Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 3 - THE RIDGE - Coastal Development Permit 08-022 Communications on Public Hearing Item Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016, General Plan Amendment No 08-011, Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007, Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008, Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002, Tentative Tract Map No 17294, Coastal Development Permit No 08-022, Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 THE RIDGE, 22-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 'z Ali 3i� OFFICERS President J Paul Arms Vice President June 24, 2010 Julie Bixby Treasurer Jim Anderson Secretary Mannka Horack BOARD OF DIRECTORS City Council Roberta Armstrong City of Huntington Beach Connie Boardman 2000 Main Street Dr Gerald Chapman Sandy Genis Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dave Hamilton Mike McMahan Joe Shaw Subject RMND for the Ridge (No 2008-016 Marc Stirdivant g `- Laurel Telfer Carrie Thomas Jennifer Thomas Dear Mayor and City Council, Karen Merickel Wood ADVISORY BOARD Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the RECIRCULATED Debbie Cook Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Ridge project(MND No 2008- Diana Casey 016) located on approximately 5 acres of property in the City of Nancy Donaven Norma Gibbs Huntington Beach, Orange County These comments are submitted on Bob Goodrich Paul Horgan behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust along with other submissions Janice Kellogg Eileen Murphy Linda Moulton Patterson The RMND states that according to a report submitted by SRS there have Rochelle Pazanti Louis Robles been over 33 separate archeological investigations of CA-ORA-86, and Jayson Ruth Dr Richard Sax according to the most recent survey in 2001, "No other intact deposits of David Sullivan CA—ORA-86 were found on the project site " (pg 44) Grace Winchell ENDORSEMENTS Did the staff preparing the RMND read the reports9 Were the Amigos de Bolsa Chica researchers looking for any artifacts other than CA-ORA-86? The 33 Aigahta Marine Research Foundation reports should be available to the City Council members as well as the Anza Borrego Foundation public Ballona Wetlands Land Trust City of Huntington Beach For over 20 ears this applicant has stated that the archaeological sites at Friends of Harbors Y pp g Beaches and Parks Bolsa Chica are disturbed and not worthy of further evaluation Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy Ms Wiley(nee DeSautels)has worked as the primary archaeologist on Huntington Beach Tomorrow Orange Coast League of behalf of the corporate landowner(known by several names, currently Women Voters Orange County known as California Coastal Communities—Hearthside Homes) Coastkeeper Peninsula Open Space Trust Sea and Sage Audubon It is helpful to review the historical record on archaeological resources at Sierra CluBolsa Chica Angeelesles Chapter Surfrider Foundation 5200 Warner Avenue - Suite 108 - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 - (714) 846-1001 www bolsachocalandtrust org � av as oaf ae W, k V40 ��q �Nled ®o q► � � aoa ® v.o , � s ' OfD TANto � o e as NOT YES a,N � Ka � l r M TEST(1985) 8 A oa► ®�, '�' rham, 1966) ` f ' v al.o 1 �i1 J ORIGINAL SITE Om 83 BOUNDARY t,1673Ot AR1 TEST(8=4mch,1976)7 JAI ol .�o ao Figure I. Ora-83 Showing Previous Work Areas 5 — Sq ® ` 72 (0ASP,1 (0mmrzsI � I( I )�/ gpq `+ 511-1 I Ch"k1 I11'111 National \Tu.�e 1111 Uf Natival KZSt01y Department of Anthropology NHB 112 October 14 1999 Ms Juana R Mueller Vice-President and Mr Donald E Mueller Chair Governmental Affairs Balsa Chica Land Trust 207 21 st Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ms and Mr Mueller I would like to thank you and Dr Stanford, of our staff for bringing to my attention the circumstances surrounding the archaeological site in Huntington Beach known as ORA 83 It is my understanding that the remaining portions of this site are slated to be destroyed as the result of an impending housing development project I am not sure how much of the site remains but over the last few weeks I have reviewed several key archaeological issues concerning this site As a result I am now convinced that every effort should be made to preserve as much of the site as possible I come to this conclusion because of the site s unique characteristics and the clear importance it had in the ancient history of California ORA 83 is almost certainly the last iemaining major coastal habitation site between Los Angeles and San Diego It was probably such an important place in prehistory because of its location at the coastal end of a natural transportation corridor that stretched out into the Mohave Desert As such the people who lived at ORA 83 most Iikely also traversed a very large inland region From a broader perspective there is much interest uz understanding how people in the past made use of coastal resources to develop complex societies ORA 83 is the Lind of site that could significantly broaden our understanding of human cultural history with implications that extend far beyond California Considering the importance of this site I respectfully urge your local officials to carefully consider what its loss dill mean to California and the Nation I am familiar with the recent and regrettable loss of site ORA 64 The tragedv would only be compounded if we did not do everything in our power to presen e ORA 83 I sincerely hope there is room for remembering the past in our vision of the future Best regards J Daniel Rogers Ph D 1 Head Division of Archaeoloav Phone 202-786-2-)] 1 FAX 202-357-2208 cc Dr Dennis Stanford BRIAN M FAGAN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission March 23 2010 Attn Jennifer VilLasenor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Planning Commissioners As a professional archaeologist and author of a major synthesis of California archaeology I write to strongly oppose the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (No 08-016) for the Ridge Planned_Unit Developm_�ent-The applicants claim that the project will have "potentially significant impact on cultural resources [within the project area] unless mitigation is incorporated " I strongly disagree Archaeological site CA-GRA-86 lies within the project boundary According to the applicant the site has been subjected to 33 different archaeological excavations that include everything from surveys to auguring and five excavation programs Their consultants report that the site "has been modified in shape and size through time" and is often combined with CA-ORA-83 "The Cogged Stone Site" and CA-OR-144 Except for an apparently undisturbed structure, which was recorded and removed, they conclude that it is unlikely that significant deposits would come to light during construction They propose as mitigation measures The attendance of a professional archaeological monitor and Native American monitor during ground disturbing activities, If finds they are made, they specify specific outcomes 170 HOT S PR 1 NGS ROAD SANT{1 BARBARA CALIFORNIA 93 1 08 ( 8 0 5 ) 9 6 9 7 3 3 9 ( & FAX ) � BRIAN @BRIAN FAGAN COM a - In the event that human remains come to light they specify the actions to be taken It should also be noted human remains were found during building construction grading monitoring for the Sandover development project The Sandover project (1999) was built on portions of ORA 86 these discoveries are not mentioned in the peer review letter referred to below The applicants also state that archaeologists from the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee reviewed their May 2009 report This review consists of a single page letter dated December 10, 2009 signed by three professional archaeologists, which states that they have,reviewed the May 2009 report They state that `data recovery has been completed in the only intact part of the site " As far as I can determine, the peer reviewers did not inspect the site in person The entire area covered by CA-ORA-86 and neighboring CA-ORA-83 ' represent virtually the last portions of an enormous series of archaeological sites which have been destroyed by intensive residential development They also represent some of the last surviving remnants of a chronicle of Native American culture, which extends back at least 9,000 years, something that the reviewers fail to mention in their letter, which appears to represent little more than a cursory sign-off on a report where cultural resources will certainly be impacted, even-if--the site-is much disturbed One has serious concerns and questions about the peer-review - Did the committee members visit the site during the excavations How many times and when? - Did they inspect the trench layout the augur work and other aspects of the fieldwork) - Did they inspect the finds from the site in the laboratory) How many times and at what stage in the analysis'> - Were they consulted about the research design and strategies for survey and excavation? - Did they inspect the surviving intact deposits as they were excavated as a basis for certifying along with the excavator that there are no undisturbed deposits left on the site) How many times and when? Have they been consulted about the final report on the excavations and its potential conclusions? 2 7 h i+ i On what basis were the peer reviewers appointed? Were they appointed by the applicant or by independent outsider) Above all why are there no comments on the enormous significance of this site to California history I think it is imperative that these questions be answered before this peer review is taken as legitimately certifying that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is possible CA-ORA-86 was the center of human occupation in the area once neighboring CA-ORA-83 was used less intensively after 2,000 years ago As such it is an important and irreplaceable record of the closing stages of Native American occupation in this region The-peer-review-letter assumes, that there is_no-further-undisturbed-occupation deposit in the site 5o farJ all that-there-is to support-this statement is an"Archaeological-Abstract-" There_is_no-comp_re_hensive final report on th_e investigations that allows dispassionate independent assessment of the claim that there are no survi{ving-undisturbed deposits at the site In fact, the assertion that there are none is so confident that the peer reviewers state that no further mitigation measures other than grading monitoring are required Certainly the rather cursory mitigation measures recommended will not reduce the impact of construction work to an insignificant level Whatever mitigation is undertaken, there will be impact on unique, irreplaceable archaeological resources The area of the site under reference is one of the last surviving remnants of this major archaeological complex­If'� there is even a slight chance that there are human burials or undisturbed_ c depossits-stillin-place,-they-should either be-thoroughly investigated-or left' _intact To_of-fer-a-Negative_DecIa rat ion_for these archaeological deposits _1 L-rwould-be_an inexcusable-tragedy-especially-m the absence of any final report on-the-archaeological-investigations- If the site is to be destroyed through development, the following minimal steps need to be taken in mitigation a The completion of a comprehensive final report on the present excavations and finds also all the investigations over the past three decades which is made available both to professional archaeologists and to the general public through the South Central Coast Information Center 3 ` M I S� Y � b COMPLETE meticulous excavation of the entire archaeological deposits to be affected to record any undisturbed deposits and the finds therein Testing should be done by remote sensing and core boring combined with hand excavation Auguring does not necessarily document undisturbed or disturbed deposit c Completion of a comprehensive final report on these excavations, which record all details of the totally excavated and now destroyed site d All reports and excavations to be subject to review by a peer review committee appointed by an independent body not by the applicant or other interested parties perhaps the Society for Professional Archaeologists Sincerely i ® s BRIAN FAGAN Emeritus Professor of Anthropology University of California, Santa Barbara 4 Significance of ORA 83 Cogged Stone site at Bolsa Chica October 2008 "What made all this possible is that these early people with simple tools such as these(mrnnlh ng slab)were able to subsistence rather well on a mixture of plants, shellfish,fish,bards, and apparently to much lesser degree large mammals such as deer,antelope,and elk.This truly unique adaptation that relied upon foraging and some degree of residential mobility was non-gender specific in which both men and women actively participated in a group effort" "The advantages of this type of existence at this very early period of prehistory are underscored by these(the cogged stones)beautiful albeit somewhat enigmatic artifacts As such the Cogged Stone site represents in many ways the height of achievement and complexity of these early coastal cultures and serves as a constant reminder of the ingenuity and creativity of human behavior no matter what the time period and what the level of technology at hand It is for this reason that the Cogged Stone site should be preserved for future generations of Californians to learn from and appreciate" Richard T Fitzgerald,MA,RPA Senior State Parks Archaeologist Resource Management Section 916-653-7441 June/July 2010 PCAS Newsletter Vol 49 No 6&7 MAY SPEAKER NOTES Bolsa Chica Archaeolozy A Tribute to Hal Eberhart-Part Two The Cozzed Stones Submitted by Megan Galway Dr Nancy Anastasia Wiley continued her presentation _ on the Bolsa Chica Mesa sites with a detailed report on the = —- enigmatic cogged stones Prior to the regular meeting Dr Wiley s associate SRS Photo Director Rezenet Moges � gave a demonstration of current technology being used to -_- document and replicate artifacts—3 D Photosimile photog raphy and 3 D NextEngme replication scanning These methods have been used to document and replicate the -� cogged stones for future study prior to their reburial - k Dr Eberhart published a study of cogged stones in Program Chair Joe Hoduhk with May speaker Dr 1961 and in 1964 he began excavations on the mesa with Nancy Anastasia Wiley CSULA students and PCAS volunteers He was the first to publish a definition of the cogged stone category and an Both Dr Eberhart and Dr Wiley searched existing litera initial typology noting a wide range of sizes and grooves ture for comparative artifacts and the only area they identi The more common stones start out with a disc shape fied was coastal Chile where similar stones were referred to Cogged stones may be from 1 1/4 to 6 inches in diameter 1 as geometric lithics A report published in 1961 on Chilean to 1 '/2 inches thick and have from 3 to 22 grooves In the geometric artifacts described six sites with many straight absence of an obvious utilitarian function and considering sided stones with from three to 24 grooves This area differed many of the stones have been discovered in caches they from Bolsa Chica in that it was a desert environment Further are believed to have had ritual significance Dr Eberhart north in Chile similar stones were found in 1979 in associa defined various types including the fish vertebra which tion with a shell midden that was dated to 10 400 BP has deep pits around the perimeter of the disc that do not Scientific Resource Surveys Inc under the direction of extend to the upper and lower surfaces The land and Dr Wiley has been working on the Bolsa Chica Mesa for groove type is the most common type of cogged stone It 30 years and the great variety of cogged stones has allowed has grooves extending to both upper and lower surfaces Dr Wiley to expand on Dr Eberharts original typology The intermediate type is similar to the fish vertebra The trapezoid form(commonly called a jelly mold)is a bev type but the deep pitted grooves extend to the surfaces eled and furrowed bowl shape sometimes with the larger Within each of these categories cogged stones may have a surface ground out to form an actual bowl There is a flared central pit or rarely be completely perforated spool form with a full lateral groove While variations of the Cogged stones have been found in a limited area from familiar cogged shapes are the most common there are Ventura County to San Diego County and east to Cajon Pass oddities known as sea stars clover leaves and cleats which They are concentrated in the Santa Ana River valley and its are considered to fit in the cogged stone category coastal drainage area Dr Wiley noted that SRS excavated As Dr Wiley had noted last month some of the most 145 cogged stones at ORA 83(the Cogged Stone site) exciting discoveries were made under the old roadbed I, ilk which was already in place prior to the first excavations and had never been studied SRS excavated seven caches each with a number of stones The stones generally had between 8 and 17 grooves and although 16 had no cogs they were Hill [ 11J included in the category as they were found in the caches 1 llr Broken stones were also found and a Chilean researcher _ has suggested they were perhaps ritually killed One stone had been repaired with asphaltum and a number showed - evidence of black and white pigment and red ochre Ex posed strata at the mesa edge included a layer of white pig ment 1 to 2 feet below the soil surface None of the stones showed any evidence of use wear At ORA 83 dates associ r ated with cogged stones range from7400 to 7000 BP An earlier date of 9070 BP has been attributed to bivalve beads 1 from the site but no cogged stones were associated Dates -_ for the Chilean sites with geometric lithics generally range from 9500 to 9000 BP at least 2 000 years older than the Rezenet Moges demonstrating technology for docu cogged stone dates from Bolsa Chica mentmg and replicating artifacts 2 I1ifl? eONSoatnhl?A(AIR OIA1AIRCHAI01o(1 147 SAVED BY I HL WLLL THL KLYSfONF CACHr AT CA-ORA-83, THE COGGED STONE SITE JIFFRFY S COUCH JOAN-NF S COUCH AM)NANC) ANASIASIA WILLY The largcst cache of cogged stones ever dlscovcrcd was uncaithcd in late 2006 while archaeologual grading and monitoiing operations mere under way at CA ORA 83 the fantod togged Stone Site in coastal Orange County (ahfornia This cache along with other cogged stone caches and individual eoggcd stones unuovcied at the sate has allowcd researchers to dcvclop a new eoggcd slonc typologi 4 compaiison of the cog,ed stone artifact to its ncaicst rclativc the discoidal as wellas a eoggcd stone regional distribution study indicates possiblc clan or group identification Inicic stingly this par titular cache which enabled this classification and/unctional czplanatnon of the sc enigmatic coulacts tias actually preseivcd by an oil hell and othu histoinc pet nod disturbances distuibanec which wreaked haioc on the icst of the site Wlulc iescarch n ongoing and cursory the authors thought it impottanl to bring this nnfoimation to light as soon as possible Tin- Si Ci rccovcied materials were then catalogued and subjected to a series of special studies Although analysts of the recovered Site CA ORA 83 (commonly known as the Cogged materials aie still ongoing some pieliminary conclusions Stone Site) consists of a shell madden located on are available for the site, The periods of occupation havc the southeastern tip of Bolsa(hica Mesa in Orange C ounty California(Figure]) Historically the site had been the subject of intensive archaeological investigations that included nine surveys seven sur floe collection events and five excavation programs The first investigations were conducted in the 1960s bv -matcur atchaeologistAlika Het ring and the Pacific, Coast Archaeological Society in conjunction with Professoi Hal Ebcrhart of California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) In the 1970s cultural resource management firm Archaeological Research Inc, conducted initial surveys and piclimmary test programs Scientific Resource Surveys Inc (SRS) then canted out a multi staged data recovery program that spanned the next 30 years From the 1980s onward archival research and reviesAs of historical maps and aciial photogiaph were conducted (Desautels 1982 ; 1 Desautels and Wiley 1981) in addition to the completion of three research designs(Mason 1987 Wiley 1983 2003) Additional fieldwork included furthei site surveys three supplementary surface collections(Wiley and Mason 1986) and five subsurface excavation programs(Wiley and Mason 1986 Wiley 1995) Durmg this period 21 reports were wi itten by SRS including 16 agency reports and five formal publications(see bibliography) A series of technic it repot is are anticipated Aithut a year after completion of the final burial analyses and artifact cataloguing It is anticipated that thesewill include a full volume for publication on the cogged stones and cogged stone caches found at Bolsa Chica During the 1990 1994 and 1999 2002 investigations Oil Bolsa Chica Mesa Scientific Resource Survevs Inc