Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Packet 02092026REVISED A G E N D A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, February 9, 2026 ~ 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California LISA LANDAU MAYOR Third District BEN WONG MAYOR PRO TEM Second District JOE KALMICK COUNCIL MEMBER First District PATTY SENECAL COUNCIL MEMBER Fourth District NATHAN STEELE COUNCIL MEMBER Fifth 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 •Orange County Fire Authority Division 1 Update •Seal Beach Baseball Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Donation •Starlink Presentation •Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) Presentation 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. Emailed Comment from Chad Berlinghieri Emailed Comment from Daniella Gavriel Emailed Comment from Chelsea Mcneil Emailed Comment from Steve Tyler Emailed Comment from Stu Woodward Emailed Comment from Marissa Vega Emailed Comment from Lauren Helm Emailed Comment from Neysa Frechette Emailed Comment from Tracy Drake  Emailed Comment from Dorothy Gutierrez Emailed Comment from Melanie Russell Emailed Comment from Ian Rhodes Emailed Comment from Lizerre Ashcraft Emailed Comment from Jill Brennan Emailed Comment from John Husek Emailed Comment from Shaun Apffel Emailed Comment from Phyllis Schmidt Emailed Comment from John Lanzone Emailed Comment from Cynthia Roberts Emailed Comment from Andrew Briones Emailed Comment from Steve Tyler Emailed Comment from Eryn Oelstrom Emailed Comment from Tom Hazelleaf Emailed Comment from Joel Garcia Emailed Comment from David Michalik Emailed Comment from Joyce Shuford Emailed Comment from Lainey Atwood Emailed Comment from Julia Meng Emailed Comment from Michelle N. Black Emailed Comment from Los Cerritos Wetlands Trust Emailed Comment from Elizabeth Lambe Public Comment from Police Captain Nicholas 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 – None 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 Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 26, 2026. C.Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) - Ratification. D.City of Seal Beach Annual Audit Reports for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025 - That the City Council receive and file the following documents for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2025: A. Audit Communication Letter B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report C. Appropriations Limit Final Report E.Letter  of  Support  for  Senate  Bill  758  - Substance  Control  and  Retail Integrity Act - That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of support for Senate Bill 758 (SB 758), the Substance Control and Retail Integrity Act, which would prohibit all licensed Cigarette and Tobacco retailers (except grocery stores) from selling nitrous oxide to prevent misuse of the chemical. F.Application  for  Water  Recycling  Funding  Program  Planning  Grant through  the State  Water  Resources  Control Board - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7733: 1. Approving the Financial Assistance Grant Application related to the Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant through the State Water Resources Control Board for the Seal Beach Recycled Water Feasibility Study, and authorizing and directing the City Manager, or designee, to sign and file for and on behalf of the City, said Financial Assistance Grant Application for the grant; and, 2. Designating and directing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, recognize, provide for the assurance, certifications, and commitments required for the Financial Assistance Grant Application, including executing a financial assistance agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board, and any amendments or changes thereto, and to recognize and amend the City’s budget to incorporate funding, and utilize the grant funding pursuant to the grant program; and, 3. Designating the City Manager, or designee, to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the grant agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws. G.Approving  and  Awarding  a  Public  Works  Agreement  with  Garland/DBS, Inc., and  Approving  Expenses  Related  to  Testing, Abatement, and Repairs  for  the  Marina  Community  Center  Roof  Replacement, CIP BG2506 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7734: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement with Garland/DBS, Inc., in the not-to-exceed amount of $307,489 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve additional work requests up to $30,800 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $10,000 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $40,800; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses up to the amount of $15,000 for Moisture Assessment and Building Materials Testing and $25,000 for Abatement Services, in connection with the Project; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses for building repair up to $50,000, in connection with the Project. H.Approving an Amendment to the Classification Plan and Designating the Pay Grade and Status  of the Human Resources  Specialist  Classification - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7735: 1. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to add the Human Resources Specialist position, and designating this job classification to Grade 20 on the Seal Beach Full- Time Pay Schedule; and, 2. Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Position Allocation Plan to include one (1) full-time Human Resources Specialist. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING I.Staff recommends the continuance of this public hearing to the February 23, 2026  Regular  Meeting  of  the  City  Council.  A staff  report  will  not  be given, and the City Council will take no action, on this appeal during the City Council’s February 9, 2026 meeting. 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: 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 7736 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, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and 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 – None ADJOURNMENT Adjourn the City Council to Monday, February 23, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary.                                  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 Starlink Communications Redundancy Pilot Program & Five-Year Implementation Plan Information Item Seal Beach City Council Presenter:Emergency Services Sergeant Brian Gray Date:February 9, 2026 Goal: Ensure the City can maintain voice + data communications during outages by adding satellite internet as a resilient backup. Why we are doing this City of Seal Beach February 9, 2026 Traditional connectivity can fail in emergencies. • Cell towers, fiber lines, and power can be disrupted, damaged, or overloaded. • Congestion can limit voice, data, and access to critical applications when demand spikes. • A satellite-based backup adds a separate, independent path for internet connectivity. • The goal is continuity of operations for public safety, City services, and emergency response. Communications Paths Primary Landline + Cellular Backup Satellite Internet What Starlink is and how it works City of Seal Beach February 9, 2026 Starlink uses a constellation of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites to provide internet access. 1) Satellites A network of LEO satellites provides coverage with low latency. 2) User terminal A dish (Mini or Standard) connects to the satellites and creates a local Wi-Fi network. 3) Internet access Devices connect via Wi-Fi for voice, data, video, and mission-critical applications. Intended use cases for the City City of Seal Beach February 9, 2026 What this enables during an outage: • Wi-Fi calling / VoIP on City phones when cellular service is unavailable. • Access to vital emergency software and cloud tools from impacted or remote areas. • A backup communications plan for City operations if infrastructure fails. • Support for field command posts, EOC functions, and continuity of public-facing services. Near-term focus: evaluate performance, reliability, coverage, and practical deployment needs across City sites and mobile operations. Hardware options: Mini vs Standard City of Seal Beach February 9, 2026 Starlink Mini Best for vehicles and rapid deployment Starlink Standard Best for fixed sites / facilities • Compact, portable kit • Built-in router • Runs on DC power • Rated for in-motion use (up to ~100 mph) • Wi-Fi range ~1,200 sq ft • Larger dish, slightly better performance • Typically paired with a router • Strong option for facilities • Suitable for everyday internet applications • Supports stable fixed-site connectivity Five-year implementation plan and total estimated costs City of Seal Beach February 9, 2026 Phased rollout (hardware + installation + data) Year 1 Pilot (Testing) 3 Starlink Mini units for mobile testing in multiple City areas. Year 2 Key Buildings Standard dishes at City Hall, PD, Lifeguard HQ, Fire Station #44 and #48; training. Year 3 Additional Facilities Expand to Tennis Center, Marina Community Center, North Community Center. Year 4 Vehicles (7) Equip 7 priority police/emergency vehicles with Minis; field testing and training. Year 5 Vehicles (8) Equip remaining 8 vehicles with Minis; full fleet coverage. Year 1 is underway now: three Starlink Mini units are being tested by IT Manager Kevin Edwards for performance and deployment practicality. Thank You! Email:bgray@sealbeachca.gov Phone:(562) 799-4100 ext. 1145 QUESTIONS? City of Seal Beach AU-C 260 Communication With Those Charge With Governance For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Presented by: Sophia Kuo, CPA, MBA Engagement Partner 2 CONTENTS •Required Communications (AU-C 260) •Overview of Financial Statements •Key Pension and OPEB Information •Audit Results 2/24/2025 3 Required Communications (AU-C 260) Required Communications (AU-C 260) •Our Responsibility in Accordance with Professional Standards •Form and express an opinion about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. •Plan and perform the audit to obtain “reasonable” assurance (not “absolute” assurance) about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatements. •Consider internal control over financial reporting. Such considerations are solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. •Conclude there are no conditions or events that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern. •Communicate with those charged with governance. 4 Required Communications (AU-C 260) •Ethics and Independence •Complied with ALL relevant ethical requirements regarding independence. •Significant Accounting Policies •The City of Seal Beach disclosed all significant accounting policies in Note 1 to the financial statements. •Implementation of GASB 101 - Compensated Absences. •Implementation of GASB 102 - Certain Risk Disclosures. •Significant Estimates •Investment Fair Value •Depreciation and amortization on Capital Assets •Net Pension Liability •Net OPEB Liability 5 Required Communications (AU-C 260) •Sensitive Disclosures •Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies •Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans •Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan •Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies •Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure •Note 15 – Restatements •Misstatements •No material uncorrected misstatement 6 Required Communications (AU-C 260) •Consultation with Other Accountants •Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and other matters. •Significant Difficulties •We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management. •Disagreement with Management •We did not have any disagreement with management in terms of accounting treatments nor audit procedures performed. 7 8 OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 9 City of Seal BeachGovernment-Wide SummaryAs of June 30, 2025 and 2024 2024 2025 (as restated)Change30283028 Net Position: Governmental-Activities 104,064,000$ 102,267,000$ 1,797,000$ Business-type Activities 46,555,000 46,144,000 411,000 Total Net Position 150,619,000 148,411,000 2,208,000 10 City of Seal BeachGovernment-Wide Summary (Continued)For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Program Expenses 54,562,000$ 9,018,000$ 63,580,000$ Program Revenues 14,555,000 8,836,000 23,391,000 Net Cost of Services (40,007,000) (182,000) (40,189,000) General Revenues 41,804,000 593,000 42,397,000 Change in Net Position 1,797,000$ 411,000$ 2,208,000$ 11 City of Seal BeachGeneral Fund SummaryFor the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Revenue 51,562,000$ Expenditures 46,877,000 Revenue over Expenditures 4,685,000 Net Other Financing Sources (Uses)(1,805,000) Net Change in Fund Balance 2,880,000 Fund Balance at July 1, 2024 39,469,000 Fund Balance at June 30, 2025 42,349,000$ 12 City of Seal BeachCalPERS Pension Plan Misc Safety Total 2024 Total Pension Liability 59,326,000$ 113,169,000$ 172,495,000$ 165,989,000$ Fiduciary Net Position 41,544,000 79,383,000 120,927,000 113,520,000 Net Pension Liability 17,782,000$ 33,786,000$ 51,568,000$ 52,469,000$ Funding Ratio 70.03%70.15%70.10%68.39% Contribution Made 2,031,000$ 4,644,000$ 6,675,000$ 6,078,000$ 2025 13 City of Seal BeachOther Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) 2025 2024 Total OPEB Liability 11,403,000$ 11,553,000$ Fiduciary Net Position 8,861,000 7,834,000 Net OPEB Liability 2,542,000$ 3,719,000$ Funding Ratio 77.71%67.81% Contribution Made 816,000$ 965,000$ 14 AUDIT RESULTS Audit Results •Financial Statements •Unmodified opinion •Financial Statements are fairly presented in all material respects. •Significant accounting policies have been consistently applied. •Estimates are reasonable. •Disclosures are properly reflected in the financial statements. •AU-C 265, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit •None Reported 15 16 HQ - ORANGE COUNTY 6 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 1200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 SAN DIEGO 4660 La Jolla Village Dr. Suite 100 San Diego CA 92122 BAY AREA 2121 North California Blvd. Suite 290 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 LAS VEGAS 1980 Festival Plaza Drive Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89135 SACRAMENTO 1511 Corporate Way Suite 220 Sacramento, CA 95831 PHOENIX 2 N. Central Avenue Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004 PATRIOTIC HOLIDAYS ANNUAL FLAG SUBSCRIPTION Support Seal Beach City Rotary and the USA by displaying a full-size American flag in your front yard to show your Patriotism! I CALL NOW TO RESERVE YOUR INSTALLATION APPOINTMENT! (562)509-8640 Your Donation is 100% deductible. Your support helps us with the nonprofits we serve: Precious Life, Precious Lamb, Long Beach Rescue Mission, Crime Survivors, Ronald McDonald House, 99th St. Elementary School, Father-Con & more! Seal Beach City Rotary�•""" SealBeachCityRotary@gmail.com www.SealBeachCityRotary.com 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Daniella Gavriel <dgavriel11@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 4:04 PM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Hellman Solar Farm Project Hello, I am writing to express my concerns for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. As a local resident, I believe a full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. This project is proposed adjacent to a large restoration project that took many years to approve and start. This solar farm will negatively impact 5 more acres of wetland and coastal habitat in an already saturated and heavily urbanized environment, which will only lead to more fragmented habitat. Solar farms cause a heat island surrounding them and this one is proposed on critical habitat for multiple endangered species. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. Best, Daniella Gavriel 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Chelsea Mcneil <ilovebutter27@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 3:01 PM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Enviornmental review I am writing to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. Other talking points:  The wetlands and the proposed area are part of the Pacific Flyway, where birds migrate up and down the coast. Solar panels may harm or disorient the birds when flying.  5 acres of habitat will be damaged or disturbed during construction, including removing native plants and endangered tarplant.  This project will not benefit the community, and will only benefit private oil operations.  Solar panels can be sited on top of existing buildings instead of in our last remaining open spaces.  Large solar farms can cause a local heat island effect, warming nearby neighborhoods and habitats.  This project has not considered the full scope of envoirnmental impacts. Thank you, Chelsea Arrizon 1 Gloria Harper From:Steve Tyler <abc3dtd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 7:42 AM To:Shaun Temple Attachments:coastal commission packed house.JPG; Coastal Commission display board with clock.JPG No need to repeat my prior email but there must be a full EIR on the proposed solar project. I imagine this could well be tied up via lawsuits, just as the Poseidon Project that was finally denied by the CCC, a meeting I attended after fighting against it for years. Stephen Tyler Orange 1 Gloria Harper From:s woodward <therealswoodward@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 10:57 AM To:Shaun Temple Cc:elizabeth@lcwlandtrust.org Subject:Wildlife habitat or solar panels Dear Interim Community Development Director, California has lost more than 90% of its historical wetlands and now, many of the remaining wetlands are afflicted by pollution and encroachment. You are in charge of protecting and preserving this cherished habitat. It is not only a home for wildlife, it is a sanctuary for enjoying nature. Putting in solar panels means complete destruction of the precious habitat at the installation site. It is no better than putting in a parking lot. It is NOT environmentally friendly. I am all for solar energy, but not here for God’s sake! Solar panels belong on rooftops and parking lots, not in place of treasured wildlife habitats. -Stu Woodward 1 Gloria Harper From:Marissa Vega <marissamvega@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 10:21 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar Panel Project To whom it may concern: I am writing to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. I am passionate about our preserved ecological open spaces and this project would damage 5 acres of critical habitat for our local flora and fauna. Unfortunately, this project will only benefit big oil companies. Please provide confirmation of receipt of this email. Thank you, Marissa Vega 1 Gloria Harper From:Lauren Helm <Lhelm@losal.org> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 9:47 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:EIR - Hellman Solar Farm Project To the Seal Beach City Council, My name is Lauren Helm, and I am the Environmental Science teacher at Los Alamitos High School. As an educator and a community member, I am writing to formally advocate for a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed Hellman Solar Farm Project. While transitioning to renewable energy is a vital step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such projects should be balanced with the preservation of our existing local ecosystems. The Los Cerritos Wetlands serve as a critical ecological resource, providing essential wildlife habitat and acting as a natural buffer for flood control and storm impact absorption. A comprehensive EIR is necessary to:  Assess how the installation may affect native species and migratory patterns within the wetlands.  Ensure that the project does not compromise the wetlands’ ability to manage storm runoff.  Allow the community to weigh the trade-offs and implement adjustments that protect our natural resources while pursuing green energy. As a community, we have a responsibility to ensure that green initiatives do not inadvertently come at the cost of our most sensitive ecosystems. A full EIR will provide the transparency and data needed to make an informed decision for the future of Seal Beach. Thank you for your time and for your dedication to our environment and community. Lauren Helm Science Teacher Los Alamitos High School 562-799-4780 x82279 Support our Classroom! https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/31LTRYV3OXSPK?ref_=wl_share 2 1 Gloria Harper From:Neysa Frechette <nkfrechette@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 9:37 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Hellman Oil Field Solar Array Dear Mr. Temple, This email is in response to an item on this evening’s City Council Agenda. I work in an around the Los Cerritos Wetlands and I am concerned about the proposed project for a solar array to power the oil infrastructure at the Hellman property. Not only will this project result in environmental damages from impacts of solar panels and increasing fossil fuel emissions from oil, but it also prolongs the life of the oilfield that must ultimately be restored to wetlands. Remnant wetlands are few and far between and they must be throughly protected. The solar project should be denied or a t least require a full EIR and significant mitigation and ultimately fund the restoration of the land after the oilfield is retired. Thank you for your time, Neysa Frechette 1 Gloria Harper From:Tracy Drake <tdrakehawk@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 8:18 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar panels at Cerritos wetlands Good morning Mr. Temple, As a previous naturalist and manager for all of the Parks in Torrance and for the Madrona Marsh Preserve, I have been following this project very closely for many, many years. It has the potential of being amazing and resource as an incredible biological resource for residential and migratory flora and fauna. While I am excited that there will be in the future and have been improvements to the Cerritos wetlands, I am still concerned about the solar panels installation project. Even though the footprint has been reduced an EIR is necessary because the scope of work still has the panels located so near critical habitat. I am a birder and a naturalist. With everything that is happening with the climate lately, it is incumbent upon we who are stewards of land to take responsible actions and make or help others make excellent decisions based on the health of these wetlands, far into future. Please share these thoughts with the city council. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me. Thank you for your time and consideration, Tracy Drake Long Beach 1 Gloria Harper From:Dorothy Gutierrez <totomom87@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 6:15 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Seal Beach City Council I reside in Cerritos, many memories were made from visits to Seal Beach. It has and will remain a "community' beach area. I am now a member of the Sierra Club in order to become aware of environmental concerns. Los Cerritos along with Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserves are the remaining few wetlands. I am requesting an EIR be performed to determine the future impact of solar panels. This decision should take into account future generations of memories. Regards Dorothy Gutierrez 1 Gloria Harper From:Melanie Russell <lineberger.melanie@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 2:27 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Hellman Solar Project Concern Dear Mr. Temple, I am writing to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. As a frequent visitor of the Gum Grove nature preserve, I’m concerned about this project’s impacts on the Pacific Flyway and migrating birds. I live nearby in east Long Beach and visit Gum Grove at least once a week, so I care deeply about the future of this space and community. Thank you, Melanie Lineberger (562) 374-1303 1 Gloria Harper From:Ian Rhodes <ianrhodeswp@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 8, 2026 10:11 PM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Comments on Hellman solar project Hello, I am writing to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. These are the last intact stretches of wild land in the seal beach - Long Beach area, and they deserve full protection. Solar panels are a great, innovative addition to the city, but they should be put on rooftops, not land with immense ecological potential. Thank you, Ian Rhodes 1 Gloria Harper From:Lizette Ashcraft <LAshcraft@nlmusd.k12.ca.us> Sent:Friday, February 6, 2026 5:14 PM To:Shaun Temple Cc:elizabeth@lcwlandtrust.org Subject:Regional Concerns - Proposed Solar Project Adjacent to Seal Beach Wetlands Dear Project Manager Shaun Temple and Seal Beach City Council, I am concerned about the proposed solar project adjacent to the sensitive wetland ecological area in Seal Beach and to request a thorough environmental review before the project proceeds. While I am not a resident of Seal Beach, these wetlands are important to our entire region. They are interconnected to: - Essential habitat for migratory birds - Coastal water quality and marine ecosystems - Flood control, so necessary for protecting residents' homes - Biodiversity conservation I have solar panels on my own home and love them, but I am not so sure about solar panels near a delicate eco sensitive area. I respectfully urge the City Council to require a comprehensive environmental impact review that evaluates: - Full scope of wetland impacts - Alternative locations - Mitigation measures if impacts cannot be avoided - Long-term ecological effects These regional wetland resources deserve protection through rigorous environmental review. Kind regards, Lizette Ashcraft, Lakewood resident 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:jill brennan <jillbrennan2014@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 6, 2026 3:14 PM To:Shaun Temple Cc:jill brennan Subject:Wetlands proposed solar farm on City Council agenda again Dear Mr. Temple, I am writing again to express my opposition to the Hellman Ranch proposed solar field on the Wetlands below Heron Pointe. There are many other options for this proposed solar farm. There are no other options to replace the wetlands. As you know, almost 98% of California Wetlands have disappeared due to development. Please save this historic and sacred land and vital, irreplaceable ecological system. As a longtime resident of Seal Beach I remember the recent history of Hellman property development plans. In 1981, the SB City Council approved a proposal for 1,000 homes on this land (!). The CA Coastal Commission denied it as it did not provide for wetlands conservation. In 1989, a proposal for 329 homes was blocked. in 1990, the City Council voted no on this proposal for 329 homes. In 1991, this proposal was taken to the citizens of Seal Beach by Mola Homes, and it was voted down. In 1996, another proposal arose for 70 homes and an 18 hole golf course. A lawsuit was filed, and the proposal was denied. in 1999, Hellman proposed 70 new homes, and in 2001 the grading for Heron Pointe began. It was stopped temporarily as it uncovered a Native American burial ground with 22 souls. In 2003, the builder agreed to re-bury the remains and to build a cultural interpretive area. The number of homes was reduced to 64. Why destroy more ancient history and the essential Wetlands that have supported this sacred land and wildlife for thousands of years? Thank you in advance for saving this last vestige of wetlands and priceless cultural history. Please be a good ancestor to future generations. Please Hellman Ranch, let your legacy be that you saved these Wetlands. It appears the SB City Website is down this afternoon, so I ask that you pass this on to all the City Council members when the website is functional again. Respectfully submitted, Jill Brennan Concerned Seal Beach citizen 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:John Husek <j_husek@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 10:51 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar Project Proposal My main concern on this proposal is how will they be mitigating the lake/water effect solar panels have on birds? As you probably know, installations like this can cause birds to crash into them, thinking they are a body of water and being so close to the wetlands, this should be a real concern. I would also like to know if there are any similar sized projects already completed, that we could reach out to and see what problems or solutions they have faced. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the Feb 4th meeting, but if you'd be willing to voice my concerns I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks again for your time on this matter. Sincerely, John Husek 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:sapffelbj@aol.com Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 8:00 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar Project in wetlands Dear Shaun Temple. Please push for a FULL review of the impact of solar projects near these Los Cerritos wetlands. An EIR is NEEDED and should not be skirted over. Your help is needed to help protect what little is left of these precious wetland areas. Thank you Shaun Apffel Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Phyllis Schmidt <plants29@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 10:44 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar Panels Would like solar panels moved to another locaƟon so as not to endanger the Wetlands. Thank you for your consideraƟon . Phyllis Schmidt Sent from my iPhone 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:j lanzone <j.a.lanzone@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 9:03 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar panels near wetlands Please Advance the idea of a full environmental impact report and consider alternative placement of solar panels - possibly mandated on any and all future homes and buildings be in it built. Placing the the panels were the electricity is being used places less stress on the transmission system, and may in the end prevent fires of the sort that we've seen in the last several years attributed to overcharged power lines. Sincerely, John Lanzone, Esq 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Cynthia Roberts <cmroberts4@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 11:42 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Solar Farm Project I am writing to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. I live in the west side of LB, and the wetlands is one of the few natural areas we have nearby. This land must be protected and all possible negative impacts considered before moving forward with this solar project. Thank you, ---- Cynthia Roberts 310-918-0059 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Andrew Briones <andrewbriones198@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 12:32 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Protect the Los Cerritos Wetlands - Request for a full EIR I am writing to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to the sensitive wetland habitat known as Los Cerritos Wetlands. I currently intern here and have come to learn of the great ecological importance and historical significance the this wetland has. The wetlands and the proposed area are part of the Pacific Flyway, where birds migrate up and down the coast. Solar panels may harm or disorient the birds when flying. Additionally, 5 acres of habitat will be damaged or disturbed during construction, including removing native plants and endangered tarplant, a special status species within the wetland. This project will not benefit the community, and will only benefit private oil operations. Furthermore, these wetlands hold significance for local Indigenous groups and are part of their culture and history. Solar panels can be sited on top of existing buildings instead of in our last remaining open spaces. Large solar farms can cause a local heat island effect, warming nearby neighborhoods and habitats. This project has not considered the full scope of environmental & community impacts. A full environmental review is needed to understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Andrew Briones 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Steve Tyler <abc3dtd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 8:19 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Proposed solar project Attachments:Seal Beach trash Nov 2025 alone foto 2.JPG; Seal Beach trash Nov 2025 alone.JPG Along with friends, later my wife, I've been visiting Seal Beach for fifty years. Although I've lived in Whittier, now Orange, your charming community has been a common weekend destination. We've stayed in motels, dined at your eateries, shopped the Main Street stores (not long ago I had a $400 custom body board made at one of the surf shops), and more. Along with friends, I've been volunteering with saveourbeach.org, including the most recent cleanup when I brought another first timer. I've often done this alone, especially after heavy rains. With less than 10% of our coastal wetlands remaining, they are most certainly in dire straits. For the sake of wildlife, the people that enjoy hiking and the environment as a whole, it is crucial they remain intact with no nearby projects that could have detrimental consequences. The proposed solar panels should be placed on the rooftops of buildings, away from the wetlands. Likely more expensive, the cost to our valuable natural resources is far, far greater. Respectfully Stephen Tyler 2564 Franki Orange CA 92865 657 236 7354 February 6th, 2026 RE: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project To Whom it May Concern, I am writing this letter to express my concern over the proposed Solar Panel Construction Project at Hellman Ranch. The proposed construction site is adjacent to a large swath of extremely sensitive wetland habitat. This habitat is vital to endangered bird and plant species and is also the site of a successful restoration process. According to the guidelines expressed in CEQA, this project should absolutely be subject to an Environmental Impact Report before approval by the City Council. The sensitive nature of the adjacent coastal wetland habitat, and the project sites proximity to multiple state and county water resources both contribute to the potential for long-term impacts on the site’s environment. Coastal wetland habitat provides vital ecosystem services and within densely populated areas like Orange County these resources are seriously limited. Any construction or modification of infrastructure that is near these essential habitats needs to be very carefully considered and only approved if necessary. The Hellman Ranch Solar panel project does not fall within this category. The potential for major disruptions to the coastal wetland ecosystem within the adjacent property is moderate to high with any construction project and especially one of this scale. Beyond the potential for pollution and environmental degradation during the construction of these proposed solar panels, there is ample evidence that shows that the presence of solar panels can have a significant change on a localized ecosystem and its inhabitants. Studies have shown that ground mounted photovoltaic solar panels had a negative effect on six local species of bat surveyed within the United Kingdom, including the Common Pipistrelle a native species to the proposed site location. 1 There is also a growing consensus within the ecological community that solar energy facilities and their infrastructure cause more direct harm to a variety of avian species than previously thought. The indiscriminate nature of solar flux injuries causes fatality in many avian taxa including federally endangered subspecies like the Ridgeways Rail. Waterbirds are particularly at risk near infrastructure that include photovoltaic cells which reflect polarized light, as are insectivorous species that are attracted to the increase in insect activity near the PV cell infrastructure. 2 The coastal wetland habitat that is adjacent to the Hellman Ranch Property supports federally protected endangered species including Belding ’s Savannah Sparrow, California Least Tern, and Ridgway’s Rail. There have been significant efforts across federal, state, and local nonprofit organizations to restore and protect the habitat for these species. For the years of conservation work that has taken place to be mitigated and potentially reversed by a construction project that supports the expansion of the oil and gas industry is truly sad for Orange and Los Angeles County residents. I hope that you and the other city council members seriously consider the effects and implications of this decision on the residents of your community and stop this project from moving forward. This coastal wetland habitat is loved and cherished by the local citizens and threatening the sanctity of this natural resource seems entirely unnecessary and feels like a step in the wrong direction. Sincerely, Eryn Oelstrom 1 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.14474 2 https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/118/2/411/5153228 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:T Hazel <cheapcruiser2003@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 5, 2026 10:56 AM To:Patty Senecal Cc:Shaun Temple; Lisa Landau; Ben Wong; Nathan Steele; Joe Kalmick Subject:Hellman solar project The California State Coastal Conservancy awarded the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority over $31 million to restore wetlands adjacent to the proposed Hellman solar development. The California Ocean Protection Council, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and and private and environmental nonprofits provided additional funding. Please don't jeopardize this substantial investment by allowing the Hellman solar project to proceed without a full environmental impact report. From the map, the proposed development appears very close (maybe 10 feet) to the restoration project or private property. There could be impacts on hydrology, threatened and endangered species, glint and glare and views from both private homes and public trails and vista points in the restored wetlands. We know indigenous people have used this area for millennia and without an EIR we won't know the impact their presence will have on the solar development. Please follow the law, protect the public's restoration investment and avoid future legal expenses for the city and developers that may result from premature approval of this project. Require and EIR! Thank you. Tom Hazelleaf 4656 Fir Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Joel Garcia <joel@meztliprojects.org> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 11:18 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Hellman Solar Array Project (Concerns) Dear Mr. Temple, I am writing to express my concern and share my opposition to the Hellman Solar Array Project. If you are unaware, solar projects such as this are being abandoned for their unsustainability. For example, in California, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, PG&E Pilot Solar Plant in Kerman, and the ARCO Carrizo Plain Solar Farm are all at risk of being abandoned or being repurposed. Additionally, the impacts of solar panels can: 1. Create Soil Erosion and Runoff 2. Change Water Flow 3. Create Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 4. Leach Metals into Soil In a place like the wetlands, that danger is magnified because of the fragile nature of the ecosystem. I encourage you to sit down with folks knowledgeable about these impacts. A pause on this process benefits everyone. You can also watch this episode of Tending Nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOhdwKOO0Y0 Other Links: https://apnews.com/article/california-solar-energy-ivanpah-birds-tortoises-mojave- 6d91c36a1ff608861d5620e715e1141c https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/abandoned-dreams-of-wind-and-light Thank you, Joel Garcia Director Meztli Projects 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:David Michalik <demichalik@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 1, 2026 4:29 PM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Hellman property solar panel opposition Dear Mr Temple, I am writing to you as a District 1 resident who wishes to express concern for the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property next to our sensitive wetlands habitat. I am requesting the council vote for a full environmental review to better understand the potential impacts to the wetlands and our community. The wetlands and the proposed area are an important part of the Pacific Flyway, where birds migrate up and down the coast. Solar panels may harm or disorient the birds when flying. 5 acres of habitat will be damaged or disturbed during construction, including removing native plants and endangered tarplant. Additionally, the solar panels could be placed on top of existing buildings instead of in our last remaining open spaces. The city should also consider that these large solar farms can cause a local heat island effect, warming nearby neighborhoods and habitats. This project has not considered the full scope of environmental and community impacts to all city districts. Because of this, please have the project undergo a full EIR. Or deny the project now. Sincerely David Michalik   1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Joyce Shuford <shubedoo@charter.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 9:11 AM To:Shaun Temple Subject:EIR Report on development near Los Cerritoss Wetlands Dear Mr. Temple. I urge you to vote for an EIR on the proposed solar panel construction near the Los Cerritos Wetlands. The wildlife habitat of that location demands that Interference be minimal for migrating birds. The glare from solar panels can redirecting migrating birds and can cause MORE reduction of wild bird populations. This is unacceptable. Please consider asking for an EIR for the sake of transparency. Very truly yours, Joyce Shuford 562-743-4875 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:lainey atwood <4pennylaine@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 1, 2026 10:11 PM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Concern Regarding Proposed Solar Project on the Hellman Property My name is Elaine Atwood, I’m living in Long Beach and I’m writing to express my concern regarding the large solar panel project proposed on the Hellman Property, adjacent to our sensitive wetlands habitat. I grew up in this community and have fond memories of this sacred place, where wetlands still stand. I have always hoped that one day it would be restored and given the opportunity to truly thrive. The wetlands and the proposed project area are part of the Pacific Flyway, a critical migration route for birds traveling up and down the coast. Solar panels may disorient or harm birds during flight. In addition, approximately five acres of habitat would be damaged or disturbed during construction, including the removal of native plants and endangered tarplant. This project will not benefit the local community and appears to serve only private oil operations. Given the ecological sensitivity of this area and its importance to wildlife, a full environmental review is necessary to understand the potential impacts on the wetlands and our community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Elaine Sent from my iPhone 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Julia Meng <julia.p.meng@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:48 PM To:Shaun Temple Subject:Concern about Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Dear Mr. Temple, As a neighbor of Seal Beach who lives upstream the San Gabriel river, I am requesting a full environmental review of the proposed Hellman Solar PV project near the environmentally critical Los Cerritos Wetlands. I recently had the privilege of joining the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust on a nature walk of the wetlands and touring the restoration in progress. I was amazed by the beauty of the restored areas and at how many birds and native plants (including federally endangered species) were able to take shelter in this space thanks to the hard work of restoration over many years. As a longtime resident of the area, I believe that Seal Beach should be doing more to help and promote this gem of biodiversity which should be a point of civic pride that puts SB on the map. While I'm entirely in favor of clean energy such as solar, these projects need to be located with greater sensitivity to crucially rare habitats like California wetlands, of which 90% have already been lost. There are plenty of other sites that could serve to house solar, but only so many acres of wetlands left in our entire state. I'm particularly concerned about the many potential issues the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust have raised about the impact on wildlife, not only for habitat loss but also for disturbance from noise and glare. In addition, the tribal gathering areas within the restoration area would be negatively affected by nearby glare from solar panels. Thank you for listening to our concerns! I'm glad to see the city of Seal Beach taking its commitment to stewarding the land seriously. 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 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 February 6, 2026 Via Email stemple@sealbeachca.gov Mr. Shaun Temple Planning Manager City of Seal Beach Community Development Department 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 City Council of City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Agenda Item H, City Council Agenda of February 9, 2026 Supplement to Comments of September 14, 2025 Dear Mr. Temple and Honorable Members of the City Council, The Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) has advocated for the protection and restoration of Los Cerritos Wetlands for over twenty years. LCWLT continues this advocacy by renewing its concerns with the Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project (Project), last discussed by the Council in December 2025. In short, although LCWLT appreciates that the City may consider reducing the size of the Project, these potential changes will not eliminate or fully mitigate the Project’s potential environmental impacts raised in our comments of September 19, 2025. We hereby incorporate these comments by reference. They are attached as Exhibit 1. Even if reduced, the Project will adversely impact biological resources, especially birds that mistake reflecting solar panels for water, subject recreational users of the area to glint/glare, and affect a known tribal cultural landscape. LCWLT supports the use of renewable solar energy where it is appropriate and environmentally friendly. A project sited within the wetland complex and within a tribal cultural landscape does not meet these criteria. Accordingly, LCWLT respectfully requests that the Council reject this City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 2 Project, and any reduced-size alternative, unless harm to the wetlands and its sensitive inhabitants can be eliminated. LCWLT has attempted to review the new Project information posted by the City on February 4 and to respond by the City’s deadline of 5 p.m. on February 6. However, given the sheer volume of pages posted, the short timeline, and the fact that the City’s website was inaccessible on February 6, LCWLT reserves the right to supplement its comments prior to the conclusion of the Project’s public hearing scheduled for February 9, as permitted by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Given this, the City Council should also provide additional time for the public to comment and withhold its decision on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and Project for at least one week. The proposed reduction to the Project would eliminate one array, reducing the number of solar panels from 3,100 to 2,028. However, the system would still require concrete foundations and hundreds of 18-inch-diameter piers to be drilled 6 feet into the ground. A transformer pad will be required, as will the excavation of hundreds of feet of underground trenches. Construction would require “removal of the vegetative cover” and all organic matter “from the limits of the construction area.” (MND p. 12.) Even if reduced, Project construction will require significant disruption of a sensitive location. Moreover, the purpose of the solar installation is not to provide green power for offsite use, but to “reduce the overall operating cost” of the oil facilities. (Staff Report, p. 2.) The California Legislature enacted CEQA to ensure environmental protection through 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. (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.) LCWLT continues to believe the Project crosses this threshold. 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 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 3 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.) The MND continues to inadequately disclose and analyze the Project’s potential environmental effects. As there is substantial evidence of a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on biological resources, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, an EIR is required. I. The Project, Even if Reduced, 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.) 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. As solar panels often resemble water bodies from the air, and as the Project will require clearing the site of vegetation, 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. The Response to our September 2025 letter asserts that the wetland delineation relied upon by the MND is not outdated because such delineations are valid for five years, “provided the site conditions haven’t changed. There have been no significant changes to the site area since the delineation.” (Response p. 1.) While less than five years has elapsed, site conditions have not remained the same since August 2022 and March 2023. As described in our previous letter, aerial imagery from 2024 indicated substantial ponding and flooding. The Response further claims that botanical and Least Bell’s Vireo surveys did not need to be current because the Project includes mitigation for impacts to Southern Tarplant, Coulter ’s goldfield, and the Least Bell’s Vireo. (Response p. 1.) However, mitigation is different from avoidance. The Project should be designed to avoid City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 4 populations of rare plants altogether. Outdated surveys prevent this from occurring. Mitigation through replanting or transplantation is far less effective, often results in extirpation of rare species from a site, and is disfavored by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife when avoidance is possible. The Response fails to explain how reliance on outdated surveys for the Least Bell’s Vireo permits informed decision-making about the Project’s impacts on a listed endangered species. Least Bell’s Vireo populations and nesting locations fluctuate annually. It does not. An EIR should be prepared that includes missing 2025 breeding season surveys. 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 wetland-dependent species must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 5 Figure 1. Aerial imagery from February 2024 with areas of flooded outlined in red. The Response claims that the plant community onsite does not indicate wetlands, but these statements appear to be based on the 2022 assessment of the site. (Response p. 1.) The Response later claims that the ponding mentioned in our September comments was addressed in the Wetland Delineation Report, but our comments included the above 2024 photo. The Response never claims to have assessed the plant communities present after the 2023-2024 rainy season. Southern California’s wetlands are notoriously ephemeral. The environmental review cannot ignore that the site’s hydrological fluctuations. C. Least Bell’s Vireo Both Forage and Nest Near 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. City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 6 An EIR must be prepared to thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo. The Response asserts that the Project will not affect Least Bell’s Vireo nesting due to limits on construction during the nesting season. However, the Project’s construction may also affect Least Bell’s Vireo behaviors beyond nesting. Foraging habitat does exist on and near the Project site, and disturbance of Vireo foraging through either construction or operation of the Project remains “take” under the Acts. D. An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts. Without support, the Response asserts that the fuel modification zones discussed in the IS/MND are required by the Orange County Fire Authority and part of the baseline. However, even if true, the IS/MND does not address whether these fuel modification zones must be expanded if the Project is constructed. Any fuel modification zones overlapping with the locations of special status plant populations 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 renew our request for the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring preparation of a permitted plan that covers all fuel modification practices throughout the property. “Distichlis spicata – annual grasses” is a vegetation type that overlaps with fuel modification areas. Removal of this vegetation promotes invasion of annual grasses, causing “type conversion,” a significant impact on biological resources that is not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the MND. City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 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. LCWLT thanks the City for removing “To the extent feasible” from the language of BIO-2. (Response p. 3.) 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. While the Staff Report indicates this has occurred, we cannot independently confirm these conditions given the current technical difficulties with the City’s website. LCWLT continues to believe that Project mitigation fails to eliminate the potential for significant impacts to listed plant and wildlife species and that an EIR is required. II. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Glint and Glare Impacts. A. The Project, Even if Reduced, May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal Gathering Area. The LCWA-owned Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is located immediately south of the Project site. The restoration 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. We ap preciate that the City looked into glare in an attempt to respond to our comments. However, we disagree with the conclusion that 18 minutes of sunrise glare from April to August (Response p. 4) is necessarily insignificant. Recreational walkers, cyclists, and other users are especially active at sunrise between April and August when days are longer. The same goes for recreational birders. The Project’s likely significant glare impacts should be analyzed in an EIR. City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 8 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), we request an EIR with analysis of 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. The Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project will include two public outlooks and one tribal gathering area on its southern boundary. It is unclear if the Response addresses these locations. An EIR glare analysis should analyze potential glare impacts to the public and to tribes who will use these outlooks and tribal gathering area. The Response also fails to clear up the confusion about MND Table 3-1, which 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.” We request the revised analysis include a “without vegetation” scenario for OP1-8 and OP26. B. The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds, Which May Mistake the Panels for Water in Los Cerritos Wetlands. The Response to our September letter confirms LCWLT’s concern that birds may mistake solar panels as water, increasing the likelihood of injury and mortality. (Response pp. 5-6.) LCWLT previously noted that 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. 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 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 9 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. (September 19, 2025 letter, Attachment 2, p. 10.) Given the presence of a large wetland complex surrounding the Project, and the higher prevalence of birds in the area, the Project’s location near water may exacerbate the Project’s potential harm to avian species. The potential Project size reduction will not mitigate these impacts. In August, the City’s Environmental Quality Committee recommended that the Project be required to track, report, and mitigate adverse impacts to birds. It further recommended that the Project be required to terminate when oil operations end onsite. We renew the Committee’s reasonable requests here. The Staff Report indicates these conditions have been incorporated into the Project. LCWLT is unable to confirm this incorporation at this time and asserts that these conditions must be concrete and enforceable. We further request that the one-year term for bird monitoring be extended beyond one year. An EIR must be prepared to disclose, analyze, and fully mitigate these potentially significant undisclosed impacts on biological resources. Any mitigation must include conditions requiring the tracking and reporting of harm to birds at the Project. III. 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 City of Seal Beach Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Supplemental Comments February 6, 2026 Page 10 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.” (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. We n ote that the Response states the Project completed AB 52 consultation and proposed a modification to the Project to satisfy tribal representatives. (Response p. 7.) Given that tribal representatives objected to the Project in December 2025, we await confirmation that affected tribal interests are satisfied with the potentially-reduced Project. Conclusion LCWLT again thanks the City for its consideration this solar project, sited within the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex in an area inhabited by endangered species. If action must be taken on February 9, we urge you to please reject this Project, even at the reduced size proposed just this week, until it has been fully vetted through preparation of an environmental impact report, or unless conditioned to ensure the protection of wetland species and habitats. Sincerely, Michelle Black Enclosures 1. September 19, 2025 Comment Letter of Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust, with attachments a. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Cogstone (2023). b. P.A. Fleming, All that Glitters: Review of solar energy impacts on fauna, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2025). Special status species (rare, threatend or imperiled) occurring in the Los Cerritos Wetlands include: Belding’s Savannah sparrow, California least tern, Western snowy plover, Least Bell’s vireo and others. Agenda Item B AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 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 Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 26, 2026. 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 Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 26, 2026. 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 - Closed Session, January 26, 2026 B. Minutes - Regular Session, January 26, 2026 1 0 7 6 9 Seal Beach, California January 26, 2026 The City Council met in Closed Session at 5:15 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Barbara Arenado, Finance Director/ City Treasurer Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. CLOSED SESSION A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code §54957(b) Title: City Manager B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code §54957.6 City Negotiator(s) City Manager Employee Organization(s) Police Management Association C. POTENTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES Government Code Section 54957 Consultation with: Kevin Edwards, Information Technology Manager D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) – One (1) case involving the receipt of a claim under the Government Claims Act from Asad Holdings LLC DBA OrangeBlue General Contractors. A copy of the claim is available for inspection in the City Clerk’s office. 