HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-07-28 #O AGENDA REPORT
DATE: July 28, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: COASTAL COMIVIISSION CONSIDERATION OF
MITIGATION PLAN FOR CULTURAL
RESOURCES - HELLMAN RANCH
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize Mayor to sign comment letter with any revisions determined appropriate.
Authorize Director of Development Services to attend Coastal Commission Meeting and
respond to issues and concerns on behalf of the City. Receive and File Staff Report.
BACKGROUND:
The Coastal Commission has an item on their Agenda for August 7, 2003 to consider the
following matter regarding the "Educational Facility at Gum Grove Park:
17.5 CONDITION COMPLIANCE on Permit No. 5 -97 -367, as
amended (Hellman, Seal Beach). Public hearing and action on
cultural resources mitigation plan submitted by Hellman Properties
LLC & John Laing Homes, pursuant to condition of permit (that
authorized subdivision including 70 residential lots,
implementation of archeological investigation, 420,000 cu.yds. of
grading, dedication of Gum Grove Park, reservation of 157 acres
for habitat restoration, and construction of water quality bio -swale
& basin), at northeast of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1),
southeast of San Gabriel River, south of Adolfo Lopez Drive, west
of Seal Beach Boulevard, and North of Marina Hill, Seal Beach,
County of Orange. (KFS -LB)
The Coastal Commission Meeting will be held at:
Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach
21500 Pacific Coast Hwy
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Agenda Item 0
Z:\My Documents\John Laing Homes\Mitigation P1an.Coastal Commission Consideration.CC Staff Report.doc\LW \07 -24 -03
Coastal Commission Consideration of Mitigation Plan
For Cultural Resources — Hellman Ranch -
City Council Staff Report
July 28, 2003
Staff has requested a copy of the staff report for the above item and will be attending the
Commission Meeting to provide comments to the Commission as they consider this item.
Staff hopes to receive the Staff Report as soon as possible and prepare a comment letter for
City Council consideration at the July 28 meeting. We do not anticipate receiving the Coastal
Commission Staff Report until sometime on Friday, July 25.
IN ALL PROBABILITY, THE COMMENT LETTER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE
PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL UNTIL THE TIME OF THE MEETING.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. Allocation of staff resources are reimbursable
expenses in accordance" with existing agreements between the City and Hellman
Properties LLC and John Laing Homes LLC.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to sign comment letter with any revisions determined appropriate.
Authorize Director of Development Services to attend Coastal Commission Meeting and
respond to issues and concerns on behalf of the City. Receive and File Staff Report.
NOTED A • 'PROV
Alt
e Whittenberg John B A . ahorski
Director of Development Service City ager
2
Mitigation Plan.Coastal Commission Consideration.CC Staff Report
• SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: July 28, 2003
' TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager -
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: COASTAL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF
MITIGATION PLAN FOR CULTURAL
RESOURCES - HELLMAN RANCH
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize Mayor to sign comment letter with any revisions determined appropriate.
• Authorize Director of Development Services to attend Coastal Commission Meeting and
respond to issues and concerns on behalf of the City. Receive and .File Staff Report.