hand excavated large volumes of earth that vv ere subsequently Figure 1 Location of ORA 83 the Cogged Stone site Orange vv atei screened through 1/8 and 1/16 inch mesh screens The County California i ff S( 1 J s C / d% y 9 t W I s t f R s 1 334A B 1 Sim 7 S t 109 0 g (4) V P I s fth S tyJ C If Arch 1 gy D 1 1 2009 pp 14 1N f 148 1 Rom m v(s cr im,So(ih tY toR(Am orzNi4 IRCHM0100 i oL 21 2009 been established initial mfonnation relative to subsistence lacking from ORA 83 and ORA 85 All dates are based on patterns has been formulated and preliminary artifact uncorrected radiocarbon dates and therefore represent periods inventories have been compiled which indicate the diversity of occupation that in all likelihood are chronologically older of activities that occurred at the site Radiocarbon dating has than the dates imply demonstrated that the Caged Stone Site was occupied over a 7 700 yeas period encompassing the entire Millmgstone Period I orizon ana]ntermediatc Horizon and with additional light occupation reaching into the Late Piehistone period The earliest radiocarbon dates from ORA 83 extend back to approximately 9 000 years ago Initially Bolsa Chica The geographic position of ORA 83 was ideal for Mesa appeals to have been recognized as a unique area based prehistoric habitation, as the surrounding bays and ocean on the prominence of the cliff face on the horizon and the offered three distinct marine zones providing ye it round cropping out of geological veins of multi colored pigments marine animal and plant resources Bolsa Chica Mesa Within this time period (IA 113) the shoreline was several also lus within the Orange County Aitesi in Basin miles distant and sandy beaches prevailed around the base of an area of extcnsive groundwater resources containing the mesa Laige colonies of thick walled clam wereprevalent numerous springs and freshwater seeps 'The presence of at the watei s edge including Tivcla sp whose remains fresh water was essential for habitation and also attracted couldbe found in quantity on the mesa at this time and were ten estnal animals and supported land and marsh•vegetation often used for the p oduction of beads It was also at this time Preliminary geological studies have shown that the adjacent that a bivalve bead industry was established at the Cogged Palos Verdes peninsula to the north and the San Joaquin Stone Site At the present time nearly 2 000 beads including Hills to the south could have provided sufficient outcrops of 165 preforms and blanks and numerous micro hthic cores i ocks and minerals foi the manufactui e of stone tools Lithic and di ills have been recover ed from the site deposits Several material in nodule form could also be found in the various poi table hand held bead shaping tables of planes were also drainage branches of the Santa Ana River fbephysiogiaphic identified within the same deposits establishing a bivalve setting of this Site area clearly would have been attractiN e to clam bead pi oduction kit Evidence of a late Pleistocene the initial inhabitants of Orange County since it contained flightless auk Chcndytcs lawzi was also recovered fiom the all of the essential elements for subsistence deposits I his evidence further suggests that the first period of use of the mesa was at a time transitional between the The site itself is situated on a mesa underlain by Pleistocene and Holocene in northern Orange County geologic formations containing pockets of black white and a variety of red pigments This formation crops out on the Period 11 mesa edge and appeals to have provided ample pigments for paints required foi ceremomal activities The presence At approximately 7500 B P an embayment formed of numerous cu culai features that appear to be r emnants of around Bolsa Chrca Mesa effectively changing the shoreline semi subterranean structures at the site specs su sur ace and ocean fauna This resulted in the development of an caches of possible ritual items exoticmatenals anddistinct Ohl clla sp bead industry that replaced the eailier bivalve burial and rebuna areas sti engt eens t e mteipi etation of use clam bead indusb y In addition sea mammals at least as of this mesa foi ceremonial purposes as well as day to day beached animals now became available Exploitation of subsistence activities the pigment veins may have been a normal practice since two deep areas of the site appear to have been formed by prehistoric excavations A cemetery area at the western BoLSA CIIic,A TiMLLINL portion of the site consists of delayed and ieburial interments represented by extremely fragmented human remains A cursory analysis of materials recovered from the These interments form a series of concentric circles or arcs Cogged Stone Site and the Ebcrhait Site (ORA 85 also open along the eastern perimeter of the circle enclosing a on Bolsa Chica Mesa) the Borchard Site (ORA 365) dolphin burial Two female burials contained evidence of the Edwards Hill Burial Sitc (ORA 82) and the Bolsa what may be a tattooing kit and a pigment preparation kit Processing Facility (ORA 88) on Huntington Beach Mesa The site at this time in all likelihood became a traditional has allowed for compilations and preparation of a timeline or source for pigment collection and preparation The Mintual cultural chronology foi the Bolsa Chica Rcgion Collectively significance of the site is exemplified by its use for interring the five sites provide an uninterrupted 8 000 yeas sequence human and of ei animal burials fiom approximately 9 000 years to about 1 000 years ago Seven periods of occupation can be reconstructed from the Manufacture of the famed cogged stone began in this data fi om this composite of sites six of which occur at Bolsa pei rod Sevei al caches and hundreds of single cogged Chrca Mesa and ai e discussed here The seventh period stones wei e located below the surface of ORA 83 during the is the Protohistonc materials from which are essentially SRS final data recovery program from I990 to 2007 It is P4PI160A50WHZRN(All]01bN14ARCHA10LOW 149 postulated that cogged stones were ceremomal talismans and fragmented bowls -ind pestles on ORA 85 (broken by that the inhabitants ctLhed them below ground presumably the plow) Shell whistles and rattles and crystals are also in order to control their power(a theory originally postulated prevalLnt at ORA 85 Occupation on the mesa essentially by Di Keith Dixon Piofessor Emeritus California State shifted to that SAL and away from ORA 83 University Long Beach) A deconstruction of the scatter Of single cogged stone finds may prove that all cogged stones Period VI at this site w erL originally cached since the scatters Lonsists of several IOOSL Glisters During the last period occupation on Bolsa Chrca Mesa again shifted this time fiom ORA 83 and ORA 85 PLnod III to site ORA 86 northeast of ORA 83 Subsurface,remains of a single, large structure with an indooi lined hearth wLrL During Period Ill (approx 6000 5000 B P) thL site identified here Associated with the shncture at a minimum use changLd again building on the previous notion of site was an asphaltum lined pipe plug and ear spool Steatite spintu ility Several Leremonial areas have been identified beads were also manufaLturLd hLrL and at Huntington Beach such as an arLa with numerous talismans for healing Artifacts Mesa ORA 83 has produced only an oLcasional prolectilL recovered from this locale include vai sous channstones a point or bead dating to this period The site received minimal possible rattlesnake talisman an incised tablet pendent a use and may have functioned as a retreat area Use of the donut stone lithie spheroids a painted rock a singing site seems to have come full circle and now apparently rock and several discordals In addition human burials of was a location of personal or small group use perhaps as a extiaoidinary individuals are present including four women questing/power site who may have belonged to a society of undertakers based on then presumed body sti ength and unusual characteristic of filed teeth or patterned tooth wear unique to these HISTORIC DISTURBANC,u HISTORIC SAIVATION individuals Associated with these ceremonial items and special people are what appear to be shallow dance areas SRS Phase One work at ORA 83 included a full site one witfi a post hole in the approximate center and multiple' survey and a comparison and mapping of historic period sma s iuc ures a appear to e uria re a e per aps or features indicated on a series of 26 aerial photographs body preparation Contiguous With these structures are one ranging in time from 1927 to 1977 Field evidence for any more i burials Larger(and proportionately deeper) of the hi stone period features was recorded and an extensive structures are also present which may hate been used for geophysical survey was conducted in order to locate stoi age of ceremonial i egalra for healing and burial activities subsurface anomalies related to the historic era disturbance Although dating squarely within the Millingstone Horizon An auger boring program was then implemented to assess utilitarian objects are present only in small quantities most the subsurface character of the site ind ground truth any functioned as tools for the pi oduction of talismans recorded anomalies Period IV The early series of aerial photographs show that by 1934 prior to World War 11 a deep arroyo with check bndges Use of the Bolsa Chrca region for human interments physically separated the Cogged Stone Site from land to continued in this period but several ai e cached under the west Other sigmfwant features at that time included a thousands of rocs as at ORA 165 a neighboring site on large complex of historic era structures appioximately 200 Huntington Beach MLsa New types of talismans appeared ft north of a Loncrete resen voir that was located on the bluff including phallic pestles of spikes a steatite pelican stone edge ThL northern portion of thL archaeological situ w as notched projectile points vListiS spearhLads and grooved all but destroyed by the construction of this complex ThL reLtangulai beads The structures on Bolsa Chrca Mesa complex itself was then demolished between 1939 and 1947 increased in sizL and may have functioned as sweathouses as a result of construction of facilities related to the Bolsa since both hearths and whole structures from this period atL Chrca Military Reservation A 1947 aerial photograph show s lined with calcium carbonate the World War I1 bunker Battery 128 The bunker is located on the l-ind west of the arroyo and separated by about 500 Period V It from the center of the archaeological site as recorded by amateur Alika Hening in 1963 Underground pipes cables By 4000 B P the western burial al ea at ORA 83 was and pull boxes associated with the bunker are numerous and abandoned and dense shLll deposits suggest that intLnse crisscross thL entire archaeological site fiom east to west shellfish exploitation occurred on a limited portion of the site These utilities also heavily impacted ORA 83 An animal bone concenti ation included thi ee articulated deer vertebrae Mortars and pestles were introduced appearing Extensive agricultural activities were conducted before as a ceremonial pestle a killed mortar (on ORA 81) and and after the war years as evinced by plowing patterns 150 ]A()(HDIV a of HIT SO(IPIYFOR( urroan AAR(x4totoc r f of 91 2009 -ippai ent on the aerial photographs from the 1950s through and di agging could not be conducted at this spot due to the the 1970s and described in 1963 by(ogged Stone collector multitude of surface and subsurface historic period features Ahka Hen mg The concentiation of cogged stones was then left neaily intact and not scattered and dispeiscd throughout the field Unfortunately no artifacts were found in situ all as had bee,done so many times in the past In that sense the having been brought to the surface as a result of the historical disturbance,was its salvation agricultural operations These operations will be desenbcd as they have a dircctbeanng on the mannei and location in which the artifacts were found The Z t I L KLYS1 ONL CAC HE first step in the, process consisted of loosening the earth with a subsoilei which penetrated to depths Piehistoire Feature#84 latci to be dubbed the Keystone of 18 to 24 inches This action dislodged the buried Cache was tecovcred during grading monitoring on artifacts hom their oiigmal positions and ones September 15 2006 in the east central portion of the,site at a loosened the stones cv entually worked their way to depth of approxmnatcly 30 cm below ground surface(Figure the surface during subsequent subsoi ling operations 2a b) it consisted of 17 cogged stalreS and one handstonc The large clumps of earth left by the subsoilei w ere and is thus the largest cogged stone cache yet discovered further reduced in size by a disc cultivator and finally The cache was organized in and ai ound a small mound of do t pulvenzedbytowing a di ag overthe ground after that encapsulated and was topped by a specific set of cogged which the soil was then ready for the planter These stones that were rectanlulai in cross section and exhibited various operations were not only quite seveie in stionl, margin grooves These cogged stones tended to then treatment of the artifacts many of which aie be the smaller ones in the group this central mound was badly broken battered and scarred but it was also then sun ounded with cogged stones that were trapezoidal possible for the dragging opeiation in particular to in cross section Only half of this group was grooved on displace there considerably in positron from then the margins Many of these are so pronounced in their original points of emerl,ence Based on the extensive site damage as shown by the Phase One studies a multi staged investigatory program was designed to thoroughly investigate the Site and locate ; basal u,mnants of the madden deposit if such existed It was postulated that 1) if undisturbed remnants of basal strata were located and 2) if these remnants contained Cultural materials and materials suitablC for dating and 3) if the r cultural materials included cogged stones then it would be possible to establish the nature of the ielationship between the cogged stone artifacts and the site The basic concept underlying the SRS approach was to obtain the maximum amount of information on the cogged stones at this site by attempting to locate undisturbed remnants of the madden and then study these remnants in detail The bras was definitely in favor of disturbance loc ition and thus avoidance r� Almost 15 yeai s latei the Keystone Cache was located _ P dw ing purposeful grading at the site in a setting that belied The 2reviousassumptions Fivemaloi historic penodfeatures surrounded the cache encroaching up to 12 cm fiom the cogged stones and including an 8 in wide concrete Irrigation line 1 in to the west and another 8 in line 2 5 in to the east both at the same depth as the cache a WWiI electrical junction poll box(3 m south) and a metal spike tie down for -tpost in cement(12 em west) An 8 in well(3 in southeast) with footings demelc etc existed at one time probably covering a footprint 6 in square) In reality WWII electrical lines pi e and post War agricultur al water lines and hi stone Figure 2 a(top) an overhead view of the Keystone Cache era oil operations ill converged at the exact location of the after extensive excavation b(bottom) an oblique view of the Keystone Cache Evidently agricultural rippm& disking Keystone Cache I Qrcasor 54)(RHMACALIFORNIA IRCH4LOIO(I l-)I �xv triable soil that excavated easily the top of the mudpack was more difficult to assess in that there were few other soil layer s atop it which feathered to its edges A new excavation methodology which employed - lightly tapping the mudpack layers with a geology hammer provided an acoustical variation of the normal underlying soil from the interred cogged stones and allowed prediction 1 of the location of an additional cogged stone or other artifact Moreover this methodology facilitated the study of the mud packing behavior for the first time in the site s history r To delicately iemovc the soils oveilying the packed mud layer a biological dissecting needle metal awl and Figure 3 Another oblique view of the Keystone Cache Note various gages of bamboo knitting needles w ere utilized It the verticality and provenance of the trapezoidal cogged stone is important to note that no metal msti uments w ere used to atop the center of the cache The white nick on the margin of remove the cogged stones from their cached position rather this cogged stone is the only damage caused by the grading equipment the various bamboo knitting needles were used to gently pry the cogged stones fi om their encasement The mudpack layer withstood the tapping and as an added benefit the tapping trapezoidal crosssection that they resemble Jell O molds gently loosened the mottled overburden soil atop the dark Finally placed atop and in the center of the entue group was gi ey packed mud This was a tremendous aid in helping the one trapezoidal non grooved cogged stone(Figure 3) This mottled softer less consolidated soil break off the plane stone later cataloged as Item#10 was the only item struck by surface of the mudpack layer with slight assistance of the the road grader Furthermore though Item#10 was set on its biological dissection needle and metal awl side the large i oad grader did not topple the artifact from its original placement because approximately three qu irters of the cogged stone was supported and encased on its southern side by a hard dense dark grey mud layer This layer was pinched of lipped up to the tip of the cogged stone (Figure - 4)and provided evidence of how the prehistoric individuals y � who busied the cache deliberately pressed mud onto and ai ound the cogge stones to hold therm in place Furthei excavation of the 1 x 1 in unit revealed moi e of the dense soil vanation which was fashioned into a 2 cm thick layer of hardened dense grey mudpack (Figure 5) , Although the edge of the mudpack was easily revealed in that the soil to the east was a softer aerated punky somewhat Figure 5 An oblique view of the mudpack layer during excavation demonstrating the encasement of cogged stones -x While gingerly prying the mottled less consolidated soil atop the mudpack layer it was observed that the soil actually was laid in alternating layers of orange and brown soil Fhe deepest area of this soil was recorded at 3 cm which happened to be in the approximate center of the mudpack layer (Figure 6) and the shallowest of this soil seemed to feather out to the edges of the mudpack layer tapering in the brown soil layer While studying the color variation of the mottled soil enough of the dense grey mudpack layer was uncovered to unveil that it was not just a mudpack layer but m - rather something more unique and telling of the purpose of Figure 4 The Keystone Cache during excavation to reveal the Keystone Cache the grey mudpack laver was actually the mudpack layer Note how th6 mud was pressed up to the a concave mud basin edges of the cogged stones 132 J I OCFLCIVGS 01 1HP SOUP I Y H R(V 11 0I 14 ARCH410M? Voi 21 2009 _ Finally during SRS ethnographic studies for the Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project a Luiseno Elder had told SRS staff that thL Luiseno would come to thL beaches of Bolsa - )o Chiea when the grunion would run and collect the small z oil rich fish and use it to make ochre They would grind up - s _ pigment ind then grind the fish whole with a handstone-tnd utilize the oily residue as a binder for thL pigment Pi otem residue analysis is still to be conducted on these artifacts but underneath the mottlLd oiange/brown soil slightly embedded atop the grey mud basin was a small fish otolith - (appioximately the size of a grunion) Most of the Keystone cogged stones exhibit residues of either orange ochre white calcium c irbonate asphaltum and/or a combination theieot In addition to the 17 cogged stones onL handstonc Figure 6 Close up oblique view of the mudpack layer during was recovered fiom the cache Also one of the cogged excavation stones was bowl shaped and appears under low power Once the mottled soils wei e i emov ed the full concavity binocular mici oscopic inspection to be coated in i substance of the mud basin was revealed and the natwe of the basin resembling dried blood interestingly in our previous was evident Measuring 2 cm at its eastern edge radiating collections from ORA 83 any antuera returned from Logged off of one of the cogged stones the mud became extremely stones or charms were human while the handstones have all dense and strong at its center point with a thickness of have had fish antisera 5 em Additionally the deliberate interment of five other cogged stones was evident in that the prehistoric behavior - still displayed the paid mud basin carefully lipping up to NOTFS ON CA ORA-83 C OCGFD STONES these cogged stones edges Moi eover in the case of another AND CACHE ANAi YSiS cogged stone 7 cm of the hardened mud basin from the top to bottom encased it completely Extracting this cogged stone Although analysis on this cache as well as other cogged was most difficult but