1 0 7 6 9 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the Closed Session meeting at 6:58 p.m. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Approved: Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Seal Beach, California January 26, 2026 The City Council met in Regular Session at 7:04 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Council Member Kalmick led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, 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 Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Nick Nicholas, Police Captain Mike Ezroj, Police Captain Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Low, Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager Michael Peterman, Human Resources Manager Deb Machen, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Jennifer Robles, Management Analyst Lauren Barich, Management Analyst PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS International Holocaust Remembrance Day – January 27, 2026 51st Annual Americana Awards Presentation ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: Timothy Kirkconnell, Catherine Showalter, Scott Newton, Lars Thorn, Ken Seiff, Jon Janecek, Theresa Miller, Chad Berlinghieri, and Kori De Leon addressed the City Council. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. Nine (9) 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 1 0 7 7 0 Council Member Senecal pulled items D and F for separate consideration. Mayor Landau pulled item G for separate consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Wong moved, second by Council Member Senecal, to approve the agenda. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Ghirelli reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the four (4) items on the posted agenda. All five (5) Council Members were present, and no reportable action was taken. City Attorney Ghirelli noted that the City Council provided direction to staff on Item D of the closed session. Additionally, City Attorney Ghirelli noted that in response to Mr. Seiff’s email, he reached out to Long Beach’s City Attorney as a reminder that work cannot begin on the Hayne’s Generating Station Recycled Water Pipeline Project until a franchise agreement has been reached between the two cities. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Gallegos reported his attendance at the Leisure World Working Group meeting. Additionally, he announced that there will be members of city staff at the Chamber of Commerce Networking Open House on Wednesday, January 28, 2026. Finally, he introduced Human Resources Manager Michael Peterman to the City Council and members of the public. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Steele reported his attendance at the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control Board meeting, The Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Board Installation, the West Orange County Water Board meeting, and the Leisure World Working Group meeting. Council Member Kalmick reported his attendance at the Watershed Conservation 1 0 7 7 0 Authority meeting, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) meeting, the Lower Los Angeles and San Gabirel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy meeting, the Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Board Installation, and the Orange County – Council of Governments (OC-COG) meeting. Additionally, Council Member Kalmick announced that phase 1 of the LCWA Restoration Project is underway. He noted that the first stage involves building a berm and the moving of soil with large excavators. Council Member Senecal reported her attendance at the Pawfect Moments & Threads Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, and the League of California Cities meeting. She noted that she was appointed to serve on the Environmental Quality Committee for the League of California Cities. Mayor Pro Tem Wong reported his recent trip to Washington D.C., with the Orange County Coalition and Supervisor Ngyuen. He noted that discussions were held with Washington D.C. Legislators about sand replenishment, the Seal Beach Lifeguard Headquarters and Police Substation, the McGaugh Swimming Pool, and Leisure World Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution Reimbursement. Mayor Landau reported her attendance at the Bay Theater Harbour Chronicles showing. COUNCIL ITEMS There were no Council Items. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Steele moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar with the exception of Items D, F, and G. A. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on January 12, 2026. B. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) – Ratification. C. Monthly Investment Report (January 26, 2026) - Receive and file. D. Report of City Manager and Department Heads Authorized Contracts - That the City Council receive and file the report. E. Applications for Grant Funds for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Orange County Community Resources and Orange County Housing and Community Development Public Facilities and Improvements Grant - 1. That the City Council adopt Resolution 7725: a) Approving the application for grant funds related to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Public Facilities and Improvements 1 0 7 7 0 grant program to apply Phase 2 upgrades to the North Seal Beach Community Center, and to accept any funds awarded through the program; and, b) Directing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, and utilize the grant funding to participate in the grant program, including incorporation in the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year proposed Annual Budget. 2. That the City Council adopt Resolution 7726: a) Approving the application for grant funds related to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Public Facilities and Improvements grant program to apply upgrades to the Seal Beach Senior Citizens Center, and to accept any funds awarded through the program; and, b) Directing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, and utilize the grant funding to participate in the grant program, including incorporation in the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year proposed Annual Budget. F. Awarding and Authorizing Execution of Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7727: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement to KYA Services, LLC in the not-to-exceed amount of $419,914.81 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve additional work requests up to a $42,085.19 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $8,000.00 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $50,085.19. G. Approving and Authorizing Purchasing for the Replacement of City Vehicles - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7728: 1. Authorizing the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles for the City's fleet from National Auto Fleet Group pursuant to the cooperative purchase contract with Sourcewell, Master Vehicle Contract #091521-NAF, for a not-to-exceed total cost of $237,131.63, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $61,616.52; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $61,616.52; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $59,977.60; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $53,920.99; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve purchase orders and any necessary related documents for the vehicle purchases; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve payments, purchase orders and necessary related documents on behalf of the City to Hi-Standard Automotive, LLC, for vehicle upfitting work for the above-referenced four (4) vehicles pursuant to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(B) in the not-to-exceed amount of $75,459.54, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $18,268.24; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $18,268.23; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $26,484.20; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $12,438.87; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-01 in the amount of $19,375.00; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager to surplus existing vehicles upon the completion of the new vehicle and 1 0 7 7 0 equipment purchases and upfitting. H. Consideration of a Resolution of the Seal Beach City Council to find that the Adopted Housing Element is Consistent with State Housing Laws - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7729 to find that the Seal Beach Zoning Code is consistent with government code section 65583.2, subdivisions (c), (h), and (i) in meeting affordability requirements for non-discretionary review in which housing developments with 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households; and finding that the adopted Housing Element is consistent with government code section 65583.2 subdivision (g)(2) in making the required findings that substantial evidence was provided that the existing uses of nonvacant opportunity sites are not impediments to the City meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). I. Determination of Exemption from Public Bidding and Approving and Authorizing Professional Services Agreements with Costangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete and Cybereason for Legal and Forensic Cybersecurity Services, Respectively - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7730: 1. Declaring that Professional Services Agreements with Costangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete and Cybereason for legal and forensic cybersecurity services are necessary for the preservation of the property of the City per City Charter Section 1010, and Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.25, and finding that the Agreements are therefore exempt from bidding requirements; and, 2. Ratifying the City Manager’s execution of the Professional Services Agreements with Costangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, and Cybereason; and, 3. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-02 in the amount of $85,000. The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items with the exception of Items D, F, and G. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR D. Report of City Manager and Department Heads Authorized Contracts - That the City Council receive and file the report. City Manager Gallegos called upon Council Member Senecal. Council Member Senecal’s questions and concerns were addressed by Director of Finance Arenado, and Director of Public Works Lee. 1 0 7 7 0 Council Member Senecal moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to receive and file the report. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried F. Awarding and Authorizing Execution of Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7727: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement to KYA Services, LLC in the not-to-exceed amount of $419,914.81 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve additional work requests up to a $42,085.19 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $8,000.00 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $50,085.19. Mayor Landau called upon Council Member Senecal. Council Member Senecal suggested continuing the item to a future meeting. City Manager Gallegos recommended having staff provide an overview of the staff report. Deputy Director of Public Works Cho provided an overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Council Member Steele, Deputy Director of Public Works Cho, Public Works Director Lee, Council Member Kalmick, KYA Services, LLC, Sales Director Richard Contreras, KYA Services, LLC Territory Manager Deanna Rey, KYA Services, LLC Consultant Steve Newton, Mayor Landau, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, Council Member Senecal, and Recreation Manager Kelsey. Council Member Senecal moved, second by Mayor Landau, to continue the item to a future meeting. AYES: Senecal, Landau NOES: Kalmick, Wong, Steele ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion failed 1 0 7 7 0 Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Council Member Steele to adopt Resolution 7727: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Seal Beach Tennis and Pickleball Center Court Resurfacing and LED Lighting Upgrades, CIP PR2501 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement to KYA Services, LLC in the not-to-exceed amount of $419,914.81 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Public Works Agreement with KYA Services, LLC for the Project; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve additional work requests up to a $42,085.19 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $8,000.00 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $50,085.19. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Steele NOES: Senecal, Landau ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried G. Approving and Authorizing Purchasing for the Replacement of City Vehicles - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7728: 1. Authorizing the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles for the City's fleet from National Auto Fleet Group pursuant to the cooperative purchase contract with Sourcewell, Master Vehicle Contract #091521-NAF, for a not-to-exceed total cost of $237,131.63, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $61,616.52; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $61,616.52; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $59,977.60; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $53,920.99; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve purchase orders and any necessary related documents for the vehicle purchases; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve payments, purchase orders and necessary related documents on behalf of the City to Hi-Standard Automotive, LLC, for vehicle upfitting work for the above-referenced four (4) vehicles pursuant to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(B) in the not-to-exceed amount of $75,459.54, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $18,268.24; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $18,268.23; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $26,484.20; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $12,438.87; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-01 in the amount of $19,375.00; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager to surplus existing vehicles upon the completion of the new vehicle and equipment purchases and upfitting. Mayor Landau called upon City Manager Gallegos. City Manager Gallegos called upon Director of Public Works Lee who called upon Deputy Director of Public Works Low to provide an overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Deputy Director of Public Works Low, Mayor Landau, Council Member Senecal, Director of Public Works Lee, and Council Member Steele. 1 0 7 7 0 Mayor Pro Tem Wong moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to adopt Resolution 7728: 1. Authorizing the purchase of four (4) replacement vehicles for the City's fleet from National Auto Fleet Group pursuant to the cooperative purchase contract with Sourcewell, Master Vehicle Contract #091521-NAF, for a not-to-exceed total cost of $237,131.63, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $61,616.52; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $61,616.52; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $59,977.60; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $53,920.99; and, 2. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve purchase orders and any necessary related documents for the vehicle purchases; and, 3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to approve payments, purchase orders and necessary related documents on behalf of the City to Hi-Standard Automotive, LLC, for vehicle upfitting work for the above-referenced four (4) vehicles pursuant to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(B) in the not-to-exceed amount of $75,459.54, in accordance with the following breakdown: a) Police Interceptor Utility (PIU) Vehicle Unit #4107 for $18,268.24; and, b) PIU Vehicle Unit #4114 for $18,268.23; and, c) Police Watch Commander Unit #4111 for $26,484.20; and, d) Public Works Vehicle Unit #06 for $12,438.87; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #26-07-01 in the amount of $19,375.00; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager to surplus existing vehicles upon the completion of the new vehicle and equipment purchases and upfitting. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING There were no Public Hearing items. UNFINISHED/CONTINUED BUSINESS There was no unfinished/continued business. NEW BUSINESS J. Receive and File the November 8, 2025, Strategic Planning Session Report - That the City Council receive and file the report. Mayor Landau called upon City Manager Gallegos. City Manager Gallegos called upon Management Analyst Barich. Management Analyst Barich provided an overview of the staff report. 1 0 7 7 0 A discussion ensued between Council Member Senecal, Interim Director of Community Development Temple, City Manager Gallegos, Mayor Landau, Council Member Kalmick, Council Member Kalmick and City Attorney Ghirelli. Mayor Landau moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to receive and file the report. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried K. Establishment of a Citizen-Council Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7731: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of (2) council members and five (5) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member, for a total of (7) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and possess knowledge, education, or experience in event planning, multi-sport events, or community outreach, with experience related to previous Olympic Games preferred, or other expertise that will support the Committee’s purpose related to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing the priorities for the Committee; and, 6. Establishing that the Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 7. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 8. Directing the City Clerk to post the Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process. City Manager Gallegos called upon Recreation Manager Kelsey. A discussion ensued between Council Member Senecal, Recreation Manager Kelsey, Mayor Landau, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, City Manager Gallegos, and City Attorney Ghirelli. Council Member Senecal recommended having 10 community members on the Committee. Recreation Manager Kelsey and City Manager Gallegos recommended having an odd number of community members. Lastly, City Manager Gallegos suggested up to 10 community members. 1 0 7 7 0 Council Member Senecal moved, second by Council Member Steele that the City Council adopt Resolution 7731: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of (2) Council Members and up to ten at-large community stakeholders, with two (2) stakeholders nominated by each Council Member, for a total of twelve Committee Members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and possess knowledge, education, or experience in event planning, multi- sport events, or community outreach, with experience related to previous Olympic Games preferred, or other expertise that will support the Committee’s purpose related to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing the priorities for the Committee; and, 6. Establishing that the Olympics Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 7. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 8. Directing the City Clerk to post the Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Wong, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried L. Establishment of a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7732: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of two (2) council members and three (3) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member not serving on the committee for a total of five (5) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and should possess knowledge, education or experience in economic development, business support, commercial revitalization, or related fields that align with the Committee’s purpose in supporting economic development initiatives within Seal Beach; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing that the Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 6. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 7. Directing the City Clerk to post a Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process. 1 0 7 7 0 City Manager Gallegos called upon Management Analyst Robles. Management Analyst Robles provided an overview of the staff report. Council Member Senecal noted that she believed the committee was too small. Mayor Pro Tem Wong voiced his disapproval of having a larger committee. A discussion ensued between Mayor Landau, City Manager Gallegos, Council Member Kalmick, Council Member Senecal, City Attorney Ghirelli, Council Member Steele, Interim Director of Community Development Temple, and Mayor Pro Tem Wong. Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Wong to adopt Resolution 7732: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of two (2) council members and three (3) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member not serving on the committee for a total of five (5) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and should possess knowledge, education or experience in economic development, business support, commercial revitalization, or related fields that align with the Committee’s purpose in supporting economic development initiatives within Seal Beach; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing that the Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 6. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 7. Directing the City Clerk to post a Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process. No vote was taken or required as the substitute motion below passed 4-1-0-0. Mayor Landau made a substitute motion, second by Council Member Steele to adopt revised Resolution 7732: 1. Establishing a Citizen-Council Business First Advisory Ad- Hoc Committee; and, 2. Approving the formation of the Committee, to be comprised of two (2) council members and five (5) at-large community stakeholders, with one stakeholder nominated by each council member for a total of up to seven (7) committee members; and, 3. Requiring committee members to be stakeholders in the Seal Beach community and should possess knowledge, education or experience in economic development, business support, commercial revitalization, or related fields that align with the Committee’s purpose in supporting economic development initiatives within Seal Beach; and, 4. All committee members are expected to actively participate by attending all meetings, engaging in focused discussions, reviewing and analyzing relevant materials, and providing recommendations to support the Committee’s objectives; and, 5. Establishing that the Business First Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee meet monthly, with 1 0 7 7 0 meeting frequency subject to adjustment as deemed necessary by the Committee and based on the availability of staff and committee members; and, 6. Directing the City Manager or his designee(s) to provide staff support to the Committee; and, 7. Directing the City Clerk to post a Notice of Vacancy for the Committee and open the application process. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: Wong ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried M. Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget Update - That the City Council receive and file the Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget update. Mayor Landau called upon Director of Finance Arenado. Director of Finance Arenado provided an in-depth presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget Update. A discussion ensued between Council Member Kalmick and Director of Finance Arenado. Mayor Pro Tem Wong moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to receive and file the Fiscal Year 2025-26 First Quarter Budget update. AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: Wong ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council at 10:11 p.m. to Monday, February 9, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. __________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach 1 0 7 7 0 Approved:___________________________ Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested:____________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item D AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/ City Treasurer SUBJECT:City of Seal Beach Annual Audit Reports for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025 ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council receive and file the following documents for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2025: A. Audit Communication Letter B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report C. Appropriations Limit Final Report BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The audit firm, The Pun Group Accountants & Advisors (Pun Group), has completed the annual audit of the City for the Fiscal Year (FY) ending June 30, 2025. The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatements. In the opinion of the auditors, the financial statements fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position of the City on June 30, 2025. The 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is included as Attachment B for information and use. The ACFR will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association to be considered for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City has won the award for 23 consecutive years. The purpose of the Audit Communication Letter (Attachment A) is to provide a mechanism for communication with the governing body, highlighting significant issues that may arise during the audit process. As indicated, the City’s financial statements were clearly presented. Page 2 2 2 3 1 The purpose of the Appropriations Limit Final Report (Attachment C) is to attest the calculation was performed using the correct methodology and was correctly calculated based upon the information provided. On January 27, 2026, Sophia Kuo, from the Pun Group, gave a presentation to the City Council Audit Committee, and the item was thoroughly reviewed and discussed. Among the attendees were City Manager Gallegos, Director of Finance Arenado, Finance Manager Hoang, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, Council Member Steele, and Sophia Kuo from the Pun Group. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, because it is not defined as a “project” under CEQA. 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 receive and file the following documents for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2025: A. Audit Communication Letter B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report C. Appropriations Limit Final Report SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Barbara Arenado Patrick Gallegos Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/ City Treasurer Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Page 3 2 2 3 1 ATTACHMENTS: A. Audit Communication Letter B. 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report C. Appropriations Limit Final Report 6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1200 Santa Ana, California 92707 December 18, 2025 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Seal Beach (the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2025. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated June 2, 2025 Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Significant Audit Findings Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the basic financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, the City implemented the following accounting standards: New Accounting Standards: GASB Statement No. 101 – In June 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by updating the recognition and measurement guidance for compensated absences. That objective is achieved by aligning the recognition and measurement guidance under a unified model and by amending certain previously required disclosures. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023, and all reporting periods thereafter. Implementation of this Statement resulted in a restatement of the beginning fund balance as of July 1, 2024, as disclosed in Note 15 to the Basic Financial Statements. GASB Statement No. 102 – In December 2023, the GASB issued Statement No. 102, Certain Risk Disclosures. The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with information about risks related to a government’s vulnerabilities due to certain concentrations or constraints that is essential to their analyses for making decisions or assessing accountability. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2024, and all reporting periods thereafter. The City has evaluated its exposure to financial risk stemming from concentrations and constraints. The City has not identified any risks requiring disclosure in the financial statements. No other new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2025. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 2 Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were: • Management’s estimate of the investment fair market value is based on information provided by U.S. Bank, the custodial of the investments in the U.S. treasury securities, U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities, asset-backed securities, municipal bonds, corporate notes, negotiable certificates of deposit and bank notes based on institutional bond quotes and certificate of deposit pricing. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the investment fair market value in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. • Management’s estimate of the depreciation and amortization on capital assets is based on the industry standard and past experience on actual useful life of the asset groups. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the depreciation on capital assets in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. • Management’s estimate of the net other postemployment benefits (“OPEB”) liability is based on the actuarial valuation on total OPEB liability and financial statements on fiduciary net position. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the OPEB liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. • Management’s estimate of the net pension liabilities is based on the actuarial valuation on proportionate share of total pension liability and based on audited financial statements on fiduciary net position for CalPERS plans. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the net pension liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were: • Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies • Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans • Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan • Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies • Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure • Note 15 – Restatements The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 3 Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated December 18, 2025. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”), the Budgetary Comparison Schedules, the Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedule of the Contributions – Pensions, the Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios, and the Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits, which are required supplementary information (the “RSI”) that supplement the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 4 We were engaged to report on the Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the Introductory and the Statistical Sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. Restriction on Use This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, Santa Ana, California "//6"-$0.13&)&/4*7& '*/"/$*"-3&1035 %¸ì™‹Ë~£‹èDzǰDzǴɱDzǰDzǵ City of Seal Beach Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Prepared by the Finance Department Barbara Arenado Director of Finance/City Treasurer City of Seal Beach Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTORY SECTION (UNAUDITED) Letter of Transmittal ................................................................................................................................................. i Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting – Government Finance Officers Association ....................................................................................................... iv Organizational Chart ................................................................................................................................................ v Principal Officials of the City of Seal Beach .......................................................................................................... vi FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor’s Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements ............................................................... 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) (Unaudited) ........................... 5 Basic Financial Statements: Government–Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................................ 18 Statement of Activities .................................................................................................................................... 20 Fund Financial Statements: Governmental Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Government–Wide Statement of Net Position ......................................................................... 28 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances .................................................... 29 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government–Wide Statement of Activities ............................ 30 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ......................................................................................................................... 32 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ............................................................. 35 Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................................... 36 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements: Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ......................................................................................................... 41 Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................................ 42 Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ................................................................................. 45 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ...................................................................................................... 47 City of Seal Beach Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Table of Contents (Continued) Page FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited): Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund ........................................................................................................ 91 Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................................. 93 Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios ...................................... 94 Schedule of Contributions – Pensions .......................................................................................................................... 96 Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios ........................................ 98 Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits ................................................................................... 100 Supplementary Information: Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund ................................................................................. 105 Nonmajor Governmental Funds: Combining Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................. 108 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances ..................................... 113 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund .................................................................................................... 118 Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................ 119 Detention Center Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................ 120 Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................... 121 Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................... 122 Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................. 123 Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund..................................................................................................... 124 State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................. 125 Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................... 126 Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund .............................................................. 127 Police Grants Special Revenue Fund ...................................................................................................... 128 Landscape District Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................. 129 Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................................... 130 Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................. 131 Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................... 132 SB1 Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................................................... 133 Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................. 134 City Debt Service Fund ........................................................................................................................... 135 Internal Service Fund Financial Statements: Combining Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................... 139 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Net Position ................................................ 140 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................ 141 Custodial Fund Financial Statements: Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................................... 145 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................ 146 City of Seal Beach Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Table of Contents (Continued) Page STATISTICAL SECTION (Unaudited) Net Position by Component ........................................................................................................................................ 150 Changes in Net Position ............................................................................................................................................. 152 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ...................................................................................................................... 156 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ................................................................................................... 158 Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property ............................................................................ 160 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates ............................................................................................................... 161 Principal Property Taxpayers ..................................................................................................................................... 162 Property Tax Levies and Collections .......................................................................................................................... 163 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type .......................................................................................................................... 164 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding ............................................................................................................. 166 Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Debt .................................................................................................................. 167 Legal Debt Margin Information.................................................................................................................................. 168 Pledged-Revenue Coverage ........................................................................................................................................ 170 Demographic and Economic Statistics ....................................................................................................................... 171 Top 25 Sales Tax Producers ....................................................................................................................................... 172 Full-Time and Part-Time City Employees by Function ............................................................................................. 173 Operating Indicators by Function ............................................................................................................................... 174 Capital Asset Statistics by Function ........................................................................................................................... 176 This page intentionally left blank. i December 18, 2025 Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of the City of Seal Beach: City of Seal Beach staff is pleased to submit for your information the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) of the City of Seal Beach (City) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. Responsibility for both the accuracy of presented data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation including all disclosures rests with the City. In our opinion, the data is accurate in all material aspects, is presented in a manner designed to fairly set forth the financial position and results of operations of the City and contains all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the City’s financial affairs. The financial statements are prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) as promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of the City. Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these presentations, management of the City has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed to protect the City’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse, and to compile reliable information for the preparation of this report in conformity with GAAP. As management, we assert to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects within the reasonable assurance of the internal control framework. The City’s financial statements have been audited by The Pun Group, a public accounting firm fully licensed and qualified to perform audits of the state and local governments within the State of California. The audit was designed to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements are free of material misstatement. The independent auditor concluded, based on the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the City of Seal Beach’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, are fairly presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The independent auditor’s report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this report. GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statement in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with that section. The City’s MD&A is immediately following the report of the independent auditors in the financial section of the ACFR. PROFILE OF THE CITY In 1904 J.C. Ord, a Civil War veteran, hired a 30–mule team to bring his small general store building from Los Alamitos to Bay City, where he set it down at the southwest corner of what is now known as Main Street and Electric Avenue. J.C. Ord was one of five trustees voted into office in October 1915, the second Mayor, Postmaster, and the first Judge. His store on Main Street was the Post Office and Court House and the Jail House when it was necessary. On October 27, 1915, the City was incorporated and governed by an elected five-member council. The new City had an area of 1.25 square miles with a population of 250. Bay City was renamed Seal Beach in August 1913 as part of a marketing re-branding by the Guy M. Rush Realty Company. Another area of Seal Beach, Surfside Colony, was founded in 1929 and is credited as the one of the first beach resort communities of its type on the West Coast, following Santa Monica, Malibu Colony and Anaheim Landing. ii In early 1944 during World War II, the Navy purchased most of the land around Anaheim Landing to construct the United States Navy's Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWS SB) for loading, unloading, and storing of ammunition for the Pacific Fleet. Today, NWS SB is the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading, and maintenance installation. Located entirely within NWS SB is the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in 1972 and protects habitat for threatened and endangered species. Meanwhile Leisure World, a retirement community which comprises nearly a third of the city’s residents, opened in 1962. Construction of homes in the College Park East and West neighborhoods occurred in the early 1960s. The City has an area of 13.23 square miles and sits on the coast as the gateway to Orange County between the cities of Long Beach and Huntington Beach and currently has a population of 24,350. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Local economy: Although the focus of this Annual Comprehensive Financial Report is the financial condition of the City at June 30, 2025, it may be best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which the City operates. The City has experienced a strong economic recovery after the challenging financial environment caused by the pandemic. As consumer demand increased and services returned to normal, the City ended the fiscal year in a positive position. Overall, the City’s General Fund revenue for the fiscal year increased by $1.2 million from the prior year. This increase is mostly due to tax increases. Property tax is the City’s largest General Fund revenue source with revenues of $16.1 million, an increase of 4.3 percent over the prior fiscal year. Sales tax is the second largest General Fund revenue source with revenues of $12.4 million including transaction tax, an increase of 8.1 percent from the prior year. Additionally, Transient Occupancy Tax was $2.1 million, an increase of 6.9 percent from the previous year. The increase in Property Tax is due to the continued robust housing demographics in the City. The increase in Sales Tax, compared to the prior year, is primarily due to Measure GG which became effective the last quarter of 2025. In November 2024, Measure GG passed in Seal Beach with 68% voter approval, implementing a 0.5% increase in the local sales tax to support current essential City services. Long-term financial planning: The City of Seal Beach continues to implement cost saving measures while providing the core services for our residents, businesses, visitors, and to protect all essential services that contribute to the high quality of life our residents expect. On a yearly basis, the City Council sets goals and priorities for the future. Each year the City develops a Five-Year Financial Outlook which is the guiding document for long-range fiscal planning and serves as the framework for development of the next adopted budget. The outlook is included in the budget process and incorporates a range of information on items that influence projected revenues and anticipated appropriation needs over the next five fiscal years. These projections inform the City Council and the public of the long-term costs of programs in the context of the City’s overall General Fund budget and projected revenue growth. The City continues to be in good financial health due to its stable tax base, disciplined fiscal decisions, and strong governance. Conservative budgeting and sound financial policies have resulted in reserve levels that meet City Council policy. The City Council adopted policy seeks to maintain the reserve level between 20 to 25 percent of the General Fund adopted appropriations. The reserve may be used at the discretion of the City Council to provide resources during temporary decreases in revenues, in the event of an economic downturn while expenditure reductions are implemented, or to provide resources to meet emergency expenditures in the case of flood, fire, earthquake, landslides, or other natural disasters. At June 30, 2025, the reserve balance was $11.0 million or 22.3 percent of the final operating budget. Major initiatives: The Strategic Plan goals are approved and/or affirmed by the City Council each year. Priorities included Organizational Efficiencies, Community Outreach and Capital Projects, Housing Element Updates, Local Coastal Plan, Fiscal Sustainability, Flooding, and Public Safety. Highlights of this year’s major initiatives reflect the City’s commitment to sustaining the community’s quality of life and fiscal health. Key accomplishments include enhancing public safety services through funding for emergency response and community policing, upgrading critical infrastructure such as streets and recreational facilities, and maintaining essential transportation programs like the senior shuttle and dial-a-ride program. The City also prioritized preserving beaches and neighborhoods, reducing the unfunded pension liability, and fostering community engagement. Notable achievements include the pier and street improvements, expanding recreation and community engagement, and revisions to the Housing Element. Despite fluctuating federal and economic conditions, the City remains fully operational, providing increased recreational programs, and continues to deliver essential services to the community. iii FINANCIAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Internal control structure: Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure. Internal accounting controls are designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft, or misuse, and that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance, that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of the control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits require estimates and judgment by management. Budgetary controls: The annual budget serves as the foundation for the City of Seal Beach’s financial planning and control. The City Council adopts an annual budget and appropriates the funds necessary to provide the services and operations for the fiscal year. The City Manager may make appropriation transfers within and between departments which do not result in an increase in appropriations. The City of Seal Beach City Council must approve all appropriation changes that result in an increase in appropriations. AWARDS GFOA Award Program – Annual Comprehensive Financial Report The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Seal Beach for its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. This was the twenty-third consecutive year that the City has received this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. City staff believe that our current Annual Comprehensive Financial Report continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement Program’s requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA again this year for award. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was made possible by the highly dedicated Finance staff with their dedicated efforts and teamwork, special thanks to the staff in the Finance Department. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to the City Council and City Manager for their interest and support, which made this presentation possible, and finally to the City’s auditing firm of The Pun Group for their professional assistance. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Arenado Director of Finance/City Treasurer Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Seal Beach California For its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024 Executive Director/CEO iv ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Administrative Control Over All Departments Agenda Preparation City Representation in all Legal Matters Administrative Policies City Council Support Computer Network Administration Intergovernmental Relations Special Studies/Projects Policy Analysis Risk Management Financial Services/Reporting Business Tax Utility Billing/Cashiering Employee Benefits Budget/Audit/Grants Classification/Compensation Accounts Payable/Payroll Debt Administration Treasury/Investments Successor Agency Administration Engineering Fleet Maintenance Beach Maintenance Water/Sewer Maintenance Capital Projects Planning Storm Drains Building/Code Enforcement Building Maintenance Development Review Street Maintenance Community Development Block Grant Traffic and Transportation Land Use and Coastal Issues General Plan and Code Traffic/Patrol/Detective Services Youth/Adult Class Activity Parking Control Special Event Permitting Detention Center Sports League/Events Beach/Pool Safety Jr. Lifeguard Program Records Management Election Management COMMUNITY PUBLIC WORKS FY 2024-2025 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITIZENS OF SEAL BEACH Orange County Fire Authority Personnel Recruitment MARINE SAFETY FIRE SERVICES CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY CLERK POLICE SERVICES FINANCE DEVELOPMENT v CITY OF SEAL BEACH CALIFORNIA Principal Officers City Council Lisa Landau, Mayor Nathan Steele, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Kalmick, Council Member Patty Senecal, Council Member Ben Wong, Council Member Executive Officers Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Administrative Personnel Michael Henderson, Chief of Police Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Alexa Smittle, Director of Community Development/Assistant City Manager Iris Lee, Director of Public Works/Assistant City Manager Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk vi 6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1200 Santa Ana, California 92707 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements Opinions We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the basic financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of June 30, 2025, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Basis for Opinions We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAS”) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (“Government Auditing Standards”). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. Other Matters Change in Accounting Principle - Implementation of GASB 101 As discussed in Notes 1 and 15 to the basic financial statements, the City adopted new accounting guidance, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) Statement No. 101, Compensated absences. The adoption of this standard resulted in the restatement of the City’s net position as of June 30, 2024. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter. Restatement due to Error Corrections As discussed in the Note 15 to the basic financial statements, the City also recorded restatements due to error corrections in the governmental and business-type activities in the amounts of $2,622,626 and $2,652,594, respectively due to correction of capital assets. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter. To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 2 2 Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements. In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed. evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements. conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit. To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 3 3 Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management’s Discussion and Analysis, the Budgetary Comparison Schedules, the Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios, the Schedules of Contributions – Pensions, the Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios, and the Schedule of Contributions – Other Postemployment Benefits be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the Required Supplementary Information in accordance with GAAS, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Supplementary Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. The Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with GAAS. In our opinion, the Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. Other Information Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the Introductory and Statistical Sections but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon. In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report. To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 4 4 Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 18, 2025 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Santa Ana, California December 18, 2025 City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 5 Management of the City of Seal Beach is pleased to offer this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, along with comparisons to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. All increases and decreases are expressed relative to fiscal year 2023-2024. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal and the City’s financial statements. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS • The City’s net position – the difference between its assets and deferred outflows of resources compared to its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources – was $150.6 million, an increase of $2.2 million or 1.5%. The net position of governmental activities increased by $1.8 million or 1.8%, while the net position of business- type activities increased by $0.4 million or 0.9%. • The net position of $150.6 million consisted of $126.7 million of net investment in capital assets; $7.2 million of resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used; $2.9 million that may be used to meet the City’s obligations for its governmental activities; and $13.8 million to meet obligations for its business-type activities. • Total revenues were $65.8 million and total expenses were $63.6 million. Revenues increased by $2.0 million or 3.2%, and expenses increased by $3.6 million or 6.0%. • As of the close of the fiscal year, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $48.4 million, representing an increase of $1.8 million or 3.8%. Of this amount, $17.5 million (the sum of assigned and unassigned fund balances) is available for spending at the City’s discretion. • At the end of the current fiscal year, unassigned fund balance in the General Fund was $11.9 million or 23.1% of total General Fund expenditures and transfers out. • The City’s Reserve Fund Policy aims to maintain a minimum balance in the Fiscal Policy Reserve equal to approximately three months’ worth of the City’s General Fund operating expenditures. As of June 30, 2025, the Committed-Fiscal Policy Reserve has a balance of $11.0 million, or 22.1% of General Fund expenditures (less transfers out related to capital projects). This percentage aligns with the City’s goals and is in accordance with the recommendation of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS This discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements; and 3) notes to the basic financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements. Government-Wide Financial Statements – The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a view of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The Statement of Net Position presents information on all assets and liabilities, deferred outflows and inflows with the difference between them reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in the City’s net position are one indicator of whether its financial condition is improving or deteriorating. City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 6 The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the most recent fiscal year. These changes are reported on a full accrual basis when the economic event occurs regardless of when cash is received or paid. Both government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government and administration, public safety, development services, public works, recreation, and all its component units that are legally separate but whose activities entirely support the City of Seal Beach. The business-type activities of the City include water and sewer operations. The government-wide financial statements can be found immediately following this discussion and analysis. Fund Financial Statements – The fund financial statements provide detailed information about the most significant funds and other funds – not the City as a whole. Some funds are required to be established by State law and by bond covenants. However, management established many other funds to help control and manage money for particular purposes or to verify that all legal requirements for using certain taxes, grants, and other resources are being satisfied. The City’s three types of funds are governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on how money flows in and out of those funds and the balances left at fiscal year-end that are available for spending. These funds are reported using an accounting method called modified accrual accounting, which measures cash and all other financial assets that can readily be converted to cash. The governmental fund statements provide a detailed short-term view of the City’s general government operations and the basic services it provides. Governmental fund information helps determine whether there are more or fewer financial resources that can be spent in the near future to finance the City’s programs. The differences of results in the Governmental Fund financial statements to those in the government-wide financial statements are explained in a reconciliation following each of the Governmental Fund financial statements. The City maintains individual governmental funds organized by their type (general, special revenue, debt service, and capital improvements funds). Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the General Fund and Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund, which are considered to be major funds. Data from the remaining governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of the other governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements and schedules elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund, Debt Service Fund, and all of the Special Revenue Funds. Budgetary comparison statements have been provided to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found immediately following the government-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds are reported in the same way that all activities are reported in the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. In fact, the City’s enterprise funds are comprised of the business-type activities reported in the government-wide statements but provide more detail and additional information such as a statement of cash flows. Customer charges for various City services are generally reported in proprietary funds. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found immediately following the governmental funds financial statements. City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 7 Fiduciary funds account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity, or as an agent for other governmental entities, private organizations, or individuals. All the City’s fiduciary activities are reported in a separate statement of fiduciary net position and a statement of changes in fiduciary net position. These activities are excluded from the City’s government-wide financial statement because the City cannot use these assets to finance its operations. The basic fiduciary fund financial statements can be found immediately following the proprietary funds financial statements. Notes to the Basic Financial Statements – The notes provide additional information that is essential to fully understand the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the basic financial statements can be found immediately following the fiduciary funds financial statements. Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) and Supplementary Information – In addition to the required elements of the basic financial statements, a required supplementary information section concerning the City’s progress in funding it obligation to provide pension and other post-employment benefits to City employees is included. Also included in this section are the budgetary comparison schedules for the general and major funds. The required supplementary information can be found immediately following the notes to the basic financial statements. Combining statements and individual fund statements for nonmajor governmental funds, internal service and custodial funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The Government-wide Financial Analysis focuses on the City’s net position and changes in net position resulting from the City’s activities as a whole. Analysis of Net Position – As noted earlier, net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. The City’s combined net position was $150.6 million and $149.3 million for the years ended June 30, 2025, and June 30, 2024, respectively, as shown in Table 1. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024* Current and other assets 62,614$ 62,658$ 19,596$ 19,762$ 82,210$ 82,420$ Capital assets 94,472 90,629 35,941 36,398 130,413 127,027 Total assets 157,086 153,287 55,537 56,160 212,623 209,447 Deferred outflows of resources 16,608 20,128 1,463 2,443 18,071 22,571 Long-term liabilities outstanding 52,923 52,856 7,742 9,637 60,665 62,493 Other liabilities 5,395 4,841 2,131 1,742 7,526 6,583 Total liabilities 58,318 57,697 9,873 11,379 68,191 69,076 Deferred inflows of resources 11,311 12,636 572 1,038 11,883 13,674 Net position Net investment in capital assets 94,014 89,697 32,720 32,537 126,734 122,234 Restricted 7,188 9,915 25 25 7,213 9,940 Unrestricted 2,863 3,470 13,809 13,624 16,672 17,094 Total net position 104,065$ 103,082$ 46,554$ 46,186$ 150,619$ 149,268$ * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections. (see Note 15 for details.) Note: a change in accounting estimate is treated prospectively, prior periods are not restated due to GASB 101 implementation and change in claim estimates. (in Thousands) Governmental Activities Table 1 Business-Type Activities Total Activities Condensed Statement of Net Position City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 8 As of June 30, 2025, the City continued to report positive balances in all three categories of net position for the government as a whole. Net position – Net investment in capital assets ($126.7 million or 84.1% of total net position) represents capital assets, such as land, buildings, infrastructure, and equipment, less any related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. This is an overall increase of $4.5 million, or 3.7%. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to the citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the investment in capital assets is reported net of related debt, resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. Net position – Restricted ($7.2 million or 4.8% of total net position) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. This is a decrease of $2.7 million, or 27.4%. The majority of this decrease occurred in restrictions for public works which decreased $.9 million or 19.0%, and public safety had a decrease of .6 million or 41.9%. Net position – Unrestricted ($16.7 million or 11.1% of total net position) represents a decrease of $.4 million or 2.5%. The governmental activities unrestricted of $2.9 million is a decrease of $.6 million or 17.5% primarily due to the implementation of GASB No. 101, which changed the recognition and presentation of compensated absences and related liabilities, increasing the liability by $656 thousand. As a result of GASB 101, certain employee leave liabilities are now required to be recognized earlier and more comprehensively than in prior guidance. This accounting change reflects a change in financial statement presentation. In addition, the total deferred inflows of resources on pension plans increased by $56.4 thousand as a result of net differences between projected and actual earnings on pension plan investments. Generally accepted accounting principles require financial statement recording when a liability is incurred. However, the City, like many other governments, raises and budgets resources needed to liquidate certain liabilities during the year in which the liability is to be liquidated rather than during the year in which the liability is incurred. The City will continue to fund these obligations on an actuarial basis, contributing the full amount of annual required contributions every year. City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 9 Analysis of Activities – The City’s net position increased by $2.2 million or 1.48%. The following Table 2 provides a summary of the City’s operations for the years ended June 30, 2025, and June 30, 2024. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024* Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services 9,633$ 9,266$ 8,835$ 8,712$ 18,468$ 17,978$ Operating grants and contributions 4,920 4,232 - - 4,920 4,232 Capital grants and contributions 2 1 - - 2 1 General revenues: Taxes: Property taxes 16,137 15,473 - - 16,137 15,473 Sales taxes 12,424 11,495 - - 12,424 11,495 Utility user taxes 5,401 5,510 - - 5,401 5,510 Other taxes 4,315 3,889 - - 4,315 3,889 Use of money and property 2,954 2,673 593 401 3,547 3,074 Other 573 2,108 - - 573 2,108 Total revenues 56,359 54,647 9,428 9,113 65,787 63,760 Expenses: General government 9,322 7,834 - - 9,322 7,834 Public safety 29,492 26,933 - - 29,492 26,933 Community development 3,060 2,723 - - 3,060 2,723 Community services 1,945 1,208 - - 1,945 1,208 Public works 10,730 10,766 - - 10,730 10,766 Interest on long-term debt 12 34 - - 12 34 Water - - 6,350 7,128 6,350 7,128 Sewer - - 2,668 3,353 2,668 3,353 Total expenses 54,561 49,498 9,018 10,481 63,579 59,979 Change in net position before transfers 1,798 5,149 410 (1,368) 2,208 3,781 Transfers - - - - - - Changes in net position 1,798 5,149 410 (1,368) 2,208 3,781 Net position at beginning of year 103,082 95,310 46,186 44,901 149,268 140,211 Restatement - Error Corrections - 2,623 - 2,653 - 5,276 Restatement - Change in accounting principles and estimates (815) - (42) - (857) - Net position at end of year 104,065$ 103,082$ 46,554$ 46,186$ 150,619$ 149,268$ * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections. (see Note 15 for details.) Note: a change in accounting estimate is treated prospectively, prior periods are not restated due to GASB 101 implementation and change in claim estimates. Table 2 Condensed Statement of Activities (in Thousands) Total Activities Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Governmental Activities experienced an increase of $1.8 million in net position as of June 30, 2025. The reason for the net increase of $1.8 million is due to error correction of $2.6 million offset by the changes in accounting principles and estimates of $815 thousand. Higher revenues of $1.7 million, partially offset by higher expenditures of approximately $5.1 million compared to the prior year, also contributed to the increase in net position. The increase in revenues is largely driven by higher voter approved Measure BB revenues, the recognition of remaining balances upon the closure of the Fire Station Bond Fund, and increased investment earnings resulting from higher interest rates throughout the fiscal year. These revenue increase, combined with the timing of certain expenditure activity, contributed to the overall increase in fund balance. City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 10 The cost of all governmental activities during the current fiscal year was $54.6 million, which is a $5.1 million increase from fiscal year 2023-2024. The majority of this increase was attributable to higher personnel-related costs, including salary and benefit increases, higher pension and OPEB expenses, and increased operating and contractual services costs across several departments. In specific, General Governmental expenditures increased by $1.5 million and Public Safety expenditures increased by $2.6 million. The largest operating cost was comprised of Public Safety, representing 54.0% of total governmental expenditures. Business-type Activities net position increased by $0.4 million. The increase is due to the water and sewer rate increase adopted in 2025. Increases in operating costs were mostly due to repairs and imported water. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF CITY FUNDS The City uses fund accounting to provide proper financial management of the City’s resources and to demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. Governmental funds – The objective of governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City’s financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. As of June 30, 2025, the City’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $48.4 million. Approximately $11.5 million, or 23.7% of this total amount, constitutes unassigned fund balance. The remainder of the fund balance is reported as nonspendable, restricted, committed, or assigned to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it has already been designated to pay for encumbrances, loans, prepaid expenses, or advances to other funds or has been legally restricted for other purposes. The General Fund ended the fiscal year with a fund balance of $42.3 million, representing a net increase of $2.9 million. In comparison, in the prior fiscal year, the General Fund had a net increase of $1.9 million to fund balance. Fiscal year 2024-2025 had an increase of $1.2 million in revenues which was due to payments received from sales tax, property tax, and interest rate increases, offset by an increase in expenditures of $2.7 million. The primary reason for the increase in fund balance is due to revenues over expenditures of $4.7 million offset by net transfers and proceeds of $1.8 million. Net transfers and proceeds decreased by $2.5 million compared to the prior fiscal year. The Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund balance of $0.2 million, represents a net increase of $147 thousand from prior fiscal year. In comparison, in the prior fiscal year, the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund had a net decrease of $53 thousand. This increase accounts for resources used for the acquisition and construction of the City’s capital assets. Activity in this fund during the fiscal year reflects the timing of capital project expenditures and related financing, including transfers from the General Fund. The fund saw an increase in transfers net of capital project expenditures of $92 thousand compared to the prior year’s decrease of $53 thousand. Changes in the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund are primarily attributable to capital outlays incurred during the year, offset by available financing sources, and do not directly impact the City’s operating results. Total governmental fund revenues increased overall by $2.1 million or 3.8% due to collecting higher tax revenues, offset by slight reductions in Bradley Burns, refuse services, and vehicle code violations, utilities users tax, and by increases in interest earnings due to rising interest rates throughout the fiscal year which caused an increase in the fair value of investments as of June 30. Overall expenditures increased by $2.5 million or 4.7%, as the City continued to support essential City services and support to residents and businesses. City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 11 Proprietary funds – The City’s proprietary funds financial statements provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. Unrestricted net position totaled $3.8 million and $10.0 million for the Water and Sewer Funds, respectively. The Water Fund had an operating surplus of $0.3 million and the Sewer Fund had an operating loss of $0.3 million. The City adopted the water and sewer rate fees that will address this. GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS When preparing its budget, the City attempts to estimate its revenues using realistic, but conservative methods to budget its expenditure appropriations in a prudent manner. Amendments were approved during the fiscal year to the adopted budget. The fiscal year 2024-2025 General Fund’s revenue budget was adopted at $46.3 million and had amendments to building permits, transfers, and rental property of telecom, of $0.2 million. The fiscal year 2024-2025 General Fund’s original (adopted) budget for expenditures was $47.6 million, and the final budget was $49.2 million, a net increase of $1.6 million. The largest changes were an increase of $0.6 million in Public Works due to rising labor and material cost and $0.6 million in Public Safety due to MOU agreements. The General Fund balance reflected a net total positive budget variance of $15.0 million when comparing actual amounts to the final amended budget for the current fiscal year. Actual revenues show a positive variance of $5.1 million or 11.1% of the final budget due to unanticipated receipts of taxes and insurance reimbursement revenues due to a case settlement. Actual expenditures of $46.9 million generated budgetary savings of $2.3 million, or 4.8% of the final budget mostly due to savings in Public Works stemming from several factors, including (1) unspent funds in contract professional; (2) the message to overall reduce City-wide expenditures to meet future-year funding availability; and (3) carry-over of encumbrances of work that straddled two or more fiscal years. Additionally, although capital outlay was budgeted, project delivery extended across multiple fiscal years, and changes in project scope led to expenditures being lower than anticipated. CAPITAL ASSETS The City’s capital assets for its governmental and business-type activities as of June 30, 2025, total $130.4 million compared to $127.0 million (net of accumulated depreciation and amortization) as of June 30, 2024. The investment in capital assets includes land, land easements, building and improvements, machinery and equipment, vehicles, infrastructure, leases, subscriptions and construction in progress as summarized in the following Table 3. Additional information on the City’s capital assets can be found in Note 5 in the notes to the basic financial statements. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024* Land and land easements 21,220$ 21,220$ -$ -$ 21,220$ 21,220$ Buildings and improvements 8,875 8,302 - - 8,875 8,302 Machinery and equipment 2,214 1,328 612 617 2,826 1,945 Vehicles 1,484 1,210 220 259 1,704 1,469 Infrastructure 47,686 47,978 31,174 32,042 78,860 80,020 Lease assets - 203 - - - 203 Subscription assets 219 450 120 202 339 652 Construction-in-progress 12,774 9,938 3,815 3,278 16,589 13,216 Totals 94,472$ 90,629$ 35,941$ 36,398$ 130,413$ 127,027$ * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections. (see Note 15 for details.) Table 3 Capital Assets, At Fiscal Year-End (Net of Depreciation, in Thousands) Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Activities City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 12 During fiscal year 2024-2025, major capital projects formally completed include: • Pier Abutment Restoration (BP2201) - $566,186.99 • Annual Local Paving Program (STO2) - $781,832.25 • Almond Avenue Paving Project (ST2201) - $520,873.64 • Pier Restroom Renovation Project (BP2202) - $261,070.08 • Beverly Manor Well Rehabilitation (WT0904) - $674,360 • FY 24-25 Slurry Seal Program (STO1) - $242,358.58 • Heather Park Project (PR2203/O-PR-1) - $786,348.85 • West End Pump Station VFD Replacement Project (SD2401 / BG2401ex101-WEPS) - $232,373.22 • SB Tennis and Pickleball Center Sports Court Lighting Project (BG2105-Lighting) - $201,552.06 • North Seal Beach Community Center (BG2501) - $404,023.76 • Lampson Avenue Bike Lane Gap Closure Project (ST1811) - $2,288,746.39 • Pier Boat Ramp Repair Project (EM2501) - $47,580 DEBT ADMINISTRATION As of June 30, 2025, the City had bonded debt, notes payable, subscription liabilities, claims payable, and compensated absence liabilities totaling $6.6 million compared to $7.2 million at the end of the fiscal year 2023- 2024. The City’s governmental activities maintained $3.1 million in lease revenue bonds, subscription liabilities, claims payable, and compensated absences versus $3.1 million last fiscal year, representing an increase of approximately $18 thousand. This increase reflects the implementation of GASB 101 during fiscal year 2024-2025. The City’s business-type activities debt decreased $0.6 million from $4.0 million to $3.4 million. Debt in the business-type activities consists of lease revenue bonds, State loans for water and sewer capital improvement projects, subscription liabilities and compensated absences. The decrease reflects interest and principal payments made during fiscal year 2024-2025. A summary of outstanding debt can be found in the following Table 4, and additional information on the City’s long- term debt can be found in Note 6 in the basic financial statements. 2025 2024* 2025 2024* 2025 2024* Lease revenue bonds -$ -$ 965$ 1,180$ 965$ 1,180$ Leases - 210 - - - 210 Capital project notes - - 2,153 2,500 2,153 2,500 Subscription liabilities 234 456 129 205 363 661 Self-insured Claims Payable 222 331 - - 222 331 Compensated absences 2,669 2,110 182 169 2,851 2,279 Total 3,125$ 3,107$ 3,429$ 4,054$ 6,554$ 7,161$ * 2024 balances were restated due to GASB 101 implementation and change in claim estimates. (see Note 15 for details.) Table 4 Outstanding Debt, At Fiscal Year-End (in Thousands) Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities Total Activities City of Seal Beach Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 13 ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGETS The City of Seal Beach economy and tax base continue to support core services for our residents, businesses, and visitors contributing to the high quality of life within the City. The City has largely emerged from the pandemic- depressed revenues due to improved economic activity. For the upcoming fiscal year, revenues are expected to continue to improve. However, challenges from high inflation and supply chain issues temper the recovering outlook. Property taxes are expected to increase as well, primarily from continued improvement in assessed value and the continued strength in the local real estate market. The City prepared a balanced annual budget for fiscal year 2025-2026. Expenditures of the City were increased to maintain the current level of service with capital improvement projects to be supported primarily by the City’s General Fund Balance. The revenue projections for the 2025-2026 budget year were conservative and determined in partnership with the City’s consultants. In November 2024, Measure GG passed in Seal Beach with 68% voter approval, implementing a 0.5% increase in the local sales tax to support current essential City services and began in 2025. The City will continue to monitor revenue streams throughout the coming years and will adjust spending levels as necessary. One of the City’s most significant challenges is the aging condition of its infrastructure. The City has completed and adopted several long-range planning documents, including the Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan, Master Plan of Drainage, Facilities Master Plan, and Pavement Management Plan, which collectively identify more than $160 million in needed infrastructure improvements citywide, excluding the impacts of market volatility and escalation. To address these needs, the City annually adopts a 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to strategically plan and prioritize construction projects. The fiscal year 2026-2030 CIP recommends approximately $43.2 million in improvements over the next 5 years, including $2.5 million for implementation of Revitalization projects. The 5-Year Capital Improvement Program identifies needs in the following areas: Buildings ($14.7M), Beach and Pier ($2.4M), Parks ($1.7M), Sewer System ($3.6M), Streets and Transportation ($14.6M), Storm Drain ($1.2M), and Water System ($5.0M). It should also be noted that a Water and Sewer Financial Plan/Rate Update was approved in August 2025 and includes a separate five-year CIP projection for water and sewer infrastructure. Because this analysis was not incorporated into the FY 2026–2030 budget projections, those water and sewer CIP projects are not reflected above and will instead be included in the FY 2027–2031 five-year projections. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION This financial report is designed to provide the City’s citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors, and creditors with a general overview of the City’s finances and to demonstrate the City’s accountability for the funds it receives. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact the City’s Finance Department at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740-6379 or call (562) 431-2527. 14 This page intentionally left blank. BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 15 This page intentionally left blank. 16 GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 17 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and investments 47,813,704$ 18,314,995$ 66,128,699$ Accounts receivable 1,513,719 1,206,937 2,720,656 Taxes receivable 4,416,579 - 4,416,579 Lease receivable, due within one year 335,844 - 335,844 Interest receivable 352,234 - 352,234 Prepaid items 119,534 49,000 168,534 Total current assets 54,551,614 19,570,932 74,122,546 Noncurrent Assets: Restricted cash with fiscal agent 11,675 25,082 36,757 Lease receivable, due in more than one year 8,050,436 - 8,050,436 Capital assets: Capital assets, not being depreciated 33,993,625 3,814,492 37,808,117 Capital assets, being depreciated, net 60,259,296 32,007,038 92,266,334 Intangible capital assets, being amortized, net 218,995 119,699 338,694 Total capital assets, net 94,471,916 35,941,229 130,413,145 Total noncurrent assets 102,534,027 35,966,311 138,500,338 Total assets 157,085,641 55,537,243 212,622,884 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred charges on refunding - 48,281 48,281 Pension related 15,479,312 1,110,952 16,590,264 Other postemployment benefits related 1,128,667 304,015 1,432,682 Total deferred outflows of resources 16,607,979 1,463,248 18,071,227 (Continued) Primary Government City of Seal Beach Statement of Net Position June 30, 2025 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 18 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable 3,532,553 1,794,750 5,327,303 Accrued liabilities 577,390 55,771 633,161 Accrued interest 490 36,804 37,294 Deposits payable 1,060,563 222,236 1,282,799 Retention payable 224,307 21,697 246,004 Long-term liabilities, due within one year 708,192 639,326 1,347,518 Total current liabilities 6,103,495 2,770,584 8,874,079 Long-term liabilities: Long-term liabilities, due in more than one year 2,417,106 2,790,088 5,207,194 Net pension liabilities 47,794,537 3,773,268 51,567,805 Net other postemployment benefits liabilities 2,003,181 539,573 2,542,754 Total noncurrent liabilities 52,214,824 7,102,929 59,317,753 Total liabilities 58,318,319 9,873,513 68,191,832 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Pension related 1,398,133 124,749 1,522,882 Other postemployment benefits related 1,662,060 447,689 2,109,749 Leases related 8,250,988 - 8,250,988 Total deferred inflows of resources 11,311,181 572,438 11,883,619 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 94,013,748 32,720,435 126,734,183 Restricted for: Community development projects 1,076,174 - 1,076,174 Public safety 775,112 - 775,112 Community services 681,806 - 681,806 Public works 4,051,239 - 4,051,239 Debt service - 25,082 25,082 Waste management, park in lieu, and I-405 corridor improvement 603,140 - 603,140 Total restricted 7,187,471 25,082 7,212,553 Unrestricted 2,862,901 13,809,023 16,671,924 Total net position 104,064,120$ 46,554,540$ 150,618,660$ (Concluded) City of Seal Beach Statement of Net Position (Continued) June 30, 2025 Primary Government See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 19 Capital Grants Charges for Operating Grants and Expenses Services and Contributions Contributions Total Functions/Programs Governmental Activities: General government 9,322,342$ 1,451,404$ 142,922$ -$ 1,594,326$ Public safety 29,492,199 2,262,656 190,868 - 2,453,524 Community development 3,060,390 608,029 759,393 - 1,367,422 Community services 1,945,079 1,395,661 - - 1,395,661 Public works 10,729,829 3,915,149 3,827,488 1,872 7,744,509 Interest and fiscal charges 12,643 - - - - Total governmental activities 54,562,482 9,632,899 4,920,671 1,872 14,555,442 Business-Type Activities: Water utility 6,349,610 6,580,915 - - 6,580,915 Sewer utility 2,667,896 2,254,777 - - 2,254,777 Total business-type activities 9,017,506 8,835,692 - - 8,835,692 Total primary government 63,579,988$ 18,468,591$ 4,920,671$ 1,872$ 23,391,134$ (Continued) Program Revenues City of Seal Beach Statement of Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 20 Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Total Functions/Programs Governmental Activities: General government (7,728,016)$ -$ (7,728,016)$ Public safety (27,038,675) - (27,038,675) Community development (1,692,968) - (1,692,968) Community services (549,418) - (549,418) Public works (2,985,320) - (2,985,320) Interest and fiscal charges (12,643) - (12,643) Total governmental activities (40,007,040) - (40,007,040) Business-Type Activities: Water utility - 231,305 231,305 Sewer utility - (413,119) (413,119) Total business-type activities - (181,814) (181,814) Total primary government (40,007,040) (181,814) (40,188,854) General Revenues: Taxes: Property taxes, levied for general purpose 16,137,118 - 16,137,118 Sales taxes 12,423,838 - 12,423,838 Franchise taxes 1,161,770 - 1,161,770 Utility users tax 5,401,062 - 5,401,062 Transient occupancy taxes 2,052,664 - 2,052,664 Other taxes 1,100,806 - 1,100,806 Motor vehicle in lieu- unrestricted 39,887 - 39,887 Use of money and property 2,953,712 592,779 3,546,491 Other 533,315 - 533,315 Total general revenues and transfers 41,804,172 592,779 42,396,951 Changes in net position 1,797,132 410,965 2,208,097 Net Position: Beginning of year, as previously reported 100,459,364 43,532,865 143,992,229 Error corrections (Note 15) 2,622,626 2,652,594 5,275,220 Change in accounting principals and estimates (Note 15) (815,002) (41,884) (856,886) Beginning of year, as restated 102,266,988 46,143,575 148,410,563 End of year 104,064,120$ 46,554,540$ 150,618,660$ (Concluded) Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Positions City of Seal Beach Statement of Activities (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 21 This page intentionally left blank. 22 FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 23 This page intentionally left blank. 24 GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 25 This page intentionally left blank. 26 Capital Projects and Equipment Nonmajor Capital Projects Governmental General Fund Funds Total ASSETS Cash and investments 39,850,968$ 834,424$ 6,895,680$ 47,581,072$ Receivables: Accounts 752,565 - 761,154 1,513,719 Taxes 4,296,572 - 120,007 4,416,579 Interest 350,545 - 1,689 352,234 Leases 8,386,280 - - 8,386,280 Due from other funds 725,401 - - 725,401 Prepaid items 119,534 - - 119,534 Restricted assets: Cash and investments with fiscal agents 11,675 - - 11,675 Total assets 54,493,540$ 834,424$ 7,778,530$ 63,106,494$ LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable 2,258,355$ 490,264$ 721,089$ 3,469,708$ Accrued liabilities 566,132 - 11,258 577,390 Deposits payable 1,060,563 - - 1,060,563 Due to other funds - - 725,401 725,401 Retentions payable 8,750 109,812 105,745 224,307 Total liabilities 3,893,800 600,076 1,563,493 6,057,369 Deferred inflow of resources: Unavailable revenue - - 369,294 369,294 Leases 8,250,988 - - 8,250,988 Total deferred inflow of resources 8,250,988 - 369,294 8,620,282 Fund Balances: Nonspendable 119,534 - - 119,534 Restricted 603,140 - 6,215,037 6,818,177 Committed 23,718,921 234,348 - 23,953,269 Assigned 6,037,300 - - 6,037,300 Unassigned (deficit) 11,869,857 - (369,294) 11,500,563 Total fund balances 42,348,752 234,348 5,845,743 48,428,843 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources and fund balances 54,493,540$ 834,424$ 7,778,530$ 63,106,494$ City of Seal Beach Balance Sheet June 30, 2025 Governmental Funds See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 27 Total Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds 48,428,843$ Nondepreciable 33,993,625$ Depreciable, net of $368,975 reported in Internal Service Funds 59,890,321 Amortizable, net of $0 reported in Internal Service Funds 218,995 94,102,941 Interest payable (490)$ Subscription liabilities (233,861) Claims and judgments (222,189) Compensated absences (2,669,248) (3,125,788) Pension related deferred outflows of resources 15,479,312$ Net pension liability (47,794,537) Pension related deferred inflows of resources (1,398,133) (33,713,358) OPEB related deferred outflows of resources 1,128,667$ Net OPEB liability (2,003,181) OPEB related deferred inflows of resources (1,662,060) (2,536,574) 369,294 538,762 Net Position of Governmental Activities 104,064,120$ Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and accordingly are not reported as fund liabilities. All liabilities, both current and long-term, net of $0 reported in Internal Service Funds, are reported in the Statement of Net Position: Capital assets used in governmental activities were not current financial resources. Therefore, they were not reported in the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet. Internal Service Funds were used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as insurance and equipment replacement to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Funds were included in the governmental activities in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position. Revenue reported as unavailable revenue in the governmental funds when it is not received soon enough after year-end to be considered available. The availability criteria does not apply to the Government-Wide Financial Statements and, therefore, the revenue is recognized when eligibility requirements are met and earned. Net other postemployment benefits liabilities and the related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are not due and payable in the current period or not available for current expenditures and are not reported in the governmental fund financial statements: Net pension liabilities and the related deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources are not due and payable in the current period or not available for current expenditures and are not reported in the governmental fund financial statements: City of Seal Beach Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the June 30, 2025 Government-Wide Statement of Net Position Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Net Position were reported differently because: See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 28 Formerly Major Fund Capital Projects and Equipment Citywide Grants Nonmajor General Capital Projects Special Revenue Governmental Fund Fund Funds Funds Total Revenues: Taxes 37,948,689$ -$ 328,568$ 38,277,257$ Licenses and permits 1,066,988 - - 1,066,988 Intergovernmental 524,245 - 4,474,512 4,998,757 Charges for services 6,542,436 80,517 134,931 6,757,884 Use of money and property 3,261,969 - 233,695 3,495,664 Fines and forfeitures 1,491,069 - - 1,491,069 Contributions 94,105 - 66,936 161,041 Miscellaneous 632,186 54,951 7,445 694,582 Total revenues 51,561,687 135,468 5,246,087 56,943,242 Expenditures: Current: General government 8,527,678 - 65,935 8,593,613 Public safety 25,606,881 - 884,322 26,491,203 Community development 2,057,439 - 504,549 2,561,988 Community services 1,505,709 - - 1,505,709 Public works 7,776,429 182,500 717,952 8,676,881 Capital outlay 1,131,714 2,295,929 3,684,070 7,111,713 Debt service: Principal retirement 259,045 - - 259,045 Interest and fiscal charges 12,153 - - 12,153 Total expenditures 46,877,048 2,478,429 5,856,828 55,212,305 Revenues over (under) expenditures 4,684,639 (2,342,961) (610,741) 1,730,937 Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in 986,866 2,489,962 426,214 3,903,042 Transfers out (2,825,813) - (1,051,866) (3,877,679) Proceeds from issuance of subscription 34,005 - - 34,005 Total other financing sources (uses):(1,804,942) 2,489,962 (625,652) 59,368 Net change in fund balances 2,879,697 147,001 (1,236,393) 1,790,305 Fund Balances: Beginning of year, as previously reported 39,469,055 87,347 (761,934) 7,844,070 46,638,538 Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor) - - 761,934 (761,934) - Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 39,469,055 87,347 - 7,082,136 46,638,538 End of year 42,348,752$ 234,348$ -$ 5,845,743$ 48,428,843$ City of Seal Beach Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 29 Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds 1,790,305$ Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in governmental funds. Capital outlay, net of $0 reported in Internal Service Fund 7,111,713$ Depreciation and amortization, net of $154,043 reported in Internal Service Fund (2,783,927) Net effect on disposal of capital assets, net of $59,451 reported in Internal Service Fund (71,202) 4,256,584 Repayment of debt principal, net of $207,226 reported in Internal Service Fund, is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the Statement of Net Position.259,045 Interest expense on long-term debt is reported in the Statement of Activities, but do not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, interest is reported as an expenditure in governmental funds. This amount represents the change in accrued interest from the prior year.(490) Inception of subscription liability, net of $0 reported in the Internal Service Funds. (34,005) Claims and judgment changes reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds.109,214 Compensated absences were reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities, but they do not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, compensated absences were not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds.(559,736) Certain pension income (expenses) reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds, net of contribution made after the measurement period in the amount of $5,259,193.(3,064,413) Certain other postemployment benefits income (expenses) reported in the Statement of Activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds, net of contribution made after the measurement period in the amount of $643,095.(225,723) Revenues reported as unavailable revenue in the governmental funds and recognized in the Statement of Activities. (534,540) Internal Service Funds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as insurance and equipment replacement, to individual funds. The net revenue of the Internal Service Funds is reported in governmental activities.(199,109) Change in net position of governmental activities 1,797,132$ Governmental activities in the Statement of Activities were reported differently because: City of Seal Beach Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 30 PROPRIETARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 31 Governmental Activities Internal Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and investments 6,618,107$ 11,696,888$ 18,314,995$ 232,632$ Accounts receivable 821,294 385,643 1,206,937 - Prepaid items 26,222 22,778 49,000 - Total current assets 7,465,623 12,105,309 19,570,932 232,632 Noncurrent Assets: Restricted cash 25,082 - 25,082 - Capital assets, not being depreciated 2,724,644 1,089,848 3,814,492 - Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 13,624,159 18,382,879 32,007,038 368,975 Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization 63,715 55,984 119,699 - Total capital assets 16,412,518 19,528,711 35,941,229 368,975 Total noncurrent assets 16,437,600 19,528,711 35,966,311 368,975 Total Assets 23,903,223 31,634,020 55,537,243 601,607 DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES Deferred charges on refunding - 48,281 48,281 - Pension related items 546,576 564,376 1,110,952 - Other postemployment benefits related items 149,572 154,443 304,015 - Total deferred outflows of resources 696,148 767,100 1,463,248 - (Continued) Enterprise Funds June 30, 2025 Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position City of Seal Beach Business-Type Activities See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 32 Governmental Activities Internal Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable 1,667,457 127,293 1,794,750 62,845 Accrued liabilities 29,795 25,976 55,771 - Accrued interest 597 36,207 36,804 - Retention payable 3,196 18,501 21,697 - Deposits payable 212,666 9,570 222,236 - Compensated absences, due within one year 5,432 33,904 39,336 - Long-term debt, due within one year 116,429 483,561 599,990 - Total current liabilities 2,035,572 735,012 2,770,584 62,845 Noncurrent Liabilities: Compensated absences, due in more than one year 79,568 63,132 142,700 - Long-term debt, due in more than one year 180,569 2,466,819 2,647,388 - Net pension liabilities 1,856,405 1,916,863 3,773,268 - Net other postemployment benefits liabilities 265,464 274,109 539,573 - Total noncurrent liabilities 2,382,006 4,720,923 7,102,929 - Total liabilities 4,417,578 5,455,935 9,873,513 62,845 DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES Pension related items 61,375 63,374 124,749 - Other postemployment benefits related items 220,258 227,431 447,689 - Total deferred inflows of resources 281,633 290,805 572,438 - NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 16,112,324 16,608,111 32,720,435 368,975 Restricted for debt service 25,082 - 25,082 - Unrestricted 3,762,754 10,046,269 13,809,023 169,787 Total net position 19,900,160$ 26,654,380$ 46,554,540$ 538,762$ (Concluded) Enterprise Funds City of Seal Beach Statement of Net Position (Continued) Proprietary Funds June 30, 2025 Business-Type Activities See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 33 This page intentionally left blank. 34 Governmental Activities Internal Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds OPERATING REVENUES: Sales and service charges 6,580,190$ 2,254,730$ 8,834,920$ 54,951$ Miscellaneous 725 47 772 - Total operating revenues 6,580,915 2,254,777 8,835,692 54,951 OPERATING EXPENSES: Personnel expenses 733,102 1,263,291 1,996,393 - Operating expenses 5,103,736 640,092 5,743,828 80,517 Amortization and depreciation expenses 491,034 637,069 1,128,103 154,043 Total operating expenses 6,327,872 2,540,452 8,868,324 234,560 Operating income (loss)253,043 (285,675) (32,632) (179,609) NONOPERATING INCOME (LOSS): Interest revenues 196,943 395,836 592,779 - Interest expenses (21,738) (119,773) (141,511) - Gain (loss) on sale of assets - (7,671) (7,671) 5,863 Total nonoperating income (loss)175,205 268,392 443,597 5,863 TRANSFERS: Transfer out - - - (25,363) Total transfers - - - (25,363) Changes in net position 428,248 (17,283) 410,965 (199,109) NET POSITION: Beginning of year, as previously reported 19,751,042 23,781,823 43,532,865 737,871 Error corrections (Note 15) (261,151) 2,913,745 2,652,594 - Change in accounting principals and estimates (Note 15) (17,979) (23,905) (41,884) - Beginning of year, as restated 19,471,912 26,671,663 46,143,575 737,871 End of year 19,900,160$ 26,654,380$ 46,554,540$ 538,762$ Enterprise Funds Business-Type Activities For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position City of Seal Beach Proprietary Funds See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 35 Governmental Activities Internal Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Cash received from customers and users 6,748,852$ 2,331,453$ 9,080,305$ 69,563$ Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (4,833,425) (538,893) (5,372,318) (29,291) Cash paid to employees for services (1,548,644) (1,242,351) (2,790,995) - Net cash provided by operating activities 366,783 550,209 916,992 40,272 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Cash (paid to) other funds - - - (25,363) Net cash used in noncapital financing activities - - - (25,363) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Acquisition of capital assets (170,974) (523,150) (694,124) - Proceeds from disposal of capital assets - - - 65,534 Principal paid on long-term liabilities (170,404) (467,027) (637,431) (7,056) Interest paid on long-term liabilities (21,854) (112,231) (134,085) - Net cash provided by (used in) capital and related financing activities (363,232) (1,102,408) (1,465,640) 58,478 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Interest received 196,943 395,836 592,779 - Net cash provided by investing activities 196,943 395,836 592,779 - Net change in cash and cash equivalents 200,494 (156,363) 44,131 73,387 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS: Beginning of year 6,442,695 11,853,251 18,295,946 159,245 End of year 6,643,189$ 11,696,888$ 18,340,077$ 232,632$ RECONCILIATION OF CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS: Cash and investments 6,618,107$ 11,696,888$ 18,314,995$ 232,632$ Restricted cash 25,082 - 25,082 - Total cash and cash equivalents 6,643,189$ 11,696,888$ 18,340,077$ 232,632$ (Continued) Enterprise Funds City of Seal Beach Statement of Cash Flows Proprietary Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Business-Type Activities See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 36 Governmental Activities Internal Water Utility Sewer Utility Total Service Funds Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) to to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities: Operating income (loss) 253,043$ (285,675)$ (32,632) (179,609)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Amortization and depreciation expenses 491,034 637,069 1,128,103 154,043 Changes in assets and liabilities: (Increase)/decrease in accounts receivables 136,379 76,676 213,055 14,612 (Increase)/decrease in prepaid items (3,008) 436 (2,572) - (Increase)/decrease in deferred outflows of resources related to pensions 419,846 57,951 477,797 - (Increase)/decrease in deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB 289,812 199,785 489,597 - Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable 273,319 100,763 374,082 51,226 Increase/(decrease) in accrued liabilities (158) 3,075 2,917 - Increase/(decrease) in deposits payable 31,558 - 31,558 - Increase/(decrease) in compensated absences 4,097 8,907 13,004 - Increase/(decrease) in net pension liabilities (706,862) 266,247 (440,615) - Increase/(decrease) in net OPEB liabilities (515,685) (355,646) (871,331) - Increase/(decrease) in deferred inflows of resources related to pensions (86,790) (32,037) (118,827) - Increase/(decrease) in deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB (219,802) (127,342) (347,144) - Net cash provided by operating activities 366,783$ 550,209$ 916,992$ 40,272$ NONCASH ITEMS: Construction in progress deletion -$ (7,671)$ (7,671)$ -$ Retention payable (33,607) 18,501 (15,106) - Amortization of deferred charges - 12,071 12,071 - Lease asset early termination - - - (200,390) Lease liability early termination - - - 200,170 (Concluded) Enterprise Funds City of Seal Beach Statement of Cash Flows (Continued) Proprietary Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Business-Type Activities See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 37 This page intentionally left blank. 38 FIDUCIARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 39 This page intentionally left blank. 40 Custodial Funds ASSETS Cash and investments 646,562$ Receivables: Accounts 736 Taxes 3,047 Restricted investments with fiscal agent 984,945 Total assets 1,635,290 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Interest payable 91,611 Total current liabilities 91,611 Total liabilities 91,611 NET POSITION Restricted for Individual, organization and other government 1,543,679$ Total fiduciary net position June 30, 2025 Statement of Fiduciary Net Position City of Seal Beach Fiduciary Funds See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements 41 Custodial Funds ADDITIONS: Assessment revenue collected 827,646$ Investment income 59,738 Total additions 887,384 DEDUCTIONS: Return of deposits 98,458 Payment of special assessment district debt service 826,282 Total deductions 924,740 Change in net position (37,356) NET POSITION: Beginning of year, as previously reported 1,581,035 End of year 1,543,679$ City of Seal Beach Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position Fiduciary Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 See accompanying Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. 42 43 NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 44 This page intentionally left blank. City of Seal Beach Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 45 Page Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies .................................................................................... 47 A. Financial Reporting Entity ....................................................................................................................... 47 B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus......................................................................................... 48 C. Cash and Investments .............................................................................................................................. 50 D. Fair Value Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 51 E. Property Taxes Receivable ...................................................................................................................... 51 F. Lease Receivable ..................................................................................................................................... 51 G. Prepaid Items ........................................................................................................................................... 52 H. Interfund Transactions ............................................................................................................................. 52 I. Capital Assets .......................................................................................................................................... 52 J. Unearned and Unavailable Revenue ........................................................................................................ 53 K. Compensated Absences Payable ............................................................................................................. 53 L. Claims Payable ........................................................................................................................................ 54 M. Pensions ................................................................................................................................................... 54 N. Other Postemployment Benefits .............................................................................................................. 55 O. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources ................................................................................................ 55 P. Long-Term Liabilities.............................................................................................................................. 55 Q. Subscription Liabilities ............................................................................................................................ 55 R. Net Position ............................................................................................................................................. 56 S. Fund Balances ......................................................................................................................................... 56 T. Use of Estimates ...................................................................................................................................... 57 U. Tax Abatement ........................................................................................................................................ 57 V. Implementation of New GASB Pronouncements .................................................................................... 58 W. Upcoming New GASB Pronouncements................................................................................................. 58 Note 2 – Cash and Investments ......................................................................................................................... 59 A. Demand Deposits ..................................................................................................................................... 59 B. Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City's Investment Policy ....................................................................................................................... 60 C. Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements ......................................................................................... 60 D. Fair Value Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 61 E. Risk Disclosures ...................................................................................................................................... 62 F. Investment in Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) ........................................................................ 63 Note 3 – Lease Receivable .................................................................................................................................. 63 Note 4 – Interfund Transactions ....................................................................................................................... 64 A. Due From/To Other Funds ...................................................................................................................... 64 B. Transfers .................................................................................................................................................. 64 Note 5 – Capital Assets ....................................................................................................................................... 65 A. Governmental Activities .......................................................................................................................... 65 B. Business-Type Activities ......................................................................................................................... 66 City of Seal Beach Index to the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 46 Page Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities ......................................................................................................................... 67 A. Governmental Activities .......................................................................................................................... 67 B. Business-Type Activities ......................................................................................................................... 68 Note 7 – Non-City Obligations ........................................................................................................................... 71 A. Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 ...................................................................... 71 B. Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 ...................................... 71 Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program ............................................................................... 71 A. Description of Self-Insurance Pool Pursuant to Joint Powers Agreement .............................................. 71 B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority ................................................................................. 71 C. Purchased Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 72 D. Adequacy of Protection ........................................................................................................................... 73 E. Claims Activity ........................................................................................................................................ 73 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans ............................................................................................................ 73 A. General Information about the Pension Plan ........................................................................................... 73 B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension ....................................................................... 76 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan ............................................................................ 80 A. General Information about the OPEB Plan ............................................................................................. 80 B. Net OPEB Liability ................................................................................................................................. 81 C. Changes in the Net OPEB Liability ......................................................................................................... 82 D. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB ............................................................................................................. 83 Note 11 – Net Investment in Capital Assets ...................................................................................................... 84 Note 12 – Classification of Fund Balances ........................................................................................................ 85 Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies ..................................................................................................... 86 A. Commitments .......................................................................................................................................... 86 B. Encumbrances .......................................................................................................................................... 86 C. Contingencies .......................................................................................................................................... 86 D. Grants ...................................................................................................................................................... 86 Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure ............................................................................................................... 87 Note 15 – Restatements ...................................................................................................................................... 