BACKGROUND:
Staff received a copy of the Coastal Commission Staff Report on the following matter
regarding the "Educational Facility at Gum Grove Park on Friday afternoon:
17.5 CONDITION COMPLIANCE on Permit No. 5 -97 -367, as
amended (Hellman, Seal Beach). Public hearing and action on
cultural resources mitigation plan submitted by Hellman Properties
LLC & John Laing Homes, pursuant to condition of permit (that
authorized subdivision including 70 residential lots,
implementation of archeological investigation, 420,000 cu.yds. of
grading, dedication of Gum Grove Park, reservation of 157 acres
for habitat - restoration, and construction of water quality bio -swale
& basin), at northeast of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1),
southeast of San Gabriel River, south of Adolfo Lopez Drive, west
of Seal Beach Boulevard, and North of Marina Hill, Seal Beach,
County of Orange. (KFS -LB)
This matter is an item on their Agenda for August 7, 2003, and appears as the last item for
• consideration on that day. The Coastal Commission Meeting will be held at:
Hyatt Regency Huntington Beach
Agenda Item 0
Z:Uvty DocumentsVohn Laing Homes\Mitigauon Plan Coastal Commission Consideration Supp CC SRdoc\L.W\07 -28-03
Coastal Commission Consideration of Mitigation Plan
For Cultural Resources — Hellman Ranch
Supplemental City Council Staff Report
July 28, 2003 •
21500 Pacific Coast Hwy
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Overview of Coastal Commission Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of Coastal Commission Staff ". . that the Commission concur
with the Executive Director 's determination that the amended cultural resources
mitigation plan complies as of this time with the requirements of Special Condition 19 of
Coastal Development Permit 5 -97 -367, as amended, as to the site conditions specifically
addressed in the Cease and Desist Order (CCC- 02- CD -05) issued by the Commission on
December 10, 2002. "
This determination is based on the "Mitigation Plan" being prepared in such a manner as
to comply with the following objectives established by the Executive Director:
❑ "Identify the most culturally sensitive areas on the Project Site, based on the
information available;
❑ Minimize, and where feasible, avoid impacts to the most sensitive cultural areas;
❑ Mitigate impacts to significant cultural features /cultural resources that have
occurred;
❑ Identify procedures to avoid adverse impacts to anticipated "additional"
significant archaeological features /cultural resources that are "expected" to be
found, and where adverse impacts are unavoidable, to provide mitigation for those •
impacts;
❑ Ensure that the procedures outlined in Special Condition 19 with respect to the
discovery of "additional" or "unexpected" finds are implemented; and obtain
consensus regarding the mitigation plan with Native Americans having cultural
ties to the project area, the Permittees, and the City. "
Outstanding City of Seal Beach Issue regarding "Mitigation Plan" — Educational
Facility:
The only outstanding issue to the City at this time as part of the subject "Mitigation Plan"
( "Plan") is the approval by the City of an approved location for the proposed
"Educational Facility ", currently proposed within the Plan to be located at one of two
locations within Gum Grove Park, as it is to be expanded as part of the project
implementation. The Coastal Commission Staff Report addresses this issue and
recognizes that the City has not made a determination as to an acceptable location. The
Coastal Commission Staff Report states:
• "The Executive Director found that the creation of the education center in
one of the two identified locations would not require an amendment to the
i "Staff Report: Condition Compliance — Permit Number 5 -97 -367, as amended ", California Coastal •
Commission Staff Report, dated July 24, 2003, p. l .
2 Op. Cit., p. 4.
2
Mitiganon Plan.Coastal Commission Consideration.Supp CC SR
Coastal Commission Consideration of Mitigation Plan
For Cultural Resources — Hellman Ranch
Supplemental City Council Staff Report
1111 July 28, 2003
Permit or a new permit. However, there may be issues related to public
access, land use and biological resource protection, with other locations.
Furthermore, other locations may not be as suitable as those identified in
• the Mitigation plan from a cultural standpoint. Thus, locations other than
those identified in the Mitigation plan may necessitate a permit
amendment.
Staff believes that it remains a strong possibility that once alternative
locations are reviewed the City Council will select one of the two locations
that are presently identified in the Mitigation plan. Since this is a
possibility and there is strong interest by both the Permittees and the
affected Native Americans to re -start aspects of the project and to
implement aspects of the Mitigation plan that are unrelated to the
education center, the Executive Director has chosen to present the
Mitigation plan to the Commission in it present form. .. If the City
Council were to choose a location different from the two locations
presently identified in the Mitigation plan, the Executive Director will
need to review this new location and make a determination as to whether
the location is consistent with the Permit and whether or not the location
necessitates a permit amendment. If the Executive Director determines
that a Commission action is necessary to implement an alternative
• location, the matter would be returned to the Commission for action.
Furthermore, even if the Executive Director determined that a permit
amendment was not necessary to implement a location different from the
two presently identified in the Mitigation Plan, the Executive Director
would return the revised Mitigation Plan to the Commission for their
concurrence with the alternative location. "
The position of the Commission is to approve the Mitigation Plan and allow work to
proceed on the project site in compliance with the terms of the Mitigation Plan, as
presently prepared. This will require the City, and ultimately the Commission, to re -visit
the issue of a final approved location for the education facility.
The recommended action of the Coastal Commission does not preclude the City Council
from a thorough and complete alternatives analysis regarding other potential locations for
the educational facility. Based on the position of the Coastal Commission stated above,
any future location other than either of the two alternative locations presently contained
within the "Mitigation Plan" will require further evaluation and may require amendments
to the existing Permit or approval of an additional permit.