perhaps this purposeful interment stone caches ind individual cogged stones recovered from can be explained by the tact that this artifact which capped the site is still in progress these ale some strong trends the southwestern end of the feature may have been broken emei ging The quantity and in situ recovery of cogged stones prehistorically and then entombed in the dense mud basin found durin3 recent research at ORA 83 have allowed for a This proposition is posited herein because of the fact that more robust analysis and mteipietation of these enigmatic it was not the highest point of the feature and the fact that artifacts although it was securely entombed completely in the mud basin the piece was broken(Figure 7) In addition not all the Typology pieces of this artifact were recov ered from the encapsulated soil or surrounding areas In the past cogged stone typologies revolved around these morphological aspects the presence of grooves whether the grooves could be seen from a plan view of the object and whether the object was perforated(see Ebei hart 1961) These aspects also separated Logged stones from then nearest cousins the discoidals Howevei such typologies aie extremely limited — A simple scattergram (Figure 8) indicatLs that thcrL is a correlation between the circumference of a coggLd stone and the quantity of grooves Cogged stones tLnd to cluster in Lucumference betwetn 220 and 350 rum which bind thL _ number of grooves on thL upper Lnd if the grooves ground into the side are to have any appiLciable depth on avLragL f betwLLrl 11 and 17 grooves However of the 47 cogged stones studied thus tar 34 pLrcent(n=16)have no grooves on their margins at all Thus there seems to be a much mote Figure 7 Broken cogged stone(right)encased in the mudpack power ful argument for the importance not of the number of layer grooves but of then presence/absence f 411 RS ON SOUtHFRN t ALI]ORhIAAR(HALOi O(1 f-)3 Marpi Groove C€ruorby CircumFrance ro s lew IF Ir �h A ut t i V i CIMUM(r rise{min! Figure 8 Scattergram of margin groove count by cogged stone circumference Cogged stones aie defined as much by their material slightly convex margin while cogged stones have either a cross section and manufacture as they at e by inodifications to symmetrical slightly convex margin or a taper ed to strongly then margins Cogged stones have long been known to have taper ed inai gin often resulting in a cogged stone i emmiscent been made of-vesicular basalt tuff and andesite most likely of a Jell O mold from the El Modena Formation (Miocene voleanics)which outcrops in various locations around the Oran&e County While both cogged stones and discoidals were pecked area However the cogged stones recently unearthed have and ground into shape only the cogged stones show apattem also included tonolite rhyolite diorite talc schist sandstone of deliberate repair Many have asphaltum in the breaks and and mostmteiestingly calciurn carbonate concretions nttive a few actually have the patched iock still glued in place to the site These materials stand in contrast to the granites This contrasts strongly with the discoidals in which surface metallolcames and metasedementaiy rocks of the cogged polish continues onto the biokensuifaces Inotherwords no stones newest cousins the discoidals (see collection fiom attempt was made to patch of mend the discoidals instead ORA 64 Macke,et al 1998) the makers continued with the manufacturing process even polishing into the edges of the breaks (see collection from it i s believed by the authors that the material from which ORA 64 Macko et al 1998) the cogged stones are made held as much significance to the prehistoric m-nufacturers of these artifacts as did the Based on these factors a unique andprelimmary cogged shape Thus we posit that the stalk differentiation between stone typology has been developed This typology separates cogged stone,and discoidal materials that Lan be seen in the cogged stones into five typts(Figure 9a e) assemblages at ORA 83 and its sister site ORA 64 may be indicative ofgroup/clan affiliation Occupants of both locales Trapezoidal—Trapezoidal cross sLc,tion sornetimcs had ample access to the various matLnal groups but choose grooved separate materials from which to fashion the artifacts that w ere to become the hallmarks of then sites during the same Jell O mold — Trapezoidal in cross section time per rod thicker than Trapezoidal sometimes groox,ed >70 percent exhibit a pit pecked offset in the,smaller Another typological factor is cross section While face while the other S30 percent have concave, both cogged stones and discoidals ate circular in plan faces view (with some notable exceptions) their cross sections differ Disc,oidals typically exhibit a very symmetrical ID4 lao(frnracsol tHF SOUP(YwJ?CViPOj iAAR(H4LO1061 for )l 2009 / e 1 Ir i P e Bowl—Trapezoidal in cross section no grooves all have a pit pecked offset in the smaller face Top Knot/Spool — cross section is that of a top knot or thread spool no grooves never made of the more frequent vesicular basalt Rectangular — Rectangular in cross section almost always grooved sometimes with pits or 1��, _-,• 1 perforations i These five types can be grouped into two major categories based on shared or similar attributes as well as implied meaning trom their locations within caches The first is the Rectangular group and the second encompasses all other types Some mtei esting observations about these Figure 9 Examples of cogged stone types a trapezoidal b groups include the fact that the larger the cogged stone the Jell O mold c bowl d top knot/spool a rectangular more likely it will have a Jell O mold or trapezoidal cross section PAPFRC oN SouiitLih CAtt ot?NmAxtx4rorocr 1.)5 Cachmg Correlates A handstone in line with Jell O mold and trapezoidal type cogged stones on the penmetei of the Keystone cache The typology offered here is supported by the grouping can arguably associate this ubiquitous artifact type with the pattern found within the Keystone Cache and four other non rectangular cross sectioned types of cogged stones caches from the site There is a distinct spatial separation between Rectangular cogged stones and the others Theie is clearly much more to do with this fascinating Rectangular group members are located in the center of the mateiial We have but scratched the surface with this caches surrounded by members of the other types Theie is presentation but thought it important enough to get this always a trapezoidal and/or Jell O mold atop all the other information out to the community quickly rough spots and cogged stones in the features Appioximately 50 peicent all or more of all Jell O molds have white pigment residue on their larger faces This is the only consistent painting/paint residue pattern among the cogged stones One Jell O mold ACKNOWLEMLMLNPS is always upside down in each cache None of the thiee or more caches contain any odd shaped cogged stones(such as fie me grateful to Hear thstde Homes for their unfailing suppo,t o� those that are stai shaped) research on the(ogged Stone Sitc and input titular thank(FO Ray Pacini Senior Yue PresidcntFd Mountfoid and Project Manager While the significance and meaning of these cachni , Brian Bartlett for thou overtaxed patience as Ke continued to eharacteustics can be debated what is evident is the find the most significant cogged stone caches liteially on the last consistency of the patterns observed At a minimum these day of the planned piojcct Fncouiagenicnt to picpme a digital patterns can help us pi operly associate and type these objects poster lot the 2007 Annual V A Meetings x as continually offered with greater fidelity than ever before by Asst Professor Paul Langenwaltcr H and much needed ii,wsions to this draft were made by Tracy 4tiopcs The keen eyes of Daniel Bonaienture spotted the small knuk on the top cogged CONCi UYONS stone within the cache when less than a centunctet square was exposed by Cheiftan giading equipment And lastly scvctal Native The Cogged Stone Site ORA 83 has undergone American tribal cldus and scholars helped zinde our efforts and extensive scientific investigation for several yeais Only we especially thank Vincent Thane /I tascno/ Daiid Bclardes recently and despite ovei a century of intensive disturbance and Joy cc Pciry[JumunoJ Robeit Doratne[Gabrielino] To all was the single largest tithe of cogged stones revealed In of these and numerous unnamed others without whom this ptojeet fact historic distuibanees unlike the rest of the site may would hasefaikel we are iery apprcclatne have been the only reason that this particular cache was preserved Rrpl-RPNCIS CirFD The Keystone Cache and her sister caches fi om ORA 83 have shed new hbht on a unique artifact type in southern Applegate R B California Anew cogged stone typology has been developed 1979 The Black the Red and the White Duality and Unity based on the spatial an angement and recumng patterning of in the Luiseno Cosmos Journal of California and cogged stones within caches Grooved or tonged margins Great Basin Anthropology 1 71 88 need not the cogged stone make—raw material cross section and salvage, efforts also play an important role in typological assignment and separation fiom their nearest Desautels R J artifactual relative the discoidal 1982 ORA 83 AnArchaeologicalRe evaluation forNational Register Status Scientific Resource Surveys Or inge Encapsulating objects and caches of potential ceremonial California or religious significance with mud slurries now seems to have been an established pattern during the occupation of the Desautels R J and A [Whitney Desautels]Wiley site as witnessed by this cache as well as other caches of 1981 Ora 83 An Archaeological Evaluation for National ceremonial objects from the region dating to this time pciiod Register Status Serentifie Resource Surveys Orange (see Desautels et it 2005) California The consistent use of red/oiange ochre white calcium carbonate pigments and black asphaltum interestingly Desautels Nancy A Henry C Koerper and Jeffrey S con elates with the use of these same color s by the Luiseno Couch and Juaneno to this day(see Applegate 1979) 2005 A Birdstone and Phallic Pestles Cache fi om ORA 36� Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25 109 118 156 1 ROt11D1N(s of mi,So(iFrYroR(AziPoRhL4AR(H4E0J06r V01 71 2009 Eberhart H 1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California American Antiquity 26 361 370 Hcxrmg A K 1968 Surface Collections from Oia 83 a Cogged Stone Site at Bolsa Chica Orange County California Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quai tei ly 4(3)3 38 M teko M E with Jeffrey S Couch Owen K Davis Hemy C Koerper Paul E Langenwalter II and Glynn S Russell 1998 Executive Sumrnary of Mitigation Measures Implemented Pun scant to the Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter North Rcstdcntial Development Macko Inc Submitted to Irvine Community Development Company Copies available from South Central Coastal Information Center DepartmentofAnthropology CallformaState Univei sity Fuller ton Mason Roger D 1987 Research Design foi Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sitcs in Northern Orangc Countv California Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Wiley Nancy Anastasia[Desautels] 2003 The Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Vol 1 Research Design and Iniphinentation Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Wiley N A [Whitney Desautels] 1983 Archaeological Rescarch Design ORA 83 The Cogged Stonc Sitc Final Research and Salvage Program Scientific Resource Surveys Orange C atiforma 1995 Site Boundaries OR9 83 The Cogged Stone Site Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Wilev N A [Whitney Desautels] and Roger D Mason 1986 Archaeological Evaluation of ORA 83 The Coggi d Stone Site on Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County California Scientific Resource Surveys Orange California Jun 28 2010 11 50AM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 P 1 2601 Ocean Park Blvd 4205 o a Santa Monlos CA 90405 Phone (310)31443040 wd 5 Few(310)314 5050 Fwc Teo Joan Flynn, City Clerk From Michelle Black Fwc (714)374-1557 Pages 37 Phana (714)53fl-5227 Dow June 28 2010 July 6 City Coundl Meeting Jennifer Planning and Building me or- App"of Ttw Rldge Approval Fax (714)374-1640 ❑Urgen2 ❑For Fb&Wew ❑PIess•comment ❑ Plisse Ropoy ❑ Pleas®Rewole Good maming/aft micron Enclosed please W a letter sent on behalf of the Boise Chaca Land Trust, regarding the July 8 City Councal Hearing on the appeal of The Rdge If your email service returns please call me at (310)314-8040 extension 6 or email me at mnbtl4lcbcsarthl9 w.corn. and I will small you the(clearer) pdf version of the letter and attachment Thank you, Michelle Black Jun 28 2010 11 50nM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CnRSTENS 3103148050 p Z CHATTEN-BROWN & CAS. TENS EMAIL TELEPHONE (310)314 8040 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD MTB®CBCEARTHLAW CUM FACSIMILE (310)314 $050 SUM 201 SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90405 www heearthlaw-com ry C n June 28, 2010 a City Council of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Maine Street Huntington 13cach, CA 92648-2763Cil " Re Recirculated Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 (The Ridge), Appeal of approval of a 22-unit housing development at the corner of Bolsa Cluca Street and Los Patos Avenue Dear Honorable Council Members We submit these comments on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BCLT) regarding its appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of"The Ridge," a housing development on the Bolsa Cluca mesa The project and its recmulated mitigated negative declaration (RANT, or MND) were approved by the Planning and Building Comnussion on April 27, 2010, over the vociferous opposition of BCLT and the community The project site lies within the historic Bolsa Chica wetlands, on land designated for an open space park The mission of BCLT is to acquire, restore and preserve the entire 1,700 acres of the mesa, lowlands and wetlands of the Bolsa Cluca wetlands, and to educate the public about this natural treasure Located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Pintos Aveme, The Ridge would contain 22 single-family homes arranged around a 5,776 square foot common area Homes would contain 4-5 bedrooms and 2-3 car garages Since the general plan and local coastal program (LCP) designate the land as "OS-P" (open space park)and because the project site is too small to accommodate City zoning requirements for all 22 units proposed, the project requires many discretionary approvals, including ® General Plan Amendment, changing the site's land use designation from Open Space-Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density(RL), ® Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, changing the site's LUP designation from Open Space-Park(OS-P) to Residential Low Density(RL) and containing zoning neap and text amendments, -1. Jun 28 2010 11 50AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 3 Bolsa C1uca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 2 • Zoning Map Annendmeal, changing the site's zoning designation from Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay(RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density-Coastal Zone Overlay(RL-CZ), • Amendment to Chapter 210 12 of the Zoning Code to allow tandem parking, street parking, and to "clarify the requirement for a provision of a public benefit", • Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 5-acre lot into 22 single-family parcels and 9 lettered lots, • Coastal Development Permit to allow subdivision and construction in the coastal zone, and • Conditional Use Permit to allow construction on a site with exceeding a 3-foot grade differentgal The City's approval of The Midge, based on a mitigated negative declaration instead of an EIR,violates the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) CEQA was enacted to ensure environmental protection and encourage goverm cntal transparency (Citizens of Goleta Valley v Rd 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 consequences before a project is approved,to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of Sari Francisco v Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal 3rd 376, 392 ) Pursuant to CEQA, an EIR must be prepared when substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project will have a significant impact on the environment In the case of The Ridge,the project will have significant impacts on biological resources, including on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and on special status plants and animals, on cultural resources buried in the CA- ORA-83 and CA-ORA-86 archaeological sites, and on lased use, aesthetics, parking, air quality, climate change, hydrology, and water quality 'Thus, an EIR is required The MND improperly defers the analysis and mitigation of some environmental impacts until after project approval and fails to ensure that r nitigation will occur,especially in light of the developer's history of noncompliance with mitigation measures for similar area projects In order to satisfy CEQA and protect the wetlands, BCLT respectfully requests that the City reject the project until after preparation and circulation of a legally adequate EIR Moreover, The Ridge would degrade;Coastal Commission-designated environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), in violation of the California Coastal Act Finally, the project violates the State Planning and Zoning Law, winch prohibits approval of tentative maps and conditional use permits that are inconsistent with a city's general plan _2- Jun 28 2010 11 50AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 4 Bolsa Ch1ca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 3 Due to the length of arts letter, we provide the following table of contents Page No I An EIR is Required Because Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair A.rguinent that The Ridge Will Have Significant Impacts on the Environment 4 A The Fair Argument Standard 4 ]B Biological Resources 5 1 Location on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Near the Ecological Reserve 5 2 Special Status Bird and Butterfly Species Have Been Found On the Site 6 3 Southern Tarplant Occurs on Similar, Nearby Properties 7 4 Eucalyptus Grove ESHA Degradation Would be a Significant Impact 8 5 Harm to Raptors Would Occur from Removal of a Foraging Resource 9 6 Drainage into Wetlands 11 7 Pet Impacts 11 S Noise 11 9 Light 12 10 Other Biological Impacts 12 C Cultural Resources 12 D Aesthetic Resources 15 E Land Use Impacts 15 1 The Project is Incompatible with the General Plan, LCP, and Zoning Map 15 2 The Public Benefits Allowing a PUD are Illusory 16 3 The Project Conflicts with the Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan 17 4 The Project is Inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan 17 5 The Project is Inconsistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plan 17 .3. Jun 28 2010 11 50RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 5 13019a Chtca,Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 4 b The Project is Prolublted by LCP Bluff Protections 18 7 The Project Will Have Cumulative Immpacts on Land Use 18 F Parking Impacts 18 G ,fir Quality and Climate Change Impacts 19 H hydrology and Water Quality Impacts 20 I Cumulative Impacts 20 II The NWD Defers Analysis of Potentially Significant Impacts 21 A Biological Resources 21 B Cultural Resources 21 III The MND Contains Inadequate Mitigation Measures 21 IV Hearthside Has a History of Noncompliance with Mitigation Measures 23 V Project Approval Violates the California Coastal Act Because it Will Significantly Degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas 24 VI Project Approval Violates the State Plaranng and Zoning Law Because it is Inconsistent with the General Plan 24 CONCLUSION 25 I An EIR is Required Became Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that The Ridge Will Have Significant Impacts on the Environment As discussed below and in the other letters subrnrtted by BCLT and community members on the recirculated MND, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that The Ridge will have significant impacts on biological resources, including species of concern and ESHA,Cultural resources, air quality, aesthetic resources, land use, and hydrology and water quality An EIR is required A. The Fur Argument Standard An agency must prepare an EIR instead of an MNI) whenever a proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment (Pub Res Code § 21082 2(d) ["If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared "] ) An agency's decision to or not to prepare an EIR is judged by the "fair argument" standard of review Under this standard, an EIR must be prepared "whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may -4- Jun 28 2010 11 50RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 P g Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 5 have significant environmental impact" (No Oil Inc v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal 3d 68, 75,Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal 4th 1112, 1123 ) The fair argument standard is a"low threshold" test for requiring the preparation of an EIR (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal 3d 68, 84 ) The City must prepare an EIR instead of an MND if there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion (Pub Res Code § 21151(a), Guidelines § 15064(f)(1)-(2),No Oil, supra, 13 Cal 3d 68, 75,Architectural Heritage Assn , supra, 122 Cal App 4th at 1109 ) It is the function of an EIR,not a negative declaration, to resolve these conflicting claims (See No Oil, supra 13 Cal 3d at p 85 ) The requirement for an EIR cannot be waived merely because additional studies are required, in fact an agency's lack of investigation "may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences " (Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal App 3d 296, 311 ) An MND is proper only if protect revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects "to a pomt where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence an light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised,may have a significant effect on the environment" (Pub Res Code §§ 21064 5, 21080(c)(2), see also Mejia v City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal App 4th 322, 331 ) There is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the Ridge may have significant adverse impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, land use, and air quality Therefore, preparation, circulation, and certification of an EIR are required before the City could approve construction of The Ridge B Biological Resources. The recirculated MND admits that The Ridge may have significant impacts on biological resources, however, the MND also concludes that these impacts are fully mitigable (h1ND p 29 ) Although the record supports the NIND's conclusion that impacts may be slgmfieant, it does not support its claims of complete mitigation 1 Location on the Bolsa Cluca Mesa and Near the Boba Chica Ecological Reserve The MND does not address the residential development's proxinuty to the Bolsa -5- Jun 28 2010 11 51RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CRRSTENS 3103148050 p 7 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 6 Chiea Ecological Reserve or the project site's history as part of the wetland ecosystem An MND must discuss a project"s potential for adverse Impacts on "any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community " (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G ) This deficiency is most apparent in the hVIND's abbreviated mention of hydrology and 1% complete failure to address the unpacts that the project's introduction of invasive plant species wall have on the wetlands Further, the City's piecemeal treatment of the various developments under review on the mesa prevents the MND from analyzing the cumulative loss of open space, valuable habitat, and historic wetlands CEQA review is meant to ensure that "environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences" (Arviv Enterprises, Inc v South Valley Area Planning Com (2002) 101 Cal App 4th 1333, 1346, quoting Bozung v Local Agency Formation Com (1975) 13 Cal 3d 263, 283-284) 2 Special Stags Bird and Butterfly Species Have Been Found on the Project Site Replacement of the existing field with homes will impact special status bird and butterfly species that Inhabit the project site, a significant unpact on biological resources that must be analyzed and mitigated in a full EIR (See, CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. asking whether a project will have a substantial adverse effect "either directly or through habitat modifications"on "any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species" ) Although the MND fails to analyze impacts to special status bird and butterfly species, it does confirm that these species are present (A4ND p 32 ) After stating that special status species "have been found on the proj cot site," the MND concludes, "Most of the special-status species have a low probability of occurring on the project site " (MND p 32 ) As a result,the MND does not consider the project's habitat destruction impacts on these species to be sigznficant Curiously,the MM never names the special status species at issue The MND's conclusion of"no impact" is refuted by substantial evidence in the record, the MND's disclosure that special status species are present If these species are known to occur, their presence is not a matter of probability, but of certainty An envirornriental document that contains statements that are "at best confusing and at worse self-contradictory" on key issues is inadequate (San Joaquin Raptor Center v County ofMerced(2007) 149 Cal App 4th 645, 656 fn 4 ) An EIR must be prepared that not only naives the special status species that have been found on- site, but that also analyzes and mitigates the project's unpacts to the extent feasible The City must include this information m the EIR itself Burying information in an appendix has also been found to frustrate the legally required informational purposes of an EIR (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal App 4th 715, 723 ) -6- Jun 28 2010 11 51AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p a Bolsa Cluca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 7 The 1ViND also claims that site "does not contain any environmentally sensitive habitat area,wetlands, or habitat of significant value" in order to conclude that impacts to these special status species will be nminal (NfND p 32 ) Agaui, if the bird and butterfly species are known to occur on the project site,the conversion of the site to residences wrn cause impacts that roust be analyzed in an F R Additionally, ECI.T has submitted a memorandum of Coastal Conmussion ecologist Dr Dixon, describing the adjacent eucalyptus grove ESHA as white-tailed late habitat The white-tailed kite 1s a species of special concern in California Thus, the N4ND itself provides substantial evidence that a fair argument exists that impacts to special status species will occur if the site's habitat is destroyed An EIR roust be prepared 3 Southern Tatplant Occurs on Siniffer,Nearby Properties The MND fails to account for impacts on the southern tarplant, a special status plant species, if the site is developed (1V4ND p 31 ) The NfND discloses that tarplant is found on contiguous property and that it prefers disturbed growing conditions, such as those contained on the project site (MND p 31 ) Even so, the City's consultants failed to perform a survey during the southem tarplant growing season Instead, the biological assessment defers deteriu nation of whether tarplant occurs on-site to mitigation measure BIO-1, a post-approval but pre-construction survey The presence or absence of a special status species should be disclosed to decision makers prior to project approval, not left in the hands of a developer after the commencement of construction The MND's practice is inconsistent month one of CEQA's primary goals, the disclosure of a project's adverse environmental impacts before project approval (Laurel Freights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco v Regents of the University of Cal fornza(1988) 47 Cal 3rd 376, 392 } The FIND should also have apprised decision makers of the regular herbicide applications to the property,which may explain why tarplant is not found on-site to the same extent as it is on the Goodell property to the south,or the Shea property to the east As tarplant extent has increased annually on these properties, it is likely that colonization will occur on the project site if it has not already An EIR is required to study the impacts of the loss of suitable habitat for the tarplant, even if the project site is not current habitat The MND fails to disclose another threat to southern tarplant populations By redirecting runoff away from the Shea parcel to the cast and dewatering lands around The Ridge, the project may unpair the survival of southern tarplant on other parcels by reducing the water it receives Despite the presence of southern tarplant in the area and the generally disturbed condition of the project site and of the remaining lands stretching toward the Bolsa Chica -7- Jun 28 2010 11 51AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 N 9 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 8 Ecological Reserve, the NIND fails to discuss the impacts that The Ridge may have with regard to invasive species Invasive species are a grave threat to recovering wildlands that should have been discussed and mitigated in the MIND An EIR prepared for Theh Ridge must discuss the project's potential to introduce invasive species as well as mitigation strategies A mitigation measure luniti.ng project landscaping to native species is one example 4 Eucalyptus Grove ESHA Degradation Is a Significant Environmental Impact The project site lies adjacent to property owned by Shea HD mes that is also slated for residential development The Coastal Cormnission has designated the eucalyptus grove between these proposed housing developments environmentally sensitive habitat area(ESHA), pursuant to the California Coastal Act, Pub Res Code § 30107 5, for its importance as a raptor foraging habitat The Coastal Act prohibits actions on land adjacent to ESHA which "significantly degrade" ESHA (Pub Res Code 30240(b) ) Degradation of ESHA is also a sigtuficant inmpact on biological resources under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G [CEQA requires analysis of substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural coii=unities identified in local or regional plans] ) The project's placement of homes witlun 160-250 feet(50-80 meters) of the Eucalyptus grove will significantly degrade the ESHA by reducing its use by raptors, resulting in violation of both the Coastal Act and CEQA Instead of the 50 meters sought by the developer, the City should require a buffer of at least 100 meters, or at least the variable buffer(297 to 650 feet in width) that the City required of the adjacent Shea Parkside development The RMND downplays the impacts that a 50 meter buffer will have on the ESHA, asserting that raptors acclimate readily to residential development and urbanization Therefore, according to the MND, the nearby placement of homes will not impact the ESHA's habitat value These claims are easily refuted by scientific evidence contained m the record, most notably Coastal Commission staff ecologist Dr Dixon's staff report, a scientific paper authored by Dr Findlay, and guidance by CDFG and US]FWS that recommends buffers of at least 100 meters to protect ESHA from degradation Dr Dixon defended larger, 100 meter buffers in a memorandums describing about the eastern side of the same eucalyptus grove ESHA [D]eveloprment closer than 100 meters will reduce the utility for nesting raptors of these portions of ESHA that are closest to the development footprint and therefore that a reduced buffer would violate Section -8- Jun 28 2010 11 52AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 10 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 9 30240(b) of the Coastal Act because the portions of ESHA nearest the development would be significantly degraded and no longer suitable for nesting by some of the raptor species at Bolsa Chica (Coastal Commission Staff Memoranduin, Exh LLL, p 14 attached to letters of M Bixby) The A4ND,justifies use of a narrow buffer with the site's disturbed nature, a justification that is also easily refuted with substantial evidence contained in the record In response to this claim,Dr Dixon stated, "If anything,this circumstance should be recognized as a reason to increase the amount of protection for the portions of ESHA that are still adjacent to open space If disturbance is allowed close to the trees on the remaining sides of the grove, the utility of the habitat to raptors will be severely compromised" (Exh LLL,p 14, emphasis added) Thus, a fair argument that a buffer of at least 100 meters is required to protect raptor species is supported by substantial evidence The papers and Coastal Coninussion reports for similar developments on adjacent parcels near the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve provide substantial evidence of a fair argument tliat placement of homes within 50 meters of eucalyptus grove ESHA will cause significant degradation of the ESHA They also provide evidence of a disagreement between experts that weighs in favor of requiring an EIR (City of'Livermore v Local Agency Formation Cosa (1986) 184 Cal App 3d 531, 541-542, City of Cannel-by-the- Sea v Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal App 3d 229) Tlus disagreement between experts is particularly noteworthy with regard to Dr Dixon's explicit rejection of LSA's raptor fluslung methodology and assumptions about appropriate buffer widths Significant degradation of ESHA represents a sigmficatnt adverse environmental impact under CEQA that requires preparation of an EIR 5 Berm to Raptors Would Occur from Removal of a Foraging Resource Harm to the eucalyptus grove ESHA will adversely affect the raptors for which the ESHA was set aside Harm to raptor populations could come from increased noise in the area, nighttime lighting, infringing cat populations, as well as from harm to the habitat quality of the ESHA itself due to inadequate buffers Grading and other activities will occur at elevations at or exceeding the eucalyptus grove treetops Disturbances that lower the height of the treetops relative to surrounding areas will reduce the utility of these treetops for foraging raptors Dr Dixon's above-mcntioncd memorandum also provides substantial evidence of a fair argument that hams to ESHA will result in harm to raptors -9 Jun 28 2010 11 52AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 11 Bolsa Chnca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 10 His memorandum notes that the agricultural field adjacent to the Heaithside property "is a significant foraging resource for several raptor species,including the white-tailed late, which is a California `fully-protected species" (Exh LLL, p 11 ) The raptors use the project site in the same way The importance of thus site to foraging raptors was recognized by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Bolsa Chwa Land Trust v Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal App 4th 493, 506 The ESHA identification was based on the fact the grove provided the only significant locally available roosting and,nesting habitat for birds of prey (raptors) in the Bolsa Chica area At least 11 species of raptors have been identified as utilizing the site, including the white-tailed kite, marsh hawk, sharp skinned hawk, Cooper's hawk and osprey According to Com=ssion, a number of the raptors are dependent upon the adjacent lowland wetlands for food and the eucalyptus grove provides an ideal nearby lookout location as well as a refuge and nesting site Removal of foraging resources will cause direct harm to raptors, a significant environmental impact that must be discussed in an EIR This harm is even greater when the loss of this field is considered along with the losses of the Shea Parkside, Brightwater, Goodell and other area open spaces that have been or are in the process of development The LSA biological assessment also ignores the cumulative impacts of human residence on raptors Dr Dixon chsputes the methodology of the LSA flushing studies that predict little disturbance to raptors from the placement of human residences He notes that"many birds that could potentially use the ESHA may be excluded by human disturbance" entirely (Exh LLL, p 13 ) The LSA studies focused on species that are already habituated to humans, not those that may be flee increased human activity Based on the disputed flushing studies, the MND states that impacts of human habitation will be insignificant because raptors will habituate to the "stationary human_presence associated with residences more so than to hikers, birdwatchers" and others who already use the site The MND, however, fails to analyze the cumulative impacts in tlus area because hikers and birdwatchers will remain Residential use of the site will be additive and will be louder and more disturbing to raptor's Neglected in the MIND,this Impact must be addressed in a frill EIR The MND also uses these flushing studies and the existing site disturbance to ,justify smaller buffers around the eucalyptus grove ESHA than were required for the Shea Parkside development Dr Dixon supports a larger buffer, such as the minimum 297 foot buffer at Shea Parkside because more disturbance justifies a larger buffer to protect habitat and raptors Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the development -10- Jun 28 2010 11 52AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 12 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 11 will harm raptors and that a larger buffer should be required The findings of the Coastal Commission staff ecologist are expert opinions on the issues of buffer size and harm to raptors These findings are buttressed by the larger buffer that was required for the Shea Parkslde development, which concerns the same ESHA Although m an EIR, the City might be Justified in rejecting conflicting findings, this is not the case in an MND wherein substantial evidence of a significant impact must be addressed in an EIR (City of Livermore, supra., 541-542 ) The City cannot justify the conclusion that development on the west of this ESHA should have a smaller buffer than what was required to the east 6 Drainage into Wetlands As detailed below under hydrology,the MND fails to ensure that reduction in water flow to the Shea.Parkside parcel will not degrade existing wetlands there It does not address the dewatenng of ad,acent parcels at all Additionally,the MND does not address concerns that contamination will be removed from discharges the project's direct discharges into the Bolsa Cluca Ecological Reserve 7 Pet Impacts The MND provides inadequate treatment of pet unpacts on wildlife and habitat that must be remedied in an EIR The LSA Bio assessment(p 13) suggests that 4 to 8 foot masonry walls and an 8 foot tall wrought iron fence on the side of the project bordering the ESHA will prevent cat access to wetlands These fences are not tall enough Moreover, cats easily circumvent vertical bar wrought iron fences Mark Bixby of BUT submitted a photo of a cat prowling the Eucalyptus ESHA in 2005, so the impacts of cats on the wetlands, and especially on bird populations,will be not only direct but cumulative The MND also fails to assess the potential impacts that human habituation and pets will have on coyote populations Orange County titles are already engaged in coyote reduction programs, including "trap and kill"programs, so these impacts are foreseeable and must be discussed ("Residents Worlang to Solve Coyote Problem, Orange County Register, June 18, 2010, available at htt_p //www ocregister.com/news/chayez-254110- covotes-residents.html, herein incorporated} g Noise The MND fails to address the impacts of residential noise on species of wildlife species Impacts may he greatest on species that rely on hearing to forage -11- Jun 28 2010 11 53AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 13 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 12 9 Light The MND downplays the potentially significant impacts of nlghttlme lighting because the applicant has proposed use of"dark sky" lighting to protect species and the viability of the wetlands This "dark sky" lighting needs to be enforceable as a mitigation measure or prof ect design feature to provide assurance that it will be implemented The same developer's Brightwater project to the west is supposed to use"dark sky" lighting, but does not In some common areas, landscaping lights point skyward., and increases the existing skyglow problem The project may also have lighting impacts because ESHA treetops will be at building pad height after grading is complete Even if lights are pointed down, they will affect the ESHA In addition to spotlighting their position for potential prey, nighttime lights can interfere with raptor vision Spice an applicant's past compliance history can be used to evaluate potential for significant impacts (see, Laurel Heights, infra) and since lay testimony of this compliance history can provide substantial evidence (Mejia v City of'Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal App 4th 322, 339),this impact must be addressed m more detail in an EIR 10. Other BiLological Impacts Other biological thresholds listed in Appendix G to the CEQA guidelines may be affected by the project These include adverse impacts on federally protected wetlands, if surrounding parcels are dewatered by The Ridge's drainage plan or if runoff into the reserve is not adequately treated, impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, and impacts on conservation plans C Cultural Resources A major flaw of the MND is its near-dismissal of the project site's cultural resources, without adequate investigation