87 City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 47 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The basic financial statements of the City of Seal Beach, California, (the “City”) have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”) as applied to governmental agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) is the accepted standard setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The following is a summary of the City’s significant policies: A. Financial Reporting Entity The City was incorporated on October 27, 1915, under the laws of the State of California and enjoys all the rights and privileges applicable to a charter city. It is governed by an elected five-member council. As required by U.S. GAAP these financial statements present the City (the primary government and its component units). The component units discussed below are included in the reporting entity because of their operational or financial relationships with the City. In evaluating how to define the City for financial reporting purposes, management has considered all potential component units. The primary criteria for including a potential component unit within the reporting entity are the governing body’s financial accountability and a financial benefit or burden relationship and whether it is misleading to exclude. A primary government is financially accountable and shares a financial benefit or burden relationship, if it appoints a voting majority of an organization’s governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization, or if there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government. A primary government may also be financially accountable if an organization is fiscally dependent on the primary government regardless of whether the organization has a separately elected governing board, a governing board appointed by a higher level of government, or a jointly appointed board, and there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to, or impose specific financial burdens on the primary government. Blended Component Units Management determined that the following entities should be reported as blended component units based on the criteria above. Although the following entities are legally separate from the City, they have been “blended” as though they are part of the City because the component units’ governing bodies are substantially the same as the City’s and there is a financial benefit or burden relationship between the City and the component units; and management of the City has operational responsibilities for the component units; and/or the component units provide services entirely, or almost entirely, to the City or otherwise exclusively, or almost exclusively, benefits the City, even though they do not provide services directly to it. The Seal Beach Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) was formed May 8, 2000, pursuant to Articles 1 through 4 of Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code, to create a joint exercise of powers authority between the City and the former Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency. The City Council of the City is the governing board. Management of the primary government has operational responsibility for the blended component unit. The Authority was formed to undertake the financing of public capital improvements. On June 12, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6741, to create the Parking Authority, and the Parking Authority became a new member to the Authority. On the same date, the Successor Agency Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. SA 17-3, approving the Successor Agency’s withdrawal of its Authority membership. On June 28, 2017, the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency adopted Resolution No. OB17-03, approving such withdrawal. Resolution No. OB17-03 became effective upon the State of California Department of Finance’s approval, received by the Successor Agency on August 18, 2017. The Authority does not issue separate financial statements. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 48 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) A. Financial Reporting Entity (Continued) Blended Component Units (Continued) The Seal Beach Parking Authority (the “Parking Authority”) was formed on June 12, 2017, pursuant to the Part 2 of Division 18 of the California Streets and Highway Code. The Parking Authority is governed by the Board of Directors which is the City Council of the City of Seal Beach. The Parking Authority is blended into the general fund. The Parking Authority does not issue separate financial statements. The Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation (the “Foundation”) was organized under the laws of the State of California on August 27, 1984, to foster and promote civic advancement through activities related to cable communications, community promotion, and other public services deemed appropriate by the foundation. The Foundation is governed by a board of directors consisting of seven members, all appointed by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach. The Foundation is blended with the City as a special revenue fund. The Foundation does not issue separate financial statements. B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. City resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. Government-Wide Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements are presented on an “economic resources” measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all of the City’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, including capital assets, as well as infrastructure assets, and long-term liabilities, are included in the accompanying Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Activities presents changes in net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. Fiduciary activities of the City are not included in these statements. Certain types of transactions are reported as program revenues for the City in three categories:  Charges for services  Operating grants and contributions  Capital grants and contributions Certain eliminations have been made in regards to interfund activities, payables and receivables. All internal balances in the statement of net position have been eliminated. In the statement of activities, internal service fund transactions have been included in the governmental activities. The following interfund activities have been eliminated:  Due from and to other funds, which are short-term loans within the primary government.  Except between Governmental and Business-Type Activities, transfers in and out, which are flows of assets between funds without the requirement for repayment. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 49 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (Continued) Governmental Fund Financial Statements (Continued) All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending, or “current financial resources” measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets, current liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources are included on the balance sheet. The statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances presents increases (revenue and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in fund balances. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Revenues are recorded when received in cash, except those revenues subject to accrual (generally 60 days after year-end) which are recognized when measurable and available. The primary revenue sources that have been treated as susceptible to accrual by the City are property taxes, intergovernmental revenues and other taxes. Business license fees are recorded as received. Expenditures are recorded in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred. An exception to this general rule is principal and interest on long-term debt which is recognized when due. Reconciliations of the fund financial statements to the government-wide financial statements are provided to explain the differences. The City reports the following major Governmental Funds: General Fund – The General Fund is the City’s principal operating fund. It accounts for all revenues and expenditures used to finance the traditional services associated with a municipal government except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund – To account for major capital projects with various revenues sources but exclude the Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Fund. These sources get transferred into the Capital Projects and Equipment Projects Fund. Proprietary Fund Financial Statements Proprietary Fund Financial Statements include a Statement of Net Position, a Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position, and a Statement of Cash Flows for each major Proprietary Fund. Proprietary funds are accounted for using the "economic resources" measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities (whether current or noncurrent), and deferred inflows of resources are included on the Statement of Net Position. The Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position presents increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total Net Position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. In these funds, receivables have been recorded as revenue and provisions have been made for uncollectible amounts. Operating revenues in the proprietary funds are those revenues that are generated from the primary operations of the fund. All other revenues are reported as non-operating revenues. Operating expenses are those expenses that are essential to the primary operations of the fund. All other expenses are reported as non-operating expenses. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 50 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus (Continued) Proprietary Fund Financial Statements (Continued) The City reports the following major Proprietary Funds: Water Utility Enterprise Fund – This fund accounts for the capital, operation and maintenance of the City’s water distribution system. Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund – This fund accounts for the financial transactions of the City’s wastewater collection system. A separate column representing internal service funds is also presented in these statements. However, internal service balances and activities have been combined with the governmental activities in the Government-Wide Financial Statements. The City has a Vehicle Replacement Internal Service Fund and an Information Technology Internal Service Fund that provides services directly to other City funds. Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements Fiduciary fund financial statements include a Statement of Net Position and a Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position. The City’s fiduciary funds represent custodial funds. The custodial funds are accounted for on the full accrual basis of accounting where the assets associated with the activity are controlled by the City and the assets are not derived 1) solely from the government’s own-source revenues or 2) from government-mandated nonexchange transactions or voluntary nonexchange transactions. The City reports the following fiduciary fund: Custodial Funds – To accounts for assets for the benefit of individuals and the City does not have administrative involvement with the assets or direct financial involvement with the assets or for the benefit of organizations or other governments that are not part of the City. In addition, the assets are not derived from the City’s provision of goods or services to those individuals, organizations, or other governments. The custodial funds account for the deposits for individuals and organizations and the debt service and related expenses for the Heron Pointe and Pacific Gateway Community Facility Districts. C. Cash and Investments The City’s cash and cash equivalents are comprised of cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition. All cash and investments of proprietary funds are held in the City’s investment pool. These cash pools have the general characteristics of a demand deposit account, therefore, all cash and investments in the proprietary funds are considered cash and cash equivalents for statement of cash flows purposes. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 51 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) D. Fair Value Measurement Investments, unless otherwise specified, recorded at fair value in the financial statements, are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. The three levels of the fair value measurement hierarchy are described below:  Level 1 – Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets at the measurement date.  Level 2 – Inputs, other than quoted prices included in Level 1, that are observable for the assets or liabilities through corroboration with market data at the measurement date.  Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would use in pricing the assets or liabilities at the measurement date. E. Property Taxes Receivable Property tax revenue is recognized in the fiscal year for which the taxes have been levied providing they become available. Available means due, or past due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (not to exceed 60 days) to be used to pay liabilities in the current period. Under California law, property taxes are assessed and collected by the counties at up to 1% of assessed value, plus other increases approved by the voters. The property taxes go into a pool, and are then allocated to the cities based on complex formulas. The property tax calendar is as follows: Lien Date: January 1 Levy Date: July 1 Due Date: First Installment - November 1 Second Installment - February 1 Delinquent Date: First Installment - December 11 Second Installment - April 11 F. Lease Receivable The City is a lessor for leases of land and buildings and recognizes leases receivable and deferred inflows of resources in the financial statements. Variable payments based on future performance or usage of the underlying asset are not included in the measurement of the lease receivable. At the commencement of a lease, the lease receivable is measured at the present value of payments expected to be received during the lease term. The City established a threshold of $5,000 for lease receivables. Subsequently, the lease receivable is reduced by the principal portion of lease payments received. The deferred inflows of resources are initially measured as the initial amount of the lease receivable, adjusted for lease payments received at or before the lease commencement date. Subsequently, the deferred inflows of resources are recognized as revenue over the life of the lease term in a systematic and rational method. The City used the interest method of revenue recognition. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 52 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) F. Lease Receivable (Continued) Key estimates and judgments include how the City determines (1) the discount rate it uses to discount the expected lease receipts to present value, (2) lease term, and (3) lease receipts.  The City uses incremental borrowing rate (IBR) provided by the financial institution at July 1, 2021 for existing leases or the current rate at the time a new lease is executed.  The lease term includes the noncancelable period of the lease plus any option periods that are likely to be exercised.  Lease receipts included in the measurement of the lease receivable are composed of fixed payments from the lessee. The City monitors changes in circumstances that would require a remeasurement of its lease and will remeasure the lease receivable and deferred inflows of resources if certain changes occur that are expected to significantly affect the amount of the lease receivable. G. Prepaid Items Prepaid items are payments made to vendors for services that will benefit periods beyond the fiscal year ended. The City uses the consumption method to account for prepaid items. H. Interfund Transactions Transactions between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as “due from/to other funds” (i.e., current portion of interfund loans). These are typically routine and temporary cash flow assistance from the General Fund to other funds in advance of receiving grant funds or other types of revenue. Transactions which move resources from a fund receiving revenue to the fund through which the resources are expended are recorded as transfers. I. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land, buildings, improvements, equipment, furniture, and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, sidewalks, and similar items), are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are valued at the estimated acquisition value on the date donated. City policy has set the capitalization threshold for reporting capital assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life of one year or more. The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets that allow the City to function. The assets include street network, street appurtenances, and storm drains. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 53 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) I. Capital Assets (Continued) The City established a threshold to recognize a right-to-use including lease asset or subscription-based information technology arrangements (“SBITA”) asset (“subscription assets”) in the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements right-to-use asset over $5,000. Lease assets are recorded at the amount of the initial measurement of the lease liabilities and adjusted by any lease payments made to the lessor at or before the commencement of the lease term, less any lease incentives received at or before the commencement of the lease term along with any initial direct costs that are ancillary charges necessary to place the lease assets into service. Lease assets are amortized using the straight-line method over the shorter of the lease term or the useful life of the underlying asset, unless the lease contains a purchase option that the City has determined is reasonably certain of being exercised. In this case, the lease asset is amortized over the useful life of the underlying asset. Subscription assets are recorded at the amount of the initial measurement of the SBITA liabilities (“subscription liabilities”) and adjusted by any subscription payments to the SBITA vendor at or before the commencement of the subscription term, less any incentives received from the SBITA vendor at or before the commencement of the subscription term along with subscription implementation costs. Subscription assets are amortized over the shorter of the subscription term or the useful life of the underlying IT assets. All other capital assets used in operations are depreciated over their estimated useful using the straight-line method. The lives used for depreciation purposes are as follows: Assets Years Building and Improvements 20-99 Machinery and Equipment 5-50 Vehicles 4-10 Infrastructure 20-60 The City generally follows the above ranges in determining the estimated useful lives of capital assets. However, in certain instances, management may assign different useful lives that are considered reasonable and appropriate under generally accepted accounting principles, based on factors such as the asset’s condition, usage, or industry standards. J. Unearned and Unavailable Revenue Unearned revenue is reported for transactions for which revenue has not yet been earned. Typical transactions recorded as unearned revenues in the government-wide and fund financial statements are grant revenues received in advance. In the governmental fund financial statements, unavailable revenue is reported when transactions have not yet met the revenue recognition criteria based on the modified accrual basis of accounting. The City reports unavailable revenue when an asset is reported in governmental fund financial statements but the revenue is not collected within the availability period (within 60 days of year-end). K. Compensated Absences Payable Compensated absences comprise vested accumulated vacation and sick leave. The City's liability for compensated absences is recorded in governmental or business-type activities as appropriate. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 54 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) K. Compensated Absences Payable (Continued) The liability for compensated absences is determined annually. The liability for compensated absences is recognized as leave is earned, based on the employee’s pay rate in effect at the financial statement date, including any applicable salary-related costs. The liability includes only leave attributable to services already rendered and that is more likely than not to be paid. Under GASB 101, a liability must be recognized for leave that is attributable to services already rendered, accumulates and carries forward to future periods, and is more likely than not to be used or paid. This represents a shift from previous guidance, particularly in how likelihood and eligibility are assessed. L. Claims Payable When it is probable that a claim liability has been incurred at year-end and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the City records the estimated loss, net of any insurance coverage under its self-insurance program. Small dollar claims and judgments are recorded as expenditures when paid. The City's self-insurance program is administered through California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA), which is described in Note 8 to the financial statements. The Authority is a public entity risk pool. Claims losses recorded in the Authority include both current claims and incurred but not reported claims (IBNR). Deposits to the Authority are recorded by the City as insurance expenditures in the General Fund when paid. These deposits are subject to retrospective adjustment. Favorable claims experience in prior years results in a refund of deposits from the Authority and such refunds, if any, are recorded as prepaid items in the General Fund since they will be used to offset future deposit requirements. Adverse claims experience in prior years results in the payment of additional deposits and such deposits, if any, are recorded as insurance expenditures when incurred. M. Pensions For purposes of measuring the aggregate net pension liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the plans and additions to/deductions from the plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the plans. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. The following timeframes are used for pension reporting: Valuation Date June 30, 2023 Measurement Date June 30, 2024 Measurement Period July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Gains and losses related to changes in total pension liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in pension expense systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in pension expense for the year the gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and are to be recognized in future pension expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized straight-line over 5 years. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive, and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period. Pension liabilities are liquidated principally by General Fund for the governmental activities. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 55 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) N. Other Postemployment Benefits For purposes of measuring the net other postemployment benefits (“OPEB)” liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the plans and additions to/deductions from the plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the plans. For this purpose, benefit payments are recognized when due and payable in accordance with benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. The following timeframes are used for OPEB reporting: Valuation Date June 30, 2023 Measurement Date June 30, 2024 Measurement Period July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Gains and losses related to changes in total OPEB liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in OPEB expense systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in OPEB expense for the year the gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB and are to be recognized in future OPEB expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized straight-line over 5 years. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive, and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period. OPEB liabilities are liquidated principally by General Fund for the governmental activities. O. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources The financial statements report separate sections for deferred outflows of resources, and deferred inflows of resources, when applicable. Deferred Outflows of Resources represent a consumption of net assets that applies to future periods. Deferred Inflows of Resources represent an acquisition of net assets that applies to future period. P. Long-Term Liabilities Long-term debt and other long-term liabilities are reported as liabilities in the Statement of Net Position. Bond premiums and discounts are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. Q. Subscription Liabilities The City recognizes subscription liabilities with an initial, individual value of $5,000 or more with a subscription term greater than one year in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. Variable payments based on future performance of the City, usage of the underlying IT assets, or number of user seats are not included in the measurement of the subscription liability. At the commencement of a subscription, the City initially measures the subscription liability at the present value of payments expected to be made during the subscription term. Subsequently, the subscription liability is reduced by the principal portion of subscription payments made. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 56 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) Q. Subscription Liabilities (Continued) Key estimates and judgments related to subscription liabilities include how the City determines (1) the discount rate it uses to discount the expected subscription payments to present value, (2) subscription term, and (3) subscription payments.  The City uses incremental borrowing rate provided by the financial institution at July 1, 2022 for existing subscription or the current rate at the time a new subscription is executed.  The subscription term includes the noncancellable period of the SBITA. Subscription payments included in the measurement of the subscription liability are composed of fixed payments. The City monitors changes in circumstances that would require a remeasurement of its SBITA and will remeasure any subscription asset and liability if certain changes occur that are expected to significantly affect the amount of the subscription liability. R. Net Position In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund financial statements, net position is classified as follows: Net Investment in Capital Assets – This component of net position consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, capital related debt, deferred charges, and retention payable. Restricted – This component of net position consists of restricted assets reduced by liabilities and deferred inflows of resources related to those assets. Unrestricted – This component of net position is the amount of the assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources that are not included in the determination of net investment in capital assets or the restricted component of net position. When expenses are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted components of net position are available, the City’s practice is to apply the restricted component of net position first, then use the unrestricted component of net position as needed. S. Fund Balances In the governmental fund financial statements, fund balances are classified as follows: Nonspendable – Nonspendable fund balances include amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in a spendable form, such as unrestricted loans receivable or prepaid items, or because resources legally or contractually must remain intact. Restricted – Restricted fund balances are the portion of fund balance that have externally enforceable limitations on their usage through legislation or limitations imposed by creditors, grantor, laws and regulations of other governments or enabling legislation. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 57 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) S. Fund Balances (Continued) Committed – Committed fund balances are self-imposed limitations by the highest level of decision-making authority, namely the City Council, prior to the end of the reporting period. City Council adoption of a resolution is required to commit resources or to rescind the commitment. Assigned – Assigned fund balances are limitations imposed by management based on the intended use of the funds. Modifications or rescissions of the constraints can be removed by the same type of action that limited the use of the funds. Assignment of resources can be done by the highest level of decision making or by a committee or official designated for that purpose. The City Council has authorized the Finance Director for that purpose. Unassigned – Unassigned fund balances represent the residual net resources in excess of the other classifications. The General Fund is the only fund that reports a positive unassigned fund balance amount. In other governmental funds, it is not appropriate to report a positive unassigned fund balance amount. However, in governmental funds other than General Fund, if expenditures incurred for specific purposes exceed the amounts that are restricted, committed, or assigned to those purposes, it may be necessary to report a negative unassigned fund balance in that fund. When expenditures are incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted fund balances are available, the City’s practice is to apply restricted fund balances first, then use unrestricted fund balances as needed. When expenditures are incurred for purposes where only unrestricted fund balances are available, the City uses the unrestricted resources in the following order, except for instances wherein an ordinance specifies the fund balance: committed, assigned, then unassigned. T. Use of Estimates The preparation of the basic financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. U. Tax Abatement Tax abatement is a reduction in tax revenues that results from an agreement between one or more governments and an individual or entity in which (a) one or more governments promise to forgo tax revenues to which they are otherwise entitled and (b) the individual or entity promises to take a specific action after the agreement has been entered into that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the governments or the citizens of those governments. City policy has set the threshold for disclosing tax abatement agreements greater than $50,000. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 58 Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) V. Implementation of New GASB Pronouncements During fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the City has implemented the following new GASB Pronouncements: GASB Statement No. 101 – In June 2022, the GASB issued Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by updating the recognition and measurement guidance for compensated absences. That objective is achieved by aligning the recognition and measurement guidance under a unified model and by amending certain previously required disclosures. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023, and all reporting periods thereafter. Implementation of this Statement resulted in a restatements of the beginning fund balance as of July 1, 2024, as presented in Note 15. GASB Statement No. 102 – In December 2023, the GASB issued Statement No. 102, Certain Risk Disclosures. The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with information about risks related to a government’s vulnerabilities due to certain concentrations or constraints that is essential to their analyses for making decisions or assessing accountability. The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2024, and all reporting periods thereafter. The City has evaluated its exposure to financial risk stemming from concentrations and constraints and determined that none exist. W. Upcoming New GASB Pronouncements The City is currently evaluating its accounting practices to determine the potential impact on the financial statements for the following GASB Statements: GASB Statement No. 103 – In April 2024, GASB issued Statement No. 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements. The objective of this Statement is to improve key components of the financial reporting model to enhance its effectiveness in providing information that is essential for decision making and assessing a government’s accountability. Application of this statement is effective for the City’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2026. The City has not determined the effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 104 – In September 2024, the GASB issued Statement No. 104, Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets. The objective of this Statement is to provide users of government financial statements with essential information about certain types of capital assets. This Statement requires certain types of capital assets to be disclosed separately in the capital assets note disclosures required by Statement 34. This Statement also requires additional disclosures for capital assets held for sale. The City has not determined the effect on the financial statements. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 59 Note 2 – Cash and Investments The City maintains a cash and investment pool, which includes cash balances and authorized investments of all funds. The City had the following cash and investments at June 30, 2025: Government-Wide Statement of Statement of Fiduciary Net Position Net Position Total Cash and investments 66,128,699$ 646,562$ 66,775,261$ Restricted cash and investment with fiscal agent 36,757 984,945 1,021,702 Total cash and investments 66,165,456$ 1,631,507$ 67,796,963$ The City’s cash and investments at June 30, 2025 in more detail: Cash and Investments: Petty cash 9,000$ Demand deposits 3,787,879 Restricted cash 36,757 Investments 63,979,927 Total cash and investments 67,813,563$ A. Demand Deposits The carrying amounts of the City’s demand deposits were $3,787,879 at June 30, 2025. Bank balances at that date were $3,635,102, the total amount of which was insured or collateralized with accounts held by the pledging financial institutions in the City’s name as discussed below. The California Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure the City’s cash deposits by pledging securities as collateral. This Code states that collateral pledged in this manner shall have the effect of perfecting a security interest in such collateral superior to those of a general creditor. Thus, collateral for cash deposits is considered to be held in the City’s name. The fair value of pledged securities must equal at least 110% of the City’s cash deposits. California law also allows institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the City’s total cash deposits. The City may waive collateral requirements for cash deposits, which are fully insured up to $250,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). The City, however, has not waived the collateralization requirements. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 60 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued) B. Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the City's Investment Policy The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized by the City's investment policy and the California Government Code. The table also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code (or the City's investment policy, if more restrictive) that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk. This table does not address investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the City, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City's investment policy. Maximum Maximum Authorized Investment Type Maturity Portfolio* One Issuer* U.S. Treasury securities None 100% None U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities 5 years 20% None Obligation of the State of California or any local agency 5 years 100% None Registered treasury notes or bonds of any of the 49 states in addition to California 5 years 100% None Bankers' acceptance 180 days 40% 5% Commercial paper 270 days 25% 10% Nonnegotiable certificate of deposit 5 years 100% None Negotiable certificate of deposit 5 years 30% None Medium term notes 5 years 30% 5% Asset-Backed Securities 5 years 20% 5% Supranationals 5 years 30% 5% Money market mutual funds 5 years 20% 5% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) None 100% 75 Million/account *The table is based on state law requirements or investment policy requirements, whichever is more restrictive. C. Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements Investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee are governed by provisions of the debt agreements, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the City's investment policy. The following table identifies the investment types that are authorized for investments held by bond trustee. The table also identifies certain provisions of these debt agreements that address interest rate risk, and concentration of credit risk. Maximum Maximum Maximum Percentage of Investment in Authorized Investment Type Maturity Portfolio* One Issuer* U.S. Treasury securities None None None U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities None None None Bankers' acceptance 180 days None 30% Commercial paper 270 days None None Money market mutual funds 5 years None None Investment contracts 30 years None None Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) None None None City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 61 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued) D. Fair Value Measurement At June 30, 2025, investments are reported at fair value. The following table presents the fair value measurement of investments on a recurring basis and the levels within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements fall at June 30, 2025: Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Significant Other Identical Assets Observable Inputs Investment Type Value (Level 1) (Level 2) Investments: US Treasury bonds/notes 15,026,190$ 15,026,190$ -$ U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities 6,195,601 - 6,195,601 Asset-backed securities 2,443,577 - 2,443,577 Municipal bonds 274,074 - 274,074 Corporate notes 6,136,387 - 6,136,387 Negotiable certificates of deposit 283,891 - 283,891 Bank notes 539,396 - 539,396 Total investments subject to fair value measurement 30,899,116 15,026,190$ 15,872,926$ Investments measured at amortized cost: Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 32,095,866 Investments held with fiscal agents: Money market funds 984,945 Total investments 63,979,927$ Fair Value Measurement Investments in municipal bonds/notes, U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities, asset-backed securities and corporate notes are valued based on institutional bond quotes. Investments in negotiable certificates of deposits are valued based on certificate of deposits pricing. Investments in bank notes are based on an option-adjusted spread methodology provided by US Bank and are observable through corroboration with market data at the measurement date. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 62 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued) E. Risk Disclosures Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment is, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. One of the ways that the City manages its exposure to interest rate risk is by purchasing a combination of shorter term and longer-term investments and by timing cash flows from maturities so that a portion of the portfolio is maturing or coming close to maturity evenly over time as necessary to provide the cash flow and liquidity needed for operations. The sensitivity of the fair values of the City's investments (including investments held by bond trustees) to market interest rate fluctuations is as follows: Investment Type Amount Less than 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 Investments: US Treasury bonds/notes 15,026,190$ 3,158,245$ 2,646,084$ 3,161,420$ 889,160$ 5,171,281$ U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities 6,195,601 - 617,879 911,986 4,078,907 586,829 Asset-backed securities 2,443,577 - - 211,138 1,155,713 1,076,726 Municipal bonds 274,074 274,074 - - - - Corporate notes 6,136,387 99,657 1,219,505 1,059,884 2,234,912 1,522,429 Negotiable certificates of deposit 283,891 - 283,891 - - - Bank notes 539,396 - - 539,396 - - LAIF 32,095,866 32,095,866 - - - - Investments with Fiscal Agent: Money market funds 984,945 984,945 - - - - Total investments 63,979,927$ 36,612,787$ 4,767,359$ 5,883,824$ 8,358,692$ 8,357,265$ Investment Maturities (in Years) Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government Code or the City's investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual rating as of fiscal year end for each investment type. Minimum Legal Investment Type Rating Total AAA AA- to AA+ A- to A+ Unrated Investments: US Treasury bonds/notes N/R 15,026,190$ -$ 15,026,190$ -$ -$ U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities A 6,195,601 - 6,195,601 - - Asset-backed securities AA 2,443,577 2,443,577 - - - Municipal bonds N/R 274,074 - 274,074 - - Corporate notes A 6,136,387 344,023 1,925,541 3,866,823 - Negotiable certificates of deposit N/R 283,891 - - 283,891 - Bank notes N/R 539,396 - - 539,396 - LAIF N/A 32,095,866 - - - 32,095,866 Investments with Fiscal Agent: Money market funds N/R 984,945 984,945 - - - Total investments 63,979,927$ 3,772,545$ 23,421,406$ 4,690,110$ 32,095,866$ N/R - Not required by the City's investment policy N/A - Not applicable City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 63 Note 2 – Cash and Investments (Continued) E. Risk Disclosures (Continued) Concentration of Credit Risk The investment policy of the City contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer beyond that stipulated by the California Government Code. June 30, 2025, the following investment represent 5% or more of total City investments: Issuer Investment Type Amount Percentage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation U.S. Agency Notes 5,923,381$ 9.4% Custodial Credit Risk Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty (e.g., broker dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The California Government Code and the City's investment policy do not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits: The California Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local government units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The fair value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at least 110% of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured public deposits. At June 30, 2025, the City deposits (bank balances were insured by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation up to $250,000 and the remaining balances were collateralized under California law. For investments identified herein as held by bond trustee, the bond trustee selects the investment under the terms of the applicable trust agreement, acquires the investment, and holds the investment on behalf of the reporting government. F. Investment in Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) The City is a participant in LAIF, which is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. As of June 30, 2025, the City had $32,095,866 invested in LAIF. LAIF is reported at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. Note 3 – Lease Receivable Lease receivables consists of agreements with other for the right–to–use of the underlying assets for land and buildings owned by the City at various locations for cell tower use and business use, respectively. The remaining terms of the business agreements range from 2 to 32 years with incremental borrowing rates between 1.5% and 3.87% and the cell towers range from 1 to 22 years with incremental borrowing rates between 1.5% and 3.67%. For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized $474,178 in lease revenue and $164,019 in lease interest revenue for General Fund. The outstanding lease receivable is in the amount of $8,386,280 in the General Fund. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 64 Note 3 – Lease Receivable (Continued) The future receipts for the lease receivables, including interest, are as follows: Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 335,844$ 157,010$ 492,854$ 2027 263,845 150,572 414,417 2028 233,718 145,622 379,340 2029 248,045 140,544 388,589 2030 215,980 135,417 351,397 2031-2035 1,322,345 599,594 1,921,939 2036-2040 1,784,271 436,740 2,221,011 2041-2045 1,449,522 259,063 1,708,585 2046-2050 1,073,724 146,259 1,219,983 2051-2055 993,196 74,293 1,067,489 2056-2057 465,790 7,386 473,176 8,386,280$ 2,252,500$ 10,638,780$ Note 4 – Interfund Transactions A. Due From/To Other Funds At June 30, 2025, the City had the following due from/to other funds: Due To Other Funds Nonmajor Governmental Funds Total 725,401$ Due From Other Funds General Fund 725,401$ The above amounts resulted from deficits in the pooled cash account and short-term borrowing to cover deficits. B. Transfers During the year ended June 30, 2025, the City had the following transfers: Capital Projects and Equipment Nonmajor General Capital Projects Governmental Transfers out Fund Fund Funds Total Governmental Funds: General Fund -$ 2,489,962$ 335,851$ 2,825,813$ Nonmajor Governmental Funds 961,503 - 90,363 1,051,866 Proprietary Funds: Internal Service Funds 25,363 - - 25,363 Total 986,866$ 2,489,962$ 426,214$ 3,903,042$ Transfers in Transfers of $961,503 from Nonmajor Governmental Funds were made to the General Fund for non-capital expenditures and closure of Detention Center Nonmajor Special Revenue Fund. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 65 Note 4 – Interfund Transactions (Continued) B. Transfers (Continued) Transfers of $25,363 was made to the General Fund for closure of Information Technology Internal Service Fund. The General Fund transferred $2,489,962 to the Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund to pay for capital projects. The General Fund and Nonmajor Governmental Funds transferred $335,851 and $90,363, respectively, to the Nonmajor Governmental for debt service-related and administrative costs. Note 5 – Capital Assets A. Governmental Activities The summary of changes in governmental activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows: Balance July 1, 2024 Balance (As Restated) Additions Deletions Reclassification June 30, 2025 Capital assets not being depreciated: Land 20,319,847$ -$ -$ -$ 20,319,847$ Intangible asset-land easement 900,000 - - - 900,000 Construction in progress 9,938,321 4,882,682 (40,681) (2,006,544) 12,773,778 Total capital assets not being depreciated 31,158,168 4,882,682 (40,681) (2,006,544) 33,993,625 Capital assets being depreciated: Buildings and improvements 17,211,064 265,879 - 718,395 18,195,338 Machinery and equipment 4,379,208 1,107,638 - 26,125 5,512,971 Vehicles 3,733,030 650,011 (156,117) - 4,226,924 Infrastructure 92,853,901 171,498 - 1,262,024 94,287,423 Total capital assets being depreciated 118,177,203 2,195,026 (156,117) 2,006,544 122,222,656 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and improvements (8,908,595) (411,517) - - (9,320,112) Machinery and equipment (3,051,455) (247,482) - - (3,298,937) Vehicles (2,523,236) (286,220) 66,145 - (2,743,311) Infrastructure (44,876,034) (1,724,966) - - (46,601,000) Total accumulated depreciation (59,359,320) (2,670,185) 66,145 - (61,963,360) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 58,817,883 (475,159) (89,972) 2,006,544 60,259,296 Intangible assets being amortized: Right of use - leased vehicles 363,368 - (363,368) - - Right of use - leased equipment 110,331 - (110,331) - - Righ tof use - subscription asset 949,058 34,005 - - 983,063 Total intangible assets being amortized 1,422,757 34,005 (473,699) - 983,063 Less accumulated amortization for: Right of use - leased vehicles (162,978) - 162,978 - - Right of use - leased equipment (107,349) (2,982) 110,331 - - Righ tof use - subscription asset (499,265) (264,803) - - (764,068) Total accumulated amortization (769,592) (267,785) 273,309 - (764,068) Total intangible assets being amortized, net 653,165 (233,780) (200,390) - 218,995 Total governmental activities 90,629,216$ 4,173,743$ (331,043)$ -$ 94,471,916$ City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 66 Note 5 – Capital Assets (Continued) A. Governmental Activities (Continued) Depreciation and amortization expense was charged to functions/programs of governmental activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 as follows: General government 329,520$ Public safety 464,500 Community development 123,734 Public works 1,866,173 Internal service funds 154,043 Total 2,937,970$ B. Business-Type Activities The summary of changes in business-type activities capital assets for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows: Balance July 1, 2024 Balance (As Restated) Additions Deletions Reclassification June 30, 2025 Capital assets not being depreciated: Construction in progress-water 2,660,703$ 63,941$ -$ -$ 2,724,644$ Construction in progress-sewer 617,088 520,431 (7,671) (40,000) 1,089,848 Total capital assets not being depreciated 3,277,791 584,372 (7,671) (40,000) 3,814,492 Capital assets being depreciated: Buildings and improvements - water 73,284 - - - 73,284 Machinery and equipment - water 644,596 - - - 644,596 Machinery and equipment - sewer 829,189 21,220 - - 850,409 Vehicles - water 503,027 - - - 503,027 Vehicles - sewer 382,670 - - - 382,670 Infrastructure - water 34,382,051 73,426 - - 34,455,477 Infrastructure - sewer 38,622,844 - - 40,000 38,662,844 Total capital assets being depreciated 75,437,661 94,646 - 40,000 75,572,307 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and improvements - water (73,284) - - - (73,284) Machinery and equipment - water (507,144) (6,400) - - (513,544) Machinery and equipment - sewer (349,738) (19,306) - - (369,044) Vehicles - water (243,659) (39,560) - - (283,219) Vehicles - sewer (382,670) - - - (382,670) Infrastructure - water (20,784,507) (397,671) - - (21,182,178) Infrastructure - sewer (20,178,436) (582,894) - - (20,761,330) Total accumulated depreciation (42,519,438) (1,045,831) - - (43,565,269) Total capital assets being depreciated, net 32,918,223 (951,185) - 40,000 32,007,038 Intangible assets being amortized: Right of use - subscription asset - water 197,421 - - - 197,421 Right of use - subscription asset - sewer 159,816 - - - 159,816 Total intangible assets being amortized 357,237 - - - 357,237 Less accumulated amortization for: Right of use - subscription asset - water (86,303) (47,403) - - (133,706) Right of use - subscription asset - sewer (68,963) (34,869) - - (103,832) Total accumulated amortization (155,266) (82,272) - - (237,538) Total intangible assets being amortized, net 201,971 (82,272) - - 119,699 Total business-type activities 36,397,985$ (449,085)$ (7,671)$ -$ 35,941,229$ City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 67 Note 5 – Capital Assets (Continued) B. Business-Type Activities (Continued) Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of business-type activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 as follows: Water Utility 491,034$ Sewer Utility 637,069 Total 1,128,103$ Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities A. Governmental Activities Summary of changes in long-term liabilities for governmental activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows: Balance July 1, 2024 Balance Due within Due in more (As Restated) Additions Deletions June 30, 2025 One Year than One Year Lease Liabilities De Lage Landen 3,046$ -$ (3,046)$ -$ -$ -$ Enterprise Fleet 207,226 - (207,226) - - - Subscription liabilities 455,855 34,005 (255,999) 233,861 113,820 120,041 Claims payable 331,403 34,492 (143,706) 222,189 44,438 177,751 Compensated absences 2,109,512 559,736 *- 2,669,248 549,934 2,119,314 Total 3,107,042$ 628,233$ (609,977)$ 3,125,298$ 708,192$ 2,417,106$ * The change in the compensated absences liability is presented as a net change. Classification The General Fund has been used to liquidate the majority of the liability for compensated absences. De Lage Landen Lease Payable On August 27, 2019, the City entered into a 60-month lease agreement with De Lage Landen Public Finance LLC for 22 copy machines for a monthly lease payment in the amount of $4,612. Lease payments are due on the 1st of each month. Interest on the copy machines accrues at 1.5% annum. In the event of default, the lease shall be deemed terminated. During the year ended June 30, 2025, the lease was fully paid off. Enterprise Fleet On October 25, 2021, the City entered into a 60-month lease agreement with Enterprise Fleet Management for 3 vehicles for a total monthly lease payment in the amount of $3,202. As of June 30, 2023 the City leased a total of 6 vehicles with terms of 48-month for a total monthly lease payment in the amount of $7,030. Lease payments are due on the 1st of each month. Interest accrues at 1.5% annum. In the event of default, the lease shall be deemed terminated. As of July 2025, the City terminated the lease with Enterprise and fully purchased all remaining vehicles. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 68 Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued) A. Governmental Activities (Continued) Subscription Liabilities The City entered into subscription agreements with various vendors for software. The agreements expire from July 19, 2025 to June 30, 2027 with interest rates ranging 2.35 percent to 3.76 percent. Outstanding subscription liabilities at June 30, 2025 was in the amount of $233,861. The future subscription payments are as follows: Year Ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 113,820$ 5,872$ 119,692$ 2027 120,041 2,754 122,795 Total 233,861$ 8,626$ 242,487$ B. Business-Type Activities Summary of changes in long-term liabilities for business-type activities for the year ended June 30, 2025 is as follows: Balance July 1, 2024 Balance Due within Due in more (as restated) Additions Deletions June 30, 2025 One Year than One Year Private Placement 2011 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds 1,180,000$ -$ (215,000)$ 965,000$ 225,000$ 740,000$ Direct Borrowing Sewer Capital Improvement Project #1 1,212,172 - (138,264) 1,073,908 141,859 932,049 Sewer Capital Improvement Project #2 929,237 - (82,562) 846,675 84,709 761,966 West Orange County Water Board Loan 358,855 - (126,654) 232,201 84,436 147,765 Subscriptions Subscription liabilities - water 108,547 - (43,750) 64,797 31,993 32,804 Subscription liabilities - sewer 95,998 - (31,201) 64,797 31,993 32,804 Compensated absences 169,032 13,004 *- 182,036 39,336 142,700 Total 4,053,841$ 13,004$ (637,431)$ 3,429,414$ 639,326$ 2,790,088$ * The change in the compensated absences liability is presented as a net change. Classification 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds On March 2, 2011, the City issued 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds in the amount of $3,310,000 to pay off the 2000 Sewer System Certificates of Participation. The 2000 Sewer System Certificates of Participation were issued to provide for improvements to the City’s sewer system. Interest rate on the 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds is 4.8%, and the outstanding balance of the 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds at June 30, 2025 was $965,000. In the event of a default the City may be required to pay all principal components of the unpaid installment payments, together with accrued interest at the overdue rate from the preceding interest payment date which will become immediately due and payable. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 69 Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued) B. Business-Type Activities (Continued) 2011 Sewer System Revenue Refunding Bonds (Continued) The annual debt service requirements are as follows: Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 225,000$ 43,680$ 268,680$ 2027 235,000 32,760 267,760 2028 245,000 21,360 266,360 2029 260,000 9,360 269,360 Total 965,000$ 107,160$ 1,072,160$ Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #1 On April 6, 2011, the City entered into an agreement with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board for construction of the Sewer Capital Improvement project. The City may borrow up to $2,644,356 or the eligible costs of the project, whichever is less. As of June 30, 2025, the City had drawn down the entire loan fund. The loan has an interest rate of 2.6% with maturities through 2031. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025 was $1,073,908. In the event of default, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board may sue the City as it deems necessary to compel the payment of the loan. The annual debt service requirements are as follows: Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 141,859$ 27,922$ 169,781$ 2027 145,547 24,233 169,780 2028 149,331 20,449 169,780 2029 153,214 16,566 169,780 2030 157,197 12,583 169,780 2031-2032 326,760 12,798 339,558 Total 1,073,908$ 114,551$ 1,188,459$ Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #2 On April 6, 2011, the City entered into an agreement with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board for construction of the Sewer Capital Improvement project. The City may borrow up to $2,125,112 or the eligible costs of the project, whichever is less. At June 30, 2025, the State Water Resources Control Board had disbursed $1,652,742. The loan has an interest rate of 2.6% with maturities through 2031. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025 was $846,675. In the event of default, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Control Board may sue the City as it deems necessary to compel the payment of the loan. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 70 Note 6 – Long-Term Liabilities (Continued) B. Business-Type Activities (Continued) Sewer Capital Improvement Project Loan #2 (Continued) The annual debt service requirements are as follows: Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 84,709$ 22,014$ 106,723$ 2027 86,912 19,811 106,723 2028 89,171 17,551 106,722 2029 91,490 15,233 106,723 2030 93,869 12,854 106,723 2031-2034 400,524 26,368 426,892 Total 846,675$ 113,831$ 960,506$ West Orange County Water Board Loan On December 11, 2017, the City entered into financial participation agreement with the West Orange County Water Board (the “WOCWB”) for relocation of the City’s allocated 14.3% ownership in the waterline. The City’s portion of project costs was in the amount of $894,928. The repayments are due quarterly on the first of the month commencing June 1, 2018. The interest rate ranges from 1.414% to 5.314% with maturity date on March 1, 2028. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025 was $232,201. The annual debt service requirements are as follows: Year ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 84,436$ 6,764$ 91,200$ 2027 84,436 4,370 88,806 2028 63,329 1,302 64,631 Total 232,201$ 12,436$ 244,637$ Subscription Liabilities The City entered into subscription agreements with various vendors for software. The agreements expire from July 19, 2025 to February 8, 2027 with interest rates ranging 2.35 percent to 2.80 percent. Outstanding subscription liabilities at June 30, 2025 was in the amount of $204,545. The future subscription payments are as follows: Year Ending June 30, Principal Interest Total 2026 63,986$ 3,287$ 67,273$ 2027 65,608 1,664 67,272 Total 129,594$ 4,951$ 134,545$ City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 71 Note 7 – Non-City Obligations A. Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 The Heron Pointe Community Facilities District No. 2002-01 was formed to finance public facilities improvements within Heron Pointe. The debt service payments on the bonds will be included on property tax bills within community facilities district and will be collected by the City and then forwarded to the paying agent. A reserve fund was established in which the City may make withdrawals enough to cover any delinquent payments on the reassessments. The City has no liability for the bonds beyond the amount held in the reserve fund. The bonds are not secured by the general taxing power of the City, county, state, or any political subdivision of the state nor have the City, county, state, or any political subdivision thereof pledged its full faith and credit for the repayment thereof. Since the City has no liability for these bonds, the reserve fund and debt service monies are stored in the Agency Fund and the debt is not included in the financial statements. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025, was $2,200,000. B. Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 The Pacific Gateway Business Center Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 was formed to finance public facilities within the Pacific Gateway. The debt service payments on the bonds will be included on property tax bills within the community facilities district and will be collected by the City and then forwarded to the paying agent. A reserve fund was established in which the City may make withdrawals enough to cover any delinquent payments on the reassessments. The City has no liability for the bonds beyond the amount held in the Reserve Fund. The bonds are not secured by the general taxing power of the City, county, state, or any political subdivision of the state nor have the City, county, state, or any political subdivision thereof pledged its full faith and credit for the repayment thereof. Since the City has no liability for these bonds, the reserve fund and debt service monies are stored in the Agency Fund and the debt is not included in the financial statements. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2025, was $6,065,000. Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program A. Description of Self-Insurance Pool Pursuant to Joint Powers Agreement The City of Seal Beach (the “City”) is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (the “Authority”). The Authority is composed of 126 California public entities and is organized under a joint powers agreement pursuant to California Government Code §6500 et seq. The purpose of the Authority is to arrange and administer programs for the pooling of self-insured losses, to purchase excess insurance or reinsurance, and to arrange for group purchased insurance for property and other lines of coverage. The California JPIA began covering claims of its members in 1978. Each member government has an elected official as its representative on the Board of Directors. The Board operates through a nine-member Executive Committee. B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority Each member pays an annual contribution at the beginning of the coverage period. The total funding requirement for primary self-insurance programs is based on an actuarial analysis. Costs are allocated to individual agencies based on payroll and claims history, relative to other members of the risk-sharing pool. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 72 Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program (Continued) B. Primary Self-Insurance Programs of the Authority (Continued) Primary Liability Program Claims are pooled separately between police and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $100,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from $100,000 to $500,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $500,000 to $50 million, are distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers. The overall coverage limit for each member, including all layers of coverage, is $50 million per occurrence. Subsidence losses also have a $50 million per occurrence limit. The coverage structure is composed of a combination of pooled self-insurance, reinsurance, and excess insurance. Additional information concerning the coverage structure is available on the Authority’s website: https://cjpia.org/coverage/risk-sharing-pools/. Primary Workers' Compensation Program Claims are pooled separately between public safety (police and fire) and general government exposures. (1) The payroll of each member is evaluated relative to the payroll of other members. A variable credibility factor is determined for each member, which establishes the weight applied to payroll and the weight applied to losses within the formula. (2) The first layer of losses includes incurred costs up to $75,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the first layer. (3) The second layer of losses includes incurred costs from $75,000 to $200,000 for each occurrence and is evaluated as a percentage of the pool’s total incurred costs within the second layer. (4) Incurred costs from $200,000 to statutory limits are distributed based on the outcome of cost allocation within the first and second loss layers. For 2024-25 the Authority’s pooled retention is $1 million per occurrence, with reinsurance to statutory limits under California Workers’ Compensation Law. Employer’s Liability losses are pooled among members to $1 million. Coverage from $1 million to $5 million is purchased through reinsurance policies, and Employer’s Liability losses from $5 million to $10 million are pooled among members. C. Purchased Insurance Pollution Legal Liability Insurance The City participates in the pollution legal liability insurance program which is available through the Authority. The policy covers sudden and gradual pollution of scheduled property, streets, and storm drains owned by the City. Coverage is on a claims-made basis. There is a $250,000 deductible. The Authority has an aggregate limit of $20 million. Property Insurance The City participates in the all-risk property protection program of the Authority. This insurance protection is underwritten by several insurance companies. City property is currently insured according to a schedule of covered property submitted by the City to the Authority. City property currently has all-risk property insurance protection in the amount of $69,017,982. There is a $10,000 deductible per occurrence except for non-emergency vehicle insurance which has a $2,500 deductible. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 73 Note 8 – Risk Management and Self Insurance Program (Continued) C. Purchased Insurance (Continued) Crime Insurance The City purchases crime insurance coverage in the amount of $3,000,000 with a $2,500 deductible. The fidelity coverage is provided through the Authority. D. Adequacy of Protection During the past three fiscal years, none of the above programs of protection experienced settlements or judgments that exceeded pooled or insured coverage. There were also no significant reductions in pooled or insured liability coverage in 2024-25. E. Claims Activity Claims expenses and liabilities are recognized when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities are based on estimates of the ultimate cost of claims, including future claim adjustment expenses, for claims that have been reported as well as those that have been incurred but not yet reported. These estimates are reviewed periodically and are subject to adjustment as additional information becomes available. The City retains responsibility for workers’ compensation tail claims related to incidents that occurred prior to joining the Authority. These liabilities represent claims incurred before participation but settled or paid subsequent to joining. As of June 30, 2025, the estimated liability for these tail claims was $222,189. A summary of the changes in claims liabilities for the past three fiscal years is as follows: Balance Current Year Beginning of Year Changes in Claim Balance Workers' Compensation (As Restated) Estimates Payments End of Year 2022-2023 263,169$ 2,366$ (90,489)$ 175,046$ 2023-2024 175,046 188,743 (32,386) 331,403 2024-2025 331,403 34,492 (143,706) 222,189 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans A. General Information about the Pension Plan Plan Description The City contributes to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), a cost-sharing multiple- employer defined benefit pension plan. CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State statute and City ordinance. Copies of the CalPERS annual financial report may be obtained from https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/forms-publications. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 74 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) A. General Information about the Pension Plan (Continued) Employees Covered by Benefit Terms At June 30, 2023, the following employees were covered by the benefit terms: Misc Misc PEPRA Safety Safety Fire Safety Police PEPRA Other Safety PEPRA Active employees 28 31 29 - 12 2 Transferred and terminated employees 33 12 4 - - - Separated 26 4 5 - 2 - Retired Employees and Beneficiaries 157 1 98 37 - - Total 244 48 136 37 14 2 Benefit Provided CalPERS provide retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. Classic miscellaneous members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 55 with at least 5 years of credited service. PEPRA miscellaneous members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 62 with at least 5 years of service. Classic safety members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 50 with at least five years of service. PEPRA safety members become eligible for service retirement upon attainment of age 57 with at least five years of service. The service retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to the product of the benefit factor, years of service, and final compensation. The final compensation is the monthly average of the member's highest 36 full-time equivalent monthly pay. Following are the benefit provisions for each plan: Miscellaneous Rate PEPRA Safety Rate PEPRA Safety Plan* Rate Plan Plan* Rate Plan Hire date Prior to January 1, 2013 Prior to January 1, 2013 Benefit formula 2% @ 55 2% @ 62 3% @ 50 2.7% @ 57 Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life monthly for life Retirement age minimum 50 yrs minimum 52 yrs minimum 50 yrs minimum 50 yrs Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 1.426% - 2.418%, 50 yrs - 63+ yrs, respectively 1.000% - 2.500%, 52 yrs - 67+ yrs, respectively 3.000%, 50+ yrs 2.000%-2.7000%, 52 yrs - 57+ yrs, respectively * Closed to new entrants Cost-sharing Rate Plans Participants are eligible for non-industrial disability retirement if they become disabled and have at least 5 years of credited service. There is no special age requirement. The standard non-industrial disability retirement benefit is a monthly allowance equal to 1.8 percent of final compensation, multiplied by service. Industrial disability benefits are not offered to miscellaneous employees. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 75 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) A. General Information about the Pension Plan (Continued) Benefit Provided (Continued) An employee's beneficiary may receive the basic death benefit if the employee dies while actively employed. The employee must be actively employed with the City to be eligible for this benefit. An employee's survivor who is eligible for any other pre-retirement death benefit may choose to receive that death benefit instead of this basic death benefit. The basic death benefit is a lump sum in the amount of the employee's accumulated contributions, where interest is currently credited at 6 percent per year, plus a lump sum in the amount of one month's salary for each completed year of current service, up to a maximum of six months' salary. For purposes of this benefit, one month's salary is defined as the member's average monthly full-time rate of compensation during the 12 months preceding death. Upon the death of a retiree, a one-time lump sum payment of $500 will be made to the retiree's designated survivor(s), or to the retiree's estate. Benefit terms provide for annual cost-of-living adjustments to each employee’s retirement allowance. Beginning the second calendar year after the year of retirement, retirement and survivor allowances will be annually adjusted on a compound basis by 2 percent. Contributions Section 20814(c) of the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”) requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. The total plan contributions are determined through CalPERS’ annual actuarial valuation process. The actuarially determined rate is based on the estimated amount necessary to pay the Plan's allocated share of the risk pool's costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, and any unfunded accrued liability. The City is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees. For the measurement period ended June 30, 2024 (the measurement date), the contribution rates were as follows: Miscellaneous Rate PEPRA Safety Rate PEPRA Safety Plan* Rate Plan Plan* Rate Plan Required employee contribution rates 7.00% 8.25% 9.00% 14.50% Required employer contribution rates 13.26% 8.00% 29.09% 15.50% * Closed to new entrants Cost-sharing Rate Plans City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 76 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Used to Determine Total Pension Liability The June 30, 2023 valuation was rolled forward to determine June 30, 2024 total pension liability based on the following actuarial methods and assumptions: Actuarial Cost Method Actuarial Assumptions: Discount Rate 6.90% Inflation 2.30% Salary Increases Mortality Rate Table1 Post Retirement Benefit Increase The lesser of contract COLA or 2.30% until Purchasing Power Protection Allowance floor on purchasing power applies, 2.30% thereafter. Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funds Entry Age Actuarial Cost Method Varies by Entry Age and Service 1The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS-specific data. The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. Mortality rates incorporate full generational mortality improvement using 80% of Scale MP-2020 published by the Society of Actuaries. For more details on this table, please refer to the 2021 experience study report from November 2021 that can be found on the CalPERS website. Change of Assumption In 2024, there were no changes in assumptions. Long-term Expected Rate of Return The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and long-term market return expectations. Using historical returns of all of the funds’ asset classes, expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the next 20 years using a building-block approach. The expected rate of return was then adjusted to account for assumed administrative expenses of 10 basis points. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 77 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued) Long-term Expected Rate of Return (Continued) The expected real rates of return by asset class are as follows: Assumed Asset Asset Class1 Allocation Real Return 1,2 Global Equity - Cap-weighted 30.00% 4.54% Global Equity - Non-Cap-weighted 12.00% 3.80% Private Equity 13.00% 7.28% Treasury 5.00% 0.27% Mortgage-backed Securities 5.00% 0.50% Investment Grade Corporates 10.00% 1.56% High Yield 5.00% 2.27% Emerging Market Debt 5.00% 2.48% Private Debt 5.00% 3.57% Real Assets 15.00% 3.21% Leverage -5.00% -0.59% 100.00% 1 An expected inflation of 2.30% used for this period. 2 Figures are based on the 2021 Asset Liability Management study. Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability was 6.90%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members will be made at the current member contribution rates and that contributions from employers will be made at statutorily required rates, actuarially determined. Based on those assumptions, the Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. Subsequent Events There were no subsequent events that would materially affect the results presented in this disclosure. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 78 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued) Sensitivity of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability of the Plan as of the measurement date, calculated using the discount rate of 6.90%, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1 percentage-point lower (5.90%) or 1 percentage- point higher (7.90%) than the current rate: Discount Rate Current Discount Discount Rate - 1% (5.90%) Rate (6.90%) + 1% (7.90%) Miscellaneous 25,787,062$ 17,781,656$ 11,192,028$ Safety 49,244,879$ 33,786,149$ 21,143,081$ Plan's Net Pension Liability/(Asset) Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position Detail information about the plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial report and can be obtained from CalPERS’ website under Forms and Publications. Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense The following table shows the plan’s proportionate share of the risk pool collective net pension liability over the measurement period: Plan Total Plan Fiduciary Net Pension Pension Liability Net Position Liability/(Asset) Miscellaneous Balance at: 6/30/23 (Valuation date) 57,305,152$ 39,479,926$ 17,825,226$ Balance at: 6/30/24 (Measurement date) 59,325,499 41,543,843 17,781,656 Net Changes during 2023-2024 2,020,347 2,063,917 (43,570) Safety Balance at: 6/30/23 (Valuation date) 108,683,799$ 74,040,135$ 34,643,664$ Balance at: 6/30/24 (Measurement date) 113,168,657 79,382,508 33,786,149 Net Changes during 2023-2024 4,484,858 5,342,373 (857,515) Increase (Decrease) The following is the approach established by the plan actuary to allocate the net pension liability and pension expense to the individual employers within the risk pool. (1) In determining a cost-sharing plan’s proportionate share, total amounts of liabilities and assets are first calculated for the risk pool as a whole on the valuation date (June 30, 2023). The risk pool’s fiduciary net position (“FNP”) subtracted from its total pension liability (“TPL”) determines the net pension liability (“NPL”) at the valuation date. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 79 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued) Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense (Continued) (2) Using standard actuarial roll forward methods, the risk pool TPL is then computed at the measurement date (June 30, 2024). Risk pool FNP at the measurement date is then subtracted from this number to compute the NPL for the risk pool at the measurement date. For purposes of FNP in this step and any later reference thereto, the risk pool’s FNP at the measurement date denotes the aggregate risk pool’s FNP at June 30, 2024 less the sum of all additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions made by all employers during the measurement period (2023-2024). (3) The individual plan’s TPL, FNP and NPL are also calculated at the valuation date. TPL is allocated based on the rate plan’s share of the actuarial accrued liability. FNP is allocated based on the rate plan’s share of the fair value assets. (4) Two ratios are created by dividing the plan’s individual TPL and FNP as of the valuation date from (3) by the amounts in step (1), the risk pool’s total TPL and FNP, respectively. (5) The plan’s TPL as of the Measurement Date is equal to the risk pool TPL generated in (2) multiplied by the TPL ratio generated in (4). The plan’s FNP as of the Measurement Date is equal to the FNP generated in (2) multiplied by the FNP ratio generated in (4) plus any additional side fund (or unfunded liability) contributions made by the employer on behalf of the plan during the measurement period. (6) The plan’s NPL at the Measurement Date is the difference between the TPL and FNP calculated in (5). Deferred outflows of resources, deferred inflows of resources, and pension expense is allocate based on the City’s share of contributions during measurement period. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was as follows: Miscellaneous Safety June 30, 2023 0.14288% 0.27770% June 30, 2024 0.14662% 0.27859% Change - Increase (Decrease) 0.00374% 0.00089% The amortization period differs depending on the source of the gain or loss. The difference between projected and actual earnings is amortized over 5-years straight line. All other amounts are amortized straight-line over the average expected remaining service lives of all members that are provided with benefits (active, inactive and retired) as of the beginning of the measurement period. The expected average remaining service lifetime (“EARSL”) is calculated by dividing the total future service years by the total number of plan participants (active, inactive, and retired) in the risk pool. The EARSL for risk pool for the 2023-2024 measurement period is 3.8 years, which was obtained by dividing the total service years of 630,177 (the sum of remaining service lifetimes of the active employees) by 166,163 (the total number of participants: active, inactive, and retired). Inactive employees and retirees have remaining service lifetimes equal to 0. Total future service is based on the members’ probability of decrementing due to an event other than receiving a cash refund. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 80 Note 9 – Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Continued) B. Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to Pension (Continued) Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability and Pension Expense (Continued) For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized pension expense for the miscellaneous and safety plans in the amounts of $3,030,478 and $6,628,087, respectively. At June 30, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Deferred outflows Deferred inflows Deferred outflows Deferred inflows of Resources of Resources of Resources of Resources Contribution after measurement date 2,031,324$ -$ 4,644,473$ -$ Changes of assumptions 457,025 - 832,421 - Difference between expected and actual experience 1,537,386 (59,987) 2,757,251 (89,649) Net difference between projected and actual earning on pension plan investments 1,023,666 - 1,633,070 - Differences in proportions - (447,859) 38,982 (619,572) Difference between City contributions and proportionate share of contributions 186,000 (80,041) 1,448,666 (225,774) Total 5,235,401$ (587,887)$ 11,354,863$ (934,995)$ Miscellaneous Safety Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from the City’s contributions made subsequent to the measurement date in the amount of $2,031,324 and $4,644,473 for the miscellaneous and safety plans, respectively, will be recognized as a reduction of the collective net pension liability in the year ending June 30, 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: Measurement Period Ended June 30, Miscellaneous Safety 2025 707,273$ 2,168,122$ 2026 2,250,220 4,061,401 2027 9,494 104,636 2028 (350,797) (558,764) 2029 - - Thereafter - - 2,616,190$ 5,775,395$ Deferred Outflows/ (Inflows) of Resources Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan A. General Information about the OPEB Plan Plan Description The City provides postretirement medical benefits to employees who retire directly from the City under CalPERS under a single-employer defined benefit post-employment benefits plan. Eligible retirees can continue participation in the City medical plans (“PEMHCA”). For miscellaneous retirees, the City contributes up to a capped dollar amount which varies by bargaining unit, medical coverage, and years of service. For police safety retirees, the City contribution rate varies by date of hire and date of retirement. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 81 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan A. General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued) Benefits Provided Future Retirees are eligible for PEMCHA minimum medical benefits ($158 per month in 2025) if they retire at Age 50 and above. For legacy hires, reimbursements are generally subject to a maximum, which varies by bargaining group and service years. Dependents are eligible to enroll subject to service year requirements. Employees Covered by Benefit Term Active employees 107 Inactive employees entitled to but not yet receiving benefit payments - Inactive employees, spouses, or beneficiaries currently receiving benefit payments 76 Total 183 Contributions The City makes contributions based on an actuarially determined rate. 4.05% for 12 years, 2.52% thereafter. B. Net OPEB Liability The City's net OPEB liability is based on a roll-forward of the June 30, 2023 valuation with liabilities and assets measured as of June 30, 2024. Actuarial Assumptions The total OPEB liability in the June 30, 2023 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified: Actuarial Cost Method Entry age normal Actuarial Assumptions: Inflation 2.30% Salary increases 2.80% Investment rate of return 6.40% Healthcare cost trend rates 6.80% (pre-Medicare) / 4.17% (Medicare) in 2024, decreasing gradually to an ultimate rate of 4.14% by 2075. Mortality rate Derived using CalPERS’ Membership Data for all Funds. Discount Rate The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 6.40%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that the City contribution will be made at rates equal to the actuarially determined contribution rates. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB plan's fiduciary net position was projected to cover all future OPEB payments. Therefore, the discount rate was set equal to the long-term expected rate of return. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 82 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued) B. Net OPEB Liability (Continued) Expected Long-Term Rates of Return Projected Real Asset Class Rates of Return 1 Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Global Equity 6.90% 49.0% 34.0% 23.0% Global Fixed Income 4.10% 23.0% 41.0% 51.0% REITs 6.30% 20.0% 17.0% 14.0% TIPS 3.90% 5.0% 5.0% 9.0% Commodities 4.60% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1An expected inflation of 2.3% used for this period Target Allocation CERBT Changes of Assumptions The discount rate changed from 6.00% to 6.40%, the Pre-Medicare rate changed from 7.40% to 6.80%, and the Medicare rate changed from 4.20% to 4.17% from measurement dates June 30, 2023 to June 30, 2024. Expected Average Remaining Service Lives (“EARSL”) The effects on the total OPEB liability of (1) changes of economic and demographic assumptions or of other inputs and (2) differences between expected and actual experience are required to be included in the OPEB expense in a systematic and rational manner over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with benefits through the OPEB plan (active employees and inactive employees), beginning in the current period. The expected average remaining service lives (EARSL) for the current period follows. Note, however, that for calculation purposes, we use 1 when calculating amortizations if the EARSL is less than 1 year. EARSL: 7.2 years C. Changes in the Net OPEB Liability Total OPEB Fiduciary Net Net OPEB Liability Position Liability Balances as of June 30, 2023 (Measurement Date) 11,553,425$ 7,833,668$ 3,719,757$ Changes during the measurement period: Service cost 312,604 - 312,604 Interest 688,211 - 688,211 Differences between expected and actual experience 103,577 - 103,577 Change of assumptions (462,805) - (462,805) Contributions: Employer — City's Contributions - 758,939 (758,939) Employer — Implicit Subsidy - 200,085 (200,085) Net investment income - 859,520 (859,520) Benefit payments (591,598) (591,598) - Implicit Subsidy (200,085) (200,085) - Administrative expenses - (2,554) 2,554 Other Additions/Deductions - 2,600 (2,600) Net changes during measurement period 2023-2024 (150,096) 1,026,907 (1,177,003) Balances as of June 30, 2024 (Measurement Date) 11,403,329$ 8,860,575$ 2,542,754$ Increase (Decrease) City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 83 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued) C. Changes in the Net OPEB Liability (Continued) Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate The net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower (5.40%) or one percentage point higher (7.40%) follows: Discount Rate Current Discount Discount Rate - 1% (5.40%) Rate (6.40%) + 1% (7.40%) 3,759,109$ 2,542,754$ 1,506,298$ Net OPEB Liability/(Asset) Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Liability to Changes in the Healthcare Cost Trend Rates The net OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City's net OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than current healthcare cost trend rates follows: Healthcare 1% Decrease Cost Trend Rate 1% Increase 1,524,318$ 2,542,754$ 3,716,524$ Net OPEB Liability/(Asset) D. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB For the year ended June 30, 2025, the City recognized an OPEB expense of $306,850. At June 30, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources: Deferred outflows Deferred inflows of Resources of Resources OPEB contribution after measurement date 816,318$ -$ Changes of assumptions 470,676 (1,064,598) Difference between expected and actual experience 141,562 (1,045,151) Difference between projected and actual earning on OPEB plan investments 4,126 - Total 1,432,682$ (2,109,749)$ City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 84 Note 10 – Other Postemployment Benefits (“OPEB”) Plan (Continued) D. OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB (Continued) Deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB resulting from City’s contributions subsequent to the measurement date in the amount of $816,318 will be recognized as a reduction of the net OPEB liability in the year ending June 30, 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows: Measurement Period Ending June 30, Deferred Outflows/ (Inflows) of Resources 2025 (291,807)$ 2026 (21,606) 2027 (335,961) 2028 (364,109) 2029 (358,343) Thereafter (121,559) (1,493,385)$ Note 11 – Net Investment in Capital Assets Net investment in capital assets at June 30, 2025 is reported as follows: Governmental Business-Type Activities Activities Water Utility Sewer Utility Total capital assets, net 94,471,916$ 35,941,229$ 16,412,518$ 19,528,711$ Deferred loss on refunding debt - 48,281 - 48,281 Retention payable (224,307) (21,697) (3,196) (18,501) Capital related debt (233,861) (3,247,378) (296,998) (2,950,380) Net investment in capital assets 94,013,748$ 32,720,435$ 16,112,324$ 16,608,111$ Enterprise Fund City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 85 Note 12 – Classification of Fund Balances At June 30, 2025, fund balances are classified in the governmental funds as follows: Capital Projects and Equipment Nonmajor General Capital Projects Governmental Fund Fund Funds Total Nonspendable: Prepaid items 119,534$ -$ -$ 119,534$ Restricted: Waste Management 102,622 - - 102,622 Parking In-lieu 178,239 - - 178,239 I-405 Corridor Improvements 322,279 - - 322,279 Supplemental Law Enforcement - - 124,632 124,632 Detention Center - - - - Police Asset Forfeiture - - 167,372 167,372 Air Quality Improvements - - 10,685 10,685 Parks Improvement - - 57,173 57,173 Traffic Impact - - 206,565 206,565 State Gasoline Tax - - 2,537,975 2,537,975 Measure M2 - - 820,699 820,699 Community Development Block Grant - - 73,249 73,249 Landscape District - - 739,883 739,883 Heron Pointe - - 79,454 79,454 Pacific Gateway - - 183,588 183,588 Seal Beach Cable - - 681,806 681,806 SB 1 - - 531,956 531,956 Total restricted 603,140 - 6,215,037 6,818,177 Committed: Fiscal Policy 10,991,159 - - 10,991,159 Economic Contingency 1,750,000 - - 1,750,000 Capital Project Improvement 10,977,762 234,348 - 11,212,110 Total committed 23,718,921 234,348 - 23,953,269 Assigned: Community Development 769,710 - - 769,710 Public Works 439,341 - - 439,341 Pier Restaurant 1,792,805 - - 1,792,805 Compensated Absences 2,517,704 - - 2,517,704 Encumbrances 455,145 - - 455,145 Other 62,595 - - 62,595 Total assigned 6,037,300 - - 6,037,300 Unassigned (deficit)11,869,857 - (369,294) 11,500,563 Total fund balances 42,348,752$ 234,348$ 5,845,743$ 48,428,843$ City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 86 Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies A. Commitments The City has active projects as of June 30, 2025. At year-end, the City’s commitments with contractors for these projects are as follows: Projects Commitments Pump Station 35 Upgrades 1,355,043$ I-405 Improvement Project for Waterline Relocation 245,447 SCADA Improvement Upgrade Project 33,968 B. Encumbrances The City uses encumbrances to control expenditure commitments for the year. Encumbrances represent commitments related to executor contracts not yet performed and purchase orders not yet filled. Commitments for such expenditure of monies are encumbered to reserve a portion of applicable appropriations. Encumbrances still open at year end are not accounted for as expenditures and liabilities, but as restricted, or assigned fund balance. As of June 30, 2025, the City had the following encumbrances outstanding: Governmental Funds: General Fund 455,144$ Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund 293,246 Nonmajor Governmental Funds 952,307 Proprietary Funds: Water 430,904 Sewer 1,264,057 Internal services 58,126 Total 3,453,784$ C. Contingencies The City is a defendant in a number of lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of business. While substantial damages are alleged in some of these actions, their outcome cannot be predicted with certainty. D. Grants Amounts received or receivable from granting agencies are subject to audit and adjustment by grantor agencies. While no matters of noncompliance were disclosed by the audit of the financial statements or single audit of the Federal grant programs, grantor agencies may subject grant programs to additional compliance tests, which may result in disallowed costs. In the opinion of management, future disallowances of current or prior grant expenditures, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the City. City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 87 Note 14 – Individual Fund Disclosure Funds with deficit fund balances at June 30, 2025 are as follows: Deficit Police Grants Special Revenue Fund (195,962)$ Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund (173,332) The City plans to eliminate the deficit fund balances with amounts due from grantors. The following funds exceeded appropriation amounts for the year ended June 30, 2025: Expenditures in Excess of Appropriations Expenditures Appropriations Nonmajor Governmental Funds: Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund 32,000$ 32,056$ (56)$ Landscape District Special Revenue Fund 88,450 97,234 (8,784) Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund 65,000 65,935 (935) Note 15 – Restatements During fiscal year 2025, changes in accounting principle restatements and error corrections of beginning net position and fund net position are as follows: June 30, 2024 Changes Within the Changes in As Previously Financial Reporting Accounting Principals June 30, 2024 Reported Entity and Estimates Error Corrections As Restated Government-Wide Governmental Activities 100,459,364$ -$ (815,002)$ 2,622,626$ 102,266,988$ Business-Type Activities 43,532,865 - (41,884) 2,652,594 46,143,575 Total primary government 143,992,229$ -$ (856,886)$ 5,275,220$ 148,410,563$ Governmental Funds: Major Funds: Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund (761,934)$ 761,934$ -$ -$ -$ Nonmajor Funds 7,844,070 (761,934) - - 7,082,136 Total Governmental Funds 46,638,538$ -$ -$ -$ 46,638,538$ Proprietary Funds: Major Funds: Water Fund 19,751,042$ -$ (17,979)$ (261,151)$ 19,471,912$ Sewer Fund 23,781,823 - (23,905) 2,913,745 26,671,663 Total Proprietary Funds 43,532,865$ -$ (41,884)$ 2,652,594$ 46,143,575$ City of Seal Beach Notes to the Basic Financial Statements (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 88 Note 15 – Restatements (Continued) Changes Within the Financial Reporting Entity The Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund changed from a Major Fund to a Nonmajor Fund (761,934). Error Correction The beginning balances of the Governmental Activities, Business-Type Activities, and Proprietary Funds were restated to correct errors related to capital assets resulting from assets that were not fully captured in prior periods and depreciation that was not calculated in accordance with the City’s capitalization and depreciation policies. As a result, the Governmental Activities beginning balance was restated to recognize construction-in-progress of $1,079,358, depreciable capital assets of $543,664, and accumulated depreciation of $999,604. The Business-Type Activities beginning balance was restated to correct accumulated depreciation of $2,652,594. The Proprietary Funds beginning balance was restated to correct accumulated depreciation of ($261,151) in the Water Fund and $2,913,745 in the Sewer Fund. Changes in Accounting Principles and Estimates The Governmental Activities beginning balance is restated to adjust for claims payable changes in estimates ($160,200). Implementation of GASB Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences Effective for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the City implemented GASB Statement No. 101, Compensated Absences. This statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards for compensated absences, including vacation, sick leave, and other paid time off. The implementation of GASB 101 resulted in a change in accounting principle, and prior year amounts have been restated accordingly. Under GASB 101, a liability must be recognized for leave that is attributable to services already rendered, accumulates and carries forward to future periods, and is more likely than not to be used or paid. This represents a shift from previous guidance, particularly in how likelihood and eligibility are assessed. The Governmental Activities and Business-Type Activities beginning balance are restated in the amounts of ($654,802) and ($41,884), respectively. The Proprietary Funds beginning balance is restated for the Water and Sewer Funds in the amounts of ($17,979) and ($23,905), respectively. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 89 This page intentionally left blank. 90 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Taxes 36,168,983$ 36,168,983$ 37,948,689$ 1,779,706$ Licenses and permits 737,000 735,500 1,066,988 331,488 Intergovernmental 118,300 225,580 524,245 298,665 Charges for services 6,264,891 6,266,391 6,542,436 276,045 Use of money and property 1,116,000 1,169,000 3,261,969 2,092,969 Fines and forfeitures 1,596,000 1,596,000 1,491,069 (104,931) Contributions 42,600 42,600 94,105 51,505 Miscellaneous 226,300 226,300 632,186 405,886 Total revenues 46,270,074 46,430,354 51,561,687 5,131,333 Expenditures: Current: General government 8,195,711 8,278,222 8,527,678 (249,456) Public safety 26,068,383 26,642,425 25,606,881 1,035,544 Community development 2,232,446 2,232,446 2,057,439 175,007 Community services 1,432,739 1,432,039 1,505,709 (73,670) Public works 8,434,091 9,057,686 7,776,429 1,281,257 Capital outlay 1,152,284 1,589,777 1,131,714 458,063 Debt service: Principal retirement 88,025 - 259,045 (259,045) Interest and fiscal charges 3,786 - 12,153 (12,153) Total expenditures 47,607,465 49,232,595 46,877,048 2,355,547 Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,337,391) (2,802,241) 4,684,639 7,486,880 Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in 487,781 568,876 986,866 417,990 Transfers out (10,699,626) (9,870,501) (2,825,813) 7,044,688 Proceeds from issuance of subscription - - 34,005 34,005 Total other financing sources (uses)(10,211,845) (9,301,625) (1,804,942) 7,496,683 Net change in fund balance (11,549,236)$ (12,103,866)$ 2,879,697 14,983,563$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 39,469,055 End of year 42,348,752$ City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Budgeted Amounts Budgetary Comparison Schedule – General Fund 91 This page intentionally left blank. 92 City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Budgetary Control and Accounting Policy The City prepares its budgets on the basis of estimated revenues and expenditures and, accordingly, the budget amounts included in the accompanying financial statements are presented on a basis substantially consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Encumbrance accounting is utilized during the fiscal year, whereby purchase orders, contracts and other commitmentsare recorded in order to control appropriations. However, at fiscal year end, all appropriations lapse. Accordingly, encumbrances are cancelled and generally are re-appropriated as part of the following year’s budget. Encumbrances are not included in reported expenditures. Annual budgets are adopted for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Capital Projects Funds. In fiscal year 2024-25, no budget was adopted for the Detention Center Special Revenue Fund. The City Council approves total budgeted appropriations and any amendments to appropriations throughout the year. The budgetary level of control for all governmental fund types is the fund level. The City Manager has the discretion to transfer appropriations between departments within a fund, but transfers between funds must be approved by the City Council. 93 Measurement Date June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.14662% 0.14288% 0.14559% 0.17295% 0.13777% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 17,781,656$ 17,825,226$ 16,817,024$ 9,353,495$ 14,411,297$ City's Covered Payroll1 6,243,890$ 5,535,460$ 5,164,779$ 5,162,753$ 5,243,738$ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 284.78% 322.02% 325.61% 181.17% 274.83% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 70.03% 68.89% 69.62% 82.21% 71.73% Measurement Date June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.27859% 0.27770% 0.28126% 1.09047% 0.26123% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 33,786,149$ 34,643,664$ 32,488,072$ 18,526,366$ 28,423,181$ City's Covered Payroll1 6,228,953$ 6,331,975$ 6,401,398$ 5,805,955$ 5,607,704$ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 542.40% 547.12% 507.52% 319.09% 506.86% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 70.15% 68.12% 68.88% 79.77% 70.11% Notes to Schedule: 1 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2014 through 2017. Changes of Benefit Terms: The figures above generally include any liability impact that may have resulted from voluntary benefit changes that occurred on or before the Measurement Date. However, offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a. Golden Handshakes) that occurred after the Valuation Date are not included in the figures above, unless the liability impact is deemed to be material by the plan actuary. Changes of Assumptions: There were no assumption changes in 2023 or 2024. Effective with the June 30, 2021, valuation date (June 30, 2022, measurement date), the accounting discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%. In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. In addition, demographic assumptions and the price inflation assumption were changed in accordance with the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. The accounting discount rate was 7.15% for measurement dates June 30, 2017, through June 30, 2021, and 7.65% for measurement dates June 30, 2015, through June 30, 2016. California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years 94 Measurement Date June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.12949% 0.12641% 0.12396% 0.12144% 0.11333% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 13,320,233$ 12,180,833$ 12,293,741$ 10,508,345$ 7,778,736$ City's Covered Payroll1 4,721,968$ 4,713,200$ 4,385,712$ 4,226,024$ 4,710,212$ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 282.09% 258.44% 280.31% 248.66% 165.15% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 73.26% 75.18% 75.11% 76.88% 82.15% Measurement Date June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 City's Proportion of the Net Pension Liability 0.25611% 0.25383% 0.24294% 0.24301% 0.23685% City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability 26,243,693$ 24,459,736$ 24,093,096$ 21,027,509$ 16,257,122$ City's Covered Payroll1 5,137,216$ 4,833,363$ 4,200,942$ 4,454,998$ 4,734,950$ City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of its Covered Payroll 510.85% 506.06% 573.52% 472.00% 343.34% Plan's Proportionate Share of the Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 71.27% 72.12% 72.09% 73.44% 78.58% Notes to Schedule: City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of the City's Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years 1 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2014 through 2017. Changes of Benefit Terms: The figures above generally include any liability impact that may have resulted from voluntary benefit changes that occurred on or before the Measurement Date. However, offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a. Golden Handshakes) that occurred after the Valuation Date are not included in the figures above, unless the liability impact is deemed to be material by the plan actuary. Changes of Assumptions: There were no assumption changes in 2023 or 2024. Effective with the June 30, 2021, valuation date (June 30, 2022, measurement date), the accounting discount rate was reduced from 7.15% to 6.90%. In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. In addition, demographic assumptions and the price inflation assumption were changed in accordance with the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. The accounting discount rate was 7.15% for measurement dates June 30, 2017, through June 30, 2021, and 7.65% for measurement dates June 30, 2015, through June 30, 2016. California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan 95 Fiscal year 2024-25 1 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 Actuarially Determined Contribution1 2,031,324$ 1,781,962$ 1,731,376$ 1,575,633$ 1,443,709$ Contribution in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (2,031,324) (1,781,962) (1,731,376) (1,575,633) (1,443,709) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Covered Payroll2 6,418,719$ 6,243,890$ 5,535,460$ 5,164,779$ 5,162,753$ Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 31.65% 28.54% 31.28% 30.51% 27.96% Fiscal year 2024-25 1 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 Actuarially Determined Contribution1 4,644,473$ 4,296,096$ 3,915,610$ 3,642,820$ 3,231,920$ Contribution in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (4,644,473) (4,296,096) (3,915,610) (3,642,820) (3,231,920) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Covered Payroll2 6,403,364$ 6,228,953$ 6,331,975$ 6,401,398$ 5,805,955$ Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 72.53% 68.97% 61.84% 56.91% 55.67% Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates: Actuarial cost method Amortization method/period Asset valuation method Inflation Salary increases Payroll Growth Investment rate of return Retirement age Mortality 2.30% Fair Value of Assets. For details, see June 30, 2021, funding valuation report. For details, see June 30, 2021, funding valuation report. Entry Age Actuarial Cost Method The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. Mortality rates incorporate full generational mortality improvement using 80% of Scale MP-2020 published by the Society of Actuaries. The probabilities of retirement are based on the 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. 6.80% net of pension plan investment and administrative expenses; includes inflation. 2.80% Varies by entry age and service 2 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended June 30, 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2015 through 2017. Notes to Schedule: The actuarial methods and assumptions used to set the actuarially determined contributions for Fiscal Year 2023-24 were derived from the June 30, 2021 funding valuation report. California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of Contributions - Pensions For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan 1 Employers are assumed to make contributions equal to the actuarially determined contributions. However, some employers may choose to make additional contributions towards their unfunded liability. Employer contributions for such plans exceed the actuarially determined contributions. 96 Fiscal year 2018-19 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 Actuarially Determined Contribution1 1,076,211$ 1,076,211$ 911,168$ 791,754$ 709,945$ Contribution in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (1,076,211) (1,076,211) (911,168) (791,754) (709,945) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Covered Payroll2 5,243,738$ 4,721,968$ 4,713,200$ 4,385,712$ 4,226,024$ Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 20.52% 22.79% 19.33% 18.05% 16.80% Fiscal year 2018-19 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 Actuarially Determined Contribution1 2,509,250$ 2,509,250$ 2,127,080$ 1,748,129$ 1,608,716$ Contribution in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contribution1 (2,509,250) (2,509,250) (2,127,080) (1,748,129) (1,608,716) Contribution Deficiency (Excess) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Covered Payroll2 5,607,704$ 5,137,216$ 4,833,363$ 4,200,942$ 4,454,998$ Contributions as a Percentage of Covered Payroll 44.75% 48.84% 44.01% 41.61% 36.11% California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Safety Plan California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS") Miscellaneous Plan 2 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended June 30, 2022 through 2024; 2.75% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2018 through 2021; 3.00% payroll growth assumption for fiscal years ended in 2015 through 2017. 1 Employers are assumed to make contributions equal to the actuarially determined contributions. However, some employers may choose to make additional contributions towards their unfunded liability. Employer contributions for such plans exceed the actuarially determined contributions. City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years Schedule of Contributions - Pensions (Continued) 97 Measurement period June 30, 2024 June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 June 30, 2020 Total OPEB liability Service cost 312,604$ 285,492$ 250,120$ 269,955$ 253,910$ Interest 688,211 800,414 805,675 771,486 751,631 Differences between expected and actual experience 103,577 (1,305,093) (140,904) 122,199 (109,256) Changes of assumption (462,805) (915,746) 738,472 113,616 (49,484) Benefit payments (591,598) (732,718) (742,658) (720,545) (516,782) Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (200,085) - - - - Net change in total OPEB liability (150,096) (1,867,651) 910,705 556,711 330,019 Total OPEB liability, beginning 11,553,425 13,421,076 12,510,371 11,953,660 11,623,641 Total OPEB liability, ending (a)11,403,329$ 11,553,425$ 13,421,076$ 12,510,371$ 11,953,660$ OPEB fiduciary net position Contributions: Employer - City's contribution 758,939$ 981,209$ 985,606$ 963,042$ 588,400$ Employer - Implicit subsidy 200,085 - - - - Net investment income 859,520 460,154 (1,069,356) 1,663,551 360,219 Other additions - - - - - Benefit payments (591,598) (732,718) (742,658) (720,545) (516,782) Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (200,085) - - - - Administrative expense (2,554) (3,561) (2,016) (2,291) (2,768) Other deductions 2,600 (1,204) - - - Net change in plan fiduciary net position 1,026,907 703,880 (828,424) 1,903,757 429,069 Plan fiduciary net position, beginning 7,833,668 7,129,788 7,958,212 6,054,455 5,625,386 Plan fiduciary net position, ending (b) 8,860,575 7,833,668 7,129,788 7,958,212 6,054,455 Plan net OPEB liability - ending (a) - (b)2,542,754$ 3,719,757$ 6,291,288$ 4,552,159$ 5,899,205$ Plan's fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total OPEB liability 77.70% 67.80% 53.12% 63.61% 50.65% Covered payroll 12,340,055$ 12,003,945$ 11,640,947$ 10,959,848$ 10,666,519$ Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered payroll 20.61% 30.99% 54.04% 41.53% 55.31% 1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented. City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB") 98 Measurement period June 30, 2019 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 1 Total OPEB liability Service cost 262,452$ 275,665$ 267,961$ Interest 736,104 786,251 752,721 Differences between expected and actual experience (109,256) - - Changes of assumption (49,484) (413,262) - Benefit payments (419,956) (406,031) (454,685) Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (136,833) (123,043) (114,993) Net change in total OPEB liability 283,027 119,580 451,004 Total OPEB liability, beginning 11,340,614 11,221,034 10,770,030 Total OPEB liability, ending (a)11,623,641$ 11,340,614$ 11,221,034$ OPEB fiduciary net position Contributions: Employer - City's contribution 710,200$ 720,871$ 567,185$ Employer - Implicit subsidy 136,833 123,043 114,993 Net investment income 324,350 346,820 411,482 Other additions - 3,763 - Benefit payments (419,956) (406,031) (454,685) Implicit rate subsidy fulfilled (136,833) (123,043) (114,993) Administrative expense (1,095) (2,323) (1,995) Other deductions - (5,765) - Net change in plan fiduciary net position 613,499 657,335 521,987 Plan fiduciary net position, beginning 5,011,887 4,354,552 3,832,565 Plan fiduciary net position, ending (b) 5,625,386 5,011,887 4,354,552 Plan net OPEB liability - ending (a) - (b)5,998,255$ 6,328,727$ 6,866,482$ Plan's fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total OPEB liability 48.40% 44.19% 38.81% Covered payroll 9,923,172$ 9,518,945$ 8,807,230$ Net OPEB liability as a percentage of covered payroll 60.45% 66.49% 77.96% Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB") 1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented. City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of Changes in Net Other Postemployment Benefits Liability and Related Ratios (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years 99 Fiscal year end 2024-252 3 2023-24 2022-23 2021-22 2020-21 Actuarially determined contribution2 705,413$ 905,303$ 810,473$ 679,537$ 794,339$ Contribution in relation to the actuarially determined contribution 2 (816,318) (959,024) (981,209) (985,606) (963,041) Contribution deficiency/(excess) (110,905)$ (53,721)$ (170,736)$ (306,069)$ (168,702)$ Covered-employee payroll3 12,685,577$ 12,340,055$ 12,003,945$ 11,640,947$ 10,959,848$ Contributions as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 6.44% 7.77% 8.17% 8.47% 8.79% Notes to Schedule: Valuation date: Actuarial cost method: Amortization Method: Amortization Period: Inflation: Assumed payroll growth: Healthcare cost trend: Rate of return on assets: Mortality: Retirement Rates:CalPERS Rates. 20 years 7.40%, trending down to 4.14% 6.40% City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of Contributions - Other Postemployment Benefits For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB") 1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented. 2 The June 30, 2023 actuarial valuation provided the actuarially determined contributions for fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. 3 Includes one year’s payroll growth using 2.80 percent payroll assumption from fiscal year 2023-24. Closed period, level percent of pay CalPERS Rates. Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates: June 30, 2023 Entry age normal, level percent of pay 2.30% 2.80% 100 Fiscal year end 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 1 Actuarially determined contribution2 763,351$ 755,936$ 833,241$ 812,317$ Contribution in relation to the actuarially determined contribution 2 (867,112) (847,033) (843,914) (682,178) Contribution deficiency/(excess) (103,761)$ (91,097)$ (10,673)$ 130,139$ Covered-employee payroll3 10,666,519$ 9,923,172$ 9,518,945$ 8,807,230$ Contributions as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 8.13% 8.54% 8.87% 7.75% Other Postemployment Benefits ("OPEB") 1 Historical information is presented only for measurement periods for which GASB 75 is implemented. City of Seal Beach Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) Schedule of Contributions - Other Postemployment Benefits (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Last Ten Fiscal Years 101 This page intentionally left blank. 102 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 103 This page intentionally left blank. 104 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Charges for services -$ -$ 80,517$ (80,517)$ Total revenues - - 80,517 (80,517) Expenditures: Current: Public works - - 182,500 (182,500) Capital outlay 10,364,262 9,448,826 2,295,929 7,152,897 Total expenditures 10,364,262 9,448,826 2,478,429 6,970,397 Revenues over (under) expenditures (10,364,262) (9,448,826) (2,397,912) 6,889,880 Other Financing Sources: Transfers in 10,364,262 9,448,826 2,489,962 (6,958,864) Net change in fund balance -$ -$ 92,050 92,050$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 87,347 End of year 179,397$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Capital Projects and Equipment Capital Projects Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 105 This page intentionally left blank. 106 City Debt Service Debt Service Fund : To account for resources that are restricted for the payments of long-term debt. Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for costs related to the maintenance of parks, parkways and open space within the District (Landscape Maintenance). SB 1 Special Revenue Fund : To account for revenue received from the City's 1/2-cent per gallon gas tax and new vehicle registration taxes restricted for a wide range of transportation improvement projects. Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund : To account for revenues derived from PEGS fees which provide for channel capacity to be restricted for public, education, or government use. Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for costs related to the construction and acquisition of certain public street improvements, water and sanitary sewer improvements, dry utility improvements, park and landscaping improvements. Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund:To account for various federal and state grants that are restricted to expenditures for specific projects or purposes. Landscape District Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for costs related to the maintenance of parks, parkways and open space within the Community Facility District 2002-02 (Landscape Maintenance). NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Detention Center Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds initially funded by monies seeded from the previous jail services vendor. The revenues also derived from sales of commissary items to the prisoners for their benefit. Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for revenues derived from monies and property seized in Federal, State, and Local drug-related incidents. Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund : To account for property taxes that are restricted for the maintenance of streetlights and to finance the electricity used by the streetlights. Police Grants Special Revenue Fund : To account for various local, state, and federal grants that are restricted to public safety expenditures for specific projects or purposes. Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds received from the State under the State Citizens Option for Public Safety Program. Certain procedures are required to be implemented prior to the use of the funds, and the funds cannot be used to supplant existing funding for law enforcement. Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for supplemental vehicle license fee revenue distributed to Cities by the South Coast Air Quality Management District pursuant to Assembly Bill 2766. Expenditures are restricted for programs that will reduce air pollution by reducing, directly or indirectly, mobile source emission pollutants. Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund : To account for the Quimby Act Fees received by developers that are restricted for the improvement of parks and recreation facilities. Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund : To account for fair-share based fees that will serve to offset, or mitigate, the traffic impacts caused by new development. State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund : To accounts for locally shared gas tax monies collected by the State. Expenditures are restricted for repair, construction, maintenance and right-of-way acquisitions relating to streets and highways. Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund : To account for restricted funds for transportation improvements through the Measure M Transportation Investment Plan (M2) such as major improvement plans that target freeways, streets and roads, transit and environmental programs. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Special Revenue Fund : To account for funds provided by Federal Housing and Urban Development restricted for a wide variety of unique community development needs. 