Staff has included within the comment letter a request that the Coastal Commission
Executive Director be given the authority to approve an alternate location without
requiring a permit amendment.
•
3 Op. Cit., p. 5.
3
Mitigation Plan.Coastal Commission Consideration.Supp CC SR
•
Coastal Commission Consideration of Mitigation Plan
For Cultural Resources - Hellman Ranch
Supplemental Ciry Council Staff Report
July 28, 2003 •
Consideration of Citv Council Comment Letter:
City Staff has prepared a comment letter for the Mayor to sign upon approval by the City
Council. The comment letter supports the determination of the Executive Director to
allow work to be initiated on the property in accordance with the programs set forth in the
"Mitigation Plan". The letter also indicates that the City Council will consider alternative
site locations for the "educational facility" in the future and will incorporate the concerns
and comments of the Commission into its final site location deliberations.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. Allocation of staff resources are reimbursable
expenses in accordance with existing agreements between the City and Hellman
Properties LLC and John Laing Homes LLC.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to sign comment letter with any revisions determined appropriate.
Authorize Director of Development Services to attend Coastal Commission Meeting and ,
respond to issues and concerns on behalf of the City. Receive and File Staff Report.
NOTED AP ' ' D: 410
/e Whitt nberg John B r B • orski
Director of Development Service City ■ l• ager
Attachments: (2) _
Attachment 1: City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: California Coastal
Commission Staff Report: Condition Compliance —' Permit
Number 5 -97 -367, as amended"
Attachment 2: "Staff Report: Condition Compliance — Permit Number 5-
97-367, as amended ", California Coastal Commission Staff
Report, dated July 24, without attachments
•
4
Mitigation Plan Coastal Commission Consideration.Supp CC SR
SEA (�9
y y
Iv; Q
eac I cei22 27 '\`-:.=
'C8UNTVcv,
CITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET
SEAL BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90740
(562) 431 -2527 www. seal-beach .ca.ns
July 29, 2003
Mr. Mike Reilly, Chair
California Coastal Commission .
45 Fremont Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105 -2219
Dear Chairman Reilly:
SUBJECT: CONDITION COMPLIANCE — PERMIT. NUMBER 5 -97-
367, AS AMENDED
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach reviewed the above referenced Coastal
Commission Staff Report at the July 28 City Council Meeting and authorized the Mayor
of the City to execute this letter.
Support for the Determination of the Executive Director regarding the "Mitigation
Plan ":
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach supports the proposed determination of the
Executive Director and requests the Commission to concur with that determination
regarding the "Mitigation Plan ".
However, the City would request that should another location be selected within the
Grading Permit limits established for Tract No. 15402, that the Executive Director be
empowered to approve such alternate location without requiring a permit amendment.
The City believes that other suitable locations may exist within the area encompassed
within the Grading Permit limit area and outside of the residential and private park areas
established by Tract No. 15402.
Summary of City Position of Support:
This Mitigation Plan has been developed through the hard work and determination of
many disparate interests in achieving a plan for the protection, preservation, and
interpretation of Native American cultural resources. It is a well - thought out and
Z.\My Documents\John Laing Homes \Coastal Commission Mtttgauon Plan CC Comment Letter.doc\LW\07 -29 -03
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Condition Compliance — Permit No. 5 -97 -367, as amended
Hellman Ranch Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan
July 29, 2003
balanced plan, and one that all of the parties involved in preparing can and should be
proud to have been involved with.
It is the opinion of the City Council and the Archaeological Advisory Committee that the
proposed "Mitigation Plan" provides appropriate discovery and evaluation methodologies
for the probable discovery of additional cultural resources and ancestral Native American
burials that still may be encountered as part of the construction activities associated with the
proposed project, and also provides sufficient safeguards to ensure compliance with
appropriate regulatory requirements if an additional discoveries are encountered. The City
Council and the Committee believe this Mitigation Plan addresses all issues that can
reasonably be anticipated to occur once the necessary construction activities are allowed to
be re- instituted on the property. The comprehensive program prepared by EDAW and
agreed to by the MLD and JLH outlines a program that, in the opinion of the City Council
and the Archaeological Advisory Committee, the Native American community, the City of
Seal Beach, John Laing Homes, the Coastal Commission and Native American Heritage
Commission can be proud to have participated in and implemented.
