.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Consultant shall deliver to City all Data & Documents and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Consultant prepares a document on a computer, Consultant shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. 13.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. 14.0 Prohibition Against Assignment or Delegation Consultant shall not assign any of its rights interests or any of its duties under this Agreement either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of City. Any purported assignment or delegation without City's consent shall be void and without effect, and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. As used in this Section, "assignment" and "delegation" means any sale, gift, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance or other transfer of all or any portion of the rights, obligations, or liabilities in or arising from this Agreement to any person or entity, whether by operation of law or otherwise, and regardless of the legal form of the transaction in which the attempted transfer occurs. 15.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, payroll, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records and Work Product with respect to this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records on the 9of21 Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. At all times during regular business hours, Consultant shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City's rights under this Section 15.0 shall survive for three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 16.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and other applicable local, state, and federal laws. The City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Consultant when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Consultant shall maintain the work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Consultant shall immediately report to the City any hazardous condition noted by Contractor. 17.0 Insurance 17.1. General Requirements. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this Section. 17.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure, maintain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, as follows: 17.2.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury including death, personal injury and property damage; and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). If Contractor is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so 10 of 21 that Contractor and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds. 17.2.2. Automobile Liability Insurance: Contractor shall maintain limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto). 17.2.3. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance: Workers' Compensation in the amount required by law; and Employer's Liability with minimum limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease. 17.2.4. (if required by the City) Professional Liability coverage (or Errors and Omissions Liability, as appropriate): Consultant shall maintain limits of no less than $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate, and if a "claims made" policy is provided, then the policy shall be endorsed to provide an extended reporting period of not less than three years. 17.2.5. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 17.3. Acceptabilitv of Insurers. The Insurance policies required under this Section shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than ANI", licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City. 17.4. Additional Insured. 17.4.1. For general liability insurance, the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work. 17.4.2. For automobile liability, that the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible. 17.4.3. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 11 of 21 17.5. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by the City to state: (1) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.6. Primary and Non -Contributing. Coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it; 17.7. Separation of Insureds. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.8. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retention. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by the City. Consultant guarantees that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Each insurance policy maintained or procured pursuant to this Agreement shall expressly waive the insurer's right of subrogation against City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Contractor hereby waives all rights of subrogation against City. 17.10. City Remedy for Noncompliance. if Contractor does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Contractor's policies do not comply 12 of 21 with the requirements under this Section, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Contractor's expense, the premium thereon. Contractor shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Contractor. 17.11. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to and approved by City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City if requested. Contractor may also provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Contractor shall maintain current endorsements on file with City's Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Contractor shall also provide proof to City that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Contractor shall furnish such proof at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. 17.12. Indemnity Requirements Not Limiting. Procurement of insurance by Contractor shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor's liability or as full performance of Contractor's duty to indemnify City under any provision of this Agreement. 17.13. Broader Coverage/Higher Limits. Contractor shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Services. If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City. 17.14. Timely Notice of Claims. Contractor shall give City prompt and timely notice of demands or claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Contractor's performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required insurance policies. 17.15. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall require each of its subcontractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section. 13 of 21 18.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend 18.1. Indemnity for Desiqn Professional Services. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials collectively ""Indemnitees"" in this Section 18.0), from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of attorneys, accountants and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of attorneys" fees and costs of defense (collectively "Claims"), in law or in equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, contractors or their officers, directors, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement by a "design professional," as the term is defined under California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c). Notwithstanding the foregoing and as required by Civil Code Section 2782.8(a), in no event shall the cost to defend the Indemnitees that is charged to Consultant exceed Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault. 18.2. Other Indemnities. 18.2.1. Other than in the performance of design professional services, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Indemnitees from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens and losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively "Liabilities"), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, or contractors, or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees' active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities with counsel of the Indemnitees' choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys' fees and experts' costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall reimburse the 14 of 21 Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 18.2.2. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.3. Subcontractor Indemnification. Consultant shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 18.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnities, Consultant shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims and/or Liabilities in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, are claimed to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts or omissions of Consultant's subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant's subcontractor shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees' active or passive negligence, except for Claims or Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 18.4. Insurance Requirements Not Limiting. 18.4.1 The obligations of Consultant under this or any other provision of this Agreement shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers' compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives any statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to the Indemnitees. 18.4.2. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnities and obligations in this Section shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Claims and/or Liabilities asserted against City or any of the other Indemnitees. Consultant's indemnity obligation set forth in this Section 18.0 shall not be limited by the limits of any policies of insurance required or provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. 18.5. Consultant's duties and obligations under this Section 18.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 19.0 Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, 15 of 21 handicap, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, or any other basis prohibited by federal of state laws, including but not limited to, in all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination. In addition, in providing the Services, Contractor shall not discriminate, harass or retaliate against any City official, City employee, City contractor, City consultant, customer, patron, client, or other member of the public because of their race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, age, or any other basis prohibited by federal or state laws. 20.0 Workers' Compensation Certification By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 21.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records To the extent that this Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute "public works" as defined in the California Labor Code, Consultant shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 22.0 Claims All claims arising out of or related to this Agreement, and the consideration and payment of such claims, are subject to the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) with regard to filing claims. 23.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 24.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 25.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that 16 of 2.1 ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in interpreting this Agreement. Any dispute that arises under or relates to this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both) shall be resolved in a superior court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Seal Beach. 26.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other persons or entities shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party as a result of this Agreement 27.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (1) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (2) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (3) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states. 28.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 28.1. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Consultant "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained. 28.2. Consultant further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Consultant paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from 17 of 21 any sums payable to Consultant hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 28.3. Consultant warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest' under applicable laws as described in this subsection 29.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Consultant of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Consultant for anything done, furnished or relating to Consultant's work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of City's check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents. 30.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Consultant shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City's review of Consultant's report or plans. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Consultant. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Consultant under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction. 31.0 Non -Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Consultant by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Consultant's Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Consultant's Services only to the conclusion of the last 18 of 21 fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year. 32.0- Mutual Cooperation 32.1. City's Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent Data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Consultant's proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 32.2. Consultant's Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 33.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement. 34.0 Attorneys` Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 36.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 36.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said party and that by his or her execution, the Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. 19 of 21 CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: 9- -Sw"p, Ingram, City ManagEU- Attest: go Apprc By: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney CONSULTANT: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., a California Corporation ice" By: G Name: Lisa wise Its: President By: Name: Henry Pontarelli Its: Vine PrPsidPnt Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 393 from each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) 20 of 21 EXHIBIT A 21 of 21 City of Seal Beach Zoning Code Amendments and Housing Element Revisions Additional Services Proposal #1 Prepared by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) July 28, 2023 This proposal for additional services describes additional tasks not included in the scope and work and budget established in the 04/11/22 Professional Services Agreement between LWC and the City of Seal Beach (see Attachment). The tasks listed here are proposed as additional services to aid the City in the Zoning Amendments projects and in securing Housing Element compliance with the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The tasks are based on LWC's understanding of the City's vision for the project and the best approach to an efficient and thorough community outreach; ensuring the analysis and draft amendments comply with State law, General Plan and Housing Element policy; and achieving adoption of the Zoning Amendments. LWC understands that the City submitted a draft of its 6th Cycle Housing Element to HCD on February 9, 2022, but that the City has since made edits to the Housing Element draft, dated March 3, 2023. The work in this scope will be based on this draft along with the April 8, 2022 review letter from HCD. In order to complete this assignment LWC will need access to the files that were used to produce this draft housing element including all: Word documents/PDF files Excel files GIS files Illustrations, maps and jpegs in editable form Any previously commissioned supporting studies such as market studies or zoning code analysis Below is a description of each additional task; also included as an attachment is a detailed budget worksheet by task. City Staff has advised that it is unnecessary for LWC to attend the ALUC meeting described in the original contract. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Task 3.AA: Revised Technical Analysis and Recommendations Memo. In March 2023, LWC received an updated Draft Housing Element with changes to the site inventory, policies, and assumptions related to buildout. LWC will re -work Task 1.0 Technical Analysis and Recommendations Memo submitted in June 2022 based on the March 2023 updated Draft Housing Element. 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 5951345 LISAN'ISECONSULTING.COM 1 TASK 8: MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT AMENDMENTS Task S.A: Meetings with City Staff. LWC will participate in up to three one-hour meetings with City Staff to discuss needs, progress, and draft amendments for the complete set of zoning amendments (those related to the MSSP district updates as well as those related to the new LC -RHD district). Task 8.13: Draft MSSP District Amendments. LWC will prepare Administrative Draft Zoning Amendments required to fully implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element. This will take the form of track changes to the existing Zonings Code sections. The work is anticipated to include amendments to the following sections of the Seal Beach Municipal Code: Chapter 11.2.10 Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts. Changes are anticipated to involve minor edits to the MMSP district development standards only. Part IV Regulations Applying in Some or All Districts. Changes may involve additions to edits to the citywide standards of Part IV needed to accommodate the changes to the MSSP development standards. This task does not involve amendments to the 1996 Main Street Specific Plan document itself. Public Draft and Hearing Draft amendments to the MSSP are anticipated to be included with the Public and Hearing drafts of the LC/RHD zoning amendments material. TASK 9: HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS Task 9.A: HCD Response Matrix. LWC will review the existing Housing Element against HCD's letter dated April 8, 2022 and prepare a matrix outlining identifying how/whether issues raised in HCD's letter are addressed in the current Housing Element draft, and how LWC proposes to address outstanding issues. LWC anticipates up to two calls with the City during this Task to discuss the proposed approach to responding to HCD comments and to refine findings after discussion with the City. Final Deliverables: Administrative Draft and Final Approach Matrix Memo (Excel). LWC will revise the Administrative Draft based on one set of consolidated comments from the City. Task 9.13: Reorganization of Housing Element. Based on a structure approved by the City, LWC will reorganize the Housing Element to include a main body (that includes the Housing Element programs), and different appendices to address housing needs, constraints, and resources and the affirmatively fair housing analysis. This reorganization is intended to facilitate HCD review. LWC will discuss reorganization of the Housing Element with the City to establish the most efficient use of funds. Final Deliverables: Reorganized Housing Element (Word and PDF) Task 9.C: Edits to Housing Element for Compliance with HCD Letter. Upon City staff's approval of LWC's proposed approach to responding to HCD's comments under Task 9,A, LWC will make the relevant edits to the Housing Element. LWC anticipates up to three calls with the City during this Task to discuss LWC's 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 595 1345 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM 2 edits and any City -proposed edits. As part of this Task, LWC also anticipates completing the work detailed in Tasks 9.D. to 9.F. Final Deliverables: Administrative Draft and Final Housing Element to resubmit to HCD (Word and PDF). LWC will revise the Administrative Draft based on one set of consolidated comments from the City. Task 9.1): Market Conditions Analysis. LWC will review local market conditions to evaluate the performance of the retail market and multifamily residential market in the City. The analysis will gather and review available data that describes demographics, employment, households, rents, and sales tax. This will provide information on trends and supply of retail and commercial space and its long-term viability. LWC anticipates up to two calls with the City during this Task to discuss assumptions and clarify findings. This Task also assumes that the City will provide LWC with any existing market studies, including those prepared by Keyser Marston or equivalent. Final Deliverable: This work will be included in the Task 9C submittals. Task 9.E: Comparable Redevelopment Projects. LWC will conduct an assessment of Orange County and neighboring communities to identify recent redevelopment projects (up to 10 projects) that involved the conversion of commercial properties and parking lots into multifamily residential or mixed-use projects. LWC will narrow the review of redevelopment projects to those comparable to mixed-use sites in the City. LWC will review relevant conditions that may have led to the redevelopment sites' conversion from commercial to multifamily. Critical factors to be documented include: Lot size Unit density and FAR for mixed use projects Unit size/type mix (when info is available) Other notable features (as applicable) such as: affordability, special needs housing (e.g. seniors, supportive, etc.), mixed-use, lot consolidation (if available/know) This task will identify three projects comparable to the candidate housing element sites. LWC anticipates up to two calls with the City during this Task to discuss assumptions and clarify findings. Final Deliverable: This work will be included in the Task 9C submittals. Task 9.F: Site Capacity. LWC will prepare a market analysis section in the revised housing element detailing the analysis described in Tasks 9.1) and 9.E. This will identify a defensible realistic capacity for each of the sites that can be used to address HCD's comments about the suitability of sites to accommodate housing. Final Deliverable: This work will be included in the Task 9C submittals. Task 9.G: Ongoing Negotiation with HCD and Additional Edits to the Housing Element. LWC will participate in interim calls with NCD after submittal of the Housing Element to HCD during HCD's 60 -day review and make interim revisions to the Housing Element as required by HCD during its interim review. 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 5951345 LISAWISECONSULTING.COM 3 LWC anticipates up to two calls with the City and HCD during this Task, and additional calls with the City as needed. Additional rounds of Housing Element edits (if applicable) over and above those described in Tasks 9.0 and 9.G are not included in this add services proposal. Final Deliverables: Interim Revisions to Housing Element (Approach Matrix - Excel, Housing Element - Word and PDF); Additional Housing Element Drafts (Word and PDF). (Not to exceed 112 hours as noted in the budget spreadsheet.) Optional Task 9.H: Public Hearings (2). LWC will attend and present at one Planning Commission hearing and one City Council hearing to adopt revisions to the Housing Element. LWC assumes attendance would be virtual. LWC also assumes that the City is responsible for preparing staff reports and the appropriate resolution text related to Housing Element Update edits. Final Deliverables: Planning Commission and City Council presentations (one each; PowerPoint) Contingency. A $24,000 contingency will provide for additional efforts required related to the integration of the MSSP Amendments into the scope of work and any other unanticipated efforts. 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 5951345 LISANJISECONSULTING.COM 4 City of Seal Beach - Add Services V1 Prepared by Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. July 28, 2023 Prindpal Director i Senior lead Associate GISSpedaDst Associate 295 195 179 ,- 1795250 Hours I T.... Hours_ Cost 40; 159,_, . _. Hours ! Cost 2i Cos_[ 55001 321--S6.240`._.._ So 1 moi.- 310 SOI o, 57,500 6 1,170,4 SOI i 40; 61 $930 80,I 2, SS00 16; 3,1201 So! 40; 16; $2,480 Eo; so 16' 3.120; sa so! 16; $2,480 0i s0{ 16' SU 20i S0 6 51,0501 40 56,200 41 $1,180: 16i 4,0001 40; S7,8001 t 20! S3,Socl W 60' $9,300 SOj 2 f0'- 371 SSA25i 40. 161_ _$2,480 80i 121183,0001 E0; 34 85,950 8! $1,400 30' 4,650 soj 161-_$4,0001 24i 54,680; SO 16r-_-._82_800! 32; $4,960 I 12; 53,5401 241 56,0001 601 i 11,7001 Sol soi 161 $2,480 t - 201I 53,100164,5001 121 $2,3401 16t 52,800I__-__--4295 78, t LISAWIS-01 MCHEW 1 CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MM/DD/YYYY) 8/1/2023 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to,the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). . PRODUCER License # 0305584 Morris & Garritano Insurance Agency, Inc. PO Drawer 1189 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 CONTANAME:CT 805) 53-6887 (AAic, No):(805) 543-3064ac°, No, E.,):4 E-MAIL 1fJq11RFR1q1AFFnRDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A: Sentinel Insurance Company 11000 INSURED Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. 983 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 INSURER B: Ohio Security Insurance Company 24082 INSURER C:Oak River Insurance Company 34630 INSURERD:Twin City Fire Insurance Company 29459 INSURER E : INSURER F TIFICATE NUMBER• REV15ION NUMt3Eh2: COVERAGES CER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ILTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDLIND SUBRWVD POLICY'NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD POLICY EXP M IDD LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 2'000'000 EACH OCCURRENCE S DAMAGETORENTEDEmisEs (Ea r S 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE ®OCCUR X 51SBABAS314 4/1/2023 4/1/2024 MED EXP An ane erson $ 10,000 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY S 2'000'000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: X POLICYjR& ,LOC GENERAL AGGREGATE. S 4'000'000 PRODUCTS -COMP/OPAGG $ 4'000'000 S JE aBGNdED SINGLE LIMIT S 1,000,000 B OTHER: AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY BODILY INJURY Per erson SXANYAUTOXBAS565247924/1/2023 4/1/2024 BODILY INJURY (Per accident) SOWNEDSCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS WyNNARTOSONLYA& OSONLDY perm den DAMAGE S S UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE S AGGREGATE SEXCESSLIARCLAIMS -MADE DED I I RETENTIONS S C D D WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below Professional Liab. Professional Liab. N /A LIWC422640 51 PGO28245723 51PG028245723 4/1/2023 4/1/2023 4/1/2023 4/1/2024 1 4/1/2024 4/1/2024 X PER OTH- TAT TE ER 1,000,000 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT S 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE S 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT S Per Claim & Agg. 2,000,000 Deductible 5,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, maybe attached if more space Is required) See form attached as triggered by written contract: GL: AIIPNC - SS0008 0405. AL: Al - AC8543 0821 City of Seal Beach Community Development Director 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 ACORD 25 (2016103) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE V 1700 -LU 1.7 M%I%JF\y............... ..._. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM 2. Applicable To Medical Expenses Coverage We will not pay expenses for "bodily injury": a. Any Insured To any insured, except "volunteer workers". b. Hired Person To a person hired to do work for or on behalf of any insured or a tenant of any insured. c. Injury On Normally Occupied Premises To a person injured on that part of premises you own or rent that the person normally occupies. d. Workers' Compensation And Similar Laws To a person, whether or not an employee" of any insured, if benefits for the "bodily injury" are payable or must be provided under a workers' compensation or disability benefits law or a similar law. e. Athletics Activities 51SBABA5314 e. A trust, you are an insured. Your trustees are also insureds, but only with respect to their duties as trustees. 2. Each of the following is also an insured: a. Employees And Volunteer Workers Your "volunteer workers" only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or your "employees"., other than either your "executive officers" (if you are an organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company) or your managers (if you are a limited liability company), but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business. However, none of these "employees" or volunteer workers" are insureds for: 1) "Bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury": Page 10 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 To a person injured while practicing, a) To you, to your partners or instructing or participating in any physical members (if you are a partnership exercises or games, sports or athletic or joint venture), to your members contests. if you are a limited liability company), or to a co -"employee" f. Products -Completed Operations Hazard while in the course of his or her Included with the "products -completed employment or performing duties operations hazard". related to the conduct of your g. Business Liability Exclusions business, or to your other Excluded under Business Liability Coverage. volunteer workers" while performing duties related to the C. WHO IS AN INSURED conduct of your business; 1. If you are designated in the Declarations as: b) To the spouse, child, parent, a. An individual, you and your spouse are brother or sister of that co - insureds, but only with respect to the employee" or that "volunteer conduct of a business of which you are the worker" as a consequence of sole owner. Paragraph (1)(a) above; b. A partnership or joint venture, you are an c) For which there is any obligation insured. Your members, your partners, and to share damages with or repay their spouses are also insureds, but only with someone else who must pay respect to the conduct of your business. damages because of the injury described in Paragraphs (1)(a) or C. A limited liability company, you are an b) above; or insured. Your members are also insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of your d) Arising out of his or her providing business. Your managers are insureds, but or failing to provide professional only with respect to their duties as your health care services. managers. If you are not in the business of d. An organization other than a partnership, providing professional health care joint venture or limited liability company,, you services, Paragraph (d) does not apply are an insured. Your "executive officers" and to any nurse, emergency medical directors are insureds, but only with respect technician or paramedic employed by to their duties as your officers or directors. you to provide such services. Your stockholders are also insureds, but only 2) "Property damage" to property: with respect to their liability as stockholders. a) Owned, occupied or used by, Page 10 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 b) Rented to, in the care, custody or control of, or over which physical control is being exercised for any purpose by you, any of your employees", "volunteer workers", any partner or member (if you are a partnership or joint venture), or any member (if you are a limited liability company). b. Real Estate Manager Any person (other than your "employee" or volunteer worker"), or any organization while acting as your real estate manager. c. Temporary Custodians Of Your Property Any person or organization having proper temporary custody of your property if you die, but only: 1) With respect to liability arising out of the maintenance or use of that property; and 2) Until your legal representative has been appointed. d. Legal Representative If You Die Your legal representative if you die, but only with respect to duties as such. That representative will have all your rights and duties under this insurance. e. Unnamed Subsidiary Any subsidiary and subsidiary thereof, of yours which is a legally incorporated entity of which you own a financial interest of more than 50% of the voting stock on the effective date of this Coverage Part. The insurance afforded herein for any subsidiary not shown in the Declarations as a named insured does not apply to injury or damage with respect to which an insured under this insurance is also an insured under another policy or would be an insured under such policy but for its termination or upon the exhaustion of its limits of insurance. 3. Newly Acquired Or Formed Organization Any organization you newly acquire or form, other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company, and over which you maintain financial interest of more than 50% of the voting stock, will qualify as a Named Insured if there is no other similar insurance available to that organization. However: a. Coverage under this provision is afforded only until the 180th day after you acquire or form the organization or the end of the policy period, whichever is earlier; and SISBABA5314 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM b. Coverage under this provision does not apply to: 1) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred; or 2) "Personal and advertising injury" arising out of an offense committed before you acquired or formed the organization. 4. Operator Of Mobile Equipment With respect to "mobile equipment' registered in your name under any motor vehicle registration law, any person is an insured while driving such equipment along a public highway with your permission. Any other person or organization responsible for the conduct of such person is also an insured, but only with respect to liability arising out of the operation of the equipment, and only if no other insurance of any kind is available to that person or organization for this liability. However, no person or organization is an insured with respect to: a. "Bodily injury" to a co -"employee" of the person driving the equipment; or b. "Property damage" to property owned by, rented to, in the charge of or occupied by you or the employer of any person who is an insured under this provision. 5. Operator of Nonowned Watercraft With respect to watercraft you do not own that is less than 51 feet long and is not being used to carry persons for a charge, any person is an insured while operating such watercraft with your permission. Any other person or organization responsible for the conduct of such person is also an insured, but only with respect to liability arising out of the operation of the watercraft, and only if no other insurance of any kind is available to that person or organization for this liability. However, no person or organization is an insured with respect to: a. "Bodily injury" to a co -"employee" of the person operating the watercraft; or b. "Property damage" to property owned by, rented to, in the charge of or occupied by you or the employer of any person who is an insured under this provision. 6. Additional Insureds When Required By Written Contract, Written Agreement Or Permit The person(s) or organization(s) identified in Paragraphs a. through f. below are additional insureds when you have agreed, in a written Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 11 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM contract, written agreement or because of a permit issued by a state or political subdivision, that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy, provided the injury or damage occurs subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement, or the issuance of the permit. A person or organization is an additional insured under this provision only for that period of time required by the contract, agreement or permit. However, no such person or organization is an additional insured under this provision if such person or organization is included as an additional insured by an endorsement issued by us and made a part of this Coverage Part, including all persons or organizations added as additional insureds under the specific additional insured coverage grants in Section F. — Optional Additional Insured Coverages. a. Vendors Any person(s) or organization(s) (referred to below as vendor), but only with respect to bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of "your products" which are distributed or sold in the regular course of the vendor's business and only if this Coverage Part provides coverage for "bodily injury" or property damage" included within the products -completed operations hazard". 1) The insurance afforded to the vendor is subject to the following additional exclusions: This insurance does not apply to: a) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" for which the vendor is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the vendor would have in the absence of the contract or agreement; b) Any express warranty unauthorized by you; c) Any physical or chemical change in the product made intentionally by the vendor; d) Repackaging, except when unpacked solely for the purpose of inspection, demonstration, testing, or the substitution of parts under instructions from the manufacturer, and then repackaged in the original container; Page 12 of 24 51 SBABAS314 e) Any failure to make such inspections, adjustments, tests or servicing as the vendor has agreed to make or normally undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the products; f) Demonstration, installation, servicing or repair operations, except such operations performed at the vendor's premises in connection with the sale of the product; g) Products which, after distribution or sale by you, have been labeled or relabeled or used as a container, part or ingredient of any other thing or substance by or for the vendor; or h) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the sole negligence of the vendor for its own acts or omissions or those of its employees or anyone else acting on its behalf. However, this exclusion does not apply to: i) The exceptions contained in Subparagraphs (d) or (f); or ii) Such inspections, adjustments, tests or servicing as the vendor has agreed to make or normally undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the products. 2) This insurance does not apply to any insured person or organization from whom you have acquired such products, or any ingredient, part or container, entering into, accompanying or containing such products. b. Lessors Of Equipment 1) Any person or organization from whom you lease equipment; but only with respect to their liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your maintenance, operation or use of equipment leased to you by such person or organization. Form SS 00 08 04 05 2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to any occurrence" which takes place after you cease to lease that equipment. c. Lessors Of Land Or Premises 1) Any person or organization from whom you lease land or premises, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the land or premises leased to you. 2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: a) Any "occurrence" which takes place after you cease to lease that land or be a tenant in that premises; or 51SBABA5314 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM e. Permits Issued By State Or Political Subdivisions 1) Any state or political subdivision, but only with respect to operations performed by you or on your behalf for which the state or political subdivision has issued a permit. 2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: a) "Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of operations performed for the state or municipality; or b) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products - completed operations hazard". f. Any Other Party b) Structural alterations, new 1) Any other person or organization who construction or demolition is not an insured under Paragraphs a. operations performed by or on through e. above., but only with behalf of such person or respect to Ii ability for "bodily injury", organization. property damage" or "personal and d. Architects, Engineers Or Surveyors advertising injury" caused, in whole or 1) Any architect, engineer, or surveyor, but in part, by your acts or omissions or only with respect to liability for "bodily the acts or omissions of those acting injury", "property damage" or "personal on your behalf: and advertising injury" caused, in whole a) In the performance of your or in part, by your acts or omissions or ongoing operations; the acts or omissions of those acting on b) In connection with your premises your behalf: owned by or rented to you; or a) In connection with your premises; c) In connection with "your work" and or included within the "products - b) In the performance of your completed operations hazard", but ongoing operations performed by only if you or on your behalf. i) The written contract or written 2) With respect to the insurance afforded agreement requires you to to these additional insureds, the provide such coverage to following additional exclusion applies: such additional insured; and This insurance does not apply to ii) This Coverage Part provides bodily injury", "property damage" or coverage for "bodily injury" or personal and advertising injury" property damage" included arising out of the rendering of or the within the "products - failure to render any professional completed operations hazard". services by or for you, including: 2) With respect to the insurance afforded a) The preparing, approving, or to these additional insureds, this failure to prepare or approve, insurance does not apply to: maps, shop drawings, opinions, Bodily injury", "property damage" or reports, surveys, field orders, personal and advertising injury" change orders, designs or arising out of the rendering of, or the drawings and specifications; or failure to render, any professional b) Supervisory, inspection, architectural, engineering or surveying architectural or engineering services, including: activities. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 13 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM a) The preparing, approving, or failure to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or drawings and specifications; or b) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. The limits of insurance that apply to additional insureds are described in Section D. — Limits Of Insurance. How this insurance applies when other insurance is available to an additional insured is described in the Other Insurance Condition in Section E. — Liability And Medical Expenses General Conditions. No person or organization is an insured with respect to the conduct of any current or past partnership, joint venture or limited liability company that is not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations. D. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES LIMITS OF INSURANCE 1. The Most We Will Pay The Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations and the rules below fix the most we will pay regardless of the number of: a. Insureds; b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or c. Persons or organizations making claims or bringing "suits". 2. Aggregate Limits The most we will pay for. a. Damages because of "bodily injury" and property damage" included in the products -completed operations hazard" is the Products -Completed Operations Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations. b. Damages because of all other "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury", including medical expenses, is the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations. This General Aggregate Limit applies separately to each of your 'locations" owned by or rented to you. Location" means premises involving the same or connecting lots, or premises whose connection is interrupted only by a street, roadway or right-of-way of a railroad. SISBABA5314 This General Aggregate limit does not apply to "property damage" to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner, arising out of fire, lightning or explosion. 3. Each Occurrence Limit Subject to 2.a. or 2.b above, whichever applies, the most we will pay for the sum of all damages because of all "bodily injury", property damage" and medical expenses arising out of any one 'occurrence" is the Liability and Medical Expenses Limit shown in the Declarations. The most we will pay for all medical expenses because of "bodily injury" sustained by any one person is the Medical Expenses Limit shown in the Declarations. 4. Personal And Advertising Injury Limit Subject to 2.b. above, the most we will pay for the sum of all damages because of all personal and advertising injury" sustained by any one person or organization is the Personal and Advertising Injury Limit shown in the Declarations. 5. Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit The Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit is the most we will pay under Business Liability Coverage for damages because of property damage" to any one premises, while rented to you, or in the case of damage by fire, lightning or explosion, while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner. In the case of damage by fire, lightning or explosion, the Damage to Premises Rented To You Limit applies to all damage proximately caused by the same event, whether such damage results from fire, lightning or explosion or any combination of these. 6. How Limits Apply To Additional Insureds The most we will pay on behalf of a person or organization who is an additional insured under this Coverage Part is the lesser of: a. The limits of insurance specified in a written contract, written agreement or permit issued by a state or political subdivision; or b. The Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. Such amount shall be a part of and not in addition to the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations and described in this Section. Page 14 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 If more than one limit of insurance under this policy and any endorsements attached thereto applies to any claim or "suit", the most we will pay under this policy and the endorsements is the single highest limit of liability of all coverages applicable to such claim or "suit". However, this paragraph does not apply to the Medical Expenses limit set forth in Paragraph 3. above. The Limits of Insurance of this Coverage Part apply separately to each consecutive annual period and to any remaining period of less than 12 months, starting with the beginning of the policy period shown in the Declarations, unless the policy period is extended after issuance for an additional period of less than 12 months. In that case, the additional period will be deemed part of the last preceding period for purposes of determining the Limits of Insurance. E. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy or insolvency of the insured or of the insured's estate will not, relieve us of our obligations under this Coverage Part. 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit a. Notice Of Occurrence Or Offense You or any additional insured must see to it that we are notified as soon as practicable of an "occurrence" or an offense which may result in a claim. To the extent possible, notice should include: 1) How, when and where the "occurrence" or offense took place; 2) The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses; and 3) The nature and location of any injury or damage arising out of the occurrence" or offense. b. Notice Of Claim If a claim is made or "suit" is brought against any insured, you or any additional insured must: 1) Immediately record the specifics of the claim or "suit" and the date received; and 2) Notify us as soon as practicable. You or any additional insured must see to it that we receive a written notice of the claim or "suit" as soon as practicable. c. Assistance And Cooperation Of The Insured You and any other involved insured must: 51 SBABAS314 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM 1) Immediately send us copies of any demands, notices, summonses or legal papers received in connection with the claim or "suit"; 2) Authorize us to obtain records and other information; 3) Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement of the claim or defense against the "suit'; and 4) Assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right against any person or organization that may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply. d. Obligations At The Insured's Own Cost No insured will, except at that insured's own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without our consent. e. Additional Insured's Other Insurance If we cover a claim or "suit" under this Coverage Part that may also be covered by other insurance available to an additional insured, such additional insured must submit such claim or "suit" to the other insurer for defense and indemnity. However, this provision does not apply to the extent that you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that this insurance is primary and non-contributory with the additional insured's own insurance. f. Knowledge Of An Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit Paragraphs a. and b. apply to you or to any additional insured only when such occurrence", offense, claim or "suit" is known to: 1) You or any additional insured that is an individual; 2) Any partner, if you or an additional insured is a partnership; 3) Any manager, if you or an additional insured is a limited liability company; 4) Any "executive officer" or insurance manager, if you or an additional insured is a corporation; 5) Any trustee, if you or an additional insured is a trust; or 6) Any elected or appointed official, if you or an additional insured is a political subdivision or public entity. Form SS 00 08 04 05 - Page 15 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM This Paragraph f. applies separately to you and :any additional insured. 3. Financial Responsibility Laws a. When this policy is certified as proof of financial responsibility for the future under the provisions of any motor vehicle financial responsibility law, the insurance provided by the policy for "bodily injury" liability and "property damage" liability will comply with the provisions of the law to the extent of the coverage and limits of insurance required by that law. b. With respect to "mobile equipment" to which this insurance applies, we will provide any liability, uninsured motorists, underinsured motorists, no-fault or other coverage required by any motor vehicle law. We will provide the required limits for those coverages. 4. Legal Action Against Us No person or organization has a right under this Coverage Form: a. To join us as a party or otherwise bring us into a "suit" asking for damages from an insured; or b. To sue us on this Coverage Form unless all of its terms have been fully complied with. A person or organization may sue us to recover on an agreed settlement or on a final judgment against an insured; but we will not be liable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this insurance or that are in excess of the applicable limit of insurance. An agreed settlement means a settlement and release of liability signed by us, the insured and the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. S. Separation Of Insureds Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this policy to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies: a. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and b. Separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or "suit" is brought. 6. Representations a. When You Accept This Policy By accepting this policy, you agree: 1) The statements in the Declarations are accurate and complete; 2) Those statements are based upon representations you made to us; and 51 SBABA5314 3) We have issued this policy in reliance upon your representations. b. Unintentional Failure To Disclose Hazards If unintentionally you should fail to disclose all hazards relating to the conduct of your business at the inception date of this Coverage Part, we shall not deny any coverage under this Coverage Part because of such failure. 7. Other Insurance If other valid and collectible insurance is available for a loss we cover under this Coverage Part, our obligations are limited as follows: a. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary except when b. below applies. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis: 1) Your Work That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, Installation Risk or similar coverage for "your work'; 2) Premises Rented To You That is fire, lightning or explosion insurance for premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; 3) Tenant Liability That is insurance purchased by you to cover your liability as a tenant for property damage" to premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; 4) Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft If the loss arises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, "autos" or watercraft to the extent not subject to Exclusion g. of Section A. — Coverages. 5) Property Damage To Borrowed Equipment Or Use Of Elevators If the loss arises out of "property damage" to borrowed equipment or the use of elevators to the extent not subject to Exclusion k. of Section A. — Coverages. Page 16 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 6) When You Are Added As An Additional Insured To Other Insurance That is other insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations, or products and completed operations, for which you have been added as an additional insured by that insurance; or 7) When You Add Others As An Additional Insured To This Insurance That is other insurance available to an additional insured. However, the following provisions apply to other insurance available to any person or organization who is an additional insured under this Coverage Part: a) Primary Insurance When Required By Contract This insurance is primary if you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that this insurance be primary. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. b) Primary And Non -Contributory To Other Insurance When Required By Contract If you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that this insurance is primary and non-contributory with the additional insured's own insurance, this insurance is primary and we will not seek contribution from that other insurance. Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to other insurance to which the additional insured has been added as an additional insured. When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty under this Coverage Part to defend the insured against any "suit" if any other insurer has a duty to defend the insured against that "suit". If no other insurer defends, we will undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the insured's rights against all those other insurers. 51SBABA5314 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM When this insurance is excess over other insurance, we will pay only our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sum of: 1) The total amount that all such other insurance would pay for the loss in the absence of this insurance; and 2) The total of all deductible and self- insured amounts under all that other insurance. We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any other insurance that is not described in this Excess Insurance provision and was not bought specifically to apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations of this Coverage Part. c. Method Of Sharing If all the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach, each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers. 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us a. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment, including Supplementary Payments, we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring "suit" or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. This condition does not apply to Medical Expenses Coverage. b. Waiver Of Rights Of Recovery (Waiver Of Subrogation) If the insured has waived any rights of recovery against any person or organization for all or part of any payment, including Supplementary Payments, we have made under this Coverage Part, we also waive that right, provided the insured waived their rights of recovery against such person or organization in a contract, agreement or permit that was executed prior to the injury or damage. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 17 of 24 4 BAS56524792 COMMERCIAL AUTO AC 85 43 08 21 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE ENHANCEMENT ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage afforded by this endorsement, the provisions of the policy apply unless modified by the endorsement. If the policy to which this endorsement is attached also contains a Business Auto Coverage Enhancement Endorsement with a specific state named in the title, this endorsement does not apply to vehicles garaged in that specified state. COVERAGEINDEX SUBJECT PROVISION NUMBER ACCIDENTAL AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT 12 ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT 3 AMENDED DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS 20 AMENDED FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION 5 AUDIO, VISUAL AND DATA ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT COVERAGE 14 BODILY INJURY REDEFINED 24 EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS (Including Employee Hired Auto) 2 EXTRA EXPENSE -BROADENED COVERAGE 10 GLASS REPAIR- WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE 16 HIRED AUTO COVERAGE TERRITORY 22 HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE (Including Employee Hired Auto) 6 LOAN / LEASE GAP (Coverage Not Available In New York) 15 NEWLY FORMED OR ACQUIRED SUBSIDIARIES 1 PARKED AUTO COLLISION COVERAGE (WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE) 17 PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE 11 PHYSICAL DAMAGE - ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE. COVERAGE 8 PHYSICAL DAMAGE DEDUCTIBLE -VEHICLE TRACKING SYSTEM 13 PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY - WRITTEN CONTRACT OR WRITTEN AGREEMENT 23 RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT 9 SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS 4 TOWING AND LABOR 7 TWO OR MORE DEDUCTIBLES 18 UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HAZARDS 19 WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERYAGAINST OTHERS TO US 21 SECTION 11- LIABILITY COVERAGE is amended as follows: 1. NEWLY FORMED OR ACQUIRED SUBSIDIARIES SECTION 11 - LIABILITY COVERAGE, Paragraph A.I. Who Is An Insured is amended to include the following as an "insured": d. Any legally incorporated subsidiary of which you own more than 50 percent interest during the policy period. Coverage is afforded only for 90 days from the date of acquisition or formation. However, "insured" does not include any organization that: 1) Is a partnership or joint venture; or 2) Is an "insured" under any other automobile policy except a policy written specificall y to apply in excess of this policy; or 3) Has exhausted its Limit of Insurance or had its policy terminated under any other automobile policy. 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 1 of 7 BAS56524792 Coverage under this provision d. does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred before you acquired or -formed the organization. 2. EMPLOYEES AS INSUREDS SECTION 11 - LIABILITY COVERAGE, Paragraph A.I. Who Is An Insured is amended to include the following as an "insured": e. Any "employee" of yours while using a covered "auto" you do not own, hire or borrow but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you. Insurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to any "employee". f. Any "employee" of yours while operating an "auto" hired or borrowed under a written contract or agreement in that "employee's" name, with your permission, while performing duties related to the conduct of your business and within the scope of their employment. Insurance provided by this endorsement is excess over any other insurance available to the "employee". ADDITIONAL INSURED BY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR PERMIT SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGE, Paragraph A.1. Who Is An Insured is amended to include the following as an "insured": ' g. Any person or organization with respect to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered "auto", provided that you and such person or organization have agreed in a written contract, written agreement, or permit issued to you by governmental or public authority, to add such person, or organization, or governmental or public authority to this policy as an "insured". However, such person or organization is an "insured": 1) Only with respect to the operation, maintenance or use of a covered "auto'; caused by an "accident" which takes place after agreement, or the permit has been issued to you; 2) Only for "bodily injury" or "property damage you executed the written contract or written and 3) Only for the duration of that contract, agreement or permit. The "insured" is required to submit a claim to any other insurer to which coverage could apply for defense and indemnity. Unless the "insured" has agreed in writing to primary noncontributory wording per enhancement number 23, this policy is excess over any other collectible insurance. 4. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGE, Coverage Extensions, 2.a. Supplementary Payments, Paragraphs 2) and (4) are replaced by the following: 2) Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (including bonds for related traffic violations ) required because of an "accident" we cover. We do not have to. furnish these bonds. 4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the "insured" at our request, including actual loss of earnings up to $500 a day because of time off from work. 5. AMENDED FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION In those jurisdictions where, by law, fellow "employees" are not entitled to the protection afforded to the employer by the workers compensation exclusivity rule, or similar protection, the following provi- sion is added: SECTION II - LIABILITY, Exclusion B.5. Fellow Employee does not apply if the "bodily injury" results from the use of a covered "auto" you own or hire if you have workers compensation insurance in force for all of your "employees" at the time of "loss". This coverage is excess over any other collectible insurance. SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended as follows: 6. HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE Paragraph A.4. Coverage Extensions of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, is amended by adding the following: If hired "autos" are covered "autos" for Liability Coverage, and if Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss or Collision coverage are provided under the Business Auto Coverage Form for any "auto" you own, then the Physical Damage coverages provided are extended to "autos": 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 2 of 7 BAS56524792 a. You hire, rent or borrow; or b. Your "employee" hires or rents under a written contract or agreement in that "e'mployee's" name, but only if the damage occurs while the vehicle is being used in the conduct of your business, subject to the following limit and deductible: a. The most we will pay for "loss" in any one "accident" or "loss" is the smallest of: 1) $50,000; or 2) The actual cash value of the damaged or stolen property as of the time of the "loss'; or 3) The cost of repairing or replacing the damaged or stolen property with other property of like kind and quality, minus a deductible. b. The deductible will be equal to the largest deductible applicable to any owned "auto" for that coverage. c. Subject to the limit, deductible and excess provisions described in this provision, we will provide coverage equal to the broadest coverage applicable to any covered "auto" you own. d. Subject to a maximum of $1,000 per "accident", we will also cover the actual loss of use of the hired "auto" if it results from an "accident", you are legally liable and the lessor incurs an actual financial loss. e. This coverage extension does not apply to: 1) Any "auto" that is hired, rented or borrowed with a driver; or 2) Any "auto" that is hired, rented or borrowed from your "employee" or any member of your employee's" household. Coverage provided under this extension is excess over any other collectible insurance available at the time of "loss". 7. TOWING AND LABOR SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, Paragraph A.2. Towing, is amended by the addition of the following: We will pay towing and labor costs incurred, up to the limits shown below, each time a covered "auto" classified and rated as a private passenger type, "light truck" or "medium truck" is disabled: a. For private passenger type vehicles, we will pay up to $75 per disablement. b. For "light trucks", we will pay up to $75 per disablement. "Light trucks" are trucks that have a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 pounds or less. c. For "medium trucks", we will pay up to $150 per disablement. "Medium trucks" are trucks that have a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,001 - 20,000 pounds. However, the labor must be performed at the place of disablement. a 8. PHYSICAL DAMAGE -ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE COVERAGE Paragraph A.4.a. Coverage Extensions, Transportation Expenses of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, is amended to provide a limit of $50 per day and a maximum limit of $1,500. 9. RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, A. Coverage, is amended by adding the following: a. We will pay up to $75 per day for rental reimbursement expenses incurred by you for the rental of an "auto" because of "accident" or "loss", to an "auto" for which we also pay a "loss" under Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss or Collision Coverages. We will pay only for those ex- penses incurred after the first 24 hours following the "accident" or "loss" to the covered "auto." b. Rental Reimbursement requires the rental of a comparable or lesser vehicle, which in many cases may be substantially less than $75 per day, and will only be allowed for the period of time it should take to repair or replace the vehicle with reasonable speed and similar quality, up to a maximum of 30 days. c. We will also pay up to $500 for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by you to remove and replace your tools and equipment from the covered "auto". This limit is excess over any other collectible insurance. 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 3 of 7 BAS56524792 d. This coverage does not apply unless you have a business necessity that other "autos" available for your use and operation cannot fill. e. If "loss" results from the total theft of a covered "auto" of the private passenger type, we will pay under this coverage only that amount of your rental reimbursement expenses which is not already provided under Paragraph 4. Coverage Extension. f. No deductible applies to this coverage. g. The insurance provided under this extension is excess over any other collectible insurance. If this policy also provides Rental Reimbursement Coverage you purchased, the coverage provided by this Enhancement Endorsement is in addition to the coverage you purchased. For the purposes of this endorsement provision, materials and equipment do not include "personal effects" as defined in provision 11.B. 10. EXTRA EXPENSE - BROADENED COVERAGE Under SECTION 111 - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, A. Coverage, we will pay for the expense of returning a stolen covered "auto" to you. The maximum amount we will pay is $1,000. 11. PERSONAL EFFECTS COVERAGE A. SECTION III PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, A. Coverage, is amended by adding the following: if you have purchased Comprehensive Coverage on this policy for an "auto" you own and that auto" is stolen, we will pay, without application of a deductible, up to $600 for "personal effects" stolen with the "auto." The insurance provided under this 'provision is excess over any other collectible insurance. B. SECTION V - DEFINITIONS is amended by adding the following: For the purposes of this provision, "personal effects" mean tangible property that is wom or carried by an "insured." "Personal effects" does not include tools, equipment, jewelry, money or securi- ties. 12. ACCIDENTAL AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT SECTION Ili - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, B. Exclusions is amended by adding the following: If you have purchased Comprehensive or Collision Coverage under this policy, the exclusion for "loss" relating to mechanical breakdown does not apply to the accidental discharge of an airbag. Any insurance we provide shall be excess over any other collectible insurance or reimbursement by manufacturer's warranty. However, we agree to pay any deductible applicable to the other coverage or warranty. 13. PHYSICAL DAMAGE DEDUCTIBLE -VEHICLE TRACKING SYSTEM SECTION Ill - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, D. Deductible , is amended by adding the following: Any Comprehensive Deductible shown in the Declarations will be reduced by 50% for any "loss" caused by theft if the vehicle is equipped with a vehicle tracking device such as a radio tracking device or a global position device and that device was the method, of recovery of the vehicle. 14. AUDIO, VISUAL AND DATA ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT COVERAGE SECTION 111 - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, B. Exclusions, Paragraph a. of the exception to exclu- sions 4.c. and 4.d. is deleted and replaced with the following: Exclusions 4.c. and 4.d. do not apply to: a. Electronic equipment that receives or transmits audio, visual or data signals, whether or- net de- signed solely for the reproduction of sound, if the equipment is: 1) Permanently installed in the covered "auto" at the time of the "loss" or removable from a housing unit that is permanently installed in the covered "auto'; and 2) Designed to be solely operated by use from the power from the "auto's" electrical system; and 3) Physical damage coverages are provided for the covered "auto". If the "loss" occurs solely to audio, visual or data electronic equipment or accessories used with this equipment, then our obligation to pay for, repair, return or replace damaged or stolen property will be reduced by a $100 deductible. 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 4 of 7 BAS56524792 15. LOAN / LEASE GAP COVERAGE (Not Applicable In New York) A- Paragraph C. Limit Of Insurance of SECTION 111 - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended by adding the following: The most we will pay for a "total loss" to a covered "auto" owned by or leased to you in any one accident" is the greater of the: 1. Balance due under the terms of the loan or lease to which the damaged covered "auto" is subject at the time of the "loss" less the amount of: a. Overdue payments and financial penalties associated with those payments as of the date of the 'loss'; b. Financial penalties imposed under a lease due to high mileage, excessive use or abnormal wear and tear; c. Costs for extended warranties, Credit Life Insurance, Health, Accident or Disability Insur- ance purchased with the loan or lease; d. Transfer or rollover balances from previous loans or leases; e. Final payment due under a "Balloon Loan"; f. The dollar amount of any unrepaired damage which occurred prior to the "total loss" of a covered "auto'; g. Security deposits not refunded by a lessor;. h. All refunds payable or paid to you as a result of the early termination of a lease agreement or as a result of the early termination of any warranty or extended service agreement on a covered "auto'; i. Any amount representing taxes; j. Loan,or lease termination fees; or 2. The actual cash value of the damage or stolen property as of the time of the 'loss". An adjustment for depreciation and physical condition will be made in determining the actual cash value at the time of the 'loss". This adjustment is not applicable in Texas. B. Additional Conditions This coverage applies only to the original loan for which the covered "auto" that incurred the loss" serves as collateral, or lease written on the covered ",auto" that incurred the 'loss". C. SECTION V - DEFINITIONS is changed by adding the following: As used in this endorsement provision, the following definitions apply: Total loss" means a 'loss" in which the cost of repairs plus the salvage value exceeds the actual cash value. A "balloon loan" is one with periodic payments that are insufficient to repay the balance over the term of the loan, thereby requiring a large final payment. 16. GLASS REPAIR- WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE Paragraph D. Deductible of SECTION 111 - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended by the addition of the following: No deductible applies to glass damage if the glass is repaired rather than replaced. 17. PARKED AUTO COLLISION COVERAGE (WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE) Paragraph D. Deductible of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended by the addition of the following: The deductible does not apply to 'loss" caused by collision to such covered "auto" of the private passenger type or light weight truck with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 lbs. or less as defined by the manufacturer as maximum loaded weight the "auto" is designed to carry while it is: a. In the charge of an "insured'; b. Legally parked; and c. Unoccupied. 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 5 of 7 BAS56524792 The "loss" must be reported to the police authorities within 24 hours of known damage. The total amount of the damage to the covered "auto" must exceed the deductible shown in the Declarations. This provision does not apply to any "loss" if the covered "auto" is in the charge of any person or organization engaged in the automobile business. 18. TWO OR MORE DEDUCTIBLES Under SECTION 111 - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, if two or more company policies or coverage forms apply to the same "accident", the following applies to Paragraph D. Deductible a. If the applicable Business Auto deductible is the smaller (or smallest) deductible, it will be waived; or b. If the applicable Business Auto deductible is not the smaller (or smallest) deductible , it will be reduced by the amount of the smaller (or smallest) deductible; or c. If the "loss" involves two or more Business Auto coverage forms or policies, the smaller (or smallest) deductible will be waived. For the purpose of this endorsement, company means any company that is part of the Liberty Mutual Group. SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is amended as follows: 19. UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HAZARDS SECTION IV- BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS , Paragraph B.2. is amended by adding the following: If you unintentionally fail to disclose any hazards, exposures or material facts existing as of the incep- tion date or renewal date of the Business Auto Coverage Form, the coverage afforded by this policy will not be prejudiced. However,, you must report the undisclosed hazard of exposure as soon as practicable after its discovery, and we have the right to collect additional premium for any such hazard or exposure. 20. AMENDED DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS , Paragraph A.2.a. is replaced in its entirety by the follow- ing: a. In the event of "accident", claim, "suit" or "loss", you must promptly notify us when it is known to: 1) You, if you are an individual; 2) A partner, if you are a partnership; 3) Member, if you are a limited liability company; 4) An executive officer or the "employee" designated by the Named Insured to give such notice, if you are a corporation. To the extent possible, notice to us should include: a) How, when and where the "accident" or "loss" took place; b) The "insured's" name and address; and c) The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses. 21. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS , Paragraph A.5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us, is amended by the addition of the following: If the person or organization has in a written agreement waived those rights before an "accident" or loss", our rights are waived also. 22. HIRED AUTO COVERAGE TERRITORY SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS , Paragraph B.7. Policy Period, Coverage Territory, is amended by the addition of the following: f. For "autos" hired 30 days or less, the coverage territory is anywhere in the world, provided that the insured's" responsibility to pay for damages is determined in a "suit", on the merits, in the United States, the territories and possessions of the United States of America, Puerto Rico or Canada or in a settlement we agree to. 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 6 of 7 a BAS56524792 This extension of coverage does not apply to an "auto" hired, leased, rented or borrowed with a driver. 23. PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTING IF REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT OR WRITTEN AGREE- MENT The following is added to SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, General Conditions, B.5. Other Insurance and supersedes any provision to the contrary: This Coverage Form's Covered Autos Liability Coverage is primary to and will not seek contribution from any other insurance available to an "insured" under your policy provided that: 1. Such "insured" is a Named Insured under such other insurance; and 2. You have agreed in a written contract or written agreement that this insurance would be primary and would not seek contribution from any other insurance available to such "insured". SECTION V - DEFINITIONS is amended as follows: 24. BODILY INJURY REDEFINED Under SECTION V - DEFINITIONS, Definition C. is replaced by the following: Bodily injury" means physical injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, -including mental anguish, mental injury, shock, fright or death resulting from any of these at any time. 2021 Liberty Mutual Insurance AC 85 43 08 21 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 7 of 7 Agenda Item H AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Approving and Authorizing Amendment 2 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7716: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. (formerly known as Telecom Law Firm, P.C.) dated August 10, 2023, as previously amended by Amendment 1 dated February 24, 2025, and previously extended by letter dated May 14, 2024, for additional professional legal services to support the billboard initiative; and, 2. Increasing compensation for such additional services by $20,000 for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-06-02 in the amount of $20,000. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On August 10, 2023, the City of Seal Beach (City) entered into a Special Counsel Services (SCS) Agreement with Telecom Law Firm, P.C. (TLF) to provide specialized legal services related to telecommunications law, including the review, negotiation, and management of wireless facility leases on City-owned property. TLF’s expertise has been instrumental in guiding the City through complex and evolving federal and state regulations governing wireless communications and ensuring the City’s wireless infrastructure and related agreements remain compliant and enforceable. The City currently maintains 11 wireless facilities on City-owned property, all of which are undergoing legal and administrative review with TLF to ensure compliance and update lease documentation as necessary. Page 2 2 2 0 0 The City received formal notice on August 6, 2025, that the attorneys previously operating as Telecom Law Firm, P.C. (TLF) are now part of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. (CHW). All services previously provided under the SCS Agreement continue uninterrupted under CHW, with the same legal team and an expanded range of firm resources and expertise now available to support the City. In accordance with prior City Council direction, staff evaluated opportunities to install and operate billboards on City-owned parcels as a long-term fiscal stability initiative. Given that the West Orange County Connector segment of Interstate 405 is among the most heavily traveled freeway corridors in the nation, staff identified potential City-owned sites adjacent to this segment as strategically suitable for billboard placement. Staff subsequently issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of billboards. Three proposals were received, reviewed, and evaluated through a structured staff review process, including interviews with the leadership teams of each proposing firm. As discussed during the City’s recent Strategic Planning Session, staff is now preparing to move forward with the selection of a preferred operator, and additional specialized legal support is required to guide the City through all legal, regulatory, and contractual aspects of the billboard initiative. Amendment 2 to the SCS Agreement proposes to expand the scope of services, now provided under CHW, to include full legal representation and advisory support for the City’s billboard initiative. The expanded scope would generally include: negotiation and preparation of a comprehensive lease agreement, review of revenue terms, compensation structures, and financial assurances, coordination with the selected operator on design, construction, environmental compliance, and operational requirements, and guidance on relevant regulatory frameworks, including the California Outdoor Advertising Act, Federal Highway Administration standards, and Caltrans permitting procedures. The scope also encompasses legal due diligence related to property rights, easements, indemnification, bonding and insurance requirements, liability and risk allocation, and all other legal considerations necessary to protect the City throughout the project lifecycle, from operator selection through installation, testing, and commencement of billboard operations. Amendment 2 would add an additional $20,000 to the existing agreement, resulting in a revised total not-to-exceed contract amount of $90,000. This increase reflects the specialized level of legal services required to support the comprehensive implementation of the billboard initiative. Costs associated with Amendment 2 are expected to be included as reimbursable expenses within the final lease agreement, with the selected operator covering the City’s legal and other support costs for the entirety of the billboard initiative, thereby making these services cost- neutral to the City. Page 3 2 2 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the state CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that approval of Amendment 2 to the Agreement with CHW will not have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Budget Amendment BA #26-06-02 will allocate $20,000 from the General Fund to account 101-150-0019-51280 account for FY 2025-26. It is anticipated that all costs will be incorporated into the future lease agreement and reimbursed by the selected operator, allowing these legal services to be cost-neutral to the City’s General Fund. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s focus on maintaining long-term fiscal health. By exploring opportunities to address anticipated financial challenges and diversify the City’s revenue streams, this action contributes toward securing stable and reliable funding necessary to support essential services and future capital needs. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7716: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. (formerly known as Telecom Law Firm, P.C.) dated August 10, 2023, as previously amended by Amendment 1 dated February 24, 2025, and previously extended by letter dated May 14, 2024, for additional professional legal services to support the billboard initiative; and, 2. Increasing compensation for such additional services by $20,000 for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000; and, Page 4 2 2 0 0 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-06-02 in the amount of $20,000. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Sean Sabo, Management Analyst ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7716 B. Amendment 2 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. C. Amendment 1 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Telecom Law Firm, P.C. D. Original Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Telecom Law Firm, P.C. RESOLUTION 7716 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL COUNSEL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, P.C. WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (City) and Telecom Law Firm, P.C. (TLF) are parties to that certain Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement dated August 10, 2023, for specialized legal services focused on telecommunications law within the City’s wireless facility sites for a term ending June 30, 2024 and with three optional one-year extensions (collectively the “Agreement”); and, WHEREAS, the Agreement was extended by extension letter pursuant to the City’s election for an additional one year (“first extension”) to June 30, 2025; and, WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 7617 approving Amendment 1 to the Agreement to extend the term to June 30, 2026 and to increase TLF’s compensation for such services by $30,000, for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $70,000; and, WHEREAS, on August 6, 2025, the City received formal notice that the attorneys previously operating as Telecom Law Firm, P.C. (TLF) had joined Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. (CHW), and that all services under the Agreement may continue uninterrupted under CHW with the same legal team and expanded firm resources; and, WHEREAS, CHW is the successor to and assignee of TLF under the Agreement, and has agreed to and is bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with prior City Council direction, City staff evaluated opportunities to install and operate billboards on City-owned parcels as a long-term revenue-generating initiative and identified potential sites; and, WHEREAS, on June 5, 2025, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of digital billboards; and, WHEREAS, the establishment, negotiation, and implementation of a comprehensive billboard lease agreement require legal expertise, including but not limited to, lease development, revenue and compensation structures, design and construction coordination, regulatory compliance, permitting, property rights, easements, indemnification, insurance, liability allocation, and other matters necessary to protect the City’s interests; and, 1 0 7 0 8 WHEREAS, CHW has the legal experience required to assist the City with these complex leasing and regulatory matters; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Agreement to expand the scope of services to include legal work necessary to support the billboard initiative; and, WHEREAS, Amendment 2 to the Agreement proposes an increase in compensation in the amount of $20,000, for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000, with these costs anticipated to be incorporated into the future lease agreement and reimbursed by the selected operator, resulting in no net cost to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves Amendment 2 to the Professional Special Counsel Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley P.C., as previously amended by Amendment 2 and extended by letter extension, to expand the scope of services to include legal representation and advisory work necessary to support the development, negotiation, execution, and implementation of a billboard lease agreement, as well as continued legal support for wireless facility lease reviews and related telecommunications matters. Section 2. The City Council authorizes an increase in compensation in the amount of $20,000 for the additional services, for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000 for all legal services under the Agreement. Section 3. The Council hereby directs the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City. Section 4. The City Council hereby approves Budget Amendment BA #26-06-02 allocating $20,000 to 101-150-0019-51280, as follows: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: 1 0 7 0 8 AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7716 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Amendment 2 for Special Counsel Services Relating to Telecommunications Law and Related Issues Between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 (562) 542-0501 This Amendment 2, dated December 8, 2025, amends that certain agreement (Agreement) made as of August 10, 2023, as previously amended by Amendment 1 dated February 24, 2025 (“Amendment 1”), by and between the City of Seal Beach (City), a California charter city, and Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C. (Special Counsel) as successor and assignee of Telecom Law Firm, P.C. 2 of 4 RECITALS A. City and Special Counsel are parties to an Agreement, pursuant to which Special Counsel provides legal services relating to telecommunications law and related issues. B. Effective August 10, 2023, City and Telecom Law Firm, P.C., Special Counsel’s predecessor, entered into Agreement for Special Counsel Services (original agreement) to provide legal services relating to telecommunications law and related issues with the Original Term ending June 30, 2024, with three optional one-year extensions at the discretion of City. C. The original agreement was extended by extension letter pursuant to City’s election for an additional one-year (“first extension”) to June 30, 2025. D. Effective February 24, 2025, City adopted Resolution 7617 approving Amendment 1 to the original agreement further extend the contract term to and including June 30, 2026, with three optional one-year extensions at the discretion of the City, and to increase compensation by $30,000, for a revised total not-to- exceed amount of $70,000. E. As of August 6, 2025, Telecom Law Firm joined the law firm of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, P.C., (Special Counsel), and Special Counsel has assumed and is hereby bound by all obligations and benefits of the original agreement, all of the terms of which are hereby incorporated herein by this reference; and F. The original agreement, as extended by extension letter and amended by Amendment 1, is hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”; and G. City and Special Counsel desire to amend the Agreement by Amendment 2 to expand the scope of services to also include legal representation and advisory work necessary to support the development, negotiation, execution, and implementation of a billboard lease agreement, and to increase Special Counsel’s not-to-exceed compensation by $20,000, for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000. AMENDMENT 2 NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Section 2 (Scope of Work) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: “2. Scope of Work. City retains Special Counsel to perform, and Special Counsel agrees to render those services associated with 3 of 4 telecommunications law and related issues (the “Services”) and the additional services associated with billboard leasing law as set forth in Exhibit A-1 attached to Amendment 2, all in accordance with this Agreement’s terms and conditions. Special Counsel designates Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer (CA SBN 244074) and Mr. Robert C. May III (CA SBN 291483) as the Attorneys jointly responsible to direct or perform this scope of Work.” Section 2. Section 6 (Compensation) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: “6. Compensation. City shall compensate Special Counsel for the performance of the Services at the rates shown on Exhibit “A” and Exhibit "A-1" up to a maximum of $90,000. No other compensation for the Services will be allowed except for items covered by subsequent amendments to this Agreement.” Section 3. Except as expressly modified or supplemented by this Amendment 2, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect. Section 4. The person executing this Amendment 2 on behalf of Special Counsel warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute this Amendment 2 on behalf of said Party, and that by his or her execution, Special Counsel is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment 2. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. 4 of 4 CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: _________________________ Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Attest: By: _________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Approved as to Form: By: _________________________ Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney SPECIAL COUNSEL: Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, a Professional Corporation By: __________________________ Robert C. May III, Shareholder By: __________________________ Name:__________________________ Its: __________________________ (Please note, two signatures required for corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) Gary B. Bell Co-Managing Shareholder and Secretary EXHIBIT A-1 FOR AMENDMENT 2 Special Counsel’s Additional Services and Rates From:Robert May To:Sean Sabo Cc:Jonathan L. Kramer; McCall L. Williams Subject:Digital Billboard Agreement - CHW Rates Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 12:13:14 PM Dear Mr. Sabo: In connection with the City's Digital Billboard project, you have asked Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley PC to provide the City with legal services to support the City's leasing efforts through the construction phase. This is an extension to our existing Legal Services Agreement. This message is intended to serve as Exhibit A-1 to our existing Legal Services Agreement providing the applicable rates for this one assignment regarding the Digital Billboard Project. The rates will be: Shareholders/Dr. Jonathan Kramerௐௐௐௐௐௐௐ$371 Senior Attorneysௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐ$318 Attorneys ௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐ$297 Paralegalsௐ ௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐ ௐௐௐ$127 Legal Assistantsௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐௐ ௐௐௐ$ 74 All time is billed in 0.1 hour units rounded up to the next 0.1 hour. The rate above are automatically increased by 3% on the first day of August each year, starting on August 1, 2026. Travel time is billed portal to portal at 60% of the hourly rates shown above. We understand that your current budget allocation for this project is $20,000. Very truly yours, Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley PC By Robert C. May III Shareholder Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 | La Jolla, CA 92037 Direct 858-379-0188 | Main 213-542-5700 | Fax 213-542-5710 tmay@chwlaw.us | www.chwlaw.us This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY,PC ROBERT C. MAY III 1 (619) 272-6200 1 RMAY@CHWLAW.US August 6, 2025 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL asmittle@sealbeachca.gov City of Seal Beach Alexa Smittle 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Cvlantuono Highsmith & Whatley + Telecom Law Firm Dear Alexa, Jonathan and I are pleased to let you know that the key attorneys at Telecom Law Firm, PC, have joined Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC. This move, which comes at the end of a nearly 20 -year run as Telecom Law Firm, combines our leading expertise in telecommunications law, policy, and litigation with one of the most highly respected law firms in California. As a result, we are now able to offer our clients the expanded breadth and depth of expertise of the attorneys at CHW. We've been honored to serve you through Telecom Law Firm, and we look forward to continuing to serve you and offer the expanded capabilities at CHW. That said, if you would like us to return or close your file or transfer it to other counsel, please let us know by email to tmay@chwlaw.us and jkramer@chwlaw.us with a copy to Tripp's legal assistant, Ms. McCall Williams at mwil(iams@chwlaw.us and Jonathan's legal assistant, Ms. Tracey West at twest@chwlaw.us. Warmly, Tripp May F. onathan L. Kramer 888 PROSPECT STREET, SUITE 200, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 1 (562) 542-0501 GRASS VALLEY I ORANGE COUNTY I PASADENA I SACRAMENTO I SAN DIEGO I SONOMA 407401.1 AC"Ra CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MM/DDIYYYY) 08/21/2025 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT. If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER A T Lisa AndersonNAME' Shaw Moses Mendenhall & Associates Ins. Agency PHONE (626) 799-7813 FAX AIC No Ext): pIC Nv : (626) 799-8784 License #OD94511 MAILADDRESS: lisa@smmainsurance.com 625 Fair Oaks, Suite 158 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2.000,000 INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAICS South Pasadena CA 91030 INSURERA: Massachusetts Bay Ins Company 22306 INSURED INSURER 13: AllmeriGa Financial Benefit 41840 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & INSURER C : Associated Industries Insurance Company Inc 33758 WHATLEY, PC INSURER D: 420 SIERRA COLLEGE DR STE 140 INSURER E : GRASS VALLEY CA 95945 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 2025-2026 REVISION NIIMRFR• THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSRLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE INSO SUOR WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFMM/DD/YYYY MM/Lgl CY EXP LIMITS COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS -MADE Fx_] OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2.000,000 PREMISE5Eaoccurrence $ 300,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5,000 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 2.000,000AOD3989866704/01/2025 04/01/2026 GEN'LAGGREGA7E LIMITAPPLIES PER: POLICY 0 PROJECT LOC GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000 PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG $ 4,000,000 OTHER: AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY CS]I,ABINED SINGLE IT $ 2,000,000Eaacdds ANYAUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ AOWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS ONLY AUTOS OD39898667 04/01/2025 04/01/2026 BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED vv NON -OWNED AUTOS ONLY ^ AUTOS ONLY PRO DAMAGG Per aocidenl $ X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 3,000,000 A EXCESS LAB CLAIMS -MADE OD39898667 04/01/2025 04/01/2026 AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 DED I I RETENTION $ 04/01/2025B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / NER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? NIA W239898674 04/01/2026 STATUTE OTHm E.L EACHACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 Em DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000Mandatoryin If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 1 Professional Liabiliy 1 C AES1223451 04/04/2025 04/04/2026 General Aggregate $4,000,000 Occurrence $2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCFLLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN City of Seal Beach ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 211 Eight Street AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Seal Beach CA 90740 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC Policy Number: OD39898667 04/04/2025-04/0412026 custody of the insured at the premises where such equipment or device is located consists of or contains more than 25 grams of plutonium or uranium 233 or any combination thereof, or more than 250 grams of uranium 235; iv) Any structure, basin, excavation, premises or place prepared or used for the storage or disposal of "waste"; and includes the site on which any of the foregoing is located, all operations conducted on such site and all premises used for such operations; d) "Nuclear material" means "source material", "special nuclear material" or "by-product material"; e) "Nuclear reactor" means any apparatus designed or used to sustain nuclear fission in a self-supporting chain reaction or to contain a critical mass of fissionable material; f) "Property damage" includes all forms of radioactive contamination of property. g) "Source material" has the meaning given it in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or in any law amendatory thereof; h) "Special nuclear material" has the meaning given it in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or in any law amendatory thereof; i) "Spent fuel" means any fuel element or fuel component, solid or liquid, which has been used or exposed to radiation in a "nuclear reactor"; Q) "Waste" means any waste material: i) Containing "by-product material' other than the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its "source material" content; and ii) Resulting from the operation by any person or organization of any "nuclear facility" included under paragraphs (i) and (fl) of the definition of nuclear facility". C. Who Is An Insured Hanover Insurance Croup- OD3 9898667 1001140 a. An individual, you and your spouse are insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of a business of which you are the sole owner. b. A partnership or joint venture, you are an insured. Your members, your partners and their spouses are also insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of your business. c. A limited liability company, you are an insured. Your members are also insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of your business. Your managers are insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your managers. d. An organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company, you are an insured. Your "executive officers" and directors are insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your officers or directors. Your stockholders are also insureds, but only with respect to their liability as stockholders. e. A trust, you are an insured. Your trustees are also insureds, but only with respect to their duties as trustees. 2. Each of the following is also an insured: a. Your "volunteer workers" only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or your employees", other than either your executive officers" (if you are an organization other than a lartnership, joint venture or limited ability company) or your managers if you are a limited liability company), but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business. However, none of these "employees" or volunteer workers" are insureds for: 1) "Bodily injury' or "personal and advertising injury": a) To you, to your partners or members (if you are a partnership or joint venture), to your members (if you are a limited liability company), or to a co -"employee" while in the course of his or her employment or performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or to your other "volunteer workers" while performing duties related to the conduct of your business ; 1. If you are designated in the Declarations (b) To the spouse, child, parent, as: brother or sister of that co - 3914003 08 16 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 71 of 81 employee" as a consequence 2) "Personal and advertising injury" of paragraph (1) (a) above; arising out of an offense c) For which there is any committed before you acquired obligation to share damages or formed the organization. with or repay someone else No person or organization is an insured with who must pay damages respect to the conduct of any current or past because of the injury partnership, joint venture or limited liability described in paragraphs (1)(a) company that is not shown as a Named or (1)(b); or Insured in the Declarations. d) Arising out of his or her D. Liability and Medical Expenses Limits of providing or failing to provide Insurance professional services. 1. The Limits of Insurance under SECTION 2) "Property damage" to property: II - LIABILITY shown in the Declarations a) Owned, occupied or used by; and the rules below fix the most we will or pay regardless of the number of: b) Rented to, in the care, custody a. Insureds; or control of, or over which b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or physical control is being exercised for any purpose by; c. Persons or organizations making suits". claims or bringing you, any of your "employees", volunteer workers", any partner 2. Subject to the Aggregate Limit identified or member you are aoint in paragraph 5. below, the most we will partnership or j venture), or pay for the sum of all damages because any member (if you are a limited of all: liability company). a. "Bodily injury", "property damage" b. Any person (other than your employee" "volunteer and medical expenses arising out of any one "occurrence"; andorworker) or any organization while acting as your b. "Personal and advertising injury" real estate manager, sustained by any one person or c. Any person or organization having organization; proper temporary custody of your is the Liability And Medical Expenses property if you die, but only: Limit shown in the Declarations. 1) With respect to liability arising out 3. Subject to the Liability And Medical of the maintenance or use of that Expenses Limit, the most we will pay for property; and all medical expenses because of "bodily 2) Until your legal representative has injury" sustained by any one person is been appointed. the Medical Expenses Limit shown in the Declarations. d. Your legal representative if you die, but only with respect to duties as 4. The Damage to Premises Rented to You such. That representative will have all Limit shown in the Declarations is the yourrights and duties under this most we will pay for damages because propertypolicy. of damage" to any one premises while rented to you, or 3. Any organization you newly acquire or temporarily occupied by you with form, acquire or form, other than a permission of the owner. Partnership, joint venture or limited ability company, and over which you S. Aggregate Limits maintain ownership or majority interest, a. The most we will pay for: will qualify as a Named Insured if there is 1) All "bodily injury" and "propertynoothersimilarinsuranceavailabletodamage" that is included in the that organization. However: products -completed operations a. Coverage under this provision is hazard" is twice the Liability And afforded only until the 9dh day after Medical Expenses Limit. you acquire or form the organization 2) All: or the end of the policy period, whichever is earlier; and a) "Bodily injury" and "property b. Business Liability Coverage does not damage" except damages because of "bodily injury" andapplyto: 1) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred before you acquired or formed the organization; and 391-1003 08 16 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 72 of 81 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley OD39898667 04/01/2025-04/01/2026 1. SECTION I - PROPERTY, if two or more of this coverage part's coverages apply to the same loss or damage, we will not pay more than the actual amount of the loss or damage. 2. SECTION II - LIABILITY, it is our stated intent that the various Coverage Parts, forms, endorsements or policies issued to the named insured by us, or any company affiliated with us, do not provide any duplication or overlap of coverage for the same claim, "suit", "occurrence", offense, accident, "wrongful act" or loss. We will not pay more than the actual amount of the loss or damage. If this Coverage Part and any other Coverage Part, form, endorsement or policy issued to the named insured by us, or any compan affiliated with us, apply to the same c aim, "suit", occurrence, offense, accident, "wrongful act" or loss, the maximum Limit of Insurance under all such Coverage Parts, forms, endorsements or policies combined shall not exceed the highest applicable Limit of Insurance under any one Coverage Part, form, endorsement or policy. This condition does not apply to any Excess or Umbrella Policy issued by us specifically to apply as excess insurance over this policy. G. Liberalization If we adopt any revisions that would broaden the coverage under this policy without additional premium within 45 days prior to or during the policy period, the broadened coverage will immediately apply to this policy. H. Other Insurance 1. SECTION I -PROPERTY If there is other insurance covering the same loss or damage, we will pay only for the amount of covered loss or damage in excess of the amount due from that other insurance, whether you can collect on it or not. But, we will not pay more than the applicable Limit of Insurance of SECTION PROPERTY. 2. SECTION II - LIABILITY If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured for a loss we cover under SECTION II - LIABILITY, our obligations are limited as follows: a. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary except when paragraph b. below applies. If this Insurance Is primary, our obligations are not affected unless any of the other insurance is also primary. Then, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in paragraph c. below. w Hanover nsarance Group_ OD3 9898667 1001140 However, if you agree in a written contract, written agreement, or written permit that the insurance provided to any person or organization included as an Additional Insured under this Coverage Part is primary and non-contributory, we will not seek contribution from any other insurance available to that Additional Insured which covers the Additional Insured as a Named Insured except- 1) For the sole negligence of the Additional Insured; or 2) When the Additional Insured is an Additional Insured under another liability policy. b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over: 1) Any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis: a) That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, Installation Risk or similar coverage for "your work"; b) That is Property Insurance for premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; c) That is insurance purchased by you to cover your liability as a tenant for "property damage" to premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; or d) If the loss arises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, "autos" or watercraft to the extent not subject to SECTION II - LIABILITY, Exclusion g. Aircraft, Auto or Watercraft; and 2) Any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations, or the products and completed operations, for which you have been added as an additional insured by attachment of an endorsement. When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty under SECTION ll - LIABILITY to defend the insured against any "suit" if any other insurer has a duty to defend the insured against that "suit". If no other insurer defends, we will undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the 391-1003 08 16 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 79 of 81 Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC Policy Number: OD39898667 04/01/2025-04/01/2026 insured's rights against all those other insurers. c. When this insurance is excess over other insurance, we will pay only our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sum of: 1) The total amount that all such other insurance would pay for the loss in the absence of this insurance; and 2) The total of all deductible and self-insured amounts under all that other insurance. d. We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any other insurance that is not described in this provision and was not bought specifically to apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations for this Coverage. e. Method of Sharing If all of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable Limit of Insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable Limit of Insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers. f. When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty under Business Liability Coverage to defend any claim or "suit" that any other insurer has a duty to defend. If no other insurer defends, we will undertake to do so; but we will be entitled to the insured's rights against all those other insurers. Premiums 1. The first Named Insured shown in the Declarations: a. Is responsible for the payment of all premiums; and b. Will be the payee for any return premiums we pay. 2. The premium shown in the Declarations was computed based on rates in effect at the time the policy was issued. On each renewal, continuation or anniversary of the effective date of this policy, we will compute the premium in accordance with our rates and rules then in effect. 3. With our consent, you may continue this policy in force by paying a continuation premium for each successive one-year period_ The premium must be: a. Paid to us prior to the anniversary date; and b. Determined in accordance with paragraph 2. above. Our forms then in effect will apply. if you do not pay the continuation premium, this policy will expire on the first anniversary date that we have not received the premium. 4. Undeclared exposures or change in your business operation, acquisition or use of locations may occur during the policy period that is not shown in the Declarations. If so, we may require an additionalpremium. That premium will be determined in accordance with our rates and rules then in effect. J. Premium Audit 1. This policy is subject to audit if a premium designated as an advance premium is shown in the Declarations. We will compute the final premium due when we determine your actual exposures. 2. Premium shown in this policy as advance premium is a deposit premium only. At the close of each audit period, we will compute the earned premium for that period and send notice to the first Named Insured. The due date for audit premiums is the date shown as the due date on the bill. If the sum of the advance and audit premiums paid for the policy period is greater than the earned premium, we will return the excess to the first Named Insured. 3. The first Named Insured must keep records of the information we need for premium computation and send us copies at such times as we may request. K. Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us 1. Applicable to SECTION I - PROPERTY Coverage: If any person or organization to or for whom we make payment under this policy has rights to recover damages from another, those rights are transferred to us to the extent of our payment. That person or organization must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after loss to impair them. But you may waive your rights against another party in writing: 391-1003 08 16 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 80 of 81 a. Prior to a loss to your Covered Property. b. After a loss to your Covered Property only if, at time of loss, that party is one of the following: 1) Someone insured by this insurance; 2) A business firm: a) Owned or controlled by you; or b) That owns or controls you; or 3) Your tenant. You may also accept the usual bills of lading or shipping receipts limiting the liability of carriers. This will not restrict your insurance. 2. Applicable to SECTION II - LIABILITY Coverage: If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair such rights. At our request, the insured will bring "suit" or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. Hanauer nmiranre Crnrsp- OW 9898667 1001140 We waive any right of recovery we may have against any person or organization with whom you have a written contract, permit or agreement to waive any rights of recovery against such person or organization because of payments we make for injuryor damage arising out of your ongoing operations or "your work" done under a contract with that person or organization and included in the products -completed operations hazard". This condition does not apply to Medical Expenses Coverage. L. Transfer of Your Rights and Duties Under This Policy Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without our written consent except in the case of death of an individual Named Insured. Ifyou die, your rights and duties will be transferred to your legal representative but only while that legal representative is acting within the scope of their duties as your legal representative. until your legal representative is appointed, anyone with proper temporary custody of your property will have your rights and duties but only with respect to that property. 391-1003 08 16 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission. Page 81 of 81 By Electronic Mail May 14, 2024 Telecom Law Firm, P.C. Attn: Lory Kendirjian 3570 Camino del Rio N., Suite 102 San Diego, CA 92108 SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH — TELECOM LAW FIRM, P.C. PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL COUNSEL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXTENSION NO. 1 Professional legal and general telecom services Dear Ms. Kendirjian: Pursuant to the Agreement for Special Counsel Services for professional legal and general telecom services, dated August 10, 2023, by and between the City of Seal Beach ("City") and Telecom Law Firm, P.C., the City of Seal Beach is hereby notifying Telecom Law Firm, P.C. of its desire to exercise the first of three additional one (1) year term extension per Section 4 Term, Extensions, for a total not -to -exceed amount of thirty thousand dollars and 00/100 ($30,000.00). The Agreement termination date is now revised to midnight of June 30, 2025. All other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Alexa Smittle, Director of Community Development at (562) 431-2527 Ext. 1313 or asmittle@sealbeachca.gov Sincerely, Jill R. ngram City Manager CC: Alexa Smittle, Director of Community Development Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item I AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer SUBJECT:Updating and Designating Officers Authorized to Transact Banking Services with BMO Bank, N.A. ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7717: 1. Updating the officers authorized to transact banking services with the City’s bank, BMO Bank, N.A.; and, 2. Designating the City Manager and Director of Finance/City Treasurer to transact banking services with BMO Bank, N.A. on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City maintains accounts with BMO Bank, N.A. for banking services. Due to changes in City staffing and to ensure that the City’s accounts remain current and properly authorized, it is necessary to update the list of City personnel authorized to transact banking services with BMO Bank, N.A. Currently, the resolution includes these individuals by name and title. Due to the changes in these positions, it is necessary to update the resolution. The proposed resolution is administrative in nature and designates the City Manager and Director of Finance/City Treasurer as the officers authorized to add, modify, and remove banking services as deemed necessary to facilitate the City’s financial processes. This authorization also includes signing checks, approving wire transfers, and otherwise transacting business with BMO Bank, N.A. on behalf of the City. This update ensures continuity of financial operations, provides appropriate oversight, and complies with bank requirements. Page 2 2 2 0 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7717: 1. Updating the officers authorized to transact banking services with the City’s bank, BMO Bank, N.A.; and, 2. Designating the City Manager and Director of Finance/City Treasurer to transact banking services with BMO Bank, N.A. on behalf of the City. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Barbara Arenado Patrick Gallegos Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Kelsey Yonemura, Management Analyst ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7717 RESOLUTION 7717 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/CITY TREASURER AS THE CITY OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT BANKING SERVICES WITH BMO BANK, N.A. The Seal Beach City Council does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach maintains a banking relationship with BMO Bank, N.A. Section 2. The persons occupying the positions of City Manager and Director of Finance/City Treasurer are hereby authorized to transact banking services with BMO Bank, N.A., and to designate from time to time such other persons, to manage any cash management services, and otherwise give instructions as to the City’s cash management services, consistent with the Seal Beach City Charter, Seal Beach Municipal Code and applicable law. Such authority includes the authority to add, modify, and remove banking services as deemed necessary to facilitate the City’s cash management services. This authorization also includes the authority to sign checks, approve wire transfers, and otherwise transact business with BMO Bank, N.A. on behalf of the City. Section 3. The authority conferred is in addition to any authorizations in effect and shall remain in force until BMO Bank, N.A. receives written notice of its revocation at the office where the account is maintained or at such other location as the bank may direct. Section 4. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute the Agreement for Cash Management Services and related documents on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: NOES: Council Members: ABSENT: Council Members: ABSTAIN: Council Members: Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7717 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item J AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Submittal of Yearly Expenditure Report to Orange County Transportation Authority for Measure M2 Eligibility ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7718: 1. Finding the yearly expenditure report to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for Measure M2 Eligibility for FY 2024-2025 was prepared in conformance with the M2 Expenditure Report Template provided in the Renewed Measure M Eligibility Guidelines and accounts for Net Revenues including interest earned, expenditures during the fiscal year and balances at the end of fiscal year; and, 2. Adopting M2 Expenditure Report for FY 2024-2025; and, 3. Directing the City Manager, or their designee, to submit the M2 Expenditure Report to OCTA no later than December 31, 2025. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: In November 1990, the voters of Orange County approved Measure M, the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance. Measure M created a fund for transportation improvements to mitigate traffic impacts generated by existing and proposed development. Measure M authorized the imposition of an additional half-cent retail transaction and use tax for a period of twenty (20) years. In November 2006, Measure M was renewed by the voters of Orange County for an additional thirty (30) years, and is now known as Measure M2. Funds identified as Measure M2 “fairshare” funds are used on local and regional transportation improvement and maintenance projects. Other Measure M2 funds for transportation-related projects are made available through several competitive programs included in the Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP). Page 2 2 1 9 7 To be eligible to receive Measure M2 “fairshare” and CTFP funds, the City must annually, biennially and/or triennially satisfy the requirements below: 1. Comply with the conditions and requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management Program. 2. Establish a policy which requires new development to pay its fair share of transportation-related improvements associated with their new development. 3. Adopt a General Plan Circulation Element consistent with the County’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). 4. Adopt a seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that includes all transportation projects funded partially or wholly by Measure M2 dollars. 5. Adopt and adequately fund a biennial Local Pavement Management Plan (PMP). 6. Adopt and provide an annual, year-end Expenditure Report to OCTA. 7. Provide OCTA with a Project Final Report within six (6) months following completion of a project funded with Net Revenues. 8. Satisfy Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirements. 9. Agree to expend all Measure M2 revenues within three (3) years of receipt. 10. Consider, as part of the General Plan, land use and planning strategies that accommodate transit and non-motorized transportation. 11. Adopt and comply with a Local Signal Synchronization Plan (LSSP). The City of Seal Beach successfully submitted all required items above to OCTA by the required annual deadline of June 30, 2025. The year-end expenditure report summarizes all Measure M2 expenditures for the prior fiscal year and is required to be submitted by December 31, 2025. The approval of this report will allow the City to continue to receive OCTA Measure M2 funds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the state CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the yearly M2 Expenditure Report, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Page 3 2 1 9 7 LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City received $555,603 in Measure M2 “fairshare” funds in FY 2024-2025. Additionally, the City of Seal Beach remains eligible to receive funding for the numerous competitive grants secured within Measure M2. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7718: 1. Finding the yearly expenditure report to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for Measure M2 Eligibility for FY 2024-2025 was prepared in conformance with the M2 Expenditure Report Template provided in the Renewed Measure M Eligibility Guidelines and accounts for Net Revenues including interest earned, expenditures during the fiscal year and balances at the end of fiscal year; and, 2. Adopting M2 Expenditure Report for FY 2024-2025; and, 3. Directing the City Manager, or her designee, to submit the M2 Expenditure Report to OCTA no later than December 31, 2025. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: David Spitz, P.E. Associate Engineer ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7718 B. Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Measure M2 Expenditure Report RESOLUTION 7718 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE MEASURE M2 EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH FOR FY 2024-2025 WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to meet eligibility requirements and submit eligibility verification packages to Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in order to remain eligible to receive M2 funds; and, WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to adopt an annual M2 Expenditure Report as part of the eligibility requirements; and, WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to account for Net Revenues, developer/traffic impact fees, and funds expended by local jurisdiction in the M2 Expenditure Report that satisfy the Maintenance of Effort requirements; and, WHEREAS, the M2 Expenditure Report shall include all Net Revenue fund balances, interest earned and expenditures identified by type and program or project; and, WHEREAS, the M2 Expenditure Report must be adopted and submitted to the OCTA each year within six months of the end of the local jurisdiction’s fiscal year to be eligible to receive Net Revenues as part of M2. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The Measure M2 Expenditure Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, incorporated herein by this reference, is in conformance with the M2 Expenditure Report Template provided in the Measure M2 Eligibility Guidelines and accounts for Net Revenues including interest earned, expenditures during the fiscal year and balances at the end of fiscal year. Section 2. The M2 Expenditure Report is hereby adopted for the City of Seal Beach. Section 3. The City of Seal Beach Director of Finance/City Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign and submit the M2 Expenditure Report for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2025, to the Orange County Transportation Authority no later than December 31, 2025. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7718 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item K AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Michael Henderson, Chief of Police SUBJECT:Homeland Security Grant Program Sub-Award Agreement with City of Anaheim for Transfer or Purchase of Equipment and Services or for Reimbursement of Training Costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Area Security Initiative ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7719: 1. Authorizing the City Manager and/or the Chief of Police to execute the Sub-Award Agreement with the City of Anaheim for the transfer or purchase of equipment and services or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Homeland Security Grant Program; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager and/or Chief of Police to execute all other agreements and forms and take all other actions necessary on the City’s behalf for the transfer or purchase of equipment and services or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Homeland Security Grant Program, and to obtain federal financial assistance provided by the Department of Homeland Security and sub-granted through the State of California and Anaheim and/or Santa Ana Police Departments in its capacity as the Core City for the Anaheim/Santa Ana UASI. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Federal Homeland Security Appropriations Act provides funding to address the needs of high-risk urban areas through planning, equipment/services, training, and exercises through the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). The City of Seal Beach is located in the Anaheim/Santa Ana Urban Area and is eligible to receive financial assistance in the form of funds, equipment, technology and services, through Homeland Security sub-grants from the State of California. The City must enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim, which is the UASI core agency for the Anaheim/Santa Ana Urban Area to facilitate the transfer of Homeland Page 2 2 1 9 6 Security Grant funds. The program requires the City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute documents in order to obtain the grant funds. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City of Seal Beach may receive UASI grant funds in the form of training, equipment, or support. There is no designated funding allotment at this time. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7719: 1. Authorizing the City Manager and/or the Chief of Police to execute the Sub-Award Agreement with the City of Anaheim for the transfer or purchase of equipment and services or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Homeland Security Grant Program; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager and/or the Chief of Police to execute all other agreements and forms and take any other actions necessary on the City’s behalf for the transfer or purchase of equipment and services or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal Year 2024 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Homeland Security Grant Program, and to obtain federal financial assistance provided by the Department of Homeland Security and sub-granted through the State of California and Anaheim and/or Santa Ana Police Departments in its capacity as the Core City for the Anaheim/Santa Ana UASI. Page 3 2 1 9 6 SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Michael Henderson Patrick Gallegos Michael Henderson, Chief of Police Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Nick Nicholas, Support Services Bureau Captain ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7719 B. Sub-Award Agreement to Transfer Property or Funds for FY2024 UASI Homeland Security Grant Program Purposes RESOLUTION 7719 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND/OR CHIEF OF POLICE TO EXECUTE THE SUB-AWARD AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF SEAL BEACH AND ANAHEIM FOR THE TRANSFER OR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT/SERVICES OR FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAINING COSTS FOR FY 2024 URBAN AREAS SECURITY INITIATIVE (UASI) HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Federal Homeland Security Appropriations Act provides funding to address the needs of high-risk urban areas through planning, equipment/services, training, and exercises through the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI); and, WHEREAS, the Seal Beach Police Department is eligible to receive financial assistance in the form of funds, equipment, technology and services, through Homeland Security sub-grants from the State of California by entering into a sub- award agreement with the City of Anaheim. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council approves the Sub-Award Agreement with the City of Anaheim for the transfer or purchase of equipment and services or for reimbursement of training costs for FY 2024 UASI Homeland Security Grant Program Purposes. Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager and/or the Chief of Police to execute the Agreement, and further authorizes the City Manager and/or the Chief of Police to take all other actions and execute all other documents necessary for the transfer or purchase of equipment and services or for reimbursement of training costs for Fiscal Year 2024 UASI Homeland Security Grant Program and to obtain federal financial assistance provided by the Department of Homeland Security and sub-granted through the State of California and Anaheim and/or Santa Ana Police Departments in its capacity as the Core City for the Anaheim/Santa Ana Urban Area Security Initiative. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. 1 0 6 8 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7719 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item L AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer SUBJECT:Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7720: 1. Approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-06-01 in the amount of $56,639.28; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City of Seal Beach (City) and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association (SBPOA) met jointly and collectively bargained in good faith and the terms and conditions of a tentative agreement were reached. Based upon such collective bargaining, the City and the SBPOA drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The SBPOA has accepted the terms, conditions and provisions set forth in the MOU. The MOU has a term of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027. The Seal Beach Police Officers Association is representative of full-time employees in the following classifications: Page 2 2 2 0 3 1. Police Officer 2. Police Corporal The elements of the tentative agreement include: Compensation SBPOA members will receive a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) as follows: FY 2025-2026: 2.5% COLA Increase FY 2026-2027: 3.0% COLA Increase Education The existing SBPOA MOU provides educational incentive pay for Police Officers and Police Corporals based on completed college units in Police Science or attainment of POST certificates. Specifically, Section 6 currently authorizes $175 per month for qualifying employees under subsection A, $275 per month under subsection B, and $375 per month under subsection C. As part of the tentative agreement, the SBPOA and the City have agreed to increase each of these incentive amounts by $125 per month. This adjustment recognizes the value of continued education and professional development within the Police Department and is intended to support employee retention and advancement. Police Canine (K-9) Revisions to Section 2 incorporate a new special assignment designation for Police Canine (K-9) Officer Patrol Operations. Under this modification, “Police Canine Officer Patrol Operations” will be added to the list of eligible special assignments that qualify for the five percent (5%) special assignment pay enhancement. This addition recognizes the specialized training, extended responsibilities, and unique operational demands placed on K-9 handlers. The designation applies only to employees formally assigned as a Police Canine Officer. This update includes minor typographical corrections. Additionally, in Article XII – Holidays, Section 2 Floating Holidays, language that had been inadvertently omitted from the MOU, but was previously included in a side letter, has now been restored. This clarification does not alter any terms of the current MOU. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. Page 3 2 2 0 3 LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed this staff report and approved it as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Budget Amendment BA #26-06-01 will allocate current fiscal year impacts of $56,639.28 from the General Fund unassigned fund balance. Future years will be budgeted appropriately: RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7720: 1. Approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association for the period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027; and, 2. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-06-01 in the amount of $56,639.28; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Barbara Arenado Patrick Gallegos Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Patrick Gallegos, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7720 B. Exhibit B - SBPOA Memorandum of Understanding (clean) C. Exhibit C - SBPOA Memorandum of Understanding (redline) Description Account Revised/Adopted Budget Proposed Budget Budget (diff) Amendment Regular Salaries - Sworn 101-210-0022-50010 $ 5,538,598.00 $ 5,595,237.28 $ 56,639.28 RESOLUTION 7720 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2025, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2027 WHEREAS, the City and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association met jointly and collectively bargained in good faith and reached an agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City Council gave authority to the City Manager to place the proposed MOU on the agenda of the meeting of December 8, 2025, for City Council action; and, WHEREAS, the contracts between the City and the Association are for the time period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027; and, WHEREAS, Budget Amendment BA #26-06-01 will allocate $56,639.28 from General Fund unassigned fund balance as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Seal Beach and the Seal Beach Police Officers Association. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Budget Amendment BA #26-06-01. Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the MOU and take all actions necessary to implement its rights and obligations. Description Account Revised/Adopted Budget Proposed Budget Budget (diff) Amendment Regular Salaries - Sworn 101-210-0022-50010 $ 5,538,598.00 $ 5,595,237.28 $ 56,639.28 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7720 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th of December 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk 12542444.1 SE010-040 SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Resolution 7720 - Exhibit C ADOPTED: December 8, 2025 EXPIRES: June 30,2027 I 12542444.1 SE010-040 SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I - RECOGNITION .................................................................................1 Section 1. ..................................................................................................1 Section 2. ..................................................................................................1 Section 3. . .................................................................................................1 ARTICLE II - EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONAL DUES AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS ............................................................................................1 Section 1. Dues and Benefit Deductions ....................................................1 Section 2. Other Deductions ......................................................................2 ARTICLE III - CITY RIGHTS ..................................................................................2 Section 1. ..................................................................................................2 Section 2. ..................................................................................................3 ARTICLE IV - NON-DISCRIMINATION ...............................................................3 Section 1. ..................................................................................................3 Section 2. ..................................................................................................3 ARTICLE V - COMPENSATION PLAN ................................................................3 Section 1. Basic Compensation Plan ........................................................3 Section 2. Advancement within Salary Grades .........................................4 Section 3. Salary Increases Following Promotion .....................................4 Section 4. Salary Decreases Following Demotion ....................................5 Section 5. Adjustments of Salary Grades .................................................5 Section 6. Salary and Benefits on Suspension ..........................................5 Section 7. Salaries during Term of Memorandum of Understanding ........5 ARTICLE VI - SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS ........................................................6 Section 1. Uniform Allowance and Safety Equipment ................................6 Section 2. Temporary Assignment Pay .....................................................6 Section 3. Court Time ...............................................................................7 Section 4. Call-back ...................................................................................8 Section 5. Training Programs .....................................................................8 Section 6. Educational Incentive Pay ........................................................8 Section 7. Stand-by Pay .............................................................................9 Section 8. Experience Pay .........................................................................9 Section 9. Movie Detail ............................................................................11 Section 10. Bilingual Compensation ........................................................11 12542444.1 SE010-040 2 ARTICLE VII - FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION ......................................11 Section 1. Administration ........................................................................11 Section 2. Selection and Funding ...........................................................11 Section 3. Limits ......................................................................................1 1 Section 4. Changes ..................................................................................12 ARTICLE VIII - HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND, LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE .............................................................................................12 Section 1. Health Care Coverage ............................................................12 Section 2. Health Insurance Plan for Retirees .........................................13 Section 3. Life Insurance Plan .................................................................14 Section 4. Disability Insurance Plan .........................................................14 Section 5. Annual Physical .......................................................................14 ARTICLE IX - RETIREMENT ...............................................................................14 ARTICLE X - HOURS OF WORK ........................................................................15 Section 1. Work Period ............................................................................15 Section 2. Three-Twelve Work Schedule .................................................16 ARTICLE XI - OVERTIME COMPENSATION .....................................................15 Section 1. Overtime Defined ....................................................................16 Section 2. Compensation for Overtime ....................................................16 Section 3. Compensatory Time ................................................................16 Section 4. Overtime Reporting .................................................................16 ARTICLE XII - HOLIDAYS ...................................................................................16 Section 1. ................................................................................................17 Section 2. ..................................................................................................17 Section 3. ..................................................................................................18 Section 4. ..................................................................................................19 ARTICLE XIII - VACATION ..................................................................................19 Section 1. Eligibility ..................................................................................19 Section 2. Accrual ....................................................................................19 Section 3. Maximum Accrual ....................................................................20 Section 4. Use of Vacation .......................................................................2 0 Section 5. Vacation Payment at Termination ...........................................21 Section 6. Vacation Accrual During Leave of Absence ............................21 Section 7. Prohibition Against Working for City During Vacation .............21 3 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XIV - LEAVES OF ABSENCE ..............................................................2 1 Section 1. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay .............................21 Section 2. Bereavement Leave ................................................................22 Section 3. Military Leave of Absence .......................................................23 Section 4. (Intentionally Left Blank - RESERVED)....................................23 Section 5. Unauthorized Absence ............................................................23 Section 6. Catastrophic Leave .................................................................23 ARTICLE XV - JURY DUTY .................................................................................24 Section 1. Compensation for Jury Duty ....................................................24 ARTICLE XVI - SICK LEAVE ...............................................................................25 Section 1. General Sick Leave Provisions ...............................................25 Section 2. Eligibility ..................................................................................25 Section 3. Accrual ....................................................................................25 Section 4. Accumulation and Payment ....................................................25 Section 5. Sick Leave During Vacation ....................................................26 Section 6. Extended Sick Leave ..............................................................26 Section 7. Family Leave ...........................................................................27 Section 8. On The Job Injury ....................................................................27 Section 9. Off The Job Injury ....................................................................28 ARTICLE XVII - PROBATIONARY PERIODS ...................................................28 Section 1. Appointment Following Probation Period ................................28 Section 2. Objective of Probationary Period ............................................28 Section 3. Employee Performance Appraisal ...........................................28 Section 4. Rejection of Probationary Employee .......................................29 ARTICLE XVIII - LAYOFF PROCEDURES .......................................................29 Section 1. Policy ........................................................................................29 ARTICLE XIX - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ..............................................29 Section 1. Tuition Reimbursement ...........................................................29 Section 2. Physical Fitness Program .......................................................30 Section 3 Health Wellness Program ...................................................... 30 ARTICLE XX - ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ...................31 Section 1. ................................................................................................31 Section 2. ................................................................................................31 Section 3. ................................................................................................31 ARTICLE XXI - CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK .......................................31 Section 1. Prohibited Conduct..................................................................31 Section 2. Association Responsibility .......................................................32 4 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XXII - EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION .....................................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXIII - SEPARABILITY ......................................................................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXIV - PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS .........................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXV - MOU REOPENERS ................................................................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXVI - TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING .............33 Section 1. ................................................................................................33 Section 2. ..................................................................................................33 ARTICLE XXVII - RATIFICATION .....................................................................33 Section 1. ……………………………………………………………………...33 EXHIBIT A ............................................................................................................34 1 12542444.1 SE010-040 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I - RECOGNITION Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance No. 769, as amended, the City of Seal Beach (hereinafter called the "City" and/or "Employer" interchangeably) has recognized, for the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Seal Beach Police Officers Association (“SBPOA” and/or “Association” interchangeably) as the majority representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, which includes Police Department full-time employees in the classifications and assignments of: a) Police Officer and b) Police Corporal. Section 2. The City recognizes the Association as the representative of the employees in the classifications and assignments set forth in Section 1. above for the purpose of meeting its obligations under this Memorandum of Understanding, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code Section 3500 et seq., when City Rules, Regulations, or laws affecting wages, hours, and/or other terms and conditions of employment are amended or changed. Section 3. The City agrees that the representatives of Association, not to exceed six (6) in number, shall be entitled to meet and confer with Management during said representatives' normal working hours without suffering any loss in pay while absent from their duties for such purpose, providing that such time per person shall not be unreasonable. The City also agrees that such representatives may utilize not more than six (6) hours per month or seventy-two (72) hours per year without suffering any loss in pay for such absence for the purpose of meeting with employees who are represented by the Association and/or other officers of Association. ARTICLE II - EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONAL DUES AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS Section 1. Dues and Benefit Deductions A. The City will provide voluntary payroll deductions for all employees represented by the Association for regular and periodic dues and benefit program premiums. The Association shall certify to the City the names of employees who have authorized membership dues deductions, any employee who declines membership in the Association, and the amounts of dues deductions as they change from time to time. 2 12542444.1 SE010-040 B. The City shall remit such funds to the Association within twenty-one (21) calendar days following the deductions. C. With regard to deductions under this Section 1, the Association agrees to hold the City harmless and indemnify the City against any claims, causes of actions, or lawsuits arising out of the deductions or transmittal of such funds to the Association, except the intentional failure of the City to transmit to the Association monies deducted from the employees pursuant to this Section. Section 2. Other Deductions The City shall make payroll deductions for purposes of an employee depositing funds or making payments directly to a Federal Credit Union, providing that any deductions shall not be less than two dollars ($2.00) on a bi-weekly basis. ARTICLE III - CITY RIGHTS Section 1. The City reserves, retains, and is vested with, solely and exclusively, all rights of Management which have not been expressly abridged by specific provisions of this MOU or by law in the exercise of its rights to manage the business of the City, as such rights existed prior to the execution of this MOU. The sole and exclusive rights of management, not abridged by this MOU or by law, shall include, but not be limited to, the following rights: A. To determine the nature, manner, means, technology, and extent of services and activities to be provided to the public. B. To determine and/or change the facilities, methods, technology, means and size of the work force by which the City operations are to be conducted. C. To determine and change the number of locations, and types of operations, processes and materials to be used in carrying out all City functions including, but not limited to, the right to contract for or subcontract for any work or operation. D. To assign work to and schedule employees in accordance with requirements as determined by the City, and to establish and change work schedules and assignments. E. To establish and modify employee performance standards and productivity and performance programs including, but not limited to, quality and quantity standards, and to require compliance therewith. F. To establish and promulgate and/or modify rules and regulations to maintain order, safety, and efficiency in the City, its facilities and operations. G. To determine policies, procedures and standards for the selection, training and promotion of employees. 3 12542444.1 SE010-040 H. To discharge, suspend, demote or otherwise discipline employees for proper cause in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in departmental disciplinary procedure. Section 2. Where the City is required to make changes in its operations because of the requirements of law, or whenever the contemplated exercise of City Rights shall impact the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit, the City agrees to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of the Association regarding the impact and effects of the contemplated exercise of such rights prior to exercising such rights, unless the matter of the exercise of such rights is provided for in this MOU. ARTICLE IV - NON-DISCRIMINATION Section 1. The City and the Association agree that they shall not discriminate against any employee because of race, color, sex, age, national origin, political or religious opinions or affiliations or sexual orientation. The City and the Association shall reopen any provision of this MOU for the purpose of complying with any final order of the federal or state agency or court of competent jurisdiction requiring a modification or change in any provision or provisions of this MOU in compliance with state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Section 2. Whenever the masculine gender is used in this MOU, it shall be understood to include the feminine gender. ARTICLE V - COMPENSATION PLAN Section 1. Basic Compensation Plan A. All employees covered by this MOU shall be included under the Basic Compensation Plan. Every classification under this Plan shall be assigned a monthly base salary grade adopted by the City Council. The salary schedule shall consist of five (5) steps within each grade. B. The first step is a minimum rate and is normally the hiring rate for the classification. An employee may be assigned, upon appointment, to other than the normal entering salary step within the assigned grade upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police and the approval of the City Manager when it is decided that such action is in the best interest of the City. C. The second step, B step, is a merit adjustment which may be given at the end of six (6) months of employment subject to the recommendation of the Police Chief and approval of the City Manager. D. The third, fourth, and fifth steps are merit adjustments to encourage an employee to improve his work and to recognize increased skill on the job. Employees are normally eligible for these adjustments at any time after the completion of one (1) year of service at the preceding step. Each adjustment may be made subject to the recommendation of the Chief of Police and approval of the City Manager. 4 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 2. Advancement within Salary Grades A. In order to properly compensate an employee, advancement in base salary shall be based on merit. B. Advancement in salary shall not be automatic, but shall depend upon increased service value of the employee to the City. C. The Chief of Police and/or the employees’ immediate supervisor shall be responsible to evaluate employees fairly in an unbiased fashion for the determination of job performance. Advancement shall be made only upon recommendation of the Chief of Police with approval of the City Manager. D. An employee must be reviewed at least once every twelve (12) months from the effective date of his last performance step increase, special performance advancement or promotion. Nothing contained herein shall restrict the Chief of Police from denying the increase after evaluation, nor shall it prevent him from recommending special performance advancement in salary at any time when unusual or outstanding achievement has been demonstrated. E. It shall be the responsibility of each supervisor to establish realistic achievement levels for each step increase within a base salary grade. Achievement levels may be formal or informal and shall be reviewed by the Chief of Police for the purpose of maintaining uniformity of standards throughout the department. Section 3. Salary Increases Following Promotion A. Promotional Appointment - When an employee is promoted to a position with a higher base salary grade, the employee shall be compensated at a step of the salary grade assigned to the new position that is closest to providing a five percent (5%) salary increase over the monthly base salary received immediately prior to promotion. B. Temporary Appointment - In special circumstances, when in the best interest of the City, the City Manager may approve a temporary assignment of an employee to a higher-level classification. In such temporary assignments lasting thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or more, the employee shall be compensated at a step of the monthly base salary grade assigned to the new position that is closest to providing a five percent (5%) salary increase over the monthly base salary received immediately prior to the temporary appointment. 5 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 4. Salary Decreases Following Demotion In the case of a demotion of any employee represented by the Association to a classification with a lower maximum salary, such employee shall be assigned to the appropriate salary step in the new classification as recommended by the Chief of Police and approved by the City Manager. The employee shall retain his previous anniversary date. Section 5. Adjustments of Salary Grades When a salary grade for a given classification is revised upward or downward, the incumbents of positions and classifications affected shall have their existing monthly base salary adjusted to the same step in the new salary grade and their anniversary date shall not be changed. For example, an employee at “C” Step in the old salary grade shall be placed at “C” step of the new salary grade. Section 6. Salary and Benefits on Suspension During suspension from the City service for disciplinary cause, an employee shall forfeit all rights, privileges and salary, except he shall not forfeit his health plans including dental, disability insurance, or life insurance. Should such suspension be later modified or revoked, the employee shall be entitled to receive payment for loss of income and benefits for any portion of the suspension that is disapproved. Section 7. Salaries during Term of Memorandum of Understanding The following salary grade increases shall be provided to employees represented by the Association. The salary grade increases shall be effective during the first full pay period in July of the following indicated years. 1) Effective the first full pay period beginning after July 1, 2025: Position Grade Increase Police Officer 27 2.5% Police Corporal 29 2.5% 2) Effective the first full pay period beginning after July 1, 2026: Position Grade Increase Police Officer 27 3.0% Police Corporal 29 3.0% 6 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE VI - SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS Section 1. Uniform Allowance and Safety Equipment A. An employee, whether or not said employee wears a traditional uniform, shall receive an annual uniform allowance of one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. An officer assigned as a motor officer shall receive an additional annual uniform allowance of two hundred forty dollars ($240) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. Beginning July 1, 2024, an employee, whether or not said employee wears a traditional uniform, shall receive an annual uniform allowance of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. An officer assigned as a motor officer shall receive an additional annual uniform allowance of three hundred dollars ($300) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. B. The City shall provide the initial issue of uniforms to include two (2) pants and two (2) shirts and utility equipment to include weapon, safety helmet, baton, and other safety equipment as required by law or deemed necessary by the City. The City shall replace and/or repair any equipment damaged within the course and scope of the employee’s employment. Recurring maintenance, repair and/or replacement due to normal wear shall be the responsibility of the employee. C. An employee assigned as a motor officer shall receive an initial issue of required uniform items incident to such duty. Such items include, but are not limited to: jacket, boots, gloves, and two (2) pair of trousers. Section 2. Temporary Assignment Pay A. Field Training Officer (Regular Police Officer Trainees) - Each Officer performing duties of a Field Training Officer for Regular Police Officer Trainees shall receive one-hour compensation at straight time either as pay at employee base hourly rate of pay or compensatory time off for each shift of recruit training. A shift shall be understood to be six (6) or more hours. B. Field Training Officer (Voluntary Reserve Officers) - Each eligible employee performing the duties of a Field Training Officer for Voluntary Reserve Officers shall receive one (1) hour compensation at straight time either as pay at employee base hourly rate of pay or compensatory time off for each shift of recruit training. A shift shall be understood to be six (6) or more hours. C. Orange County Regional Lab Team – An officer assigned as an on- call investigator in any specialty for the Orange County Regional Lab Team for the purpose of responding to clandestine drug laboratories shall receive four (4) hours compensation at (straight time) as either pay at employee base hourly rate of pay or compensatory time off per month for being subject to callout. 7 12542444.1 SE010-040 D. The City shall provide a special assignment pay enhancement, which recognizes multiple tours of duty to a maximum of five percent (5%) of base salary as follows with the express understanding that the standard departmental rotational requirements shall apply: 1. Special assignment pay may only be paid for one (1) position and cannot be combined with any other positions (i.e. a detective currently assigned to the SWAT team will only receive a total of five percent (5%) of base salary special assignment pay at any one time 2. Special assignment pay lasts only through the term of the assignment. 3. The following list of assignments shall be considered special assignments: a) Motorcycle Patrol Premium b) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) c) Crisis Negotiator Team (CNT) d) Detective Division Premium e) Police Administrative Officer f) Detention Services Premium g) Rangemaster Premium h) Police Canine Officer (K-9) Patrol Operations Section 3. Court Time A. An employee called for a subpoenaed court appearance which arises out of the course of his employment and not contiguous with his work shift shall be compensated for a minimum of two-and-two-thirds (2-2/3) hours at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base hourly rate of pay. Should the appearance exceed two and two-thirds (2-2/3) hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual appearance time, including any designated lunch period where the employee’s appearance continues into the afternoon court session, at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Court appearance time shall begin when the employee departs from the Police station to go directly to Court. B. Any appearance that is contiguous with a regular work shift is not subject to the two and two-thirds (2-2/3) hours minimum. Any appearance that is contiguous with a regular work shift is not subject to the one and one-half (1-1/2) time rate unless the court appearance otherwise qualifies as overtime under this MOU. C. All employees agree to comply with the "on-call" policies administered by the department. Should an officer be placed "on-call" during off duty hours for court appearance(s), he shall be granted two (2) hours pay at the employee's base hourly rate of pay for any on call time prior to twelve o’clock (12:00) noon and two (2) hours for all “on-call” time after twelve o’clock (12:00) noon. 8 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 4. Call-back A. Employees who are called back to duty after having completed a normal shift or work day assignment and departed from the work premises shall be paid one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base hourly rate of pay for each hour worked on call-back. The number of hours calculated at one and one-half (1- 1/2) times shall not be less than four hours. Should a call-back exceed four (4) hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual call-back time, at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Call-back time shall commence from the time the employee is called back to service. B. Employees who are off duty and respond for departmental training, qualification or meetings shall be compensated a minimum of two and two-thirds (2- 2/3) hours per incident. This time shall be calculated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base hourly rate of pay. Should the incident exceed two and two- thirds (2-2/3) hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual incident time, at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Section 5. Training Programs A. The City shall pay reasonable expenses incurred by employees attending approved training programs. Expenses include registration fees and the costs of purchasing required course materials, travel to and from the training course, meals and lodging shall be reimbursed per the City's adopted Per Diem policy. B. When an employee is sent by the City to a training program which is not a part of his regular work schedule, the employee shall receive eight (8) hours pay for each full day of training and such eight (8) hours pay shall be credited towards the computation of overtime. Section 6. Educational Incentive Pay A. Employees covered by this section who have completed forty-five (45) semester units of credit from an accredited college or university with at least sixteen (16) units in the field of Police Science shall receive the following compensation in addition to their monthly base salary: Police Officer/Police Corporal $300/month B. Employees covered by this section who have completed sixty (60) semester units of credit from an accredited college or university with at least nineteen (19) units in the field of Police Science or have attained a POST Intermediate Certificate shall receive the following compensation in addition to their monthly base salary: Police Officer/Police Corporal $400/month C. Employees covered by this section who have completed a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with at least twenty-two (22) units in 9 12542444.1 SE010-040 the field of Police Science or have attained a POST Advance Certificate shall receive the following compensation in addition to their monthly base salary: Police Officer/Police Corporal $500/month D. The above payment compensation shall be based on achievements over and above the job requirements established in the position classification plan for each classification. Payment to employees shall be based on the highest achievement level only; e.g., employees with an Associate’s and Bachelor's degree will receive compensation for the Bachelor's degree only. E. Employees receiving Educational Incentive Pay shall not lose that pay if they are promoted to a classification which requires the education for which the employee is receiving the additional pay. If the minimum educational requirements are lawfully changed during the term of the MOU, employees receiving educational incentive pay will not be affected by such change and will not suffer any loss of such incentive pay. F. All payments under this Section are subject to verification and approval by the City Manager. Section 7. Stand-by Pay A. Detective Supervisor(s) may be assigned by the Chief of Police to "stand-by" status. B. Detective Supervisors who are specifically assigned to respond, twenty-four (24) hours per day, to incidents shall receive eight (8) hours of compensatory time off per month. During any such month where the employee is so assigned for less than the entire month, the number of compensatory time off hours shall be reduced in an amount reflecting the pro-rated monthly time during which the employee was so assigned. Such compensatory time off hours shall be maintained in an account separate from and in addition to compensatory time off hours described in Article XI, Section 3. Any compensatory time off hours earned in accord with this Section, and not utilized by July 31st of any year shall be forfeited effective July 31st of any year and not converted to cash. C. Each affected employee who is assigned to the Detective Bureau and who is on "stand-by" weekend duty shall be provided two (2) hours (at straight time) of compensatory time off or pay at employee base hourly rate of pay per each weekend day. “Weekend” is described as Saturday, Sunday or any holiday preceding or following the weekend day, in the absence of any normally assigned detective. Section 8. Experience Pay For Employees Hired On or Before June 30, 2010: A. Employees represented by the Association with fulltime service as a 10 12542444.1 SE010-040 sworn peace officer with a Municipal, County or State Police agency meeting POST standards, or their equivalent, shall be eligible to receive experience pay as set out below. B. Experience Pay shall be as follows: 1. At ten (10) years of service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of five percent (5%) of the qualified employee's monthly base salary. 2. At twenty (20) years of service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of ten percent (10%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 3. At twenty-five (25) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service (only service with the City of Seal Beach shall apply), experience pay shall be paid at a rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 4. Experience pay is not cumulative. Thus, an employee will only receive the highest level of experience pay for which the employee is qualified. For example, an employee reaching twenty (20) years of qualifying service stops receiving the five percent (5%) level of experience pay and begins receiving only the ten percent (10%) level of experience pay. Such an employee does not receive both the five percent (5%) level and the ten percent (10%) level, at the same time. For Employees Hired On or After July 1, 2010: A. Employees represented by the Association with full-time service as a sworn peace officer with the City of Seal Beach shall be eligible to receive experience pay as set out below. B. Experience pay shall be as follows: 1. At ten (10) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of five percent (5%) of the qualified employee's monthly base salary. 2. At twenty (20) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of ten percent (10%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 3. At twenty-five (25) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 4. Experience pay is not cumulative. Thus, an employee will only receive the highest level of experience pay for which the employee is qualified. For example, an employee reaching twenty (20) years of service as a sworn peace officer with the City of Seal Beach, stops receiving the five percent (5%) level of experience pay and begins receiving only the ten percent (10%) level of experience pay. Such 11 12542444.1 SE010-040 an employee does not receive both the five percent (5%) level and the ten percent (10%) level, at the same time. Section 9. Movie Detail Unit employees shall be paid 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for outside movie details. It is understood that time spent on movie details is brokered outside work and is not considered time worked for the purpose of calculating City overtime compensation. Section 10. Bilingual Compensation Upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police, the City Manager may award a bilingual compensation bonus of fifty-two dollars and fifty cents ($52.50) per payroll period to an officer utilized by the Department for his/her bilingual skills. The City Manager shall require the taking of competency tests to certify the employee as eligible for bilingual compensation based on the employee’s proficiency in speaking the language determined to be required. Such certification shall be a condition precedent to qualifying for bilingual compensation. ARTICLE VII - FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION Section 1. Administration The City reserves the right to select the insurance carrier or administer any fringe benefit programs that now exist or may exist in the future during the term of this MOU unless otherwise specified within this MOU. Any changes in benefits associated with a change in insurance carrier or administrator may only be accomplished during the term of the MOU by agreement of the parties, except in cases of emergency. In an emergency, the City may make a change in order to avoid loss of coverage for employees, and subsequently negotiate impacts and effects. Section 2. Selection and Funding In the administration of the fringe benefit programs, the City shall have the right to select any insurance carrier or other method of providing coverage to fund the benefits included under the terms of the MOU, provided that the benefits of the employees and affected retirees shall be no less than those in existence as of implementation of this MOU. Section 3. Limits A. City shall not pay premiums or accrue any fringe benefits afforded with this MOU for any employee on unpaid leave status, for more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days, unless specifically provided for within this MOU, authorized by the City Manager or otherwise provided for by federal or state "Family 12 12542444.1 SE010-040 Leave Acts" and/or "Workers Compensation" requirements. B. City shall not pay premiums or accrue any fringe benefits afforded with this MOU for any employee who has been absent without authorization during said month, suspended without pay, or who has terminated from City employment unless specifically provided for within this MOU. C. City shall not pay premiums or accrue any fringe benefits afforded with this MOU for any employee when such premiums or fringe benefits are provided to the employee through Workers Compensation and/or the Disability Insurance Plan. Section 4. Changes If, during the term of this MOU, any changes of insurance carrier or method of funding for any benefit provided hereunder is contemplated, the City shall notify the Association prior to any change of insurance carrier or method of funding the coverage. ARTICLE VIII - HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND, LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE Section 1. Health Care Coverage A. “Health Care Coverage.” The City shall contribute an equal amount towards the cost of Health Care coverage under PEMHCA for both active employees and retirees. The City’s contribution toward coverage under PEMHCA shall be the minimum contribution amount established by CalPERS on an annual basis. Effective January 1, 2025 the City’s contribution under PEMHCA shall be one hundred fifty-eight dollars ($158), and may be changed by CalPERS each year. The City shall implement a full flex cafeteria plan for eligible employees in accordance with the criteria provided to the employees during negotiations. For employees participating in the City’s full flex cafeteria plan, each employee shall receive a monthly flex dollar allowance to be used for the purchase of benefits under the full flex cafeteria plan. Beginning January 1, 2025 the monthly flex dollar allowance shall be: A portion of the flex dollar allowance ($158 in 2025) is identified as the City’s contribution towards PEMHCA. The PEMHCA contribution will be subject to change as the PEMHCA minimum contribution increases. Remaining flex dollars will be used by employees to participate in the City’s health plans. Calendar Year 2025 For single employees: $1,292.91 For employee +1 dependent: $1,997.96 For employee + 2 or more dependents: $2,583.76 13 12542444.1 SE010-040 B. Subject to Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) administration requirements, the City shall make available to eligible employees participation in the group Health Care plans offered by PERS. C. Employees who elect not to participate in the full flex cafeteria plan may receive three-hundred and fifty dollars ($350) per month (upon showing proof of group health insurance coverage (not including insurance through Covered California or other exchange) for the employee and their immediate tax family providing minimum essential coverage . Election forms are available in Human Resources and must be completed annually in order to receive the opt out payments. Section 2. Health Insurance Plan for Retirees A. The City shall provide to any retired employee (either service or disability), who is hired after August 1, 1983 and on or before December 31, 2007, and retires after December 31, 2009, and who has attained the age of fifty (50) the following group health care insurance benefits: 1. If the employee has fifteen (15) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service, the City shall pay for such retired employee at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost health care plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO, whichever is greater. When the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible, the City’s contribution will be capped at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost Medicare supplement plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO Medicare supplement plan, whichever is greater. 2. If the employee has twenty (20) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service, the City shall pay such retired employee and one dependent, depending on the qualified dependent status, the group health care insurance premium at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost health care plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO, whichever is greater. When the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible, the City’s contribution will be capped at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost Medicare supplement plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO Medicare supplement plan, whichever is greater. 