Contrary to the MND's conclusions, the project site has contained and may continue to contain important archaeological resources, and an EIR is required. The Bolsa Cluca Mesa has been inhabited for at least 9,000 years It is though that the site was particularly valuable due to its abundance of shellfish (used for bead production) and its geological veins of multicolored pigments (Jeffrey S Couch, Joanne S Couch, and Nancy Anastasia Wiley, "Saved by the Well The Keystone Cache at CA- ORA-83, The Cogged Stone Site "Papers on Southern CalVornia Archaeology, Volume 21, 2009,pp 147-156, enclosed as Attachment 1 ) Over time, the project site has served as an important ceremonial site, a human and anneal burial ground, and,most -12 Jun 28 2010 11 53AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 14 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 13 intriguingly, a key cogged stone manufacturing site (Ibid) According to "Saved By the Well,"research is "ongoing" (Id at 147 ) No final report has been subnutted to close investigation of the project location, which contains important archaeological saes, including CA-ORA-86 and CA-ORA-83, which extends east across Bolsa Chica street CA-ORA-86 has contained artifacts dating back 9,000 years CA-ORA-83 is listed by the Native American Heritage Conn ussion registry of saorcd sites and was recently determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places Pursuant to CEQA, a project will have a significant impact on the environment, and will require preparation of an EIR, if it may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource (Pub Res Code § 21084 1 ) Any resource determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Histonc Resources is a historic resource These archaeological sites, and several others located on the mesa, include the famous cogged stone and water tower sites Prehistoric buildings and ceremonial sites have been unearthed Adjacent development sites have also been determined to be ancient Native American burial grounds One hundred seventy-four human remains were found at the nearby Brightwater site to the west,part of CA-ORA-83 The Brightwater development was likely a prehistoric cemetery The MND states that site disturbance has likely destroyed any remaining artifacts, so the site's archaeological value is Imuted This is not necessarily true, as CA-ORA-83 had also been subjected to years of intense agriculture,plowing, and disking, before the discovery of the cogged stone cache On the Brightwater site alone, the following materials have been recovered • 87 human remains that need to be reburied • 83 prehistoric features that were uncovered with the burials • 4,217 artifacts found during grading monitoring on ORA 83 • 1,622 artifacts found during the grading monitoring at ORA 85 • There are approximately 2,000 boxes of materials containing over 100,000 artifacts in total (November 2007 internal memo from Nancy De Sautels to Ed Mountfbrd, enclosed with F Dorgan letter) The magnitude of the importance of the Bolsa Chica archeological sites was not known to the City or to the Coastal Commission at the trine of the Bnghtwater approval and was not takers into account during the approval of the project or during the formulation of its mitigation measures The MND concludes that potentially significant impacts on cultural resources are frilly mitigable, based on a one page "abstract" and a one-page peer review letter from the -13- Jun 28 2010 11 53RM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 15 B olsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 14 developer's interests This abstract is purportedly based on 33 documents that were not available during the comment period and which may not have been available to the City The MND assumes that all reinamirig artifacts were removed in 2001 No recent site investigation was done, even though many artifacts and human remains have been discovered on neighbon g sites since 2001, notwithstanding prior investigations and recovery operations on those sites The keystone cache of cogged stones was not discovered at CA-ORA-83 until September 2006, after SRS had completed its site mvestigation As admitted in "Saved By the Well,"the keystone cache was found"in a setting that belied the previous assumptions " (at p 150 ) "Only recently, and despite over a century of intensive disturbance, was the single largest cache of cogged stones revealed " (at p 155 ) The peer review letter and the "abstract"have been challenged by Dr Brian Fagan, an archeologist teaching at LTC Santa Barbara Dr Fagan is an expert in archeology and anthropology, and his assertions contradicting those of the MND weigh in favor of E1R preparation The conclusions of the one-page abstract are also suspect because the author has contradicted them in recent writings The recent paper, "Saved By the Well The Keystone Cache at CA-012A-53, 'The Cogged Stone Site" that highlights the archaeological sigmficance of the Bolsa Cluca Mesa was co-authored by Nancy Wiley (also known as Nancy de Sautels) (See Attachment 1 ) The paper notes, "The Keystone Cache and her sister caches from ORA-83 have shed new light on a umque artifact type in southern California A new cogged stone typology has been developed " (See Attachment 1, at p 155 ) If even the author of the abstract believes the site has cultural and archaeological significance and believes that artifacts remain to be found,a fair argument exists that the project will have significant u apacts on cultural resources Also contrary to the findings of the abstract,the paper notes that research is "ongoing " (See Attachment 1, p 147, 152 ) The MND's level of review falls below the Coastal Commission's expectations, contained in a letter,dated October 14, 2009 "The May 2009 Archaeological Report prepared by SRS should be subject to peer review as well as review by appropriate Native American groups that are likely descendants of Native Americans that previously occupied the area The resulting continents should be considered in the entitlement process The land use designation,zoning, and any future development of the site should take these comments winder consideration and make modifications accordingly" This does not appear to have occurred The requirement for an EIR cannot be waived merely because additional studies are required, in fact an agency's lack of investigation "may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences " -14- Jun 28 2010 11 54AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 16 Bolsa Cluca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 15 (Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal App 3d 296, 311 ) The project site is a hotbed of archaeological discovery and is contiguous with at least one Native American burial ground A full EIR is required,the conclusions of which should be based on an m- depth analysis of the project site and history of archaeological discovery and recovery on the mesa D Aesthetic Impacts. The Bolsa.Clxca �Aesa bluffs are identified as a visual resource in the Coastal Element,w}uch calls for the preservation of public views to and from the slope (HIND p 42 ) The Ridge site is described as follows The northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve includes bluffs that rise to an upland area known as the Bolsa Cluca Mesa These bluffs are primarily under the County's junsdiction (only a small part of the bluff lies in the City) but are within the City's Sphere of Influence for potential future annexation The mesas constitute a sign flcaant scenic resource within the City's Coastal Zone (Coasts➢. Element p IV-C-65 ) Grading to level the project site "would pennanetitly alter the existing visual environment of the project site " (1llIIVD p 42 ) Therefore, significant aesthetic impacts are inevitable and should have been analyzed in an EIR Public views from the thirty foot wide city parcel will also be lost and replaced with views of suburban housing if the project site's existing open space is lost Current views span from the eastern bluffs at Ellis south to the federal restoration inlet Other public views from the city parcel will be replaced with solid masonry walls Instead of increasing coastal access, The Ridge will out off views of coastal resources (See, M Bixby letter of April 27, 2010 containing photos of views ) Although these view corridors are narrow due to topography and the location of the eucalyptus grove ESHA, they should have been acknowledged in the RAND View losses will be both direct and cumulative as other open space on the mesa is converted to residential development at Shea Parkside and on the Goodell property E. Land Use Impacts I. The Project u Incompatible with the General Plan, LCP, anal Zoning Map Although The Ridge project requires amendments to every land use plan governing -15- Jun 28 2010 11 54RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 17 Bolsa Chica land Trust ,tune 28, 2010 Page 16 the project site, the MND claims that Impacts on land use and planning will be less than significant The fact that the project conflicts with existing land use plans may provide evidence that The Midge would have significant impacts on land use ni the City of Huntington Beach, even if amendments and variances are properly sought (Practice Under the Enviromnental Quality Act,Kosta and Zischke pp 611-612 (2006) ) As currently proposed, The Midge is incompatible with the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan, certified Local Coastal Program, Zoning Map, and well as with the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances These inconsistencies are summarized below ® The site's general plan land use designation is currently Open Space-Park(OS-P), which does not allow residential development • The Local Coastal Program LUP designates the site as Open Space-Park(OS-P) o The City's Zoning Map designates the site as Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay(RA-CZ) Housing of the sought density is not permitted. ® The Zoning Code does not allow tandem parking or the counting of driveway and street spaces toward a development's parking allotment 20 The Public Beneffta Allowing a P11D Are I1 usory According to the MND, planned unit developments and the attendant flexibility with zoning code requirements are available where a public benefit will occur This project claims two public benefits, both of which are illusory The first public benefit touted at The Ridge 1s uaprovement of the 30-foot-wide city owned parcel north of the Project site with a trail and landscapmg however, no improvement will occur because hikers, bikers, and others already use the site extensively Moreover, contrary to the assertions in the MND, the trail will not improve coastal access because it is short (1/10 mule in length) and provides only indirect coastal resource access The existing trail already connects to the Shea Parkside trail and others that lead to the wetlands, and is already publicly accessible Unless the project proposes to upgrade the entire network of informal trails, coastal access will not improve The second illusory benefit is the provision of the City's first "green" development The Midge proposes the use of solar energy and permeable pavers No more detail is given, but the use of solar and pen neable paving are not enough to make a project green, these measures are also insufficient to ensure that the project sheets AB 32 goals Even if public impacts on runoff and energy use at the project are reduced, The Ridge will produce limited public benefits, if any The Project's adverse impacts on public access, views, water quality and hydrology will offset any gains by the purported "public benefits " Also offsetting any perceived benefits will be the loss of 5 acres of land currently zoned for parkland Thus, the Project does not qualify for a PUD, and is therefore in violation of the HBZSO mim murn lots widths and sizes -16- Jun 28 2010 it 54AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 A 18 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 17 3 The Project Conflicts with the Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plain The F id,ge is incompatible with the general plan because it will remove 5 acres of land designated as open space-park without identifying replacement parklands This land use unpact is both direct and cumulative because the City has already failed to meet its parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents (RCS Policy 2 1 1 ) The loss of 5 additional acres of parkland will bring the City even further out of compliance with Policy 2 11 Additional cumulative impacts on parklands use will occur with the increases in population and loss of potential parklands at the Brightwater, Shea Parkside, and Goodell sites surrounding The Midge The HIND claims that this impact is insignificant because The Ridge parcel has never been explicitly identified or used as a park This is untrue because the Midge parcel contains an informal trail network that has been used by hikers,birdwatehers, and other recreational users for many years (See, M Bixby letter of April 27, 2010 and attached photographs ) 4 The Project is Inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plain Residential development on The Ridge's 5 acres of open space parkland on the Bolsa Chica Mesa is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of General Plan Goal LU 5 is to "[E]nsure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained" Pursuant to Policy LU 5 1 1,this protection should occur by "consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Federal (NEPA) and State(CEQA) regulations " As the ivlND's review of biological resources was inadequate, and as only inadequate buffers are suggested to protect Coastal Commission-designated ESHA, the project will fail to ensure the maintenance of significant habitat Policy LU 5 1 1 speaks directly to the ESHA buffer issue, inandatmg that the City "ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality " 5 The Project is Inconsistent with the Coastal Element of the General Plain The Coastal Element of the General Plan describes the unportance of maintaining the open space designation of The Midge to protect the ESHA located to the east -17- Jun 28 2010 11 54AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 19 Bolsa Chlca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 18 There are existing and previously delineated wetlands areas that have been filled without authorization and are capable of bemg restored Those areas as well as their buffer areas are designated Open Space-Conservation and uses allowed within these areas are linuted (pp C IV-77 and 78 ) The Ridge project will allow development on property that has remained zoned for opera space specifically to protect existing and previously delineated wetlands, in direct conflict with the goals of the general plan 6. The Project is Prohibited by LCP Bluff Protections Policy C 4 4 2 of the LCP forbids private development of the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs The policy reads, "Prohibit private development along the bluffs rising up to the Bolsa Clnca mesa(the bluff face that rises above the northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica low land)within the City's jurisdiction that would alter the natural landform or threaten the stability of the bluffs Drainage systems and other such facilities necessary to ensure public health or safety may be allowed provided that bluff alteration is restricted to the nummum necessary and is done m the least environmentally damaging feasible manner Pursuant to the topographic maps submitted rn the BCLT letter of April 27, 2010,the projected bluff extends into The Midge site 7. The Project Will Have Cumulative Impacts on Land Use. The project will amend the PUD and parking standards of the Huntington Reach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance This project's changes, therefore, will govern all future projects requiring parking or PUD application 'thus could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts on land use if PULE standards are employed more frequently for illusory public benefits or if future projects provide inadequate parking utilizing tandem, driveway, and street parking as available spaces Cumulative impacts on land use and open space will also occur as the proposed residential developments surrounding The Ridge are approved and built These cumulative impacts roust be analyzed in a full EIR F Parlang and Traffic Impacts The MND finds that the project will not have significant impacts on parking in the area (RNND p 28) This conclusion is suspect because construction of the project requires amendments to the zoning and subdivision code without which it will not be able to provide the required number of parking spaces The project proposes to meet city -18- Jun 28 2010 11 54AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 20 Bolsa Cluca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 19 parlang requirements using tandem garage configurations and by counting driveway and street spaces toward city requirements Since the same number of parking spaces will be provided,the N E*TD reasons, impacts will not be significant (MND p 29 ) The N4ND falls to consider impacts to reduced street and dnvcway space caused by the proposed PUD amendments, both in this development and in the others that utilize the amended PUD standards The PUD standards only require driveways for 50 percent of umts that are attached side by side (HBZSG Title 21, 210 12(B)(1) ) The AND also fails to account for the fact that tandem spaces rarely accommodate the intended number of vehicles due to the constraints they place on vehicle access If guests and visitors are unable to find street parking,they may have to park outside The Ridge development This potentially significant impact on parking must be analyzed m an EIR Using the city-wide average household size of 2 56 people,the MND assumes that The Ridge will have a population of 57 people (RMND p 15 ) An average of only 2 56 people seems small for a development that will boast homes containing 4 and 5 bedrooms As the development may support more people than estimated in the MND, the traffic and parking analyses may downplay the significance of impacts The MAID also failed to analyze cumulative impacts at the intersection of Warner and Pacific Coast I-1ighway,which is already inlpactaed Although the MND did not find impacts at intersections that feed into this intersection (RMND p 29), it should have analyzed the additive impacts of these feeder intersections on Warner and PCH G Aitr Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts The prior MND predicted that localized significance thresholds would be exceeded for particulate matter (both PM 10 and PM 2 5) during construction The recirculated MND reached the opposite conclusion, based on expected gains from SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance The MND sloes not disclose which Rule 403 particulate reduction measures will be utihzed, leaving decision makers unable to verify that peculate emissions will actually be reduced Using the expected emissions of the prior MND, it is unlikely that construction emissions of particulate mawnal will actually be reduced below localized sigrficance thresholds For example, wetting of material reduces particulate emissions up to 50 percent, not the 73 percent assumed in the recirculated NWD Usmg the MND's own emissions estimates, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the protect will have significant construction impacts on air quality This requires an EIR The MND's greenhouse gas analysis admits that the project's impacts could be cumulatively significant but Justifies its finding of no significant impact because the amount of GHG emissions will be so small that `the project's incremental cumulative -19 Jun 28 2010 11 55RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 21 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 20 contribution would be less than significant " (NM p 26 ) Since the NAND defines a significant cumulative impact for which an FIR is required, more mitigation is required The project provides for permeable pavers and some solar power, but it does not provide enough to offset its predicted impacts or to meet a reduction of 20 or 30 percent to meet AB 32 and its unplementation regulations Additionally,the project's"green"features do not appear to be enforceable as project design features or mitigation measures for greenhouse gas impacts More is required H hydrology and Water Quality Could be bnpacted The Midge project proposes to alter drainage into the Bolsa Cluca wetlands, but the MND does not analyze or attempt to mitigate foreseeable impacts to habitat and water quality The project site currently drains into the EPA-delineated wetlands on the Shea Parkside property to the east Amer construction of The Ridge, drainage will bypass these wetlands for a pipe under Bolsa Chica Street and ultimately the greater Bolsa Chica wetlands (MND p 21 ) Even so, the MND fails to account for impacts to the Shea Parkside wetlands, or to the quality of its Habitat, attributable to