The Mitigation Plan presents a reasoned and balanced plan to mitigate impacts to significant
cultural resources of the Hellman Ranch property that have been discovered during project
grading. The Mitigation Plan accomplishes the following actions and activities that are seen
by the City Council and the Archaeological Advisory Committee as beneficial actions and
supportable by both the City Council and the Archaeological Advisory Committee:
❑ The setting aside of a "Preservation Area" of approximately 1.28 acres as an open
space area, with this area to be utilized as a reinterment area for all of the Native
American remains discovered during the site grading activities on the subject
property. Existing human remains currently located within this area will not be
removed. (Mitigation Measure 2 and 3) .
❑ JLH will assist the MLD in the reinterment of burials within this area and will
provide funding for appropriate Native American ceremonies to accompany the
reintennent ceremony. (Mitigation Measure 16)
❑ Reconfiguration of oil access roads and utility services to eliminate impacts to
remaining undisturbed midden area. (Mitigation Measure 4)
❑ Potential development of a cultural - educational facility within Gum Grove Nature
Park. Future designs of this facility to be approved by the City and Coastal
Commission. (Mitigation Measure 6)
❑ Establishes an agreed upon methodology for the continued monitoring of grading
• activities and evaluation processes to be utilized during the remainder of the site
grading activities on the property. (Mitigation Measures 5 and 8 through 14)
❑ Establishes additional evaluation analysis that is acceptable to the MLD (Mitigation
Measures 15 and 17)
❑ Preparation of required technical reports in compliance with guidelines of the
California Office of Historic Preservation (Mitigation Measure 19) and
❑ Establishes a curation program with options for the Gabrielino/Tongva people to
consider (Mitigation measure 18).
Coastal Commission Mtugation Plan CC Comment Letter 2
f City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Condition Compliance — Permit No. 5 -97 -367, as amended
Hellman Ranch Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan
July 29, 2003
Location of Educational Center:
The Commission Staff Report correctly presents the current position of the City Council
relative to the "Educational Facility". The City has received public input regarding
public safety and other concerns relating to the proposed locations set forth within the
Plan, such as proximity to existing homes and the ability to secure the facility from
potential vandalism, and has requested a thorough and complete alternatives analysis
regarding other potential locations for the educational facility. The City Council
understands, based on the position of the Coastal Commission stated in the Commission
Staff Report, that any future location other than either of the two alternative locations
presently contained within the "Mitigation Plan" will require further evaluation and may
require amendments to the existing Permit or approval of an additional permit. However,
the City would request that should another location be selected within the Grading Permit
limits established for Tract No. 15402, that the Executive Director be empowered to
approve such alternate location without requiring a permit amendment. The City believes
that other suitable locations may exist within the area encompassed within the Grading
Permit limit area and outside of the residential and private park areas established by Tract
No. 15402.
The City Council will consider alternative site locations for the "educational facility" in
the future and will incorporate the concerns and comments of the Commission into its
final site location deliberations.
The Director of Development Services, Mr. Lee Whittenberg, will be present at the
August 7 Coastal Conunission Meeting to respond to questions or concerns that
Commissioners may have regarding this matter. Please contact Mr. Whittenberg at your
earliest convenience if you require additional information or have questions regarding
this matter. He can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e-mail at
lwhittenb erg@ci. seal -b each. ca.us.
Sincerely,
�GZ�kLGCGt�
Patricia E. Campbell
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
Distribution: California Coastal Coin>nissioners
Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission
Karl Schwing, Coastal Analyst, California Coastal Commission
City Council
City Attorney
Coastal Commission Mrumnon Plan CC Comment Letter 3
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: • 1
Condition Compliance — Permit No. 5 -97 -367, as amended
Hellman Ranch Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan I
July 29, 2003
Archaeological Advisory Committee
Parks and Recreation Commission
Director of Development Services
Anthony Morales, Most Likely Descendent, Gabrielino /Tongva
Tribe
Pat Larkin, John Laing Homes
Coastal Comnussion Mitigation Plan CC Comment Letter 4
Coastal Commission Consideration of Mitigation Plan
For Cultural Resources — Hellman Ranch
Supplemental City Council Staff Report
July 28, 2003
III
• • :.".