107 Supplemental Street Law Detention Police Asset Lighting Enforcement Center Forfeiture ASSETS Cash and investments 17,860$ 153,171$ -$ 187,372$ Receivables: Accounts - - - - Taxes 1,137 - - - Interest - - - - Total assets 18,997$ 153,171$ -$ 187,372$ LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable 18,997$ 27,352$ -$ 20,000$ Accrued liabilities - 1,187 - - Due to other funds - - - - Retentions payable - - - - Total liabilities 18,997 28,539 - 20,000 Deferred inflow of resources: Unavailable revenue - - - - Total deferred inflow of resources - - - - Fund Balances: Restricted - 124,632 - 167,372 Unassigned (deficit)- - - - Total fund balances - 124,632 - 167,372 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources, and fund balances 18,997$ 153,171$ -$ 187,372$ (Continued) Special Revenue City of Seal Beach Combining Balance Sheet June 30, 2025 Nonmajor Governmental Funds 108 Air Quality Park Traffic State Improvement Improvement Impact Gasoline Tax ASSETS Cash and investments 10,685$ 57,173$ 206,565$ 2,520,442$ Receivables: Accounts - - - - Taxes - - - 61,010 Interest - - - - Total assets 10,685$ 57,173$ 206,565$ 2,581,452$ LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable -$ -$ -$ 25,456$ Accrued liabilities - - - - Due to other funds - - - - Retentions payable - - - 18,021 Total liabilities - - - 43,477 Deferred inflow of resources: Unavailable revenue - - - - Total deferred inflow of resources - - - - Fund Balances: Restricted 10,685 57,173 206,565 2,537,975 Unassigned (deficit)- - - - Total fund balances 10,685 57,173 206,565 2,537,975 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources, and fund balances 10,685$ 57,173$ 206,565$ 2,581,452$ (Continued) Special Revenue City of Seal Beach Combining Balance Sheet (Continued) June 30, 2025 Nonmajor Governmental Funds 109 Community Development Police Landscape Measure M2 Block Grant Grants District ASSETS Cash and investments 937,470$ 60,453$ 263,460$ 755,797$ Receivables: Accounts 98,738 12,796 216,595 - Taxes - - - - Interest - - - - Total assets 1,036,208$ 73,249$ 480,055$ 755,797$ LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable 208,867$ -$ 25,510$ 15,369$ Accrued liabilities - - 9,163 545 Due to other funds - - 445,382 - Retentions payable 6,642 - - - Total liabilities 215,509 - 480,055 15,914 Deferred inflow of resources: Unavailable revenue - - 195,962 - Total deferred inflow of resources - - 195,962 - Fund Balances: Restricted 820,699 73,249 - 739,883 Unassigned (deficit)- - (195,962) - Total fund balances 820,699 73,249 (195,962) 739,883 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources, and fund balances 1,036,208$ 73,249$ 480,055$ 755,797$ (Continued) City of Seal Beach Special Revenue Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet (Continued) June 30, 2025 110 Pacific Seal Beach Heron Pointe Gateway Cable SB 1 ASSETS Cash and investments 79,515$ 190,202$ 644,322$ 645,323$ Receivables: Accounts - - 35,795 - Taxes - - - 57,860 Interest - - 1,689 - Total assets 79,515$ 190,202$ 681,806$ 703,183$ LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable 61$ 6,251$ -$ 100,145$ Accrued liabilities - 363 - - Due to other funds - - - - Retentions payable - - - 71,082 Total liabilities 61 6,614 - 171,227 Deferred inflow of resources: Unavailable revenue - - - - Total deferred inflow of resources - - - - Fund Balances: Restricted 79,454 183,588 681,806 531,956 Unassigned (deficit)- - - - Total fund balances 79,454 183,588 681,806 531,956 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources, and fund balances 79,515$ 190,202$ 681,806$ 703,183$ (Continued) City of Seal Beach Combining Balance Sheet (Continued) June 30, 2025 Nonmajor Governmental Funds Special Revenue 111 Special Revenue Debt Service Total Other City Debt Governmental Citywide Grants Service Funds ASSETS Cash and investments 165,870$ -$ 6,895,680$ Receivables: Accounts 397,230 - 761,154 Taxes - - 120,007 Interest - - 1,689 Total assets 563,100$ -$ 7,778,530$ LIABILITIES, DEFERRED INFLOW OF RESOURCES, AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable 273,081$ -$ 721,089$ Accrued liabilities - - 11,258 Due to other funds 280,019 - 725,401 Retentions payable 10,000 - 105,745 Total liabilities 563,100 - 1,563,493 Deferred inflow of resources: Unavailable revenue 173,332 - 369,294 Total deferred inflow of resources 173,332 - 369,294 Fund Balances: Restricted - - 6,215,037$ Unassigned (deficit)(173,332) - (369,294) Total fund balances (173,332) - 5,845,743 Total liabilities, deferred inflow of resources, and fund balances 563,100$ -$ 7,778,530$ (Concluded) City of Seal Beach Combining Balance Sheet (Continued) Nonmajor Governmental Funds June 30, 2025 112 Supplemental Street Law Detention Police Asset Lighting Enforcement Center Forfeiture Revenues: Taxes 139,551$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental - 194,663 - 25,718 Charges for services - - - - Use of money and property - 4,857 - 8,385 Contributions - - - - Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 139,551 199,520 - 34,103 Expenditures: Current: General government - - - - Public safety - 152,836 - 211,007 Community development - - - - Public works 236,535 - - - Capital outlay - 5,759 - 20,000 Total expenditures 236,535 158,595 - 231,007 Revenues over (under) expenditures (96,984) 40,925 - (196,904) Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in 96,984 - - - Transfers out - - (28,341) - Total other financing sources (uses)96,984 - (28,341) - Net change in fund balances - 40,925 (28,341) (196,904) Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year, as previously reported - 83,707 28,341 364,276 Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor)- - - - Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15)- 83,707 28,341 364,276 End of year -$ 124,632$ -$ 167,372$ (Continued) Special Revenue For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances City of Seal Beach Nonmajor Governmental Funds 113 Air Quality Park Traffic State Improvement Improvement Impact Gasoline Tax Revenues: Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental 8,173 - - 719,501 Charges for services - - - - Use of money and property 776 1,872 6,762 87,519 Contributions - - - - Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 8,949 1,872 6,762 807,020 Expenditures: Current: General government - - - - Public safety - - - - Community development - - - - Public works 32,056 - - 42,970 Capital outlay - - - 410,088 Total expenditures 32,056 - - 453,058 Revenues over (under) expenditures (23,107) 1,872 6,762 353,962 Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in - - - - Transfers out - - - (79,966) Total other financing sources (uses)- - - (79,966) Net change in fund balances (23,107) 1,872 6,762 273,996 Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year, as previously reported 33,792 55,301 199,803 2,263,979 Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor)- - - - Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15)33,792 55,301 199,803 2,263,979 End of year 10,685$ 57,173$ 206,565$ 2,537,975$ (Continued) Special Revenue City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Nonmajor Governmental Funds 114 Community Development Police Landscape Measure M2 Block Grant Grants District Revenues: Taxes -$ -$ -$ 119,174$ Intergovernmental 555,603 180,000 208,625 - Charges for services - - - - Use of money and property 29,933 - - 24,101 Contributions - - - - Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 585,536 180,000 208,625 143,275 Expenditures: Current: General government - - - - Public safety - - 520,479 - Community development - 180,000 - 97,234 Public works - - - - Capital outlay 953,633 - - - Total expenditures 953,633 180,000 520,479 97,234 Revenues over (under) expenditures (368,097) - (311,854) 46,041 Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in - - 115,892 - Transfers out - - - (31,400) Total other financing sources (uses)- - 115,892 (31,400) Net change in fund balances (368,097) - (195,962) 14,641 Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year, as previously reported 1,188,796 73,249 - 725,242 Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor)- - - - Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15)1,188,796 73,249 - 725,242 End of year 820,699$ 73,249$ (195,962)$ 739,883$ (Continued) Special Revenue Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) Nonmajor Governmental Funds City of Seal Beach For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 115 Pacific Seal Beach Heron Pointe Gateway Cable SB1 Revenues: Taxes -$ 69,843$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental - - - 687,544 Charges for services - - 134,931 - Use of money and property - - 23,024 46,466 Contributions 15,000 25,000 26,936 - Miscellaneous - - - - Total revenues 15,000 94,843 184,891 734,010 Expenditures: Current: General government - - 65,935 - Public safety - - - - Community development 7,577 59,129 - 380 Public works - - - - Capital outlay - - - 1,556,669 Total expenditures 7,577 59,129 65,935 1,557,049 Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,423 35,714 118,956 (823,039) Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in - - - - Transfers out (1,600) (26,000)- - Total other financing sources (uses) (1,600) (26,000)- - Net change in fund balances 5,823 9,714 118,956 (823,039) Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year, as previously reported 73,631 173,874 562,850 1,354,995 Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor)- - - - Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15) 73,631 173,874 562,850 1,354,995 End of year 79,454$ 183,588$ 681,806$ 531,956$ (Continued) City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Special Revenue Nonmajor Governmental Funds 116 Special Revenue Debt Service Total Other City Debt Governmental Citywide Grants Service Funds Revenues: Taxes -$ -$ 328,568$ Intergovernmental 1,894,685 - 4,474,512 Charges for services - - 134,931 Use of money and property - - 233,695 Contributions - - 66,936 Miscellaneous 7,445 - 7,445 Total revenues 1,902,130 - 5,246,087 Expenditures: Current: General government - - 65,935 Public safety - - 884,322 Community development 160,229 - 504,549 Public works 406,391 - 717,952 Capital outlay 737,921 - 3,684,070 Total expenditures 1,304,541 - 5,856,828 Revenues over (under) expenditures 597,589 - (610,741) Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers in 213,338 - 426,214 Transfers out (222,325) (662,234) (1,051,866) Total other financing sources (uses)(8,987) (662,234) (625,652) Net change in fund balances 588,602 (662,234) (1,236,393) Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year, as previously reported - 662,234 7,844,070 Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor)(761,934) - (761,934) Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15)(761,934) 662,234 7,082,136 End of year (173,332)$ -$ 5,845,743$ (Concluded) City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued) Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 117 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Taxes 141,000$ 141,000$ 139,551$ (1,449)$ Total revenues 141,000 141,000 139,551 (1,449) Expenditures: Current: Public works 259,512$ 259,512$ 236,535$ 22,977$ Total expenditures 259,512 259,512 236,535 22,977 Revenues over (under) expenditures (118,512) (118,512) (96,984) 21,528 Other Financing Sources: Transfers in 118,512 118,512 96,984 (21,528) Total other financing sources 118,512 118,512 96,984 (21,528) Net change in fund balance -$ -$ - -$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year - End of year -$ City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 Budgeted Amounts Street Lighting Special Revenue Fund 118 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 155,000$ 155,000$ 194,663$ 39,663$ Use of money and property 1,500 1,500 4,857 3,357 Total revenues 156,500 156,500 199,520 43,020 Expenditures: Current: Public safety 219,181 219,181 152,836 66,345 Capital outlay 5,759 5,759 5,759 - Total expenditures 224,940 224,940 158,595 66,345 Net change in fund balance (68,440)$ (68,440)$ 40,925 109,365$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 83,707 End of year 124,632$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Supplemental Law Enforcement Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 119 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Other Financing (USES): Transfers out -$ -$ (28,341)$ (28,341)$ Total other financing (uses)- - (28,341) (28,341) Net change in fund balance -$ -$ (28,341) (28,341)$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 28,341 End of year -$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Detention Center Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 120 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 100,000$ 100,000$ 25,718$ (74,282)$ Use of money and property 100 100 8,385 8,285 Total revenues 100,100 100,100 34,103 (65,997) Expenditures: Current: Public safety 356,339 356,339 211,007 145,332 Capital outlay 20,000 20,000 20,000 - Total expenditures 376,339 376,339 231,007 145,332 Net change in fund balance (276,239)$ (276,239)$ (196,904) 79,335$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 364,276 End of year 167,372$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Police Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 121 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 30,000$ 30,000$ 8,173$ (21,827)$ Use of money and property 100 100 776 676 Total revenues 30,100 30,100 8,949 (21,151) Expenditures: Current: Public works 32,000 32,000 32,056 (56) Total expenditures 32,000 32,000 32,056 (56) Net change in fund balance (1,900)$ (1,900)$ (23,107) (21,207)$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 33,792 End of year 10,685$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Air Quality Improvement Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 122 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Use of money and property 900$ 900$ 1,872$ 972$ Total revenues 900 900 1,872 972 Net change in fund balance 900$ 900$ 1,872 972$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 55,301 End of year 57,173$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Park Improvement Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 123 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Use of money and property 3,000$ 3,000$ 6,762$ 3,762$ Total revenues 3,000 3,000 6,762 3,762 Net change in fund balance 3,000$ 3,000$ 6,762 3,762$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 199,803 End of year 206,565$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Traffic Impact Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 124 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 726,439$ 726,439$ 719,501$ (6,938)$ Use of money and property 10,000 10,000 87,519 77,519 Total revenues 736,439 736,439 807,020 70,581 Expenditures: Current: Public works 3,000 3,000 42,970 (39,970) Capital outlay 1,763,000 1,654,934 410,088 1,244,846 Total expenditures 1,766,000 1,657,934 453,058 1,204,876 Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,029,561) (921,495) 353,962 1,275,457 Other Financing Uses: Transfers out (30,000) (30,000) (79,966) (49,966) Total other financing (uses)(30,000) (30,000) (79,966) (49,966) Net change in fund balance (1,059,561)$ (951,495)$ 273,996 1,225,491$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 2,263,979 End of year 2,537,975$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual State Gasoline Tax Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 125 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 582,217$ 582,217$ 555,603$ (26,614)$ Use of money and property 10,000 10,000 29,933 19,933 Total revenues 592,217 592,217 585,536 (6,681) Expenditures: Capital outlay 1,082,000 1,325,094 953,633 371,461 Total expenditures 1,082,000 1,325,094 953,633 371,461 Net change in fund balance (489,783)$ (732,877)$ (368,097) 364,780$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 1,188,796 End of year 820,699$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Measure M2 Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 126 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 233,000$ 233,000$ 180,000$ (53,000)$ Total revenues 233,000 233,000 180,000 (53,000) Expenditures: Current: Community development 230,000 230,000 180,000 50,000 Total expenditures 230,000 230,000 180,000 50,000 Net change in fund balance 3,000$ 3,000$ - (3,000)$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 73,249 End of year 73,249$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 127 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 596,030$ 724,564$ 208,625$ (515,939)$ Total revenues 596,030 724,564 208,625 (515,939) Expenditures: Current: Public safety 541,275 709,989 520,479 189,510 Total expenditures 541,275 709,989 520,479 189,510 Revenues over (under) expenditures 54,755$ 14,575$ (311,854) (326,429)$ Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year - End of year (195,962)$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Police Grants Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 128 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Taxes 140,000$ 140,000$ 119,174$ (20,826)$ Use of money and property 6,000 6,000 24,101 18,101 Total revenues 146,000 146,000 143,275 (2,725) Expenditures: Current: Community development 88,450 88,450 97,234 (8,784) Total expenditures 88,450 88,450 97,234 (8,784) Revenues over (under) expenditures 57,550 57,550 46,041 (11,509) Other Financing Uses: Transfers out (31,400) (31,400) (31,400) - Total other financing (uses)(31,400) (31,400) (31,400) - Net change in fund balance 26,150$ 26,150$ 14,641 (11,509)$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 725,242 End of year 739,883$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Landscape District Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 129 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenue: Contributions 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ -$ Total revenues 15,000 15,000 15,000 - Expenditures: Current: Community development 9,484 9,484 7,577 1,907 Total expenditures 9,484 9,484 7,577 1,907 Revenues over (under) expenditures 5,516 5,516 7,423 1,907 Other Financing Uses: Transfers out (1,600) (1,600) (1,600) - Total other financing (uses)(1,600) (1,600) (1,600) - Net change in fund balance 3,916$ 3,916$ 5,823 1,907$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 73,631 End of year 79,454$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Heron Pointe Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 130 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Taxes 66,300$ 66,300$ 69,843$ 3,543$ Contributions 25,000 25,000 25,000 - Total revenues 91,300 91,300 94,843 3,543 Expenditures: Current: Community development 60,800 60,800 59,129 1,671 Total expenditures 60,800 60,800 59,129 1,671 Revenues over (under) expenditures 30,500 30,500 35,714 5,214 Other Financing Uses: Transfers out (26,000) (26,000) (26,000) - Total other financing (uses)(26,000) (26,000) (26,000) - Net change in fund balance 4,500$ 4,500$ 9,714 5,214$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 173,874 End of year 183,588$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Pacific Gateway Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 131 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Charges for services 110,000$ 110,000$ 134,931$ 24,931$ Use of money and property 10,000 10,000 23,024 13,024 Contributions - - 26,936 26,936 Total revenues 120,000 120,000 184,891 64,891 Expenditures: Current: General government 65,000 65,000 65,935 (935) Total expenditures 65,000 65,000 65,935 (935) Revenues over (under) expenditures 55,000$ 55,000$ 118,956 63,956$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 562,850 End of year 681,806$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Seal Beach Cable Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 132 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 653,757$ 653,757$ 687,544$ 33,787$ Use of money and property 25,000 25,000 46,466 21,466 Total revenues 678,757 678,757 734,010 55,253 Expenditures: Current: Community development - - 380 (380) Capital outlay 1,570,000 1,995,962 1,556,669 439,293 Total expenditures 1,570,000 1,995,962 1,557,049 438,913 Net change in fund balance (891,243)$ (1,317,205)$ (823,039) 494,166$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 1,354,995 End of year 531,956$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual SB1 Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 133 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: Intergovernmental 2,082,860$ 2,582,860$ 1,894,685$ (688,175)$ Miscellaneous 25,000 25,000 7,445 (17,555) Total revenues 2,107,860 2,607,860 1,902,130 (705,730) Expenditures: Current: Community development 25,000 525,000 160,229 364,771 Public works 150,000 50,000 406,391 (356,391) Capital outlay 2,121,843 1,507,312 737,921 769,391 Total expenditures 2,296,843 2,082,312 1,304,541 777,771 Revenues over (under) expenditures (188,983) 525,548 597,589 72,041 Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers out - - 213,338 213,338 Transfers out (181,928) (181,928) (222,325) (40,397) Total other financing sources (uses)(181,928) (181,928) (8,987) 172,941 Net change in fund balance (370,911)$ 343,620$ 588,602 244,982$ Fund Balance (Deficit): Beginning of year, as previously reported - Change in the financial reporting entity (major fund to nonmajor)(761,934) Beginning of year, as restated (Note 15)(761,934) End of year (173,332)$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Citywide Grants Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 134 Variance with Final Budget Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Other Financing (Uses): Transfers out -$ -$ (662,234)$ (662,234)$ Total other financing (uses)- - (662,234) (662,234) Net change in fund balance -$ -$ (662,234) (662,234)$ Fund Balance: Beginning of year 662,234 End of year -$ Budgeted Amounts City of Seal Beach Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual City Debt Service Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 135 This page intentionally left blank. 136 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 137 This page intentionally left blank. 138 Vehicle Information Replacement Technology Fund Fund Total ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and investments 232,632$ -$ 232,632$ Total current assets 232,632 - 232,632 Noncurrent Assets: Depreciable capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation 368,975 - 368,975 Total capital assets 368,975 - 368,975 Total noncurrent assets 368,975 - 368,975 Total assets 601,607 - 601,607 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable 62,845 - 62,845 Total current liabilities 62,845 - 62,845 Total Liabilities 62,845 - 62,845 NET POSITION Net investment in capital assets 368,975 - 368,975 Unrestricted 169,787 - 169,787 Total Net Position 538,762$ -$ 538,762$ City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Net Position Internal Service Funds June 30, 2025 139 Vehicle Information Replacement Technology Fund Fund Total OPERATING REVENUES: Insurance Reimbursement 54,951$ -$ 54,951$ Total operating revenues 54,951 - 54,951 OPERATING EXPENSES: Operating expenses 80,517 - 80,517 Depreciation expenses 154,043 - 154,043 Total operating expenses 234,560 - 234,560 OPERATING INCOME (179,609) - (179,609) NONOPERATING INCOME: Gain on sale of assets 5,863 - 5,863 Total nonoperating income 5,863 - 5,863 TRANSFERS: Transfer out - (25,363) (25,363) Total transfers - (25,363) (25,363) CHANGES IN NET POSITION (173,746) (25,363) (199,109) NET POSITION: Beginning of year 712,508 25,363 737,871 End of year 538,762$ -$ 538,762$ City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Internal Service Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 140 Vehicle Information Replacement Technology Fund Fund Total CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Cash received from customers and users 69,563$ -$ 69,563$ Cash paid to suppliers for goods and services (17,672) (11,619) (29,291) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 51,891 (11,619) 40,272 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Cash (paid to) other funds - (25,363) (25,363) Net cash used in noncapital financing activities - (25,363) (25,363) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Proceeds from disposal of capital assets 65,534 - 65,534 Principal paid on long-term debt (7,056) - (7,056) Net cash used in capital and related financing activities 58,478 - 58,478 Net change in cash and cash equivalents 110,369 (36,982) 73,387 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS: Beginning of year 122,263 36,982 159,245 End of year 232,632$ -$ 232,632$ Reconciliation of Operating (Loss) to Net Cash Provided By (Used in) Operating Activities: Operating (loss)(179,609)$ -$ (179,609)$ Adjustments to reconcile operating (loss) to net cash (used in) operating activities: Amortization and depreciation expenses 154,043 - 154,043 Changes in assets and liabilities: (Increase)/decrease in accounts receivables 14,612 - 14,612 Increase/(decrease) in accounts payable 62,845 (11,619) 51,226 Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities 51,891$ (11,619)$ 40,272$ NONCASH ITEM: Lease asset early termination (200,390)$ -$ (200,390)$ Lease liability early termination 200,170 - 200,170 City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Cash Flows Internal Service Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 141 This page intentionally left blank. 142 CUSTODIAL FUNDS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 143 This page intentionally left blank. 144 Community Community Facilities Facilities District District - Heron Deposits Heron Pointe Pacific Gateway Total ASSETS: Cash and investments 170,562$ 148,711$ 327,289$ 646,562$ Receivables: Accounts 736 - - 736 Taxes - 3,047 - 3,047 Restricted investments with fiscal agents - 264,274 720,671 984,945 Total Assets 171,298 416,032 1,047,960 1,635,290 LIABILITIES: Interest payable - 27,839 63,772 91,611 Total Liabilities - 27,839 63,772 91,611 NET POSITION: Restricted for: Individual, organization and other government 171,298$ 388,193$ 984,188$ 1,543,679$ City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position Custodial Funds June 30, 2025 145 Community Community Facilities Facilities District District - Heron Deposits Heron Pointe Pacific Gateway Total ADDITIONS: Assessment revenue collected -$ 255,935$ 571,711$ 827,646$ Investment income - 16,743 42,995 59,738 Total additions - 272,678 614,706 887,384 DEDUCTIONS: Return of deposits 98,458 - - 98,458 Payment of special assessment district debt service - 260,560 565,722 826,282 Total deductions 98,458 260,560 565,722 924,740 Change in net position (98,458) 12,118 48,984 (37,356) NET POSITION: Beginning of year 269,756 376,075 935,204 1,581,035 End of year 171,298$ 388,193$ 984,188$ 1,543,679$ Custodial Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 City of Seal Beach Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position 146 STATISTICAL SECTION 147 This page intentionally left blank. 148 Page These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial performance and well-being have changed over time.150-159 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the factors affecting the City's ability to generate its property and sales taxes.160-163 These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future.164-170 These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City's financial activities take place and to help make comparisons over time and with other governments.171-172 These schedules contain information about the City's operations and resources to help the reader understand how the City's financial information relates to the services the City provides and the activities it performs.173-176 Demographic and Economic Information Operating Information Statistical Section Description of Statistical Section Contents City of Seal Beach For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 This part of the City of Seal Beach annual comprehensive financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the government’s overall financial health. Financial Trends Revenue Capacity Debt Capacity 149 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Governmental activities: Net investment in capital assets, 73,939,948$ 72,399,752$ 72,667,466$ 87,071,592$ 84,530,565$ Restricted 3,866,679 4,587,081 4,207,675 4,825,412 7,601,451 Unrestricted 4,713,193 (3,660,561) (4,911,027) (9,873,029) (11,716,752) Total governmental activities net position 82,519,820$ 73,326,272$ 71,964,114$ 82,023,975$ 80,415,264$ Business-type activities: Net investment in capital assets, 34,145,069$ 33,109,258$ 31,663,486$ 32,937,448$ 31,473,936$ Restricted - - 25,082 25,082 25,082 Unrestricted 13,544,158 12,625,701 14,709,960 13,656,457 13,930,796 Total business-type activities net position 47,689,227$ 45,734,959$ 46,398,528$ 46,618,987$ 45,429,814$ Primary government: Net investment in capital assets, 108,085,017$ 105,509,010$ 104,330,952$ 120,009,040$ 116,004,501$ Restricted 3,866,679 4,587,081 4,232,757 4,850,494 7,626,533 Unrestricted 18,257,351 8,965,140 9,798,933 3,783,428 2,214,044 Total primary government net position 130,209,047$ 119,061,231$ 118,362,642$ 128,642,962$ 125,845,078$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach. Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Net Position by Component Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) 150 2021 2022 2023 2024* 2025 Governmental activities: Net investment in capital assets, 85,059,375$ 84,447,535$ 85,686,837$ 89,696,485$ 94,013,748$ Restricted 7,201,479 8,759,394 10,354,192 9,915,238 7,187,471 Unrestricted (9,239,218) (10,011,404) 864,319 2,655,265 2,862,901 Total governmental activities net position 83,021,636$ 83,195,525$ 96,905,348$ 102,266,988$ 104,064,120$ Business-type activities: Net investment in capital assets, 30,784,313$ 30,111,234$ 29,928,878$ 32,536,725$ 32,720,435$ Restricted 25,082 25,082 25,082 25,082 25,082 Unrestricted 14,359,332 14,386,432 14,713,140 13,581,768 13,809,023 Total business-type activities net position 45,168,727$ 44,522,748$ 44,667,100$ 46,143,575$ 46,554,540$ Primary government: Net investment in capital assets, 115,843,688$ 114,558,769$ 115,615,715$ 122,233,210$ 126,734,183$ Restricted 7,226,561 8,784,476 10,379,274 9,940,320 7,212,553 Unrestricted 5,120,114 4,375,028 15,577,459 16,237,033 16,671,924 Total primary government net position 128,190,363$ 127,718,273$ 141,572,448$ 148,410,563$ 150,618,660$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach. * 2024 balances were restated due to error corrections, GASB 101 implementation, and change in claim estimates. Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Net Position by Component (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) 151 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Expenses: Governmental activities: General government 6,264,368$ 5,894,947$ 6,161,230$ 6,479,347$ 6,868,616$ Public safety 16,972,880 19,867,060 19,877,068 21,497,362 24,079,442 Community development 1,100,110 1,218,902 1,593,008 1,499,652 1,581,361 Community services 1,036,627 995,468 964,634 945,425 866,786 Public works 6,956,443 6,992,604 7,367,882 7,752,351 11,180,509 Interest on long-term debt 349,652 342,951 225,675 143,040 88,274 Total governmental activities expenses 32,680,080 35,311,932 36,189,497 38,317,177 44,664,988 Business-type activities: Water utility 4,102,228 4,977,160 4,668,618 4,909,193 5,444,834 Sewer utility 1,676,651 2,639,043 2,539,783 2,523,366 3,035,447 Total business-type activities expenses 5,778,879 7,616,203 7,208,401 7,432,559 8,480,281 Total primary government expenses 38,458,959 42,928,135 43,397,898 45,749,736 53,145,269 Program revenues: Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government 2,074,448 1,913,909 2,062,987 1,913,201 1,207,956 Public safety 1,521,220 2,045,589 1,903,530 1,907,577 2,124,798 Community development 192,878 217,486 300,640 597,318 231,087 Community services 1,015,517 707,813 733,456 840,428 700,877 Public works 1,832,289 2,105,747 2,398,039 2,556,857 2,732,164 Operating contributions and grants 2,122,139 1,721,167 2,334,480 2,588,454 3,442,883 Capital grants and contributions 10,000 174,685 79,175 9,777,900 30,707 Total governmental activities program revenues 8,768,491 8,886,396 9,812,307 20,181,735 10,470,472 Business-type activities: Charges for services: Water utility 4,261,566 4,782,468 5,097,807 4,851,274 4,268,610 Sewer utility 2,466,869 2,784,942 2,928,885 2,854,208 3,007,958 Total business-type activities program revenues 6,728,435 7,567,410 8,026,692 7,705,482 7,276,568 Total primary government program revenues 15,496,926 16,453,806 17,838,999 27,887,217 17,747,040 Net revenues (expenses): Governmental activities (23,911,589) (26,425,536) (26,377,190) (18,135,442) (34,194,516) Business-type activities 949,556 (48,793) 818,291 272,923 (1,203,713) Total net revenues (expenses) (22,962,033)$ (26,474,329)$ (25,558,899)$ (17,862,519)$ (35,398,229)$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach. (accrual basis of accounting) City of Seal Beach Changes in Net Position Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 152 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Expenses: Governmental activities: General government 7,231,812$ 8,604,149$ 6,778,212$ 7,833,713$ 9,322,342$ Public safety 23,326,808 26,912,192 20,062,949 26,932,724 29,492,199 Community development 2,283,377 3,043,960 1,836,054 2,722,452 3,060,390 Community services 1,139,731 1,991,897 263,478 1,208,181 1,945,079 Public works 8,290,658 9,086,138 8,487,999 10,766,275 10,729,829 Interest on long-term debt 57,902 61,160 36,443 34,336 12,643 Total governmental activities expenses 42,330,288 49,699,496 37,465,135 49,497,681 54,562,482 Business-type activities: Water utility 6,033,692 6,064,434 5,250,934 7,127,839 6,349,610 Sewer utility 2,651,801 2,323,027 2,292,687 3,353,390 2,667,896 Total business-type activities expenses 8,685,493 8,387,461 7,543,621 10,481,229 9,017,506 Total primary government expenses 51,015,781 58,086,957 45,008,756 59,978,910 63,579,988 Program revenues: Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government 1,486,575 1,129,039 1,069,669 1,252,570 1,451,404 Public safety 2,361,646 2,547,127 2,282,044 1,976,293 2,262,656 Community development 221,140 434,955 499,835 508,638 608,029 Community services 985,542 1,244,430 1,221,628 1,328,884 1,395,661 Public works 2,596,848 2,842,031 3,588,535 4,199,836 3,915,149 Operating contributions and grants 4,287,922 9,362,550 4,165,836 4,231,563 4,920,671 Capital grants and contributions 10,692 655 889 1,199 1,872 Total governmental activities program revenues 11,950,365 17,560,787 12,828,436 13,498,983 14,555,442 Business-type activities: Charges for services: Water utility 4,957,483 5,824,338 5,759,925 6,289,312 6,580,915 Sewer utility 2,885,699 2,432,441 2,371,663 2,422,870 2,254,777 Total business-type activities program revenues 7,843,182 8,256,779 8,131,588 8,712,182 8,835,692 Total primary government program revenues 19,793,547 25,817,566 20,960,024 22,211,165 23,391,134 Net revenues (expenses): Governmental activities (30,379,923) (32,138,709) (24,636,699) (35,998,698) (40,007,040) Business-type activities (842,311) (130,682) 587,967 (1,769,047) (181,814) Total net revenues (expenses) (31,222,234)$ (32,269,391)$ (24,048,732)$ (37,767,745)$ (40,188,854)$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach. Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Changes in Net Position (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) 153 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 General revenues and other changes in net position: Governmental activities: Taxes: Property taxes 10,408,505$ 11,012,246$ 11,180,197$ 11,481,535$ 12,358,059$ Sales tax 4,228,730 4,379,341 4,303,618 5,546,264 9,108,334 Franchise taxes 955,922 1,016,938 1,059,581 1,097,774 1,034,280 Utility users taxes 4,445,180 4,177,713 4,186,554 4,061,031 3,941,877 Transient occupancy taxes 1,655,376 1,693,515 1,666,996 1,631,445 1,298,707 Other taxes 197,166 190,510 163,277 227,978 724,854 Motor vehicle in lieu, unrestricted 9,960 11,235 13,102 12,473 21,133 Use of money and property 1,004,572 425,014 300,817 1,692,720 1,862,213 Other 536,175 214,219 1,762,390 2,065,583 1,463,177 Transfers 378,500 378,500 378,500 378,500 376,483 Total governmental activities 23,820,086 23,499,231 25,015,032 28,195,303 32,189,117 Business-type activities: Use of money and property 176,437 167,661 223,778 326,036 391,016 Other 20,107 - - - - Transfers (378,500) (378,500) (378,500) (378,500) (376,483) Total business-type activities (181,956) (210,839) (154,722) (52,464) 14,533 Total primary government 23,638,130 23,288,392 24,860,310 28,142,839 32,203,650 Changes in net position: Governmental activities (91,503) 23,499,231 25,015,032 10,059,861 (2,005,399) Business-type activities 767,600 (210,839) (154,722) 220,459 (1,189,180) Total primary government 676,097$ 23,288,392$ 24,860,310$ 10,280,320$ (3,194,579)$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach. Changes in Net Position (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach 154 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 General revenues and other changes in net position: Governmental activities: Taxes: Property taxes 12,926,895$ 13,428,911$ 14,468,211$ 15,473,159$ 16,137,118$ Sales tax 10,146,964 11,443,583 11,666,838 11,494,982 12,423,838 Franchise taxes 1,067,098 1,101,243 1,175,046 1,236,189 1,161,770 Utility users taxes 4,129,727 4,508,593 5,349,003 5,510,087 5,401,062 Transient occupancy taxes 878,165 1,670,504 1,922,823 1,919,725 2,052,664 Other taxes 720,807 757,421 1,104,573 732,341 1,100,806 Motor vehicle in lieu, unrestricted 19,070 28,238 25,874 31,179 39,887 Use of money and property 151,196 (1,428,396) 781,761 2,673,147 2,953,712 Other 3,270,753 69,001 1,118,893 2,076,956 533,315 Transfers (324,379) 733,500 733,500 - - Total governmental activities 32,986,296 32,312,598 38,346,522 41,147,765 41,804,172 Business-type activities: Use of money and property 256,845 218,203 289,885 401,277 592,779 Other - - - - - Transfers 324,379 (733,500) (733,500) - - Total business-type activities 581,224 (515,297) (443,615) 401,277 592,779 Total primary government 33,567,520 31,797,301 37,902,907 41,549,042 42,396,951 Changes in net position: Governmental activities 2,606,373 173,889 13,709,823 5,149,067 1,797,132 Business-type activities (261,087) (645,979) 144,352 (1,367,770) 410,965 Total primary government 2,345,286$ (472,090)$ 13,854,175$ 3,781,297$ 2,208,097$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach. Fiscal Year Changes in Net Position (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) City of Seal Beach 155 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 General Fund: Nonspendable 682,859$ 2,877$ 32,495$ 33,795$ 41,776$ Restricted - 12,277 5,266 5,419 2,190,469 Committed - - - - 17,067,216 Assigned 7,610,286 7,478,281 8,289,150 10,152,504 4,370,059 Unassigned 20,811,037 19,770,202 17,491,623 11,922,370 3,509,871 Total general fund 29,104,182$ 27,263,637$ 25,818,534$ 22,114,088$ 27,179,391$ All other governmental funds: Nonspendable -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Restricted 3,866,679 4,131,203 4,110,558 4,819,993 5,410,982 Assigned - - - - - Unassigned (51,254) (184,908) (34,159) (425,639) (671,694) Total all Other government funds: 3,815,425$ 3,946,295$ 4,076,399$ 4,394,354$ 4,739,288$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year Fund Balances of Governmental Funds City of Seal Beach Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) 156 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 General Fund: Nonspendable 2,069,748$ 51,506$ 42,705$ 2,978,558$ 119,534$ Restricted 2,046,356 2,034,271 1,935,127 1,309,234 603,140 Committed 17,546,968 23,523,980 25,322,120 23,224,408 23,718,921 Assigned 4,704,595 4,853,380 5,097,455 6,714,071 6,037,300 Unassigned 3,629,265 3,885,769 4,927,044 5,242,784 11,869,857 Total general fund 29,996,932$ 34,348,906$ 37,324,451$ 39,469,055$ 42,348,752$ All other governmental funds: Nonspendable -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Restricted 5,037,618 6,167,958 7,477,277 7,844,070 6,215,037 Assigned - - - 87,347 234,348 Unassigned (373,870) (554,027) (692,160) (761,934) (369,294) Total all Other government funds: 4,663,748$ 5,613,931$ 6,785,117$ 7,169,483$ 6,080,091$ Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) 157 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenues: Taxes 22,828,144$ 23,368,371$ 24,021,668$ 25,903,080$ 27,481,580$ Licenses and permits 1,304,924 1,234,590 1,480,971 1,416,737 844,274 Intergovernmental 1,388,056 744,904 1,530,815 857,923 4,330,159 Charges for services 4,214,690 5,349,083 4,586,949 4,878,405 4,684,076 Use of money and property 1,004,572 426,418 347,117 1,772,775 2,003,529 Fines and forfeitures 1,110,606 152,845 1,089,515 946,048 1,239,154 Contributions from other governments 283,222 180,511 55,765 45,994 60,942 Miscellaneous 537,777 492,245 520,420 2,319,864 2,995,022 Total revenues 32,671,991 31,948,967 33,633,220 38,140,826 43,638,736 Expenditures Current: General government 5,351,130 5,673,309 5,757,859 6,169,490 6,083,705 Public safety 16,378,416 17,395,965 18,148,871 19,240,608 20,921,107 Community development 1,175,339 1,186,081 1,488,921 1,446,025 1,408,699 Community services 1,075,282 1,004,690 954,018 942,804 852,664 Public works 4,862,058 4,586,373 4,967,066 5,160,373 6,672,230 Capital outlay 2,645,823 1,506,476 2,567,080 7,378,774 1,729,166 Debt service: Principal retirement 1,490,150 2,162,379 1,640,521 1,754,905 494,370 Interest and fiscal charges 355,819 353,322 231,779 152,863 88,612 Total expenditures 33,334,017 33,868,595 35,756,115 42,245,842 38,250,553 Excess (deficiency) of revenue over (under) expenditures (662,026) (1,919,628) (2,122,895) (4,105,016) 5,388,183 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 5,602,944 4,472,129 5,714,614 9,381,712 4,141,526 Transfers out (5,340,308) (4,262,176) (4,906,717) (8,663,187) (4,119,472) Proceeds on sale of assets - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses) 262,636 209,953 807,897 718,525 22,054 Net change in fund balances (399,390)$ (1,709,675)$ (1,314,998)$ (3,386,491)$ 5,410,237$ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 6.0% 7.8% 5.6% 5.5% 1.6% Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) 158 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Revenues: Taxes 31,711,229$ 34,976,825$ 37,716,674$ 36,366,482$ 38,277,257$ Licenses and permits 771,615 926,792 1,027,232 939,640 1,066,988 Intergovernmental 2,195,977 6,754,322 1,622,005 5,632,109 4,998,757 Charges for services 4,853,170 5,118,769 5,821,082 6,791,306 6,757,884 Use of money and property 235,061 (1,197,815) 811,518 3,020,467 3,495,664 Fines and forfeitures 1,816,837 1,871,227 1,435,250 1,402,597 1,491,069 Contributions from other governments 106,528 76,817 77,023 69,471 161,041 Miscellaneous 3,431,013 240,917 1,291,231 661,060 694,582 Total revenues 45,121,430 48,767,854 49,802,015 54,883,132 56,943,242 Expenditures Current: General government 6,713,025 7,597,539 7,671,076 7,546,164 8,593,613 Public safety 21,895,428 23,892,990 24,570,207 25,508,597 26,491,203 Community development 2,203,834 2,185,707 2,218,015 2,699,327 2,561,988 Community services 1,131,906 1,174,593 1,219,014 1,399,938 1,505,709 Public works 5,748,811 6,884,360 6,625,681 8,746,664 8,676,881 Capital outlay 3,439,241 1,875,596 3,609,554 6,014,889 7,111,713 Debt service: Principal retirement 496,920 532,556 789,974 808,805 259,045 Interest and fiscal charges 70,479 55,856 36,651 34,080 12,153 Total expenditures 41,699,644 44,199,197 46,740,172 52,758,464 55,212,305 Excess (deficiency) of revenue over (under) expenditures 3,421,788 4,568,657 3,061,843 2,124,668 1,730,937 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 2,858,654 2,697,577 4,359,511 4,621,337 3,903,042 Transfers out (3,657,439) (1,964,077) (3,274,623) (4,621,337) (3,877,679) Proceeds on sale of assets 119,000 - - - 34,005 Total other financing sources (uses) (679,785) 733,500 1,084,888 - 59,368 Net change in fund balances 2,742,003$ 5,302,157$ 4,146,731$ 2,124,668$ 1,790,305$ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 1.5% 2.4% 1.9% 1.8% 0.6% Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) 159 Fiscal Year Taxable Taxable Total Ended Assessed Secured Assessed Direct Tax June 30 Secured Unsecured Value (Note 1) Unsecured Value Rate 2016 4,795,647,822$ 285,081,875$ 5,080,729,697$ 530,597,248$ 32,693,247$ 563,290,495$ 1.00% 2017 4,978,010,106 152,713,169 5,130,723,275 300,533,393 2,090,757 302,624,150 1.00% 2018 5,237,420,910 128,598,670 5,366,019,580 309,374,617 2,150,646 311,525,263 1.00% 2019 5,475,552,225 150,040,128 5,625,592,353 320,174,015 2,103,366 322,277,381 1.00% 2020 5,817,854,806 159,142,122 5,976,996,928 363,940,344 3,281,367 367,221,711 1.00% 2021 6,051,396,970 155,640,583 6,207,037,553 375,196,393 5,389,789 380,586,182 1.00% 2022 6,253,516,508 145,853,857 6,399,370,365 414,507,317 7,059,017 421,566,334 1.00% 2023 6,688,389,755 162,820,842 6,851,210,597 - - - 1.00% 2024 7,106,450,551 184,902,698 7,291,353,249 - - - 1.00% 2025 7,450,555,524 204,714,015 7,655,269,539 - - - 1.00% GENERAL NOTE: Source: County of Orange, Auditor - Controller Assessed Valuations Detail In 1978 the voters of the State of California passed Proposition 13 which limited property taxes to a total maximum rate of 1% based upon the assessed value of the property being taxed. Each year, the assessed value of property may be increased by an "inflation factor" (limited to a maximum increase of 2%). With few exceptions, property is only re-assessed at the time it is sold to a new owner. At that point, the new assessed value is reassessed at the purchase price of the property sold. The assessed valuation data shown above represents the only data currently available with respect to the actual market value of taxable property and is subject to the limitations described above. City of Seal Beach Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property Last Ten Fiscal Years City Redevelopment Agency Note 1: Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022 is the last year tax increment within the former Seal Beach RDA boundaries will be received. For Fiscal Year ended June 2023, per Resolution of the Orange Countywide Oversight Board No. 22-001 Successor Agency to the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency was dissolved. Beginning with Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2023, the city receives the property tax per AB 8 process. 160 City of Seal Beach Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates Last Ten Fiscal Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 City Direct Rates: City Direct Rate - Basic Levy 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 Overlapping Rates: Orange County Bonds 0.06135 0.06001 0.06072 0.05881 0.05509 0.06379 0.05996 0.05880 0.04565 0.04572 Metropolitan Water District 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00350 0.00700 Other Districts 0.07779 0.07367 0.09803 0.16561 0.13116 0.14183 0.12906 0.13106 0.11733 0.11512 Total Direct & Overlapping Rates 1.14264 1.13718 1.16225 1.22792 1.18975 1.20912 1.19252 1.19336 1.16648 1.16784 GENERAL NOTES: Source: HdL, County of Orange, Auditor-Controller Fiscal Year In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which sets the property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies forwhichthe subject property resides within. In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage of assessed property values for the payment of any voter-approved bonds. The City receives only a portion of this basic 1% levy. owners. 161 Percent of Percent of Total City Total City Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed Taxpayer Value Value Value Value Seal Beach Mutual 1,384,619,950$ 18.09% 796,235,092$ 15.67% CPT Shops at Rossmoor LLC 142,603,344 1.86% 134,285,323 2.64% Boeing 138,967,170 1.82% 135,437,922 2.67% ASN Long Beach LLC 136,195,312 1.78% 115,879,354 2.28% Terra Funding-Bixby Ranch LLC 102,992,613 1.35% 87,091,909 1.71% Ranch Town Center LLC 52,485,794 0.69% 44,347,031 0.87% AL United States Seal Beach Senior Housing LP 45,185,348 0.59% 49,732,601 0.98% Hellman Properties 37,828,306 0.49% OE 1729 Apollo CT LLC 36,878,160 0.48% Farmers and Merch Bank 33,560,036 0.44% Dendreon Manufacturing LLC 80,596,746 1.59% Oxy Long Beach Inc 65,000,000 1.28% 2,111,316,033$ 27.58% 1,549,978,148$ 30.51% Source: HDL Coren & Cone City of Seal Beach Current Year and Nine Years Ago Principal Property Taxpayers 2025 2016 162 Fiscal Taxes Levied Collections in Year Ended for the Percent Subsequent Percent June 30 Fiscal Year Amount of Levy Years Amount of Levy 2016 7,536,350$ 7,157,839$ 94.98% 79,454 7,237,293$ 96.03% 2017 7,692,829 7,549,591 98.14% 75,824 7,625,415 99.12% 2018 8,064,384 7,928,325 98.31% 73,467 8,001,792 99.22% 2019 8,681,340 8,278,388 95.36% 74,350 8,352,738 96.21% 2020 9,424,684 9,274,535 98.41% 81,504 9,356,039 99.27% 2021 9,740,869 9,591,161 98.46% 101,723 9,692,884 99.51% 2022 10,134,749 9,961,155 98.29% 95,453 10,056,608 99.23% 2023 10,819,610 10,662,521 98.55% 107,920 10,770,441 99.55% 2024 11,423,367 11,227,941 98.29% 144,439 11,372,380 99.55% 2025 11,955,234 11,719,905 98.03% 157,006 11,876,910 99.34% Source: Orange County Tax Ledger City of Seal Beach Property Tax Levies and Collections Last Ten Fiscal Years Total Collections to Date Collected within the Fiscal Year of Levy 163 Fiscal Year Pension Fire Total Ended Obligation Station Governmental June 30 Leases Bonds Bonds Climatec Subscriptions Activities 2016 -$ 3,461,000$ 3,255,000$ 1,368,208$ -$ 8,084,208$ 2017 - 2,414,000 2,835,000 672,829 - 5,921,829 2018 - 1,263,000 2,415,000 603,308 - 4,281,308 2019 - - 1,995,000 531,403 - 2,526,403 2020 - - 1,575,000 457,033 - 2,032,033 2021 - - 1,155,000 380,113 - 1,535,113 2022 237,517 - 735,000 300,555 949,058 2,222,130 2023 327,111 - 315,000 218,963 694,445 1,555,519 2024 210,272 - - - 455,855 666,127 2025 - - - - 233,861 233,861 Notes: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. *Data not readily available. Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach Governmental Activities City of Seal Beach Last Ten Fiscal Years Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type 164 Fiscal Year Sewer 2011 Sewer Total Total Percentage Debt Ended Water Board Installment State Revolving Business-type Primary of Personal Per June 30 Loan Agreement Agreement Subscriptions Activities Government Income 1 Capita 1 2016 -$ 2,565,000$ 3,718,034$ -$ 6,283,034$ 14,367,242$ * 613$ 2017 - 2,420,000 3,538,201 - 5,958,201 11,880,030 * 483 2018 872,555 2,270,000 3,353,690 - 6,496,245 10,777,553 * 398 2019 783,064 2,110,000 3,164,384 - 6,057,448 8,583,851 * 345 2020 654,381 1,940,000 2,970,155 - 5,564,536 7,596,569 * 304 2021 569,945 1,765,000 2,770,876 - 5,105,821 6,640,934 * 266 2022 485,509 1,580,000 2,566,416 357,237 4,989,162 7,211,292 * 290 2023 401,073 1,385,000 2,356,639 277,614 4,420,326 5,975,845 * 241 2024 358,855 1,180,000 2,141,409 204,545 3,884,809 4,550,936 * 187 2025 232,201 965,000 1,920,583 129,594 3,247,378 3,481,239 * 143 Notes: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 1See the schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics for personal income and population data. *Data not readily available. Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach Business-type Activities City of Seal Beach Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type (Continued) Last Ten Fiscal Years 165 Fiscal Year Private Percent of Ended Placement Total Assessed Per June 30 Bonds Bonds Bonds Value 1 Capita 2016 -$ 6,716,000$ 6,716,000$ 0.12% 273 2017 - 4,507,180 5,249,000 0.10% 213 2018 - 2,937,013 2,937,013 0.05% 118 2019 - 1,995,000 1,995,000 0.03% 80 2020 - 1,575,000 1,575,000 0.02% 63 2021 - 1,155,000 1,155,000 0.02% 46 2022 - 735,000 735,000 0.01% 30 2023 - 315,000 315,000 0.00% 13 2024 - - - 0.00% - 2025 - - - 0.00% - NOTES: Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach 1Assessed value has been used because the actual value of taxable property is not readily available in the State of California. City of Seal Beach Last Ten Fiscal Years Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding General bonded debt is debt payable with governmental fund resources and general obligation bonds recorded in enterprise funds. The City has no general bonded debt. 166 2024-25 Assessed Valuation:$7,652,712,979 Total Debt City’s Share of OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT: 6/30/2025 % Applicable (1) Debt 6/30/25 Metropolitan Water District 17,155,000$ 0.188% 32,251$ Coast Community College District 854,816,084 2.910 24,875,148 North Orange Jt. Community College District 275,134,676 1.126 3,098,016 Los Alamitos Unified School District 213,215,227 48.222 102,816,647 Huntington Beach Union High School District 122,999,998 0.001 1,230 Ocean View School District 148,220,000 0.003 4,447 City of Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2002-1 2,200,000 100 2,200,000 City of Seal Beach Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 6,065,000 100 6,065,000 TOTAL OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT 139,092,739$ DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT: Orange County General Fund Obligations 429,065,000$ 0.944% 4,050,374$ Orange County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 9,120,000 0.944 86,093 Coast Community College District Certificates of Participation 660,000 2.910 19,206 Coast Community College District Pension Obligation Bonds 465,000 2.910 13,532 Los Alamitos Unified School District Certificates of Participation 27,037,816 48.222 13,038,176 Huntington Beach Union High School District General Fund Obligations 47,461,090 0.001 475 Ocean View School District General Fund Obligations 10,835,000 0.003 325 North Orange County Regional Occupation Program Certificate of Participation 6,880,000 4.355 299,624 City of Seal Beach - 100 - TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND DEBT 17,507,805$ TOTAL DIRECT DEBT -$ TOTAL OVERLAPPING DEBT 156,600,544$ COMBINED TOTAL DEBT 156,600,544$ (2) (1) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divided by the district's total taxable assessed value. (2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations. Ratios to 2024-25 Assessed Valuation: Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 1.82% Total Direct Debt 0.00% Combined Total Debt 2.05% Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. June 30, 2025 Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Debt City of Seal Beach 167 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Debt limit 846,747,277$ 820,537,899$ 860,757,686$ 892,030,484$ 952,282,846$ Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - - Legal debt margin 846,747,277$ 820,537,899$ 860,757,686$ 892,030,484$ 952,282,846$ Total debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Note: 1Under state finance law, the City of Seal Beach's outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed 15 percent of total assessed property value. By law, the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds. Source: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Legal Debt Margin Information Last Ten Years 168 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Debt limit 930,063,188$ 960,333,816$ 1,028,618,366$ 1,093,458,885$ 1,147,906,947$ Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - - Legal debt margin 930,063,188$ 960,333,816$ 1,028,618,366$ 1,093,458,885$ 1,147,906,947$ Total debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2025 Assessed Valuation 7,652,712,979$ Debt percentage 1 15% Debt limit 1,147,906,947$ Debt applicable to limit - Legal debt margin 1,147,906,947$ Note: 1Under state finance law, the City of Seal Beach's outstanding general obligation debt should not exceed 15 percent of total assessed property value. By law, the general obligation debt subject to the limitation may be offset by amounts set aside for repaying general obligation bonds. Source: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Legal Debt Margin Information (Continued) Last Ten Years 169 Fiscal Year Ended Tax June 30 Increment Principal Interest Coverage 2016 1,329,344$ 545,000$ 177,413$ 1.84 2017 1,218,363 575,000 148,759 1.68 2018 1,125,053 600,000 118,302 1.57 2019 1,198,637 635,000 86,013 1.66 2020 234,102 605,000 53,078 0.36 2021 530,978 160,000 32,519 2.76 2022 - - - - 2023 - - - - 2024 - - - - 2025 - - - - Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach Last Ten Fiscal Years Pledged-Revenue Coverage City of Seal Beach Debt Service Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 2000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds The bonds were fully paid off during the year ended June 30, 2021. 170 Personal Per Capita Calendar Income Personal Unemployment Year Population (in thousands) Income Rate 2015 25,078 1,141,053$ 45,500$ 3.9% 2016 24,890 1,164,182 46,773 3.5% 2017 25,984 1,199,969 46,181 3.2% 2018 25,073 1,277,436 50,948 3.3% 2019 24,992 1,370,609 54,841 3.2% 2020 24,443 1,398,936 57,232 8.2% 2021 24,846 1,426,979 57,432 6.0% 2022 24,647 1,538,564 62,423 3.4% 2023 24,350 1,649,508 67,741 3.9% 2024 24,400 1,680,348 68,866 4.7% Sources: HDL Coren & Cone City of Seal Beach Demographic and Economic Statistics Last Ten Calendar Years 171 Business Business Name 2024 2015 Category 76 X X Service Stations AT&T Mobility X Electronics/Appliance Stores Bed Bath & Beyond X Home Furnishings Boeing X Transportation-Non-Auto Burlington X Family Apparel Chevron X X Service Stations Chevron X Service Stations Chick Fil A X Quick-Service Restaurants Crate Barrel Outlet X Home Furnishings CVS Pharmacy X X Drug Stores DTS X Business Services Energy Tubulars X Petroleum Prod/Equip EVLO Energy Storage X Energy/Utilities Hofs Hut Restaurant & Bakery X Casual Dining Home Goods X X Home Furnishings In N Out Burgers X X Quick-Service Restaurants Kohls X X Department Stores Marshalls X X Family Apparel Mobil X X Service Stations Old Ranch Country Club X X Leisure/Entertainment Original Parts Group X X Automotive Supply Stores Pavillions X X Grocery Stores Liquor Petsmart X Specialty Stores Ralphs X X Grocery Stores Liquor Roger Dunn Golf Shop X X Sporting Goods/Bike Stores Seal Beach Chevron X Service Stations Spaghettini X X Fine Dining Sprouts Farmers Market X Grocery Stores Staples X Office Supplies/Furniture Target X X Discount Dept Stores Toys R Us X Specialty Stores Tyr Sport X Fulfillment Centers Ulta Beauty X X Specialty Stores Walts Wharf X Fine Dining 2024 Percent of Calendar Year Total Paid by Top 25 Accounts = 56.96% 2015 Percent of Calendar Year Total Paid by Top 25 Accounts = 58.52% Firms Listed Alphabetically: Period January - December Source: Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates, State Board of Equalization, CDTFA, State Controller's Office City of Seal Beach Current Year and Ten Years Ago Top 25 Sales Tax Producers 172 Function 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024* 2025* General government 14.34 15.92 13.00 13.48 13.48 14.75 21.35 21.25 21.82 21.83 Public safety 74.12 77.19 78.50 79.82 79.82 80.78 82.05 86.90 84.02 83.44 Public works 4.97 3.98 6.00 5.00 5.00 17.99 17.99 17.69 17.30 19.51 Community development/Services 17.25 16.53 13.60 14.76 14.76 13.88 13.50 12.44 17.22 18.72 Water 13.82 12.60 12.90 13.15 13.15 8.90 8.90 7.45 8.60 6.76 Sewer 7.11 7.69 6.71 6.89 6.89 5.86 5.86 6.99 6.56 5.66 Total 142.58 131.61 133.91 130.71 133.10 142.16 149.65 152.72 155.52 155.92 Source: Finance Department, City of Seal Beach *Position count includes contracted employees in Community Development Total full-time equivalents exclude Commissioners and Reserve Officers but includes Council Members Fiscal Year Last Ten Fiscal Years Full-Time and Part-Time City Employees by Function City of Seal Beach 173 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Police: Arrests 790 781 854 787 709 Parking citations issued 19,264 18,319 19,929 17,663 20,913 Public works: Street centerline miles resurfaced 1 - 1 1 4 Number of public right of way permits issued 184 259 231 253 242 Number of street related service requests 40 68 109 92 44 Parks and recreation: Number of recreation classes 680 710 1,070 1,100 790 Number of facility rentals 557 585 1,030 1,045 690 Water: Number of water meters replaced 76 56 49 49 104 Acre feet of water used 3,208 3,259 3,208 3,360 3,276 Sewer: Number of feet of sewer cleaned 217,619 - 217,619 154,000 146,619 Number of catch basins cleaned 458 216 216 216 216 Source: City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year City of Seal Beach Operating Indicators by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years 174 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Police: Arrests 806 1,429 809 1,010 731 Parking citations issued 28,644 29,658 24,841 22,985 19,576 Public works: Street centerline miles resurfaced 3 1 1 4 3 Number of public right of way permits issued 232 213 213 250 250 Number of street related service requests 39 258 258 300 388 Parks and recreation: Number of recreation classes 1,113 955 828 752 810 Number of facility rentals 314 1,020 773 1,765 1,052 Water: Number of water meters replaced 154 89 89 98 328 Acre feet of water used 3,471 3,086 3,086 3,331 3,929 Sewer: Number of feet of sewer cleaned 126,563 190,569 190,569 105,607 114,519 Number of catch basins cleaned 217 218 218 454 226 Source: City of Seal Beach Last Ten Fiscal Years Operating Indicators by Function (Continued) City of Seal Beach Fiscal Year 175 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Police: Stations 2222222222 Patrol units 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Public works: Streets (center line miles) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Sidewalk (miles) 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 Signalized intersections 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 Parks and recreation: Parks 10101010101013131313 Community centers 3333335555 Water: Water pipe (miles) 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 Reservoirs 2222222222 Sewer Sanitary sewers (miles) 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Storm sewers (miles) 4444444444 Sewer lift/pump stations 7777776666 Source: City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach Capital Asset Statistics by Function Last Ten Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 176 Áǝƺ!ǣɎɵȒǔ³ƺƏǼ ƺƏƬǝ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɀƺɴƬƺǼǼƺȇɎƬǣɎɵ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɎȒƺȇǝƏȇƬƺɎǝƺ ȷɖƏǼǣɎɵȒǔǼǣǔƺƏȇƳɎȒȵȸƺɀƺȸɮƺ ȒɖȸɀȅƏǼǼɎȒɯȇƬǝƏȸƏƬɎƺȸِ Áǝƺ!