3. If the employee has twenty-five (25) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service, the City shall pay such retired employee and dependents, depending on the qualified dependent status, the group health care insurance premium at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost health care plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO, whichever is greater. When the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible, the City’s contribution will be capped at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost Medicare supplement plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO Medicare supplement plan, whichever is greater. B. The City shall provide to any retired employee (either service or disability) who is hired on or after January 1, 2008, and who has both fifteen (15) or 14 12542444.1 SE010-040 more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service and has attained the age of fifty (50) the following group Healthcare insurance benefits: The City shall contribute the minimum PEMHCA rate as determined by CalPERS. Section 3. Life Insurance Plan The City shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the premium for a term life insurance policy with a face value of seventy-five thousand dollars ( $75,000), double indemnity accidental death benefit and a dependent death benefit in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per dependent. Section 4. Disability Insurance Plan The City shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the premium for the "employee's" long-term disability insurance plan with an income continuation of not less than sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%) of the employee's monthly base salary subject to caps and eligibility requirements as set forth within the policy of the accepted carrier. Modifications to the plan shall be made only after the City has met and consulted with the Association. Section 5. Annual Physical The City shall provide a physical exam periodically as indicated below for the purpose of detecting heart trouble and cancer. The exam shall be given by a City appointed physician who is acceptable to the Association. Cost of said physical exam shall be borne by the City. The resulting diagnosis shall be submitted to the City as well as the employee together with specifics of corrective treatment. Physical Exam Schedule: 1. New Employee Second year following appointment 2. Employee under 40 Alternate years 3. Employee 40 & over Every year ARTICLE IX - RETIREMENT A. The City shall make contributions to the CalPERS plan known as three percent (3%) at fifty (50) with those benefit options as provided for in the contract between the City and CalPERS for employees defined by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) as “classic members” (meaning those persons who were members of CalPERS or a reciprocal California public pension plan as of December 31, 2012). B. New employees/members hired on or after January 1, 2013 as defined by PEPRA will be hired at the retirement formula in accordance with PEPRA and other legislation. New members entering membership for the first time in a Police Safety classification shall be eligible for the two point seven percent (2.7%) at 15 12542444.1 SE010-040 fifty-seven (57) retirement formula for Local Safety members. The employee contribution for new members shall be one-half the normal cost, as determined by CalPERS. In no event shall the City make contributions to the CalPERS plans for new members. C. Modification(s) to the contract shall be made only after the City has met and consulted with the Association and such modification(s) made a part of the contract between the City and PERS consistent with the requirements of CalPERS. ARTICLE X - HOURS OF WORK Section 1. Work Period A. The work period for law enforcement personnel (as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act) shall be three hundred thirty-six (336) contiguous hours fourteen (14) consecutive days). All full-time law enforcement personnel shall be regularly assigned one of the following work schedules: 1. “Three-Twelve” - three (3) consecutive three (3) day work weeks consisting of three (3) twelve (12) hour and twenty (20) minute work days followed by a four (4) day work week consisting of three (3) twelve (12) hour and twenty (20) minute work days and one (1) twelve (12) hour work day. 2. “Four-Ten” - a work week consisting of ten (10) hours/day, four (4) days/week. 3. “Five-Eight” - a work week consisting of eight (8) hours/day, five (5) days/week. Section 2. Three-Twelve Work Schedule A. The standard work week shall be thirty-seven (37) hours or forty-nine (49) hours depending on the number of days worked in a work week pursuant to A.1. above. B. For PERS reporting purposes, the nine (9) hours worked over forty (40) during the forty-nine (49) hour work week of the work period will be considered regular straight time hours for the intention to report forty (40) hours of regular hours during a work week. ARTICLE XI - OVERTIME COMPENSATION Section 1. Overtime Defined for Eligible Law Enforcement Personnel A. Three-Twelve Work Week: Time worked in excess of eighty-six (86) hours in a FLSA work period as defined in Article X, Section 1. or time worked on scheduled days off. B. Four-Ten Work Week: Time worked in excess of eighty-six (86) 16 12542444.1 SE010-040 hours in a FLSA work period as defined in Article X, Section 1. or time worked on scheduled days off. C. Five-Eight Work Week: Time worked in excess of eighty-six (86) hours in a FLSA work period as defined in Article X, Section 1. or time worked on scheduled days off. Section 2. Compensation for Overtime A. Authorized non-FLSA overtime shall be compensated in pay or compensatory time at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the base hourly rate of pay. B. In computing overtime for a work period, time absent from duty as a result of use of sick leave, vacation, holiday or compensatory time off shall not be considered as time deemed to have been worked. Section 3. Compensatory Time A. Employees may elect to receive compensatory time in lieu of pay for overtime subject to B. and C. below. B. Should an employee desire to take compensatory time off, he shall file a written request with the Chief of Police who shall grant time off unless it interferes with the normal operation staffing of the police department. C. Employees shall be permitted to accumulate a maximum of seventy- five (75) hours of compensatory time. An employee who has accumulated seventy- five (75) hours of compensatory time will be reimbursed within the pay period earned for any overtime in excess of seventy-five (75) hours maximum. D. An employee may, upon written request submitted to and approved by the City Manager, receive reimbursement for the requested number of hours of accumulated compensatory time equal to or below the cap of seventy-five (75) hours. Reimbursement shall occur with the next regular payroll following the pay period in which the employee's written request has been approved by the City Manager. Section 4. Overtime Reporting In order for an employee to earn compensation for overtime, he must receive the supervisor's or the Chief of Police's approval. Overtime worked to meet an emergency situation does not require advance approval, but shall be certified by the Chief of Police before being credited to the employee's record. ARTICLE XII - HOLIDAYS Section 1. Recognized Holidays 17 12542444.1 SE010-040 The City will recognize the following designated holidays each fiscal year: Independence Day (July 4th) Labor Day (1st Monday in September) Veterans’ Day (November 11) Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November) Christmas Eve (December 24th) Christmas Day (December 25th) New Year’s Day (January 1st) Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in January) Presidents’ Day (3rd Monday in February) Section 2. Memorial Day Floating Holidays (Last Monday in May) The City will also recognize two (2) floating holidays each fiscal year. Each unit employee shall be eligible to accrue up to a maximum of two (2) floating holidays on July 1st of each year, subject to the following limitations. The floating holidays shall be taken, or may be cashed out, during the fiscal year (July 1st through June 30th) in which they are accrued. An employee may not have more than two (2) floating holidays on the books at any time. If an employee does not use, or cash out, both of his/her floating holidays within the fiscal year in which the employee accrued them, he/she will not earn two (2) additional floating holidays in the next fiscal year. Instead, the employee will only earn that number of floating holidays, on July 1st of each year that will bring the employee’s balance of floating holidays to two (2). Thus, if an employee uses, or cashes out, only one (1) floating holiday during a fiscal year, that employee will only accrue one (1) additional floating holiday on July 1st of the following fiscal year, bringing the employee’s floating holiday balance up to two (2) floating holidays. The parties encourage employees in the unit to use their floating holidays. Since floating holidays cannot be removed from an employee once earned, and the parties do not want employees to have more floating holidays on the books than would be received within the current fiscal year, a floating holiday(s) carried over at the end of the fiscal year results in the employee being unable to earn that holiday(s) in the next fiscal year. The date on which a floating holiday will be used may be individually selected by the employee subject to the approval of the Chief of Police. Approval will not normally be granted if it would require the Department to backfill the employee’s position at time-and-one-half (1-1/2) to maintain necessary staffing/deployment levels. A floating holiday cannot be used on any of the designated holidays recognized by the City or on another floating holiday. To request to use, or cash out, a floating holiday, an employee must submit a completed “Request for leave/overtime and special pay report”. Beginning in December, 2024 and each December thereafter, floating holidays may be cashed out only pursuant to the irrevocable election process described in Article XIII, Vacation. The past practice of the City in permitting the stacking of floating holidays is specifically eliminated by the above language. 18 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 3. Compensation for Holidays A. Compensation for a Holiday when No Work is Performed on a Holiday. When a holiday falls on a day that the employee performs no work (whether the day is the employee’s scheduled work day or not), the employee shall be paid twelve and one third (12.33) hours of holiday pay for the holiday, at the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay. The “regular hourly rate”, for purposes of holiday pay, includes base pay plus the hourly equivalent of the following eligible special compensation for the employee, longevity, POST, temporary assignment, standby, bilingual, shift differential, and cafeteria cash in-lieu (including any cash payments for opting out). To the extent that the parties omitted from the list above any elements of the FLSA regular rate, the parties shall promptly meet and confer for the purpose of amending the list of included items to replicate the FLSA regular rate. The parties’ intent of creating the list above in this MOU is to comply with CalPERS requirements, not to change the manner of paying holiday pay. B. Compensation for a Holiday when Work is Performed on a Holiday. When a holiday falls on a day that the employee performs work (whether the day is the employee’s scheduled work day or not), the employee shall be paid as follows: 1. If the holiday is Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or New Year’s Day the employee shall be paid “hardship” pay as follows: a. Twelve and one third (12.33) hours of holiday pay for the holiday, at the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay per Section 3A, and b. Pay for the number of hours of work the employee actually performed on the holiday, at the rate of pay otherwise specified in this MOU for such work hours, and c. Pay for the number of hours of work the employee actually performed on the holiday, at the employee’s base hourly rate of pay. Example 1: Officer A works six (6) hours on Christmas Day. Officer A would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate 12.33 hours holiday pay regular hourly rate 6 hours work pay regular hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU 6 hours hardship pay base hourly rate 2. If the holiday is not Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or New Year’s Day the employee shall be paid: 19 12542444.1 SE010-040 a. Twelve and one third (12.33) hours of holiday pay for the holiday, at the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay as per Section 3A, and b. Pay for the number of hours of work the employee actually performed on the holiday, at the rate of pay otherwise specified in this MOU for such work hours. Example 2: Officer B works 8 hours on Veterans’ Day. Officer B would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate 12.33 hours holiday pay regular hourly rate 8 hours work pay regular hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU C. The past practice of the City paying hardship holiday pay to an employee on a designated hardship holiday when in fact said employee did not work on the designated hardship holiday is specifically eliminated by the above language. Section 4. Conversion of Hardship Pay to Time Off An employee may choose to convert any hardship pay to time off or non- FLSA compensatory time at the rate of one hour of hardship pay converting to one hour of time off or to one hour of non-FLSA compensatory time. ARTICLE XIII - VACATION Section 1. Eligibility All regular full-time employees having completed one (1) year of continuous service with the department and annually thereafter, shall be eligible for a paid vacation at their then existing rate of pay. Section 2. Accrual A. Vacation leave is accumulated yearly and is computed on the basis of the employee's hire date as a regular full-time or probationary employee. B. Years of service, for purpose of vacation accrual, shall be from the date of initial employment as a full-time probationary or regular employee to the anniversary date concluding the full year of the designated year. C. All eligible unit employees hired after February 1, 1998 will accrue vacation leave by the following schedule: 20 12542444.1 SE010-040 Years Of Hours Max. Hourly Accrual Annual Service Earned Rate/Pay Period Bi-Weekly Vacation Hours 0-5 Years 80 3.0769 80 hours 6-14 120 4.6153 120 hours 15-19 160 6.1538 160 hours 20+ 200 7.6923 200 hours D. An eligible employee hired on or before February 1, 1998 shall accrue vacation leave by the following schedule: Years Of Hourly Accrual Rate Annual Service Per Pay Period Accrual Rate 0-5 4.615 120 hours 6 4.923 128 hours 7 5.231 136 hours 8 5.486 144 hours 9 5.539 152 hours 10-19 6.154 160 hours 20+ 7.692 200 hours Section 3. Maximum Accrual A. An employee may accumulate unused vacation to a maximum of four hundred (400) hours. If the needs of the service require that a sworn employee be denied the use of accrued vacation time and such denial is anticipated to result in a cessation of accrual, the employee may request that his maximum accrual be increased to an amount not to exceed the amount accrued in the preceding thirty- six (36) month period. Such request must be submitted to the Chief of Police prior to a cessation of accrual and is subject to the approval of the Chief of Police and City Manager. B. The accrual of vacation shall cease when an employee's accumulated vacation is at the maximum provided in this Section. Additional vacation shall begin accruing when the employee's vacation balance falls below the maximum. C. An employee on Injury on Duty (IOD) status or leave may accrue vacation up to the maximum under this section. Should the employee reach maximum accumulation, the City shall cash out the equivalent hours that the employee has taken for vacation during the fiscal year. Should the employee reach maximum again after the cash out while still on IOD or leave, accruals shall cease. Section 4. Use of Vacation A. The time at which an employee's vacation is to occur shall be determined by the Chief of Police with due regard for the wishes of the employee and particular regard for the needs of the service. When an employee uses accrued vacation for leave, the vacation hours used shall come from the oldest accrued 21 12542444.1 SE010-040 hours first. B. Employees who have completed two (2) years or more of continuous service may elect to be paid for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of accumulated vacation up to twice per calendar year. Beginning in December 2024, and in each December thereafter, employees eligible to cash out vacation hours and who wish to convert vacation hours to salary, may do so only by making an irrevocable election in writing of the number of hours they will accrue in the next calendar year that they choose to cash out. Employees who make the irrevocable election may choose to receive the cash out in July and/or December. The maximum cash out that can be elected to be paid out in July and/or December is limited by the employee’s accrued and unused vacation earned in that calendar year available for cash out on the date of cash out. All cash- out of vacation pursuant to this provision is from hours earned in the current calendar year. The City shall have a form available for employees to make this irrevocable election and for employees to request an exception to the irrevocable election requirement for unforeseeable emergencies occurring after the election window period. The request for an exception is subject to the City Manager’s approval. The City’s decision on a request for an exception shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. . Section 5. Vacation Payment at Termination A. Employees terminating employment shall be paid in a lump sum for all accumulated vacation no later than the next regular payday following termination. B. When termination is caused by death of the employee, the employee's beneficiary shall receive the employee's pay for unused vacation. In the event an employee has not designated a beneficiary, the payment shall be made to the estate of the employee. Section 6. Vacation Accrual During Leave of Absence No vacation shall be earned during any leave of absence without pay for each fourteen (14) day period (pay period) of such leave. Section 7. Prohibition Against Working for City During Vacation Employees shall not work for the City during their vacation and, thereby, receive double compensation from the City. ARTICLE XIV - LEAVES OF ABSENCE Section 1. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay 22 12542444.1 SE010-040 A. Upon the Police Chief's recommendation and approval of the City Manager, an employee may be granted a leave of absence without pay in cases of an emergency or where such absence would not be contrary to the best interest of the City, for a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days. B. Upon written request of the employee, the City Council may grant a leave of absence, with or without pay, for a period not to exceed one (1) year. C. At the expiration of the approved leave of absence, after notice to return to duty, the employee shall be reinstated to the position held at the time the leave of absence was granted. Failure on the part of the employee to report promptly at such leave of absence's expiration and receipt of notice to return to duty shall be cause for discharge. D. During any authorized leave of absence without pay, an employee shall not be eligible to accumulate or receive fringe benefits except as specifically provided for in this MOU, except that the City shall contribute to an employee's healthcare and dental plan, disability insurance plan, and life insurance plan for the first thirty (30) calendar days of the leave of absence. Section 2. Bereavement Leave A. Employees may be granted up to forty (40) hours of paid bereavement leave of absence, plus an additional twenty-two (22) unpaid hours by the reason of a death in their family which shall be restricted and limited to immediate family by reason of biology, marriage, or adoption. Family of employee covered by this provision:  Spouse or Registered Domestic Partner  Parent (means a biological, foster, or adoptive parent, a parent-in-law, a stepparent, a legal guardian, or other person who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a child).  Father and Mother In-Law (means a parent of an employee’s spouse or domestic partner as defined in this section).  Grandparent (means a parent of the employee’s parent, as defined in this section).  Sibling (means a person related to another person by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent).  Child (means a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, a child of a domestic partner, or a person to whom the employee stands in loco parentis.)  Grandchild means a child of the employee’s child as defined in this section)  All degree of relatives not listed but living within the household of the employee Employees may use any of their accumulated leave balances to receive pay 23 12542444.1 SE010-040 during the additional twenty two (22) hours of unpaid bereavement leave. Section 3. Military Leave of Absence A. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of State law. All employees entitled to military leave shall give the Chief of Police an opportunity within the limits of military regulations to determine when such leave shall be taken. Whenever possible, the employee involved shall notify the Chief of Police of such leave request ten (10) working days in advance of the beginning of the leave. B. In addition to provision of State law, the City shall continue to provide eligible employees on military leave the current health benefits (healthcare, dental, disability and life insurance and retirement (if applicable) for the first three (3) months of military leave. During said period, the employee shall be required to pay to the City the same co-payments as required of other employees. After the first three (3) months of military leave, the employee may continue said benefits at his cost. Section 4. This section was intentionally left blank and has been reserved for future use. Section 5. Unauthorized Absence Unauthorized absence is days, or portions of days, wherein an employee is absent from work without City approval. Unless subsequently approved, such absence will result in a deduction from the employee's pay of an amount equivalent to the time absent. Employees taking unauthorized absence may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Section 6. Catastrophic Leave A. Establishment – A Catastrophic Leave Program for the Association was established which allows donation of paid time for employees represented by the Association. B. Purpose – The purpose of the Catastrophic Leave Pool is to enable full-time employees to receive and donate vacation, administrative leave, and compensatory time off (CTO) leave credits on an hour for hour basis to assist employees who have no remaining leave bank balances and who will suffer a financial hardship due to prolonged illness or injury to themselves, or a member of their immediate family. Sick Leave is excluded from this program. The conditions of this program are as follows: 1. Catastrophic Leave will be available only to employees who have exhausted their own paid leave through bona fide serious illness or accident. 2. The leave pool shall be administered by the Finance Department. 24 12542444.1 SE010-040 3. Employees must be in regular full-time appointed positions to be eligible for catastrophic leave. 4. Employees receiving Long-Term Disability payments may participate in this program, but may not receive combined payments that would exceed their normal take home pay. 5. All donations are to be confidential, between the donating employee and the Finance Department. 6. Employees donating to the pool must have forty (40) hours of paid leave available after making a donation. 7. Donating employees must complete a Catastrophic Leave Program form with a signed authorization, and includes specifying the specific employee to be a recipient of the donation. 8. Donations will be subject to applicable tax laws. 9. The availability of Catastrophic Leave shall not delay or prevent the City from taking action to medically separate or disability retire an employee. 10. Catastrophic Leave due to illness or injury of an immediate family member may require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician’s Statement that the presence of the employee is necessary. 11. Catastrophic Leave due to illness or injury of the employee will require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician’s Statement as to the employee’s inability to perform normal duties. ARTICLE XV - JURY DUTY Section 1. Compensation for Jury Duty A. Employees required to report for jury duty shall be granted leave of absence for such purpose, upon presentation of jury notice to the Chief of Police. Said employees shall receive full payment for the time served on jury duty, provided the employee remits any fees received for such jury service, excluding payment for mileage, to the City's Finance Department. Compensation for mileage, subsistence or similar auxiliary allowance shall not be considered as a fee and shall be returned to the employee by the Finance Department. B. If the sum of the employee's jury duty responsibilities is less than a full work day; the employee shall contact his supervisor as to the feasibility of returning to work that day. 25 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XVI - SICK LEAVE Section 1. General Sick Leave Provisions A. Sick leave shall be used only in cases of actual personal sickness or disability, medical or dental treatment, and family leave or as authorized by the City Manager under special circumstances. The employee requesting sick leave shall notify his immediate supervisor or Chief of Police prior to the time set for reporting to work. Sick leave with pay shall not be allowed unless the employee has met and complied with the provisions of this MOU. B. Sick leave shall not be granted for disability arising from any sickness or injury purposely self-inflicted or caused by an employee's own willful misconduct. C. The Department Head may require employees to present proof of physical fitness for duty for sick leaves in excess of five (5) consecutive working days. Section 2. Eligibility All employees covered by this MOU shall be eligible to accrue sick leave. Section 3. Accrual A. Sick leave shall be accrued at the rate of twelve and one-third (12- 1/3) hours per calendar month for each calendar month that the employee has worked regularly scheduled hours and/or has been on authorized leave which provides for full pay, for at least fifteen (15) working days in that month. B. Sick leave accrued pursuant to A. above for unit employees hired prior to July 1, 1985, will be placed into a newly established sick leave bank at the rate of twelve and one-third (12-1/3) hours per calendar month for each calendar month that the employee has worked regularly scheduled hours. This new sick leave bank, established February 4, 1998, cannot be cashed out for disability retirement. Accumulated sick leave shall not be used to postpone the effective date of retirement as determined by the City. Section 4. Accumulation and Payment A. There is no limit on the amount of sick leave that an employee may accumulate. B. An employee may be paid for unused sick leave pursuant to the following: 1. Employees who have not completed fifteen (15) years of services with the City will not be eligible to be paid for any accumulated sick leave, nor shall any accumulated sick leave be used to postpone the effective date of retirement as determined by the City. 26 12542444.1 SE010-040 2. Upon separation from the City, employees who have completed a minimum of fifteen (15) years of service with the City shall have the choice to: a) Be paid for the accumulated sick leave up to twenty percent (20%) of the accumulated sick leave bank. b) Convert the hours to eight (8) hours work days and report to CalPERS for service credit. c) Or any combination of pay and service credit (maximum twenty percent [20%] payout compensation) of total/accumulated sick leave bank at the time of separation. d) Compensation shall be at the employees’ final hourly rate of pay. e) Accumulated sick leave shall not be used to postpone the effective date of the retirement as determined by the City. 3. Employees employed prior to July 1, 1985, who are retired because of work related disabilities will be paid all of their accumulated sick leave at their final base hourly rate of pay. Accumulated sick leave shall not be used to postpone the effective date of retirement as determined by the City. Any sick leave accrued after February 4, 1998 will be placed in the sick leave bank set forth in Section 3.B above, and is not eligible for this payout provision. Section 5. Sick Leave During Vacation An employee who becomes ill while on vacation may have such period of illness charged to his accumulated sick leave provided that: A. Immediately upon return to duty, the employee submits to his supervisor a written request for sick leave and a written statement signed by his physician describing the nature and dates of illness. B. The Chief of Police recommends and the City Manager approves the granting of such sick leave. Section 6. Extended Sick Leave In the event of an employee's continuing illness which results in depletion of sick leave accumulation, the employee may request in writing, to the Chief of Police and City Manager, a leave of absence without pay for the purpose of recovering from the illness, provided: A. The employee has used all of his accumulated sick leave. B. The employee presents to his department head for referral to and consideration by the City Manager, a written explanation of the employee's illness and an estimate of the time needed for recovery signed by the employee's physician. C. Prior to resuming his duties, the employee may be required to take a 27 12542444.1 SE010-040 medical examination at City expense and provide a medical release to return to work from the employee's physician as prescribed by the City Manager. The employment record and the results of such examination shall be considered by the City Manager in determining the employee's fitness to return to work. D. The maximum period of such leave shall be ninety (90) calendar days. If the employee desires an extension, he shall follow, prior to the termination of the initial leave, the procedure described in Section 6.B above. Section 7. Family Leave Upon a demonstration of need and subject to the following conditions, an employee may take sick leave and/or unpaid leave to care for his newborn infant, whether through parentage or adoption, or a seriously ill or injured member of the Employee’s "immediate family" as defined in Article XIV Section 2. Bereavement Leave, and shall also include a “Designated Person” which means any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The designated person may be identified by the employee at the time the employee requests the leave. An employ er may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period for family care and medical leave. A. Proof of the birth or adoption of a newborn infant or the serious illness/injury of the family member must be submitted to the City. B. Requests for family leave must be submitted in writing to the employee's supervisor at the earliest possible date preceding the time when the leave is to begin. C. Operational needs of the City shall be relevant in determinations regarding the granting of family leave in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. D. In the event of an extended family leave, the employee may be required to periodically report on the status of the situation giving rise to the leave. E. Family leave may be granted only upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police and approval of the City Manager consistent with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. F. A maximum of four hundred (400) working hours of family leave in any combination of sick leave and unpaid leave may be taken during any two (2) year period unless a greater amount is prescribed by state or federal law. Section 8. On The Job Injury Employees who are disabled by injury or illness arising out of and in the course of their duties as public safety employees of the City, shall be entitled to the benefits of California Labor Code Section 4850 as the Section now exists or is hereinafter amended. Any payments made pursuant to this Section shall not be 28 12542444.1 SE010-040 charged as sick leave; sick leave and vacation benefits shall accrue during the period of disability pursuant to the provision of California Labor Code Section 4850. Section 9. Off The Job Injury An employee injured outside of his service with the City shall be compensated through the disability insurance plan provided by the City. ARTICLE XVII - PROBATIONARY PERIODS Section 1. Appointment Following Probation Period A. The original appointment and promotional appointment of employees shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of twelve (12) months of service. B. When unusual circumstances merit the extension of the probationary period, the Chief of Police shall request, in writing, approval of the City Manager. Said extension shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) calendar days. Human Resources shall notify the Chief of Police and the probationer concerned no-less- than two (2) weeks prior to the termination of any probationary period. C. If the service of a probationary employee has been satisfactory, the Chief of Police shall file with Human Resources a statement, in writing, that the retention of the employee is desired. No actions changing an employee's status from probationary to regular full-time shall be made or become effective until approved by the City Manager. Section 2. Objective of Probationary Period The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the most effective adjustment of a new employee to his position, and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the required standards of work. Section 3. Employee Performance Appraisal A. Each probationary employee shall have his performance evaluated at the end of each three (3) months of service or at more frequent intervals when deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. Regular employees shall have their performance evaluated annually or at more frequent intervals when deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. Such evaluation shall be reported in writing and in the form approved by Human Resources. B. The written appraisal report of an employee's performance evaluation shall be filed in triplicate, the original to be filed with Human Resources and made a part of the employee's personnel records, one (1) copy to be retained by the department, and one (1) copy to be given to the employee. 29 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 4. Rejection of Probationary Employee A. During the probationary period an employee may be suspended, demoted, or rejected anytime by the Chief of Police, with approval of the City Manager, without cause and without right of appeal, except the right of appeal of punitive action as may be provided by law. Notification of rejection, in writing, shall be served on the probationary employee and a copy filed with Human Resources. A termination interview may be conducted with each rejected probationer. B. An exception will be applied where the probationary employee's job termination or dismissal is based on charges of misconduct which stigmatizes his reputation or seriously impairs his opportunity to earn a living, or which might seriously damage his standing and association in the community. Where there is such a deprivation of a "liberty interest", the employee shall be given pre- disciplinary procedural due process as defined in the City of Seal Beach Personnel Rules and Regulations and this Memorandum of Understanding. Prior to the disciplinary action becoming final, the employee must be notified of his right to the appeal procedure as outlined in the Personnel Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE XVIII - LAYOFF PROCEDURES Section 1. Policy The policy for layoff procedures shall be as adopted in City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE XIX - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 1. Tuition Reimbursement A. Higher Education Degree Programs Unit members attending accredited community colleges, universities, and trade schools for the purpose of obtaining a higher education degree may apply for reimbursement of tuition, books, student fees and parking. Reimbursement is capped each calendar year at the tuition rate of the Cal State University system for up to two (2) semesters of full-time, undergraduate enrollment. Reimbursement is contingent upon the successful completion of the course. For any course that could be taken for a letter grade, it must be taken for a letter grade and successful completion means a grade of “C” or better for undergraduate courses and a grade of “B” or better for graduate courses. For any course that can only be taken for a grade of “credit” or “no credit”, successful completion means a grade of “credit”. All claims for tuition reimbursement require prior approval and are subject to verification and approval by the City Manager. This tuition reimbursement does not pertain to P.O.S.T. courses attended on duty. See examples below, rate changes are based on the current Cal State System tuition rate. 30 12542444.1 SE010-040 2020-2021 State University Tuition $ Required University Fees $ Parking $ Example 1: Officer A attends California State University, Long Beach, for the Spring 2024 semester and completes two (2) 3-unit undergraduate courses with a grade of “C” or better. The tuition reimbursement would be calculated as follows: 1,764.00 (0-6 units) 647.00 (approx.) 300.00 Books $ 535.00 (approx.) TOTAL $ 3,246.00 Example 2: Officer B attends California State University, Long Beach, for the Spring 2024 semester and completes three (3) 3-unit undergraduate courses with a grade of “C” or better. The tuition reimbursement would be calculated as follows: 2023-2024 State University Tuition $ 3,042.00 (6.1 or more units) Required University Fees $ 647.00 (approx.) Parking $ 300.00 Books $ 535.00 (approx.) TOTAL $ 4,524.00 B. Professional Conventions and Conferences Unit members who attend job related conventions and conferences that are not sponsored by the Department may submit for reimbursement under the tuition reimbursement program for the cost of enrollment. Attendance of conventions and conferences must be job related and pre-approved by the Chief of Police. The cost of travel, sustenance, and lodging is not reimbursable under tuition reimbursement per IRS Publication 970. Travel, sustenance, and lodging may be reimbursable via the Department’s Meetings and Conference budget. Employee is to submit a request to the Chief of Police prior to travel for approval in order to receive reimbursement for travel, sustenance, and lodging after the conference. All receipts for expenses must be attached to the reimbursement request and submitted to the Chief of Police for approval, and forwarded to the City Manager for final review and approval. Section 2. Physical Fitness Program The physical fitness program is a voluntary program for all sworn officers utilizing vacation hours as compensation for achieving goals within this program. The details of this program are attached as Exhibit A to this MOU. Section 3. Health Wellness Program Beginning July 2024, the City shall reimburse Employee, as a medical benefit, for Employee’s actual documented expenses for medical maintenance 31 12542444.1 SE010-040 exams or the cost of participation in wellness programs, in an amount not to exceed $400 per fiscal year, subject to the City’s normal reimbursement processes and requirements for such expenses. Reimbursable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, actual out of pocket expenses for annual physical examinations or other medical tests or examinations, participation in weight loss, stop smoking, fitness or other similar programs, or membership in a health or fitness club. ARTICLE XX - ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Section 1. It is the intent of the parties hereto that the provisions of this MOU shall incorporate all prior agreements and memoranda of agreement, or memoranda of understanding, or contrary salary and/or personnel resolutions or administrative codes, provisions of the City, oral or written, expressed or implied, between the parties, and shall govern the entire relationship, and shall be the sole source of any and all rights which may be asserted hereunder. This MOU is not intended to conflict with federal or state law. Section 2. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 1., there exists within the City certain personnel rules and regulations and police department rules and regulations. To the extent that this MOU does not specifically contradict these personnel rules and regulations or police department rules and regulations or City ordinances, they shall continue subject to being changed by the City in accordance with the exercise of City rights under this MOU and applicable state law. Section 3. Except as provided herein, other terms and conditions of employment, oral or written, express or implied that are presently enjoyed by employees represented by the Association shall remain in full force and effect during the entire term of this MOU unless mutually agreed to the contrary by both parties hereto. ARTICLE XXI - CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK Section 1. Prohibited Conduct A. The Association, its officers, agents, representatives, and/or members agree that they will respect relevant law and judicial decisions regarding the withholding or diminishment of services to influence negotiations conducted under Section 3500 et seq. of the California Government Code. B. The City agrees that it shall not lock out its employees during the term of this MOU. The term "lockout" is hereby defined so as not to include the discharge, suspension, termination, layoff, failure to recall, or failure to return to work employees of the City in the exercise of rights as set forth in any of the provisions of this MOU or applicable ordinance or law. C. Any employee who participates in any conduct prohibited in subparagraph A. above may be subject to termination. D. In addition to any other lawful remedies or disciplinary actions 32 12542444.1 SE010-040 available to the City, if the Association fails, in good faith, to perform all responsibilities listed in Section 2., Association Responsibility, below, the City may suspend certain rights and privileges accorded to the Association under the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution or by this MOU including, but not limited to, access to the grievance procedure and use of the City's bulletin boards and facilities. Section 2. Association Responsibility In the event that the Association, its officers, agents, representatives or members engage in any of the conduct prohibited in Section 1. above, Prohibited Conduct, the Association or its duly authorized representatives shall immediately instruct any persons engaging in such conduct that their conduct is in violation of this MOU and unlawful, and they should immediately cease engaging in conduct prohibited in Section 1. above, Prohibited Conduct, and return to work. ARTICLE XXII - EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION Section 1. In the event of circumstances beyond the control of the City, such as acts of God, fire, flood, civil disorder, national emergency, or similar circumstances, provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding or the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City, which prevent the City's ability to respond to these emergencies, shall be suspended for the duration of such emergency. After the emergency is over, the Association shall have the right to meet and confer with the City regarding the impact on employees of the suspension of these provisions in the Memorandum of Understanding and any Personnel Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE XXIII - SEPARABILITY Section 1. Should any provision of the MOU be found to be inoperative, void or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other provisions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this MOU. ARTICLE XXIV - PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS Section 1. The Personnel Rules and Regulations are incorporated herein by reference, and shall govern. If there is a conflict between the Personnel Rules and Regulations and a specific provision of this MOU, the MOU provision shall be applied. ARTICLE XXV - MOU REOPENERS Section 1. The Association and the City shall reopen any provision of this MOU for the purpose of complying with any final order of a Federal or State Agency or Court of competent jurisdiction requiring a modification or change in any provision or provisions of this MOU, in order to comply with State or Federal laws. 33 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XXVI - TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Section 1. The terms of this Memorandum of Understanding shall commence on July 1, 2023 and continue in full force and effect through June 30, 2025 - a two (2) year contract. Section 2. The City of Seal Beach and the Police Officers’ Association agree to commence negotiations for the next contract year by April 1, 2025. ARTICLE XXVII - RATIFICATION Section 1. This Memorandum of Understanding is subject to approval and adoption by the City Council and ratification by the required number of the duly authorized representatives of the Association. Following such ratification, approval and adoption, the Memorandum of Understanding shall be implemented by the appropriate resolution(s), ordinance(s), or other written action of the City Council. SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES: Sergeant Ben Jaipream, President Date: CITY OF SEAL BEACH MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Date: Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance Date: 34 12542444.1 SE010-040 EXHIBIT A SEAL BEACH POLICE PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The physical fitness program is a voluntary program for all sworn officers. Officers work out on their off duty time and may, depending upon availability of funds and staffing needs, in return receive compensation back to them after meeting the minimum requirements of the tests at the end of each six (6) month period. Officers may receive up to twenty (20) hours of vacation time by meeting the requirements of the test at the end of each six (6) month period. The maximum time each officer will be able to achieve is up to forty (40) vacation hours earned annually for as long as the officer continues successfully in the program. ENROLLMENT To start the program, each officer must contact the Physical Fitness Committee and advise them of your intent. You will need to have a doctor’s release to allow you to participate in the program. A copy of the physical requirements of the physical fitness program should be reviewed by your doctor when obtaining your release. For details of the annual physical exam refer to Article XIII section 6 of the SBPOA MOU. TESTING Each officer participating will be tested every six (6) months, specifically in the months of January and July. A minimum level has been established for each test. Participants will have to move up a category or reach maintenance level indicated on each test by age group. At one (1) year and six (6) months, participants will be required to be at the maintenance level. Once the maintenance level has been attained, participants will have to maintain that level on subsequent tests. Testing each six (6) month period will validate the awarding of vacation time. Testing may be conducted during on-duty hours at the Watch Commanders discretion. The Physical Fitness Committee will perform the testing. ALLOCATION OF HOURS Employees will be awarded four (4) hours for successfully completing each test as set forth in TESTING above. No employee shall receive any hours if they fail to meet the minimum standards for at least three (3) of the five (5) tests. 35 12542444.1 SE010-040 PHYSICAL FITNESS COMMITTEE The Physical Fitness Committee shall be comprised of four (4) members - two (2) to be appointed by the SBPOA Board of Directors, and two (2) to be appointed by the Chief of Police. The Physical Fitness Committee is established to retain administrative control over the program. All committee members shall be active participants in the program. The committee will be responsible for examining problems and disputes that arise from the administration of the program. The committee will be the formal arbitrators on these matters. VALIDATED HEALTHCARE PROBLEM CLAUSE Those officers who for validated Healthcare reasons cannot participate in the fitness program as designed may contact the Physical Fitness Committee for program modification. Validated Healthcare problems are those diagnosed by a physician as limiting participation in a certain activity. REQUIRED TEST The physical fitness needs of Police Officers fall into three (3) areas: o Cardio Fitness o Strength o Flexibility The tests outlined below may be modified by the Physical Fitness Committee as necessary. The tests used in this program to evaluate fitness in these areas will be: Cardio Fitness: 1.5 Mile run Strength: Push-ups Sit-ups Pull-ups Flexibility: Forward Stretch HEALTHCARE COVERAGE Participation in the program will be on a voluntary basis. Any exercise workouts done under this program, i.e. weight lifting, contact sports, running, etc. would not be covered for benefits under Workers Compensation, The city will not provide blanket coverage for any injury which could conceivably be claimed under the pretext of participation in the Physical Fitness Program. All employees must receive clearance from their personal physician prior to beginning program participation. 36 12542444.1 SE010-040 CARDIO FITNESS TESTS - 1.5 Mile Run Officers will run a one point five (1.5) mile course established by the Training Unit. The time needed to cover the distance is recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. This test is an excellent indication of the condition of the heart and lungs as it measures ones aerobic capacity or the ability of the heart and lungs to utilize oxygen. Under 30 Below 30-34 Below 35-39 Below Excellent 10:15 11:00 11:30 Good 10:16-12:00 11:01-12:30 11:31-13:00 Fair 12:01-14:30 12:31-15:00 13:01-15:30 Poor 14:31-16:30 15:01-17:00 15:31-17:30 Very Poor 16:31-Above 17:01-Above 17:31-Above Maintenance Level 11:00 12:00 12:30 Minimum Level 14:30 15:15 15:30 40-44 Below 40-49 Below 50 + Below Excellent 12:00 12:15 12:30 Good 12:01-13:30 12:16-13:45 12:31-14:30 Fair 13:31-16:00 13:46-16:15 14:31-17:00 Poor 16:01-18:00 16:16-18:15 17:01-19:00 Very Poor 18:01-Above 18:16-Above 19:01-Above Maintenance Level 13:00 13:30 14:00 Minimum Level 15:45 16:00 16:45 STRENGTH TESTS The body is maintained in a prone position supported by straight arms on the hands and toes. A partner places his fist on the ground below the officer's chest. The officer must keep his back straight at all times and from the up position, lower him/herself to the floor until his chest touches his partner's hand and then push to the up position again. The officers can rest in the up position. The total number of correct push-ups are recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. This test measures muscle endurance and a low level of muscle endurance indicates an inefficiency in movement and a poor capacity to perform work. This test measures mainly the muscles of both the chest and upper arm which are important in physical confrontations such as pushing, pulling, controlling, and handcuffing. 37 12542444.1 SE010-040 Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent 43 - 37 - 30 - 25 + Good 28-42 23-36 20-29 17-24 Fair 20-27 17-22 15-19 12-16 Poor 5-19 3-16 2-14 2-11 Very Poor 4-Below 2-Below 2-Below 1-Below Maintenance Level 40 35 25 18 Minimum Level 18 15 13 11 PULL-UPS Officer will hold bar with the palms away from the body. Arms are extended out straight in the beginning position with the feet off the ground. Officer must pull his body up to a position where his chin is above the bar for one repetition. The total number of correct pull-ups are recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. In lieu of pull-ups, officers may choose to do the "La Pull". Officers are required to pull down seventy percent (70%) of their body weight ten (10) times in order to achieve maintenance level. Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent 9 & Above 7 & Above 6 & Above 5 & Above Good 8 6 5 4 Fair 6-7 4-5 3-4 2-3 Poor 5 3 2 1 Very Poor 4 & Above 2 & Above 1 & Above 0 Maintenance Level 8 6 5 4 Minimum Level 5 3 2 1 SIT-UPS Officer starts by lying on his/her back, knees bent, heels flat on the floor and arms folded across the chest. A partner holds the feet down. In the up position, the officer will touch his elbows to his knees and then return to the starting position, not placing their shoulder blades on the ground before starting the next sit-up. This is a continuous exercise, no resting. The total number of correct sit- ups are recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. This test measures muscular endurance in the abdominal muscle group, an area of great concern to the sedentary individual. Much evidence exists of the correlation between poor abdominal muscle development, excessive fat tissue and lower back problems. 38 12542444.1 SE010-040 *1 CONTINUOUS MINUTE * Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent 51 & Above 45 & Above 40 & Above 36 & Above Good 40-50 34-44 27-39 23-39 Fair 35-39 29-33 20-26 16-22 Poor 24-34 18-28 7-19 6-15 Very Poor 23 - 17 - 6 - 5 - Maintenance Level 45 40 35 30 Minimum Level 30 25 20 15 FLEXIBILITY Officer sits on the ground with his legs out straight in front of him. Heels of feet are placed against a 4 X 4 or similar object. Officer bends forward and reaches towards his toes with his fingertips as far as he can. The distance above or below his heels is measured. The distance is recorded as plus or minus inches. Plus inches is below the heels and negative is above the heels. Compare the results against the standards on the chart. Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent +10" & Below +9" & Below +8" & Below +7" & Below Good +4" to 9.5" + 3.5" to 8.5" +1" to 7.5" 0 to +6.5" Fair +1.5" to 3.5" +1" to 3" -2" to +.5" -3" to -.5" Poor -4.5" to +1" -6.5" to +.5" -9" & Above -10" to 3.5" Very Poor -5" & Above -7" & Above -9.5 & Above -10.5"& Above Maintenance Level +5" +4" +1" 0" Minimum Level 0" -2" -4" -5" 12542444.1 SE010-040 SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Resolution 7555 XXXX - Exhibit BC ADOPTED: August 12,December 8, 20242025 EXPIRES: June 30,20252027 Formatted: Right: 1.36" Formatted: Right: 1.42" I 12542444.1 SE010-040 SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I - RECOGNITION .................................................................................1 Section 1. ..................................................................................................1 Section 2. ..................................................................................................1 Section 3. . .................................................................................................1 ARTICLE II - EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONAL DUES AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS ............................................................................................1 Section 1. Dues and Benefit Deductions ....................................................1 Section 2. Other Deductions ......................................................................2 ARTICLE III - CITY RIGHTS ..................................................................................2 Section 1. ..................................................................................................2 Section 2. ..................................................................................................3 ARTICLE IV - NON-DISCRIMINATION ...............................................................3 Section 1. ..................................................................................................3 Section 2. ..................................................................................................3 ARTICLE V - COMPENSATION PLAN ................................................................3 Section 1. Basic Compensation Plan ........................................................3 Section 2. Advancement within Salary Grades .........................................4 Section 3. Salary Increases Following Promotion .....................................4 Section 4. Salary Decreases Following Demotion ....................................5 Section 5. Adjustments of Salary Grades .................................................5 Section 6. Salary and Benefits on Suspension ..........................................5 Section 7. Salaries during Term of Memorandum of Understanding ........5 Section 8. Non-PERSable Lump Sum Payments During Term of Memorandum of Understanding .................................................................. 6 ARTICLE VI - SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS ........................................................6 Section 1. Uniform Allowance and Safety Equipment ................................6 Section 2. Temporary Assignment Pay .....................................................6 Section 3. Court Time ...............................................................................7 Section 4. Call-back ...................................................................................8 Section 5. Training Programs .....................................................................8 Section 6. Educational Incentive Pay ........................................................8 Section 7. Stand-by Pay .............................................................................9 Section 8. Experience Pay ............................................................................910 Section 9. Movie Detail ............................................................................11 Section 10. Bilingual Compensation ........................................................11 12542444.1 SE010-040 2 ARTICLE VII - FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION ......................................11 Section 1. Administration ........................................................................11 Section 2. Selection and Funding ...........................................................112 Section 3. Limits ......................................................................................112 Section 4. Changes ..................................................................................12 ARTICLE VIII - HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND, LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE .............................................................................................12 Section 1. Health Care Coverage ............................................................12 Section 2. Health Insurance Plan for Retirees .........................................13 Section 3. Life Insurance Plan .................................................................14 Section 4. Disability Insurance Plan .........................................................14 Section 5. Annual Physical .......................................................................14 ARTICLE IX - RETIREMENT ...............................................................................145 ARTICLE X - HOURS OF WORK ........................................................................15 Section 1. Work Period ............................................................................15 Section 2. Three-Twelve Work Schedule .................................................16 ARTICLE XI - OVERTIME COMPENSATION .....................................................156 Section 1. Overtime Defined ....................................................................156 Section 2. Compensation for Overtime ....................................................16 Section 3. Compensatory Time ................................................................16 Section 4. Overtime Reporting .................................................................167 ARTICLE XII - HOLIDAYS ...................................................................................167 Section 1. ................................................................................................176 Section 2. ..................................................................................................17 Section 3. ..................................................................................................18 Section 4. ..................................................................................................19 ARTICLE XIII - VACATION ..................................................................................19 Section 1. Eligibility ..................................................................................19 Section 2. Accrual ....................................................................................19 Section 3. Maximum Accrual ....................................................................20 Section 4. Use of Vacation .......................................................................201 Section 5. Vacation Payment at Termination ...........................................21 Section 6. Vacation Accrual During Leave of Absence ............................21 12542444.1 SE010-040 2 Section 7. Prohibition Against Working for City During Vacation .............212 3 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XIV - LEAVES OF ABSENCE ..............................................................212 Section 1. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay .............................212 Section 2. Bereavement Leave ................................................................22 Section 3. Military Leave of Absence .......................................................23 Section 4. (Intentionally Left Blank - RESERVED)....................................23 Section 5. Unauthorized Absence ............................................................23 Section 6. Catastrophic Leave .................................................................23 ARTICLE XV - JURY DUTY .................................................................................24 Section 1. Compensation for Jury Duty ....................................................24 ARTICLE XVI - SICK LEAVE ...............................................................................25 Section 1. General Sick Leave Provisions ...............................................25 Section 2. Eligibility ..................................................................................25 Section 3. Accrual ....................................................................................25 Section 4. Accumulation and Payment ....................................................25 Section 5. Sick Leave During Vacation ....................................................26 Section 6. Extended Sick Leave ..............................................................26 Section 7. Family Leave ...........................................................................27 Section 8. On The Job Injury ....................................................................278 Section 9. Off The Job Injury ....................................................................28 ARTICLE XVII - PROBATIONARY PERIODS ...................................................28 Section 1. Appointment Following Probation Period ................................28 Section 2. Objective of Probationary Period ............................................28 Section 3. Employee Performance Appraisal...........................................28 Section 4. Rejection of Probationary Employee .......................................29 ARTICLE XVIII - LAYOFF PROCEDURES .......................................................29 Section 1. Policy ........................................................................................29 ARTICLE XIX - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ..............................................29 Section 1. Tuition Reimbursement ...........................................................29 Section 2. Physical Fitness Program .......................................................30 Section 3 Health Wellness Program 301 ARTICLE XX - ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ...................31 Section 1. ................................................................................................31 Section 2. ................................................................................................31 Section 3. ................................................................................................31 ARTICLE XXI - CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK .......................................31 Section 1. Prohibited Conduct ..................................................................31 Section 2. Association Responsibility .......................................................32 4 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XXII - EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION .....................................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXIII - SEPARABILITY ......................................................................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXIV - PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS .........................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXV - MOU REOPENERS ................................................................32 Section 1. ………………………………………………………………………32 ARTICLE XXVI - TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING .............33 Section 1. ................................................................................................33 Section 2. ..................................................................................................33 ARTICLE XXVII - RATIFICATION .....................................................................33 Section 1. ……………………………………………………………………...33 EXHIBIT A ............................................................................................................34 1 12542444.1 SE010-040 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AND THE SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I - RECOGNITION Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance No. 769, as amended, the City of Seal Beach (hereinafter called the "City" and/or "Employer" interchangeably) has recognized, for the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Seal Beach Police Officers Association (“SBPOA” and/or “Association” interchangeably) as the majority representative of the employees in the bargaining unit, which includes Police Department full-time employees in the classifications and assignments of: a) Police Officer and b) Police Corporal. Section 2. The City recognizes the Association as the representative of the employees in the classifications and assignments set forth in Section 1. above for the purpose of meeting its obligations under this Memorandum of Understanding, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code Section 3500 et seq., when City Rules, Regulations, or laws affecting wages, hours, and/or other terms and conditions of employment are amended or changed. Section 3. The City agrees that the representatives of Association, not to exceed six (6) in number, shall be entitled to meet and confer with Management during said representatives' normal working hours without suffering any loss in pay while absent from their duties for such purpose, providing that such time per person shall not be unreasonable. The City also agrees that such representatives may utilize not more than six (6) hours per month or seventy-two (72) hours per year without suffering any loss in pay for such absence for the purpose of meeting with employees who are represented by the Association and/or other officers of Association. ARTICLE II - EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONAL DUES AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS Section 1. Dues and Benefit Deductions A. The City will provide voluntary payroll deductions for all employees represented by the Association for regular and periodic dues and benefit program premiums. The Association shall certify to the City the names of employees who have authorized membership dues deductions, any employee who declines membership in the Association, and the amounts of dues deductions as they change from time to time. 2 12542444.1 SE010-040 B. The City shall remit such funds to the Association within twenty-one (21) calendar days following the deductions. C. With regard to deductions under this Section 1, the Association agrees to hold the City harmless and indemnify the City against any claims, causes of actions, or lawsuits arising out of the deductions or transmittal of such funds to the Association, except the intentional failure of the City to transmit to the Association monies deducted from the employees pursuant to this Section. Section 2. Other Deductions The City shall make payroll deductions for purposes of an employee depositing funds or making payments directly to a Federal Credit Union, providing that any deductions shall not be less than two dollars ($2.00) on a bi-weekly basis. ARTICLE III - CITY RIGHTS Section 1. The City reserves, retains, and is vested with, solely and exclusively, all rights of Management which have not been expressly abridged by specific provisions of this MOU or by law in the exercise of its rights to manage the business of the City, as such rights existed prior to the execution of this MOU. The sole and exclusive rights of management, not abridged by this MOU or by law, shall include, but not be limited to, the following rights: A. To determine the nature, manner, means, technology, and extent of services and activities to be provided to the public. B. To determine and/or change the facilities, methods, technology, means and size of the work force by which the City operations are to be conducted. C. To determine and change the number of locations, and types of operations, processes and materials to be used in carrying out all City functions including, but not limited to, the right to contract for or subcontract for any work or operation. D. To assign work to and schedule employees in accordance with requirements as determined by the City, and to establish and change work schedules and assignments. E. To establish and modify employee performance standards and productivity and performance programs including, but not limited to, quality and quantity standards, and to require compliance therewith. F. To establish and promulgate and/or modify rules and regulations to maintain order, safety, and efficiency in the City, its facilities and operations. G. To determine policies, procedures and standards for the selection, training and promotion of employees. 3 12542444.1 SE010-040 H. To discharge, suspend, demote or otherwise discipline employees for proper cause in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in departmental disciplinary procedure. Section 2. Where the City is required to make changes in its operations because of the requirements of law, or whenever the contemplated exercise of City Rights shall impact the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit, the City agrees to meet and confer in good faith with representatives of the Association regarding the impact and effects of the contemplated exercise of such rights prior to exercising such rights, unless the matter of the exercise of such rights is provided for in this MOU. ARTICLE IV - NON-DISCRIMINATION Section 1. The City and the Association agree that they shall not discriminate against any employee because of race, color, sex, age, national origin, political or religious opinions or affiliations or sexual orientation. The City and the Association shall reopen any provision of this MOU for the purpose of complying with any final order of the federal or state agency or court of competent jurisdiction requiring a modification or change in any provision or provisions of this MOU in compliance with state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Section 2. Whenever the masculine gender is used in this MOU, it shall be understood to include the feminine gender. ARTICLE V - COMPENSATION PLAN Section 1. Basic Compensation Plan A. All employees covered by this MOU shall be included under the Basic Compensation Plan. Every classification under this Plan shall be assigned a monthly base salary grade adopted by the City Council. The salary schedule shall consist of five (5) steps within each grade. B. The first step is a minimum rate and is normally the hiring rate for the classification. An employee may be assigned, upon appointment, to other than the normal entering salary step within the assigned grade upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police and the approval of the City Manager when it is decided that such action is in the best interest of the City. C. The second step, B step, is a merit adjustment which may be given at the end of six (6) months of employment subject to the recommendation of the Police Chief and approval of the City Manager. D. The third, fourth, and fifth steps are merit adjustments to encourage an employee to improve his work and to recognize increased skill on the job. Employees are normally eligible for these adjustments at any time after the completion of one (1) year of service at the preceding step. Each adjustment may be made subject to the recommendation of the Chief of Police and approval of the City Manager. 4 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 2. Advancement within Salary Grades A. In order to properly compensate an employee, advancement in base salary shall be based on merit. B. Advancement in salary shall not be automatic, but shall depend upon increased service value of the employee to the City. C. The Chief of Police and/or the employees’ immediate supervisor shall be responsible to evaluate employees fairly in an unbiased fashion for the determination of job performance. Advancement shall be made only upon recommendation of the Chief of Police with approval of the City Manager. D. An employee must be reviewed at least once every twelve (12) months from the effective date of his last performance step increase, special performance advancement or promotion. Nothing contained herein shall restrict the Chief of Police from denying the increase after evaluation, nor shall it prevent him from recommending special performance advancement in salary at any time when unusual or outstanding achievement has been demonstrated. E. It shall be the responsibility of each supervisor to establish realistic achievement levels for each step increase within a base salary grade. Achievement levels may be formal or informal and shall be reviewed by the Chief of Police for the purpose of maintaining uniformity of standards throughout the department. Section 3. Salary Increases Following Promotion A. Promotional Appointment - When an employee is promoted to a position with a higher base salary grade, the employee shall be compensated at a step of the salary grade assigned to the new position that is closest to providing a five percent (5%) salary increase over the monthly base salary received immediately prior to promotion. B. Temporary Appointment - In special circumstances, when in the best interest of the City, the City Manager may approve a temporary assignment of an employee to a higher-level classification. In such temporary assignments lasting thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or more, the employee shall be compensated at a step of the monthly base salary grade assigned to the new position that is closest to providing a five percent (5%) salary increase over the monthly base salary received immediately prior to the temporary appointment. 5 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 4. Salary Decreases Following Demotion In the case of a demotion of any employee represented by the Association to a classification with a lower maximum salary, such employee shall be assigned to the appropriate salary step in the new classification as recommended by the Chief of Police and approved by the City Manager. The employee shall retain his previous anniversary date. Section 5. Adjustments of Salary Grades When a salary grade for a given classification is revised upward or downward, the incumbents of positions and classifications affected shall have their existing monthly base salary adjusted to the same step in the new salary grade and their anniversary date shall not be changed. For example, an employee at “C” Step in the old salary grade shall be placed at “C” step of the new salary grade. Section 6. Salary and Benefits on Suspension During suspension from the City service for disciplinary cause, an employee shall forfeit all rights, privileges and salary, except he shall not forfeit his health plans including dental, disability insurance, or life insurance. Should such suspension be later modified or revoked, the employee shall be entitled to receive payment for loss of income and benefits for any portion of the suspension that is disapproved. Section 7. Salaries during Term of Memorandum of Understanding The following salary grade increases shall be provided to employees represented by the Association. The salary grade increases shall be effective during the first full pay period in July of the following indicated years. 1) Effective the first full pay period beginning after July 1, 20232025: Position Grade Increase Police Officer 27 2.5% Police Corporal 29 2.5% 2) Effective the first full pay period beginning after July 1, 20242026: Position Grade Increase Police Officer 27 2.5 3.0% Police Corporal 29 2.53.0% 6 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 8. Non-PERSable Lump Sum Payments During Term of Memorandum of Understanding The City shall make two (2) Non-PERSable lump sum payments of $2,000 each (subject to applicable withholdings) on the following dates, to each bargaining unit members employed by the City on the date the payments are made. Payments will be made on the following dates: a. On the date that payroll is paid for the first pay period beginning after this MOU is ratified by both the City Council and the membership of the POA; and b. On the date that payroll is paid for the first pay period beginning after August 31, 2024. ARTICLE VI - SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS Section 1. Uniform Allowance and Safety Equipment A. An employee, whether or not said employee wears a traditional uniform, shall receive an annual uniform allowance of one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. An officer assigned as a motor officer shall receive an additional annual uniform allowance of two hundred forty dollars ($240) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. Beginning July 1, 2024, an employee, whether or not said employee wears a traditional uniform, shall receive an annual uniform allowance of one thousand three five hundred dollars ($1,500) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. An officer assigned as a motor officer shall receive an additional annual uniform allowance of three hundred dollars ($300) effective the first payroll period following July 1st of each fiscal year. B. The City shall provide the initial issue of uniforms to include two (2) pants and two (2) shirts and utility equipment to include weapon, safety helmet, baton, and other safety equipment as required by law or deemed necessary by the City. The City shall replace and/or repair any equipment damaged within the course and scope of the employee’s employment. Recurring maintenance, repair and/or replacement due to normal wear shall be the responsibility of the employee. C. An employee assigned as a motor officer shall receive an initial issue of required uniform items incident to such duty. Such items include, but are not limited to: jacket, boots, gloves, and two (2) pair of trousers. Section 2. Temporary Assignment Pay A. Field Training Officer (Regular Police Officer Trainees) - Each Officer performing duties of a Field Training Officer for Regular Police Officer Trainees shall receive one-hour compensation at straight time either as pay at employee base hourly rate of pay or compensatory time off for each shift of recruit training. A shift 7 12542444.1 SE010-040 shall be understood to be six (6) or more hours. B. Field Training Officer (Voluntary Reserve Officers) - Each eligible employee performing the duties of a Field Training Officer for Voluntary Reserve Officers shall receive one (1) hour compensation at straight time either as pay at employee base hourly rate of pay or compensatory time off for each shift of recruit training. A shift shall be understood to be six (6) or more hours. C. Orange County Regional Lab Team – An officer assigned as an on- call investigator in any specialty for the Orange County Regional Lab Team for the purpose of responding to clandestine drug laboratories shall receive four (4) hours compensation at (straight time) as either pay at employee base hourly rate of pay or compensatory time off per month for being subject to callout. D. The City shall provide a special assignment pay enhancement, which recognizes multiple tours of duty to a maximum of five percent (5%) of base salary as follows with the express understanding that the standard departmental rotational requirements shall apply: 1. Special assignment pay may only be paid for one (1) position and cannot be combined with any other positions (i.e. a detective currently assigned to the SWAT team will only receive a total of five percent (5%) of base salary special assignment pay at any one time 2. Special assignment pay lasts only through the term of the assignment. 3. The following list of assignments shall be considered special assignments: a) Motorcycle Patrol Premium b) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) c) Crisis Negotiator Team (CNT) d) Detective Division Premium e) Police Administrative Officer f) Detention Services Premium g) Rangemaster Premium h) Police Canine Officer (K-9) Patrol Operations Section 3. Court Time A. An employee called for a subpoenaed court appearance which arises out of the course of his employment and not contiguous with his work shift shall be compensated for a minimum of two-and-two-thirds (2-2/3) hours at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base hourly rate of pay. Should the appearance exceed two and two-thirds (2-2/3) hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual appearance time, including any designated lunch period where the employee’s appearance continues into the afternoon court session, at the rate of one Formatted: Right: 0.4" 8 12542444.1 SE010-040 and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Court appearance time shall begin when the employee departs from the Police station to go directly to Court. B. Any appearance that is contiguous with a regular work shift is not subject to the two and two-thirds (2-2/3) hours minimum. Any appearance that is contiguous with a regular work shift is not subject to the one and one-half (1-1/2) time rate unless the court appearance otherwise qualifies as overtime under this MOU. C. All employees agree to comply with the "on-call" policies administered by the department. Should an officer be placed "on-call" during off duty hours for court appearance(s), he shall be granted two (2) hours pay at the employee's base hourly rate of pay for any on call time prior to twelve o’clock (12:00) noon and two (2) hours for all “on-call” time after twelve o’clock (12:00) noon. Section 4. Call-back A. Employees who are called back to duty after having completed a normal shift or work day assignment and departed from the work premises shall be paid one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base hourly rate of pay for each hour worked on call-back. The number of hours calculated at one and one-half (1- 1/2) times shall not be less than four hours. Should a call-back exceed four (4) hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual call-back time, at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Call-back time shall commence from the time the employee is called back to service. B. Employees who are off duty and respond for departmental training, qualification or meetings shall be compensated a minimum of two and two-thirds (2- 2/3) hours per incident. This time shall be calculated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base hourly rate of pay. Should the incident exceed two and two- thirds (2-2/3) hours, the employee shall receive pay for the actual incident time, at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's regular hourly rate of pay. Section 5. Training Programs A. The City shall pay reasonable expenses incurred by employees attending approved training programs. Expenses include registration fees and the costs of purchasing required course materials, travel to and from the training course, meals and lodging shall be reimbursed per the City's adopted Per Diem policy. B. When an employee is sent by the City to a training program which is not a part of his regular work schedule, the employee shall receive eight (8) hours pay for each full day of training and such eight (8) hours pay shall be credited towards the computation of overtime. Section 6. Educational Incentive Pay A. Employees covered by this section who have completed forty-five 9 12542444.1 SE010-040 (45) semester units of credit from an accredited college or university with at least sixteen (16) units in the field of Police Science shall receive the following compensation in addition to their monthly base salary: Police Officer/Police Corporal $175300/month B. Employees covered by this section who have completed sixty (60) semester units of credit from an accredited college or university with at least nineteen (19) units in the field of Police Science or have attained a POST Intermediate Certificate shall receive the following compensation in addition to their monthly base salary: Police Officer/Police Corporal $275400/month C. Employees covered by this section who have completed a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university with at least twenty-two (22) units in the field of Police Science or have attained a POST Advance Certificate shall receive the following compensation in addition to their monthly base salary: Police Officer/Police Corporal $375500/month D. The above payment compensation shall be based on achievements over and above the job requirements established in the position classification plan for each classification. Payment to employees shall be based on the highest achievement level only; e.g., employees with an Associate’s and Bachelor's degree will receive compensation for the Bachelor's degree only. E. Employees receiving Educational Incentive Pay shall not lose that pay if they are promoted to a classification which requires the education for which the employee is receiving the additional pay. If the minimum educational requirements are lawfully changed during the term of the MOU, employees receiving educational incentive pay will not be affected by such change and will not suffer any loss of such incentive pay. F. All payments under this Section are subject to verification and approval by the City Manager. Section 7. Stand-by Pay A. Detective Supervisor(s) may be assigned by the Chief of Police to "stand-by" status. B. Detective Supervisors who are specifically assigned to respond, twenty-four (24) hours per day, to incidents shall receive eight (8) hours of compensatory time off per month. During any such month where the employee is so assigned for less than the entire month, the number of compensatory time off hours shall be reduced in an amount reflecting the pro-rated monthly time during which the employee was so assigned. Such compensatory time off hours shall be maintained in an account separate from and in addition to compensatory time off 10 12542444.1 SE010-040 hours described in Article XI, Section 3. Any compensatory time off hours earned in accord with this Section, and not utilized by July 31st of any year shall be forfeited effective July 31st of any year and not converted to cash. C. Each affected employee who is assigned to the Detective Bureau and who is on "stand-by" weekend duty shall be provided two (2) hours (at straight time) of compensatory time off or pay at employee base hourly rate of pay per each weekend day. “Weekend” is described as Saturday, Sunday or any holiday preceding or following the weekend day, in the absence of any normally assigned detective. Section 8. Experience Pay For Employees Hired On or Before June 30, 2010: A. Employees represented by the Association with fulltime service as a sworn peace officer with a Municipal, County or State Police agency meeting POST standards, or their equivalent, shall be eligible to receive experience pay as set out below. B. Experience Pay shall be as follows: 1. At ten (10) years of service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of five percent (5%) of the qualified employee's monthly base salary. 2. At twenty (20) years of service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of ten percent (10%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 3. At twenty-five (25) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service (only service with the City of Seal Beach shall apply), experience pay shall be paid at a rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 4. Experience pay is not cumulative. Thus, an employee will only receive the highest level of experience pay for which the employee is qualified. For example, an employee reaching twenty (20) years of qualifying service stops receiving the five percent (5%) level of experience pay and begins receiving only the ten percent (10%) level of experience pay. Such an employee does not receive both the five percent (5%) level and the ten percent (10%) level, at the same time. For Employees Hired On or After July 1, 2010: A. Employees represented by the Association with full-time service as a sworn peace officer with the City of Seal Beach shall be eligible to receive experience pay as set out below. B. Experience pay shall be as follows: 1. At ten (10) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer 11 12542444.1 SE010-040 service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of five percent (5%) of the qualified employee's monthly base salary. 2. At twenty (20) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of ten percent (10%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 3. At twenty-five (25) years of City of Seal Beach sworn peace officer service, experience pay shall be paid at a rate of fifteen percent (15%) of the qualified employee’s monthly base salary. 4. Experience pay is not cumulative. Thus, an employee will only receive the highest level of experience pay for which the employee is qualified. For example, an employee reaching twenty (20) years of service as a sworn peace officer with the City of Seal Beach, stops receiving the five percent (5%) level of experience pay and begins receiving only the ten percent (10%) level of experience pay. Such an employee does not receive both the five percent (5%) level and the ten percent (10%) level, at the same time. Section 9. Movie Detail Unit employees shall be paid 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for outside movie details. It is understood that time spent on movie details is brokered outside work and is not considered time worked for the purpose of calculating City overtime compensation. Section 10. Bilingual Compensation Upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police, the City Manager may award a bilingual compensation bonus of fifty-two dollars and fifty cents ($52.50) per payroll period to an officer utilized by the Department for his/her bilingual skills. The City Manager shall require the taking of competency tests to certify the employee as eligible for bilingual compensation based on the employee’s proficiency in speaking the language determined to be required. Such certification shall be a condition precedent to qualifying for bilingual compensation. ARTICLE VII - FRINGE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION Section 1. Administration The City reserves the right to select the insurance carrier or administer any fringe benefit programs that now exist or may exist in the future during the term of this MOU unless otherwise specified within this MOU. Any changes in benefits associated with a change in insurance carrier or administrator may only be accomplished during the term of the MOU by agreement of the parties, except in cases of emergency. In an emergency, the City may make a change in order to avoid loss of coverage for employees, and subsequently negotiate 12 12542444.1 SE010-040 impacts and effects. Section 2. Selection and Funding In the administration of the fringe benefit programs, the City shall have the right to select any insurance carrier or other method of providing coverage to fund the benefits included under the terms of the MOU, provided that the benefits of the employees and affected retirees shall be no less than those in existence as of implementation of this MOU. Section 3. Limits A. City shall not pay premiums or accrue any fringe benefits afforded with this MOU for any employee on unpaid leave status, for more than fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days, unless specifically provided for within this MOU, authorized by the City Manager or otherwise provided for by federal or state "Family Leave Acts" and/or "Workers Compensation" requirements. B. City shall not pay premiums or accrue any fringe benefits afforded with this MOU for any employee who has been absent without authorization during said month, suspended without pay, or who has terminated from City employment unless specifically provided for within this MOU. C. City shall not pay premiums or accrue any fringe benefits afforded with this MOU for any employee when such premiums or fringe benefits are provided to the employee through Workers Compensation and/or the Disability Insurance Plan. Section 4. Changes If, during the term of this MOU, any changes of insurance carrier or method of funding for any benefit provided hereunder is contemplated, the City shall notify the Association prior to any change of insurance carrier or method of funding the coverage. ARTICLE VIII - HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND, LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE Section 1. Health Care Coverage A. “Health Care Coverage.” The City shall contribute an equal amount towards the cost of Health Care coverage under PEMHCA for both active employees and retirees. The City’s contribution toward coverage under PEMHCA shall be the minimum contribution amount established by CalPERS on an annual basis. Effective January 1, 20254 the City’s contribution under PEMHCA shall be one hundred fifty-seven eight dollars ($157158), and may be changed by CalPERS each year. 13 12542444.1 SE010-040 The City shall implement a full flex cafeteria plan for eligible employees in accordance with the criteria provided to the employees during negotiations. For employees participating in the City’s full flex cafeteria plan, each employee shall receive a monthly flex dollar allowance to be used for the purchase of benefits under the full flex cafeteria plan. Beginning January 1, 2024 2025 the monthly flex dollar allowance shall be: A portion of the flex dollar allowance ($157 158 in 20242025) is identified as the City’s contribution towards PEMHCA. The PEMHCA contribution will be subject to change as the PEMHCA minimum contribution increases. Remaining flex dollars will be used by employees to participate in the City’s health plans. B. Subject to Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) administration requirements, the City shall make available to eligible employees participation in the group Health Care plans offered by PERS. C. Employees who elect not to participate in the full flex cafeteria plan may receive three-hundred and fifty dollars ($350) per month (upon showing proof of group health insurance coverage (not including insurance through Covered California or other exchange) for the employee and their immediate tax family providing minimum essential coverage. Election forms are available in Human Resources and must be completed annually in order to receive the opt out payments. Section 2. Health Insurance Plan for Retirees A. The City shall provide to any retired employee (either service or disability), who is hired after August 1, 1983 and on or before December 31, 2007, and retires after December 31, 2009, and who has attained the age of fifty (50) the following group health care insurance benefits: 1. If the employee has fifteen (15) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service, the City shall pay for such retired employee at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost health care plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO, whichever is greater. When the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible, the City’s contribution will be capped at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost Medicare supplement plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO Medicare supplement plan, whichever is greater. 2. If the employee has twenty (20) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service, the City shall pay such retired employee and one Calendar Year 20254 For single employees: $1,292.91$1,166.99 For employee +1 dependent: $1,997.96$1,803.38454.41 For employee + 2 or more dependents: $2,332.12$2,583.76 Formatted Table 14 12542444.1 SE010-040 dependent, depending on the qualified dependent status, the group health care insurance premium at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost health care plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO, whichever is greater. When the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible, the City’s contribution will be capped at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost Medicare supplement plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO Medicare supplement plan, whichever is greater. 3. If the employee has twenty-five (25) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service, the City shall pay such retired employee and dependents, depending on the qualified dependent status, the group health care insurance premium at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost health care plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO, whichever is greater. When the retired employee becomes Medicare eligible, the City’s contribution will be capped at the rate of (a) the average of the two (2) lowest cost Medicare supplement plans offered by CalPERS, or (b) the CalPERS Kaiser HMO Medicare supplement plan, whichever is greater. B. The City shall provide to any retired employee (either service or disability) who is hired on or after January 1, 2008, and who has both fifteen (15) or more years of full-time City of Seal Beach service and has attained the age of fifty (50) the following group Healthcare insurance benefits: The City shall contribute the minimum PEMHCA rate as determined by CalPERS. Section 3. Life Insurance Plan The City shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the premium for a term life insurance policy with a face value of seventy-five thousand dollars ( $75,000), double indemnity accidental death benefit and a dependent death benefit in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per dependent. Section 4. Disability Insurance Plan The City shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the premium for the "employee's" long-term disability insurance plan with an income continuation of not less than sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66-2/3%) of the employee's monthly base salary subject to caps and eligibility requirements as set forth within the policy of the accepted carrier. Modifications to the plan shall be made only after the City has met and consulted with the Association. Section 5. Annual Physical The City shall provide a physical exam periodically as indicated below for the purpose of detecting heart trouble and cancer. The exam shall be given by a City appointed physician who is acceptable to the Association. Cost of said physical exam shall be borne by the City. The resulting diagnosis shall be submitted to the City as well as the employee together with specifics of corrective treatment. 15 12542444.1 SE010-040 Physical Exam Schedule: 1. New Employee Second year following appointment 2. Employee under 40 Alternate years 3. Employee 40 & over Every year ARTICLE IX - RETIREMENT A. The City shall make contributions to the CalPERS plan known as three percent (3%) at fifty (50) with those benefit options as provided for in the contract between the City and CalPERS for employees defined by the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) as “classic members” (meaning those persons who were members of CalPERS or a reciprocal California public pension plan as of December 31, 2012). B. New employees/members hired on or after January 1, 2013 as defined by PEPRA will be hired at the retirement formula in accordance with PEPRA and other legislation. New members entering membership for the first time in a Police Safety classification shall be eligible for the two point seven percent (2.7%) at fifty-seven (57) retirement formula for Local Safety members. The employee contribution for new members shall be one-half the normal cost, as determined by CalPERS. In no event shall the City make contributions to the CalPERS plans for new members. C. Modification(s) to the contract shall be made only after the City has met and consulted with the Association and such modification(s) made a part of the contract between the City and PERS consistent with the requirements of CalPERS. ARTICLE X - HOURS OF WORK Section 1. Work Period A. The work period for law enforcement personnel (as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act) shall be three hundred thirty-six (336) contiguous hours fourteen (14) consecutive days). All full-time law enforcement personnel shall be regularly assigned one of the following work schedules: 1. “Three-Twelve” - three (3) consecutive three (3) day work weeks consisting of three (3) twelve (12) hour and twenty (20) minute work days followed by a four (4) day work week consisting of three (3) twelve (12) hour and twenty (20) minute work days and one (1) twelve (12) hour work day. 2. “Four-Ten” - a work week consisting of ten (10) hours/day, four (4) days/week. 3. “Five-Eight” - a work week consisting of eight (8) hours/day, five (5) days/week. 16 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 2. Three-Twelve Work Schedule A. The standard work week shall be thirty-seven (37) hours or forty-nine (49) hours depending on the number of days worked in a work week pursuant to A.1. above. B. For PERS reporting purposes, the nine (9) hours worked over forty (40) during the forty-nine (49) hour work week of the work period will be considered regular straight time hours for the intention to report forty (40) hours of regular hours during a work week. ARTICLE XI - OVERTIME COMPENSATION Section 1. Overtime Defined for Eligible Law Enforcement Personnel A. Three-Twelve Work Week: Time worked in excess of eighty-six (86) hours in a FLSA work period as defined in Article X, Section 1. or time worked on scheduled days off. B. Four-Ten Work Week: Time worked in excess of eighty-six (86) hours in a FLSA work period as defined in Article X, Section 1. or time worked on scheduled days off. C. Five-Eight Work Week: Time worked in excess of eighty-six (86) hours in a FLSA work period as defined in Article X, Section 1. or time worked on scheduled days off. Section 2. Compensation for Overtime A. Authorized non-FLSA overtime shall be compensated in pay or compensatory time at the rate of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the base hourly rate of pay. B. In computing overtime for a work period, time absent from duty as a result of use of sick leave, vacation, holiday or compensatory time off shall not be considered as time deemed to have been worked. Section 3. Compensatory Time A. Employees may elect to receive compensatory time in lieu of pay for overtime subject to B. and C. below. B. Should an employee desire to take compensatory time off, he shall file a written request with the Chief of Police who shall grant time off unless it interferes with the normal operation staffing of the police department. C. Employees shall be permitted to accumulate a maximum of seventy- five (75) hours of compensatory time. An employee who has accumulated seventy- 17 12542444.1 SE010-040 five (75) hours of compensatory time will be reimbursed within the pay period earned for any overtime in excess of seventy-five (75) hours maximum. D. An employee may, upon written request submitted to and approved by the City Manager, receive reimbursement for the requested number of hours of accumulated compensatory time equal to or below the cap of seventy-five (75) hours. Reimbursement shall occur with the next regular payroll following the pay period in which the employee's written request has been approved by the City Manager. Section 4. Overtime Reporting In order for an employee to earn compensation for overtime, he must receive the supervisor's or the Chief of Police's approval. Overtime worked to meet an emergency situation does not require advance approval, but shall be certified by the Chief of Police before being credited to the employee's record. ARTICLE XII - HOLIDAYS Section 1. Recognized Holidays The City will recognize the following designated holidays each fiscal year: Independence Day (July 4th) Labor Day (1st Monday in September) Veterans’ Day (November 11) Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November) Christmas Eve (December 24th) Christmas Day (December 25th) New Year’s Day (January 1st) Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in January) Presidents’ Day (3rd Monday in February) Section 2. Memorial Day Floating Holidays (Last Monday in May) The City will also recognize two (2) floating holidays each fiscal year. Each unit employee shall be eligible to accrue up to a maximum of two (2) floating holidays on July 1st of each year, subject to the following limitations. The floating holidays shall be taken, or may be cashed out, during the fiscal year (July 1st through June 30th) in which they are accrued. An employee may not have more than two (2) floating holidays on the books at any time. If an employee does not use, or cash out, both of his/her floating holidays within the fiscal year in which the employee accrued them, he/she will not earn two (2) additional floating holidays in the next fiscal year. Instead, the employee will only earn that number of floating holidays, on July 1st of each year that will bring the employee’s balance of floating holidays to two (2). Thus, if an employee uses, or cashes out, only one (1) floating holiday during a fiscal year, that employee will only accrue one (1) additional floating holiday on July 1st of the following fiscal year, bringing the employee’s 18 12542444.1 SE010-040 floating holiday balance up to two (2) floating holidays. The parties encourage employees in the unit to use their floating holidays. Since floating holidays cannot be removed from an employee once earned, and the parties do not want employees to have more floating holidays on the books than would be received within the current fiscal year, a floating holiday(s) carried over at the end of the fiscal year results in the employee being unable to earn that holiday(s) in the next fiscal year. The date on which a floating holiday will be used may be individually selected by the employee subject to the approval of the Chief of Police. Approval will not normally be granted if it would require the Department to backfill the employee’s position at time-and-one-half (1-1/2) to maintain necessary staffing/deployment levels. A floating holiday cannot be used on any of the designated holidays recognized by the City or on another floating holiday. To request to use, or cash out, a floating holiday, an employee must submit a completed “Request for leave/overtime and special pay report”. Beginning in December, 2024 and each December thereafter, floating holidays may be cashed out only pursuant to the irrevocable election process described in Article XIII, Vacation. The past practice of the City in permitting the stacking of floating holidays is specifically eliminated by the above language. Section 3. Compensation for Holidays A. Compensation for a Holiday when No Work is Performed on a Holiday. When a holiday falls on a day that the employee performs no work (whether the day is the employee’s scheduled work day or not), the employee shall be paid twelve and one third (12.33) hours of holiday pay for the holiday, at the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay. The “regular hourly rate”, for purposes of holiday pay, includes base pay plus the hourly equivalent of the following eligible special compensation for the employee, longevity, POST, temporary assignment, standby, bilingual, shift differential, and cafeteria cash in-lieu (including any cash payments for opting out). To the extent that the parties omitted from the list above any elements of the FLSA regular rate, the parties shall promptly meet and confer for the purpose of amending the list of included items to replicate the FLSA regular rate. The parties’ intent of creating the list above in this MOU is to comply with CalPERS requirements, not to change the manner of paying holiday pay. B. Compensation for a Holiday when Work is Performed on a Holiday. When a holiday falls on a day that the employee performs work (whether the day is the employee’s scheduled work day or not), the employee shall be paid as follows: 1. If the holiday is Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or New Year’s Day the employee shall be paid “hardship” pay as follows: 19 12542444.1 SE010-040 a. Twelve and one third (12.33) hours of holiday pay for the holiday, at the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay per Section 3A, and b. Pay for the number of hours of work the employee actually performed on the holiday, at the rate of pay otherwise specified in this MOU for such work hours, and c. Pay for the number of hours of work the employee actually performed on the holiday, at the employee’s base hourly rate of pay. Example 1: Officer A works six (6) hours on Christmas Day. Officer A would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate 12.33 hours holiday pay regular hourly rate 6 hours work pay regular hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU 6 hours hardship pay base hourly rate 2. If the holiday is not Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or New Year’s Day the employee shall be paid: a. Twelve and one third (12.33) hours of holiday pay for the holiday, at the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay as per Section 3A, and b. Pay for the number of hours of work the employee actually performed on the holiday, at the rate of pay otherwise specified in this MOU for such work hours. Example 2: Officer B works 8 hours on Veterans’ Day. Officer B would earn pay computed as follows: Hours Pay Rate 12.33 hours holiday pay regular hourly rate 8 hours work pay regular hourly rate or overtime hourly rate, as applicable under MOU C. The past practice of the City paying hardship holiday pay to an employee on a designated hardship holiday when in fact said employee did not work on the designated hardship holiday is specifically eliminated by the above language. Section 4. Conversion of Hardship Pay to Time Off An employee may choose to convert any hardship pay to time off or non- FLSA compensatory time at the rate of one hour of hardship pay converting to one hour of time off or to one hour of non-FLSA compensatory time. ARTICLE XIII - VACATION 20 12542444.1 SE010-040 Section 1. Eligibility All regular full-time employees having completed one (1) year of continuous service with the department and annually thereafter, shall be eligible for a paid vacation at their then existing rate of pay. Section 2. Accrual A. Vacation leave is accumulated yearly and is computed on the basis of the employee's hire date as a regular full-time or probationary employee. B. Years of service, for purpose of vacation accrual, shall be from the date of initial employment as a full-time probationary or regular employee to the anniversary date concluding the full year of the designated year. C. All eligible unit employees hired after February 1, 1998 will accrue vacation leave by the following schedule: Years Of Hours Max. Hourly Accrual Annual Service Earned Rate/Pay Period Bi-Weekly Vacation Hours 0-5 Years 80 3.0769 80 hours 6-14 120 4.6153 120 hours 15-19 160 6.1538 160 hours 20+ 200 7.6923 200 hours D. An eligible employee hired on or before February 1, 1998 shall accrue vacation leave by the following schedule: Years Of Hourly Accrual Rate Annual Service Per Pay Period Accrual Rate 0-5 4.615 120 hours 6 4.923 128 hours 7 5.231 136 hours 8 5.486 144 hours 9 5.539 152 hours 10-19 6.154 160 hours 20+ 7.692 200 hours Section 3. Maximum Accrual A. An employee may accumulate unused vacation to a maximum of four hundred (400) hours. If the needs of the service require that a sworn employee be denied the use of accrued vacation time and such denial is anticipated to result in a 21 12542444.1 SE010-040 cessation of accrual, the employee may request that his maximum accrual be increased to an amount not to exceed the amount accrued in the preceding thirty- six (36) month period. Such request must be submitted to the Chief of Police prior to a cessation of accrual and is subject to the approval of the Chief of Police and City Manager. B. The accrual of vacation shall cease when an employee's accumulated vacation is at the maximum provided in this Section. Additional vacation shall begin accruing when the employee's vacation balance falls below the maximum. C. An employee on Injury on Duty (IOD) status or leave may accrue vacation up to the maximum under this section. Should the employee reach maximum accumulation, the City shall cash out the equivalent hours that the employee has taken for vacation during the fiscal year. Should the employee reach maximum again after the cash out while still on IOD or leave, accruals shall cease. Section 4. Use of Vacation A. The time at which an employee's vacation is to occur shall be determined by the Chief of Police with due regard for the wishes of the employee and particular regard for the needs of the service. When an employee uses accrued vacation for leave, the vacation hours used shall come from the oldest accrued hours first. B. Employees who have completed two (2) years or more of continuous service may elect to be paid for up to a maximum of eighty (80) hours of accumulated vacation up to twice per calendar year. Beginning in December 2024, and in each December thereafter, employees eligible to cash out vacation hours and who wish to convert vacation hours to salary, may do so only by making an irrevocable election in writing of the number of hours they will accrue in the next calendar year that they choose to cash out. Employees who make the irrevocable election may choose to receive the cash out in July and/or December. The maximum cash out that can be elected to be paid out in July and/or December is limited by the employee’s accrued and unused vacation earned in that calendar year available for cash out on the date of cash out. All cash- out of vacation pursuant to this provision is from hours earned in the current calendar year. The City shall have a form available for employees to make this irrevocable election and for employees to request an exception to the irrevocable election requirement for unforeseeable emergencies occurring after the election window period. The request for an exception is subject to the City Manager’s approval. The City’s decision on a request for an exception shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. . Section 5. Vacation Payment at Termination 22 12542444.1 SE010-040 A. Employees terminating employment shall be paid in a lump sum for all accumulated vacation no later than the next regular payday following termination. B. When termination is caused by death of the employee, the employee's beneficiary shall receive the employee's pay for unused vacation. In the event an employee has not designated a beneficiary, the payment shall be made to the estate of the employee. Section 6. Vacation Accrual During Leave of Absence No vacation shall be earned during any leave of absence without pay for each fourteen (14) day period (pay period) of such leave. Section 7. Prohibition Against Working for City During Vacation Employees shall not work for the City during their vacation and, thereby, receive double compensation from the City. ARTICLE XIV - LEAVES OF ABSENCE Section 1. Authorized Leave of Absence Without Pay A. Upon the Police Chief's recommendation and approval of the City Manager, an employee may be granted a leave of absence without pay in cases of an emergency or where such absence would not be contrary to the best interest of the City, for a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days. B. Upon written request of the employee, the City Council may grant a leave of absence, with or without pay, for a period not to exceed one (1) year. C. At the expiration of the approved leave of absence, after notice to return to duty, the employee shall be reinstated to the position held at the time the leave of absence was granted. Failure on the part of the employee to report promptly at such leave of absence's expiration and receipt of notice to return to duty shall be cause for discharge. D. During any authorized leave of absence without pay, an employee shall not be eligible to accumulate or receive fringe benefits except as specifically provided for in this MOU, except that the City shall contribute to an employee's healthcare and dental plan, disability insurance plan, and life insurance plan for the first thirty (30) calendar days of the leave of absence. Section 2. Bereavement Leave A. Employees may be granted up to forty (40) hours of paid bereavement leave of absence, plus an additional twenty-two (22) unpaid hours by the reason of a death in their family which shall be restricted and limited to immediate 23 12542444.1 SE010-040 family by reason of biology, marriage, or adoption. Family of employee covered by this provision:  Spouse or Registered Domestic Partner  Parent (means a biological, foster, or adoptive parent, a parent-in-law, a stepparent, a legal guardian, or other person who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a child).  Father and Mother In-Law (means a parent of an employee’s spouse or domestic partner as defined in this section).  Grandparent (means a parent of the employee’s parent, as defined in this section).  Sibling (means a person related to another person by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent).  Child (means a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, a child of a domestic partner, or a person to whom the employee stands in loco parentis.)  Grandchild means a child of the employee’s child as defined in this section)  All degree of relatives not listed but living within the household of the employee Employees may use any of their accumulated leave balances to receive pay during the additional twenty two (22) hours of unpaid bereavement leave. Section 3. Military Leave of Absence A. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of State law. All employees entitled to military leave shall give the Chief of Police an opportunity within the limits of military regulations to determine when such leave shall be taken. Whenever possible, the employee involved shall notify the Chief of Police of such leave request ten (10) working days in advance of the beginning of the leave. B. In addition to provision of State law, the City shall continue to provide eligible employees on military leave the current health benefits (healthcare, dental, disability and life insurance and retirement (if applicable) for the first three (3) months of military leave. During said period, the employee shall be required to pay to the City the same co-payments as required of other employees. After the first three (3) months of military leave, the employee may continue said benefits at his cost. Section 4. This section was intentionally left blank and has been reserved for future use. Section 5. Unauthorized Absence Unauthorized absence is days, or portions of days, wherein an employee is absent from work without City approval. Unless subsequently approved, such absence will result in a deduction from the employee's pay of an amount equivalent to the time absent. Employees taking unauthorized absence may be subject to 24 12542444.1 SE010-040 disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Section 6. Catastrophic Leave A. Establishment – A Catastrophic Leave Program for the Association was established which allows donation of paid time for employees represented by the Association. B. Purpose – The purpose of the Catastrophic Leave Pool is to enable full-time employees to receive and donate vacation, administrative leave, and compensatory time off (CTO) leave credits on an hour for hour basis to assist employees who have no remaining leave bank balances and who will suffer a financial hardship due to prolonged illness or injury to themselves, or a member of their immediate family. Sick Leave is excluded from this program. The conditions of this program are as follows: 1. Catastrophic Leave will be available only to employees who have exhausted their own paid leave through bona fide serious illness or accident. 2. The leave pool shall be administered by the Finance Department. 3. Employees must be in regular full-time appointed positions to be eligible for catastrophic leave. 4. Employees receiving Long-Term Disability payments may participate in this program, but may not receive combined payments that would exceed their normal take home pay. 5. All donations are to be confidential, between the donating employee and the Finance Department. 6. Employees donating to the pool must have forty (40) hours of paid leave available after making a donation. 7. Donating employees must complete a Catastrophic Leave Program form with a signed authorization, and includes specifying the specific employee to be a recipient of the donation. 8. Donations will be subject to applicable tax laws. 9. The availability of Catastrophic Leave shall not delay or prevent the City from taking action to medically separate or disability retire an employee. 10. Catastrophic Leave due to illness or injury of an immediate family member may require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician’s Statement that the presence of the employee is necessary. 25 12542444.1 SE010-040 11. Catastrophic Leave due to illness or injury of the employee will require medical justification as evidenced by a Physician’s Statement as to the employee’s inability to perform normal duties. ARTICLE XV - JURY DUTY Section 1. Compensation for Jury Duty A. Employees required to report for jury duty shall be granted leave of absence for such purpose, upon presentation of jury notice to the Chief of Police. Said employees shall receive full payment for the time served on jury duty, provided the employee remits any fees received for such jury service, excluding payment for mileage, to the City's Finance Department. Compensation for mileage, subsistence or similar auxiliary allowance shall not be considered as a fee and shall be returned to the employee by the Finance Department. B. If the sum of the employee's jury duty responsibilities is less than a full work day; the employee shall contact his supervisor as to the feasibility of returning to work that day. ARTICLE XVI - SICK LEAVE Section 1. General Sick Leave Provisions A. Sick leave shall be used only in cases of actual personal sickness or disability, medical or dental treatment, and family leave or as authorized by the City Manager under special circumstances. The employee requesting sick leave shall notify his immediate supervisor or Chief of Police prior to the time set for reporting to work. Sick leave with pay shall not be allowed unless the employee has met and complied with the provisions of this MOU. B. Sick leave shall not be granted for disability arising from any sickness or injury purposely self-inflicted or caused by an employee's own willful misconduct. C. The Department Head may require employees to present proof of physical fitness for duty for sick leaves in excess of five (5) consecutive working days. Section 2. Eligibility All employees covered by this MOU shall be eligible to accrue sick leave. Section 3. Accrual A. Sick leave shall be accrued at the rate of twelve and one-third (12- 1/3) hours per calendar month for each calendar month that the employee has 26 12542444.1 SE010-040 worked regularly scheduled hours and/or has been on authorized leave which provides for full pay, for at least fifteen (15) working days in that month. B. Sick leave accrued pursuant to A. above for unit employees hired prior to July 1, 1985, will be placed into a newly established sick leave bank at the rate of twelve and one-third (12-1/3) hours per calendar month for each calendar month that the employee has worked regularly scheduled hours. This new sick leave bank, established February 4, 1998, cannot be cashed out for disability retirement. Accumulated sick leave shall not be used to postpone the effective date of retirement as determined by the City. Section 4. Accumulation and Payment A. There is no limit on the amount of sick leave that an employee may accumulate. B. An employee may be paid for unused sick leave pursuant to the following: 1. Employees who have not completed fifteen (15) years of services with the City will not be eligible to be paid for any accumulated sick leave, nor shall any accumulated sick leave be used to postpone the effective date of retirement as determined by the City. 2. Upon separation from the City, employees who have completed a minimum of fifteen (15) years of service with the City shall have the choice to: a) Be paid for the accumulated sick leave up to twenty percent (20%) of the accumulated sick leave bank. b) Convert the hours to eight (8) hours work days and report to CalPERS for service credit. c) Or any combination of pay and service credit (maximum twenty percent [20%] payout compensation) of total/accumulated sick leave bank at the time of separation. d) Compensation shall be at the employees’ final hourly rate of pay. e) Accumulated sick leave shall not be used to postpone the effective date of the retirement as determined by the City. 3. Employees employed prior to July 1, 1985, who are retired because of work related disabilities will be paid all of their accumulated sick leave at their final base hourly rate of pay. Accumulated sick leave shall not be used to postpone the effective date of retirement as determined by the City. Any sick leave accrued after February 4, 1998 will be placed in the sick leave bank set forth in Section 3.B above, and is not eligible for this payout provision. Section 5. Sick Leave During Vacation 27 12542444.1 SE010-040 An employee who becomes ill while on vacation may have such period of illness charged to his accumulated sick leave provided that: A. Immediately upon return to duty, the employee submits to his supervisor a written request for sick leave and a written statement signed by his physician describing the nature and dates of illness. B. The Chief of Police recommends and the City Manager approves the granting of such sick leave. Section 6. Extended Sick Leave In the event of an employee's continuing illness which results in depletion of sick leave accumulation, the employee may request in writing, to the Chief of Police and City Manager, a leave of absence without pay for the purpose of recovering from the illness, provided: A. The employee has used all of his accumulated sick leave. B. The employee presents to his department head for referral to and consideration by the City Manager, a written explanation of the employee's illness and an estimate of the time needed for recovery signed by the employee's physician. C. Prior to resuming his duties, the employee may be required to take a medical examination at City expense and provide a medical release to return to work from the employee's physician as prescribed by the City Manager. The employment record and the results of such examination shall be considered by the City Manager in determining the employee's fitness to return to work. D. The maximum period of such leave shall be ninety (90) calendar days. If the employee desires an extension, he shall follow, prior to the termination of the initial leave, the procedure described in Section 6.B above. Section 7. Family Leave Upon a demonstration of need and subject to the following conditions, an employee may take sick leave and/or unpaid leave to care for his newborn infant, whether through parentage or adoption, or a seriously ill or injured member of the Employee’s "immediate family" as defined in Article XIV Section 2. Bereavement Leave, and shall also include a “Designated Person” which means any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. The designated person may be identified by the employee at the time the employee requests the leave. An employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period for family care and medical leave. A. Proof of the birth or adoption of a newborn infant or the serious illness/injury of the family member must be submitted to the City. B. Requests for family leave must be submitted in writing to the 28 12542444.1 SE010-040 employee's supervisor at the earliest possible date preceding the time when the leave is to begin. C. Operational needs of the City shall be relevant in determinations regarding the granting of family leave in accordance with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. D. In the event of an extended family leave, the employee may be required to periodically report on the status of the situation giving rise to the leave. E. Family leave may be granted only upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police and approval of the City Manager consistent with the provisions of State and Federal Family Leave laws. F. A maximum of four hundred (400) working hours of family leave in any combination of sick leave and unpaid leave may be taken during any two (2) year period unless a greater amount is prescribed by state or federal law. Section 8. On The Job Injury Employees who are disabled by injury or illness arising out of and in the course of their duties as public safety employees of the City, shall be entitled to the benefits of California Labor Code Section 4850 as the Section now exists or is hereinafter amended. Any payments made pursuant to this Section shall not be charged as sick leave; sick leave and vacation benefits shall accrue during the period of disability pursuant to the provision of California Labor Code Section 4850. Section 9. Off The Job Injury An employee injured outside of his service with the City shall be compensated through the disability insurance plan provided by the City. ARTICLE XVII - PROBATIONARY PERIODS Section 1. Appointment Following Probation Period A. The original appointment and promotional appointment of employees shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of twelve (12) months of service. B. When unusual circumstances merit the extension of the probationary period, the Chief of Police shall request, in writing, approval of the City Manager. Said extension shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) calendar days. Human Resources shall notify the Chief of Police and the probationer concerned no-less- than two (2) weeks prior to the termination of any probationary period. C. If the service of a probationary employee has been satisfactory, the Chief of Police shall file with Human Resources a statement, in writing, that the retention of the employee is desired. No actions changing an employee's status 29 12542444.1 SE010-040 from probationary to regular full-time shall be made or become effective until approved by the City Manager. Section 2. Objective of Probationary Period The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work, for securing the most effective adjustment of a new employee to his position, and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the required standards of work. Section 3. Employee Performance Appraisal A. Each probationary employee shall have his performance evaluated at the end of each three (3) months of service or at more frequent intervals when deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. Regular employees shall have their performance evaluated annually or at more frequent intervals when deemed necessary by the Chief of Police. Such evaluation shall be reported in writing and in the form approved by Human Resources. B. The written appraisal report of an employee's performance evaluation shall be filed in triplicate, the original to be filed with Human Resources and made a part of the employee's personnel records, one (1) copy to be retained by the department, and one (1) copy to be given to the employee. Section 4. Rejection of Probationary Employee A. During the probationary period an employee may be suspended, demoted, or rejected anytime by the Chief of Police, with approval of the City Manager, without cause and without right of appeal, except the right of appeal of punitive action as may be provided by law. Notification of rejection, in writing, shall be served on the probationary employee and a copy filed with Human Resources. A termination interview may be conducted with each rejected probationer. B. An exception will be applied where the probationary employee's job termination or dismissal is based on charges of misconduct which stigmatizes his reputation or seriously impairs his opportunity to earn a living, or which might seriously damage his standing and association in the community. Where there is such a deprivation of a "liberty interest", the employee shall be given pre- disciplinary procedural due process as defined in the City of Seal Beach Personnel Rules and Regulations and this Memorandum of Understanding. Prior to the disciplinary action becoming final, the employee must be notified of his right to the appeal procedure as outlined in the Personnel Rules and Regulations. ARTICLE XVIII - LAYOFF PROCEDURES Section 1. Policy The policy for layoff procedures shall be as adopted in City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. 30 12542444.1 SE010-040 2020-2021 State University Tuition $ Required University Fees $ Parking $ ARTICLE XIX - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 1. Tuition Reimbursement A. Higher Education Degree Programs Unit members attending accredited community colleges, universities, and trade schools for the purpose of obtaining a higher education degree may apply for reimbursement of tuition, books, student fees and parking. Reimbursement is capped each calendar year at the tuition rate of the Cal State University system for up to two (2) semesters of full-time, undergraduate enrollment. Reimbursement is contingent upon the successful completion of the course. For any course that could be taken for a letter grade, it must be taken for a letter grade and successful completion means a grade of “C” or better for undergraduate courses and a grade of “B” or better for graduate courses. For any course that can only be taken for a grade of “credit” or “no credit”, successful completion means a grade of “credit”. All claims for tuition reimbursement require prior approval and are subject to verification and approval by the City Manager. This tuition reimbursement does not pertain to P.O.S.T. courses attended on duty. See examples below, rate changes are based on the current Cal State System tuition rate. Example 1: Officer A attends California State University, Long Beach, for the Spring 2024 semester and completes two (2) 3-unit undergraduate courses with a grade of “C” or better. The tuition reimbursement would be calculated as follows: 1,764.00 (0-6 units) 647.00 (approx.) 300.00 Books $ 535.00 (approx.) TOTAL $ 3,246.00 Example 2: Officer B attends California State University, Long Beach, for the Spring 2024 semester and completes three (3) 3-unit undergraduate courses with a grade of “C” or better. The tuition reimbursement would be calculated as follows: 2023-2024 State University Tuition $ 3,042.00 (6.1 or more units) Required University Fees $ 647.00 (approx.) Parking $ 300.00 Books $ 535.00 (approx.) TOTAL $ 4,524.00 B. Professional Conventions and Conferences Unit members who attend job related conventions and conferences that 31 12542444.1 SE010-040 are not sponsored by the Department may submit for reimbursement under the tuition reimbursement program for the cost of enrollment. Attendance of conventions and conferences must be job related and pre-approved by the Chief of Police. The cost of travel, sustenance, and lodging is not reimbursable under tuition reimbursement per IRS Publication 970. Travel, sustenance, and lodging may be reimbursable via the Department’s Meetings and Conference budget. Employee is to submit a request to the Chief of Police prior to travel for approval in order to receive reimbursement for travel, sustenance, and lodging after the conference. All receipts for expenses must be attached to the reimbursement request and submitted to the Chief of Police for approval, and forwarded to the City Manager for final review and approval. Section 2. Physical Fitness Program The physical fitness program is a voluntary program for all sworn officers utilizing vacation hours as compensation for achieving goals within this program. The details of this program are attached as Exhibit A to this MOU. Section 3. Health Wellness Program Beginning July 2024, the City shall reimburse Employee, as a medical benefit, for Employee’s actual documented expenses for medical maintenance exams or the cost of participation in wellness programs, in an amount not to exceed $400 per fiscal year, subject to the City’s normal reimbursement processes and requirements for such expenses. Reimbursable expenses shall include, but not be limited to, actual out of pocket expenses for annual physical examinations or other medical tests or examinations, participation in weight loss, stop smoking, fitness or other similar programs, or membership in a health or fitness club. ARTICLE XX - ENTIRE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Section 1. It is the intent of the parties hereto that the provisions of this MOU shall incorporate all prior agreements and memoranda of agreement, or memoranda of understanding, or contrary salary and/or personnel resolutions or administrative codes, provisions of the City, oral or written, expressed or implied, between the parties, and shall govern the entire relationship, and shall be the sole source of any and all rights which may be asserted hereunder. This MOU is not intended to conflict with federal or state law. Section 2. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 1., there exists within the City certain personnel rules and regulations and police department rules and regulations. To the extent that this MOU does not specifically contradict these personnel rules and regulations or police department rules and regulations or City ordinances, they shall continue subject to being changed by the City in accordance with the exercise of City rights under this MOU and applicable state law. Section 3. Except as provided herein, other terms and conditions of employment, oral or written, express or implied that are presently enjoyed by Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline 32 12542444.1 SE010-040 employees represented by the Association shall remain in full force and effect during the entire term of this MOU unless mutually agreed to the contrary by both parties hereto. ARTICLE XXI - CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK Section 1. Prohibited Conduct A. The Association, its officers, agents, representatives, and/or members agree that they will respect relevant law and judicial decisions regarding the withholding or diminishment of services to influence negotiations conducted under Section 3500 et seq. of the California Government Code. B. The City agrees that it shall not lock out its employees during the term of this MOU. The term "lockout" is hereby defined so as not to include the discharge, suspension, termination, layoff, failure to recall, or failure to return to work employees of the City in the exercise of rights as set forth in any of the provisions of this MOU or applicable ordinance or law. C. Any employee who participates in any conduct prohibited in subparagraph A. above may be subject to termination. D. In addition to any other lawful remedies or disciplinary actions available to the City, if the Association fails, in good faith, to perform all responsibilities listed in Section 2., Association Responsibility, below, the City may suspend certain rights and privileges accorded to the Association under the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution or by this MOU including, but not limited to, access to the grievance procedure and use of the City's bulletin boards and facilities. Section 2. Association Responsibility In the event that the Association, its officers, agents, representatives or members engage in any of the conduct prohibited in Section 1. above, Prohibited Conduct, the Association or its duly authorized representatives shall immediately instruct any persons engaging in such conduct that their conduct is in violation of this MOU and unlawful, and they should immediately cease engaging in conduct prohibited in Section 1. above, Prohibited Conduct, and return to work. ARTICLE XXII - EMERGENCY WAIVER PROVISION Section 1. In the event of circumstances beyond the control of the City, such as acts of God, fire, flood, civil disorder, national emergency, or similar circumstances, provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding or the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City, which prevent the City's ability to respond to these emergencies, shall be suspended for the duration of such emergency. After the emergency is over, the Association shall have the right to meet and confer with the City regarding the impact on employees of the suspension of these provisions in the Memorandum of Understanding and any Personnel Rules and Regulations. 33 12542444.1 SE010-040 ARTICLE XXIII - SEPARABILITY Section 1. Should any provision of the MOU be found to be inoperative, void or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other provisions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this MOU. ARTICLE XXIV - PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS Section 1. The Personnel Rules and Regulations are incorporated herein by reference, and shall govern. If there is a conflict between the Personnel Rules and Regulations and a specific provision of this MOU, the MOU provision shall be applied. ARTICLE XXV - MOU REOPENERS Section 1. The Association and the City shall reopen any provision of this MOU for the purpose of complying with any final order of a Federal or State Agency or Court of competent jurisdiction requiring a modification or change in any provision or provisions of this MOU, in order to comply with State or Federal laws. ARTICLE XXVI - TERM OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Section 1. The terms of this Memorandum of Understanding shall commence on July 1, 2023 and continue in full force and effect through June 30, 2025 - a two (2) year contract. Section 2. The City of Seal Beach and the Police Officers’ Association agree to commence negotiations for the next contract year by April 1, 2025. ARTICLE XXVII - RATIFICATION Section 1. This Memorandum of Understanding is subject to approval and adoption by the City Council and ratification by the required number of the duly authorized representatives of the Association. Following such ratification, approval and adoption, the Memorandum of Understanding shall be implemented by the appropriate resolution(s), ordinance(s), or other written action of the City Council. SEAL BEACH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES: Corporal Ben Jaipream, PPresident Date: CITY OF SEAL BEACH MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES: Formatted: Right: -0.78" 34 12542444.1 SE010-040 Jill R. IngramPatrick Gallegos, City MManager Date: Barbara Arenado, Director of FinancePatrick Gallegos, Assistant City Manager Date: Formatted: Right: -0.74" 35 12542444.1 SE010-040 EXHIBIT A SEAL BEACH POLICE PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The physical fitness program is a voluntary program for all sworn officers. Officers work out on their off duty time and may, depending upon availability of funds and staffing needs, in return receive compensation back to them after meeting the minimum requirements of the tests at the end of each six (6) month period. Officers may receive up to twenty (20) hours of vacation time by meeting the requirements of the test at the end of each six (6) month period. The maximum time each officer will be able to achieve is up to forty (40) vacation hours earned annually for as long as the officer continues successfully in the program. ENROLLMENT To start the program, each officer must contact the Physical Fitness Committee and advise them of your intent. You will need to have a doctor’s release to allow you to participate in the program. A copy of the physical requirements of the physical fitness program should be reviewed by your doctor when obtaining your release. For details of the annual physical exam refer to Article XIII section 6 of the SBPOA MOU. TESTING Each officer participating will be tested every six (6) months, specifically in the months of January and July. A minimum level has been established for each test. Participants will have to move up a category or reach maintenance level indicated on each test by age group. At one (1) year and six (6) months, participants will be required to be at the maintenance level. Once the maintenance level has been attained, participants will have to maintain that level on subsequent tests. Testing each six (6) month period will validate the awarding of vacation time. Testing may be conducted during on-duty hours at the Watch Commanders discretion. The Physical Fitness Committee will perform the testing. ALLOCATION OF HOURS Employees will be awarded four (4) hours for successfully completing each test as set forth in TESTING above. No employee shall receive any hours if they fail to meet the minimum standards for at least three (3) of the five (5) tests. 36 12542444.1 SE010-040 PHYSICAL FITNESS COMMITTEE The Physical Fitness Committee shall be comprised of four (4) members - two (2) to be appointed by the SBPOA Board of Directors, and two (2) to be appointed by the Chief of Police. The Physical Fitness Committee is established to retain administrative control over the program. All committee members shall be active participants in the program. The committee will be responsible for examining problems and disputes that arise from the administration of the program. The committee will be the formal arbitrators on these matters. VALIDATED HEALTHCARE PROBLEM CLAUSE Those officers who for validated Healthcare reasons cannot participate in the fitness program as designed may contact the Physical Fitness Committee for program modification. Validated Healthcare problems are those diagnosed by a physician as limiting participation in a certain activity. REQUIRED TEST The physical fitness needs of Police Officers fall into three (3) areas: o Cardio Fitness o Strength o Flexibility The tests outlined below may be modified by the Physical Fitness Committee as necessary. The tests used in this program to evaluate fitness in these areas will be: Cardio Fitness: 1.5 Mile run Strength: Push-ups Sit-ups Pull-ups Flexibility: Forward Stretch HEALTHCARE COVERAGE Participation in the program will be on a voluntary basis. Any exercise workouts done under this program, i.e. weight lifting, contact sports, running, etc. would not be covered for benefits under Workers Compensation, The city will not provide blanket coverage for any injury which could conceivably be claimed under the pretext of participation in the Physical Fitness Program. All employees must receive clearance from their personal physician prior to beginning program participation. 37 12542444.1 SE010-040 CARDIO FITNESS TESTS - 1.5 Mile Run Officers will run a one point five (1.5) mile course established by the Training Unit. The time needed to cover the distance is recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. This test is an excellent indication of the condition of the heart and lungs as it measures ones aerobic capacity or the ability of the heart and lungs to utilize oxygen. Under 30 Below 30-34 Below 35-39 Below Excellent 10:15 11:00 11:30 Good 10:16-12:00 11:01-12:30 11:31-13:00 Fair 12:01-14:30 12:31-15:00 13:01-15:30 Poor 14:31-16:30 15:01-17:00 15:31-17:30 Very Poor 16:31-Above 17:01-Above 17:31-Above Maintenance Level 11:00 12:00 12:30 Minimum Level 14:30 15:15 15:30 40-44 Below 40-49 Below 50 + Below Excellent 12:00 12:15 12:30 Good 12:01-13:30 12:16-13:45 12:31-14:30 Fair 13:31-16:00 13:46-16:15 14:31-17:00 Poor 16:01-18:00 16:16-18:15 17:01-19:00 Very Poor 18:01-Above 18:16-Above 19:01-Above Maintenance Level 13:00 13:30 14:00 Minimum Level 15:45 16:00 16:45 STRENGTH TESTS The body is maintained in a prone position supported by straight arms on the hands and toes. A partner places his fist on the ground below the officer's chest. The officer must keep his back straight at all times and from the up position, lower him/herself to the floor until his chest touches his partner's hand and then push to the up position again. The officers can rest in the up position. The total number of correct push-ups are recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. This test measures muscle endurance and a low level of muscle endurance indicates an inefficiency in movement and a poor capacity to perform work. This test measures mainly the muscles of both the chest and upper arm which are important in physical confrontations such as pushing, pulling, controlling, and handcuffing. 38 12542444.1 SE010-040 Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent 43 - 37 - 30 - 25 + Good 28-42 23-36 20-29 17-24 Fair 20-27 17-22 15-19 12-16 Poor 5-19 3-16 2-14 2-11 Very Poor 4-Below 2-Below 2-Below 1-Below Maintenance Level 40 35 25 18 Minimum Level 18 15 13 11 PULL-UPS Officer will hold bar with the palms away from the body. Arms are extended out straight in the beginning position with the feet off the ground. Officer must pull his body up to a position where his chin is above the bar for one repetition. The total number of correct pull-ups are recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. In lieu of pull-ups, officers may choose to do the "La Pull". Officers are required to pull down seventy percent (70%) of their body weight ten (10) times in order to achieve maintenance level. Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent 9 & Above 7 & Above 6 & Above 5 & Above Good 8 6 5 4 Fair 6-7 4-5 3-4 2-3 Poor 5 3 2 1 Very Poor 4 & Above 2 & Above 1 & Above 0 Maintenance Level 8 6 5 4 Minimum Level 5 3 2 1 SIT-UPS Officer starts by lying on his/her back, knees bent, heels flat on the floor and arms folded across the chest. A partner holds the feet down. In the up position, the officer will touch his elbows to his knees and then return to the starting position, not placing their shoulder blades on the ground before starting the next sit-up. This is a continuous exercise, no resting. The total number of correct sit- ups are recorded and compared to the standards on the chart. This test measures muscular endurance in the abdominal muscle group, an area of great concern to the sedentary individual. Much evidence exists of the correlation between poor abdominal muscle development, excessive fat tissue and lower back problems. 39 12542444.1 SE010-040 *1 CONTINUOUS MINUTE * Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent 51 & Above 45 & Above 40 & Above 36 & Above Good 40-50 34-44 27-39 23-39 Fair 35-39 29-33 20-26 16-22 Poor 24-34 18-28 7-19 6-15 Very Poor 23 - 17 - 6 - 5 - Maintenance Level 45 40 35 30 Minimum Level 30 25 20 15 FLEXIBILITY Officer sits on the ground with his legs out straight in front of him. Heels of feet are placed against a 4 X 4 or similar object. Officer bends forward and reaches towards his toes with his fingertips as far as he can. The distance above or below his heels is measured. The distance is recorded as plus or minus inches. Plus inches is below the heels and negative is above the heels. Compare the results against the standards on the chart. Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 + Excellent +10" & Below +9" & Below +8" & Below +7" & Below Good +4" to 9.5" + 3.5" to 8.5" +1" to 7.5" 0 to +6.5" Fair +1.5" to 3.5" +1" to 3" -2" to +.5" -3" to -.5" Poor -4.5" to +1" -6.5" to +.5" -9" & Above -10" to 3.5" Very Poor -5" & Above -7" & Above -9.5 & Above -10.5"& Above Maintenance Level +5" +4" +1" 0" Minimum Level 0" -2" -4" -5" Agenda Item M AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Shaun Temple, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT:Appeal Request of the Planning Commission Approval for an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Minor Use Permit 22-03 to Allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic System at the Existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Hold a de novo public hearing, allow public testimony, and at the conclusion of the hearing, consider all testimony, comments and evidence; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7721 Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission Decision, Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 Subject to Conditions of Approval, to Allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt (MW) Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System at the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) (SCH #2025080495) (the Project); and, 3. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On September 29, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and proposed Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03, to allow the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF). Oil production activities have been taking place on the subject property since the 1920s and the site is zoned Oil Extraction (OE). After presentation of the staff report, submittal of public testimony Page 2 2 1 9 8 and deliberation by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-6, adopting the IS/MND including MMRP, by a vote of two in favor and one in opposition. Chair Wheeler was absent, and the District 3 Planning Commissioner position was vacant. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 25-07, approving MUP 22-03 subject to conditions, by the same vote of two in favor and one in opposition. The Project The proposed PV system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities’ operations. While any excess power will be exported to the utility grid, the purpose of the system is primarily only for the operations at Hellman OGPF. Currently, the electrical power used for the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Facility, and the other associated facilities, such as the offsite gas plant, production wells, pump stations, etc., are provided by an onsite gas turbine generator and Southern California Edison via a direct connection with their electrical grid system. Use of solar power to provide electrical power for the facilities’ operations would serve to reduce overall air emissions associated with electrical power generation and reduce the overall operating cost of the Hellman facilities. The system would be composed of three (3) arrays with a total of 56 solar table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. The major components of the solar system would include solar panels and support structures, collector cables, inverters, and subpanels, power cables, transformers, and disconnect switches. All but one of the solar tables would be about 96.8 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and would contain two (2) rows of 28 solar panels. One of the solar tables in Array 1 would be about 34.6 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and contain two (2) rows of 10 solar panels. The solar tables would be tilted facing south at about a 10-degree angle. The front edge of the tables would be at a height of approximately 18 inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches. As a minor utility, the proposed project requires a Minor Use Permit (MUP) in the OE zone. As a MUP requires discretionary approval by the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, and as the site is located near the sensitive habitat of the Cerritos Wetlands, and given the history of tribal artifacts being found in the vicinity, the City determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is the appropriate environmental compliance document for the proposed Project. The IS/MND included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which include proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Those mitigation measures include: that the solar panels will be constructed of dark-colored materials and covered with an anti-reflective coating to reduce glare and a potential “lake effect”; that construction shall occur outside of bird nesting season and pre-construction surveys will be done for burrowing owl and southern tarplant and Coulters goldfields; that a Native American monitor shall be allowed on-site during all ground disturbance activities; that an Interim Soil Stabilization plan shall be developed to prevent soil erosion Page 3 2 1 9 8 subsequent to the construction; and that the applicant shall maintain a minimum of 30 feet from City waterlines for all project components. The proposed IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment from July 24, 2025, to and including September 19, 2025. On August 20, 2025, the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) held a public meeting to discuss the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. All comments received during the public review period were provided to the EQCB. Following staff presentation as well as questions to staff, the environmental consultant, the applicant, and the solar contractor, the EQCB agreed on four (4) recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1. That the solar operations be tied to the operations of the facility, so that once the operations of the facility cease, the solar equipment must also be removed. 2. That for the areas in which holes would be dug to install the support structure (piles set in concrete), that soil testing be done at the equivalent depth in which the holes will be dug to analyze any indicators of element of soil that may not be compatible with top soil, as the dug soil will be re- distributed in the site area. A report of that analysis must be submitted to the City for approval prior to the redistribution of the soil. 3. That for the first year of operation, any impacts related to bird accidents and fatalities related to solar operations will be documented and that a report be submitted to the City so that further mitigation measures can be put in place if necessary. 4. That a conservation easement be put in place to protect tarplants in perpetuity. Regarding recommendation 4 (tarplants) it was pointed out to the EQCB that Mitigation Measure Bio-5 already satisfied this requirement. Additionally, the EQCB raised concerns about how this mitigation would be enforced if this property is sold in the future. In response to this question, it was noted that the Coastal Development Permit authorizing the operations of the facility states that the land is deed restricted and must be sold for wetlands use once oil operations cease. The EQCB concluded that this information satisfied the Board’s concerns for both recommendation 4 and for recommendation 1 (regarding the solar operations ceasing with the oil operations). Recommendations 2 and 3 have been added to the condition of approval in Planning Commission Resolution 25-07. The full EQCB meeting can be watched at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting- Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings, under the August 20, 2025 date. All comments received by the City during the public review period were provided to the Planning Commission as part of its packet, along with all recommendations made by the EQCB. During the Planning Commission public hearing, oral Page 4 2 1 9 8 comments were presented to the Planning Commission, including comments by a representative of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust that supplemented a letter from their attorney, Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP in response to the IS/MND. As part of the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the Project’s environmental consultant, MRS Environmental, submitted and read into the record a response letter to the comments from Cerritos Wetlands Land Use including their request that the City prepare an EIR for the Project. A copy of the MRS response letter is attached to this Staff Report (Attachment E). As outlined above, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 25-06, adopting the IS/MND, including the MMRP, and approved Resolution No. 25-07, approving the Project. During the Planning Commission’s deliberation on the proposed IS/MND with MMRP, and the MUP 22-03, the Commissioners stated that they had reviewed the IS/MND as well as the EQCB meeting proceedings and comments. In their review of the IS/MND, the Commissioners voting in favor of approving the IS/MND stated that the IS/MND was thorough in its disclosure and appeared to sufficiently address all concerns that had been brought forth by the public at the hearing and was sufficient to mitigate impacts to less than significant. The Commissioners also stated that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) includes Mitigation Measures that address the concerns raised about birds, by not allowing construction activity during nesting season, the glare analysis sufficiently analyzes glare impacts so as to determine that the placement and coating of the panels would not have a significant impact, and surveys and replacement ratios would mitigate impacted plant species. During the Planning Commission discussion, a commissioner also raised a follow up question on the soil testing request by EQCB in which the environmental consultant clarified is to test for hydrocarbons, as there were sumps in the wetlands for previous oil extraction activities. Based on that comment, as part of the Planning Commission’s decision approving MUP 22-03 for the Project, the Commission modified the Conditions of Approval to state that soil testing shall be performed at pile depth and shall be assessed for hydrocarbons and be appropriately removed from site based on contamination level. The full Planning Commission hearing can be watched at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting- Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings, under the September 29, 2025, date. The Appeal On October 8, 2025, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (Appellant) filed an appeal (Appeal) of the Planning Commission’s decisions approving the Mitigated Declaration and MUP 22-03. The grounds for the Appeal are set out in the Appellant’s Appeal Application to City Council, received October 8, 2025, which is included with this staff report. Appellant requests that the City Council grant their Appeal and require that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to further analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before approving the Project. 23 Page 5 2 1 9 8 Pursuant to Section 1.20.010 of the Municipal Code, appeals of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council are heard de novo. This means that the City Council must independently hear and consider the evidence in a new hearing and apply the same decision-making criteria that the Planning Commission used when deciding whether to approve MUP 18-8. In order to approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Planning Commission was required to make certain findings in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Reg. 15000 et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines). These findings include that there is no substantial evidence the Project will have a significant environmental effect, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis, supported by an Initial Study that shows potential significant effects have been reduced to a less- than-significant level through mitigation measures. These same findings, which are set forth in the proposed Resolution 7721 (Attachment A), must be made by the City Council on this appeal. In order to approve the Minor Use Permit (MUP), the Planning Commission was required to make certain findings with regard to the proposed Project, as required by Municipal Code Section 11.5.20.020.A. The required findings generally include determining that (1) the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; (2) the proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone with use permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; (3) the site is physically adequate for type, density and the proposed use including provision of services and the absence of physical constraints; (4) the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood; and (5) the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use at that location will not be detrimental to health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. These same findings must be made by the City Council on this appeal. For the reasons stated below, and in the proposed resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s actions, adopting the IS/MND, and approving the Project, staff recommends that the required findings may be made in this case for each action, and that the Planning Commission did so in its action adopting the IS/MND and approving the Project. As such, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal with respect to both the IS/MND and MUP 22-03. Documents for Council Consideration Included with this Staff Report are Attachment A, proposed Resolution for Council review and consideration, along with the Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 25-06 and 25-07, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Vicinity Map, Aerial Map, October 8, 2025 Appeal, Response Letter from MRS Environmental, Project Plans, and September 19, 2025 – Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Response to IS/MND submitted on Page 6 2 1 9 8 behalf of Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust. As noted above, the EQCB and The Planning Commission proceedings are available online on the City’s website. Conclusion This Project has been analyzed pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. With the analysis set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program incorporated into the Project, all potential impacts have been reduced to a level of less than significant. The IS/MND and related MMRP fully and substantially comply with all requirements under CEQA. Further, the Project satisfies all requirements for approval of MUP 22-03. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The application is considered a project pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and the State’s CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. (collectively “CEQA”). An Initial Study was prepared, and based on its findings, staff recommended adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to Section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 11.5.35.010.L. The proposed IS/MND including MMRP was circulated for public review and comment from July 24, 2025, through September 19, 2025. All comments received were included in the information provided to both the EQCB and Planning Commission and are provided with this staff report. Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2506, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution 2506 are attached to this staff report and can also be found at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning- Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. Page 7 2 1 9 8 STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Hold a de novo public hearing, allow public testimony, and at the conclusion of the hearing, consider all testimony, comments and evidence; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7721 Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission Decision, Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 Subject to Conditions of Approval to Allow the Installation and Operation of a 1.5 Megawatt (MW) Fixed-Tilt Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System at the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) (SCH #2025080495) (the Project); and, 3. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Shaun Temple Patrick Gallegos Shaun Temple, Interim Community Development Director Patrick Gallegos, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7721 B. Vicinity Map C. Aerial Map D. October 8, 2025, Appeal E. Response Letter from MRS Environmental F. Project Plans G. PC Resolution 25-06 Adopting Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) H. PC Resolution 25-07 Approving Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 I. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration J. September 19, 2025 – Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Response to IS/MND 1 RESOLUTION 7721 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF MINOR USE PERMIT 22-03, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION, ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING MINOR USE PERMIT 22-03 FOR A 1.5 MEGAWATT (MW) FIXED-TILT GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AT THE HELLMAN RANCH OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND. A. Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Minor Use Permit (MUP 22-03) to allow the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system (Project) at the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF. B. The application is considered a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. An Initial Study was prepared, and based on its findings, the City has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental compliance document. C. The proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), was circulated for public review and comment from July 24, 2025 through September 19, 2025. D. On August 20, 2025, the City’s Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) held a duly noticed public meeting to review and comment on the proposed Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project and the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), and provided recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding solar operations, soil testing, monitoring bird impacts, and protection of southern tarplants. All public comments presented to the City during the public review period were submitted to the EQCB for their consideration. The EQCB provided comments to be forwarded to the Planning Commission as part of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the IS/MND and MUP 22-03. E. On September 29, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider approval of Minor Use Permit (MUP) 22-03 and adoption of the IS/MND pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following public 2 1 0 6 9 7 testimony, review of the IS/MND, and consideration of EQCB recommendations, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-06, adopting the IS/MND including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopted Resolution No. 25-07 approving MUP 22-03 for the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground- mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility located within the Oil Extraction (OE) zoning district. F. On October 8, 2025, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval, asserting that the IS/MND inadequately analyzed biological resources, wetlands, hydrology, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, and asserting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required. G. Written responses were prepared on behalf of the City prepared addressing each issue raised in the appeal, including technical review of biological surveys, updated glare modeling, hydrology and flooding analysis, wetlands delineation criteria, CEQA legal standards, and tribal cultural resource processes. H. On December 8, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, has reviewed the accompanying Staff Report, the IS/MND, the Planning Commission record, the appeal letter, the applicant’s response materials, public testimony, and all other documents and evidence submitted in the record. Section 2. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. The Initial Study identifies potential impacts associated with biological resources, hydrology and flooding, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, all of which are reduced to less than significant through adopted mitigation measures. B. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), were circulated for public review as required by CEQA Guidelines 15073, and written comments were received by the City. C. Biological surveys used in the IS/MND remain valid and consistent with CEQA standards; no substantial evidence demonstrates that the project would result in significant unmitigated impacts to sensitive species or habitat. D. Hydrology and flooding analysis demonstrates the site is suitable for the proposed improvements and is not reliant on unapproved offsite infrastructure for mitigation. E. Updated glare modeling, including observer elevations reflecting the future berm trail, demonstrates no significant glare impacts to recreational users, bicyclists, tribal gathering areas, birds, or visual receptors. 3 1 0 6 9 7 F. Consultation with Tribal representatives pursuant to AB 52 occurred, and the monitoring of ground disturbance activities by a tribal representative will sufficiently mitigate impacts on cultural tribal resources. G. No significant new information has been added to the IS/MND and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. H. The proposed IS/MND was reviewed by the EQCB in accordance with the City of Seal Beach Environmental Guidelines, and the EQCB comments were forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review prior to the Planning Commission’s action on the IS/MND and Project. I. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and considered public testimony, and thereafter, exercising its independent judgment, adopted the IS/MND on the basis that all potential significant impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. J. The City Council has reviewed and considered the IS/MND, all comments from the EQCB, Planning Commission and public, and has found that the IS/MND, including MMRP, is complete, adequate, and complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Seal Beach Environmental Guidelines. K. The IS/MND, including MMRP, reflects the independent judgement of the City of Seal Beach L. Substantial evidence does not support a fair argument that the Project may cause a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an EIR is not required. Section 3. FINDINGS TO DENY THE APPEAL. Based on the record of the proceedings, including the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing and the prior hearing before the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in denying the appeal and adopting the IS/MND and approving MUP 22-03: A. The Project complies with all applicable zoning and General Plan requirements for the Oil Extraction (OE) district. B. The appellant did not demonstrate that the IS/MND fails to comply with CEQA. C. The appeal relies on speculation, generalized assertions, and incomplete evidence, rather than substantial evidence required under CEQA to invalidate an IS/MND. D. The IS/MND adequately analyzed biological resources, wetlands, hydrology, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources with appropriate technical studies and peer review. 4 1 0 6 9 7 E. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) establishes mitigation measures that address nesting birds, sensitive plants, cultural monitoring, soil stabilization, glare reduction, and tribal coordination and will ensure potential impacts will remain less than significant. F. The Project will provide renewable energy benefits, reduce air emissions, support facility operations, and is consistent with State and local sustainability goals. G. The Planning Commission acted properly and within its discretion in adopting the IS/MND and approving MUP 22-03. Section 4. DECISION. Based upon the foregoing findings and all other evidence in the record, the City Council hereby: A. Denies the Appeal filed by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust. B. Adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. C. Approves MUP 22-03, subject to the conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-07, which are incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members:_________________________________________ NOES: Council Members:_________________________________________ ABSENT: Council Members:_________________________________________ ABSTAIN: Council Members:_________________________________________ _____________________________ Lisa Landau, Mayor 5 1 0 6 9 7 ATTEST: ________________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7721 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 8th day of December 2025. ________________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk VICINITY MAP: AERIAL MAP: APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL For Office Use Only RECEIV ED OCT 08 (1)(5 CITY ClL -\l, CITY OF SEAL Bf.ACH Planning Commission Date: ~ -2.'1-2 5 Planning Comm. Resolution No.: '2-'5-\)~ Planning Commission Action: Approval { Denial Other Date Appeal Filed: \0 -~-7.-5 City Council Date: Notice Date : City Council Action: Resolution No.: 1. Property Address: ] l I F7 R 5 1 s 1. 2. Applicant's Name : LtJ5 CM<R[JDS [,VElMA/,£)5 LA)!,}) 1U?U51 Address : 4100 G. 6.J..b 51'.,L(/;.!f.-!3GACf!, CA 9o?f1 Cf / Work Phone : ( ) Mobil Home Phone: ( ) FAX: ( )--,,..,.-__ +-.,-------,-_ Email Address:---.e~ 3. P rope rty Owner's Name : =~ <...:O"-}J~'):....:;._"J A~+-:+..L..!oo-""L=Lt'1'-::'-'-f'.-}.;----'...!.({-'-"-'-P--"-r_:_l"'-'f:=-'S=_:_:L7__"L:........c..( Address : 7l I £11< 5 1 5 1. , £AL-8fACIt C A q 07 Y () ) ) Home Phone: ( ) ___________________ _ 4 . The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach Planning Commission concerning Public Hearing No . ,;25""-0 6 . Attach a statement that explains in detail why the decision of the Planning Commission is being appealed , the specific conditions of approval being appealed, and includ e your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error or must provide extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or ~Orp;cision. (Municipal Code §1 .2 0.005 .D. Appeal Contents) (OS Wt1LAA}0 2 I.ANSJ-<~1)')1-=, ,-----_----:-:::---:--____ _ (Signature of Applicant) (Signature of Owner) tLlZA8G7ft L/l118& (Print Name) (Print Name) (Date) t I (Date) 01/2013 Attach a statement that explains in detail why the Planning Commission decision is being appealed, the specific condition of approval being appealed, and include in your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in error or must provide extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or modification of the decision. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust appeals the decision of th e Seal Beac h Planning Commission recommending approval of the proposed Hellman Solar Project, and its Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the following reasons . Siting the 1.5-megawatt Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project within the Los Cerritos Wetlands will have significant adverse impacts on on-site biological resources and the broader wetland complex . The Project 's construction and operation could harm important biological resources, be affected by flooding, and cause unstudied and unmitigated impacts from glint and glare . For examp le, the MND fails to account for the Least Bell's Vireo popu lations observed nearby and for the wetland indicators present during recent rainy seasons. Both the Project site and surrounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species . These species include, but are not limited to , southern tarplant, Least Bell's Vireo, Beld ing's Savannah Sparrow, and the Western Burrowing Owl. The project's potential impacts on these birds and rare plant species have not been adequately evaluated or sufficiently mitigated. Furthermore, MND's biological resources surveys are outdated, as explained in our comments on the MND, Attachment A. Importantly, the Least Bell's Vireo, listed as endangered under the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts, is a migratory species whose population and nesting locations fluctuate annually. The MND must include the results of the 2025 breeding season surveys . It does not. An EIR should include this missing information. During the record rainy seasons of the winte rs of 2022-2 3 and 2023-24, many depressional wetlands across the Los Cerritos Wetlands held water for upwards of six months, allowing wet land indicators to emerge. Due to insufficient surveying, the project site contains wetlands that were not disclosed in the MND . Accordingly, any Project impacts on these wetlands are not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated by the MND. The MND also relies on an unbuilt berm to reduce the risk of flooding. It omits discussion of panel glint and glare that could blind or otherwise disrupt bikers and other recreat ional users of the Hellman Ranch and San Gabriel River Bike Trails. The project's cultural resources assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cu ltu ra l Landscape that has been identified for this area in previously approved environmental documents, and the Project's significant impacts on that recognized Landscape When a project could have a significant impact on the environment, it requires the preparation and certification of an EIR , not an MND. One of the initial steps in the process mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act is to assess whether the project might significantly affect the env ironment. Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potent iall y significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. As the MND fails to address all potential Project impacts, and as there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant and adverse environmental im pacts, an EIR is required. We urge the City to prepare an Environmental Impact Repo rt (EIR) to thoroughly analyze and mitigate the Project's potentially signif icant environmental impacts before approving the Project. Attachments: A. Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust Comments on MND , submitted September 19, 202 5 Main Office Phone: 310 -798-2400 Direc! Dial: 310-798-2412 Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP 700 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Michelle N. Black Emai l Address: mob@cbcearthlaw com September 19, 2025 Via Email stemple@sealbeachca.gov Mr. Shaun Temp le Planning Manager City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Dear Mr. Temple, www.cbcearthlaw com Los CelTitos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) has advocated for the protection and restoration of Los Cerri t os Wetlands for over twenty years . It is in this spirit that LCWLT submits these comments on the Hellman Solar PV Elecuical System Proj ect (Project). Although LCWLT SUppOltS the use of renewable solar energy where it is appropliate and environmentally friendly, LCWLT is concerned that siting the l.5- megawatt Helbnan So lar PY E lecu'ical System Project within Los CelTitos Wetlands will adversely impact the wetland complex. The Project would consu'uct 3 arrays with 56 so lar tabl e sU'uctures and 3,100 so lar panels on 4.66 acres sU11'ounded by Los CelTitos Wetlands and adjacent to the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p . 6.) The system would City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19 , 2025 Page 2 require concrete foundations and 388 concrete piers , 18 inches in diameter, driven 6 feet into the ground, for support. (MND p. 7 .) Collector cables, inverters, subpanels , power cables, transf01mers , and disconnect switches would also be required , with the transfOImer pad being 12 feet in width and 33 feet in length . (MND p. 8.) The Project would require excavating 600 feet of underground trench, with an expected construction time of three to foID' months. (MND p. 9.) This will require significant disruption of a sensitive location. Consuuction would require "removal of the vegetative cover" and all organic matter "from the limits of the construction area." (MND p. 12.) After any grading, the 388 piles would be driven 6 feet underground. Given the location of the Project within Los CeITitos Wetlands , however, groundwater can be expected at depths of four to seven feet below ground surface . (MND p. 12.) The Project's anticipated lifetime is 25 to 30 years. LCWLT is concerned the Project construction and operation will harm imp0I1ant biological reSOlU'ces , be subject to flooding , and have unstudied and umnitigated glint and glare impacts. Specifically, the MND fails to account for Least Bell's Vireo populations obselved nearby and for wetland indicators present over recent rainy seasons . The MND also relies on an unconsu'ucted benn to reduce the likelihood of flooding . It omits discussion of panel glint and glare that may blind or otherwise disrupt bikers and other recreational users of the Hellman Ranch and San Gabriel River Bike Trails . The MND further fails to analyze the site as a u'ibal cultural landscape recogni zed by the California Coastal Commission and other public agencies. Accordingly, LCWLT urges the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to fiuiher analy ze and mitigate the Project 's potentially significant environmental impacts if it wishes to approve the Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, inteITelated functions: ensming environmental protection and encomaging governmental u·ansparency. (Citizens o/Goleta Valley" Bd. o/Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553 , 564.) CEQ A requires full discloslU'e of a project's significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are infOImed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heig hts Improvem ent Ass'n o/San Francisco v. Regents o/the University o/California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 , 392 .) When substantial evidence SUpp0I1S a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact rep0I1 is required . City of Seal Beach Hellman SolID' PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 3 A lead agency prepares an initial study to detelmine whether an EIR, a negative declaration , or an MND is the appropliate environmental review document. (14 CCR § 15365 , herein "C EQA Guidelines.") "All phases of project plarming , implementation, and operation must be considered in th e initial study." (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)(I).) The initial study must consider whether any aspect of a project, either individually or cwnulatively, may cause a significant adverse impact. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(b)(1).) The pmpose of the initial study is to provide the lead agency with adequate infOlmation regarding a project to detelmine the appropriate environmental review document and "docwnentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment." (C tr. for Si e rra Ne vada C onservation l~ County 0/ EI Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156 , 1170 , citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Res cue" C ity 0/ Santa C ruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201 .) "Where an agency ... fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (E I Dorado County Taxpayers /or Quality G rowth" C ounty 0/ E I Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591 , 1597 , citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to SUpp0l1 conclusions reached in the initial study is a failme to comply with the law. When a project may have a significant impact on the environment, it necessitates the preparation and certification of an EIR, not an MND. One of the first steps in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is to detelmine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. "[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA , accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact." (N o Oil, In c. l~ City o/Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 , 75.) Under the CEQA Guidelines, '''Substantial evidence ' means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair arg wnent can be made to supp0I1 a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached." (Guidelines § 15384(a), emphasis added ; Leagu e for Prot ection o/Oakland's etc. Hist oric Resources v. City o/Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896 , 905 .) The fair argwnent standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 C al.3d 68 ,84 .) Review is de novo , with a "preference for resolving doubts in favor of envil'Onmental review. "(Architec tural Heritage Assn. " C ounty o/Monterey (2004) 122 C al.App.4th 1095 , lllO; Q uail Botanical G ardens City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19,2025 Page 4 Foundation , Inc. v. City a/Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 ,1602-1603.) As discussed further below, as the MND fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project 's potential environmental effects , and as there is substantial evidence of a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on biological resomces, hydrology, glint and glare, and llibal cultural resources , an EIR is required . I. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources. The Project site consists of 4.66 acres in the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, east of the San Gabriel River and north of Pacific Coast Highway. The Project site is within and sUITounded by Los CeITitos Wetlands. The solar facility would be consllucted immediately nOlih of 100 acres owned by the Los CeITitos Wetlands Authority, east of an additional 71 acres of wetlands owned by the Authority, south of 43 acres zoned open space-natmal that serve as a County of Orange retention basin, and west of the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 2 .) Both the Project site and SUITounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species. These species include, but are not limited to , southem tarplant, Least Bell 's Vireo , Belding 's Savannah SpaITow, and the Westem BUITowing Owl. The Project's potential impacts on these birds and on rare plant species must be thoroughly evaluated and carefully mitigated . A. The MND's Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated. According to Table 2-1 oftlle Biological Technical Report, the MND 's conclusions about the Project's potential impacts to biological resources were based on: 1) Focused botanical survey were conducted in summer 2022 and winter 2023; 2) Least Bell 's Vireo surveys conducted in swnmer 2022 ; and 3) Jurisdictional waters/wetlands assessment perfOimed between August 2022 and March 2023 . As each of these investigations occwTed at least 2.5 years ago , they are outdated and City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19 , 2025 Page 5 cannot be relied on to detelmine the Project will not have significant impacts on biological resources . Southern tarplant, which has a California rare plant rank of IB, was most recently mapped in 2022 . Similarly, Coulter's goldfield individuals were mapped in 2023. However, both rare plants are annual species, meaning the MND's biological resources analysis should be based on the results of surveys from the most recent blooming season. Least Bell's Vireo , listed as endangered under the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts , is a migratory species whose population and nesting locations fluctuate annually. The MND must include results 2025 breeding season swveys. It does not. An ElR should include this missing infonnation. B. The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND. During the record rainy seasons of the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24 , many depressional wetlands across Los Cenitos Wetlands held water for upwards of 6 months, allowing wetland indicators to present themselves. However, the MND 's jurisdictional wetlands assessment includes fow· photos taken in August 2022. The photos predate these record rains and do not accurately capture current site conditions. On the contnuy, aerial imagery from Februaty 2024 indicates substantial ponding and flooding ofthe Project at·ea, which should be analyzed in the Technical RepOIt and MND. Thus, substantial evidence demonstrates the at·ea has recently been wetland, a fact not disclosed in the MND. Any wetlands designations or potential ratnifications of the Project to wetlands or wetland-dependent species must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an ElR. City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19 ,2025 Page 6 .. )~,"' .. ;', .' to' •••••• ~ .' . .', t . ,r. , ' , ' , ' ," . " ~ : .. '.. . ,"( ,.. 't.O ,' • . : ...... " ..... ; , , . " '. , , I • Figure I, Aerial imageryfrom February 202-1 with areas o./jlooded olltlined in red C. Least Bell's Vireo Use the Project Site. LCWLT ha s perfOlmed sw'Veys of the Least Bell 's Vireo population in the Heron Pointe Bioswale , nearly adjacent to the Project site , for the last 5 bre eding seasons, Individuals of this endangered species have been obsel'Ved nesting , each year, within 100 feet of the project boundmy and have also been obsel'Ved foraging within the m'ea the MND discloses would be subject to permanent Project impact. The MND acknowledges that 96-decib el noise is expected at the Heron Pointe Bioswale, Foraging habitat for Least Bell 's Vireo is protected by state and federal law. Impacts to this species could be co nsid ered a "tak e," and wa11'ant a mandatOlY finding of significant impact under CEQA, An EIR must be prepm'e d to thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate impacts to Least Bell 's Vireo , D. An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts. City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19,2025 Page 7 The MND 's Biological Technical RepOlt mentions "fuel modification zones" but does not provide any infOimation as to how these areas are permitted, the activities that occur in these zones , or the timing of activities pelfOimed in these zones. If fuel modification occmTed before biological surveys for the MND were conducted , the Project's Biological Technical Report may not reflect the full scope of species or individuals present on the site under "pre-project" conditions. The data collected in the surveys may not be valid. Since the fuel modification zones overlap with the locations of special status plant populations , the fuel modification zones require a coastal development pennit. In order to ensure fuel modification occurs within a comprehensive plan, and that all fuel modification impacts are considered cumulatively, we request the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring preparation of a pennitted plan that covers all fuel modification practices throughout the propelty. Table 3-5 of the IS /MND includes a sensitive vegetation type called "Distichlis spicata -annual grasses" that comprises 1.66 acres of the total project impact area. This vegetation type overlaps with fuel modification areas. However, removal of vegetation in the area where tills vegetation type is found could result in a level of disturbance that promotes invasion of annual grasses. This "type conversion" is a significant impact on biological resources that is not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the MND. Fmthennore, aerial imagery analysis indicates that most of this vegetation type (Distichlis spicata -annual grasses) has been disturbed by mowing as recently as September 2025 . Heavy mowing can degrade sensitive native plant communities and alter vegetation alliances. Mowing of Distichlis spicata should require a coastal development pelmit. Additionally, this mowing nullifies the fmdings of the 2022 botanical surveys performed for this Project's Biological Technical Report. We request the City require pre-construction smveys of site vegetation after the passage of 2 blooming seasons , without mowing intelference, within the study area . City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19 , 2025 Page 8 Figure 2. Aerial imageryfrom September 2025 indicating recent mowing of the Distichlis spicata -annual grasses herbaceous alliance. E. The Project's Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance. Mitigation Measw'e BIO-2 , provide s, "To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded." This Measure is not enforceable due to the inclusion of the modifier "To the extent feasible ." The Measure does not state the criteria for feasibility or the entity that will decide feasibility. This renders the mitigation speculative. Mitigation measw'es must be concrete and enforceable . (Lincoln Pla ce Tenants Ass 'n" City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445 ; Pub. Resources Co de § 210S1.6(b).) Mitigation Measure BIO-5 , the Southem Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan , fails to recogni ze that the project area has been mowed as recently as September 2025. F or efficacy, this Mitigation Measure should prohibit impacts to the existing plant community until the completion of pre-construction swveys. Due to the potential that both Southem Tarplant and Coulter's Goldfields have been impacted by unauthori ze d mowing, the replacement mitigation ratio should be changed to 10: 1. Such a ratio wou.ld adequately mitigate for previous, unpelmitted impacts to these special status plant City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 9 species. The Project should incorporate a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction jwisdictional wetland assessment be performed during the wet season most proximal to future construction. The Project should also incorporate a mitigation measure requiring pre- construction surveys for Least Bell 's Vireo and consultations with both the Califomia Depru.tment offish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service . As Project mitigation fails to eliminate the Project's potential for significant impacts to listed plant and wildlife species, an EIR is required. II. The Project May Have Significant Undisclosed and Unmitigated Hydrological Impacts. As depicted above, the Project site has experienced recent ponding . It is sunounded by bodies of water and the Los Cenitos Wetlands complex. Accordingly, accmate analysis of flooding and hydrological impacts is impol1ant. The MND appears to rely on an offsite benn to reduce flood impacts at the Project. Section 3.4.10 of the lS I MND states that an eru.1hen belm proposed by a neighbOling landowner will "fm1her reduce the potential for flooding on-site." (MND p. 51.) However, a Project cannot rely upon mitigation provided by another agency, at another site. When a potentially significant environmental impact cannot be mitigated by the lead agency, it must be assumed to remain significant. Thus, the impact analysis must be pelfOlmed from the perspective that this non-existent belm may never be constructed . Fw1hennore, the IS /MND apperu.·s to rely on a technical report produced by Moffatt and Nichol in 2019 for a different project previously proposed for the subject propel1y. Aside from the technical report 's age and inelevant subject matter, the technical report was not provided as pru.1 of the IS /MND appendix. This renders the IS /MND incomplete. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study must be specifically prepared for this project and circulated to the public and decisionmakers as pru.1 of an EIR. CEQA does not tolerate attempts to sweep imp0l1ant public safety issues "under the rug." (Concerned C itizens of Cos ta Mesa v 32"d Dist. Ag. Ass 'n. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 935.) III. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Glint and Glare Impacts. A. The Project May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19,2025 Page 10 Gathering Area. As acknowledged in the MND , the LCWA-owned Southem Los Cenitos Wetlands Restoration Project is located immediately south ofthe Project site . The restoration project -scheduled to begin construction in October 2025 -will contain a 6-foot ealthen pelimeter belm on its northem boundruy. This belm will sepru'ate the He llman property from the LCWA parcel. As discussed above , the MND assumes implementation of that belm to justify its conclusion that flooding impacts from sea level rise will not occur. (MND p. 51). Accordingly, implementation of said benn -and all its functions -should be incorporated t1u'oughout the analysis, including that of glru·e. To detelmine potential glru'e impacts, the MND identifies t1u'ee observation points (OP) in the LCWA property, two of which ru'e effectively located on the wetlands-side of the perimeter belm: #28 (33.752156, -1l8.092389) and #29 (33.752155 , -1l8.095J05). Per the glare analysis (MND Appendix D), these OP were set 6 feet off the ground. This is too low. There will be a docent-only access trail located atop the perimeter belm (Southem Los Cenitos Wetlands Restoration Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration p. 24). Albeit restricted use , this trail will periodically contain recreational users who will travel the length of the trail to travel from one side of the restored wetlands to the other. At + 12 ft. (6 ft. belm and 6 ft. user) the recreational user atop the benn would be taller than the panel ruTays. And as the panels are south-facing (i.e. facing the perimeter trail) and there is not a "ban-ier" obstIUcting views , users would have direct line of site to the panels along the majOlity of this trail. There is a strong potential for glare impacts to users of the perimeter trail , and an analysis of the strength, severity, and duration of these potential impacts must be conducted. These ru'e likely significant glru'e impacts, with significant impacts to recreation . An EIR is required to analyze these impacts. As the perimeter belm/trail ru'e irregulru'ly shaped, and the selected observation points are located on pOltions of the future trail where the recreational user is walking east/west (pru'allel to the panels), it is recommended that the EIR's glru'e analysis also include OP on tlIe north-south portions of tlIe trail where tlIe user is looking directly at the panels along that trail stretch as tlIey otherwise enjoy their walk of tlIe restored wetlands. Once the analysis is revised to understand and disclose potential impacts to recreational users of the perimeter trail , tlIese impacts must be fully mitigated. Given the project-specific needs (south facing panels situated to avoid shading), and site constraints City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19,2025 Page 11 (limited space to put the panels given ongoing operations and highly sensitive wetland! habitat areas), detennining feasible mitigation could be a challenge, If the revised glare analysis shows an impact to users of the perimeter trail , and this impact cannot be fully mitigated , the EIR must disclose this information to the public , Moreover, the Project should not move fOIward, The City of Seal Beach is on the cusp of having a restored wetlands right in their backyard , We would hope Seal Beach would prioritize protecting this impOItant amenity and its recreational users, Additionally, the Southem Los Cel1'itos Wetlands Restoration Project will include two public outlooks and one tribal gathering area on its southem boundaJ.y. The outlooks and gatheling aJ.'ea will be higher in elevation than smTounding lands and aJ.'e oriented so that public and tribal entities will look down and across the restored wetlands (i.e, facing the solaJ.' panels), As these outlooks and tribal gathering area will be set at a higher elevation than the belm, they will likely have line of sight to the panels, The EIR's revised glare analysis should analyze potential glaJ.'e impacts to the public and to tribes who will use these outlooks and tribal gathering aJ.'ea, Lastly, MND Table 3 -1 identifies OP 1-8 and OP26 as "no glaJ.'e with existing vegetation screening" whereas the other OPs aJ.'e described as "no glaJ.'e with or without existing vegetation screening ," The MND does not explain this discrepancy, The revised analysis should include a "without vegetation" scenaJ.'io for OPl-8 and OP26, B. Project Glint May Blind Bikers on the San Gabriel River Bike Path. The MND fails to disclose or analyze whether the solaJ.' panels aJ.'e visible to north- bound bikers along the adjacent San Gabriel River bike path, The revised analysis must include analysis of glint. Bikers travel at high speed along this path, and a blinding flash from the panels as they whiz by could result in an accident and injmies , C. The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds. As birds fly at vaJ.ying altitudes, the glint and glare of the solaJ.' panels may impact birds , including species of special concem, that fly above or below 6 feet above ground, SolaJ.' aJ.Tays reflect light that, at celtain angles, makes the panels appear to birds as bodies of water. This "lake effect," can injme or kill birds that tIy to land in these nonexistent bodies of water, If affected birds include listed species known to inhabit Los CelTitos Wetlands, including state and federally-listed birds, the Project may "take" birds under the Acts, (Attachment 2, pp, 9-10,) SolaJ.' facilities may also interfere with songbird City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 12 migrations for spec ies relying on polarized light for Olientation. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) A review of studies of solar facilities reported: By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and flyaway. Birds that collide with the panels are also lik ely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation . As well as increasing the direct tisk of collision and injuries , diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy resetves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mOltality £i'om statvation. Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds £i'om taking-off. For exatnple, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (ensu) -including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podici-pedifonnes), COlmorants (Suliformes), coots (GruifOlmes) and some ducks (Anseriformes ; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jatnaicensis) -and those that use water for some aspect of their life histOlY (e .g ., fatnily Chat'a-driidae) at'e atnongst the mOltalities at solat· facilities . Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented atnongst the cases where statvation has been identified as cause of death. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) While the MND claims impacts from the "lake effect" at'e unlikely due to the Project's small size and the presence of other neat'by water sources (MND p. 32), the MND cites no SUppOlt for this claim. That an impact occurs at lat'ge PV installations does not mean it will not occur at a smaller one. Birds may land at any perceived water bodies in the area, including the Project. Given the presence of wetlands nearby, and the higher prevalence of birds in the at'ea , the Project's location neat· water may exacerbate, not reduce , this potential impact. Fmthermore, the MND does not address potential interference with songbird migration. An ErR must be prepared to disclose , analy z e, and fully mitigate these potentially significant undisclosed impacts on biological resources. IV. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project's Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes. The Project 's Cultural Resow'ces assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cultural Landscape that has been identified for this at'ea in previously-approved environmental documents. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority'S 2021 Program ErR and City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19 ,2025 Page 13 the 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Southem Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project both indicate that consultations with local tribal groups identified a Traditional Cultur al Landscape throughout the cmrent extent of the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. The potential for this Traditional Cultmal Landscape was first described by consultations perfOlmed by Coastal Commission staff regarding the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. The LCWA's 2023 Cultmal Resomces Assessment for the Southem Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Cogstone, 2023) includes an evaluation of what is called the Puvungna Traditional Cultmal Landscape (PTCL). This evaluation determined that "The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of HistOI;C Places and has sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultmal Propelty. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible for the CRHR." (Attachment 2.) The proposed project's assessment of Tlibal Cultmal Resomces makes no mention of the PTCL and therefore does not consider potential impacts or offer mitigation measmes to avoid or minimize any such impacts. Impacts generated by the proposed Project to this Traditional Cultural Landscape would be considered significant and unavoidable based on the LCWA's previous CEQA detelminations in the area. Conclusion LCWLT thanks the City for its consideration of these comments and mges it to prepare an environmental impact repOlt before considering this potentially impactful Project fmther. Sincerely, Michelle Black Enclosmes I. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southem Los C erritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Cogstone (2023). City of Seal Beach Hellman Solru.' PV Electrical System Project September 19 , 2025 Page 14 2. P.A. Fleming, All that Glitters: Review of solar energy impacts on fauna, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2025). Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 1 I.A The MND’s Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated. The biological resource surveys are not outdated and are adequate for the CEQA review. Wetland Delineation - In California, an approved wetland delineation, also called a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is valid for five years, provided the site conditions haven't changed. There have been no significant changes to the site area since the delineation. Focused Botanical and Least Bell Viero Surveys – The purpose of the biological surveys was to determine what species could be present in the project areas so that mitigation measures could be developed as part of the environmental review. The surveys that were conducted were adequate to meet the requirements of CEQA. The botanical surveys identified several sensitive plant and wildlife species in the project area including the Southern Tar Plant, Coulter’s Goldfield, and the Least Bell’s Vireo. Impacts to these species were found to be potentially significant unless mitigation was applied. Mitigation included no construction activities during the bird nesting season, and the implementation of a Southern Tar Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The mitigation also requires that this plan be expanded to include the Coulter’s Goldfield if this plant was found in the project area as part of required pre-construction surveys. A copy of the Southern Tar Plant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan was included in Appendix F of the IS/MND. I.B The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND. According to the Coastal Commission, the presence of any one of three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydrophytes, or hydric soils) qualifies an area as a wetland. These are the criteria that were used in the Wetland Delineation include in Appendix F. The presence of ponded water as discussed in the comment does not by itself qualify an area as a wetland. The Commission’s determination of the presence of a “One Parameter Wetland” typically follows the methods contained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual 7 (Wetland Manual) and more recently, the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (AWS v.2.0). As discussed in the Wetland Delineation Report, the project site lacks hydric soil indicators, does not have indicators for wetland hydrology that are not associated with ponding due to rainfall totaling 185 percent of normal, and has a plant community with a collective prevalence index of 3.91., the western field does not meet the thresholds for Coastal Act wetlands in accordance with the criteria established in the AWS v 2.0. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 2 The ponding discussed in the comment is addressed in the Wetland Delineation Report included as part of Appendix F of the IS/MND. On March 6, 2023, a ponded area was observed in the western field that remained ponded for longer than 14 days. However, this ponding was due to a series of high rainfall total storm events, and not indicative of wetland hydrology. As of April 2, 2023, rainfall during the 2022- 2023 water year totaled 20.46 inches, which is 185 percent normal. February rainfall totaled 2.90 inches and March rainfall totaled 6.91 inches. It is noteworthy that indicators for hydric soils were not detected within the western field, including the area with ponding, suggesting that sufficient ponding has not occurred over the years that has resulted in the formation of hydric indicators. I.C Least Bell’s Vireo Use the Project Site. Surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo were conducted as part of the biological assessment in 2022. The species was considered present within the Heron Pointe Bioswale, which has the appropriate foraging habitat for this bird species. This is discussed in the IS/MND biological resources section and in Appendix F. As discussed in Appendix F, Heron Pointe Bioswale is not within the project site, and would not be physically disturbed during construction of the solar facility. The Project site does not support any riparian habitat suitable for least Bell’s Vireo. The IS/MND did find that noise from construction could impact the Heron Pointe Bioswale thereby affecting the Least Bell’s Vireo, which could have a significant impact. Mitigation included limiting construction activities to outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. With the mitigation, the project would not result in a take of the Least Bell’s Vireo. I.D An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts. The Fuel Modification Zones discussed in the comment and in the IS/MND are not associated with the Proposed project and are part of the ongoing oil operation and are therefore considered part of the baseline and not subject to review in the IS/MND. The Fuel Modification Zones are a requirement of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) as part of a fire prevention program. The Fuel Modification Zones are areas within 100 feet of oil wells, electrical equipment, and associated facilities are subject to required maintenance/mowing due to fire risk. As discussed in the IS/MND, the fuel modification areas are periodically maintained to remove any vegetation that presents a fire hazard, but these areas support annual grasses and forbs which reestablish during the interval between maintenance events. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 3 In December 2022 and February 2023, Southern California Edison powerlines fell within the Hellman property. Emergency repairs were completed without incident, including fire or damage to oil field facilities, but these events underscore the need for periodic fuel modification on the Hellman Property. I.E. The Project’s Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance. The Applicant has committed to implementing mitigation measure BIO-2, which requires the site to not be graded. As such, the words “to the extent feasible” can be removed from the mitigation measure. The ongoing mowing that occurs within the Hellman Oil Field Property is a requirement of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) as part of a fire prevention program and is not related to the Proposed project. This is an existing baseline condition unrelated to the Proposed Project. As discussed above for item I.A above, the Wetland Delineation is good for a period of five years, provided the site conditions haven't changed. Since the Wetland Delineation report covers the wet year period in 2023, there is not a need for an updated jurisdictional wetland assessment unless construction is delayed till fall of 2027. Pre-construction surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo are not required since the project site does support any riparian habitat suitable for least Bell’s Vireo and construction activities are restricted to outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. As such, the project would not result in a take of the Least Bell’s Vireo, and consultations with the resources agencies is not required. II. The Project May Have Significant Undisclosed and Unmitigated Hydrological Impacts. The IS/MND discussed the potential for flooding at the project site. the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by FEMA. The site is within Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood plain); an area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot; an area with drainage areas less than 1 square miles; or an area protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. Therefore, the potential for flooding is very low. As part of the approved Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, a 6-foot earthen berm would be constructed along the southern perimeter of the project site to prevent any hydraulic connection between the project site and the proposed Southern Los Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 4 Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, located to the south of the project site. This berm was not a mitigation measure but rather part of the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project that has now been approved. The CEQA document prepared for the wetland restoration Project stated the following in the project description, “A perimeter earthen berm or flood wall would be constructed in the near term to maintain protection of the Hellman Retained site from seasonally high tide levels and storm events”. Therefore, evaluating flooding impact with the berm/flood wall present is correct action under CEQA since this project has been approved and is expected to begin construction this year and would be in place prior to the planned construction of the Solar PV Project. The Moffitt and Nichol report for 2019, was a sea level rise study that looked at flooding issues for the entire Hellman Property including the PV Solar Project site and therefore is a relevant source of information for the flooding analysis. The report is provided in the reference list for the IS/MND and is available from the City as part of the administrative record. CEQA does not require that all reference documents be included as an appendix to the environmental document but rather that reference documents be made available if requested. III.A The Project May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal Gathering Area. Several of the glare analysis were selected to represent the edge of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration Property boundary, where the perimeter berm would be located. Analysis points #28 and #29 were located on the northern edge of the wetland boundary, which is closest to the proposed solar PV array. The analysis was done at a height of 6 feet above ground surface since this represented the baseline conditions. If this height was adjusted to 12 feet to account for the future berm that will be built as part of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration the result for point #28 would remain the same with no glare found. For point #29 the level of green glare would increase from 26.6 hrs per year to 32.7 hrs per year. The glare at this point would be during Sunrise from April through August. Peak day glare would increase from about 15 mins per day to 18 mins per day. The glare is associated with the easternmost solar array. As discussed in the IS/MND, these values assume no clouds or fog during the sunrise period. At the 12 foot height for these points, the impact would still be considered less than significant since the glare is in the green zone. Analysis point #27 is located along the edge of the Los Cerritos Wetland that runs north to south. The analysis for this point was done at a height of 6 feet above the ground surface since this represented the baseline conditions. If this height was adjusted to 12 feet to Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 5 account for the future berm that will be built as part of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration the results would remain the same with no glare found. Analysis point #31 is located along the edge of the Los Cerritos Wetland that runs east to west along the southern boundary. The analysis for this point was done at a height of 6 feet above the ground surface since this represented the baseline conditions. If this height was adjusted to 12 feet to account for the future berm that will be built as part of the Los Cerritos Wetland Restoration the results would remain the same with no glare found. III.B Project Glint May Blind Bikers on the San Gabriel River Bike Path. Several of the glare analysis points are near the San Gabriel River Bike Path (#24 and 25). These points are within 200 to 300 feet of the bike path and as such represent reasonable estimates of the glare impact to the bike path. Both points had no glare impacts. If these two points were moved to the location of the bike path with an height of 6 feet, glare impacts would remain the same, no glare impacts. III.C The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds. The issue of lake effect associated with PV systems was only recently defined based upon levels of bird mortality associated with utility-scale solar energy (USSE) facilities. However, there is limited understanding of the phenomenon. Several studies have been conducted at various PV sites, with most being at USSEs that are 50 MW to over 300 MW, much larger than 1.5 MW for the proposed Project. The results of these studies were somewhat inconclusive and suggested that further research was needed to better understand the lake effect hypothesis. As such, the California Energy Commission (CEC) undertook a research study to better understand the lake effect hypothesis (LEH). It is hypothesized in this report that the mortality of birds at PV facilities results from birds being attracted to and impacted by, solar PV arrays and nearby surfaces after perceiving them as a lake or some sort of oasis. To address the LEH in the context of attraction by birds to PV solar facilities, the project had the following objectives: • Measure the light polarization properties of PV surfaces under various conditions and test how these characteristics may attract birds. • Establish whether birds in flight respond behaviorally to PV solar facilities, and if that response varies with direction of travel, time-of-day, and altitude. • Determine how birds interact with solar facilities relative to nearby reference areas. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 6 The results of this study were published in June 2024. At the time the IS/MND was prepared this was the most recent and comprehensive study of lake effect hypothesis for Southern California. The major conclusions of the study were as follows. The Study demonstrated that solar panels mimic water surfaces in terms of polarization, although they cannot mimic other properties such as waves or the feel of water. The experiments showed that birds prefer to approach features such as feeding stations that polarized the most. The study also found that bird fatalities occurred more frequently inside PV facilities than outside the facilities in desert/scrub landscapes or grasslands reference sites. In contrast, bird use and the number of fatalities was similar at the PV facility located in irrigated agricultural landscape and the associated reference area. Some of the results of this study are consistent with key predictions and assumptions of the lake effect hypothesis. The results, however, do not confirm it conclusively. The study struggled to identify which bird species changed flight paths around solar facilities to confirm if these were the species that suffered fatalities; nor did researchers observe any bird collisions or strandings that could be directly linked to attraction to solar panels. The results from this study suggest that some species of aquatic habitat birds could be attracted to photovoltaic (PV) utility-scale solar energy (USSE) facilities, and if attraction occurs, it is likely context-dependent. The most compelling evidence for attraction is the mortality of water-obligate species (e.g., loons) found at PV USSE facilities in desert environments without water; those species perish on dry land. The Study found that a lake effect hypothesis cannot be readily generalized to all aquatic habitat birds in all landscape contexts, but it seems to hold for some species in some landscapes. The project was limited to facilities in southern and central California, in arid desert and grassland landscapes and one surrounded by irrigated agriculture. It seems likely that the lake effect may be most impactful in regions where water bodies sought by aquatic habitat birds are scarce. The analysis and conclusions in the IS/MND are based primarily on the CEC study and are consistent with the finding in CEC study. While, the impacts of the lake effect in various environments is not fully understood, the IS/MND used the most recent available information to assess the impacts for the proposed Project. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Response to Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP Comment Letter on IS/MND 7 IV. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes. The City conducted the required AB 52 consultation with tribes during the CEQA process. The results of these consultations are discussed in the IS/MND. In addition, the Applicant meet with representative from the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council regarding the project. As a result of this discussion and based upon past archeological surveys, the footprint of the proposed PV Solar facility was modified to assure that the project would not impact a known Native American cultural site. The site for the proposed PV facility is within an existing oil field that is industrial in nature. Oil and gas production and processing equipment is located throughout Hellman Property. This addition of the PV solar facility to this existing industrial area would not affect the overall landscape of the property and as such would not have a significant impact on the Tribal Cultural Landscape associated with the Hellman Property. The IS/MND has mitigation measures that cover Native American Monitoring, handling of unanticipated discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and unanticipated discovery of human remains. Implementation of these measures would also reduce any impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes. Attachment A – Updated Glare Analysis FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh Central Array 10.0 180.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 1 10.0 180.0 1,780 29.7 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 2 10.0 180.0 1,802 30.0 0 0.0 - Western Array 10.0 180.0 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 - Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 Project: Hellman Solar Project Solar Project at Hellman Oil Field in Seal Beach CA Site configuration: Hellman Solar Field-temp-0-temp-2 Created 30 Sep, 2025 Updated 30 Sep, 2025 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-8 Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m Category 1 MW to 5 MW Site ID 160752.20058 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad PV analysis methodology V2 2 Page 1 of 25 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 3,582 59.7 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 2 of 25 Component Data PV Arrays Name: Central Array Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.754039 -118.093793 4.00 1.00 5.00 2 33.753731 -118.093800 4.00 1.00 5.00 3 33.753726 -118.093545 4.00 1.00 5.00 4 33.753631 -118.093547 4.00 1.00 5.00 5 33.753627 -118.093275 4.00 1.00 5.00 6 33.753484 -118.093276 4.00 1.00 5.00 7 33.753483 -118.092995 4.00 1.00 5.00 8 33.753799 -118.092995 4.00 1.00 5.00 9 33.753800 -118.093269 4.00 1.00 5.00 10 33.753903 -118.093269 4.00 1.00 5.00 11 33.753908 -118.093539 4.00 1.00 5.00 12 33.754034 -118.093536 4.00 1.00 5.00 Name: Eastern Array 1 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.753167 -118.092573 3.00 1.00 4.00 2 33.753160 -118.092011 3.00 1.00 4.00 3 33.752949 -118.092015 3.00 1.00 4.00 4 33.752955 -118.092298 3.00 1.00 4.00 5 33.753005 -118.092296 3.00 1.00 4.00 6 33.753011 -118.092573 3.00 1.00 4.00 Page 3 of 25 Name: Eastern Array 2 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.752889 -118.092570 3.00 1.00 4.00 2 33.752886 -118.092302 3.00 1.00 4.00 3 33.752840 -118.092304 3.00 1.00 4.00 4 33.752840 -118.092023 3.00 1.00 4.00 5 33.752733 -118.092022 3.00 1.00 4.00 6 33.752736 -118.092302 3.00 1.00 4.00 7 33.752440 -118.092300 3.00 1.00 4.00 8 33.752436 -118.092569 3.00 1.00 4.00 Name: Western Array Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.754786 -118.094476 4.00 1.00 5.00 2 33.754214 -118.094492 4.00 1.00 5.00 3 33.754200 -118.094136 4.00 1.00 5.00 4 33.754055 -118.094141 4.00 1.00 5.00 5 33.754070 -118.094498 4.00 1.00 5.00 6 33.754171 -118.094494 4.00 1.00 5.00 7 33.754176 -118.094632 4.00 1.00 5.00 8 33.754220 -118.094630 4.00 1.00 5.00 9 33.754223 -118.094854 4.00 1.00 5.00 10 33.754388 -118.094847 4.00 1.00 5.00 11 33.754401 -118.095211 4.00 1.00 5.00 12 33.754987 -118.095183 4.00 1.00 5.00 13 33.754972 -118.094822 4.00 1.00 5.00 14 33.754800 -118.094827 4.00 1.00 5.00 Page 4 of 25 Discrete Observation Point Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Elevation (ft) Height (ft) OP 1 1 33.752786 -118.090415 19.90 6.00 OP 2 2 33.752664 -118.090452 20.90 6.00 OP 3 3 33.752483 -118.090526 20.10 6.00 OP 4 4 33.752349 -118.090572 20.70 6.00 OP 5 5 33.752221 -118.090671 20.10 6.00 OP 6 6 33.752001 -118.090726 21.40 6.00 OP 7 7 33.751856 -118.090778 20.70 6.00 OP 8 8 33.751711 -118.090802 19.40 6.00 OP 9 9 33.751555 -118.090855 18.80 6.00 OP 10 10 33.751427 -118.090952 18.60 6.00 OP 11 11 33.751281 -118.091064 19.50 6.00 OP 12 12 33.751154 -118.091143 19.30 6.00 OP 13 13 33.750790 -118.091390 18.40 6.00 OP 14 14 33.750686 -118.091528 16.70 6.00 OP 15 15 33.750462 -118.091751 16.70 6.00 OP 16 16 33.750276 -118.091899 17.90 6.00 OP 17 17 33.750079 -118.091991 22.50 6.00 OP 18 18 33.750014 -118.092097 21.80 6.00 OP 19 19 33.755464 -118.097277 4.70 6.00 OP 20 20 33.754507 -118.097738 4.70 6.00 OP 21 21 33.758793 -118.099999 6.00 6.00 OP 22 22 33.757536 -118.101222 5.70 0.00 OP 23 23 33.756046 -118.103196 5.40 0.00 OP 24 24 33.756331 -118.099705 10.60 6.00 OP 25 25 33.755306 -118.100897 13.88 7.00 OP 26 26 33.752598 -118.091390 3.94 6.00 OP 27 27 33.751705 -118.091411 9.67 12.00 OP 28 28 33.752156 -118.092389 10.19 12.00 OP 29 29 33.752155 -118.095105 5.89 12.00 OP 30 30 33.751359 -118.093174 10.15 0.00 OP 31 31 33.750146 -118.094132 6.70 12.00 OP 32 32 33.749344 -118.093136 44.72 6.00 OP 33 33 33.749395 -118.095200 43.91 6.00 OP 34 34 33.749395 -118.097384 32.25 6.00 Page 5 of 25 Obstruction Components Name: Bushes and Trees Along Fence Line Top height: 7.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) 1 33.752566 -118.091458 3.15 2 33.752753 -118.091404 3.96 3 33.752958 -118.091458 3.92 Name: Tree and Bushes Top height: 26.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) 1 33.752920 -118.090578 7.16 2 33.752090 -118.090894 11.62 3 33.751769 -118.090927 13.51 4 33.751140 -118.091350 14.68 Page 6 of 25 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh Central Array 10.0 180.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 1 10.0 180.0 1,780 29.7 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 2 10.0 180.0 1,802 30.0 0 0.0 - Western Array 10.0 180.0 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 - Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 3,582 59.7 0 0.0 Page 7 of 25 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 8 of 25 PV: Central Array no glare found Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 9 of 25 Central Array and OP 1 No glare found Central Array and OP 2 No glare found Central Array and OP 3 No glare found Central Array and OP 4 No glare found Central Array and OP 5 No glare found Central Array and OP 6 No glare found Central Array and OP 7 No glare found Central Array and OP 8 No glare found Central Array and OP 9 No glare found Central Array and OP 10 No glare found Central Array and OP 11 No glare found Central Array and OP 12 No glare found Central Array and OP 13 No glare found Central Array and OP 14 No glare found Page 10 of 25 Central Array and OP 15 No glare found Central Array and OP 16 No glare found Central Array and OP 17 No glare found Central Array and OP 18 No glare found Central Array and OP 19 No glare found Central Array and OP 20 No glare found Central Array and OP 21 No glare found Central Array and OP 22 No glare found Central Array and OP 23 No glare found Central Array and OP 24 No glare found Central Array and OP 25 No glare found Central Array and OP 26 No glare found Central Array and OP 27 No glare found Central Array and OP 28 No glare found Page 11 of 25 Central Array and OP 29 No glare found Central Array and OP 30 No glare found Central Array and OP 31 No glare found Central Array and OP 32 No glare found Central Array and OP 33 No glare found Central Array and OP 34 No glare found Page 12 of 25 PV: Eastern Array 1 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 29 1,780 29.7 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 13 of 25 Eastern Array 1 and OP 29 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 1,780 min. Eastern Array 1 and OP 1 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 2 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 3 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 4 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 5 No glare found Page 14 of 25 Eastern Array 1 and OP 6 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 7 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 8 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 9 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 10 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 11 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 12 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 13 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 14 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 15 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 16 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 17 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 18 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 19 No glare found Page 15 of 25 Eastern Array 1 and OP 20 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 21 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 22 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 23 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 24 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 25 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 26 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 27 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 28 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 30 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 31 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 32 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 33 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 34 No glare found Page 16 of 25 PV: Eastern Array 2 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 29 1,802 30.0 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 17 of 25 Eastern Array 2 and OP 29 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 1,802 min. Eastern Array 2 and OP 1 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 2 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 3 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 4 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 5 No glare found Page 18 of 25 Eastern Array 2 and OP 6 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 7 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 8 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 9 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 10 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 11 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 12 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 13 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 14 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 15 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 16 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 17 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 18 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 19 No glare found Page 19 of 25 Eastern Array 2 and OP 20 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 21 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 22 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 23 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 24 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 25 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 26 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 27 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 28 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 30 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 31 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 32 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 33 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 34 No glare found Page 20 of 25 PV: Western Array low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 21 of 25 Western Array and OP 20 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 1,185 min. Western Array and OP 1 No glare found Western Array and OP 2 No glare found Western Array and OP 3 No glare found Western Array and OP 4 No glare found Western Array and OP 5 No glare found Page 22 of 25 Western Array and OP 6 No glare found Western Array and OP 7 No glare found Western Array and OP 8 No glare found Western Array and OP 9 No glare found Western Array and OP 10 No glare found Western Array and OP 11 No glare found Western Array and OP 12 No glare found Western Array and OP 13 No glare found Western Array and OP 14 No glare found Western Array and OP 15 No glare found Western Array and OP 16 No glare found Western Array and OP 17 No glare found Western Array and OP 18 No glare found Western Array and OP 19 No glare found Page 23 of 25 Western Array and OP 21 No glare found Western Array and OP 22 No glare found Western Array and OP 23 No glare found Western Array and OP 24 No glare found Western Array and OP 25 No glare found Western Array and OP 26 No glare found Western Array and OP 27 No glare found Western Array and OP 28 No glare found Western Array and OP 29 No glare found Western Array and OP 30 No glare found Western Array and OP 31 No glare found Western Array and OP 32 No glare found Western Array and OP 33 No glare found Western Array and OP 34 No glare found Page 24 of 25 Assumptions Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Several V1 calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. This primarily affects V1 analyses of path receptors. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. Page 25 of 25 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR: City of Seal Beach COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 211 EIGHTH STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 PREPARED BY: MRS Environmental, Inc. 1306 SANTA BARBARA ST SANTA BARBARA CA 93101 July 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT i INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for Project ..................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Public Agency Approvals Required .............................................................................................. 4 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Project Components .................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Solar Panels and Support Structures .................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Collector Cables, Inverters, and Subpanels ........................................................................ 7 2.1.3 Power Cables, Transformer, and Disconnect Switches ...................................................... 8 2.2 Project Construction .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Temporary Construction Work Areas ............................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Site Disturbance ................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.3 Construction Phases ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 Construction Workforce, Schedule, and Equipment ........................................................ 13 2.3 Project Operations ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Proposed Solar Facility Lifetime ................................................................................................ 14 3.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Environmental Checklist Form ................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................................. 16 3.3 Environmental Determination ................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Initial Study Checklist ............................................. 17 3.4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 24 3.4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 25 3.4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 28 3.4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 34 3.4.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................... 37 3.4.7 Geology/Soils .................................................................................................................... 39 3.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 44 3.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 46 3.4.10 Hydrology/Water Quality.................................................................................................. 48 3.4.11 Land Use/Planning ............................................................................................................ 53 3.4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 54 3.4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................. 54 3.4.14 Population/Housing .......................................................................................................... 57 3.4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 58 3.4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 59 3.4.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 60 3.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 62 3.4.19 Utilities/Service Systems ................................................................................................... 65 TABLE OF CONTENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT ii INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.4.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 68 3.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 70 4.0 List of Reference Documents .................................................................................................. 74 5.0 List of Preparers...................................................................................................................... 78 List of Table Table 1-1 Permits or Other Actions Required for Implementation of the Proposed Project ............. 4 Table 2-1 Summary of Solar Array Elements ...................................................................................... 7 Table 2-2 Inverter Pad Dimensions ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3 Transformer Pad Equipment Dimensions ........................................................................... 9 Table 2-4 Proposed Project Site Disturbance Areas ......................................................................... 10 Table 2-5 Construction Activities, Duration, Personnel, and Vehicle Trips ...................................... 13 Table 2-6 List of Offroad Construction Equipment by Phase............................................................ 14 Table 3-1 Summary of Analysis of Predicted Glare .......................................................................... 23 Table 3-2 Attainment Deadlines for Federal Non-Attainment Pollutants ........................................ 26 Table 3-3 Peak Day Construction Emissions by Phase ...................................................................... 27 Table 3-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions .......................................................................... 28 Table 3-5 Summary of Impacts to the Proposed Project Vegetation/Land Use Types .................... 31 Table 3-6 Estimated Construction Equipment Fuel Use (gals) ......................................................... 38 Table 3-7 Project GHG Emissions (MT/yr.) ....................................................................................... 45 Table 3-8 Peak Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 55 Table 3-9 Peak Operational Noise Levels .......................................................................................... 56 Table 3-10 Human Response to Transient Vibration .......................................................................... 57 Table 3-11 Estimated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ....................................................... 57 Table 3-12 Construction Vehicle Trips ................................................................................................ 61 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Regional Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2 Project Area Map ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-1 Location of Proposed Solar PV System on Helman Ranch OGPF Site ................................. 6 Figure 2-2 Typical Solar Array Tables ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-3 Proposed Solar Table Support Structures ........................................................................... 8 Figure 2-4 Typical String Inverters ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2-5 Proposed Solar PV Electrical System Footprint and Temporary Construction Areas ....... 11 Figure 3-1 Current View from Gum Grove Park Looking North ......................................................... 19 Figure 3-2 View from Gum Grove Park with Simulation of Solar Facility .......................................... 20 Figure 3-3 Location of Glare Analysis Observation Points ................................................................. 22 Figure 3-4 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone .................................................................................................. 40 Figure 3-5 Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in the Project Area .................... 43 Figure 3-6 City Waterlines in Vicinity of PV Solar Project .................................................................. 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT iii INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Appendices Appendix A – Mitigation Monitoring Program Appendix B – Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Drawings Appendix C – Miscellaneous Support Calculations Appendix D – Glare Analysis Appendix E – CalEEMod Air Emission Output Files Appendix F – Biological Technical Report Appendix G – Cultural Resources Assessment Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 1.0 Introduction This document provides an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project. The proposed Project would consist of the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system. This system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations and export any excess power to the utility grid. The proposed Project would require a Minor Use Permit (MUP) from the City of Seal Beach. The proposed Project requires compliance with environmental procedures (CEQA and CEQA Guidelines), with the City of Seal Beach serving as CEQA Lead Agency. The proposed Project would also require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission. The preparation of the Initial Study and MND is governed by two principal sets of documents: The California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter “CEQA,” California Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.). The environmental analysis presented in this document primarily focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the proposed Project. The environmental analysis also evaluates all phases of the Project, including construction and operation. In compliance with state law and procedures, the City has determined that an MND is the appropriate environmental compliance document for the proposed Project. The Initial Study checklist form and explanation discussion format meets the requirements of the CEQA. Section 15063(d)(3) requires that the entries on the Initial Study checklist identifying environmental effects be briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries. An Initial Study/MND is not intended or required to include a level of detail that would be provided in an EIR. Therefore, in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND is not intended to be a lengthy, detailed document. The CEQA Initial Study Checklist is used throughout Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis to assess the impacts of the proposed Project. Certain documents are incorporated by reference into this Initial Study/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15150. These documents are included in the refences listed in Section 4.0 of the document and are available for inspection at the City of Seal Beach offices. Several technical reports were used in developing the Initial Study/MND. These technical reports are included as Appendices to the Initial Study/MND. 1.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses The proposed Project site is located just north of First Street in the City of Seal Beach on parcel APN 95- 010-68. The proposed Solar PV Electrical System would be located on a 4.66 acre site within the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF). The existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site is located east of the San Gabriel River, and north of Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Seal Beach and covers about 57 acres. Seal Beach is located in the northwest portion of the County of Orange. A "Regional Map" is provided as Figure 1-1. Hellman Properties, LLC owns and operates the OGPF on the Hellman Ranch in Seal Beach, California, and would be the owner and operator of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System. A project area map is provided in Figure 1-2, that shows the location of the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas facility property. The Hellman Ranch property is located within The City’s Planning Area 2 and is zoned as Oil Extraction (OE). 1.0 INTRODUCTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The property to the south of the proposed Project site is owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority. This property is about 100 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). The property to the north of the proposed Project site is owned by the County of Orange and serves as a regional retention basin. This property is about 43 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). To the west of the proposed Project site is the Department of Water and Power Haynes Cooling Channel. On the far west side of the channel is property owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority, which is about 71 acres in size covering both sides of the San Gabriel River. This property is located within the City of Long Beach. Figure 1-1 Regional Map Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023. To the east of the proposed project property site is a small open space area that contains the Hellman Ranch Trail. This area is zoned open-space natural (OS-N). Just to the east of this open space is residential housing comprised of all single-family homes. This area is zoned Residential Low Density-9 (RLD-9). 1.0 INTRODUCTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 3 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 1.2 Purpose and Need for Project Currently, the electrical power used for the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas facilities, and the other associated facilities, such as the offsite gas plant, production wells, pump stations, etc. is provided by an onsite gas turbine generator and Southern California Edison via a direct connection with their electrical grid system. Figure 1-2 Project Area Map Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023. Hellman Properties is proposing to install a 1.5 MW Solar PV Electrical System, which would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the various Hellman Property facilities operations. Use of solar power to provide electrical power for the facility operations would serve to reduce overall air emissions associated with electrical power generation and reduce the overall operating cost of the Hellman facilities. 1.0 INTRODUCTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 1.3 Public Agency Approvals Required Table 1-1 provides a list of agencies that would need to issue permits for the proposed Solar PV Electrical System. The remainder of this section discusses the key public agencies that have permitting authority over the various operations at the Hellman Ranch Property. City of Seal Beach The proposed Project would be located within the City of Seal Beach, and the project would require a minor use permit (MUP) from the City. Section 11.2.15.010 of the City Municipal Code covers use regulations for the oil extraction district. Table 11.2.15.010 shows that a MUP is required for major utility projects within the oil extraction zone. The MUP would be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, whose decision can be appealed to the City Council. Table 1-1 Permits or Other Actions Required for Implementation of the Proposed Project Agency Jurisdiction Permit/Action City of Seal Beach CEQA Lead Agency, Land Use Authority Certification of the IS/MND Minor Use Permit (MUP) Compliance Review and Construction Permits Operations Compliance California Coastal Commission Land Use Authority Under the Coastal Act for Projects within the Coastal Zone Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Regional Water Quality Control Board Control of Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites Greater than 1 Acre Construction General Permit (CGP) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The City of Seal Beach, as the CEQA lead agency, will act first on the Project before any of the responsible agencies act on the Project. The City of Seal Beach decision-makers (Planning Commission and on appeal, the City Council) will use the IS/MND for decision-making regarding the proposed Project. If the proposed Project is approved by all required permitting agencies, the City would be responsible for reviewing and approving all pre-construction compliance plans and ensuring that the proposed Project modifications and operations are conducted in accordance with the Development Plan conditions. California Coastal Commission (CCC) The CCC issues Coastal Development Permits (CDP) for development within the City of Seal Beach’s coastal zone since the City does not have an approved Local Coastal Plan (LCP). All the Hellman Ranch OGPF property is within the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permits are the regulatory mechanism by which proposed developments in the coastal zone are brought into compliance with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The CCC has issued previous CDPs for the Hellman Ranch OGPF facilities, including the Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Replacement Project. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is responsible for regulating stormwater at the Hellman Ranch OGPF. The existing Hellman Ranch OGPF operations currently operate under General Permit CAS000001 for Industrial Activities, which have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirements. In the Orange County area, the stormwater program covers discharges from construction sites with land disturbance of 1 acre or more. Since the project site is larger than one-acre in size the Applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to use the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The existing SWPPP should be adequate to cover the construction and operation of the Solar PV Electrical System Project. 1.0 INTRODUCTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 5 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) The property is within the jurisdiction of the OCFA. The OCFA regulates combustible materials in Seal Beach. Hellman LLC has permits from the OCFA that allow the installation, construction, alteration and operation of oil and gas processing facilities. The OCFA also regulates the requirements for vegetation clearing at the Hellman Ranch OGPF. Hellman is required to clear vegetation within about 100 feet of all active oil and gas operating facilities, including production and injection wells. The installation and operation of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System would not require any modification of the current OCFA permits. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) CalGEM permits and oversees the production of oil and gas at the Hellman Ranch facility. Their primary focus of CalGEM is on the construction and operation of the oil/gas production wells and water injection wells, as well as reservoir issues. CalGEM would not regulate the construction and operation of Solar PV Electrical System. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require any permits for CalGEM. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The Hellman Ranch OGPF has several permits with the SCAQMD covering various air emitting equipment. No new air permits would be required for the construction and operation of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System since the project would have minimal operational air emissions and the construction emissions are below the threshold that would require a construction permit. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 6 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 2.0 Project Description The proposed Project would consist of the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system on the Helman Ranch OGPF property. This system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. Electrical power generated in excess of Hellman facility needs would be exported to the SCE grid. Figure 2-1 shows location of the proposed solar PV system. The proposed system would be located on a 4.66 acre site within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF. The system would be composed of 3 arrays with a total of 56 solar table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. Appendix B provides detailed system drawings for the solar PV project. Figure 2-1 Location of Proposed Solar PV System on Helman Ranch OGPF Site Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023. 2.1 Project Components The major components of the solar system would include (1) the solar panels and support structures, (2) collector cables, inverters, and subpanels, and (3) power cables, transformer, and disconnect Switches. Each of these is discussed below. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 7 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 2.1.1 Solar Panels and Support Structures Solar energy would be captured by solar panels mounted to a fixed-tilt support structure. The system would be comprised of three arrays of solar tables. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the key elements of each of the solar arrays. Table 2-1 Summary of Solar Array Elements Array# # Solar Tables # Solar Panels # Support Structures Array 1 22 1,196 150 Array 2 17 952 119 Array 3 17 952 119 Total 56 3,100 388 Source: Hellman Plan Set 12-06-2022, Newport Power (see Attachment B). All but one of the solar tables would be about 96.8 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and would contain two rows of 28 solar panels. One of the solar tables in Array 1 would be about 34.6 feet long by about 14.3 feet wide and contain two rows of 10 solar panels. The solar tables would be tilted facing south at about a 10 degree angle. The front edge of the tables would be at a height of approximately 18-inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches. Figure 2-2 provides a picture of a typical solar array table. Figure 2-2 Typical Solar Array Tables Source: Newport Solar, QCells America The larger tables would be supported by seven support structures. The one smaller table would be supported by three support structures. Each support structure would be attached to a metal pile that would be set six feet into the ground using concrete piers. The concrete piers would be about 18-inches in diameter. Figure 2-3 shows a picture of the type of solar table support structures that would be used for the proposed Project. The solar panels would be at a fixed tilt angle of 10 degrees facing the south. 2.1.2 Collector Cables, Inverters, and Subpanels Underground collector cables, installed within trenches, would collect direct current (DC) power from each solar table and transport the power to a set of inverters. The inverters are used to convert the power 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 8 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 from DC to alternating current (AC). There would be a total of 16 inverters located on four separate concrete pads. One of the inverter pads would be located at solar array 1, one at solar array 2 and two pads at solar array 3. Table 2-2 provides the dimensions for the Inverter pads. Figure 2-3 Proposed Solar Table Support Structures Source: Newport Solar, SOL Components Table 2-2 Inverter Pad Dimensions Pad Type Location Length (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #1 Array #1 38 5.5 0.33 Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #2 Array #2 33 5.5 0.33 Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #3 Array #3 17 5.5 0.33 Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #4 Array #3 17.25 5.5 0.33 Source: Newport Power email dated 8-3-23. Most of each pad would be located under a solar table, with approximately two feet extending beyond the edge of the solar table. The inverter pads would be located on the back side of a solar table. The inverter would feed alternating current (AC) to a transformer via underground cables. Figure 2-4 shows a typical layout for an inverter string that would service a set of solar tables. One of the inverter pads at each solar array would also house a PV subpanel. The subpanels would house a main electrical beaker as well as a breaker for each of the inverters. This would allow each solar array or inverter to be isolated from the system for maintenance work. Attachment B, Hellman Properties Seal Beach Solar PV Electrical System Installation Drawings, provides more detail on the layout of the solar tables, inverters, and subpanels. 2.1.3 Power Cables, Transformer, and Disconnect Switches AC power from the inverters would be sent via underground power cables to a central transformer station, which would adjust the AC voltage for transmission to the existing Hellman facility main electrical service panel, which connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) system. The pad for the transformer would be about 12 feet wide by 33 feet long. The pad would also house a subpanel and two disconnect switches. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 9 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The disconnect switches would be located on either side of the transformer. The subpanel would house a main electrical beaker as well as a breaker for each of the solar arrays. Figure 2-4 Typical String Inverters Source: Newport Solar, Chint Power Systems This would allow each solar array or the entire solar system to be isolated for maintenance work. Attachment B, Hellman Properties Seal Beach Solar PV Electrical System Installation Drawings, provides more detail on the layout of the equipment on the transformer pad. Table 2-3 provides the dimensions of the equipment that would be on the transformer pad. Table 2-3 Transformer Pad Equipment Dimensions Equipment Length (ft) Width (ft) Height (ft) Transformer 7.25 7.75 7.0 Subpanel 3.96 10.5 7.63 Disconnect Switch 2.5 3.33 7.17 Source: Newport Power email dated 8-14-23. Approximately 600 feet of underground trench would be needed to connect the inverters to the transformer. The trench would be approximately 2 feet wide and contain two 5-inch conduits. The depth of the trench would vary between 18-inches and 24-inches, with the larger depth being in areas of road crossings. The powerlines connecting the transformer pad to the existing Hellman facility’s main electrical service panel would be placed underground in a 2.5-inch conduit. 2.2 Project Construction Construction of the proposed Solar PV Electrical System would take about three to four months to complete and would involve several phases. Figure 2-5 shows the proposed Project layout and associated 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 10 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 construction area. The remainder of this section discussed various aspects of the construction phase of the project. 2.2.1 Temporary Construction Work Areas A temporary staging area would be required to stage equipment and supplies during construction as shown in Figure 2-5. The temporary staging would only be used during Project construction and would be restored to preconstruction conditions at the completion of construction. The area is currently an unpaved dirt pad. The staging area would be about 0.14 acres in size (120 feet x 50 feet) and would be entirely within the existing Hellman facility boundary. This area would be used for construction personnel parking, truck loading and unloading, and equipment and material delivery and staging. Heavy equipment not permitted on public roadways would be refueled on- site; however, fuel would not be stored overnight on the Project site. Equipment maintenance activities would be conducted off-site. 2.2.2 Site Disturbance The area of temporary and permanent disturbance for each of the Project components is provided in Table 2-4. Areas of temporary disturbance include areas that would be allowed to revegetate following construction. The solar array area would be subject to limited grading during construction, but much of the solar array area would be allowed to naturally revegetate once the solar tables were installed. Temporary disturbance areas include temporary work areas and the portions of the project area are expected to revegetate after construction. The area of permanent disturbance includes the footprint of the solar arrays, and the equipment pads. While the area underneath and between the solar tables would be allowed to revegetate, it has been included in the permanent disturbance area. Table 2-4 Proposed Project Site Disturbance Areas Project Component Temporary Disturbance (acres) Permanent Disturbance (acres) Total Disturbance (acres) Solar Array Tables 1.48b 2.65a 4.13 Equipment Pads 0.00c 0.01 0.01 Underground Power Lines 0.29d 0.00 0.29 Staging Area 0.14 0.00 0.14 Total 1.91 2.66 4.57 a. Includes all areas within each solar array including the area under the solar tables. b. Assumes up to 20 feet of temporary impact on all sides of the components, except where there is overlap. c. Temporary impacts areas for equipment pads are included in the underground power lines. d. Temporary impacted area is based upon the area of the trench work that is outside of the permanent or temporary impact areas of the solar arrays. Assumes 2 foot wide trench and 10 feet of work area on either side of trench. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Appendix B provides detailed area calculations for the solar array tables. 2.2.3 Construction Phases Construction of the proposed Project would involve several phases that include (1) site preparation; (2) support pile installation; (3) solar PV system, equipment, and conduit installation; and (4) testing and commissioning. Each of these phases is discussed below. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 11 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Figure 2-5 Proposed Solar PV Electrical System Footprint and Temporary Construction Areas Source: Newport Solar 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 12 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Site Preparation The initial site preparation would involve removal of the vegetative cover, and the removal of any miscellaneous debris and other deleterious material. Organic matter and other material that may interfere with the completion of the work would be removed from the limits of the construction area. The site would require minimal grading since it is already flat and grading is not necessary for the installation of the solar support structures. Limited grading may be needed for the equipment pads areas. The project would not involve any cut and fill, or the import/export of any soil. Portions of the site have already had vegetation removed as part of the required fuel modification program, which requires areas within 100 feet of oil wells, electrical equipment, and associated facilities to be periodically maintained to remove any vegetation that presents a fire hazard. Other portions of the site are clear of vegetation since they are existing road or pad areas. The Applicant has proposed that archeological and Native American monitors would be present during all ground disturbance activities. These monitors would be actively involved in the planning and implementation of ground disturbance activities. As shown in Figure 2-5, a 20-foot buffer near the south end of solar array 3 will be maintained near the known archaeological site. Support Pile Installation Solar array construction would start with the installation of the support structure piles, which would be installed by drilling holes and setting the metal piles in concrete. The holes would likely be drilled with a backhoe that is equipped with an augur attachment. Each support structure would have one pile, so a total of 388 pilings would need to be installed. Each piling would be installed to a depth of six feet. A three- inch gravel base would be installed below each pile. The piles would be set in a concrete pier with a diameter of approximately 18-inches using casings. Previous studies at the Hellman Property site have estimated depth to groundwater to be between four and seven feet below ground surface (bgs) (Wood 2018). Therefore, it is possible that water could be encountered during the installation of the piles. If groundwater is encountered, the pilings and concrete piers can be set in wet conditions. It is not anticipated that any dewatering would be needed to set the piles. Excess soil from the boring of the pile holes would be spread out on the surrounding ground, in the areas where the solar tables would be located. Once the support structures piles are in place, the support structures and remaining solar PV system can be installed. Solar PV System, Equipment and Conduit Installation Once the piles have been installed the next step would be attaching the support structures to the piles. Other work that would proceed in parallel would be the installation of the equipment pads, and the digging of the conduit trenches. The final activities in this phase would be installation of the conduits and backfilling of the trenches, installation of the solar tables, and installation of the electrical equipment (inverters, subpanels, transformer, etc.). The conduit trenches approximately 2 feet wide and 18 to 24 inches deep would be excavated using a backhoe along the collection-line corridors, as shown in Figure 2-5. The electrical conduits would be installed in the trenches and then the trenches would be backfilled with native soils. The construction of the five equipment pads would involve the setting of forms and placement of rebar, and then the pouring of concrete. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 13 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The final stage of this construction phase would be the placement of the solar panels/tables onto the support structures, the installation of the inverters, subpanels, and transformer, followed by the installation of the electrical wires for the system. Underground power cables would be installed from the transformer pad to the existing Hellman property main service panel, which connects to the Hellman facilities as well as an existing SCE 12-kV distribution line. Testing and Commissioning Inspection, testing, and commissioning of the PV solar facility would be performed prior to operation of the Project, to establish an as-built baseline for the system, to ensure safe operation of the solar facility, and to confirm that the system is performing as expected. 2.2.4 Construction Workforce, Schedule, and Equipment Workforce and Work Hours The construction workforce would consist of approximately 4 to 10 construction personnel depending upon the construction phase as shown in Table 2-5. Approximately 10 construction personnel would be on-site daily at the peak construction. Construction would occur between 7 am and 6 pm Monday through Friday. Table 2-5 Construction Activities, Duration, Personnel, and Vehicle Trips Activity Duration (days) # Construction Workers per Day # Vendor Visits per Day # Delivery Trucks per Day Site Preparation 3 6 0 2 Support Pile Installation 21 8 1 4 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 20 10 1 4 Testing and Commissioning 20 4 2 0 Source: Newport Power Project Schedule Construction is anticipated to occur over an approximate three to four month period once all necessary regulatory permits and approvals have been obtained. Testing and commissioning would occur for approximately four weeks from the end of active construction. The anticipated duration of each construction activity is provided in Table 2-5. Equipment Table 2-6 provides a list of the estimated onsite equipment that would be needed for each phase of construction. Table 2-5 proves an estimate of the number of trucks that would be needed for delivering equipment and supplies to the project site during construction. Construction Waste Nonhazardous waste generated during construction (e.g., equipment packaging and trash generated by workers) would be temporarily stored in on-site dumpsters and disposed of off-site at an appropriate disposal facility. Any removed vegetation would be chipped on-site and spread on watershed property or composted. Typical construction-related hazardous substances such as lubricants, adhesives, and solvents would be disposed of off-site at an appropriate disposal facility. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 14 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Table 2-6 List of Offroad Construction Equipment by Phase Phase/Equipment Quantity Hours/Day Hp Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tire Dozer 1 8 84 0.37 Grader 1 8 148 0.41 Backhoe/Loader 1 8 84 0.37 Water Truck 1 4 376 0.38 Support Pile Installation Backhoe/Loader 1 7 84 0.37 Forklift 1 8 82 0.20 Generator 1 8 14 0.74 Water Truck 1 2 376 0.38 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Forklift 1 8 82 0.20 Backhoe/Loader 1 7 84 0.37 Generator 1 8 14 0.74 Welding 1 8 46 0.45 Water Truck 1 2 376 0.38 Source: Estimates based upon input from Newport Solar and other similar solar array installation projects. Hp and load factors from CalEEMod default values, Online version 2022.1.1.17. 2.3 Project Operations The solar facility operations would be monitored as part of the Hellman facility operations by the existing facility staff. The solar facility maintenance would be dispatched on an as-needed basis in response to equipment malfunction or decreased facility performance. It is estimated that five visits per year would be needed for general maintenance. Workers would visit the site in response to maintenance requests. Operation and maintenance of the facility would not create any new permanent employment positions. Manual washing of the solar panels would require approximately 1,500 gallons of water and would take approximately 2 days to complete. No chemicals would be used for panel washing. Water would be applied to the solar panels at a rate that would not result in runoff from the site. Wash water would be absorbed into the soil and vegetation underneath the panels. Panel washing will occur, as needed, typically once per year. Vegetation would be allowed to regrow under the panels. Vegetation that shades or interferes with the solar panel function or that poses a fire risk would be trimmed or removed, as needed. Vegetation management would be limited to mechanical removal, which would occur approximately twice per year. 2.4 Proposed Solar Facility Lifetime Solar panels typically have a functional lifetime of 25 to 30 years. Inverters typically operate without downtime-causing failure for extended periods of time – from 10 years to more than 25 years – when prescribed preventative maintenance is adhered to (DNV 2019). The manufacturer of the inverters for the proposed project offers extended warranties for up to 20 years (CPS 2021). At the end of their functional life, the inverters/panels could be replaced, or the system could be decommissioned and removed. The decision to replace the equipment or decommission the facility would likely be based upon several factors such as the remaining life of the oil field operations, the price of electrical power, the cost to replace the solar panels, etc. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 15 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.0 Environmental Analysis 3.1 Environmental Checklist Form Project Title Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Lead Agency Name and Address City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Contact Person and Phone Number Shaun Temple Planning Manager City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431-2527, Ext. 1316 Project Location 1 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach, CA 90740 (just east of First Street) Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Hellman Properties, LLC P.O. Box 2398, Seal Beach, CA 90740 General Plan Designation: Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Zoning: Oil Extraction/Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Description of Project: The proposed Project would consist of the installation and operation of a 1.5 megawatt (MW) fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system. This system would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. The proposed Project would include three separate solar arrays, consisting of a total of 56 solar tables, which would be comprised of 3,100 solar panels. The proposed PV system would cover approximately 2.66 acres on the north edge of the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF). Surrounding Land Uses The property to the south of the proposed Project property is owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority. This property is about 100 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). The property to the north of the proposed Project property is owned by the County of Orange and serves as a retention basin. This property is about 43 acres in size and is zoned open space-natural (OS-N). To the west of the proposed Project property is the Department of Water and Power Haynes Cooling Channel. On the far west side of the channel is property owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority, which is about 71 acres in size coving both sides of the San Gabriel River. This property is located within the City of Long Beach. To the east of the proposed Project property site is a small open space area that contains the Hellman Ranch Trail. This area is zoned open-space natural (OS-N). The site primarily contains ruderal upland vegetation. Just to the east of this open space is residential housing comprised of all single-family homes. This area is zoned Residential Low Density-9 (RLD-9). Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: California Coastal Commission Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 16 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☒Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture / Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy ☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☒ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 17 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Initial Study Checklist In developing the evaluation of the environmental impacts, the CEQA Environmental Checklist (also known as an “Initial Study”) was used. Each environmental issue listed on the checklist was marked “Potentially Significant Impact,” “Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated,” “Less Than Significant Impact,” or “No Impact” depending on the potential of the Project to have adverse impacts. For each checklist item an explanation/analysis is provided to support the level of impact determination. In developing the initial study checklist, the following guidelines from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were used. 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 18 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Each of the issue areas specified in the CEQA Environment Checklist is discussed below. 3.4.1 Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ The City of Seal Beach is a community located on the Pacific Ocean in northwest Orange County. The proposed Project would be located within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site. Pacific Coast Highway is the nearest state highway to the Project site, which is approximately 0.7 miles away. Due to the low high height of the panels (4.5 feet) and the surrounding area vegetation, the panels would not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Gum Grove Park is the nearest public park and borders the eastern edge of the Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Between Grove Gum Park and the Hellman OGPF is a wetland area that is owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority, who are proposing a wetland restoration project for this area. The proposed solar facility would be visible from Gum Grove Park and the Los Cerritos Wetland property. The topography of Hellman Ranch OGPF site is primarily flat terrain. a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The views from Gum Grove Park to the north look across the Hellman Ranch OGPF and in the distance are several large electrical generating stations. All the views are dominated by industrial type facilities. Figure 3-1 shows the current views from Gum Grove Park to the North. The brush area in the foreground of 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 19 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 picture in Figure 3-1 is the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority property. The oil tanks and oil well in the middle of the picture are part of the Hellman OGPF. Figure 3-1 Current View from Gum Grove Park Looking North Viewpoint from Gum Grove Park at 50mm focal length as a simulation of the eye view. The proposed solar facility would be located beyond the oil tanks and behind and to the right of the oil well and would be about 0.16 miles from the closest point in Grove Gum Park. The front edge of the solar tables would be at a height of approximately 18-inches, with the back edge of the tables being at a height of about 50 inches. Given the low profile of the solar tables, portions of the facility would be blocked from view by existing vegetation and equipment at the Hellman OGPF facility. Figure 3-2 provides a visual simulation of the proposed solar project as viewed from the closest point in Grove Gum Park. The proposed solar project would not significantly alter the views from Grove Gum Park or the Los Cerritos Wetland, which are dominated by existing large scale industrial facilities. The solar facility panels would not block views of any scenic vistas. The impact on scenic vistas would be less than significant. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) See response to Item 1(a) above. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no other Scenic Highways in Long Beach or Seal Beach. The closest eligible state scenic highway is Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1), which is located approximately 0.7 miles to the west of the project site, however, this is not a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not impact any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 20 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 scenic highway. No trees, rock outcroppings, or any structures would be removed from the property because of the Project. The proposed Project would not alter any views in the area and would be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Therefore, the project would have no impact on scenic resources. Figure 3-2 View from Gum Grove Park with Simulation of Solar Facility Viewpoint from Gum Grove Park at 50mm focal length as a simulation of the eye view. c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (No Impact) The project site is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning and plan regulations as it relates to scenic quality. The City of Seal Beach General Plan zoning for the solar facility site is industrial-oil extraction. The proposed solar facility would not impede the enhancement, implementation, preservation of the existing saltwater marsh, freshwater wetlands, and Gum Grove Park. Therefore, the proposed solar facility would not conflict with the City of Seal Beach general plan regulations as it relates to scenic quality. As such there would be No Impact. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact) Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the surrounding area include lights associated with the Hellman OGPF, the industrial facilities to the north of the site, and the commercial building to the northeast. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 21 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Construction Construction of the Project would primarily occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, and construction would last approximately 3 to 4 months. Lighting of construction work areas may be used during the morning or evening hours of construction for safety and security of personnel, particularly during the winter months when natural light is limited. Construction lighting would be temporary and all lights would be shielded and directed only toward the construction area so as not to impact surrounding areas. Project construction would not involve equipment or materials that would introduce a substantial source of glare. The impact from lighting and glare during construction would be less than significant. Operation There would be no permanent lighting installed as part of the proposed solar project. As such, there would be no lighting impacts associated with the operations of the PV solar facility. Solar panels are designed to be highly absorptive of light that strikes the panel surfaces, generating electricity rather than reflecting light. Solar panels have a lower index of refraction/reflectivity than common sources of glare in residential environments. Solar PV panels are constructed of dark-colored (usually blue or black) materials and are covered with anti-reflective coatings. Modern PV panels reflect as little as two percent of incoming sunlight, about the same as water and less than soil or even wood shingles (Meister 2014). The glare and reflectance levels of modules are further reduced with the application of antireflective coatings. PV suppliers typically use stippled glass for panels as the “texturing” of the glass to allow more light energy to be channeled/transmitted through the glass while weakening the reflected light. With application of anti-reflective coatings and the use of modern glass technology, Project solar panels would display overall low reflectivity. Although panel would have low reflectivity, some low level of reflectivity would still exist. To address potential glare impacts associated with photovoltaic (PV) solar arrays, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) developed the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT), a modeling/compliance analysis tool. This tool was originally developed for use in evaluating glare in the vicinity of airports. SGHAT is a web- based tool and methodology to evaluate potential glare associated with solar energy installations. The validated tool provides a quantified assessment of (1) when and where glare will occur throughout the year for a prescribed solar installation, (2) potential effects on the human eye at locations where glare occurs, and (3) the annual energy production from the array so that alternative designs can be compared to maximize energy production while mitigating the impacts of glare. The calculations and methods are based on analyses, test data, a database of different photovoltaic module surfaces (e.g., anti-reflective coating, texturing), and models developed over several years at Sandia. The model allows for the inclusion of obstructions such as trees, bushes, buildings, etc. The SGHAT tool categorizes glare into three levels of severity which are defined by three colors. • Red glare: glare predicted with a potential for permanent eye damage (retinal burn) • Yellow glare: glare predicted with a potential for temporary after-image • Green glare: glare predicted with a low potential for temporary after-image As a point of comparison, direct viewing of the sun without a filter is on the border between yellow glare and red glare, while typical camera flashes are considered to be lower tier yellow glare (approximately three orders of magnitude less than direct viewing of the sun). 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 22 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 For the purposes of this analysis, any glare that would impact residential properties was considered significant. On open space areas, glare that was greater than green was considered significant. The SGHAT tool, which is licensed for use in ForgeSolar for commercial use, was used to assess the glare impacts of the proposed Solar PV Project on nearby residential properties and open space areas in the vicinity of the project site. The model works by setting up the solar array(s) and their orientation as well as designating the location of residential or other receptors/observation points. Figure 3-3 shows the location of 34 observation points that were evaluated for glare impacts, and included the following: • The 18 residential homes that back up to the project area on Blue Herron (OP1-OP18); • Three residential homes that back up to the area along Crestview Avenue (OP32-OP34); • Three locations along the Hellman Ranch Trail (OP26, OP27, and OP31); • Two locations on the western side of the Hellman Property (OP19 and OP20); • Three locations in the South LCWA Site (OP28-OP30); • Two locations in Zedler Marsh Site (OP24 and OP25); and • Three locations in the Central LCWA Site (OP21-OP23). Figure 3-3 Location of Glare Analysis Observation Points Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 23 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 In evaluating impacts on the residential properties, observation points were set in backyards, with an observation height of 6 feet above ground level. For open space areas that are accessible via trail, the observation height was set at 6 feet above ground level. All other open space observation heights were set at ground level. The solar arrays would be tilted facing south at about a 10 degree angle. The greatest potential glare from the solar facility would occur during the sunrise/sunset periods when the sun is low on the horizon. Unabsorbed incoming light would reflect off the panels which could create glare effects. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the glare analysis results. Appendix D provides the detailed results of the glare analysis. Table 3-1 Summary of Analysis of Predicted Glare Observation Point Numbers Description Green Glare (hrs/year) Comments OP1-OP8 Residential Properties at North End of Blue Heron 0 No Glare with Existing Vegetation Screening OP9-OP18 Remaining Residential Properties on Blue Heron 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP-19 Western Side of the Hellman Property 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP20 Western Side of the Hellman Property 19.8 During Sunrise during March/April and August/September. Peak day glare is about 15 mins per day. Glare is associated with the western most solar array. OP21-OP23 Central LCWA Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP24-OP25 Zedler Marsh Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP26 Hellman Ranch Trail 0 No Glare with Existing Vegetation Screening OP27 Hellman Ranch Trail 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP28 South LCWA Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP29 South LCWA Site 26.6 During Sunrise from April through August. Peak day glare is about 15 mins per day. Glare is associated with the eastern most solar array. OP30 South LCWA Site 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP31 Hellman Ranch Trail No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening OP32-OP34 Residential Properties Crestview Avenue 0 No Glare with or without Existing Vegetation Screening None of the observation point generated yellow or red glare. See Appendix D for detailed glare analysis results. Analysis assumed no cloud cover or fog occurs on any day. None of the residential properties were predicted to have any glare impacts. Two of the open space sites were projected to have “green” glare impacts during the sunrise period for up to about 15 minutes per day for a few months of the year. No glare impacts were found to occur during the sunset hours. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 24 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The glare analysis assumes there is no fog or cloud cover during any of the hours. Cloud cover and fog would reduce/eliminate the glare. While no significant glare effects were identified, the implementation of mitigation measure AES-2 would serve to minimize the potential for glare. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction Lighting – Any construction lighting shall be shielded and directed only toward the construction area so as not to impact surrounding areas. Mitigation Measure AES-2: Solar Panel Design– The solar panels shall be installed facing south with a fixed tilt angle of 10 degrees. The solar panels shall be constructed of dark-colored materials and shall be covered with an anti-reflective coating. These requirements shall be documented on the final project drawing submitted to the City for approval. 3.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The proposed Project does not involve conversion of any farmland. The proposed Project does not call for rezoning of farmland, nor is it currently zoned for agriculture. Therefore, there would be no impact on agriculture and forest resources. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 25 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact) See response to Item 2(a) above. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The property is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the solar project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (No Impact) The Project does not involve land that is considered forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production. It is a solar PV project that would occur within an existing oil and gas production site, which is zoned for industrial-oil extraction. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest or timber land. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact) The proposed Project site would be in an existing oil and gas production facility and does not involve conversion of forest land to nonforest use. Therefore, no impact on this topical area would occur. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact) The proposed Project will not have any impact on farmland or agricultural uses. The Project site is within an existing industrial area. Therefore, the Project will not have any impact that could result in the conversion of property to non-agricultural use. 3.4.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 26 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times, because earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with airsheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised, and approved over the past decade. On December 2, 2022, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which provides the blueprint for how the Basin will meet the 2015 8- Hour Ozone Standard by 2037. While the 2022 AQMP fulfilled Clean Air Act requirements for "extreme" nonattainment areas, it did not formally address contingency measure requirements as U.S. EPA was in the process of developing updated contingency measure guidance. The 2022 AQMP committed to address these requirements once new guidance was issued. On December 3, 2024, the U.S. EPA released updated guidance for contingency measures. The South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revision for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard has been developed in response to U.S. EPA's new guidance to satisfy contingency measure requirements in the Basin (SCAQMD 2025). The current attainment deadlines for all federal non-attainment pollutants are provided in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 Attainment Deadlines for Federal Non-Attainment Pollutants Standard Concentration Classification Latest Attainment Year 2008 8-hour Ozone 75 ppb Extreme 2031 2015 8-hour Ozone 70 ppb Extreme 2037 1997 8-hour Ozone 80 ppb Extreme 2023 1997 1-hour Ozone 120 ppb Extreme 2022 2012 Annual PM2.5 12 µg/m3 Serious 2030 2006 24-hour PM2.5 35 µg/m3 Serious 2023 Source: SCAQMD Final 2022 AQMP, December 2022; South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revisions for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard, May 20, 2025; South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard, June 7, 2024. The proposed Project relates to the AQMP in that the project would generate clean electrical power, which would provide additional emission reductions associated with current power generation. Both the construction and operational emissions would be below the SCQAMD air quality thresholds. As such, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Basin’s AQMP. Therefore, the impacts to implementation of applicable air quality plans would be less than significant. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 27 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) The SCAQMD has established CEQA threshold to assess the impacts of a project on air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). These SCAQMD thresholds have been used to assess the significance of the air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project. Construction Activity Impacts CalEEMod was used to estimate the construction emission for the proposed Project. The CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix E. Table 3-3 provides a summary of the peak day criteria pollutant construction emissions for each phase of the project. None of the construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA construction thresholds, or the localized thresholds. Therefore, construction impact to criteria pollutant air quality would be less than significant. Table 3-3 Peak Day Construction Emissions by Phase Construction Phase Peak Day Emissions, lbs/day VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.03 9.19 3.99 Support Pile Installation 0.45 3.93 5.26 0.03 3.48 0.51 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 0.63 5.24 6.97 0.03 3.56 0.56 Testing and Commissioning 0.04 0.25 0.49 0.01 0.18 0.05 Max Peak Day 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.03 9.19 3.99 SCAQMD CEQA Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Localized Thresholds (lbs/day)1 197 1,711 14 9 Exceed Localized Thresholds? No No No No 1. Localized Thresholds based upon SCAQMD Lookup Tables, for North Coastal Orange County, 5- acre site, 25 meters to receptor. Localized emissions thresholds do not include mobile emissions. 2. Construction emission estimates calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29. 3. See Appendix E for CalEEMod output files. Operational Impacts The sources of operational emissions would be associated with the eight trips per year that would be needed to service the solar facility. Five of these trips would be for general maintenance, two would be for vegetation mowing, and one would be for panel washing. Operation of the solar panels would not generate any air emissions. Table 3-4 provides peak day operational emissions. None of the operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA operational thresholds, or the localized thresholds. Operation of the solar facility would not generate any air toxic emissions. Therefore, operational impact to criteria pollutant air quality would be less than significant. c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Item (b) above and recommended mitigation (see below) in compliance with the SCAQMD for short-term construction related impacts. Based upon the analysis presented for Item 3(b) above, the proposed Project’s impacts on sensitive receptor would be less than significant. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 28 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Table 3-4 Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Source Peak Day Emissions, lbs/day VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Offsite Mobile Sources 0.12 0.04 2.52 0.00 0.04 0.01 Vegetation Mowing 0.10 0.03 2.36 0.01 0.01 0.01 Totals 0.22 0.07 4.88 0.01 0.05 0.02 SCAQMD CEQA Thresholds 55 55 55 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Localized Thresholds (lbs/day)1 197 1,711 4 2 Exceed Localized Thresholds? No No No No 1. Localized Thresholds based upon SCAQMD Lookup Tables, for North Coastal Orange County, 5- acre site, 25 meters to receptor. Localized emissions thresholds do not include mobile emissions. 2. Construction emission estimates calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29. 3. See Appendix E for CalEEMod output files. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The only odor-causing emissions that might occur would be from construction equipment and would likely be associated with diesel exhaust. This would be temporary in nature and would cease once construction is complete. The limited amount and size of the construction equipment would not typically be considered to emit significant odors. The nearest residential home to the proposed Project site is about 480 feet, which would also serve to limit exposure to any construction equipment odors. Also, construction of the project would have to comply with SCAQMD Rules regarding odors and emissions from construction equipment and should result in less than significant impacts. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Short-Term Construction Emission Reduction Measures – During construction activities, the contractor shall ensure that measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the Project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering or other dust palliative measures (such as covering stock piles with tarps) to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and use Tier-4-rated heavy equipment; c) enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment; and d) sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from construction site. 3.4.4 Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 29 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ The Project site has been previously graded as part of past oil and gas development projects, and areas of the Project site within 100 feet of oil field facilities/equipment are periodically disked for fuel modification. The area subject to temporary and permanent surface disturbance for the proposed Project totals about 4.57 acres. Biological surveys of the proposed solar panel array site were conducted, and a `wetland delineation of the site was prepared (multiple surveys conducted in July, August, and October 2022, and February and March 2023). The surveys were conducted for the 4.57-acre project site and a 100-foot buffer around the site, which together comprise a 12.46-acre study area. The wetland delineation found that neither the 4.57-acre gas solar panel array site nor the areas within a 100-foot buffer around the perimeter of the Project site support wetlands as defined under the Coastal Act. Focused botanical surveys detected southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1 taxon, in the Project site and 100-foot buffer, and Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri, CRPR 1B.1) in the 100-foot buffer. The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillis), a state and federally listed endangered bird species was detected during biological surveys in an off-site water quality basin which is partially within the 100-foot buffer. Appendix F contains a detailed Biological Technical Report for the proposed Project (Glenn Lukos Associates, 2023). The report includes a Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report as well as a detailed Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The remainder of this section presents summary of the finding in the biological Technical Report. a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Special-Status Plants No federal or state listed, or candidate plant species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 30 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 detected on the project site and the site does not exhibit suitable habitat for such species. The site does support two CRPR special status plant species, assigned by the CDFW and California Native Plant Society (CNPS), including southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields. In the areas of the project site not subject to ongoing fuel modification, 57 individuals of southern tarplant were detected during focused surveys in the temporary impact area and 26 individuals of southern tarplant were detected in the permanent impact area of the 4.57-acre solar panel array site; therefore, construction would impact a total of 83 individuals. An additional 532 individuals were detected in the Study Area that are not in the existing fuel modification areas and would be avoided by the Project. It is important to note that southern tarplant is an annual plant species that is highly adapted to disturbance as evidenced by the occurrence of the 83 individuals within the highly disturbed solar panel array site. It is likely that southern tarplant will re-establish within the temporary disturbance areas given the presence of a seed source adjacent to the disturbance area. The loss of the 83 southern tarplant individuals from such a highly disturbed area would be a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Coulter’s goldfields were not detected in the proposed Project permanent or temporary impact areas during the recent surveys but were present in the 100-foot buffer area. Based upon the surveys, Coulter’s goldfields would not be impacted by the proposed Project since it was outside of the area that would be impacted by the project activities. No other special-status plants were detected within the proposed Project area and none are expected to occur. Special-Status Animals No candidate, sensitive, or special status animal species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were detected on the project site and the site does not exhibit suitable habitat for such species. The 100-foot buffer around the site includes a portion of an off-site water quality basin in which the state and federally listed endangered least Bell’s vireo was detected during past biological surveys. The noise analysis in Section 3.4.13 shows that the peak noise from various construction activities could be as high as 96 dBA at the property line with the Heron Pointe bioswale. This level of noise could result in indirect impacts to nesting least Bell’s vireo. A mitigation measure has been included that limits the noise generating construction activities to outside the bird nesting season. Therefore, indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo from construction noise would be a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A wintering Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) was reported during site visits conducted on December 9 and 19, 1996 and on January 16, 1997. Follow-up breeding season surveys in spring of 1997 confirmed that this wintering individual had departed the site. This species was not detected during surveys in 2004 on the Hellman Property for the Tank Farm Relocation project. As no suitable man-made structures or rodent burrows were observed in the Study Area in 2022, this species is not expected to occur. However, given the historic wintering burrowing owl occurrences in the Hellman Property, future occurrences cannot be ruled out. Mitigation has been included to conduct surveys for the Burrowing Owl prior to construction. Impacts on Burrowing Owls would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact) A total of 15 vegetation land use types were mapped within the 12.46-acre survey area, which includes the Project Impact Area and 100-foot survey buffer area. Development of the proposed Project would 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 31 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 result in direct impacts to eight vegetation/land use types totaling 4.57 acres as shown in Table 3-5. The survey buffer area contains one special-status vegetation type, the Cressa truxillensis–Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance identified as a sensitive natural community by the CDFW. However, none of the impacted vegetation types are considered special status by either CDFW or the CEQA Thresholds Guide, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact) No features subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps, CDFW, RWQCB, or wetlands defined under the California Coastal Act (CCA) are present within the proposed Project boundaries. Thus, there would be no impacts to state or federal wetlands from the construction of the proposed Project. See the detailed Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report that is part of Appendix F, Biological Technical Report. Table 3-5 Summary of Impacts to the Proposed Project Vegetation/Land Use Types Vegetation/Land Use Type Permanent Impact Area (Acres) Temporary Impact Area (Acres) Total Project Impact Area (Acres) Study Area (Acres) Alkali heliotrope fields 0.04 0.06 0.1 1.11 Annual grassland/herbaceous semi-natural stands 0 0.02 0.02 1.2 Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 0 0.04 0.04 0.05 Disturbed Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 0 0 0 0.35 Bassia hyssopifolia association 1.55 0.88 2.43 3.54 Castor bean stands 0 0.03 0.03 0.05 Cressa truxillensis-Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance 0 0 0 0.2 Distichlis spicata – annual grasses 1.05 0.61 1.66 3.23 Disturbed/Developed 0 0.22 0.22 2.51 Malvella leprosa fields 0 0 0 0.11 Mixed shrub seminatural stands 0 0 0 0.04 Ornamental 0 0 0 0.01 Raphanus sativus association 0 0 0 0.18 Salix lasiolepis – Baccharis salicifolia shrubland alliance 0 0 0 0.58 Tree tobacco stands 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.27 Total Vegetation/Land Use Acreage 2.66 1.91 4.57 12.46 See Appendix F-Biological Technical Report for a more detailed analysis. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Project site is not within a wildlife corridor and does not contain any native wildlife nursery sites. There is a hypothesis that migrating water-dependent bird species may potentially mistake the extensive solar arrays for water features on which the birds can land, usually at night. This is known as the “lake effect”. Such collisions often do not result in direct fatality, but the birds sometimes cannot take off after collisions because they are adapted to take off from water, not dry land. Most studies of the potential 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 32 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 phenomena have been conducted at large scale solar PV facilities, which were hundreds of WMs in size and located in desert environments (Kosciuch. 2021). The California Energy Commission (CEC) released a study in 2024 that investigated the “Lake Effect” influence on avian behavior from California’s utility scale photovoltaic solar facilities. The study documented the results of a project that examined the so-called lake effect hypothesis that utility-scale solar facilities attract birds by simulating the visual cues birds use to locate water bodies. The study followed three interrelated themes matching the process by which birds could be attracted to solar facilities from: 1) detection by birds of an attractive cue such as polarized light that results in, 2) a corresponding adjustment in flight behavior toward a solar facility that, 3) leads to arrival and interaction of birds at solar facilities, potentially resulting in bird fatalities (CEC 2024). The study focused on several large utility scale solar PV sites that were all located away from natural water bodies, with most being in desert locations. The sites looked at in the study ranged in size from about 50 MW to 328 MW. The results indicate that birds are more attracted to highly polarized sources of visible light, and that solar panels polarize light in a manner similar to water. A large percentage of flying animals (perhaps 10 percent or more) approaching solar facilities from the north during daylight hours in the fall migration season were shown to descend toward facilities. Finally, and perhaps most compelling, is the observed mortality of water obligate species, which perish on dry land, found at PV solar facilities in desert environments without water. Taken together, these results are consistent with an operational lake effect hypothesis of avian mortality at arid solar facilities. (CEC 2024). Given the relatively small size of the proposed Solar PV Project, and the fact that it is in close proximity (900 to 1,900 feet) to other water bodies (Haines Cooling Channel, San Gabriel River, Los Cerritos Southern Wetland, and the Pacific Ocean) the potential for the lake effect to impact migrating birds be highly unlikely. Additionally, mitigation measure AES-2 from the Aesthetics section will require solar panels to be constructed of dark-colored materials and covered with an anti-reflective coating, to further prevent glare that could be confused as a water surface. Given the project’s limited size, the fact it is not located in an arid environment and is near a number of natural water bodies, the Project would not result in a significant impact to migratory birds. There is the potential for the displacement of rodents (i.e., rats, ground squirrels, mice, etc.) that may inhabit the area where the proposed Solar PV facility would be installed. Installation of solar facilities have been known to displace rodent populations when the area is graded and the vegetation is removed for the installation of solar panels. Research suggests that solar panels may have indirect effects on rodent populations, particularly as solar farms replace agricultural fields or natural habitats, rodents may experience changes in their habitats, leading to shifts in population dynamics (Energy5 2023). It has also been speculated that PV solar facilities can also create favorable microclimate and sheltered environment for rodents, which increased rodent population within the solar facility (Energy5 2023). During the biological surveys conducted at the project site, rodents were not observed, but rodents have been regularly seen on the Hellman Ranch Oil Field Property. The site of the proposed Solar PV facility is regularly disced and/or mowed for fire control, so it is unlikely that it currently supports a large rodent population. There are large, vegetated areas between the closest residential area and the project site. It is possible that rodents could be displaced during the construction phase of the project. It is likely that any displacement would be into the surrounding vegetated areas such as the large Los Alamitos Retention Basin or the LCWA property, which are adjacent to the Solar PV Project site. Once the PV solar facility is 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 33 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 installed, the vegetation will be allowed to regrow, so the habitat could be suitable for some rodents. As is the current practice, the area would continue to be mowed on an annual basis for fire control. Given the current conditions of the PS Solar facility site, and the fact that most of the surrounding area is vegetated, it is likely that any rodents displaced during construction would move to the surrounding vegetated area and not as far as the residential neighborhoods. Once construction is completed, it is likely that rodent populations that were displaced would be able to return. Therefore, the impact associated with rodent displacement would be less than significant. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. With regards to potential environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), the Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines an ESHA as: …any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Since the land cover on the solar panel array site consists of a mix of non-sensitive native vegetation and non-native herbaceous vegetation, including alkali heliotrope, non-native annual grasses, salt grass, Bassia hyssopifolia, developed areas, dirt roads, and staging areas, the site does not constitute ESHA and thus construction of the solar panel array would not directly affect ESHA. Similarly, areas within the 100- foot buffer portion of the study area consist of active oil extraction, including active wells, oil field infrastructure, and staging and equipment storage areas within a mosaic of non-native and non-sensitive native vegetation. As such, there would be no indirect impacts on ESHA. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) The project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project Construction Timing – Construction activities associated with site preparation, support pile installation, and Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation shall occur outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Grading Limitations– To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded. The vegetation on the project site shall be cleared using mowers or weed whackers. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Survey – A pre-construction (initial take avoidance) burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the pre-construction survey is positive for owl presence, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to acquire proper avoidance measures, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 34 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If the species is not found, no further action is needed. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Southern Tarplant and Coulters goldfields Preconstruction Surveys – Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a City approved biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields during the appropriate season for each species to determine final mitigation requirements. These surveys shall cover the entire project area as well as a buffer area of 100-feet outside the construction boundaries. If Coulters goldfields are detected in the Project impact area, then the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be amended to include mitigation for Coulter’s goldfields at a 4:1 ratio at a location with suitable habitat for the species. Any populations of Coulter’s goldfields or southern tarplant within the 100 foot buffer zone or within the construction area that can be avoided, shall be demarcated with construction fencing. No vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or other construction activities shall occur in the fenced areas or within 30 feet of any Coulter’s goldfields. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Prior to impacts to the southern tarplant in the Project site, a biologist, approved by the City, shall implement the measures contained in the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see Appendix F), which provides for replacement of the impacted 83 individuals at a ratio of 4:1, for a total of 332 individuals. However, if pre- construction surveys determine that total numbers of impacted individuals has changed, the total number of replacement individuals shall be adjusted accordingly at a 4:1 ratio. The plan identifies a candidate area of the Hellman Property where southern tarplant may be established and preserved in perpetuity. The plan includes provisions for seed collection, planting, performance standards for a five-year monitoring period, and contingency plans if the performance standards are not met. 3.4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ This section analyzes impacts on historical and archeological resources in the Project site. Section 3.4.18 discusses the potential impacts of the proposed Project on Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project site has been previously assessed for cultural resources as part of past oil and gas development projects. The area that would require surface disturbance for the proposed Project would be approximately 4.57 acres. Appendix G provides a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for a Proposed Solar Array Project. This section presents a summary of the findings in the Cultural Assessment Report. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 35 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact) A records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton failed to indicate the presence of any listed National Register of Historic Places or properties within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed Project area. Additionally, no California Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest properties were identified on the site or vicinity. The California State Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) lists no buildings in the vicinity that have been previously evaluated for historical significance. However, as discussed in section item (b) below, archaeological sites eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) may be present on the Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Sites eligible for the CRHR are considered historical resources under CEQA. As discussed in Response 5(b) below, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce the potential impact below the level of significance. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Many archeological investigations have been conducted on the Hellman property over the past 50 years in support of both oil/gas and residential development. The most recent archeological field investigation was done in 2019 in support of a proposed gas plant approximately 320 feet southwest of the current project area (Wahoff 2019). As part of the 2019 study, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton. The results of this records search, including previous surface and subsurface investigations and known cultural resources, are discussed below. Previous Surveys The 2019 records search revealed that at least 18 previous cultural resources surveys or other archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 mile of the current Project area, and that the entire Project area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources on at least four occasions (Archaeological Associates 1980; Rosenthal and Padon 1990; Stickel 1996; York and Willey 2004). None of these field surveys revealed any cultural resources within the Project area, although one (Archaeological Associates 1980) noted two dispersed scatters of marine shell (CA-ORA-850 and -851) located approximately 500 and 50 feet east and northeast of the Project area, respectively. Other cultural resources within 0.25 mile include CA-ORA-257, -258, and -259, all consisting of remnants of prehistoric shell middens along the crest of Landing Hill to the south of the Project area (Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996; Cleland et al. 2007); P-30-01544, a large but dispersed scatter of marine shell and artifacts located on the Boeing property immediately north of Adolfo Lopez Drive (Underwood 2000); and the Los Alamitos Pump Station, approximately 550 feet north of the Project area (Shepard 2002). Previous Subsurface Investigations Although several extensive archaeological excavations have been conducted along the crest of Landing Hill just to the south and east of the Project area (Cleland et al. 2007; Desautels 1981; Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996), subsurface investigation in the lower elevations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF have been limited to an unreported testing program at CA-ORA-851 by LSA Associates in 1990, and an exploratory archaeological trenching program by EDAW, Inc. in 2006. LSA Testing at CA-ORA-851: In 1990, LSA Associates initiated an extensive subsurface testing program for a planned residential development on a portion of Landing Hill just to the east of the Project area. This testing program included several large prehistoric sites along the crest of the hill (CA-ORA-260, -261, -262, and -263), as well as site CA-ORA-851, which is located approximately 50 feet to the east of the present 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 36 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Project area. Although the LSA testing program was never fully reported, York (2006) reported that field forms provided to EDAW, Inc. by LSA indicated that two 1-by-1 meter (m) test units were excavated at CA-ORA-851, both yielding only small amounts of marine shell. The shells were limited to the upper 20 centimeters (cm) of the deposit, in a highly disturbed context that also included imported fill and construction debris. Below this disturbed layer, according to the LSA field notes, were natural sediments containing no shells. Exploratory Trenching by EDAW, Inc. (York 2006): In 2006, EDAW, Inc. conducted a program of exploratory archaeological trenching at various locations throughout the Hellman Ranch OGPF in support of a proposed underground tank farm replacement project (York 2006). A total of 31 trenches were excavated, including 20 along proposed pipeline alignments and 11 within the footprint of the proposed tank farm. Each trench measured approximately 10 m long and between 120 and 200 centimeters deep. Of the 31 trenches, 4 were placed within or immediately adjacent to the present Project area: trenches 1, 2, and 20 in the far southeastern portion, and Trench 6 in the northwestern portion. Trench 1, placed at the northern boundary of CA-ORA-851, appears to confirm the field notes for the LSA excavations: the upper 40 cm is clearly disturbed and contains sand, gravel, sparse marine shell, and recent debris. Underlying this were apparently undisturbed alluvial or estuarine fine sand, silt, and clay sediments that contained no shell. On this basis, York (2006) concluded that CA-ORA-851 likely represents an artificial fill deposit composed in part from sediment dredged from nearby Alamitos Bay. Cultural Resources within Project Area A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed Project site (York 2023). This assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA, and the guidelines for preparation of archaeological reports by the Office of Historic Preservation. A copy of the cultural resources assessment is provided in Appendix G. This assessment indicated that none of the several previous surveys that have included the Project area have revealed cultural resources. Moreover, of the seven cultural resources that have been previously recorded within 0.25 miles of the Project area, only one, CA-ORA-851, is closer than approximately 500 feet to areas subject to direct disturbance from the proposed solar array construction. This resource, a dispersed scatter of marine shell fragments, was subject to subsurface archaeological examinations in 1996 and 2006, both of which indicated that the deposit most likely represents recently imported fill materials. It would not be affected by the proposed solar array construction. Additionally, the rest of the 2006 exploratory trenching program designed to identify buried archaeological resources at various locations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF was entirely negative, including at several locations within the present Project area (York 2006). These results indicate that the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is generally low, at least in near-surface contexts, and that it is generally unlikely that cultural resources would be encountered during ground disturbance associated with the Project. However, as noted in previous studies, there is still some possibility that intact cultural resources could exist within the Project under recent alluvium or artificial fill (York 2023). Given this possibility, mitigation measures have been provided. Therefore, impact to cultural/archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? (Less Than Significant Impact) There are no known human remains within the proposed Project site. As discussed above, the proposed Project site has been previously disturbed and is located within a lowland area of the Hellman Ranch OGPF 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 37 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 site, a context generally considered unsuitable for human burial. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed Project would disturb any human remains. Implementation of mitigation measure CR-1 would address the procedures to be followed in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during the earth moving activities. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CR-1: Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Treatment Plan – Prior to issuance of a grading permit an Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall be prepared by a City approved archaeologist. The qualified archeologist shall coordinate with the Native American monitors during the preparation of the plan. The plan shall outline areas that will be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, if needed. Significant or unevaluated archaeological resources that are being avoided and are within 50 feet of the construction zone shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The resources shall be delineated with exclusion markers to ensure avoidance. The plans shall specify the monitoring procedures, the field and laboratory methods that would be used for treatment of unanticipated discoveries, and the requirements for Native American participation in the monitoring and treatment activities. Procedures outlined shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures. The plan shall state avoidance or preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and contributors to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape but shall provide procedures to follow should avoidance be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed if human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring – An archaeologist, approved by the City of Seal Beach, shall be present at the site during all ground disturbance activities. 3.4.6 Energy Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ The proposed solar PV project would use energy for both construction and operations. The main energy use for construction would be diesel fuel for construction equipment. The energy used for operation would be fuel for workers commuting to the site and for operation of a lawn mower. The 1.5 MW Solar PV Electrical System, which would interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean electrical energy in support of the 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 38 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 various Hellman Property facilities operations. Any excess power generated would be sold back to the SCE grid. For all of California, the utility-scale solar (PV) capacity factor is about 28% (USEIA. 2019). For a facility in Seal Beach, it would be expected that the solar (PV) capacity factor would be lower due to the proximity to the coast and the influence of fog. The Applicant has estimated an annual solar capacity factor of 20% which means the project would generate about 2,630 MW-hrs of electricity per year. a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Less than Significant Impact) Construction All the offroad construction equipment would use diesel fuel. The on road vehicles would use a combination of diesel fuel and gasoline. Table 3-6 provides a breakdown of the total estimated fuel use for construction. Implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 that requires maintaining equipment engines in proper tune, use of Tier 4 engines, and enforcing a 5-minute idling limits would serve to reduce energy use from construction. Table 3-6 Estimated Construction Equipment Fuel Use (gals) Equipment Group Diesel Gasoline Total Onsite Construction Equipment 3,277 0 3,277 On Road Construction Vehicles 1,046 679 1,725 Total 4,323 679 5,002 See Appendix C for fuel use calculations. Operation The solar array would require minimal maintenance, including panel washing, vegetation removal, and periodic maintenance work. It is estimated that about eight trips per year would be needed for operational activities, with an estimated fuel use of about 27 gallons of gasoline per year. The facility would be monitored by existing personnel at the Hellman Ranch Facility. The solar PV facility would generate about 2,630 MW-hrs of electricity per year. Operational activities would not require excessive or wasteful use of energy that could lead to potentially significant environmental impacts. Consumption of energy during operation would be far less than the amount of renewable energy generated by the solar facility. The operational impact would be less than significant because energy use during operation would be minimal. Given all these facts, the proposed Project’s impacts on consumption of energy resources would be less than significant. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (No Impact) Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program – California's RPS program was established in 2002 by Senate Bill (SB) 1078 with the initial requirement that 20% of electricity retail sales must be served by renewable resources by 2017. The program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350 which mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. SB 350 includes interim annual RPS targets with three-year compliance periods and requires 65% of RPS procurement to be derived from long-term contracts of 10 or more years. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increases the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 39 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 come from carbon-free resources by 2045. The Project would comply with the State’s goal of increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, no impact would occur. California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan – On Sept. 18, 2008, the CPUC adopted California’s first Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all major groups and sectors in California. The Strategic Plan was subsequently updated in January 2011. The proposed solar PV project would be consistent with the goals established for industrial sector. Therefore, no impact would occur. City of Seal Beach General Plan – The City of Seal Beach’s General Plan includes energy conservation opportunities and techniques, aimed at reducing building energy use (City of Seal Beach, 2003). The project would install no buildings and therefore, energy conservation items in the General Plan would not apply to the Solar PV project. 3.4.7 Geology/Soils Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 40 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less than Significant Impact) All Southern California, including the proposed Project site, is subject to the effects of seismic activity. The project itself will not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure including liquefaction or landslides. However, the proposed Project must adhere to the City's adopted Building Code regulations that pertain to mitigating the potential effects of fault ruptures and ground shaking, or failures caused by a seismic event. The Alquist-Priolo and Newport-Inglewood Fault Zones cross the Hellman Ranch OGPF property just to the southwest of the proposed Solar PV facility. Figure 3-4 shows the fault zone and fault in relation to the proposed Project site. The Solar PV facility would be located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The solar table support structures would be required to meet Seismic Zone 4 standards per the appropriate section of the California Building Code at the time of construction. However, in a severe earthquake it is possible that the solar tables could be damaged, but the damage would be limited to the project site. Figure 3-4 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone California Department of Conservation Earthquake Zone Maps 2023. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 41 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The nearest habituated structure to the Project is 450 feet. The Project would not cause risk of loss, injury, or death associated with seismic-related hazards, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure, because no people or structures would be located adjacent to the solar PV facility. The Project does not involve construction of habitable structures that could cause adverse effects involving earthquakes and strong seismic ground shaking. Neither construction nor operation of the solar PV facility are anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts to fault rupture. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. (iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less than Significant Impact) A reviewed the seismic hazard zone report by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (DCDMG, 1998 – Los Alamitos Quadrangle) and Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Los Alamitos Quadrangle map by California Geological Survey (CGS, 1999). Based on CGS (1999), the planned location for the expansion is within an area/zone identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction induced ground deformation and within an area encompassing active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting. The entire Hellman Ranch OGPF site is in an area susceptible to liquefaction. This is primarily since the soil in the area is artificial fill (see item (c) below). The Solar PV Project would not result in the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards. In the event of damage to the Solar table from liquefaction, the damage would be limited to the project area site, and would not cause risk of loss, injury, or death since not people or structures are adjacent to the solar PV facility. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. (iv) landslides? (No Impact) Per the California Department of Conservation Landslide Inventory, there are no mapped landslides within the project site. The subject property does not have potential for landslides in case of seismic activity or other triggering mechanism, such as rainfall or runoff, due to the flat topography of the site. Therefore, no such impact will occur because of landslides. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less than Significant Impact) Construction of the Solar PV Project would not involve any cut and fill operations. No topsoil would be removed from the project site. Permanent removal of topsoil would be limited to the 388 footing for the solar table supports and five pads for the electrical equipment. These areas represent a total of 0.04 acres of the 4.57 acre site. The topsoil from these areas would be spread out within the project area. Temporary removal of topsoil would occur for the installation of the underground powerlines (0.29 acres). This topsoil would be placed back over the trenches as part of the backfilling operations. The Regional Water Quality Control Board will require that the project implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with Best Management Practices during construction to control any soil loss. Once construction is complete the area will be allowed to revegetate. Therefore, impacts associated with loss of topsoil would be considered less than significant. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than Significant Impact) Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated granular soils transform from a solid to a liquefied state when subjected to large, rapid loadings such as strong ground shaking during an earthquake. The 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 42 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 transformation to a liquid state occurs due to the tendency of granular materials to compact, which consequently results in increased pore water pressure accompanied by a significant reduction in the effective stress. The change of state occurs most readily in recently deposited (i.e., geologically young) loose to moderately dense granular soils. The liquefaction susceptibility is highly dependent on the density of the soil, wherein looser soils are generally more susceptible. Area of artificial fill are more susceptible to liquefaction. The Solar PV Project site is located on ground that is susceptible to liquefaction. Figure 3-5 shows a map of the surficial deposits within the project area, and the soil is mainly artificial fill. Over the past 70 years that has been no surface displacement, or impacts to oil field facility equipment, or existing infrastructure (roads, river, and cooling channel levees). The solar table support structures would be required to meet seismic engineering standards to prevent damage or instability during a seismic event. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less than Significant Impact) Expansive soils are characterized by the ability to undergo significant volume change (i.e., shrink and swell) as a result of variation in soil moisture content. Soil moisture content can change due to many factors, including perched groundwater, landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay. The project site consists primarily of Bolsa Silt Loam and Bolsa Silt Clay Loam, which has a low to moderate expansion potential (GLA 2023). The Solar PV Project would not involve the construction of any buildings and the project site is not acceptable to the public so the risk to life or property would be minimal, and impacts would be considered less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact) Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are required or proposed for the implementation as part of the proposed project. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant) The project site is in an area of artificial fill (See Figure 3-5). It is likely that below the artificial fill are Estuarine deposits. Artificial fill areas have no paleontological potential. Estuarine deposits have low paleontological potential (ESA 2020). Based upon boring samples done for the gas plant the upper 7 to 10 feet of soil was found to be fine-grained typically classified as medium to high plasticity clays, which would be indicative of artificial fill material (Wood 2018). 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 43 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Figure 3-5 Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in the Project Area Source: Special Report 217: Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California (2012 Revision), California Department of Conservation. Project Site 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 44 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The soil analysis done as part of the Los Cerritos Southern Wetland Restoration Project, which is in the same area as the proposed Project, assumed an artificial fill depth of 5 feet (LCWA 2023). The concrete pilings for the solar table supports would have a depth of 6 feet and a diameter of 1.5 feet. The equipment pad depths are 0.33 feet, and the powerline trenches will be 3 feet deep. Therefore, the ground disturbance for the project would occur likely in artificial fill, which has no paleontological potential. As such the only project activity that might have the potentially impact paleontological resources would be the concrete pile footings. The holes for the pilings would likely be drilled with a backhoe that is equipped with an augur attachment. Each support structure would have one pile, so a total of 388 pilings would need to be installed. Installation of the pilings is expected to disturb only the surficial soils and not underlying soil units. This limited ground disturbance would not be expected to destroy any paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ This section of the document analyzes the impact the proposed Project would have on emissions that affect climate change around the world. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions were analyzed as part of the CalEEMod air emission calculations. The CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix E. “Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately one-half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant Impact) The construction and operational GHG emissions for the proposed project are provided in Table 3-7. Construction of the Solar PV facility is expected to take less than one year. As specified by the SCAQMD, the construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to the annual operating GHG emissions. As shown in Table 3-7 the GHG emissions from the proposed Solar PV Project would be negative and as such below the CEQA Threshold established by the SCAQMD for industrial projects. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 45 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Table 3-7 Project GHG Emissions (MT/yr.) Project Phase CO2 CO2e Construction Phase Site Preparation 3.13 3.16 Support Pile Installation 16.67 17.03 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 18.25 18.62 Testing and Commissioning 3.18 3.29 Total Construction Phase 41.23 42.10 Operational Phase Offsite Mobile Sources 0.16 0.16 Vegetation Mowing 0.01 0.01 Water Use 0.01 0.01 Electrical Power Generation (413.16) (413.16) Amortized Construction Emissions 1.37 1.40 Total (411.61) (411.58) SCAQMD CEQA Threshold 10,000 Exceed Threshold? No Operational emission estimates calculated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29. Electrical Power generation GHG saving estimated based upon system capacity of 1.5 MW, an annual solar capacity factor of 20%, and an SCE GHG intensity factor of 346.20 lbs/Mw-hr, which is from CalEEMod for estimate year 2026. See Appendix D for detailed calculations. The purpose of the project is to generate renewable electrical energy, which would offset electrical power generated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and the onsite gas turbine generator. This would result in an overall reduction of GHG emissions from electrical generation. The estimated reduction in GHG emissions was based on the grid using the estimated SCE 2026 GHG intensity factor from CalEEMod. The amount of GHG reduction would reduce overtime as the SCE system obtains more of its electrical power from renewable sources. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (No Impact) Climate Change Scoping Plan - In 2006, the Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)], which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. AB 32 required the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce GHGs to achieve the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by the Board in 2008 and must be updated at least every five years. Since 2008, there have been two updates to the Scoping Plan. Each of the Scoping Plans has included a suite of policies to help the State achieve its GHG targets, in large part leveraging existing programs whose primary goal is to reduce harmful air pollution. The equipment used during construction would have to comply with the applicable GHG reduction programs for mobile sources in accordance with the Climate Change Scoping Plan to achieve the State's GHG reduction targets. The contractor who owns the equipment and vehicles is required to provide verification of compliance to the California Air Resources Board or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under state and federal law. The Project would help to implement some of the Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies as it relates to the development and use of renewable energy sources. The Project 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 46 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 would not conflict with regulations adopted to achieve the goals of the Climate Scoping Plan. No impact would occur. City of Seal Beach - The City of Seal Beach has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan or Climate Action Plan. The City of Seal Beach General Plan, adopted in December 2003, does not contain an air quality element or a Climate Action Plan. The applicable GHG planning document for the City is the AB- 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan discussed above. 3.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant Impact) The project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Operation of the Solar PV Project would not involve the use of hazardous materials. Project construction would involve the use and transport of typical construction-related materials such as fuels, lubricants, adhesives, and solvents. Heavy equipment not permitted on public roads would be refueled on-site, but no overnight fuel storage or maintenance of heavy equipment would occur on the Project site. Any onsite refueling operations would be conducted at the staging area, which is a flat level dirt pad. Any spills during refueling would be small and contained within the staging area. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 47 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The transformer that would be used on the site would use a biodegradable oil for cooling such as mineral oil or a type of vegetable oil. No hazardous substances as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act would be used, transported, or disposed of as a part of the Project. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and the impact would be less than significant. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less than Significant Impact) Solar facility equipment, including transformers and inverters, requires use of oils and lubricants in small quantities. Any leaks of transformer oil or solvents would be very limited, contained in a drip pan, and would be repaired to maintain proper functioning equipment. Very small quantities of solvents, cleaners, or other chemicals may be used during maintenance of the Project for cleaning equipment or to prevent corrosion. The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials throughout the operational life of the Project would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations for transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts from hazardous material releases during operation would be less than significant. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) The proposed Solar PV facility would not emit hazardous emissions or require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous material. Also, there are no schools located within one-quarter of a mile of the proposed Project site. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact) The project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, project implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a public airport. The site is located over three miles from Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and is not within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for that facility. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The project is required to meet all applicable fire codes and City regulations that provide for adequate access to and from the site and will not impair access. The Hellman OGPF site has two access points for emergency response and meets the requirement of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and CalGEM. This project would not interfere with any emergency plans for either the City of Long Beach or the City of Seal Beach. All construction equipment and supplies will be stored on site away from public and 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 48 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 emergency access roads. As such, the project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less than Significant Impact) Once constructed, the PV solar facilities would be built to meet all relevant California building standards, including building code, electrical code, and fire code requirements, thereby minimizing the potential for ignition to occur at the facility. In addition, routine maintenance at the Hellman OGPF facility includes vegetation management to ensure a defensible space is maintained consistent with the requirements of OCFA, and CalGEM. The Hellman OGPF maintains a Fire Protection Plan and has a firewater system. The oil storage facility has fire monitors that could be used in the unlikely event of a fire at the PV solar site. The nearest fire station to the Hellman OGPF site is OCFA Station 44, which is less than a mile from the site. Because the Project would be built to modern code requirements, would be maintained to have a defensible space around the facility, has a fire firewater system on site, the Project operational impacts related to hazards resulting from wildland fires are less than significant. 3.4.10 Hydrology/Water Quality Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv. impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 49 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The nearby San Gabriel River Estuary, which is hydrologically connected to the project site, is listed as an Impaired Waterbody, per the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2014/2016 California Integrated Report, Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report. Water quality impairments include copper, dioxin, indicator bacteria, nickel, and dissolved oxygen (SWRCB 2023). Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 AF for potable use. In fiscal year (FY) 2019-20, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). There is currently no recycled water use within the City’s service area. In FY 2019-20, the City’s water use profile was comprised of 70.4% residential use, 18.4% commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) use, 0.5% large landscape/irrigation, with non-revenue water (NRW) comprising about 10.6% (Arcadis 2021). The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The site is within Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500- year flood plain); an area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot; an area with drainage areas less than 1 square miles; or an area protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood (FEMA 2023). a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less than Significant) Construction Project construction would include 4.57 acres of ground disturbance, including areas for solar array tables, equipment pads, underground power lines, and staging areas (see Table 2-4, Proposed Project Site Disturbance Areas). The initial site preparation would involve removal of the vegetative cover, and the removal of any miscellaneous debris and other deleterious material. Organic matter and other material that may interfere with the completion of the work would be removed from the limits of the construction area. The site would require minimal grading since it is already flat and grading is not necessary for the installation of the solar support structures. Limited grading may be needed for the equipment pads areas. The project would not involve any cut and fill, or the import/export of any soil. In the absence of proper soil management, ground disturbance and construction could result in wind and water erosion and associated sedimentation of the San Gabriel River, LCWA wetland areas, and Haynes Cooling Channel. Construction-related activities that primarily result in sediment releases are related to exposing previously stabilized soils to potential mobilization by rainfall/runoff and wind. Erosion and sedimentation affects water quality and interferes with photosynthesis; oxygen exchange; and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported off-site, which could contribute to degradation of water quality. Non-sediment-related pollutants that are also of concern during construction relate to construction materials and non-stormwater flows and include construction materials (e.g., paint); chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products used in construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete-related pollutants. Project construction impacts would be minimized through compliance with the Santa Ana Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2022-0008, NPDES No. CAS618000), which includes the City of Seal Beach, and the SWRCB Construction General Permit, which is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). Because the proposed Project is greater than 1 acre in size, the applicant would be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB in order to obtain approval to complete 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 50 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 construction activities under the Construction General Permit. This permit requires the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development (with differing requirements based upon the determined level) and to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A Construction Site Monitoring Program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is a required component of the SWPPP. The SWPPP is also required to include construction- phase Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented. Typical BMPs that would be implemented during grading and construction of the proposed Project that would minimize degradation of surface water quality include erosion control, sediment control, waste/materials management, non-stormwater management, training and education, and inspections/maintenance/monitoring/sampling. Proposed conduit trenches would be approximately 2 feet wide and 18 to 24 inches deep. Based on borings drilled for a geotechnical investigation of the Hellman Gas Plant Expansion, groundwater is present at a minimum depth of approximately 4 feet below ground surface (Wood 2018). Therefore, groundwater impacts are not anticipated during construction. Through implementation of the requirements outlined in the Construction General Permit, construction- related impacts to surface water and groundwater would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant. Operations Panel washing would occur approximately once per year and would require approximately 2 days to complete. Approximately 1,500 gallons of water would be used during washing and no chemicals would be used. Water would be applied to the solar panels at a rate that would not result in runoff from the site. Wash water would be absorbed into the soil and vegetation underneath the panels. No other potential sources of water quality impairment would be introduced to the project site during operations. In addition, operational activities would be required to comply with the requirements of Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Chapter 9.20, Stormwater Management Program. SBMC Chapter 9.20 is enforced by City officials during the permit approval process. This chapter requires development projects to comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which includes BMPs for properly storing waste material, to ensure the protection of water quality from stormwater runoff. As a result, operations-related impacts to surface water and groundwater would be minimized and impacts would be less than significant. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant) As discussed for Threshold a), approximately 1,500 gallons of water would be used annually for panel washing. Water would be supplied from the City of Seal Beach water system. This small amount of water use would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. The main source of water supply for the City is groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater levels in this basin are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the basin and to protect against land subsidence. The Orange County Water District regulates groundwater levels in the basin by regulating the annual amount of pumping and setting the Basin Production Percentage for the water year. The Basin Production Percentage is the ratio of water produced from groundwater supplies within the district to all water produced within the district, from both supplemental sources and groundwater within the district (Arcadis 2021). As a result, the annual operational water demand of 1,500 gallons would not adversely impact groundwater supplies from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 51 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 In addition, installation of solar arrays would not interfere with groundwater recharge, as stormwater would flow off the panels and would be absorbed into the adjacent unpaved, pervious ground surface, allowing for groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The project site is currently vacant and covered in pervious surfaces. The project would introduce minimal new impervious surfaces to the site, including equipment pads. Proposed solar arrays would not increase impervious surfaces at the site, as stormwater would flow off the solar panels and onto the unpaved/pervious ground beneath the panels. Sheet flow of stormwater runoff would be maintained where possible, with water exiting the site in existing natural contours. The pattern and volume of runoff would not be substantially altered by the project. Vegetation would be allowed to regrow under the solar panels, which would minimize any project-related, long-term increased runoff associated with construction related ground disturbance, thus in turn minimizing potential soil erosion and off-site flooding. However, pending revegetation of the site, increased stormwater runoff could temporarily occur due to a lack of vegetation. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 that limits the grading of the site and requires the existing vegetation to be cut and not removed would serve to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Increased runoff associated with ground disturbance could temporarily result in significant erosion induced water quality impacts. These impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less than Significant) As previously discussed, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as designated by FEMA. The site is within Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood (i.e., 500-year flood plain); an area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot; an area with drainage areas less than 1 square miles; or an area protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. Therefore, the potential for flooding is very low. In addition, as part of the approved Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, a 6-foot earthen berm would be constructed along the southern perimeter of the project site to prevent any hydraulic connection between the project site and the proposed Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, located to the south of the project site (Moffatt and Nichol 2023). This berm would further reduce the potential for flooding on-site. The solar tables would be mounted a minimum of 18 inches off the ground and the inverters would be mounted approximately 3 to 4 feet off the ground; therefore, in the unlikely event 1 foot of flooding occurs, the solar tables and inverters would not be affected. In the event collector cables, power cables, transformers, and disconnect switches are inundated, or partially inundated, by 1 foot of flood waters, no pollutants would be released to the environment during operations. The project site is located approximately 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean. The City of Seal Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan indicates that the project site is located outside of the City’s projected tsunami inundation zone (City of Seal Beach 2019). The western boundary of the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Facility is located adjacent to the Department of Water and Power Haynes Cooling Channel and therefore would potentially 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 52 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 be susceptible to sloshing of water during a seiche. However, the proposed solar field is located along the northeast boundary of the facility, not in proximity to the channel, and would therefore not be susceptible to inundation by seiche. A sea level rise analysis was completed in 2019 for the Hellman Ranch Gas Plant (Moffatt and Nichol 2019). Sea level rise impacts were evaluated for years 2060 and 2100. Impacts were evaluated under dry weather conditions and a 50-year storm event. In addition, eight sea level rise scenarios were evaluated based on low-, medium-, and high-risk aversions. Potential flood sources included the culvert to the San Gabriel River and internal Hellman Channel, the Haynes Cooling Channel, the San Gabriel River, and ocean water overtopping Highway 1. Based on this analysis, a sea level rise of 2.5 feet and above (up to 9.9 feet, including a 50-year storm) would inundate the proposed solar field. With the completion of the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, the +2.5 ft sea level rise scenario would not inundate the PV solar facility site. Under +3.2 ft and +3.7 ft sea level rise scenarios in the year 2060, the Haynes Cooling Channel east bank would be overtopped, and floodwater will inundate the PV solar facility site (Moffatt and Nichol 2019). The expected life of the PV solar facility is 25 to 30 years. However, in the event flooding occurs because of sea level rise, no pollutants would be released to the environment, as storage of petroleum products and/or hazardous substances would not occur on-site. If flooding due to sea level rise became an issue for the solar facility then the equipment could be raised or removed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (No Impact) As discussed in Thresholds a) and c) above, construction related water quality impacts would be addressed through implementation of a site-specific SWPPP and associated BMPs, and operational water quality impacts would be addressed through MM-HYD-1, Interim Soil Stabilization Plan. As a result, the project would not conflict with implementation of goals and policies of the Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). In addition, as discussed in Threshold b, groundwater impacts would not occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the 2020 City of Seal Beach Urban Water Management Plan, or the 2015 Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan. No impact would occur. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Interim Soil Stabilization Plan - Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the City of Seal Beach (City), an Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City, detailing measures that will be taken to prevent soil erosion subsequent to construction and pending revegetation of the site. Examples of soil stabilization measures include construction of temporary desilting basins, use of natural and/or synthetic soil binders (i.e., tackifiers and soil stabilizers), straw wattle installation at regular intervals within solar arrays and around construction area perimeters, and revegetation with site-appropriate native plants. Site monitoring shall be completed every six months and after rainfall events of 1.0 inch or greater to ensure that soil stabilization methods are continuing to be effective. In the event that erosion is observed during monitoring, corrective actions shall be taken immediately to prevent additional erosion. The Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be implemented under the supervision of the City. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 53 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.4.11 Land Use/Planning Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a. Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) Project implementation would not result in a physical division of an established community. Rather, the PV solar facilities would be located within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site, which is zones for industrial/oil extraction use. Therefore, no impacts would occur because of the proposed Project. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The PV solar facility would be located on the Hellman OGPF property, which is within the City’s Planning Area 2 as shown in the City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan Land Use Element. The Hellman OGPF site has a land use designation of Industrial-Oil Extraction (Figure 2, City of Seal Beach Land Use Element). The Hellman Ranch property is zoned S.P.R. (Specific Plan Regulation). The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan (HRSP) was adopted by the City in October 1997. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan consists of five Conservation Planning Areas and five Development Planning Areas. The PV solar project would be in Conservation Planning Area #4, which was for a public golf course. Portion of the Hellman OFPF and most of the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project site are in Conservation Planning Area #4, which is designated the Hellman Ranch Reserve Golf Course. Permitted uses are mineral production and easements for utilities. Other uses are allowed with conditional use permits that the City finds to be within the intent of the Specific Plan (Hellman Ranch Specific Plan 1997). In 2002, the California Coastal Commission issued a Coastal Development Permit that covered the Hellman OGPF property and other portions of the area covered by the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan. As such, the current provisions of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Coastal Development Permit. This fact is acknowledged in the City’s 2003 General Plan, Land Use Element, which stated the City should amended Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to be consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit within 12 months after adoption of the General Plan. However, the Hellman Specific Plan has never been updated. The City should collaborate with the landowners within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan to update the Plan to be consistent with the permit conditions of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit, and the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project. Given that the City’s Municipal Code allows for utility facilities within the oil extraction districts with a minor use permit and the fact that utility easements are allowed in the Conservation Planning Area #4 the PV solar project would not conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, there would be no impact. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 54 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.4.12 Mineral Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact) The PV solar facility would be located on the Hellman OGPF site, which is a known oil and gas mineral resource. The PV solar facility would not impact the development or production of oil and gas from the Hellman Ranch site. Therefore, no impacts would occur because of the proposed Project. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) The loss of known mineral resources of value to the region would not occur as a result of implementation of the PV solar project. The project site is not delineated as an important mineral resource recovery site on the City of Seal Beach General Plan or any other local plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur because of the proposed Project. 3.4.13 Noise Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 55 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Chapter 7.15 of the SBMC sets noise standards of 65 dBA at commercial properties at any time, 55 dBA at residential properties from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA at residential properties from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Section 7.15.025 of the SBMC exempts construction noise when performed between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and never on Sundays or city-observed federal holidays. The introduction of construction in this area would expose residents of the area to intermittently higher noise levels depending on the type of equipment being used during construction. Although the increase in noise in the proposed Project area would be greater than that which currently exists, it would be temporary in nature, would only occur during normal working hours, and would cease upon completion of construction. The nearest residence would be about 480 feet from the construction site. Table 3-8 provides an estimate of the peak noise levels that would be expected during each phase of the construction activities. The peak construction noise would be expected to occur during the site preparation phase, with a noise level of approximately 68 dBA at the nearest residence. This phase of the project would only last 3 days. Table 3-8 Peak Construction Noise Levels Phase/Equipment Quantity Noise Level (dBA) Distance (feet) Site Preparation Rubber Tire Dozer 1 82 50 Grader 1 85 50 Backhoe/Loader 1 79 50 Water Truck 1 74 50 Combined Equipment Noise Level 88 50 Noise Level at Nearest Property Line 96 20 Noise Level at Nearest Receptor 69 450 Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor 68 480 Support Pile Installation Backhoe/Loader 1 79 50 Forklift 1 75 50 Generator 1 81 50 Water Truck 1 74 50 Combined Equipment Noise Level 84 50 Noise Level at Nearest Property Line 92 20 Noise Level at Nearest Receptor 65 450 Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor 65 480 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Forklift 1 75 50 Backhoe/Loader 1 79 50 Generator 1 81 50 Welding Machine 1 74 50 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 56 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Table 3-8 Peak Construction Noise Levels Phase/Equipment Quantity Noise Level (dBA) Distance (feet) Water Truck 1 74 50 Combined Equipment Noise Level 85 50 Noise Level at Nearest Property Line 93 20 Noise Level at Nearest Receptor 65 450 Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor 65 480 Source: FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Mode Database (2006). Table 9.1 Compliance with the City regulations regarding limitations on construction hours and noise restrictions would reduce potential project impacts to less than significant levels. Further, the City's standard construction regulations require all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers to minimize noise. Noise from operation of the solar PV project would be generated by the Inverters and transformers during daylight hours, when the panels are generating electrical power. Table 3-9 provides a summary of the noise levels associated with the inverters and transformers. Table 3-9 Peak Operational Noise Levels Equipment Quantity Nearest Property Line Nearest Residential Receptor Distance (ft) Noise Level (dBA) Distance (ft) Noise Level (dBA) Inverters (1-6) 6 30 54 1,030 23 Inverters (7-11) 5 85 44 940 23 Inverters (12,14) 2 25 50 550 24 Inverters (13,15,16) 3 130 38 500 26 Transformer 1 110 22 1,150 1 Noise would only occur during daylight hours when electrical power is being generated. The operational noise levels would be below the 55 dBA standard set for residential properties between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at the nearest property line. Therefore, operational noise levels would be less than significant. b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant) There should be very low levels of ground borne vibration or noise during construction due to the equipment that is being used for this project. None of the construction equipment would generate significant vibration levels, and any vibration would be transient. The operation of the PV solar facility would not result in any ground borne vibration or noise. Table 3-10 provides data on vibration annoyance criteria. The project would not involve the use of pile drivers or other equipment that typically generate large amounts of ground borne vibration or noise. The Seal Beach Municipal Code states that no use, activity, or process shall produce vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at or beyond the property line of the site on which they are situated (Seal Beach Municipal Code §11.4.10.020 Performance Standards). 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 57 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Table 3-10 Human Response to Transient Vibration Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Barely Perceptible 0.035 Distinctly Perceptible 0.24 Strongly Perceptible 0.9 Severe 2.0 Source: Caltrans 2013. Table 3-11 provides estimated vibration levels for construction equipment as a function of distance from the source. Table 3-11 Estimated Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Vibration Level (in/sec) at 25-feet at 60-feet at 450-feet Backhoe/Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.001 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000 Large Truck 0.076 0.020 0.001 Source: Adapted from FTA 2006 and Caltrans 2013. Property Boundary-60 feet; Nearest Receptor-450 feet. Based on the threshold for transient vibration of 0.035 in/sec, construction equipment used for the PV Solar Project would not exceed the threshold beyond the property boundary. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a public or private airport. The project site is located over four miles from the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), the closest such site, and is not within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for that facility. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure N-1 – Construction, grading, and haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 3.4.14 Population/Housing Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 58 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ The construction workers would be drawn from the local Los Angeles Basin workforce. Construction of the PV Solar Project would take approximately three to four months. No new workers would be required to operate the PV solar facility. The existing Hellman Ranch OGFP staff would be adequate to monitor the facility. a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact) The project involves the construction of a PV solar facility within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Given the limited staffing needs for the construction of the project, all required workers would be drawn from the local Los Angeles Basin workforce. As such, the project would not generate any population growth. Therefore, no impacts on the local population levels would occur. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project would not displace existing housing as no housing exists on the proposed Project site. The project would not displace substantial numbers of people since it does not propose demolition of residential units. All construction and operational activities would occur within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF property. Therefore, there would be no impact on housing from the proposed Project. 3.4.15 Public Services Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iii. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ iv. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ v. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 59 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The PV Solar Project does not include relocation or construction of any governmental or other public facilities. The Project would not induce population growth in the area, as analyzed in Section 3.4.14 Population and Housing. The Project would not create demand for any public facilities that would result in the need for new or physically altered government facilities. (i) Fire protection? (Less than Significant) The PV solar facility would be constructed within the boundaries of the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site, and all construction and operational activities would have to comply with the OGPF’s Fire Protection Plan. Operation of the facility would not increase fire risk at the Hellman site and would not affect the current response times or emergency access for fire protection. Therefore, impacts on fire protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. (ii) Police protection? (No Impact) Construction and operation of the PV Solar facility would not require additional police support or increase demand for police protection services. Therefore, no impact on police services would occur. (iii) Schools? (No Impact) The PV Solar Project would not involve the development of residential homes or residential zoned property. The facility would be located on property with a land use designation of industrial, oil extraction. Given the short duration of the construction and the limited number of workers, the project would not increase families in the area. It is expected that workers would commute to the site from the local area. Therefore, no impact on schools would occur. (iv) Parks? (No Impact) The PV Solar Project would not impact any parks in the City of Seal Beach or the surrounding areas. Therefore, no impact on parks would occur. (v) Other public facilities? (No Impact) The PV Solar Project would only require four to ten construction workers depending upon the project phase. The longest construction phase would last about 21 days with total construction lasting three to four months. No permanent workers would be required for operation of the facility. As such, the proposed Project would not result in any additional population growth that could increase demand for other public services. Therefore, no impact on other public services would occur. 3.4.16 Recreation Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 60 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact) The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a new PV solar facility within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF property. The proposed Project would only require four to ten construction workers depending upon the project phase. The longest construction phase would last about 21 days with total construction lasting three to four months. No permanent workers would be required for operation of the facility. As such, the proposed Project would not result in any additional population growth that could increase demand for parks or other recreational facilities. The project would be exempt from park dedication fees or from dedicating land for park uses in keeping with the City's current parkland dedication requirements. Therefore, no impact on parks or recreational facilities would occur. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) The proposed Project does not include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 3.4.17 Transportation Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Access to the Hellman Ranch OGPF is from Pacific Coast Highway via a private road at the intersection of First Street. This intersection is controlled by an existing traffic signal. Secondary access to the site is provided to the Hellman Ranch OGPF site from Seal Beach Boulevard via Adolfo Lopez Drive. This access point is used for employees to access wells located on Seal Beach Boulevard. This access point is also available to emergency response vehicles. Traffic associated with the proposed Project would use the private road entrance from Pacific Coast Highway as the main access point to the project site. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 61 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 No new employees would be needed for operation of the PV solar facility. The existing Hellman staffing would be adequate to monitor the facility. Maintenance work on the facility would be done by outside contracts and would require only eight visits per year (5 for general maintenance, 2 for vegetation control and one for solar panel washing). Peak day construction trips would be about four round trips for trucks delivering material and supplies, and 11 round trips for workers and vendors. This peak would be expected to occur for about 20 days during the equipment installation phase. Table 3-12 provides a summary of the vehicle trips for each of the construction phases. Table 3-12 Construction Vehicle Trips Activity Duration (days) Round Trips per Day Peak Hourly One-Way Trips Workers Vendors Delivery Trucks Workers Vendors Delivery Trucks Site Preparation 3 6 0 2 6 0 2 Support Pile Installation 21 8 1 4 8 1 2 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 20 10 1 4 10 1 2 Testing and Commissioning 20 4 2 0 4 2 0 Source: Newport Solar a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Seal Beach is not serviced by Amtrak or any other rail service. There is bus service along Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach, which is used for access to the project site. The nearest bus stop is located just south of 1st Street on Pacific Coast Highway. The Hellman site is accessed via 1st Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The limited traffic associated with the proposed Project would not impact on any of these bus stops. Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the project site has a Class II bike lane (on road, stripped lanes). The intersection of 1st and Pacific Coast Highway is signalized and has crosswalks with pedestrian signals. The limited traffic associated with the proposed Project would not impact the existing Class II bike lane. As discussed above, the proposed Project will generate a small amount of traffic during construction with a peak average daily trip (ADT) of 15 round trips. For operations it would be a peak average daily trip of one round trip. This is less than the traffic impact analysis threshold (1,600 vehicle trips per day) specified in the Orange County 2023 Congestion Management Program (CMP) (OCTA, 2023). The temporary construction traffic and very limited operational traffic would not exceed the Orange County 2023 Congestion Management Program threshold for traffic impact analysis so impacts would be less than significant. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction of the PV solar facility would generate a total of 22,342 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over the three to four months of construction. Operation of the facility would generate 480 VMT per year. This compares with 3.17 billion VMT in orange county during the first quarter of 2023 on urban area freeways (OCTA, 2023). As such, construction of the PV solar facility would have minimal impacts (if any) on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on the surrounding area. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 62 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) formerly known as the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impact in CEQA with the new VMT requirement states the following: “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks (OPR 2018). OPR also indicates that “absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact” (OPR 2018). According to LCI, lead agencies may generally assume that a project would not have significant VMT impacts if the project would either: (1) generate fewer trips than the level for studying consistency with the applicable congestion management program or (2) where the applicable congestion management program does not provide such a level, fewer than 110 vehicle trips per day. As discussed in item (a), the proposed Project would not exceed the Orange County CMP thresholds. Therefore, the Project uses the screening criterion of 110 net new peak hour vehicle trips as the level at which most projects would not typically generate a substantial increase in VMT. The proposed project would not exceed the 110 peak hour vehicle trips, and therefore, impact would be considered less than significant. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) The proposed Project would not require the construction of any new public roads or create any new incompatible uses for local roadways. No new private roads would need to be created for the proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. Result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact) The existing Hellman Ranch OGPF site has two access points for emergency service vehicles. The addition of the PV solar facility would not alert the existing emergency access to the site. Therefore, there would be no impact on emergency access. 3.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 63 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Many archeological investigations have been conducted on the Hellman property over the past 50 years in support of both oil/gas and residential development. The most recent archeological field investigation was done in 2019 in support of a proposed gas plant approximately 320 feet southwest of the current project area (Wahoff 2019). As part of the 2019 study, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton. The 2019 records search revealed that at least 18 previous cultural resources surveys or other archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 miles of the current Project area, and that the entire Project area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources on at least four occasions (Archaeological Associates 1980; Rosenthal and Padon 1990; Stickel 1996; York and Willey 2004). None of these field surveys revealed any cultural resources within the Project area, although one (Archaeological Associates 1980) noted two dispersed scatters of marine shell (CA-ORA-850 and -851) located approximately 500 and 50 feet east and northeast of the Project area, respectively. Other cultural resources within 0.25 mile include CA-ORA-257, -258, and -259, all consisting of remnants of prehistoric shell middens along the crest of Landing Hill to the south of the Project area (Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996; Cleland et al. 2007); P-30-01544, a large but dispersed scatter of marine shell and artifacts located on the Boeing property immediately north of Adolfo Lopez Drive (Underwood 2000); and the Los Alamitos Pump Station, approximately 550 feet north of the Project area (Shepard 2002). The records search identified seven cultural resources within the 0.25-mile-radius buffer radius of the proposed Project site. These resources include six prehistoric archaeological sites and one historic structure. Of the six archaeological sites, one consists of milling features with a scatter of groundstone or flaked stone artifacts; one is a groundstone scatter with a flaked lithic; one is a lithic and shell scatter, and three have midden deposits. Of these three midden sites, one also includes a shell scatter, and one a scatter of flaked stone and groundstone artifacts. The historic structure is a historic-period flood pump station. None of the resources were located within the Project Area of Direct Impact (ADI). Given the disturbed nature of the proposed Project site and the fact that limited ground disturbance activities would occur, it is unlikely that cultural resources would be found during the construction 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 64 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 activities. However, given the culturally sensitive nature of the Hellman property and the surrounding areas the mitigation measures CR-1, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 should be implemented. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) For purposes of impact analysis, a tribal cultural resource is considered a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object which is of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe and is either on or eligible for the California Register or a local historic register. The City sent notification letters on December 8, 2023 to the California Native American Tribes that requested inclusion on the City’s AB 52 notification list. As of the end of March 2024, the City had received one written response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh). This comment letter focused on the need for Native American monitoring during ground disturbance at the project site. The City has verbal discussions with a representative of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. Their concern was also about having Native American monitors present during ground disturbance activities. The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council has historically done archeological/Native American monitoring on the Hellman Properties and had been to the proposed Project site for consultation with the Applicant. The Applicant has agreed to use Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council members to conduct archeological/Native American monitoring of all ground disturbance activities associate with the proposed Project. In addition, the Applicant has committed to having an archeologist present during all ground disturbance activities. Given the culturally sensitive nature of the Hellman property and the surrounding areas the mitigation measures CR-1, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 should be implemented. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring – The project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor that shall be approved by the City of Seal Beach. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity associated with the project. Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the monitoring agreement between the Applicant and the Native American monitor shall be submitted to the City as of the approval process. The Native American monitor may complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, any cultural-related materials found, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project Applicant/City upon written request to the Native American monitor. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 65 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non- Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) – Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Native American Monitor and archeologist. The Native American Monitor shall recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects – Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. 3.4.19 Utilities/Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ The Hellman Ranch OGPF is served by Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical power and by the City of Seal Beach water and wastewater infrastructure. The PV solar facility would be a net generator of 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 66 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 electric power. No wastewater would be generated as part of the proposed Project. Water use would be limited to 1,500 gallons one per year for washing the solar panels. Would the Project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities. All runoff from the PV solar panels would remain on site. No new water or wastewater treatment facilities would need to be constructed for the proposed Project. There would be no new or expanded natural gas facilities. The City has water pipelines that are in the vicinity of proposed Solar PV Project. Figure 3-6 shows the location of the water pipelines in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The City requires a 30 foot clearance on either side of the pipelines to allow for maintenance work. The 12-inch water pipeline that runs down the service road for the Los Alamitos Retention Basin comes the closest to the PV Solar Panels. The closest the PV Solar project components come to the southern edge of the service road is about 40 feet, which is greater than the 30 feet required by the City. To ensure that the 30 foot distance is maintained between the project components and the City waterlines mitigation measure USS-1 shall be implemented. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Figure 3-6 City Waterlines in Vicinity of PV Solar Project Source: Google, Google Earth data © Google 2023, and Maps Provided by City of Seal Beach. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 67 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (No Impact) The total volume of water needed for dust control throughout construction is approximately 22,000 gallons, which is not a substantial volume of water, and is only a onetime water use. Operations would require 1,500 gallons per year washing the solar panels. Water would be obtained from the existing water system at the Hellman OGPF site, which is supplied by the City of Seal Beach. There would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources. No new or expanded entitlements would be needed. Therefore, there would be no impact. c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (No Impact) The PV solar facility would not generate any wastewater and would not require any modifications to the existing sewer or water connections that currently exist at the Hellman OGPF site. The site would have portable toilets for use by the construction workers. Therefore, there would be no impact. d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less and Significant Impact) The Hellman Ranch property is currently served by the Frank R. Bowerman landfill. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is a state-of-the-art, Class III, municipal solid waste landfill. Opened in 1990 near Irvine, CA, it is permitted for 11,500 tons per day (TPD) maximum with an 8,500 TPD annual average. The landfill has enough projected capacity to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2053. Operation of the PV solar facility would not generate any solid waste. Construction of the Project would generate small volumes of construction waste (e.g., equipment packaging and trash generated by workers). The small quantity of waste generated would not be more than the capacity of the landfill. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact) All local, state, and federal guidelines regarding solid waste will be complied with during project construction and operation. Therefore, there would be no impact. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure USS-1: Buffer to City Waterlines – The Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 30 feet from City waterlines for all project components. The final project drawings shall show the distance from the SV Solar Project to the 12-inch City waterline that is in the Los Alamitos Retention Basin service road. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 68 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.4.20 Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Wildfire risk in California is evaluated on a three-tier scale based on fire hazard severity potential: very high, high, and moderate. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) maps all areas in the state that could fall under any tier of this scale and divides these areas into zones. This Plan is concerned with the location of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs). The City of Seal Beach has no land that is currently classified as VHFHSZs. Seal Beach does not have a history of wildfires. As the City has become increasingly developed over time, the amount of land where wildfires could emerge has shrunk. Given how little undeveloped land remains in Seal Beach that the City directly controls, it is unlikely that the City will be affected by a wildfire of any significance (City of Seal Beach, 2019). a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The project is required to meet all applicable fire codes and City regulations that provide for adequate access to and from the site and would not impair access. The project would not impair the implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact. b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (No Impact) The PV solar facility would be located with the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF in an area that would not be expected to increase the risk of wildfire in the area. Construction of the proposed Project would not change the slope site or otherwise affect wind patterns in the area that would exacerbate wildfire risks. The site would not require grading or recontouring. The solar panels would be low to the ground (mounted approximately 18-inches to 4 feet above the ground surface) and would not affect wind directions or wind patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 69 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less than Significant) No new roads, fuel breaks, or emergency water sources would be installed as part of the proposed Project. Brush and vegetation within the Project site would be mowed or weed wacked at the start of construction which would minimize the risk of igniting a wildlife. After construction, low vegetation would be allowed to grow under the solar panels. The potential for solar panel failure that would result in fires is very low because solar panels do not generate sparks or contain parts that are known to start fires. During operation vegetation management would occur that would involve mowing the vegetation within the project area. The power lines installed with the solar panels would all be placed underground, where the risk for igniting fires would be very low. The transformers and inverters would be contained with electrical boxes. The risk of ignition from these electrical components would be low because the electrical box would contain any potential sparks in the event of an equipment malfunction. The PV solar facility would also have access to the existing Hellman OGPF firewater system. The water monitors at the oil storage facility would be able to provide firewater to the PV solar facility in the unlikely event of a fire. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less than Significant) The PV solar facility is surrounded by urbanized uses and borders the Heron Pointe water quality basin. As described in Section 3.4.7, Geology and Soils, the Project site is relatively flat and has not historically been affected by landslides, nor has the area directly surrounding the Project. Construction of the Project would not involve substantial grading that could result in landslides because of post-fire instability. As described in Section 3.4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the drainage patterns of the Project site would not be altered during construction. In the unlikely event of a fire at the PV solar facility it could spread to other areas if it was contained. The PV solar facility would be subject to the existing Hellman OGPF Fire Protection Plan, which covers the entire facility site. The Hellman OGPF also has an extensive firewater system that is adequate to address any fire at the PV solar facility. As such, the PV solar facility would not pose a significant risk to people or structures due to runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes due to the flat topography of the site. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 70 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 3.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described in Section 3.4.4, Biological Resources, construction of the PV Solar facility has the potential to affect habitat, wildlife, and plants. Mitigation measures have been provided to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Construction of the Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The impact on habitat and populations of fish and wildlife would be less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.4.4. As discussed in Section 3.4.5, Cultural Resources, no important examples of California history or prehistory are known to occur within the Project site. Given the limited amount of grading needed, and the fact that the site has been previously disturbed, the potential for impacting cultural resources is limited. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to unknown cultural resources to less than significant. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 71 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) The PV solar Project would have no significant operational impact that can’t be mitigated. Potential glare impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance using identified solar panel design measures. The solar facility operations would be monitored as part of the Hellman facility operations by the existing facility staff. The solar facility maintenance would be dispatched on an as-needed basis in response to equipment malfunction or decreased facility performance. Most of the impacts from the project would be associated with construction and were found to be either less than significant or have no impact. All the construction impacts would be temporary in nature, lasting at most three to four months. Some of the construction impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Biology Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology/Water Quality, Utilities/Service Systems, and Tribal Cultural Resources). The cumulative projects identified in the Project area are the proposed Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, the City Hellman Ranch Watermain Rehabilitation Project, and a few Caltrans Project along Highway 1. The LCWA Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Phase I) and the City waterline Project would be near the PV Solar Project and could use the same route to access their respective project sites (First Street and the access road to the Hellman Property). Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is expected to be completed in two phases with Phase 1 expected to begin in September 2025 and to end in mid-2027. The Phase 1 restoration activities would focus on enhancing existing habitat areas in closer proximity to the existing muted tidal channel connection via the culvert connected to the San Gabriel River. Phase 2 restoration activities would expand tidal wetlands throughout the Project Area by creating a full tidal connection with the Haynes Cooling Channel (LCWA. 2023). The major construction activities associated with the Phase I Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project include the following: • Raising 1st Street utilizing a box bridge system and fill; • Reconfiguring utilities on 1st Steet, including undergrounding utilities and anchoring utilities to the box bridge; • Removing the culverts under the existing dirt access roads and replacing the existing culverts and headwalls under 1st Street with two standard cement 12 foot boxes to create a box bridge; • Constructing earthen berms to control flooding; • Grading the site, including excavation to create tidal channels, which is expected to produce approximately 60,000 cubic yards of material; • Clearing and grubbing the site to remove non-native and invasive species, including removal of approximately 100 trees; and • Remediating soils (e.g., on-site treatment, excavation, testing and removal, or cap in place) that have been impacted by oil operations, including removal and hauling approximately 22,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils (LCWA 2025). 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 72 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 The anticipated construction schedule for Phase I Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is as follows: • Begin Construction: September 2025, • Clear and Grub; Rough Grading/Earthwork in ESHA: Fall 2025 – Winter 2026, • Rough Grading Complete: Summer 2026, • Bridge and Road Work: Spring – Summer 2026, • Install public amenities and trails: Spring – Fall 2026, • Install irrigation: Fall 2026, • Install landscaping: Fall 2026 – Winter 2027, • Plant establishment period: Winter- Spring 2027 (3 Months), and • Project complete: May 2027 (LCWA 2025). Construction of the LCWA Project has the potential to impact similar resources as the proposed Project during their major grading/construction activities. Based upon the current schedule, the LCWA Project would have completed all of the major grading/construction activities by the end of summer 2026, which would be before the beginning of construction of the proposed Project, which is estimated to start in September 2026. If construction activities of both projects were to overlap, the Adolfo Lopez Drive access could be used as an alternative for accessing the site. Given that the major grading/construction activities for the LCWA Project would not overlap with construction of the proposed Project, cumulative impacts with the LCWA Wetland Restoration Project would be less than significant. City Hellman Ranch Watermain Rehabilitation Project would involve digging about four to eight pits along the pipeline to expose the pipeline to allow for the installation of a pipeline liner. The number of pits will depend upon the manufacturer chosen to install the lining system. Figure 3-6 shows the location of this existing 18-inch watermain. The City is proposing to use a cured-in-place pipe lining (CIPP) system that involves a resin-impregnated pipe liner that is either injected into the pipe with air or water or pulled in with a winch. The liner is then cured at ambient temperature or by using hot water, steam, or UV light. The Watermain Rehabilitation Project would be expected to generate temporary traffic and air emissions during the project, which would likely take a few months to complete. It is unlikely to have biological and cultural resource impacts since most of the pipeline is within existing roads and in previously disturbed areas. The City will need to complete this project prior to the road work associated with the LCWA Project along First Street, which is expected to be complete in Summer of 2026. (The LWCA Project will raise the height of First Steet where the City has an easement for their existing 18-inch watermain). The City has indicated they anticipate the work to occur in the Fall of 2025. If for some reason the construction phases of the projects overlapped, the Adolfo Lopez Drive access could be used as an alternative for accessing the site. Given the current timing of the projects, there should be no overlap of construction, and therefore no cumulative impacts with the City Watermain Rehabilitation Project. Caltrans has several potential projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project. • Caltrans has a planned project to widen and upgrade the rails on the Highway 1 San Gabriel River bridge in Long Beach. The project would also add a Class II bike lane. This project is currently in the design phase and was budgeted for the 24/25 fiscal year (Caltrans 2024); However, it has not been scheduled due to pending approvals. The schedule for this work is not known. • Caltrans plans to undertake a safety improvement project on State Route 1 (SR-1) between the Santa Ana River Bridge (PM 21.5) and Anderson Street (PM 31.1) in the City of Huntington Beach, in the 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 73 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 County of Orange. This is south of the proposed Project area. The project will add comprehensive Class II bike lanes in both directions along SR-1 within the stated limits. The project is expected to be completed by July of 2026, which would be before construction of the proposed Project would begin (Caltrans 2024a,b). • Caltrans is in the process of removing and replacing the existing traffic signal systems at 20 intersections to enhance traffic signal poles, equipment and lighting between Crystal Heights Drive in Newport Beach and First Street in Seal Beach. This project began in August of 2023 and is expected to be completed October of 2025 (Caltrans 2024b). These projects would not impact on the same area as the solar PV project, as it relates to biological and cultural resources so there would be no cumulative impacts for these issue areas. The third listed project could impact traffic flow along Highway 1 during the installation of the new traffic signals, but the solar PV project has minimal construction traffic, and as such the projects contribution to cumulative traffic would be less than significant. Therefore, the solar PV project’s contribution to cumulative impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The PV Solar Project would not have any environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Direct and indirect impacts on human beings from Project construction and operation are addressed in Sections 3.4.3, Air Quality; 3.4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 3.4.13, Noise; and 3.4.20, Wildfire and show that the impacts are either less than significant or no impact. 4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 74 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 4.0 List of Reference Documents Alameda County. 2018. CalSun Solar Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. September 2018. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/CalSun_IS-MND-9.13.2018-FINAL- for-dist.pdf AECOM. 2023. Cultural Resources Assessment Report for a Proposed Solar Array, Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, Seal Beach, California, April 26, 2023. Arcadis. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final Draft, June 2021. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20UW MP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.05.27.pdf?ver=2021-06-01-161424-263. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2023. 2023 CEQA Statute & Guidelines, 2023. https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2023_final.pdf California Coastal Commission. 2023. Public Resources Code Division 20 California Coastal Act, 2023. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf ___. 2000. Coastal Development Permit 5-97-367-A 1, October 2000. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2000/10/W14a-10-2000.pdf California Department of Conservation. 2012. Special Report 217: Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California. December 2012. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/publications/sr217 ___. 2023. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards-Earthquake Zone App. 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/ California Energy Commission. 2024. Investigating the “Lake Effect” Influence on Avian Behavior From California’s Utility-Scale Photovoltaic Solar Facilities. June 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/CEC-500-2024-055.pdf Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm- apr2020-a11y.pdf ___.2024. Proposed 2024 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). January 2024. https://tableau- public.dot.ca.gov/views/2024SHOPP/2024SHOPPDashboard?:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=n &:showVizHome=n&:origin=viz_share_link&:isGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&:embed=y ___.2024a. Complete Streets Action Plan 2024-25. 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/esta/documents/complete-streets/2024- 25_completestreetsactionplan_publicdraft-a11y.pdf ___.2024b. Public Records Request April 24, 2024, Reference #R031243-042424. April 2024. California Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf 4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 75 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 ___. 2019. California Solar Permitting Guidebook. Winter 2019. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190226-Solar_Permitting_Guidebook_4th_Edition.pdf Caterpillar. 2022. Caterpillar Performance Handbook. December 9, 2022. https://wheelercat.com/about/resources/cat-performance-handbook/ City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/Planning-Development/General- Plan ___. 2003a. Land Use Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Land%20Use%20Element.pdf ___. 2003b. Open Space/Conservation Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Open%20Space.pdf ___. 2003c. Noise Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Noise%20Element.pdf ___. 2003d. Circulation Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Circulation%20Element.pdf ___. 2003e. Cultural Resources Element, Adopted December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Cultural%20Resources.pdf ___. 2013. Zoning Map, Marina Hill, Hellman Ranch & Boeing Facility. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/ZoningMap-MarinaHill-HellmanRanch- Boeing_2013.pdf ___. 2018. Sewer System Management Plan, February 2018. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Draft%202018%20Sewer%20System%20Managem ent%20Plan.pdf ___. 2019. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, May 31, 2019. https://sealbeachpd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/City-of-Seal-Beach-Local-Hazard-Mitigation- Plan.pdf. ___. 2019a. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. July 2019. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/SealBeach_VA_7.12.19_Draft01.pdf?ver=2019-07- 15-124445-557 ___. 1996. Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, 1996. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Hellman%20Ranch%20Specific%20Plan%201996.p df?ver=2016-06-07-132319-967 Chint Power Systems America (CPS). 2021. 100/125kW 1500Vdc String Inverters for North America. 2021. https://www.chintpowersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CPS-SCH100-125KTL-DO-US-600- Datasheet-3-11-2024.pdf DNV. 2019. PV Inverter Useful Life Considerations. January 14, 2019. https://www.dnv.com/publications/pv-inverter-useful-life-considerations-144365/ East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2020. Duffel Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. January 2020. 4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 76 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 https://www.ebmud.com/download_file/force/7167/1037?Public_Draft_Duffel_PV_IS- MND_with_Appendices_8.2019.pdf Energy 5. 2023. Solar Panel Installations and their Effects on Local Rodent Populations. August 13, 2023. https://energy5.com/solar-panel-installations-and-their-effect-on-local-rodent-populations Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 113 of 539. 2023. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. August 2006. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8837/dot_8837_DS1.pdf Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf Glenn Lukos Associates. 2023. Biological Technical Report for Helman Property Solar Panel Array. October 2023. Hathcock. 2018. Literature Review on Impacts to Avian Species from Solar Energy Collection and Suggested Mitigations. 2018. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/03/f61/Hathcock%202018.pdf Kosciuch. 2021. Aquatic Habitat Bird Occurrences at Photovoltaic Solar Energy Development in Southern California, USA. October 23, 2021. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/11/524 Los Cerritos Wetland Authority. 2020. Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Final EIR. October 2022. https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/the-lcws-eir/ ___. 2023. Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Final Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration. June 2023. https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/southern-los-cerritos-wetlands-restoration-project/ ___.2021. The Los Cerritos Wetland Habitat Restoration Plan. May 26, 2021. https://intoloscerritoswetlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LCW-Restoration-Plan-Final- 5_26_21.pdf ___.2025. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority Request for Proposal-Construction Management Services for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project. February 20, 2025. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ltxvueiaf28fqakbbm4xc/LCWA-SLCWRP-CM-2-20- 25.pdf?rlkey=ecllrtc1t2jhvpr65a8rffe21&e=1&st=ctaip59i&dl=0 Meister Consulting Group. 2014. Solar and Glare. June 2014. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/306952_Solar%20PV%20and%20Glare.pdf Moffatt & Nichol. 2019. Hellman Ranch Gas Plan Sea Level Rise Study, June 20, 2019. Orange County Transportation Authority. 2023. 2023 Orange County Congestion Management Program Report. November 2023. https://www.octa.net/pdf/2023CMP.pdf?n=202311 4.0 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 77 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 ___.2022. Bikeway Map Guide. 2022. https://www.octa.net/pdf/ocbikewaysmap.pdf SCAQMD. 2009. Localized Air Quality Threshold Look-Up Tables. October 21, 2009. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized- significance-thresholds ___. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2, 2022. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air- quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16 ___. 2024. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard, June 7, 2024. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/pm2.5-plans/final-pm2.5-plan/2012- annual-pm2-5-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=eb518a61_16 ___. 2025. South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revision for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. May 20, 2025. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/ozone-plans/south-coast-ozone- contingency-sip-revision/sc-contingency-public-consultation-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=8c19d61_6 Sonoran Joint Venture. 2016. Industrial-Scale Solar Projects and Birds in California Desert: Assessing Impacts & Developing Mitigation. May 5, 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319204519_Industrial- scale_solar_projects_and_birds_in_the_California_desert_Assessing_impacts_developing_mitigation State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. Impaired Water Bodies. 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml?wbid=CAR 4051600020000229163853 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2019. Independent Statistics and Analysis Solar Capacity Factors. November 2019. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832#:~:text=Utah's%200.9%20GW%20of%20solar, average%20capacity%20factor%20of%2028.4%25. Wood. 2018. Geotechnical Investigation Report-Hellman Gas Plant, July 9, 2018. 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT 78 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 5.0 List of Preparers City of Seal Beach (Lead CEQA Agency) Shaun Temple MRS Environmental, Inc. John Peirson, Jr. Gregory Chittick Dean Dusette Nicole Trezza Lauren Brown Dudek Perry W Russell, PG Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. Tony Bomkamp Erin Trung Brittany Gale David Moskovitz AECOM Andrew York Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring Program HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: Construction Lighting – Any construction lighting shall be shielded and directed only toward the construction area so as not to impact surrounding areas CDD C During construction A 4 Mitigation Measure AES-2: Solar Panel Design – The solar panels shall be installed facing south with a fixed tilt angle of 10 degrees. The solar panels shall be constructed of dark-colored materials and shall be covered with an anti-reflective coating. These requirements shall be documented on the final project drawing submitted to the City for approval. CDD B/D Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Prior to Operation A/C 2/4 Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Short-Term Construction Emission Reduction Measures – During construction activities, the contractor shall ensure that measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the Project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering or other dust palliative measures (such as covering stock piles with tarps) to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and use Tier-4-rated heavy equipment; c) enforce 5- minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment; and d) sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from construction site. CDD C During construction A 4 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-2 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Project Construction Timing – Construction activities associated with site preparation, support pile installation, and Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation shall occur outside of the bird nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. CDD B Prior to Issuance of Building Permit A/C 2 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Grading Limitations – To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded. The vegetation on the project site shall be cleared using mowers or weed whackers. CDD C During Construction A 4 Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Burrowing Owl Survey – A pre- construction (initial take avoidance) burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the pre-construction survey is positive for owl presence, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to acquire proper avoidance measures, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If the species is not found, no further action is needed. CDD B Prior to Construction D 2 Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Southern Tarplant and Coulters goldfields Preconstruction Surveys – Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a City approved biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields during the appropriate season for each species to determine final mitigation requirements. These surveys shall cover the entire project area as well as a buffer area of 100-feet outside the construction boundaries. If Coulters goldfields are detected in CDD B Prior to Construction D 2 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-3 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance the Project impact area, then the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be amended to include mitigation for Coulter’s goldfields at a 4:1 ratio at a location with suitable habitat for the species. Any populations of Coulter’s goldfields or southern tarplant within the 100 foot buffer zone or within the construction area that can be avoided, shall be demarcated with construction fencing. No vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or other construction activities shall occur in the fenced areas or within 30 feet of any Coulter’s goldfields. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Prior to impacts to the southern tarplant in the Project site, a biologist, approved by the City, shall implement the measures contained in the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see Appendix E), which provides for replacement of the impacted 83 individuals at a ratio of 4:1, for a total of 332 individuals. However, if pre-construction surveys determine that total numbers of impacted individuals has changed, the total number of replacement individuals shall be adjusted accordingly at a 4:1 ratio. The plan identifies a candidate area of the Hellman Property where southern tarplant may be established and preserved in perpetuity. The plan includes provisions for seed collection, planting, performance standards for a five-year monitoring period, and contingency plans if the performance standards are not met. CDD B Prior to Construction D 2 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-1: Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Treatment Plan – Prior to issuance of a grading permit an Archeological Monitoring and Unanticipated CDD B Prior to Issuance of Building Permit D 2 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-4 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Discovery Treatment Plan shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval. The plan shall be prepared by a City approved archaeologist. The qualified archeologist shall coordinate with the Native American monitors during the preparation of the plan. The plan shall outline areas that will be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, if needed. Significant or unevaluated archaeological resources that are being avoided and are within 50 feet of the construction zone shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The resources shall be delineated with exclusion markers to ensure avoidance. The plans shall specify the monitoring procedures, the field and laboratory methods that would be used for treatment of unanticipated discoveries, and the requirements for Native American participation in the monitoring and treatment activities. Procedures outlined shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures. The plan shall state avoidance or preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and contributors to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape but shall provide procedures to follow should avoidance be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed if human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Monitoring – An archaeologist, approved by the City of Seal Beach, shall be present at the site during all ground disturbance activities. CDD B/C Prior to Issuance of Building Permit During Construction D/A 4 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-5 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Interim Soil Stabilization Plan - Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the City of Seal Beach (City), an Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City, detailing measures that will be taken to prevent soil erosion subsequent to construction and pending revegetation of the site. Examples of soil stabilization measures include construction of temporary desilting basins, use of natural and/or synthetic soil binders (i.e., tackifiers and soil stabilizers), straw wattle installation at regular intervals within solar arrays and around construction area perimeters, and revegetation with site- appropriate native plants. Site monitoring shall be completed every six months and after rainfall events of 1.0 inch or greater to ensure that soil stabilization methods are continuing to be effective. In the event that erosion is observed during monitoring, corrective actions shall be taken immediately to prevent additional erosion. The Interim Soil Stabilization Plan shall be implemented under the supervision of the City. BO B/E Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Post Construction D/A 2/4 Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Design of Solar Table Risers – The solar table risers shall be designed so they can be increase in height by adding additional riser sections in the event that the PV solar facility becomes subject to flooding due to sea level rise. The design elements for adding additional riser sections shall be shown on the facility design drawing submitted to the City for approval. BO B/D Prior to Issuance of Building Permit D/A 2/4 Noise Mitigation Measure N-1 – Construction, grading, and haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, or at BO C During Construction A 4 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-6 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Native American Monitoring – The project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor that shall be approved by the City of Seal Beach. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity associated with the project. Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the monitoring agreement between the Applicant and the Native American monitor shall be submitted to the City as of the approval process. The Native American monitor may complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, any cultural-related materials found, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project Applicant/City upon written request to the Native American monitor. CDD B/C Prior to Issuance of Building Permit During Ground Disturbance Activities A/D 2 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-7 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) – Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Native American Monitor and archeologist. The Native American Monitor shall recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. CDD C During Ground Disturbance Activities A/D 4 Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects – Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. CDD C During Ground Disturbance Activities A/D 4 HELLMAN SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PROJECT A-8 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION JULY-2025 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project Name.: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Applicant: Hellman Properties, LLC Initial Study/MND Approved by: Shaun Temple Date: July 14, 2025 Mitigation Measures No. / Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification Method of Verification Verified Date /Initials Sanctions for Non-Compliance Utilities/Service Systems Mitigation Measure USS-1: Buffer to City Waterlines – The Applicant shall maintain a minimum of 30 feet from City waterlines for all project components. The final project drawings shall show the distance from the SV Solar Project to the 12-inch City waterline that is in the Los Alamitos Retention Basin service road. BO B Prior to Issuance of Building Permit C 2 Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions CDD - Community Development Director or designee A - With Each New Development A - On-site Inspection 1 - Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD - Planning Director or designee B - Prior To Construction B - Other Agency Permit / Approval 2 - Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE - City Engineer or designee C - Throughout Construction C - Plan Check 3 - Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO - Building Official or designee D - On Completion D - Separate Submittal (Reports/Studies/ Plans) 4 - Stop Work Order PO - Police Captain or designee E - Operating 5 - Retain Deposit or Bonds FC - Fire Chief or designee 6 - Revoke CUP 7 - Citation Appendix B Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Drawings No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV1 COVER SHEET NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68GENERAL NOTES SCOPE OF WORK: THE INSTALLATION OF A GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) PLANT INCLUDING PV MODULES, AND GRID INTERACTIVE INVERTERS, AND RACKING STRUCTURE TO SUPPLY POWER TO THE FACILITY IN PARALLEL WITH THE EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY GRID. PROJECT LOCATION: 711 1ST STREET, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 APN: 095-010-68 INTERCONNECTION: THE PV SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN PARALLEL WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER. THE INVERTERS PROVIDE ANTI-ISLANDING PROTECTION AS WELL AS HARMONIC LIMITS THAT COMPLY WITH UL 1741, IEEE 1547, AND IEEE 519. CODE ENFORCED: CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, 2019 EDITION CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2019 EDITION CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2019 EDITION AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION: SEAL BEACH BUILDING AND SAFETY ELECTRIC UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) SHEET INDEX PROJECT SITE PV1 COVER SHEET PV2 PROPERTY SITE PLAN RACKING DETAILS SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM WIRE CHART SIGNAGE PV SYSTEM EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS RACKING SHOP DRAWINGS PV3 PV4 PV6 PV7 PV8 9-16 SITE LOCATION PV5 DC SYSTEM SIZE AC SYSTEM SIZE DC / AC RATIO MANUFACTURER MODEL DC POWER @ STC TOTAL MODULES MANUFACTURER TYPE TILT / AZIMUTH POCC / POI VOLTAGE PV SYSTEM DETAILS ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES RACKING 1,503.50 kW 1600.0 kW 0.94 600Y/347V HANWHA Q CELL Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485W 3100 SOLCOMPONENTS GROUND MOUNT FIXED TILT 10°/ 180° MANUFACTURER MODEL AC POWER RATING QUANTITY INVERTER CHINT POWER SYSTEMS CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 100kW 16 ROOFTOP PV SYSTEM DETAILS NUMBER OF ARRAYS 56 PV MODULES PER ARRAY 56, (1) ARRAY W/ 20 GENERAL NOTES HELLMAN PROPERTIES SEAL BEACH SOLAR PV ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION DRAWINGS SITE PLAN Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve HERON CIR(N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY (3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180° (16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS PV SYSTEM SUBPANEL PV SYSTEM TRANSFORMER PV INVERTERS #12,14 PV INVERTERS #13,15,16 PV SUBPANEL #3 [6a]800A PV INVERTERS #7,8,9,10,11 PV SUBPANEL #2 [6a]800A PARCEL BOUNDRY APN: 095-010-68 UTILITY ELECTRICAL MAIN SERVICE PANEL PV SYSTEM AC DISCONNECT SWITCHES PV SUBPANEL #1 [6b]800A TRENCHING PATH (VIF) PV INVERTERS #1,2,3,4,5,6 BLUE HERONOFFICE No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV2 PROPERTY SITE PLAN NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve SCALE: 1 8" = 1' (N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY (3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180° (16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS PV SYSTEM SUBPANEL PV SYSTEM TRANSFORMER PV INVERTERS #12,14 PV INVERTERS #13,15,16 PV SUBPANEL #3 [6a]800A PV INVERTERS #7,8,9,10,11 PV SUBPANEL #2 [6a]800A PARCEL BOUNDRY APN: 095-010-68 UTILITY ELECTRICAL MAIN SERVICE PANEL PV SYSTEM AC DISCONNECT SWITCHES PV SUBPANEL #1 [6b]800A TRENCHING PATH (VIF) PV INVERTERS #1,2,3,4,5,6 BLUE HERONNo. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV3 SITE PLAN NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve SCALE: 3 16" = 1' No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV4 RACKING DETAILS NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV5 SINGLE LINE NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve 800A(3P)X1 GRD GRD NMGRD 15A (3P)X1 15A (3P)X1 15A (3P)X1 15A (3P)X1 GRD 234 5 RESERVED FOR FUTURE METERING EQUIPMENT (N) 100A AC DISCONNECT 12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC, FUSED W/ 100A FUSES (N) 2,000A AC DISCONNECT 600/347V, 3PH, 4W, FUSED W/ 2,000A FUSES (N) 2,000KVA TRANSFORMER PRIMARY 12,000V, DELTA 3W SECONDARY 600V, WYE 4W (N) 2,000A SUB PANEL EQUIPPED W/ 2,000A LOAD SECTION 2,000A DISCONNECT SECTION UTILITY NGO METER SOCKET 600/347V, 3PH, 4W 2,000A LOAD SECTION 2,000A DISCONNECT SECTION NGO (E) GROUND ROD OR UFER WITH MINIMUM 3/0 COPPER GEC IRREVERSIBLE CONNECTION TO (E)GROUND ROD GRD SERVICE FROM UTILITY M 1200A/3P MAIN BREAKER VACUUM CIRCUIT BREAKER MISC FACILITY LOADS PULL SECTION BIDIRECTIONAL METER INSTALLED BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DISTRIBUTION SECTION (E) 1200A MAIN SERVICE PANEL, (E) 1200A MAIN BREAKER 12,000V, 3PH, 3W,18 kAIC SCE METER # 222020-005847 1 700A(3P)X1 700A(3P)X1 DC1 INVERTERS: #1 11X[(20)485W MODULES] DC2.1 INVERTER #2 11X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC 7 AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 8 JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 800A (3P) MAIN 125A (3P) 125A (3P)X1 6b (N) 800A SUB PANEL 800A MAIN BREAKER 600V, 3PH, 4W INVERTER #3 12X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 125A (3P) INVERTER #4 10X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 INVERTER #5 10X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 INVERTERS: #6 10X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 7 (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 8 8 8 8 (8)5" CONDUITS (8) PARALLEL RUNS OF 400 KCMIL THWN-2 400 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL 250 KCMIL THWN-2 GEC (E) GROUND ROD OR UFER WITH MINIMUM 3/0 COPPER GEC (1)21 2" CONDUIT (1) RUN OF 250 KCMIL NL-EPR 250 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL #2 AWG THWN-2 GEC (8)5" CONDUITS (8) PARALLEL RUNS OF 400 KCMIL THWN-2 400 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL 250 KCMIL THWN-2 GEC (1)21 2" CONDUIT (1) RUN OF 250 KCMIL NL-EPR 250 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL #2 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 3" CONDUITS (22) #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (E) GROUND ROD OR UFER WITH MINIMUM 3/0 COPPER GEC (N) SOLAR LINE SIDE CONNECTION PANEL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE FIELD EVALUATION BY NRTL UNLESS THE PANEL INCLUDES THE PROVISION FOR A TAP AS PART OF THE LISTED ASSEMBLY NEUTRAL TO BE CONNECTED ON THE LINE SIDE OF THE NEUTRAL LINK IN THE MAIN BREAKER SECTION INVERTERS: #7 9X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 INVERTER #8 8X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 INVERTER #9 12X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 INVERTERS: #10 12X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 8 8 INVERTERS: #11 10X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 DC2.2 AC1.1 AC2.1 AC3.0 AC4.0 AC5.0 AC6.0 DC1 DC3.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (24) #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC3.2 AC1.2 DC1 DC4.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (20) #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC4.2 AC1.3 DC1 DC5.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (18) #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC5.2 AC1.4 DC1 DC6.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (16) #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC6.2 AC1.5 DC1 DC7.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (24) #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC7.2 AC1.6 DC1 DC8.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC8.2 AC1.7 DC1 DC9.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC9.2 AC1.8 DC1 DC10.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC10.2 AC1.9 DC1 DC11.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC11.2 AC1.10 DC1 DC12.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC12.2 AC1.11 INVERTERS: #12 9X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 INVERTER #13 8X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 INVERTER #14 12X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 INVERTERS: #15 12X[(18)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 7 7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 8 8 INVERTERS: #16 10X[(20)485W MODULES] (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) AC ~ = DC JUNCTION BOX 9 9 9 9 7 (N) HANWHA Q CELLS Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 485W PV MODULES (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS PV INVERTER CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 96.20A OUTPUT 8 DC1 DC13.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC13.2 AC1.12 DC1 DC14.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC14.2 AC1.13 DC1 DC15.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC15.2 AC1.14 DC1 DC16.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC16.2 AC1.15 DC1 DC17.1 (1) 3" CONDUITS (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC FREE IN AIR (1) RUN OF #6 AWG PV WIRE #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC DC17.2 AC1.16 125A (3P) 125A (3P) 125A (3P) 700A (3P) MAIN 125A (3P)X1 125A (3P)X1 6a (N) 800A SUB PANEL 800A MAIN BREAKER 600V, 3PH, 4W 125A (3P)X1 AC2.2125A (3P)X1 125A (3P)X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1 (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (1) 2" CONDUITS (3) 2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 (1)2/0 AWG CU THWN-2 NEUTRAL #6 AWG THWN-2 GEC (2) PARALLEL RUNS (5")CONDUITS (3)700 KCMIL THWN-2 (1)700 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL #1/0 AWG THWN-2 GEC (2) PARALLEL RUNS (5")CONDUITS (3)500 KCMIL THWN-2 (1)500 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL #1/0 AWG THWN-2 GEC 700A (3P) MAIN 125A (3P)X1 125A (3P)X1 6a (N) 800A SUB PANEL 800A MAIN BREAKER 600V, 3PH, 4W 125A (3P)X1 AC2.3125A (3P)X1 125A (3P)X1 (2) PARALLEL RUNS (5")CONDUITS (3)500 KCMIL THWN-2 (1)500 KCMIL THWN-2 NEUTRAL #1/0 AWG THWN-2 GEC KEY 1 (E) 1200A MAIN SERVICE PANEL: 1200A MAIN 12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC QTY DESCRIPTION 1 2 (N) 100A AC DISCONNECT 12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC, FUSED W/ 100A FUSES1 7 (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 106.8A OUTPUT 16 8 (N) JUNCTION BOX56 9 (N)HANWHA Q CELL, Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 RATED POWER: 485W VOC:53.64V , ISC:11.29A , VMP: 45.07V , IMP: 10.76A 3100 4 (N) 2000A AC DISCONNECT 600/347V, 3PH, 4W, FUSED W/ 2000A FUSES1 3 (N) 2,000KVA TRANSFORMER PRIMARY: 12,000V DELTA (3W), SECONDARY: 600V WYE (4W)1 5 (N) 2,000A SUB PANEL: 2,000A DISCONNECT SWITCH 600/347, 3PH, 4W1 6a (N)800A SUB PANEL: 700A MAIN BREAKER 600/347V, 3PH, 4W1 6b (N)800A SUB PANEL: 800A MAIN BREAKER 600/347V, 3PH, 4W2 SYSTEM DC STC NAME PLATE RATING (3100) x (485W) = 1,503,500W STRING MAX VOLTAGE (20)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 1142.317V (18)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 1028.086V STRING MAX POWER POINT VOLTAGE (20)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 901.40V (18)Q CELL Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485: 811.26V No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV6 WIRE CHART NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68KEY 1 (E) 1200A MAIN SERVICE PANEL: 1200A MAIN 12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC QTY DESCRIPTION 1 2 (N) 100A AC DISCONNECT 12,000V, 3PH, 3W, 18kAIC, FUSED W/ 100A FUSES1 7 (N) CHINT POWER SYSTEMS CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 600V, 3PH, 4W, 106.8A OUTPUT 16 8 (N) JUNCTION BOX56 9 (N)HANWHA Q CELL, Q. PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 RATED POWER: 485W VOC:53.64V , ISC:11.29A , VMP: 45.07V , IMP: 10.76A 3100 4 (N) 2000A AC DISCONNECT 600/347V, 3PH, 4W, FUSED W/ 2000A FUSES1 3 (N) 2,000KVA TRANSFORMER PRIMARY: 12,000V DELTA (3W), SECONDARY: 600V WYE (4W)1 5 (N) 2,000A SUB PANEL: 2,000A DISCONNECT SWITCH 600/347, 3PH, 4W1 6a (N)800A SUB PANEL: 700A MAIN BREAKER 600/347V, 3PH, 4W1 Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve 6b (N)800A SUB PANEL: 800A MAIN BREAKER 600/347V, 3PH, 4W2 DERATED WIRE RATING >= AMPS MAX TERMINATION AMP RATING >= AMPS MAXWIRING CHART WIRE RATING CHART TERMINATION VOLTAGE DROP CALLOUTAMPS IscNEC MULTIPLIERAMPS MAXPARALLEL RUNS# OF CONDUCTORSCONDUCTOR SIZECONDUCTOR MATERIALCONDUCTOR INSULATIONNEUTRAL SIZEGROUND SIZECONDUIT SIZEWIRE TEMPERATURE RATINGWIRE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE °CCURRENT CARRYING CONDUCTORSWIRE AMP RATINGWIRE TEMPERATURE DERATEWIRE CONDUCTOR DERATETERMINATION TEMPERATURE RATINGVdrop AMPS ImpVdrop DISTANCEVdrop PERCENTCONDUIT QUANTITYDC1 11.29 1.56 17.61 1 2 #10 AWG CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 40 2 40 0.91 1 (40 A)X(0.91)X(1)=36.4>=17.61 60 30>=17.61 10.76 3.5FREE IN AIR 0.207Vdrop VOLTAGE Vmp45.07 DC2.1 DC2.2 AC1.1 AC2.1 AC3.0 AC4.0 AC5.0 AC6.0 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 0.093400.91 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 40>=17.61#8 AWG 55 10.7611.29 17.61 901.40 1.56 1 22 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.45 60 185 0.344400.91 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 10.7611.29 17.61 901.4013" 20 0.0391.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 275 0.6791.25 2 CU #1 AWG 2 5" 90 3 520 1 (520 A)X(0.91)X(1)=473.20>=360.25 60 385>=360.25400.914577.20 721.50 THWN-2700 KCMIL 700 KCMIL 600288.60 20 0.0391.25 8 CU 250 KCMIL 8 4"90 3 380 1 (380 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 345.8>=240.50 60 280>=240.50400.9141539.2 1924.0 201.25 CU 90 60400.91 20 0.0021.25 1 CU NL-EPR #2 AWG 1 90 3 145 1 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 131.95>=96.20 60 110>=96.20400.914 12,00076.9676.96 96.20 50 0.0121.25 CU NL-EPR 90 60400.91 THWN-2 THWN-2 400 KCMIL 400 KCMIL 8 4"3 14 1 #2 AWG 1 3 13 12,000 8 192.40 600 600380400 KCMIL 400 KCMIL1539.2 1924.0 76.96 96.20 DC3.1 DC3.2 AC1.2 AC2.2 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.40 1.56 1 22 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.45 60 335 0.622400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.4013" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 400 0.8771.25 2 CU #1 AWG 2 5"90 3 1 60400.914THWN-2 600430(430 A)X(0.91)X(1)=391.30>=300.63 320>= 300.63481.00 601.25 500 KCMIL 500 KCMIL 240.50 DC4.1 DC4.2 AC1.3 AC2.3 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 0.103400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 24 0.45 60 125 0.258400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 800 1.7531.25 2 CU #1 AWG 2 5"90 3 1 60400.914THWN-2 600430(430 A)X(0.91)X(1)=391.30>=300.63 320>=300.63481.00 601.25 500 KCMIL 500 KCMIL 240.50 811.26 811.26 DC5.1 DC5.2 AC1.4 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.50 60 140 0.289400.91 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC6.1 DC6.2 AC1.5 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.50 60 185 0.382400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC7.1 DC7.2 AC1.6 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.50 60 335 0.691400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC8.1 DC8.2 AC1.7 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.40 1.56 1 18 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 18 60 190 0.353400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.4013" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 DC9.1 DC9.2 AC1.8 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.40 1.56 1 16 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 16 60 290 0.539400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.4013" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 0.50 0.50 DC10.1 DC10.2 AC1.9 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 24 0.45 60 190 0.392400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC11.1 DC11.2 AC1.10 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 24 0.45 60 290 0.599400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC12.1 DC12.2 AC1.11 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.50 60 230 0.427400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU 2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 901.40 901.40 DC13.1 DC13.2 AC1.12 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.40 1.56 1 18 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 18 60 225 0.418400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.4013" 201.25 1 CU #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 0.50 DC14.1 DC14.2 AC1.13 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.40 1.56 1 16 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 16 60 150 0.279400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 901.4013" 220 0.4231.25 1 CU #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 0.50 DC15.1 DC15.2 AC1.14 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 24 0.45 60 150 0.310400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 201.25 1 CU #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC16.1 DC16.2 AC1.15 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 24 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 24 0.45 60 150400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 2201.25 1 CU #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2" 90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 811.26 811.26 DC17.1 DC17.2 AC1.16 1.56 1 2 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 2 1 60 50FREE IN AIR 40 0.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1.56 1 20 CU PV WIRE N/A #6 BARE 90 22 0.50 60 75 0.139400.91 10.7611.29 17.61 1 3" 2201.25 1 CU #2/0 AWG #6 AWG 1 2"90 3 195 1 60400.914 60096.2096.20 120.25 THWN-2 145>=120.252/0 AWG (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)=177.45>=120.25 901.40 901.40 250 KCMIL 4" 4" #1 AWG#1 AWG #1 AWG#1 AWG (380 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 345.8>=240.50 280>=240.50 192.40 145 (145 A)X(0.91)X(1)= 131.95>=96.20 110>=96.20 76.96 INVERTER #1 INVERTER #2 INVERTER #3 INVERTER #4 INVERTER #5 INVERTER #6 INVERTER #7 INVERTER #8 INVERTER #9 INVERTER #10 INVERTER #11 INVERTER #12 INVERTER #13 INVERTER #14 INVERTER #15 INVERTER #16 SUBPANEL #1 SUBPANEL #2 SUBPANEL #3 AC OUTPUT (600V) TRANSFORMER (600V) TRANSFORMER (12,000V) AC OUTPUT (12,000V) SUB#1 OUTPUT SUB#2 OUTPUT SUB#3 OUTPUT 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.310 0.423 0.423 0.039 NOTE: ALL PHOTOVOLTAIC OUTPUT CIRCUITS SHALL BE GUARDED OR INSTALLED IN A RACEWAY OR TYPE MC CABLE PER ARTICLE 690.31 #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG #8 AWG 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(1)=50.05>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.45)=22.52>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 (55 A)X(0.91)X(0.50)=25.03>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 40>=17.61 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 (N)GROUND MOUNT PV ARRAY (3100) HANWHA Q PEAK DUO XL-G10.2 485 MODULES TILT: 10°/Azimuth: 180° (16) CHINT CPS SCH100KTL-DO/US-600 INVERTERS PV SYSTEM SUBPANEL PV SYSTEM TRANSFORMER PV INVERTERS #12,14 PV INVERTERS #13,15,16 PV SUBPANEL #3 [6a]800A PV INVERTERS #7,8,9,10,11 PV SUBPANEL #2 [6a]800A PARCEL BOUNDRY APN: 095-010-68 UTILITY ELECTRICAL MAIN SERVICE PANEL PV SYSTEM AC DISCONNECT SWITCHES PV SUBPANEL #1 [6b]800A TRENCHING PATH (VIF) PV INVERTERS #1,2,3,4,5,6 No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV7 SIGNAGE NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68690.13(B) PHOTOVOLTAIC DC DISCONNECT ELECTRIC SHOCK HAZARD TERMINALS ON THE LINE AND LOAD SIDES MAY BE ENERGIZED IN THE OPEN POSITION ORANGE WARNING AREA, 690.13(B) 1 WARNING! DO NOT TOUCH TERMINALS TERMINALS ON THE LINE AND LOAD SIDES MAY BE ENERGIZED IN THE OPEN POSITION PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES PRODUCE DC VOLTAGE WHENEVER THEY ARE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT ORANGE WARNING AREA, 690.13(B) WARNING! ELECTRICAL SHOCK HAZARD PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DC DISCONNECT OPERATING VOLTAGE 811.26 VDC OPERATING CURRENT 107.6 A MAX SYSTEM VOLTAGE 1028.086 VDC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT 112.9 A 690.13(B) WARNING: PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SOURCE REFLECTIVE STICKER, 690.31(G)(3)(4) 3 4 5 6 POWER SOURCE OUTPUT CONNECTION. DON NOT RELOCATE THIS OVERCURRENT DEVICE ORANGE WARNING AREA, 705.12(B)(2)(3)(b) WARNING! 9 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AC DISCONNECT RATED AC OUTPUT CURRENT 96.20 A NOMINAL OPERATING AC VOLTAGE 600 V 690.13(B), 690.54 8 TURN RAPID SHUTDOWN SWITCH TO THE 'OFF' POSITION TO SHUT DOWN PV SYSTEM AND REDUCE SHOCK HAZARD IN THE ARRAY 690.56(C)(1)(a) 10 SOLAR PV SYSTEM EQUIPPED WITH RAPID SHUTDOWN PV M JBOX ARRAY INVERTER DC DISCONNECT 9 10 11 2 6 71 SOURCES: UTILITY GRID AND PV SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEM ORANGE WARNING AREA, 705.12(B)(2)(3)(b) WARNING! 7 DUAL POWER SUPPLY REFLECTIVE STICKER, 690.56(C)(3) 11 RAPID SHUTDOWN SWITCH FOR SOLAR PV SYSTEM 5 1 CAUTION POWER TO THIS BUILDING IS ALSO SUPPLIED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES WITH DISCONNECT(S) LOCATED AS SHOWN. DANGEROUS VOLTAGE MAY BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES. "WARNING" PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY DISCONNECTION OF NEUTRAL OR GROUNDED CONDUCTORS MAY RESULT IN OVERVOLTAGE ON ARRAY OR INVERTER 6"X8" TYP - CEC 705.10 NOTES 1. ARTICLES 690 AND 705 MARKINGS SHOWN HEREON 2. ALL MARKINGS SHALL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING: A. UV RESISTANT SIGN MATERIAL WITH ENGRAVED OR MACHINE PRINTED LETTERS OR ELECTRO-PLATING B. RED BACKGROUND COLOR WITH WHITE TEXT AND LINE WORK UON C. ARIAL FONT 3. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE SIZED APPROPRIATELY AND PLACED IN THE LOCATIONS SPECIFIED. 4. SIGNS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE SERVICE EQUIPMENT USING PERMANENT ADHESIVE, POP-RIVETS, OR SCREWS TURN OFF PHOTOVOLTAIC AC DISCONNECT PRIOR TO WORKING INSIDE PANEL ORANGE WARNING AREA, 110.27(C) 2 WARNING!NAC DISCONNECT1311 PV SUBPANEL2 TRANSFORMER AC DISCONNECT1211 PV SUBPANEL2 6 4 9 9 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DC DISCONNECT OPERATING VOLTAGE 901.40 VDC OPERATING CURRENT 118.36 A MAX SYSTEM VOLTAGE 1142.317 VDC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT 124.19 A 690.13(B) 5 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DC DISCONNECT OPERATING VOLTAGE 901.40 VDC OPERATING CURRENT 107.6 A MAX SYSTEM VOLTAGE 1142.317 VDC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT 112.9 A 690.13(B) 5 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AC DISCONNECT RATED AC OUTPUT CURRENT 1539.20 A NOMINAL OPERATING AC VOLTAGE 600 V 690.13(B), 690.54 12 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM AC DISCONNECT RATED AC OUTPUT CURRENT 76.96 A NOMINAL OPERATING AC VOLTAGE 600 V 690.13(B), 690.54 13 AC DISCONNECT811 Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DC DISCONNECT OPERATING VOLTAGE 901.40 VDC OPERATING CURRENT 86.08 A MAX SYSTEM VOLTAGE 1142.317 VDC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT 90.32 A 690.13(B) 5 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DC DISCONNECT OPERATING VOLTAGE 811.26 VDC OPERATING CURRENT 129.12 A MAX SYSTEM VOLTAGE 1028.086 VDC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT 135.48 A 690.13(B) 5 INVERTER # 3,9,10,14,15 INVERTER # 4,5,6,16 INVERTER # 1,2 INVERTER # 11 INVERTER # 8,13 PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM DC DISCONNECT OPERATING VOLTAGE 901.40 VDC OPERATING CURRENT 96.84 A MAX SYSTEM VOLTAGE 1142.317 VDC SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT 101.61 A 690.13(B) 5 INVERTER # 7,12 14 INVERTER #1 INVERTER LABEL INVERTERS #1-16 14 No. Description DateConfidentiality Statement: This drawing is property of Newport Power. This information is confidential and is to be used only in connection with work described by Newport Power. No part is to be disclosed to others without written permission from Newport power. PV8 DATA SHEETS NEWPORT POWER 205 AVENIDA DEL MAR #1384 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92674 WWW.NEWPORTPOWER.COM 760-271-6580 12/06/2022HELLMAN PROPERTYSITE ADDRESS711 1ST STREET,SEAL BEACH, CA 90740APN: 095-010-68Newport Power LIC # 939960 EXP: 11/30/2023 X________________James Reeve PROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALGENERAL NOTES1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE GOVERNINGCODE - SEE "CODE INFORMATION".2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AT JOB SITEBEFORE STARTING WORK. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OFENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.3. CONNECTIONS AND IMPLIED CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLIES THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLYDESCRIBED OR DETAILED SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING STANDARD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICESIN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNING CODES AND ORDINANCES.4. WRITTEN INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER GRAPHICINFORMATION. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTS ON THE PLANS WITHENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.5. WHEN DETAILS LABELED "TYPICAL" OR "SIMILAR" ARE GIVEN ON DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTORSHALL APPLY THE INTENT OF THE DETAIL TO THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND PROPER SHORING AND BRACING TO MAINTAINSAFE CONDITIONS AT ALL TIMES UNTIL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ARE PERMANENTLY ATTACHED.DRAWINGS INDICATE STRUCTURE IN FINAL FORM CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING DESIGN LOADINGS.7. SOL COMPONENTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH ARRIVESDAMAGED OR OUT OF SPECIFICATION.8. FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED OFF OF CUSTOMER SUPPLIED GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS, PULLTEST DATA, AND/OR SOILS INFORMATION AVAILABLE THROUGH THE NATURAL RESOURCESCONSERVATION SERVICE. NATURAL VARIATIONS IN GROUND CONDITIONS WILL OCCUR BETWEENEXPLORATION POINT LOCATIONS OR DUE TO THE MODIFYING EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION ORWEATHER AND CAN RESULT IN PILE REFUSAL. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUCH VARIATIONSMAY NOT BECOME EVIDENT UNTIL DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION. SOL COMPONENTS IS NOTLIABLE FOR PILE REFUSAL AND HAS PROVIDED A DRIVEN PILE REFUSAL MITIGATION GUIDELINESDOCUMENT TO AID ON FIELD REMEDIATION.9. FIELD DRILLED HOLES SHALL BE SPACED NOT LESS THAN 3X DIA. FOR HOLE TO HOLE SPACING OR1.5X DIA. HOLE TO EDGE SPACING. BRACES AND PURLINS MAY BE ADJUSTED ONCE WITHOUTREMEDIATION SO LONG AS THE AFOREMENTIONED HOLE SPACING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. ANYADDITIONAL FIELD ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO SOL COMPONENTS FOR REVIEW.STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATION1. STEEL GRADES:C SHAPES, L SHAPES & PLATES________________________ A1003 GRADE AS NOTED BELOWMACHINE BOLTS (MB)________________________________SAE J429 GRADE 5 OR 304SHSTAINLESS STEELNUTS ___________________________SAE J995 GRADE 5 OR 304SH STAINLESS STEEL2. ALL BOLTS GREATER THAN 1/2" DIAMETER SHALL BE HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS, UNO.3. BOLT HOLES SHALL BE 1/16" LARGER IN DIAMETER THAN THE BOLT FOR BOLTS 1/2" DIAMETER ORGREATER. BOLT HOLES SHALL BE 1/32" LARGER IN DIAMETER THAN THE BOLT FOR BOLTS LESSTHAN 1/2" DIAMETER.4. SELF-DRILLING SCREWS SHALL BE ELCO EDB741 PER ICC-ES ESR-3294 COLD-FORMED STEEL MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION1. ITEMS SPECIFIED AS COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAMING SHALL BE DESIGNED, DETAILED ANDFABRICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.I.S.I. SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN OF COLD-FORMEDSTEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, 2012 EDITION.2. COLD-FORMED MEMBER SIZES ARE GIVEN IN MILS TO REFLECT THE CURRENT INDUSTRY TREND.FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, EQUIVALENT GAGE SIZES ARE GIVEN AS FOLLOWS.20 GAGE = 33 MIL 14 GAGE = 68 MIL18 GAGE = 43 MIL 12 GAGE = 97 MIL16 GAGE = 54 MIL 10 GAGE = 118 MIL3. COLD-FORMED STEEL MEMBERS SHALL BE OF THE TYPE AND SIZE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGSAND SPECIFICATIONS.4. ALL 118, 97, 68, AND 54 MIL ITEMS SHALL BE FORMED FROM STEEL MEETING THE MINIMUMREQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A-1003 ST GRADE 50H.5. COLD-FORMED STEEL MEMBERS, SHALL BE GALVANIZED G90 COATING UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE. FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE GALVANIZED G210 COATING MINIMUM.6. CUTTING, NOTCHING OR BORING OF STEEL FLANGES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.7. LIGHT GAUGE COLD FORMED STEEL INCLUDES SHEARED EDGES WHICH ARE UNCOATED AND WILLSHOW SACRIFICIAL CORROSION. THE EXPOSURE OF THE UNDERLYING STEEL CAUSED BYCOATING DAMAGE OR A CUT EDGE WILL NOT RESULT IN CORROSION OF THE STEEL AND THUSWILL NOT AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE COATING OR THE STEEL STRUCTURE.8. ALL PLIES OF METAL SHALL BE FULLY SEATED AND FLUSH, AND FASTENERS COMPLETELY ENGAGED HOT-FORMED STEEL MATERIALS1. HOT-FORMED FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE ASTM A992 GR. 50.2. HOT-FORMED FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED ASTM A123.DESIGN CRITERIA DESIGN DEAD LOADS:2.30 PSFWIND DESIGN CRITERIA:WIND SPEED115 MPHRISK CATEGORYIWIND EXPOSURE FACTORCSNOW DESIGN CRITERIA:GROUND SNOW LOAD0 PSFRISK CATEGORYISEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA:RISK CATEGORYISS1.563gSDSSD1SITE CLASSDSEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORYDS10.585g1.042g0.585gMODEL/FRAMEPROJECT SUMMARY3/8"DESIGN MODULE E/W GAP2216mm x 1045mm x 35mmMODULE DIMENSIONS1.5 MW DCPROJECT SIZE3,100MODULE COUNT2x28 & 2x10TABLE SIZESSOL COMPONENTSGROUND FIXED-TILT PHOTOVOLTAIC SUPPORT SYSTEM10 DEGREESTILT ANGLESEE 8/SC4.0NOMINAL PILE REVEAL18 IN.GROUND CLEARANCENQ.PEAK DUO XL-G10.d 485WMODULE TYPE60±6 FT.-LBS. [1/2"-13]13±1 FT.-LBS. [5/16"-18]10±1 FT.-LBS. [1/4"-20]FASTENER TORQUE[AS APPLICABLE]SHEET NO.:COVER SHEETSYSTEM TOLERANCESNOTE:THE PHOTO VOLTAIC (PV) MODEL SUPPORTDESIGN ONLY APPLIES IF THE FOLLOWINGCODES AND SPECIFICATIONS, DEAD LOADS,WIND LOAD CRITERIA AND SOIL MATERIALCLASS LISTED UNDER THE DESIGN CRITERIAARE MET. THE MODEL SUPPORT DESIGNSYSTEM SHALL NOT BE USED IN AREAS THATDO NOT MEET THESE DESIGN CRITERIA.CODE INFORMATIONSHEET INDEXPILE:·± 1” MAX VERTICAL TOLERANCE BETWEEN PILES·± 2 DEGREES PLUMB NORTH-SOUTH & EAST-WEST·± 1” EAST-WEST SPACING·± 1” NORTH-SOUTH SPACING·± 6 DEGREES TWIST/YAW·SEE SC 4.0 FOR MAXIMUM PILE REVEALSYSTEM TILT:·± 1 DEGREES STRUCTURALLY ACCEPTABLE·± 0.25° RECOMMENDED FOR AESTHETICSTABLE GAP:·NOMINAL DESIGN +1", 2" MINIMUMFAULTING:·± 2" VERTICAL TABLE GAP PURLIN CANTILEVER :·± 3"SC 0.0SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS:COVER SHEET................................................................................SC 0.0BILL OF MATERIALS........................................................................SC 1.0SITE ARRAY LAYOUT.......................................................................SC 2.0TABLE-TO-TABLE PILE SPACING.......................................................SC 2.12x28 TABLE DETAILS......................................................................SC 3.02x10 TABLE DETAILS......................................................................SC 3.1TYPICAL DETAILS...........................................................................SC 4.0TRENCH CLEARANCE TO PILE DETAIL...............................................SC 4.1180 DEGREESASIMUTH ANGLEFOUNDATION DESIGN:PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT # IR18166880CONDUCTED BY WOOD ENVIRONMENT &INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS INC. ON7-9-2018GOVERNING CODES, STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS:D) 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODEE) ASCE STANDARD [ASCE/SEI 7-16], MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS ANDOTHER STRUCTURES.F) AISI S100 "SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF COLD FORMED STEEL STRUCTURALMEMBERS", 2016 EDITION.1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN BEARING CAPACITY.2. VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHED PROPER MATERIAL.3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION & TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL MATERIALS.4. VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESSES DURING PLACEMENT AND COMPACTIONOF COMPACTED FILL.5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THAT SITE HAS BEEN PREPAREDPROPERLY.XXXXXCONTINUOUSSPECIALINSPECTIONPERIODICSPECIALINSPECTION2019 CBC TABLE 1705A.6REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS OF SOILS-----TYPETYPE2019 CBC TABLE 1705A.7REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS OF DRIVEN DEEP FOUNDATION ELEMENTSXXXX----------CONTINUOUSSPECIALINSPECTIONPERIODICSPECIALINSPECTIONTYPE1. VERIFY ELEMENT MATERIALS, SIZES, AND LENGTHS COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.2. DETERMINE CAPACITIES OF TEST ELEMENTS AND CONDUCT ADDITIONAL LOAD TESTS, AS REQUIRED.3. INSPECT DRIVING OPERATIONS AND MAINTAIN COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RECORDS FOR EACH ELEMENT.4. VERIFY PLACEMENT LOCATIONS AND PLUMBNESS, CONFIRM TYPE AND SIZE OF HAMMER, RECORD NUMBER OFBLOWS PER FOOT OF PENETRATION, DETERMINE REQUIRED PENETRATIONS TO ACHIEVE DESIGN CAPACITY,RECORD TIP AND BUTT ELEVATIONS AND DOCUMENT ANY DAMAGE TO FOUNDATION ELEMENT.5. FOR STEEL ELEMENTS, PERFORM ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1705.2.6. FOR CONCRETE ELEMENTS AND CONCRETE-FILLED ELEMENTS, PERFORM ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS INACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1705.3.7. FOR SPECIALTY ELEMENTS, PERFORM ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED DESIGNPROFESSIONAL IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE.TYPE12.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022PV Layout on Site Plan Sheets SC 1.01BILL OF MATERIALSSCALE: N.T.S.SHEET NO.:PROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALBILL OF MATERIALS12.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022 1SITE ARRAY LAYOUT SCALE: N.T.S.NSHEET NO.:SITE ARRAY LAYOUTPROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALSC 2.0RACKING PILE COUNT388TABLE TYPETABLE QTY.2x28 TABLE, TYP.LEGEND (N.T.S.)5512x10 TABLE, TYP.9'-0" [2743mm]N-S ARRAY SPACING, TYP.12.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022PV Layout on Site Plan Sheets8'-0" [2438mm]E-W ARRAY SPACING, TYP.ARRAY #1ARRAY #2ARRAY #3 1TABLE-TO-TABLE PILE SPACINGSCALE: N.T.S.TABLE 28'-0" [2438mm]TABLE GAP, TYP.TABLE 1TABLE-TO-TABLE PILE SPACING, O.C.SHEET NO.:PROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALTABLE-TO-TABLEPILE SPACINGSC 2.1TABLE 1TABLE 2TYP. TABLE-TO-TABLE PILE SPACING16'-4 18" [4981mm]2X28 TABLE2X28 TABLENOTES:1. PILE SPACING VALUES IDENTICAL FOR INVERTED TABLE 1 & 2 DESIGNATION.2. AISLE REFERS TO EITHER LEFT OR RIGHT AISLE TABLES.3. ONLY APPLIES FOR TABLES IN CONTINUOUS ROW WITH SPECIFIED TABLE GAP.2X28 TABLE2X10 TABLE15'-5 716" [4710mm]12.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022 22x28 TABLE PURLIN SPACINGSCALE: N.T.S.12x28 TABLE PILE SPACINGSCALE: N.T.S.PURLINPURLIN [PUR-0161]PILE QTY. PER TABLE7MIN. PILE EMBEDMENT6'-0"QTY. PER TABLE8SHEET NO.:2x28 TABLEPROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTAL45SC 4.0TYP.96'-10116" [29517mm]PURLIN [PUR-0161]10 MODULES WIDEPURLIN [PUR-0161]10 MODULES WIDEPURLIN [PUR-0162]8 MODULES WIDE0'-038" [10mm] ± 14" PURLIN GAP, TYP.PURLIN [PUR-0162]4'-3916" [1309mm]EDGE OF PURLIN TOEDGE OF PILE WEB14'-8" [4470mm], TYP.4'-3916" [1309mm]EDGE OF PURLIN TOEDGE OF PILE FLANGESC 3.012.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022 22x10 TABLE PURLIN SPACINGSCALE: N.T.S.12x10 TABLE PILE SPACINGSCALE: N.T.S.PURLINPURLIN [PUR-1061]PILE QTY. PER TABLE3MIN. PILE EMBEDMENT6'-0"QTY. PER TABLE4SHEET NO.:2x10 TABLEPROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALPURLIN [PUR-0161]10 MODULES WIDE34'-61316" [10536mm]14'-0" [4267mm], TYP.3'-178" [963mm]EDGE OF PURLIN TOEDGE OF PILE WEB3'-178" [963mm]EDGE OF PURLIN TOEDGE OF PILE FLANGESC 3.112.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022 3" [75mm]7'-314" [2216mm]4'-312" [1308mm]12" [13mm] DESIGN N/S GAP11'-1118" [3635mm]1'-6" [457mm] MIN. 1'-7 9 16" [497mm] MIN 2'-6" [762mm] MAX 2'-311 16" [704mm] MIN. 3'-5 1 8" [1045mm] MAX. 4'-13 4" [1263mm] MIN. 10.0°74.0°±3°7'-314" [2216mm]4'-312" [1308mm]5' [1524mm]1PILE FOUNDATIONSCALE: N.T.S.2TOP CHORD TO PILE CONNECTIONSCALE: N.T.S.3ANGLE BRACE TO PILE AND TOP CHORD CONNECTIONSSCALE: N.T.S.4PURLIN TO TOP CHORD CONNECTIONSCALE: N.T.S.5PURLIN SPLICE CONNECTIONSCALE: N.T.S.6TABLE SPLICE CONNECTIONSCALE: N.T.S.8FRAMING SECTION - TWO ROWS OF MODULES IN PORTRAIT ORIENTATIONSCALE: N.T.S.PILE600S300-118GRADETOP CHORD800S200-68RISER500T200-97(3) 1/2"-13SERRATEDFLANGED BOLTCONNECTIONTOP CHORD800S200-68PURLINBRACKETL1.88"X1.88"X16GAPV MODULE FRAMEPURLIN600S200-545/16"-18 STAINLESSSTEEL SERRATEDFLANGED BOLTCONNECTIONTABLESPLICE7PV MODULE TO PURLIN CONN.SCALE: N.T.S.(4) 1/2"-13 SERRATEDFLANGED BOLTCONNECTIONPURLIN GAP3/8" [10mm] TYP.PURLINSPLICEL6"X2"X12GA(2) 5/16"-18STAINLESS STEELSERRATED FLANGEDBOLT CONNECTION(3) #12 SELF-DRILLINGSCREW CONNECTIONINSTALLED IN TOP,BOTTOM, AND EITHERMIDDLE HOLEPV MODULE FRAMEFACE FLUSHESNOMINALLY WITHPURLIN FACE(2) 1/2"-13SERRATEDFLANGED BOLTCONNECTIONPILE600S300-118PURLIN600S200-54(1) 1/2"-13SERRATEDFLANGED BOLTCONNECTIONSHEET NO.:TYPICAL DETAILSPROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALPILE REVEALSEE 8/SC4.0MIN. EMBEDMENTSEE 1/(SC3.0 & SC3.1)SC 4.0NOTE:1/8" NOMINAL PURLINAND SPLICE FLANGE GAPNOTE:ONE TABLE SPLICE PERTABLE GAP REQUIREDNOTE:INSTALL MODULES USINGMOUNTING SLOTSPV MODULETYP.PURLINBRACKETTYP.RISERTOP CHORDPURLINTYP.KICKERPILE4SC 4.03SC 4.03SC 4.07SC 4.01SC 4.02SC 4.0TYP.TYP.TYP.GRADECONCRETE PIER,18"Øx6'-0" DEEP(1) 1/2"-13SERRATEDFLANGED BOLTCONNECTIONTOP CHORD800S200-68RISER500T200-97KICKERL2.5x2.5x12GAPILE600S300-118(4) #12 SELF-DRILLINGSCREW CONNECTIONANY GUIDE HOLE, TYP.(1) #12 SELF-DRILLINGSCREW CONNECTIONFROM RISER TO TOPCHORDPURLIN600S200-540'-3" [76mm] CLR, TYP.12.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022 PILEDIM A MIN. CLEARANCE3 x DIM A ALL AROUND℄45.0°MIN. CLEARANCE(SEE VIEW A)≥ DIM XDIM X 45.0°AAGRADEUNACCEPTABLETRENCH AREASTARTING EDGE AND DEPTH OF TRENCHLOCATED ALONG 45° LINE FROM NEARESTEDGE OF POST AT GRADESAMPLE TRENCHAT DEPTH SHOWN℄SHEET NO.:PROJECT:DRAWN BY: / DATE:SC22-001THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARYINFORMATION AND IS PROVIDED UPONTHE CONDITION THAT NO COPIES,DISCLOSURE OR REPRODUCTION BE MADEWITHOUT PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTENPERMISSION.REVISIONDO NOT SCALEFROM DRAWINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED1.5 MWHELLMAN SOLARJEJAAs NotedDATECHECKED BY: / DATE:02/28/2203/07/22SEAL BEACH, CA33.755, -118.096SCALE:PROJECT NO.:DESCRIPTIONDJ1775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815CLIENT:SITE LOCATION: NEWPORTPOWERIFP SUBMITTALSC 4.1TRENCH CLEARANCETO PILE DETAILMINIMUM TRENCH TO PILE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTSSCALE: N.T.S.112.31.2304/26/20221775 TRIBUTE ROAD, STE A.SACRAMENTO, CA 95815IFP SUBMITTAL12.31.2304/26/2022 Appendix C Miscellaneous Support Calculations Table of Contents Solar Panel Layout ...................................................................................................................................... C-1 Solar Panel Area Calculations .................................................................................................................... C-2 Construction Input Data ............................................................................................................................. C-4 Construction Noise Calculations ................................................................................................................ C-5 Operational Noise Calculations .................................................................................................................. C-6 Fuel Use Calculations ................................................................................................................................. C-7 Hellman Solar EV Electric System ProjectSolar Panel LayoutRow 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6Row 7aRow 8aRow 7bRow 8b2 x 28 Solar Table (56 solar panels)2 x 10 Solar Table (20 solar panels)Permanent Impact AreaNot to ScaleArray 1Array 2Array 3Hellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-1Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hellman Solar EV Electric System ProjectArea CalculationsRow 1 Row 2 Row 3 Total Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Total Row 7a Row 7b Row 8a Row 8b Total28x2 Tables 9102216561738421755Table is made up of 2 panels wide by 28 panels long for a total of 3080 solar panels.10x2 Tables 01010000000001Table is made up of 2 panels wide by 10 panels long for a total of 20 solar panels.9' Gaps Between Tables 8911853513262111 -- This is the total number of gaps between tables in each row.Area of Row (ft2)19,426 22,177 3,641 45,244 12,661 9,537 12,661 34,859 5,896 16,302 7,282 3,641 33,121 113,224This is the area that would be covered by solar panels and the gaps between rows.Area of Tables (ft2)12,476 14,358 2,772 29,606 8,317 6,931 8,317 23,565 4,159 11,089 5,545 2,772 23,565 76,736This it the total area of the of just the solar panels.# of Pile Footings 63 73 14 150 42 35 42 119 21 56 28 14 119 388This is the number of pile footing used for each row.Area of Pile Footings (ft2)111 129 25 265 74 62 74 210 37 99 49 25 210 685This is the total area of the pile footing for each row.Permanent Impact Area (ft2)20,230 22,292 3,641 46,163 13,006 9,882 12,661 35,548 6,241 16,532 7,282 3,641 33,696 115,407The permanent impact area for each row includes the area of the row plus the space between rows.Permanent Impact Area (acres) 0.46 0.51 0.08 1.06 0.30 0.23 0.29 0.82 0.14 0.38 0.17 0.08 0.77 2.65The permanent impact area for each row includes the area of the row plus the space between rows.Temporary Impacted Area (ft2)8,206 8,955 4,216 21,376 8,026 5,090 7,086 20,202 5,403 10,002 5,370 1,998 22,773 64,351This is the area that would be temporarily disturbed around each row during construction, and represents a 20 foot area on all sides of the row.Temporary Impacted Area (acres) 0.19 0.21 0.10 0.49 0.18 0.12 0.16 0.46 0.12 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.52 1.48This is the area that would be temporarily disturbed around each row during construction, and represents a 20 foot area on all sides of the row.Total Impacted Area (acres) 0.65 0.72 0.18 1.55 0.48 0.34 0.45 1.28 0.27 0.61 0.29 0.13 1.30 4.13This is sum of the permanent and temporary impacted areas.Solar Array Input DataSolar System Summary TableItem ValueArray## Solar Tables# Solar Panels# Support StructuresWidth of Table (ft) 14.36 Typical Detail SC 4.0, Item 8, Framing Section Array 1 22 1,196 15028 Table Length (ft) 96.53 Typical Detail SC 3.0, Item 2, Table Purlin Spacing Array 2 17 952 11910 Table Length (ft) 34.58 Typical Detail SC 3.1, Item 2, Table Purlin Spacing Array 3 17 952 1192x28 Table Area (ft2)1,386.17 CalculatedTotal 56 3,100 3882x10 Table Area (ft2)496.57 Calculated Gap Between Rows in an Array (ft) 8.00 Typical Detail SC 2.1, Table to Table Pile SpacingGap Between Tables (ft) 9.00 Typical Detail SC 2.0, Site Array LayoutTemporary Disturbance on Outside of Rows (ft)20.00# Support Structures for 28 Table7.00 Typical Detail SC 3.0, Item 1, Table Purlin Spacing# Support Structures for 10 Table3.00 Typical Detail SC 3.1, Item 1, Table Purlin SpacingSource: Hellman Plan Set 12-06-2022, Newport PowerPile Footings Input DataItem Value# per 28 Table 7 Typical Detail SC 3.0, Item 1, 2x28 Table Pile Spacing# per 10 Table 3 Typical Detail SC 3.1, Item 1, 2x10 Table Pile SpacingDiameter (ft) 1.5 Typical Detail SC 4.0, Item 1, Pile FoundationDepth (ft) 6.25 Typical Detail SC 4.0, Item 1, Pile FoundationVolume of Pile Footing Hole (Ft3)11.04 CalculatedVolume of Pile Footing Hole (cubic y0.41 CalculatedTotal Volume of Pile Footings (cubic 158 CalculatedSource: Hellman Plan Set 12-06-2022, Newport PowerCommentsTotal All ArraysSourceArray 1 Array 2 Array 3SourceItemHellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-2Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hellman Solar EV Electric System ProjectArea CalculationsEquipment Pads Pad Type Quantity Length (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft)Within Table FootprintOutside Table FootprintTotalInverter/PV Subpanel Pad #1 1 38 5.5 0.33 133 76 209Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #2 1 33 5.5 0.33 116 66 182Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #3 1 17 5.5 0.33 60 34 94Inverter/PV Subpanel Pad #4 1 17.25 5.5 0.33 60 35 95Transformer/PV System Subpanel/AC Disconnect Switches Pad1 33 12 0.33 0 396 396Two feet of inverter pads would be outside of the solar array footprint.Source: E-Mails from NewportPower (Corey Van De Hey 8-3-23 and 8-11-23)Other Temporary Impacted Areasft2acresft2acresTrench for AC Power Lines 1,300 22 28,600 0.66 12,800 0.29Trench for DC Power Lines 500 22 11,000 0.25 0 0.00Staging Area 120 50 6,000 0.14 6,000 0.14Temporary impacted area is based upon the area of the trench work that is outside of the permanent or temporary impact areas of the solar arrays.Assumes 2 foot wide trench and 10 feet of work area on either side of trench.Source: E-mails from NewportPower (Corey Van De Hey 8-11-23 and 8-14-23)Total Impacted Areasft2Acresft2Acresft2AcresSolar Array Tables 115,407 2.65 64,351 1.48 179,758 4.13Equipment Pads 607 0.01NA10.00 607 0.01Power Line Trenches 0 0.00 12,800 0.29 12,800 0.29Staging Area 0 0.00 6,000 0.14 6,000 0.14Total116,014 2.66 83,151 1.91 199,165 4.571. Accounted for in power line trenches.Pad Area (ft2)Permanent Temporary TotalTotal AreaTemporary Impacted AreaWidth (ft)Length (ft)ItemItemHellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-3Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hellman Solar EV Electrc System ProjectConstruction Input DataConstruction Activity, Shedulule, and Worker and Truck TripsWorker VechiclesVendor Vechicles Delivery TrucksSite Preparation3602602 9/16/2026 9/18/2026Support Pile Installation21814812 9/21/2026 10/19/2026Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation2010141012 10/19/2026 11/13/2026Testing and Commissioning20420420 11/16/2026 12/11/2026Offroad Construction EquipmentSite PreparationQuanity Hours/Day Hp Load FactorRubber Tire Dozer18840.37Grader181480.41Backhoe/Loader18840.37Water Truck143760.38Support Pile InstallationBackhoe/Loader17840.37Forklift18820.2Generator18140.74Water Truck123760.38Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit InstallationForklift18820.2Backhoe/Loader17840.37Generator18140.74Welding Machine18460.45Water Truck123760.38Hp and Load factors are defaults from CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29.Start Date End DatePeak Hourly One-Way TripsActivityDuration(days)# Construction Workers per DayDelivery Trucks per Day# Vendor Visits per DayHellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-4Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Estimated Noise Levels for Construction Hellman Solar PV ProjectEstimated Construction Equipment NoiseConstruction Equipment Reference Noise LevelsPhase/EquipmentQuantityNoise Level (dBA)Distance(feet)EquipmentReference Noise Level(dBA@50 feet)Site PreparationRubber Tire Dozer82Rubber Tire Dozer18250Grader85Grader18550Backhoe/Loader79Backhoe/Loader17950Water Truck74Water Truck17450Forklift75Combined Noise Level8850Generator81Noise Level at Nearest Property Line9620Welding Machine74Noise Level at Nearest Receptor69450Source: FHWA Construction Noise Handbook, 2006. Table 9.1Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor68480Distance to ReceptorsSupport Pile InstallationDistance to Nearest Property Line (feet)20Backhoe/Loader17950Distance to Nearest Receptor (feet)450Forklift17550Distance to Nearest Residential Receptor (feet) 480Generator18150Water Truck17450Combined Noise Level8450Noise Level at Nearest Property Line9220Noise Level at Nearest Receptor65450Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor65480Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit InstallationForklift17550Backhoe/Loader17950Generator18150Welding Machine17450Water Truck17450Combined Noise Level8550Noise Level at Nearest Property Line9320Noise Level at Nearest Receptor65450Noise Level at Nearest Residential Receptor65480Source: FHWA Construction Noise Handbook, 2006. Table 9.1Vibration Levelsat 25-feet at 60-feet at 450-feetBackhoe/Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.124 0.001Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.004 0.000Large Truck 0.076 0.106 0.001EquipmentVibration Level (in/sec)Source: Adapted from FTA 2006 and Caltrans 2013.Hellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-5Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Estimated Noise Levels for Operations Hellman Solar PV ProjectOperational Noise LevelsDistance(feet)Noise Level (dBA)Distance(feet)Noise Level (dBA)Inverters (1-6)630541,03023Inverters (7-11)5854494023Inverters (12,14)2255055024Inverters (13,15,16)31303850026Transformer1110221,1501Noise would only occur during daylight hours when electrical power is being generated.Operational Noise Equipment LevelsEquipmentNoise Level (dBA)Distance(feet)Inverters 65 3.3Transformer 52 3.3Sources: CPS datasheet for 100/125kW, 1500Vdc String Invertershttps://eepower.com/technical-articles/transformer-nameplate-details-and-sound-levels/Nearest Property Line Nearest Residential ReceptorEquipment QuantityHellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-6Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Fuel Use CalculationsHellman Solar PV ProjectOffroad Construction EquipmentConstruction Equipment Fuel Use by Load Factor RangeSite PreparationQuantity Hours/Day Days Hp Load FactorFuel Use (gals/hr)Fuel Use (gals)Rubber Tire Dozer 1 8 3 84 0.37 9.6 230Low Medium HighGrader 1 8 3 148 0.41 3.7 88 Grader 2.5 3.1 3.7 Cat 120-14 AWD JOYBackhoe/Loader 1 8 3 84 0.37 3.7 88 Rubber Tire Dozer 6.2 7.9 9.6 Cat 824KWater Truck 1 4 3 376 0.38 8.2 98 Backhoe/Loader 2.5 3.1 3.7 Cat 415-07Support Pile InstallationForklift 0.7 0.8 1.0 Hyster 2.0 XTBackhoe/Loader 1 7 20 84 0.37 3.7 511 Generator 0.6 1.3 1.6 20 kW GeneratorForklift 1 8 20 82 0.20 1.0 152 Welding Machine 0.5 1.0 1.3 Trailblazer® 325 DieselGenerator 1 8 20 14 0.74 1.6 256 Water Truck 5.2 6.7 8.2 Cat 770GWater Truck 1 2 20 376 0.38 8.2 327 Sources: Caterpillar Performance Handbook Edition 44Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installationhttps://www.generatorsource.com/Diesel_Fuel_Consumption.aspxForklift 1 8 21 82 0.20 1.0 160 https://www.adaptalift.com.au/blog/how-much-diesel-does-a-forklift-use-per-hourBackhoe/Loader 1 7 21 84 0.37 3.7 537 https://www.millerwelds.com/-/media/miller-electric/imported-mam-assets/spec-sheets/2/2/5/ed4-8.pdfGenerator 1 8 21 14 0.74 1.6 269Welding Machine 1 8 21 46 0.45 1.3 218Water Truck 1 2 21 376 0.38 8.2 344Total Offroad Construction Equipment Fuel Use3,277Onroad Construction VehiclesFuel Use Case Fuel Use (mpg) Miles per TripPhaseWorkers/day Vendors/dayTrucks/day Days Car VMT Truck VMTFuel Use (gals)Trucks 6.5 20Site Preparation 6 0 2 3 475 240 58 Workers 22.9 13.2Support Pile Installation 8 1 4 21 5,275 3,360 747 Vendors 22.9 20Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 10 1 4 20 6,080 3,200 758 Miles per Trip from CalEEModTesting and Commissioning 4 2 0 20 3,712 0 162 Source: For Trucks-A Survey of Fuel Economy and Fuel Use by Heavy-Duty Truck Fleets. University of Michigan. October 2016.Total Onroad Construction Equipment Fuel Use1,725Source for Workers/Vendors-US Department of TransportationTotal Construction Fuel Use5,00222,342Diesel Gasoline TotalOnsite Construction Equipment 3,277 0 3,277Onroad Construction Vehicles 1,046 679 1,725Total 4,323 679 5,002Operational EquipmentItem Trips/year VMT/year hrs/yrFuel Use (gals/hr)Fuel Use (gals)Workers 8 480 -- -- 21Lawn Mower -- -- 6 1 6Total Operational Fuel Use27Fuel Use for Lawn Mower is an estimate.VMT/Year from CalEEMod.Representative Equipment ModelFuel Use (Gals/hr)Equipment ReferenceEquipment GroupFuel Use (gals)Hellman Solar PV Electric System ProjectC-7Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix D Glare Analysis FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh Central Array 10.0 180.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 1 10.0 180.0 1,597 26.6 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 2 10.0 180.0 1,596 26.6 0 0.0 - Western Array 10.0 180.0 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 - Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 Project: Hellman Solar Project Solar Project at Hellman Oil Field in Seal Beach CA Site configuration: Hellman Solar Field-temp-0 Created 10 Apr, 2024 Updated 25 Apr, 2024 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-8 Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg DNI peaks at 1,000.0 W/m Category 1 MW to 5 MW Site ID 116479.20058 Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter 0.002 m Eye focal length 0.017 m Sun subtended angle 9.3 mrad PV analysis methodology V2 2 Page 1 of 25 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 3,193 53.2 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 2 of 25 Component Data PV Arrays Name: Central Array Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.754039 -118.093793 4.00 1.00 5.00 2 33.753731 -118.093800 4.00 1.00 5.00 3 33.753726 -118.093545 4.00 1.00 5.00 4 33.753631 -118.093547 4.00 1.00 5.00 5 33.753627 -118.093275 4.00 1.00 5.00 6 33.753484 -118.093276 4.00 1.00 5.00 7 33.753483 -118.092995 4.00 1.00 5.00 8 33.753799 -118.092995 4.00 1.00 5.00 9 33.753800 -118.093269 4.00 1.00 5.00 10 33.753903 -118.093269 4.00 1.00 5.00 11 33.753908 -118.093539 4.00 1.00 5.00 12 33.754034 -118.093536 4.00 1.00 5.00 Name: Eastern Array 1 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.753167 -118.092573 3.00 1.00 4.00 2 33.753160 -118.092011 3.00 1.00 4.00 3 33.752949 -118.092015 3.00 1.00 4.00 4 33.752955 -118.092298 3.00 1.00 4.00 5 33.753005 -118.092296 3.00 1.00 4.00 6 33.753011 -118.092573 3.00 1.00 4.00 Page 3 of 25 Name: Eastern Array 2 Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.752889 -118.092570 3.00 1.00 4.00 2 33.752886 -118.092302 3.00 1.00 4.00 3 33.752840 -118.092304 3.00 1.00 4.00 4 33.752840 -118.092023 3.00 1.00 4.00 5 33.752733 -118.092022 3.00 1.00 4.00 6 33.752736 -118.092302 3.00 1.00 4.00 7 33.752440 -118.092300 3.00 1.00 4.00 8 33.752436 -118.092569 3.00 1.00 4.00 Name: Western Array Axis tracking: Fixed (no rotation) Tilt: 10.0° Orientation: 180.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 33.754786 -118.094476 4.00 1.00 5.00 2 33.754214 -118.094492 4.00 1.00 5.00 3 33.754200 -118.094136 4.00 1.00 5.00 4 33.754055 -118.094141 4.00 1.00 5.00 5 33.754070 -118.094498 4.00 1.00 5.00 6 33.754171 -118.094494 4.00 1.00 5.00 7 33.754176 -118.094632 4.00 1.00 5.00 8 33.754220 -118.094630 4.00 1.00 5.00 9 33.754223 -118.094854 4.00 1.00 5.00 10 33.754388 -118.094847 4.00 1.00 5.00 11 33.754401 -118.095211 4.00 1.00 5.00 12 33.754987 -118.095183 4.00 1.00 5.00 13 33.754972 -118.094822 4.00 1.00 5.00 14 33.754800 -118.094827 4.00 1.00 5.00 Page 4 of 25 Discrete Observation Point Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°)Elevation (ft) Height (ft) OP 1 1 33.752786 -118.090415 19.90 6.00 OP 2 2 33.752664 -118.090452 20.90 6.00 OP 3 3 33.752483 -118.090526 20.10 6.00 OP 4 4 33.752349 -118.090572 20.70 6.00 OP 5 5 33.752221 -118.090671 20.10 6.00 OP 6 6 33.752001 -118.090726 21.40 6.00 OP 7 7 33.751856 -118.090778 20.70 6.00 OP 8 8 33.751711 -118.090802 19.40 6.00 OP 9 9 33.751555 -118.090855 18.80 6.00 OP 10 10 33.751427 -118.090952 18.60 6.00 OP 11 11 33.751281 -118.091064 19.50 6.00 OP 12 12 33.751154 -118.091143 19.30 6.00 OP 13 13 33.750790 -118.091390 18.40 6.00 OP 14 14 33.750686 -118.091528 16.70 6.00 OP 15 15 33.750462 -118.091751 16.70 6.00 OP 16 16 33.750276 -118.091899 17.90 6.00 OP 17 17 33.750079 -118.091991 22.50 6.00 OP 18 18 33.750014 -118.092097 21.80 6.00 OP 19 19 33.755464 -118.097277 4.70 6.00 OP 20 20 33.754507 -118.097738 4.70 6.00 OP 21 21 33.758793 -118.099999 6.00 6.00 OP 22 22 33.757536 -118.101222 5.70 0.00 OP 23 23 33.756046 -118.103196 5.40 0.00 OP 24 24 33.755903 -118.098798 3.90 0.00 OP 25 25 33.754806 -118.100407 7.60 0.00 OP 26 26 33.752598 -118.091390 3.94 6.00 OP 27 27 33.751705 -118.091411 9.67 6.00 OP 28 28 33.752156 -118.092389 10.19 6.00 OP 29 29 33.752155 -118.095105 5.89 6.00 OP 30 30 33.751359 -118.093174 10.15 0.00 OP 31 31 33.750146 -118.094132 6.70 6.00 OP 32 32 33.749344 -118.093136 44.72 6.00 OP 33 33 33.749395 -118.095200 43.91 6.00 OP 34 34 33.749395 -118.097384 32.25 6.00 Page 5 of 25 Obstruction Components Name: Bushes and Trees Along Fence Line Top height: 7.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) 1 33.752566 -118.091458 3.15 2 33.752753 -118.091404 3.96 3 33.752958 -118.091458 3.92 Name: Tree Line Top height: 20.0 ft Vertex Latitude (°)Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) 1 33.752920 -118.090578 7.16 2 33.752090 -118.090894 11.62 3 33.751769 -118.090927 13.51 4 33.751140 -118.091350 14.68 Page 6 of 25 Glare Analysis Results Summary of Results Glare with low potential for temporary after-image predicted PV Array Tilt Orient Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare Energy ° ° min hr min hr kWh Central Array 10.0 180.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 1 10.0 180.0 1,597 26.6 0 0.0 - Eastern Array 2 10.0 180.0 1,596 26.6 0 0.0 - Western Array 10.0 180.0 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 - Total glare received by each receptor; may include duplicate times of glare from multiple reflective surfaces. Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 3,193 53.2 0 0.0 Page 7 of 25 Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 8 of 25 PV: Central Array no glare found Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 9 of 25 Central Array and OP 1 No glare found Central Array and OP 2 No glare found Central Array and OP 3 No glare found Central Array and OP 4 No glare found Central Array and OP 5 No glare found Central Array and OP 6 No glare found Central Array and OP 7 No glare found Central Array and OP 8 No glare found Central Array and OP 9 No glare found Central Array and OP 10 No glare found Central Array and OP 11 No glare found Central Array and OP 12 No glare found Central Array and OP 13 No glare found Central Array and OP 14 No glare found Page 10 of 25 Central Array and OP 15 No glare found Central Array and OP 16 No glare found Central Array and OP 17 No glare found Central Array and OP 18 No glare found Central Array and OP 19 No glare found Central Array and OP 20 No glare found Central Array and OP 21 No glare found Central Array and OP 22 No glare found Central Array and OP 23 No glare found Central Array and OP 24 No glare found Central Array and OP 25 No glare found Central Array and OP 26 No glare found Central Array and OP 27 No glare found Central Array and OP 28 No glare found Page 11 of 25 Central Array and OP 29 No glare found Central Array and OP 30 No glare found Central Array and OP 31 No glare found Central Array and OP 32 No glare found Central Array and OP 33 No glare found Central Array and OP 34 No glare found Page 12 of 25 PV: Eastern Array 1 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 29 1,597 26.6 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 13 of 25 Eastern Array 1 and OP 29 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 1,597 min. Eastern Array 1 and OP 1 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 2 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 3 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 4 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 5 No glare found Page 14 of 25 Eastern Array 1 and OP 6 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 7 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 8 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 9 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 10 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 11 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 12 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 13 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 14 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 15 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 16 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 17 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 18 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 19 No glare found Page 15 of 25 Eastern Array 1 and OP 20 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 21 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 22 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 23 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 24 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 25 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 26 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 27 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 28 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 30 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 31 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 32 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 33 No glare found Eastern Array 1 and OP 34 No glare found Page 16 of 25 PV: Eastern Array 2 low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 29 1,596 26.6 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 20 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 17 of 25 Eastern Array 2 and OP 29 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 1,596 min. Eastern Array 2 and OP 1 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 2 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 3 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 4 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 5 No glare found Page 18 of 25 Eastern Array 2 and OP 6 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 7 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 8 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 9 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 10 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 11 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 12 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 13 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 14 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 15 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 16 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 17 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 18 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 19 No glare found Page 19 of 25 Eastern Array 2 and OP 20 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 21 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 22 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 23 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 24 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 25 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 26 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 27 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 28 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 30 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 31 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 32 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 33 No glare found Eastern Array 2 and OP 34 No glare found Page 20 of 25 PV: Western Array low potential for temporary after-image Receptor results ordered by category of glare Receptor Annual Green Glare Annual Yellow Glare min hr min hr OP 20 1,185 19.8 0 0.0 OP 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 6 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 7 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 8 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 11 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 13 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 14 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 15 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 19 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 21 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 22 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 26 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 27 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 29 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 30 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 32 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 33 0 0.0 0 0.0 OP 34 0 0.0 0 0.0 Page 21 of 25 Western Array and OP 20 Yellow glare: none Green glare: 1,185 min. Western Array and OP 1 No glare found Western Array and OP 2 No glare found Western Array and OP 3 No glare found Western Array and OP 4 No glare found Western Array and OP 5 No glare found Page 22 of 25 Western Array and OP 6 No glare found Western Array and OP 7 No glare found Western Array and OP 8 No glare found Western Array and OP 9 No glare found Western Array and OP 10 No glare found Western Array and OP 11 No glare found Western Array and OP 12 No glare found Western Array and OP 13 No glare found Western Array and OP 14 No glare found Western Array and OP 15 No glare found Western Array and OP 16 No glare found Western Array and OP 17 No glare found Western Array and OP 18 No glare found Western Array and OP 19 No glare found Page 23 of 25 Western Array and OP 21 No glare found Western Array and OP 22 No glare found Western Array and OP 23 No glare found Western Array and OP 24 No glare found Western Array and OP 25 No glare found Western Array and OP 26 No glare found Western Array and OP 27 No glare found Western Array and OP 28 No glare found Western Array and OP 29 No glare found Western Array and OP 30 No glare found Western Array and OP 31 No glare found Western Array and OP 32 No glare found Western Array and OP 33 No glare found Western Array and OP 34 No glare found Page 24 of 25 Assumptions Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. The algorithm does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a system; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, we have validated our models against several systems, including a PV array causing glare to the air-traffic control tower at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport and several sites in Albuquerque, and the tool accurately predicted the occurrence and intensity of glare at different times and days of the year. Several V1 calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. This primarily affects V1 analyses of path receptors. Random number computations are utilized by various steps of the annual hazard analysis algorithm. Predicted minutes of glare can vary between runs as a result. This limitation primarily affects analyses of Observation Point receptors, including ATCTs. Note that the SGHAT/ ForgeSolar methodology has always relied on an analytical, qualitative approach to accurately determine the overall hazard (i.e. green vs. yellow) of expected glare on an annual basis. The analysis does not automatically consider obstacles (either man-made or natural) between the observation points and the prescribed solar installation that may obstruct observed glare, such as trees, hills, buildings, etc. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) The variable direct normal irradiance (DNI) feature (if selected) scales the user-prescribed peak DNI using a typical clear-day irradiance profile. This profile has a lower DNI in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. The scaling uses a clear-day irradiance profile based on a normalized time relative to sunrise, solar noon, and sunset, which are prescribed by a sun-position algorithm and the latitude and longitude obtained from Google maps. The actual DNI on any given day can be affected by cloud cover, atmospheric attenuation, and other environmental factors. The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. We provide input fields and typical ranges of values for these factors so that the user can vary these parameters to see if they have an impact on the results. The speed of SGHAT allows expedited sensitivity and parametric analyses. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. Page 25 of 25 Appendix E CalEEMod Air Emission Output Files Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 1 / 60 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated 3.2. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated 3.3. Support Pile Installation (2026) - Unmitigated Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 2 / 60 3.4. Support Pile Installation (2026) - Mitigated 3.5. Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation (2026) - Unmitigated 3.6. Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation (2026) - Mitigated 3.7. Testing and Commissioning (2026) - Unmitigated 3.8. Testing and Commissioning (2026) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.3.2. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 3 / 60 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.4.2. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.5.2. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.7.2. Mitigated 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 4 / 60 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 5 / 60 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 6 / 60 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 7 / 60 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 8 / 60 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 9 / 60 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Hellman Solar PV Project Construction Start Date 9/16/2026 Operational Year 2026 Lead Agency City of Seal Beach Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)2.30 Precipitation (days)18.4 Location 33.755335875286136, -118.09590644683723 County Orange City Seal Beach Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 5856 EDFZ 7 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description User Defined Industrial 0.00 User Defined Unit 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 10 / 60 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title Construction C-2*Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.1.23 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.02 0.40 8.80 9.20 0.37 3.63 4.00 2,314 2,314 0.10 0.12 2.24 2,337 Mit.1.23 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.02 0.40 3.38 3.77 0.37 1.43 1.80 2,314 2,314 0.10 0.12 2.24 2,337 % Reduced ——————62%59%—61%55%—————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.1.35 1.05 9.18 12.1 0.03 0.29 6.76 7.04 0.26 0.81 1.07 3,756 3,756 0.18 0.25 0.12 3,834 Mit.1.35 1.05 9.18 12.1 0.03 0.29 2.35 2.64 0.26 0.37 0.63 3,756 3,756 0.18 0.25 0.12 3,834 % Reduced ——————65%63%—54%41%—————— Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.09 0.07 0.59 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 0.44 0.46 0.02 0.08 0.09 249 249 0.01 0.02 0.14 254 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 11 / 60 Mit.0.09 0.07 0.59 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.05 249 249 0.01 0.02 0.14 254 % Reduced ——————63%60%—55%44%—————— Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.02 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 42.1 Mit.0.02 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 42.1 % Reduced ——————63%60%—55%44%—————— 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) ————————————————— 2026 1.23 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.02 0.40 8.80 9.20 0.37 3.63 4.00 2,314 2,314 0.10 0.12 2.24 2,337 Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— 2026 1.35 1.05 9.18 12.1 0.03 0.29 6.76 7.04 0.26 0.81 1.07 3,756 3,756 0.18 0.25 0.12 3,834 Average Daily ————————————————— 2026 0.09 0.07 0.59 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 0.44 0.46 0.02 0.08 0.09 249 249 0.01 0.02 0.14 254 Annual ————————————————— 2026 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 42.1 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 12 / 60 —————————————————Daily - Summer (Max) 2026 1.23 1.02 7.49 8.98 0.02 0.40 3.38 3.77 0.37 1.43 1.80 2,314 2,314 0.10 0.12 2.24 2,337 Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— 2026 1.35 1.05 9.18 12.1 0.03 0.29 2.35 2.64 0.26 0.37 0.63 3,756 3,756 0.18 0.25 0.12 3,834 Average Daily ————————————————— 2026 0.09 0.07 0.59 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.05 249 249 0.01 0.02 0.14 254 Annual ————————————————— 2026 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 41.2 41.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 42.1 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.12 0.11 0.04 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 51.2 51.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 51.8 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.12 0.11 0.04 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.9 Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.01 Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 13 / 60 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 45.4 Area 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.12 0.11 0.04 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 51.2 51.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 51.8 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 43.0 43.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.5 Area 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.12 0.11 0.04 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.9 Average Daily ————————————————— Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.97 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.01 Annual ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 14 / 60 Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 45.4 Area 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.12 0.11 0.04 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 51.2 51.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 51.8 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 43.0 43.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.5 Area 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.12 0.11 0.04 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 49.4 49.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.9 Average Daily ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 15 / 60 Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.97 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.01 Annual ————————————————— Mobile < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Area < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Water ———————————< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 Waste ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.15 0.97 7.09 8.14 0.02 0.39 —0.39 0.36 —0.36 1,861 1,861 0.08 0.02 —1,867 Dust From Material Movement ——————7.08 7.08 —3.42 3.42 —————— Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.47 1.47 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 9.88 9.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.4 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 16 / 60 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.3 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.06 0.06 —0.03 0.03 —————— Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.54 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —————— Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.59 171 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 274 274 0.02 0.04 0.55 288 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.34 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 17 / 60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.37 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 3.2. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.15 0.97 7.09 8.14 0.02 0.39 —0.39 0.36 —0.36 1,861 1,861 0.08 0.02 —1,867 Dust From Material Movement ——————2.76 2.76 —1.34 1.34 —————— Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 9.88 9.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.4 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.3 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.02 0.02 —0.01 0.01 —————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 18 / 60 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.54 Dust From Material Movement ——————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —————— Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.59 171 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 274 274 0.02 0.04 0.55 288 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.34 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.37 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 3.3. Support Pile Installation (2026) - Unmitigated Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 19 / 60 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 0.37 3.01 3.97 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 844 844 0.03 0.01 —847 Onsite truck 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.95 2.95 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 19.8 19.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.8 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 0.37 3.01 3.97 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 844 844 0.03 0.01 —847 Onsite truck 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.95 2.95 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.9 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —48.7 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 8.04 8.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.06 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 225 225 < 0.005 0.01 0.78 228 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.32 127 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 20 / 60 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.66 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 548 548 0.04 0.09 1.11 576 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 214 214 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 217 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.01 126 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 548 548 0.04 0.09 0.03 575 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.97 6.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.28 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 33.1 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.09 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.22 5.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.48 3.4. Support Pile Installation (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.44 0.37 3.01 3.97 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 844 844 0.03 0.01 —847 Onsite truck 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 19.8 19.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.8 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 21 / 60 Off-Road Equipment 0.44 0.37 3.01 3.97 0.01 0.12 —0.12 0.11 —0.11 844 844 0.03 0.01 —847 Onsite truck 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.9 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —48.7 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 8.04 8.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.06 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 225 225 < 0.005 0.01 0.78 228 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.32 127 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.66 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 548 548 0.04 0.09 1.11 576 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 214 214 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 217 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.01 126 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 548 548 0.04 0.09 0.03 575 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.97 6.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.28 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 33.1 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 22 / 60 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.09 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.22 5.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.48 3.5. Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.65 0.54 4.31 5.61 0.01 0.15 —0.15 0.14 —0.14 1,051 1,051 0.04 0.01 —1,055 Onsite truck 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.95 2.95 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 19.9 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 20.9 Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.8 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.57 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Offsite ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 23 / 60 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 268 268 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 271 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.01 126 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 548 548 0.04 0.09 0.03 575 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.64 6.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.93 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.5 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.49 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.97 4.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.22 3.6. Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.65 0.54 4.31 5.61 0.01 0.15 —0.15 0.14 —0.14 1,051 1,051 0.04 0.01 —1,055 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 24 / 60 20.9< 0.005< 0.005< 0.00519.919.90.070.07< 0.0050.740.74< 0.005< 0.0050.050.07< 0.0050.01Onsite truck Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.8 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.57 Onsite truck < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 268 268 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 271 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.01 126 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.68 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 548 548 0.04 0.09 0.03 575 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.64 6.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.93 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.5 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.49 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.97 4.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.22 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 25 / 60 3.7. Testing and Commissioning (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 108 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.22 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 242 242 0.01 0.03 0.02 253 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.95 5.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.02 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.9 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 26 / 60 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 2.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.8. Testing and Commissioning (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 27 / 60 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 108 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.22 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 242 242 0.01 0.03 0.02 253 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.95 5.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.02 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 2.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.29 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available. 4.1.2. Mitigated Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available. 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 28 / 60 User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 29 / 60 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 30 / 60 Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 31 / 60 ———————————————0.000.00Architect ural Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Total 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Total 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Annual ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 4.3.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 32 / 60 Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Total 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Total 0.11 0.10 0.03 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 6.37 6.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.40 Annual ————————————————— Consum er Products 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Architect ural Coatings 0.00 0.00 ——————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 33 / 60 Landsca Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Total ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Total ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 Total ———————————< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 4.4.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 34 / 60 CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Total ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Total ———————————0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.01 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 Total ———————————< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 35 / 60 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.5.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— User Defined Industrial ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 36 / 60 0.00—0.000.000.000.00———————————User Defined Industrial Total ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.6.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 37 / 60 Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.7.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 38 / 60 —————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 39 / 60 Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 40 / 60 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 41 / 60 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 42 / 60 —————————————————Sequest ered Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 43 / 60 Total ————————————————— 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 44 / 60 —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequest ered ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Remove d ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Grading 9/16/2026 9/18/2026 5.00 3.00 Removal of Vegetation and Clearing Site Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 45 / 60 Support Pile Installation Building Construction 9/21/2026 10/19/2026 5.00 21.0 Installation of Solar PV Table Supports Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Building Construction 10/19/2026 11/13/2026 5.00 20.0 Installation of Solar Equipment and Conduits Testing and Commissioning Building Construction 11/16/2026 12/11/2026 5.00 20.0 Testing and Commissioning 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 376 0.38 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 376 0.38 Support Pile Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Support Pile Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Support Pile Installation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Support Pile Installation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 46 / 60 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 5.2.2. Mitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 376 0.38 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 376 0.38 Support Pile Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Support Pile Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Support Pile Installation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Support Pile Installation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 47 / 60 0.383762.001.00AverageDieselOff-Highway TrucksSolar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 12.0 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck 2.00 1.00 HHDT Support Pile Installation ———— Support Pile Installation Worker 16.0 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Support Pile Installation Vendor 2.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Support Pile Installation Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT Support Pile Installation Onsite truck 4.00 1.00 HHDT Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation ———— Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Worker 20.0 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Vendor 2.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Onsite truck 4.00 1.00 HHDT Testing and Commissioning ———— Testing and Commissioning Worker 8.00 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Testing and Commissioning Vendor 4.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 48 / 60 Testing and Commissioning Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Testing and Commissioning Onsite truck 0.00 1.00 HHDT 5.3.2. Mitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 12.0 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck 2.00 1.00 HHDT Support Pile Installation ———— Support Pile Installation Worker 16.0 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Support Pile Installation Vendor 2.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Support Pile Installation Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT Support Pile Installation Onsite truck 4.00 1.00 HHDT Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation ———— Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Worker 20.0 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Vendor 2.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Hauling 8.00 20.0 HHDT Solar PV System, Equipment, and Conduit Installation Onsite truck 4.00 1.00 HHDT Testing and Commissioning ———— Testing and Commissioning Worker 8.00 20.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Testing and Commissioning Vendor 4.00 20.0 HHDT,MHDT Testing and Commissioning Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Testing and Commissioning Onsite truck 0.00 1.00 HHDT Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 49 / 60 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 — 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt User Defined Industrial 0.00 0% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 50 / 60 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 60.0 0.00 0.00 480 5.9.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Lawn Mowers Gasoline 4-Stroke 1.00 3.00 6.00 3.86 0.36 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Lawn Mowers Gasoline 4-Stroke 1.00 3.00 6.00 3.86 0.36 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 51 / 60 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) User Defined Industrial 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.11.2. Mitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) User Defined Industrial 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 1,500 5.12.2. Mitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 1,500 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 — Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 52 / 60 5.13.2. Mitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) User Defined Industrial 0.00 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 5.14.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.15.2. Mitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 5.16.2. Process Boilers Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 53 / 60 Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type —— 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 54 / 60 Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 5.18.2.2. Mitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 7.09 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.75 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth Wildfire 0.40 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 55 / 60 Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 56 / 60 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 24.9 AQ-PM 60.5 AQ-DPM 40.5 Drinking Water 9.13 Lead Risk Housing 59.7 Pesticides 36.1 Toxic Releases 95.0 Traffic 53.4 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 90.0 Groundwater 88.5 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.8 Impaired Water Bodies 91.9 Solid Waste 67.5 Sensitive Population — Asthma 8.70 Cardio-vascular 22.7 Low Birth Weights 7.95 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 21.7 Housing 58.8 Linguistic 5.64 Poverty 0.83 Unemployment 32.3 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 57 / 60 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 97.84421917 Employed 59.16848454 Median HI — Education — Bachelor's or higher 89.32375209 High school enrollment 12.79353266 Preschool enrollment 95.7141024 Transportation — Auto Access 93.63531374 Active commuting 53.95868087 Social — 2-parent households 51.8285641 Voting 90.4016425 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 51.59758758 Park access 81.35506224 Retail density 52.62414988 Supermarket access 74.83639163 Tree canopy 28.25612729 Housing — Homeownership 99.76902348 Housing habitability 85.98742461 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.05889901 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 54.20248941 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 58 / 60 Uncrowded housing 83.16437829 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 89.59322469 Arthritis 0.0 Asthma ER Admissions 89.7 High Blood Pressure 0.0 Cancer (excluding skin)0.0 Asthma 0.0 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0 Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 87.6 Cognitively Disabled 60.3 Physically Disabled 86.7 Heart Attack ER Admissions 70.3 Mental Health Not Good 0.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0 Obesity 0.0 Pedestrian Injuries 19.6 Physical Health Not Good 0.0 Stroke 0.0 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 0.0 Current Smoker 0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 19.2 Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 59 / 60 Children 95.4 Elderly 10.4 English Speaking 98.1 Foreign-born 4.6 Outdoor Workers 93.2 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 30.4 Traffic Density 43.9 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 11.8 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 93.7 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)23.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)92.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. Hellman Solar PV Project Detailed Report, 7/13/2025 60 / 60 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Characteristics: Utility Information This is the gas company that supplies gas to Hellman Property Land Use This is a solar PV Project that is on an 5-acre site. There are no buildings associated with the project. Construction: Construction Phases For the solar PV Project these are the defined tasks. Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment list and quantity of each type by task based upon data provided by contractor. Construction: Dust From Material Movement Site has limited grading. Only needed for removal of vegetation. Site is level. Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust The main entrance road to the Hellman facility is paved. Estimated 50% of onsite travel on unpaved roads. Construction: Architectural Coatings Project involves no architectural coating work. Construction: Trips and VMT Number of workers and trucks based upon construction estimates for each phase. Increase worker and vendor trip length to 20 miles one way. Operations: Vehicle Data Minimal operational support is needed. Daily checks of equipment would be done by existing Hellman staff. Occasional technical maintenance and washing of panels would be needed. A conservative estimate has been one weekday trip per day. Operations: Water and Waste Water Estimated that about 1,500 gallons of water would be needed to wash the panels, which would be done once per year. Operations: Architectural Coatings The project has no architectural coatings Appendix F Biological Technical Report BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR HELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Hellman Properties LLC P.O. Box 2398 Seal Beach, California 90740 Contact: Devon Shea Phone: (562) 431-6022 ext. 101 Prepared By: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250 Santa Ana, California 92705 Phone: (949) 837-0404 Contacts: Tony Bomkamp, Erin Trung OCTOBER 2023 ii INFORMATION SUMMARY A. Report Date: October 12, 2023 B.Report Title:Biological Technical Report for Hellman Property Solar Panel Array C.Project Site Location:Seal Beach, Orange County D.Owner/Applicant: Hellman Properties LLC Devon Shay, Business Manager P.O. Box 2398 Seal Beach, California 90740 Phone: (562) 431-6022 ext. 101 Email: dshay@hellmanprop.com E.Principal Investigator:Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250 Santa Ana, California 92705 Phone: (949) 837-0404 Report Preparer: Erin Trung F.Individuals Conducting Fieldwork: Tony Bomkamp, Erin Trung, Brittany Gale, David Moskovitz iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background and Scope of Work ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................2 2.1 Botanical Resources ......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................................................ 7 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING ..................................................................................................8 3.1 Endangered Species Acts ................................................................................................. 8 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................... 10 3.3 Jurisdictional Waters ...................................................................................................... 13 4.0 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................18 4.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 18 4.2 Vegetation Mapping ....................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities ........................................................................ 22 4.4 Special-Status Plants ...................................................................................................... 23 4.5 Special-Status Animals .................................................................................................. 28 4.6 Nesting Birds .................................................................................................................. 39 4.7 Wildlife Linkages/ Corridors and Nursery Sites ............................................................ 39 4.8 Critical Habitat ............................................................................................................... 40 4.9 Jurisdictional Waters ...................................................................................................... 40 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................41 5.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)............................................................. 41 5.2 Special-Status Species .................................................................................................... 43 5.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ................................................................................ 45 5.4 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 46 5.5 Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites ................................................. 46 5.6 Local Policies or Ordinances.......................................................................................... 47 5.7 Habitat Conservation Plans ............................................................................................ 47 5.8 Jurisdictional Waters ...................................................................................................... 47 iv 5.9 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources....................................................................... 47 6.0 MITIGATION/AVOIDANCE MEASURES .....................................................................49 6.1 Nesting Birds .................................................................................................................. 49 6.2 Burrowing Owl ............................................................................................................... 49 6.3 Special-Status Plants ...................................................................................................... 49 6.4 Least Bell’s Vireo........................................................................................................... 51 7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................52 8.0 CERTIFICATION ..............................................................................................................54 TABLES Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site .....................................................3 Table 2-2. Summary of Wandering Skipper Surveys .....................................................................7 Table 3-1. CRPR Ranks 1, 2, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions..............................................12 Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Study Area .....................................19 Table 4-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Study Area ....................................................23 Table 4-3. Special-Status Animals Evaluated for the Study Area ................................................29 Table 5-1. Summary of Permanent and Temporary Vegetation/Land Use Impacts .....................45 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Regional Map Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Site Plan Exhibit 4 Jurisdictional Determination Map Exhibit 5 Soils Map Exhibit 6a Vegetation Map Exhibit 6b Vegetation Impact Map Exhibit 7 Site Photographs Exhibit 8a Special-Status Species Map Exhibit 8b Southern Tarplant Locations Map Exhibit 9 Special-Status Species Impact Map APPENDICES Appendix A Floral Compendium Appendix B Faunal Compendium Appendix C Jurisdictional Delineation Report Appendix D Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for Hellman Property Solar Panel Array 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Scope of Work This document provides the results of general biological surveys and focused biological surveys for the approximately 4.57-acre Solar Panel Array (the Project) located in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California. This report identifies and evaluates impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State and Federal regulations such as the California Coastal Act (CCA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and the California Fish and Game Code. The scope of this report includes a discussion of existing conditions for the approximately 4.57- acre Project site that is contained within a larger 12.46-acre Study Area, all methods employed regarding the general biological surveys and focused biological surveys, the documentation of botanical and wildlife resources identified (including special-status species), and an analysis of impacts to biological resources. Methods of the study include a review of relevant literature, field surveys, and a Geographical Information System (GIS)-based analysis of vegetation communities. As appropriate, this report is consistent with accepted scientific and technical standards and survey guideline requirements issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and other applicable agencies/organizations. The field study focused on a number of primary objectives that would comply with CEQA, including (1) general reconnaissance survey and vegetation mapping; (2) general biological surveys; (3) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plant species; (4) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status wildlife species; (5) assessment for the presence of wildlife migration and colonial nursery sites; (6) assessments for wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) pursuant to the CCA; and (7) assessments for areas subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600–1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Observations of all plant and wildlife species were recorded during the biological studies and are included as Appendix A: Floral Compendium and Appendix B: Faunal Compendium. 1.2 Project Location The Project site comprises approximately 4.57 acres in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California [Exhibit 1 – Regional Map] and is located within Sections 11 and 12 of Township 5 South, Range 12 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map Los Alamitos, California [Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Map]. The Project site is located in the Hellman Property, which is an active oil field with a network of earthen roads, active oil wells, oil and gas storage tanks, and associated infrastructure. The Project site is located in the northeastern portion of the Hellman Property and is bordered by the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin to the north, a water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development to the east, and 2 active oil fields to the south and west. A portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, which was formerly part of the Hellman Property, is located to the south and west beyond the active oil field. 1.3 Project Description The proposed project consists of the installation of a 1.5MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic system. This system will interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. The system features 3 arrays with a total of 56 low profile table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. For this report, the term “Project site” is defined as that area proposed for direct impact by the proposed Project and totals 4.57 acres [Exhibit 3]. The 4.57-acre Project site includes a 2.66-acre permanent impact area and a 1.91-acre temporary impact area consisting of staging and temporary work areas. The term “Study Area” is defined as all portions of the Project site, a 100- foot buffer beyond the Project site that was included in the analysis in accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Act and the Seal Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), and additional areas beyond the 100-foot buffer that support sensitive biological resources [Exhibit 3]. The Study Area totals 12.46 acres. It should be noted that an access road for and a portion of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin are located within the 100-foot buffer as depicted by Exhibit 3; however, the biological resources in these areas were not mapped or surveyed for this analysis, and these areas are not included in the Study Area. 2.0 METHODOLOGY In order to adequately identify biological resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) assembled biological data consisting of the following main components: • Delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands and riparian habitat) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), CDFW, and also wetlands as defined by the California Coastal Act • Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project site • Performance of habitat assessments and site-specific biological surveys to evaluate the potential presence/absence of special-status species in accordance with the requirements of CEQA • Performance of focused surveys for rare plants and wildlife. The focus of the biological surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database CNDDB (CDFW 2022), CNPS 9th edition online inventory (CNPS 2022), Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data (NRCS 2022), other 3 pertinent literature, knowledge of the region, and GLA’s extensive knowledge of the Hellman Property. Site-specific general surveys within the Project site and the surrounding buffer area were conducted on foot in the proposed development areas for each target plant or animal species identified below. Table 2-1 provides a summary list of survey dates, survey types and personnel. Table 2-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site Survey Type Survey Dates Biologist(s) General Biological Survey July 29, August 4, 2022 TB, ET Vegetation Mapping July 29, August 4, August 25, October 25 2022 TB, ET, BG Focused Botanical Surveys July 29, August 4, 2022 February 17, March 7, 2023 TB, ET, DM Survey for Least Bell’s Vireo July 29, August 4, August 25, 2022 TB, ET Wandering Skipper Focused Surveys July 29, August 4, August 25, 2022 TB, ET Assessment for Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters and Coastal Act Wetlands August 25, October 25, 2022 March 6, 2023 TB, ET, BG TB = Tony Bomkamp, ET = Erin Trung, BG = Brittany Gale, DM = David Moskovitz Individual plants and wildlife species were evaluated in this report based on their special status. For this report, plants were considered special status based on one or more of the following criteria: • Listing through the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Act (ESA); and/or • CNPS California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, or 4. Wildlife species were considered special status based on one or more of the following criteria: • Listing through the Federal and/or State ESA; and • Designation by the State as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) or Fully Protected (FP) species. Vegetation communities and habitats were considered special status based on one or more of the following criteria: • Global (G) and/or State (S) ranking of category 3 or less based on CDFW (see Section 3.2.2 below for further explanation)/ 2.1 Botanical Resources A site-specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Project site, and consisted of five components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation 4 of a list of target special-status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Project site; (3) general field reconnaissance survey(s); (4) vegetation mapping according to the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations; and (5) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants. 2.1.1 Literature Search Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included the following: • California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v-9.5, CNPS 2023) • CNDDB for the Los Alamitos, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding six quadrangles (CDFW 2023) The literature review also included biological studies previously conducted for the Hellman Property and adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands: • Raptor Foraging Habitat Assessment at Hellman Ranch (GLA 2001) • Biological Technical Report, Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Relocation Project (GLA 2006) • Biological Technical Report for Proposed Hellman Gas Plant Project (GLA 2018) • Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Assessment Report: Habitat Types & Special Status Species (Tidal Influence 2012) 2.1.2 Vegetation Mapping Vegetation communities within the Project site were mapped according to the “Membership Rules” of the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or Natural Communities List). The list is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition or MCVII, which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification. Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact vegetation descriptions (membership rules). Non- conforming vegetation alliances or cover types were named based on the dominant plant species present. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 100-scale (1″=100′) aerial photograph. 2.1.3 Special-Status Plant Species and Habitats Evaluated for the Project Site Based on the information compiled from the literature search, vegetation profiles and a list of target sensitive plant species and habitats that could occur within the Project site were developed and incorporated into a mapping and survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floristic compendium; (3) identify the potential for any special-status plants that may occur within the Project site; and (4) prepare a map showing the distribution of any sensitive botanical resources associated with the Project site, if applicable. 5 2.1.4 Botanical Surveys GLA biologists Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung visited the site on July 29, and August 4, 2022, and Erin Trung and David Moskovitz visited the site on February 17 and March 6, 2023, to conduct general and focused plant survey(s). Southern tarplant was censused and mapped during 2022 surveys, and Coulter’s goldfields was mapped during 2023 surveys. Survey(s) were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines (Nelson 1984, USFWS 2000, CNPS 2001, CDFW 2018). As applicable, survey(s) were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site. Survey(s) were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field survey(s) were identified and recorded following the above- referenced guidelines. A complete list of the plant species observed is provided in Appendix A. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Baldwin et al. (2012) and Munz (1974). 2.2 Wildlife Resources Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during the field survey(s) by sight, call, tracks, and scat. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the entire Project site by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during the visit(s). A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Project site is provided in Appendix B. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow the Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (CDFW 2016), Standard Common and Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians 6th Edition, Collins and Taggart (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, and the American Ornithological Society Checklist of Middle and North American Birds (Chesser et al. 2022) for birds. The methodology (including any applicable survey protocols) utilized to conduct general survey(s), habitat assessment(s), and/or focused surveys for special-status animals are included below. 2.2.1 General Surveys Birds During the general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, birds were identified incidentally within each habitat type. Birds were detected by both direct observation and by vocalizations and were recorded in field notes. Mammals During general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, mammals were identified incidentally within each habitat type. Mammals were detected both by direct observations and by the presence of diagnostic sign (i.e., tracks, burrows, scat, etc.). 6 Reptiles and Amphibians During general biological and reconnaissance surveys within the Project site, reptiles and amphibians were identified incidentally during surveys within each habitat type. Habitats were examined for diagnostic reptile sign, which include shed skins, scat, tracks, snake prints, and lizard tail drag marks. All reptiles and amphibian species observed, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes. 2.2.2 Special-Status Animal Species Evaluated for the Project Site A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site. Species were evaluated based on two factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in vicinity of the Project site, and 2) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the Project site. 2.2.3 Habitat Assessment for Special-Status Animal Species GLA biologist(s) Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung conducted habitat assessments for special- status animal species on July 29, 2022. An aerial photograph, soil map and/or topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support special-status and uncommon taxa within the Project site. 2.2.4 Focused Surveys for Special-Status Animals Species Wandering Skipper GLA biologists Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung conducted focused surveys for wandering skipper (Panoquina errans) within areas of potentially suitable habitat in the Study Area. Focused surveys were conducted because this species is known from the Los Cerritos Wetlands (Tidal Influence 2012). There is no official survey protocol for wandering skipper, so surveys were conducted based on USFWS protocols for other skipper species. The Study Area was assessed for the presence of the larval host plant, salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and for nectar plants, which can include alkali heath (Frankenia salina), alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassivicum), and brassicas such as summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and wild radish (Raphanus sativa). In areas of potentially suitable habitat, which consists of salt grass interspersed with or bordered by nectar plants, transects were slowly and methodically walked with frequent stops for observation, including with the use of binoculars. Three survey visits were conducted during the flight period, which begins as early as March and ends as late as November, but typically occurs June to September. Surveys were conducted between 9:00 am and 12:00 pm, with wind speeds less than 10 mph, and temperatures between 65° and 80°F. 7 Table 2-2. Summary of Wandering Skipper Surveys Survey Date Biologist(s) Start/End Time Start/End Temperature (°F) Start/End Wind Speed (mph) Cloud Cover 07/29/22 TB, ET 0830/0950 70°/75° 0mph/5mph clear 08/04/22 TB 0800/1000 68°/70° 2mph/3mph clear 08/25/22 TB, ET 0800/0950 74°/78° 0mph/5mph clear TB = Tony Bomkamp, ET = Erin Trung Least Bell’s Vireo GLA biologists Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung conducted surveys for the least Bell’s vireo in the adjacent, offsite Heron Pointe detention basin, a portion of which is located in the 100-foot buffer. The basin supports a mix of willow forest, willow scrub and mulefat scrub that exhibits potential for supporting the state and federally listed migratory songbird. GLA previously observed this species within the willow and mulefat habitat during surveys in the basin for an unrelated maintenance project by the Heron Pointe HOA in 2019. Based on the previous observation, GLA biologists conducted informal surveys on July 29, August 4, and August 25, 2022, between 0700 and 0800 to determine potential presence/absence. As noted in Table 2-2 above, conditions were suitable for detection of this species. USFWS survey guidelines, which require eight survey visits during the time period from April 10 to July 31, were not followed because 1) presence/absence was able to be determined with a shortened, informal protocol, and 2) precise mapping of least Bell’s vireo breeding territories was not necessary because the Heron Pointe detention basin is not within the Project site and the Project will not result in take of least Bell’s vireo or impacts to its habitat. 