ATTACHMENT 2
"STAFF REPORT: CONDITION
COMPLIANCE - PERMIT NUMBER 5 -97-
367, AS AMENDED ", CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,
DATED, JULY 24, WITHOUT
ATTACHMENTS .
•
•
10
Mitigation Plan.Coastal Conunission Consideration.Supp CC SR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Staff: KFS -LB
South Coast Area Office ��:,
ffice Staff Report: Jul s ��"
•e::h p y 24, 2003 Hearing Date: August 6 -8, 2003 90 -5071 Commission Action:
Th17.5 _
. . . STAFF REPORT: CONDITION COMPLIANCE
PERMIT NUMBER: 5 -97 -367, as amended
PERMITTEES: Hellman Properties LLC
W.L. Homes LLC (dba John Laing Homes)
AGENTS: Dave Bartlett, Dave Bartlett Associates
Susan Hori, Manatt Phelps & Phillips
PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1), Southeast of the
San Gabriel River, South of Adolfo Lopez Drive, West of Seal Beach
Boulevard, and North of Marina Hill; City of Seal Beach; County of
Orange
III APPROVED PROJECT: - Subdivision of the site including 70 single - family residential lots;
implementation of an archeological investigation; 420,000 cubic
yards of grading; dedication of Gum Grove Park to the City;
reservation of 157 acres of land for habitat restoration, and
construction of a water quality bio -swale and basin.
DESCRIPTION OF Public hearing regarding current compliance with Special Condition
CURRENT REQUEST: 19 of Coastal Development Permit 5 -97 -367, as amended, which
requires the Permittees to submit, for review and approval by the
Executive Director, recommendations for appropriate actions and
associated modifications to the previously submitted cultural
resources mitigation plan when significant additional or unexpected
cultural resources are encountered during project construction, for
site conditions specifically addressed in the Cease and Desist Order
(CCC- 02- CD -05) issued by the Commission on December 10, 2002.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission concur with the Executive Director's determination that the
amended cultural resources mitigation plan complies as of this time with the requirements of
Special Condition 19 of Coastal Development Permit 5 -97 -367, as amended, as to the site
conditions specifically addressed in the Cease and Desist Order (CCC- 02- CD -05) issued by the
III Commission on December 10, 2002. ,
5 -97 -367, as amended
Condition Compliance
Page 2 of 5
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
110
MOTION : / move that the Commission overturn the Executive Director's determination that the
. amended cultural resources mitigation plan submitted by the Permittees complies
• as of this date with the requirements of Special Condition 19.C. and F.(1). of
Coastal Development Permit 5 -97 -367, as amended, as to those site conditions
specifically addressed in the Cease and Desist Order (CCC- 02- CD -05) issued by
the Commission on December 10, 2002.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL:
Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of the motion results in adoption of the following resolution
and findings, and means that the Permittees must implement the amended mitigation plan, as
submitted. This motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of Commissioners
present.
RESOLUTION:
The Commission hereby affirms the Executive Director's determination that the amended cultural
resources mitigation plan submitted by the Permittees complies with subsections C and F.(1) of
Special Condition 19 and that, given the Executive Director's approval of that plan and pursuant to
Special Condition 19.D., the Permittees must now implement the amended mitigation plan in
accordance with the provisions of Special Condition 19, as well as fully comply with all other
requirements of the permit. •
II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS
The Commission hereby finds and declares:
A. Background
On September 9, 1998, the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No.
5 -97 -367 authorizing, among other development, a 70 single - family lot residential subdivision in
Seal Beach, Orange County called Hellman Ranch. The properties to which the Permit applies
are identified as Tracts 15381 and 15402 and are located northeast of Pacific Coast Highway
(State Route 1), southeast of the San Gabriel River, south of Adolfo Lopez Drive, west of Seal
Beach Boulevard, and north of Marina Hill (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Site "). (Exhibit
1). On June 14, 2001, the Commission amended the Permit to modify the project description
(hereinafter referred to as "the Permit ") (Exhibit 2). The property owners are W.L. Homes, LLC
dba John Laing Homes and Hellman Properties, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Permittees ").