the project's dewatering Since the MND does not provide information as to the treatment that will occur prior to discharge of The Ridge's runoff into the Bolsa Chica wetlands, there is a fair argument that t1us runoff will impact the water quality and habitat of these wetlands The MND failed to address the proposed treatment or its effectiveness in removing urban pollutants including, but not limited to, petroleum and tire residues, fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy metals If any chemical chscharge will roach the Bolsa Cluca wetlands, significant impacts are foreseeable and an EIR must be prepared The MND also fails to discuss whether increased retention of low flows on-site, as proposed to meet the current NDPES permit, will cause impacts due to the lateral movement of subsurface water The MND does not discuss subsurface conditions or anticipated percolation. Foreseeable significant impacts, which must be discussed in an EIR, include increasing im the rate of bluff erosion Unprecedented bluff erosion has already complicated the planning of City projects including the Warner foot-bridge (See, S Gems letters) I Cumulative Impacts. The Ridge project, when considered with the Bnghtwater development, condominiums located north of The Ridge,the Shea Parkside development to the east, and the proposed Goodell development to the south, will have extensive cumulative impacts on the remaining Bolsa Chica wetlands and mesa These include impacts to biological resources, including the wetlands and eucalyptus grove ESHA, land use -20- Jun 28 2010 11 55RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 22 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 21 impacts, and impacts on hydrology and water quality Q Bixby letter) II The 1D Defers Analysis of Potentially Significant Impacts. A. Biological Resources MM Bio-1 defers determination of whether special status southem tarplant is located on-site to after project approval Deferred analysis and mitigation violate CEQA (Endangered Habltats League v County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal App 4th 777, 793.94, Guidelines Section 15126 4(a)(1)(B) ) The presence or absence of special-status species should be disclosed to decision makers pnor to the project approval B Cultural Resources It appears that no site examination occurred despite the recent discovery of human remams during grading operations on adjacent parcels Instead, the project proposes to rely on mtigation measures that require supervision of grading and cataloguing of any artifacts or remains that are encountered The Rr ND improperly defers analysis of cultural impacts and of the importance of the CA-ORA-86 site to after the City approves the project Tins violates CEQA because it forecloses the possibility of not approving the project to protect any artifacts or human remains that a=ght be discovered by investigation A full site investigation should be done pnor to project approval as part of an EIR. The EIR should include enough mfonnatnon about the site's importance so that decision makers can adequately balance the development's benefits and likely slgnifieaut impacts Although the destruction that occurred at CA-0RA-83 and the damage to human remains interred on other sites cannot be undone, the City can avoid repeating its mistakes III. The 1D ND Contains Inadequate Mitigation Measures. The Iv ND includes few mitigation measures, each of winch is madequate to prevent the project from having significant adverse cnvirorimental impacts bitigation measure BI0-1, relating to the southern tarplant only allows any specimens, if discovered,to be saved if a community of"substantial occurrence (at least 500 mature individuals)99 is found The definition of mature is not provided, nor is a reason for why fewer than 500 individuals should be destroyed The ]department of Fish and Game disfavors the use of transplantation and relocation strategies because they are not proven In the case of the southerm tarplant, a species of special concern,project mitigation should consist of avoidance Individual plants should be retained in place If -21- Jun 28 2010 it 56AM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 23 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 22 plants absolutely must be relocated, all identified individuals should be preserved and relocated The MND limits mitigation of cultural =pacts to supervision of grading activities If artifacts are unearthed, they will be identified and catalogued If human remains are found,the coroner will be notified, and the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified if remains are determined to be Native American Remains will be reburied in collaboration with the Native American Hentage Commission These litigation measures were included as conditions of approval in the Brightwater development and are insufficient to protect the site's cultural resources The magnitude of the importance of the Bolsa Cluca archeological sites was not known to the City or to the Coastal Commission at the time of the Brightwater approval and was not taken into account during the approval of the project or the formulation of its mitigation measures Better mitigation measures must be formulated before the project may be approved Additionally, the mitigation measures should give the NAHC the option of allowing archaeological resources to remain in place CEQA authorizes the City,to require "reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state " (Pub Res Code § 21083 2(b)) The statute suggests preservation options mcluduig "(1)Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites (2)Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements (4)Plannumg parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites " (Ibid) The Coastal Commission endorsed the preservation-in-place option in an October 14, 2009 letter on the project ("Should pre-historic human remains be discovered the Coastal Commission suggest that the option of"preservation in place should be an option available to the Most Likely Descendant " Artifacts should be preserved in place, as well Excavation is an inherently destructive process, and most pieces are best preserved in place, without excavation As listed above, the Legislature has endorsed preservation of archaeological resources by placing parks and greerispaee in those areas instead of buildings (Pub Res Code § 21083 2(b)(4) ) This City should choose tlus preservation option, which is consistent with the site's open space-park designation in the general plan and LCP, and reject the Project The NVIND also fails to include mitigation to ameliorate unpacts related to hydrology and water quality, traffic and parking, or land use -22- Jun 28 2010 11 56RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 24 Bolsa Cluca Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 23 IV Hearthside Has a History of Noncompliance with Mitigation Measures The developer's history of noncompliance with cultural resource mitigation measures further jeopardizes the MND's conclusion that no impacts will occur to cultural resources The failure of environmental documents for nearby development sites to adequately assess the cultural resources led to the loss of valuable artifacts and desecration of Native American burial sites An EIR must be prepared Hearthside has been repeatedly reprimanded for its failure to implement even the basic nutigation measures proposed at The Ridge Cultural Resource mitigation has not been fully implemented m the adjacent Bnghtwater development on CA-ORA-83 (See, F Horgan letter of March 31, 2010 ) Human remains have not all be reported to the coroner, as required If not reported to the coroner,these remains have also not been reported to the proper Native American and tribal authorities On many occasions, Hearthside failed to stop work when hui7aari remains were found In an April 8, 2008 letter to the Coastal Commission, the Executive Director of the Native American Heritage Corr=ssion wrote The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates, locations and details of burial discoveries At this point based on information available and the large number of burials recovered and associated items, it appears that the whole area may be a burial ground In response, the California Coastal Comnussion admonished Hearthside for its noncompliance in letters dated December 15, 2008 and September 17, 2009 A record of past violations is a factor that an agency must consider in approving a project As stated by the California Supreme Court Because an EIR cannot be meaiungfully considered in a vacuum devoid of reality, a project proponent's prior environmental record is properly a subject of close consideration in determaurig the sufficiency of the proponent's promises in an EIR Consideration,however, must also be given to measures the proponent proposes to take in the future, not just to the measures it took or failed to take in the past In balancing a proponent's prior shortcomings and its promises for future action, a court should consider relevant factors including the length,number, and seventy of prior environmental errors and the harm caused, whether the errors were intentional, negligent, or unavoidable, whether the proponenVs environmental record has unproved or declined, whether he has attempted in good faith to correct -23- Jun 28 2010 it 56RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CRRSTENS 3103148050 p 25 BOlsa Cluca Laud Trust June 28, 2010 Page 24 prior problems, and whether the proposed activity will be regulated and monitored by a public entity (Laurel Heights Imp Assn v Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal 3d 376,420) BCLT urges the City to use its discretion to impost additional instigation on the project after completion of a full FIR V The Project Will Signifiee ntly Degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas,in Violation of the Coastal Act Between the project site and the Shea Holmes Property to the east lies a eucalyptus grove that the Coastal Commission has designated as ESHA The Coastal Act provides heightened protection to ESHA9 (Bolsa Chica Land Test v Superior Court, supra, 71 Cal App Wh at 506, Pub Ices Code§ 30240(a) ["Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values"] ) Adjacent development that "significantly degrade[s]"ESHA is prohibited by the Coastal Act (Pub Res Code § 30240(b) ) As detailed above,placement of homes only 160-250 feet from the Eucalyptus grove will significantly degrade the ESHA by reducing its value as raptor foraging habitat Thus, the City's approval of this project will violate the Coastal Act The RMND asserts that a 50 meter buffer from Ridge development will be sufficient to protect raptors because raptors acclimate readily to residential development and urbanization As detailed above,the flushing studies upon which this acclimation claim is based are flawed Dr Dixon,the Coastal Commission's ecologist, Dr Findlay, and the USFWS and CDl~G recommend buffers of at least 100 meters to protect raptor foraging and prevent ESHA degradation Thus, the Coastal Co=nissioa's own reports on the eucalyptus grove provide substantial evidence that placement of homes within 160 feet of ESHA will cause significant degradation, in violation of the Coastal Act VI Project Approval Violates the State Planning and Zoning Law Because it is Inconsistent with the General Plan The Government Code mandates that if a proposed tentative map is inconsistent with General Plan policies,the City"shall deny approval" of it (Gout Code § 66474 ) The same is true of a conditional use permit (Neighborhood Action Group v County of Ca1averas(1984) 156 Cal App 3d l l76 ) Therefore, until the LCP amendment is. certified,the City cannot legally approve The Ridge's Tentative Tract Map or Conditional Use Pemut. -24 Jun 28 2010 11 56AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CRRSTENS 3103148050 p 26 Bolsa Chica Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 25 CONCLUSION The placement of 22 homes on the Bolsa Chica mesa will cause permanent adverse environmental impacts to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and the City of Huntington Beach The proposed destruction of habitat for sensitive species and of unique cultural resources cannot be mitigated In order to avoid repeating the mistakes made at CA-ORA-83 with the construction of the Brightwater project, BCLT urges the City to heed the community's request to overturn the Planwng and Building Commission's April 27, 2010 approval of The R1dge until an EIR has been prepared Only after an EIR has fully disclosed the project's significant impacts can City decision makers ensure their mitigation Thank you for this opportunity to comment BOLT looks forward to the July 6, 2010 hearing on this natter Sincerely, L-'M Michelle N Black -25- Jun 28 2010 it 57RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 27 Boisa Chiea.Land Trust June 28, 2010 Page 26 ATTACHMENT 1 -26- Jun 28 2010 11 57AM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p R8 PAP05ON 50v7rmR10CAuFomjAARcmuw w6r 147 SAVED BY THE WELL: THE 1<EYSTCD11qR CACHE AT CA-® -839 THE COGGED STOKE SITE: JBFPAEY S COUCH,JOANNE S COUCH,At1D NANCY ANASTASIA WILEY The largest cache of cogged slimes ever discovered was unearthed in late 2006 while archaeological grading and monitoring operations were under way at CA ORA 63 the famed Cogged Stone Site in coastal Orange Couniv California This cache, along with other cogged stone caches and individual cogged,stones uncovered at the site has allowed researcher's ro dn►elop a new cogged stone typology A comparison of the cogged stone artifact to its nearer rfelative the discoidal as well as a cogged stone reglo9tal distribution study indicates possible clan or group identification Interestingly this particular cache which enabled this classtftcation and funcironal evplanation of these enigmatic artifacts was actuallypreserved by an oil%ell and other historic period disturbances disturbance which wmaked haibc on the rest of the site While rmarch is ongoing and cursory,the authors thought it irnpor?ant to bring thts information to light as soon as possrble THE SITE recovered materials were then catalogued and subj acted to a series of special studies Although analyses of the recovered ate CA ORA 83 (commonly known as the Cogged materials are still ongoing some preliminary conclusions Zi Stone Site) consists of a shell madden located on are available for the site The periods of occupation have the southeastern tip of Bolsa Chica Mesa in Orange County, California(Figure 1) Historically the site had been thesublect of intensive archaeological investigations that included nine surveys seven surface collection events and five excavation programs. The first investigations were conducted in the 1960s by amateur archaeologist Ahka Herring and the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society in conjunction with Professor Hal Eberhart of California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) In the 19701 cultural resource management firm Archaeological Research,Inc conducted initial surveys and preliminary test programs Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc (SRS) then carried out a multi staged data recovery program that spanned the next 30 years From the 19809 onward archival research and reviews of historical maps and aerial photograph were conducted (DesaGutels 1982, w - Desautels and Wiley 1981), in addition to the completion of three xessarch designs(Mason 1987,Wiley 1983,2003) -_ Additional fieldwork included further site surveys, three supplementary surface collections(Wiley and Mason 1986), and five subsurface excavation programs(Wiley and Mason 1986, Wiley 1993) During tlus period 21 reports were written by SRS,including 16 agency reports and five formal publications(see bibliography) A aeries of technical reports arc anticipated within a year after completion of the final burial analyses and artifact cataloguing It is anticipated that thcst Kill include a fW 1 volume for publication on the cogged stones and cogged stone caches found at Bolsa Chica During the 1990 1W and 1999-2002 investigations on Bolsa Chica Mesa, Scientific Resource Surveys Inc hand excavated large volumes of earth that were subsequently Figure I Location of ORA 83 the Cogged Stone site Orange water screened through 1/8 and 1/16 inch mesh screens The County C®m6orn►s ?Ffty,qCv#chJommcSCvjw1WdfNorzo,Alvilor7a0kyso PWA Am ralhm Jw 1334NBatuWdBW*f8 UBJ901ougg(A92461 IldcacdagrofAtSodievfo GdVdoWdAhhatoioa'Y9 Wms21 200 pp 147)76 Jun 28 2010 it 57AM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 to 29 148 Paoczews of rm So=m FVA C,LGFo MmAncxamoWQ7 T M 21 1009 been established, initial information relative to subsistence lacking from ORA 83 and ORA-85 All dates are based on patterns has been formulated, and preliminary artifact uncorrected radiocarbon dates and therefore represent periods inventories'have been compiled which indicate the diversity of occupation that in all likelihood are chronologically older of activities that occurred at the site Radiocarbon dating has than the dates imply demonstrated that the Cogged Stone Site was occupied over a 7 700 year penod encompassing the entire Millingstone PcnI Honzon and Intermediate Horizon,and with additional light occupation reaching into the Late Prehistone period The earliest radiocarbon dates from ORA 83 extend back to approximately 9 000 years ago Initially Bolsa Chica The geographic position of ORA 83 was ideal for Mesa appears to have been recognized as a unique area based prehistoric habitation, as the surrounding bays and ocean on the prominence of the cliff face on the horizon and the offered three distinct marine zones providing year round cropping out of geological veins of multi colored pigments marine animal and plant resources Bolsa Chica Mesa Within firs time period (IA IB)the shoreline was several also lies within the Orange County `Artesian Bann" miles distant,and sandy beaches prevailed around the base of an area of extensive groundwater resources containing the mesa Large colonies ofthrek-walled clam were prevalent numerous springs and freshwater seeps The presence of at the water s edge, including 27vela sp, whose remains fresh water was essential for habitation and also attracted could be found in quantity on the mesa at this time and were terrestrial animals and supported land and marsh vegetation often used for the production of beads It was also at this time Preliminary geological studies have shown that the adjacent that a bivalve bead industry was established at the Cogged Palos Verdes peninsula to the north and the San Joaquin Stone Site At the present time,nearly 2,000 beads,including Hills to the south could have provided sufficient outcrops of 165 prefonns and blanks and numerous micro lithne cores rocks and minerals for the manufacture of stone tools Lithic and drills have been=®covered from the site deposits Several maternal in nodule form could also be found in the various portable,hand held,bead shaping tables or planes were also drainage branches of the Santa Ana River The physiographic identified within the same deposits establishing a bivalve setting of this site area clearly would have been attractive to clam bead production kit Evidence of a late Pleistocene the initial inhabitants of Orange County, since it contained flightless auk,Chendytes laws: was also recovered from the all of the essential elements for subsistence deposits This evidence farther suggests that the first period of use of the mesa was at a time transitional bettwccn the The site itself is situated on a mesa underlain by Pleistocene and Holocene in northem Orange County geologic formations containing pockets of black,white,and a variety of red pigments This formation crops out on the Pin mesa edge and appears to have provided ample pigments for paints required for ceremonial activities The presence At approximately 7500 B P an embaym®nt formed of numerous circular features that appear to be remnants of around Bola Chico Mesa,effectively changing the shoreline semi subterranean structures at the site, special subsurface and ocean fauna Thus resulted in the development of an owh;os of possibleritual items,exotic materials and distinct Olivella sp bead industry that replaced the earlier bivalve burial and reburial areas,strengthens the interpretation ofuse clam bead industry In addition sea mammals at least as of this mesa for ceremonial purposes as well as day to day beached animals, now became available Exploitation of subsistence activities the pigment ve= may have been a normal practio, sine two deep areas of the site appear to have been formed by prehistoric excavations A cemetery area at the western BOLSA CiIICA TlhSLINE portion of the site consists of delayed and rebunal interments represented by extremely fragmented human remains A cursory analysis of materials recovered from the These interments form a series of conceninc circles or arcs, Cogged Stone Site and the Eberhart Site (ORA 85, also open along the eastern penmeter of the circle, enclosing a on Bolsa Cluca Mesa) the Borchard Site (ORA-365), dolphin