2.3 Jurisdictional Waters The Study area was evaluated to identify the limits of jurisdictional waters, including waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps and Regional Board, waters of the State (including riparian vegetation) subject to the jurisdiction of CDFW, and wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act. Prior to beginning the field delineation, a 100-scale color aerial photograph, a soils map, and the previously cited USGS topographic maps were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFW jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Potential wetland habitats at the subject site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement). Reference was also made to the 2019 State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures) to identify suspected State wetland habitats as regulated by the Regional Board. While in the field, the locations where data was collected were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble GPS device in conjunction with a color aerial photograph using visible landmarks. 8 For purposes of the jurisdictional delineation, the site was separated into a “western field” and “eastern field” as depicted on Exhibit 4. In order to eliminate sampling bias, data collection points for potential wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation in the western field were located along four transects in a rough grid pattern. The spacing between of each of the points and between the four transects was determined using a random numbers generator [Exhibit 4 – Jurisdictional Determination Map]. A portion of the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the eastern field extends into the water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development [Exhibit 4]. This basin is vegetated with riparian vegetation and may contain areas with wetland hydrology and/or hydric soil indicators. However, because it is a constructed water quality basin, is not part of the Hellman Property, and would not be impacted by the proposed project, it was not included in the jurisdictional assessment. 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING The proposed Project is subject to state and federal laws and regulations associated with a number of regulatory programs. These programs often overlap and were developed to protect natural resources, including state and federally listed plants and animals; aquatic resources including rivers and creeks, ephemeral streambeds, wetlands, and areas of riparian habitat; special-status species which are not listed as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments; and special-status vegetation communities. 3.1 Endangered Species Acts 3.1.1 California Endangered Species Act California’s Endangered Species Act (CESA) defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.” The State defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.” Candidate species are defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.” Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating “No person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product 9 thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under the CESA, “take” is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the state to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Sections 1901 and 1913 of the California Fish and Game Code provide that notification is required prior to disturbance. 3.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act The FESA of 1973 defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the FESA it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined in Section 3(18) of FESA: “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Further, the USFWS, through regulation, has interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification that result in injury to, or death of species as forms of “take.” These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case-by-case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a federal agency for an action that could affect a federally listed plant and animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the FESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants. 3.1.3 State and Federal Take Authorizations Federal or state authorizations of impacts to or incidental take of a listed species by a private individual or other private entity would be granted in one of the following ways: • Section 7 of the FESA stipulates that any federal action that may affect a species listed as threatened or endangered requires a formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). • In 1982, the FESA was amended to give private landowners the ability to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA. Upon development of an HCP, the USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species where the HCP specifies at minimum, the following: (1) the level of impact that will result from the taking, (2) steps that will minimize and mitigate the impacts, (3) funding necessary to implement the plan, (4) alternative actions to the taking considered by the applicant and the reasons why such alternatives were not chosen, and (5) such other measures that the Secretary of the Interior may require as being necessary or appropriate for the plan. • In certain circumstances, Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code allows CDFW to adopt the federal incidental take statement or the 10(a) permit as its own based on its findings that the federal permit adequately protects the species under state law. 10 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act 3.2.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 CEQA requires evaluation of a project’s impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts. Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.2 below set forth these thresholds and guidelines. Furthermore, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non-listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW recognizes that plants with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A, 1B, or 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants that are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants, or plants CNPS Ranked 3 or 4. 3.2.2 Special-Status Plants, Wildlife and Vegetation Communities Evaluated Under CEQA Federally Designated Special-Status Species Within recent years, the USFWS instituted changes in the listing status of candidate species. Former C1 (candidate) species are now referred to simply as candidate species and represent the only candidates for listing. Former C2 species (for which the USFWS had insufficient evidence to warrant listing) and C3 species (either extinct, no longer a valid taxon or more abundant than was formerly believed) are no longer considered as candidate species. Therefore, these species are no longer maintained in list form by the USFWS, nor are they formally protected. This term is employed in this document but carries no official protections. All references to federally protected species in this report (whether listed, proposed for listing, or candidate) include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS. For this report the following acronyms are used for federal special-status species: • FE Federally listed as Endangered • FT Federally listed as Threatened • FPE Federally proposed for listing as Endangered • FPT Federally proposed for listing as Threatened • FC Federal Candidate Species (former C1 species) State-Designated Special-Status Species Some mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected (SFP) Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively. California SSC are designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s CNDDB project. Informally listed taxa are not protected but warrant 11 consideration in the preparation of biotic assessments. For some species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nest sites. For this report the following acronyms are used for State special-status species: • SE State-listed as Endangered • ST State-listed as Threatened • SR State-listed as Rare • SCE State Candidate for listing as Endangered • SCT State Candidate for listing as Threatened • FP State Fully Protected • SSC State Species of Special Concern CNDDB Global/State Rankings The CNDDB provides global and state rankings for species and communities based on a system developed by The Nature Conservancy to measure rarity of a species. The ranking provides a shorthand formula about how rare a species/community is and is based on the best information available from multiple sources, including state and federal listings, and other groups that recognize species as sensitive (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Audubon Society, etc.). State and global rankings are used to prioritize conservation and protection efforts so that the rarest species/communities receive immediate attention. In both cases, the lower ranking (i.e., G1 or S1) indicates extreme rarity. Rare species are given a ranking from 1 to 3. Species with a ranking of 4 or 5 is considered to be common. If the exact global/state ranking is undetermined, a range is generally provided. For example, a global ranking of “G1G3” indicates that a species/community global rarity is between G1 and G3. If the animal being considered is a subspecies of a broader species, a “T” ranking is attached to the global ranking. The following are descriptions of global and state rankings: Global Rankings • G1 – Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. • G2 – Imperiled globally because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of some other factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. • G3 – Either very rare and local throughout its range (21 to 100 occurrences) or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g., a physiographic region), or because of some other factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. • G4 – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. • G5 – Common, widespread, and abundant. 12 State Rankings • S1 – Extremely rare; typically 5 or fewer known occurrences in the state; or only a few remaining individuals; may be especially vulnerable to extirpation. • S2 – Very rare; typically between 6 and 20 known occurrences; may be susceptible to becoming extirpated. • S3 – Rare to uncommon; typically 21 to 50 known occurrences; S3 ranked species are not yet susceptible to becoming extirpated in the state but may be if additional populations are destroyed. • S4 – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. • S5 – Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. California Native Plant Society/CNDDB California Rare Plant Ranks CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. In a collaborative effort with CDFW’s CNDDB Project, the CNPS Ninth Edition Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California categorizes plants of interest into six California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) based on their geographic distribution and potential threats to existing populations. The CNPS Inventory is used by CDFW as the candidate species list for plants that may be listed as state Threatened and Endangered. The six categories of rarity are summarized in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. CRPR Ranks 1, 2, 3, & 4, and Threat Code Extensions CRPR Rank Comments Rank 1A – Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere Thought to be extinct in California based on a lack of observation or detection for many years. Rank 1B – Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Species, which are generally rare throughout their range that are also judged to be vulnerable to other threats such as declining habitat. Rank 2A – Plants presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere Species that are presumed extinct in California but more common outside of California Rank 2B – Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere Species that are rare in California but more common outside of California Rank 3 – Plants About Which More Information Is Needed (A Review List) Species that are thought to be rare or in decline but CNPS lacks the information needed to assign to the appropriate list. In most instances, the extent of surveys for these species is not sufficient to allow CNPS to accurately assess whether these species should be assigned to a specific rank. In addition, many of the Rank 3 species have associated taxonomic problems such that the validity of their current taxonomy is unclear. 13 CRPR Rank Comments Rank 4 – Plants of Limited Distribution (A Watch List) Species that are currently thought to be limited in distribution or range whose vulnerability or susceptibility to threat is currently low. In some cases, as noted above for Rank 3 species, CNPS lacks survey data to accurately determine status in California. Many species have been placed on Rank 4 in previous editions of the “Inventory” and have been removed as survey data has indicated that the species are more common than previously thought. CNPS recommends that species currently included on this list should be monitored to ensure that future substantial declines are minimized. Extension Comments .1 – Seriously endangered in California Species with over 80% of occurrences threatened and/or have a high degree and immediacy of threat. .2 – Fairly endangered in California Species with 20-80% of occurrences threatened. .3 – Not very endangered in California Species with <20% of occurrences threatened or with no current threats known. 3.3 Jurisdictional Waters 3.3.1 Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term “waters of the United States” is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as: (1) Waters which are: (i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or (iii) Interstate waters; (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section. 14 Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) exclude the following from being “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) above: (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(4) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. “Adjacent” wetlands are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(c)(2) as those wetlands “having a continuous surface connection” to other waters of the United States. Wetland Definition Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the United States”) is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(1) as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration 15 sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” In 1987 the Corps published the Wetland Manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the Wetland Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the Wetland Manual and Arid West Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: • More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be hydrophytic in nature as published in the most current national wetland plant list; • Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and • Whereas the Wetland Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with “problematic hydrophytic vegetation”, which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. 3.3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board The State Water Resource Control Board and each of its nine Regional Boards regulate the discharge of waste (dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States 1 and waters of the state. Waters of the United States are defined above in Section II.A and waters of the state are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code 13050[e]). Section 401 of the CWA requires certification for any federal permit or license authorizing impacts to waters of the U.S. (i.e., waters that are within federal jurisdiction), such as Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Safe Rivers and Harbors Act, to ensure that the impacts do not violate state water quality standards. When a project could impact waters outside of federal jurisdiction, the Regional Board has the authority under the Porter-Cologne Water 1 Therefore, wetlands that meet the current definition, or any historic definition, of waters of the U.S. are waters of the state. In 2000, the State Water Resources Control Board determined that all waters of the U.S. are also waters of the state by regulation, prior to any regulatory or judicial limitations on the federal definition of waters of the U.S. (California Code or Regulations title 23, section 3831(w)). This regulation has remained in effect despite subsequent changes to the federal definition. Therefore, waters of the state includes features that have been determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to be “waters of the U.S.” in an approved jurisdictional determination; “waters of the U.S.” identified in an aquatic resource report verified by the Corps upon which a permitting decision was based; and features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of “waters of the U.S.” or any current or historic federal regulation defining “waters of the U.S.” under the federal Clean Water Act. 16 Quality Control Act to issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that impacts do not violate state water quality standards. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, WDRs, and waivers of WDRs are also referred to as orders or permits. State Wetland Definition The Water Boards define an area as wetland as follows: “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The following wetlands are waters of the state: 1. Natural wetlands; 2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state;2 and 3. Artificial wetlands 3 that meet any of the following criteria: a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration; b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state; c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b): i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment, iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program, iv. Treatment of surface waters, v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering, vi. Fire suppression, vii. Industrial processing or cooling, 2 “Created by modification of a surface water of the state” means that the wetland that is being evaluated was created by modifying an area that was a surface water of the state at the time of such modification. It does not include a wetland that is created in a location where a water of the state had existed historically, but had already been completely eliminated at some time prior to the creation of the wetland. The wetland being evaluated does not become a water of the state due solely to a diversion of water from a different water of the state. 3 Artificial wetlands are wetlands that result from human activity. 17 viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values, ix. Log storage, x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.4 All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state. 3.3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” CDFW's definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man- made reservoirs.” CDFW also defines a stream as “a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.” It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines wildlife to include “all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability” (FGC Division 0.5, Chapter 1, section 89.5. Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities. 3.3.4 California Coastal Commission The California Coastal Commission (CCC) regulates the diking, filling, or dredging of wetlands within the coastal zone. The Coastal Act Section 30121 defines “wetlands” as land “which may 4 Fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that have not been abandoned due to five consecutive years of non-use for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that are determined to be a water of the state in accordance with these Procedures shall not have beneficial use designations applied to them through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, except as otherwise required by federal law for fields that are considered to be waters of the United States. Further, agricultural inputs legally applied to fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) shall not constitute a discharge of waste to a water of the state. Agricultural inputs that migrate to a surface water or groundwater may be considered a discharge of waste and are subject to waste discharge requirements or waivers of such requirements pursuant to the Water Board’s authority to issue or waive waste discharge requirements or take other actions as applicable. 18 be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water.” The 1998 CCC Statewide Interpretive Guidelines state that hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation “are useful indicators of wetland conditions, but the presence or absence of hydric soils and/or hydrophytes alone are not necessarily determinative when the Commission identifies wetlands under the Coastal Act. In the past, the Commission has considered all relevant information in making such determinations and relied upon the advice and judgment of experts before reaching its own independent conclusion as to whether a particular area will be considered wetland under the Coastal Act. The Commission intends to continue to follow this policy.” Areas regulated by the Corps, RWQCB, CDFW and CCC are often not coincident due to the different goals of the respective regulatory programs and because these agencies use different definitions for determining the extent of wetland areas. The Corps requires that under normal circumstances, all three wetland parameters (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) be present for an area to be considered as a jurisdictional wetland; however, the CCC policy provides for a positive determination for the presence of wetlands based on the presence of any one of the three criteria. 4.0 RESULTS This section provides the results of general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants, habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status animals, and a jurisdictional assessment for Waters of the United States (including wetlands) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps and Regional Board, streams (including riparian vegetation) and lakes subject to the jurisdiction of CDFW, and wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the CCC. 4.1 Existing Conditions The Study Area is located within the Hellman Property oil field and consists of disturbed land with existing oil wells, and pipes, and associated infrastructure, internal roads, and open fields. The vegetation communities are generally disturbed with a substantial component of non-native species. The topography is flat, with elevations ranging from 2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southeast portion of the Study Area to 8 feet AMSL in the northwest portion of the study area. Soils within the Study Area consist of Bolsa silty clay loam [Exhibit 5 – Soil Map]. Annual average rainfall for the region totals about 12 inches, average annual high temperature is 74 degrees, and average annual low temperature is 56 degrees.5 Under existing conditions in the Study Area, areas within 100 feet of oil wells, electrical equipment, and associated facilities are subject to required maintenance/mowing due to fire risk. Fuel modification areas are periodically maintained to remove any vegetation that presents a fire hazard, but these areas support annual grasses and forbs such as ripgut (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena barbata), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia), and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) that can reestablish 5 Data for Long Beach Daugherty Field for 1991–2020: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate- normals/#dataset=normals-annualseasonal&timeframe=30&station=USW00023129 19 during the interval between maintenance events. Some of the fuel modification areas also include limited amounts of saltgrass and alkali heath. The 100-foot width of the fuel modification zones was determined in consultation with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). In December 2022 and February 2023, Southern California Edison powerlines fell within and near the Study Area. Emergency repairs were completed without incident, including fire or damage to oil field facilities, but these events underscore the need for periodic fuel modification on the Hellman Property. 4.2 Vegetation Mapping The Study Area supports 16 different land use and vegetation types with varying degrees of disturbance as summarized in Table 4-1 below. Where vegetation types are mapped to association, both the alliance and association are listed. Descriptions of each vegetation type follow the table. A Vegetation Map is attached as Exhibit 6a. Photographs depicting the Project site are shown in Exhibit 7. Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Study Area VEGETATION/ LAND USE TYPE Code Rank Total Study Area (acres) Alkali heliotrope fields -- -- 0.12 Annual grassland/ herbaceous semi-natural stands -- -- 1.20 Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 32.060.23 S5 0.05 Disturbed Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 63.510.00 S5 0.35 Bassia hyssopifolia association 42.015.02 -- 3.54 Castor bean stands -- -- 0.05 Cressa truxillensis-Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance 46.100.09 S2 0.20 Distichlis spicata – annual grasses 41.200.13 S4 3.23 Disturbed/Developed -- -- 2.51 Malvella leprosa fields -- -- 0.11 Mixed shrub seminatural stands -- -- 0.04 Ornamental -- -- 0.01 Raphanus sativus association -- -- 0.18 Salix lasiolepis – Baccharis salicifolia shrubland alliance 61.201.06 S4 0.58 Tree tobacco stands -- -- 0.27 Total 12.46 20 Alkali heliotrope fields The Study Area supports approximately 1.11 acre of nearly monocultural alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum). There is no corresponding alliance in the Natural Communities List for this vegetation type and no state rarity rank. Annual grassland/herbaceous semi-natural stands The Study Area supports approximately 1.20 acre of disturbed areas vegetated with a mix of five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia) and non-native annual grasses including Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena barbata), and hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum). Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis, CRPR 1B.1) is also present in this area. There is no corresponding alliance in the Natural Communities List for this vegetation type and no state rarity rank. Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance (coyote brush scrub) • Baccharis pilularis (32.060.23) The Study Area supports an approximately 0.05-acre area along a pipeline consisting of dense coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) with a few individuals of tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). The membership rule for this alliance states that Baccharis pilularis must have greater than 50 percent absolute cover in the shrub layer. This alliance has a state rarity rank of S5. Disturbed Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance (coyote brush scrub) The Study Area supports approximately 0.35 acre of disturbed coyote brush scrub that is within the 100-foot buffer but located off site in the Los Cerritos Wetlands property. This area consists of coyote brush with roughly 30–40 percent cover, with other component species being non- native invasives including including black mustard (Brassica nigra) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum). The membership rule for this alliance states that Baccharis pilularis must have greater than 50 percent absolute cover in the shrub layer; nevertheless, this area is characterized as disturbed coyote brush scrub because it is the single most dominant species. This alliance has a state rarity rank of S5. Salsola tragus – Isatis tinctoria – Bassia spp. semi-natural alliance (Russian thistle – dyers woad – five-hook bassia fields) • Bassia hyssopifolia (42.015.02) The Study Area supports 3.54 acres in which five-hook bassia is either a dominant or co- dominant species. Other component species include crown daisy (Glebionis coronaria), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), perennial pepperweed, stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), and alkali heliotrope. This alliance is listed in the Pending Additions to the Natural Community List, and therefore is not included in MCVII. CDFW states that “Vegetation scientists at NatureServe, the California Native Plant Society, and CDFW determine non-native stands based on a rule of at least 90% cover of non-native species without evenly distributed or diverse native forbs and grasses at any time in the growing season” (CDFW 2022d). These areas exhibit 90-percent cover 21 of non-native species overall, with alkali heliotrope being the only native species present with very limited cover. This alliance does not have a state rarity rank. Castor Bean stands The Study Area supports 0.05 acre of nearly monocultural castor bean (Ricinus communis). There is no corresponding alliance in the Natural Communities List for this vegetation type and no state rarity rank. Cressa truxillensis–Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance (alkali weed – salt grass playas and sinks) • Cressa truxillensis (46.100.09) The Study Area supports 0.20 acre of monocultural alkali weed. The membership rules for this alliance state that Cressa truxillensis, Crypsis schoenoides, or Distichlis spicata are usually abundant in the herbaceous layer. The Cressa truxillensis association is a provisional designation with no rarity rating; however, the alliance has an S2 rarity rank, and as such CDFW identifies it as a sensitive natural community. Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance (salt grass flats) • Distichlis spicata – annual grasses (41.200.13) The Study Area supports approximately 3.23 acres dominated by Distichlis spicata but with a substantial component of annual grasses ranging from 5 to 45 percent relative cover, including ripgut, wild oat, hare barley, and Mediterranean barley. Southern tarplant is also present. This area also has a few small, isolated patches of alkali heath that are not large enough to comprise a separate mapping unit. The membership rules for this alliance require that Distichlis spicata have greater than 50 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer, and higher cover than any other grass species. The Distichlis spicata – annual grasses association has no state rarity rank; however, the alliance has an S4 rarity rank. Disturbed/Developed The Study Area includes 2.51 acres of disturbed/developed lands, which consist of vehicular access roads, oil wells and associated infrastructure, and bare ground. Some southern tarplant occurs on road margins and otherwise unvegetated areas. Malvella leprosa fields The Study Area includes a 0.11-acre area of nearly monocultural alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa). There is no corresponding alliance in the Natural Communities List for this vegetation type and no state rarity rank. 22 Mixed Shrub Seminatural Stands This vegetation type is limited to a 0.04-acre disturbed area of stockpiled broken concrete and other debris. Component species consist of coyote brush, pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), and tree tobacco in approximately equal proportions. There is no corresponding alliance in the Natural Communities List for this vegetation type and no state rarity rank. Ornamental This vegetation type consists of a single Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) covering 0.01 acre. Brassica nigra – Centaurea semi-natural alliance (upland mustards or star-thistle fields) • Raphanus sativus (42.011.04) The Study Area supports approximately 0.18 acre of nearly monocultural wild radish (Raphanus sativus). The membership rules for this alliance require that the mustard species be dominant in the herbaceous layer. There is no state rarity rank for this alliance. Salix lasiolepis shrubland alliance (arroyo willow thickets) • Salix lasiolepis – Baccharis salicifolia (61.201.06) The 100-foot buffer includes a 0.58-acre portion of the water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development, which is subject to periodic maintenance. Dominant species in the tree and shrub layers of the basin include Salix lasiolepis and Baccharis salicifolia. The membership rules for this alliance state that Salix lasiolepis must have greater than 50 percent relative cover in the tree canopy. The state rarity rank for the alliance and association are both S4. Tree Tobacco Stands The Study Area supports 0.27 acre of nearly monocultural tree tobacco. There is no corresponding alliance in the Natural Communities List for this vegetation type, and no state rarity rank. 4.3 Special-Status Vegetation Communities The CNDDB identifies the following five special-status vegetation communities for the Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Long Beach, South Gate, Whittier, La Habra, Anaheim, and Newport Beach quadrangle maps: Southern Foredunes, Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, California Walnut Woodland. The Study Area contains one special-status vegetation type, the Cressa truxillensis–Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance, which has an S2 rarity rating. 23 4.4 Special-Status Plants One special-status plant species, southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), was detected in the Study Area in 2022, and a second species, Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) was detected in the Study Area in 2023. Both of these species were previously detected in the Study Area during focused surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010, and southern tarplant is also known historically from other locations on the Hellman Property and Los Cerritos Wetlands. Table 4-2 provides a list of special-status plants evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys. Species were evaluated based on the following factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB and CNPS as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Study Area, and 2) any other special-status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the site. Table 4-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Study Area Species Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence Aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Brand’s star phacelia Phacelia stellaris Federal: None State: 1B.1 CRPR: 1B.1 Coastal scrub, coastal dunes. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. California box-thorn Lycium californicum Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica Federal: FE State: SE CRPR: 1B.1 Vernal pools Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Catalina mariposa lily Calochortus catalinae Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Chaparral sand verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.1 Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Coast woolly-heads Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Coastal dunes. Does not occur. This species is known from the vicinity of the Project site; however, no suitable habitat is present in the Study Area. Coulter’s goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Federal: None State: None CRPR:1B.1 Playas, vernal pools, marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Confirmed present in the Study Area in 2009, 2010, and 2023. 24 Species Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence Coulter’s saltbush Atriplex coulteri Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Occurring on alkaline or clay soils. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat Davidson’s saltscale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Alkaline soils in coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Decumbent goldenbush Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub (sandy, often in disturbed areas) Confirmed absent. Estuary seablite Suaeda esteroa Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Coastal salt marsh and swamps. Occurs in sandy soils. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat r. Gambel’s water cress Nasturtium gambelii Federal: FE State: ST CRPR: 1B.1 Marshes and swamps. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Horn's milk-vetch Astragalus hornii var. hornii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.1 Lake margins with alkaline soils, meadows and seeps, and playas. Does not occur. This species is known from the vicinity of the Project site; however, the known populations are assumed to be extirpated and no suitable habitat is present in the Study Area. Intermediate mariposa-lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Lewis' evening-primrose Camissoniopsis lewisii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 3 Sandy or clay soils in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. Does not occur. Los Angeles sunflower Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1A Salt and freshwater marshes, historically in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Presumed to be extinct. Plant discovered in Santa Clarita most likely hybrid between H. nuttallii and H. californicus. Does not occur and is presumed to be extinct. Lucky morning-glory Calystegia felix Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.1 Meadows and seeps, riparian scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 25 Species Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence Lyon’s pentachaeta Pentachaeta lyonii Federal: FE State: SE CRPR: 1B.1 Chaparral (openings), coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Many-stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Often occurring in clay soils. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Mud nama Nama stenocarpum Federal: None State: None CRPR: 2B.2 Vernal pools and freshwater seasonal ponds. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Parish’s brittlescale Atriplex parishii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, vernal pools. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Plummer's mariposa-lily Calochortus plummerae Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.1 Coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal pools. Occurring in mesic soils. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Red sand-verbena Abronia maritima Federal: None State: None CRPR: Rank 4.2 Coastal dunes. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Salt marsh bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimus ssp. maritimus Federal: FE State: SE CRPR:1B.2 Coastal dune, coastal salt marshes and swamps. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Salt spring checkerbloom Sidalcea neomexicana Federal: None State: None CRPR:2B.2 Playas, chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. San Bernardino aster Symphyotrichum defoliatum Federal: None State: None CRPR:1B.2 Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, grassland. Vernally mesic grassland or near ditches, streams and springs; disturbed areas. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Federal: FE State: SE CRPR: 1B.1 Mesic soils in vernal pools, valley and foothill grasslands, coastal sage scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Sanford's arrowhead Sagittaria sanfordii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater). Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Seaside cistanthe Cistanthe maritima Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 26 Species Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence Small-flowered morning- glory Convolvulus simulans Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Chaparral (openings), coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Occurring on clay soils and serpentinite seeps. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Small spikerush Eleocharis parvula Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.3 Marshes and swamps. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. South coast saltscale Atriplex pacifica Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, playas. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. South coast branching phacelia Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis Federal: None State: None CRPR: 3.2 Sandy, sometimes rocky soils in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and marshes and swamps (coastal salt) Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. australis Federal: None State: None CRPR: 1B.1 Disturbed habitats, margins of marshes and swamps, vernally mesic valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Confirmed present within the Study Area in 2009, 2010, and 2022. Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps), and marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Ventura Marsh milk-vetch Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Federal: FE State: SE CRPR: 1B.1 Coastal salt marsh. Within reach of high tide or protected by barrier beaches, more rarely near seeps on sandy bluffs. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Vernal barley Hordeum intercedens Federal: None State: None CRPR: 3.2 Coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland (saline flats and depressions), vernal pools. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Woolly seablite Suaeda taxifolia Federal: None State: None CRPR: 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, marshes and swamps (margins of coastal salt). Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. STATUS Federal State FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened FC – Federal Candidate CRPR Rank 1A – Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. Rank 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Rank 2A – Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere. Rank 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. Rank 3 – Plants about which more information is needed (a review list). Rank 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a watch list). 27 Threat Code extension .1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) OCCURRENCE  Does not occur – The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species.  Confirmed absent – The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys.  Not expected to occur – The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out.  Potential to occur – The species has a potential to occur based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.  Confirmed present – The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys 4.4.1 Special-Status Plants Detected at the Project Site Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) is a CRPR 1B.1 species, indicating that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and is seriously endangered in California. This species is an annual herb in the sunflower family that blooms from May to November. It is adapted to and thrives in disturbed areas, and it also occurs in vernal pools, alkali playas, alkali grasslands, and along the margins of salt marshes. This species is very distinctive and flowers as early as June and sometimes into October or November. A population of approximately 1,072 individuals was detected during focused surveys in the Study Area in 2022, of which 457 were in areas subject to ongoing fuel modification and 615 were not in fuel modification areas. Exhibit 8a depicts the locations of southern tarplant within the Study Area, including the locations of southern tarplant observed in 2009 and 2010. Exhibit 8b depicts additional populations of southern tarplant detected outside the Study Area in 2022 and historic tarplant locations surveyed in the 2000s on the Hellman Property and in the portions of the Los Cerritos Wetlands previously under Hellman Property ownership. It should be noted that rainfall in 2022 was below average. The National Weather Service cooperative observer station in Long Beach, CA recorded rainfall at 62 percent of average for the 2021-2022 water year.6 This may have resulted in reduced germination of the southern tarplant seedbank. However, in 2022 tarplant generally occurred in the same locations mapped in 2009 and 2010, when rainfall at the Long Beach station was at 73 and 121 percent of average, respectively.7 Tarplant data collected in 2009 and 2010 includes only general distributional polygons, and not a numerical census of the population, so a comparison of 2022 tarplant abundance to 2009 and 2010 tarplant abundance is not possible; however, given that the tarplant was mapped in 2022 in the same general locations on the extreme northwest end of the study 6 https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2022.php 7 2009 data: https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2009.php; 2010 data: https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2010.php 28 area as previous years, and was also mapped in new locations in the eastern end of the western field, it is evident that tarplant germinated sufficiently in 2022 to evaluate Project-related impacts. Coulter’s Goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) is a CRPR 1B.1 species, indicating that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere and is seriously endangered in California. This annual member of the sunflower family occurs in salt marsh areas near the coast at the extreme upper end of tidal inundation. It has also been noted on the periphery of vernal pools such as near Miramar Airfield and in alkali marshes and meadows in the inland valleys of western Riverside County. Focused surveys conducted in 2023 detected Coulter’s goldfields in the Study Area in approximately the same location as previous focused surveys conducted by GLA in 2009 and 2010 [Exhibit 8a]. The Coulter’s goldfields nearest the proposed Project footprint are located between 36 and 73 feet away. Rainfall preceding and between the two focused survey visits on February 17 and March 7, 2023, totaled 6.32 inches in January 2023 and 2.90 inches in February 2023. The average rainfall during 1991–2020 for January was 2.89 inches and February was 3.02 inches, indicating that rainfall for January and February 2023 combined was above the 30-year average.8 As such, the population of Coulter’s goldfields mapped during surveys likely represents the maximum extent of the population present in the Study Area. 4.4.2 Special-Status Plants Confirmed Absent Through Focused Surveys at the Project Site Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) Decumbent goldenbush is a CRPR 1B.2 species, indicating that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and is fairly endangered in California. This perennial member of the sunflower family occurs in coastal scrub and chaparral in sandy soils and is often in disturbed areas. This distinctive variety of goldenbush was included as a target species for focused surveys because it is known from disturbed areas in coastal southern California. Decumbent goldenbush was not detected during focused surveys. 4.5 Special-Status Animals One special-status animal species, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) was detected in the Study Area during general and focused surveys for the Project. Several other special-status animals are known to occur from past biological surveys in and around the Hellman Property. Table 4-3 provides a list of special-status animals evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys. Species were evaluated based on the following factors, including: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Study Area, and 2) any other special-status 8 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset=normals- monthly&timeframe=30&station=USW00023129 29 animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area, for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on the site. Table 4-3. Special-Status Animals Evaluated for the Study Area Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence INVERTEBRATES Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii Federal: None State: SC Relatively warm and dry sites, including the inner Coast Range of California and margins of the Mojave Desert. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat and high degree of disturbance in Study Area. Dorothy’s El Segundo Dune weevil Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea Federal: None State: None Sand dunes in El Segundo, CA. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus Federal: None State: None Inhabits foredunes and sand hummocks; it burrows beneath the sand surface and is most common beneath dune vegetation. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Mimic tryonia (California brackish water snail) Tryonia imitator Federal: None State: None Coastal areas with brackish waters. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Monarch – California overwintering population Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 Federal: FC State: None Roosts in winter in wind- protected tree groves along the California coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Does not occur. Known wintering population in nearby Gum Grove Park, but no wintering habitat present in the Study Area. Palos Verdes blue butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Federal: FE State: None Locoweed and deerweed in the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat and larval host plants. Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus wootoni Federal: FE State: None Deep seasonal vernal pools, with warm water, and low to moderate dissolved solids, that remained filled for extended periods of time. Annual grasslands or patches. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. Salt marsh wandering skipper Panoquina errans Federal: None State: None ICUN: NT (near threatened) Coastal salt marsh and coastal strand areas dominated by saltgrass. Confirmed absent. San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis Federal: FE State: None Seasonal vernal pools. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable vernal pool habitat. 30 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Sandy beach tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida Federal: None State: None Coastal dunes. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Senile tiger beetle Cicindela senilis frosti Federal: None State: None Forages in open unvegetated areas such as marsh pans and levees. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western beach tiger beetle Cicindela latesignata Federal: None State: None Mudflats and beaches. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western tidal-flat tiger beetle Habroscelimorpha gabbii Federal: None State: None Open, unvegetated areas in or near salt marshes. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus Federal: FE State: SSC Historically along length of drainages; currently in headwaters, sandy washes and arroyos grown to willows, cottonwoods or sycamores. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii Federal: FT State: SSC Permanent flowing water sources, including marshes, streams, lakes ponds; woodland or valley foothill grasslands; sufficient vegetative cover Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western spadefoot toad Spea hammondi Federal: None State: SSC Coastal sage scrub, vernal pools, and grasslands; breeds in associated temporary pools and riparian areas. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. REPTILES Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii Federal: None State: SSC Occurs in a variety of vegetation types including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, annual grassland, oak woodland, and riparian woodlands. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Federal: None State: SSC Open areas within coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, desert scrub, washes, sand flats, & rocky areas. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Federal: None State: SSC Found in deserts and semi-arid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas. Also found in woodland and riparian areas. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 31 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra Federal: None State: WL Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley- foothill hardwood habitats. Prefers washes & other sandy areas with patches of brush & rocks. Perennial plants necessary for its major food – termites. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Pacific green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Federal: FT State: None IUCN: EN Green turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. The turtles are attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Red diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber Federal: None State: SSC Chapparal, woodland, grassland, & desert areas from coastal San Diego county to the eastern slopes of the mountains. Occurs in rocky areas & dense vegetation. Needs rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi Federal: None State: SSC Sparse coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian and woodland habitats within moist sandy soil. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western pond turtle Emys marmorata Federal: None State: SSC Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, small ponds and lakes, reservoirs, abandoned gravel pits, permanent and ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock ponds, and treatment lagoons. Abundant basking sites and cover necessary, including logs, rocks, submerged vegetation, and undercut banks. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii Federal: None State: SSC Highly aquatic. Found in freshwater marshes and riparian habitats, in or near permanent fresh water. Often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 32 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence BIRDS American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Federal: None State: FP Near wetlands, lakes, rivers or other water, on cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds, also human- made structures. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Bank swallow Riparia riparia Federal: None State: ST Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west or the desert. Requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Federal: None State: SE Coastal salt marshes. Nests in Salicornia sp. in and around margins of tidal flats. Does not occur. Known from Los Cerritos Wetlands but does not occur in the Study Area due to a lack of suitable habitat. Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli Federal: None State: WL Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Nest located on the ground beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above the ground. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Black skimmer Rynchops niger Federal: None State: SSC Nests on gravel bars, low islets and sandy beaches, unvegetated sites. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Federal: None State: SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts & scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Not expected to occur. California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Federal: None State: ST, FP Salt marshes bordering larger bays, coastal spartina marshes, inland in dense, shortgrass, shallow marshes. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. California Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Federal: Delisted State: Delisted, FP Coastal, salt bays, ocean, beaches. Nests on coastal islands of small to moderate size that afford immunity from attack by ground-dwelling predators. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 33 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia Federal: None State: WL Coastal regions in Southern California. Short-grass prairies “bald” hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats. Not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. California least tern Sterna antillarum browni Federal: FE State: SE, FP Flat, vegetated substrates near the coast. Occurs near estuaries, bays, or harbors where fish is abundant. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis Federal: None State: SSC Southern California coastal sage scrub. Wrens require tall opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica Federal: FT State: SSC Low elevation coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Federal: None State: WL Primarily occurs in riparian areas and oak woodlands, most commonly in montane canyons. Known to use urban areas, occupying trees among residential and commercial. Low potential to occur for foraging only Ferruginous hawk (wintering) Buteo regalis Federal: None State: WL Only present as wintering individuals. Prefers open grasslands and agricultural areas. Low potential to occur for foraging only. Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Federal: None State: SSC Dense grasslands on rolling hills, lowland plains, in valleys and on hillsides on lower mountain slopes. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Federal: FE State: SE Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite. Does not occur in the Project site. Confirmed present in Heron Pointe water quality basin in the Study Area. Light-footed Ridgway’s rail Rallus obsoletus levipes Federal: FE State: SE, FP Found in salt marshes where cordgrass and pickleweed are the dominant vegetation. Requires dense growth of either pickleweed or cordgrass for nesting or escape cover, feeds on mollusks and crustaceans. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 34 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Loggerhead shrike (nesting) Lanius ludovicianus Federal: None State: SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree & riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub & washes. Prefers open country for hunting with perches for scanning and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting. Confirmed present west of the Study Area within the Hellman Property during a 2008 survey. Moderate potential to occur for foraging only. Long-eared owl Asio otus Federal: None State: SSC Riparian bottomlands grown to tall willows & cottonwoods; also belts of live oak paralleling stream courses. Require adjacent open land productive of mice and presence of old nests of crows. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Merlin (wintering) Falco columbarius Federal: None State: WL Only present as wintering individuals. Forages in a variety of habitats including riparian areas such as present in the Study Area adjacent to the Project site. Low potential to occur for foraging only. Northern harrier (nesting) Circus hudsonius Federal: None State: SSC A variety of habitats, including open wetlands, grasslands, wet pasture, old fields, dry uplands, and croplands. Low potential to occur for foraging only. Osprey (nesting) Pandion haliaetus Federal: None State: WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, and larger streams. Large nests built in treetops within one mile of a good fish-producing body of water. Low potential to occur for foraging only. Short-eared owl (nesting) Asio flammeus Federal: None State: SSC Found in swamplands, both fresh and salt; lowland meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall grass needed for nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depression concealed in vegetation. Low potential to occur for wintering only. Known from Los Cerritos Wetlands. Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens Federal: None State: WL Resident in Southern California coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral. Not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Federal: FE State: SE Riparian woodlands in southern California. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 35 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Swainson’s Hawk (nesting) Buteo swainsoni Federal: None State: ST Breeding habitat consists of grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, & agricultural or ranch lands. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands or alfalfa or grain fields that support rodent populations. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Tricolored blackbird (nesting colony) Agelaius tricolor Federal: None State: ST, SSC Requires open water, protected nesting & foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western least bittern (nesting) Ixobrychus exilis Federal: None State: SSC Colonial nester in marshlands and borders of ponds and reservoirs that provide ample cover. Nests usually placed low in tules over water. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western snowy plover (nesting) Charadrius nivosus nivosus Federal: FT State: SSC Sandy or gravelly beaches along the coast, estuarine salt ponds, alkali lakes, and at the Salton Sea. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (nesting) Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Federal: FT State: SE Dense, wide riparian woodlands with well-developed understories. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. White-tailed kite (nesting) Elanus leucurus Federal: None State: FP Low elevation open grasslands, savannah-like habitats, agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Dense canopies used for nesting and cover. Low potential to occur for foraging only. Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Federal: None State: SSC Summer resident; inhabits riparian thickets of willow & other brushy tangles near watercourses. Nests in low, dense riparian, consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages and nests within 10 ft of ground. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Yellow warbler (nesting) Setophaga petechia Federal: None State: SSC Riparian plant associations. Prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores & alders for nesting & foraging. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 36 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence MAMMALS American badger Taxidea taxus Federal: None State: SSC Occurs in drier shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats. Needs open, uncultivated ground and friable soils for digging burrows. Preys on burrowing rodents. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Federal: None State: SSC WBWG: MH Occurs in low-lying arid areas in Southern California. Roosts in high cliffs or rocky outcrops. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Federal: None State: None WBWG: M Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover & open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus Federal: FE State: SSC Seems to prefer soils of fine alluvial sands near the ocean. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia Federal: None State: SSC Occurs in a variety of shrub and desert habitats, primarily associated with rock outcrops, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Federal: None State: None WBWG: M Temperate, northern hardwoods with ponds or streams nearby. Roost in hollow snags and bird nests. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. South coast marsh vole Microtus californicus stephensi Federal: None State: SSC Tidal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange and southern Ventura Counties. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Southern California salt marsh shrew Sorex ornatus salicornicus Federal: None State: SSC Coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange and southern Ventura Counties. Requires dense vegetation and woody debris for cover. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus Federal: None State: SSC WBWG: H Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer & deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees, & tunnels. Does not occur due to a lack of suitable habitat. 37 STATUS Federal State FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened FPT – Federally Proposed Threatened SC– State Candidate FC – Federal Candidate FP – State Fully-Protected Species SSC – Species of Special Concern WL – Watch List Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) H – High Priority LM – Low-Medium Priority M – Medium Priority MH – Medium-High Priority OCCURRENCE  Does not occur – The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species.  Confirmed absent – The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys.  Not expected to occur – The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however future occurrence cannot be ruled out.  Potential to occur – The species has a potential to occur based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.  Confirmed present – The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys 4.5.1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed within the Study Area Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillis) is a state and federally listed endangered songbird that is a summer resident of southern California riparian habitats. This species was detected during biological surveys within the 100-foot buffer portion of the Study Area that extends into the off- site water quality basin to the immediate east of the Study Area. The basin is not part of the Hellman Property, but rather collects runoff from the adjacent Heron Pointe development. Two individual males were detected by vocalization on July 29, August 4, and August 25, 2022. The Project site and Study Area outside of the water quality basin do not support any riparian habitat suitable for least Bell’s vireo, and this species does not occur within the Project site. 4.5.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Not Observed but Known to Historically Occur in the Immediate Vicinity of the Study Area Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) is a ground-dwelling and ground-nesting bird of prey that inhabits grassy fields, salt marshes, and other areas with flat or gentle topography with moderate to sparse cover. It does not excavate its own burrows, but rather uses rodent burrows and man- made structures such as culverts and pipes. Numerous rodent burrows were detected on the Hellman Property during past surveys; a wintering burrowing owl was reported during site visits conducted on December 9 and 19, 1996 and on January 16, 1997. Follow-up breeding season surveys in spring of 1997 confirmed that this wintering individual had departed the site. This 38 species was not detected during surveys in 2004 on the Hellman Property for the Tank Farm Relocation project. As no suitable man-made structures or rodent burrows were observed in the Study Area in 2022, this species is not expected to occur. However, given the historic wintering burrowing owl occurrences in the Hellman Property, future occurrence cannot be ruled out. 4.5.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Not Observed During Focused Surveys at the Project Site Wandering Skipper (Panoquina errans) is a butterfly species with no state or federal status but is listed as “near threatened” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).9 The largest known colony of this species is located at Upper Newport Bay in Orange County. This species occurs in coastal salt marshes of southern California, where it uses saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) as a larval host plant. This species likely occurs in the Los Cerritos Wetlands south of the Hellman Property. No wandering skipper individuals were detected during focused surveys of the Study Area; and this species is not expected to occur in the future based on lack of detection and the disturbed condition of the Study Area, including a low abundance of nectar plants in close proximity to salt grass. 4.5.4 Special-Status Wildlife Species that Occur in the Vicinity of the Study Area Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) is state listed as endangered and inhabits coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. Belding’s Savannah sparrow nests in pickleweed on and around margins of tidal flats. No suitable habitat occurs within the Study Area. Three individuals were detected in pickleweed habitat during surveys conducted by GLA in 1996 in a former area of the Hellman Property that is now owned by Los Cerritos Wetland Authority (LCWA). At that time, it was concluded that the individuals were transient non-resident individuals. Surveys conducted in April 2015 by Richard Zembal identified 36 territories in portions of the Los Cerritos marsh that were previously part of the Hellman Property (Zembal et al. 2015). Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is an SSC but is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands throughout California. Loggerhead shrikes prefer open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other perches and will eat mostly large insects, but will also take small birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish, carrion, and various other invertebrates. Shrikes usually fly directly to prey on ground or in a shrub; sometimes hovering. Occasionally it will hawk aerial insects in mid-air. This species was previously observed perching but not actively foraging in the Hellman Property southwest of the Study Area. Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) is an SSC when nesting and is known from the nearby Los Cerritos Wetlands. This species nests on dry ground tucked amongst grasses and low vegetation, 9 See http://www.iucnredlist.org 39 including salt marsh vegetation. This species has not been observed within the Study Area, but it has low potential to occur for foraging only. 4.5.5 Raptor Use The Study Area provides suitable foraging habitat for a number of raptor species, including special-status raptors. GLA previously conducted detailed raptor surveys, including foraging studies, on the Hellman Property, encompassing the present Study Area (Glenn Lukos Associates 2001). The following raptors were identified during raptor surveys or general biological surveys conducted for the 1997 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Hellman Property: red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Also detected was loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), which is a songbird that hunts like a raptor. The American kestrel, loggerhead shrike, and red-tailed hawk in particular comprise the three dominant raptor or raptor-like species observed on the Hellman Property. Surveys in 2001 for the Tank Farm Relocation site, which is immediately south of the present Study Area, identified loggerhead shrike and American kestrel.10 During surveys for the present Project, two raptor species, red-tailed hawk and American kestrel, were identified perching near or flying over the Study Area. Two other species, ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) and merlin (Falco columbarius), also have low potential to occur for foraging only. The Study Area lacks potential nesting habitat (e.g., mature trees, shrubs) for those raptor species that breed in southern California, but is expected to provide foraging habitat for all of these species in the form of insects, spiders, lizards, snakes, small mammals, and other birds. 4.6 Nesting Birds The Project site contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for nesting native birds. Mortality of native birds (including eggs) is prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code.11 4.7 Wildlife Linkages/ Corridors and Nursery Sites Habitat linkages are areas which provide a connection between two or more habitat areas which are often larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Such linkage sites can be quite small or constricted, but may can be vital to the long-term health of connected habitats. Linkage values 10 There was one occurrence each of a perching loggerhead shrike and perching American kestrel. No foraging was detected within the proposed Tank Farm Relocation site. 11 The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R. Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R.21). In addition, Sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. 40 are often addressed in terms of “gene flow” between populations, with movement taking potentially many generations. Corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate between areas, generally extensive but otherwise partially or wholly separated regions. Adequate cover and tolerably low levels of disturbance are common requirements for corridors. Habitat in corridors may be quite different than that in the connected areas, but if used by the wildlife species of interest, the corridor will still function as desired. Wildlife nurseries are sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries, spawning areas, and bat colonies. Nurseries can be important to both special-status species as well as commonly occurring species. The Project site is located in an area with a patchwork of urban development and undeveloped open space, with residential development to the south and east, and commercial development to the northeast. The undeveloped areas are associated with the Los Cerritos wetlands complex to the south and northwest, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the east and southeast, and the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin to the north. The Haynes Intake Channel and San Gabriel River are located to the northwest. The Study Area may provide for local movement between the undeveloped areas discussed above for common, urban-adapted mammal species such as coyote, striped skunk, raccoon, and opossum. However, the Study Area is not located within a regionally significant wildlife linkage or corridor. The Study Area does not contain any wildlife nursery habitat. 4.8 Critical Habitat The Study Area is not located within any USFWS designated or proposed critical habitat areas. 4.9 Jurisdictional Waters The Project site does not contain any jurisdictional waters that would be regulated by the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW. The Project site does not contain any wetlands that would be regulated by the CCC as defined by the California Coastal Act. The 100-foot buffer portion of the Study Area includes part of the Heron Pointe water quality basin that supports riparian vegetation and may have indicators of wetland hydrology and hydric soils; however, it was not evaluated for this Project [Appendix C – Jurisdictional Delineation Report]. 41 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that would occur as a result of the proposed project. Impacts (or effects) can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or animals, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability. Indirect impacts pertain to those impacts that result in a change to the physical environment, but which is not immediately related to a project. Indirect (or secondary) impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects, to biological resources located downstream from projects, and other offsite areas where the effects of the project may be experienced by plants and wildlife. Examples of indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light; predation by domestic pets; competition with exotic plants and animals; introduction of toxics, including pesticides; and other human disturbances such as hiking, off-road vehicle use, unauthorized dumping, etc. Indirect impacts are often attributed to the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build-out, such as increased noise, the use of artificial light sources, and invasive ornamental plantings that may encroach into native areas. Indirect effects may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in a slow replacement of native plants by non-native invasive species, as well as changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites. 5.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 5.1.1 Thresholds of Significance Environmental impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State of California: “Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities...” Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in the CEQA process. According to CEQA, Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of Significance), each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation) thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the 42 effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA provides guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect where: “The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species...” Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, impacts to biological resources are considered potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the following criteria discussed below would result from implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.2 Criteria for Determining Significance Pursuant to CEQA Appendix G of the 2018 State CEQA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 43 5.2 Special-Status Species Appendix G(a) of the CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” 5.2.1 Special-Status Plants The proposed Project will impact one special-status plant species, southern tarplant [Exhibit 9 – Special-Status Species Impact Map]. Southern Tarplant A population of 1,072 southern tarplant individuals was detected within the 12.46-acre Study Area, of which 457 tarplant individuals were detected in areas subject to ongoing fuel modification, and 615 individuals were not in existing fuel modification zones).12 Of the 615 individuals not located within existing fuel modification zones, 57 individuals would be subject to temporary impacts and 26 individuals would be permanently impacted by the proposed Project. In the Project site, southern tarplant occurs in highly disturbed areas with a predominance of non-native species, at the edges of dirt roads, and on bare ground. Southern tarplant is highly adapted to disturbance as evidenced by the occurrence of this species within the disturbed portions of the Study Area. However, the loss of 83 individuals in the temporary and permanent impact areas, which totals 13 percent of the population in the Study Area not subject to ongoing fuel modification, would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. A mitigation measure is included in Section 6.0 of this report that reduces impacts to southern tarplant to less than significant. The remaining tarplant in the Study Area will be avoided by the Project. A measure is included in Section 6.0 of this report to ensure avoidance of southern tarplant outside the Project impact area during construction. With regards to potential ESHA, the Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines an ESHA as: …any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. When making a determination of ESHA for a rare plant population, the CCC considers multiple parameters including the number of individuals, size of the area occupied, degree of isolation, 12 The 457 southern tarplant individuals in ongoing fuel modification zones are not included in the impact totals for this Project as they are located in areas subject to periodic maintenance as part of oil field operations. Impacts to southern tarplant in the fuel modification zones occurs periodically and is not related to the project evaluated by this biological technical report. 44 fragmentation, and connectivity to suitable open space for the species, level of disturbance/degradation of the occupied area, adjacent development, level of invasion by non- native species, and potential jeopardy to regional populations by loss of the subject population. Coastal Commission Staff Senior Ecologist Jonna Engel previously evaluated southern tarplant populations for potential ESHA at several of the Synergy Oil consolidation sites in Long Beach, California, located a short distance from the Study Area. Dr. Engel determined that some of the southern tarplant subpopulations in areas of existing oil infrastructure did not rise to the level of ESHA based on the degree of disturbance, poor soils, and habitat fragmentation (Engel 2017). Southern tarplant often occurs in areas that are highly disturbed and do not support native vegetation, such as cracks in concrete, disturbed roadsides, and areas with a gravel substrate. It can also occur with non-native halophytes such as small-flowered iceplant. Accordingly, as acknowledged by Dr. Engel in the above-referenced memorandum, a determination of ESHA for areas occupied by this species does not depend solely on the presence of southern tarplant. Rather, the determination should consider the size and area of the population, isolation/fragmentation, degree of disturbance, and other parameters listed above. Overall, the western portion of the Study Area that supports southern tarplant consists of a disturbed open field and active oil extraction facilities, including active wells, oil field infrastructure, staging and equipment storage areas, and associated fuel modification areas within a mosaic of non-native vegetation. Where southern tarplant occurs in the Project site, the predominant vegetation/land-cover types consist of disturbed habitat that either lacks a state rarity rank (Disturbed/Developed, Annual grassland/Herbaceous Semi-Natural Stands) or has a state rarity ranking greater than S3 and have a substantial component of non-native grasses and forbs (Distichlis spicata–Annual Grasses, S4). Given the highly disturbed nature of both the overall Study Area and the Project site where southern tarplant occurs, as well as the level of invasion by non-native species, the southern tarplant in the Study Area does not rise to the level of ESHA, and construction of the proposed Project would not directly affect or result in impacts to ESHA. It is also important to note that southern tarplant thrives in disturbed areas, and based on GLA’s experience, grows easily in an appropriately prepared restoration site. With the mitigation proposed in Section 6.3 below, impacts to southern tarplant in the Project site would not result in potential jeopardy to the regional population. Coulter’s Goldfields Three distinct population clusters of Coulter’s goldfields were mapped during surveys in 2023 and are located a minimum of 36 to 78 feet from the temporary project impact areas [Exhibit 9]. The Coulter’s goldfields will be fully avoided by the proposed Project. A measure is included in Section 6.0 of this report to ensure avoidance of Coulter’s goldfields during construction. 5.2.2 Special-Status Animals The proposed Project will not impact special-status animals [Exhibit 9 – Special-Status Species Impact Map]. Least Bell’s vireo (FE, SE) occurs in the Heron Pointe water quality basin on the east end of the Study Area; however, the proposed Project will not impact the riparian vegetation in the water quality basin. 45 A wintering burrowing owl (SSC) was observed on the Hellman Property in 1996 and 1997. No burrowing owls, suitable structures or rodent burrows, or owl sign was observed during biological surveys for the proposed Project; therefore, no impacts to this species will occur as a result of development of the Project. Nevertheless, a measure is included in Section 6.0 of this report to ensure avoidance of impacts to burrowing owl. Development of the proposed Project would preclude raptor foraging within the Project site; however, the permanent loss of 2.66 acres of raptor foraging area from the proposed Project would be less than significant given the extensive raptor foraging area immediately surrounding the Project site, including the remainder of the Hellman Property, the adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands, and the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin. 5.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities Appendix G(a) of the CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” The proposed Project would not impact or have a substantial adverse effect on riparian vegetation or sensitive natural communities with a rarity rating of S3 or less. The proposed project would permanently impact approximately 2.66 acres of lands through installation of the solar panel array [Exhibit 6b – Vegetation Impact Map]. Of the 2.66 acres to be impacted, only a small portion of that area would be directly impacted through ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The majority of the impact area consists of the vegetated areas under and between the proposed solar panels. Shading from the proposed solar panels may result in loss of vegetation and diminished habitat value. Permanent impacts include approximately 0.04 acre of alkali heliotrope fields, 1.55 acre of Bassia hyssopfolia association, 1.05 acre of Distichlis spicata- annual grassland association, and 0.02 acre of tree tobacco stands. The Project will avoid the entirety of the 0.02 acre of Cressa truxillensis association (S2 rarity rating). The project will also avoid the riparian vegetation associated with the Heron Pointe water quality basin. The proposed Project will temporarily impact 1.91 acres of lands, none of which consist of sensitive vegetation communities, for trenching to bury utility lines and for temporary work and staging areas. The trenched areas will be restored to the original grade following construction and are expected to passively revegetate. Table 5-1 provides a summary of impacts to vegetation/land use types. Table 5-1. Summary of Permanent and Temporary Vegetation/Land Use Impacts VEGETATION/ LAND USE TYPE Code Rank Permanent Impacts (acres) Temporary Impacts (acres) Avoided Total Study Area (acres) Alkali heliotrope fields -- -- 0.04 0.06 0.01 1.11 Annual grassland/ herbaceous semi-natural stands -- -- 0 0.02 1.18 1.20 Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 32.060.23 S5 0 0.04 0.01 0.05 46 VEGETATION/ LAND USE TYPE Code Rank Permanent Impacts (acres) Temporary Impacts (acres) Avoided Total Study Area (acres) Disturbed Baccharis pilularis shrubland alliance 63.510.00 S5 0 0 0.35 0.35 Bassia hyssopifolia association 42.015.02 -- 1.55 0.88 1.11 3.54 Castor bean stands -- -- 0 0.03 0.02 0.05 Cressa truxillensis-Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance 46.100.09 S2 0 0 0.20 0.20 Distichlis spicata – annual grasses 41.200.13 S4 1.05 0.61 1.57 3.23 Disturbed/Developed -- -- 0 0.22 2.29 2.51 Malvella leprosa fields -- -- 0 0 0.11 0.11 Mixed shrub seminatural stands -- -- 0 0 0.04 0.04 Ornamental -- -- 0 0 0.01 0.01 Raphanus sativus association -- -- 0 0 0.18 0.18 Salix lasiolepis – Baccharis salicifolia shrubland alliance 61.201.06 S4 0 0 0.58 0.58 Tree tobacco stands -- -- 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.27 Total 2.66 1.91 7.89 12.46 5.4 Wetlands Appendix G(c) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.” The Project site does not contain and will not impact any state or federally protected wetlands, including wetlands as defined under the CCA. 5.5 Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Appendix G(d) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” The Study Area is not located within a regionally significant wildlife linkage or corridor. Additionally, the development of the Project would not preclude the movement of wildlife through the Study Area. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Study Area does not contain any wildlife nursery sites. 47 The project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (February 1 to September 15). Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Although impacts to native birds are prohibited by MBTA and similar provisions of California Fish and Game Code, impacts to native birds by the proposed Project would not be a significant impact under CEQA. The native birds with potential to nest on the Project site would be those that are extremely common to the region and highly adapted to human landscapes (e.g., house finch, killdeer). The number of individuals potentially affected by the Project would not significantly affect regional, let alone local populations of such species. A measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report to avoid impacts to nesting birds. 5.6 Local Policies or Ordinances Appendix G(e) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.” The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 5.7 Habitat Conservation Plans Appendix G(f) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.” The Study Area is not located within or subject to the provisions of any habitat conservation plans. 5.8 Jurisdictional Waters The Project site does not contain and will not impact any jurisdictional waters. 5.9 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources In the context of biological resources, indirect effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to native open space. The Project is not expected to result in significant indirect impacts to special-status biological resources. The operation of the proposed solar panel array inherently lacks many potential sources of indirect impacts, including drainage, toxic materials, lighting, noise, and invasive species. To minimize temporary edge effects potentially associated with construction, Project will implement measure to address the following: • Drainage • Toxics • Lighting 48 • Noise • Human Use 5.9.1 Drainage The Project’s contractor will develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address runoff and water quality during construction. Following the completion of construction activities, the Project area will not contain any developed or paved areas and will not result in drainage to the surrounding area. As such, no measures would be required post-construction. 5.9.2 Toxics Land uses that use chemicals or generate bioproducts that are potentially toxic may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality. The proposed Project will implement a SWPPP that will address runoff during construction. 5.9.3 Lighting No night lighting will be associated with the proposed Project. If temporary night lighting is required during construction, shielding shall be incorporated to ensure ambient lighting is not increased, and such lighting will be subject to the approval of the project biologist. 5.9.4 Noise It is anticipated that noise levels from installation of solar panels will generally not exceed ambient noise levels associated with normal oil field operations, although there may be a temporary, unavoidable increase in noise levels during construction; however, noise will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The City’s standard construction regulations require all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers to minimize noise. Furthermore, construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. Nevertheless, to ensure that there are no significant temporary noise impacts to least Bell’s vireo in the Heron Pointe water quality basin during breeding season (March 15 to September 15), a measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report. There would be no other significant temporary or permanent noise impacts resulting from the proposed project. No noise is associated with operation of the proposed Project. 5.9.5 Human Use Currently, on-site human use is limited to employees tending to oil field operations. Typically, less than five people are on site at any given time. There will be no change in post-construction human use associated with the proposed project, as the solar array does not require any additional personnel except for periodic maintenance. The property will remain private and fenced, so there is no possibility of increased public access to the property. The proposed project would therefore not cause any significant human impacts. 49 6.0 MITIGATION/AVOIDANCE MEASURES The following discussion provides project-specific mitigation/avoidance measures for actual or potential impacts to special-status resources. 6.1 Nesting Birds The Project site contains vegetation with the potential to support native nesting birds. As discussed above, the California Fish and Game Code prohibits mortality of native birds, including eggs. The following measure is recommended to avoid mortality to nesting birds. Potential impacts to native birds were not considered a biologically significant impact under CEQA; however to comply with state law, the following is recommended: • As feasible, vegetation clearing and ground disturbance should be conducted outside of the nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including vegetation clearing and ground disturbance. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. 6.2 Burrowing Owl Although no burrowing owls, suitable burrows, or owl sign were detected during general biological surveys, wintering owls have historically occurred on the Hellman Property. Although unlikely, owls may occupy the site between the time of biological surveys and construction activities. Therefore, the following required actions would ensure compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. • A pre-construction (initial take avoidance) burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the pre-construction survey is positive for owl presence, the project proponent will immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to acquire proper avoidance measures, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If the species is not found, no further action is needed. 6.3 Special-Status Plants As noted above, the proposed Project will result in the loss of 83 individuals of southern tarplant, including 26 individuals in the permanent impact area and 57 individuals in the temporary impact area occupying approximately 0.03 acre. The following measure identifies mitigation for 50 impacts to southern tarplant as discussed in the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan [Appendix D]: • Prior to impacts to the southern tarplant in the Project site, the project biologist will implement the measures contained in the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which provides for replacement of the impacted 83 individuals at a ratio of 4:1, for a total of 332 individuals. However, if pre-construction surveys are implemented as outlined in the measure below and the total numbers of impacted individuals changes, the number total number of replacement individuals shall be adjusted accordingly at a 4:1 ratio. The plan identifies a candidate area of the Hellman Property where southern tarplant may be established and preserved in perpetuity. The plan includes provisions for seed collection, planting, performance standards for a five-year monitoring period, and contingency plans if the performance standards are not met. The proposed Project is located within 36–78 feet of Coulter’s goldfields populations in the Study Area. To ensure full avoidance of Coulter’s goldfields, the following measure shall be implemented: • Prior to the initiation of construction activities and under the direction of the Project Biologist, the populations of Coulter’s goldfields in proximity to the Project site will be demarcated with construction fencing. No vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or other construction activities shall occur in the fenced areas or within 30 feet of any Coulter’s goldfields. The proposed Project is located immediately adjacent to some areas of avoided southern tarplant in the Study Area. To ensure full avoidance of southern tarplant outside of the impact area, the following measure shall be implemented: • Prior to the initiation of construction activities and under the direction of the Project Biologist, any southern tarplant within 100 feet of the Project site will be demarcated with construction fencing or flagging. No vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or other construction activities shall occur in the fenced areas. The distribution of southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields in the Study Area and Project site is well understood based upon multiple years of focused survey data. However, the number and distribution of individuals may vary from year to year. Based on existing survey data, the project is expected to impact southern tarplant but not Coulter’s goldfields. To ensure that impacts are fully mitigated, the following measure shall be implemented: • Prior to the initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields during the appropriate season for each species to determine final mitigation requirements. If Coulters goldfields are detected in the Project impact area, then the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be amended to include mitigation for Coulter’s goldfields at a 4:1 ratio at a location with suitable habitat for the species. 51 6.4 Least Bell’s Vireo Two individual least Bell’s vireo were present in the Heron Pointe water quality basin adjacent to the Project site during the 2022 breeding season. No habitat for least Bell’s vireo, including in the Heron Pointe water quality basin, will be impacted by the Proposed project; however, to avoid indirect noise impacts to breeding least Bell’s vireo, the following measures will be implemented in consultation with the City of Seal Beach and USFWS if project construction activities will occur between March 15 and September 15: • Surveys for least Bell's vireo should be conducted pursuant to the recommended protocol survey guidelines as established by the USFWS. If full protocol surveys cannot be conducted, then a qualified biologist shall survey suitable habitat in the Heron Pointe water quality bason for the least Bell's vireo weekly for a minimum of four weeks (within the breeding season) prior to the commencement of any construction. • If least Bell’s vireo is detected during surveys, and construction activities will occur between March 15 and September 15, the least Bell’s vireo breeding season, an analysis showing that noise generated by construction activities would not exceed 60 dB hourly average at the edge of occupied habitat must be completed by a qualified acoustician prior to commencement of construction activities. Where construction activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB hourly average at the edge of occupied least Bell's vireo habitat, additional measures must be implemented. • At least two weeks prior to commencement of construction activities, under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures (e.g., walls, panels) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels resulting from construction activities will not exceed 60 dB hourly average at the edge of habitat occupied by least Bell's vireo. Concurrent with the commencement of construction activities and the construction of necessary noise attenuation facilities, noise monitoring shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60dB hourly average. If the noise attenuation techniques implemented are determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding season (September 16). Construction noise monitoring shall continue to be monitored at least once weekly on varying days, or more frequently depending on the construction activity, to verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB hourly average or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB hourly average. If not, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the project biologist and the City and USFWS, as necessary, to reduce noise levels to below 60 dB hourly average or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB hourly average. Such measures include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment. 52 7.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. 1,568 pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program, Sacramento. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022a. Special Animals List. State of California Natural Resources Agency, April 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022b. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. April 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022c. California Natural Community List. California Natural Resources Agency, July 5, 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022d. Natural Communities. Accessed October 10, 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Accessed August 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2022. RareFind 5. Records of occurrence for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Long Beach, Anaheim, Whittier, South Gate, and Newport Beach. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Accessed August 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Chesser, R.T. et al. 2021. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa. 53 Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2009. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians, Sixth Edition. Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas. iv+44p. Engel, Jonna (California Coastal Commission). 2017. Memorandum: Synergy/BOMP: Los Cerritos Wetland Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. July 25, 2017 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 407 pp. Glenn Lukos Associates. 2001. Raptor Foraging Habitat Assessment at Hellman Ranch, Orange County, California. Letter report dated July 24, 2001 addressed to Joannie Madrid of John Laing Homes. Glenn Lukos Associates. 2006. Biological Technical Report, Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Relocation Project, Orange County, California. August 2004, Revised March 2006. Glenn Lukos Associates. 2018. Biological Technical Report for the Proposed Hellman Gas Plant Project, Seal Beach, Orange County. September 2018. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp. Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society. National Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Sawyer, J.O, T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. 1,300 pp. Sogge, M.K., Ahlers, D., and Sferra, S.J. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. U.S Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10 54 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. [For Inclusion in the Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California]. Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill, New York. 536pp. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. Tidal Influence. 2012. Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Assessment Report: Habitat Types and Special Status Species. Submitted March 1, 2012, Revised June 21, 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished memorandum; January 2000. Zembal R. and S.M. Hoffman, and R.T. Patton. 2015. A survey of the Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) in California, 2015. California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program, 2015-02. 8.0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed:______________________________ Date: October 12, 2023 s:0200-8c.biotech.docx Source: ESRI World Street Map0248MilesRegional Map ^_ Exhibit 1 ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY PROJECT LOCATION Adapted from USGS Los Alamitos, CA quadrangleVicinity Map01,0002,0004,000Feet± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\200-8_SitePlan.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Site Plan Exhibit 3 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: January 4, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 100' Buffer of Permanent Impacts X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\DelineationGIS\200-8_JD_SoilPits.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Jurisdictional Determination Map Exhibit 4 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 15, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Western Field Eastern Field Heron Pointe Water Quality Basin Non-Wetland Ponded Area Data Point X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SoilsGIS\200-8_Soils.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Soils Map Exhibit 5 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: January 4, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Bolsa Silt Loam, Drained Bolsa Silty Clay Loam,Drained 123 125 X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\V eg etationGIS\200-8_V eg etation.m xd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY V eg etation Map Exh ibit 6A Coordinate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lam bert Conform al ConicDatum : NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 28, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Existing Fuel Modification Zones Vegetation Type Alkali h eliotrope FieldsAnnual Grassland/Herbaceous Sem i-Natural Stands Bacch aris pilularis Sh rubland AllianceDisturbed Bacch aris pilularis Sh rubland Alliance Bacch aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance Bassia h yssopifolia Association Castor Bean StandsCressa truxillensis – Distich lis spicata Herbaceous Alliance Distich lis spicata – Annual Grasses Disturbed/Dev eloped Malv ella leprosa FieldsMixed Nativ e and Non-Nativ e Herbaceous Fields Mixed Sh rub Sem inatural Stands Ornam ental Raph anus sativ us AssociationSalix lasiolepis – Bacch aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance Tree Tobacco Stands X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\Im pactsGIS\200-8_V eg etation_Im pacts.m xd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY V eg etation Im pact Map Exh ibit 6B Coordinate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lam bert Conform al ConicDatum : NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 28, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Perm anent Im pacts Tem porary Im pacts ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Existing Fuel Modification Zones Vegetation Type Alkali h eliotrope FieldsAnnual Grassland/Herbaceous Sem i-Natural Stands Bacch aris pilularis Sh rubland AllianceDisturbed Bacch aris pilularis Sh rubland Alliance Bacch aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance Bassia h yssopifolia Association Castor Bean StandsCressa truxillensis – Distich lis spicata Herbaceous Alliance Distich lis spicata – Annual Grasses Disturbed/Dev eloped Malv ella leprosa FieldsMixed Nativ e and Non-Nativ e Herbaceous Fields Mixed Sh rub Sem inatural Stands Ornam ental Raph anus sativ us AssociationSalix lasiolepis – Bacch aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance Tree Tobacco Stands Photograph 1: West-facing view of easternmost area of the Project site. Note the high level of disturbance. Plant species in this area include alkali heliotrope, five-hook bassia, summer mustard, and perennial pepperweed. August 25, 2022. Photograph 3:West-facing view of central portion of the Project site. Note the general lack of vegetation. August 25, 2022 Exhibit 7 –Page 1Site PhotographsHELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAYPhotograph 2: West-facing view of easternmost area of the Project site showing coyote brush growing along an oilfield pipeline. August 25, 2022. Photograph 4: North-facing view of the easternmost portion of the Project site. The large patch of vegetation in the center of the photo is alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum). August 25, 2022. Photograph 5: West-facing view of western portion of the Project. This area is vegetated with the Distichlis spicata-annual grasses association, with a few small isolated patches of alkali heath (Frankenia salina) that do are not large enough to comprise a mapping unit. July 29, 2022. Photograph 7: Southern tarplant growing in the Distichlis spicata –annual grasses alliance in the westernmost portion of the Project site. Note the high level of disturbance and lack of vegetatative cover. July 29, 2022 Exhibit 7 –Page 2Site PhotographsHELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAYPhotograph 6:View of Cressa truxillensis association in the northwest portion of the Study Area. This area will not be impacted by the proposed Project. August 25, 2022 Photograph 8: West-facing view of southern tarplant growing on the edge of a road. July 29, 2022 X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\Spe c ialStatus Spe c ie s GIS\200-8_ Spe c ialStatus Spe c ie s .m xd 0 125 25062.5 Fe e t ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Spe c ial-Status Spe c ie s Map Exhibit 8A Coord inate Sys te m : State Plane 6 NAD 83Proje c tion: Lam be rt Conform al ConicDatum : NAD 1983 2011Map Pre pare d by: B. Gale , GLADate Pre pare d : Marc h 28, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Stud y Are a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Exis ting Fue l Mod ific ation Z one s He ron Pointe Wate r Q uality Bas in ^_Le as t Be ll’s Vire o Loc ation 2009 Rare Plants 2010 Rare Plants 2022 Rare Plants 2023 Rare Plants Coulte r's Gold fie ld s Southe rn Tarplant Coulte r's Gold fie ld s Southe rn Tarplant Coulte r's Gold fie ld s Southe rn Tarplant (1,072) X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SpecialStatusSpeciesGIS\200-8_SouthernTarplantLocations.mxd 0 225 450112.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Southern Tarplant Locations Map Exhibit 8B Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: April 3, 2023 1 inch = 225 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Southern Tarplant (2022) Historical Southern Tarplant (2006-2010)San Gabriel River X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\Im pac ts GIS\200-8_ Spe c ialStatus Spe c ie s _ Im pac ts .m xd 0 125 25062.5 Fe e t ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Spe c ial-Status Spe c ie s Im pac ts Map Exhibit 9 Coord inate Sys te m : State Plane 6 NAD 83Proje c tion: Lam be rt Conform al ConicDatum : NAD 1983 2011Map Pre pare d by: B. Gale , GLADate Pre pare d : April 3, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Stud y Are a Pe rm ane nt Im pac ts Te m porary Im pac ts ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Exis ting Fue l Mod ific ation Z one s He ron Pointe Wate r Q uality Bas in ^_Le as t Be ll’s Vire o Loc ation 2009 Rare Plants 2010 Rare Plants Coulte r's Gold fie ld s Southe rn Tarplant Coulte r's Gold fie ld s Southe rn Tarplant 2023 Rare Plants:Coulte r's Gold fie ld s 2022 Rare Plants:Southe rn Tarplant (1,072) APPENDIX A FLORAL COMPENDIUM The floral compendium lists species identified within the Study Area. Taxonomy follows Jepson (Baldwin et al. 2012) and, for sensitive species, the California Native Plant Society's Rare Plant Online Inventory (CNPS 2022). Common names are taken from Baldwin et al. (2012), Munz (1974), and Roberts (1998). An asterisk (*) denotes a non-native species. Also included are species that were observed by GLA in the Study Area in previous years for other biological surveys on the Hellman Property. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MONOCOTS ARACACEAE PALM FAMILY Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm EUDICOTS AMARANTHACEAE AMARANTH FAMILY *Amaranthus albus tumbling pigweed ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat * Centaurea melitensis tocalote Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant Conyza canadensis common horseweed * Dittrichea graveolens stinkwort * Glebionis coronaria crown daisy Helianthus annuus western sunflower Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed *Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields *Pulicaria paludosa Spanish sunflower *Silybum marianum milk thistle *Sonchus oleraceus common sow-thistle Stephanomeria virgata ssp. virgata tall wreath-plant AIZOACEAE FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY * Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Heliotropium curassavicum alkali heliotrope BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY * Brassica nigra black mustard * Brassica rapa field mustard * Hirschfeldia incana summer mustard * Lepidium latifolium broad-leaved peppergrass * Raphanus sativus wild radish * Sisymbrium irio London rocket CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY * Atriplex suberecta serrate-leaved saltbush * Bassia hyssopifolia five-hook bassia * Chenopodium album lamb’s quarters * Salsola tragus Russian thistle CONCOLVULACEAE MORNING GLORY FAMILY Cressa truxillensis Alkali weed EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY * Ricinus communis castor bean FABACEAE PEA FAMILY * Melilotus albus white sweet clover * Melilotus indica yellow sweet clover * Medicago polymorpha bur-clover FRANKENIACEAE FRANKENIA FAMILY Frankenia salina alkali heath GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY * Erodium botrys long-beaked filaree * Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree * Erodium moschatum white-stemmed filaree LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY * Marrubium vulgare horehound MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY * Malva parviflora cheeseweed Malvella leprosa alkali-mallow POACEAE GRASS FAMILY * Cortaderia selloana pampas grass Distichlis spicata salt grass * Avena barbata slender wild oat * Bromus diandrus ripgut brome * Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley * Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum hare barley * Festuca perennis Italian rye grass POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY * Polygonum arenastrum common knotweed * Rumex crispus curly dock SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrightii jimsonweed *Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY Urtica urens annual stinging nettle APPENDIX B FAUNAL COMPENDIUM The faunal compendium lists species that were either observed within or adjacent to the Study Area. Also included are species that were observed by GLA in previous years for other biological surveys on the Hellman Property. Taxonomy and common names are taken from AOS (2022) for birds; Collins and Taggart (2009) and CDFW (2016) for reptiles and amphibians; and CDFG (2016) for mammals. Also included are species that were observed by GLA in and around the Study Area in previous years for other biological surveys on the Hellman Property. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME BIRDS COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS AND DOVES Columbia livia rock dove Zenaida macroura mourning dove TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird CHARADRIIDAE PLOVERS AND RELATIVES Charadrius vociferus killdeer CATHARTIDAE NEW WORLD VULTURES Cathartes aura turkey vulture PANDIONIDAE OSPREYS Pandion haliaetus Osprey ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS AND HARRIERS Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Circus cyaneus northern harrier Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite FALCONIDAE FALCONS Falco sparverius American kestrel TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird LANIIDAE SHRIKES Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike VIREONIDAE VIREOS AND RELATIVES Vireo bellii pusillis1 least Bell’s vireo CORVIDAE JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven HIRUNDINIDAE SWALLOWS Hirundo rustica barn swallow MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS AND TRASHERS Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird STURNIDAE STARLINGS Sturnus vulgaris European starling PASSERELLIDAE NEW WORLD SPARROWS Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch Haemorhous mexicanus house finch MAMMALS GEOMYIDAE POCKET GOPHERS Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher CANIDAE FOXES, WOLVES, AND RELATIVES Canis familiaris feral dog Canis latrans coyote PROCYONIDAE RACOONS Procyon lotor raccoon 1 Observed in the Heron Pointe Water Quality Basin only. Does not occur in the Project site. 1940 E Deere Avenue, Suite 250 ● Santa Ana, California 92705 ● 949.837.0404 October 11, 2023 Devon Shay Business Manager Hellman Properties LLC P.O. Box 2398 Seal Beach, California 90740 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation for the 12.46-Acre Hellman Property Solar Panel Array Study Area, Seal Beach, Orange County, California Dear Ms. Shay: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction for the above-referenced property.1 The report also addresses the potential presence of wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act (CCA). The Solar Panel Array Site (Project site) at the Hellman Property, Orange County [Exhibit 1] contains no blue-line streams as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map Los Alamitos, California [Exhibit 2]. On July 29, August 25, and October 25, 2022, and March 6, 2023, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the Project site and a 100-foot buffer area surrounding the Project site, which comprise a 12.46 acre Study Area, to determine the presence and limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), (2) Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13260 of the California Water Code (CWC), and (3) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Enclosed is an 80- scale map [Exhibit 3] that depicts the areas evaluated for Corps, Regional Board and CDFW jurisdiction and wetlands defined by the CCA. A soil map is attached as Exhibit 4. For purposes of this report, the Study Area is separated into a western field and eastern field, which are depicted on Exhibit 3. Photographs to document the topography, vegetative communities, and areas evaluated for jurisdiction are provided as Exhibit 5. A map depicting the results of the National Wetland Inventory database search is enclosed as Exhibit 6. Data sheets are attached as Appendix A. 1 This report presents our best effort at estimating the subject jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries. APPENDIX C Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 2 There are no areas of Corps jurisdiction at the site, including wetlands as defined under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There are no areas of Regional Board jurisdiction at the site, including wetlands as defined under the Porter Cologne Act as set forth in the State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures. There are no areas of CDFW jurisdiction at the site, including streams, lakes, wetlands, or riparian habitat pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. The site contains no areas of potential wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act. The site does not contain indicators for hydric soils, nor does it contain indicators for wetland hydrology. The site does have small, localized areas with a predominance of wetland indicator plants; however, the overall composition of vegetation does not support a finding of hydrophytic vegetation. The site also has areas that exhibited localized ponding for greater than 14 days in Spring 2023; however, this ponding was due to well above average rainfall and frequent storms that constantly refilled the ponded areas, which does not support a finding of wetland hydrology, as discussed in the Results section below. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation, a color aerial photograph, a topographic base map of the property, the previously cited USGS topographic map, a soils map, and National Wetland Inventory “Wetland Mapper” website 2 were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction and wetlands defined under the CCA. Suspected jurisdictional and/or wetland areas were field checked for evidence of stream activity and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Potential wetland areas were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual 3 (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement).4 Reference was also made to the 2019 State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures) to identify suspected State wetland habitats as regulated by the Regional Board.5 While in the field, the 2 https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ 3 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 5 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 3 locations where data was collected were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble GPS device in conjunction with a color aerial photograph using visible landmarks. In order to eliminate sampling bias, data collection points for potential wetland hydrology, soils, and vegetation in the western field were located along four transects in a rough grid pattern. The spacing between of each of the points and between the four transects was determined using a random numbers generator [Exhibit 3]. The National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) has mapped the following soil types as occurring in the general vicinity of the project site: Bolsa Silty Clay Loam The Bolsa series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on alluvial fans. These soils formed in mixed alluvium. Slopes are from 0 to 2 percent. In a typical profile, soil from 0 to 12 inches consists of light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) silty clay loam that becomes dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) when moist. Soil from 12 to 18 inches consists of light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) silty clay loam, which becomes dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) when moist and exhibits few, faint mottles. These soils are typically used for row and field crops, as well as urban development. The Bolsa series is not identified as hydric in the SCS's publication, Hydric Soils of the United States or in the Hydric Soil List for Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. II. JURISDICTION A. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term “waters of the United States” is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as: (1) Waters which are: (i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or (iii) Interstate waters; Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 4 (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters: (i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section. Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) exclude the following from being “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) above: (1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 5 (7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and (8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(4) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. “Adjacent” wetlands are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(c)(2) as those wetlands “having a continuous surface connection” to other waters of the United States. 1. Wetland Definition Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the United States”) is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(1) as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” In 1987 the Corps published the Wetland Manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the Wetland Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the Wetland Manual and Arid West Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria: • More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be hydrophytic in nature as published in the most current national wetland plant list; • Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 6 • Whereas the Wetland Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with “problematic hydrophytic vegetation”, which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. B. Regional Water Quality Control Board The State Water Resource Control Board and each of its nine Regional Boards regulate the discharge of waste (dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States 6 and waters of the State. Waters of the United States are defined above in Section II.A and waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code 13050[e]). Section 401 of the CWA requires certification for any federal permit or license authorizing impacts to waters of the U.S. (i.e., waters that are within federal jurisdiction), such as Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Safe Rivers and Harbors Act, to ensure that the impacts do not violate state water quality standards. When a project could impact waters outside of federal jurisdiction, the Regional Board has the authority under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that impacts do not violate state water quality standards. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, WDRs, and waivers of WDRs are also referred to as orders or permits. 1. State Wetland Definition The State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures define an area as wetland as follows: “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) 6 Therefore, wetlands that meet the current definition, or any historic definition, of waters of the U.S. are waters of the state. In 2000, the State Water Resources Control Board determined that all waters of the U.S. are also waters of the state by regulation, prior to any regulatory or judicial limitations on the federal definition of waters of the U.S. (California Code or Regulations title 23, section 3831(w)). This regulation has remained in effect despite subsequent changes to the federal definition. Therefore, waters of the state includes features that have been determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to be “waters of the U.S.” in an approved jurisdictional determination; “waters of the U.S.” identified in an aquatic resource report verified by the Corps upon which a permitting decision was based; and features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of “waters of the U.S.” or any current or historic federal regulation defining “waters of the U.S.” under the federal Clean Water Act. Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 7 the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The following wetlands are waters of the State: 1. Natural wetlands; 2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state; and 3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration; b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state; c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b): i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment, iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program, iv. Treatment of surface waters, v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering, vi. Fire suppression, vii. Industrial processing or cooling, viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values, ix. Log storage, x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or xii. Fields flooded for rice growing. All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 8 feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state. C. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” CDFW's definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man- made reservoirs.” CDFW also defines a stream as “a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.” It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines wildlife to include “all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability” (FGC Division 0.5, Chapter 1, section 89.5. Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities. D. Wetlands Defined Under California Coastal Act In accordance with definitions in the Coastal Act, wetlands are defined as follows: WETLAND - is defined by Section 30121 of the Coastal Act as lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The definition of wetland is further detailed by Section 13577 (b)(1) of the California Code of Regulations as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats. Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 9 According to the Coastal Commission, the presence of any one of three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydrophytes, or hydric soils) qualifies an area as a wetland under this definition. Furthermore, the Coastal Commission establishes the upland limit of a wetland as: a. the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover b. the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric; or c. in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not (14 CCR Section 13577). The Commission’s determination of the presence of a “One Parameter Wetland” typically follows the methods contained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual 7 (Wetland Manual) and more recently, the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (AWS v.2.0).8 It should be noted, however, that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Wetland Manual requires the presence of all three factors—wetlands hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation—to determine the presence and delineate the boundaries of a federal wetland. While the Commission relies on the federal manuals to establish the presence of any of the three parameters, according to Commission staff typically the presence of a single parameter (e.g., a predominance of wetland vegetation) is sufficient to demonstrate the presence of a wetland and for the Commission to make a presumptive finding for the presence of wetlands. III. RESULTS A. Site Description The proposed solar panel array Project site is located along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Hellman Property as depicted on Exhibit 3. The Project site spans two distinct areas, referred to here as the western field and eastern field, each of which consists of a generally flat 7 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 10 field that supports herbaceous vegetation; however, the two areas exhibit differing mixes of herbaceous species. The western field is characterized by a mosaic of upland grasses and forbs such as ripgut (Bromus diandrus, UPL), wild oats (Avena fatua, UPL), five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia, FACU), and seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum, FACU), mixed with plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter such as saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), with limited amounts of alkali heath (Frankenia salina, FACW), and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis, FACW). The eastern field supports only upland vegetation and is notably completely lacking saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis, FACW), and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis, FACW). The eastern area is dominated by upland grasses and forbs including five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia, FACU), seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium currassavicum, FACU), wild radish (Raphanus sativus, UPL), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens, UPL) and upland shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis, UPL). Areas of coyote brush include a few individuals of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia, FAC); however, the mulefat is not a dominant species and as such does not function as a wetland indicator in this area. A portion of the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the eastern field extends into a water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development [Exhibit 3]. This basin is vegetated with riparian vegetation and may contain areas with wetland hydrology and/or hydric soil indicators. However, because it is a constructed water quality basin, is not part of the Hellman Property, and would not be impacted by the proposed project, it is not addressed in this analysis. In 2022, a total of 15 soil pits were excavated within the western field as depicted on Exhibit 3, and no hydric soils were detected. Soils uniformly exhibited a chroma of 2.5Y3/3, except for one pit with a chroma of 2.5Y3/2, with no redoximorphic features or other hydric soil indicators. Similarly, the site did not exhibit any indicators for wetland hydrology. It should be noted that rainfall in 2022 was below average. The National Weather Service cooperative observer station in Long Beach, CA recorded rainfall at 62 percent of average for the 2021-2022 water year.9 Nevertheless, germination of FACW species such as southern tarplant and alkali weed was observed, indicating that extreme drought conditions were not present. While the reduced rainfall may have resulted in reduced germination of the southern tarplant seedbank, it was noted that the tarplant generally occurred in the same locations mapped in 2009 and 2010, when rainfall at the Long Beach station was at 73 and 121 percent of average, 9 https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2022.php Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 11 respectively.10 Tarplant data collected in 2009 and 2010 showed similar distribution as 2022 indicating suitable conditions for assessing the presence or absence of wetland indicator plants. On March 6, 2023, a ponded area was observed in the western field that remained ponded for longer than 14 days. However, this ponding was due to a series of high rainfall total storm events, and not indicative of wetland hydrology. As of April 2, 2023, rainfall during the 2022- 2023 water year totaled 20.46 inches, which is 185 percent of normal. February rainfall totaled 2.90 inches and March rainfall totaled 6.91 inches.11 It is noteworthy that indicators for hydric soils were not detected within the western field, including the area with ponding, suggesting that sufficient ponding has not occurred over the years that has resulted in the formation of hydric indicators. Additionally, a review of historic aerial photography 12 shows oil field work in 2013 that included trenching through the subject area, which modified the local topography, creating a topographic low spot that collects runoff from the surrounding field and adjacent road during significant rain events. Additionally, the Tank Farm Relocation Project, which was constructed in 2010-2011, included authorizations to use excess fill material generated during construction to raise the elevations of the oil field roads, which further contributes runoff to areas of shallow seasonal ponding in the adjacent fields. In the eastern field, because of the almost complete lack of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter, only one soil pit was excavated to characterize the soil as depicted on Exhibit 3. B. Corps Jurisdiction As noted above, the western field supports a mosaic of upland species and species with an indicator status of FAC or FACW. Of the 15 locations where data was collected, six supported a predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter; however, of these six points, three points failed the Prevalence Index (PI) test. Furthermore, the collective PI score for all 15 data collection points was 3.91, which is clearly in the upland range. Combined with the complete lack of hydric soil indicators and complete absence of indicators for wetland hydrology, the western field does not meet the thresholds for wetlands in accordance with the criteria in the AWS v 2.0. The eastern field, unlike the western field, is completely dominated by upland species, so only one soil pit was excavated. This pit was located in an area of monocultural seaside heliotrope (Heliotropum curassavicum, FACU) that lacked indicators for both hydric soils and wetland 10 2009 data: https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2009.php; 2010 data: https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2010.php 11 Data from the LGB Long Beach Airport weather station. Monthly and water year data available at https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip.php and https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/awipsProducts/RNORR4RSA.php 12 Source: Google Earth Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 12 hydrology. Therefore, the eastern area does not meet the thresholds for wetlands in accordance with the criteria in the AWS v 2.0. B. Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Based on the determination for Corps jurisdiction stated above, the Project site does not support wetlands in accordance with the State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures defined in Section II.B above. C. CDFW Jurisdiction The Project site does not contain any aquatic features including wetlands, streams, lakes, or riparian habitat that would be subject to the Notification requirements pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. D. Coastal Act Wetlands Western Field Vegetation As noted above for Corps wetlands, the western field supports a mosaic of upland species and species with an indicator status of FAC or FACW. The most common species with an indicator of FAC or wetter was salt grass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), which was common in substantial portions of the site. Saltgrass is a well-documented phreatophyte that exhibits the ability to reach ground water or moist soils at 11 feet below ground surface and as such is not a reliable indicator of wetland conditions (saturation in the upper 12 inches), especially in the absence of any indicators for wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Of the 15 locations in the western field where data was collected, six supported a predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter. Of these six locations, in five instances, saltgrass was one of the dominant species, and three locations failed the Prevalence Index (PI) test. It is notable that the collective PI for all 15 data collection points in the western field scored 3.91, which is clearly in the upland range. A collective PI of 3.91 is well above the threshold for the presence of a hydrophytic plant community. Ralph Tiner addresses the problem of basing any wetland determination on Facultative (FAC) vegetation alone and the importance of using a tool with more accurate measurement capabilities (i.e., the Prevalence Index): A plant community with a weighted average index (prevalence index) of 3.0 (±0.5) therefore is equivalent to a FAC species that occurs equally in wetlands Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 13 and non-wetlands. Such communities (2.5 through 3.5) are inconclusive regarding their wetland status as assessed by vegetation analysis alone; in other words, other features [hydrology and soils] must be examined to determine whether they are wetland or not.13 In addition, the Arid West Supplement has a note regarding the presence of phreatophytes that is relevant to this site. As noted, saltgrass is a well-documented phreatophyte with a root structure that can reach up to 11 feet below the surface to reach the groundwater table or moist soil conditions. On page 91, the Arid West Supplement cautions the reader regarding riparian species that have similarly deep roots: Examples of species that occur in these situations include cottonwoods (e.g., Populus deltoides, P. fremontii) and tree-forming willows (e.g., Salix gooddingii, S. laevigata). These areas may have a high frequency of phreatophytic species that, when mature, are able to exploit groundwater that is too deep to support wetlands. In such situations, there may be a hydrophytic overstory and a non- hydrophytic understory. If the soils are Entisols lacking hydric soil features and/or wetland hydrology is problematic, more emphasis should be placed on the understory, which may be more indicative of current wetland or non-wetland conditions.14 Functionally, the saltgrass behaves like the riparian trees noted in the excerpt from the Arid West Supplement. Given the predominance of upland grasses such as Brome species it is reasonable to assume that the saltgrass is not functioning as a wetland indicator, which is consistent with the lack of hydric soils and apparent lack of hydrology. Hydrology The ponded area depicted on Exhibit 5 ponded for greater than 14 days as described above, due to well above average rainfall. In 2022, no primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were detected at any of the 15 data points sampled in the western field. It should also be noted that regular plowing or disking of the soil, as has been typical for the western portion of the site for decades, impacts soil characteristics. Specifically, it is well documented in the scientific literature that plowing or disking eliminates the soil pores that occur in undisturbed soils. Elimination of the soil pores alters the drainage characteristics of the soil 13 Tiner, Ralph W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. Lewis Publishers, New York, pp. 111-113. 14 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, p 91. Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 14 such that plowed soils tend to pond water much more readily and hold water at the surface than do unplowed soils. 15,16 Because the disking prevents water from moving through the soil profile, it would also preclude saturation within the soil column retarding or preventing formation of hydric soil indicators. Thus, the ponding observed in the western field occurs for longer durations that would occur should such disking not be implemented for weed control as required by the Orange County Fire Authority. Soils As discussed above, no hydric soils were detected in the 15 soil pits excavated in the western field. Soils uniformly exhibited a chroma of 2.5Y3/3, except for one pit with a chroma of 2.5Y3/2, with no redoximorphic features or other hydric soil indicators. Given the complete lack of hydric soil indicators, absence of indicators for wetland hydrology that are not associated with ponding due to rainfall totaling 185 percent of normal, and a plant community with a collective prevalence index of 3.91, the western field does not meet the thresholds for Coastal Act wetlands in accordance with the criteria established in the AWS v 2.0. Eastern Field In the eastern field, data was collected at only one point due to the lack of wetland indicator plant species. The one soil pit excavated lacked any indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology, and was dominated by seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium currassavicum, FACU). Together with the upland plant community, the overall lack of indicators for wetland hydrology and hydric soils across the eastern field indicate that it does not meet the thresholds for Coastal Act wetlands in accordance with the criteria established in the AWS v 2.0. E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory As noted in the methodology section, the National Wetland Inventory “Wetland Mapper” categorizes much of the western field and the western portion of the eastern field as wetland with the classification code PEM1Ax. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service includes the following on the National Wetland Inventory website regarding Wetlands Data Limitations, Exclusions and Precautions The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the 15 https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/encyclopedia/frequent-tillage-and-its-impact-soil-quality 16 https://extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil-compaction Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 15 analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery and/or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Most of the western area and the western portion of the eastern field are mapped on the Wetland Mapper as follows. a) Classification code: PEM1Ax [Excerpted from Wetland Mapper]17 System Palustrine (P): The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean- derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 ppt. Class Emergent (EM): Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. Subclass Persistent (1): Dominated by species that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season. This subclass is found only in the Estuarine and Palustrine systems. 17 https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC October 11, 2023 Page 16 Water Regime Temporary Flooded (A): Surface water is present for brief periods (from a few days to a few weeks) during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the ground surface for most of the season. Special Modifier Excavated (x): This Modifier is used to identify wetland basins or channels that were excavated by humans. The Wetlands Mapper assessment is not accurate, as shown by the on-the-ground assessment recommended by the Limitations, Exclusions, and Precautions for the tool. As noted above, neither the western field nor the eastern field contain wetlands; only a few limited areas exhibit a predominance of wetland indictor plants with an indictor status of FAC or wetter, and these areas lack wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Overall, the western field is dominated by herbaceous upland vegetation mixed with wetland indicator species, and the eastern field supports only upland vegetation while lacking wetland hydrology and hydric soils. If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact Tony Bomkamp at (949) 929- 1651 or Erin Trung at etrung@wetlandpermitting.com. Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Tony Bomkamp Senior Regulatory Specialist p:0200-8c.JD Source: ESRI World Street Map0248MilesRegional Map ^_ Exhibit 1 ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY PROJECT LOCATION Adapted from USGS Los Alamitos, CA quadrangleVicinity Map01,0002,0004,000Feet± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\DelineationGIS\200-8_JD_SoilPits.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Jurisdictional Determination Map Exhibit 3 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 15, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Western Field Eastern Field Heron Pointe Water Quality Basin Non-Wetland Ponded Area Data Point X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SoilsGIS\200-8_Soils.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Soils Map Exhibit 4 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: January 4, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Bolsa Silt Loam, Drained Bolsa Silty Clay Loam,Drained 123 125 Photograph 1: West-facing view in the eastern field area of the Project site. Note the high level of disturbance. Plant species in this area include alkali heliotrope, five-hook bassia, summer mustard, and perennial pepperweed. August 25, 2022. Photograph 3: West-facing view of western field portion of the Project. This area is vegetated with the Distichlis spicata-annual grasses association with a few small patches of alkali heath (Frankenia salina). There is no wetland hydrology or hydric soils, and the overall prevalence index of the western field is >3. July 29, 2022.Exhibit 5 –Page 1Site PhotographsHELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAYPhotograph 2: North-facing view of the eastern field portion of the Project site. Data Point #16 is located in the large patch of alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium currasavicum). in the center of the photo. August 25, 2022. Photograph 4. View of Cressa truxillensis area in the northwest portion of the western field. This area will not be impacted by the proposed Project and is almost entirely outside of the 100-foot buffer.. August 25, 2022 : X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\NWI_GIS\200-8_NWI.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY National Wetland Inventory Map Exhibit 6 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: January 5, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-1 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC Bassia hyssopifolia 5 N FACU Centromadia parryi australis 1 N FACW 34 1 1 100 1 2 15050 205 56 172 3.07 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-1 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-2 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Distichlis spicata 20 Y FAC Centromadia parryi australis 10 N FACW 30 70 0 1 1 100 10 20 6020 30 80 2.67 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-2 0-12 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-3 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Distichlis spicata 30 Y FAC Bassia hyssopifolia 2 N FACU 30 70 0 1 1 100 9030 82 32 98 3.06 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-3 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-4 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cressa truxillensis 25 Y FACW 25 75 0 1 1 100 25 50 25 50 2.0 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-4 0-12 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-5 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 60 Y UPL Bassia hyssopifolia 3 N FACU 63 37 0 0 1 0 123 30060 63 312 4.95 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-5 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-6 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL Distichlis spicata 40 Y FAC 80 20 0 1 2 50 12040 20040 80 320 4.0 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-6 0-14 2.5Y 3/2 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-7 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 20 Y UPL Distichlis spicata 45 Y FAC 65 35 0 1 2 50 13545 10020 65 235 3.61 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-7 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-8 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 50 Y UPL Distichlis spicata 2 N FAC Frankenia salina 5 N FACW 65 35 0 0 1 0 5 10 62 25050 57 266 4.67 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-8 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ”3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-9 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA Bromus diandrus 30 Y UPL Bassia hyssopifolia 20 Y FACU Hordeum marinum gussoneanum 15 Y FAC 65 35 0 1 3 33 4515 8020 15030 65 275 4.23 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-9 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-10 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL Avena fatua 10 N UPL Frankenia salina 3 N FACW Distichlis spicata 2 N FAC 55 45 0 0 1 0 3 6 62 25050 55 262 4.76 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-10 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-11 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 20 Y UPL Distichlis spicata 10 Y FAC Frankenia salina 10 Y FACW 40 60 0 2 3 67 10 20 3010 10020 40 150 3.75 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-11 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-12 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL Distichlis spicata 10 N FAC Frankenia salina 3 N FACW 53 47 0 0 1 0 3 6 3010 20040 53 236 4.45 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-12 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-13 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Raphanus sativus 90 N UPL 90 10 0 0 1 0 45090 90 450 5.0 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-13 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-14 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Festuca perenne 10 N FAC Distichlis spicata 40 Y FAC Frankenia salina 40 Y FACW 90 10 0 2 2 100 40 80 15050 90 230 2.56 4 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-14 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-15 T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Heliotropium currasavicum 30 Y FACU Bassia hyssopifolium 10 Y FACU Centromadia parryi australis 2 N FACW 42 58 0 0 2 0 2 4 16040 42 164 3.90 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-15 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Hellman Ranch Orange 10-25-22 Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-16 E Trung/B Gale Unsectioned, T4S, R12W Flat None <2% LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83 Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Heliotropium curassavicum 50 Y FACU 50 50 0 0 1 0 20050 50 200 4 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-16 0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None NA No soil color assessed. Soil is mixed fill material with broken concrete pieces and small rocks. No hydric soil indicators. 4 4 4 4 4 No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years. SOUTHERN TARPLANT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN FOR HELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Hellman Properties LLC P.O. Box 2398 Seal Beach, California 90740 Contact: Devon Shea Phone: (562) 431-6022 ext. 101 Prepared By: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250 Santa Ana, California 92705 Phone: (949) 837-0404 Contacts: Tony Bomkamp, Erin Trung October 12, 2023 ii INFORMATION SUMMARY A. Restoration Plan Date: October 12, 2023 B. Report Title: Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for Hellman Property Solar Panel Array C. Project Site Location: Seal Beach, Orange County D. Owner/Applicant: Hellman Properties LLC Devon ShayBusiness Manager P.O. Box 2398 Seal Beach, California 90740 Phone: (562) 431-6022 ext. 101 Email: dshay@hellmanprop.com E. Principal Investigator: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250 Santa Ana, California 92705 Phone: (949) 837-0404 Report Preparer: Erin Trung F. Individuals Conducting Fieldwork: Tony Bomkamp, Erin Trung, Brittany Gale, David Moskovitz iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background and Scope of Work ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR RARE PLANT SURVEYS ..........................................................2 2.1 Botanical Resources ......................................................................................................... 3 3.0 SPECIES SUBJECT TO IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ..................................................4 3.1 Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) ................................................... 4 3.1 Impacts to Southern Tarplant ........................................................................................... 5 4.0 HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITRING PLAN .......................................................5 4.1 Existing Conditions for Project Area Occupied by Southern Tarplant ............................ 6 4.2 Existing Conditions for Area Subject Southern Tarplant Translocation.......................... 6 4.3 Seed Collection from Donor/Impact Population .............................................................. 6 4.4 Preparation of Translocation Site ..................................................................................... 7 4.5 Plant Palette for Translocation Site .................................................................................. 7 4.6 Broadcasting Seed at Translocation Site .......................................................................... 7 4.7 Five-Year Maintenance Program ..................................................................................... 8 4.8 Five-Year Monitoring Program ........................................................................................ 8 4.8 Annual Monitoring Reports ........................................................................................... 11 5.0 COMPLETION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ...................................................11 5.1 Notification of Completion ............................................................................................ 11 5.2 Final Performance Standards Resolution ....................................................................... 11 6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES .........................................................................................12 6.1 Initiating Procedures ...................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation ........................................................ 12 6.3 Funding Mechanism ....................................................................................................... 12 6.4 Responsible Parties ........................................................................................................ 13 7.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING .....................13 7.1 Monitoring Tasks ........................................................................................................... 13 7.2 Funding and Prioritizing Tasks ...................................................................................... 14 7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................15 iv TABLES Table 2-1. Summary of Focused Botanical Surveys for the Project Site........................................2 Table 4.2: Plant Palette for Translocation Area ..............................................................................7 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Regional Map Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map Exhibit 3 Site Plan Exhibit 4 Special-Status Plants Map Exhibit 5 Vegetation Map Exhibit 6 Site Photographs Exhibit 7 Soils Map Exhibit 8 Special-Status Plants Impact Map Exhibit 9 Southern Tarplant Translocation Area 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Scope of Work This document provides the results of focused biological surveys for southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis), quantifies potential impacts, and sets forth proposed mitigation for impacts associated with the approximately 4.57-acre Solar Panel Array project (the Project) located in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California. This Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) identifies and evaluates impacts and proposed mitigation to southern tarplant in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State regulations such as the California Coastal Act (CCA) and the California Fish and Game Code. The scope of this plan includes a discussion of existing conditions for the approximately 4.57- acre Project site that is contained with a larger 12.46-acre Study Area. All methods employed regarding the focused southern tarplant surveys, an analysis of impacts to southern tarplant and proposed methods for reestablishment of southern tarplant on the Hellman Property are addressed in more detail below. 1.2 Project Location The Project site covers approximately 4.57 acres in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California [Exhibit 1 – Regional Map] and is located within Sections 11 and 12 of Township 5 South, Range 12 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map Los Alamitos, California [Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Map]. The Project site is located on the Hellman Property, which is an active oil field with a network of earthen roads, active oil wells, oil and gas storage tanks, and associated infrastructure. The Project site is located in the northeastern portion of the Hellman Property and is bordered by the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin to the north, a water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development to the east, and active oil fields to the south and west. A portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, which was formerly part of the Hellman Property, is located to the south and west beyond the active oil field. 1.3 Project Description The proposed project consists of the installation of a 1.5MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic system. This system will interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. The system features three arrays with a total of 56 low profile table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations. For this report, the term “Project site” is defined as that area proposed for direct impact by the proposed Project and totals 4.57 acres [Exhibit 3]. The 4.57-acre Project site includes a 2.66-acre permanent impact area and a 1.91-acre temporary impact area consisting of staging and temporary work areas. The term “Study Area” is defined as all portions of the Project site, a 100- foot buffer beyond the Project site that was included in the analysis in accordance with the 2 requirements of the Coastal Act and the Seal Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), and additional areas beyond the 100-foot buffer that support sensitive biological resources [Exhibit 3]. The Study Area totals 12.46 acres. It should be noted that an access road for and a portion of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin are located within the 100-foot buffer as depicted by Exhibit 3; however, the biological resources in these areas were not mapped or surveyed for this analysis, and these areas are not included in the Study Area. 2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR RARE PLANT SURVEYS To adequately identify special-status plants in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) assembled biological data consisting of the following components: • Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project site • Evaluation of Soil Surveys for the Project site • Review of previous special-status plant survey data for the Project site • Performance of habitat assessments and site-specific biological surveys to evaluate the potential presence/absence of special-status plants in accordance with the requirements of CEQA • Performance of focused surveys for special-status plants. The focus of the special-status plant surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, review of previous special-status plant survey data, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2022), CNPS 9th edition online inventory (CNPS 2022), Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data (NRCS 2022), other pertinent literature, knowledge of the region, and GLA’s extensive knowledge of the Hellman Property. Site-specific general surveys within the Project site and the surrounding buffer area were conducted on foot in the proposed development areas for special-status plant species. Table 2-1 provides a summary list of survey dates, survey types and personnel. Table 2-1. Summary of Focused Botanical Surveys for the Project Site Survey Type Survey Dates Biologist(s) Vegetation Mapping July 29, August 4, August 25, October 25 2022 TB, ET, BG Focused Botanical Surveys July 29 and August 4, 2022 February 17 and March 7, 2023 TB, ET, DM TB = Tony Bomkamp, ET = Erin Trung, BG = Brittany Gale, DM = David Moskovitz 3 2.1 Botanical Resources A site-specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Project site, and consisted of five components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation of a list of target special-status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Project site; (3) general field reconnaissance survey(s); (4) vegetation mapping according to the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations; and (5) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants. As will be discussed below, two special-status plants were detected in the Study Area including southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), both of which had been documented in the Study Area during past surveys by GLA [Exhibit 4 – Special Status Plants Map]. The proposed project fully avoids and provides a buffer for the Coulter’s goldfields ranging from approximately 36 to 73 feet. 2.1.1 Literature Search Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included the following: • California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v-9.5, CNPS 2023) • CNDDB for the Los Alamitos, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding six quadrangles (CDFW 2022) The literature review also included biological studies previously conducted for the Hellman Property and adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands: • Biological Technical Report, Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Relocation Project (GLA 2006) • Biological Technical Report for Proposed Hellman Gas Plant Project (GLA 2018) • Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Assessment Report: Habitat Types & Special Status Species (Tidal Influence 2012) 2.1.2 Vegetation Mapping Vegetation communities within the Project site were mapped according to the “Membership Rules” of the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or California Natural Communities List). The list is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition or MCVII, which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification. Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact vegetation descriptions (membership rules). Non-conforming vegetation alliances or cover types were named based on the dominant plant species present. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 100-scale (1″=100′) aerial photograph as depicted on Exhibit 5. 4 2.1.3 Special-Status Plant Species and Habitats Evaluated for the Project Site Based on the information compiled from the literature search, vegetation profiles and a list of target sensitive plant species and habitats that could occur within the Project site were developed and incorporated into a mapping and survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floristic compendium; (3) identify the potential for any special-status plants that may occur within the Project site; and (4) prepare a map showing the distribution of any sensitive botanical resources associated with the Project site, if applicable. 2.1.4 Botanical Surveys GLA biologists Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung visited the site on July 29, and August 4, 2022, and Erin Trung and David Moskovitz visited the site on February 17 and March 6, 2023, to conduct general and focused plant survey(s). Southern tarplant was censused and mapped during 2022 surveys, and Coulter’s goldfields was mapped during 2023 surveys. Survey(s) were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines (Nelson 1984, USFWS 2000, CNPS 2001, CDFW 2018). As applicable, survey(s) were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site. Survey(s) were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field survey(s) were identified and recorded following the above- referenced guidelines. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Baldwin et al. (2012) and Munz (1974). 3.0 SPECIES SUBJECT TO IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 3.1 Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) Southern tarplant has a California Rare Plant Rank (“CRPR”) of 1B.1, indicating that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and is seriously endangered in California. This species is an annual herb in the sunflower family that blooms from May to November. It is adapted to and thrives in disturbed areas, and it also occurs in alkali playas, alkali grasslands, and along the margins of salt marshes. This species is very distinctive and flowers as early as June and sometimes into October or November. Southern tarplant is typically associated with a variety of mesic (not typically wetland) habitats including alkali grasslands, alkali meadows, and the fringes of alkali marshes as well as the fringes of coastal salt marshes. Native habitats for this species support a suite of grasses, sedges, and rushes that are adapted to slightly to moderately alkaline soils (though GLA has documented this species occurring occasionally in neutral and even slightly acidic soils). Southern tarplant can tolerate, and even thrive, with moderate levels of disturbance including regular mowing or disking if the mowing and/or disking occur in the late fall or early winter after seed set. The ability to tolerate disturbance allows this species to persist in highly disturbed or degraded 5 landscapes such as some of the most highly disturbed areas on the Project site, which is subject to disking or mowing of weeds to reduce fuel loads as required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), because, as noted, the Hellman Property is an active oil field. This ability to tolerate such disturbance also makes translocation of this species very easy, as long as receptor sites have suitable soils and competition from weedy competitors is limited. Because this species has declined across its range, mitigation for impacts is appropriate; however, determination of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as defined by the California Coastal Act for areas occupied by this species is not always warranted due to the ability of this species to colonize highly disturbed areas as shown in Photographs 1 and 2 of Exhibit 6. Southern tarplant can colonize areas that are highly disturbed and generally would not support native vegetation, such as areas with a gravel substrate and cracks in concrete. It can also occur with non-native halophytes such as small-flowered iceplant. Such areas are themselves in need of rehabilitation in order to reestablish native habitat that could include southern tarplant as a component. As such, determination of ESHA for areas occupied by this species should consider the specific habitat types that the species is associated with A population of approximately 1,072 individuals was detected during focused surveys in the Study Area in 2022, of which 457 were in established fuel modification zones for oil field operations, and 615 were not within fuel modification zones. Exhibit 4 depicts the locations of southern tarplant within the Study Area, and also includes the locations of southern tarplant observed in 2009 and 2010. 3.1 Impacts to Southern Tarplant The project would result in direct impacts to southern tarplant due to installation of the solar array. Of the 615 tarplant in the Study Area not located in established fuel modification zones, a total of 83 southern tarplant covering 0.03 acre would be impacted, of which 57 are located in the temporary impact area and 29 in the permanent impact area. 4.0 HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITRING PLAN This section sets forth the components of the southern tarplant Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) including: • Existing conditions within Project Site area occupied by southern tarplant • Existing conditions within proposed translocation site • Seed collection from donor/impact population • Preparation of translocation site • Plant palette for translocation site • Broadcasting seed at translocation site • Five-year maintenance program • Five-year monitoring program • Five-year reporting requirements 6 4.1 Existing Conditions for Project Area Occupied by Southern Tarplant The Study Area is located within the Hellman Property oil field and consists of disturbed land with existing oil wells, and pipes, and associated infrastructure, internal roads, and open fields. The vegetation communities are generally disturbed with a substantial component of non-native species. The topography is flat, with elevations ranging from 2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southeast portion of the Study Area to 8 feet AMSL in the northwest portion of the study area. Soils within the Study Area consist of Bolsa silty clay loam [Exhibit 7 – Soil Map]. The Project site consists of adjacent flat fields separated by an oil access road. The westerly portion of the field that is occupied by the southern tarplant consists entirely of Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance (salt grass flats) Distichlis spicata – annual grasses (41.200.13). The area occupied by southern tarplant is dominated by Distichlis spicata but with a substantial component of annual grasses ranging from 5 to 45 percent relative cover, including ripgut, wild oat, hare barley, and Mediterranean barley. Southern tarplant is also present as individuals, small clumps and larger clumps. This area also has a few small, isolated patches of alkali heath that are not large enough to comprise a separate mapping unit. The membership rules for this alliance require that Distichlis spicata have greater than 50 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer, and higher cover than any other grass species. The Distichlis spicata – annual grasses association has no state rarity rank; however, the alliance has an S4 rarity rank. 4.2 Existing Conditions for Area Subject Southern Tarplant Translocation A candidate tarplant translocation mitigation area within the Hellman Property is shown on Exhibit 9, and totals approximately 1.27 acre. The candidate southern tarplant translocation area has flat topography similar to the impact area and supports a mix of non-native grasses and forbs including black mustard (Brassica nigra), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and non-native grasses such as rip gut, slender wild oats, and hare barley. The area occupied by southern tarplant to be impacted by the Project totals 0.03 acre, and therefore a portion of the candidate translocation area covering at least 0.12-acre (4:1 mitigation to impact ratio) will ultimately be identified as the mitigation site depending on site-specific conditions. Prior to selection of the final translocation area, additional site-specific analysis of soils will be conducted to determine the most suitable area for tarplant translocation. 4.3 Seed Collection from Donor/Impact Population As noted, southern tarplant is an annual plant that tolerates disturbance including mowing and disking which help to distribute seed within such disturbed habitats. In most years, this species begins flowing in June or July and can flower into October or November with seed set typically occurring between August and late November. Seed would be collected from all plants to be impacted, which would require several seed collection visits as seed ripens. To collect seed, flowering heads with ripe seed are cut with pruning shears and collected in paper bags or cardboard file boxes. It is not necessary to clean or otherwise process the collected material. The collected seed heads would be stored in a cool, dry environment until introduction to the translocation site. 7 To ensure that all available seed is collected, a qualified biologist will monitor the existing localities of southern tarplant to determine when the seeds are ready for collection. The seed will be collected by personnel with experience in the collection of seeds. As noted, by removing all seed heads from plants to be impacted by hand using pruning shears, all available seed would be collected for distribution at the mitigation site. Additional seed collection for subsequent years from the extant population would be limited to no more than five percent of the existing population in any single year. 4.4 Preparation of Translocation Site As noted, the translocation site is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. To prepare the site for introduction of tarplant, the non-native weeds will be removed through a grow-and-kill program that will require two to three grow-and-kill cycles. The grow and kill cycles will depend on natural rainfall and/or irrigation based on the amount and timing of the rainfall. The grow-and-kill cycle would begin with winter rains and extend into spring and early summer as determined necessary by the project biologist. If determined necessary, the grow-and-kill programs could be extended into a second season based on the judgment of the Project Biologist. As discussed above, additional soils analysis will be conducted prior to selection of the final mitigation site. Based on the soils map for the site, the translocation site and the impact site exhibit similar soils. Southern tarplant prefers heavier soils with a clay component, and as such, if the top layer of soil is determined to be unsuitable, then site preparation will include excavation of the top layer of soil to expose the underlying soils which would be suitable. 4.5 Plant Palette for Translocation Site In addition to the southern tarplant, other native plants would be incorporated into the translocation site to enhance the habitat value and to reduce weed cover over the long term. Table 4-2: Plant Palette for Translocation Area Species Latin Name Species Common Name Seed Amount/Acre Malvella leprosa Alkali sida 4 lbs/acre Cressa truxillensis Alkali weed 4 lbs/acre Centromadia parryi ssp. australis Southern tarplant Hand-Collected Seed 4.6 Broadcasting Seed at Translocation Site Seed introduction will occur before the rainy season between October 1 and October 15. Should seed collection occur past October 15, such seed would be distributed at the time of collection. The southern tarplant seed heads would be distributed by hand broadcasting collected plant material across the translocation site and raking in using a hand rake. Additional seed would be hand broadcast across the site and raked in along with the southern tarplant seed. 8 4.7 Five-Year Maintenance Program Maintenance Activities The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the mitigation planting. Maintenance will occur over the five-year life of the project. Once reintroduction is completed the habitat restoration specialist will schedule a meeting with key members of the landscape maintenance crew to identify proper maintenance procedures. The following tasks will be performed as general maintenance duties: Weeding Because southern tarplant does not emerge until late spring and does not flower until June or July, the potential for removing this species accidentally during weeding is high. Therefore, no weeding will be performed in areas where southern tarplant is introduced until the area is surveyed by the project biologist to determine whether southern tarplant has germinated and emerged in vegetative form. If southern tarplant has emerged, individuals will be flagged and the project biologist will review the site with maintenance crews to identify the southern tarplant to ensure they are not affected during weeding. Weeding will be done by hand and no herbicides will be used within the southern tarplant reintroduction areas once southern tarplant is present. As noted above, herbicides can be used during the grow-and-kill cycle but will be terminated once seeding of the tarplant and native plant palette occurs. In addition, devices such as weed whips can be used to remove heavy weed infestations in the vicinity of the tarplant under the supervision of the project biologist. Trash Removal All debris of human origin will be removed from the mitigation area on a regular basis. The appearance of the mitigation area will be well maintained to deter vandalism and dumping. Responsible Parties Hellman Properties will be responsible for financing and carrying out maintenance activities and may assign the maintenance responsibilities to an appropriate contractor but will retain ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the mitigation site. Schedule Maintenance visits will be scheduled as necessary to ensure that the mitigation site is maintained free of trash and is not disturbed by other maintenance activities. The maintenance schedule provides for 12 visits for the first year, and six visits per year for the second through fifth years to maintain the site. 4.8 Five-Year Monitoring Program Performance Criteria The goal of the mitigation program is to establish southern tarplant within a 0.12-acre portion of the 1.27-acre candidate translocation site, such that the site supports a minimum of 332 individuals (4:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to 83 individuals) during at least two seasons during the five-year monitoring period. In addition, non-native cover within the translocation site will be maintained at less than 25-percent throughout the five-year monitoring period. 9 First-Year Monitoring Southern tarplant typically flowers between July and October with peak flowering typically occurring in August or September. Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations. Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover. If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations (not to exceed five percent of donor population) at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted. Second-Year Monitoring Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations. Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover. If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations (not to exceed five percent of donor population) at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted. Third-Year Monitoring Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations. Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover. If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations (not to exceed five percent of donor population) at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by 10 December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted. Fourth-Year Monitoring Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations. Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover. If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted. Fifth-Year Monitoring Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations. Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover. If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted. If performance standards are not achieved during the five-year monitoring program, Hellman Properties will consult with CDFW to determine whether corrective measures and an extension of the five-year monitoring program will be necessary. 11 4.8 Annual Monitoring Reports An annual report shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach and CDFW by January 1 of each year for 5 years after planting. Photos from designated photo stations shall be included. At the end of each of the five-monitoring period growing seasons, for the duration of the monitoring period, an annual report will be prepared for submittal to the City of Seal Beach and CDFW. The first annual report shall be delivered on January 1st of the year following the first quantitative monitoring. These reports shall include the number of southern tarplant during each of the five monitoring seasons as well as the non-native cover. These reports will assess both attainment of yearly target success criteria and progress toward final success criteria. These reports will also include the following: • A list of names, titles, and companies of all persons who prepared the content of the annual report and participated in monitoring activities for that year; • A vicinity map indicating location of the mitigation site(s); • A mitigation site map identifying habitat types, transect locations, photo station locations, etc. as appropriate; • Description and evaluation and any and all of maintenance performed; • Description of additional seeding performed as necessary including location of source population(s) and per • Copies of all monitoring photographs from designated photo stations; • Copies of all completed field data sheets; and • An analysis of all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data. 5.0 COMPLETION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 5.1 Notification of Completion The Project Biologist should notify Hellman Properties, the City of Seal Beach, and CDFW in writing when the monitoring period is complete and the City-approved success criteria have been met. 5.2 Final Performance Standards Resolution If the project meets performance standards at the end of the five-year monitoring period, the translocation be considered a success. If not, the maintenance and monitoring program will be extended one full year at a time, and a specific set of remedial measures approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW will be implemented until the standards are met. This process will continue until year-five standards are met or until the City of Seal Beach and CDFW determine that other mitigation measures are appropriate. 12 Should the translocation efforts meet all goals prior to the end of the five-year monitoring period, the City of Seal Beach and CDFW, at their discretion, may terminate the monitoring effort and release the bond. At that time the Applicant/Permittee will be released from further maintenance and monitoring requirements of the mitigation area. 5.3 Agency Confirmation Following receipt of the final annual monitoring report, the City of Seal Beach and CDFW will contact the permittee as soon as possible to schedule a site visit to confirm the completion of the compensatory mitigation effort and any jurisdictional delineation. The compensatory mitigation will not be considered complete without an onsite inspection by CDFW and written confirmation that approved performance standards have been achieved. It is therefore critical that agency staff review annual reports on a timely basis and provide comments throughout the maintenance and monitoring program so that any project deficiencies they note can be addressed prior to the expected end of the program. 6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES 6.1 Initiating Procedures If a performance standard is not met at the termination of the mitigation project or if the approved success criteria are not met, the Project Biologist will prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and, if determined necessary by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW propose remedial actions for approval. If the compensatory mitigation site has not met one or more of the performance standards, the permittee's maintenance and monitoring obligations shall continue until the City of Seal Beach and CDFW gives final approval the mitigation obligations have been satisfied. It is therefore incumbent upon the Project Biologist to foresee project deficiencies as part of the monitoring program and take appropriate steps to address the situation. 6.2 Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation Sufficient area for establishment of the mitigation site is available so alternative locations would be unnecessary. Although this plan is expected to be successful, both onsite and off-site alternative locations may be used in the event that revegetation cannot be achieved. 6.3 Funding Mechanism The Applicant/Permittee will fund planning, implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of any contingency measures that may be required to achieve mitigation goals through an up-front payment to the Contractor. Thereafter, all expenses in implementing this mitigation plan are to be borne by the Contractor. 13 6.4 Responsible Parties The Applicant/Permittee will be responsible for implementing, maintaining, and monitoring any contingency procedures. 7.