The Commission approved the proposed development subject to special conditions, including
Special Condition 19 which relates to the archeological testing program that was proposed as well
as establishing procedures that must be implemented in the event that additional or unexpected
cultural resources are discovered during project construction.
Beginning in July 2002, John Laing Homes began grading and Native American human remains .
were discovered and unearthed on the site of the 70 single- family home lot residential subdivision.
Ill
They continued to discover remains as the work, progressed, and did not cease construction until
the number had reached 22 human remains. The majority of these remains (18) were discovered
5 -97 -367, as amended
Condition Compliance
Page 3 of 5
• on property owned by John Laing Homes. The other four remains were discovered on property
owned by Hellman Properties.
On September 16, 2002, the Permittees halted grading and construction activities at the Project
Site after Commission Staff '(hereinafter referred to as "Staff') informed them that they were
violating the terms -and conditions of the Permit by failing to address the discovery of the Native
American remains in accordance with the requirements of Special Condition 19.F.1 to the CDP.
Staff requested confirmation that they would comply with the requirements of Special Condition
19.F.1. In light of continuing discoveries of additional remains, and to insure compliance with the
Permit, on September 18, 2002 the Executive Director issued a Cease and Desist Order to the
Permittees (EDCDO No. ED- 02- CD -01), which was effective for 90 days.
On December 10, 2002, prior to expiration of the Executive Director issued Cease and Desist
Order, the Commission issued Cease and Desist Order ( "CDO ") CCC- 02 -CD -05 which required
the Permittees to cease and desist from any non - compliance with the terms and conditions of the
Permit, as amended; and from undertaking any further work at the site until (1) they bring
themselves into full compliance with the Permit; (2) the Executive Director approves a revised set
of recommendations and an amended cultural resources mitigation plan; and, if necessary, (3)the
permit is amended to incorporate any significant changes to the approved development. At the
same time, the Commission held a permit condition interpretation hearing during which it affirmed
the Executive Director's determination that Special Condition 19.F.1. applies to the discoveries
made at the site and that the Permittees must therefore prepare a written mitigation plan in
accordance with the . 1irDvisions of Special Condition 19.C. for the review and approval of the
Executive Director pursuant to the requirements of Special Condition 19.F.1., as well as fully
• comply with all other requirements of 19.F.1 and 19.F.2. The full text of Special Condition 19 is
attached as Exhibit 2
B. Proposed Mitigation Plan
Pursuant to Special Condition 19 of the permit and the CDO, the Permittees have submitted
Mitigation Plan for Significant Cultural Resource Discoveries, Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area,
Seal Beach, California dated July 2003 by EDAW, Inc. of San Diego (herein "Mitigation Plan ") for
the review and approval by the Executive Director. The mitigation plan identifies the archeological
materials and human remains that have been discovered on the Project Site since
commencement of construction, evaluates these discoveries, and outlines
recommendations /appropriate actions to mitigate for impacts that have occurred to cultural
resources as well as measures to avoid and minimize additional impacts to such resources. The
main elements of the proposed mitigation plan are: 1) avoidance and preservation of the most
culturally sensitive area on the site known at this time; 2) identification of field procedures related
to artifacts and burials encountered once construction re- commences at the site; 3) repatriation
and reburial of exhumed human remains; 4) construction of an educational center within the Gum
Grove Park extension area; and 5) a final technical report to be prepared, once ground- disturbing
construction activities are complete, that evaluates the cultural resources encountered at the site.
These elements are outlined in detail in the mitigation plan (redacted edition' attached as Exhibit
3).
• In order to protect the confidentiality of the location of the Native American human remains,
consistent with §§ 6254(r) and (k) of the Public Resources Code, some documents attached to this
condition compliance staff report as exhibits have been redacted.
5 -97 -367, as amended
Condition Compliance
' Page 4 of 5
The Executive Director ha reviewed the Mitigation Plan and has found that the plan complies with II
the requirements of Special - Condition 19 of the Permit. In negotiating the mitigation plan with the
Permittees and interested parties, the Executive Director identified several primary objectives of
the mitigation plan that would be necessary to assure compliance with Special Condition 19.