ǣɎɵȒǔ³ƺƏǼ ƺƏƬǝàƏǼɖƺɀي 0ɴƬƺǼǼƺȇɎƬɖɀɎȒȅƺȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺ xɖɎɖƏǼȸƺɀȵƺƬɎ ÁƺƏȅɯȒȸǸ ¨ȸȒǔƺɀɀǣȒȇƏǼǣɀȅ RȒȇƺɀɎۭƺɎǝǣƬƏǼƫƺǝƏɮǣȒȸ City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Independent Accountant’s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures to Appropriations Limit Schedule For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1200 Santa Ana, California 92707 INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California We have performed the procedures enumerated below to the accompanying appropriation limit schedule of the City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”) for the year ended June 30, 2025. The City’s management is responsible for the Appropriations Limit Schedule. The City has agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. These procedures, which were suggested by the League of California Cities and presented in the publication entitled Agreed-upon Procedures Applied to the Appropriations Limitation Prescribed by Article XIII-B of the California Constitution, were performed solely to assist you in meeting the requirements. This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this report and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for determining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes. The procedures performed and associated findings are as follows: 1. We obtained the completed worksheets used by the City to calculate its appropriations limit for the year ended June 30, 2025, and compared that the limit and annual calculation factors were adopted by resolution of the City Council. We also compared that the population and inflation options were selected by a recorded vote of the City Council. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 2. For the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule, we added the prior year’s limit to the total adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to the current year’s limit. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. However, we noted that the City is not maximizing its calculation by using the County population factor for the year ended June 30, 2025 that will benefit the City the most. There is no impact as the City’s appropriations for 2024-25 are below the limit. 3. We compared the current year information presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule to corresponding information in worksheets used by the City. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. 4. We compared that the appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit schedules matches the appropriations limits adopted by the City Council during the year. Finding: No exceptions were noted as a result of our procedures. To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Seal Beach Seal Beach, California Page 2 2 We were engaged by the City to perform this agreed-upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review engagement, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accompanying Appropriations Limit Schedule. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed-upon procedures engagement. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and the management of the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. Santa Ana, California December 17, 2025 City of Seal Beach Appropriations Limit Schedule For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 See accompanying Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule. 3 Amount Source A. Appropriations Limit from FY 2023-2024 37,835,918$ Prior year appropriation adopted by the City B. Adjustment Factors: 1. Growth in City Population 0.9963 California Department of Finance 2. Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio 1.0362 California Department of Finance 3. Adjustment Factor 1.0324 (B1 * B2) C. Annual Adjustment Increase 1,224,600$ {(B3-1)} * A} D. Other Adjustments 1. Loss responsibility (-)- N/A 2. Transfer to private (-)- N/A 3. Transfer to fees (-)- N/A 4. Assumed responsibility (+)- N/A E. Total Adjustments 39,060,518$ (C+D) F. Appropriations Limit FY 2024-2025 39,060,518$ (A+E) City of Seal Beach Notes to Appropriations Limit Schedule For the Year Ended June 30, 2025 4 Note 1 – Purpose of Limited Procedures Review Under Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (the Gann Spending Limitation Initiative), California governmental agencies are restricted as to the amount of annual appropriations from proceeds of taxes. Effective for years beginning on or after July 1, 1990, under Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB, the annual calculation of the appropriations limit is subject to agreed upon procedures in connection with the annual audit. Note 2 – Method of Calculation Under Section 10.5 of Article XIIIB, for fiscal years beginning on or after July 1990, the appropriations limit is required to be calculated based on the limit for the fiscal year 1986-87, adjusted for the inflation and population factors discussed in Notes 3 and 4 below. Note 3 – Population Factors A California governmental agency may use as its population factor either the annual percentage change of the jurisdiction’s own population or the annual percentage change in population of the county where the jurisdiction is located. The factor adopted by the City of Seal Beach, California (the “City”) for the year ending June 30, 2025, represents the annual percentage change in population for the City. Note 4 – Inflation factors A California governmental agency may use as its inflation factor either the annual percentage change in the 4th quarter per capita personal income (which percentage is supplied by the California Department of Finance) or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the preceding year due to the change of local nonresidential construction. The factor adopted by the City for the year ended June 30, 2025, represents the annual percentage change in per capital personal income. Note 5 – Other Adjustments A California government agency may be required to adjust its appropriations limit when certain events occur, such as the transfer of responsibility for municipal services to, or from, another government agency or private entity. The City had no such adjustments for the year ended June 30, 2025. Agenda Item E AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager SUBJECT:Letter of Support for Senate Bill 758 - Substance Control and Retail Integrity Act ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of support for Senate Bill 758 (SB 758), the Substance Control and Retail Integrity Act, which would prohibit all licensed Cigarette and Tobacco retailers (except grocery stores) from selling nitrous oxide to prevent misuse of the chemical. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Nitrous oxide (NOX) is an odorless, colorless chemical with legitimate uses in food preparation and dentistry. However, it is increasingly misused through inhalation for intoxicating purposes. In recent years, numerous California cities have reported an increase in the recreational use of NOX obtained from smoke shops and other retailers and have brought forth ordinances focused on restricting the sale of NOX in retail locations. Recreational use of NOX is illegal. It is also extremely dangerous and can result in serious health problems and death, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Although current law prohibits the sale of NOX for recreational intoxicating purposes, significant loopholes in the statutory framework allow these products to be easily diverted into the recreational market. For example, NOX canisters labeled for food preparation are repurposed and resold at various tobacco retail locations. Effectively preventing the recreational sale of NOX will require clear, consistent statewide guidelines. State Senator Tom Umberg (District 34) introduced SB 758, the Substance Control and Retail Integrity Act, to address this matter. This bill closes the loophole that allows NOX to be sold in smoke shops and establishes a consistent regulatory baseline for cities to address the increase in recreational NOX. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and has been ordered to the State Assembly, where it awaits further action. Previous versions of SB 758 initially made it a misdemeanor to sell kratom containing 7-hydroxymitragynine or 7-OH. Kratom comes from the Mitragyna Page 2 2 2 3 3 speciosa plant. Some say in its natural form it can be used for medicinal purposes, however, health officials have warned claims are unproven and there are adverse side effects. The legislation was amended, and as adopted, it does not contain provisions related to kratom. 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 authorize the Mayor to execute a letter of support for Senate Bill 758 (SB 758), the Substance Control and Retail Integrity Act, which would prohibit all licensed Cigarette and Tobacco retailers (except grocery stores) from selling nitrous oxide to prevent misuse of the chemical. SUBMITTED, NOTED AND APPROVED BY: Patrick Gallegos Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Lauren Barich, Management Analyst ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter of Support CITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 (562) 431-2527 • www.sealbeachca.g ov February 9, 2026 The Honorable Tom Umberg Member, California State Senate 1021 O Street, Room 6610 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 758 (Umberg) Public health: nitrous oxide. Notice of SUPPORT Dear Senator Umberg, The City of Seal Beach is pleased to support SB 758 which would prohibit all licensed Cigarette and Tobacco retailers (except grocery stores) from selling nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide (NOX) is an odorless, colorless chemical with established legitimate uses in food preparation and dentistry. However, it is increasingly misused through inhalation for intoxicating purposes. In recent years, numerous California cities have re ported an increase in the recreational use of nitrous oxide obtained from smoke shops and other retailers. Not only is recreational use illegal but it is also extremely dangerous. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration earlier this year warned in their publication titled, “FDA Advises Consumers Not to Inhale Nitrous Oxide Products” that, “Inhaling nitrous oxide can result in a range of symptoms and serious health problems, neurological and nerve damage, spinal cord and brain damage, heart attack, and in some cases, death.” Although current law prohibits the sale of nitrous oxide for recreational intoxicating purposes, significant loopholes in the statutory framework allow these products to be easily diverted into the recreational market. For example, nitrous oxide canisters labeled for food preparation are repurposed and resold at various tobacco retail locations. To address this issue, many cities have enacted ordinances banning the sale of nitrous oxide at tobacco licensed retail shops that have no real connection to legitimate uses. To date, at least twenty-five cities have brought forth ordinances focused on restricting the sale of nitrous oxide in retail locations. However, effectively preventing the recreational sale of nitrous oxide will require clear, consistent statewide guidelines. This bill closes the dangerous loophole that allows nitrous oxide to be sold in smoke shops and establishes a consistent regulatory baseline for cities to address the troubling proliferation of recreational nitrous oxide. For these reasons, the City of Seal Beach is pleased to support SB 758 (Umberg). Sincerely, Lisa Landau Mayor City of Seal Beach cc. The Honorable Tony Strickland Member, California State Senate 1021 O Street, Room 6730 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Diane Dixon Member, California State Assembly State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0072 Connor Medina, Regional Public Affairs Manager, Orange County Division League of California Cities cmedina@calcities.org / cityletters@cacities.org Agenda Item F AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Application for Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant through the State Water Resources Control Board ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7733: 1. Approving the Financial Assistance Grant Application related to the Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant through the State Water Resources Control Board for the Seal Beach Recycled Water Feasibility Study, and authorizing and directing the City Manager, or designee, to sign and file for and on behalf of the City, said Financial Assistance Grant Application for the grant; and, 2. Designating and directing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, recognize, provide for the assurance, certifications, and commitments required for the Financial Assistance Grant Application, including executing a financial assistance agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board, and any amendments or changes thereto, and to recognize and amend the City’s budget to incorporate funding, and utilize the grant funding pursuant to the grant program; and, 3. Designating the City Manager, or designee, to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the grant agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City of Seal Beach currently relies on potable water supplies to irrigate both public and private landscaped areas. Increasing climate variability, periodic water supply shortages, and evolving regulatory requirements continue to place pressure on traditional potable water resources throughout Southern California. These conditions underscore the importance of diversifying local water supplies and Page 2 2 2 2 7 maximizing the use of alternative, drought-resilient resources, such as recycled water, where feasible and appropriate. Long Beach Utilities operates an established recycled water system, including advanced treatment and distribution infrastructure, in close proximity to the City of Seal Beach. Preliminary coordination with Long Beach Utilities has identified the potential for importing recycled water to offset potable water currently used for non-potable irrigation purposes. However, a comprehensive feasibility study is required to evaluate conveyance options, system integration, regulatory and permitting requirements, end-user demand suitability, capital and operational costs, and long-term operational and maintenance considerations. The State Water Resources Control Board’s (Water Board) Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant (WRFP Grant) provides financial assistance for planning-level activities that support water recycling projects designed to offset or augment local and regional potable water supplies. Based on discussions with the Water Board, a Seal Beach Recycled Water Feasibility Study is considered an eligible planning-level project under the WRFP Grant program. Approval of the attached resolution confirms City Council support for to submit a WRFP Grant application and authorizes the City Manager to execute all required assurances, certifications, and related documents. The resolution further authorizes the City Manager to enter into the necessary agreements and take actions required to successfully secure and administer grant funding in compliance with program requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed submittal of the grant application does not constitute a project and therefore is exempt from the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). The proposed submittal of the grant application will not involve any development or change to the physical environment and therefore, no further review under CEQA is warranted or necessary. Should the project be deemed viable and desirable by the City, environmental impacts related to the Project implementation will be assessed under a separate effort. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The WRFP Grant provides a maximum grant amount of $300,000 per planning project, which the feasibility study falls under. Pursuant to the funding guidelines, the City is considered a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) which means the City Page 3 2 2 2 7 may receive 100% of grant funds up to the maximum grant amount with no matching funds. If awarded, revenues and expenditures associated with the WRFP Grant will be recognized and included in the City’s annual budget. The table below represents a breakdown of the anticipated Project funding: Description Amount Feasibility Study – Grant Funds $ 300,000 Feasibility Study – Matching Funds $ 0 Project Cost $ 300,000 STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7733: 1. Approving the Financial Assistance Grant Application related to the Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant through the State Water Resources Control Board for the Seal Beach Recycled Water Feasibility Study, and authorizing and directing the City Manager, or designee, to sign and file for and on behalf of the City, said Financial Assistance Grant Application for the grant; and, 2. Designating and directing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, recognize, provide for the assurance, certifications, and commitments required for the Financial Assistance Grant Application, including executing a financial assistance agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board, and any amendments or changes thereto, and to recognize and amend the City’s budget to incorporate funding, and utilize the grant funding pursuant to the grant program; and, 3. Designating the City Manager, or designee, to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the grant agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Page 4 2 2 2 7 ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7733 RESOLUTION 7733 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR AND RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FOR THE WATER RECYCLING FUNDING PROGRAM PLANNING GRANT APPLICATION THROUGH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WHEREAS, the City relies on potable water supplies for public and private irrigation; and, WHEREAS, regulatory constraints continue to challenge traditional potable water supplies throughout the State of California where there is an increasing need to diversify local water resources and maximize the use of recycled water where appropriate; and, WHEREAS, Long Beach Utilities operates an established recycled water system in proximity to the City; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to conduct a feasibility study to evaluate conveyance options, system integration, regulatory compliance, demand suitability, costs, and long- term operational considerations; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to submit a Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant Application to conduct the Seal Beach Recycled Water Feasibility Study (Project); and, WHEREAS, the City desires to accept the Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant, if awarded, and authorizes the execution of the necessary agreements, contracts, and amendments and other corresponding documentation to accept the funds. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the Financial Assistance Grant Application for a Water Recycling Funding Program Planning Grant through the State Water Resources Control Board for the Seal Beach Recycled Water Feasibility Study, and authorizes and directs the City Manager, or designee, to sign and file for and on behalf of the City, said Financial Assistance Application for the grant. Section 2. The City Council hereby designates and directs the City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to apply for, accept, receive, provide the assurance, certifications, and commitments required for the Financial Assistance Grant Application, including executing a financial assistance agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto, and to recognize and amend the 1 0 8 2 4 City’s budget to incorporate funding, and utilize grant funding pursuant to the grant program. Section 3. The City Council hereby designates the City Manager, or designee, to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the grant agreement, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of February 2026 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 7733 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of February 2026. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item G AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Approving and Awarding a Public Works Agreement with Garland/DBS, Inc., and Approving Expenses Related to Testing, Abatement, and Repairs for the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7734: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement with Garland/DBS, Inc., in the not-to-exceed amount of $307,489 for the Project; and, 3. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve additional work requests up to $30,800 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $10,000 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $40,800; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses up to the amount of $15,000 for Moisture Assessment and Building Materials Testing and $25,000 for Abatement Services, in connection with the Project; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses for building repair up to $50,000, in connection with the Project. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Marina Community Center is located in Marina Park at 151 Marina Drive. This facility is a vital resource for Seal Beach residents, serving as a space for the Seal Beach Playgroup, various recreation classes, and social gatherings. Page 2 2 2 2 8 Following rainstorms during the week of January 4, 2026, a portion of the Marina Community Center secondary room used by the Seal Beach Playgroup experienced a failure, resulting in water intrusion and damage. Out of an abundance of caution, on January 5, 2026, the Seal Beach Playgroup was temporarily relocated to the facility’s multi-purpose room while the damage was evaluated. On January 7, 2026, Vista Environmental Consulting conducted a moisture assessment and building materials sampling. Based on Vista’s findings, Staff authorized Castlerock Environmental, Inc. (Castlerock) on January 12, 2026, to perform emergency mold remediation in the affected area. Vista also conducted asbestos sampling and testing of the existing roof materials and determined that asbestos present in the existing mastic does not require abatement and can be addressed by the roofing contractor. To address the source of the water intrusion and prevent further damage, Staff proceeded with planning for a full roof replacement project at the Marina Community Center. Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(D) allows an exemption from the City’s competitive bidding requirements for purchases made through cooperative purchasing agreements with other government entities. Staff solicited a proposal from Garland/DBS, Inc. to complete the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506, using Garland’s Master Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement #PW1925 with Racine County, Wisconsin and OMNIA Partners, Public Sector (U.S. Communities). In addition to cooperative pricing, Garland administered an informal competitive process to obtain subcontractor quotes to ensure competitive pricing for the Project. On January 21, 2026, Garland submitted a proposal in a not-to-exceed amount of $307,489. Garland holds the required “B” General Building contractor’s license and is a qualified firm to perform the Project. Due to the nature of the Project and the potential for unforeseen conditions, Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to approve expenses for moisture assessment and building materials testing up to $15,000, abatement services up to $25,000, and building repairs up to $50,000. Staff further recommends authorization to approve additional work requests up to $30,800 and inspection services up to $10,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This project complies with all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is categorically exempt under Section 15301 Class 1 subsection (d) of the CEQA Guidelines. Page 3 2 2 2 8 LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has approved the agreements and resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: A budget transfer will allocate $438,289 from BG2503 Building Improvement Program and PR2501 Tennis Court and Pickleball Center to Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506. No budget amendment is being requested. The table below presents the estimated breakdown of the Project’s construction cost: Description Amount Moisture Assessment & Building Materials Testing Abatement Services Construction (Garland/DBS, Inc.) Construction Contingency In-house Interior Ceiling Repair $ 15,000 $ 25,000 $ 307,489 $ 30,800 $ 50,000 Inspection $ 10,000 Total $ 438,289 Costs will be expensed from the following funds: Fund Amount BG2503 – Building Improvement Program $ 308,289 PR2501 – Tennis Court and Pickleball Center (Project Savings)$ 130,000 Total $ 438,289 STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7734: 1. Approving the scope of work, plans, specifications and other contract documents for the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 (Project); and, 2. Approving and awarding a Public Works Agreement with Garland/DBS, Inc., in the not-to-exceed amount of $307,489 for the Project; and, Page 4 2 2 2 8 3. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve additional work requests up to $30,800 (approximately 10%) and inspection services up to $10,000 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $40,800; and, 4. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses up to the amount of $15,000 for Moisture Assessment and Building Materials Testing and $25,000 for Abatement Services, in connection with the Project; and, 5. Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses for building repair up to $50,000, in connection with the Project. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Wendy Ha, Assistant Engineer ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7734 B. Garland/DBS, Inc. Public Works Agreement RESOLUTION 7734 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT WITH GARLAND/DBS, INC, AND APPROVING EXPENSES RELATED TO TESTING, ABATEMENT, AND REPAIRS FOR THE MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT, CIP BG2506 WHEREAS, following the rainstorms during the week of January 4, 2026, a portion of the Marina Community Center secondary room (Room) used by the Seal Beach Playgroup failed and water damage was noted; and, WHEREAS, on January 5, 2026, out of an abundance of caution, the Seal Beach Playgroup was temporarily relocated to the facility’s multi-purpose room while the damage was evaluated; and, WHEREAS, on January 7, 2026, Vista Environmental Consulting (Vista) conducted a moisture assessment and building materials sampling; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 2026, based on Vista’s assessment, Staff authorized Castlerock Environmental, Inc. (Castlerock) to conduct emergency mold remediation of the affected area; and, WHEREAS, Vista has conducted asbestos sampling and testing of the existing roof materials and determined that the asbestos present in the existing mastic does not require abatement and can be addressed by the roofing contractor; and, WHEREAS, Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.20.025(D) provides an exemption from the City’s competitive bidding requirements for purchases made in cooperation with state, county, or other government entities to obtain lower pricing under the same terms, conditions, and specifications; and, WHEREAS, Staff solicited a proposal from Garland/DBS, Inc. (Garland) to complete the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 (Project) using Garland’s Master Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement #PW1925 (MICPA) with Racine County, Wisconsin and OMNIA Partners, Public Sector (U.S. Communities); and, WHEREAS, in addition to utilizing the cooperative purchasing pricing, Garland administered an informal competitive process for obtaining quotes for the Project to provide competitive pricing; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, Garland submitted a proposal for the Project in 1 0 8 4 2 the not-to-exceed amount of $307,489; and, WHEREAS, Garland holds the required “B” General Building contractor’s license and is a qualified firm to perform the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves the scope of work, specifications and other contract documents for the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506. Section 2. Based on the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated herein by this reference, the City Council hereby awards a Public Works Agreement to Garland/DBS, Inc. for the Project in a not-to-exceed amount of $307,489, utilizing Garland’s Master Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement #PW1925 (MICPA) with Racine County, Wisconsin and OMNIA Partners, Public Sector (U.S. Communities). Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to approve payments for additional work requests up to $30,800 and inspection services up to $10,000 in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to-exceed amount of $40,800. Section 4. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses up to the amount of $15,000 for Moisture Assessment and Building Materials Testing and $25,000 for Abatement Services, in connection with the Project. Section 5. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to approve expenses for building repairs up to $50,000, in connection with the Project. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of February 2026 by the following vote: 1 0 8 4 2 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 7734 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 9th day of February 2026. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENT MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT CIP NO. BG2506 MICPA CONTRACT NO. #PW1925 between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & Garland/DBS, Inc. 3800 East 91st Street Cleveland, OH 44105 (800) 762-8225 (216) 883-2055 – FAX THIS CONTRACT (“Contract”) is made as of February 9, 2026, by and between the City of Seal Beach, a California charter city (“City”), and Garland/DBS, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Contractor”) (collectively, “the parties” and individually, a “party”). 2 RECITALS A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach (“City”) approved the plans and specifications for the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 (“Project”) for replacement in roofing materials and services at Marina Community Center; and B. Declaring the Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 is exempt from public bidding based on the urgent necessity for the preservation of property of the City per City Charter Section 1010, and Section 3.24.025(D) of Chapter 3.25 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code; and C. Pursuant to the authority provided by the Seal Beach City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code §3.20.025(D), City solicited a proposal (“Proposal”) dated January 21, 2026, to perform the work defined and described in Section 1.0 of this Agreement for the Project under the Master Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement (MICPA) #PW1925 with Racine County, WI and OMNIA Partners, Public Sector (U.S. Communities) in the amount of $307,489. The Proposal includes, among other things, provisions defining the Project scope. D. WHEREAS, Contractor is a California licensed General Contractor (State Contractor's license number (License #949380), DIR #1000000134); and “B” General Building D. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority provided by its City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code, City desires to engage Contractor to carry out the Project in the manner set forth herein and more fully described in Section 1.0. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: CONTRACT 1. Contractor’s Services. 1.1 Scope and Level of Services. For and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract, Contractor shall perform and complete in good and workmanlike manner all work (“Work”) for the Project identified as Marina Community Center Roof Replacement, CIP BG2506 (“Project”) as described in this Contract and in the Contract Documents listed in Subsection 1.2. 3 1.2 Contract Documents. The Contract Documents consist of this Contract and all the following: The Exhibits attached to this Contract include the (i) Contractor’s Proposal Dated January 21, 2026 (“Proposal”) (Exhibit A); (ii) Performance Bond (Exhibit B), (iii) Payment Bond (Labor and Materials) (Exhibit C), (iv) Workers’ Compensation Insurance Certificate (Exhibit D), (v) Insurance Endorsements (Exhibit E), (vi) Acknowledgment of Penal and Civil Penalties Concerning Contractor Licensing Laws (Exhibit F), (vii) Acknowledgment of Labor Law Requirements (Exhibit G), (viii) Standard Specifications and Reference Documents (Exhibit H), (ix) Non-Collusion Declaration (Exhibit I), (x) Contractor’s Industrial Safety Record (Exhibit J), (xi) Declaration of Subcontractors (Exhibit K). All Contract Documents are hereby incorporated into this Contract. 1.3 The Work shall be performed in accordance with the Plans, Specifications and other Contract Documents. Contractor shall furnish at its own expense all labor, materials, equipment and services necessary therefor, except such labor, materials, equipment and services as are specified in the Contract Documents to be furnished by City. 1.4 In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Contract and the provisions of the other Contract Documents, the provisions of this Contract shall prevail. 2. Effective Date. This Contract is effective as of February 9, 2026 (the “Effective Date”), and shall remain in full force and effect until Contractor has rendered the services required by this Contract and a Notice of Completion has been filed with the Orange County Recorder, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to this Contract. 3. Contractor’s Compensation. 3.1 Payment. For performing and completing the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City shall pay Contractor, in accordance with the Bid Proposal as full compensation therefor, but in no event will City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $ 307,489 (THREE HUNDRED SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE dollars), subject to any additions and deletions pursuant to the terms of the Contract Documents. Said sum shall constitute payment in full for all Work performed hereunder, including, without limitation, all labor, materials, equipment, tools and services used or incorporated in the Work, supervision, administration, overhead, expenses and any and all other things required, furnished or incurred for completion of the Work as specified in the Contract Documents. City shall make payments to Contractor on account of the Contract sum at the time, in the manner, and upon the conditions specified in the Contract Documents. 3.2 Additional Work. 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. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 4 4. Contractor’s Personnel. 4.1 All Work shall be performed by Contractor or under Contractor’s direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by the Standard Specifications and Reference Documents in Exhibit G and all other provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code and other state and local laws and by the Proposal to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City of Seal Beach business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. 4.2 Contractor shall be responsible for payment of all employees’ wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Secur ity. Contractor shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor’s employees. 4.3 Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liabilities, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Contractor’s alleged violations of personnel practices. 4.4 Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act as an agent of City. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor’s employees, except as set forth in this Contract. Contractor shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents, or employees are in any manner employees of City. Contractor shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Contract, and indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the Work performed pursuant to this Contract. 4.5 City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Contract any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 4. 5. Indemnification. 5.1 Contractor’s Duty. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, defend, indemnify, and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers, successors, assigns, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, expenses, judgments, penalties, stop notices, liens, liabilities and losses of any nature whatsoever, 5 including fees of accountants, attorneys or other professionals and all costs associated therewith and the payment of all consequential damages (collectively, “Liabilities”), in law or in 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 Contractor, its officers, agents, attorneys, servants, employees, Subcontractors, materialmen, contractors, or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom the Contractor bears legal liability)in the performance of the Contract, including the Indemnitees’ active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Contractor 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. Contractor shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by Indemnitees in connection therewith. The City shall not be liable for any accident, loss, or damage to the Work prior to completion, except as otherwise sp ecified in Section 6-5 of the Specifications. 5.2 Taxes and Workers’ Compensation. Contractor shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to the Contractor under the Contract, and indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against the City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by the Contract. Contractor shall fully comply with the Workers’ Compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor’s employees. Contractor shall indem nify and hold the City harmless from any failure of Contractor to comply with applicable Workers’ Compensation laws. City may offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under the Contract any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to the City any reimbursement or indemnification a rising under this Subsection 5.2. 5.3 Bid Protests. In addition to all other obligations set forth in this Section 5, Contractor shall reimburse the City for all atto rneys’ fees and costs incurred by City in connection with, arising out of or incident to any Bid protest. 5.4 Civil Code Exception. Nothing in this Section 5 shall be construed to encompass Indemnitees’ sole negligence or willful misconduct to the limit ed extent that the underlying Contract is subject to Civil Code Section 2782(a) or the City’s active negligence to the limited extent that the underlying Contract Documents are subject to Civil Code Section 2782(b), provided such sole negligence, willful m isconduct or active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. 5.5 Workers’ Compensation Acts not Limiting. Contractor’s indemnifications and obligations under this Section 5, or any other provision of the Contract, shall not be limited by the provisions of any Workers’ Compensation act or 6 similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers. 5.6 Insurance Requirements not Limiting. 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 the Contract. The indemnities in this Section 5 shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Liabilities, tax, assessment, penalty or interest asserted against City. 5.7 Nonwaiver of Rights. Indemnitees do not, and shall not, waive any rights that they 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 Contract. 5.8 Subcontractor Indemnity Agreements. Contractor shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identi cal to those in this Section 5 from each and every Subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance of the Contract. If Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity obligations, Contractor shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Liabilities at law or in 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 Contractor’s Subcontractor, its officers, agents, servants, employees, Subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual for whom Contractor’s Subcontractor bears legal liability) in the performance of the Contract, 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 court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 5.9 Survival. The provisions of this Section 5 shall survive the expiration or termination of the Contract, are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State, and are in addition to any other rights or remedies that Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against a Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision. 6. Insurance. 6.1 Liability Insurance. Contractor shall at all times during the term of this Contract carry, maintain and keep in full force and effect the insurance referenced in this Section 6. The policy limits set forth below do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Contractor. Contractor shall complete and execute the following documents attached as Exhibits hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 7 6.1.1 Exhibit F-1: Additional Insured Endorsement - Commercial General Liability. 6.1.2 Exhibit F-2: Additional Insured Endorsement - Automobile Liability. 6.2 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Unless otherwise approved by City, coverage shall be at least as broad as: 6.2.1 Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 6.2.2 Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 6.2.3 Insurance Services Office form number CG 20 10 11 85 (Ed. 11/85) covering Additional Insured—Owners, Lessees or Contactors (Form B). 6.2.4 Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. 6.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 6.3.1 General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Contract or the general limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 6.3.2 Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. 6.3.3 Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease ; and Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law. 6.4 Additional Insureds. City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, volunteers, and independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be the insured or named as add itional insureds covering the Work, regardless of any inconsistent statement in the policy or any subsequent endorsement, whether liability is attributable to Contractor or City. 6.5 Replacement Insurance. Contractor agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage required by the Contract during the term of the Contract. Contractor agrees that if it does not keep the required insurance in full force and effect, and such insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may take out the necessary insurance and pay the premium thereon, and the repayment 8 thereof shall be deemed an obligation of Contractor and the cost of such insurance may be deducted, at the option of City, from payments due Contractor. This shall be in addition to all other legal options available to City to enforce the insurance requirements. 6.6 Certificates of Insurance with Original Endorsements. Contractor shall submit to City certificates of insurance with the original endorsements, both of which reference the same policy number, for each of the insurance policies that meet the insurance requirements, not less than one (1) day before beginning of performance under the Contract. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. Endorsements must be executed on City’s forms titled “Additional Insured Endorsement,” copies of which are attached as exhibits to this Contract, or on any other form that contains substantially the same terms and is approved by City’s Risk Manager. The endorsements must specifically name the City of Seal Beach and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, volunteers, and independent contractors in the role of City officials as insured s or additional insureds. Current insurance certificates and endorsements shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Contract. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. 6.7 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Contractor shall inform City of any deductibles or self -insured retentions except with respect to any professional liability insurance. 6.8 Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 6.8.1 For any claims related to this Contract, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Any insurance or self -insurance maintained by City, their officers, officials, employees, volunteers or those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.8.2 Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respe ct to the limits of the insurer’s liability. 6.8.3 Each insurance policy required by this Section 6 shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled or materially modified except after 30 calendar days prior written notice by first class mail has been given to City. 6.8.4 Each insurance policy required by this Section 6 shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City or agency officials. By executing this 9 Agreement, Contractor waives all rights of subrogation against City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 6.9 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VIIl unless waived in writing by City’s Risk Manager. 6.10 No Limitation on Indemnity. The insurance provisions shall not be construed to limit Contractor’s indemnity obligations contained in this Contract or any other Contract Documents. 6.11 Insurance Requirements not Limiting. If Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required in this Section 6, 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. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Contract are sufficient to cover the obligations of Contractor under this Contract. 6.12 Subcontractors. Contractor shall require each of its Subcontractors that perform services under the Contract to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of the Contract including this Section 6. 7. Liquidated Damages. Should the Contractor fail to complete the Project, or any part thereof, in the time agreed upon in the Contract, the Contractor shall reimburse the City for the additional expense and damage for each calendar day that the Contract remains uncompleted after the Contract co mpletion date. It is agreed that the amount of such additional expense and damage incurred by reason of failure to complete the Contract is the per diem rate of $500 per calendar day. Such amount is hereby agreed upon as liquidated damages for the loss to the City resulting from the failure of the Contractor to complete the Project within the allotted time and to the value of the operation of the works dependent thereon. It is expressly understood and agreed that this amount is a reasonable amount and is established in lieu of damages that are incapable of calculation at the inception hereof; and this amount is not to be considered in the nature of a penalty. The City shall have the right to deduct such damages from any amount due, or that may become due to the Contractor, or the amount of such damages shall be due and collectible from the Contractor or the Contractor’s Surety. Progress payments made after the scheduled completion date shall not constitute a waiver of liquidated damages. 8. Suspension. City may, in writing, order Contractor to suspend all or any part of the Contractor’s Services for the convenience of City or for work stoppages beyond the control of City or Contractor. A suspension of the Services does not void this Contract. 9. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by 10 this Contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor’s and City’s regular business hours or by facsimile before or during Contractor’s regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Contract, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this Section. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City: City Clerk City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Telephone: (562) 431-2527 Fax: (562) 493-9857 With a copy to: Public Works Director City of Seal Beach 211-8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 If to Contractor: Garland/DBS, Inc. 3800 East 91st Street Cleveland, OH 44105 Telephone: (800) 762-8225 Fax: (216) 883-2055 Attn: John Petersen 10. Assignability; Subcontracting. Contractor shall not assign, transfer, or subcontract any interest in this Contract or the performance of any of Contractor’s obligations hereunder without the City’s prior written consent. Any attempt by Contractor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder in violation of this Agreement shall be null, void and of no effect. 11. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs the Services. 12. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Contract shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Contract. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default. 13. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event that either party to this Contract shall 11 commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Contract, each party shall be responsible for their own attorneys’ fees. 14. Construction. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Contract shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California , with venue in Orange County, California. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Contract shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Contract or who drafted that portion of the Contract. 15. Workers’ Compensation. Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, the Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which 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 I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of this Contract.” 16. Prevailing Wages. The City and the Contractor acknowledge that the Project is a public work to which prevailing wages a pply, and Contractor shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibits E and F, attached hereto. 17. Claim Dispute Resolution. 17.1 In the event of any dispute or controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever, the Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation in or of Work, but shall proceed with the performance of the Work in dispute. Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. The Disputed Work will be characterized as an “unresolved dispute” and payment, if any, shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law. Contractor shall keep accurate , detailed records of all Disputed Work, claims and other disputed matters. 17.2 All claims arising out of or related to the Contract Documents or this Project, 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. All such claims are also subject to Public Contract Code Section 9204 and Public Contract Code Section 20104 et seq. (Article 1.5), where applicable. This Contract hereby incorporates those provisions as though fully set forth herein. Thus, Contractor or any Subcontractor must file a claim in accordance with the Government Claims Act as a prerequisite to filing a construction claim in compliance with Section 12 9204 and Article 1.5 (if applicable), and must then adhere to Article 1.5 and Section 9204, as applicable, pursuant to the definition of “claim” as individually defined therein. 18. Antitrust Claims. In entering into this Contract, Contractor offers and agrees to assign to City all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. § 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq.) arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials pursuant to the Agreement. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor without further acknowledgment by the parties. 19. Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 19.1. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Work, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Work under this Agreement. Contractor further covenants that , in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Work. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor “financially interested” (as provided in California Government Code §§ 1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in conne ction with which Contractor has been retained. 19.2. Contractor further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreeme nt. Nor has Contractor paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon a ny 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 any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 19.3. Contractor 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 Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such intere st would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws as described in this subsection . 20. Entire Agreement. This Contract, including any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and in tegrated agreement between Contractor and City. This Contract supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations, or agreements. This Contract may not be 13 amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by th e parties which expressly refers to this Contract. 21. Severability. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Contract shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Contract. 22. Titles and Headings. The titles and headings used in this Contract are for convenience only and shall in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Contract or any part of it. 23. Authority. Any person executing this Contract on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 24. Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterpart originals, duplicate originals, or both, each of which is deemed to be an original for all purposes. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Contract as of the date first written above. CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONTRACTOR: By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Name: __________________________ Attest: Title: __________________________ By: ___________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk By: ____________________________ Approved as to Form: Name: __________________________ Title: __________________________ By: ___________________________ (Please note, two signatures required for Nick Ghirelli, City Attorney corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313. EXHIBIT A CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL DATED JANUARY 21, 2026 (including Master Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement (MICPA) #PW1925 with Racine County, WI and OMNIA Partners, Public Sector (U.S. Communities)) EXHIBIT B FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND Bond No. __________ PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the City of Seal Beach (“City”), has awarded to (“Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor) a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows: MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT, BG2506 (Project name) WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a Bond for the faithful performance of the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and , (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than the total Contract Price, in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on the Principal’s part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorne ys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety hereby waives any statute of limitations as it applies to an action on this Bond. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or of the Work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this Bond and has all rights of a party hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Dated: “Principal” By: Its By: Its (Seal) “Surety” By: Its By: Its (Seal) Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. EXHIBIT C PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS) Bond No. __________ PAYMENT BOND (LABOR AND MATERIALS) KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the City of Seal Beach (“City”), State of California, has awarded to (“Principal”) (Name and address of Contractor) a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows: MARINA COMMUNITY CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT, BG2506 (Project name) WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, the Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the Work, to file a good and sufficient payment Bond with the City to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to this Work or labor, that the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this Bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing this obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this Bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond. Upon expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and upon expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2, if the condition of this Bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract or the Specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Dated: “Principal” By: Its By: Its (Seal) “Surety” By: Its By: Its (Seal) Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located. EXHIBIT D WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE CERTIFICATE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (“City”) has required certain insurance to be provided by: NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned insurance company does hereby certify that it has issued the policy or policies described below to the following named insureds and that the same are in force at this time: 1. This certificate is issued to: City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 The insureds under such policy or policies are: 2. Workers’ Compensation Policy or Policies in a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner of California covering all operations of the named insureds as follows: Policy Number Effective Date Expiration Date By: Its Authorized Representative EXHIBIT D-1 ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY [INSERT INSURANCE CERTIFICATE SHOWING COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY] ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”): Name and address of insurance company (“Company”): General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured: Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agree d as follows: 1. The City of Seal Beach (“City”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no l iability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy. 2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy. 3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Com pany’s liability. 4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company’s limits of liability as provided under the policy. 5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds. 6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) Days before the effective date thereof. In the event of Company’s failure to comply with this n otice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement. 7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds. 8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance. 9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to City at: City Manager City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES POLICY PERIOD FROM/TO LIMITS OF LIABILITY 11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes: □ Contractual Liability □ Explosion Hazard □ Owners/Landlords/Tenants □ Collapse Hazard □ Manufacturers/Contractors □ Underground Property Damage □ Products/Completed Operations □ Pollution Liability □ Broad Form Property Damage □ Liquor Liability □ Extended Bodily Injury □ □ Broad Form Comprehensive □ □ General Liability Endorsement □ 12. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one). 13. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one). 14. This endorsement is effective on at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number . I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company. Executed , 20___ Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted) EXHIBIT D-2 ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY [INSERT INSURANCE CERTIFICATE SHOWING AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY] ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”): Name and address of insurance company (“Company”): General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured: Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. The City of Seal Beach (“City”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter refe rred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy. 2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy. 3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the Company’s liability. 