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING Upon completion of and acceptance by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW that the five-year performance standards have been achieved, implementation of a Long-Term Management Plan (LTMP) will begin. With the successful completion of the mitigation and the achievement of the performance standards, it is expected that the tarplant area will require only limited management activities that would include the following: (1) Ongoing Monitoring, (2) Ongoing Non-Native Invasive Vegetation Control, (3) Trash and Debris Removal. 7.1 Monitoring Tasks A qualified Biological Monitor shall be retained to assist in implementing the LTMP and to monitor the status of the LTMP for tarplant mitigation area. The activities to be conducted by the Biological Monitor are as follows. Activity: Annual Monitoring. Conduct annual monitoring of the Long Term Management Area to determine what management activities are needed and where to focus those activities. Activity: Work Planning. Prepare an annual work plan and coordinate with the maintenance contractor(s) to carry out the management activities including the need for non-native species removal, trash and debris removal, or other management activities. Activity: Data Collection. Document qualitative and quantitative data related to the implementation of management activities. Activity: Annual Reporting. At the end of the first year, and then every other year, a management report will be prepared by the Biological Monitor and will be submitted to the City of Seal Beach and CDFW. These reports will include: (a) A description of the maintenance activities conducted during that calendar year; (b) The date of and location where the management activities were undertaken; (c) Information regarding weed eradication/abatement, including the amount removed and treated, frequency and timing of removal and treatment, and disposal specifics; and 14 (d) Photos from designated photo stations. 7.2 Funding and Prioritizing Tasks 7.1.1. Funding Prior to impacts associated with the project, the amount of a non-wasting endowment will be determined that will be necessary to fund the annual cost of carrying out the LTMP activities described above, if approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW. If approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW, the endowment will fund all management and monitoring activities associated with the LTMP. No further monetary obligations will be required of the Manager or any future long-term manager. The endowment shall be approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW or designee. If a designee is approved to hold the endowment, the Agencies will require the entity to enter into an agreement that contains terms relating to management of the endowment, the periodic auditing and reporting of expenditures, earnings and other pertinent information, and provisions for the transfer of the endowment and unspent earnings to the Agencies, or a successor owner/manager under certain conditions. If approved by the Agencies, the Manager will transfer the total non- wasting endowment fund to the designee approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW within one year after commencement of construction. The endowment will be placed in an interest-bearing security for the sole purpose of carrying out the management activities described above. The Manager will have access to the interest generated by the endowment and will be able to draw on the funds throughout the year to carry out the management activities. 7.1.2. Prioritizing Tasks The anticipated that the activities to be conducted annually will include monitoring, trash and debris removal, invasive plant control and management reporting. Invasive vegetation removal is the activity that will occur in perpetuity, but because of the dynamic nature of biological systems, is an activity that may not need to occur every single year. Other management activities might be added as part of the adaptive management of the LTMA, but these activities are not anticipated at this time. Each year the Manager and Biological Monitor will develop a Work Plan that prioritizes the mandatory management activities and other adaptive management activities based on natural resource conditions for that year. How the annual draw on the endowment will be spent will be determined based on this prioritized Work Plan. Because the management needs will vary from year to year, any unspent interest would be left in the interest-bearing security and could be utilized the following year(s). This adaptive funding mechanism provides the necessary flexibility for the Manager to allocate funds toward those management activities that require attention for that particular year and to plan ahead for implementation of management activities that become necessary in the future. 15 7.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. 1,568 pp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022c. California Natural Community List. California Natural Resources Agency, July 5, 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022d. Natural Communities. Accessed October 10, 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Accessed August 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2022. RareFind 5. Records of occurrence for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Long Beach, Anaheim, Whittier, South Gate, and Newport Beach. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Accessed August 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Glenn Lukos Associates. 2006. Biological Technical Report, Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Relocation Project, Orange County, California. August 2004, Revised March 2006. Glenn Lukos Associates. 2018. Biological Technical Report for the Proposed Hellman Gas Plant Project, Seal Beach, Orange County. September 2018. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp. Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society. 16 National Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Sawyer, J.O, T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. 1,300 pp. Tidal Influence. 2012. Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Assessment Report: Habitat Types and Special Status Species. Submitted March 1, 2012, Revised June 21, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished memorandum; January 2000. s:0200-8b.Tarplant Restoration Plan tracked Source: ESRI World Street Map0248MilesRegional Map ^_ Exhibit 1 ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY PROJECT LOCATION Adapted from USGS Los Alamitos, CA quadrangleVicinity Map01,0002,0004,000Feet± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\200-8_SitePlan.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Site Plan Exhibit 3 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: January 4, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 100' Buffer of Permanent Impacts X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SpecialStatusSpeciesGIS\200-8_SpecialStatusSpecies_HMMP.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Special-Status Species Map Exhibit 4 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 28, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Existing Fuel Modification Zones 2009 Rare Plants 2010 Rare Plants 2022 Rare Plants 2023 Rare Plants Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant (1,072) X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\V eg etationGIS\200-8_V eg etation.m xd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY V eg etation Map Exh ibit 5 Coordinate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lam bert Conform al ConicDatum : NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 28, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Existing Fuel Modification Zones Vegetation Type Alkali h eliotrope FieldsAnnual Grassland/Herbaceous Sem i-Natural Stands Bacch aris pilularis Sh rubland AllianceDisturbed Bacch aris pilularis Sh rubland Alliance Bacch aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance Bassia h yssopifolia Association Castor Bean StandsCressa truxillensis – Distich lis spicata Herbaceous Alliance Distich lis spicata – Annual Grasses Disturbed/Dev eloped Malv ella leprosa FieldsMixed Nativ e and Non-Nativ e Herbaceous Fields Mixed Sh rub Sem inatural Stands Ornam ental Raph anus sativ us AssociationSalix lasiolepis – Bacch aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance Tree Tobacco Stands Exhibit 6 Site PhotographsHELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAYPhotograph 1: West-facing view of southern tarplant growing on the edge of a road. July 29, 2022. Photograph 2: Southern tarplant growing in a highly disturbed roadside area. July 29, 2022. X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SoilsGIS\200-8_Soils_HMMP.mxd 0 175 35087.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Soils Map Exhibit 7 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 29, 2023 1 inch = 175 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Southern Tarplant Translocation Area Bolsa Silt Loam, Drained Bolsa Silty Clay Loam,Drained 123 125 X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\ImpactsGIS\200-8_SpecialStatusSpecies_Impacts_HMMP.mxd 0 125 25062.5 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Special-Status Species Impacts Map Exhibit 8 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 28, 2023 1 inch = 125 feet Key MapNot to Scale E 2nd St San Gabriel RiverPacifi c C o a s t H i g h w a y Study Area Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Existing Fuel Modification Zones 2009 Rare Plants 2010 Rare Plants Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant 2023 Rare Plants: Coulter's Goldfields 2022 Rare Plants: Southern Tarplant (1,072) X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\MitigationGIS\0200-08_TarplantTranslocation.mxd 0 50 10025 Feet ± HELLMAN PROPERTYSOLAR PANEL ARRAY Southern Tarplant Translocation Area Exhibit 9 Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: March 28, 2023 1 inch = 50 feet Key MapNot to Scale Study Area Southern Tarplant Candidate Translocation Area (1.27 ac.)San Gabriel River Appendix G Cultural Resources Assessment Report aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 1/9 AECOM 401 West A Street Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 aecom.com April 26, 2023 Ms. Devon Shay Hellman Properties, LLC 1 Pacific Coast Highway Seal Beach, CA 90740 Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment Report for a Proposed Solar Array, Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, Seal Beach, California Dear Ms. Shay, The following presents a report of the cultural resources assessment conducted by AECOM for the proposed solar array (Project) at the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) property located in the City of Seal Beach (City), Orange County, California. As discussed below, the proposed Project area has been surveyed or otherwise investigated for cultural resources on at least five different occasions, including exploratory subsurface trenching, and no cultural resources have been identified that would be affected by the proposed solar array installation. Additionally, the Project area is included in a recent cultural resources records search in support of a proposed gas plant just to the southwest, again indicating that no known cultural sites are present that would be affected by the proposed solar array installation. Because the area of the proposed solar array is completely encompassed by these previous studies, no new field investigations were conducted for the present assessment. This assessment has been completed in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA, and the guidelines for preparation of archaeological reports by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1990). It also complies with Sections 1.C.1 and 1.C.2 of the Cultural Resources Element of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, which require literature searches and archaeological field surveys prior to development entitlements. Project Description The Project area is located in northern Orange County, California, approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and 1.5 miles southwest of Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway) (Figure 1). The Project area is within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF, which is bounded roughly by the San Gabriel River to the west, residential areas to the north and south, and residential and industrial uses to the east. Figure 1 Project AreaI2,000 2,0000 Feet 1:24,000Scale:1 in = 2,000 feet Project Area of Direct Impact (ADI) Archaeological Site (CA-ORA-851) Previous Survey Area (York and Willey 2004) Source: National Geographic Society 2013, Hellman Properties, LLC LEGEND Staging Yard Proposed Solar Arrays Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 3/9 The Project would consist of the construction of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) plant including PV modules, grid-interactive inverters, and racking structures. The plant will consist of 56 solar arrays spaced 8 feet apart and supported by concrete piers set 18 inches below grade. For the purposes of this assessment, the Project area is defined as all areas that would be subject to direct disturbance from installation of the photovoltaic plant, including the use of construction staging areas. The footprint of the areas subject to direct ground disturbance are shown as Areas of Direct Impact (ADI) in Figure 1. Project Setting The Hellman property is bordered to the northwest by the channelized San Gabriel River and the Haynes Cooling Channel. Wetlands owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority are south of the Hellman property. Also to the south, at the foot of Landing Hill, is the City-owned Gum Grove Park, while to the east the northern portion of Landing Hill has been developed for residential use. Natural Environment At an elevation of approximately three feet above sea level, the Project area is within the area formerly covered by wetlands associated with Alamitos Bay, an extensive tidal estuary at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. Alamitos Bay was one of several large estuaries along the coast of northern Orange County (along with Anaheim Bay, Bolsa Bay, and Newport Bay) that were formed as rising sea levels flooded the coastal drainages during the early Holocene (ca. 8000– 10,000 years before present [B.P.]). Initially, these consisted of open, relatively deep embayments during the rapid sea level rise that occurred before about 6000 B.P. These provided abundant fish and shellfish to prehistoric groups that moved among resource patches along their margins. As sea levels stabilized between about 6000–4000 B.P., silt began to accumulate along the inland edges of the embayments, forming extensive tidal wetlands and mudflats. This appears to be the time that the estuaries reached their maximum productivity of resources important to prehistoric Native Americans. Eventually, the siltation proceeded to the point that shellfish habitat was restricted, limiting their utility as an economic resource for prehistoric populations. Although in the recent past the Project area was covered by the mud flats and marshes of Alamitos Bay, several thousand years ago some of the Project area may have been dry land. Before the stabilization of sea levels at mid-Holocene, the surface of Alamitos Bay would have been lower, and low terraces to the north and west of Landing Hill may have been exposed and available for human habitation. As sea levels rose, the margins of the bay would have expanded, eventually covering those areas with alluvium. Cultural Setting Coastal areas of southern California appear to have been occupied by humans for at least 10,000 years. Archaeological evidence suggests the earliest inhabitants were well adapted to marine habitats, exploiting shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline (Dixon 1999; Erlandson 1994; Vellanoweth and Altschul 2002). Although these early sites are uncommon, archaeological components increase dramatically in number after about 8000 years before present Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 4/9 (B.P.), indicating expanding populations. This period, known regionally as the Millingstone Period due to the abundance of handstones and milling slabs in archaeological sites, saw the establishment of numerous settlements located adjacent to local lagoons and estuaries that supported edible plant, animal, and marine resources (Drover et al. 1983). By approximately 3500–3000 B.P., settlement patterns shifted to reflect more sedentary and territorial lifestyles. The number of sites decreased as populations settled into residential bases near freshwater sources and seasonal camps became more infrequent (Koerper et al. 2002). By around 1500 B.P., new patterns emerged that are associated with the florescence of the contemporary Native American group known as the Gabrielino, or Tongva, who occupied what is presently Los Angeles County and northern Orange County, along with the southern Channel Islands (Kroeber 1925). Settlement at this time is believed to have consisted of dispersed family groups that revolved around a relatively limited number of permanent village settlements that were located centrally with respect to a variety of resources (Koerper et al. 2002). The nearest of these village settlements to Landing Hill was the ethnographic village of Puvungna, located in what is now Long Beach just north and west of the Project area. In 1834, the Project area became part of Rancho Los Alamitos, which covered portions of southwestern Los Angeles and northwestern Orange Counties. The rancho was purchased in 1844 by Abel Stearns, who in 1881 sold it to Isaias Hellman, who built a ranch house near the north end of Landing Hill. At that time, the area surrounding the Project area was used for farming and cattle ranching. The property was developed for oil and gas production in the early-middle twentieth century and is currently owned by Hellman Properties, LLC. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations In 2019, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton in support of a proposed gas plant to be located approximately 320 feet southwest of the current project area (Wahoff 2019). The results of this records search, including previous surface and subsurface investigations and known cultural resources, are discussed below. Previous Surveys The 2019 records search revealed that at least 18 previous cultural resources surveys or other archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 mile of the current Project area, and that the entire Project area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources on at least four occasions (Archaeological Associates 1980; Rosenthal and Padon 1990; Stickel 1996; York and Willey 2004). None of these field surveys revealed any cultural resources within the Project area, although one (Archaeological Associates 1980) noted two dispersed scatters of marine shell (CA-ORA-850 and -851) located approximately 500 and 50 feet east and northeast of the Project area, respectively. Other cultural resources within 0.25 mile include CA-ORA-257, -258, and -259, all consisting of remnants of prehistoric shell middens along the crest of Landing Hill to the south of the Project area (Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996; Cleland et al. 2007); P-30-01544, a large but dispersed scatter of marine shell and artifacts located on the Boeing Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 5/9 property immediately north of Adolfo Lopez Drive (Underwood 2000); and the Los Alamitos Pump Station, approximately 550 feet north of the Project area (Shepard 2002). Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 mile of Project Area Primary Number Trinomial Description Time Period P-19-186926 N/A Alamitos Pump Station Historic P-30-000257 CA-ORA-257 Shell midden, groundstone and flaked stone implements Prehistoric P-30-000258 CA-ORA-258 Shell midden; groundstone and flaked stone implements; polishing stone, debitage Prehistoric P-30-000259 CA-ORA-259 Shell midden; groundstone and flaked stone implements; debitage Prehistoric P-30-000850 CA-ORA-850 Shell scatter Prehistoric P-30-000851 CA-ORA-851 Shell scatter Prehistoric P-30-001544 N/A Shell scatter; mano; hammerstone Prehistoric The most recent surface survey that included the current Project area (York and Willey 2004) also identified four scatters of marine shell elsewhere within the Hellman property. These contained no prehistoric artifacts and were all mixed with gravel, asphalt, and various recent debris. These and other shell-bearing surface deposits in the project area were interpreted as dredge spoil mixed with imported fill that was used to infill the former marshlands associated with Alamitos Bay at this location. Previous Subsurface Investigations Although several extensive archaeological excavations have been conducted along the crest of Landing Hill just to the south and east of the Project area (Cleland et al. 2007; Desautels 1981; Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996), subsurface investigation in the lower elevations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF have been limited to an unreported testing program at CA-ORA-851 by LSA Associates in 1990, and an exploratory archaeological trenching program by EDAW, Inc. in 2006. LSA Testing at CA-ORA-851: In 1990, LSA Associates initiated an extensive subsurface testing program for a planned residential development on a portion of Landing Hill just to the east of the Project area. This testing program included several large prehistoric sites along the crest of the hill (CA-ORA-260, -261, -262, and -263), as well as site CA-ORA-851, which is located approximately 50 feet to the east of the present Project area. Although the LSA testing program included the excavation of more than 100 test units among the five sites, the project was discontinued before a report was completed and the artifacts have since disappeared (see Cleland et al. 2007; York 2006). However, York (2006) reported that field forms provided to EDAW, Inc. by LSA indicated that two 1-by-1 meter (m) test units were excavated at CA-ORA-851, both yielding only small amounts of marine shell. The shells were limited to the upper 20 cm of the Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 6/9 deposit, in a highly disturbed context that also included imported fill and construction debris. Below this disturbed layer, according to the LSA field notes, were natural sediments containing no shells. Exploratory Trenching by EDAW, Inc. (York 2006): In 2006, EDAW, Inc. conducted a program of exploratory archaeological trenching at various locations throughout the Hellman Ranch OGPF in support of a proposed underground tank farm replacement project (York 2006). A total of 31 trenches were excavated, including 20 along proposed pipeline alignments and 11 within the footprint of the proposed tank farm. Each trench measured approximately 10 m long and between 120 and 200 centimeters (cm) deep. Of the 31 trenches, 4 were placed within or immediately adjacent to the present Project area: trenches 1, 2, and 20 in the far southeastern portion, and Trench 6 in the northwestern portion (Table 2). Table 2. Exploratory Trenches Reported by EDAW, Inc. within Project Area (York 2006) Trench Depth Description 11 0-40 cm Disturbed mix of natural sediments and artificial fill; contains small amount of marine shell 40-120 cm Natural alluvial/estuarine sediments – no cultural material 2 0-120 cm Natural estuarine and alluvial sediments – no cultural material 6 0-30 cm Disturbed silty clay loam – no cultural material 30-120 cm Natural estuarine and alluvial sediments – no cultural material 20 0-120 cm Natural estuarine and alluvial sediments – no cultural material 1 Partially within the recorded boundary of CA-ORA-851 The results of the 2006 trenching program within the present Project area (York 2006) are shown in Table 2. Trench 1, placed at the northern boundary of CA-ORA-851, appears to confirm the field notes for the LSA excavations: the upper 40 cm is clearly disturbed and contains sand, gravel, sparse marine shell, and recent debris. Underlying this were apparently undisturbed alluvial or estuarine fine sand, silt, and clay sediments that contained no shell. On this basis, York (2006) concluded that CA-ORA-851 likely represents an artificial fill deposit composed in part from sediment dredged from nearby Alamitos Bay. Cultural Resources Assessment and Recommendations Several previous intensive archaeological surveys that have included portions of the Hellman Ranch OGPF revealed no archaeological resources within the present Project area. Of the seven cultural resources that have been previously recorded within 0.25 mile of the Project area, only one, CA-ORA-851, is closer than approximately 500 feet to areas subject to direct disturbance from the proposed solar array construction. This resource, a dispersed scatter of marine shell fragments, was subject to subsurface archaeological examinations in 1996 and 2006, both of which indicated that the deposit most likely represents recently imported fill materials. It would Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 7/9 not be affected by the proposed solar array construction. Additionally, the rest of the 2006 exploratory trenching program designed to identify buried archaeological resources at various locations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF was entirely negative, including at several locations within the present Project area (York 2006). These results indicate that the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is generally low, at least in near-surface contexts. During the late prehistoric and early historic periods, the Project area was within the low, marshy areas associated with Alamitos Bay and would have been regularly inundated and generally unsuitable for more than occasional habitation. However, as noted in previous studies, the lowlands at this location are largely mantled by either recent alluvium or artificial fill that could obscure older surfaces that could have supported habitation earlier in the Holocene when sea levels were lower than present. Moreover, the possibility for non-habitation archaeological activities, such as human interments, should be considered for these lowland contexts – particularly in view of the extensive mortuary complex that was identified nearby along the crest of Landing Hill (Cleland et al. 2007). Finally, it is also possible that archaeological materials associated with the historic period use of this locality – perhaps refuse deposits from the early Hellman Ranch, or early twentieth century industrial remains – could also be encountered. For these reasons, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist and a Native American cultural monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the solar facility. Should potentially significant archaeological resources be encountered, construction would be suspended while a treatment plan is developed in consultation with the City, Hellman Properties, and tribal representatives as appropriate. Sincerely, Andrew L. York Senior Archaeologist Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 8/9 REFERENCES CITED Archaeological Associates 1980 Archaeological Survey Report: the Hellman Property in Seal Beach, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan. City of Seal Beach. https://www.sealbeachca.gov. Cleland, James, Andrew York, and Lorraine Willey 2007 Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications 3. On file at AECOM, San Diego. Desautels, Roger 1981 Archaeological Test Report on the Hellman Property Located in the City of Seal Beach, California (Tract 11302). Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Dixon, E. J. 1999 Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archaeology & the First Colonization of Western North America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Drover, C. E., H. C. Koerper, and P. Langenwalter II 1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-Ora-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(3 & 4):1–84. Erlandson, Jon M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Koerper, H. C., R. D. Mason, and M. L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63-81. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Devon Shay Hellman Properties LLC April 26, 2023 aecom.com Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx 9/9 Redwine, P. 1958 Landing Hill. Report on file, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. Rosenthal, Jane, and Beth Padon 1990 Field and Archival Review of Archaeological Sites on Hellman Property. Prepared for Mola Development, Newport Beach. LSA Associates, Irvine. Underwood, Jackson 2000 Site Record for P-30-0001544. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Shepard, Richard S. Site Record for P-19-1866926. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Stickel, E. Gary 1996 An Archaeological Site Survey of the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Vellanoweth, R. L., and J. H. Altschul 2002 Antiquarians, Culture Historians, and Scientists: The Archaeology of the Bight. In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Donn R. Grenda, pp. 85–111. SRI Press, Tucson. Wahoff, Tanya 2019 Hellman Proposed Gas Plant Cultural Resources Assessment Report. Letter report to Devon Shay, Hellman Properties, LLC. On file at Hellman Properties LLC, 1 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach, California, 90740. York, Andrew L. 2006 Archaeological Investigations in Support of the Hellman Tank Farm Replacement Project, Seal Beach, California. EDAW (now AECOM), San Diego, California. Prepared for the Department of Development Services, City of Seal Beach. York, Andrew L., and Lorraine Willey 2004 Cultural Resources Survey for the Hellman Properties Tank Farm Replacement, Seal Beach, California. Prepared for the Department of Development Services, City of Seal Beach. Main Office Phone: 310 - 798-2400 Direct Dial: 310-798-2412 Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP 700 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 www.cbcearthlaw.com Michelle N. Black Email Address: mnb@cbcearthlaw.com September 19, 2025 Via Email stemple@sealbeachca.gov Mr. Shaun Temple Planning Manager City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Dear Mr. Temple, Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) has advocated for the protection and restoration of Los Cerritos Wetlands for over twenty years. It is in this spirit that LCWLT submits these comments on the Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project (Project). Although LCWLT supports the use of renewable solar energy where it is appropriate and environmentally friendly, LCWLT is concerned that siting the 1.5- megawatt Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project within Los Cerritos Wetlands will adversely impact the wetland complex. The Project would construct 3 arrays with 56 solar table structures and 3,100 solar panels on 4.66 acres surrounded by Los Cerritos Wetlands and adjacent to the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 6.) The system would require concrete foundations and 388 concrete piers, 18 inches in diameter, driven 6 feet into the ground, for support. (MND p. 7.) Collector cables, inverters, subpanels, power cables, transformers, and disconnect switches would also be required, with the transformer pad being 12 feet in width and 33 feet in length. (MND p. 8.) The Project would require excavating 600 feet of underground trench, with an expected construction time of three to four months. (MND p. 9.) This will require significant disruption of a sensitive location. Construction would require “removal of the vegetative cover” and all organic matter “from the limits of the construction area.” (MND p. 12.) After any grading, the 388 piles would be driven 6 feet underground. Given the location of the Project within 1 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 2 Los Cerritos Wetlands, however, groundwater can be expected at depths of four to seven feet below ground surface. (MND p. 12.) The Project’s anticipated lifetime is 25 to 30 years. LCWLT is concerned the Project construction and operation will harm important biological resources, be subject to flooding, and have unstudied and unmitigated glint and glare impacts. Specifically, the MND fails to account for Least Bell’s Vireo populations observed nearby and for wetland indicators present over recent rainy seasons. The MND also relies on an unconstructed berm to reduce the likelihood of flooding. It omits discussion of panel glint and glare that may blind or otherwise disrupt bikers and other recreational users of the Hellman Ranch and San Gabriel River Bike Trails. The MND further fails to analyze the site as a tribal cultural landscape recognized by the California Coastal Commission and other public agencies. Accordingly, LCWLT urges the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to further analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts if it wishes to approve the Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project’s significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) When substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact report is required. A lead agency prepares an initial study to determine whether an EIR, a negative declaration, or an MND is the appropriate environmental review document. (14 CCR § 15365, herein “CEQA Guidelines.”) “All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study.” (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)(1).) The initial study must consider whether any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant adverse impact. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(b)(1).) The purpose of the initial study is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and “documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.” (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) “Where an agency. . . fails to gather information and undertake 2 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 3 an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate.” (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project’s potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law. When a project may have a significant impact on the environment, it necessitates the preparation and certification of an EIR, not an MND. One of the first steps in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. “[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under the CEQA Guidelines, “‘Substantial evidence’ means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Guidelines § 15384(a), emphasis added; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905.) The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) Review is de novo, with a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1110; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602-1603.) As discussed further below, as the MND fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project’s potential environmental effects, and as there is substantial evidence of a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on biological resources, hydrology, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, an EIR is required. I. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources. The Project site consists of 4.66 acres in the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, east of the San Gabriel River and north of Pacific Coast Highway. The Project site is within and surrounded by Los Cerritos Wetlands. The solar facility would be constructed immediately north of 100 acres owned by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority, east of an additional 71 acres of wetlands owned by the Authority, south of 43 acres zoned open space-natural that serve as a County of Orange retention basin, and west of the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 2.) 3 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 4 Both the Project site and surrounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species. These species include, but are not limited to, southern tarplant, Least Bell’s Vireo, Belding’s Savannah Sparrow, and the Western Burrowing Owl. The Project’s potential impacts on these birds and on rare plant species must be thoroughly evaluated and carefully mitigated. A. The MND’s Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated. According to Table 2-1 of the Biological Technical Report, the MND’s conclusions about the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources were based on: 1) Focused botanical survey were conducted in summer 2022 and winter 2023; 2) Least Bell’s Vireo surveys conducted in summer 2022; and 3) Jurisdictional waters/wetlands assessment performed between August 2022 and March 2023. As each of these investigations occurred at least 2.5 years ago, they are outdated and cannot be relied on to determine the Project will not have significant impacts on biological resources. Southern tarplant, which has a California rare plant rank of 1B, was most recently mapped in 2022. Similarly, Coulter’s goldfield individuals were mapped in 2023. However, both rare plants are annual species, meaning the MND’s biological resources analysis should be based on the results of surveys from the most recent blooming season. Least Bell’s Vireo, listed as endangered under the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts, is a migratory species whose population and nesting locations fluctuate annually. The MND must include results 2025 breeding season surveys. It does not. An EIR should include this missing information. B. The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND. During the record rainy seasons of the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24, many depressional wetlands across Los Cerritos Wetlands held water for upwards of 6 months, allowing wetland indicators to present themselves. However, the MND’s jurisdictional wetlands assessment includes four photos taken in August 2022. The photos predate these record rains and do not accurately capture current site conditions. On the contrary, aerial imagery from February 2024 indicates substantial ponding and flooding of the Project area, which should be analyzed in the Technical Report and MND. Thus, substantial evidence demonstrates the area has recently been wetland, a fact not disclosed in the MND. Any wetlands designations or potential ramifications of the Project to wetlands or 4 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 5 wetland-dependent species must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. Figure 1. Aerial imagery from February 2024 with areas of flooded outlined in red. C. Least Bell’s Vireo Use the Project Site. LCWLT has performed surveys of the Least Bell’s Vireo population in the Heron Pointe Bioswale, nearly adjacent to the Project site, for the last 5 breeding seasons. Individuals of this endangered species have been observed nesting, each year, within 100 feet of the project boundary and have also been observed foraging within the area the MND discloses would be subject to permanent Project impact. The MND acknowledges that 96-decibel noise is expected at the Heron Pointe Bioswale. Foraging habitat for Least Bell’s Vireo is protected by state and federal law. Impacts to this species could be considered a “take,” and warrant a mandatory finding of significant impact under CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo. 5 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 6 D. An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts. The MND’s Biological Technical Report mentions “fuel modification zones” but does not provide any information as to how these areas are permitted, the activities that occur in these zones, or the timing of activities performed in these zones. If fuel modification occurred before biological surveys for the MND were conducted, the Project’s Biological Technical Report may not reflect the full scope of species or individuals present on the site under “pre-project” conditions. The data collected in the surveys may not be valid. Since the fuel modification zones overlap with the locations of special status plant populations, the fuel modification zones require a coastal development permit. In order to ensure fuel modification occurs within a comprehensive plan, and that all fuel modification impacts are considered cumulatively, we request the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring preparation of a permitted plan that covers all fuel modification practices throughout the property. Table 3-5 of the IS/MND includes a sensitive vegetation type called “Distichlis spicata – annual grasses” that comprises 1.66 acres of the total project impact area. This vegetation type overlaps with fuel modification areas. However, removal of vegetation in the area where this vegetation type is found could result in a level of disturbance that promotes invasion of annual grasses. This “type conversion” is a significant impact on biological resources that is not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the MND. Furthermore, aerial imagery analysis indicates that most of this vegetation type (Distichlis spicata – annual grasses) has been disturbed by mowing as recently as September 2025. Heavy mowing can degrade sensitive native plant communities and alter vegetation alliances. Mowing of Distichlis spicata should require a coastal development permit. Additionally, this mowing nullifies the findings of the 2022 botanical surveys performed for this Project’s Biological Technical Report. We request the City require pre-construction surveys of site vegetation after the passage of 2 blooming seasons, without mowing interference, within the study area. 6 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 7 Figure 2. Aerial imagery from September 2025 indicating recent mowing of the Distichlis spicata - annual grasses herbaceous alliance. E. The Project’s Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance. Mitigation Measure BIO-2, provides, “To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded.” This Measure is not enforceable due to the inclusion of the modifier “To the extent feasible.” The Measure does not state the criteria for feasibility or the entity that will decide feasibility. This renders the mitigation speculative. Mitigation measures must be concrete and enforceable. (Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445; Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b).) Mitigation Measure BIO-5, the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, fails to recognize that the project area has been mowed as recently as September 2025. For efficacy, this Mitigation Measure should prohibit impacts to the existing plant community until the completion of pre-construction surveys. Due to the potential that both Southern Tarplant and Coulter’s Goldfields have been impacted by unauthorized mowing, the replacement mitigation ratio should be changed to 10:1. Such a ratio would adequately mitigate for previous, unpermitted impacts to these special status plant species. 7 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 8 The Project should incorporate a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction jurisdictional wetland assessment be performed during the wet season most proximal to future construction. The Project should also incorporate a mitigation measure requiring pre- construction surveys for Least Bell’s Vireo and consultations with both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. As Project mitigation fails to eliminate the Project’s potential for significant impacts to listed plant and wildlife species, an EIR is required. II. The Project May Have Significant Undisclosed and Unmitigated Hydrological Impacts. As depicted above, the Project site has experienced recent ponding. It is surrounded by bodies of water and the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. Accordingly, accurate analysis of flooding and hydrological impacts is important. The MND appears to rely on an offsite berm to reduce flood impacts at the Project. Section 3.4.10 of the IS/MND states that an earthen berm proposed by a neighboring landowner will “further reduce the potential for flooding on-site.” (MND p. 51.) However, a Project cannot rely upon mitigation provided by another agency, at another site. When a potentially significant environmental impact cannot be mitigated by the lead agency, it must be assumed to remain significant. Thus, the impact analysis must be performed from the perspective that this non-existent berm may never be constructed. Furthermore, the IS/MND appears to rely on a technical report produced by Moffatt and Nichol in 2019 for a different project previously proposed for the subject property. Aside from the technical report’s age and irrelevant subject matter, the technical report was not provided as part of the IS/MND appendix. This renders the IS/MND incomplete. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study must be specifically prepared for this project and circulated to the public and decisionmakers as part of an EIR. CEQA does not tolerate attempts to sweep important public safety issues “under the rug.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v 32nd Dist. Ag. Ass’n. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 935.) III. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Glint and Glare Impacts. A. The Project May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal Gathering Area. As acknowledged in the MND, the LCWA-owned Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is located immediately south of the Project site. The restoration 8 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 9 project – scheduled to begin construction in October 2025 – will contain a 6-foot earthen perimeter berm on its northern boundary. This berm will separate the Hellman property from the LCWA parcel. As discussed above, the MND assumes implementation of that berm to justify its conclusion that flooding impacts from sea level rise will not occur. (MND p. 51). Accordingly, implementation of said berm – and all its functions – should be incorporated throughout the analysis, including that of glare. To determine potential glare impacts, the MND identifies three observation points (OP) in the LCWA property, two of which are effectively located on the wetlands-side of the perimeter berm: #28 (33.752156, -118.092389) and #29 (33.752155, -118.095105). Per the glare analysis (MND Appendix D), these OP were set 6 feet off the ground. This is too low. There will be a docent-only access trail located atop the perimeter berm (Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration p. 24). Albeit restricted use, this trail will periodically contain recreational users who will travel the length of the trail to travel from one side of the restored wetlands to the other. At +12 ft. (6 ft. berm and 6 ft. user) the recreational user atop the berm would be taller than the panel arrays. And as the panels are south-facing (i.e. facing the perimeter trail) and there is not a “barrier” obstructing views, users would have direct line of site to the panels along the majority of this trail. There is a strong potential for glare impacts to users of the perimeter trail, and an analysis of the strength, severity, and duration of these potential impacts must be conducted. These are likely significant glare impacts, with significant impacts to recreation. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts. As the perimeter berm/trail are irregularly shaped, and the selected observation points are located on portions of the future trail where the recreational user is walking east/west (parallel to the panels), it is recommended that the EIR’s glare analysis also include OP on the north-south portions of the trail where the user is looking directly at the panels along that trail stretch as they otherwise enjoy their walk of the restored wetlands. Once the analysis is revised to understand and disclose potential impacts to recreational users of the perimeter trail, these impacts must be fully mitigated. Given the project-specific needs (south facing panels situated to avoid shading), and site constraints (limited space to put the panels given ongoing operations and highly sensitive wetland/habitat areas), determining feasible mitigation could be a challenge. If the revised glare analysis shows an impact to users of the perimeter trail, and this impact cannot be fully mitigated, the EIR must disclose this information to the public. Moreover, the Project should not move forward. The City of Seal Beach is on the cusp of having a restored wetlands right in their backyard. We would hope Seal Beach would prioritize protecting this important amenity and its recreational users. 9 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 10 Additionally, the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project will include two public outlooks and one tribal gathering area on its southern boundary. The outlooks and gathering area will be higher in elevation than surrounding lands and are oriented so that public and tribal entities will look down and across the restored wetlands (i.e. facing the solar panels). As these outlooks and tribal gathering area will be set at a higher elevation than the berm, they will likely have line of sight to the panels. The EIR’s revised glare analysis should analyze potential glare impacts to the public and to tribes who will use these outlooks and tribal gathering area. Lastly, MND Table 3-1 identifies OP1-8 and OP26 as “no glare with existing vegetation screening” whereas the other OPs are described as “no glare with or without existing vegetation screening.” The MND does not explain this discrepancy. The revised analysis should include a “without vegetation” scenario for OP1-8 and OP26. B. Project Glint May Blind Bikers on the San Gabriel River Bike Path. The MND fails to disclose or analyze whether the solar panels are visible to north- bound bikers along the adjacent San Gabriel River bike path. The revised analysis must include analysis of glint. Bikers travel at high speed along this path, and a blinding flash from the panels as they whiz by could result in an accident and injuries. C. The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds. As birds fly at varying altitudes, the glint and glare of the solar panels may impact birds, including species of special concern, that fly above or below 6 feet above ground. Solar arrays reflect light that, at certain angles, makes the panels appear to birds as bodies of water. This “lake effect,” can injure or kill birds that try to land in these nonexistent bodies of water. If affected birds include listed species known to inhabit Los Cerritos Wetlands, including state and federally-listed birds, the Project may “take” birds under the Acts. (Attachment 2, pp. 9-10.) Solar facilities may also interfere with songbird migrations for species relying on polarized light for orientation. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) A review of studies of solar facilities reported: By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and fly away. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation. As well as increasing the direct risk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy reserves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mortality from starvation. 10 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 11 Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds from taking-off. For example, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (ensu) – including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podici-pediformes), cormorants (Suliformes), coots (Gruiformes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis) – and those that use water for some aspect of their life history (e.g., family Chara- driidae) are amongst the mortalities at solar facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented amongst the cases where starvation has been identified as cause of death. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) While the MND claims impacts from the “lake effect” are unlikely due to the Project’s small size and the presence of other nearby water sources (MND p. 32), the MND cites no support for this claim. That an impact occurs at large PV installations does not mean it will not occur at a smaller one. Birds may land at any perceived water bodies in the area, including the Project. Given the presence of wetlands nearby, and the higher prevalence of birds in the area, the Project’s location near water may exacerbate, not reduce, this potential impact. Furthermore, the MND does not address potential interference with songbird migration. An EIR must be prepared to disclose, analyze, and fully mitigate these potentially significant undisclosed impacts on biological resources. IV. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes. The Project’s Cultural Resources assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cultural Landscape that has been identified for this area in previously-approved environmental documents. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority’s 2021 Program EIR and the 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project both indicate that consultations with local tribal groups identified a Traditional Cultural Landscape throughout the current extent of the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. The potential for this Traditional Cultural Landscape was first described by consultations performed by Coastal Commission staff regarding the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. The LCWA’s 2023 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Cogstone, 2023) includes an evaluation of what is called the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL). This evaluation determined that “The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and has sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible 11 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project September 19, 2025 Page 12 for the CRHR.” (Attachment 2.) The proposed project’s assessment of Tribal Cultural Resources makes no mention of the PTCL and therefore does not consider potential impacts or offer mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any such impacts. Impacts generated by the proposed Project to this Traditional Cultural Landscape would be considered significant and unavoidable based on the LCWA’s previous CEQA determinations in the area. Conclusion LCWLT thanks the City for its consideration of these comments and urges it to prepare an environmental impact report before considering this potentially impactful Project further. Sincerely, Michelle Black Enclosures 1. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Cogstone (2023). 2. P.A. Fleming, All that Glitters: Review of solar energy impacts on fauna, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2025). 12 ENCLOSURE 1 13 Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project April 2023 Appendix F: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project lllilllllllllillllll mo f fatt & nichol 14 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Office (714) 974-8300 Field Offices San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Sacramento • Arizona cogstone.com Toll free 888-333-3212 Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SDB State Certifications DBE, WBE,, UDBE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE SOUTHERN LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT Prepared for: Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority 100 North Old San Gabriel Canyon Road Azusa, CA 91702 Authors: Desireé Martinez, M.A., Shannon Lopez, M.A., John Gust, Ph.D. With contributions from: Joyce Perry Principal Investigator: Desireé Martinez, M.A., RPA Date: October 2022; Revised January 2023, March 2023 Cogstone Project Number: 5148 Type of Study: Cultural Resources Assessment Sites: P-30-000256, P-30-000258, P-30-000260, 2021_08_05_SD.1-I, 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I, 2021_08_06_SD.1, 2021_08_06_SD.2, 2021_08_06_SD.3, Hellman Channel, Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles: Los Alamitos (1984), Seal Beach (1981) Area: 105 acres Key Words: Culturally sensitive area, Gabrielino/Gabrieleño/Tongva/Kizh, Juaneño/Acjachemen, Puvungna, Motuucheyngna; Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HISTORY 15 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 2 PROJECT PERSONNEL ...................................................................................................................................... 5 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................................... 6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ....................................................................................... 6 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 6 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ............................................................................................................................. 7 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................... 7 NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS ....................................................................................................... 8 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307 ........................................................ 8 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................................. 8 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................... 9 GEOLOGICAL SETTING .................................................................................................................................... 9 STRATIGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 CULTURAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................................... 10 PRE-CONTACT HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 10 ETHNOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................. 15 GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO; TONGVA; KIZH)......................................................................................................... 16 JUANEÑO (ACJACHEMEN) ..................................................................................................................................... 23 HISTORIC SETTING .......................................................................................................................................... 25 CITY OF SEAL BEACH ........................................................................................................................................... 25 RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS ....................................................................................................................................... 26 ISAIAS WOLF HELLMAN (OCTOBER 3, 1842-APRIL 9, 1920) .................................................................................. 28 HELLMAN RANCH ................................................................................................................................................. 28 LOS ANGELES BASIN OIL INDUSTRY ...................................................................................................................... 29 PROJECT AREA HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 29 RECORDS SEARCH ................................................................................................................................................ 30 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM ......................................................... 30 P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1) ........................................................................................................................ 31 P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3) ........................................................................................................................ 31 P-30-000260 ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 OTHER SOURCES .............................................................................................................................................. 31 SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH ...................................................................................................................... 33 TRIBAL COORDINATION AND INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................ 33 TRIBAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................... 33 TRIBAL INTERVIEWS.............................................................................................................................................. 35 SURVEY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 40 NEWLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 41 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES ............................................................................................................................. 48 EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING............................................................................................................................ 48 16 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone iii METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................ 49 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 54 GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 55 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 CLASSIFICATIONS FOR BURIED SITE POTENTIAL ARE AS FOLLOW ............................................................................. 55 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 56 SOILS MAPPED OVER ARTIFICIAL FILL .................................................................................................................... 56 SOILS MAPPED OVER MIDDLE TO LATE PLEISTOCENE OLD MARINE TO NONMARINE DEPOSITS .................................. 57 TRIBAL FEEDBACK ............................................................................................................................................... 57 PAST USE OF SALT MARSHES ....................................................................................................................... 57 SALT AS MEDICINE ................................................................................................................................................ 58 FISHING ............................................................................................................................................................... 60 COLLECTING PLANTS AND ANIMALS ...................................................................................................................... 60 CURRENT USE OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AND SALT MARSHES .................................... 62 FUTURE USE OF SALT MARSHES ................................................................................................................. 63 COLLECTION OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS ................................................................................................................. 63 HARVESTING SALT ................................................................................................................................................ 64 COLLECTION OF DREDGED SHELL ........................................................................................................................ 64 RECONNECTING WITH THE LAND ........................................................................................................................... 64 PLACE TO LAUNCH TULE BOATS ........................................................................................................................... 64 CO-STEWARDSHIP ................................................................................................................................................ 65 EDUCATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 66 GATHERING PLACE ............................................................................................................................................... 67 LAND CAPABILITY ................................................................................................................................................ 68 NURSERY ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 NAME OF THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................................... 68 CONCERNS .......................................................................................................................................................... 68 CONTAMINATION .................................................................................................................................................. 68 ACCESS ................................................................................................................................................................ 69 THE PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ........................................................................ 69 RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................................................... 70 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES .................................................................................................................. 70 IDENTIFYING LANDSCAPES ............................................................................................................................... 71 LANDSCAPE DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 72 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDANCE .................................................... 73 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 74 GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO, TONGVA) RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAND: MAXAAX .................... 74 PUVUNGNA .......................................................................................................................................................... 76 MOTUUCHEYNGNA ............................................................................................................................................... 80 CONNECTION BETWEEN LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX, PUVUNGNA AND MOTUUCHEYNGNA ........................ 82 EVALUATING THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ......................................................................... 83 APPROACH .......................................................................................................................................................... 83 THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AS A "PROPERTY" .......................................................... 84 NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ...................................................................................... 84 INTEGRITY OF RELATIONSHIP ............................................................................................................................... 84 INTEGRITY OF CONDITION .................................................................................................................................... 85 NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 85 CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 86 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ 86 17 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone iv CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 87 ISOLATES ............................................................................................................................................................ 87 NEWLY RECORDED SITES ............................................................................................................................. 88 2021_08_06_SD.1 .............................................................................................................................................. 88 2021_08_06_SD.2 .............................................................................................................................................. 88 2021_08_06_SD.3 .............................................................................................................................................. 88 HELLMAN CHANNEL ............................................................................................................................................. 89 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES .................................................................................................................. 89 P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1) ........................................................................................................................ 89 P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3) AND P-30-000260 ........................................................................................... 90 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................................. 93 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS..................................................................................................................... 109 APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE PEIR ...................................................................... 115 APPENDIX C. MAPS AND FIGURES ................................................................................................................. 129 APPENDIX D. USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................... 141 APPENDIX E. PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES ................................................................... 151 APPENDIX F. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................... 164 APPENDIX G. HISTORIC TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS ......................................................................................... 212 APPENDIX H. SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH .............................................................................................. 216 APPENDIX I. SAMPLE TAG INVITATION ..................................................................................................... 218 APPENDIX J. JULY 23, 2021 SITE VISIT SIGN IN SHEET ........................................................................... 225 APPENDIX K. INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM AND QUESTIONS .............................................................. 227 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX L. SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING LOCATON MAPS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 233 APPENDIX M. SOILS MAP .................................................................................................................................. 236 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX N. DPR SITE RECORDS .................................................................................. 238 18 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone v LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP .............................................................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 2. AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX AND THE SOUTH LCW RESTORATION PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 3. COMMODITIES TRADED FROM GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO; TONGVA; KIZH) TERRITORY TO/FROM THE KOHATK (O’ODHAM) ON THE GILA RIVER (FROM BEAN ET AL. 1978) ............................................................. 19 FIGURE 4. A PORTION OF THE 1937/1938 KIRKMAN-HARRIMAN PICTORIAL AND HISTORICAL MAP OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHOWING THE COUNTY AS IT EXISTED IN 1860 WITH THE PROJECT AREA OVERLAIN ............. 22 FIGURE 5. MEETING WITH LCWA. COASTAL COMMISSION, AND TAG ON JULY 23, 2021.................................... 35 FIGURE 6. MERCEDES DORAME AND CINDI ALVITRE, GUM GROVE PARK, SEAL BEACH, CA AUGUST 14, 2021. 38 FIGURE 7. CRAIG TORRES AND NICHOLAS ROCHA, LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS, SEAL BEACH, CA AUGUST 28, 202 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 8. OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN LCW PROJECT AREA SHOWING DENSE VEGETATION, FACING NORTHEAST ................................................................................................................................................................. 40 FIGURE 9. OVERVIEW DREDGE SEDIMENTS AND SHELL WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................. 41 FIGURE 10. SEGMENT OF HELLMAN CHANNEL NEAR 1ST STREET; FACING EAST .................................................. 42 FIGURE 11. 2021_08_05_SD.1-I, ISOLATED OBSIDIAN DEBITAGE ............................................................................ 43 FIGURE 12. 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I, GRANITIC MANO AND CHALCEDONY SCRAPER ............................................... 43 FIGURE 13. OVERVIEW OF FIRST WOOD PILE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1, FACING SOUTH ..................................... 44 FIGURE 14. OVERVIEW OF SECOND WOOD PILE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1, FACING NORTH ................................. 44 FIGURE 15. OVERVIEW OF CONCRETE PILE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1, FACING SOUTH ........................................ 45 FIGURE 16. METAL SCRAP WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1. ............................................................................................ 45 FIGURE 18. OVERVIEW OF CERAMIC TILE IN 2021_08_06_SD.2 ............................................................................. 47 FIGURE 19. HISTORIC SODA FIRED CERAMIC PIPE SHERD ........................................................................................ 47 FIGURE 20. QUARTZ FLAKE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.3 .......................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 21. PINK QUARTZITE TOOL WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.3 .............................................................................. 48 FIGURE 22. GREY QUARTZITE SCRAPER WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.3 ....................................................................... 48 FIGURE 23. STP 1 AT 2021_08_05_SD.1/I POST-EXCAVATION, VIEW TO THE NORTH. NOTE DIMENSIONAL LUMBER AT BOTTOM OF STP. .................................................................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 24. STP 1B AT 2021_08_05_SD.1/I POST-EXCAVATION. NOTE DIMENSIONAL LUMBER AT BOTTOM OF STP. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 50 FIGURE 25. STP 2 AT 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I POST-EXCAVATION. ........................................................................... 51 FIGURE 26. TEU 1 AT 2021_08_06.SD.3 POST EXCAVATION AT 55 CENTIMETERS DEEP, VIEW TO THE NORTH. ... 53 FIGURE 27. STP 3 IN TEU 1 AT 2021_08_06.SD.3 POST EXCAVATION AT 152 CENTIMETERS DEEP, VIEW TO THE NORTH. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53 FIGURE 28. LITHIC FLAKE (4) 1.4FROM TEU 1, 0 TO 10 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE....................................... 53 FIGURE 29. POSSIBLE LITHIC FLAKES FROM TEU 1, 0 TO 10 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE. .............................. 53 FIGURE 30. POSSIBLE LITHIC FLAKE FROM TEU 1, 16 TO 26 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE. .............................. 54 FIGURE 31. POSSIBLE LITHIC FLAKE FROM TEU 1, 20 TO 30 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE. .............................. 54 FIGURE 32. MONUMENT AT THE BALLONA DISCOVERY CENTER CREATED BY ROBERT DORAME ........................ 62 FIGURE 33. HEIDI LUCERO (ACJACHEMEN) AND FRANK MAGALLANES (TI’AT SOCIETY) PADDLING A TULE BOAT MADE DURING THE MOOMPETAM AMERICAN INDIAN FESTIVAL AT THE AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH RAINBOW HARBOR SURROUNDED BY PRIVATE BOATS. ............................. 65 FIGURE 34. RELATIONSHIPS TO RELATIVES (TORRES N.D.A) ................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 35. THE OTHER THREE RS (TORRES N.D.B). ................................................................................................ 76 FIGURE 36. PRAYER POLE DECORATED FOR SOLSTICE AT PUVUNGNA AT CSULB. ................................................ 78 FIGURE 37. DISCUSSIONS AT PUVUNGNA AT CSULB WITH TONGVA WALK PARTICIPANTS, JULY 20, 2019. .......... 79 FIGURE 38. REBURIAL AT PUVUNGNA AT CSULB IN 2016 (LEFT TO RIGHT) STEVE VILLA, CSU CHANCELLOR TIMOTHY WHITE, CSULB PRESIDENT JANE CLOSE CONOLEY, NAGPRA COORDINATOR CINDY ALVITRE, CSULB’S DIRECTOR OF AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES CRAIG STONE AND NAGPRA CHAIR LOUIS ROBLES JR. (DAILY 49’ER 2016). ................................................................................................................................................... 79 FIGURE 39. SIGN ALONG THE HELLMAN RANCH TRAIL. .......................................................................................... 81 FIGURE 40. OVERVIEW OF GATHERING PLACE CREATED ALONG THE TRAIL CONNECTING HERON POINT AND GUM GROVE PARK ..................................................................................................................................................... 81 19 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone vi FIGURE C - 1. TOPOGRAPHIC PROVINCES (AFTER LIGHTFOOT AND PARRISH 2009) ............................................ 130 FIGURE C - 2. GEOMORPHIC PROVINCES (AFTER LIGHTFOOT AND PARRISH 2009) ............................................. 131 FIGURE C - 3. GEOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN LCW PROJECT AREA ..................................................................... 132 FIGURE C - 4. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TIMELINE ................................................................................................. 133 FIGURE C - 5. GABRIELINO (TONGVA) TERRITORY (AFTER MCCAWLEY 1996) ................................................... 134 FIGURE C - 6. RESOURCES USED BY NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES BY ECOLOGICAL ZONES (BASED ON HEIZER AND ELSASSER 1980: FIGURE 32) .................................................................................................................................... 135 FIGURE C - 7. PACIFIC RIO GRANDE TRAILS LANDSCAPE (GATES ET AL. 2013: FIGURE 4) ................................ 136 FIGURE C - 8. JUANEÑO TERRITORY MAP (DATA COURTESY OF JUANEÑO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, ACJACHEMEN NATION) ............................................................................................................................................ 137 FIGURE C - 9. LAND GRANT MAP ............................................................................................................................. 138 FIGURE C - 10. LOCATION OF VILLAGES WITHIN THE PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ......... 139 FIGURE C - 11. EXTENT OF PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ................................................... 140 FIGURE D - 1. 1927 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 142 FIGURE D - 2. 1928 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 143 FIGURE D - 3. 1938 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 144 FIGURE D - 4. 1952 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 145 FIGURE D - 5. 1962 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 146 FIGURE D - 6. 1965 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 147 FIGURE D - 7. 1974 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 148 FIGURE D - 8. 1994 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 149 FIGURE D - 9. 2001 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER) ............... 150 FIGURE G - 1. 1896 USGS DOWNEY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1:62,500) ..................................................................... 213 FIGURE G - 2. 1935 USGS LOS ALAMITOS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1:31,680) ........................................................... 214 FIGURE G - 3. 1942 USGS DOWNEY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1:31,680) ..................................................................... 215 FIGURE L - 1. SURVEY COVERAGE AND RESULTS .................................................................................................. 234 FIGURE L - 2. SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022 EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING LOCATIONS ......................................... 235 FIGURE M - 1. SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................................................ 237 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CULTURAL SEQUENCE (AFTER MASON AND PETERSON 2004) ........................ 11 TABLE 2. ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED .......................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 3. LAND PATENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 4. TRIBES INVITED TO TAG ........................................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 5. TRIBAL MEMBERS INTERVIEWED .............................................................................................................. 36 TABLE 6. PLANNED EXCAVATION .............................................................................................................................. 48 TABLE 7. NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORING SCHEDULE ........................................................................................... 49 TABLE 8. SELECTED SALT MARSH PLANTS ................................................................................................................ 61 TABLE E – 1. P REVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN A O NE-MILE RADIUS OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX ................................................................................................................................................................................... 152 TABLE F – 1. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN A 3-MILE RADIUS OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX .............................................................................................................................................. 165 20 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF STUDY This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Project) as well as to document the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL; Figure 1). The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Figure 1. Project vicinity map co~tone PALIE0NT0L0GY •,.ltCH,'t,IE0LOGT •H15T0RT Long Beach n Pedrc 8 1 Pac fie ,c an Project Location So uth ern Los Cerrito s Wetlands Restoration City of Long B e ach Suns et Bea ch Lo s An ge les County, C A C ity of Sea l Beach Orange C ounty, C A II IJ Proje c t Area Anaheim ,,, 1 .. a z Orang e Santa Ana ,0 'IF. 0 N ewpor t B ea ch 0 2 .5 5 Ki lo meters I I I I I I 0 2 .5 I I I I I 1:300,000 I in = 5 mile s 21 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Project, located on the border of Los Angeles and Orange counties ( Figure 2), affords the opportunity to restore salt marsh, seasonal wetlands, and other freshwater wetlands within an approximately 503-acre area. The Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project (WRP), a partnership of 17 state and federal agencies, has identified the acquisition and restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetlands as a high regional priority. The restored habitat will provide multiple benefits, including provision of critical habitat for listed species and other fish and wildlife, carbon sequestration, improved flood control, sea level rise resiliency, preservation of tribal cultural resources, and improved public access to open space. The Project area is located within the southern portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex which adjoins the lower reach of the San Gabriel River where, prior to channelization, the mouth of the San Gabriel River migrated back and forth across the coastal plain. Historically, the complex covered approximately 2,400 acres and stretched approximately two miles inland, varying from freshwater and brackish wetlands in its inland areas to salt marsh closer to the ocean. Channelization of the San Gabriel River began in the 1930s and cut off tidal action to much of the wetland area. The size of the historic wetlands has been reduced by agriculture, placement of fill and excavation of channels and basins for oil fields and landfill burn dumps, and urban development. There is ongoing oil production throughout the area and much of the remnant salt marsh is within a grid of dikes, berms, roadways, and levees. Other channels which service upstream power plants also bifurcate sections of the complex. Today, remnants of the historic wetlands occur in degraded patches, divided into the following four areas: North, Central, Isthmus, and South. Furthermore, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex is significant to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh1) and Acjachemen (Juaneño) tribes. Tribal representatives described the Los Cerritos Wetlands and its surroundings as sacred lands that encompass a larger area of connected tribal sites. The Los Cerritos Wetlands are located in between the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna, and are thus considered by tribes to be part of a larger cultural landscape. This landscape will be identified as the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape in this study. Through the conceptual restoration planning process, the LCWA determined what opportunities exist for Los Cerritos Wetlands restoration, public access, and interpretation that will meet the needs of the agency, community, and stakeholders. This included identifying opportunities for restoring tidal connections, creation of new wetland and associated upland habitats, consolidation of oil operations, improvement to passive recreation facilities, creation of a 1 Since there is not an agreement on the general term to be used to identify the descendants of the original people who lived within the Los Angeles Basin, the term Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) will be used throughout this proposal to recognize each group’s right of self-identification and tribal sovereignty. 22 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 3 visitor’s center, and accommodation of special status species. This analysis culminated in the Los Cerritos Wetlands Conceptual Restoration Plan (CRP) that was adopted by the LCWA’s Governing Board in August 2015. The LCWA, as the lead agency, prepared then certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in January 2021. This PEIR used the CRP designs to create a program description for a 503-acre program area. The potential impacts of this proposed program were analyzed, and mitigation measures were determined for potentially impacted resources. This program also included phasing for potential projects to eventually tier-off from the program. One of the near-term projects identified by the PEIR is located in the South Area on 105 acres identified as the South LCWA site (aka Hellman Ranch Lowlands) and the State Lands Commission site (together comprising the Project area), both managed by LCWA. This Project area was historically salt marsh but has been altered through anthropogenic activities. The site currently contains former sumps, landfills, foundations, and contaminated areas from prior oil operations and land uses. The Project is led by the LCWA, a joint powers authority (JPA) formed by the following four agencies: • San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) • California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC) • City of Long Beach • City of Seal Beach 23 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 4 Figure 2. Aerial map showing the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex and the South LCW restoration project area Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles Co unty, CA City of Sea l Beach Orange Co unty, CA II 11 Southern Project Arca □ Los Cerritos Wetlands Comp le x 0 1,000 I I 0 250 I I I I I 1 :20 ,000 2,000 Feet I I I N 500 Meters A I I 1 in = 1,667 ft 24 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 5 PROJECT PERSONNEL Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) conducted pedestrian cultural resources and built environments surveys, a traditional cultural landscape study that included collecting and transcribing oral histories from tribal members, background research, and prepared this assessment report. Qualifications of key personnel are described below and short resumes are in Appendix A. • Desiree Martinez served as Project Manager, provided QA/QC and conducted oral history interviews with members of the Gabrielino (Tongva) community, wrote and conducted the evaluation of the cultural landscape study, and co-authored this report. Ms. Martinez is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and holds an M.A. in Anthropology from Harvard University and has more than 24 years of experience in California archaeology. • John Gust, RPA, served as the Task Manager and Principal Investigator for Archaeology for the Project, and co-authored this report. Dr. Gust has a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California (UC) Riverside, and over 10 years of experience in archaeology. • Shannon Lopez conducted the built environment assessment and evaluation, and co- authored this report. Ms. Lopez holds an M.A. from California State University (CSU), Fullerton and has more than three years of experience as an architectural historian. • Kim Scott prepared the geoarchaeological section of this report. Ms. Scott has an M.S. in Biology with paleontology emphasis from CSU San Bernardino, a B.S. in Geology with paleontology emphasis from University of California, Los Angeles, and over 25 years of experience in California paleontology and geology. • Logan Freeberg prepared the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps throughout this report. Mr. Freeberg has a B.A. in Anthropology from UC Santa Barbara and a GIS certification from CSU Fullerton and over 18 years of experience in California archaeology. 25 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 6 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA states that: It is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of the proposed project and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. CEQA declares that it is state policy to: "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES As of 2015, CEQA established that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code, § 21084.2). In order to be considered a “tribal cultural resource,” a resource must be either: (1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or (2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource. To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the lead agency must consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Public Resources Code §20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources. 26 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 7 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE Section 5097.5: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands (lands under state, county, city, district or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a listing of all properties considered to be significant historical resources in the state. The California Register includes all properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, including properties evaluated under Section 106, and State Historical Landmarks No. 770 and above. The California Register statute specifically provides that historical resources listed, determined eligible for listing on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, or resources that meet the California Register criteria are resources which must be given consideration under CEQA (see above). Other resources, such as resources listed on local registers of historic resources or in local surveys, may be listed if they are determined by the State Historic Resources Commission to be significant in accordance with criteria and procedures to be adopted by the Commission and are nominated; their listing in the California Register is not automatic. Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. In addition to having significance, resources must have integrity for the period of significance. The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, 27 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 8 or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS Sites that may contain human remains important to Native Americans must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner, consistent with state law (i.e., Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98), as reviewed below: In the event that human remains are encountered during project development and in accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods. CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307 This section states that “No person shall remove, injure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archeological or historical interest or value.” MITIGATION MEASURES In addition to California State laws and codes, this Project is governed by Mitigation Measures developed for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Mitigation Measures can be found in Appendix B. 28 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 9 BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area is located in the Peninsular Ranges topographic province (Appendix C, Figure C - 1). The Peninsular Ranges extends from Mount San Jacinto in the north, through the tip of Baja, Mexico in the south. Subparallel to these ranges on the east is the San Andreas Fault Zone. The northwestwards motion of the Pacific Plate has created these ranges and their corresponding valleys. The topographic variations across California, created by plate tectonics, resulted in California Native populations having access to different ecosystems, fertile valleys, mountains and hills (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:52). The current Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex is a remnant of a once much larger tidal estuary system that sits at the mouth of the San Gabriel River (Coastal Restoration Consultants 2021:5). The greater area has long been hydrologically dynamic. For example, the Santa Ana River which is channelized at its mouth now flows into the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach but “composite of early historic maps of the Orange County region shows that the Santa Ana drainage has migrated within an area measuring approximately seventeen miles along the coastline. During various points in time, the river fed (from north to south): Alamitos Bay, Anaheim Bay, Bolsa Bay, Santa Ana Marsh, and Newport Bay” (WPA 1936 in Wiley 2012). Further, California has been recognized as full of diversity based on its plants, animals and landscapes which in turn has affected human occupation and settlement through time. Based on this diversity, the California Geological Survey has divided the state into 12 geomorphic provinces. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area is located within the South Coast Province (Appendix C, Figure C - 2; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:61; Schoenherr 2017:1). The Southern LCW Project area “contains multiple former sumps, landfills, and contaminated areas from prior oil operations, and is currently owned and maintained by the LCWA. Some areas of tidal southern coastal salt marsh still persist on the site, but other areas were converted by previous land owners from coastal salt marsh habitat to primarily ruderal uplands with no tidal connections. Former access roads still bisect the site…” (ESA 2020). GEOLOGICAL SETTING The Southern LCW Project area lies in the broad coastal plain of Los Angeles and Orange counties, California, named the Tustin Plain. The Tustin Plain is bounded by the Santa Ana 29 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 10 Mountains to the east, the Puente and Coyote Hills to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the San Joaquin Hills to the south. Orange County is part of the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by sediment-floored valleys. Faults branching off from the San Andreas Fault to the east create the local mountains and hills. STRATIGRAPHY The Southern LCW Project area is mapped as middle to late Pleistocene old marine to nonmarine deposits and modern artificial fill (Appendix C, Figure C - 3; Saucedo et al. 2016). Old marine to non-marine deposits, middle to late Pleistocene (Qom) These middle to late Pleistocene (500,000 to 11,700 years old), interfingering near shore marine and non-marine sediments were deposited along the ancient coast. Beach, estuarine, and reddish-brown alluvial deposits of clays to conglomerates are now frequently present as wave cut platforms brought to the surface by uplift (Saucedo et al. 2016). Artificial fill, modern (af) Modern artificial fill from dredging activities is less than 200 years old. These sediments will not contain scientifically significant fossils or artifacts if any are present. Only large areas of fill are typically mapped (Saucedo et al. 2016). CULTURAL SETTING Based on linguistic, ethnographic, and archaeological cultural affiliation, the Project Area has been occupied by the Gabrielino/Gabrieleño/Tongva/Kizh (McCawley 2002; Strudwick et al. 2007) and Juaneño (Acjachemen) since prior to the arrival of the Spanish and continuing to the present. The following summarizes the prehistoric setting, historic setting, and ethnography. PRE-CONTACT HISTORY Several Southern California regional syntheses exist (Appendix C, Figure C - 4), however this study will use the cultural sequence developed by Mason and Peterson (2004) since it was developed locally using many dated sites (N=37) and over 300 radiocarbon dates (see Table 1) 30 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 11 Table 1. Southern California Cultural Sequence (after Mason and Peterson 2004) Period Years Before Present Calendar Years (AD/BC) Mission 181-116 AD 1769-1834 Late Prehistoric 2 650-200 AD 1300-1750 Late Prehistoric 1 1350-650 AD 600-1300 Intermediate 3000-1350 1050 BC-AD 600 Milling Stone 3 4650-3000 2700-1050 BC Milling Stone 2 5800-4650 3850-2700 BC Milling Stone 1 8000-5800 6050-3850 BC Paleo-Coastal Prior to 8000 Prior to 6050 BC PALEOCOASTAL (PALEOINDIAN) PERIOD (PRIOR TO 6050 BC / 8000 BP) The search for the earliest Paleo-Coastal communities has been predicated on the “Ice Free Corridor” theory; that at the end of the Pleistocene (~11,700 years Before Present [BP]) people from northeast Asia crossed Beringia and entered the western United States through a gap between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets; after which they moved to settle the coasts. Paleontological, geological and pollen analyses, however, has shown that the so-called “Ice Free Corridor” was not a viable migration option from 30,000 to 11,500 years ago (Mandryk et al. 2001). Additionally, with the increase in the number of accepted sites dated prior to 11,700 BP (e.g., Monte Verde, Chile at 14,800 BP) including several Coastal California Channel Island sites (e.g., Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island at 13,000 cal BP and Daisy Cave on San Miguel Island at 12,000 cal BP), new models for the settlement of the New World had to be considered (Erlandson et al. 1996; Johnson et al. 2002). Paleo-Coastal subsistence patterns have predominantly been described as dependent on the hunting of megafauna as represented by large Clovis-like points in the archaeological record. However, this pattern has not been convincingly identified in coastal California (Erlandson et al. 2007:56). Instead at early sites such as Daisy Cave, there is evidence of much more diverse subsistence patterns, particularly the use of a variety of marine habitats. As an alternative to the “Ice Free Corridor” theory and considering the cultural material seen at early Channel Islands sites, Erlandson et al. (2007) argue that the earliest New World settlers followed the productive kelp forest habitats that exist along the Pacific Rim. This “kelp highway” allowed settlers to use near shore marine resources, such as large red abalones (Haliotis rufescens), black turban snails (Tegula funebralis), sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus spp.), pinnipeds, sea otter, and California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) while portions of North America were covered by ice sheets. In addition to near-shore marine ecofacts found at early Channel Island sites, Paleocoastal artifacts include small stemmed Channel Island Barbed points, chipped stone crescents (proposed 31 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 12 to be used for bird hunting), fish gorges and evidence of boat technology (Erlandson et al. 2011). There is also evidence, based on the discovery of spire lopped Callianax biplicata beads dating to 9000 to 7000 cal BC of inter-regional trade with the Great Basin (Fitzgerald et al. 2005). The earliest evidence of the settlement of the Southern Channel Islands comes from Eel Point (SCLI-43) on San Clemente Island around 6500 to 6000 cal BC, straddling the Paleo- Coastal/Milling Stone Period 1 boundary. Based on its distance from the mainland (77 kilometers), and the fact that it was never connected to the mainland, it can be assumed that seaworthy vessels were used, although no remnants of such vessels have been found to date (Cassidy et al. 2004; Yatsko 2000). Other evidence for the presence of seaworthy vessels on San Clemente Island includes a woodworking tool kit that is consistent with tools used to build watercraft historically (Rondeau et al. 2007). Eel Point also shows a marine subsistence pattern that is focused on hunting seals, sea lions, and dolphins as well as the collection of seashells (Porcasi and Fujita 2000). The earliest evidence of the occupation of San Nicolas Island occurred approximately 6555 BC (8505 BP) at CA-SNI-339 (Schwartz and Martz 1992). Earlier sites may have been lost due to rising sea levels after 10,000 BP (Martz 1994). Other sites show that the San Nicolas Islanders hunted sea mammals, near-shore fish such as perch, and a variety of shellfish (Bleitz-Sanburg 1987). Milling Stone Period (6050-1050 BC / 8000-3000 BP) Mason and Peterson divide the Milling Stone Period into three subdivisions: Milling Stone 1 (8000-5800 BP), Milling Stone 2 (5800-4650 BP), and Milling Stone 3 (4650-3000 BP). The climate at the beginning of Milling Stone Period 1 was warmer and drier than today with freezing winters rare near the coast. However, toward the end of the Milling Stone Period 1, the climate started to cool and stabilize to a climate similar to today’s weather (King 2001). Also, during the Milling Stone Period there is evidence of trade between the Great Basin and other areas of California. Coso Mountain obsidian artifacts have been found at archaeological sites in southern California while shell beads, particularly Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads, have been found as far away as Oregon and Nevada (King 2001; Raab and Howard 2002; Vellanoweth 1995, 2001). Vellanoweth (2001) argues that Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads may be used as an ethnic marker for Uto-Aztecan speaking peoples like the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) since they were not made in Chumash territory to the north. At 5000 BP on the southern California mainland, there was an increase in the quantity of ground stone tools (e.g., manos, metates, mortars, pestles) suggesting an intensification of the use of plant and marine resources, particularly seeds and shellfish (Arnold et al. 2004). Toward the end of the Milling Stone Period, the use of manos and metates subsided while the number of mortars and pestles grew. This switch may indicate that acorns started to make up a larger portion of the diet. 32 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 13 The presence of pottery within Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory prior to contact has been argued to be the result of trade or exchanges with those Native American communities that made pottery, i.e., the southwest or Colorado River Tribes. However, some archaeologists argue that they have identified fired hand shaped ceramic pieces using local materials. Nineteen irregular hand shaped and fired ceramic pieces from Little Harbor on Santa Catalina Island were dated to around 5000 years old (Porcasi 1998). Porcasi argues that these ceramic pieces are like those found at the Irvine site (CA-ORA-64) in Orange County and suggests they are evidence of a broad interaction sphere linking the southern Channel Islands with the desert interior. Boxt and Dillon (2013) argue that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) living at CA-LAN-2630, located on the campus of California State University, Long Beach, made ceramics prior to the post-Contact era from locally derived clays. Intermediate Period (1050 BC-AD 600 / 3000-1350 BP) During the Intermediate Period, the climate became warmer and drier, with lower rainfall, than the Milling Stone Period. The sea level rise slowed with surface temperatures lower than before; although paleoclimate data suggests that between circa (ca.) 3000 and 1700 BP, there was a period of heavier rainfall Early in the Intermediate Period, mortars and pestles replace milling stones and hand stones in artifact assemblages, which may signal a shift from the use of grass and hard seeds to acorn exploitation. During this time, there was an increase in the utilization of nearshore fish, sea mammal resources, and deep-water resources on the islands (Glassow 1980; King 2001, 2014; Tartaglia 1976). There was increased sedentism in the Intermediate Period, with villages being permanent or semi-permanent. Population growth resulted in intensive resource collection leading to the decline of local resources and the need to collect higher-cost resources. This is evident at Eel Point, where there is a focus on lower-ranked resources such as fish and small shellfish as is evident (Byrd and Raab 2007:223). The active management of terrestrial resources became evident on the mainland during this time, with intentionally set fires and intensive horticulture practices such as pruning, sowing, planting, and irrigation being used to increase the productivity of trees and plants (Arnold et al. 2004). This may have also occurred on the islands as well. Burial practices included flexed inhumations with large slate slabs or metates located on top of or near the head of the individual (Gamble and King 1997). Late Prehistoric period (AD 600-1750 / 1350-200 BP) Mason and Peterson divide the Late Prehistoric Period into two subdivisions: Late Prehistoric 1, 1350-650BP (AD 600-1300) and Late Prehistoric 2, 650-200 BP (AD 1300-1750). It is during the Late Prehistoric Period that the cultural manifestations observed in the ethnohistoric period begin to emerge. By AD 500, there is a change in the cultural manifestations seen in the archaeological record within Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory. This includes a change in interment practices from burial to cremation, dog burials, as well as a switch from z- twining to s-twining in basketry (Sutton 2009; Rozaire 1967). These features are considered the markers signaling the migration of Takic-speaking people from the desert to the coast, pushing 33 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 14 the Chumash to the north and the Yuman-speaking Kumeyaay people to the south. See the Ethnography section below for a description of the Takic language group which includes the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language. Known as the “Shoshonean intrusion” (or Shoshonean Wedge) theory, it is argued that the Takic groups settled along the coast and immediately “got with the program” and imitated the cultural practices and adaptions used by the previous Hokan-speaking populations they supposedly displaced (Kowta 1969; Koerper 1979; Kroeber 1925; Moratto 1984:560; Sutton 2009). The Late Prehistoric Period saw the emergence of complex social organization with ascribed status evinced by the presence of abundant grave goods in child burials (King 1982; Martz 1984). Starting at AD 800, there is evidence of the exchange of Santa Catalina Island soapstone vessels to the mainland (e.g., Malaga Cove) with craft specialization intensifying at the end of the period (Howard 2002). There has been considerable debate regarding to what extent climate change contributed to the development of complex societies in Southern California, including the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) (Arnold 1992; Gamble 2005; Kennett and Kennett 2000; Koerper et al. 2002; Raab et al. 1995; Raab and Larson 1997). What is known is that new fishing strategies begin to be utilized by AD 500. These new practices include the development and use of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) ti’at, (tomool in Chumash), the sewn plank canoe (Arnold and Bernard 2005), and a new fishing kit which includes circular shell fishhooks manufactured from single pieces of abalone (Haliotis spp.), California mussel (Mytilus californianus), and Norris' top shell (Norrisia norrisi) (Strudwick 1986). Such a fishing kit was found at the Nursery site on San Clemente, consisting of a seagrass bag containing fishing tackle such as lithic drills, abraders, rib net-spacers, a bone knife and barbs, pry bars, abalone fishhooks and hook blanks, a steatite whale effigy, and serpentine sinkers (Bleitz and Salls 1993). Coupled together, these tools were used to obtain deep sea fish such as the broadbill swordfish, striped marlin, albacore, yellowfin tuna, bluefin tuna, blue shark, and shortfin mako (Arnold and Bernard 2005). Also, by AD 500–600 BC, the bow and arrow comes into the area and as a result, projectile points get smaller, although large points are still evident on the Channel Islands due to the continued used of spears on large marine mammals (Arnold and Bernard 2005). Mission Period (AD 1769-1834) Historic archaeologists identify the beginning of the Mission Period with the establishment of the first Spanish Mission in San Diego in 1769 and the settlement of Alta California by the Spanish. Even though Vizcaino had explored the Pacific coast in 1602, the Spanish did not immediately settle Alta California. Beginning in 1566, Spanish galleons from Manila, Philippines brought Asian goods to Acapulco, Mexico. During these long and arduous voyages, ships lacked substantial food resources resulting in the death of crew members and eventual loss of ships (Corle 1949:37). To ensure a safe return, the Spanish government decided that ports needed to be 34 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 15 built in Alta California in order to re-supply the ships with fresh meat, fruits and vegetables (Corle 1949:32; James 1913:14). Additionally in 1767, Marques de Grimaldi, the Minister of State, told Jose de Gálvez, the Visitor-General of Mexico, that the Russians and French were encroaching on its Alta California territory (Archibald 1978:1; James 1913:14). As a result, King Carlos II of Spain gave the order to “occupy and fortify San Diego and Monterey for God and the King of Spain” to fight foreign claims to Spanish land (James 1913:16). In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá led one of three groups to Alta California to establish Spanish settlements, or presidios, at San Diego and Monterey Bay (McCawley 1996:188). Accompanying Portolá was Junípero Serra and other Franciscan priests who sought to establish missions to convert the Native Americans they encountered. They established several missions, sustained by Indian labor, that supplied the presidios with subsistence goods. Another factor that changed trade relations in southern California during the Mission period was the missions’ policy of ‘reducción’ (Webb 1983). The reduction of the Indian population in its initial settlement caused the fathers to look for more converts. The stability of the mission relied on the Indian population to make cloth, to cook, and to farm. As the population grew sparse, the fathers traveled further, past the mission lands, to gather new Indians to live in the missions and carry on the work. ETHNOGRAPHY The following section will provide an overview of the cultural patterns as recorded for the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and the Juaneño (Acjachemen). Although several anthropologists and ethnologists have collected information regarding the cultural practices, village location, and language of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is not as extensive as it is for other southern California Tribes. These collections were recovered under a “salvage ethnography” paradigm, predicated on the notion that the Tribes would soon vanish, and it was imperative to collect as much information about pre-Columbian Native languages and lifeways as possible for future study. Thus, scholars looked for Tribal members who had knowledge of, and still practiced, the uncorrupted tribal lifeways. However, Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) communities and other California Tribes had been so decimated by years of colonial mission control, many who survived had been successfully converted into a Spanish/Mexican peasant labor force that spoke Spanish and practiced Catholicism. Scholars disregarded Tribal members that did not fit their preconceived notions of who a “pure” Indian was (Martinez 2010:216). As a result, there is a big hole in the ethnographic record on the use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands area as Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño (Acjachemen) community members who had that knowledge may have been overlooked. 35 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 16 GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO; TONGVA; KIZH) Territory As stated earlier, the study area is located within Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory (Appendix C, Figure C - 5). Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Traditional Territory included large portions of Los Angeles County, the northern part of Orange County, small sections of Riverside and San Bernardino counties as well as the four southern Channel Islands of Pimu (Santa Catalina), Santa Barbara, Kiinkepar (San Clemente), and Haraasgna (San Nicolas). Their territory encompassed a number of ecological zones which affected their subsistence and settlement patterns. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) would supplement the resources gathered near them with resources from other ecological zones by obtaining them either directly or through trade (Bean and Smith 1978). Various scholars have divided these ecological zones differently. McCawley divides southern California into the Interior Mountains and Foothills, Valleys and Prairies, Exposed Coast, Sheltered Coast, and the Southern Channel Islands zones (McCawley 1996). The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex is located in the Exposed Coast ecological zone. The resources available in this ecological zone include shellfish, rays, sharks, and fish. On the other hand, Heizer and Elasser (1980; Appendix C, Figure C - 6) place the study area within their Foothill Ecological Culture Type and identify the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) as Foothill Hunters and Gatherers, Coastal Tidelands Collectors, Coastal Sea Hunters-Fishers, and Valley and Plains Gatherers. Appendix C, Figure C - 6 lists the resources that would have been available to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) in those ecological cultural types. Origins Much of the southern California archaeological literature argues that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) moved into southern California from the Great Basin around 4,000 BP, ‘wedging’ themselves between the Hokan-speaking Chumash, located to the north, and the Yuman- speaking Kumeyaay, located to the south (see Sutton 2009 for the latest discussion). This Shoshonean Wedge, or Shoshonean ‘intrusion’ theory, is counter to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community’s knowledge about their history and origins. Oral tradition states that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) have always lived in their traditional territory, with their emergence into this world occurring at Puvungna, located in Long Beach (Martinez and Teeter 2015:26). Language The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language is classified as part of the Uto-Aztecan language family, under the Takic branch. It is now generally accepted that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language is a stand-alone Takic language, distinct from the Cupan sub-group (Mithun 1999:539). Several Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) words lists, 36 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 17 descriptions of lifeways, and songs have been collected by ethnographers from various Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community members over the years: Hale (1846), Loew (1876), Reid (1852[1968]), Merriam (1907), and Harrington (1917-1930s). Settlement Patterns Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) life centered on the village; composed of paternally related extended families, lineages, and/or clans, typically numbering 50-100 people. Houses, called kiiy in Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh), were domed and circular with frames made from willow posts (or whale rib bones on the islands and along the coastline) covered with tule reed mats. Coastal kiiys had entryways that opened towards the sea with mats covering them. A large kiiy could hold up to three or four families and was perhaps 60 feet in diameter. Smaller homes were as little as 12 feet in diameter. Wind screens were usually adjacent to the kiiy and were used as open-air kitchens during fair weather. Large acorn granary baskets, sometimes coated with asphaltum and seated upon posted platforms, were also placed near the kiiys. In addition to the habitation structures described above, other village structures included sweathouses, which were small semi-circular, semi-subterranean earth-covered buildings located near water to provide access for bathing, menstrual huts, and ceremonial open-aired enclosures, yoyovars, were located near chiefs’ houses and near the center of villages. In addition to the permanent villages, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) occupied temporary seasonal campsites that were used for a variety of activities such as hunting, fishing, and gathering plants (McCawley 1996:25). Hunting was primarily for rabbit and deer, while plant collection included acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, and fruits. Coastal seasonal camps and camps near bays and estuaries were used to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl (Hudson 1971). Leadership Each village had a Tomyaar, a leader whose position was typically inherited paternally, who regulated the village’s religious and secular life. Each lineage had a leader that participated in the Council of Elders which in turn advised the Tomyaar. Through study of the personal names recorded in mission records and ethnohistorical information from other Southern California communities, King and Parsons (2014a:8-10) have identified a number Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) leadership roles that were not previously recognized. King and Parsons identified the title Chari as belonging to the town or settlement chief. The Nu was the bundle keeper, the person who protected sacred items that were bundled together, and the Paha (ceremonial assistant) was in charge of ceremonial preparation, including notifying people of the ceremony, carrying shell money between groups, and dividing money and food during ceremonies (Strong 1972:96). The Nu worked with the Kika, the household chief. The singer, Eacuc, was also known as a knowledge keeper. 37 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 18 Another important role in Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) society was the medicine person, known as a shaman in the anthropological literature. They were the doctors, therapists, philosophers, and intellectuals of the villages. Some Tomyaars were also influential medicine people in their own right (Kroeber 1925; Johnson 1962; Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996). Both clans and villages were exogamous and patrilocal (Reid 1852). Villages were autonomous but came together seasonally for harvests and other cooperative activities including ceremonies. Ceremonial Life and Beliefs Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) life was also organized around the celebration and observance of various rituals and ceremonies. These included rites of passage, village rites, seasonal ceremonies, and participation in the widespread Chingichngish religion (various spellings; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996). Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) concept of afterlife and burial practices came from Chingichngish’s instructions to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh). Upon death, it was believed that the heart of the person did not die, but was transported to Shiishonga, the land of the dead, located beyond Santa Catalina Island. If the deceased was a tomyaar or medicine person, they could reach Tokuupar or “heaven” or “sky” through the enactment of the proper rituals. For three days the community mourned, and the body was wrapped in a hide blanket or mat made of seagrass. After the mourning period, the body was carried to the village burial area. Mainland Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) tended to conduct cremations, while the Island Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) adhered to flexed inhumation burial practice. The hands were placed across the breast, and the entire body was bound. For those villages practicing cremation, the remains were either interred or disposed of to the east of the village. Grave offerings included seeds, otter skins, baskets, soapstone pots, bone and shell implements, and shell beads. The amount of grave goods reflected the person’s status. If the person held a leadership position, an item designating their office might also be placed with their body. Some interments featured dog burials placed above the corpse. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) saw the worlds of the living and the dead to be parallel places; therefore, the items buried or burned with the deceased were intended to accompany that person into the afterworld where their status would be recognized by the items that accompanied them. Graves were marked by baskets or rock slabs made of sandstone or slate. On San Nicholas Island, stone slabs decorated with ashpaltum would sometimes also be buried with the body. The living mourned for a year; the mourning period ended at the annual mourning ceremony conducted for all of those who had died in the past year (Bean and Smith 1978:545–546; McCawley 1996:155–158.) 38 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 19 Trade and Exchange Routes The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) played an important role in the various trade routes that extended throughout the western United States. In the seminal study Power and Persistence, Bean et al. (1978) discussed the Pacific Ocean-Great Plains trade system and demonstrated that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh), Cahuilla, Panya (Halchidoma), Northern Pima and O’odham (Kohatk) were trade partners. The Santa Catalina Island Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) were the western anchor of the trade route with steatite items moving across the ocean via ti’ats, the mainland foot trails through the San Gorgonio Pass and into to Cahuilla territory. Today’s Interstate 10 freeway follows that trail (Bean et al. 1978:5-1). In addition to steatite from Santa Catalina Island, other trade items from Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory included abalone shell, olivella beads, asphaltum, sea otter pelts and salt (Figure 3; Dobyns 1984). Food such as dried fish, marine mammal meat and acorns were also traded (Meighan 1959:391; Rosen 1980:27; McCawley 1996:79, 2002:47). In return the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) received obsidian, furs, ceramic vessels, buckskins and other items. Figure 3. Commodities Traded from Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Territory to/from the Kohatk (O’odham) on the Gila River (from Bean et al. 1978) Commodity Ga-C2 -Pan -Gila Kohatk brie -hui--ya River lino lla · Pima Steatite -__ .., --C-- Abalone Shell ----. --C-- Olivella Beads -'.""-.. --C ➔ --C-- Dried Fish ----.,. Dried Wil d Mutton --C--•---- Dried Venison --C--•---- Sea Otter Pelts ---~ --C- Sale 4!.i -----C--IL-- -ii Asphalcum --------., --c- Acorns --C -'> ,,,_ -·• --c---C-- Wild Gourd Seeds --C-- Seeds c--•---C--e---- Buckskins C--C--~---- Deer Tallow C--,C---~-c-.i-C-- Obsidian c-- Furs c-- Reci Paine c----c ... --C Yellow Ochre c-- Mai~e C-·- Squash C-- Gourds C-- Tu rquois e C-- Stone A.,es C--.s.--- Saguaro Syrup C-? <-?--•-C-•-C--ci.-C -- Ce ramic Vessels C-? <-?--<-?--~-c--•-C-- Beans --C-""" --C Pumpkins --C-a. --C Melons --C-;, --C Co tton Fiber --C-• --C 39 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 20 Gates et al. (2013) connects Tongva territory to the Pacific to Rio Grande Trails Landscape that includes three major travel corridors from/to the Southern California coast (Appendix C, Figure C - 7). The trade route closest to the study area is the route that follows the US Interstate 10 freeway. Village Use Areas and Locations Based on research conducted on Santa Catalina Island and the mainland, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community recognizes that in addition to the area used for habitation, i.e., houses and cooking areas, there are several other areas used outside the habitation area that are still considered part of the village (Posadas et al. 2011). These village use areas include short term camp sites, subsistence sites (e.g., hunting, gathering, fishing), sweat and ceremonial houses, quarries, tool production areas (e.g., lithic reduction), sacred sites, burial sites/cemeteries, and rites of passage areas (McCawley 1996:25). These village use areas are usually within 3-5 miles of the main habitation area. As a result, for the traditional cultural landscape study detailed later in this report, a review of archaeological sites within 3 miles of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex was completed to identify these associated village use areas. There are two villages that lie within three miles of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. Puvungna, located to the north, was, and continues to be, an important ceremonial center (in Tongva puvu = big ball of people, ngna = place of) for the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño (Acjachemen). Portions of the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP)- listed Puvungna Indian Villages lay on the campuses of California State University, Long Beach, the Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS), and Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. Motuucheyngna village has been identified on a portion of the former Hellman Ranch property, to the east and outside the Southern LCW Project area. Motuucheyngna was reported to mean flea (Harrington 1917-1930: R104 F24). More detailed information on these two villages is located in the Traditional Cultural Landscape section. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Community Today Even with the devastating effects of disease, colonization, forced labor, and other genocidal activities perpetrated against them, 2,493 people in California (2,903 nationwide) identified themselves as Gabrielino on the 2010 United States Census; a testament to their survival (United States Census 2013a and 2013b). There are currently seven different Tribess or and Tribal organizations that some community members belong to: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, the Gabrielino-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the Gabrielino Tongva Nation, the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe, the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation and the Ti'at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu. , although some Gabrielino people choose not to belong to any group. None of the groups are recognized by the United States federal government; however, five groups have filed letters of intent with the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (Office of Federal Acknowledgement 40 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 21 2013). In 1994, the California State Assembly and Senate jointly recognized the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians’ territory as encompassing the entire Los Angeles Basin area and the Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicholas, San Clemente, and Santa Barbara from Topanga in the west, to Laguna in the south, and to the base of the San Bernardino Mountains in the east (Resolution Chapter 146, Statutes of 1994 Assembly Joint Resolution 96). Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community members continue to fight against the misconception that they are extinct (Martinez et al. 2014; Teeter and Martinez 2009). To combat these uninformed notions, Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community members work with various public entities and private philanthropic groups to educate the public about the deep history of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) within the Los Angeles area and their continued existence within a thriving metropolis. Additionally, community members are working with linguists to revitalize the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language (Marquez 2014). 41 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 22 Figure 4. A portion of the 1937/1938 Kirkman-Harriman Pictorial and Historical Map of Los Angeles County showing the County as it existed in 1860 with the Project area overlain p A..CIFfC I~.?.,~,:~~~ I So uthern Los Cerritos Wet lands Restoratio n City of Lo ng Beach Lo s Angeles County, CA 11 11 Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex City of Sea l Beach Orange County, CA 0 0 2.5 I I I I I :200 ,000 2 .5 5 Miles I I I I N 5 Kilometers A I I I I in = 16 ,6 67 tl 42 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 23 JUANEÑO (ACJACHEMEN)2 Territory The Project area is within the traditional homeland of the Juaneño (Acjachemen) (Appendix C, Figure C - 8). The Acjachemen speak a language that is part of the Takic language family. The concept of territory is a complex one that carries distinct meanings within native people’s perceptions, and for archeologists and researchers working within the European scholarship tradition. The European tradition favors a view of territory derived from clearly delineated boundaries and surveyed and fenced property lines. A traditional native view of territory is generally broader and more dynamic, accounting for various ways land has been used by many people, or simultaneously by different groups of people. With that in mind, the Acjachemen territory spans from coastal Long Beach to the north, Camp Pendleton to the south and includes all of Orange County as well as parts of western Riverside County (see Appendix C, Figure C - 8). At the arrival of the Euroamericans (1769) in California, the Acjachemen were living primarily in what we now know as Orange County, but their aboriginal territory extended as far south as San Onofre Creek in San Diego County and east to the ridge of the Santa Ana Mountains in Riverside County, an area of about 600 square miles in size. The Acjachemen believe that their ancestors have lived here from the beginning of time. Debate and controversy continually surround the gap between scientific theory and Acjachemen beliefs surrounding the time frame when the Acjachemen first inhabited the area. The population of the Acjachemen tribe in 1769 has been estimated at about 4,000 people. The ancestors shared boundaries with four other tribes: the Gabrielino [Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh] to the north, the Serrano and Luiseno to the east and south, and the Kumeyaay to the south. The Acjachemen territory and even particular properties, such as mountains and rivers, are recorded in their memories, from traditional migration and creation stories that were told and retold, and songs that have been sung and danced for generations. Such features as special rocks, oak groves, fishing places, mountain ranges and places from where one can see the sun rise and set form a mental image, or map, of their homeland that combines history and geography into a whole body of traditional cultural knowledge. Community Life The Acjachemen depended upon gathering, hunting and fishing. Their lives centered on their permanent villages, with ready access to their specific hunting, fishing and collecting areas where they might stay for part of a season. Some of these areas were quite close by, but others were a day or more of travel from their villages. Individual families would travel inland or to the seashore at certain times of the year and set up temporary camps for a few days or weeks. When they returned to their village, they would carry baskets filled with the food they had collected. Houses were typically conical in shape and thatched with locally available plant materials. The 2 The Juaneño (Acjachemen) ethnographic section was contributed by Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager and Cultural Resource Director for the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. 43 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 24 principal house, or kiicha, belonged to the chief. It was usually the largest because he was apt to have a large family. Frequently, the chief had more than one wife, and relatives living nearby. Work areas were often shaded by rectangular brush-covered roofs (ramada). Each village had a ceremonial structure in the center called a wamkish enclosed by a circular fence where all religious activities were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978:553). While the Acjachemen were not a nomadic people, if there was a serious drought, or their population grew too rapidly, they would sometimes relocate their village to another location. Archeological and ethnographic evidence clearly supports such movements. The Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Ethnographic Study, prepared by David Earle in 2020 references Boscana’s recounting of an ancestral migration story of the Acjachemen. “A chief named Oyaison had been chief of a village at Los Nietos Valley..had migrated with his eldest daughter, Corrone, to the vicinity of San Juan Capistrano…The people that migrated under chief Oyaison had found people already living in the San Juan Capistrano area, and the migrants together with the original population settled a total of fifteen towns in the region. (Harrington 1934:57-62, Johnson and O’Neil 2001:17)” (Earle 2020). Religion The hereditary village chief (Nò-t) held an administrative position that combined control of religious, economic and spiritual powers (Boscana 1933:43) Religion was an important aspect of their society. Religious ceremonies included rites of passage at puberty and mourning rituals (Kroeber 1925:636-647). At puberty, boys and girls underwent initiation rituals during which they were taught about the powerful beings governing them and punishing any infractions of the rules (Sparkman 1908:221-225). They were taught to respect their elders, give them food, to listen to them, and to refrain from anger. The boys’ ceremony included drinking datura, dancing, and teaching the songs and rituals. The girls' ceremony included advice and instructions and necessary knowledge for village life, roasting in warm sand and rock painting (Bean and Shipeck 1978:555). Death is a major ritual for the Acachemen/ Luiseno. They observe at least a dozen mourning ceremonies. The Acjachemen participated in the widespread Chingichngish religion. There are several creation stories that the Acjachemen believe, inland and a coastal creation. Below is an excerpt of one of the inland creation stories: “And so it is…before this world was as we know it today, there existed one above and another below. The two were brother and sister. The one above represented the heavens and the one below the earth. In time they were united and from their union came other beings full of life. This included rocks and stones of all kinds, particularly chert, for their arrows, trees and shrubs, herbs and grasses, and all kinds of animals. These were the First People, the Kaamalam. 44 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 25 After Earth had given birth to all the things in the world, she brought forth as her last child, one whom they called Wiyóot. Wiyóot’s name signifies ‘something which has taken root’, denoting that his power and authority would extend over the earth as the largest trees spread their roots in every direction. Wiyóot had children, both male and female, and although he and his children were animate, they were not people like we know them today. As Wiyóot’s descendants multiplied, the piece of earth his mother had given birth to continued to increase in size, always from the north to the south. And as the number of people increased, so did the size and shape of the earth.” Trade Like many regions in California, the Acjcahemen homeland lies in a rich environment with an abundant variety of natural resources. Acjachemen relied on local materials to create tools, but also participated in trade with other California Indians, by trading their surplus in shell beads, mammal skins, salt dried fish, seaweed, and asphaltum (tar) with their inland neighbors for a variety of goods and luxury items. The Juaneño (Acjachemen) Today Despite the history of genocide, the devastating effects of the mission system, the Mexican period, and the American period, the Acjachemen have persisted. They are a vibrant community that continues to practice their traditional and cultural ways of life. Currently, there are three bands of Juaneño/Acjachemen. The Acjachemen are a non-federally recognized tribe. In 1993, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation was jointly recognized by the California State Assembly and Senate as the original inhabitants of Orange County and parts of Los Angeles County, to parts of Riverside County, and to parts of Camp Pendleton (Resolution Chapter 121, Statutes of 1993 Assembly Joint Resolution 48). The Acjachemen are active in preservation of their language and sacred sites. HISTORIC SETTING CITY OF SEAL BEACH The Project area is located within the boundaries of the City of Seal Beach. The history of what would become Seal Beach began soon after the founding of Anaheim in 1857. At that time, the Anaheim Landing Company constructed a port for the Santa Ana Valley known as Anaheim Landing. Located on a small bay where Anaheim Creek emptied into the Pacific Ocean (now Seal Beach), the port consisted of a wharf and warehouse. Despite multiple disasters due to the treacherous water, coastal trade continued at Anaheim Landing for approximately 15 years (Glasgow 2021). In 1875, the arrival of the railroad in Anaheim provided an easier and safer shipping alternative 45 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 26 to the Landing. It was also during this period that the beaches surrounding the Landing had become a popular summer vacation location, with local newspapers reporting particularly large crowds numbering in the hundreds. In 1901, Philip Stanton sold a plot of land which he had purchased from the Hellman Ranch to John C. Ord. After hiring a team of 30 mules, Ord relocated his Los Alamitos based general store to his new property at what is now the southwest corner of Main Street and Electric Avenue in Seal Beach. The Ord Company would buy additional property located at the eastern end of Anaheim Landing, which was later subdivided ca. 1903 (Alioto 2005). On October 25, 1915, with a population of 250, the town of Seal Beach incorporated but under the name Bay City. The name was changed to Seal Beach shortly after incorporation in order to avoid confusion with San Francisco, which was also known as Bay City. In 1935, the site of Anaheim landing was designated a California Historical Landmark (Office of Historic Preservation 1935). Substantial change would come to Seal Beach during World War II as the U.S. Navy purchased most of the land around Anaheim Landing to build the United States Navy’s Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Construction of the Naval Weapons Station resulted in the demolition of 200 homes and the dredging of a 15-foot channel. Use of the water of Anaheim Bay is currently shared between the Navy and civilian craft (Glasgow 2021). RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS The Project area is within the boundaries of the former Rancho Los Alamitos, previously a contributor of the much larger Rancho Los Nietos (Appendix C, Figure C - 9). In 1790, Spanish soldier Manuel Nieto was granted a 300,000-acre tract by his former military commander Pedro Fages (then recently appointed governor of California; Jurmain et al. 2011). When Manuel Nieto died in 1804, his massive landholdings, then known as Rancho Los Nietos, passed to his widow and children. In 1834, Rancho Los Nietos was subdivided into five ranchos and one smaller ranch amongst Nieto’s heirs: Rancho Los Coyotes, Rancho Las Bolsas, Rancho Cerritos, Rancho Santa Gertrudes, Rancho Alamitos, and Palo Alto (smaller ranch). Juan Jose Nieto, the eldest son, received the 28,027-acre Rancho Los Alamitos in addition to the 48,806-acre Rancho Los Coyotes. In 1837, Juan Nieto sold Rancho Los Alamitos and lived on Rancho Los Coyotes (Dixon 2004). On July 12, 1842, a deed of sale was issued to Abel Stearns for the “six square leagues of Rancho Los Alamitos.” Just prior to Stearns’ purchase of the rancho, an inventory was taken which documented the existence of three adobe buildings on the property. It is not known 46 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 27 what improvements Stearns made to the ranch or the preexisting adobes during his period of ownership (Jurmain et al. 2011). Following the conclusion of the Mexican-American war and the subsequent annexation of California to the United States, the U.S. Land Commission confirmed Stearns’ title to Rancho Los Alamitos in 1855. Despite Stearns’ monumental success as a cattle rancher, which made him the richest man in Southern California, a series of natural disasters coupled with an economic recession resulted in the collapse of his cattle empire. Between 1860 and 1870, catastrophic flooding followed by a period of drought resulted in the ruin of many ranches and farms within Southern California; up to 70 percent of the cattle in Los Angeles County were dead from drought by 1864. Thus ended the reign of the great cattle barons of California (Jurmain et al. 2011). In 1865, Stearns was taken to court for failure to repay a $20,000 loan against Rancho Los Alamitos. Due to Stearns’ dire financial situation, he was unable to raise the funds required to pay back the loan and accrued interest. As a result, Stearns lost Rancho Los Alamitos to his creditor Michael Reese. In 1871, a portion of Rancho Los Alamitos was leased by John Bixby of the successful American ranching Bixby family. Due to the severe regional drought, the sheep ranching tenants of Rancho Los Alamitos were willing to sublease their land to Bixby to sustain themselves. Bixby saw the potential of the rancho’s land to sustain agriculture and dairy cows (Jurmain et al. 2011). In 1881, the entirety of the 26,395-acre Los Alamitos rancho was offered for sale for $125,000 following the death of Michael Reese. Bixby, who had already been leasing a large portion of the rancho, entered into a three-way partnership with Isaias W. Hellman and the J. Bixby & Co. and together obtained an $80,000 mortgage of the rancho. They began operations that same year under the name J.W. Bixby & Co. (Jurmain et al. 2011). Taking advantage of the soaring profit of wheat exports to England due to severe crop failures across Europe, Bixby used much of the rancho to grow wheat for export during the 1870s and 1880s. The size of Rancho Los Alamitos was such that tenant farming was introduced in 1878. This system of sharecropping would continue to grow and by 1890 nearly 18% of farmers in California were tenant farmers. Also of note, by 1890, a substantial population increase in Southern California led Bixby to notice the shifting value and use of land. J.W. Bixby & Co decided to capitalize on the new trend of budding beachside communities and developed the townsite he called Alamitos Beach on 5,000 acres of the seaside portion of Rancho Los Alamitos (Jurmain et al. 2011). In May of 1887, John Bixby died suddenly at age thirty-nine from what is believed to be appendicitis. As a result of his death, Rancho Los Alamitos was divided amongst its surviving 47 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 28 co-owners. Each recipient received 7,200 acres: J. Bixby & Co. received the inland section, Hellman received the section of land along the coast, and the remaining central area went to John Bixby’s widow and children (Jurmain et al. 2011). ISAIAS WOLF HELLMAN (OCTOBER 3, 1842-APRIL 9, 1920) A Jewish immigrant from Bavaria, Isaias Wolf Hellman came to the United States in 1859 when he was 17 years old and immediately found work at a clothing store (Los Angeles Times 1920). In 1868, the Farmers & Merchants National Bank (the second bank in Los Angeles) opened its doors for business with Isaias Wolf Hellman as one of its co-founders. Known as a real estate magnate, Hellman had begun purchasing multiple properties in Southern California and pursued a successful career as a financier of local ranchos (including Rancho Los Alamitos) and wealthy landowners (such as James Irvine). Hellman’s influence grew and in 1887, the Los Angeles Clearinghouse Association was formed and he was elected President. In 1890, Hellman undertook the rehabilitation of the Nevada Bank of San Francisco which later merged with Wells Fargo. Isaias W. Hellman spent the majority of his working life in San Francisco where he died on April 19, 1920 at the age of seventy-eight (Los Angeles Times 1920). HELLMAN RANCH For 50 years, the majority of the work done on the Hellman Ranch used horse-drawn equipment. A single steam-powered excavator was used to excavate the many drainage ditches found on the property, including the Hellman Channel (Tyler 2018). This ranch was used to provide feed for beef cattle the Hellman Company raised on a 35,000 acre ranch (Nacimiento Ranch) near Paso Robles, California. Cattle would be transported from the Nacimiento Ranch to the Seal Beach ranch to graze and then shipped to the Los Angeles Market. The land was divided into large parcels which were farmed by immigrant farmers who produced cash crops such as sugar beets. Support structures were constructed for the farmers which included homes, wells, barns and other ancillary buildings (Tyler 2018). The rearing of cattle at the Hellman Ranch ceased during World War II when the U.S. Navy acquired most of the farmland in Seal Beach for the construction of what is now the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. This takeover by the Navy included large portions of Hellman’s land. As a result, the Hellman Company pivoted use of the land from cattle to agriculture. In 1961, 541 acres of the ranch’s best farmland was sold to the developers of Rossmoor Leisure World. Following the sale, the old ranch buildings were abandoned and were eventually sold to an aerospace company (Tyler 2018). 48 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 29 LOS ANGELES BASIN OIL INDUSTRY In 1920, I.W. Hellman, President of the Los Alamitos Land Company, died and was replaced by rancher and co-owner of the company Fred H. Bixby. Bixby leased tracts of land owned by the Alamitos Land Company to Standard Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Company, and the Marland Oil Company. Roads were constructed through the Project area and foundations for the oil derricks were set on driven pilings. In 1926, the Marland Oil Company began drilling with great success on the Bixby Lease (part of the Seal Beach Oil Field) now known as the Synergy Oil Field and that same year went into full commercial oil production. Production of oil at the Seal Beach Oil Field reached its peak in 1927, averaging 70,000 barrels per day (ESA 2019). Oil extraction from the Seal Beach Oil Fields eventually declined post World War II with major issues such as damage to multiple wells (518) from earthquakes and subsidence. By the mid- 1970s, 223 oil wells were still in use but produced far less then offshore drilling facilities in San Pedro Bay (ESA 2019). PROJECT AREA HISTORY The Project area overlaps with the property boundaries and history of Hellman Ranch and the production of oil in association with the Los Angeles Basin’s oil industry. Based on the earliest known USDA aerial photographs of the Project area, in 1927 the Hellman Channel is clearly visible in its current configuration; however, this aerial photograph shows that the channel continued southeast and then turned northeast at the eastern end of the Project area boundary (Appendix D, Figure D - 1). There are also two water retention ponds and multiple dirt access roads leading to and from the Project area. In a 1928 USDA aerial photograph, two large tanks are visible near the northern center of the Project area (Appendix D, Figure D - 2). What is believed to be two additional large water retention ponds are visible adjacent to an access road near the northeast side of the Project area. In a 1938 USDA photograph, multiple small structures/objects are visible at the westernmost end of the Project area near an access road (Appendix D, Figure D - 3). By 1952, the majority of what is now 1st Street (which crosses into the Project area from the west) is visible in most of its current configuration (Appendix D, Figure D - 4). A large structure (previously identified by ESA in 2019 as LCWA-CRE-004-H), is located on the State Lands [Commission] Parcel site (ESA 2019). While only the concrete foundation currently remains, ESA determined the building was related to the Airport Club Marina Palace and was initially constructed in 1950. The building was a large Quonset hut which was used as a gambling house and music venue (ESA 2019). 49 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 30 Between 1962 and 1965, the 90 degree bend at the northernmost point of the Hellman Channel is altered to its current configuration (Appendix D, Figure D - 5 and Appendix D, Figure D - 6). Sometime between 1965 and 1974, a long portion of the northeast/southwest access road near the center of the Project area was removed (Appendix D, Figure D - 7). In 1974, two large rectangular water retention basins are present (which remain today) at the western end of the Project area, adjacent to 1st Street. It is assumed these basins are associated with the nearby oil fields which are outside the boundaries of the Project area. The structures located at the western end of the Project area (LCWA-CRE-004-H) are no longer present. Only the concrete foundation is visible. There are no notable alterations within the Project area between 1974 and present day (Appendix D, Figure D - 8 and Appendix D, Figure D - 9). RECORDS SEARCH CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM For the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), ESA archaeologist Vanessa Ortiz completed a search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton on May 19, 2019. The records search was for the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex which included the proposed Project area as well as a one-mile radius. Cogstone archaeologist Logan Freeberg requested a second and expanded records search from the SCCIC on March 23, 2021. The updated records search focused on identifying cultural sites within a three-mile buffer around the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. SCCIC Assistant Coordinator Michelle Galaz completed the search on April 30, 2021. Results of the record search indicate that 13 previous studies have been completed within the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex while an additional 99 studies have been completed previously within a one-mile radius of the Los Cerritos Complex (Appendix E, Table E - 1). Three prehistoric cultural resources have been recorded within the Southern LCW Project area: P-30-000256 (Landing Hill #1), P-30-000258 (Landing Hill #3), and P-30-000260. Outside of the Southern LCW Project area, a total of 350 cultural resources have been previously 50 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 31 documented within the 3-mile radius from the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area. These consist of 30 cultural resources within 0 – 0.25 miles, 56 cultural resources within 0.25 – 0.5 miles, 34 cultural resources within 0.5 – 1 miles, 121 cultural resources within 1 – 2 miles and 109 cultural resources within 2 – 3 miles of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area (Appendix F, Table F – 1). P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1) P-30-000256 was recorded as a prehistoric habitation site with milling stones located on Landing Hill above the coastal plain and tidal flats of Alamitos and Anaheim Bays, and close to food sources. The site was surface collected for many years prior to being recorded and much of it has been destroyed by development (McKinney 1969a based on information from Redwine 1959). P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3) P-30-000258 was recorded as a prehistoric habitation site that covered the highest of the small knolls on Landing Hill. Numerous chipped stone and ground stone artifacts were identified on the surface including 60 manos, 13 mortar fragments, 16 hammerstones, and a broken and mended sandstone bowl. This site has been largely destroyed by housing development (McKinney 1969b based on information from Redwine 1959). P-30-000260 P-30-000260 was a prehistoric archaeological site that covered a small flat on the edge of Landing Hill. It is described as a seasonal camp marked mainly by shell remains and fragmented ground and chipped stone artifacts (McKinney 1969c based on information from Redwine 1959). OTHER SOURCES In addition to the SCCIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted in July 2021 to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Project area. Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Built Environment Resource Database (BERD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) (Table 2). Specific information about the Project area, obtained from historic-era maps and aerial photographs, is also presented in the Project area History section. 51 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 32 Table 2. Additional Sources Consulted Source Results National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Negative Historic USGS Topographic Maps The earliest USGS topographic quadrangle maps of the Project area are the 1886 Los Bolsas and 1896 Downey (both 1:62,500), which show the Project area as a wetland with improved roads close to its eastern border (Appendix G, Figure G - 1.) Little change is depicted until 1935, when the Los Alamitos (1:31,680) map shows a road in the south portion of the Project area (Appendix G, Figure G - 2). The San Gabriel River has not yet been channelized. The 1941 Las Bolsa and 1942 Downey (both 1:31,680) USGS topographic quadrangles show additional dirt roads and three buildings within the Project area (Appendix G, Figure G - 3). Depictions on USGS quadrangle maps change little to the present except for the 1974 Los Alamitos (1:24,000) USGS topographic quadrangle, based on an aerial photograph, and shows additional small roads, two larger retaining basins, and features encircled by roads that may be smaller retaining basins. Historic US Department of Agriculture Aerial Photographs Per the earliest known USDA aerial photographs, in 1927 (NETROnline 1927) there are multiple access roads visible within the Project area boundaries. Due to the poor quality of the photograph, observation of additional built environment is limited. In 1927, the Hellman Channel is clearly visible in its present location and configuration. Multiple dirt access roads are present, leading to and from the Project area. At least two large tanks are present at the northern center of the Project area. At least three water retention ponds are also visible. The 1952 USDA historic aerial photograph shows a large structure (previously identified by ESA in 2019 as LCWA-CRE-004-H) located on a State Lands [Commission] Parcel site (NETROnline 1952). While only the concrete foundation remains, ESA determined the building was related to the Airport Club Marina Palace and was initially constructed in 1950. The building was a large 32uonset hut which was used as a gambling house and music venue (ESA 2019). The 1974 USDA historic aerial photograph shows two water retention basins in place (NETROnline 1974). The features remain today. It is assumed these basins are associated with the nearby oil fields which are outside the boundaries of the Project area. California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Negative Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Negative California Historical Landmarks (CHL) Negative California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) Negative 52 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 33 Source Results Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office Records Table 3. Abel Stearns; 1874; Mexican Land Grant; Accession No. CACAAA 084787; Township 5 South, Range 12 West, Sections 11, 12 and 14; as part of 27143-acre land grant. Local Registers (Historical Societies/Archives) There is currently no active historical society in Seal Beach. Based on information found on the social media page for the Seal Beach Historical Society the organization is defunct and the whereabouts of its documentary holdings is unknown. Table 3. Land Patents Name(s) Year Accession Number Type T; R; Section Abel Stearns 1874 CACAAA084787 Serial Patent T: 5S; R: 12W, Sections 11, 12 and 14 Abel Stearns was one of the richest and most influential citizens of Los Angeles during his lifetime. Born in Massachusetts in 1799, he eventually made his way to California and settled in Los Angeles around 1833. Mr. Stearns made a large amount of money in trade and eventually purchased large swaths of real estate including Ranchos Los Alamitos, Las Bolas, La Laguna de Los Angeles and half interest in Los Coyotes. In 1849 he was a member of the first Constitutional Convention representing the district of Los Angeles. Mr. Stearns became one of the largest land and cattle owners in California. His wife, Dona Arcadia, who was the daughter of Don Juan Bandini, inherited the entire estate upon his death in 1871 (Barrows 1899). SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex for the PEIR in 2019. The NAHC responded that the search was positive but did not specifically identify the Sacred Land (Appendix H). Cogstone did not request an additional SFL search as Anthony Morales of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians identified that the sacred lands were the village of Puvungna which was nominated to the Sacred Lands file on November 19, 2019, and the village of Motuucheyngna which was nominated on May 9, 2019. TRIBAL COORDINATION AND INTERVIEWS TRIBAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Consultation with Native American Tribes under AB 52 as well as other potentially interested Tribes was conducted for the PEIR (Section 3.15, ESA 2020). As a result of that process, a 53 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 34 Tribal Advisory Group (TAG) was created to collaborate first, with all tribes that consulted with LCWA through the AB 52 process for the PEIR, and potentially second, other interested Tribes, to engage tribal perspectives early on and throughout planning development, and to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into restoration designs. Nine Tribes were invited to participate in TAG meetings (Table 4; Appendix I). The Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation was not part of the original AB 52 consultation for the PEIR as they had been inactive for several years but are now included for their knowledge of the area. Table 4. Tribes invited to TAG Tribe Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Romero* Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu *Teresa Romero has been replaced as Chairwoman by Heidi Lucero as of July 10, 2021. The first TAG meeting was held on May 25, 2021, via Zoom. Four Tribal participants representing four Tribes attended (the Gabrieleno Shoshone Tribe, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, and Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians). Participants were provided an overview of the purpose and goals of the TAG, information on the Southern LCW Restoration Project, results of the cultural resources records search, and information on the cultural landscape study of the greater Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. After the meeting, minutes of the TAG meeting were prepared by LCWA and sent to representatives of the nine Tribes via email. During the first TAG meeting, Tribal representatives requested an in-person field visit. On July 23, 2021, LCWA staff and consultants met with five Tribal representatives and three California Coastal Commission staff members ( Figure 5; Appendix J). Prior to the meeting, Tribal representatives were provided a list and map of the prehistoric sites within a 3-mile buffer around the Los Cerritos Complex and information about interviews to be conducted for the TCL study. Hard copies of these documents were made available to site visit participants, who walked the Southern LCW Restoration Project area as LCWA representatives provided information about the proposed project. Tribal members asked 54 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 35 questions and provided feedback on the proposed restoration plan. Detailed comments are summarized in the Tribal Feedback section below. TRIBAL INTERVIEWS To better understand the Gabrielino’s (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño’s (Acjachemen) relationship to the Los Cerritos Wetlands, saltwater marshes, and the greater cultural landscape encompassing the Los Cerritos Wetlands, including the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna, Cogstone conducted interviews with Tribal members recommended by Tribal representatives. Figure 5. Meeting with LCWA. Coastal Commission, and TAG on July 23, 2021. Interviews were conducted in conjunction with UCLA’s “Diverse Perspectives on Water” project. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the “Diverse Perspectives on Water” project is investigating how Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Tataviam viewed/views water in the past, present, and future in Los Angeles County. Prior to each interview, each interviewee was provided an Interview Consent Form and list of possible interview questions (Appendix K). UCLA staff, Dr. Jessica Cattelino and Sedonna Goeman-Shulsky, conducted digital video recording of the interviews of four of the interviewees while Cogstone staff recorded interviews via digital audio recorder and took digital photographs. Each participant was provided an honorarium for their participation. 55 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 36 Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority staff conducted an interview with Matt Teutimez, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, via Zoom. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s history and stories are not interchangeable with the history of other tribes interviewed in this study. The Lawrence de Graaf Center for Oral and Public History at the California State University, Fullerton transcribed the digital audio interviews. Copies of the interview transcripts, photos and interview audio and video will be provided to all interviewees. The interview transcripts, photos and video may be donated to the Graaf Center for Oral and Public History, upon consent of participants. Five Tribal members were interviewed ( Table 5). Table 5. Tribal members interviewed Name Tribe Date Location Cindi Alvitre Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu August 14, 2021 Gum Grove Park, Seal Beach, CA Mercedes Dorame Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council August 14, 2021 Gum Grove Park, Seal Beach, CA Craig Torres Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu August 28, 2021 Southern LCW Project area, Seal Beach, CA Nicholas Rocha Gabrielino Shoshone Nation August 28, 2021 Southern LCW Project area, Seal Beach, CA Matt Teutimez Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation October 7, 2021 Via Zoom Rocha, Torres, and Alvitre were also given a tour of the Southern LCW Project area by D. Martinez. Cindi Alvitre Ms. Alvitre is Director of the Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu and has been an educator and artist activist for over three decades. She served as the first woman chair of the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council and in 1985, she and Lorene Sisquoc co-founded the Mother Earth Clan, a collective of Indian women who created a model for cultural and environmental 56 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 37 education, with a particular focus on traditional art. In the late 1980s, she co-founded the Ti’at Society sharing in the renewal of the ancient maritime practices of the coastal/island Tongva, extending into the public realm as participants in the World Festival of Sacred Music and Moompetam, the American Indian Festival at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach. Cindi is currently a professor in American Indian Studies and the NAGPRA Coordinator for California State University, Long Beach. Mercedes Dorame Ms. Dorame is a Tongva artist and currently visiting faculty at CalArts. She is the daughter of Robert Dorame, Chair of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. As an artist, she calls on her Tongva ancestry to engage the problematics of (in)visibility and ideas of cultural construction. As a Native American monitor, she observed construction at the Hellman Ranch site, located to the east of the Southern LCW Restoration Project and at the Playa Vista/Ballona wetlands. Dorame’s work is in the permanent collections of the Hammer Museum, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, The Triton Museum, The Allen Memorial Art Museum, The de Saisset Museum, The Montblanc Foundation Collection, and The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum. Craig Torres Mr. Torres is an Tongva artist and cultural educator descended from the indigenous communities of the Yaavetam (Los Angeles) and Komiikravetam (Santa Monica Canyon). He is a member of the Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu. As a Tongva cultural educator he has taught at many schools, culture and nature centers, museums as well as other governmental agencies on Tongva history, culture and contemporary issues. He is an ongoing consultant at Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens in Long Beach, working with the Tongva program that he helped develop. He has also been involved with the Chia Café Collective which provides cooking demos and classes with California native plants and provided education on the importance of preserving native plants, habitats and landscapes for future generations (Drake et al. 2016). He is also an advocate of “indigenizing” public and residential landscapes to California native plants and raising the public’s awareness of drought and water issues. As an artist, he derives his inspiration from his Tongva cultural heritage. He works in digital media as a graphic designer, mixed media as well as utilized some of his designs as inspiration for community collaborative “sacred art” installations. Nicholas Rocha Mr. Rocha is currently the Chair of the Gabrielino Shoshone Nation and is on the cultural advisory board for Anahuacalmecac International Baccalaureate World School in Los Angeles. His mother, Vera Rocha, was chief of the Gabrielino Shoshone Nation while his father was its spiritual leader. The Rocha family has been involved with Native America activism and politics for many years including bringing a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles in 1996 along with 57 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 38 the Wetlands Action Network/Ballona Valley Preservation League/Earth Trust Foundation, and Friends of Sunset Park to protect the Ballona Wetlands, a salt marsh located in west Los Angeles. Matthew Teutimez Mr.Teutimez is a biologist and has both a Bachelor and Master of Science in Biology from California State University of Long Beach. He brings his indigenous perspective to his projects, melding his educational background and traditional ecological knowledge passed down from generation to generation. Mr. Teutimez’s father, John Teutimez Jr. is a tribal elder, and he is cousin to current Tribal Chairperson Andrew Salas. The family can trace their lineage through the decades of colonization, through the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods, tying back to the San Gabriel Mission and workers of the ranchero families that occupied Long Beach and Seal Beach. Mr. Teutimez also sits on California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Tribal Advisory Council. Attempts to interview Juaneño (Acjachemen) Tribal members have been unsuccessful. Overview of the responses to the interview questions are incorporated in the Tribal Feedback as well as summarized in the Cultural Landscape sections below. Figure 6. Mercedes Dorame and Cindi Alvitre, Gum Grove Park, Seal Beach, CA August 14, 2021. 58 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 39 Figure 7. Craig Torres and Nicholas Rocha, Los Cerritos Wetlands, Seal Beach, CA August 28, 202 SURVEY METHODS The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified cultural resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and the proximity of the resource to areas of cultural resources sensitivity. All undeveloped ground surface areas within the Project area were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool- making debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cutbanks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were visually inspected. Photographs of the Project area, including ground surface visibility and items of interest, were taken with a digital camera. Cogstone archaeologist Desiree Martinez conducted an intensive cultural resources pedestrian survey of selected areas of the Project area (northern edge of the Hellman Channel) on July 21 and August 28, 2021. Cogstone archaeologist Sandy Duarte completed an intensive-level pedestrian survey on August 5 and 6, 2021, of those areas not covered by dense vegetation . 59 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 40 Built environment survey methods include thoroughly photographing all elevations/facades of a structure including close-up photographs of important character defining features such as overall shape of the structure, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, etc. Cogstone Architectural Historian Shannon Lopez documented the Hellman Channel on July 21, 2021. RESULTS Ground visibility within the Project area was very poor (less than 3 percent) due to dense vegetation. As a result, Ms. Duarte surveyed approximately 20 acres of the 105 acres within the Project area which consisted of bare and semi-bare surrounding areas, having 95 percent visibility (Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The intensive pedestrian survey consisted of one- to three- meter wide transects in accessible areas. The wetlands and surrounding areas are covered with glasswort, prickly lettuce, sage brush, mule fat, wild tobacco, bladderpod, and an abundance of other native and non-native flora ( Figure 8). Most of the Project area surveyed has been highly disturbed from anthropogenic activities. Most of the Project area’s surface was covered with dredge sediments and various sized shell fragments including clam, oysters, scallops, barnacles, California Horn Snail, etc. ( Figure 9). Figure 8. Overview of the Southern LCW Project area showing dense vegetation, facing northeast 60 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 41 Figure 9. Overview dredge sediments and shell within the Project area NEWLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES Six new cultural resources were recorded: one historic earthen irrigation channel, two prehistoric isolates (2021_08_05_SD.1-I and 2021_08_28_DRM.1-I), two historic sites (2021_08_06_SD.1 and 2021_08_06_SD.2) and one prehistoric site (2021_08_06_SD_3). Hellman Channel This segment of the historic Hellman Channel within the Southern LCW Project area is 4,161 feet long (Figure 10). This channel was likely constructed ca. 1928 and originally used for irrigation purposes on the Hellman Ranch. The channel is not lined and is gravity fed. The depth of the channel is between 1-2 feet and varies in width, approximately 4 feet at its narrowest point and around 15 feet at its widest. The bank of the channel is covered with dense vegetation. Several concrete conduits located in various points along the channel allow water to flow under an asphalted road crossing. 61 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 42 Figure 10. Segment of Hellman Channel near 1st Street; facing east 2021_08_05_SD.1-I 2021_08_05_SD.1-I is an isolated prehistoric artifact consisting of 1 piece of obsidian debitage, located north of 1st Street ( Figure 11; Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The isolate measures 2.7 centimeters (cm) x 2.5 cm x 2 cm. 62 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 43 Figure 11. 2021_08_05_SD.1-I, isolated obsidian debitage 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I is a prehistoric isolate consisting of 1 prehistoric exfoliated granitic unifacial mano and an exfoliated chalcedony scraper found in three pieces ( Figure 12; Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The mano measures 12.7 cm in diameter and 3.81 cm in thickness. When whole the scraper measured 2.54 cm x 2 cm and 0.5 cm in thickness. No other cultural resources or features were present. Figure 12. 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I, granitic mano and chalcedony scraper 2021_08_06_SD.1 2021_08_06_SD.1 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of two piles of wood planks and boards, a pile of broken concrete, and some metal scraps Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16 and Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The wood and concrete had no diagnostic features. 63 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 44 Figure 13. Overview of first wood pile within 2021_08_06_SD.1, facing south Figure 14. Overview of second wood pile within 2021_08_06_SD.1, facing north 64 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 45 Figure 15. Overview of concrete pile within 2021_08_06_SD.1, facing south Figure 16. Metal scrap within 2021_08_06_SD.1. 65 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 46 2021_08_06_SD.2 2021_08_06_SD.2 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of deteriorated red bricks (Figure 17), a pile of tile fragments ( Figure 18) and a historic soda fired ceramic pipe sherd ( Figure 19). The site measures approximately 72 feet by 43 feet and is adjacent to the northern edge of the Hellman Channel (Appendix L, Figure L - 1). Figure 17. Overview of deteriorating red brick within 2021_08_06_SD.2 66 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 47 Figure 18. Overview of ceramic tile in 2021_08_06_SD.2 Figure 19. Historic soda fired ceramic pipe sherd 2021_08_06_SD.3 2021_08_06_SD.3 is a prehistoric site consisting of a lithic scatter of a quartz flake ( Figure 20), a modified tool of pink quartzite ( Figure 21), and a grey quartzite scraper ( Figure 22). This site is approximately 60 meters east of 2021_08_06_SD.2. The site measures 60 meters by 14 meters and is adjacent to the northern edge of the Hellman Channel (Appendix L, Figure L - 1). Figure 20. Quartz Flake within 2021_08_06_SD.3 67 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 48 Figure 21. Pink Quartzite tool within 2021_08_06_SD.3 Figure 22. Grey Quartzite scraper within 2021_08_06_SD.3 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES Portions of three previously recorded cultural resources are located within the Southern LCW Project area. P-30-000256 was revisited. This northwest portion of the site sits atop a bluff and spills down slope into the wetlands. Approximately 15 percent of the site was visible. No cultural resources were observed. The portions of P-30-000258 and P-30-000260 that lie within the Southern LCW Project area were not accessible due to dense vegetation and were not revisited. EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING Cogstone returned in September/October for Extended Phase I presence-absence testing of three resources recorded during the August 2021 survey and site visits. These resources (temporary names) are 2021_08_05_SD.1/I and 2021_08_28-DRM_1-I cultural isolates, and site 2021_08_06_SD.3. Planned excavation is summarized in Table 6 below (and investigation methods are summarized in the next section and detailed in Gust and Martinez 2022). Eric Zahn of Tidal Influence met with the archaeological crew on the first day of excavation to provide optimal access routes to the resources and to point out sensitive vegetation. Native American monitors representing Tribal Advisory Group participants accompanied the archaeological crew on a rotating basis (Table 7). Table 6. Planned excavation Site Name Site Type and Description Type of Excavation Depth of fill Planned Disturbance (Grading) 2021_08_05_SD.1/I Isolate-obsidian debitage Shovel Test Pit (STP) 50 cm diameter x 1.2 m (1.3 x 4 feet) deep 3 feet 3 feet 2021_08_06_SD.3 Site-lithic scatter Test Excavation Unit (TEU) 1m x1m x 1.6m (3 x 3 x 5 feet) 4 feet of fill 2-3 feet of cut 2021_08_28-DR_1-I Isolate-granitic mano and chalcedony scraper STP 40 cm diameter x 30 cm (1.3 x 1 foot) deep 0 feet No planned ground disturbance 68 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 49 Table 7. Native American monitoring schedule Date Monitor Representing 9/28/2022 none Planned representative was ill and unavailable 9/29/2022 Robert Dorame Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council 9/30/2022 Dominic Robles Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu 10/3/2022 John Blunt Gabrielino Tongva Nation 10/4/2022 Sam Dunlap Gabrielino Tongva Tribe METHODS The testing crew included a single supervisor-level archaeologist and a qualified field technician. The principal archaeologist was on-site a on spot-check basis. Cogstone contacted Dig-Alert (digalert.org) prior to the start of excavation, to obtain the locations of underground utilities. Extended Phase I testing within the Southern LCW consisted of excavation with three prehistoric resources (2021_08_05_SD.1/I, 2021_08_06_SD.3, and 2021_08_28-DRM_1-I) identified during fields visits/pedestrian survey in 2021 (Appendix L, Figure L - 1; see Table 6). Excavations were accomplished using a a round-tipped shovel, pick, and dig bar in 10-centimeter (4-inch) levels. Sediments at each excavation location were screened through 1/8-inch hardware mesh. Sediment color was identified using a Munsell® Soil Color Chart, and any natural stratigraphy or effects of bioturbation were described using standard methods and terminology. All surface artifacts that could be reidentified were collected and the crew was prepared to collect all prehistoric artifacts and all temporally diagnostic historic-aged artifacts. A Handheld Trimble GeoXH 6000 high resolution GPS unit was used to record each excavation location. Color digital photographs were taken before, during, and after fieldwork. Other documentation included field notes on the condition of the deposit and excavation records. After excavation was complete, each excavation location was backfilled using sediments from the excavation. 2021_08_05_SD.1/I Work at 2021_08_21.SD/I was originally planned to consist of one 50 cm diameter x 1.2 m (1.3 feet x 4 feet) deep STP (STP 1). Sediment color varied from white (2.5Y8/1) at the surface to dusky red (2.5Y3/2) to 30 centimeters to dark brown (7.5Y3/3) from 30 centimeters to the bottom of the pit. Sediments in STP 1 were silty sand that become progressively less silty and more compact with depth. Clay content varied from minimal within first 20 centimeters to increasingly large dense nodules from 20 centimeters (8 inches) to 50 centimeters (20 inches) (Figure 23). At approximately 50 centimeters further excavation was stopped by a large piece of reddish in color dimensional lumber. Due to this obstruction, a second STP (designated STP 1B) 69 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 50 was excavated 5.2 meters (17 feet) due south of STP 1. Sediments within STP 1B were similar to those in STP 1 except it had greater clay content within the first 20 centimeters. A similar piece of reddish dimensional lumber was encountered at 58 centimeters (23 inches) (Figure 24). No other subsurface cultural material was found in STP 1 or STP 1B. Figure 23. STP 1 at 2021_08_05_SD.1/I post-excavation, view to the north. Note dimensional lumber at bottom of STP. Figure 24. STP 1B at 2021_08_05_SD.1/I post-excavation. Note dimensional lumber at bottom of STP. 70 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 51 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I Work at 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I consisted of a single STP (STP 2) excavated to the planned depth of 30 centimeters (1 foot) (Figure 25). Sediment color varied from white (2.5Y8/1) at the surface to very dark grayish brown (2.5 Y3/2) in the first 10 centimeters (4 inches) to grayish brown inches (2.5Y5/2) from 10 centimeters (4 inches) to 30 centimeters (12 inches). A thin layer of salt covered STP 2 at the surface. Sediments consisted of wet silty sand with minimal clay and a small amount of shell that diminishes with increasing depth. No cultural material was found subsurface within STP 2. Figure 25. STP 2 at 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I post-excavation. 2021_08_06.SD.3 Planned work at 2021_08_06.SD.3 consisted of a single 1 meter (3 feet) by 1 meter (3 feet) TEU excavated to 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) deep. A possible hand stone (mano) was found 3.1 (10 feet) meters northwest of TEU on the surface but the not all of the cultural material identified during survey was reidentified during testing. Starting at a few centimeters below the surface the content of the TEU became approximately 20 percent very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand and 80 percent rocky material predominated by fragments of broken concrete. One lithic flake and two possible lithic flakes were found in the first ten centimeters (4 inches) (Level 1) and some chert and quartzite were also present. Contents of Levels 2 and 3 were a similar 80 percent rocky material/20 percent very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand, with a small number of shell fragments mixed within fragments of modern plastic bags. One potential lithic flake was recovered from 16 to 26 centimeters (6 to 10 inches) below surface, and another was found at 20 to 30 (8 to 12 inches) centimeters below surface. Starting at approximately three centimeters (1 inch) deep within Level 4 the rocky material content began to decrease. No artifacts were recovered from 71 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 52 the very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand within Level 4 other than a possible piece of wood. A brick fragment was found within the now nearly 100 percent very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand within Level 5. Small bits of asphaltum was also present from near the top of Level 1 to the bottom of Level 5. The first 5 centimeters of Level 6 consisted of the same very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand (Figure 26). When the excavation reached 55 centimeters (22 inches) below surface, a shift in excavation methods was necessary due to time constraints. Instead of continuing the unit an STP (STP 3) was placed in the center of TEU 1. At approximately 85 centimeters (33 inches) below surface the dark reddish brown (2.5Y3/1) silty sand became wet and compacted and no longer contained shell or asphaltum. These sediments continued to 152 centimeters (5 feet) below surface where the STP was stopped due to time constraints and difficulty removing sediments from the STP for screening (Figure 27). Natural sediments were reached in this testing operation as fill depth was estimated to be approximately 4 feet (120 centimeters). No potentially prehistoric cultural material was found below 30 centimeters (1 foot) and any potentially historic-age material found was mixed with modern trash. Lithic artifacts from TEU 1 are shown in Figures 28 to 31. 