These objectives were as follows: 1) identify the most culturally sensitive areas on the Project Site
based on the information available; 2) minimize and, where feasible, avoid impacts to the most
sensitive cultural areas; 3) mitigate impacts to significant archeological features /cultural resources
that have occurred; 4) identify procedures to avoid adverse impacts to anticipated "additional" 2
significant archeological features /cultural resources that are "expectedi to be found, and where
adverse impacts are unavoidable, to provide mitigation for those impacts; 5) ensure that the
procedures outlined in Special Condition 19 with respect to the discovery of "additional" or
"unexpected" finds are implemented; and 6) obtain consensus regarding the mitigation plan with
Native Americans having cultural ties to the project area, the Permittees, and the City. The
Executive Director has determined that the Mitigation Plan satisfies all of these objectives and that
the plan complies with the requirements of Special Condition 19. '
Notably, the Permittees have identified an area on the Project Site where a concentration of
human burials, an animal interment, and associated artifacts indicate the area has cultural
significance. This area is generally known as CA -ORA -264. Although grading has impacted this
area, a significant quantity of the cultural deposits are still present on the Project Site. Additional,
undiscovered human remains are thought to be located within the remaining deposits. The
• Permittees have modified the project to eliminate development that would significantly impact the
remainder of the cultural deposits. These changes have included the elimination of 6 approved
(but not yet built) residential structures and associated appurtenances, and modifications to an oil III
facility access road and utility trench. The entirety of the 6 residential Tots and some adjacent land
will be preserved in perpetuity as a cultural resources preservation area through recordation of a
deed restriction. The remaining cultural deposits will be capped with fill and the area landscaped
. with native vegetation. The Executive Director has determined that the measures outlined in the
Mitigation Plan do not necessitate a permit amendment.
Another feature of the Mitigation Plan is the development of an education center within the Gum
Grove Park extension area. The education center would consist of a ground level circular
structure including a seat wall, along with landscaping and signs that will provide information to,
park visitors regarding Native American culture and use of'the project area. The education center
is not an enclosed structure of any kind, but rather a themed interpretive area. The education
center is to be located at one of two locations within the Gum Grove Park extension that are
identified in the Mitigation Plan. Final plans for the education center, such as sign content and
notification as to which one of the two locations identified in the Mitigation Plari were selected,
must be submitted and are subject to the review and approval of the Executive Director.
The two locations identified in the Mitigation Plan have not yet received final local approval. They
were approved by the City's Parks and Recreation Commission and recommended to the City
Council. However, at the City Council level, some controversy emerged regarding the location of
the education center. Occupants of the existing homes that abut Gum Grove Park have raised
concerns about noise and the potential for the education center to become an attractive nuisance
and place for nefarious activities during the evening. The City Council has instructed the _
Permittees to address these issues and identify some alternative locations for the Council to _
2 "Additional" as that term is used within the ermit III
3 p
"Expected" as that term is used within the permit
5 -97 -367, as amended
Condition Compliance
•
Page 5 of 5
III consider that would be in addition to, but different from, those that are identified in the Mitigation
Plan. These alternative locations may be within the Gum Grove Park extension, or elsewhere on
the Project Site, including within the new residential subdivision or the lowlands.
The Executive Director determined that the two locations identified in the Mitigation Plan would be
consistent with the requirements of Special Condition 19 and the other terms and conditions of the
permit. The Executive Director found that creation of the education center in one of the two
identified locations would not require an amendment to the Permit or a new permit. However,
there may be issues related to public access, and use and biological resource protection, with
other locations. Furthermore, other locations may not be as suitable as those identified in the
Mitigation Plan from a cultural standpoint. Thus, locations other than those identified in the
Mitigation Plan may necessitate a permit amendment.
Staff believes that it remains a strong possibility that once alternative locations are reviewed, the -
City Council will select one of the two locations that are presently identified in the Mitigation Plan.
Since this is a possibility and there is strong interest by both the Permittees and the affected
Native Americans to re -start aspects of the project and to implement aspects of the Mitigation Plan
that are unrelated to the education center, the Executive Director has chosen to present the
Mitigation Plan to the Commission in it's present form. If the Commission does not overturn the
Executive Director's actions and as long as the Permittees remain in compliance with the Permit
and its conditions, and the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order, the Permittees will be
allowed to prepare and submit those documents that must be submitted and approved by the
Executive Director prior to recommencement of construction, and once construction is allowed to
• begin, to immediately implement the identified mitigation measures such as the additional
archeological testing and re- interment of remains, among other measures. If the City Council
were to choose a location different from the two locations presently identified in the Mitigation
Plan, the Executive Director will need to review this new location and make a determination as to
whether that location is consistent with the Permit and whether or not the location necessitates a
permit amendment. if the Executive Director determines that a Commission action is necessary to
implement an alternative location, the matterwould be returned to the Commission for action.