4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies h ad been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company’s limits of liability as provided under the policy. 5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds. 6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), o r non-renewal except after written notice to City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) Days before the effective date thereto. In the event of Company’s failure to comply with this notice provision, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement. 7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all cl aims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds. 8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance. 9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to City at: City Manager City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsement, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES POLICY PERIOD FROM/TO LIMITS OF LIABILITY 11. Scheduled items or locations are to be identified on an attached sheet. The following inclusions relate to the above coverages. Includes: □ Any Automobiles □ Truckers Coverage □ All Owned Automobiles □ Motor Carrier Act □ Non-owned Automobiles □ Bus Regulatory Reform Act □ Hired Automobiles □ Public Livery Coverage □ Scheduled Automobiles □ □ Garage Coverage □ 12. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one). 13. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one). 14. This endorsement is effective on ______________ at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number _________. I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company. Executed , 20___ Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted) EXHIBIT D-3 ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT [INSERT INSURANCE CERTIFICATE SHOWING PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE LIABILITY, IF REQUIRED] ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT EXCESS LIABILITY Name and address of named insured (“Named Insured”): Name and address of insurance company (“Company”): General description of agreement(s), permit(s), license(s), and/or activity(ies) insured: Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the policy to which this endorsement is attached (the “Policy”) or in any endorsement now or hereafter attached thereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. The City of Seal Beach (“City”), its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials are additional insureds (the above named additional insureds are hereafter referred to as the “Additional Insureds”) under the Policy in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured. The Additional Insureds have no liability for the payment of any premiums or assessments under the Policy. 2. The insurance coverages afforded the Additional Insureds under the Policy shall be primary insurance, and no other insurance maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be called upon to contribute with the insurance coverages provided by the Policy. 3. Each insurance coverage under the Policy shall apply separately to each Additional Insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the Company’s liability. 4. Nothing in this contract of insurance shall be construed to preclude coverage of a claim by one insured under the policy against another insured under the policy. All such claims shall be covered as third-party claims, i.e., in the same manner as if separate policies had been issued to each insured. Nothing contained in this provision shall operate to increase or replicate the Company’s limits of liability as provided under the policy. 5. The insurance afforded by the Policy for contractual liability insurance (subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability assumed by the Named Insured under the indemnification and/or hold harmless provision(s) contained in or executed in conjunction with the written agreement(s) or permit(s) designated above, between the Named Insured and the Additional Insureds. 6. The policy to which this endorsement is attached shall not be subject to cancellation, change in coverage, reduction of limits (except as the result of the payment of claims), or non-renewal except after written notice to City, by certified mail, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) Days before the effective date thereto. In the event of Company’s failure to comply with this notice provi sion, the policy as initially drafted will continue in full force and effect until compliance with this notice requirement. 7. Company hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Additional Insureds, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to the perils insured against in relation to those activities described generally above with regard to operations performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured regardless o f any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the Additional Insureds. 8. It is hereby agreed that the laws of the State of California shall apply to and govern the validity, construction, interpretation, and enforcement of this contract of insurance. 9. This endorsement and all notices given hereunder shall be sent to City at: City Manager City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 10. Except as stated above and not in conflict with this endorsemen t, nothing contained herein shall be held to waive, alter or extend any of the limits, agreements, or exclusions of the policy to which this endorsement is attached. TYPE OF COVERAGES TO WHICH THIS ENDORSEMENT ATTACHES POLICY PERIOD FROM/TO LIMITS OF LIABILITY □ Following Form □ Umbrella Liability □ 11. Applicable underlying coverages: INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NUMBER AMOUNT 12. The following inclusions, exclusions, extensions or specific provisions rela te to the above coverages: 13. A □ deductible or □ self-insured retention (check one) of $ applies to all coverage(s) except: (if none, so state). The deductible is applicable □ per claim or □ per occurrence (check one). 14. This is an □ occurrence or □ claims made policy (check one). 15. This endorsement is effective on ________ at 12:01 a.m. and forms a part of Policy Number ________. I, (print name), hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that I have the authority to bind the Company to this endorsement and that by my execution hereof, I do so bind the Company. Executed , 20___ Signature of Authorized Representative (Original signature only; no facsimile signature Telephone No.: ( ) or initialed signature accepted) EXHIBIT E ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PENAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES CONCERNING CONTRACTOR LICENSING LAWS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PENAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES CONCERNING THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING LAWS [Business & Professions Code § 7028.15] [Public Contract Code § 20103.5] I, the undersigned, certify that I am aware of the following provisions of California law and that I, or the entity on whose behalf this certification is given, hold a currently valid California contractor's license as set forth below (required at time of award): Business & Professions Code § 7028.15: (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person to submit a bid to a public agency in order to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor within this state without having a license therefore, except in any of the following cases: (1) The person is particularly exempted from this chapter. (2) The bid is submitted on a state project governed by Section 10164 of the Public Contract Code or on any local agency project governed by Section 20104 [now § 20103.5] of the Public Contract Code. (b) If a person has been previously convicted of the offense described in this section, the court shall impose a fine of 20 percent of the price of the contract under which the unlicensed person performed contracting work, or four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500), whichever is greater, or imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or both. In the event the person performing the contracting work has agreed to furnish materials and labor on an hourly basis, “the price of the contract” for the purposes of this subdivision means the aggregate sum of the cost of materials and labor furnished and the cost of completing the work to be performed. (c) This section shall not apply to a joint venture license, as required by Section 7029.1. However, at the time of making a bid as a joint venture, each person submitting the bid shall be s ubject to this section with respect to his or her individual licensure. (d) This section shall not affect the right or ability of a licensed architect, land surveyor, or registered professional engineer to form joint ventures with licensed contractors to render services within the scope of their respective practices. (e) Unless one of the foregoing exceptions applies, a bid submitted to a public agency by a contractor who is not licensed in accordance with this chapter shall be considered non -responsive and shall be rejected by the public agency. Unless one of the foregoing exceptions applies, a local public agency shall, before awarding a contract or issuing a purchase order, verify that the contractor was properly licensed when the contractor submitted the bid. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless one of the foregoing exceptions applies, the registrar may issue a citation to any public officer or employee of a public entity who knowingly awards a contract or issues a purchase order to a contractor who is not licensed pursuant to this chapter. The amount of civil penalties, appeal, and finality of such citations shall be subject to Sections 7028.7 to 7028.13, inclusive. Any contract awarded to, or any purchase order issued to, a contractor who is not licensed pursuant to this chapter is void. (f) Any compliance or noncompliance with subdivision (e) of this section, as added by Chapter 863 of the Statutes of 1989, shall not invalidate any contract or bid awarded by a public agency during which time that subdivision was in effect. (g) A public employee or officer shall not be subject to a citation pursuant to this section if the public employee, officer, or employing agency made an inquiry to the board for the purposes of verifying the license status of any person or contractor and the board failed to respond to the inquiry within three business days. For purposes of this section, a telephone response by the board shall be deemed sufficient. Public Contract Code § 20103.5: In all contracts subject to this part where federal funds are involved, no bid submitted shall be invalidated by the failure of the bidder to be licensed in accordance with the laws of this state. However, at the time the contract is awarded, the contractor shall be properly licensed in accordance with the laws of this state. The first payment for work or material under any contract shall not be made unless and until the Registrar of Contractors verifies to the agency that the records of the Contractors' State Licen se Board indicate that the contractor was properly licensed at the time the contract was awarded. Any bidder or contractor not so licensed shall be subject to all legal penalties imposed by law, including, but not limited to, any appropriate disciplinary action by the Contractors' State License Board. The agency shall include a statement to that effect in the standard form of pre-qualification questionnaire and financial statement. Failure of the Bidder to obtain proper and adequate licensing for an award of a contract shall constitute a failure to execute the Contract and shall result in the forfeiture of the security of the Bidder. License No.:________________ Class:___________________ Expiration Date:_________________ Date:__________________ EXHIBIT F AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS [Labor Code §§ 1720, 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, 1860, 1861, 3700] The undersigned Contractor certifies that it is aware of and hereby agrees to fully comply with a[l applicable provisions of California law, including but not limited to the following: 1. Contractor acknowledges that this Contract is subject to the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works and the awarding public agency (“Agency”) and agrees to be bound by all the provisions thereof as though set forth in full herein. 2. Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1773.8 which requires the payment of travel and subsistence payments to each worker needed to execute the W ork to the extent required by law. 3. Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the Agency, forfeit not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done under the Contract by Contractor or by any subcontractor. 4. Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1776 which require Contractor and each subcontractor to (1) keep accurate payroll records, (2) certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776, and (3) inform the Agency of the location of the records. The Contractor is responsible for compliance with Section 1776 by itself and all of its subcontractors. 5. Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1777.5 concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects, and further agrees that Contractor is responsible for compliance with Section 1777.5 by itself and all of its subcontractors. 6. Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the Agency, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the Contract by the Contractor or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the California Labor Code. 7. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions o f California Labor Code Section 1861, Contractor hereby certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self -insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the W ork of this Contract.” Date ___________________ Signature _______________________________________ EXHIBIT G STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1. Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) 2. Construction Specifications Institute (“CSI”) EXHIBIT H NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION NONCOLLUSION DECLARATION FORM TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID [PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 7106] The undersigned declares: I am the ______________________ of ____________________, the party making the foregoing Bid. The Bid is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation. The Bid is genuine and not collusive or sham. The Bidder has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other Bidder to put in a false or sham Bid. The Bidder has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any Bidder or anyone else to put in a sham Bid, or to refrain from bidding. The Bidder has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the Bid price of the Bidder or any other Bidder, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the Bid price, or of that of any other Bidder. All statements contained in the Bid are true. The Bidder has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her Bid price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulged information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, Bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof, to effectuate a collusive or sham Bid, and has not paid, and will not pay, any Person or entity for such purpose. Any person executing this declaration on behalf of a Bidder that is a corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or any other entity, hereby represents that he or she has full power to execute, and does execute, this declaration on behalf of the Bidder. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on ___________ [date], at ___________________________________________ [city], ______________________ [state]. Project Name: Legal Business Name of Bidder Business Address Business Tel. No. Signature: Printed Name: Date: Signature: Printed Name: Date: This form must be notarized. EXHIBIT I CONTRACTOR’S INDUSTRIAL SAFETY RECORD CONTRACTOR’S INDUSTRIAL SAFETY RECORD Bidder’s Name _______________________________________ Current Year of Record 2024 2023 2022 20221 2020 Total Number of contracts Total dollar amount of contracts (in thousands of dollars) Number of fatalities Number of lost workday cases Number of lost workday cases involving permanent transfer to another job or termination of employment The information required for these items is the same as required for columns 3 to 6, Code 10, Occupational Injuries, Summary --Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, OSHA No. 102. Legal Business Name of Bidder Business Address: Business Tel. No.: State Contractor's License No. and Classification: Title The above information was compiled from the records that are available to me at this time and I declare under penalt y of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information is true and accurate within the limitations of those records. Signature: Title: Date: Signature: Title: Date: If Bidder is an individual, name and signature of individual must be provided, and, if he is doing business under a fictitious name, the fictitious name must be set forth. If Bidder is a partnership or joint venture, legal name of partnership/joint venture must be provide d, followed by signatures of all of the partners/joint ventures or of fewer than all of the partners/joint ventures if submitted with evidence of authority to act on behalf of the partnership/joint venture. If Bidder is a corporation, legal name of corporation must be provided, followed by notarized sig natures of the corporation President or Vice President or President and Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and the corporate seal. Signatures of partners join venturers, or corporation officers must be acknowledged before a Notary Public, who must certify that such partners/joint ven turers, or officers are known to him or her to be such, and, in the case of a corporation, that such corporation executed the instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its Board of Directors. EXHIBIT J DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS [Public Contract Code Section 4104] List all Subcontractors who will perform Work or labor or render service to the Contractor in or about the construction of th e Work or improvement, or a Subcontractor licensed by the State of California who, under subcontract to the Contractor, specially fabricates and installs a portion of the Work or improvement according to detailed drawings contained in the Plans and Specifications, in an amount in excess of one-half percent (0.5%) of the Contractor’s total Bid or, in the case of bids or offers for the construction of streets or highways, including bridges, in excess of one-half percent (0.5%) of the Contractor’s total Bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. If all Subcontractors do not fit on this page, attach another page listing all information for all other Subcontractors. Name under which Subcontractor is Licensed and Registered CSLB License Number(s) and Class(es) DIR Contractor Registration Number Address and Phone Number Type of Work (e.g., Electrical) Percentage of Total Bid (e.g., 10%)1 1 The percentage of the total Bid shall represent the “portion of the work” for the purposes of Public Contract Code Section 4104(b). EXHIBIT K BID PROPOSAL (INCLUDING BID SHEETS) Agenda Item H AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager SUBJECT:Approving an Amendment to the Classification Plan and Designating the Pay Grade and Status of the Human Resources Specialist Classification ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7735: 1. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to add the Human Resources Specialist position, and designating this job classification to Grade 20 on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 2. Amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Position Allocation Plan to include one (1) full-time Human Resources Specialist. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The City Manager’s Office oversees a broad range of responsibilities and specialized disciplines, including human resources. As the scope and complexity of human resources has expanded, it is critical that the City’s classification plan remains aligned with operational requirements. In accordance with the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations, the Personnel Officer (designated as the City Manager) is authorized to “recommend and prepare revisions when necessary or desirable for maintenance and proper functioning of the Classification Plan.” As part of this effort, on September 8, 2025, the City Council approved adding a Human Resources Manager to its classification plan to more effectively meet the City's growing and complex human resources needs, and in response to evolving labor and employment laws, increased regulatory requirements, and expanding workforce support. To further support the Human Resources division, staff recommends the creation of a Human Resources Specialist classification. Under the general supervision of the Human Resources Manager, the Human Resources Specialist would assist with human resources functions including, but not limited to, benefits and leave administration, performance evaluation administration, employee relations support, HRIS and records, and employee engagement. Page 2 2 2 3 0 A detailed job description is included as Attachment B. The Personnel Officer has reviewed and complied with the provisions of Article II, Section 7.C. of the City’s Employer-Employee Relations Resolution in establishing this new classification. The Human Resources Specialist position will be included in the Mid-Management and Confidential Employees Association bargaining group. Upon City Council approval of the new Human Resources Specialist classification, the City would open a recruitment to fill the position. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the resolution as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Human Resources Specialist job classification is proposed to align with Grade 20 on the City of Seal Beach Full Time Pay Schedule. The annual salary range under Grade 20 has a minimum annual salary of $80,967.17 and a maximum annual salary of $ 98,416.11. The addition of the Human Resources Specialist position within the City Manager’s Office will increase the position count of the City. Cost savings are still available from the one (1) full-time Assistant City Manager vacancy currently in the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Position Allocation. These cost savings will cover the increase in salary. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7735: 1. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to establish the classification of Human Resources Specialist and designate said classification at Grade 20 of the Seal Beach Full-Time Salary Schedule; and, 2. Amending the Fiscal Year 2025–2026 Position Allocation Plan to reflect the revised classification structure within the City Manager’s Office consistent with this resolution. Page 3 2 2 3 0 SUBMITTED, NOTED, AND APPROVED BY: Patrick Gallegos Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Mike Peterman, Human Resources Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7735 B. Human Resources Specialist Job Classification C. Proposed Full-Time Salary Pay Schedule RESOLUTION 7735 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND DESIGNATING THE PAY GRADE AND STATUS OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST POSITION WHEREAS, the City Manager’s Office is responsible for the administration of City functions, including human resources; and, WHEREAS, the scope and regulatory complexity of human resources administration has increased, requiring periodic review and adjustment of the City’s Classification Plan to ensure alignment with operational needs; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the Seal Beach Municipal Code and the City’s personnel rules, the Personnel Officer, designated as the City Manager, is authorized to recommend revisions to the Classification Plan as necessary for its effective administration; and, WHEREAS, the Personnel Officer has determined that the establishment of a Human Resources Specialist classification is necessary to meet the City’s current human resources operational requirements; and, WHEREAS, staff recommends revising the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Position Allocation Plan to reflect one (1) Human Resources Specialist; and, WHEREAS, the Human Resources Specialist classification is appropriately designated at Grade 20 of the Seal Beach Full-Time Salary Schedule and classified in the Mid-Management and Confidential Employees Association. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby amends the Classification Plan to establish the classification of Human Resources Specialist and designates said classification at Grade 20 of the Seal Beach Full-Time Salary Schedule. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Human Resources Specialist job specification attached as Attachment B to the staff report accompanying this Resolution. Section 3. The City Council hereby amends the Fiscal Year 2025–2026 Position Allocation Plan to include one (1) Human Resources Specialist full-time position. Section 4. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary 1 0 8 5 5 documents and take any actions required to adopt and authorize the Human Resources Specialist position. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of February 2026 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 7735 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of February 2026. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Human Resources Specialist Department/Division:City Manager’s Office Reports To:Human Resources Manager Provides Direction To:Not applicable Labor Group Mid-Management and Confidential Exemption Status:Exempt Date Prepared:01/24/2026 Date Adopted by City Council: GENERAL PURPOSE Under general direction, performs professional, technical, and analytical work across a range of human resources functions, with primary responsibility for employee benefits administration, leave administration, human resources information systems (HRIS), personnel records management, employee engagement, and employee relations support. The Human Resources Specialist provides essential operational support to the Human Resources Manager and serves as a trusted resource for employees and supervisors while maintaining strict confidentiality. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a confidential-level, exempt classification responsible for independently administering and coordinating assigned human resources programs. The position requires the exercise of independent judgment and discretion in the application of laws, policies, and procedures related to benefits, leave administration, employee relations, and confidential personnel matters. The classification is designated Confidential due to regular access to management- sensitive information, including employee discipline, medical issues, employee relations strategy, and other matters that require a high degree of trust, discretion, and professionalism. This position differs from non-exempt human resources classifications by its program responsibility, analytical duties, and regular exposure to confidential employee relations information. Human Resources Specialist Page 2 of 4 1 0 8 5 4 ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS The duties listed below are intended only as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the work is similar, related, or a logical assignment to the class. These are not to be construed as exclusive or all inclusive. Other duties may be required and assigned. Participates in planning, organizing and administering employee benefits including medical, dental, vision, life, voluntary insurance, and retirement plans; conducts benefits orientations Processes employee benefit applications and/or enrollment requests for all benefit programs including FMLA/PDL/CFRA, COBRA, retirement, death, and other qualifying events; responds to unemployment insurance requests Organizes and coordinates open enrollment meetings; distributes benefits documents in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; interprets and counsels employees regarding employee benefit plan coverage eligibility and claims procedures; verifies employee and dependent plan eligibility Establishes and maintains employee personnel, medical, benefits, and other related administrative and confidential files; maintain records according to the City’s record retention standards Processes Personnel Action Forms (PAFs) involving appointments, promotions, reclassifications, leaves, separations, and retirements; reviews for accuracy, verifies appropriate supporting documentation is provided, ensures requests conform to current policies, and obtains required signatures Updates employee status changes in the associated systems; determines benefits eligibility and calculates benefit plan rates; processes employee benefits enrollment and benefits payroll deductions Reviews and logs employee performance evaluations; tracks evaluations for timely submission; reports past due performance evaluations to the appropriate staff member Responds to employee and retiree questions and concerns; resolves issues Participates in special projects, including job fairs, training programs, open enrollment, and related events; coordinates and integrates program services and activities with other agencies and City departments Participates in data collection for studies, reports and surveys; prepares reports Interprets and applies Federal, State, and local laws and regulations concerning human resources programs Receives and screens visitors, telephone calls, emails, and requests for information, providing a high level of customer service to both external and internal customers; provides general administrative support to various human resources functions Operates standard office equipment, including job-related hardware and software applications, record keeping applications, and multi-line telephones Reports to work as scheduled; works a variety of schedules including evenings, weekends, and holidays as required. Performs other related duties as assigned. Human Resources Specialist Page 3 of 4 1 0 8 5 4 QUALIFICATIONS GUIDELINES Knowledge of: Principles and practices of public-sector human resources administration Employee benefits program administration Federal and state employment laws related to leaves, benefits, and employee relations Employee relations fundamentals and confidential personnel processes HRIS systems and data management practices Confidential records handling and information security standards Ability to: Exercise independent judgment and discretion in sensitive Human Resources matters Interpret and apply laws, policies, MOUs, and procedures Communicate clearly and effectively with employees, supervisors, and vendors Manage multiple priorities with minimal supervision Prepare accurate documentation, reports, and case materials Establish and maintain effective working relationships throughout the organization Build positive working relationships across departments and with outside stakeholders. Manage multiple priorities in a dynamic environment with attention to detail and deadlines. Demonstrate professionalism, integrity, and adaptability in a public service role. Demonstrate flexibility and initiative, including the ability to work extended hours as needed. EDUCATION/ TRAINING/EXPERIENCE: Associate’s degree from an accredited college with major coursework in human resources, public administration, business administration, or a related field. EXPERIENCE & TRAINING: Three (3) years of progressively responsible experience in human resources, including experience in benefits administration, employee relations support, leave administration, and HR records management. A combination of additional directly related education and/or professional experience may be considered in lieu of the required education on a year-for-year basis LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS Valid Class C California Driver’s License with an acceptable driving record is required. Human Resources Specialist Page 4 of 4 1 0 8 5 4 PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING CONDITIONS The physical and mental demands described here are representative of those that must be met by employees to successfully perform the essential functions of this class. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Physical Demands Work is performed primarily in a standard office environment with occasional travel to off- site locations. Duties require prolonged or intermittent periods of sitting, standing, walking, reaching, bending, and twisting at the waist. The position involves frequent use of a computer, requiring hand and finger dexterity, wrist movement, and tolerance to screen glare, vibration, and varying pitch. Depending on the assignment, the position may require kneeling, pulling, and carrying materials. Must be able to safely lift and carry files, books, and reports weighing up to 25 pounds, and retrieve items from low and high storage areas such as file drawers or countertops. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus. Mental Demands While performing the duties of this class, the employee is regularly required to use verbal and written communication skills; read and interpret data; thoroughly analyze and solve problems; use math and mathematical reasoning; establish priorities and work on multiple assignments and projects concurrently; and interact appropriately City staff, contractors, vendors, general public, and others in the course of work. Grade Title Group Step 1 Annually Step 1 Monthly Step 1 Hourly Step 2 Annually Step 2 Monthly Step 2 Hourly Step 3 Annually Step 3 Monthly Step 3 Hourly Step 4 Annually Step 4 Monthly Step 4 Hourly Step 5 Annually Step 5 Monthly Step 5 Hourly 8 Community Services Officer OCEA 60,203.61$ 5,016.97$ 28.94$ 63,213.81$ 5,267.82$ 30.39$ 66,374.49$ 5,531.21$ 31.91$ 69,693.22$ 5,807.77$ 33.51$ 73,177.87$ 6,098.16$ 35.18$ 8 Maintenance Worker OCEA 60,203.61$ 5,016.97$ 28.94$ 63,213.81$ 5,267.82$ 30.39$ 66,374.49$ 5,531.21$ 31.91$ 69,693.25$ 5,807.77$ 33.51$ 73,177.87$ 6,098.16$ 35.18$ 8 Recreation Specialist OCEA 60,203.61$ 5,016.97$ 28.94$ 63,213.81$ 5,267.82$ 30.39$ 66,374.49$ 5,531.21$ 31.91$ 69,693.25$ 5,807.77$ 33.51$ 73,177.87$ 6,098.16$ 35.18$ 9 Accounting Tech SBSPA 61,708.71$ 5,142.39$ 29.67$ 64,794.16$ 5,399.51$ 31.15$ 68,033.83$ 5,669.49$ 32.71$ 71,435.57$ 5,952.96$ 34.34$ 75,007.33$ 6,250.61$ 36.06$ 11 Senior Building Technician SBSPA 64,832.65$ 5,402.72$ 31.17$ 68,074.27$ 5,672.86$ 32.73$ 71,478.09$ 5,956.51$ 34.36$ 75,052.05$ 6,254.34$ 36.08$ 78,804.57$ 6,567.05$ 37.89$ 12 Senior Community Services Officer OCEA 66,453.53$ 5,537.79$ 31.95$ 69,776.22$ 5,814.69$ 33.55$ 73,265.02$ 6,105.42$ 35.22$ 76,928.28$ 6,410.69$ 36.98$ 80,774.66$ 6,731.22$ 38.83$ 12 Senior Maintenance Worker OCEA 66,453.53$ 5,537.79$ 31.95$ 69,776.22$ 5,814.69$ 33.55$ 73,265.02$ 6,105.42$ 35.22$ 76,928.28$ 6,410.69$ 36.98$ 80,774.66$ 6,731.22$ 38.83$ 12 Water Operator OCEA 66,453.53$ 5,537.79$ 31.95$ 69,776.22$ 5,814.69$ 33.55$ 73,265.02$ 6,105.42$ 35.22$ 76,928.28$ 6,410.69$ 36.98$ 80,774.66$ 6,731.22$ 38.83$ 12 Mechanic OCEA 66,453.53$ 5,537.79$ 31.95$ 69,776.22$ 5,814.69$ 33.55$ 73,265.02$ 6,105.42$ 35.22$ 76,928.28$ 6,410.69$ 36.98$ 80,774.66$ 6,731.22$ 38.83$ 13 Executive Assistant - Confidential Mid-Mgmt 68,114.88$ 5,676.24$ 32.75$ 71,520.60$ 5,960.05$ 34.38$ 75,096.64$ 6,258.05$ 36.10$ 78,851.50$ 6,570.96$ 37.91$ 82,794.06$ 6,899.51$ 39.80$ 13 Executive Asstant SBSPA 68,114.88$ 5,676.24$ 32.75$ 71,520.60$ 5,960.05$ 34.38$ 75,096.64$ 6,258.05$ 36.10$ 78,851.50$ 6,570.96$ 37.91$ 82,794.06$ 6,899.51$ 39.80$ 13 Senior Accounting Technician SBSPA 68,114.88$ 5,676.24$ 32.75$ 71,520.60$ 5,960.05$ 34.38$ 75,096.64$ 6,258.05$ 36.10$ 78,851.50$ 6,570.96$ 37.91$ 82,794.06$ 6,899.51$ 39.80$ 14 Community Services Coordinator SBSPA 69,817.75$ 5,818.15$ 33.57$ 73,308.64$ 6,109.05$ 35.24$ 76,974.06$ 6,414.51$ 37.01$ 80,822.77$ 6,735.23$ 38.86$ 84,863.89$ 7,071.99$ 40.80$ 15 Code Enforcement Officer SBSPA 71,563.16$ 5,963.60$ 34.41$ 75,141.29$ 6,261.77$ 36.13$ 78,898.37$ 6,574.86$ 37.93$ 82,843.32$ 6,903.61$ 39.83$ 86,985.45$ 7,248.79$ 41.82$ 15 Police Recruit OCEA 71,563.18$ 5,963.60$ 34.41$ 75,141.36$ 6,261.78$ 36.13$ 78,898.41$ 6,574.87$ 37.93$ 82,843.33$ 6,903.61$ 39.83$ 86,985.49$ 7,248.79$ 41.82$ 16 Senior Water Operator OCEA 73,352.26$ 6,112.69$ 35.27$ 77,019.91$ 6,418.33$ 37.03$ 80,870.89$ 6,739.24$ 38.88$ 84,914.40$ 7,076.20$ 40.82$ 89,160.15$ 7,430.01$ 42.87$ 17 Cross Connection Specialist OCEA 74,303.34$ 6,191.95$ 35.72$ 78,214.04$ 6,517.84$ 37.60$ 82,330.56$ 6,860.88$ 39.58$ 86,663.75$ 7,221.98$ 41.67$ 91,225.00$ 7,602.08$ 43.86$ 18 Deputy City Clerk Mid-Mgmt 77,065.72$ 6,422.14$ 37.05$ 80,918.99$ 6,743.25$ 38.90$ 84,964.95$ 7,080.41$ 40.85$ 89,213.20$ 7,434.43$ 42.89$ 93,673.88$ 7,806.16$ 45.04$ 18 Police Civilian Investigator OCEA 77,065.72$ 6,422.14$ 37.05$ 80,918.99$ 6,743.25$ 38.90$ 84,964.95$ 7,080.41$ 40.85$ 89,213.20$ 7,434.43$ 42.89$ 93,673.88$ 7,806.16$ 45.04$ 19 Electrician OCEA 78,992.36$ 6,582.70$ 37.98$ 82,941.99$ 6,911.83$ 39.88$ 87,089.09$ 7,257.42$ 41.87$ 91,443.54$ 7,620.30$ 43.96$ 96,015.74$ 8,001.31$ 46.16$ 19 Bld Inspector SBSPA 78,992.38$ 6,582.70$ 37.98$ 82,941.99$ 6,911.83$ 39.88$ 87,089.11$ 7,257.43$ 41.87$ 91,443.52$ 7,620.29$ 43.96$ 96,015.72$ 8,001.31$ 46.16$ 20 Fleet Maintenance Program Manager SBSPA 80,967.17$ 6,747.26$ 38.93$ 85,015.55$ 7,084.63$ 40.87$ 89,266.29$ 7,438.86$ 42.92$ 93,729.62$ 7,810.80$ 45.06$ 98,416.11$ 8,201.34$ 47.32$ 20 Police Services Manager SBSPA 80,967.17$ 6,747.26$ 38.93$ 85,015.55$ 7,084.63$ 40.87$ 89,266.29$ 7,438.86$ 42.92$ 93,729.62$ 7,810.80$ 45.06$ 98,416.11$ 8,201.34$ 47.32$ 20 Human Resources Specialist Mid-Mgmt 80,967.17$ 6,747.26$ 38.93$ 85,015.55$ 7,084.63$ 40.87$ 89,266.29$ 7,438.86$ 42.92$ 93,729.62$ 7,810.80$ 45.06$ 98,416.11$ 8,201.34$ 47.32$ 23 Marine Safety Officer SBMSMA 89,160.05$ 7,430.00$ 42.87$ 93,618.05$ 7,801.50$ 45.01$ 98,298.94$ 8,191.58$ 47.26$ 103,213.87$ 8,601.16$ 49.62$ 108,374.57$ 9,031.21$ 52.10$ 24 Assistant Planner SBSPA 89,681.83$ 7,473.49$ 43.12$ 94,165.92$ 7,847.16$ 45.27$ 98,874.26$ 8,239.52$ 47.54$ 103,817.98$ 8,651.50$ 49.91$ 109,008.85$ 9,084.07$ 52.41$ 25 Accountant Mid-Mgmt 91,606.93$ 7,633.91$ 44.04$ 96,187.28$ 8,015.61$ 46.24$ 100,996.64$ 8,416.39$ 48.56$ 106,046.46$ 8,837.21$ 50.98$ 111,348.78$ 9,279.07$ 53.53$ 25 Water Services Supervisor SBSPA 91,606.93$ 7,633.91$ 44.04$ 96,187.28$ 8,015.61$ 46.24$ 100,996.64$ 8,416.39$ 48.56$ 106,046.46$ 8,837.21$ 50.98$ 111,348.78$ 9,279.07$ 53.53$ 25 Maintenance Services Supervisor SBSPA 91,606.93$ 7,633.91$ 44.04$ 96,187.28$ 8,015.61$ 46.24$ 100,996.64$ 8,416.39$ 48.56$ 106,046.46$ 8,837.21$ 50.98$ 111,348.78$ 9,279.07$ 53.53$ 28 Police Records Supervisor PMA 96,153.90$ 8,012.83$ 46.23$ 100,961.60$ 8,413.47$ 48.54$ 106,009.66$ 8,834.14$ 50.97$ 111,310.13$ 9,275.84$ 53.51$ 116,875.64$ 9,739.64$ 56.19$ 26 Financial Analyst Mid-Mgmt 93,897.07$ 7,824.76$ 45.14$ 98,591.94$ 8,216.00$ 47.40$ 103,521.54$ 8,626.80$ 49.77$ 108,697.62$ 9,058.14$ 52.26$ 114,132.52$ 9,511.04$ 54.87$ 26 Management Analyst Mid-Mgmt 93,897.07$ 7,824.76$ 45.14$ 98,591.94$ 8,216.00$ 47.40$ 103,521.54$ 8,626.80$ 49.77$ 108,697.62$ 9,058.14$ 52.26$ 114,132.52$ 9,511.04$ 54.87$ 28 Asst Engineer SBSPA 98,650.64$ 8,220.89$ 47.43$ 103,583.18$ 8,631.93$ 49.80$ 108,762.33$ 9,063.53$ 52.29$ 114,200.44$ 9,516.70$ 54.90$ 119,910.46$ 9,992.54$ 57.65$ 28 Assoc Planner SBSPA 98,650.64$ 8,220.89$ 47.43$ 103,583.18$ 8,631.93$ 49.80$ 108,762.33$ 9,063.53$ 52.29$ 114,200.44$ 9,516.70$ 54.90$ 119,910.46$ 9,992.54$ 57.65$ 27 Police Officer POA 109,920.92$ 9,160.08$ 52.85$ 115,416.93$ 9,618.08$ 55.49$ 121,187.80$ 10,098.98$ 58.26$ 127,247.20$ 10,603.93$ 61.18$ 133,609.54$ 11,134.13$ 64.24$ 31 Marine Safety Lieutenant SBMSMA 108,632.82$ 9,052.74$ 52.23$ 114,064.50$ 9,505.38$ 54.84$ 119,767.69$ 9,980.64$ 57.58$ 125,756.07$ 10,479.67$ 60.46$ 132,043.90$ 11,003.66$ 63.48$ 30 Senior Planner Mid-Mgmt 108,515.84$ 9,042.99$ 52.17$ 113,941.57$ 9,495.13$ 54.78$ 119,638.71$ 9,969.89$ 57.52$ 125,620.62$ 10,468.39$ 60.39$ 131,901.62$ 10,991.80$ 63.41$ 28A Senior Utilities Supervisor SBSPA 110,657.69$ 9,221.47$ 53.20$ 116,481.79$ 9,706.82$ 56.00$ 122,612.41$ 10,217.70$ 58.95$ 129,065.69$ 10,755.47$ 62.05$ 135,858.62$ 11,321.55$ 65.32$ 28B Public Works Superintendent SBSPA 114,335.30$ 9,527.94$ 54.97$ 120,352.95$ 10,029.41$ 57.86$ 126,687.31$ 10,557.28$ 60.91$ 133,355.06$ 11,112.92$ 64.11$ 140,373.75$ 11,697.81$ 67.49$ 29 Police Corporal POA 115,485.64$ 9,623.80$ 55.52$ 121,259.94$ 10,105.00$ 58.30$ 127,322.95$ 10,610.25$ 61.21$ 133,689.09$ 11,140.76$ 64.27$ 140,373.50$ 11,697.79$ 67.49$ 36 Associate Engineer Mid-Mgmt 120,196.23$ 10,016.35$ 57.79$ 126,206.05$ 10,517.17$ 60.68$ 132,516.32$ 11,043.03$ 63.71$ 139,142.15$ 11,595.18$ 66.90$ 146,099.26$ 12,174.94$ 70.24$ 36 Finance Manager Mid-Mgmt 120,196.23$ 10,016.35$ 57.79$ 126,206.05$ 10,517.17$ 60.68$ 132,516.32$ 11,043.03$ 63.71$ 139,142.15$ 11,595.18$ 66.90$ 146,099.26$ 12,174.94$ 70.24$ 36 IT Manager Mid-Mgmt 120,196.23$ 10,016.35$ 57.79$ 126,206.05$ 10,517.17$ 60.68$ 132,516.32$ 11,043.03$ 63.71$ 139,142.15$ 11,595.18$ 66.90$ 146,099.26$ 12,174.94$ 70.24$ 36 Planning Manager Mid-Mgmt 120,196.23$ 10,016.35$ 57.79$ 126,206.05$ 10,517.17$ 60.68$ 132,516.32$ 11,043.03$ 63.71$ 139,142.15$ 11,595.18$ 66.90$ 146,099.26$ 12,174.94$ 70.24$ 36 Recreation Manager Mid-Mgmt 120,196.23$ 10,016.35$ 57.79$ 126,206.05$ 10,517.17$ 60.68$ 132,516.32$ 11,043.03$ 63.71$ 139,142.15$ 11,595.18$ 66.90$ 146,099.26$ 12,174.94$ 70.24$ 38 Building Official Mid-Mgmt 126,281.24$ 10,523.44$ 60.71$ 132,595.27$ 11,049.61$ 63.75$ 139,225.04$ 11,602.09$ 66.94$ 146,186.24$ 12,182.19$ 70.28$ 153,495.58$ 12,791.30$ 73.80$ 39 Dep. Dir. of PW / Maint & Utilities Mid-Mgmt 129,438.21$ 10,786.52$ 62.23$ 135,910.11$ 11,325.84$ 65.34$ 142,705.60$ 11,892.13$ 68.61$ 149,840.87$ 12,486.74$ 72.04$ 157,332.91$ 13,111.08$ 75.64$ 38 City Clerk Executive 130,506.33$ 10,875.53$ 62.74$ 137,031.61$ 11,419.30$ 65.88$ 143,883.19$ 11,990.27$ 69.17$ 151,077.36$ 12,589.78$ 72.63$ 158,631.23$ 13,219.27$ 76.27$ 39 Marine Safety Chief Executive 133,768.93$ 11,147.41$ 64.31$ 140,457.37$ 11,704.78$ 67.53$ 147,480.21$ 12,290.02$ 70.90$ 154,854.20$ 12,904.52$ 74.45$ 162,596.94$ 13,549.75$ 78.17$ 37 Police Sergeant PMA 137,276.04$ 11,439.67$ 66.00$ 144,139.96$ 12,011.66$ 69.30$ 151,346.95$ 12,612.25$ 72.76$ 158,914.29$ 13,242.86$ 76.40$ 166,860.03$ 13,905.00$ 80.22$ 37A Police Lieutenant PMA 140,708.04$ 11,725.67$ 67.65$ 147,743.45$ 12,311.95$ 71.03$ 155,130.62$ 12,927.55$ 74.58$ 162,887.16$ 13,573.93$ 78.31$ 171,031.51$ 14,252.63$ 82.23$ 47 Dep. Dir. of PW / City Engineer Mid-Mgmt 157,707.88$ 13,142.32$ 75.82$ 165,593.27$ 13,799.44$ 79.61$ 173,872.93$ 14,489.41$ 83.59$ 182,566.56$ 15,213.88$ 87.77$ 191,694.86$ 15,974.57$ 92.16$ 44 Police Captain PMA 163,178.21$ 13,598.18$ 78.45$ 171,337.11$ 14,278.09$ 82.37$ 179,903.96$ 14,992.00$ 86.49$ 188,899.17$ 15,741.60$ 90.82$ 198,344.13$ 16,528.68$ 95.36$ 51 Director of Finance Executive 179,904.35$ 14,992.03$ 86.49$ 188,899.60$ 15,741.63$ 90.82$ 198,344.49$ 16,528.71$ 95.36$ 208,261.66$ 17,355.14$ 100.13$ 218,674.85$ 18,222.90$ 105.13$ 52 Director of Community Development Executive 179,904.35$ 14,992.03$ 86.49$ 188,899.60$ 15,741.63$ 90.82$ 198,344.49$ 16,528.71$ 95.36$ 208,261.66$ 17,355.14$ 100.13$ 218,674.85$ 18,222.90$ 105.13$ 55 Director of Public Works Executive 198,580.70$ 16,548.39$ 95.47$ 208,509.73$ 17,375.81$ 100.25$ 218,935.17$ 18,244.60$ 105.26$ 229,881.96$ 19,156.83$ 110.52$ 241,376.03$ 20,114.67$ 116.05$ 57 Assistant City Manager Executive 205,753.29$ 17,146.11$ 98.92$ 216,040.96$ 18,003.41$ 103.87$ 226,843.02$ 18,903.59$ 109.06$ 238,185.17$ 19,848.76$ 114.51$ 250,094.40$ 20,841.20$ 120.24$ 59 Chief of Police Executive 219,195.91$ 18,266.33$ 105.38$ 230,155.74$ 19,179.65$ 110.65$ 241,663.48$ 20,138.62$ 116.18$ 253,746.67$ 21,145.56$ 121.99$ 266,434.01$ 22,202.83$ 128.09$ 65 City Manager N/A 278,100.00$ Date of Revision: n/a; DRAFT Reason: DRAFT proposal including Human Resources Specialist classification Authorization: n/a; DRAFT Agenda Item I AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:February 9, 2026 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: 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 7736 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, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and 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 Page 2 2 2 2 9 Extraction (OE). After presentation of the staff report, submission of public testimony and deliberation by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 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 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 includes 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; Page 3 2 2 2 9 that an Interim Soil Stabilization plan shall be developed to prevent soil erosion 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, through 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 viewed at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting- Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings dated August 20, 2025. 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 Page 4 2 2 2 9 made by the EQCB. During the Planning Commission public hearing, oral 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 Environmental Impact Report (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 25-06, adopting the IS/MND, including the MMRP, and approved Resolution 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 viewed at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting- Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings dated September 29, 2025. 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 EIR to further analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts before approving the Project. 23 Page 5 2 2 2 9 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 7736 (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. First Council Hearing On December 9, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal. The appellant and residents from Seal Beach and surrounding communities testified and requested that an EIR be completed by the City before a decision was made by Council. Two residents of Heron Pointe testified that they had recently become aware of the project and requested more time to review the environmental document and asked if the project could be scaled back in size. The City Council Page 6 2 2 2 9 continued the hearing to February 9, 2026 to provide additional review time by the public, and asked the applicant if they could evaluate the project to see if the scope could be reduced to be less impactful to the residents at Heron Pointe. Updates Following First Council Hearing Subsequent to the December 9, 2025 Council Meeting, on February 2, 2026, the applicant submitted a new scope of work to remove approximately one-third of the solar tables by removing the array of solar tables located on the eastern side of the project site, closest to the area of natural vegetation and the residences at Heron Pointe (Attachment K). 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 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. Page 7 2 2 2 9 Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 25-06, approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Planning Commission Resolution 25-06 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. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 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 7736 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, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and, and 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 Page 8 2 2 2 9 ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7736 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 K. Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026 1 RESOLUTION 7736 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 NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine, and order 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), 2 1 0 8 4 4 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 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 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, 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, and continued the item to February 9, 2026. I. On February 2, 2026, The Applicant submitted to Staff an updated project scope (Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026) showing the removal of the eastern most array of solar tables, the array closest to natural vegetation and the residences at Heron Pointe. 3 1 0 8 4 4 J. On February 9, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, 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. 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. 4 1 0 8 4 4 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. 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. 5 1 0 8 4 4 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, limited to the scope as presented in the Design 2026-Reduction dated January 24, 2026, and 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 9th day of February 2026 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 6 1 0 8 4 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 resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7736 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a meeting held on the 9th day of February 2026. ________________________________ 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 / j r'" Work Phone : ( ) Mobilel''h 3 5""7-85 76 Home Phone: ( ) FAX: ( )--,,..,.-__ +-.,-------,-_ Email Address:---.e~iL:Z.-.-~_._b_e.=_t._.h_._l:::: ............. .-.=--.-...!..!...I.-...-.<.i.!..!(.----.L..L..!..:.--...-!.__+_:f_=.<I-.--=-:.:.=...-C"~YI1G1II .c o~ 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 C.c~S.)Tp 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 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 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 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 25-06 RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) FOR 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, LOCATED AT 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, IN THE HELLMAN RANCH SPR–OE (OIL EXTRACTION) ZONE WHEREAS, the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (“Applicant”) 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 at the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (“Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City prepared an Initial Study for the Project; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and therefore prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c) and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 11.5.35.010.L; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels, including but not limited to measures addressing biological resources (bird nesting avoidance, sensitive plant protection), cultural resources (Native American monitoring), soil stability and erosion control, glare reduction, and protection of City waterlines; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Quality Control Board held a duly noticed meeting on August 20, 2025, received public testimony, and recommended additional conditions regarding soil testing at pile-hole depth, and the monitoring and reporting of bird fatalities; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Seal Beach Planning Commission on September 29, 2025, at which time the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study, the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff report, written materials, and oral testimony presented at the hearing; and Resolution 25-06 Hellman Ranch OGPF 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Seal Beach, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and together with the record of proceedings, provides adequate information on which to base environmental findings for the Project. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for MUP 22-03. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds that: A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. B. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis. Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, ensuring that all mitigation measures identified in the MND will be implemented as conditions of approval. Section 4. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are available for public review at the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on September 29, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOLTA, MINGIONE NOES: Commissioners CAMPBELL ABSENT: Commissioners Wheeler ABSTAIN: Commissioners _____________________________________ Calvin Mingione Vice Chairperson Resolution 25-06 Hellman Ranch OGPF 3 of 3 ATTEST: __________________________ Shaun Temple Planning Commission Secretary 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 25-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING 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), LOCATED AT 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 IN THE HELLMMAN RANCH SPR – OE (OIL EXTRACTION) ZONE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility 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 at the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF. Section 2. 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. The Planning Commission, after considering the Initial Study/MND and finding that the MND reflects the independent judgment of the City, adopted the MND prior to approving this resolution. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 29, 2025, to consider MUP 22-03. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the application: A. The applicant submitted an application to the Community Development Department for MUP 22-03 for a proposed project at the Hellman Oil and Gas Production Facility. B. The subject property is irregular in shape and 4.66 acres in size. To the north is a regional retention basin operated by the County of Orange. To the south is the Cerritos Wetlands. To the east is residential at Heron Pointe, the Animal Care Center, the Public Works Yard, and the Police Station. To the west is the Haynes Station Cooling Channel and the San Gabriel River. C. The site is developed as an oil production facility and has been in operation since the 1920s. Resolution 25-07 Hellman Ranch OGPF 2 of 4 D. The proposed system would be composed of 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 the solar panels and support structures, collector cables, inverters, and subpanels, and power cables, transformer, 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 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. E. Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 11.2.15.010. (Oil Extraction Districts – Land Use Regulations allows for the establishment of solar PV system as minor utility through a Minor Use Permit. Section 4. Based on the evidence presented in the staff report and public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pursuant to SBMC Chapter 11.5.20.020 (Required Findings): A. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. The site is designated Industrial Oil Extraction in the General Plan and zoned SPR – OE (Oil Extraction). The solar PV system is classified as a minor utility use and supports continued operations of the Hellman Ranch OGPF by reducing reliance on fossil-fuel power generation and lowering operational costs, consistent with the City’s goals for sustainability and energy efficiency. B. The proposed use is consistent with applicable provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. A Minor Use Permit is required for a minor utility in the OE Zone. This resolution grants that approval subject to conditions ensuring compliance with SBMC requirements. C. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use. The 4.66-acre site currently accommodates oil production activities and has adequate space for the proposed 56-table solar array layout without creating adverse impacts on surrounding properties. D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project includes mitigation measures to protect sensitive biological resources, cultural resources, and City infrastructure. The solar panels will be dark-colored and anti-reflective to reduce glare, construction will avoid bird nesting season, and soil testing and stabilization will occur to prevent erosion. Section 5. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves MUP 22-03, subject to the following conditions of approval: Resolution 25-07 Hellman Ranch OGPF 3 of 4 1. Minor Use Permit 22-03 is approved for the installation and operation of a 1.5 MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) system at the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Minor Use Permit 22-03. 3. Building permits shall be obtained for all new construction requiring such permits. 4. Applicant shall obtain California Coastal Commission approval prior to building permit issuance. 5. Upon cessation of oil production activities and removal of oil production equipment, any equipment related to the solar operations approved by this MUP shall also be removed. 6. Soil testing shall be performed at pile-hole depth and shall be assessed for hydrocarbons to be appropriately removed from site based on contamination level before redistribution of excavated soil; a report shall be submitted to the City for approval 7. During the first year of operation, the applicant shall document and report to the City any bird accidents or fatalities attributable to the solar facility. If accidents and facilities are recorded, the report will be presented to the Planning Commission who may reserve the right to modify the MUP to add conditions related to bird impacts. 8. All applicable mitigation measures in the adopted MND shall be implemented. 9. This MUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City “Acceptance of Conditions” form has been signed and notarized by the applicant before being returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar day appeal period has elapsed. 10. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this MUP in the event of any violation of the approved conditions or any violation of any provision of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. 11. The applicant must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its agents, and employees (collectively “the City” hereinafter in this paragraph) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City’s choice in Resolution 25-07 Hellman Ranch OGPF 4 of 4 representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys’ fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on September 29, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOLTA, MINGIONE NOES: Commissioners CAMPBELL ABSENT: Commissioners Wheeler ABSTAIN: Commissioners _____________________________________ Calvin Mingione Chairperson ATTEST: __________________________ Shaun Temple Planning Commission Secretary 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 Design 2026- Reduction (MS550) Hellman Solar Field, 711 1st st., Seal Beach, CA 90740 Design Design 2026- Reduction (MS550) DC Nameplate 1.12 MW AC Nameplate 1,000.00 kW (1.12 DC/AC) Last Modied James Reeve (Today at 12:22 AM) Design Project Location Component Name Count Inverters CPS SCA100KTL-DO/US-480 (Chint Power Systems)10 (1,000.00 kW) Strings 10 AWG (Copper)80 (10,305.3 ft) Module Mission Solar, MSI10-550HT4T (550W)2,028 (1.12 MW) Components Description Racking Orientation Tilt Azimuth Intrarow Spacing Frame Size Frames Modules Power Field Segment 3 Fixed Tilt Portrait (Vertical) Module: 15° Module: 180° 8.0 ft 2x1 494 988 543.40 kW Field Segment 2 Fixed Tilt Portrait (Vertical) Module: 15° Module: 180° 8.0 ft 2x1 520 1,040 572.00 kW Field Segments Description Combiner Poles String Size Stringing Strategy Wiring Zone -22-28 Along Racking Wiring Zone 2 -22-28 Along Racking Wiring Zones Design Overview produced by James Reeve © 2026 Aurora Solar 1 / 2 January 24, 2026 Detailed Layout2 Design Overview produced by James Reeve © 2026 Aurora Solar 2 / 2 January 24, 2026