burial Ttvo female burials contained evidence of the Edwards Hill Burial Site (ORA 82) and the Bolsa what may be a tattooing kit and a pigment preparation lot Processing Facility (ORA 88) on Huntington 13mch Mesa The site at this time in all likelihood became a traditional has allowed for compilations and preparation of a timeline or source for pigment collection and preparation The spiritual cultural chronology for the Bolsa Chi caRegion Collectively, significance of the site la exemplified by its use for interring the five sites provide an uninterrupted 8,000-year sequence human and other animal bunals from approximately 9,000 years to about 1,000 years ago Seven periods of occupation can be reconstructed from the Manufacture of the famed"cogged stone"began in this data from this composite of sates six of'which occur at Bolsa period Several caches and hundreds of single cogged Chica Mesa and are discussed here The seventh period stones were located below the surface of ORA-83 during the is the Protohistorie, materials from which are essentially SRS final data recovery program from 1990 to 2007 It is Jun 28 2010 11 57AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 30 FAPEps av Soinum CALTFOU14 AWRALarovr 149 postulated that cogged stones were ceremonial talismans,and fragmented bowls and pestles on ORA 85 (broken by that the inhabitants cached them below ground,presumably the plow) Shell whistles and rattles and crystals are also in order to control their power(a theory originally postulated prevalent at ORA 85 Occupation on the mesa essentially by Dr Keith Dixon, Professor Emeritus, California State shifted to that site and away from ORA 83 University Long Beach) A deconstruction of the scatter of single cogged atone finds may prove that all cogged stones Period VI at this site were originally cached since the scatters consists of several loose clusters During the last period, occupation on l3olsa Chico Mesa again shifted, this time from ORA 83 and ORA 85 Failed III io site ORA-86 northeast of ORA 83 Subsurface retrains of a single large structure with an indoor lined hearth were During Period %II (approx 6000 5000 B P) the site identified here Associated with the structure,at a mmitnurn use changed again building on the previous notion of site was an asphaltum lined pipe plug and ear spool Steatite spirituality Several ceremonial areas have been Identified beads were also manufactured here and at Huntington Beach such as an areawith numerous talismans forhealing Artifacts Mesa.ORA-83 has produced only an occasional projectile recovered from this locale include various eharmstones, a point or bead dating to this period The site receivedminimal possible rattlesnake talisman an mctuA tablet pendent a use and may have functioned as a retreat area Use of the donut stone, lithic spheroids a painted rock, a "singing site seems to have come full circle and now apparently rock and several discoidals In addition, human burials of was a location of personal or small group use perhaps as a extraordinary individuals are present including four women questing/power site who may have belonged to a society of undertakers,based on their presumed body strength and unusual characteristic of filed teeth or patterned tooth wear unique to these HisTrnuC DISTUxMANCE,HISTORIC SALVATION individuals Associated with these ceremonial items and special people are what appear to be shallow dance areas, SRS Phase One work at ORA 83 included a full site one with a post hole in the approximate center, and multiple survey and a comparison said mapping of historic period small structures that appear to be burial-related,perhaps for features indicated on a series of 26 aenal photographs body preparatton Contiguous with these structures are one ranging in time from 1927 to 1977 Field evidence for any or more human burials Larger(and proportionately deeper) ofthe historic period features wits recorded and an extensive structures are also present which may have been used for geophysical survey was conducted in order to locate storage of ceremonial regalia for healing and burial activities subsurface anomalies related to the historic-era disturbance Although dating squarely within the)MIlingstone Horizon, An auger-boring program was then implemented to assess utilitarian objects are present only in small quantities,most the subsurface character of the site and ground-truth any functioned as tools for the production of talismans recorded anomalies ftiod IV The early series of aerial photographs show that by 1934 prior to World War II,a deep arroyo with check bridges Use of the Balsa Chico rcgion for human mtermcrits physically separated the Cogged Stone Site from land to continued in this penod, but several are `cached" under the west other significant features at that time included a thousands of rocks, as at ORA 365, a neighboring site on large complex of historic-era structures approximately 200 Huntington Beach Mesa New types of talismans appeared, ft north of a concrete reservoir that was located on the bluff including phallic pestles or"spikes 'it steatite pelican stone edge The northern portion of the archaeological site was notched projectile points versus spearheads, and grooved all but destroyed by the construction of this complex The rectangular beads The structures on Boise Chtea Mesa complex itself was then demolished between 1939 and 1947 increased in aim and may have functioned as sweathouses, as a result of construction of facilities related to the)Bolsa since both hearths and whole structures from this period are Chien Military Reservation A 1947 aeral photograph shows lined with calcium carbonate the World War 11 bunker,Battery 128 The bunker is located on the land west of the arroyo and separated by about 500 Fenod V ft from the center of the archaeological site as recorded by amateur Alike Herring in 1963 Underground pipes,cables By 4000 B P the western burial area at ORA 63 was and pull boxes associated with the bunker are numerous and abandoned, and dense shell deposits suggest that intense crisscross the entire archaeological site frown east to west shcHih exploitation occurred on a limited portion of the sate These utilities also heavily unpacted ORA-83 An animal bone concentration included three articulated deer vertebrae Mortars and pestles were introduced, appearing Extensive agricultural activities were conducted before as a ceremonial pestle a killed moiler (on ORA 83), and and after the war years as evinced by plowing patterns Jun 28 2010 11 58AM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CRRSTENS 3103148050 p 31 150 PR0r.8.W,60,FT.VS0aM MRCAUPOWAARCi/dEPWIM YM aJ 2009 apparent on the aerial photographs from the 19509 through and dragging could not be conducted at this spot due to the the 1970s and described in 1963 by Cogged Stone collector multitude of surface and subsurface historic period features Alika Herring The concentration of cogged stones was then left nearly intact and not scattered and dispersed throughout the field Unfortunately,no artifacts were found in situ, all as had bee done so many times in the past In that sense the having been brought to the surface as a result of the historical disturbance was its salvation agricultural operations These operations will be described as they have a direct bearing onthemanner and location in which the artifacts were found The TILE KEYSTONE CACHE first step in the process consisted of loosenmg the earth with a sabsoiler, which penetrated to depths Prehistoric Feature 084,later to be dubbed the Keystone of 18 to 24 inches This action dislodged the buried Cache was recovered during grading monitoring on artifacts from their original positions, and once September 15 2006 in the cast central portion of the site at a loosened the stones eventually worked their way to depth of approximately 30 cm below ground surface(Figure the surface during subsequent subsoiling operations 2a b) It Consisted of 17 cogged stones and one handstone The large clumps of earth left by the subsoiler were and is thus the largest cogged stone cache yet discovered further reduced in size by a disc cultweitar and finally The cache was organized in and around a small mound of dirt pulverized by towing a"drag over the ground,after that encapsulated and was topped by a specific set of cogged which the soil was then ready for the planter These stones that were rectangular in cross section and exhibited various operations were not only quite severe in strong margin grooves These cogged stones tended to their treatment of the artifacts marry of which are be the smaller ones in the group This central mound was badly broken,battered,and scarred but it was also then surrounded with cogged stones that were trapezoidal possible for the dragging operation in particular to in cross section Only half of thus group was grooved on displace them considerably in position from their the margins Many of these are so pronounced in their original points of emergence Based on the extensive site damage as shown by the Phase One studies a multi staged investigatory program was designed to thoroughly investigate the site and locate basal remnants of the midden deposit if such existed h was postulated that 1) if undisturbed remnants of basal strata were located, and 2) if these r=rwts contained cultural matenals and materials suitable for dating, and 3) if the cultural materials included cogged stones, then it would be possible to establish the nature of the relationship between the cogged stone artifacts and the site The basic concept underlying the SRS approach was to obtain the maximum amount of information on the cogged stones at this site by attmptmg to locate undisturbed remnants of the midden and then study these remnants In deiall The bias was definitely in favor of disturbance location and thus avoidance Almost 15 years later,the Keystone Cache was located during purposeful grading at the site in a setting that belied the previous assumptions Five m4Uor historic-period features surrounded the cache, encroaching up to 12 cm from the cogged stones and including an 8-in wide concrete irrigation line I in to the west and another 8 in line 2 5 m to the east, both at the same depth as the cache, a WWII electrical junction poll box(3 m south) and a metal spike tie down for a post in cement(12 cm west) An S in well(3 in southeast) with footings derrick etc existed at one time, probably covering a footprint 6 m square) In reality WWIIelectneal lines pro-and post W'aragricultund water lures and historic Figure 2 a(#op) an overhead vfew of f1t®Keystone Cache era oil operations all converged at the exact location of the after extensive excavation b(bottom) an oblique view of the Keystone Cache Evidently, agricultural ripping disking Keystone Cedes Jun 28 2010 11 58RM CHRTTEN-BROWN & CnRSTENS 3103148050 p 32 PAPBAson SDvmKmCAurawuARCAAEOLOGY 151 fhable soil that excavated easily,thetop of the mudpack was more dlfHcult to assess in that there were few other soil layers atop it which fcathered to its edges A new excavation methodology, which employed lightly tapping the mudpaiek layers with a geology hammer provided an acoustical variation of the normal underlying soil from the interred cogged stones and allowed prediction of the location of an additional cogged stone or other artifact Moreover this methodology facilitated the study of the mud pawing behavior far the first time in the site s history To delicately remove the soils overlying the packed mud layer, a biological dissecting needle metal awl and FlgWle 3 Another oblique view of the Keystone Cache Now various gages of bamboo knitting needles were utilized It the vertIcOty and provenance of the trapezoidal cogged stone is important to note that no metal instruments were used to atop the cantor of the cache The white WO on the margin of remove the cogged stones from their cached position,rather this cogged atone is the only damage caused by the gradlap equipment the vanoas bamboo knitting needles were used to gently pry the cogged stones from their encasement The mudp ack layer trapezoidal crosssection that they resemble Jell O molds withstood the tapping and as an added benefit, the tapping Finally,placed atop and in the center of the entire group was gently loosened the mottled overburden soil atop the dark one trapezoidal non grooved cogged stone(Figure 3) This grey packed mud This was a tremendous aid in helping the stone later cataloged as Item#10,was the Only item struck by mottled softer less consolidated soil break off the plane the road grader Furthermore though Item#10 was set on its surface of the mudpack layer with slight assistance of the side,the large road grader did not topple the artifact from its biological dissection needle and metal awl original placement,because approximately three quarters of the cogged stone was supported and encased on its southern d side by a hard, dense, dark-grey mud layer Thi® layer was pinched or lipped up to the tip of the cogged stone(Figure 4)and provided evidence of how the prehistoric individuals who buried the cache deliberately pressed mud onto and around the cogged stones to hold them in place Further excavation of the 1 x 1 in unit revealed more of the dense soil variation which was fashioned into a 2-cm n thick layer of hardened dense grey mudpack (Figure 5) Although the edge of the mudpack was easily revealed in that the sot]to the east was a softer,aerated puAky,somewhat Figure 5 An oblque view of the mudpack layer during excavation demonatrating the encasement of cogged stoney While gingerly prying the mottled, less consolidated, soil atop the mudpack layer, it was observed that the soil actually was laid in alternating layers of orange and brown soil The deepest area of this soil was recorded at 3 cm,which happened to be in the approximate center of the mudpack layer (Figure b), and the shallowest of this soil seemed to feather out to the edges of the mudpack layer tapering in the brown soil layer WWe studying the color vanation of the mottled soil,enough of the dense, grey mudpack layer was uncovered to unveil that it was not lust a mudpack Payer but tallier something more unique grid telling of the purpose of Figure 4 The Keystone Cache during excevaffon to reveal the Keystone Cache the grey 'mudpack layer was actually the mudpack layer Note how the mud was pressed up to the a concave mud basin edges of the cogged Oonea Jun 28 2010 11 58AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 33 152 PAOCasDINWaFIMSOC-W"CAuI tvwltAaCFAwLogi Ynt 21 2009 F Finally during SRS ethnographic studies for the Solsa 1 r ChicaArchaeological Project,a Luise ci Elder had told S1tS staff that the Luise-iio would come to the beaches of Bolsa Chico when the grunion would run and collect the small oil rich fish and use it to make ochre They would grind up pigment and then grind the fish whole with ahandstone and utilize the oily residue as a binder for the pigment Protein residue analysis is still to be conducted an these artifacts, but underneath the mottled orange/brown soil slightly embedded atop the grey mud basin was a small fish otolith (approximately the size of a grunion) Most of the Keystone cogged stones exhibit residues of either orange ochre, white calcium carbonate asphaltum, and/or a combination thereof In addition to the 17 cogged stones one handstone FIBure 6 Close-up oblique view of tha mudpack layer during was recovered from the cache Also one of the cogged excavation stones was bowl-shaped and appears under low power Once the mottled soils were removed the full concavity binocular microscopic inspection to be coated in a substance of the mud basin was revealed,and the nature of the basin resembling dried blood Interestingly, in our previous was evident Measuring 2 cm at its eastern edge radiating collections from ORA 83 any antiserareturned from cogged off of one of the cogged stones,the mud became extremely stones or charms were human while the handstones have all dense and strong at its center point, with a thickness of have bad fish antisera 5 cm Additionally the deliberate interment of five other cogged stones was evident,in that the prehistoric behavior NOTES oN CA ORA-83 CoorED SroNas still displayed the hard mud basin o efully lipping up to AND CACHE ANALYsis thesc cogged stones edges Moreover,in the case of another cogged stone 7 ern of the hardened mud basin from the top Although analysis on this cache as well as other cogged to bottom encased it completely Extracting thi s cogged stone was mast difficult but perhaps this purposeful interment stone caches and individual cogged stones recover®d from can be explained by the fact that this artifact which yapped the site, i® still in progress, there are some strong trends the southwestern end of the feature,may have been broken emerging The quantity and in situ rocova�ry of cogged stones prehistorically and then entombed in the dense mud basin found during recent research at BRA >33 have allowed for a This proposition is posited herein because of the fact that more robust analysis and interpretation of these enigmatic it was not the highest point of the feature and tho fact that artifacts although it was securely cottornbed completely in the Baud basin,the piece was broken(Figure 7) In addition,not all the pieces of this artifact were recovered from the encapsulated soil or surrounding areas In the past cogged stone typologies revolved around these morphological aspects the presence of grooves whether the grooves could be seen from a plan view of the object,and whether the object was perforated(see Eberhart 1961) These aspects also separated cogged stones from their nearest cousins the discoidals However,such typologies are extremely limited A simple scattergram (Figure S)indicates that there is a correlation between the eimurnference of a cogged stone and the quantity of grooves Cogged stones tend to Cluster in circumference between 220 and 350 mm which bind the number of grooves on the upper end if the grooves ground into the side are to have any appreciable depth, on average between 11 and 17 grooves However of the 47 cogged stones studied thus far, 34 percent(n-16)lhave no grooves on their margins at all Tbus,there seems to be a much more Figure 7 Broken cogged stare(right)encased In the mudpack powerful argument for the importance not of the numb-or of layer grooves but of their presence/absence Jun 28 2010 11 59RM CHATTEN-BROWN a CARSTENS 3103148050 p 34 PApEa av Sormnmw C,u mwAARcxAK0h0GV 153 1G 1Q A e "M Noh aoo Mia 4ta1 Wo ch"Mt+aOn ba4) F/gum it Scaftw rem of rnwgin groove count by cogged atone clraamfererice Cogged stones are defined as much by their material slightly convex margin while cogged stones have either a cross section,and manufacture as they are by rnodifroations to symmetrical,slightly convex margin or atapered to strongly their margins Cogged stones have long been known to have tapered margm often resulting in a cogged stone reminiscent been made of vesicular basalt,tuff,and andente,most likely of a"Jell O"mold from the El Modena Formation(Miocene volcamcs)which outcrops in various locations around the Orange County While both cogged stories and discoidals,were pecked area. However,the cogged stones recently unearthed have and ground into shape,only the cogged stones show apattern also included tonohte,rhyolite,diorite,talc schist,sandstone, of deliberate repair Many have asplialtum in the breaks,and and most interestingly calcium carbonate concretions native a few actually have the patched rock still"glued"M place to the Bite These materials stared in contrast to the granites, This contrasts strongly with the discoidals,in which surf we metavolcamcs and metasedementary rocks of the cogged polish continues onto the broken surfaces In other words no stones nearest cousins the dtseoidals (see collection from attempt was made to patch or mend the discoidals, instead ORA 64 Macko et al 1999) the makers continued with the manufacturing process,even polishing into the edges of the breaks(see collection from It i s believed by the authors that the matenal from wluch ORA-64 Macko et al 1998) the cogged stones are made held as much signifrcattce to the prehistoric manufacturers of these artifacts as did the Based on these factors,a unique and preliminary cogged shape Thus,we posit that the stark differentiation between stone typology has been developed This typology separates cogged stone and discoidal matenals that can be seen in the cogged stones into five types(Figure 9a e) assemblages at ORA-83 and its sister site ORA-64 may be indicative of group/clan affiliation Occupants of both locales Tmpezoidal-Trap=idalcrosssection,sometimes had ample access to the various material groups but choose grooved separate materials from which to fashion the arbfacts that wore to became the hallmarks of their sites during the same "Jell O"' mold - Trapezoidal 113 cross section, time period tluckcr ihanTrapezoidal sor>times grooved ;-00 percent exhibit a pit,pecked offtet in the smaller Another typological factor 16 cros® section While faoe, while the other 530 percent have concave both cogged stones and discoidals are circular in plan- faces view (with some