Furthermore, even if the Executive Director determined that a permit amendment was not
_ necessary to implement a location different from the two presently identified in the Mitigation Plan,
the Executive Director would return the revised Mitigation Plan to the Commission for their
concurrence with the alternative location.
The Commission hereby concurs with the Executive Director's determination that the Mitigation
Plan complies as of this date with the requirements of Special Condition 19 of the Permit, as they
apply to the specific site conditions addressed in the Cease and Desist Order (CCC- 02- CD -05)
issued by the Commission on December 10, 2002. Accordingly, and given that the Executive
Director has determined that a permit amendment is not required to effectuate or implement the
revised Mitigation Plan and associated recommendations /appropriate actions, with respect to .
Cease and Desist Order CCC- 02- CD -05, the Commission finds that the Permittees may
re- commence work at the site consistent with the Mitigation Plan and all other terms and
conditions of the Permit.
III- _
-
''r SEE - MAP "4 :. .t_ITI IETAI CZ 'I
f
-4.---1\ ''..' ''‘' ....' I e
Fo r ... _ ._ . ... tg. 4 ie -
�, ` ) qy °�" '^�� s ryr -•
:2- ' L., ',.. 1.2 ----- ' • 1 �' cue • • •
lit v m •
p � '• ,' _(.. •4111 <\ • y • �`•, F \ % ��4" ''' I
. ` N --
$� 1.2- '.3 ,, IA, -3" "o) 3 '' �� � » 1 ��.,
`a i L6 - _ \ � a � t��^^"" — 1 S — v - �' i
�, �,4 ,r :fG'r ` �; �, • 1•(��• ,h � y �'`_ - - - - t N344 `, �
1 3 _ J� r I
4S
i. 4 • 45 ' �Lr O I $ _ - • N - ,` �'•'\ 1 •
I
EL J X 520 , . , ti t P 1 i • �� , Sl lj ;.`' ( { � , z, 3OIS : : cif?'
O •
° 'r ? i ! tl0 IZ33tlfi,ri5 - - ,J f
. h 5, A _ , NO V3 *fi A 'tY ''��L•'; ' `�
•
+ g 'A Ha rLia k>' + ry �.,r� Je s � yfr � r ∎
�• :1,i �'OHSH Yi/`. Tom'•- fs; 9r
p �y NEPIINIE •
( C , >. a� , . N O NOIYAi - u).5-:( !s ,' r AP ----::'''
I . 61111161N1 ,'.7, ----:_. ,..,..„ ,.. , al , $ Sff S . ��i' I r s, ., ®
, ,4 1....
e J� ,•,,, O d �' .. s +
u., . e 1 I W O 3' i,1/4.51 M ° ,
�- C r � 3' I � /
■
.. k .? P \CA
ti 3 ;
y d
1 e s s o r
I l - I c ) )d � 7 " `c F
� f P '� '4, » .q � � rin )d yf_ o � _ -� _
�' 4 ' - =, n t 'h' to 1IJl5 \ mo N
3 ,,
O P ( Y: . * 1 : am-:„,,- : ,...,:',... ,
1) a ., v t� - .. 1, 5'• _ ,S L
I
R ..;) I, ■• \- - >cfric - - -- -MIT- - ,�7 -',- d� ,,, _ _ _ • - _ _ _
* °•' "' "� > `� Nb�`Zr�`1'� r'y eyo �' COA STAL COMMISSION
�, ;,. ' � 5- 97 367
3j
�' `� m
4 C0410. CO"PlIA tee
Ara Zl 350C "`, fr- ' : .�,,,7 .. �;3j,1,_1g EXHIBIT # ) •
PAGE p, AY .13NI . uTI MINEIV ,;,-,.°:YC:i4;- % - ;
' Y, - h .` .
°/' •' S , 4 •
y A, .. i '_
( $' 102 7. A� % ) d
., AY al sIL134N3B 1 J e:' •.9