72 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 53 Figure 26. TEU 1 at 2021_08_06.SD.3 post excavation at 55 centimeters deep, view to the north. Figure 27. STP 3 in TEU 1 at 2021_08_06.SD.3 post excavation at 152 centimeters deep, view to the north. Figure 28. Lithic flake (4) 1.4from TEU 1, 0 to 10 centimeters below surface. Figure 29. Possible lithic flakes from TEU 1, 0 to 10 centimeters below TP3 5'.'.:'-1'°'L""''o5 6.¼,~, ol tote'-~' l02L uTM:, S398052,3,.35 n L_____ -- 73 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 54 surface. Figure 30. Possible lithic flake from TEU 1, 16 to 26 centimeters below surface. Figure 31. Possible lithic flake from TEU 1, 20 to 30 centimeters below surface. RESULTS None of the three resources that underwent tended phase I presence/absence testing in September/October 2022 were found to have associated intact buried cultural deposits. Specific information for each tested resource follows. 2021_08_05_SD.1/I According to Eric Zahn of Tidal Influence (personal communication to John Gust on October 3, 2022) this resource was in an area that previously contained sump pits used in fossil fuel extraction. The reddish dimensional lumber found in the bottom of STPs 1 and 1B is consistent with this as cedar and redwood, both reddish in color, are commonly used in wet situations due to their natural resistance to rotting. Excavation for a sump pit would have disrupted any cultural deposits once present. 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I The planned STP in this resource was excavated according to plan and revealed no cultural material subsurface. 2021_08_06.SD.3 Testing excavation in this resource was deeper than within the two isolates. The only potentially prehistoric material was found no deeper than 30 centimeters (1 foot) below surface and then 74 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 55 mixed with modern trash and concrete debris. Natural sediments were reached in the last approximately 30 centimeters (1 foot) without encountering cultural deposits. GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS METHODS For this assessment, University of California Davis National Resources Conservation Service California Soils Resource Lab (UCD SoilWeb, accessed September 2021) soils maps were consulted along with the United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, accessed September 2021) soils descriptions, and geologic maps. Soils of the Project area were determined using the UCD maps. Subsurface site preservation depends on many factors. Soils and locations were analyzed for grain sizes, slope, and environmental indicators that contribute to the preservation of sites. Primarily, sites accumulate where people have the highest probability of living; on lower slope gradients near water sources but in areas that are unlikely to experience regular flooding. Additionally, lower slope gradients decrease erosion and increase deposition assisting in site burial. Both pebbly and coarser grain sizes as well as clay rich soils preserve artifacts poorly. The age of a soil also determines the likelihood of buried archaeological sites and must be assessed as the older soils are less likely to contain sites unless items were intentionally buried in them. Soils likely too old for site preservation have duripans (hardpans), and argillic (clay rich) horizons, while younger soils with a higher potential for preservation are indicated by the lack of a B horizon or the presence of a cambic horizon. Both Holocene alluvial and aeolian units have a higher potential for artifacts as the soils were co-deposited with the local cultural groups. CLASSIFICATIONS FOR BURIED SITE POTENTIAL ARE AS FOLLOW Very low: Soils are underlain by deposits that predate human occupation of the region. Soils that include B horizons, especially if they are argillic or silicic (duripan) horizons are also classified as very low. Additionally, exposed bedrock, borrow pits, heavily eroded or gullied land, or water bodies have a very low potential. Areas of high erosion, water, borrow pits, rock outcrops, or sediments mapped as Pleistocene or older are classified as having a very low potential. Low: Soils are underlain by deposits that predate human occupation of the region, high-energy deposits unlikely to contain cultural materials in a primary context, are residual soils (soils weathered in place above bedrock), or include B horizons. Low-potential areas include Inceptisols. These are formed in residual soils weathered directly from bedrock and, thus, have a 75 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 56 low potential for buried sites. Areas where soils are weathered from bedrock, dissected alluvial fans, and locations where soils are forming on mountains are classified as having a low potential. Medium: Soils are underlain by deposits that are most likely terminal Pleistocene or Holocene in age, possibly have intact buried surfaces, or have sediments that are likely to have been deposited in a low-energy environment. Alluvial fans, fan aprons, valley fills, dissected remnants of alluvial fans, floodplains, and drainages are classified as having a medium potential. High: Soils are underlain by deposits that are most likely terminal Pleistocene or Holocene in age, or sediments represent low-energy deposits, or have a high potential to contain buried intact geomorphic surfaces that could have been used by humans in the past. Alluvial stream terraces and floodplains, terrace escarpments, alluvial fans (fan skirts, fan aprons, and inset fans), and areas with aeolian deposits are classified as having a high potential. RESULTS The Project area is mapped as middle to late Pleistocene old marine to nonmarine deposits and modern artificial fill. The location of the Southern LCW Project area adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and San Gabriel River would have made the area highly appealing for settlement. However, the minimal topography indicates that the area would have likely been marshy and subject to flooding. The slightly raised Landing Hill located to the south and east of the Project area would have been a more likely area to find settlements, as is evident by the many archaeological sites documented. Several soils are present within the Project area, some of which formed in the marsh habitat and others that are introduced to the Project area as fill and denote disturbance (Appendix M, Figure M - 1; USDA-NRCS 2021). SOILS MAPPED OVER ARTIFICIAL FILL At the surface, all areas mapped as artificial fill will have a very low potential as any artifacts present would be not in situ. Soils impacted include Balcom clay loam (112), Bolsa silty clay loam, drained (125), Bolsa, drained (1230LA), and Myford sandy loam (173, 175; Appendix M, Figure M - 1). Based on the geology map, a good portion of the sediments below the artificial fill are probably middle to late Pleistocene old marine to nonmarine deposits (Qom), late Pleistocene to Holocene young alluvial fan deposits (Qya2) associated with the San Gabriel River, late Pleistocene to Holocene young paralic estuarine deposits (Qype), and late Holocene paralic estuarine deposits (Qpe; Appendix C, Figure C - 3). Pleistocene deposits mostly predate human settlement, and both estuary and marine environments are unfavorable to settlement. As such, all of these sediments are assigned a low to very low potential for buried sites. 76 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 57 SOILS MAPPED OVER MIDDLE TO LATE PLEISTOCENE OLD MARINE TO NONMARINE DEPOSITS Unit 112, the Balcom clay loam, is assigned a very low potential for buried sites due to the topography of the adjacent steep slope, the potentially marshy flats, as well as the age of the underlying sediments. Additionally, the presence of B horizons decrease the potential for buried sites. Unit 125, the Bolsa silty clay loam, drained is assigned a low potential for buried sites due to the potentially marshy flats and the age of the underlying sediments. Units 173 and 175, Myford sandy loam, are assigned a very low potential for buried sites due to the topography of the adjacent steep slope, the potentially marshy flats, as well as the age of the underlying sediments. Additionally, the presence of B horizons decrease the potential for buried sites. TRIBAL FEEDBACK As previously stated, in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL16: Future Native American Input for the PEIR, the LCWA created a Tribal Advisory Group (TAG) to solicit recommendations regarding the Southern LCW Restoration Project. Members of the TAG recommended Tribal members to be interviewed for their cultural knowledge of the area. Mitigation Measure CUL17 of the PEIR states that a Tribal Access Plan will be created “to preserve and enhance tribal members’ access to, and use of, the restoration Project area for religious, spiritual, or other cultural purposes.” The following is a summary of comments, concerns, and information gathered through TAG meetings, site visits and interviews. Further, comments provided in Section 3.15: Tribal Cultural Resources of the PEIR are also included here, as one of the Tongva elders who provided comments passed away in early 2021 and would have been interviewed for her extensive knowledge of salt marshes. PAST USE OF SALT MARSHES A search of the ethnographic record, including the J.P. Harrington and C. Hart Merriam notes, did not turn up any significant description of the use of salt marshes or the Los Cerritos Wetlands by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) or the Acjachemen. Merriam (n.d.: Roll 8) did record the Luiseno name of the “Salinas” at today’s Redondo Beach as Engva. Historically, Redondo Beach, located 18 miles northwest of the Project area, was well known for the Pacific Salt Works that was established there in 1854 (Gnerre 2010). It was also used by the local Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh). Alfred Kroeber recorded from Jose Zalvidea that the 77 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 58 Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) name of the village was Ongoving (Kroeber 1907: 143). McCawley spells it ‘Ongoovanga (McCawley 1996: 63). Merriam records the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) words for salt as “Ung-er” from Mrs. J.V. Rosemyre, a Tongva woman who lived in Bakersfield, California in 1903. She further stated that the salt made from salt grass was “se’-e-mōt” and that the salt was used for fever (Merriam n.d. 1556: Roll 49). The LCWA met with Julia Bogany of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, who stated that the Los Cerritos Wetlands was probably used as a “salt works” much like the Redondo area (Coastal Restoration Consultants 2021:61-62). She provided further information as summarized in the PEIR: In the Tongva history, it is known that salt marsh used to exist in this area because their tribe would travel from the ocean to the salt marsh on canoes. The salt marshes were important to the Tongva because throughout prehistoric times, the Tongva traded salt gathered from salt flats in the salt marsh. Multiple stories exist that document the salt trade, for example, the tribe used to trade salt to a hospital in San Bernardino to treat patients. The Los Cerritos Wetlands is the only prehistoric salt marsh left in the area from Pacific Palisades, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands was and continues to be an important cultural resource to the Tongva and Acjachemen tribes (Section 3.15.2.3 of the PEIR). Lowell Bean also documented salt being traded from the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) to the Cahuilla and vice versa ( Figure 3). SALT AS MEDICINE Cindi Alvitre stated that salt was and continues to be an important medicine. I’ll give you an example of that, is I grew up with a father who when we got sick we would go to the ocean, he would gather the salt water, the ocean water––we could do that back in the fifties––and we would, like, use a neti pot and we would breathe it in through our nose…And then at some point we stopped doing it because the water was polluted. And that’s when we started accessing Hawaiian salt. You know the Hawaiian salt is very holy, just like to the Pueblo people it’s (salt) very holy. It’s holy to all people… also we would use it where you take like a tablespoon of salt, good salt, and as hot as you can take the water, if you’re getting the flu or something, and you drink it. And it’ll just––it literally flushes everything out of your system. 78 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 59 Torres also recalls using salt water as medicine. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is, especially with my mom, is using salt water, not necessarily from the ocean, because we couldn’t go down and use the salt water for health, but gargling with salt water all the time when we got sick, you know? And I think it really stems from us traditionally using that salt water for healing in the past, because she would always talk about that, gargle with salt water, gargle with salt water. And so that’s what sticks out in my mind as a child, always having her talking about that whenever we got sick. Alvitre further stated that: …every time there’s a bad kid you just want to bathe him in that water…Bathing in the water was like, not a Christian baptism, but it was a way of rebalancing yourself. So that motivation is always connecting to the water, to that sacredness, that holiness, that place that has so much energy and life. Rocha explains that it is also not just about salt water, but the salt air as well that can be healing. He recalls is mother would say: … it’s not so much salt water, because everything lives in a relationship in the community, you know, air is an organism and salt water with the air. My mom used to call it salt air therapy. Not only does it have the spirit, it kind of makes you mentally stable. You know, you come out here, you breath the air, and that stimulates the body and it gets you focused…You know, it’s––something generates that from inside them and my mom always had the theory of salt air as therapy. If someone was mad, someone was angry, somebody was sad, this was a place we came. And you were good. I mean, it works; it works beautifully. I recommend it. Torres commented that he felt healed being out in the Los Cerritos Wetlands on the day of the interview: … I just came from the desert right now, where it was like 114 degrees. And being back here on the coast with the fog there is something––I mean, I feel healed just being here right now, you know, compared to being out in the desert yesterday. And so, there’s something––I don’t know if it’s just the ions, the ancestors, or just the…––because this is the place where they lived for thousands of generations––and being back home, as opposed to the desert. But there’s 79 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 60 something to be said about––you know, we were talking about this too on the ride, just a while ago. It’s like this fog and this salt in the air, for me it’s healing. FISHING Mr. Rocha recalls the stories that his mother would tell him about the Los Cerritos Wetlands, “So, my mom would talk about the days her uncles used to come out here in a four-man skiff and fish for crab, shrimp, mussels, whatever.” Mr. Teutimez stressed the value of shellfish both as a food source and the value of the shells cultural uses, and would like to get them back into our estuaries. COLLECTING PLANTS AND ANIMALS Dorame stated that her dad Robert told her that he used to eat watercress from the wetlands located on the west side of Los Angeles. …he said his mother would take him to the shore but only let him––put his hands behind his back so he wouldn’t take too much. So he actually had to eat it out of the water with his mouth because it was a means of respecting that you weren’t taking too much of what you could consume in that moment. Alvitre recounted: Like, my father would go into the wetlands. I mean, we were more Newport Back Bay, [those] wetlands. Of course it’s the same wetlands system, but what we’re lacking now is, again, that access and even the use of a lot of those foods because of the denial of access. The birds, the water fowl––that’s a food source. The eggs are a food source. The fish, different kinds of fish that come into the wetlands at high tide and low tide, being able to recognize that and know which one of those are good. Rocha stated that when his family would travel through the area, his mother, Vera, would tell stories of the gifts that could be found within the wetlands. As soon as my mom always asked this question, we knew what was going to become of this conversation. She would say, “Not much pickleweed anymore. We’ve got to get the pickleweed.” My dad would always answer with the same response, “What the heck do we want with that for? It’s poisoned. It’s no good no more.” And my mom would say, “Well, I remember the pickleweed.” I remember her mom telling her stories about how uncles and relatives, ancestors, used to 80 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 61 come out here when the tide rolled out, to see what the tide left them, what presents the tide left them. There were things in abundance back then…But she would tell stories about the baby green sea turtles out here, that you’ll find that they’ll be dropping from the sky because the terns would pick them up. And then the terns would be fighting for them and they’ll be dropping from the sky and you’d have to put them back in the water. There were stories of even fishing for halibut out here and other things: soft shell crab, oysters, mussels. Things were in abundance. When the tide rolled out it left a lot of gifts. And when the eel grass was visible, you know, that was one of the best times to go on an adventure… Additionally, while on the tour of the Project area, Rocha stated that pickleweed was used in the abalone stew his family would make. Rocha mentioned that although his mother would talk about the gifts of the wetlands, they never went in because of the oil drilling and contamination. Table 8 lists a few salt marsh plants that have been identified as used by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and their uses. The interviewees would like to be able to incorporate these plants into their community once again. Table 8. Selected salt marsh plants Common name Scientific name Tribal Uses Pickleweed Salicornia pacifica Food California sea lavender/ western marsh rosemary Limonium californicum Food; medicine Southern tar plant Centromadia parryi ssp. australis Salt grass Distichlis spicata Used to season food California boxthorn Lycium californicum Edible berries Watercress Nasturtium officinale Food, leaves eaten (personal communication; Dorame 2021) Bladderpod Peritoma arborea Food; flowers boiled (Ramirez and Small 2015: 12-17) Evening primrose Oenothera elata Food; medicine Yebra Mansa Anemopsis californica Medicine; tea used for colds and sore throat (Drake in Ramirez and Small 2015); poultice doe cuts and wounds (Mojado in Ramirez and Small 2015) 81 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 62 Common name Scientific name Tribal Uses Shore grass Distichlis littoralis Eelgrass Zostera marina Food; use of rhizomes, seeds and leaves CURRENT USE OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AND SALT MARSHES None of the interviewees or Tribal representatives at the site visit stated that they currently use the Los Cerritos Wetlands or other salt marshes for the collection of plants or animals or other cultural activities. Although Ms. Dorame and her father have close connections to the Ballona Wetlands and have participated in the creation of educational programming and more recently the installation of a monument created to honor the Gabrielino/Tongva ancestors at the Ballona Wetlands Discovery Center ( Figure 32), neither are using the salt marsh to gather plants or for other cultural activities. Figure 32. Monument at the Ballona Discovery Center created by Robert Dorame 82 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 63 FUTURE USE OF SALT MARSHES COLLECTION OF PLANTS AND AANIMALS As previously stated, although the use and connection of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen communities to salt marshes have been cut because of urbanization and colonization, all of the interviewees stated they would like reconnect the community with the salt marsh through the harvesting of plants and animals. Alvitre stated: You know, as Craig [Torres] would say, it’s all about that relational reciprocity. You know, that’s something that is …important––it’s one of our core values as Tongva people is to have that relationship because it’s not a matter of today the practice is very common amongst indigenous people, Native American people, is they just go buy the feathers. They go buy the abalone, or buy this or buy that. I practice it, too; I’m no different than anybody else. And we don’t have a relationship with that which we use. Two or three hundred years ago it was different because you did have a relationship. You had to have a relationship with it, and to disrespect it or to abuse it would have the consequences, would not be very good. So that’s––how do we teach that core value to our young people and to our old people and to all of us, you know, to have those spaces so we can have that relationship with the cormorants and learn about them; so we can learn about those ancient pelicans, you know, the herons, the egrets, the hawks that are here. And oh my gosh there’s so many, many––the black-crowned night heron. What are their stories? You know, the different fish! Nobody––I never hear much people talking about the fish, you know? Sea bass and bonito and clams and mussels and abalone––well, that’s a whole other thing. Mr. Rocha stated that he would like to come out to the wetlands to fish for crab, shrimp, mussels like his mother and her uncles used to. Mr. Teutimez discussed the connection of Puvunga to cottonwoods and the importance of cottonwoods as medicinal plants. …we can talk about Puvungna. What does it mean? Because our names were very indicative of that location. The name explained the whole location, and the name there actually is very specific to me because of where my family grew up, Los Alamitos. Los Alamitos means the little cottonwood. 83 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 64 That’s actually one of the main trees [cottonwood] that I look for, for the medicines that I make for our Tribe….[their] bark has these oily components in it, and that oil was heavily used for healing of cuts, just like Neosporin. HARVESTING SALT Although harvesting salt from a salt marsh or from the salt grass is currently not practiced, all interviewees would like to re-establish those connections and use the salt for medicinal purposes. COLLECTION OF DREDGED SHELL During both the TAG visit and the tour provided to interviewees, Tribal representatives saw piles of large clam and other shell within the Southern LCW Project area. They requested prior to construction that they be allowed to collect the shell for educational and cultural activities. RECONNECTING WITH THE LAND Torres stated that being able to come out to the wetlands to teach the Tongva community how to be human is important. … I always tell people that the animals and the plants are going to teach us how to be human again because we’ve lost that. So that’s the significance to me of this place is being out here physically on the landscape and just sitting here watching, and they will teach you how to behave as human. You know, because we’ve lost so much of what that is and that connection to what has sustained our ancestors for thousands of generations, and we need that. We need that for the healing of our human communities, but also the healing of our relatives, the plant communities, the animal communities, the air, the water––everything. Alvitre agreed when she stated, “That’s kind of the whole point there, too, is for us to re-learn and to reconnect, to renew.” PLACE TO LAUNCH TULE BOATS As stated in the section Past Use of the Salt Marsh above, salt marshes connected the communities from the ocean to the interior using boats, both tule and ti’ats. Currently there is a resurgence in the creation and use of tule boats within the Gabrielino and Acjachemen communities, however due to urbanization, there are not a lot of safe places to practice paddling. For example, members of the Gabrielino, Acjachemen, and greater southern California Native American community members demonstrated the building of a tule boat at the Moompetam American Indian Festival held at the Aquarium of the Pacific, September 24, 2018. After the festival was over, the community lowered the tule boat into the harbor ( Figure 33). While in the water, the paddlers had to contend with not only the private boats pulling and out of their slips but the larger touring Aquaboats that were docking. Since the tule 84 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 65 boat was so small, it was dangerous to paddle. A dozen community members tried paddling over the course of an hour until the boat became waterlogged. As a result, Tongva and Acjachemen community members stated that they would like to use the wetlands to teach the next generation how to paddle and use the boats to collect resources. Using the wetlands in this way would be creating a place where community members could gather, assemble, and build a tule boat and launch it safety into the water. Figure 33. Heidi Lucero (Acjachemen) and Frank Magallanes (Ti’at Society) paddling a tule boat made during the Moompetam American Indian Festival at the Aquarium of the Pacific, September 24, 2018 in the City of Long Beach Rainbow Harbor surrounded by private boats. CO-STEWARDSHIP Having access to collect plant material, conduct ceremony and other cultural activities in the Los Cerritos Wetlands is important. However, the tribal interviewees discussed the idea of co- management (co-steward) the wetlands. Co-stewardship means using methods that are grounded in the Gabrielino’s and Acjachemen’ s relationship to the land and relatives as instructed by their Creator. “These relationships include, but are not limited to, a combination of knowledge, experience, tradition, places, locality, all living and nonliving things, skills, practices, theories, social strategies, moments, spirituality, history, heritage, and more; and may not be fully embraced by people who fail to understand all those dimensions” (NCRS 2010). Co-stewardship also means having the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen community involved in all planning and decision making so that natural processes can be sustained and to ensure that the use by the community does not diminish the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. 85 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 66 EDUCATION Ms. Bogany, during consultation for the PEIR, stated that she would like to see all members of the Gabrielino/Tongva community be invited to help with “the physical and interpretive design” of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. This would include signage as well as “including actual ‘harvest’ of the salt as a cultural and educational activity” (Moffat and Nichol 2015: 59) Although both Rocha and Torres agreed that the Los Cerritos Wetlands have a lot to teach the public, any educational programming created should first be focused on the Gabrielino/Tongva community. Torres states: Educating our younger generations, specifically Tongva community, on this place and what comes from this place. Reconnecting them to this place, getting them to re-establish their relationship with this place and the nature that comes from this place, and then they become responsible for educating the public about that. Not a place that is filled with non-Native docents that are interpreting it, but our own people, our own communities. And giving them the responsibility and obligation to talk about, ‘this is where your identity comes from; it comes from the land. Without it you’re nothing.’ And getting them to understand that so then they can go out and educate the larger public about this place. Torres stated that he would like to see some type of outdoor classroom that does not affect the landscape or viewshed of the wetlands. “It becomes part of the landscape, you know, instead of being intrusive and being a huge building right there, it becomes so much part of the landscape that you don’t even see it as a building.” Rocha suggested a traditional building like a kiiy. Alvitre stated that any public educational materials created for the wetlands should include discussion of a: … whole history that’s been erased and that history needs to be corrected. And it’s as if we have a responsibility of identifying all these very specific areas and redefining and rearticulating what that use is to the public, because it’s important that our history is recorded…, it’s about the public realizing that the health of the wetlands is also reliant on their behavior and their own practices, right? We’re at that point on our planet right now that people need to change that around, you know? So, it’s almost as if we have a responsibility. Here we are trying to heal our communities and trying to bring back life to our communities, but at the same time we also have that responsibility to share a lot of the information that we can with the public so they renew their relationship with the natural world, that they 86 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 67 have to renew that. It’s everybody’s responsibility, but who has the language for that? Who has the experience and the history? It’s the Tongva. GATHERING PLACE All of the interviewees agreed that a place should be created for the Gabrielino/Tongva community to gather for ceremonies or practice cultural traditions within the wetlands in private. Currently, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community must use public parks, campgrounds, beaches, university/college property, and personal backyards to conduct ceremonies. None of these locations are ideal as the possibility of interference, unwanted onlookers, and/or noise from traffic affects the atmosphere that is necessary to conduct the ceremony. Dorame lamented that, “There’s no space where we can go and just have that sovereignty of existence and ceremony and medicine and teaching the next generation.” Rocha felt similarly when he stated: I want to see something that involves family; that involves our drums; involves our rattles. So much not as a pow-wow grounds, but just like a community area where we come together for prayer, morning prayers, you know, tide prayers–– anything. We would like to see something like that, where the sound reverberates and where people won’t complain about a drum…How nice would it be to hear some drums, you know, at this point in time? A nice little primary where the sound can reverberate, where we can appease Mother Earth by song or by poems– –something. Alvitre suggested that a community gathering space would need to accommodate a number of people, she did not give a number, with the possibility of staying overnight. Dorame also suggested that the community space could be used as a healing space. Alvitre further stated that this space should be closed to the public and only be available for Gabrielino community members as having a place open to the public has: … been part of the problem. Like at Puvungna we have it there, but it’s public space and people just wander in and out, you’re doing ceremony. Wherever we’re at people just kind of wander in and out and it’s a distraction. You know, they start asking questions and yeah. And we deserve more than that. Alvitre elaborated that having ceremonies being disrupted in public spaces by people who ask what she is doing, “… changes the energy; it changes even our feelings and our peace. It changes our own peace, that we can’t be comfortable, we can’t feel safe, we can’t feel interfered.” Thus it 87 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 68 becomes important to have that private space, away from the public, to have that peace. LAND CAPABILITY Mr. Teutimez noted how the current state of natural systems affects what can be done in restoring the land. So, when we do coastal restoration, you pretty much have to say, okay, what era do we want to go back in, because in the 1600s this part was a whole different component, and in the 1800s, because the river changed and now it’s flowing this way, it’s a whole different component. So, it’s pretty much whatever the land provides for us is what we’re going to be allowed to revegetate and to help re-heal and put in there. So, we can try and do these other components, but it’s up to the land in terms of how it’s going to take, because that’s just the cycles. You know, we may get a huge flood event and, boom, now we’ve taken off all these layers of stuff and then other developing stuff grows. Or it becomes a ponding area or a ponded area, you know? It’s just, it’s so dynamic it’s hard for us as humans to put it into a box. NURSERY Rocha stated that he would like to see a nursery be created to grow the plants that would be used to restore the area. So I would like to see a dedicated nursery area where we can generate the plants from here to be restored. You know, to the place where they came from, not relocated from somewhere else. Because the medicine stays strong; the spirit stays strong in them. …kids could come and learn how to regenerate plant life that is farmed in this area and contribute back to it instead of taking away. That would be great; I’d like to see that. NAME OF THE PROJECT AREA Both Rocha and Torres commented that it would be great to name the Project area with a Gabrielino/Tongva name. CONCERNS CONTAMINATION Although those interviewed and during the site visit were excited about possibility of using the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands as described above, there were concerns about contamination as a result of the urban runoff and oil extraction. Further, since the area was part of the Hellman 88 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 69 Ranch which was used for agriculture, tribal representatives at the site visit asked if the area has been tested for pesticides and DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). ACCESS One of the major barriers to using areas such as the Los Cerritos Wetlands for cultural practices is the lack of access or the difficulty of gaining access. Los Angeles County urban sprawl has destroyed or significantly impacted areas that were used by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen community prehistorically and historically. If there are lands that have prime habitat, they are usually privately owned and marked with no trespassing signs. Some tribal community members have jumped over barbed wire fences, parked on the sides of narrow two-lane highways to climb on their truck roof, or hiked for miles to gather plants. These are dangerous actions which can only be done by the young and/or able bodied. These access limitations also do not allow elders or community members with mobility issues to participate in gathering. As explained above, part of a Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh)’s responsibility to our plant, animal and rock relatives is to acknowledge our reciprocal responsibility to them. If elders cannot offer prayers during collection, weed, and trim the plants themselves, they are not fulfilling their relative’s expectations which may cause harm in the future. Thus, it becomes important to have easily accessible plant communities for elders to drive up to or only have a very short walk on a flat and un-rocky trail. All of the interviewees commented that permit applications to use land are lengthy, costly and/or need a lot of lead time to obtain in time for the appropriate season to conduct community gatherings or harvest medicine. Thus, the LCWA should create a process, in collaboration with the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes, which will allow community members to collect or use the land as easily as possible. This means not requiring permits or providing long term permits (e.g., 5-year permits) at no cost. THE PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE As previously stated in the introduction, the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is significant to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño (Acjachemen) tribes. Tribal representatives described the Los Cerritos Wetlands and its surroundings during Tribal consultation of the PEIR as sacred lands. Located in between the villages of Puvungna to the north and Motuucheyngna to the east, all three are considered by Tribes to be part of a larger cultural landscape (Appendix C, Figure C - 10. Location of villages within the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape). Although the LCWA identified the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex as part of a larger cultural landscape as a tribal cultural resource under CEQA, no name was giving to the larger cultural 89 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 70 landscape. This study will use Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL) to identify this larger landscape (Appendix C, Figure C - 11). RESEARCH APPROACH Cogstone adheres to using Indigenous Archaeology methods during all work. Indigenous Archaeology was first defined as conducting archaeological research “with, for, and by indigenous people” (Nicholas and Andrews 1997:3). Indigenous Archaeology practitioners have extended this definition to include all work that deals with the indigenous past, present, and future (Martinez 2010). When applied to cultural resources management assessments, this means ensuring the recordation of cultural sites is done in collaboration with indigenous communities so that it captures site use from an indigenous perspective. This includes identifying a site as significant even if it does not meet the significance criteria under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and recording culturally significant spaces even if there are no physical remnants on the surface. The CRHR does not provide guidance on identifying traditional cultural landscapes. Although this study will be using an Indigenous Archaeology method to identify resources, this study must also use federal and state regulations to identify, assess and evaluate cultural resources which are described below. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES In addition to the NRHP criteria listed above, a property may be listed on the National Register based on its traditional cultural significance. Traditional in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include: • a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; • a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long term residents; • an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices; 90 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 71 • a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and • a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity. A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King 1998:1). The National Register Bulletin 38 (Parker and King 1998) discusses other characteristics to be used when considering a traditional cultural property for its eligibility to the National Register which will be used in this study. IDENTIFYING LANDSCAPES Although a landscape approach to archaeological sites can be traced to the 1920s (Stoddard and Zubrow 1999), its application began in the mid-1970s in Britain as a way to blend field archaeology with landscape history (Aston and Rowley 1974:11; Fleming 1997:267). Since that time, scholars have taken landscape archaeology in a variety of directions. Early archaeological studies viewed the landscape solely as the backdrop onto which material culture was placed. It was seen as a factor that influenced how past peoples arranged themselves, whether by the landscape’s available resources and/or its physical characteristics (i.e., settlement patterns) (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:1; Wandsnider 1992). Recently, scholars have recognized that the landscape is more than just a synonym for the natural environment. Instead, landscapes represent “a way in which… people have signified themselves and their world through their…relationship with nature, and through which they have underlined and communicated their own social role and that of others with respect to external nature” (Cosgrove 1985:13). Also important within a landscape approach is the recognition that the so-called “empty” spaces; areas lacking clusters of material remains or “sites,” are just as significant as those with tangible cultural phenomena (Anschuetz et al. 2001:161; Wobst 2005). Thus, consideration of the entire landscape surrounding an archaeological site, including its physical and metaphysical properties, must be included in order to gain more nuanced understandings of the past. We will have to allow for the ‘natural’ (that is ‘non-artefactual’) and 91 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 72 ‘cultural’ (that is, ‘artefactual’) variables to be enculturated, to be significant to human action, and to articulate, like artifacts, with social life (Wobst 2005:28). The application of landscape theory has been utilized in several California regions and time periods (Allen 2011; Eerkens et al. 2007; Fleming 1997; Kryder-Reid 2007; Laylander and Schaefer 2010; Perry and Delaney-Rivera 2011; Robinson et al. 2011; Whatford 1994). A sub- section of these studies includes understanding how people and places are connected via trails and pathways. For example, the Chuckwalla Valley Prehistoric Trails Network Cultural Landscape study, undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management and the California Energy Commission, was generated in response to the destruction of archaeological sites by recent massive renewable energy development in the California desert. The study aims to understand how “sites that may lack individual distinction” may have “greater significance and research value when contributing to a larger data base” (Laylander and Schaefer 2010). Part of using Indigenous Archaeology methods is recognizing that how archaeologists identify and record areas used by Native Americans does not reflect how the Native American community sees those same spaces. Archaeologists work with the tangible, drawing circles around clusters of artifacts, putting dots on maps, and connecting the dots to understand prehistoric Native American lifeways. Further, archaeologists use various technologies to understand the patterning of the lines, dots, and polygons they created to signify tangible cultural phenomena. This arbitrary boxing of data leads to the misinterpretation of prehistoric settlement patterns, socio-economic connections, and the cosmological significance of an area. Native American communities did not live on dots, in lines or within bounded spaces. Instead, they lived among the hills and mountains, between meandering streams, and around watering holes, all the while surrounded by a landscape given to them by the first beings. The areas used by Native peoples may have had visible and invisible boundaries with tangible and intangible cultural remains. Thus, what is most important for this study is to transcend traditional interpretations of site type, placement and significance, in order to align more squarely with the Native American understandings of how “everything is connected” (Martinez et al. 2012). California state regulations do not provide guidance on identifying cultural landscapes; however, the National Park Service has several bulletins that define different types of landscapes. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has also issued some guidance. Both are briefly described below. LANDSCAPE DEFINITIONS The five types of historic properties identified in the NHPA were further categorized by NPS - 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline (National Park Service 1998) based on common 92 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 73 attributes for the ease of management: archeological resources, cultural landscapes, structures, museum objects, and ethnographic resources (NPS 1998). Of importance to this study are the categories of cultural landscapes and ethnographic resources. According to the Management Guideline: Cultural landscapes are settings we have created in the natural world. They reveal fundamental ties between people and the land–ties based on our need to grow food, give form to our settlements, meet requirements for recreation, and find suitable places to bury our dead. Landscapes are intertwined patterns of things both natural and constructed: plants and fences, watercourses and buildings…They are special places: expressions of human manipulation and adaptation of the land. Ethnographic resources are basic expressions of human culture and the basis for continuity of cultural systems. A cultural system encompasses both the tangible and the intangible. It includes traditional arts and native languages, religious beliefs and subsistence activities. Some of these traditions are supported by ethnographic resources: special places in the natural world, structures with historic associations, and natural materials. Preservation Brief 36 “Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes” (Birnbaum 1994) defines four general types of cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic designated landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Ethnographic landscapes are those that contain “a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources” (Birnbaum 1994:2). The Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape and its use by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) would be considered an ethnographic landscape. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDANCE Although Bulletin 38 supports the nomination of and the National Register includes traditional cultural landscapes, the guidelines are vague with many cultural resources practitioners not knowing how to identify and nominate cultural landscapes to the NRHP. As a result, the Preserve America Summit Panel (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2007:19) recommended in its report that Bulletin 38 should be reviewed and/or revised in order to address these concerns. Additionally, with the increase of the renewable energy projects and their possible effects on Native American sacred landscapes as identified through the Section 106 consultation process, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) created a traditional cultural landscapes initiative and adopted an action plan in November 2011. The action plan also suggested that Bulletin 38 be revised and recommended raising awareness within the 93 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 74 preservation community about the existence and importance of Native American traditional cultural landscapes by developing tools to assist all participants in their recognition (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2011, 2012a, 2012b). Although official guidance for the identification of landscapes is currently still under development, this report will use current scholarship in landscape studies to identify and understand the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex and surrounding areas as a cultural landscape. BACKGROUND GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO, TONGVA) RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAND: MAXAAX3 To better understand how the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) have used, are using, or may use the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex, one must understand the Gabrielino’s (Gabrieleño, Tongva) relationship to the land. This relationship started with the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) creation as Craig Torres, a Tongva cultural educator, recounts: Tongva Creation narratives convey that a pre-human ‘Amuupavetam (First People) during a time of great earth changes, transformed themselves and became the landscape of the Middle World, Upper World and Lower Worlds…we are all connected. Human Beings were the last to emerge and appear on the landscape and were the most vulnerable of all creation. Because of the “gifts” and sacrifices made by the ‘Amuupavetam, humans reciprocated a responsibility and obligation to be part of and care take the whole of nature. Human existence on Mother Earth was only possible because certain beings enabled others to survive through their very existence. Reciprocal relationships of giving, gifting, swapping, and sharing embedded in the Tongva word maxaax and practiced with all of the nature…rock/stone, plant, animal, and air, water, fire and earth ( Figure 34; Torres n.d.a). For the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) everything around them is seen as a relative (i.e., water, air, land, rocks, animals, plants, etc.), not resources to be used by humans. This view recognizes the reciprocal relationship that was established at creation. Mr. Torres also teaches that before sustainability protocols such as the “reduce, reuse and recycle” campaign can be implemented, people need to know the other three R’s: Recognition, Respect, and Responsibility ( 3. This section does not reflex the views of the Kizh. 94 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 75 Figure 35). In other words, the public needs to recognize the indigenous people of the land, the original caretakers and recognize the special relationship as described above. This also includes ensuring, as LWCA is doing through this study, that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) can continue this relationship unfettered. The second R stands for respect; respect that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) and their relatives have co-evolved with each other for thousands of years. The last R stands for responsibility, that the public and the Tongva have a responsibility to the relatives to protect their habitat and ensure their continued survival. As a result of these teachings, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) community is looking for spaces and places where they can fulfill the obligations given to them through their oral traditions. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) community is looking to re-establish and/or strengthen their relationships to the land and relatives. This would include space to plant, tend, harvest, etc. plants. Figure 34. Relationships to relatives (Torres n.d.a) Relational ~Reciprocity 95 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 76 Figure 35. The other three Rs (Torres n.d.b). PUVUNGNA The location of the creation of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and the Acjachemen was at Puvungna, an important ceremonial center located north of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area. Portions of the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP)-listed Puvungna Indian Villages lay on the campuses of California State University, Long Beach, the Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS), and Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens (see Appendix C, Figure C - 10). In Tongva puvu = big ball of people, ngna = place of (personal communication, Craig Torres). According to Boscana (1846:32, 33), in versions of the coastal creation story documented from the Acjachemen (Juañeno) but also applicable to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh), two The Other 3 Rs the indigenous of t h e a rea , f f f , to ensure the continuance of natrve indigenous species 96 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 77 influential deities, Ouiot, the monster-chief, and Chingichngish, the supreme-creator god, emerged, at different times, at the village of Puvungna with Ouiot being burned there and Chingichngish dying there. Millikan and Hildebrandt (1997:15) summarize of the roles of Ouiot and Chingichngish in the origin stories among the Juaneño, Luiseño, and Gabrielino: [T]hree successive sets of power entities or beings were involved with the creation of the world and institution of religious life. The first generation, a brother/sister set of entities took the form of sky and earth. They created the second generation, the First People, entities whose essences are now found in certain animals, certain ritual objects, and certain rocks, hills, and mountains. One of those entities, Ouiot (Wiyut), became the “captain” or “father” of all the First People. Following the death of Ouiot, the First People assumed their present forms and humans as we know them were created. Chingichngish, the third generation of power entities, appeared among people for a short time as a teacher. He remains active in the background of existence, as the source of both positive power and punishment for behavior. After Ouiot was killed, a very large gathering of Ouiot’s people cremated his body at Puvungna. After the ceremonies, Chingichngish appeared and taught the people laws and established the rites and ceremonies needed for the preservation of life (Boscana 1846:33). He also taught the people what to wear, how to heal the sick, how to build the ceremonial structure (yovaar), how to rear the children, and how to live according to his laws (Boscana 1846:33-34). The toloache ritual, which involved the ingestion of the intoxicating Datura meteloides (also known as Jimson weed), was also associated with the Chingichngish belief system. Although Boscana identified the Chingichngish belief system as having begun at Puvungna, others have recorded its origination from either Santa Catalina Island or San Clemente Island (Kroeber 1925:621-622). A Luiseño informant told Dubois (1908) that the Chingichngish religion came from the north, then to Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands, to San Juan Capistrano, to San Luis Rey, and finally to the San Diego Kumeyaay/Diegueno territory. The spread of this belief system likely followed the same routes that goods and other cultural ideas followed. Some scholars argue that the Chingichngish belief system originated post-contact based on its similarities to Christian themes and motifs (Bean and Vane 1978:699; Lepowsky 2004). The village site was still known historically as it was occupied at least until 1805 as evident by baptisms of individuals from the village at San Gabriel Mission and San Juan Capistrano (Harrington 1934:149). 97 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 78 In the original NRHP nomination of the Puvungna Indian Villages, archaeological sites CA- LAN- 234, CA-LAN-235 and CA-LAN-306 were identified as being the best representative sites to represent Puvungna on the register (Dixon 1973). Both CA-LAN- 234 and CA-LAN-235 are identified as being located on the CSU, Long Beach and VA campuses and CA-LAN-306 is located at Rancho Los Alamitos. However, Dixon mentions that the location of Puvungna moved through time, on the small hill that overlooks swamps and marshes. As a result, the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians has identified that the location of Puvungna includes: CA-LAN-102, CA-LAN-231 thru 236, CA-LAN-270 and 271, CA-LAN- 273 thru 275, CA-LAN-306, CA-LAN- 699 thru 705, CA-LAN-830 and 831, CA-LAN-1000 thru 1007. Most of these are located on CSULB campus, the furthest away being CA-LAN-270 (known as the Los Altos site) which is located 1 mile north of campus (3.9 miles north-northwest of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex). The portion of Puvungna that is located on the CSULB campus continues to be used by the Gabrielino/Tongva, Acjachemen and greater Native American community. Community gatherings, ceremonies, classes, and other cultural activities are held on site ( Figure 36 and Figure C - 11). Ancestor poles, wooden poles in honor of Gabrielino and Acjachemen Tribal members that have passed away, dot the area. Figure 36. Prayer pole decorated for solstice at Puvungna at CSULB. 98 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 79 Figure 37. Discussions at Puvungna at CSULB with Tongva walk participants, July 20, 2019. Figure 38. Reburial at Puvungna at CSULB in 2016 (left to right) Steve Villa, CSU Chancellor Timothy White, CSULB President Jane Close Conoley, NAGPRA Coordinator Cindy Alvitre, CSULB’s Director of American Indian Studies Craig Stone and NAGPRA Chair Louis Robles Jr. (Daily 49’er 2016). The reburial of Gabrielino ancestors, repatriated from museums under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have recently occurred within the boundaries of the Puvungna village site outside the Southern LCW Project area as well (Figure C - 10). 99 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 80 MOTUUCHEYNGNA As previously stated, Motuucheyngna village has been identified as being located to the east and outside the Southern LCW Project area on what is now called Heron Point, a residential community that was built in the early 2000s, located on Landing Hill (Appendix C, Figure C - 10; Cleland et al. 2007). Motuuchey was identified by Harrington informant Jose de la Santos Juncos as being located at “El Puerto de los Alemanes [Port of the Germans]” also known as Anaheim Landing. Motuuchey was reported to mean flea in Gabrielino (Harrington 1986:R104 F24). In 1997, the Hellman Properties LLP proposed a mixed residential development located on Landing Hill. The city of Seal Beach had prepared an EIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan which identified that the archaeological sites that were located within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area would be adversely affected and thus a testing and data recovery plan was created and carried out by EDAW in 2001. During construction grading in 2002, two Native American remains were identified within the boundaries of ORA-264 by the Native American monitor (Cleland et al. 2007:5). Construction was halted by the CCC until a Supplemental Mitigation Plan (SMP) could be drafted. At total of 6 sites were tested and data recovered (CA- ORA-260-264 and ORA-1472). Work outlined within the SMP was conducted from 2003 to 2005. Thirty-five individuals were removed. The ancestors and all cultural items were reburied within a cultural easement located within the Heron Point parcel. Radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dates taken at all of the sites tested showed that the area was first occupied by at least 6380 cal BP (4430 B.C.), the Millingstone 2 period with the last occupation occurring at 530 cal BP (1420 A.D.) (Cleland et al. 2007:52). Sites CA-ORA-260- 264, CA-ORA-850-852, and ORA-1472 are considered the Motuucheyngna Village and was identified as a sacred land to the Native American Heritage Commission in 2019 by the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. As part of the SMP, a Cultural Preservation Area was created over the area of the highest density of burials with tribal access to it in perpetuity. The Hellman Ranch Trail was created that links Heron Point to Gum Grove Park. Interpretative signage and a gathering circle were also created (Figure C - 9 and Figure C - 8). Members of the Gabrielino(Gabrieleño, Tongva) and greater Native American community have used the gathering circle as a meeting place. 100 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 81 Figure 39. Sign along the Hellman Ranch trail. Figure 40. Overview of gathering place created along the trail connecting Heron Point and Gum Grove Park From the Mountains to the Sea Landing Hill io; wi1hin th<' rcrriton of rhe GabricJino Tong\.·,,, \\ho lived along lhl• coasr frorn roughly Malihu to Ali<,,o Creek, inland to the San Gabriel \1ountaim and Ri\'crsidc, ,tnd on rhe islands of Santa Carnlina. ",an Nicol,1,, ,in<l San Clem<'nte. The Gabri<'lino Tongva peoph.• had .:u:c:t>S\ a rich varil'tv of natural resources, and. of che region'~ \.\c,1hh1C\t vill<1g<''i were ~o,nr _ di~ram.·e \\,b u\C"d pri111.tr1I,-hJ 101 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 82 CONNECTION BETWEEN LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX, PUVUNGNA AND MOTUUCHEYNGNA The investigation of the ethnographic record did not identify any specific information on the Los Cerritos Wetlands or connections between these three locations; however, four tribal interviewees did state that the three places were probably connected based on the documented settlement patterns and knowledge of the trade routes in the area. As summarized in the Tribal Feedback section above, Ms. Bogany stated that the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex was the connector from the ocean to Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. Mr. Rocha also talked about how the Gabrielino used the rivers, in particular the San Gabriel River, in this instance to connect to other villages throughout Gabrielino Territory. Mr. Rocha said: I don’t have no information on the villages, exactly. But I know that the river itself was made, uh, made a route for trade and commerce within the Native community. You could canoe or kayak from one point to another relatively pretty easy. Within a span of two and a half hours you could be here from the heart of San Gabriel Valley, by canoe. So, there are a lot of resources that grow here and only here, like the pickleweed, were relatively desired by the other Native communities. You know, this was a big source of trade as well. Like I said, the water, those were our freeways back in the day, you know? Even the freeways run along them now show the same route and usefulness, basically, but just on a different kind of media. So, if we look at it from that point of view, yeah, the water is how they connected us as a community with the other communities: the water community and Earth communities. It played a big role, a huge role, I would say; absolutely, yes. As much as you would need a transponder to take a freeway nowadays, yeah, that’s how important they were to us, in comparison. Mr. Torres concurred: And so I don’t know how some of the villages are connected, but I can guarantee you that they were connected to each other. You know, if you’re looking at sources of life, like the food sources and any other source that was abundant in one area, you know people were trading it because people weren’t isolated. You look at the trade networks that connected us from the islands going all the way up to Mojave and who knows how far south. But that tells you right there that people were trading. So, if they were trading that far you know the villages connected up here were trading extensively. Because that’s part of your survival. I mean that’s just common sense to me is like, you know, you don’t stand isolated, alone, and live in your community by yourself. You’re constantly trading with other people, so yeah, the communities were definitely connected. In what ways? I don’t- 102 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 83 know,- but that’s where archaeology will tell you whatever you’re finding in the site, that’s what the people were trading. And so (clears throat), it’s important to think about that because I’m always telling people that when you look at a map of California Indians and you see these nice little outlines, you know, that’s not the way our people were organized. It’s more like a connect the dots where you have one village connected to another, to another, to another, and it extends further out based on intermarriage, trade relationships, ceremony––all these things that were connecting people way out in the desert, way down south. So, definitely these communities were connected to each other. During Tribal consultation conducted by the CCC for the Coastal Development Permit for the Los Cerritos Wetland Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2016041083), a number of representatives attested to the sacredness of the Los Cerritos Wetlands and its connection to Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. In 2017, tribal representatives of the Gabrieleno-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, as well as a member of the Acjachemen Tribe described the project site as “sacred lands that are part of a larger area of connected tribal sites that constitute a Tribal Cultural Landscape that may be eligible for listing by the National Register as a Tribal Cultural Property. This Tribal Cultural Landscape includes several significant tribal sites and resources in close proximity to the project site, including the site of Puvungna, the Rancho Los Alamitos (Long Beach area), Hellman Ranch property [i.e. the Heron Point residential community] (immediately on the other side of the San Gabriel River, in Seal Beach) (CCC 2018: 125). In 2018, representatives of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that the Los Cerritos Wetlands area is a sacred land, just as all land, water and animals are sacred (CCC 2018: 125). EVALUATING THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE Following National Register Bulletin 38 APPROACH National Register Bulletin 38 provides guidelines for identifying TCPs and determining whether they meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4). This part of the report applies these guidelines to the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape. 103 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 84 THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AS A "PROPERTY" National Register Bulletin 38 states that the first step in evaluating a traditional cultural place for National Register eligibility is to determine if the entity under consideration is a “property.” The definition of a “property” is as follows (National Register 1990:9): (T)he National Register does not include intangible resources themselves. The entity evaluated must be a tangible property -- that is, a district, site, building, structure, or object. The Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape is clearly a "property" -- physical real estate made up of publicly and privately owned parcels. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA National Register Bulletin 38 says that determining whether the property has “integrity” is the second step in evaluation. In order to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, a property must have “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (36 CFR Part 60). There are two distinct aspects of integrity that must be shown for the property to be included in the National Register. (1) Does the property have an integral relationship to traditional cultural practices or beliefs? (2) Is the condition of the property such that the relevant relationships survive? INTEGRITY OF RELATIONSHIP Assessing the integrity of the relationship between a property and the beliefs or practices that may give it significance involves understanding how the group that holds the beliefs or carries out the practices is likely to view the property. If the property is known or likely to be regarded by a traditional cultural group as important in the retention or transmittal of a belief, or to the performance of a practice, the property can be considered to have an integral relationship with the belief or practice, and vice-versa. Although this study did not document any new information on the connection between the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex, and the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna the PTCL is important in the maintenance of Gabrielino and Acjachemen identity and the instruction of future generations in their cultural history. Through hard fought protests and negotiations with the landowners of CSULB, Rancho Los Alamitos and Heron Point, Gabrielino and Acjachemen 104 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 85 tribal members have access and use these spaces and places for community gatherings, ceremony and other traditional practices. Although access to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex have been cut within the last 50+ years, tribal members share their family’s use of the area for traditional food and cultural practices as well as its connection to Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. Further, as discussed above, Tribal interviewees and Tribal representatives, during consultation with the CCC, see the PTCL as significant to their Tribes. Based on these elements, the integrity of the relationship exists. INTEGRITY OF CONDITION The question of physical alteration to a property is addressed as follows (National Register 1990:10). Like any other kind of historic property, a property that once had traditional cultural significance can lose such significance through physical alteration of its location, setting, design, or materials. As has happened to many swaths of land in Southern California, the surface of the PTCL has changed over time and is definitely not the same as when Ouiot created the ‘Amuupavetam or when Chingichngish came and instructed the Gabrielino and Acjachemen on how to live. Bulletin 38 emphasizes that (National Register 1990:10): … the integrity of traditional cultural properties must be considered with reference to the views of traditional practitioners; if its integrity has not been lost in their eyes, it probably has sufficient integrity to justify further evaluation. Tribal interviewees and Tribal representatives, during consultation with the CCC, have stated that the PTCL is still significant to their community, even with all the changes. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA The third step prescribed by Bulletin 38 is to evaluate a property against the National Register Criteria (36 CFR 60.4). The PTCL is clearly associated with significant events in the traditional history and cultural life of the Gabrielino and Acjachemen Tribes. As previously discussed, the villages of Puvungna (represented by CA-LAN- 234, CA-LAN-235 and CA-LAN-306) is already listed on the National Register because it is the place of emergence of the Gabrielino and Acjachemen into this world. However, that nomination identified only three sites to represent Puvungna and did not connect it to other sites, both habitation and subsistence sites, that are part of the manifestation of the Puvungna use area. The Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians has identified CA-LAN-102, CA-LAN-231 thru 236, CA-LAN-270 and 271, CA-LAN-273 thru 275, CA-LAN-306, CA-LAN- 699 thru 705, CA-LAN-830 and 831, CA- 105 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 86 LAN-1000 thru 1007 as part of the Puvungna Village sites and has described the connection between Puvungna, Motuucheyngna (aka Puvungna East) and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. All of these qualify PTCL for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion A. Although it is not necessary for a property to meet more than one of the National Register Criteria in order to be eligible for the NRHP, it could be argued that the PTCL is eligible under Criterion B for its association with historically significant “people,” in this case Ouiot and Chingichngish, the creator and an important leader in Gabrielino and Acjachemen history. CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS Step four in the evaluation process, according to Bulletin 38, is to determine whether any of the National Register “criteria considerations” apply. These “considerations” describe circumstances under which a property that might otherwise be eligible is not eligible. In effect they are criteria of ineligibility, but each allows for exceptions under which properties that might appear ineligible under the considerations are in fact eligible (Parker and King 1993:32). Consideration A says that a “religious property” -- one owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes – “requires additional justification” in determining eligibility “because of the necessity to avoid any appearance by government about the merit of any religion or belief.” Bulletin 38 notes that applying this consideration can be “fraught with the potential for ethnocentrism and discrimination,” noting that “(a)pplying the ‘religious exclusion’ without careful and sympathetic consideration to properties of significance to a traditional cultural group can result in discriminating against the group by effectively denying the legitimacy of its history and culture” (National Register 1990:13). Although many Native American cultures, including the Gabrielino and Acjachemen, see “religion” as inextricably interwoven with culture and history, the PTCL is not a religious property and thus is not disqualified under Criteria Consideration A. Considerations B (relocated properties), C (birthplaces and graves), D (cemeteries), E (reconstruction), F (commemoration) and G (significance achieved within the last fifty years) do not apply to the PTCL. SUMMARY The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and has sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible for the CRHR. 106 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 87 CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION To be eligible for the CRHR a resource must: 1. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; 2. be associated with the lives of significant persons of the past; 3. embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual distinction; or 4. yielded or may likely yield information important in history or prehistory. In addition to having significance using the above criteria, resources must have “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” to the period of significance. The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Six new cultural resources and three previously recorded sites are located within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area. ISOLATES Two prehistoric isolates, 2021_08_05_SD.1-I (one piece of obsidian debitage) and 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I (prehistoric isolate consisting of 1 prehistoric exfoliated granitic unifacial mano and an exfoliated chalcedony scraper), were identified within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area. Extended Phase I testing in September/October 2022 confirmed that these resources lie upon imported fill and have no associated subsurface cultural deposits. Isolates are not eligible for listing on the CRHR and need no further consideration. 107 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 88 NEWLY RECORDED SITES 2021_08_06_SD.1 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of two piles of wood planks and boards, a pile of broken concrete, and some metal scraps. The wood and concrete exhibited no diagnostic features and did not extend subsurface. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this resource was recorded, exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed. 2021_08_06_SD.2 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of deteriorated red bricks, a pile of tile fragments, and a historic soda fired ceramic pipe sherd. The bricks, tile fragments and ceramic sherd do not exhibit diagnostic features and the site did not extend subsurface. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this resource was recorded, exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed. 2021_08_06_SD.3 is a prehistoric site consisting of a lithic scatter of a quartz flake, a modified tool of pink quartzite, and a gray quartzite scraper. Although the site contains two tools that may be indicative of resource processing site, the artifacts lay on the surface of documented fill consisting of sediments from the dredging of the San Gabriel River (Appendix M, Figure M - 1). Extended Phase I testing in September/October 2022 found one lithic flake and four potential lithic flakes below surface but these were in context with modern plastic trash debris. No intact prehistoric cultural deposit was found associated with the resource. Presence of modern debris below the surface confirms that the surface artifacts are in secondary context Based on the fieldwork, recordation, background research, and phase I testing conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this 108 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 89 resource was recorded exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed. HELLMAN CHANNEL Theme: Water conveyance system-Drainage Period of Significance: ca. 1928-1976 This channel is associated with the historic theme of a water conveyance system (drainage ditch) located within the boundaries of the e Hellman Ranch which functioned as a successful cattle ranch and farming enterprise for multiple decades. The Hellman Channel is an unlined gravity fed system which is considered unremarkable in its construction or design. While this channel is associated with the Hellman Ranch, it was constructed eight years after the passing of the ranch’s owner, I.W. Hellman in 1920. It is believed that this drainage ditch was constructed primarily for the support of the oil wells which were active nearby. This segment of the Hellman Channel still retains most of its integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, and Feeling. While the channel is no longer used in conjunction with the operations of the former Hellman Ranch, it still retains is use as a drainage ditch, therefore it retains some of its integrity of Association. There is notable loss of the channel’s integrity of Setting due to visible development of residences along the southern boundary of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for independent inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (NRHP Criteria A and B or the CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under NRHP Criterion C or the CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this resource was recorded, exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (NRHP Criterion on D or the CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1) was recorded as a prehistoric habitation site with milling stones located on Landing Hill. The site was surface collected for many years prior to being recorded and much of it has been destroyed by development (McKinney 1969a based on information from Redwine 1959). The portion of the site within the LCW Project area was revisited and no cultural resources were identified. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with 109 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 90 events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. No intact cultural deposits were identified, thus it does not have the potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed. P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3) AND P-30-000260 The portions of P-30-000258 (habitation site) and P-30-000260 (seasonal camp) within the Southern LCW Project area were not surveyed as they were covered by dense vegetation. As a result, both sites could not be evaluated for listing on the CRHR. It is recommended that these sites be avoided until such time they can be evaluated for the CRHR. CONCLUSIONS This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Project) as well as to document the Los Cerritos Wetlands Traditional Cultural Landscape, as named in the PEIR and now known as the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL). The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Project is located within the southern portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex, on the border of Los Angeles and Orange counties, and affords the opportunity to restore salt marsh, seasonal wetlands, and other freshwater wetlands within an approximately 503-acre area. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex adjoins the lower reach of the San Gabriel River where, prior to channelization, the mouth of the San Gabriel River migrated back and forth across the coastal plain. Historically, the complex covered approximately 2,400 acres and stretched approximately two miles inland, varying from freshwater and brackish wetlands in its inland areas to salt marsh closer to the ocean. For this study, Cogstone requested a supplementary cultural records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center extending the search radius to three miles around the Los Cerritos Complex, completed background research and attempted consultation with historic societies, performed limited pedestrian survey including site recordation, and collected oral histories from members of Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Tribes. These efforts gathered data for a cultural resources assessment of the Project area, prehistoric and historic documentation of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and an CRHR/NRHP eligibility evaluation of the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PCTL; see Appendix C, Figure C - 11) as a traditional cultural property (TCP). 110 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 91 Nine cultural resources are located within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area. Six of these are newly recorded as part of this Project, and three were previously recorded. The newly recorded resources consist of two prehistoric cultural isolates (2021_08_05_SD.1-I and 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I) that were tested in September/October 2022 and confirmed to not have accompanying intact cultural deposits, two historic-aged refuse sites (2021_08_06_SD.1 and 2021_08_06_SD.2), a prehistoric lithic scatter site (2021_08_06_SD.3) also tested in September/October 2022 and found not to contain intact cultural deposits, and the Hellman Channel. Three previously recorded sites include P-30-000256 (Landing Hill #1), P-30-000258 (Landing Hill #3), and P-30-000260. All newly identified resources were recorded using DPR 523 series forms. Cultural isolates are not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR and need no further consideration. The remaining newly identified resources were evaluated for CRHR eligibility and are recommended as not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The Hellman Channel was also evaluated for NRHP eligibility and is recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further work is recommended for any of these resources. The previously recorded, P-30-000256 (Landing Hill #1) was revisited, surveyed, and revaluated using DPR 523 series forms. As no cultural resources were found during this visit, this site is also recommended as not eligible for listing in the CRHR, and no further work is recommended. The remaining two previously recorded sites, P-30-000258 (Landing Hill #3), and P-30-000260, are covered by dense vegetation and could not be visited or reevaluated as part of this Project. These sites should be avoided until they can be evaluated for CRHR listing eligibility. Oral histories collected from members of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Tribes, and other data collected and reviewed for this Project, indicate that the PTCL qualifies as a TCP under the four-part guidelines contained within National Register Bulletin 38. The guidelines consist of whether the potential TCP is a property; is an integral relationship between the group and the property; is in a condition to sustain the relationship; meets at least one of the criteria for listing in the NRHP; meet any of the criteria conditions that would make an otherwise eligible property not eligible for listing the NRHP. The landscape is physical real estate comprised of public and private land and therefore qualifies as a “property.” The property is integral to the beliefs of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes and in a condition that these relationships survive. The PTCL satisfies NRHP eligibility Criterion A as it is clearly associated with significant events in the traditional history and cultural life of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes. The PTCL is not a religious property nor does it meet any of the other National Register Eligibility Considerations that would disqualify an otherwise eligible property. Thus, the PTCL is recommended as eligible for the CRHR/NRHP. 111 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 92 In lieu of new or additional mitigation measures, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority should continue Native American consultation with the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes on an ongoing basis in order to mitigate any negative effects on the PTCL. This collaboration will inform action from management and tribal perspectives. 112 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 93 REFERENCES CITED Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2007 The Preserve America Summit: Charting a Future Course for the National Historic Preservation Program Findings and Recommendations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2018- 06/PA%20Summit%20Full%20Report.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014. 2011 Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan, November 23, 2011. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018- 06/NativeAmericanTCLActionPlanNovember232011.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014. 2012a Traditional Cultural Landscape in the Section 106 Review Process, March 19, 2012. https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/traditional-cultural-landscapes- section-106-review-process. Accessed June 5, 2014. 2012b Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes and the Section 106 Review Process: Questions and Answers. Issued on July 11, 2012. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018- 06/NativeAmericanTCLsintheSection106ReviewProcessQandAs.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014. Alioto, Laura L. 2005 Images of America; Seal Beach. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing. Allen, M. W. 2011 Of Earth and Stone: Landscape Archaeology in the Mojave Desert. California Archaeology 3(1):11-30. Anschuetz, K. F., R. H. Wilshusen, and C. L. Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2):157-211. Archibald, Robert 1978 The Economic Aspects of the California Missions. Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C. Arnold, J. E. 1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity, 57: 60-84. Arnold, Jeanne E., and Julienne Bernard 113 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 94 2005 Negotiating the Coasts: Status and the Evolution of Boat Technology in California. World Archaeology 37(1): 109–131. Arnold, Jeanne E., Michael R. Walsh, and Sandra E. Hollimon 2004 The Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research, 12 (1): 1-73. Ashmore, W., and A. B. Knapp 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized and Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp, pp. 1-32. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts. Aston, M., and T. Rowley 1974 Landscape Archaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques on Post-Roman Landscapes. David and Charles, Newton Abbot, UK. Barrows, H.D. 1899 Abel Stearns. Published in the Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California and Pioneer Register, Los Angeles. Vol. 4, No. 3 (1899), pp. 197-199. Bean, L. J., and S. Brakke Vane, eds. 1978 Persistence and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line. Submitted to Southern California Edison by Cultural Systems Research, Menlo Park, California. Bean, L. J., and F. C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550-563 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California, volume edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Birnbaum, C. A 1994 Preservation Brief 36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Bleitz-Sanburg, D. E. 1987 The Changing Exploitation of Mammalian and Avian Food Resources at SNI-11. 114 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 95 Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles. Bleitz, D. E., and R. A. Salls 1993 A prehistoric Fishing Kit from San Clemente Island, California. In Hochberg, F. G. (ed.), Third California Islands Symposium: Recent Advances in Research on the California Islands, pp. 537–549. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, California. Boscana, Gerónimo 1846 Chinigchinich: A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta-California; Called the Acagcahemem Nation. Wiley & Putnam, New York. 1933 Chinigchinich: Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs, and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. John P. Harrington, anno. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. Boxt, Matthew, and Brian Dillon 2013 Prehistoric Pottery of Coastal Los Angeles County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 47(3&4): 45-87. Byrd, Brian, and L. Mark Raab 2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 215-227. Altamira Press, New York. Cassidy, Jim, L. Mark Raab, and Nina A. Kononenko 2004 Boats, Bones, and Biface Bias: The Early Holocene Mariners of Eel Point, San Clemente Island, California. American Antiquity 69(1):109–130. Cleland, James, Andrew York, and Lorraine Willey 2007 Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3. California Coastal Commission (CCC) 2018 Coastal Development Permit Application for the Los Cerritos Wetland Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. On file at the California Coastal Commission, San Francisco. Coastal Restoration Consultants 2021 The Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Restoration Plan. Prepared for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority and ESA. 115 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 96 Corle, Edwin 1949 The Royal Highway. Bobbs-Merrill Copman, Inc., New York. Cosgrove, D. E. 1985 Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 10:45-62. Dixon, Dean O. 2004 Images of America: Buena Park. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston. Dixon, Keith 1973 National Register of Historic Places Nomination of the Puvungna Indian Village Sites. Dobyns, H. F. 1984 Trade Centers: The Concept and a Rancherian Culture Area Example. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 8(1): 23-35. Drake, Barbara, Lorene Sisquoc, Craig Torres, Abe Sanchez, Daniel McCarthy, Leslie Mouriquand, and Deborah Small 2016 Cooking the Native Way. Heyday, Berkeley, California. DuBois, Constance Goddard 1908 The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3):69–186. Earle, David D 2020 Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Ethnographic Study, San Diego County, California. Eerkens, J. W., J. S. Rosenthal, D. C. Young, and J. King 2007 Early Holocene Landscape Archaeology in the Coso Basin, Northwestern Mojave Desert, California. North American Archaeologist 28(2):87-112. Erlandson, Jon, Douglass J. Kennett, Lynn Ingram, Daniel Guthrie, Don P. Morris, Mark A. Tveskov, G. James West and Phillip L. Walker 1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon, 38 (2):355–373. Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes, and Robert S. Steneck 2007 The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 2: 2, 161– 116 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 97 174. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry Jones, and Judy Porcasi 2007 One If by Land, Two If by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In California Prehistory, edited by Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 53-62. Altamira Press, New York. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Todd J. Braje, Molly Casperson, Brendan Culleton, Brian Fulfrost, Tracy Garcia, Daniel A. Guthrie, Nicholas Jew, Douglas J. Kennett, Madonna L. Moss, Leslie Reeder, Craig Skinner, Jack Watts, Lauren Willis 2011 Paleoindian Seafaring, Maritime Technologies, and Coastal Foraging on California’s Channel Islands. Science (331) 6021:1181-1185. ESA 2019 Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment. Report. Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Program, Los Angeles County and Orange County, California. Prepared for Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. Prepared by ESA. 2020 Sediment Dynamics Analysis technical report. Prepared for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Programmatic EIR. Fitzgerald, Richard, Terry L. Jones, and Adella Schroth 2005 Ancient Long-Distance Trade in Western North America: New AMS Radiocarbon Dates from Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 423–434. Fleming, K. 1997 Cultural Landscape Study of Lost Valley, San Diego County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 10:29-35, edited by J. Reed, G. Greenway, and K. McCormick. Gamble, Lynn H. 2005 Culture and Climate: Reconsidering the Effect of Palaeoclimatic Variability among Southern California Hunter-gatherer Societies. World Archaeology 37(1)92–108. Gamble, Lynn H. and Chester King 1997 Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Santa Monica Mountains. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene. Edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 61-72. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gates, Thomas, Michael McGuirt, and Melissa Mourkas 2013 Palen Solar Generating System Final Assessment – Part B: Cultural Resources Section. 117 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 98 http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/09-AFC- 07C/TN200564_20130923T153458_Palen_Solar_Electric_Generating_System_Final_St aff_Assessment.pdf, accessed March 13, 2014. Glasgow, Lindsey 2021 “Fast Facts: Anaheim Landing: From Port to Housing to Naval Base”. The Log: California Boating & Fishing News. Available at: https://www.thelog.com/local/fast- facts-anaheim-landing-from-port-to-housing-to-naval-base/, accessed: July 29, 2021. Glassow, M. A 1980 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Channel Islands. In The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Symposium, edited by D. M. Power, pp. 79- 99. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara. Gnerre, Sam 2010 Redondo Beach’s Salt Lake. Daily Breeze, May 19, 2010. Hale, Horatio 1846 United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1838, 1839, 1810, 1811, 1812. Under the Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. Ethnography and Philology. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia. Harrington, John P. 1917–1930s The Papers of John P. Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution 1907–1957: Volume Three, Microfilm. https://edan.si.edu/slideshow/viewer/?damspath=/Public_Sets/NMNH/NMNH-RC- Anthropology/NMNH-RC-Anth-Archives/NMNH-RC-Anth-Archives-NAA/NAA- Harrington/NAA-Harrington-Microfilm/NAA-Harrington_mf6_r03, accessed December 22, 2015. 1934 A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4):1-62. Washington, D.C. Heizer, Robert and Albert Elsasser 1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley. Howard, V. 2002 Santa Catalina’s Soapstone Vessels: Production Dynamics. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. R. Browne, K. L. Mitchell, and H. W. Chaney, pp. 598-606. U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 118 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 99 Hudson, Dee 1971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeology Society Quarterly 7(2): 51-71. James, George Wharton 1913 The Old Franciscan Missions of California. The Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13854/13854-h/13854-h.htm, accessed October 20, 2014. Johnston, Bernice E. 1962 California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund No. 8. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. Johnson, John R., and Stephen O’Neil 2001 Descendants of Native Communities in the Vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton: An Ethnohistoric Study of Luiseño and Juaneño Cultural Affiliation: Final Report. Prepared for Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corps. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California and Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California. Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceeding of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D.R. Brown, K.L. Mitchell and H. W. Chaney, pp. 541-545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara. Jurmain, Claudia, Lavender, David, and Meyer Larry L. 2011 Rancho Los Alamitos: Ever Changing, Always the Same. Global Imprint, Hong Kong. Kennett, Douglas J., and James P. Kennett 2000 Competitive and Cooperative Responses to Climatic Instability in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 65(2):379–395 King, Chester 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before AD 1804. Garland Publishing, New York. 2001 Early Southern California. In Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, pp. 144-157. 2004 Ethnographic Overview of the Angeles National Forest: Tataviam and San Gabriel Mountain Serrano Ethnohistory. Prepared for the Angeles National Forest. Prepared by 119 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 100 Northwest Economic Associates and Topanga anthropological Consultants. King, Chester, and Jeff Parsons 2014a Draft Chapters 1-6. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Report. Sent via email on June 4, 2014. In possession of D. Martinez. King, L. B. 1982 The Medea Creek Cemetery (LAn-243): Late Inland Patterns of Social Organization, Exchange, and Warfare. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Koerper, Henry C. 1979 On the Question of the Chronological Placement of Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69–94. Koerper, Henry C., R. D. Mason, and M. L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–81. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kowta, M. 1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology Vol. 6. University of California, Berkeley. Kroeber, A. L. 1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. (Vol. 4, No. 1-6). The University Press. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C. Kryder-Reid, E. 2007 Sites of Power and Power of Sight. In Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision, edited by D. Harris and D. Fairchild Ruggles, pp. 181-212. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Laylander, D., and J. Schaefer 2010 Draft Chuckwalla Valley Prehistoric Trails Network Cultural Landscape: Historic Context, Research Questions, and Resource Evaluation Criteria. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 120 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 101 Lepowsky, Maria 2004 Indian Revolts and Cargo Cults. In Reassessing Revitalization Movements: Perspectives from North America and the Pacific Islands, edited by Michael Eugene Harkin, pp. 1-60. Lightfoot, Kent, and Otis Parrish 2009 California Indians and Their Environment: An Introduction. University of California Press, Berkeley. Loew, Oscar 1876 Notes upon the Ethnology of Southern California and Adjacent Regions. In Annual Report of the U.S. War Department, Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1876, pp. 541– 547. Vol. 23. Appendix J.J., Part H.14. Washington, D.C. Los Angeles Times 1920 “In Memory Isaias W. Hellman.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published Wednesday, April 28, 1920. Page 28. Accessed September 7, 2021 using Newspapers.com. Mandryk, Carole A. S., Heiner Josenhans, Daryl W. Fedje, and Rolf W. Mathewes 2001 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Northwestern North America: Implications for Inland versus Coastal Migration Routes. Quaternary Science Reviews 20(1-3):301-314. Marquez, Letisia 2014 UCLA linguist, Gabrielino-Tongva Indians use social media to revive extinct language. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-linguist-gabrieleno-tongva-indians-use-social- media-to-revive-extinct-language, accessed October 5, 2014. Martinez, D. 2010 (Re)searching for Ancestors Through Archaeology. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by George Nicolas, pp. 210-221. Altamira Press, Maryland. Martinez, D., and W. Teeter 2015 Ho'eexokre 'eyookuuka'ro “We're working with each other”: The Pimu Catalina Island Project. Society for American Archaeology Record 15(1): 25-28. Martinez, Desiree, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah O. Kennedy Richardson 2012 More Than This Arbitrary Bounded Space: Understanding Tongva Landscapes. Paper presented at the 112th Annual American Anthropological Association Conference, San Francisco, November 14, 2012. 121 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 102 Martinez, D. R., W. Teeter, and K. Kennedy-Richardson 2014 Returning the tataayiyam honuuka' (Ancestors) to the Correct Home: The Importance of Background Investigations for NAGPRA Claims. Curator 57(2):199-211. Martz, Patricia 1984 Social Dimensions of Chumash Mortuary Populations in the Santa Monica Mountains Region. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 1994 A Research Design for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites San Nicolas Island, California. Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu. Mason, R. and M. Peterson 2014 Subsistence Remains and Intensification of the Newport Coast, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 49(1-1): 105-125. McCawley, William 1996 First Angelinos: the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press, Banning, California. 2002 A Tale of Two Cultures. In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by J. Altschul and D. Grenda, pp. 41-66. SRI Press, Tucson. Meighan, C. W. 1959 The little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of Ecological Interpretations in Archaeology. American Antiquity 24(4): 383–405. Merriam, C. Hart n.d. C. Hart Merriam papers. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://lccn.loc.gov/mm82032698. 1907 Tongva list. C. Hart Merriam papers. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://lccn.loc.gov/mm820326. Milliken, Randall, and William Hildebrandt 1997 Assessment of Archaeological Resources at the Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. Prepared for the Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation. Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Mithun, Marianne 1999 Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press. Moffat and Nichol 122 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 103 2015 Los Cerritos Wetlands Final Conceptual Restoration Plan. Prepared for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority, Azusa, California. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. National Park Service 1998 NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. http://obpa-nc.org/DOI- AdminRecord/0049518-0049814.pdf, accessed June 10, 2014. National Register 1990 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf, Accessed 11/2/2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (NCRS) 2010 Indigenous Stewardship Methods and NRCS Conservation Practices. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/MI/Indigenous_Stewardship_Methods_a nd_NRCS_Conservation_Practices_Guidebook-7-7-10.pdf, accessed May 1, 2021. Nicholas, G. and T. Andrews 1997 Indigenous Archaeology in a Post-modern World. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by G. Nicholas and T. Andrews, pp. 1–18. SFU Archaeology Press, Burnaby. Office of Federal Acknowledgement 2013 List of Petitioners. https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as- ia/ofa/admindocs/ListPetByState_2013-11-12.pdf, accessed September 1, 2021. Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 1935 “Anaheim Landing.” Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks. Accessible at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/219, accessed July 29, 2021. Parker, P. L., and T. F. King 1998 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (1990; Revised 1992, 1998). Perry, J. E., and C. Delaney-Rivera 2011 Interactions and Interiors of the Coastal Chumash: Perspectives from Santa Cruz Island 123 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 104 and the Oxnard Plain. California Archaeology 3:103-126. Porcasi, Judith 1998 Middle Holocene Ceramic Technology on the Southern California Coast: New Evidence from Little Harbor Santa Catalina Island. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2): 270-285. Porcasi, Judith F., and Harumi Fujita 2000 The Dolphin Hunters: A Specialized Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation in the Southern California Channel Islands and Baja California. American Antiquity, 65(3), pp. 543-566. Posadas, Lylliam, Wendy Teeter, Desiree Martinez, and Karimah O. Kennedy Richardson 2011 Less is More: Multi-Component Community Space on Pimu Catalina Island. Poster presented at the 76th Annual Society for American Archaeology Conference, San Francisco, California, April 1, 2011. Raab, L. Mark, and William J. Howard 2002 Modeling Cultural Connections Between the Southern Channel Islands and Western United States: The Middle Holocene Distribution of Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads. In The Fifth California Islands Symposium, pp. 590-597. Raab, Mark, Katherine Bradford, Judith F. Porcasi, and William J. Howard 1995 Return to Little Harbor, Santa Catalina Island, California: A Critique of the Marine Paleotemperature Model. American Antiquity 60 (2): 287-308. Raab, L. Mark, and D. O. Larson 1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 62:319–336. Ramirez, Rose, and Deborah Small 2015 Ethnobotany Project: Contemporary uses of Native Plants Southern California and Northern Baja Indians. Malki-Ballena Press, Banning, California. Redwine, J. Peter 1958 Some Archaeological Sites on Landing Hill, Seal Beach. Reid, Hugo 1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid’s Letters of 1852. With comments by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. 124 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 105 Robinson, D. W., J. E. Perry, and G. Grasse-Sprague 2011 Landscape Archaeology in Southern and South-Central California. California Archaeology 3(1): 5-10. Robinson, John W. 1977 Los Angeles in Civil War Days, 1860-1865. Dawson’s Book Shop, Los Angeles. Rogers, D.B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Rondeau, Michael F., Jim Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones 2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 53–62. Altamira Press, New York. Rosen, M. D. 1980 Archaeological Investigations at Two Santa Catalina Sites: Rosski (SCAI-45) and Miner's Camp (SCAI-118). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 16:22–60. Rozaire, C. E. 1967 Archaeological Considerations Regarding the Southern California Islands. In: R.N. Philbrick (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands, Santa Barbara Botanical Gardens, Inc., Santa Barbara, pp. 327–336. San Francisco Examiner 1895 “A Madman’s Deed.” The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California). Published Sunday, February 10, 1895. Page 16. Accessed September 7, 2021 through newspapers.com. Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore 2016 Geologic map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series Map No. 5, version 2.0; map scale 1:100,000. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/Long_Beach_100k_v2.0_Map.pdf Schoenherr, A. A. 2017 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Schwartz, S. J. and P. C. Martz 125 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 106 1992 An Overview of the Archaeology of San Nicolas Island, Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 28 (4): 46–75. Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. Berkeley, California Stoddard, S., and E. Zubrow 1999 Changing Places. Antiquity 73:686-688. Strong, William Duncan 1972 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. Strudwick, Ivan H. 1986 Temporal and Areal Considerations Regarding the Prehistoric Circular Fishhook of Coastal California. Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. Strudwick, I. H., R. McLean, J. Michalsky, B. Smith, and J. E. Baumann. 2007 A Glimpse of the Past on Pimu: Cultural Resource Survey, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California. LSA Associates. Submitted to Southern California Edison. Copy available at the South Central Coastal Information Center. Sutton, M. 2009 People and Language, Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2 and 3): 31-93. Tartaglia, L. J. 1976 Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Teeter, W. G., and D. R. Martinez 2009 Native American perspectives of California archaeology. In Archaeology in America Encyclopedia, edited by L. S. Cordell, K. Lightfoot, F. McManamon, and G. Milner, pp. 20-26. Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa Barbara. Torres, Craig n.d.a Relational Reciprocity Card. In possession of author. n.d.b The Other 3 Rs Card. In possession of author. Tyler, Hugh 126 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 107 2018 “The I. W. Hellman Ranch as I Remember It.” Our Los Al TV. https://ourlosal.tv/2018/10/20/the-i-w-hellman-ranch-as-i-remember-it-by-hugh-tyler/, accessed July 29, 2021. United States of America Census Bureau 2013a Table 19. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe for California: 2010. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/cph-series/cph-t/cph-t-6.html, accessed May 9, 2014. 2013b Table 1. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe for the United States: 2010. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/cph-series/cph-t/cph-t-6.html, accessed May 9, 2014. United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS) Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed September 2021 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx University of California Davis National Resources Conservation Service California Soils Resource Lab (UCD SoilWeb). Accessed September 2021 http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb-apps/ Vellanoweth, R. L. 1995 New Evidence from San Nicolas Island Concerning the Distribution and Manufacture of Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 31(4):13–22. 2001 AMS Radiocarbon Dating and Shell Bead Chronologies: Middle Holocene Trade and Interaction in Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (9): 941– 950. Wagner, D. L. 2002 California geomorphic provinces. California Geological Survey note 36. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note- 36.pdf. Wallace, W.J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3): 214-230. Wandsnider, L. 1992 Archaeological Landscape Studies. In Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol and L. Wandersnider, pp. 285-292. Plenum, New York. 127 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 108 Warren, C. N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-15. Webb, Edith Buckland 1983 Indian Life at the Old Missions. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Whatford, J. C. 1994 Patterns on the Land: Landscape Archaeology at Annadel State Park. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 7:159-164. Wiley, Nancy Anastasia [Desautels] 2012 The Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Prehistoric Research Design “Compendium of Themes and Models: A Research Design for Analysis.” Bolsa Chica Technical Series, No.1. Scientific Resource Survey, Inc. Orange, California. Wobst, M. 2005 Artifacts as Social Interference: The Politics of Spatial Scale. In Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice, edited by G. Lock and B. L. Molyneaux, pp. 55-66. Springer, New York. Works Project Administration (WPA) 1936 Map of Orange County Artesian Water Belt Manuscript on file, First American Title Insurance Company, Santa Ana, California. Yatsko, Andrew 2000 Late Holocene Paleoclimatic Stress and Prehistoric Human Occupation on San Clemente Island. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 128 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 109 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS 129 Cogstone 110 DESIREÉ RENEÉ MARTINEZ Task Manager EDUCATION 1999 M.A., Anthropology (Archaeology), Harvard University, Cambridge 1995 B.A., Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Martinez is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with 24 years of experience in archaeological fieldwork, research, and curation. She has expertise in the planning, implementation, and completion of all phases of archaeological work and has participated in archaeological investigations as a principal investigator, crew member, and tribal monitor. She exceeds the national standards in archaeology set by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She is accepted as a Principal Investigator for prehistoric and historic archaeology by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Her experience also includes compliance with CEQA, NEPA, NHPA Sec. 106, NAGPRA, SB 18, AB 52, California General Order 131 -D exemption, and other cultural resource laws. Ms. Martinez has managed technical assessments and prepared cultural resources sections for EIR and EIS documents. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Deep Soil Mixing Pilot Project, Community of Pacific Palisades, Los Ange les County, CA. As part of an on-call contract with the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), Cogstone provided cultural and paleontological resources monitoring as well as managed Native American monitoring during ground -disturbing activities. The City of Los Angeles was the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Monitoring for the Project was conducted in compliance with the Contingency Plan conditions for the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). No cultural or paleontological resources were identified. No further work was necessary. Sub to ICF. Task Manager. 2020 Veterans Affairs Long Beach Health Systems, Cultural Resources Services and Native American Monitoring, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. Managed a variety of public works and infrastructure improvements on the VALBHS campus. Services have included archaeological surveys, testing, archaeological monitoring, providing and managing Gabrielino (Tongva) Native American monit oring, and compliance reporting. Native American monitoring was provided on a rotating basis from several Gabrielino (Tongva) tribes as per a Memorandum of Agreement between the VALBHS, State Historic Perseveration Office. Projects on the campus have included: an intensive-level archaeological survey utilizing ground-penetrating radar and magnetometry to identify subsurface cultural debris, accurately map abandoned utilities, and locate a historic trash pit within the APE; archaeological and Native American monitoring of construction activities of the Fisher House and Golf Course project area. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2014-2018 California State University, Long Beach, On-Call Archaeological Services, Physical Planning and Facilities Management, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone managed archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavations or trenching for public works and buildings projects. Improvements to athletic fields, recycling center, parking lots, roads, outdoor dining, racetrack, liberal arts, and perfor ming arts buildings. Task Manager/Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2015-2017 Kitts Highway Pathway Lighting Project, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, City of Seal Beach, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted cultural resources monitoring and managed Native American monitoring during the construction of an additional room and outdoor storage area. No cultural resources were observed or recovered. Upon completion of construction, a Cultural Resources Monitoring Compliance Report was produced. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2017 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HI STORY 130 Cogstone 111 JOHN GUST Principal Investigator for Archaeology EDUCATION 2016 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside (UCR) 2011 M.A., Anthropology, UCR 2007 M.A., Applied Geography, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) 2002 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Geography/Environmental Studies, UCCS SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Dr. Gust is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with 10 years of experience in field archaeology. He meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and his field expertise includes pedestrian surveys, excavation monitoring, resource recording, and historic artifact analysis. Dr. Gust has managed a variety of projects at Cogstone in the water, development, residential, transportation, telecommunications, and public works sectors. Dr. Gust is a member of the Society for California Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology, and the American Anthropological Association. SELECTED EXPERIENCE San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility a ssessments, and reporting. The project required a Section 408 permit from the USACE due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work performed complied with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020-2021 University of California Natural Reserve System San Joaquin Marsh Reserve Water Conveyance and Drainage Improvement Project, City of Irvine, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources for the proposed long-term water management improvements and habitat value of the Marsh Reserve. Services included pedestrian survey, records searches, Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, background r esearch, subsurface testing, and reporting. Due to the proximity of the project to the San Diego Creek, the project required a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Section 106 NHPA compliance. University of California acted as the lead agency under CEQA and USACE acted as lead agency under NEPA. Sub to Moffat & Nichol. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020 -2021 Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (MUST) Project, Los Angeles County, CA. In 2017, Cogstone prepared a cultural and paleontological resources assessment for the proposed construction of a stormwater facility. The project intended to improve the water quality of existing urban runoff to the Los Angeles River, and ultimately to the Long Beach Harbor. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, background research, built environment assessment, Native American consultation, and reporting. In 2020, Cogstone produced a Paleontological Resources Management Plan to prop ose effective mitigation of potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from proposed construction of MUST and its associated Wetlands project. Sub to Michael Baker. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HI STORY 131 Cogstone 112 SHANNON LOPEZ Architectural Historian EDUCATION 2018 M.A., History (with an emphasis in architecture), California State University, Fullerton 2012 B.A., History, Minor in Asian-Pacific Studies, California State University, Dominguez Hills SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Lopez is a qualified historian and she meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural History. Ms. Lopez is experienced in architectural history research and surveys along with photo documentation and recording of built environment resources for local and federal projects. Ms. Lopez is acknowledged as an approved Architectural Historian by Caltrans. She has extensive knowledge with Native American consultation, consultation with city and county historical societies, and analysis of primary and secondary sources. Additionally, she is an approved Reader at the Huntington Library by the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. SELECTED EXPERIENCE San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility a ssessments, and reporting. The project required a Section 408 permit from the USACE due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work performed complied with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. Architectural Historian. 2020-2021 141st and Normandie Townhomes Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone identified and evaluated the potential impacts to cultural, historic built environment, and paleontological resources for the proposed construction of 50 new, three-story townhomes, which will range in size from 1,252 to 1,689 square feet. Services included pedestrian survey, built environment evaluation, records searches, Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, background research, and reporting. The City of Gardena acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to De Novo Planning. Architectural Historian. 2020 Los Angeles Harbor College, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a study to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources for the proposed demolition, renovation, and construction at the college. Three of the building scheduled for demolition were considered historic in age and required evaluation under CEQA. Cogstone conducted a records search, historical society outreach, a pedestrian survey, and produced a Historic Resources Evaluation Report. Sub to PlaceWorks. Archite ctural Historian & Author. 2020 Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (MUST) Project, Los Angeles County, CA. In 2017, Cogstone prepared a cultural and paleontological resources assessment for the proposed construction of a stormwater facility. The project intended to improve the water quality of existing urban runoff to the Los Angeles River, and ultimately to the Long Beach Harbor. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, background research, built environment assessment, Native American consultation, and reporting. In 2020, Cogstone produced a Paleontological Resources Management Plan to propose effective mitigation of potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from proposed construction of MUST and its associated W etlands project. Sub to Michael Baker. Architectural Historian. 2020 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HI STORY 132 Cogstone 113 KIM SCOTT Geoarchaeologist EDUCATION 2000 B.S., Geology with paleontology emphasis, University of California, Los Angeles 2013 M.S., Biology with paleontology emphasis, California State University, San Bernardino 2015 Immersion course in geomorphology/geoarchaeology, National Park Service SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Scott has more than 20 years of experience in California paleontology and sedimentary geology. She has extensive paleontology experience in the field and lab in surveying, monitoring, fossil salvage, taphonomy, locality mapping, fossil preparation, and report writing. She is experienced in preparing stratigraphic sections, determining paleoenvironment, and analyzing soils and geological maps for buried site potential. Scott serves as company safety officer and is the author of the company safety and paleontology manuals. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Faith Home/Garner Road Connection Project, Caltrans District 10, Stanislaus County, CA. Cogstone identified and evaluated cultural, paleontological, and historic resources present in or adjacent to the construction of a four- lane one-mile expressway. Cogstone produced an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR), Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR-PER). Services included intensive level pedestrian surveys, mapping, records searches, DPR forms, and Native American consultation. Sub to Environmental Intelligence. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2017-2020 Interstate 605 and Katella, Caltrans District 12, City of Los Alamitos, Orange County, CA. The Orange County Transportation Authority with the California Department of Transportation District 12 and the City of Los Alamitos, proposed to update the I-605 and Katella Avenue interchange. Cogstone performed the survey, prepared a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report, an Archaeological Survey Report with a geoarchaeological section on the potential for buried sites, a Historical Property Survey Report, and a Historical Resources Evaluation Report. Sub to WSP USA, Inc. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2018 State Route 57, Orangewood to Katella, Caltrans District 12, Cities of Orange and Anaheim, Orange County, CA. California Department of Transportation District 12, with assistance from the cities of Anaheim and Orange, proposed to widen and restripe portions of the northbound side of the freeway from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue. Cogstone performed the survey, prepared a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report, an Archaeological Survey Report with geoarchaeological section, and a Historical Property Survey Report. Sub to Michael Baker International. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2018 State Route 138 and Avenue G interchange, Caltrans District 7, unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA. The City of Lancaster, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation District 7, proposed to improve the existing interchange of State Route 138 and Avenue G interchange in addition to widening of Avenue G to the east and west of the existing interchange. Cogstone performed the survey, prepared a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report, an Archaeological Survey Report with geoarchaeological section, and a Historical Resources Compliance Report. Sub to Michael Baker International. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2017 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HI STORY 133 Cogstone 114 LOGAN FREEBERG GIS Supervisor EDUCATION 2018 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Certificate, California State University, Fullerton 2003 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Mr. Freeberg has over 18 years of experience in cultural resource management and has extensive experience in field surveying, data recovery, monitoring, and excavation of archaeological and paleontological resources associated with land development projects in the private and public sectors. He has conducted all phases of archaeological work, including fieldwork, laboratory analysis, research, and reporting. Mr. Freeb erg also has a strong grounding in conventional field and laboratory methods and is skilled in the use of ArcGIS. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway), Sections 1 and 2, Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO), Los Angeles, CA. The project involves construction of seven stations from the existing Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Avenue along Wilshire Boulevard to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Westwood for 8.6 miles. Manages all paleontological services for Sections 1 and 2 of the subway project including budgets, WEAP training, monitoring, fossil recovery, lab work, analysis, and reporting. Sub to JV West (Stantec/Jacobs JV) (Section 1), AECOM (Section 2). GIS Supervisor. 2020-ongoing San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility assessments, and reporting. The project required a Section 408 permit from the USACE due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work performed complied with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastru cture Engineering Corporation. GIS Supervisor. 2020 - 2021 Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) Ongoing Technical Support for Environmental, Mitigation Reporting, and Sustainability Issues Associated with LAWA Construction Projects, LAX, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted cultural and paleontological resources monitoring during proposed consolidation and modernization of existing facilities. The project involved redeveloping multiple facilities including hangars and associated structures for Delta Airlines and United Airlines, among others. Upon completion of monitoring, Cogstone prepared Cultural and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Reports. The City of Los Angeles acted as lead agency for the project. Sub to CDM Smith. GIS Supervisor. 2020 -2021 Bell Gardens Water Reservoir Project, City of Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during improvements which included a new two-million-gallon reservoir, booster pump station, well to be drilled, and other components. Services included record searches, Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the 1.7-acre project area. Sub to Infrastructure Engineers. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HI STORY 134 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 115 APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE PEIR 135 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 116 Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Personnel Professional Qualifications Standards. Cultural resources consulting staff shall meet, or be under the direct supervision of an individual meeting, the minimum professional qualifications standards (PQS) set forth by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) (codified in 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61; 48 FR 44738-44739). Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Historic Resources Assessment. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project, LCWA shall retain an SOI-qualified architectural historian (Qualified Architectural Historian) to conduct a historic resources assessment including: a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center; a review of pertinent archives and sources; a pedestrian field survey; recordation of all identified historic resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms; and preparation of a technical report documenting the methods and results of the assessment. The report(s) shall be submitted to LCWA for review and approval prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Architectural Historian shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its completion. A Historic Resources Assessment shall not be required for any project site that has already undergone the same or similar assessment as part of the program as long as the assessment is deemed adequate by the Qualified Architectural Historian for the purposes of the project currently under consideration. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Historic Resources Evaluation. Prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or the publication of subsequent CEQA documents for any project site containing unevaluated historic resources, a Qualified Architectural Historian shall determine if the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to identified historic resources. For any historic resource that may be adversely impacted, the Qualified Architectural Historian shall evaluate the resource for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1-4 in order to determine if the resource qualifies as a historical resource. If a historic resource is found eligible, the Qualified Architectural Historian shall determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. If a substantial adverse change would occur (i.e., the project would demolish the resource or materially alter it in an adverse manner), the Qualified Architectural Historian shall develop appropriate mitigation measures to be incorporated into subsequent CEQA documents. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, relocation, HABS/HAER/HALS documentation, development and implementation of an interpretative and commemorative program, or development and implementation of a salvage plan. All evaluations and resulting technical reports shall be completed and approved by LWCA prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Architectural Historian shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA 136 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 117 Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment. For each near-term, mid- term, and long-term project that involves ground disturbance, LCWA shall retain an SOI- qualified archaeologist (Qualified Archaeologist) to conduct an archaeological resources assessment including: a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center; a Sacred Lands File search at the Native American Heritage Commission; updated geoarchaeological review incorporating previously unavailable data (such as geotechnical studies); a pedestrian field survey; recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms; and preparation of a technical report. The technical report shall: document the methods and results of the study; provide an assessment of the project’s potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources and human remains based on a review of the project plans, depth of proposed ground disturbance, and available project-specific geotechnical reports; and provide recommendations as to whether additional studies are warranted (i.e., Extended Phase I presence/absence testing or resource boundary delineation, Phase II testing and evaluation). The report(s) shall be submitted to LCWA for review and approval prior to approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Archaeologist shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its completion. An Archaeological Resources Assessment shall not be required for any project site that has already undergone the same or similar assessment as part of the program as long as the assessment is deemed adequate by the Qualified Archaeologist for the purposes of the project currently under consideration. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation. Prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or the publication of subsequent CEQA documents for any project with a high potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources as determined by the project-specific archaeological resources assessment conducted under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment, a Qualified Archaeologist shall conduct an Extended Phase I investigation to identify the presence/absence of subsurface archaeological resources. Prior to the initiation of field work for any Extended Phase I investigation, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a work plan outlining the investigation’s objectives, goals, and methodology (e.g., field and lab procedures, collection protocols, curation and reporting requirements, Native American input/monitoring, schedule, security measures). For investigations related to Native American archaeological resources, monitoring shall be required in accordance with Mitigation Measures CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. All work plans shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods (i.e., artifacts associated with human remains) are encountered in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Disposition of archaeological materials recovered during Extended Phase I investigations shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Projects 137 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 118 occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching work plan. All investigations and resulting technical reports shall be completed and approved by LCWA prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Archaeologist shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA. An Extended Phase I investigation shall not be required for any project site or resource that has already undergone the same or similar investigation as part of the program as long as the investigation is deemed adequate by the Qualified Archaeologist for the purposes of the project currently under consideration. Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Phase II Archaeological Investigation. Prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or the publication of subsequent CEQA documents for any project site containing known unevaluated archaeological resources as identified by the project-specific archaeological resources assessment conducted under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment, a Qualified Archaeologist shall determine if the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to identified archaeological resources (this may include initial Extended Phase I testing to identify the boundaries of resources, if necessary to properly assess potential impacts, following the procedures outlined under Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation). For any archaeological resource that may be adversely impacted, the Qualified Archaeologist shall conduct Phase II testing and shall evaluate the resource for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1-4 in order to determine if the resource qualifies as a historical resource. LCWA shall consider the significance of the resource to Native American groups prior to requiring any Phase II subsurface testing. If the resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it shall then be considered for qualification as a unique archaeological resource. Native American or prehistoric archaeological resources shall also be considered as contributors to the tribal landscape to determine if they contribute to the significance of the landscape. Prior to the initiation of field work for any Phase II investigation, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a work plan outlining the investigation’s objectives, goals, and methodology (e.g., research design, field and lab procedures, collection protocols, data requirements/thresholds, evaluation criteria, curation and reporting requirements, Native American input/monitoring, schedule, security measures). The Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall coordinate with participating Native American Tribes during preparation of Phase II work plans related to Native American archaeological resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered in the evaluation, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. For investigations related to Native American archaeological resources, Native American Tribal coordination and monitoring shall be required in accordance with Mitigation Measures CUL-12: Native American Coordination and CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. All work plans shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods (i.e., artifacts associated with human remains) are encountered in 138 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 119 accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Disposition of archaeological materials recovered during Extended Phase I or Phase II investigations shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave good shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Projects occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching work plan. All investigations and resulting technical reports shall be completed and approved by LWCA prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Archaeologist shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA. Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Avoidance and Preservation in Place of Archaeological Resources. In the event historical resources or unique archaeological resources or resources that contribute to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape are identified, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to such resources. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is determined by the LCWA to be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations, then that resource shall be subject to Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. If avoidance and preservation in place of a resource is determined by LCWA to be feasible, then that resource shall be subject to Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. A Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for significant archaeological resources (i.e., resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources or that contribute to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape) that will be adversely impacted by a project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if LCWA determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information for resources eligible under California Register Criterion 4. The Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall consult with interested Native American Tribes for recovery/treatment of Native American archaeological resources during preparation of the plan(s) to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered in assessing treatment, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. Projects occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching plan. The plan(s) shall be submitted to LCWA for review and 139 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 120 approval prior to the start of field work for data recovery efforts for resources that are eligible under California Register Criterion 4 (data potential). Data recovery field work shall be completed prior to the start of any project-related ground disturbance. Treatment for archaeological resources that are eligible under California Register Criterion 1 (events), Criterion 2 (persons), or Criterion 3 (design/workmanship) shall be completed within 3 years of completion of the project. Each plan shall include: a. Research Design. The plan shall outline the applicable cultural context(s) for the region, identify research goals and questions that are applicable to each resource or class of resources, and list the data needs (types, quantities, quality) required to answer each research question. The research design shall address all four California Register Criteria (1–4) and identify the methods that will be required to inform treatment, such as subsurface investigation, documentary/archival research, and/or oral history, depending on the nature of the resource. The research design shall also include consideration of Native American or prehistoric archaeological resources as contributors to the tribal cultural landscape. b. Data Recovery for Resources Eligible under Criterion 4. The plan shall outline the field and laboratory methods to be employed, and any specialized studies that will be conducted, as part of the data recovery effort for resources that are eligible under California Register Criterion 4 (data potential). If a resource is eligible under additional criteria, treatment beyond data recovery shall be implemented (see CUL-6c). c. Treatment for Resources Eligible under Criteria 1, 2, or 3. In the event a resource is eligible under California Register Criterion 1 (events), Criterion 2 (persons), or Criterion 3 (design/workmanship), then resource-specific treatment shall be developed to mitigate project- related impacts to the degree feasible. This could include forms of documentation, interpretation, public outreach, ethnographic and language studies, publications, and educational programs, depending on the nature of the resource, and may require the retention of additional technical specialists. Treatment measures shall be generally outlined in the plan based on existing information on the resource. Once data recovery is completed and the results are available to better inform resource-specific treatment, the treatment measures shall be formalized and implemented. Treatment shall be developed by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with LCWA and Native American Tribal representatives for resources that are Native American in origin, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. d. Security Measures. The plan shall include recommended security measures to protect archaeological resources from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities during field work. 140 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 121 e. Procedures for Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects or Grave Goods. The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered. Protocols and procedures shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. f. Reporting Requirements. Upon completion of data recovery for resources eligible under Criterion 4, the Qualified Archaeologist shall document the findings in an Archaeological Data Recovery Report. The draft Archaeological Data Recovery Report shall be submitted to the LCWA within 360 days after completion of data recovery, and the final Archaeological Data Recovery Report shall be submitted to LCWA within 60 days after the receipt of LCWA comments. The Qualified Archaeologist shall submit the final Archaeological Data Recovery Report to the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA. Upon completion of all other treatment for resources eligible under Criteria 1, 2, or 3, the Qualified Archaeologist shall document the resource-specific treatment that was implemented for each resource and verification that treatment has been completed in a technical document (report or memorandum). The document shall be provided to LCWA within 30 days after completion of treatment. g. Curation or Disposition of Cultural Materials. The plan shall outline the requirements for final disposition of all cultural materials collected during data recovery. Disposition of all archaeological materials shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. h. Protocols for Native American Coordination and Monitoring. The plan shall outline the role and responsibilities of Native American Tribal representatives in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-12: Native American Coordination. It shall outline communication protocols, timelines for review of archaeological resources documents, and provisions for Native American monitoring. The plan shall include provisions for full-time Native American monitoring of all data recovery field work for resources that are Native American in origin, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape, in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project that involves ground disturbance, a Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan taking into account the final LCWA-approved project design plans, depths/locations of ground disturbance, proximity to known archaeological resources, and potential to encounter 141 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 122 subsurface archaeological resources. Projects occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching plan. The Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall coordinate with participating Native American Tribes during preparation of the plan(s). Each plan shall include: a. Establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The plan shall outline areas that will be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas (including maps), if needed. Significant or unevaluated archaeological resources that are being avoided and are within 50 feet of the construction zone shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The resources shall be delineated with exclusion markers to ensure avoidance. These areas shall not be marked as archaeological resources, but shall be designated as “exclusion zones” on project plans and protective fencing in order to discourage unauthorized disturbance or collection of artifacts that are scientifically important, are considered, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. b. Provisions for Archaeological Monitoring. The plan shall outline requirements for archaeological monitoring and the archaeological monitor(s) role and responsibilities in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-11: Archaeological Resources Monitoring. Ground disturbance in locations/depths that have been previously monitored as part of the program shall not be subject to additional monitoring. c. Procedures for Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Procedures to be implemented in the event of an archaeological discovery shall be fully defined in the plan and shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL- 14: Archaeological Resources Discoveries. Procedures outlined shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures. The plan shall state avoidance or preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and contributors to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape, but shall provide procedures to follow should avoidance be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If, based on the recommendation of a Qualified Archaeologist, it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource or is a contributor to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape, then avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to such a resource in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Avoidance and Preservation in Place of Archaeological Resources. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented following the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. LCWA shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment of resources that are Native American in origin to ensure cultural values ascribed to the 142 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 123 resources, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape d. Procedures for Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects or Grave Goods. The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered. Protocols and procedures shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. e. Reporting Requirements. The plan shall outline provisions for weekly and final reporting. The Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare weekly status reports detailing activities and locations observed (including maps) and summarizing any discoveries for the duration of monitoring to be submitted to LCWA via email for each week in which monitoring activities occur. The Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a draft Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report and submit it to LCWA within 180 days after completion of the monitoring program or treatment for significant discoveries should treatment extend beyond the cessation of monitoring. The final Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted to LCWA within 60 days after receipt of LCWA comments. The Qualified Archaeologist shall also submit the final Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report to the South Central Coastal Information Center. f. Curation or Disposition of Cultural Materials. The plan shall outline the requirements for final disposition of all cultural materials collected during data recovery. Disposition of all archaeological materials shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. g. Protocols for Native American Coordination and Monitoring. The plan shall outline requirements for Native American coordination and monitoring, and the Native American monitor(s) role and responsibilities in accordance with Mitigation Measures CUL-12: Native American Coordination and CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. Mitigation Measure CUL-10: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. For each near term, mid-term, and long-term project that involves ground disturbance, LCWA shall retain a Qualified Archaeologist to implement a cultural resources sensitivity training program. The Qualified Archaeologist, or their designee, and a Native American representative shall instruct all construction personnel of the importance and significance of the area as a tribal cultural landscape, the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, confidentiality of discoveries, and safety precautions to be taken 143 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 124 when working with cultural resources monitors. In the event that construction crews are phased, additional trainings shall be conducted for new construction personnel. LCWA or their contractors shall ensure construction personnel are made available for and attend the training. LCWA shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance Mitigation Measure CUL-11: Archaeological Resources Monitoring. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project, full-time archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance (i.e., demolition, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, drilling, grubbing, vegetation removal, brush clearance, weed abatement, grading, excavation, trenching, or any other activity that has potential to disturb soil) shall be conducted in areas and at depths where there is a potential to encounter archaeological materials or human remains, including excavations into existing artificial fill and native soils, based on the project-specific archaeological resources assessment prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment. Ground disturbance in locations/depths that have been previously monitored as part of the program shall not be subject to additional monitoring. The archaeological monitor(s) shall be familiar with the types of resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of a Qualified Archaeologist. The number of archaeological monitors required to be on site during ground-disturbing activities is dependent on the construction scenario, specifically the number of pieces of equipment operating at the same time, the distance between these pieces of equipment, and the pace at which equipment is working, with the goal of monitors being able to effectively observe soils as they are exposed. Generally, work areas more than 500 feet from one another will require additional monitors. The archaeological monitor(s) shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Archaeological monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt and re-direct ground disturbing activities in the event of a discovery until it has been assessed for significance and treatment implemented, if necessary, based on the recommendations of the Qualified Archaeologist in coordination with LCWA, and the Native American representatives in the event the resource is Native American in origin, and in accordance with the protocols and procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. Reporting of archaeological monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-12: Native American Coordination. LCWA shall seek input from participating Native American Tribes during the preparation of documents required under Mitigation Measures CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation, CUL-6: Phase II Archaeological Investigation, CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan, Mitigation Measure CUL 9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, and CUL-14: Archaeological Resources Discoveries, including but not limited to work plans, research designs, treatment plans, and associated technical reports. LCWA shall provide participating Native American Tribes with electronic copies of draft documents and 144 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 125 afford them 30 days from receipt of a document to review and comment on the document. Native American comments will be provided in writing for consideration by LCWA. LCWA shall document comments and how the comments were/were not addressed in a tracking log Mitigation Measure CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project, full-time Native American monitoring of ground disturbance (i.e., demolition, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, drilling, grubbing, vegetation removal, brush clearance, weed abatement, grading, excavation, trenching, or any other activity that has potential to disturb soil) shall be conducted in areas and at depths where there is a potential to encounter archaeological materials or human remains, including excavations into existing artificial fill and native soils, based on the project-specific study prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment. LCWA shall retain a Native American monitor(s) from a California Native American Tribe that is culturally and geographically affiliated with the program area (according to the California Native American Heritage Commission) to conduct the monitoring. If more than one Tribe is interested in monitoring, LCWA shall contract with each Tribe that expresses interest and prepare a monitoring rotation schedule. LCWA shall rotate monitors on an equal and regular basis to ensure that each Tribal group has the same opportunity to participate in the monitoring program. If a Tribe cannot participate when their rotation comes up, they shall forfeit that rotation unless LCWA can make other arrangements to accommodate their schedule. The number of Native American monitors required to be on site during ground disturbing activities is dependent on the construction scenario, specifically the number of pieces of equipment operating at the same time, the distance between these pieces of equipment, and the pace at which equipment is working, with the goal of monitors being able to effectively observe soils as they are exposed. Generally, work areas more than 500 feet from one another require additional monitors. Native American monitors shall have the authority to halt and re-direct ground disturbing activities in the event of a discovery until it has been assessed for significance. The Native American monitor(s) shall also monitor all ground disturbance related to subsurface investigations and data recovery efforts conducted under Mitigation Measures CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation, CUL-6: Phase II Archaeological Investigation, and CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for any resources that are Native American in origin, according to the rotation schedule, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. Mitigation Measure CUL-14: Archaeological Resources Discoveries. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during construction of the proposed program, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall cease (within 100 feet), and the protocols and procedures for discoveries outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan shall be implemented. The discovery shall be evaluated for potential significance by the Qualified Archaeologist. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the resource may be significant (i.e., meets the definition for historical resource in CEQA Guidelines 145 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 126 subdivision 15064.5(a) or for unique archaeological resource in PRC subdivision 21083.2(g) or is a contributor to the tribal cultural landscape), the Qualified Archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for the resource following the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. When assessing significance and developing treatment for resources that are Native American in origin, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape, the Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall consult with the appropriate Native American representatives. The Qualified Archaeologist shall also determine if work may proceed in other parts of the project site while data recovery and treatment is being carried out. LCWA shall consult with the State Lands Commission Staff Attorney regarding any cultural resources discoveries on state lands. Mitigation Measure CUL 15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. LCWA shall curate all Native American archaeological materials, with the exception of funerary objects or grave goods (i.e., artifacts associated with Native American human remains). LCWA shall consult with Native American representatives regarding the final disposition of Native American archaeological materials and on the selection of the curation facility, with preference given to tribal museums. LCWA shall first consider repositories that are accredited by the American Association of Museums and that meet the standards outlined in 36 CFR 79.9. If a suitable accredited repository is not identified, then LCWA shall consider non-accredited repositories as long as they meet the minimum standards set forth by 36 CFR 79.9. If a suitable non-accredited repository is not identified, then LCWA shall donate the collection to a local California Native American Tribe(s) (Gabrielino or Juañeno) for educational purposes. Disposition of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be determined by the landowner in consultation with LCWA and the Most Likely Descendant in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL 18: Human Remains Discoveries. LCWA shall curate all historic- period archaeological materials that are not Native American in origin at a repository accredited by the American Association of Museums that meets the standards outlined in 36 CFR 79.9. If no accredited repository accepts the collection, then LCWA may curate it at a non-accredited repository as long as it meets the minimum standards set forth by 36 CFR 79.9. If neither an accredited nor a non-accredited repository accepts the collection, then LCWA shall offer the collection to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, or to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. If no institution, school, or historical society accepts the collection, LCWA may retain it for on-site display as part of its interpretation and educational elements. The final disposition of cultural resources recovered on state lands under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission. Prior to start of each project, LCWA shall obtain a curation agreement and shall be responsible for payment of fees associated with curation for the duration of the program. 146 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 127 Mitigation Measure CUL16: Future Native American Input. LCWA shall consult with participating California Native American Tribes, to the extent that they wish to participate, during future design of project-level components, plant and native plant selections or palettes, and development of content for educational and interpretative elements, such as signage and Visitors Center displays. Mitigation Measure CUL17: Tribal Access Plan. Prior to the start of construction, LCWA shall develop a written access plan to preserve and enhance tribal members’ access to, and use of, the restoration Project area for religious, spiritual, or other cultural purposes. This plan will allow access to the extent LCWA has the authority to facilitate such access, and be consistent with existing laws, regulations, and agreements governing property within the program area. The access plan may place restrictions on access into certain areas, such as oil operations and other exclusive easements the LCWA does not have access rights to. This access plan shall be developed in coordination with participating California Native American Tribes, to the extent that they wish to participate. Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries: If human remains are encountered, then LCWA or its contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and contact the appropriate County Coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines the remains are Native American, then the Coroner will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours in accordance with Health and Safety Code subdivision 7050.5(c), and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The California Native American Heritage Commission shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the land owner, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the landowner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. LCWA and the landowner shall discuss and confer with the MLD on all reasonable options regarding the MLD’s preferences for treatment. Until LCWA and the landowner have conferred with the MLD, the contractor shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity and is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or 147 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 128 the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the facility property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. 148 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 129 APPENDIX C. MAPS AND FIGURES 149 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 130 Figure C - 1. Topographic provinces (after Lightfoot and Parrish 2009) Project Location Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration C ity of Long Beach Los Ange les County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange County, CA II II Project Area t::] Topographic Region 0 50 I I I I 100 Miles I I N 0 50 100 Kilometers I I II I I II I 1 :6,000,000 l in = 500,000 ft 150 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 131 Figure C - 2. Geomorphic provinces (after Lightfoot and Parrish 2009) Project Location Southern Lo s Cerritos Wetlands Restoration C ity of Long Beach Los A ng e les County, CA C ity of Seal Beach Orange C o u nty, CA II II Proj ect Area II IJ Geo m orph ic Prov ince 0 50 I I I I 100 Mi les I I N 0 50 100 Kil o m eters I I II I I II I 1 :6,000 ,000 l in = 50 0,000 ft 151 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 132 Figure C - 3. Geology of the Southern LCW Project area co~tone PALEONTOLOGY • ARCHAEOLOGY ~ HISTORY Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach I I I I Project Area Orange County, CA Geology from Saucedo et al., 2016 --Fault ■ ■ ■ Inferred Fault D af -artificial fill (modern) D Qpe -paralic estuarine deposits (late Holocene) D Qype -young paralic estuarine deposits (late Pleistocene to Holocene) LJ Qom -old shallow marine deposits (middle to late Pleistocene) 0 500 1,000 Feet L.I .....L......L......&........&...I __.___.__, _! AN 0 100 200 Meters I I I I I I I 1:10,000 1 in= 833 ft 152 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 133 Figure C - 4. Southern California Timeline Los Angeles Basin & Southern Timescale Regionnl Synthesi.., Northern ()range 01annel 1;ha.s:hm1trk f'\try 200ytaN co6-.IOO BC Counties Islands AJ)prox Radio Year• Ceologicnl \Van"tu \Vallnce C. King Suuou Carbon A.O.B.C. Time Scale (1968) (1955) (1990) (2009) Years BP 190 -1--1782 _ C humMh l fo1ori c u"'•um:t._i, .....••. -g L2 ·c Angeles V I Island IV -,I: 40-0 -...... 150-0 L:1te ., -Prebi~to1ic LI j Angtlts V Island Ill -C humash lfofr1.on 1020 -,-1000 -......... MS >, <l! Angtles IV i! Island II -M4 .; ! -g 0 Angeles Ill -.. .. 1610 -...... 5-00 .. M3 ·t -:,: . e Q. A.O . -J .!t Island I M2 :g 2000 --o -i Angtles II B.C. - Inter• -Ml 2425 -...... 500 mediate -lforl'"1.on -EZ Cnmbell 2825 -~,ooo -To1>a.uea Ang.,-1.-~ Tradition -Ill I -3225 ->-15-00 -- 3625 --2000 ---EY 400-0 --250-0 -g -" 5 ·.: To1>anga II .., -:; ~ !! 4370 --3000 -0 >, ,: ,: '" :,: t!! ... -.!t ;; ~ >, -1l g >-35-00 ~ 'ii ·.= -:.; ·c -,!i £ 5000 --4000 -M illing-"l! Encinitas E -n·aclilion dOrH' a l lo,·iz.on -0 -450-0 z --EX 6000 --5-000 - -Topanga I -5500 --Snn Snn " 7100 --6000 -., DieguilO DieguilO -I Ttaclition l lo,·iz.on -~ ;:,-.0 J .: 1; San l>ieguito '/ ~ .., Paleoc:oas 1nl Plcis1oc:e.ue :5 Coas1nl Ornnge Los Angtles Ballona County County Lagoon Mason and Kowta Altschul ct al. P e1crson (1969) (20-05) (2014) .. ~.a.l~•~~l.ii_i!> •• llistorit:* Lnlt P eriod 2 Malaga C Late Period .g Cove I ~ E~ Lnle Period I '----~E t-V ?. >- Malaga Cove 2 '--C Middle P eriod lntern,ediate 0 "' Period ~ e ~ !::~ e E ~ . °;. V • • .£ • ?. ?- Malaga · •• Co,·e 2 ·. (To1>•ngn 11)·. Millingsloue Period 3 Enrty Period Millingstoue Pt1iod 2 Malaga Covt I Millingslonc Period I Paleoc:oas1nl Santa Ssu11n Barbara Barbarn C hannel Cons, Arnold and Rogers Craesh (1929) (20-04) Jli,5 tol'ic C hu,uai;h ·········· Late Period T ,·ansi1ionnl Middle Period Cnnali ilo Peo1lle ·········· llun1ing Peo1)le Early P eriod Oak Crove Peo1de "'Hisrorieal Period: AD 1800-1850 & Prornhisroric:-Period: ADJ769-J800 $aura Mouicn Mountain~ Mojnvt l>tsut Kowta Kowta (1969) (1969) C hu1uas h/Cabl"it:li110 ······················· Shoshonean Cnnali ilo Amnrgosn Topnnga Ill Piuro Bas in Topangn II To1>a.uga I Jlialus San Oiegui ro 153 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 134 Figure C - 5. Gabrielino (Tongva) Territory (after McCawley 1996) Chumash .......... ' ..... Tataviam -,.,. ,.,.- ----4.✓--,,. cogstone 1"4U;0NTOI.IIG1'-Al{Clt4ECll.0~T -Hl'ST0~1' J \ Project Area So uthern Los Cerr ito s Wet lands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles Cou nt y, CA City of Sea l Beach Orange Co unt y, CA Tongva (Ga brielino) II II ProjectArea ... ,-_ ~ Tribal Boundary '-' \, Serrano ..... ..... -' ' ,.,. _,.':,_ ,.,. ,.,. / / / ( I Ca huilla I 1-...... ' ,,,., / \ ' \ J I ...... , ' ' '\ Juaneno .._ ' I ' r \. \ \ I I I \ \ ... Luiseno lpai 0 10 20 Miles I II I I I I N 0 IO 20 Kilometers ! 1,111,111 A_ 1:1,250 ,000 1 in =20miles 154 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 135 Figure C - 6. Resources used by Native American tribes by ecological zones (based on Heizer and Elsasser 1980: Figure 32) (/) 0::: w 0::: w I COASTAL T IDELAND COLLECTORS, SEA HUNTERS AND FI SHERS ~ (/) 0:: w 1-z :::) I Marsh Plants / '\ z Lake Fish Waterfowl w ~ 0::: w I (/) u: w 0::: 0 I (/) w ~ <( ...J Acorns Seeds Deer Elk Rabbits Phytoplankton Shellfish t Surf Fish Sardines Elk Tuna Deer Surf Fish Acorns t Seal • Sea Lion Wiyot, Coast Yurek, Miwok & Pomo, ostanoan, Luisen Modoc, S. Valley Yokuts, Lake Pomo Patwin, Valley Yokuts, Plains Miwok, Gab. ~ Yurok, Puma, Wintu , T olowa, Wailaki ahuilla , Serrano, aviotso, Yuma , have (/) 0::: w 0::: w I Antelope Deer Elk i lt/l>(Tongva) Monache, Gab. (Tongva) ~ ('.) (/) z ~ ...J a.. 0 z <( >-w ...J _J ~ Grasses Salmon Acorns Grass Seeds Fish Acorns Pinenuts • Deer Antelope FOOTHILL HUNTERS GATHERERS Salmon Eels Steel Head Shellfish Acorns Berries Pinon Nuts Mesquite Rabbits Mountain Sheep Maize Beans Squash Fish :::0 < m ~ z m ,, en I m :::0 ~ m z 0 m (/) m :::0 -I I C z -I m :::0 (/) (') 0 r r m (') -I 0 :::0 _(I) ► G) :::0 0 C r -I C :::0 en -I (/) 155 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 136 Figure C - 7. Pacific Rio Grande Trails Landscape (Gates et al. 2013: Figure 4) '-...,. N A ··~ s•-... , Sant • l ~q u e Northern ,• • .... ,, .. Rio Gran River I N l\l EX I Legend •••• •••••••• Landscape Boundary Trails 0 25 50 -- CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION· SITING,TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION SOURCE ESRI. Delorme. Tele Atlas, CEC 100 Miles 150 200 j 156 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 137 Figure C - 8. Juaneño territory map (data courtesy of Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation) cogstone ,ALCONTCL0111'·AIICIIAf0LOCIT·HISTOU .-..... ..._.., [Proj ect Area l / ( ~ ,-;, ' ' So uthe rn Los Ce rr itos Wet land s Resto rati o n City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA 1-_ ~ Juaneno Territory City of Seal Beach Orange County, CA II II ProjectArea ..... ' ' .... \, ' \ ..._ ' ' \ / ..._ I ' I ' \ ,1 0 10 20 Miles I I II I II I I O IO 20 Ki lometers l..w.1l.u.l N A 1 :2 ,000,000 1 in = 32 miles 157 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 138 Figure C - 9. Land grant map 1c rne SAN1ANTONIO ~AUSAL ~(LUGO) REDONDO ------Compton I rrance SANPEDRO (DOM INGUEZ) Carson LOS PAL OS VERDES cogstone 1'4U;0NTOUIG1' · Al{C IV,eca.o~, -Hl'SHl~Y SANTA GERTRUDES N::>!I; (MC·I-ARLAND & DOWN EY) LOS ALAM IT OS So uth ern Los Cerrito s Wetlands Restoration C ity of Long Beach II IJ ProjectArea Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange County, CA D Land Grant LA HABRA SAN JUAN F11ller ,CA JON DE SANTAANA Anaheim y Oran I.AS ROI.SAS 0 2.5 5 Miles I I I I I I I I N 0 2.5 5 Kilomete rs ! 1,1111111 A_ 1 :300,000 1 in = 25 ,000 ft 158 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 139 Figure C - 10. Location of villages within the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Re sto ration C ity of Long Beach Los Angeles Co unty, CA Ci ty or Sea l l:3e ach Orange County, CA • 0 Puvun g na Motuucheyngna II II Los Cerrito s Wetla nd s Co mpl ex 0 1,000 2,000 feet I II I I II I I N 0 250 500 Meters I II I I II I I A l :30,000 l in = 2 ,500 ft 159 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 140 Figure C - 11. Extent of Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape So uth e rn Los Cerrito s Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Ange les Co unty, CA City of Sea l Bcacb Orange County, CA 0 Villa ge Site II IJ So uth ern Proj ect Area □ Los Cerritos We tlands Com pl ex c:J 5-Mile Rad iu s 0 2.5 5 Miles .____.__ ....... _....___.,_.....__..._ __ -I N A 0 2.5 5 Kilometers ... I _.__.__.__._I ....................... ~I 1 :160 ,000 1 in = 13,333 ft 160 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 141 APPENDIX D. USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 161 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 142 Figure D - 1. 1927 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange Cou nty, CA I I I I Project Area 0 500 1,000 Feet .___._ _ _.___.._.....____,.___.__..__~I N 0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , _._, _._, _1.__,.__.__1 ........ 1 " 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft 162 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 143 Figure D - 2. 1928 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange Cou nty, CA I I I I Project Area 0 500 1,000 Feet .___._ _ _.___.._.....____,.___.__..__~I N 0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , _._, _._, _1.__,.__.__1 ........ 1 " 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft 163 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 144 Figure D - 3. 1938 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange Cou nty, CA I I I I Project Area 0 500 1,000 Feet .___._ _ _.___.._.....____,.___.__..__~I N 0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , _._, _._, _1.__,.__.__1 ........ 1 " 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft 164 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 145 Figure D - 4. 1952 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange Cou nty, CA I I I I Project Area 0 500 1,000 Feet .___.__..___.__..___.__..___._~I N 0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , ........ , _._, _1.__,.__.__,.__1 A. 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft 165 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 146 Figure D - 5. 1962 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange Cou nty, CA I I I I Project Area 0 500 1,000 Feet ._____._ _ __.__.___._ _ _,___,.___.___,I N 0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__..___.__,___.1___.,.__.__ .... , ..... 1 A. 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft 166 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 147 Figure D - 6. 1965 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City or Seal Beach Orange County, CA Ii II Project /\rea 0 500 1,000 Feet ~--'-----~--~---1 N 0 100 200 Meters i LI _._1 __._1 __.___._I ___.1___.___.1 .......... 1 Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt 167 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 148 Figure D - 7. 1974 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City or Seal Beach Orange County, CA Ii II Project /\rea 0 500 1,000 Feet ~--~-~--~-~--~! N 0 100 200 Meters i LI _.___._ _ ___.,___.1__.__. .......... 1 Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt 168 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 149 Figure D - 8. 1994 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City or Seal Beach Orange County, CA Ii II Project /\rea 0 500 1,000 Feet ~--'-----~--~---1 N 0 100 200 Meters i LI _._1 __._1 __.___._I ___.1___.___.1 .......... 1 Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt 169 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 150 Figure D - 9. 2001 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City or Seal Beach Orange County, CA Ii II Project /\rea 0 500 1,000 Feet ~~-~-~-~~~~-~~! N 0 100 200 Meters i LI ................................ 1 _.__.__.__,I Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt 170 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 151 APPENDIX E. PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES 171 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 152 Table E – 1. Previous Studies within a One -mile radius of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area LA-00012 Crabtree, Robert H. Environmental Data Base for The [sic] in the City of Long Beach, California 1973 0 - 1 Mile LA-00057 Leonard, Nelson N. III A Reconnaissance and Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources of the Veterans Administration Hospital Long Beach, California 1974 0 - 1 Mile LA-00491 Dixon, Keith A. Inventory of Archaeological Resources, CSULB Campus 1977 0 - 1 Mile LA-00503 Dixon, Keith A. Archaeological Resources and Policy Recommendations of Long Beach 1974 0 - 1 Mile LA-00522 Cooley, Theodore G. Test Level Investigations Conducted on Sites CA-LAN-274 and 275. 1979 0 - 1 Mile LA-00939 Allen, Lawrence P. The Sims Pond Site, CA-LAN-702, Alamitos Bay, Los Angeles County, California 1980 0 - 1 Mile LA-01488 Mason, Roger D. and Wayne H. Bonner Archaeological and Paleontological Report on the Channel Point Property 1985 0 - 1 Mile LA-02114 McKenna, Jeanette A. Archaeological Investigations of the Proposed California Shores Property, Long Beach, California 1990 Within Project area LA-02399 Winman, Lois J. and E. Gary Stickel Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Areas Cultural Resource Survey 1978 0 - 1 Mile LA-02794 Dixon, Keith A. Reviving an Archaeological Project at Rancho Los Alamitos 1972 0 - 1 Mile LA-02795 Desautels, Roger J., K. Dixon, and M. Rosen Correspondence Between R. Desautels, K. Dixon, and M. Rosen 1979 0 - 1 Mile LA-02864 Dixon, Keith A. Comment on Second Incomplete Draft of Implementation Guidelines for the Preservation of Archaeological Resources in Campus Development Project, California State University, Long Beach; Work in Progress as of July 1993 1993 0 - 1 Mile 172 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 153 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area LA-03583 Bucknam, Bonnie M. The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity: A Gazetteer and Compilation of Archaeological Site Information 1974 0 - 1 Mile LA-03853 Anonymous Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment of the Point View Project Study Area, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California 1996 0 - 1 Mile LA-04091 Milliken, Randell and William R. Hildebrandt Assessment of Archaeological Resources at the Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens 1997 0 - 1 Mile LA-04157 McLean, Deborah K., Ivan Strudwick, and William McCawley Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marketplace Restaurant and Retail Site, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Ca. 1997 Within Project area LA-04266 Brooks, Sheilagh T. A Deeply-buried Human Skull and Recent Stratigraphy at the Present Mouth of the San Gabriel River, Seal Beach, California 1960 0 - 1 Mile LA-04269 Zahniser, Jack L. Archaeological Salvage Excavations at 4-LAN-306 (known As Puvungna) Summer, 1973 1974 0 - 1 Mile LA-04270 Underwood, Jackson Archaeological Testing for the Information Booth Project, California State University, Long Beach 1993 0 - 1 Mile LA-04274 Underwood, Jackson Archaeological Survey and Testing for the Pipeline Project California State University, Long Beach 1993 0 - 1 Mile LA-04275 Underwood, Jackson Archaeological Testing at the Central Plant Site, California State University, Long Beach 1993 0 - 1 Mile LA-04276 Underwood, Jackson Archaeological Testing of Phase I, the Pedestrian Walkway, Parking Structure B California State University, Long Beach 1993 0 - 1 Mile LA-04277 Underwood, Jackson Archaeological Testing at the Ticket Booth Site, California State University, Long Beach 1993 0 - 1 Mile LA-04355 Widell, Cherilyn E. A Cultural Resources Management Plan for the California State University, Long Beach 1994 0 - 1 Mile 173 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 154 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area LA-05215 McKenna, Jeanette A. A Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed Long Beach Ocean Desalination Project, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California 2001 0 - 1 Mile LA-05727 Cottrell, Marie G. A Report of Test Excavations: CA- LAN-702 1975 0 - 1 Mile LA-05890 Strudwick, Ivan H., W. McCawley, D.K.B. McLean, and B.L. Strum Cultural Resource Survey of the Bixby Ranch Parcel Near Alamitos Bay, Los Angeles County, California 1996 Within Project area LA-06089 McCormick, Steven and Ferraro, David D. Literature Review, Field Reconnaissance, and Grading Monitoring of an Abandoned Oil Field in Long Beach, California 2002 0 - 1 Mile LA-06107 Shepard, Richard S. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Los Alamitos Pump Station Project in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, and Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2003 Within Project area LA-06160 Baksh, Michael, Christopher J. Doolittle, David D. Earle, Donn R. Grenda, and William McCawley Puvungna: A Review of the Ethnohistoric, Archaeological, and Ethnographic Issues Surrounding a Gabrielino Rancheria Near Alamitos Bay, Los Angeles County, California Draft 1994 0 - 1 Mile LA-06163 Cottrell, Marie G. Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-LAN-702 1975 0 - 1 Mile LA-08487 Strudwick, Ivan H. Cultural Resource Survey of the Alamitos Electrical Generating Station Fuel Oil Tank Farm, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California 2004 0 - 1 Mile LA-08489 Duke, Curt and Judith Marvin Cultural Resource Assessment: Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sm 118-03, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California 2003 0 - 1 Mile 174 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 155 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area LA-08494 Shepard, Richard S. Archaeological Survey Report: Minor Widening of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH, State Route 1) at 2nd Street in the City of Long Beach, Southern Los Angeles County, California 2004 0 - 1 Mile LA-08497 Raab, Mark L. and Matthew Boxt A Research Design and Implementation Guidelines for the Preservation of Archaeological Resources in Campus Development Projects, California State University, Long Beach: Work in Progress As of 27 October, 1993 1993 0 - 1 Mile LA-08498 Raab, Mark L. and Matthew Boxt A Cultural Resources Management Plan for the California State University, Long Beach, Work in Progress As of 3-19-1994 1994 0 - 1 Mile LA-09839 Taniguchi, Christeen Historic Architectural Survey Report: Long Beach VA Hospital Seismic Corrections Project, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA 2006 0 - 1 Mile LA-09840 Wills, Carrie Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Long Beach VA Hospital Seismic Corrections Project, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California 2006 0 - 1 Mile LA-10483 Fulton, Terri Cultural Resources Assessment for the Alamitos Bay Marina Rehabilitation Project, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California 2009 0 - 1 Mile LA-10527 Weinman, Lois J. Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Areas Regional Cultural History, Los Angeles County, California 1978 0 - 1 Mile LA-11137 Trinh, Phoung LOP Facsimile Transmittal SPL-2009- 00807-PHT 2009 0 - 1 Mile LA-12224 Mason, Roger, Cary Cotterman, and Josh Smallwood Phase I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Historic Building Evaluations for the Seismic Corrections, Mental Health and Community Living Center Project Depart of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California 2011 0 - 1 Mile 175 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 156 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area LA-12808 Chasteen, Carrie, Tiffany Clark, Richard Hanes, and Michael Mirro Cultural Resources Study of the Wilmington Oil and Gas Field, Los Angeles County, California in Support of Analysis of Oil and Gas Well Stimulation Treatments in California Environmental Impact Report 2014 0 - 1 Mile LA-12960 McKenna, Jeanette A. Cultural Resources Overview: The City of Long Beach Southeast Area Specific Plan, Los Angeles County, California 2016 Within Project area OR-00481 Van Horn, David M. Archaeological Survey Report: the 9 Acre LA Dept. of Water and Power Property Located at the Corner of 1st and Ocean Ave. in the City of Seal Beach 1979 0 - 1 Mile OR-00493 Anonymous Archaeological Survey Report: the Hellman Property in Seal Beach 1980 Within Project area OR-00619 Frierman, Jay D. Field Assessment of CA-ORA-322; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1981 0 - 1 Mile OR-00639 Anonymous Archaeological Test Report on the Hellman Property Located in Seal Beach 1981 Within Project area OR-00790 Brock, James P. Cultural Resource Assessment of Two Study Areas in the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge 1985 0 - 1 Mile OR-01049 Redwine, Peter Landing Hill 1958 Within Project area OR-01272 Stickel, Gary E. A Baseline Archaeological Study for the City of Seal Beach California 1991 0 - 1 Mile OR-01290 De Barros, Philip and Roger D. Mason Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Unocal Property at 99 Marina Drive Seal Beach, California 1993 0 - 1 Mile OR-01301 Kelsey, Harry and Nicholas Magalousis Historical Review and Archaeological Report for the Unocal On-shore Facility at 99 Marina Drive in Seal Beach California in Two Parts 1993 0 - 1 Mile OR-01348 De Barros, Philip and Roger D. Mason Addendum to Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Unocal Property at 99 Marina Drive Seal Beach, California 1993 0 - 1 Mile 176 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 157 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-01414 Van Horn, David M. The 20+ Acre Site of Proposed New Residential Housing on the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1981 0 - 1 Mile OR-01421 Smith, Brian F. and Larry J. Pierson Remediation Project at Buildings 10, 69, and 923 at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach. 1995 0 - 1 Mile OR-01482 Mason, Roger and Larry Carbone Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites 4,8,9, Swmu 56 at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 1996 0 - 1 Mile OR-01568 Clevenger, Joyce M. Extended Phase I Exploratory Survey for the Milcon P-902 Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Orange County, California 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01581 Whitney- Desautels, Nancy A. Cultural Resource Assessment of the Hellman Ranch, Seal Beach 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01599 Clevenger, Joyce M., Kathleen Crawford, and Andrew Pigniolo Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural Phase 1 Overview Survey, Phase II Evaluation Survey and Historic and Archaeological Resource Protection (harp) Plan of Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California 1993 0 - 1 Mile OR-01607 Bissell, Ronald M. Archaeological Monitoring of Trenching for Improvements on and Near the Softball Facility, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, Orange County, California 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01608 Stickel, Gary E. A Research Design and Investigation Program for Test Level Evaluations of Archaeological Sites Located on the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California 1996 Within Project area OR-01609 York, Andrew L., James H. Cleland, and Michael Baksh A Research Design for the Evaluation of Archaeological Sites Within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area 1997 Within Project area OR-01610 Stickel, Gary E. An Archaeological Site Survey of the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California 1996 0 - 1 Mile 177 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 158 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-01643 York, Andrew, James H. Cleland, and Michael G. Baksk A Research Design for the Evaluation of Archaeological Sites Within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01816 Stickel, Gary E. A Research Design and Investigation Program for Test Level Evaluations of Archaeological Sites Located on the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California 1996 Within Project area OR-01866 Clevenger, Joyce M. Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Parcel Proposed for an Experimental Anaerobic Bioremediation Program Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1996 0 - 1 Mile OR-01897 Unknown Historic Properties Overview and Evaluations on the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01931 Davy, Douglas M. Archaeological Resources Protection Plan, Decommissioning of the Research, Testing, and Evaluation Area, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01958 Clevenger, Joyce and Kathleen Crawford Phase I - Overview Survey and Phase II - Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural Eligibility Study of Cultural Resources on the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1995 0 - 1 Mile OR-01960 Mason, Roger and Richard Cerreto Archaeological Resource Protection Plan for the Background Study Sampling Areas at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 1995 0 - 1 Mile OR-01969 Clevenger, Joyce, and Kathleen Crawford Final Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection (harp) Plan for the Naval Weapons, Station, Seal Beach 1997 0 - 1 Mile OR-01989 Berryman, Judy, and Roy Pettus Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for the Site Inspection Work Plan at the Research, Testing, and Evaluation Area, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 1995 0 - 1 Mile 178 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 159 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-02033 Mason, Roger D. Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sites in Northern Orange County, California 1987 0 - 1 Mile OR-02070 Bissell, Ronald M. Archaeological Monitoring at Installation Restoration (IR) Site 73, Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach, California (CH2M Hill Prime Contract No. N6871-96-d-2299) 2000 0 - 1 Mile OR-02072 Bissell, Ronald M. Archaeological Services at Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach, California (CH2M Hill Prime Contract No. N6871-96-d- 2299), Relative to Sampling at Installation Restoration (IR) Sites 12, 16, 25, 37, 38, 42, 44/45, Aoc 6, Swmu 24, 56, 57, Osr, an 2000 0 - 1 Mile OR-02284 Mason, Roger and Cerreto, Richard Archaeological Resources Protection Plan for Installation Restoration Sites 5, 8, 12, 16, 21, 40, 44, and 46 at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach Orange County, Ca 1995 0 - 1 Mile OR-02286 Bissell, Ronald M. Archaeological Monitoring at Repair Site #21, Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach, Ca 2000 0 - 1 Mile OR-02604 Duke, Curt Cultural Resource Assessment at & T Wireless Services Facility No. 13001a Orange County, California 2002 0 - 1 Mile OR-02687 Miller, Jason A. Archaeological Monitoring of Trenching for the Main Telephone Cable Feed Vault on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, California 2000 0 - 1 Mile OR-02688 Baillie, David Replacement of a Segment of Clay Sewer Pie, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2002 0 - 1 Mile OR-02774 Shepard, Richard S. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Los Alamitos Pump Station Project in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, and Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2003 Within Project area 179 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 160 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-03172 Tang, Bai "Tom" and Casey Tibbet Historic Resources Evaluation Report Seal Beach Bike Trail Project City of Seal Beach, Orange County 12-ORA- 1-pm 31.11/32.72-kp 50.07/52.66 Ea Oc 3700 2004 0 - 1 Mile OR-03173 Willey, Lorraine M., and Jackson Underwood Archaeological Testing of a Portion of Site CA-ORA-322/1118 Gardeners Road and Bolsa Avenue Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, California 2003 0 - 1 Mile OR-03379 Chatters, James Carl Final Archaeological Data Recovery Report for a Portion of Prehistoric Archaeological Site CA-ORA- 322/1118 to Mitigate Impacts of Soil Removal Remediation 2003 0 - 1 Mile OR-03391 York, Andrew L., James H. Cleland, Lorraine Willey, and Charlane Gross Mitigation Plan for Significant Cultural Resource Discoveries Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area Seal Beach, California 2003 0 - 1 Mile OR-03562 Monica Strauss Negative Archaeological Monitoring Report for the 400 Marina Drive Development Project, City of Seal Beach, CA 2009 0 - 1 Mile OR-03714 Bonner, Wayne H. Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Architectural Assessment Results for Sprint Telecommunications Facility Candidate OG54XC414D (Browning), 1971 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, Orange County, California 2004 0 - 1 Mile OR-03715 Bonner, Wayne H. Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile Candidate LA 02899D (Fire Station), 120 1/2 West Walnut Street, Station #5, Santa Ana, Orange County, California 2008 0 - 1 Mile 180 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 161 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-03735 Bai "Tom" Tang Due-Diligence Historical Archaeological Resources Review, City of Seal Beach Sewer Capital Improvement Projects, City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2008 0 - 1 Mile OR-03762 Ehringer, Candace Negative Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Replacement Project, City of Seal Beach, California 2009 Within Project area OR-03821 Tang, Bai and Michael Hogan Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties City of Seal Beach Sewer Capital Improvement Projects (Southern Portion/Downtown Area) City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2009 0 - 1 Mile OR-03828 Cleland, James, Andrew York, and Lorraine Willey Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered 2007 0 - 1 Mile OR-03870 Mason, Roger Historic Property Survey Report for the West Orange County Connection, Phase II - I-405/I605 HOV Connector Project, Orange County, California 2009 0 - 1 Mile OR-03922 Bonner, Wayne Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate LA33981-E (Faith Christian Assembly), 13820 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2010 0 - 1 Mile OR-04002 Underwood, Jackson Work Plan for Presence/Absence Archaeological Testing of a Portion of Site CA-ORA-322/1118 Gardeners Road and Bolsa Avenue Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California 2002 0 - 1 Mile OR-04023 Underbrink, Susan Cultural Resources Records Search and Survey Report for the Ocean Place Project, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2005 0 - 1 Mile 181 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 162 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-04030 Whitaker, Adrian R. Evaluation of a Redeposited Site (CA- ORA-1711) for the Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Project P- 063, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 2011 0 - 1 Mile OR-04031 Padon, Beth Subject: Phase I Archaeological Study Report for Alumni Center at the University of California Irvine Campus 2011 0 - 1 Mile OR-04034 Bucknam, Bonnie M. The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity: A Gazetteer and Compilation of Archaeological Site Information 1974 0 - 1 Mile OR-04035 Weinman, Lois J., and E. Gary Stickel (also LA2399) Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Areas Cultural Resource Survey 1978 0 - 1 Mile OR-04047 Lehman, Jane Seal Beach Railroad Right of Way Property, Seal Beach Blvd. - 17th Street - 16th Street - Electric Ave., Seal Beach, CA 2007 0 - 1 Mile OR-04089 Whittenberg, Lee Section 106 Compliance Information City of Seal Beach Water Tank Fence Replacement Project, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station 2001 0 - 1 Mile OR-04105 Wlodarski, Robert J. Cultural Resources Records Search and Archaeological Survey Results for the proposed Clear Wireless, LLC, Site CA-ORC5863A (OG03XC029C) located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, Orange County, California 90740 2010 0 - 1 Mile OR-04143 Baillie, David Sprinkler System Replacement at CA- ORA-322/1118, Reference #5758 Ser. N45W/0153 2004 0 - 1 Mile OR-04172 Chasteen, Carrie Historic Property Survey Report San Diego Freeway (I-405) Improvement Project SR-73 to I-605, Orange and Los Angeles Counties 2011 0 - 1 Mile OR-04189 Gundrum, Darrell Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Proposal to Improve Security and Access Control Measures at Two Installation Gates: Gate 1 and Gate 9 2005 0 - 1 Mile 182 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 163 Report Number Author(s) Title Year Distance from the Southern LCW Project area OR-04223 Flynn, Chris Notification of Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions for the Bridge Deck Maintenance and Sealing at 30 Locations Throughout Orange County, California 2011 0 - 1 Mile OR-04307 Baille, David Reevaluation of the National Register Eligibility Status of Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Orange County and Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Fallbrook, San Diego County 2003 0 - 1 Mile OR-04346 Bissell, Ronald Discovery Plan, Archaeological Services at Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach, California for the Upgrade of Main Telephone Cable Feed Vault 2000 0 - 1 Mile OR-04505 Brunzell, David Cultural Resources Assessment of the Seal BH 1 Project, Seal Beach, Orange County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. TRF1427) 2015 0 - 1 Mile OR-04553 Bonner, Wayne H. Phase I Survey Marina Drive, Seal Beach 1999 0 - 1 Mile 183 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 164 APPENDIX F. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES 184 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 165 Table F – 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 3-mile radius of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 000102 CA-LAN- 102 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1966 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000231 CA-LAN- 231 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000232 CA-LAN- 232 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000233 CA-LAN- 233 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000234 CA-LAN- 234 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Puvungna Village Site, Surface Shell, Chipping Waste 1960 NR: 1D 2 - 3 miles 19- 000235 CA-LAN- 235 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Puvungna Village Site, Surface Shell, Chipping Waste 1960 NR: 1D 2 - 3 miles 19- 000236 CA-LAN- 236 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 000271 CA-LAN- 271 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1959 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000272 CA-LAN- 272 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Partial Burial 1961 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 19- 000273 CA-LAN- 273 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 185 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 166 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 000274 CA-LAN- 274 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000275 CA-LAN- 275 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000306 CA-LAN- 306 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Gabrielino Village Site 1951, 1964, 1972, 1973, 1997 1D 1 - 2 miles 19- 000698 CA-LAN- 698 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Surface Shell, Chipping Waste 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 000699 CA-LAN- 699 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Chipping Waste 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 000700 CA-LAN- 700 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 000701 CA-LAN- 701 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 000702 CA-LAN- 702 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 000703 CA-LAN- 703 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 000705 CA-LAN- 705 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 001000 CA-LAN- 1000 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1979; 1994 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 001001 CA-LAN- 1001 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 001002 CA-LAN- 1002 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 186 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 167 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 001003 CA-LAN- 1003 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1979, 1994 Recommended - not a resource 2 - 3 miles 19- 001004 CA-LAN- 1004 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1979, 1994 Recommended - not a resource 2 - 3 miles 19- 001005 CA-LAN- 1005 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1979, 1994 Recommended - not a resource 2 - 3 miles 19- 001006 CA-LAN- 1006 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 001007 CA-LAN- 1007 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1979 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 001821 CA-LAN- 001821 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Site 1990 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 19- 002616 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Seasonally-Utilized Food Processing/Consumption Station 1997 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 002629 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977, 1994 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 002630 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Seasonally-Utilized Food Processing/Consumption Station 1994 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 003040 Historic Archaeological Site Oil Extraction Facility with Tank Farms 2000 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 187 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 168 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 004780 CA-LAN- 4780H Historic Archaeological Site Surficial Refuse Scatter 2016 Unevaluated 0.5 - 1 mile 19- 004781 Historic Archaeological Site LSA-LYC1501-S-2 2017 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 19- 004797 CA-LAN- 4797H Historic Archaeological Site Navy Hospital Refuse Site 2015 Recommended not eligible 2 - 3 miles 19- 004805 CA-LAN- 4805H Multi- Component Archaeological Site Shell Deposit and Historic Glazed Ceramics 2015 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120038 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120039 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120040 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120041 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120042 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120043 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120044 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 188 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 169 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 120045 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 120046 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120047 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 120048 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 120049 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 120050 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120052 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 19- 120053 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 19- 178684 Historic Archaeological Site Rancho Los Alamitos 1981 nominated for NRHP 1 - 2 miles 19- 186115 Historic Built Environment Long Beach Marine Stadium 1993, 1994, 2009 NR: 5S1 0 - 0.25 mile 189 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 170 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 186681 Historic Built Environment 200 Nieto Ave. 2002 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 19- 186880 Multi- Component Archaeological Site Alamitos Generating Station Fuel Oil Tank Farm 2004 Unevaluated for NRHP; Recommended not eligible for CRHR 0.5 - 1 mile 19- 186926 Historic Built Environment Los Alamitos Pump Station 2003 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 19- 187654 Historic Built Environment HRI #152957, 212 Quincy Ave. 2003 Recommend eligible of NRHP, Criterion B 2 - 3 miles 19- 187656 Historic Built Environment HRI #150929, 5901 East 7th St. Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 19- 187657 Historic Built Environment Bixby Ranch Field Office, 6433 Westminster Ave. 1996, 2016 Recommended eligible for NRHP under Criterion A/CRHR under Criterion 1 0.5 - 1 mile 19- 188776 Historic Built Environment 3933 E. Broadway 2002, 2006, 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 190 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 171 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 189429 Historic Built Environment 5320 E 2nd St, Lorbeer Building 2009 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 19- 189860 Historic Built Environment SCE Transmission Tower M-1 T-2, APN #7238-030-802 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189879 Historic Built Environment 1627 Stevely Ave. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189880 Historic Built Environment 6979 E. El Cedral St. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189881 Historic Built Environment 6979 E. El Cedral Street 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189882 Historic Built Environment 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189883 Historic Built Environment 1921 N. Hidden Lane 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189884 Historic Built Environment 1967 N. Hidden Lane 2011 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 191 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 172 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 189885 Historic Built Environment 2015 N. Hidden Lane 2011 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189886 Historic Built Environment 7140 E. Atherton Street 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189887 Historic Built Environment 7100 E. Atherton Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189888 Historic Built Environment 1819 Lees Avenue 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189889 Historic Built Environment 1921 Lees Avenue 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189925 Historic Built Environment 1820 N. Studebaker Rd. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189926 Historic Built Environment 2017 Ostrom Ave. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 189927 Historic Built Environment 2129 Vuelta Grande Ave. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 192 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 173 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 19- 189991 Historic Built Environment HRI #181096 Hafley House, 5561 E La Pasada St., Long Beach 2011 NR: 1S; 3S 2 - 3 miles 19- 190055 Historic Built Environment Anthony's Shopping Plaza, APN: 7231-013- 028, 1800-1818 Palo Verde Ave, Long Beach 2012 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 19- 190670 Historic Built Environment Wineke Building, 3233 E Broadway, L.B., APN:7264-004-022 2009 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 000143 CA-ORA- 000143 Multi- Component Archaeological Site Landing Hill #10 1964, 1965, 1969, 1997 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 000256 CA-ORA- 000256 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation debris 1969, 1996 Unevaluated Within Project area 30- 000257 CA-ORA- 000257 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic scatter 1969, 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000258 CA-ORA- 000258 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Hearths/pits, Habitation Debris 1969, 1996 Unevaluated Within Project area 30- 000259 CA-ORA- 000259 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Habitation Debris 1969, 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 193 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 174 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 000260 CA-ORA- 000260 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Habitation Debris 1969, 1996 Unevaluated Within Project area 30- 000261 CA-ORA- 000261 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Groundstone 1969 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000262 CA-ORA- 000262 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Habitation Debris 1969, 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000263 CA-ORA- 000263 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Habitation Debris 1969, 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000264 CA-ORA- 000264 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Burials, Habitation Debris 1969 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000298 CA-ORA- 298 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden 1971 NR: 2S2 1 - 2 miles 30- 000322 CA-ORA- 000322/H Multi- Component Archaeological Site Foundations/structure pads, Privies/dumps/trash scatter, Wells/cisterns, Lithic Scatter, Ceramic Scatter, Habitation Debris 1971, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 Nominated for NRHP under Criterion D 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000850 CA-ORA- 000850 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter pre-1976; 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 000851 CA-ORA- 000851 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris pre-1976; 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 194 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 175 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 000852 CA-ORA- 000852 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 001352 CA-ORA- 1352 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell 1972 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 30- 001455 CA-ORA- 001455 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris, Shell Midden 1996, 1997 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001463 CA-ORA- 1463 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Midden, Chipping Waste 1985 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 30- 001473 CA-ORA- 001473 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 001502 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Artifact Scatter 1999; 2010 Recommended eligible for NRHP under Criterion D 1 - 2 miles 30- 001503 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 1999; 2011 Recommended eligible for NRHP under Criterion D 2 - 3 miles 30- 001504 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 1999 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001505 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 1999 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001539 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001540 CA-ORA- 001540 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 195 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 176 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 001541 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001542 CA-ORA- 001542/H Multi- Component Archaeological Site Privies/dumps/trash scatter, Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001543 Historic Built Environment 30-001543-1 2000 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 001544 ORA- 001544 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Lithic Scatter, Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 001545 ORA- 001545 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 001546 ORA- 001546 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001568 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001570 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001571 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001572 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001644 ORA- 001644 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 2006 Unevaluated 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001711 ORA- 001711 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Habitation Debris 2011 evaluated to not be a resource 0.25 - 0.5 mile 196 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 177 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 001714 CA-ORA- 1714 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Shell, Artifact Scatter 2011; 2015 Recommended eligible for NRHP under Criterion D 2 - 3 miles 30- 001746 CA-ORA- 1746H Multi- Component Archaeological Site Historic Refuse, Shell Scatter 2014 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 001782 Historic Archaeological Site Concrete and Wood Piling Bulkhead 2018 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001783 Historic Archaeological Site Seal Beach Electric Generating Station 2018 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001784 Historic Archaeological Site Unnamed Historic Road Remnants 2018 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 001785 Historic Archaeological Site Segment of Historic Coast Boulevard Alignment 2018 Recommended not eligible for NRHP/CRHR 0.25 - 0.5 mile 30- 100142 Historic Archaeological Isolate Glass Bottle Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 100209 Prehistoric Archaeological Isolate Flake 2014 Unevaluated 2 - 3 miles 30- 156069 Historic Built Environment Old Seal Beach City Hall, 201 8th St. 2011 NR: 1S 0.25 – 0.5 mile 197 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 178 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 162271 Historic Built Environment HRI #090012, Anaheim Landing 2014; 1980; 1935 CPHI no. 219 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 162293 Historic Built Environment HRI #090904, Seal Beach Red Car, Main St. and Electric Ave. 1985 NR: 7P 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176491 Historic Built Environment Underground utilities, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176492 Historic Built Environment Building #16 / Recreation Building, QC 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176493 Historic Built Environment Building #22 / Administration Office Bldg., QC 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176494 Historic Built Environment Building #24 / Filling Sta-Storage Bldg., QC ca. 1992 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176495 Historic Built Environment Building #26 / EM Barracks Bldg. ca. 1992 Unknown 0 - 0.25 mile 198 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 179 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176496 Historic Built Environment Bldg. #38, 70, 74, 103, 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176497 Historic Built Environment Building #90 / Compressed air plant Bldg. 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176498 Historic Built Environment Building #92 / Pump House No. 2 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176499 Historic Built Environment Building #93 / Flammables Storehouse 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176500 Historic Built Environment Building #98 / Steam- out shed building 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176501 Historic Built Environment Building #99 / Heating Plant Building 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176502 Historic Built Environment Building #100/ Compressed Air Bldg. 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 199 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 180 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176503 Historic Built Environment Building #101 / Vacuum Dust Removal Bldg. 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176504 Historic Built Environment Building #102 / Ammo Rework Facility 1992 Unevaluated 1 - 2 miles 30- 176505 Historic Built Environment Water tank No. 2 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176506 Historic Built Environment Pass and ID Office 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176507 Historic Built Environment Building #201 / General Storehouse 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176508 Historic Built Environment Building #202, Sentry Shelter, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176509 Historic Built Environment Building #203 / Fire Station 1999 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 200 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 181 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176510 Historic Built Environment Building #204 / Administration Building ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176511 Historic Built Environment Building #205 / Flagpole ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176512 Historic Built Environment Building #206 / Administration Office Bldg. ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176513 Historic Built Environment Building #207 / Water Storage Tank, QC 1992 NR: 6Y 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176514 Historic Built Environment Building #208 / PW Pest Cont/Garden Sup Bldg. ca. 1992 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176515 Historic Built Environment Building #210 1992, 2007 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176515 Historic Built Environment Building #213 1992, 2007 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0.25 – 0.5 mile 201 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 182 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176515 Historic Built Environment Building #215 1992, 2007 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated for CRHR 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176516 Historic Built Environment Building #211, 214, 216, Quarters A, B, C 1992, 2007 NR: 6Y 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 176517 Historic Built Environment Building #226 / Printing Shop ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176518 Historic Built Environment Building #227 / Sub- station ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176519 Historic Built Environment Building #229 / QED Comptroller Office Building, QC ca. 1992 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176520 Historic Built Environment Building #230 / PW Office, QC ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176521 Historic Built Environment Building #231 / PW Metal Storage Building ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176522 Historic Built Environment Building #232 /PW Oil Storage Building ca. 1992 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 202 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 183 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176523 Historic Built Environment Building #233 / PW Vehicle Parking Shed ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176524 Historic Built Environment Building #234 / PW Carpenters Shop Annex ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176525 Historic Built Environment Building #235 ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176526 Historic Built Environment Building #237 / Boiler Housing Bldg. ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176527 Historic Built Environment Building #238 / Flammables Storehouse ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176528 Historic Built Environment Building #239 / General Warehouse Building ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176529 Historic Built Environment Building #240 / Railroad Equip Maintenance Shop ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176530 Historic Built Environment Building #241 / Container Repair Bldg. ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 203 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 184 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176531 Historic Built Environment Building #242 / Gen Storage Shed Bldg., QC ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176532 Historic Built Environment Building #243 / Incinerator Bldg., QC ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176533 Historic Built Environment Building #244 / Quonset Hut Storehouse ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176544 Historic Built Environment Anderson Street Water Tower, 101 Anderson Street 1976 Nominated for NRHP 1 - 2 miles 30- 176752 Historic Built Environment Parasol Restaurant, 12241 Seal Beach Blvd. 2004 NR: 3CS 2 - 3 miles 30- 176778 Historic Built Environment Taco Surf Restaurant and Cantina, 16281 Pacific Coast Highway 2004 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 204 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 185 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176803 Historic Built Environment NASA Saturn S-II Historic District, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176840 Historic Built Environment Administrative Area, Naval Weapons Station, 800 Seal Beach ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176841 Historic Built Environment Baseball Diamond, MWR Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176841 Historic Built Environment Softball Diamond, MWR Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176841 Historic Built Environment Tennis Facility, MWR Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176841 Historic Built Environment Patio, MWR Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176841 Historic Built Environment Restroom, MWR Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176841 Historic Built Environment Lifeguard Stand, MWR Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 205 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 186 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176842 Historic Built Environment BEQ Complex, 800 Seal Beach Blvd. ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176843 Historic Built Environment Bunker 33, 800 Seal Beach Blvd. ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176844 Historic Built Environment Building 59, Guided Missile Facilities ca. 1998 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176844 Historic Built Environment Building 137, Guided Missile Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176844 Historic Built Environment Building 61, Guided Missile Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176845 Historic Built Environment Building 89, Quality Evaluation Labs & Support Facilities 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176845 Historic Built Environment Buildings 432-437, Quality Evaluation Labs & Support Facilities 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176846 Historic Built Environment Bldg. 78, Missile Facilities by Lapota, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 206 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 187 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176846 Historic Built Environment Bldg. 915, Missile Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176846 Historic Built Environment Bldg. 923 | Missile Facilities by Lapota, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176846 Historic Built Environment Bldg. 906 (orig. demolished), Missile Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176847 Historic Built Environment Bldg. 264, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176847 Historic Built Environment Building 85, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176847 Historic Built Environment Building 248, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 207 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 188 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176847 Historic Built Environment Building 86 (demolished), Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176847 Historic Built Environment Building 414, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176847 Historic Built Environment Building 921 (demolished), Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176848 Historic Built Environment Building 88, Anti- Submarine Warfare Complex 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176848 Historic Built Environment Building 87, Anti- Submarine Warfare Complex 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176849 Historic Built Environment Old Ordnance Disposal Area, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 208 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 189 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176850 Historic Built Environment Buildings 426-431, Small Arched Vault Magazines 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176850 Historic Built Environment Building 104, Small Arched Vault Magazines 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176850 Historic Built Environment Building 318, Small Arched Vault Magazines 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176850 Historic Built Environment Building 599, Small Arched Vault Magazines 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176850 Historic Built Environment Building 456, Small Arched Vault Magazines 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176851 Historic Built Environment Building 849, Sentry Shelters 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176851 Historic Built Environment Building 848, Sentry Shelters 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 209 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 190 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176851 Historic Built Environment Building 107, Sentry Shelters 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176852 Historic Built Environment Buildings 224, 246, 247, 249, 251, 252, 253, Prefabricated Buildings 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176852 Historic Built Environment Prefabricated Buildings, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176853 Historic Built Environment Building 236, Public Works Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176853 Historic Built Environment Building 250, Public Works Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176853 Historic Built Environment Building 254, Public Works Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176853 Historic Built Environment Building 260, Public Works Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 210 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 191 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176853 Historic Built Environment Building 228, Public Works Support Facilities ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176855 Historic Built Environment Building 259, Converted Lighters 1998 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 176855 Historic Built Environment Building 306, Converted Lighters 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176855 Historic Built Environment Building 303, Converted Lighters 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176855 Historic Built Environment Building 413 (demolished), Location based on UTM coords. 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 317, Wharf Area 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 321, Wharf Area 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 311, Wharf Area 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 349, Wharf Area 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 211 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 192 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 344, mooring, Mapped to aerial 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 345, mooring, Mapped to aerial 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 352, mooring, Mapped to aerial 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176856 Historic Built Environment Building 348, Wharf Area 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176857 Historic Built Environment Buildings 354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176858 Historic Built Environment Buildings 401, 422, 423, 424, and Various, Small Arms Range 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 212 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 193 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176859 Historic Built Environment Building 420, LORAC Support Structure 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176860 Historic Built Environment Building 502, Support Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176860 Historic Built Environment Building 922, Support Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176860 Historic Built Environment Building 925, Support Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176860 Historic Built Environment Building 920, Support Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176860 Historic Built Environment Building 909, Support Facilities by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 213 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 194 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176861 Historic Built Environment 3-Vault Ammunition Magazines by Brooks and Miller, 15 buildings (see record) 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176862 Historic Built Environment Building 813, Box Vault Magazines by Brooks and Miller 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176862 Historic Built Environment Building 811, Box Vault Magazines by Brooks and Miller 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176862 Historic Built Environment Building 859, Box Vault Magazines by Brooks and Miller 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176863 Historic Built Environment Building 850, 800 Area Non-Magazine Structures 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176863 Historic Built Environment Building 868, 800 Area Non-Magazine Structures 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 214 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 195 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176863 Historic Built Environment Building 877, 800 Area Non-Magazine Structures 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176863 Historic Built Environment Building 866, Helicopter Landing Pad, 800 Area Non-Magazine Structures 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176863 Historic Built Environment Buildings 878 & 879, 800 Area Non-Magazine Structures 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176863 Historic Built Environment Building 867, 800 Area Non-Magazine Structures 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176864 Historic Built Environment Building 852, Box Vault Magazine by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176865 Historic Built Environment Building 858, Single Arch Magazines by Ivor Lyons 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176865 Historic Built Environment Building 856, Single Arch Magazines by Ivor Lyons 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 215 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 196 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 176865 Historic Built Environment Building 854, Single Arch Magazines by Ivor Lyons 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176866 Historic Built Environment Building 863, Multi- Arch magazines by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176866 Historic Built Environment Building 865, Multi- Arch Magazines by Lapota 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 176867 Historic Built Environment Buildings 883 & 884, Single Arch Magazines by Lapota ca. 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 176868 Historic Built Environment Buildings 910 & 911, 3- Vault Missile Magazines 1998 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 177074 Historic Built Environment Los Alamitos Channel 2011 Unknown 0.5 - 1 mile 30- 177289 Historic Built Environment 1860 Saint John Road 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2 miles 30- 177290 Historic Built Environment 13040 Del Monte Dr. 2011 NR: 3CD 1 - 2 miles 216 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 197 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177291 Historic Built Environment 1515 Northwood Road 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2 miles 30- 177292 Historic Built Environment 13100 Oak Hills Dr. 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2 miles 30- 177293 Historic Built Environment 13040 Oak Hills Dr. 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2 miles 30- 177294 Historic Built Environment 1040 Foxburg Road 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2 miles 30- 177295 Historic Built Environment 136 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177296 Historic Built Environment 156 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177297 Historic Built Environment 196 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177298 Historic Built Environment 200 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 217 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 198 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177299 Historic Built Environment 212 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177300 Historic Built Environment 216 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177301 Historic Built Environment 213 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177302 Historic Built Environment 217 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177303 Historic Built Environment 214 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177304 Historic Built Environment 218 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177305 Historic Built Environment 215 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 218 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 199 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177306 Historic Built Environment 219 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177307 Historic Built Environment 216 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177308 Historic Built Environment 220 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177309 Historic Built Environment 217 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177310 Historic Built Environment 221 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177311 Historic Built Environment 218 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177312 Historic Built Environment 222 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 219 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 200 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177313 Historic Built Environment 219 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177314 Historic Built Environment 223 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177315 Historic Built Environment 220 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177316 Historic Built Environment 224 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177317 Historic Built Environment 221 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177318 Historic Built Environment 225 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177319 Historic Built Environment 222 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 220 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 201 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177320 Historic Built Environment 226 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177321 Historic Built Environment 223 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177322 Historic Built Environment 227 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177323 Historic Built Environment 224 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177324 Historic Built Environment 228 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177325 Historic Built Environment 225 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177326 Historic Built Environment 229 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 221 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 202 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177327 Historic Built Environment 226 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177328 Historic Built Environment 230 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177329 Historic Built Environment 227 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177330 Historic Built Environment 231 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177331 Historic Built Environment 228 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177332 Historic Built Environment 232 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177333 Historic Built Environment 229 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 222 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 203 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177334 Historic Built Environment 233 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177335 Historic Built Environment 230 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177336 Historic Built Environment 234 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177337 Historic Built Environment 231 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177338 Historic Built Environment 235 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177339 Historic Built Environment 232 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177340 Historic Built Environment 236 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 223 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 204 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177341 Historic Built Environment 233 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177342 Historic Built Environment 237 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177343 Historic Built Environment 234 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177344 Historic Built Environment 238 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177345 Historic Built Environment 235 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177346 Historic Built Environment 239 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177347 Historic Built Environment 236 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 224 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 205 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177348 Historic Built Environment 240 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177349 Historic Built Environment 237 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177350 Historic Built Environment 241 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177351 Historic Built Environment 238 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177352 Historic Built Environment 242 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177353 Historic Built Environment 239 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177354 Historic Built Environment 243 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 225 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 206 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177355 Historic Built Environment 240 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177356 Historic Built Environment 244 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177357 Historic Built Environment 241 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177358 Historic Built Environment 245 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177359 Historic Built Environment 242 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177360 Historic Built Environment 246 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177361 Historic Built Environment 243 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 226 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 207 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177362 Historic Built Environment 247 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177363 Historic Built Environment 244 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177364 Historic Built Environment 248 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177365 Historic Built Environment 245 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177366 Historic Built Environment 249 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177367 Historic Built Environment 246 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 30- 177368 Historic Built Environment 250 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 1 - 2 miles 227 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 208 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 177393 Historic Built Environment 11491 Martha Ann Dr. 2010 Recommended not eligible for NRHP; Unevaluated CRHR 2 - 3 miles 30- 177445 Historic Built Environment Main Gate 1 Entrance Wall, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 179841 Historic Built Environment Quarters H, J-M | Building 212, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0 - 0.25 mile 30- 179841 Historic Built Environment Quarters H, J-M | Building 217, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179841 Historic Built Environment Quarters H, J-M | Building 218, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 228 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 209 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 179842 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Sewer Lift Station, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179843 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Maintenance Building, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179844 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Mailbox Covers, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179845 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Building Type VI, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 229 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 210 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 179846 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Building Type V, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179847 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Building Type IV, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179848 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Building Type III, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179849 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Building Type II, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 30- 179850 Historic Built Environment Sea Breeze Village, Building Type I, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 – 0.5 mile 230 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 211 Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Resource Description Year Recorded NRHP/CRHR Status Code Distance from Project area 30- 179859 Historic Built Environment Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, 800 Seal Beach Blvd. ca. 1999 Nominated for NRHP under Criteria A, C, D 0 - 0.25 mile 231 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 212 APPENDIX G. HISTORIC TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS 232 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 213 Figure G - 1. 1896 USGS Downey topographic map (1:62,500) co~tone J'UEONTOLOOY -... ltCH ... EOL03Y -NISf01n' Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange County, CA II I I Project Arca USGS 15' Quads: Down ey 1896 Las Bolsas 1896 0 0 0.5 I I II I I :50,000 0.5 _,,.. I I 1 Miles I I Kilometers I ( N A I in = 4 ,167 ft 233 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 214 Figure G - 2. 1935 USGS Los Alamitos topographic map (1:31,680) South ern Lo s Cerrito s Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Sea l Beach Orange Co unty, CA I 464- 61 I I I J Project Arca USGS 7.5' Quads: Seal Beac h 1935 Los Alamitos 1935 ;/ / 0 0.25 0.5 Miles I I I I I N 0 0.25 0.5 Kilom eters ! L.....J.,___._, ............. 1 ........ , ............. ,_.1 1' 1 :20,000 I in = 1,667ft 234 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 215 Figure G - 3. 1942 USGS Downey topographic map (1:31,680) So uthern Los Cerritos Wet lands Re storat ion C ity of Lo ng Beach Los A nge les Co unty, CA C ity of Sea l B each Orange Co unty, CA I I I J Proj ect A rca USGS 15 ' Q uad s: Dow ney 1942 Las B o lsas 19 43 0 0.2 5 0.5 M il es I I I I I N 0 0 .25 0.5 Kil o me te rs ! L.....L.1 ..... 1__._1 ...... l_._~1~1 1' 1 :20,000 I in = 1,667 ft 235 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 216 APPENDIX H. SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH 236 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 217 Cultural and Environmental Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone: (916) 373-3710 Email: n ahc@nahc.ca.9ov Website: http://www.n ahc.ca.gov Twitter: @CA_NAHC March 21, 2019 Candace Ehringer ESA VIA Email to: cehringer@esassoc.com RE: Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program Environmental Impact Report Project , Los Angeles and Orange Counties Dear Ms. Ehringer: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the tribes on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge . By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes , please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: st even .quinn@nah c.ca. gov. Sincer ely, J1ki_ k Steven Quinn Associate Governmental Program Analyst Attachment 237 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 218 APPENDIX I. SAMPLE TAG INVITATION 238 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 219 Gove rning Board Samuel Schuchat, Chair Coastal Con se1vancy Suzie Price, Vice-Chair City o f Long Beach J oe r<a lrnic k , Board Me mbe r City o f Seal Beach Robe rto Uranga, Board Me mbe r Rivers and Moun tains Conservancy Mark Stanley Execu tive Officer Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority April 27, 2021 Cindi Alvitre Ti'at Society/Traditional Council of Pi mu 3094 Mace Avenue Apt B Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group Dear Cindi Alvitre, The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) hopes this letter find your fam ilies healthy during this trying time. The LCWA invites the Ti'at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu to join the Los Cerritos Wetlands Triba l Advisory Group (TAG). I am reaching out to you because you consulted with the LCWA through AB52 for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program E IR (PEIR), certified on January 7, 2021. The LCWA acknowledges the importance of the wetlands to your t ribe and we would like to continue to consult with you regard ing LCWA's habitat restoration plans for a portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. As you know, the LCWA is a local public agency establ ished in 2006 with two state conservancies, the State Coastal Conservancy and San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach. The LCWA was established to acquire, manage, and restore the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Since 2006, LCWA has acquired 17 0 acres of the wetlands, established community restoration programs, and have been actively planning res toration of the entire 500-acre Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex (see attached Projec t Location Map). The LCWA has received funding to move forward on project level designs on 105-acres of wetlands in Seal Beach , near Heron Point, called the Sout h Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (South LCW Project). We are convening the TAG in order to collaborate first wi th all tribes that consulted with LCWA through the AB52 process, and potentia lly other T ribes in the futu re, in order to involve tribal perspectives early on and throughout planning development, and to incorporate traditional ecolog ical knowledg e into restoration designs. As part of the South LCW Project , the LCWA looks to accomplish the following: Conduct focused biological, geotechnical , and archeological surveys Complete 65% restoration designs and project level CEQA Complete a Traditional Cultural Landscape Study of the Los Cerrit os Wetlands Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority · El E n canto · JOO N . O ld San Gabriel Canyon Road · Azusa. CA 91702 • Ofltce-626 .815.10 I 9 • Fax-626.815.1269 • 239 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 220 RE: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group April 27, 2021 Page 2 In the PEIR, the LCWA agreed with the consulting Tribes that the Los Cerritos Wetlands is part of a tribal traditional cultural landscape (TCL) and could be significantly impacted by projects conducted within the wetlands. Because the TCL was not formally documented, the LCWA has hired Cogstone Resource Management to conduct a TCL study. This will include: A records search for a 5 mile buffer around the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands to put the wetlands into a larger regional context. Conducting ethnographic and historic research to document past use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and wetlands in general, by the Tongva and Acjachemen. This would include documenting the collection of salt from the wetlands and the connection of the Cerritos wetlands to the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna . Collecting oral histories from Tribal community members as recommended by the Tribal representatives and digitally record their explanations of current and past usage of the wetlands. At the end of the project, digital and hard copies of the finalized oral history will be provided to each participant and Tribe . Participants will be compensated for their time. Currently we have government and private grant funding to compensate each Tribe's participation on TAG . Please see the LCW Tribal Advisory Group framework document attached which includes a more detailed description of this group. It is a draft, so we welcome any feedback you have. Since there are multiple concurrent planning efforts taking place w ithin the Los Cerritos Wetlands, we want to take this opportunity to clarify the differences between the LCWA's South LCW planning effort and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project, a parallel planning process taking place within the North Area of the wetlands . While the LCWA's restoration plan (i.e . PEIR) does encompass the boundaries of much of the Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project , that project is led by Beach Oil Mineral Partners (BOMP) and not LCWA. The LCWA is a co-applicant of the project's Coastal Development Permit because the 5-acre property owned by LCWA is involved in the land swap. LCWA has been involved in the planning proce ss in an advisory role to ensure the developed plans for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project are in lin e with LCWA's habitat re storation goals . While the LCWA maintains an active partnership with BOMP for the improvement of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, we do not oversee or advise on their day to day operations or tribal consultation and monitoring efforts. The formation of the TAG is something the LCWA looks forward to, and we hope that you will join us! We w ant to schedule the initial intertribal TAG meeting on May 25, 2021 from 10am-12pm. The meeting w ill be held remotely. Los Cerritos We tlands Author ity · El En canto · 100 N . O ld Sa n Gabriel C anyon Road· Azu sa, CA 91702 ♦ Office-626.8 15 .10 19 ♦ Fax-626.815.1269 ♦ 240 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 221 RE: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group April 27, 2021 Page 3 Please contact Sally Gee, Project Manager, (1.) if your tribe is interested in participating in the TAG, (2 .) if you can attend the initial TAG meeting on the date and time mentioned above, and (3 .) provide us with the name and contact information of your tribal representative(s). If your tribe is no longer interested in participating, please let us know that as w ell. Ms . Gee is also available to answer any questions you may have . We look forward to working with you. Sally Gee, LCWA Project Manager 100 N . Old San Gabriel Canyon Rd. Azusa, CA 91702 Office: 626-815-1019 x 104 sgee@rmc.ca. gov Sincerely, Mark Stanley Executive Officer Attachments: LCW Tribal Advisory Group_Draft Framework 2021.04 Project Location Map Los Cerritos We tlands Author ity · El En canto · 100 N . O ld Sa n Gabriel C anyon Road· Azu sa, CA 91702 ♦ Office-626.8 15 .10 19 ♦ Fax-626.815.1269 ♦ 241 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 222 Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group Draft Framework Lead: Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) representatives from the State Coasta l Conservancy and the San Gabriel and Low er Los Angeles Ri vers and Mountains Conserva ncy Participants: Tribes (traditio nal know ledge input, design input, and tribal cultural experts) LCWA Consultants (present and solicit feed back on designs/ stewardshi p) Goal of Tribal Advisory Group from LCWA perspective: Establish a long-term relationship between tribal entities and t he LCWA Incorporate traditional ecological know ledge and tribal perspectives into restora tion designs and a Traditi onal Cultural Landscape Study for t he LCW Keep tribal community updated on progress of projects Provide enhanced access to the LCW to tribal community Suggested meeting schedule: 2-4 meetings annually depending on project milestones a nd nee d through the end of 2022, 2-hour meetings Topics of discussion: Tribal Goals and Objectives of restoration in the LCW complex Southern Lo s Cerritos Wetlands Restoration P roject o Resto ration design input Biological resou rces C ultu ra l resources Landscape design Traditiona l Ecological Knowledge o Public access design input Signage/ educationa l materials (future ph ases) o Private tribal dedication area o Cu ltural interpretat ion of technical studies o Native American monitoring (data collection/ construct ion phase) o Traditional Cultural Landscape Study Public programming/ stewardship activities (could happen now, no fundi ng) Initial meeting (May 2021): Discuss role, purpose, and expectations of the tribal advisory group and compensation Establi sh membership and how to add members (LCWA expectatio n: start w ith 6 t ribes who consulted on the AB52 process, allow other tribes to ask to join) Agreement on topics of discussion Update status of LCWA's restoration planning Funding: Each Tri be will receive a stipend to compensate representativ es for meeti ng partici pation and docum ent rev iews . A Tribe may appo int multiple re pre se ntatives to th e proj ect, but t he stipen d amount will not increase with additiona l me m be rs . 242 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 223 Exhibit A Lakewood Los Alamitos SOURCE: ESRI Huntington Beach D Program Boundary Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program EIR Regional Location 243 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 224 SOURCE: Mapbox, LC'NA Los Cerritos Wetla nds Restoration Plan Prog ram El R Figure 2-4 South Area 244 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 225 APPENDIX J. JULY 23, 2021 SITE VISIT SIGN IN SHEET 245 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 226 co~tone PALEONT DLOGV -ARCHAEOLOGY-HIST ORY Name Christina Conley Christine Pereira Dani Ziff Sandonne Goad Gabrielle Crowe Clark Stevens Amber Dobson Sam Dunlap Eric Zahn Joyce Perry Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Site Visit 7/23/2021 Phone Gabrielino Tongva 626-407-8761 Indians of California C oastal Commission 714-610-1864 Coastal Commission 310-991-5042 Gabrielino-Tongva 951-807-0479 Nation Gabrielino-Shoshone 909-615-9837 Tribe New West Land Co. 310-614-6636 Coastal Commission 562-590-5071 Gabrielino Tongva Tribe 909-262-9351 Tidal Influence 858-353-6 113 Juanefio Band of Mission 949-293-8522 Indians Branch Offices Email Chri stina.rn arsden @alurnni . usc .edu Chri stine.pereira@coastal.ca .gov Dani.ziff@ coastal.ca. gov sgoad@g abri elino-tongya.com grochacpp@grnail.com Clark@newwestland.com Amber.dobson@co astal .ca.gov sarndunlap@earthlinknet eric@ tidalinfluen ce .com kaarnalarn@ grn ail.com 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange. CA 92865 Office [714[ 974-8300 San Diego -Riverside -Morro Bay-Sacramento -Arizona cogstone,com Toll free (888) 333-3212 Federal Certifications WO SB. EDWOSB , SOB State Ce rtificatio ns DBE, WBE, SBE. UOB E 246 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 227 APPENDIX K. INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM AND QUESTIONS 247 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 228 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -ARCHAEOLOGY-HISTORY CONSENT TO PARTIC IPATE IN RESEARCH Los Cerritos We tlands Landscape S tudy Cogston e w ill be cond uctin g a stu dy to identify past, p resent an d fu ture use o f th e Los Cerritos Wetl a nd s, le d by Desiree Martin ez, Cogstone Archaeo logist. Inte rviews w ill be used fo r th e landsca pe stu dy fo r the L os Cerritos Wetl an ds A u t hority. You were selected as a possible pa rti cipant in this study because of you r knowled ge and experti se. You r pa rti c ip ati on in this researc h stu dy is voluntary. LA RGER PROJECT BACKGROUND The Los Cerritos Wetlands A uth ority has received fundi ng to move fo rward on project level designs on 105 -acres of wetl ands in Seal Beach, n ear Heron Po int, call ed the South Los Cerri tos Wetl an ds R estorati on Proj ect (Sou th LCW Proj ect). As part of the Sou th LCW Project, the LCWA looks to accompli s h the fo llowing : • Cond uct foc used bi o logical, geotechni cal, and a rc heolo gical s urveys • Compl ete 65% restorati on designs and project level CEQA • Compl e te a Tra di tional C ultural Lan dscape Stu dy of th e Los Cerritos Wetland s Cogst one has been hi re d to cond uct the Traditio nal Cu ltu ral La ndscape Study, includi ng inte rviewin g Triba l m embe rs from the Ga bri e lin o Tongva and Acjacheme n Nati ons. WHAT SHOULD I K NOW ABOU T A RESEARCH S TUD Y? • W he th er or not you take part is up to y ou . • You can agree to ta ke pa rt and late r c han ge your min d . • Your decision wi ll not be he ld again st yo u. • You can ask a ll the questions you wan t before you decide. WHY I S THIS RESEAR CH BEIN G DOJ\TE ? Th is p roj ect is be ing done to bette r un derstand th e Tongva and Acj achemen re la tionship to the Los Cerritos Wetl ands, salt wate r marshes, an d the greater c ultu ral landscape , encompassi ng 3 miles aro un d th e Los Cerritos Wetl and s, in cluding the vill ages o f Pu vun gna and Motuu c heyn gn a. Th e p roject o utco mes-summ ar y within the c ul tu ra l landscape study to inform the restoration . 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Office [714) 974-8300 Branch Off ices San Diego -Riverside -Morro Bay -Sacramento -Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SOB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE cogstone.com Toll free {888) 333-3212 248 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 229 Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) ARE THERE ANY RISKS IF I PARTICIPATE? • Although unlikely, there may be questions which bring up sensitive topics. You m ay choose to not answer anything. • You have the option of remaining anonymous within the report ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS IF I PARTICIPATE? You w ill be compensated $250 for your participation. Furthermore , it is our hope that your communities and all people of Los Ang eles w ill benefit from this research in the form of better- informed policy and clearer understandings of w hat it will t a k e for Los Angel es to bec ome water sustainable and r espe ct Indigenous sovereignty . WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF IT AKE PA RT IN THIS STUDY? If you volunte er to p articipate in this study, the r e searche r(s) w ill ask you to do the fo llowing: • Ans wer the question listed in the d ocume nt "LCW Tribal Interview Questions" • Inte rview er w ill write n otes during the interview • Consent to audio re cording of the intervie w • Consent to video re c ording of the inter view • Consent t o dig ita l photographs to be t ak en during the intervi ew You w ill b e given a cop ies of: • audio re cording of th e interview • v ideo re cording of the interview, if a ny • photos phot o graphs to be taken durin g t he interview • transc ript of a udio a nd/or video r ecording WILL INFORMATION ABOU T ME AN D MY PARTICIPATION B E KE PT CONFIDENTIAL? If you c ho ose to u se your re a l nam e or consent t o be ing r ecorded on a gro up v ideo, y our information w ill n ot b e kept confide ntial. If you re quest c onfid e nt iality , re s earch er s w ill d o their b est t o m a ke sure that your privat e information is k e pt confidential. Ev e n so, participating in r e sear ch m ay invo lve a lo ss of priv acy or a breach in confide ntia lity, e spe cia lly if you are participa ting in conver sation c ircles or event s w ith othe r p eople beyond the research team. Stud y dat a will b e phy s ically and electronically secure d, but w ith electronic dat a t her e is a lways a risk of breach of data security. Use of personal information that can identify you: cog sto ne .com 249 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 230 Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418 ) You will be identified as yourself unless otherwise reque sted. You may request t o use an a li as or to be kept out of a video. How information about you will be stored: Data produced by this proj ect will include video/audio recordings of interviews and transcripts of these recordings, as well as written notes. These materials will be kept on a pas sword protecte d server at Cogstone Resource Management. Participants w ill be provided copies of mat erials on a DVD o r flash drive. People and agencies that will have access to your information : Research t eam m embers will have access t o the r ecordings for the purposes of transcription and analysis. You can decide whether y ou want your name or an alias to be used in public ations. How long information from the study will be kept: Videos, audio, written researcher notes and transcripts will b e kept in p e rp etuity at Cogstone and m ay be donated to a re search facility for future research. WILL I BE PAID FOR MY PARTICIPA TION? Interviewees and conversation circle partic ipants will r eceive a $250 honorarium in gratitude for your participation. Ple ase fill out and return a W9 t o Des iree WHO CAN I CONT ACT IF I HA VE QUE STION S ABOUT THIS STUDY? The research team: If you h ave an y qu e stions, comments , or c oncerns about the researc h, you can talk to D esiree Martin ez dmartinez@cogstone.com (6 26) 722-1 938. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS IF I TAKE PART I N THIS STUDY? • You can choose wh ether you w ant to be in this study, and you may withdraw your co ns ent and discontinue participation at any time. • You m ay refuse t o answer any questions t hat you do not want to answe r. cog stone .com 250 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 231 Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscap e Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) Los Cerritos Wetlands Consent Form Name: T l'ib al Entity : Addl'ess: Phon e : I Ema il: I C heck all that apply : I A2I'ee To : Yes No ... participate in th is st udy □ □ ... have my name used within the Cultural □ □ Lan dscape study ... audio record ing during t he interview □ □ ... v ideo recordin g of the interview □ □ ... photographs to be taken during the interview □ □ S ign ature: Date: -------------- cog sto ne .com 251 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 232 cogstone PALEONTOLOGY -AR CHAE OLO GY-HISTORY Los Cerritos We tlands Ques t.ions l . How did y our tribal community use the Los Cerritos Wetlands in the past ? 2. How did your tribal community use s alt marsh es in th e past ? 3. Have yo u or yo ur family persona ll y u sed the Los Cerritos in the past? If yes please explain how. 4. Do you know of other fami li es that have used the Los Cerrit os Wetl and s? 5. Do you have any infonnation regarding the connection of t he Los Cerritos wetland an d th e villa ges of Pu vungna or M o tuuc h eyn g n a? 6. D o you know of oth er pl aces, v illages, water sources e tc . tha t have conn ecti on s to the Los Cerritos W e tlands? 7. What pl ants and animals w ithin salt m arshes, and Los Cerritos Wetl ands in partic ular, are important to your tribal community? 8 . What types o f acti v iti es would you like to be abl e to do within the Los Cerritos Wetlands in the future? 9 . What types of spaces woul d your tribal conmmnity like to ha ve in th e Los Cerritos Wetlands? 10. Anything to add? 11. Recommendati ons or other peo pl e to interview? 1518 West Taft Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Office (714) 97 4 -8300 Branch Offices San D iego -Riverside -Morro Bay -Sacramento -Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SOB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE cogstone.com Toll free (888) 333-3212 252 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 233 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX L. SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING LOCATON MAPS 253 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 236 APPENDIX M. SOILS MAP 254 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 237 Figure M - 1. Soils map Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration City of Long Beach Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach Orange County, CA II ii Project Area USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey 2021 -112 -Balcom clay loam -125 -Bolsa silty cla y lo am -17 3 -My ford sandy loam (2 -9 % slopes) -175 -Myford sandy loam (9 -15 % slopes) -IJ00LA-Urban la nd (dredged fill substratum) -1230LA -Bolsa, drained-Typic Xerothents, dredged s poil-Typic Fluv aquents co m plex 0 250 500 feet 11111111 N 0 50 I 00 Meters i 111111111 A 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 ft 255 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 238 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX N. DPR SITE RECORDS 256 ENCLOSURE 2 257 All that glitters – Review of solar facility impacts on fauna P.A. Fleming Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Lake effect Microclimate Green energy Solar panel Glint Glare Bird Bat Fauna Wildlife Sustainable energy solutions Climate change SDG15: Life on Land SDG13: Climate Action SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure ABSTRACT Utility-scale solar facilities (‘solar farms’/‘solar parks’) represent vast altered landscapes – currently covering ~0.025 % of the earth’s land surface. The rapid transformation of landscapes necessitates urgent research into biodiversity impacts of solar facilities worldwide. Evidence for fauna impacts at both concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) solar facilities was analysed. Solar facilities impact fauna through habitat loss and fragmentation, altered microclimate, and creation of novel habitat. Evidence suggests increases in insect, bird and bat species richness and abundance around solar facilitates built over degraded landscapes, likely due to introduction of novel habitat and presence of generalist species, but a decrease when comparison is made with intact reference landscapes. CSP facilities attract large numbers of flying insects and therefore insectivorous birds, while both heliostats (CSP) and PV solar panels are attractive to waterbirds, with the timing and direction of bird movements indicating they are responding to linear polarised light reflections from panels. While generalist bat species make use of solar facilities, data to date indicates a decrease in bat species richness and activity around solar facilities. Extrapolating from USA studies, an estimated 17.3 million birds die at solar fa- cilities around the world every year. Direct impacts of solar facilities include injuries and deaths due to collisions and burns, while entrapment, starvation and increased predation risk are also recorded causes of mortalities. Solar facilities significantly impact local fauna, particularly attracting and affecting insectivores and waterbirds. Further research is needed to fully understand these effects and develop mitigation strategies for sustainable solar energy expansion. 1. Introduction Solar energy is a key component in the global shift towards tran- sitioning to a low carbon future and achieving the emissions targets established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [1]. However, as the total capacity of solar power facilities has increased, the impact on living organisms, particularly birds and bats, has also increased [2–4]. Many industries who are making the transition to green energy are required to consider whether utility-scale solar fa- cilities could have detrimental impact on migrating shorebirds (pro- tected under international legislation) or waterbirds and bats, and the balance of those risks with alternatives [4,5]. Such information is required to meet the demands of Environmental Impact Assessments, and warrants a critical review of available data. At the end of 2023, an estimated 37,886 km2 of the earth’s surface (0.025 % of the world’s land area, or about the area of Denmark) was covered by solar panels, with the area increasing dramatically year-by- year since [6,7]. The vast expanses of solar facilities (also known as ‘solar parks’ or ‘solar farms’) have unique impacts on fauna that we are only just beginning to identify. The reflective surfaces of solar panels can attract insects (e.g., [8,9]), providing new feeding opportunities for bird and bat species (e.g., [10–13]). However, the glare from solar farms can also create a visual disturbance (illusion of water surface) potentially changing animal behaviour and collision risk [3,14]. The physical presence of solar panels can therefore disrupt migratory flight routes as well as foraging and nesting sites [3,15,16]. There have been a great many reviews of the effects of solar energy generation on wildlife (e.g., [4,17]), including many that are specific to solar energy generation in California USA (e.g., [4,7,18,19]), or that have specifically addressed whether waterbirds are attracted to solar facilities (e.g., [14,20]). However, much of the work reviewed by these articles is unpublished reports [7], with notably fewer publications of raw data (reviewed by [21]) than reviews on the topic. A general consensus across all published reviews is a call for additional research on some of the potential impacts of solar facilities, and movement beyond hypotheses with little supporting evidence or those based on extrapo- lation from other human infrastructures [21]. The marked variation in solar radiation and technological advance- ment across the globe (Fig. 1) influences where solar facilities have been E-mail address: t.fleming@murdoch.edu.au. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews fkqnj]hfdkial]ca6fsss*ahoarean*_ki+hk_]pa+noan https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.115995 Received 1 April 2025; Received in revised form 13 June 2025; Accepted 22 June 2025 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 Available online 15 July 2025 1364-0321/© 2025 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). 258 built, and therefore which biomes are affected [22]. However, there is also marked geographic bias in our understanding of the biodiversity impacts of solar energy, with the majority of studies of their biodiversity impacts coming from xeric environments in Europe or North America [20,21]. This geographic and climatic bias limits the generality of findings, providing insufficient insights into the potential impacts of solar infrastructure on diverse taxonomic groups across other ecological systems. This review sets out to synthesise the potential impacts of glint and glare from solar facilities on insects, birds and bats, addressing four main questions. 1. Do solar facilities alter wildlife community species richness and abundance? 2. Do solar facilities attract (or cause avoidance) in volant species? 3. What are the causes of mortality associated with solar facilities? 4. What are the biodiversity costs of solar facilities, and can we mitigate these costs? The conclusion briefly introduces some key remaining research gaps. 2. Methods This literature search used the Harzing’s Publish or Perish platform to search through the Google Scholar platform on February 6, 2025. The search terms were ‘solar panel’ AND ‘glint’ or ‘glare’ AND either ‘bird’, ‘bat’, fauna’ or ‘wildlife’ (separate searches). Google Scholar was chosen in preference to other databases, as it picks up grey literature, including unpublished reports, theses, and other documentation that proved informative. The literature search resulted in 954 articles, of which 207 articles were repetitions and 11 were unavailable (not English or publications not available through the Murdoch University library). The titles and abstracts of the remaining 736 articles were reviewed. The majority (651) were not deemed relevant to the topic. Many addressed glint and glare around airports and potential impact on humans (14), or envi- ronmental impact assessments (19). Others addressed topics such as glint and glare in terms of social acceptance and community preferences (7), but did not include fauna specifically. A total of 25 fauna-specific publications were revealed through this search. An additional 76 pub- lications were added to this search by reviewing the references of key papers. Solar power generation has two main types. �Concentrated Solar Power (CSP): These plants use reflective flat (‘heliostats’) or curved (parabolic trough CSP system) mirrors to concentrate sunlight and generate thermal energy. The concentrated heat is directed to a central receiver to produce steam that drives turbines. This intense solar energy around concentrating towers can pose risks to flying animals, although trough facilities may reduce this risk. In a recent meta-analysis, Smallwood [7] reported 5.6 times more bird and 91.5 times more bat fatalities/MW/year at CSP pro- jects compared with PV panels (Table 1). CSP was the first large-scale solar technology – and therefore there is more data on the biodi- versity impacts of this form of solar energy (Box 1) – but CSP is now being rapidly surpassed by photovoltaic systems [25]. �Solar Photovoltaic (PV): PV systems use semiconductor cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity. Within the last decade, the price of PV systems has declined by 89 % [26] and utility-scale solar energy production is now rapidly increasing across the globe and is set to be the world’s largest renewable energy source by 2029 [27]. Because of the marked differences in the physical structure and mortality impacts of CSP and PV systems, their impacts are considered separately where data allows. List of abbreviations including units and nomenclature CSP Concentrated Solar Power PV Photovoltaic c-Si crystalline silicon Fig. 1.The marked variation in solar radiation (background raster colours) and technological advancement across the globe influences where solar facilities have been built (dots reflect installed solar facilities, with relative size of the dots reflecting solar generation capacity), and therefore which biomes are affected. Sources: Photovoltaic potential is derived from the Global Solar Atlas v2 [23], and represents the average daily totals. The data for operating solar facilities is sourced from Global Solar Power Tracker [24]. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 2 259 Box 1 Concentrating Solar Power plants As of 2020, the least expensive utility-scale concentrated solar power stations (CSP) in the United States and worldwide were still five times more expensive than utility- scale photovoltaic power (PV) stations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrate d_solar_power) but CSP is one of the few renewable electricity technologies that can generate fully dispatchable or even fully baseload power at very large scale [25]. Therefore, despite its costs, CSP may have an important role to play in the decarbonisation of power grids as a dispatchable electricity source to balance the intermittent renewables, such as wind power and PV. Southern California, USA, accounts for nearly 80 % of all utility scale solar facilities in California, and 50 % of all those developments across the USA [4]. Three large CSP systems located in the Mojave Desert of Southern California have been extensively studied for bird and bat mortalities (reviewed by [7]): a.Solar One. The world’s first CSP plant was the 10-MW Solar One (1982–1988), which used water/steam as the heat transfer fluid. This was upgraded to Solar Two (1996–1999, using molten salt to capture and store the sun’s heat). Solar One was the first large-scale test of its kind and was one of the first utility-scale solar projects. Until its construction, the environmental hazards of solar power plant operation were un- known [28]. The only wildlife fatality monitoring reported before 2012 was in 1982–1983 at Solar One, with reports of birds being singed by concentrated sunlight from the heliostat fields at this CSP plant [28]. b.Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (‘Ivanpah’) (Fig. 2a). The 377-MW Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (2014 – present) [29] includes 173,500 heliostats that follow the sun’s trajectory, solar-field-integration software, and solar-receiver steam generators. Avian mortality due to singeing in high-flux regions in the air space above the heliostat fields at Ivanpah have been documented [3,30]. In these instances, birds had been exposed to concentrated solar radiation exceeding safe limits – estimated to be 4–50 kW/m2 for birds [31]. Exceeding these limits can result in fatal burns, highlighting the need for careful management and mitigation strategies [31]. c.Genesis. The Genesis Solar Energy Project (2013 – present) is a 140 MW CSP using solar trough technology, with a system of solar collector arrays composed of parabolic mirrors. Substantial bat mortality has been reported at Genesis, where the most dangerous project feature to bats was the evaporation ponds, followed by power blocks, fences, and solar collector arrays [7]. d.Other CSP facilities. Leading countries in CSP installations are Spain (total capacity of 2.3 GW), the USA (1.5 GW), China (596 MW), Morocco (533 MW) (Fig. 2b), and South Africa (500 MW). As of 2024, the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Fig. 2c) facility has a total capacity of 950 MW, including a 100 MW CSP plant with the world’s tallest solar receiver tower (263 m), a 600 MW parabolic trough complex, and a 250 MW PV station. 3. Results and discussion Here, I first describe studies that have examined insect, bird and bat communities around solar facilities, as the initial step towards under- standing whether animals might be attracted to or avoid these sites. Second, I present evidence supporting five potential mechanisms for why animals may be attracted to solar facilities, the ecological costs and potential mitigation measures for these aspects. Third, potential causes of mortalities are then described, and extrapolation from mortality monitoring is presented. Finally, this paper concludes by raising unan- swered questions and identifying research needs to better understand the biodiversity impacts of solar facilities. 3.1. Do solar facilities alter wildlife community species richness and abundance? A number of studies demonstrate significant differences in fauna diversity and community composition around solar facilities (Table 2; Table 3). Most fauna studies have been carried out through comparison between paired solar facilities and adjacent ‘reference’ habitat (see summary of data in Table 2). In their meta-analysis, Blaydes et al. [32] analysed the weight of evidence to support 27 potential management interventions to improve and enhance biodiversity of insect pollinators, and report evidence for positive effects of presence of flowering plants, season-long access to resources, taller or structurally diverse vegetation, increasingly semi-natural or heterogeneous landscape, and proximity and connectivity to semi-natural habitat. By contrast, where the vegetation within solar facilities is heavily managed or removed (e.g. mown or heavily grazed), there is likely to be fewer insects. There are contrasting results for birds, which could reflect the choice of reference landscape for comparison (Table 3b). Lower bird diversity and/or density have been reported for some solar facilities compared with adjacent untransformed land as reference [16,33,34]. By contrast, many solar facilities have been located on relatively flat, homogeneous terrain at sites where there was already substantial anthropogenic disturbance. In some such cases, for example compared with reference farmland, the addition of artificial resources at PV facilities can result in increased diversity of insects and birds (especially insectivores) [8, 10–12,17,35]. While there is minimal data available for bat commu- nities, studies have shown reduced activity [8,13,36] and reduced feeding [37] for insectivorous bat species around PV facilities, but again highlight the importance of where the sampling is carried out (Table 3c). This form of experimental design (comparing solar facilities with reference sites) has come under criticism, with preference for a before- after control-impact (BACI) approach identified as ideal [38]. It also needs to be recognised that there are survey limitations in terms of visibility and access constraints around PV facilities that can influence survey results [38], with visibility or acoustic recording interference at solar facilities compared with reference sites. Alternative experimental methods include quantifying measures such as reproductive success (e. g., pre-post disturbance [39], or comparison between habitats [35]), while Environmental Impact Assessments have necessitated the appli- cation of animal community composition at proposed sites with that at established solar facilities (e.g., [40]). The importance of comparable reference sites in interpreting impact of solar facilities [35], as well as experimental design appropriate to address the treatment difference, are therefore important considerations in interpreting results of these fauna studies. 3.2. Do solar facilities attract (or cause avoidance) in volant species? Five broad mechanisms have been presented in the literature to explain attraction to or avoidance of solar facilities. These include (1) the creation of novel habitats and resources, (2) the provision of water through evaporation ponds, and (3) increased foraging opportunity. Furthermore, (4) the concentration of solar energy and (5) the reflection of light and sound from solar panels – representing large expanses of smooth flat surfaces – can create attraction or cause avoidance in ani- mals. These five mechanisms are discussed below. 3.2.1. Lost, altered, and novel habitat Utility-scale solar facilities have an enormous footprint, and conse- quent habitat loss is recognised as a key threat for fauna [19], with concerns raised for invertebrates, reptiles, bats, and birds (reviewed by [21]). About 2–6 ha of land are needed per megawatt (MW) of installed solar capacity [15]. The 10 largest solar facilities are in China, all measuring over 70 km2, with the largest – Talatan Solar Park in China – occupying ~420 km2 [43]. While the overall area required per MW for solar facilities is smaller than that required for wind farms (estimated 1–16 ha per MW to allow appropriate spacing to minimise interference between turbines), the degree of clearing for solar facilities is much greater than for wind energy (where only ~0.3 ha per MW clearing is required) [44]. As well as habitat loss and disturbance (e.g., [9,45]), solar facilities also contribute to habitat fragmentation, with large ex- panses of solar panels and other infrastructure (e.g., power lines and non-permeable fencing) creating barriers to species’ daily, seasonal, and migratory movements [3,15,16]. Solar facility installations have largely happened in deserts and across unused farmland or decommissioned industrial sites (e.g., [46, 47]). There, solar panels shade the ground and alter the microclimate underneath them [48], influencing the absorption and reflectance of heat and leading to both heating and cooling effects at different scales (e. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 3 260 g., [49–52]). Studies have identified effects on soil moisture (e.g., [51, 53]) and the soil microbiome [51], which in turn influence plant growth [9,51–56]. PV panels can also provide thermal refuges for fauna that would be otherwise limited in specific contexts (e.g., deserts), or can offer novel foraging, roosting, sheltering, and nesting habitats [21]. For example, Harvey and Associates [30] recorded Common ravens Corvus corax and six raptor species perching on facilities at the Ivanpah CSP facility. WEST [33] present comparative data for Ivanpah and adjacent desert, which demonstrate American kestrels Falco sparverius were seven times more commonly recorded at the solar facilities, where they were recorded frequently perched on structures (Fig. 3). At a PV facility in South Africa, Visser et al. [16] reported aerial hawkers using the panels as foraging perches, ground-dwelling francolins foraging in the shade under the panels, and five species nesting on the solar panel supports. Jeal et al. [34] recorded Western barn owl (Tyto alba) roosting in torque tubes (hollow, structural elements that connect rows of solar panels). Similarly, Golawski, Mitrus and Jankowiak [12] identified that PV fa- cilities in Poland provided safe breeding sites for birds, while fences around the facilities served as observation points, foraging sites, and singing perches. 3.2.1.1. Costs.The transformation of landscapes under solar facilities can lead to dramatic loss of habitat and population connectivity, but also represents novel habitat that can benefit generalist species [33], altering food webs. These changes contribute to a general finding of more open country/grassland, aerial, and generalist ground-foraging birds [11,16, 33] and generalist bat species [13] at solar facilities compared with reference sites. Furthermore, while animals may benefit from the use of solar facilities for nesting, reproductive success at such sites can be reduced by the presence of predators within the facility footprint. For example, mammal and bird scavengers (e.g., kit fox Vulpes macrotis, coyote Canis latrans, Common raven) may be attracted to solar energy facilities by availability of unmanaged refuse and carcasses of birds that succumbed to operation-related injuries (e.g., collision with infrastruc- ture) [3,18,33,57,58]. In addition to loss of habitat, fences create barriers to species’ movements, and can cause entrapment. For example, Visser et al. [16] noted that large-bodied birds become trapped between double fencing, lacking the manoeuvrability to take off. Similarly, water-obligate Fig. 2.Examples of concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities. (a) The eastern tower of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, showing concentrated solar flux either side of the tower. (b) the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station in Morocco is the world’s largest CSP plant at 510 MW. Note the evaporation ponds to the southern boundary of the image (immediately above the scale bar) (c) The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, United Arab Emirates, including parabolic trough CSP and PV facilities, is one of the world’s largest renewable projects, which will reach 5 GW by 2030. Sources: (a) Craig Dietrich - Flickr: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, (b) and (c) Google Earth. Table 1 Average [95 % confidence interval] reported bird and bat fatalities/MW/year for three Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and 10 photovoltaic (PV) facilities in California, USA [7]. Average [95 % CI] fatalities/MW/year ​Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) facilities Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities Birds 64.61 [41.74–149.95]11.61 [8.37–17.56] Bats 5.49 [0.25–11.65]0.06 [0.01–0.10] P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 4 261 species that require water to take off are likely to be trapped by solar facility fencing [59], and Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus – which prefer to run rather than fly – are disproportionately represented in mortalities at Ivanpah (Fig. 4; [33]). 3.2.1.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?.Fencing solar facilities is vital for human safety and security of structures, but fencing design could be modified to reduce the chances of creating barriers and causing animal entrapment. To mitigate barriers to species’ movements [3,15, 16], it may be possible to create permeable fencing that selectively al- lows animal passage. For example, a photovoltaic solar facility con- structed in Pahrump, Nevada, USA (Valley Electric Association), left the majority of native plants and washes in place when installing the solar panels, and kept 30 openings in the fences (25 cm wide by 18 cm tall) for desert fauna to freely pass [48] (Fig. 5). Wildlife movements for this pilot ‘wildlife friendly’ solar facility are being monitored, with tortoises, rattlesnakes, black-tailed jackrabbits, and kit foxes reported using the fence openings to date [60]. 3.2.2. Evaporation ponds Another reason birds and bats could be attracted to solar facilities is the presence of standing water in evaporation ponds associated with the facilities (e.g. Fig. 2b). Environmental dust on the panel surface prevents sunlight from penetrating the solar cells, reducing energy conversion efficiency [61]; washing panels and dust suppression management is therefore common practice in many facilities [19]. First generation monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon (c-Si) PV panels contain hazardous chemicals such as lead, ethylene vinyl acetate, chlorofluo- rocarbons, and poly/brominated flame retardants, while second-generation photovoltaic panels include cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), and other heavy metal-containing materials [20]. Up to 18 metals can be released from solar panels, including aluminium from supporting structures, while substantial amounts of lead, cadmium and antimony leach from c-Si panels, and chromium, selenium, cadmium and lead leach from thin-film panels [62]. Acid rain can increase leaching, especially from broken or damaged PV panels [20]. Water is also used at solar facilities for turbine cooling, where it is often treated with chemicals (e.g. sele- nium) to prevent fouling and to control the pH [19]. The wastewater from these activities is then held in evaporation ponds to concentrate for disposal. 3.2.2.1. Costs.Evaporation ponds can act as a lure for fauna, but can also increase various risks for these animals. Pollution caused by leaching of chemical substances into evaporation ponds can increase exposure to toxic chemicals [63,64], and could be lethal to birds and other animals attracted to these ponds [19,20,65]. For example, sele- nium toxicity has been linked to high egg mortality and birth defects in birds using evaporation ponds [65]. Animals can also become trapped at the ponds. For example, Jeal et al. [34] reported 37 carcasses of 15 species (seven bird, seven mammal and one reptile species) around evaporation ponds at a PV facility in South Africa, compared with only 8 carcasses in the solar field. The authors attributed deaths of half of the animals to drowning (the ponds had a slippery plastic lining, inhibiting escape), and noted entrapment and aggression could contribute to mortalities of young birds. 3.2.2.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?.Few studies have included evaporation ponds in mortality assessments for solar facilities [3,16,34] although – as the deaths of birds and mammals at these ponds verify – they are important to consider for future management improvements [15]. Fencing and bird-exclusion netting are important for restricting fauna access to evaporation ponds [34], but birds can become entrapped in the nets, creating an even greater impact; mesh size, thickness and maintenance are therefore important considerations [66]. For open waterbodies, providing ‘ladders’, reducing the slope of the pond mar- gins, and non-slip pond lining are all good management options [34]. 3.2.3. Increased foraging opportunities Physical structures associated with solar facilities can provide novel niches and microhabitats that attract insects (see Section 3.1). For example, Diehl et al. [67] proposed that insects may be attracted to the prominence of solar towers at the Ivanpah CSP facility, as these tall features stood out in the desert landscape marked by low profile vege- tation. Diurnal aquatic insects – including Diptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Odonata, Heteroptera and Coleoptera species – are also attracted to polarised light reflected by solar panels [68,69], with many aquatic species seeing the panels as potential breeding sites (see Section 3.2.5). Changes in vegetation associated with management of the fa- cilities can also attract insects. Unmanaged vegetation under solar panels may provide suitable habitat for insects [32] and therefore in- sectivores (e.g., [8,17]). Table 2 Examples of differences in fauna species diversity, species richness, or activity/abundance between solar facilities and adjacent reference habitat. Metric:Less at solar facilities No difference More at solar facilities Species diversity ​​�Arthropods [8,41] �Birds [17] Species richness �Birds [34], [35]B �Bats [8] �Arthropods [41]B �Birds [8,33] �Bats [36] �Arthropods [9,42], [41]B �Birds [11,17], [35]B Activity or abundance (e.g., counts) �Birds [16]A, [34], [35]B �Bats [8,13,36,37] �Arthropods [41,42]�Arthropods [9] �Birds [8,10–12,17], [35]B A p =0.06; B results depended on which reference habitat was compared. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 5 262 Table 3 Examples of studies comparing solar facilities and reference sites for (a) invertebrates, (b) birds and (c) bats. Study Solar facility Reference sites Conclusion (solar facilities compared with reference) a. Invertebrates Montag, Parker and Clarkson [8], southern UK 11 PV solar facilities Nearby arable land (same farm)�Greater numbers of butterfly species (p =0.008) �Nearly twice the numbers of bumblebees (p =0.06) Graham et al. [9], Oregon, USA 1 single-axis tracking PV panel facilitya full shade Full-sun reference plots outside the solar facility �Lower pollinating insect density �Reduced species richness �Reduced species diversity partial shade Full-sun reference plots outside the solar facility �Greater species richness in summer �Greater species diversity in summer �Greater abundance in summer. b. Birds WEST [33], California, USA 40 plots within the 377-MW Ivanpah CSP facility 40 offsite plots (1–3 km from the heliostat arrays; ‘desert’) �Similar species richness �Fewer birds (0.24-fold) �Different bird species communities (one-way PERMANOVA calculated from data presented in their Table 2a; pseudo-F =11.89, p =0.028). Generalist species more common, e.g., black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata, house finch Haemorhous mexicanus, and horned lark Eremophila alpestris Visser et al. [16], Northern Cape, South Africa 5 transects within 96-MW 180 ha PV facility (grass and low ground cover between the solar arrays promoted after construction) 5 transects within adjacent untransformed landscape �Marginally fewer birds (0.70 times; P =0.06). �Similar numbers of species �Different bird species communities - shrub/woodland species largely absent, while open country/grassland, aerial, and generalist species more common Jeal et al. [34], Northern Cape, South Africa 8 ‘sub fields’ sampled within 50-MW CSP parabolic trough facility 44 transects adjacent rangelands �Lower abundance (0.007 times; p <0.001) �Lower species richness (p <0.001) Kitazawa et al. [35], Hokkaido, Japan 3 PV solar facilities Wetlands (5 plots) or abandoned farmland (5 plots) �Lower bird species richness �Reduced abundance Pastures (6 plots) or cropland (6 plots)�Comparable bird species richness and abundance DeVault et al. [10], Arizona, Colorado, and Ohio, USA 5 PV arraysb 5 nearby airport grasslandsb (typically mowed at least once per year during the growing season) �About twice the bird activity (mean across locations = 3.468 birds per ha) than in airfields (1.598), �Estimated ‘bird hazard index’ (combined bird mass [kg]/ ha/month/location) not significantly different (p =0.808). Montag, Parker and Clarkson [8], southern UK 11 PV solar facilities Nearby arable land (same farm)�Greater abundance of insectivorous birds (authors attributed to greater floral diversity). Jarˇcuˇska et al. [17], Slovakia 32 PV solar facilities 32 adjacent grassland plots �Greater total bird species richness (especially insectivores) (p =0.030) �Greater diversity (p =0.004) �No difference in overall abundance (p =0.903) Copping et al. [11], Fens, UK. 6 solar facilities – plots on ‘mixed habitat’ c Adjacent arable farmland �Greater (2.6 times) bird abundance �Greater (2.45 times) species richness Same 6 solar facilities – plots with ‘simple habitat’d Adjacent arable farmland �Greater (1.4 times) bird abundance �Comparable (0.96 times) species richness Golawski, Mitrus and Jankowiak [12], Poland 43 PV facilities constructed over farmland (sampled on boundaries of facilities) 43 reference sites ~500m away �Greater bird diversity (p =0.008) �Different bird community composition c. Bats Montag, Parker and Clarkson [8], southern UK 8 PV solar facilities Paired plots on arable land (same farm)�Comparable bat species richness (p =0.55) �Comparable bat activity (p =0.09) Szabadi et al. [13], Hungary 15 PV solar facilities (each with a mosaic of landuses) Adjacent other human-altered habitats (e.g., arable land, grassland and green areas within settlements) �Bat species that commonly adapt to anthropogenic habitat were commonly recorded at the solar facilities �Detection of feeding buzzes at solar farms proved that bats not only commuted over this habitat but also foraged there. Adjacent semi-natural habitats (forests)�Species of conservation concern – those that were more commonly associated with forest habitat – were less common; 4 taxa: p <0.01 Adjacent semi-natural habitats (watersides) �Reduced overall bat activity (all species grouped) (P < 0.001) Tinsley et al. [36], UK 19 PV facilities on either grazed or mowed grassland, or on cut arable crops Middle of solar facility and open reference field sites �Reduced activity (overall 0.33 fold difference); activity of 4 (of 8) species significantly reduced (p <0.05) �No effect on species richness (p =0.282). Boundaries of solar facility and reference field sites (i.e., hedgerows, tree lines, woodland or vegetated ditches) �Reduced activity (overall 0.54 fold difference); activity of 4 (of 8) species significantly reduced (p <0.05) �No effect on species richness (p =0.942). Barr´e et al. [37], Rhˆone Valley, France. 9 PV facilities built on reclaimed industrial sites and agricultural land paired reference sites (100–500 m away)�Bats flew faster (+10 to +44 %) and straighter (+33 %) (changes in flight features that are explicit indicators of a decrease in bat feeding behaviour) with lower probability of prey capture attempts (18 to 39 %). a Panel movements allowing varying shade treatments. b Both airfield and PV arrays likely to be affected by active bird control at one site (i.e., harassment and lethal removal). c ‘mixed habitat’: infrequent cutting or grazing of the grass around the solar panels, which allowed greater sward height and the presence of wildflowers). d ‘simple habitat’: vegetation intensively managed through cutting or grazing. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 6 263 3.2.3.1. Costs.Insects attracted to solar facilities in turn attract foraging insectivorous birds and bats [3,68], which can increase their risk of collision and burn injuries [21]. For example, 41 of 47 recorded bird mortalities due to solar flux at Ivanpah were primarily insectivores, indicating they had been foraging around the CSP collection towers (by contrast, waterbirds and other birds that feed on vegetation were not reported to have the same burn injuries) [3]. 3.2.3.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?.It may be possible to reduce attractiveness of solar facilities for fauna. For example, it has been noted that there are fewer insects within PV solar facilities where the vegetation is heavily managed or removed (e.g. mown or heavily grazed) [32], which in turn could reflect reduced bird and bat [37] activity. Clearing vegetation around CSP solar towers has also been implemented to make the area less attractive to birds at CSP facilities [70]. Curtailment options for CSP facilities – suspending operations at key migration times – has also been recommended to avoid migration pe- riods when numbers of aerial foraging birds are likely to be greatest [70]. Preventing birds and bats from roosting and perching on panels may also reduce the likelihood of them foraging around the facility. For example, a range of potential deterrents have been trialled at Ivanpah, including LED lighting, perching-deterrent spikes, ‘BirdBuffer’ chemo- sensory deterrent, ‘BirdGuard’ sonic deterrent to deter avian species from entering this area associated with elevated flux mortality, and an Acoustic Technology Ultrasonic Bat Deterrence system to interfere with echolocation capabilities of bats [33]. 3.2.4. Concentrated solar energy Concentrated solar flux associated with CSP facilities can attract insects that would normally seek out solar radiation [21]. For example, the bright light and heat around CSP collection towers (e.g., Fig. 2a) attracts diurnal insects. Although absolute numbers were not quantified, Kagan et al. [3] reported many hundreds of killed butterflies, dragonflies and other insects at Ivanpah. Diehl et al. [67] assessed different survey methods to detect and observe animals flying near the Ivanpah towers. A modified x-band radar recorded 708,872 biological tracks in May (approximately equal numbers of insects and vertebrates) when insect activity peaked around mid-day and diurnal bird activity peaked late afternoon, and 428,207 tracks in September (about three quarters of traces identified as insects) when activity of both insects and vertebrates (bats and nocturnal birds not distinguished) peaked in early evening to midnight. By contrast, video imagery recorded an undisclosed number of instances of insects incinerated in the solar flux, but only detected a total of 37 birds or suspected birds near the towers. A total of 1922 ar- thropods were recorded in Malaise traps deployed on the ground around the facility, although these mostly represented terrestrial species, and did not reflect the species composition of burned insects accumulated on the ground. The insect activity associated with the CSP towers in turn attracts aerial insectivores including birds and bats [3]. 3.2.4.1. Costs.Burn-related mortalities are a significant risk for CSP solar facilities. Birds can be burned or incinerated when they fly through concentrated beams of solar flux, where air temperatures may reach more than 800 �C (temperatures greater than 160 �C result in compro- mised keratin molecular structure and permanently weaken bird feathers, [71]). Because of these extreme temperatures, deaths of small animals flying around the CSP towers may be difficult to detect or identify [67]. Experimental work has shown that temperatures greater than 160 �C result in compromised keratin molecular structure and permanently weaken bird feathers [71]. Burn deaths at CSP facilities are specifically relevant to aerial in- sectivores (e.g., swallows, swifts and martins), which spend most of their time in flight and are therefore likely to increase the chances of encountering space where there is high solar flux [3,28]. Depending on the severity and length of exposure, exposure to the concentrated solar flux results either in immediate death (catastrophic loss of flying ability) or delayed mortality because of flight impairment [3]. Therefore, in addition to direct immediate mortalities, aerial foraging birds that are singed and injured would be unable to feed, and injured birds would be more vulnerable to predators [2,3]. The unique circumstances of CSP facilities was shown by Kagan et al. [3], who compared bird mortalities for three solar plants that had different technology: Desert Sunlight (PV), Genesis (CSP with trough) and Ivanpah (CSP with concentrating tower). Burn injuries were sub- stantially higher for Ivanpah, where burning (‘solar flux injury’) (47 of 141 carcasses) was as common as collision trauma (43 of 141 carcasses) as a cause of death. Remaining samples (46 of 141 carcasses) were in too poor condition to determine cause of death (46 of 141). The bright lights around CSP facilities could also increase collision risk due to glint and glare blinding. While Kagan et al. [3] noted that there was no evidence found for significant tissue burns or eye damage caused by exposure to solar flux around the Ivapah CSP towers, it is likely that visible tissue damage is not prerequisite for blinding impacts to nevertheless happen. For example, the issue of glare from large ex- panses of solar panels has been recognised as a significant health and safety issue in civil aviation, raising concern either from pilots or air-traffic controllers (e.g., [31,72,73]), and for drivers where solar panels line roads (e.g., [74]). Although glint and glare hazards are recognised for humans, the question of ocular blinding has rarely been addressed in the wildlife literature. Jeal et al. [34] recorded that when flushed during the day, Western barn owls – normally only active at night – would swipe or collide with mirrors, suggesting temporary blindness due to the panels. Collision due to acute blinding could also be exacerbated from high-speed predator-prey encounters in which either the prey or pursuer may collide with panels [7]. Smooth surfaces such as mirrors and smooth glass (on PV units) produce more specular reflections with greater intensity and tighter beams (and therefore greater risk for ocular hazards) compared with CSP trough solar receivers (which produce more diffuse reflections with lower solar intensities) [31]. 3.2.4.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?.McCrary et al. [28] re- ported 13 of 70 recorded bird fatalities (19 %; 7 species) at Solar One CSP were likely due to burning, as evidenced by heavily singed flight and contour feathers. The authors concluded that the primary hazard was from heliostats in standby mode – when the heliostats focussed on four small areas (~5m in diameter) of sky around the tower at a height of 80 m (rather than on the receiver) [28]. By contrast with the high-temperature receiver itself, which emits a considerable amount of thermal radiation, it was recognised that the irradiance in the air around the receiver during standby was optically transparent, and it was un- likely that the birds were able to detect heat at high-flux regions around the receiver [31]. Using this information, computer programming has been developed to control heliostat angles during standby, thereby ensuring that air temperatures remain below 160 �C, reducing the incidence of ‘hot spots’ [31,71]. 3.2.5. Solar panels represent large expanses of smooth, flat surfaces Many animals, including insects and birds, have well-tuned polar- isation vision (reviewed by [75]) and use the information from polarised light for navigation and to locate resources (reviewed by [68]). There- fore, polarised light pollution – “light that has undergone linear polar- isation by reflecting off smooth, dark buildings, or other human-made objects” – can represent an ecological trap for these species [68]. For example, orientation towards horizontally polarised light sources is the primary guidance mechanism used by at least 300 diurnal aquatic insect species (e.g., dragonflies, mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, diving beetles, water bugs) in their search for suitable water bodies to act as feeding or P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 7 264 breeding habitat, and oviposition sites [68]. Because of their strong horizontal polarisation signature, artificial polarising surfaces (e.g., asphalt, gravestones, cars, plastic sheeting, pools of oil, glass windows, and solar panels) are commonly mistaken for bodies of water by ‘polartactic’ species [68,69,76]. Smooth darker surfaces (such as solar panels) are more effective at producing polarised light than are brighter surfaces [68]. At the Brewster angle, solar panels polarise reflected light almost completely (degree of polarisation d �100 %, substantially exceeding typical polarisation values for water d �30–70 %). Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] demonstrated that both thin-film and c-Si solar panels are capable of polarising sunlight to a high-degree (visible maximum: 83 %; ultraviolet maximum 84 %), with at least 35 % polarised light over a narrower range of vertical angles, such as a bird would be exposed to Fig. 3.Raptor behaviour around Ivanpah and adjacent desert sites, showing flight height and perching. Drawn from raw data presented by [33 Table 6]. There were significantly more observations of American kestrels at the Ivanpah solar facilities than for the desert sites (Chi-test 21 =304.2, p <0.001); none of the other raptor species were significantly more or less common (p >0.05). Fig. 4.Comparison between ’avian use’ surveys (WEST, 2016 Table 2a; x-axis) and mortality monitoring (WEST, 2016 Table 7; y-axis) at Ivanpah. Species towards the top left of the graph show mortalities that are disproportionate to other species in respect to their relative activity around the heliostats. The ’bird use’ data presented by WEST (2016, Table 2a) show significant differences in bird species communities recorded between the solar facility and adacent desert (one-way PERMANOVA calculated from their data: pseudo-F =11.89, p =0.028), with species more commonly recorded using the heliostats including generalist species (in descending order of percentage contribution to the difference between solar facility and adacent desert by SIMPER analysis: Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata, Horned lark Eremophila alpestris, House finch Haemorhous mexicanus, Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta, Common raven Corvus corax, Rock pigeon Columba livia, American pipit Anthus rubescens, and Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus). P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 8 265 when they are flying over a solar facility. Solar panels can therefore be mistaken for waterbodies by water- breeding insects (e.g., mayflies, dolichopodid dipterans, and tabanid flies exhibit oviposition behaviour above solar panels), and may even be more attractive than waterbodies [69]. Similarly, it has been argued that birds mistake reflection from a solar facility for a water body and hone in on it, with the risk that solar panels can therefore represent ‘mega-traps’ [3,14]. This ‘Lake Effect’ Hypothesis [77] implies that (1) birds in flight perceive large solar PV facilities as water bodies, (2) reorient and descend toward those facilities, and (3) in some cases either collide with the panels or are unable to take off from the ground [14]. Evidence for these three steps is described below. First, there is experimental evidence that birds can detect linear polarisation of light (reviewed by [78]). Certain waterbirds have been shown to be directly attracted to the bright reflection of light from pools of oil (in which they drown) presumably as they were searching for water [79]. Experimentally testing this concept, Bern´ath et al. [79] laid out shiny white and dark plastic sheets and recorded bird behaviour around the material. They recorded a range of species approaching and attempting to drink or forage. For example, White storks (Ciconia cico- nia) and Great white egrets (Egretta alba) attempted to probe the surface, while Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), House martins (Delichon urbia), and Sand martins (Riparia riparia) attempted to drink from and forage above the sheets. This field study suggests that the birds mistook optical cues of the sheets as the surfaces as small waterbodies. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] reported three experiments that similarly showed that birds could see terrestrial sources of polarised light, and use those cues to locate waterbodies. The authors showed the feeders with high polarised light properties were more conspicuous to wild birds and guided their feeding behaviour. Next, they simulated the polarised light visual properties of natural water bodies and tested bird responses to surfaces over 4 days. Finally, they compared ground-based water sources of different polarisation properties and showed that birds preferentially visited the treatment (black) with the highest degree of polarised light in both the visible and ultraviolet ranges for bathing and drinking. Their results confirm that many different bird species can Fig. 5.A ‘wildlife friendly’ photovoltaic solar facility constructed in Pahrump, Nevada, USA (Valley Electric Association), (a) left large open areas of native vegetation between banks of PV panels. (b) The ground was not bladed or graded at construction, and this resulted in an uneven/wavy placement of the panels, which would break up light reflection from the panels. (c) Mojave desert tortoises Gopherus agassizii were removed from the area during construction, kept in a holding pen, and then released back into the facility after construction was done. (d) Thirty openings at the bottom of the fences (25 cm wide by 18 cm tall) allowed tortoises and other wildlife to move in and out of the facility. Photos by Dr Jennifer Wilkening, Research Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 9 266 detect horizontally polarised light and that they can use that information to help locate waterbodies, as evidenced by feeding and bathing behaviour. Second, there is evidence that birds will reorient towards solar fa- cilities. Millions of migratory songbirds initiate migration around twi- light, when the sun is near the horizon and the maximum degree of polarisation is present (typically 70–80 % in clear, blue sky) (reviewed by [78,80]). There is substantial experimental support from behavioural experiments that many migratory songbirds rely on this celestial infor- mation for compass orientation, responding strongly to manipulations in direction of light polarisation [78]. Conflicting results for experiments with different bird species suggest species-specific differences in the use of polarised light versus magnetic information for orientation, or dif- ferences in the ecological situations under which birds use both types of information [78,80]. Given the influence of polarised light in navigation and orientation towards waterbodies, it raises the question of whether animals are diverted from their migratory paths due to polarised light pollution from solar facilities. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] used portable X-band radar to track bird movements at two PV facilities to see if birds changed their flight paths (directions or altitudes) toward PV facilities. Evidence for change in direction was inconclusive, which the authors attributed to relief in terrain overwhelming the potential influence of the presence of PV panels on direction of travel. However, south-bound birds (possibly migrating) were more commonly recorded descending, especially near midday, suggesting they were seeking water or refuge in the extremely arid landscape [14]. Tak´acs et al. [81] used a drone-mounted polar- isation camera to capture reflected light from fixed-orientation solar panels, showing the largest panel areas with exactly or nearly horizontal polarisation at sunrise and at sunset when in parallel with the panels, and around noon when the drone flew perpendicular to the solar panel rows. The degree of polarised light pollution from solar facilities therefore varies depending on the angle of approach, as well as time of day, and these time of day differences need to be accounted for when interpreting the birds’ behaviour. Third, there is evidence that birds will collide with solar panels or become trapped on the ground. WEST [33] recorded four water-associated species associated with the heliostats at Ivanpah (one record each of: American avocet Recurvirostra americana, Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca, Killdeer Charadrius vociferus, and Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla). Kosciuch et al. [82] synthesised results from fatality monitoring studies at 10 PV facilities across 13 site-years in California and Nevada, reporting 86 species amongst 669 avian de- tections. Waterbirds were recorded at all of the facilities in the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts Bird Conservation Region. Notably, 54 % of all carcasses were just ‘feather-spot’ remains, and of the intact carcasses, cause of mortality could also not be determined for approximately 61 % (86 % of ducks and geese, 93 % of grebes, and 100 % of loons), signif- icantly limiting power of the study to make conclusions about cause of death in waterbirds at solar facilities [82]. Extending this work to live bird counts, Kosciuch et al. [59] recorded presence of aquatic birds at PV facilities. Together, these records provide compelling evidence that waterbirds have been attracted to solar facilities, suggesting they perceived the presence of water at the sites [59]. As well as birds, it is possible that solar facilities can interfere with bat movement patterns. The large expanses of flat solar panel surfaces reflect sound waves and can therefore interfere with navigation by microbats, causing echoes and reflections of echolocation calls. Bats perceive horizontal, smooth surfaces (‘acoustic mirrors’) as water due to their similar echo-acoustic properties, and may attempt to drink from these regardless of the material they are made of, as demonstrated in both laboratory settings [83] and in nature [84]. Echolocation was the main way these bats recognised water surfaces, taking dominance over conflicting sensory information provided by e.g., vision, olfaction, touch and taste. Solar panels would also reflect moonlight, and reflected polarised light from panels could be perceived as waterbodies by bats [85]. 3.2.5.1. Costs.Collision risk is a major cause of death at both PV and CSP facilities, with flying wildlife (bats, birds, and aquatic insects) potentially colliding with reflective surfaces of PV panels or CSP helio- stats, or associated infrastructure (i.e., power lines and perimetral fen- ces). Direct mortality through collision is one of the most addressed impacts of PV energy [21], although most information comes from un- published reports that employ non-standardised methodologies [7]. In the first study to report mortalities at solar facilities, McCrary et al. [28] reported 70 bird fatalities (representing 26 species) at Solar One (CSP with concentrating tower), with the most frequent cause of mor- tality identified as collision (evidenced as the presence of broken bones, usually mandibles or wings) accounting for 81 % of recorded bird deaths (20 species). Most (>75 %) collisions were associated with the mirrored heliostats. Similarly, Kagan et al. [3] reported that trauma – including impact, predation and undetermined trauma – was a significant cause of mortality for three different technology solar plants, representing 56 % of 61 mortalities at Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (PV), 30 % of 141 mor- talities at Ivanpah (CSP), and 26 % of 31 mortalities at Genesis (CSP). The linear polarised light pollution from solar facilities can cause diversion from flight paths for waterbirds. Kagan et al. [3] reported a greater proportion of waterbird mortalities at Desert Sunlight (PV) (coots, grebes and cormorants making up 48 % of all bird mortalities at this facility) compared with the two CSP facilities where aerial and terrestrial foragers represented most mortalities (Genesis 80 % and Ivanpah 89 %) (Chi-test assuming an equal proportion of air, terrestrial and water foraging guilds between the three facilities: 24 =17.35, p = 0.002; analysis carried out by myself based on data presented in their report). The difference was attributed to size and continuity of reflection from hard surfaces differing between facilities where the long banks of adjacent panels provided a continuous sky/water appearance at Desert Sunlight (compared with parabolic shape at Genesis and dark appear- ance from above at Ivanpah) [3]. By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and fly away [86]. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation [3]. As well as increasing the direct risk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy reserves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mortality from starvation. Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds from taking-off [3]. For example, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (sensu [82]) – including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podici- pediformes), cormorants (Suliformes), coots (Gruiformes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis) – and those that use water for some aspect of their life history (e.g., family Chara- driidae) are amongst the mortalities at solar facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented amongst the cases where starvation has been identified as cause of death [3]. Solar panels can also elicit aggressive behavioural interactions due to the novel reflective surfaces. Smallwood [7] argued that reflected self-images on CSP heliostats or PV panels might elicit aggressive re- sponses of birds motivated to defend territory, as has been shown for collision with windows, where males and young birds can both be significantly overrepresented relative to their abundance in habitat surrounding the building [87,88]. Substantiating this prediction re- quires behavioural observation of how birds interact with the solar panels. Finally, clutter due to physical structures causes echolocation chal- lenges and confusion for microbats [37], and PV solar farms can act as sensory traps for bats, challenging their ability to navigate [36]. Furthermore, bats mistake smooth, vertical surfaces as clear flight paths, repeatedly colliding with them [89]. For example, Ingeme et al. [90] showed that many Critically Endangered Southern bent-wing bats P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 10 267 (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) collided with a smooth metal fence placed at 45�outside a maternity roost, and 1.03 % of juveniles consequently suffered critical injuries that warranted their euthanasia. More data on cause of death is required for bat mortalities to understand why they die at solar facilities. 3.2.5.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?.Approximately one-third of the incident light received by a solar cell is reflected [61]. Glare from solar panels around airports has been mitigated by considered lo- cations, or blocking light reflection in particular directions by adding a tree screen around the facility (e.g., [91]). Alternatively, application of antireflective coatings and/or texturing to the panels (‘nanocoatings’) could be used to reduce associated glare and glint [92]. Nanocoatings redirect incident light to trap it – improving light absorption [61] and can substantially improve system performance [91,92], increasing panel energy efficiency by up to ~50 % [93,94]. Because they also reduce the degree to which solar panels polarise light, nanocoatings also have value in reducing biodiversity impacts of solar facilities. For example, Horv´ath [95] reported that microtextured surfaces on solar panels greatly reduced polarised light pollution and reduced attractiveness to polar- tactic insects. Larger scale modifications have also proven effective in reducing fauna impacts. For example, white outlines and/or white grid lines on solar panels – which result in a loss of less than 1.8 % in energy- producing surface area – reduce horizontally polarising light and are 10- to 26-fold less attractive to aquatic egg-laying insects than the same panels without white partitions [69,96]. Mechanical surface modifica- tion can also reduce the likelihood of bat collisions due to mistaking the surface for water. For example, Abdul Rahman et al. [97] placed string of different diameters across flat smooth plates, and showed that bats significantly decreased the frequency of drinking attempts with increasing diameter of the strings. It does not appear that similar detailed studies have been caried out with birds. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] note that it is still not known how much polarisation is required to attract birds; such data is required to identify the required changes to PV facilities to reduce the effects of polarised light pollution for bird species. 3.3. Studies that have quantified mortalities of volant species Monitoring mortalities is an important tool for understanding the reasons for fatalities. Variation in where, when and how mortality monitoring has been carried out are informative about the causes of death. 3.3.1. Differences between sites – it matters where you monitor First, mortality monitoring results can be strongly influenced by where the surveys are carried out. A comprehensive Bird and Bat Management Plan developed for the Ivanpah CSP (initially written in 2013, latest version: [98]) was developed to document mortalities, use that information to develop and implement adaptive management re- sponses, and report the monitoring results. Over nine years of bird and bat mortality monitoring using sniffer dogs and on-foot surveys (Table 4 and references therein), an average of 616 �360 (SD) birds per annum were recovered injured or dead around the facility. The timing of mor- talities indicates strong seasonal patterns, peaking in spring and autumn, with migratory warblers and swallows making up 46–59 % of the identified cases. A subset of the banks of heliostats were monitored over the first four years, but this monitoring was not continued. This change in where monitoring has been carried out has confounded interpretation of which species are impacted by the facility. The highest density of mortalities has been around the concentrating towers, which account for 30.6–98.5 % of reported mortalities. Waterbird mortalities were more likely to be recorded when more of the heliostat area was surveyed (Fig. 6). When only the towers were surveyed for mortalities, small insectivores (war- blers and aerial foraging birds) represented the dominant records for mortalities. Finally, some mortalities (e.g., Greater roadrunner) have been specifically associated with the fencelines around the facility, and it is not clear whether the fences were systematically searched each year. The change in where monitoring was carried out has also confounded interpretation of cause of death data. Mortalities at Ivanpah have included burn injuries (evident from singed feathers), collision (evident from broken bones), and other causes (e.g. entrapment or occurrence in the air-cooled condenser buildings, electrocution, vehicle strike, and predation), with a shift towards burn injuries as the surveys have altered their focus to only recording mortalities at the towers (mortalities from other parts of the facility were only recorded as inci- dental records) (Fig. 7). In the most recent reports, close to three quarters of the bird mortalities showed evidence of feather singeing (Table 4). In a meta-analysis across different solar facilities [7], where mor- talities were standardised on an energy-generation basis, the gen-tie has been identified as the most dangerous project feature to birds at some projects (i.e., risk of electrocution), whereas the solar collectors — PV panels or mirrors (i.e., risk of collision) — were the most dangerous at others [7]. On a project-wide basis, however, more birds died by colli- sion with solar collectors [7]. Comparison between avian use surveys and mortalities can serve to identify which species are most at risk from solar facilities. For example, analysis of data presented by WEST [33] (their Table 2a and Table 7) indicated disproportionate mortalities for the Greater roadrunner, Mourning dove Zenaida macroura, and some of the sparrows and warbler species in the year of survey (Fig. 4). There were also marked differences between some of the bird guilds, with waterbirds representing only 0.9 % of avian use counts, but 3.8 % the fatalities. Similarly, aerial foragers (use: 2.1 %, mortalities 8.4 %) and raptors (use: 1.0 %, mortalities: 4.4 %) were disproportionately represented in the mortality counts. 3.3.2. It matters when you monitor Mortality monitoring results can also be strongly influenced by when surveys are carried out. For example, mortality monitoring results can be biased low by insufficient monitoring duration [7]. Daily mortality monitoring at Ivanpah was compared with the timing of biologically relevant seasons, using the timing of migration determined through sightings reported via eBird website (www.ebird.org) and radar data from over 140 weather stations (synthesised on the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s BirdCast website; www.birdcast.info) [33]. The compar- ison was used to confirm that the entire spring and fall migration periods – when the majority of bird passages through the solar facilities were expected and also the majority of mortalities were recorded – had been included in their monitoring period. This study is an excellent example of ensuring an adequate monitoring period is addressed. 3.3.3. It matters how you monitor The method of survey can also influence results for mortality moni- toring. For example, Smallwood [7] reported bird fatality rates averaged 3 times higher at PV projects searched by foot rather than car. There is also significant bias in species’ deaths reported. Many mortalities are assessed from feather-spots only, which significantly compromises identification of both species and cause of death. It is estimated that an average of 22 % of fatalities at solar facilities are unable to be identified to species using morphological methods [7]. The application of eDNA methods to identify bird species mortalities has recently been trialled, showing 84.1 % alignment with carcasses iden- tified via traditional morphological methods [106]. eDNA methods may therefore help to reduce the proportion of unidentifiable mortalities for future monitoring. Finally, mortality estimates require appropriate adjustment for scavenging, searcher efficiency, and the effect of body size on carcass detectability (many carcass removal trials have used larger birds than P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 11 268 the species that they are adjusting these values to) [7]. In a review of mortality reporting across 14 facilities in California USA [reports per- formed between 1982 and 2018 and obtained under California Public Records Act (PRA) and federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) re- quests], Smallwood [7] reported an annual statewide fatality estimate of 37,546 birds and 207 bats projected to California’s 2020 installed ca- pacity of 1948.8 MW of CSP and 12,220 MW of PV systems (14,168.8 MW total). However, these estimates were biased toward identification of large bird and bat species. ‘Bridging’ these data to the species composition of adjacent habitat, Smallwood [7] estimated fatalities of 267,732 birds and 11,418 bats (Table 1). Extrapolating from these values to the total installed solar energy capacity globally [6,7], and assuming that only 1 % of this is represented by CSP solar [107] (but see [25]), mortalities at solar facilities around the globe are estimated to total 17.3 million birds per annum. Geographic bias in the mortality figures means that these data could be vastly different for mesic habitats. 4. Unanswered questions and research needs Lovich and Ennen [19] recognised many areas where there was missing data around the wildlife impacts of utility scale solar facilities. Despite a decade of science since their publication, there are still many knowledge gaps, especially in regard to the specific landscapes in which solar facilities are being developed. For example: �There has been insufficient empirical data collected on the biodi- versity impacts of solar facilities. Most of the knowledge on PV im- pacts comes from North American contexts (48 % of studies reviewed) for desert biomes [21], limiting generalisation of these findings to other environments like farmland, where most of the PV capacity is sited. We need further before-and-after studies collecting data for birds and bats across a range of habitats. �Mapping and quantifying ecological and polarised light pollution impacts for solar facilities in different locations and with respect to migratory pathways for birds and bats will inform potential risks. A large proportion of migratory bird species (80 %) migrate under the cover of darkness [108], when light polarisation is minimal, raising questions about their navigation cues. In addition to celestial and magnetic sources of information, there is evidence that animals can use polarisation of moonlight to navigate [109]. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] note that bird fatalities at solar facilities could not be attributed to a particular time of day, but Kosciuch et al. [82] noted the absence of large-scale mortality events of nocturnal mi- grants at PV facilities. Presumably all bat mortality events are taking place at night. Table 4 Summaries of Annual Reports for Ivanpah bird mortality monitoring. Year % heliostat area surveyed Mortalities recorded (% at towersb) Causes of mortalitiesb Small unident. birds Warblers & swallows / swiftse Waterbirds Ref. Singed feathers Collision Other Unident. 2013–2014 24.1 % a 703 (30.6 %)47.4 %51.9 %0.7 %c 57.4 %8 %29 %4.1 %[30] 2014–2015 24.1 %1070 (60.3 %)41.3 %10.3 %1.3 %d 47.9 %6 %26 %2.1 %[33] 2015–2016 8 %706 (88.5 %)64.4 %5.1 %1.1 %c 29.3 %10 %43 %4.4 %[99] 2016–2017 (~4 %)499 (96.2 %)69.7 %4.4 %1.4 %c 24.4 %7 %43 %3.2 %[100] 2017–2018 0 %531 (97.7 %)76.9 %0.8 %1.7 %c 20.6 %8 %53 %1.1 %[101] 2018–2019 0 %358 (97.2 %)65.2 %2.3 %1.4 %c 31.0 %14 %45 %2.8 %[102] 2019–2020 0 %737 (98.5 %)61.3 %1.9 %2.3 %c 34.6 %6 %48 %2.4 %[103] 2020–2021 0 %296 (98.3 %)72.5 %1.4 %2.7 %c 23.4 %8 %59 %0.3 %[104] 2021–2022 0 %265 (97.7 %)71.8 %0 %1.9 %c 26.3 %7 %46 %0.8 %[105] a Plus fenceline surveyed.b Heliostat area surveyed varied between annual surveys; only incidental mortalities were recorded after spring 2016. The proportion of mortalities at the tower are therefore not directly comparable with subsequent years. From 2017 to 2018 onwards, only percentages as a proportion of the tower mortalities are reported. c Entrapment. d Including electrocuted, struck by vehicle and predated.e Calculated from raw data presented as a percentage of identified mortalities. This represents a minimum for these insectivores, as the large percentage of small unidentified birds could also be within this category. Fig. 6.Differences in waterbird and small insectivore mortality records according to distribution of monitoring surveys. Over the last 9 years, there has been a shift towards recording less of the heliostat area for bird mortalities. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 12 269 �The scale of land surface under solar panels is increasing rapidly. This raises a question about the cumulative landscape impacts of solar facilities [110], and whether large numbers of dispersed, or smaller numbers of concentrated, facilities are likely to have the greatest impact? Understanding animal movements is required to address this question and maximise solar energy generation benefits while minimising negative effects on wildlife [19]. �Other indirect effects of solar facilities also need consideration. For example, water consumption as part of operations is an important consideration, especially for solar facilities sited in arid landscapes [19]. Additionally, any system that produces electricity and heat increases risk of wildfire [111]. �Finally, the decommissioning and recycling of solar panels at their end of life also needs to be accounted for in consideration of total environmental impact [112]. Solar panels have an average lifespan of 20–30 years [20]. They contain potential contaminants (e.g., for example lead, aluminium, arsenic, cadmium and copper, depending on the type of panel) that need appropriate disposal or recycling [62]. 5. Conclusions In this study, we describe five key mechanisms to explain attraction to or avoidance of solar facilities by insects, birds and bats (Table 5). Habitat loss, fragmentation, and the disruption of animal movement is inevitably detrimental for fauna. However, other aspects of solar facil- ities can be attractive to some animals. For example, solar facilities may offer additional foraging and scavenging opportunities, while the pres- ence of water (evaporation ponds) or the appearance of water (the ‘Lake Effect’) can mislead and lure animals to entrapment. While some of these opportunities are likely to be benign, other aspects have poten- tially lethal consequences for birds and bats, increasing risk of collision or burn injuries, as well as exposure to toxic chemicals. For such species, Fig. 7.Causes of mortality identified at Ivanpah CSP over 9 years of monitoring. Over time, there has been a move away from monitoring the heliostats (percentages under x-axis). Table 5 Summary of the five broad mechanisms to explain attraction or avoidance of solar facilities by insects, birds and bats, and the potential ecological costs associated with each of these mechanisms. Example references supporting these points are indicated. Potential mechanisms:Costs: 1. Lost, altered, and novel habitat �Loss and fragmentation of habitat [9,15,19,45] �Barrier effect of solar panels and fencing [3,15,16] �Microhabitat changes [48] �Altered temperature (‘Heat Island Effect, or ‘Cool Island Effect’) and soil moisture [49–52] �Modified soil microbiome [51,53] and plant growth [9,51–56] �Creation of novel habitats alter behaviour e.g., perching and nesting sites, reflective surfaces [12,16,34] �Loss of habitat and population connectivity �Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28] �Increased risk of entrapment [3] 2. Evaporation ponds �Attracts waterbirds [19,20,65]�Entrapment and drowning [3,16,34] �Exposure to toxic chemicals [63–65] 3. Increased foraging opportunities �Plant growth, flowering, and seed set can increase insect activity [8,9, 32] �Insect presence attracts insectivores [3,68] �Carcasses can attract scavengers [3,18,33,57,58] �Altered food webs and altered species communities [11,13,16,33] �Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28] �Increased predation risk [3,33] 4. Concentrated solar energy �Attracts insects [3,67] and insectivores feeding on these insects [3,68]�Burn risk for animals flying through the solar flux [3,28] �Glint and glare blinding [7,34] �Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28] 5. Solar panels represent large expanses of smooth, flat surfaces �Solar panels polarise light [14] and mimic water surfaces ‘Lake Effect’ [3,14] �Attract diurnal aquatic insects [68,69,76] �Waterbirds alter flight paths [14] �Bats may attempt to drink [85] �Reflective surfaces can elicit aggressive behavioural responses [7] �Clutter confuses echolocating bats [36,37] �Increased risk of collision and injuries [14,86] �Stranding [3,59,82] �Diversion from flight paths [14] �Wasted reproductive effort [68,69,76] P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 13 270 solar facilities can therefore act as environmental traps. While mortality rates of birds at solar power plants have been sub- stantial, this needs to be considered in context of other threats. Climate change is taking a significant toll on long-term survival of wildlife – e.g. through megafires and hurricanes; harmful algal outbreaks; habitat loss; and the spread of disease, pests, and invasive species [5] – and as such, there are dire costs to wildlife of not making the transition to sustainable energy sources. Deaths recorded at solar facilities have also been re- ported to be significantly lower compared to other anthropogenic landscapes and objects such as highways, buildings, or traditional en- ergy sources [4,31,82]. For example, Walston Jr et al. [4] compared published mortality data for three solar facilities against other anthro- pogenic causes of avian mortality, and concluded that estimated annual avian mortality at solar facilities was far less than predicted from wind energy, fossil fuel power plants, communication towers, roadway vehi- cles, or bird strike at buildings and windows. Even the loss of habitat due to solar facilities has been identified as secondary to other anthropo- genic changes, such as urbanisation [113], and the biodiversity costs of solar facilities need to be balanced out with the benefits of switching from fossil fuel to solar power generation. However, despite these comparisons, it is still important to be cog- nisant that not all species are affected by solar facilities in the same way, and we need to monitor impacts appropriately to determine such effects. Smallwood [7] makes a strong case for the need to account for bias in mortality estimates (e.g., carcass disappearance due to decomposition or removal by scavengers), and here I present data showing that the methods and location of monitoring also influences the interpretation of potential impacts (see Section 3.3, Fig. 7). We also need to understand the ecological and conservation significance of mortality impacts, which depends on quantifying implications of mortality on populations (i.e., size and trends) and life-history traits (e.g., pace of life and reproductive strategy) for threatened species [21]. For example, a recent study found that of 23 priority species colliding at wind and solar facilities, 11 (48 %) were vulnerable to population-level effects [114], especially non-local, nocturnal migrant species. There is an urgent need to understand how ground-mounted solar farms affect biodiversity, as the exponential growth of this renewable energy source is resulting in large-scale land-use conversion throughout the world. At the end of 2023, an estimated 37,900 km2 of the earth’s surface was covered by solar facilities, which are likely to be killing an estimated total 17.3 million birds per annum. The vast expanses of solar panels as part of utility-scale solar facilities are a new type of anthro- pogenically transformed landscape. Understanding the potential risks to wildlife will help planning to ensure that we do not mitigate greenhouse gas at an avoidable cost to biodiversity conservation. Credit author statement Conceptualisation PAF; Data curation PAF; Investigation PAF; Roles/ Writing PAF. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re- lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Patricia A. Fleming reports financial support and article publishing charges were provided by Murdoch University. Patricia A. Fleming re- ports a relationship with Fortescue Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Acknowledgements Murdoch University for salary and meeting publishing charges. Damien Cancilla, Lazaro Roque-albelo and Todd Edwards (Fortescue Ltd.) for comments and financial support. Data availability No data was used for the research described in the article. References [1]Maka AOM, Ghalut T, Elsaye E. The pathway toward decarbonisation and net- zero emissions by 2050: the role of solar energy technology. Green Technologies and Sustainability 2024;2:100107. [2]Hernandez RR, Easter S, Murphy-Mariscal ML, Maestre FT, Tavassoli M, Allen EB, et al. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 2014;29:766–79.[3]Kagan RA, Viner TC, Trail PW, Espinoza EO. Avian mortality at solar energy facilities in southern California: a preliminary analysis. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory 2014;28:1–28.[4]Walston Jr LJ, Rollins KE, LaGory KE, Smith KP, Meyers SA. A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renew Energy 2016;92:405–14. [5]Brennan B, Murphy J, DeGennaro D. A guide to responsible development of wind and solar resources on public lands and waters. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation; 2023.[6]Energy Institute. Statistical review of World Energy Data. 2024. https://www. energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads. [7]Smallwood KS. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. J Wildl Manag 2022; 86:e22216.[8]Montag H, Parker G, Clarkson T. The effects of solar farms on local biodiversity: a comparative study. Clarkson and Woods and Wychwood Biodiversity. 2016.[9]Graham M, Ates S, Melathopoulos AP, Moldenke AR, DeBano SJ, Best LR, Higgins CW. Partial shading by solar panels delays bloom, increases floral abundance during the late-season for pollinators in a dryland, agrivoltaic ecosystem. Sci Rep 2021;11:1–13.[10]DeVault TL, Seamans TW, Schmidt JA, Belant JL, Blackwell BF, Mooers N, et al. Bird use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: implications for aviation safety. Landsc Urban Plann 2014;122:122–8.[11]Copping JP, Waite CE, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Field RH, Morris I, Finch T. Solar farm management influences breeding bird responses in an arable- dominated landscape. Bird Study 2025:1–6. [12]Golawski A, Mitrus C, Jankowiak Ł. Increased bird diversity around small-scale solar energy plants in agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2025;379: 109361.[13]Szabadi KL, Kurali A, Rahman NAA, Froidevaux JSP, Tinsley E, Jones G, et al. The use of solar farms by bats in mosaic landscapes: implications for conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation 2023;44:e02481.[14]Diehl R, Robertson B, Kosciuch K. Investigating the “Lake Effect” influence on avian behavior from California’s utility-scale photovoltaic solar facilities. Energy research and development Division. California Energy Commission; 2024. Final Project Report. [15]Kaplan G. Human-caused high direct mortality in birds: Unsustainable trends and ameliorative actions. Animals 2024;15:73.[16]Visser E, Perold V, Ralston-Paton S, Cardenal AC, Ryan PG. Assessing the impacts of a utility-scale photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Renew Energy 2019;133:1285–94. [17]Jarˇcuˇska B, G´alffyov´a M, Schnürmacher R, Bal´aˇz M, Miˇsík M, Repel M, et al. Solar parks can enhance bird diversity in agricultural landscape. J Environ Manag 2024;351:119902. [18]Karban CC, Lovich JE, Grodsky SM, Munson SM. Predicting the effects of solar energy development on plants and wildlife in the Desert Southwest, United States. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2024;205:114823.[19]Lovich JE, Ennen JR. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, United States. Bioscience 2011;61:982–92. [20]Anderson CM, Hopkins AP, Anderson JT. Assessing the impact of solar farms on waterbirds: a literature review of ecological interactions and habitat alterations. Conservation 2025;5:4.[21]G´omez-Catasús J, Morales MB, Giralt D, del Portillo DG, Manzano-Rubio R, Sol´e- Bujalance L, et al. Solar photovoltaic energy development and biodiversity conservation: current knowledge and research gaps. Conserv Lett 2024;17: e13025.[22]Rudman J, Gauch´e P, Esler KJ. Direct environmental impacts of solar power in two arid biomes: an initial investigation. South Afr J Sci 2017;113:1–13. [23]World Bank Group. World - photovoltaic power potential (PVOUT) GIS data. Global Solar Atlas) 2024. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/ 0038641.[24]Global Energy Monitor. Global solar power tracker, global energy monitor and TransitionZero. February 2025 release. 2025. https://globalenergymonitor.or g/projects/global-solar-power-tracker/download-data/. [25]Lilliestam J, Ollier L, Labordena M, Pfenninger S, Thonig R. The near-to mid-term outlook for concentrating solar power: mostly cloudy, chance of sun. Energy Sources B Energy Econ Plann 2021;16:23–41.[26]Roser M. Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?. 2020. Published online at OurWorldinDataorg Retrieved from: https://ourworldindataorg/cheap-renewabl es-growth [Online Resource]. Global Change Data Lab, UK: Our World in Data.[27]IEA. Solar PV; latest findings. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2020.[28]McCrary MD, McKernan RL, Schreiber RW, Wagner WD, Sciarrotta TC. Avian mortality at a solar energy power plant. J Field Ornithol 1986;57:135–41. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 14 271 [29]Bechtel. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System. California, USA. Reston, Verginia, USA: Bechtel Corporation; 2024.[30]Harvey HT, Associates. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan 2013-2014 Annual Report (Revised). Fresno. 2015. California: Report Number TN#204258, 07-AFC-05C. [31]Ho CK. Review of avian mortality studies at concentrating solar power plants. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing; 2016.[32]Blaydes H, Potts SG, Whyatt JD, Armstrong A. Opportunities to enhance pollinator biodiversity in solar parks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;145: 111065. [33]WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. June. Nipton, California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2016. 2014-2015 Annual Report and Two Year Comparison. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and vol. III. [34]Jeal C, Perold V, Ralston-Paton S, Ryan PG. Impacts of a concentrated solar power trough facility on birds and other wildlife in South Africa. Ostrich 2019;90: 129–37.[35]Kitazawa M, Yamaura Y, Senzaki M, Kawamura K, Hanioka M, Nakamura F. An evaluation of five agricultural habitat types for openland birds: abandoned farmland can have comparative values to undisturbed wetland. Ornithol Sci 2019;18:3–16.[36]Tinsley E, Froidevaux JSP, Zseb˝ok S, Szabadi KL, Jones G. Renewable energies and biodiversity: impact of ground-mounted solar photovoltaic sites on bat activity. J Appl Ecol 2023;60:1752–62.[37]Barr´e K, Baudouin A, Froidevaux JSP, Chartendrault V, Kerbiriou C. Insectivorous bats alter their flight and feeding behaviour at ground-mounted solar farms. J Appl Ecol 2024;61:328–39. [38]Valera F, ˇS´alek M, Bolonio L, V´aclav R. Comment on “Solar parks can enhance bird diversity in agricultural landscape” by Jarˇcuˇska et al. J Environ Manag 2024; 366:121781.[39]Smith JP, Lenihan CM, Zirpoli JA. Golden Eagle breeding response to utility-scale solar development and prolonged drought in California. J Raptor Res 2020;54: 154–65. [40]Zaplata MK, Dullau S. Applying ecological succession theory to birds in solar parks: an approach to address protection and planning. Land 2022;11:718.[41]Tsafack N, Fang W, Wang X, Xie Y, Wang X, Fattorini S. Influence of grazing and solar panel installation on tenebrionid beetles (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) of a central Asian steppe. J Environ Manag 2022;320:115791. [42]Suuronen A, Mu˜noz-Escobar C, Lensu A, Kuitunen M, Guajardo Celis N, Espinoza Astudillo P, et al. The influence of solar power plants on microclimatic conditions and the biotic community in Chilean desert environments. Environ Manag 2017;60:630–42. [43]Wikipedia. List of photovoltaic power stations Wikimedia Foundation. Inc.; 2025. a non-profit organization.[44]Gaughan R. How much land is needed for wind turbines?. 2022.[45]Saul-Gershenz L, Kimsey L, Williams NM, Zavortink T, Thorp R, Davis CA, et al. Characterization of the impact on native bees from utility scale solar development in the desert (BLM Grant 2015-2016). 2018.[46]Tinsley E, Froidevaux JSP, Jones G. The location of solar farms within England’s ecological landscape: implications for biodiversity conservation. J Environ Manag 2024;372:123372. [47]Valera F, Bolonio L, La Calle A, Moreno E. Deployment of solar energy at the expense of conservation sensitive areas precludes its classification as an environmentally sustainable activity. Land 2022;11:2330.[48]Wynne-Sison T, Devitt DA, Smith SD. Ecovoltaics: maintaining native plants and wash connectivity inside a Mojave Desert solar facility leads to favorable growing conditions. Land 2023;12:1950.[49]Barron-Gafford GA, Minor RL, Allen NA, Cronin AD, Brooks AE, Pavao- Zuckerman MA. The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: larger solar power plants increase local temperatures. Sci Rep 2016;6:35070. [50]Guoqing L, Hernandez RR, Blackburn GA, Davies G, Hunt M, Whyatt JD, Armstrong A. Ground-mounted photovoltaic solar parks promote land surface cool islands in arid ecosystems. Renew Sustain Energy Transit 2021;1:100008.[51]Lambert Q, Bischoff A, Gros R. Effects of habitat restoration and solar panels on soil properties and functions in solar parks. Appl Soil Ecol 2024;203:105614. [52]Martin JC. Ecosystem enriching and efficient solar energy facilities: exploring the effects of pollinator-friendly solar facilities on ecological function and solar panel efficiency [MSc]. The College of William and Mary; 2022.[53]Adeh EH, Selker JS, Higgins CW. Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency. PLoS One 2018;13: e0203256. [54]Uldrijan D, ˇCerný M, Winkler J. Solar park: opportunity or threat for vegetation and ecosystem. Journal of Ecological Engineering 2022;23:1–10.[55]Tanner K, Moore K, Pavlik B. Measuring impacts of solar development on desert plants. Fremontia 2014;42:15–6. [56]Tanner KE, Moore-O’Leary KA, Parker IM, Pavlik BM, Hernandez RR. Simulated solar panels create altered microhabitats in desert landforms. Ecosphere 2020;11: e03089.[57]Cypher BL, Boroski BB, Burton RK, Meade DE, Phillips SE, Leitner P, et al. Photovoltaic solar farms in California: can we have renewable electricity and our species, too. California Fish and Wildlife 2021;107:231–48.[58]Visser E. The impact of South Africa’s largest photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town; 2016. [59]Kosciuch K, Riser-Espinoza D, Moqtaderi C, Erickson W. Aquatic habitat bird occurrences at photovoltaic solar energy development in Southern California, USA. Diversity 2021;13:524. [60]Riker S. Wildlife-friendly solar energy in the Mojave desert. Case study by the conservation and Adaptation resources Toolbox (CART). 2019.[61]Vargas-Bernal R. Nanocoatings for energy generation and conservation of solar cells. Sustainable approach to protective nanocoatings. IGI Global 2024:88–112. [62]Tammaro M, Salluzzo A, Rimauro J, Schiavo S, Manzo S. Experimental investigation to evaluate the potential environmental hazards of photovoltaic panels. J Hazard Mater 2016;306:395–405.[63]Herbst DB. Salinity controls on trophic interactions among invertebrates and algae of solar evaporation ponds in the Mojave Desert and relation to shorebird foraging and selenium risk. Wetlands 2006;26:475–85.[64]Tan LC, Nancharaiah YV, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PNL. Selenium: environmental significance, pollution, and biological treatment technologies. Biotechnol Adv 2016;34:886–907. [65]Spallholz JE, Hoffman DJ. Selenium toxicity: cause and effects in aquatic birds. Aquat Toxicol 2002;57:27–37.[66]Nemtzov SC, Olsvig-Whittaker L. The use of netting over fishponds as a hazard to waterbirds. Waterbirds 2003;26:416–23. [67]Diehl RH, Valdez EW, Preston TM, Wellik MJ, Cryan PM. Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife detection and observation technologies at a solar power tower facility. PLoS One 2016;11:e0158115.[68]Horv´ath G, Kriska G, Malik P, Robertson B. Polarized light pollution: a new kind of ecological photopollution. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7:317–25. [69]Horv´ath G, Blah´o M, Egri ´A, Kriska G, Seres I, Robertson B. Reducing the maladaptive attractiveness of solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conserv Biol 2010;24:1644–53.[70]Jenkins AR, Ralston-Paton S, Smit-Robinson HA. Birds and solar energy best practice guidelines; Best Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of solar energy facilities on birds in southern Africa. South Africa: BirdLife South Africa2015.[71]Ho CK, Sims CA, Yellowhair J, Wendelin T. Tools to address glare and avian flux hazards from solar energy systems. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA: Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM); 2018. [72]Mostafa MF, Aleem SHEA, Zobaa AF. Risk assessment and possible mitigation solutions for using solar photovoltaic at airports. 2016 eighteenth international middle east power systems conference (MEPCON). IEEE; 2016. p. 81–8.[73]Sreenath S, Sudhakar K, Yusop AF, Cuce E, Solomin E. Analysis of solar PV glare in airport environment: potential solutions. Results Eng 2020;5:100079.[74]Wang H, Guo L, Soares L. Energy Harvesting on New Jersey roadways. New Jersey: Department of Transportation. Bureau of Research; 2023. [75]Wehner R. Polarization vision–a uniform sensory capacity? J Exp Biol 2001;204: 2589–96. [76]Kriska G, Malik P, Sziv´ak I, Horv´ath G. Glass buildings on river banks as “polarized light traps” for mass-swarming polarotactic caddis flies. Naturwissenschaften 2008;95:461–7. [77]Upton J. Solar farms threaten birds. Sci. Am. 2014;27:717–46. [78]Åkesson S. Polarization vision in birds. In: Horv´ath G, editor. Polarization vision and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 299–306.[79]Bern´ath B, Szedenics G, Moln´ar G, Kriska G, Horv´ath G. Visual ecological impact of a peculiar waste oil lake on the avifauna: dual-choice field experiments with water-seeking birds using huge shiny black and white plastic sheets. Arch Nat Conserv Landsc Res 2001;40:1–28.[80]Able KP. Skylight polarization patterns and the orientation of migratory birds. J Exp Biol 1989;141:241–56. [81]Tak´acs P, Sz´az D, Bern´ath B, Pomozi I, Horv´ath G. Polarized light pollution of fixed-tilt photovoltaic solar panels measured by drone-polarimetry and its visual- ecological importance. Remote Sens 2024;16:1177.[82]Kosciuch K, Riser-Espinoza D, Gerringer M, Erickson W. A summary of bird mortality at photovoltaic utility scale solar facilities in the Southwestern US. PLoS One 2020;15:e0232034. [83]Greif S, Siemers BM. Innate recognition of water bodies in echolocating bats. Nat Commun 2010;1:107.[84]Russo D, Cistrone L, Jones G. Sensory ecology of water detection by bats: a field experiment. PLoS One 2012;7:e48144. [85]Horv´ath G. Polarization Sensitivity and insensitivity in bats. In: Horv´ath G, editor. Polarization vision and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 307–12.[86]Kuczek AB. Avian attractiveness to vertically polarized light. Annandale-on- Hudson. New York: Bard College Senior Projects Spring Thesis; 2021. p. 205.[87]Hager SB, Craig ME. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2014;2:e460.[88]Kahle LQ, Flannery ME, Dumbacher JP. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS One 2016;11:e0144600.[89]Greif S, Zseb˝ok S, Schmieder D, Siemers BM. Acoustic mirrors as sensory traps for bats. Science 2017;357:1045–7.[90]Ingeme Y, Bush A, Lumsden L, van Harten E, Bourne S, Reardon T. Hit or miss could mean life or death for juvenile southern bent-wing bats. Australasian Bat Society 2018;50:59. [91]Salata F, Dell’Olmo J, Ciancio V. Agri-voltaics near airport facilities. Reconciling the risk of solar glare with power generation. Sol Energy 2024;275:112653.[92]Kandt A, Romero R. Siting solar photovoltaics at airports. Solar 2014. San Francisco, California: National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL); 2014. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 15 272 [93]Sz´az D, Mih´alyi D, Farkas A, Egri ´A, Barta A, Kriska G, et al. Polarized light pollution of matte solar panels: anti-reflective photovoltaics reduce polarized light pollution but benefit only some aquatic insects. J Insect Conserv 2016;20: 663–75.[94]Shanmugam N, Pugazhendhi R, Madurai Elavarasan R, Kasiviswanathan P, Das N. Anti-reflective coating materials: a holistic review from PV perspective. Energies 2020;13:2631.[95]Horv´ath G. Polarized light pollution and ecological/evolutionary traps Induced by it for polarotactic aquatic insects. In: Horv´ath G, editor. Polarization vision and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 477–560.[96]Black TV, Robertson BA. How to disguise evolutionary traps created by solar panels. J Insect Conserv 2020;24:241–7. [97]Abdul Rahman NA, Firtha G, Szabadi KL, Jones G, Zseb˝ok S. Mitigating the deceptive effects of smooth surfaces: subtle surface modifications can eliminate maladaptive drinking attempts by bats. Anim Conserv 2024;27:788–801.[98]Abmmp Ivanpah. Avian & bat monitoring and management plan. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Revision 2020;14. [99]WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2015-2016 annual report. Prepared for solar partners I, II, and VIII. July. . Nipton. California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2017.[100]WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2016-2017 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. January. Nipton, California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2018.[101]WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating S. Ystem avian & bat monitoring plan. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2019. 2017-2018 Annual Report. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and VIII. January Nipton, California. [102]WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2018-2019 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Nipton. California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2020.[103]WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2019-2020 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Cheyenne. Woyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2021. [104]WEST. Ivanpah solar electric generating system avian & bat monitoring plan. 2020–2021 annual report. Year 8. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology Inc.; 2022. [105]WEST. Ivanpah solar electric generating system avian & bat monitoring plan. 2020-2021 annual report. Year 8. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2023.[106]Gruppi C, Sanzenbacher P, Balekjian K, Hagar R, Hagen S, Rayne C, et al. Genetic identification of avian samples recovered from solar energy installations. PLoS One 2023;18:e0289949. [107]Hamed TA, Alshare A. Environmental impact of solar and wind energy-a review. Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 2022;10:1–23.[108]Horton KG, Nilsson C, Van Doren BM, La Sorte FA, Dokter AM, Farnsworth A. Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Front Ecol Environ 2019;17:209–14.[109]Dacke M, Nilsson D-E, Scholtz CH, Byrne M, Warrant EJ. Insect orientation to polarized moonlight. Nature 2003;424:33. [110]Moore-O’Leary KA, Hernandez RR, Johnston DS, Abella SR, Tanner KE, Swanson AC, et al. Sustainability of utility-scale solar energy–critical ecological concepts. Front Ecol Environ 2017;15:385–94.[111]Vaverkov´a MD, Winkler J, Uldrijan D, Ogrodnik P, Vespalcov´a T, Aleksiejuk- Gawron J, et al. Fire hazard associated with different types of photovoltaic power plants: effect of vegetation management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;162: 112491.[112]Toussaint DC. Chiropteran specialist report for phase 3 of the proposed soventix- solar Africa solar PV facility. Hanover, Northern Cape. 2022.[113]McCoshum SM, Geber MA. Land conversion for solar facilities and urban sprawl in southwest deserts causes different amounts of habitat loss for Ashmeadiella bees. J Kans Entomol Soc 2020;92:468–78.[114]Conkling TJ, Vander Zanden HB, Allison TD, Diffendorfer JE, Dietsch TV, Duerr AE, et al. Vulnerability of avian populations to renewable energy production. R Soc Open Sci 2022;9:211558. P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 16 273 Agenda Item N AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:December 8, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT:City Council Reorganization ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council approve reorganization of the City Council and selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore for 2026. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Annually, the City Council selects one of its members as Mayor and one member as Mayor Pro Tempore. Pursuant to City Charter Section 404, the Mayor shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council and the City Council shall also designate a Mayor Pro Tempore. City Charter Section 404 is attached for reference. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. 2 1 9 0 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve reorganization of the City Council and selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore for 2026. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. City Charter Section 404 Seal Beach Official Charter - 5 - ARTICLE IV ELECTIVE OFFICERS SECTION 400. Elective Officers. The elective officers of the City shall consist of five (5) members of the City Council, one (1) elected from each of the five (5) Councilmanic Districts as prescribed in Article V. The terms of elective officers shall be four (4) years and until their respective successors qualify. The term of each elective officer shall commence on the twenty-first (21st) day following his/her election at the time of the completion of the canvass of the election returns. (Amended 1974, 1978, 2006, 2014) SECTION 401. Eligibility. (Repealed 2002) SECTION 402. Compensation. Compensation for the members of the City Council shall be established by ordinance in accordance with provisions of Sections 36516 and 36516.5 of the State of California Government Code as such provisions now exist or may thereafter be amended. Each member of the City Council shall receive reimbursement for Council authorized expenses in accordance with provisions of Section 36514.5 and 37201 through 37205 of the State of California Government Code. (Amended 1990) SECTION 403. Vacancies. A vacancy in any elective office shall be filled in accordance with state law. (Amended 2006) SECTION 404. City Council. Presiding Officer, Mayor. a) Upon the completion of the canvass of the election returns of any municipal election at which any member or members of the City Council is or are elected, the City Council shall meet and shall elect one (1) of its members as its presiding officer, who shall have the title of Mayor. The Mayor shall have a voice and vote in all its proceedings. The Mayor shall be the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes. The Mayor shall also act in a liaison capacity between the City Council and the City Manager, and in such capacity shall advise the City Manager on matters of Council Policy. The Mayor shall perform such other duties consistent with the office as may be prescribed by this Charter or as may be imposed by the City Council. The Mayor shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. b) Mayor Pro Tempore. At the same time as a Mayor is selected, the City Council shall also designate one (1) of its members as Mayor Pro Tempore, who shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of Seal Beach Official Charter - 6 - the City Council. The Mayor Pro Tempore shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor’s absence or disability. (Amended 1974) SECTION 405. Powers Vested in the City Council. All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter. SECTION 406. Interference in Administrative Service. Neither the City Council nor any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his/her powers and duties; or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the department heads in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or removal therefrom. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager and neither the City Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately. SECTION 407. Meetings. The City Council shall hold regular meetings at least once each month in accordance with the Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.), as such statute now exists or may hereafter be amended, at such times, as it shall fix by ordinance or resolution. The City Council may adjourn or re-adjourn any meeting and may call special meetings, in accordance with the Brown Act. If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, such regular meeting may be held thereafter prior to the next regular meeting. (Amended 2002) SECTION 408. Special Meetings (Repealed 2002 – Superseded by Section 407) SECTION 409. Place of Meeting. All meetings shall be held in such place, as the City Council shall fix by ordinance or resolution, or in such place to which any such meeting may be adjourned and shall be open to the public. If, by reason of fire, flood, or other emergency, it shall be unsafe to meet in the place designated, the meetings will be held for the duration of the emergency at such place as is designated by the Mayor, or if he/she should fail to act, by three (3) members of the City Council. SECTION 410. Quorum. Proceedings. A majority of the members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a less number may adjourn from time to time. In the absence of all of the members of the City Council from any regular meeting, the City Clerk may declare the same adjourned to a stated day and hour. Notice of a meeting adjourned by less than a quorum or by the Clerk shall be given by the Clerk or may be waived by consent in the same manner as specified in this Charter for the giving or waiving of notice of special meetings of the City Council, but need not specify the matters to be acted upon.