notable exceptions) their cross sections differ Discoidals typically exhibit a very symmetrical, Jun 28 2010 11 59AM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 35 154 PA OLmEOA'G6 OF Y7i8 SOCfh FnR C OAN1AriRCtUb1GL00Y VOL.21 2009 • Bowl—Trapezoidal in cross section no grooves, all have a pit,pecked offset in the smaller face Tbp Xnot/Spool — cross section is that of a top knot or thread spool, no grooves, never made of the more ftequent vesicular basalt Rectangular — Rectangular in cross section, almost always grooved, sometimes with pits or perforations These five types can be grouped into two major categories based on shared or similar attributes as well as implied meamng from their locations within caches The first is the Rectangular group and the second erieornpasses all other types Some interesting observations about these Figure 9 Examples of cogged atone types a irspezoldel b groups include the fact that the larger the cogged stone,the Je11-0 mold c bowl d top knotlspool a reotengular more likely it will have a'Jell®"mold or trapezoidal cross section Jun 28 2010 11 59RM CHnTTEN—BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 36 PAPmscwSouumNC.WJ7 i4A1vC77,,11ozoGY 153 CaclnngCorrelaa A handstone in line with Jell-O mold and trapezoidal type cogged stones on the perimeter of the Keystone cache The typology offered here is supported by the grouping can arguably associate this ubiquitous artifact type with the pattern found within the Keystone Cache and four other non rectangular cross sectioned types of cogged stones caches from the site There is a distinct spatial separation between Rectangular cogged stones and the others There is clearly much more to do with this fascinating Rectangular group members are located in the center of the material We have but scratched the surface with this caches surrounded by members of the other types There is presentation but thought it important enough to get this always a trapezoidal and/or Jcll-O mold atop all the other information out to the community quickly,rough spots and cogged stones in the features Approximately 50 percent all or more of all Jell O molds have white pigment residue on their larger facos This is the only consistent painting/paiut residue pattern among the cogged stones One Jell O mold ACKNOWLEDuE1, Yrs is always upside down in each cache None df the three or more caches contain any odd shaped cogged stones(quch as We are grateful roXearthsrcle Xomesfor the ir unfa iling support of those that are star shaped) research on the Cogged Stone SYte and in particular thankCEGRay Pacint Senior Y9ce President Ed Mounsford and Prof ectManager While the significance and meaning of these caching Brian Bartlett for they overtaxed patience as we continued to characteristics can be debated what is evident is the find the most significant cogged stone caches literally on the last consistency of the patterns obsezved At a minimum these day of the planned project Encouragement to prepare a digital patterns can help us properly associate and type these objects posterfor the 2007 Annual SCA Meetings was continually offered with greater fidelity than ever before by Assl Professor Paul Langenwalter 11 and much needed revisions to this draft'were made by Dacy Stropes The keen eyes of Daniel Bonavvittire spotted the small knick on the top cogged CONCLUSIONS stone within the cache when less than a cenittrieter square was exposed by Chelftan grading equipment And lastly several Native The Cogged Stone Site, ORA 83, has undergone American tnbal elders and scholars helped gNide ow efforts and extensive scientific investigation for several years Only we especially thank Vincent Ibanez JLulsefj David BelaraW recently,and despite over century of intensive disturbasicc, and Joyce Perry EJuanetioJ ,Robert Dorama(Gahrtehno) To all was the single largest cache of cogged stories revealed In of these and numerow unnamed others without whom this project fact bistone disturbances unlike the rest of the site, may wouldhawefailed we are veryappreclaaiva have been the only reason that this particular cache was preserved REFERENCES CITED The Keystone Cache and her sister caches from ORA 83 have shod new light on a unique arrtifact type in southern Applegate,R B Califorrita Anew cogged stone typology has been developed 1979 The Black,the Reid,and the White Duality and Unity based on the spatial arrangement and recurnng patterning of in the Lmiseflo Cosmos Journal of Cal fornia and cogged stones within caches Grooved or cogged margins Great Basin A nthropology 1 71 88 need not the cogged stone make-raw material cross section, and salvage efforts also play an important role in typological assignment and separation tom their nearest Desautels,R J artifactualielative,the discoidal 1982 ORA-83 An Archaeological,Re evaluaHonforNatiortal RegtsterStasw Scientific Resource Surveys,Orange Encapsulatmg objects and caches ofpotentialceremonW California or rehgzous significance with mud slurries now seems to have been an established pattern during the occupation of the Desautels,R J and N A [Whitney Dwautels]May site, as witnessed by this cache as well as other caches of 1991 Ora-83 An Archaeological Fvaluadon for National ceremonial objects from the region dating to this time period ReglsterStatus Scientific Resource Surveys,Orange, (see Desautels et at 2005) California The consistent use of red/orange ochre, white calcium carbonate pigments, and black asphaltum interestingly Desautels, Nancy, A, Henry C Koerper and Jeffrey S correlates with the use of these same colors by the Luisci to Coucb and Juancfio to this day(see Applegate 1979) 2005 A Birdstone and Phallic Pestles Cache from ORA 365 Jounial of Cad forma and Great Basin Anthropology 25 109 119 Jun 28 2010 12 OOPM CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3103148050 p 37 156 PIiCCUDEM ov ym SQuvy FoN C In oRNlAARcuAgozo0P Vot 21 2009 Eberhart H 1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California Arnerican Antiquity 26 361 370 Herring A K 1969 Surface ColleetLons from Orw83 aCogged Stone Site at Balsa Chica Orange County California Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3)3 38 Marko M E,with Jeffrey S Couch,Owen K Davis,Henry C Koerper,Paul E Langenwalter 11, and Glenn S Russell 1999 Executive Summary of Mitigation Measures Iniplemented Pursuant to the Operation Plan and Research Design for the Proposed Newporter North Residential Development Marko, Inc Submitted to Irvine Community Development Company Copies available from south Central Coastal Information Center Department of Anthropology California State University,Fullerton Mason Roger D 1987 Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Arehaeologleal Sires In Northern Orange County California Scientific Resource Surveys, Orange, California, Wiley Nancy Anastasia[Desautels] 2003 The Balsa Chica Archaeological Project trot 1 Research Design and Implementation Scientific Resource Surveys Orange,California. Wiley,N A [Whitney Desautels] 1983 Archaeological Research Design ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site" Finel Research and Salvage Program Scientific Resource Surveys Orange, California. 1995 Site Boundaries ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site Scientific Resource Surveys, Orange California Wiley N A [Whitney-Desautels], end Roger D Mason 1986 Archaeological Evaluation of OR,1-83 Ae Cogged Stone Site on Balsa Chica Mesa Orange County, California Scientific Resource Surveys, Orange Cahforn.la FROM PHONE NO Jun 28 2010 10 30RM P1 SANDRA CCNIS, P1 ANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOU COSTA MESA,CA 92626 PIIONE/FAX(714)754 0814 June 28 2010 City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject The Ridge project (MND, SCH 4 2009091043) Via e-mail Dear Mayor Green and Members of the City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Ridge project located on approximately 5 acres of property in the City of Huntington Beach These comments are submitted on behalf of the Balsa Chica Land Trust and myself are in addition to comments previously submitted regarding this project and related Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 9 2009091043) The applicant proposes to construct twenty—two dwelling units, roadways, drainage improvements, private open space amenities, and related infrastructure on the project site The project would be developed as a Planned Unit Development In order for development to proceed the following discretionary approvals would be needed General Plan Amendment, changing the site's land use designation from Open Space- Park(OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) ® Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment, changing the site's LUP land use designation form Open Space-Park(OS-P)to Residential Low Density (RL) o Zoning Amendment, changing the site's zoning designation from Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ)to Residential Low Density-Coastal Lone Overlay (RL-CZ) M Amendment to Chapter 210 12 of the Zoning Code to allow greater flexibility in provision of required parking, including provision for tandem parking • Tentative Tract Map ® Coastal Development Permit ® Conditional Use Permit According to the public notice I received in the mail, approval of the coastal development permit (No 08-22) may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten working days However in accordance with Section 30600 5(c)of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act), a permit may only be approved it if is in conformance with the cei tified LCP land use plan(LUP) In this case, the proposed project is not consistent with the certified LUP inasmuch as the property is currently designated for Opera Space—Park(OS-P), and an amendment to the LCP is being processed Until that amendment is approved and certified by the California Coastal Page 1 of 3 FROM PHONE NO Jun 28 2010 10 30AM P2 Commission no CDP may be approved for any project inconsistent with the OS-P designation The City may however, approve the project in concept This must be clarified and re-noticed it necessary Just as the City may not approve a CDP inconsistent with the LCP, the City may not approve a tract map which is not consistent with the general plan(Government Code Section 66473 5) The City's LCP is incorporated into the general plan as the Coastal Element Thus the amendment of the Element can only occur upon certification of any amendment by the California Coastal Commission Even if the property were already designated for residential uses, consistency issues would remain as to resource protection due to the need to protect nearby ESHA to the east on the Parkside property and to preserve on-site landforms Exhibit C-17, Bluff,Areas and Scenic Opportunities, of the Coastal Element shows that bluffs exist on the project site In accordance with Policy 33, natural landforms and coastal bluffs are to be preserved The proposed project fails to conform to this policy The project proposes to amend the zoning code such that Planned Unit Development Standards will be altered citywide, and approval of the alternate parking arrangement will wet a precedent for other similar arrangements city wide Specifically, the amendment provides for the following alternate parking arrangements a Required enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 231 14 b Required open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on- street spaces as long as the total number of required parking spaces is provided with the development site As noted in Recirculated LA No 2008-016 (p 43), "This may result in mos a on-street parking spaces being occupied more often" It should be noted that this is a potential impact city wide This would then reduce available street parking for guests and other visitors, such as repair people and could ultimately result in seduced parking available for the general public seeking to access coastal resources These types of parking problems often result in neighborhood disputes which spill over into the public arena This is a significant city wide impact that has not been addressed The site is highly sensitive as part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem, including but not limited to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Resources in the immediate area include an environmentally sensitive habitat area to the east and important cultural resources Cultural resources include Ca- Ora-83 which is listed by the Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites and was recently determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places We remain concerned that the City is processing pi ojects for the Ridge and Goodell sites at the same time Both projects involve zoning action, and both projects involve general plan action, on adjacent sites in about the same time flame with the same individual representing both projects before the Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 FROM PHONE NO Jun 28 2010 10 31AM P3 CEQA mandates " that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones--each with a minimal potential impact on the environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences " (Bozung v Local Agency Formation Con? supra 13 Cal 3d at pp 283-•284 99 Cal Rptr 745, 492 P 2d 1137) As noted in [San I ranciscans for Reasonable Growth v City and t ounty(if San Francisco((1984) 151 Cal App 3d 61, 198 Cal Rptr 634) analyzing only "piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the urban environment" Yet that appears to be what has happened here The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to adequately address numerous potential impacts, as noted in my letter of April 2, 2010 In that regard,the attached material is provided, providing information regarding impacts due to cat pi edation, night lighting, need for adequate buffers ® California Coastal Commission, July 29, 2004 Staff report Agenda Item Th 23e, August 12, 2004 ® California Coastal Commission, September 24, 2004 staff report, Agenda Item W 12g, October 13, 2004 a California Coastal Commission, April 1, 2005 staff report, Agenda Item Th 7a April 14, 2005 A California Coastal Commission, staff report, Agenda Item Th 1 la, October 13, 2005 • California Coastal Commission, July 26, 2006 staff report, Agenda Item Tu 8c, August 6, 2006 • California Coastal Commission, November 1, 2007 staff report Agenda Item W 16a, November 14, 2007, Effects of Artificial Lighting on Wildlife, Wlldlands CPR(h tp//www wildlandsepr org) • Domestic Cat Predation On Birds And Other Wildlife, American Bird Conservancy ® Landowners And Cat Predation Across Rural-To-Urban Landscapes, by Christopher A Lepezyk, Angela G Mertzg, Jianguo Liu ® Cats and Wildlife, A Conservation Dilemma By John S Coleman, Stanley A Temple and Scott R Craven Con0usion Thank you for the opportunity to comment Please keep us iniormed as this project proceeds Yours truly, Sandra L Gems Pagc 3 of 3 June 28, 2010 HB City Council 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE Recirculated Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 - "The Ridge" 22-unit Planned Unit Development Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I submit these comments on behalf of myself and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, a 501 (c)3 non-profit organization, of which I am currently Vice-President I have already weighed in on areas where I felt the environmental assessment was lacking, and on the fallacy of the two "public benefits" that supposedly will be generated by this proposed project(please see my letter to the City dated October 8, 2009) I also made oral comments at the Planning Commission public hearing on April 27, 2010, which I am now submitting in writing as an attachment to this letter for the benefit of the written record The comments in this letter are additional comments to those I have previously submitted Open Space—Parrs a Higher Priority than Private Residential The Coastal Act speaks for itself "Coastal Act Section 30222 Private lands, priority of development purposes The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have prionly over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry " Why would the City knowingly send a project to the Coastal Commission that contradicts the Coastal Act9 By requesting entitlement amendments to change the certified land use from Open Space—Parks to Residential, the proposed project DOES NOT COMPLY with Coastal Act Section 30222 and therefore must be DENIED 1 The RAND fails to protect Natural Resources and Conflicts with the Coastal Element of the General Plan The project whale proposing a change in the Land Use Plan from Open Space - Parks (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) would not conflict with the land use goals and policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan (RA VD pg 12) While the project complies with certain aspects of the City's Coastal Element (namely section C-1, concerning public access), it violates others Notably, the project violates Policy C 4 4 2 4 4 2 Prohibit private development along the bluffs rising up to the Bolsa Chica mesa(the bluff face that rises above the northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica low land) within the City's jurisdiction that would alter the natural landform or threaten the stability of the bluffs The proposed project is a private development along the buffs which alters the natural landform The eastern portion of the site adjacent to the Shea property would be raised three to nine feet over existing elevations requiring approximately 4 200 cubic yards of cut and 10 700 cubic yards of fall (RAND pg 3) A 5ft wrought iron fence above a aft wall (of unspecified material) along the project s easterly boundary at the top of the slope (RAND attachment 2 3 - Site Plan) City staff has argued that the Bolsa Chica bluff is not a"coastal" bluff based upon the findings of the state Coastal Commission However, it does not matter whether the bluff is a"coastal" bluff or a regular bluff, the City's Coastal Element singles out this particular bluff out for protection in policy C 4 4 2 If it were simply a matter of wanting to protect"coastal" bluffs only, then why include specific policies 4 4 2 for the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluff and 4 4 3 for the eastern Bolsa Chica bluff(near Seapoint)9 The bottom line is the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs are a purposely protected asset in the City's Local Coastal Program, prohibited from private development, and therefore the proposed project VIOLATES the City's General Plan and must be DENIED 2 The RMND fails to protect a Public View and Conflicts with the Coastal Element of the General Plan The RMND talks about public views thusly The Bolsa Chica Mesa and slope is identified as a visual resource in the Coastal Element and existing policies in the Coastal Element call for the preservation of public views to and from the slope (RAND pg 42) The project is proposing two story homes at approximately 25 to 30 feet in height Existing residential uses north and west of the project site are two and three stories in height and private views fi^om these residential uses would be impacted by the project However neither the General Plan Coastal Element nor the Coastal Act protect private views (RAND pg 42) The RMND is forgetting about the public view from the 30-foot wide City owned parcel itself As demonstrated in Mark Bixby's 4/27/10 letter to the Planning Commission, the Bolsa Chica wetlands are visible to the public from the 30 foot parcel The proposed project would eliminate this existing public view, in violation of Coastal Element Policies C 4 2 2 and C 4 2 3 4 2 2 Promote the preservation of significant public view corridors to the coastal corridor, including views of the sea and the wetlands through strict application of local ordinances, design guidelines and related planning efforts, including defined view corridors 4 2 3 Require that the massing, height, and orientation of new development be designed to protect public coastal views One could even argue that with development of the Brightwater project, which also eliminated "views of the sea and the wetlands" from public view (Los Patos Street), it is even MORE important to preserve what little public view is left from this vicinity The RAND claims a public view would remain In addition improvement of an existing undeveloped 30 foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site would also provide public views from the slope edge at the eastern point of the site (RAND pg 42) In addition the adjacent slope would be preserved as a significant scenic resource and the project would provide for public views from the project site via the proposed 30 foot wide access path (RAND pg 43) 3 The problem is that the RMND's public viewpoint via the path along the eastern slope already exists, to say that this view would be "provided" by the proposed project is a total misstatement of fact and thus an inappropriate basis for making decisions And while the eastern slope public view would remain, the public view from the City parcel would change—it would be eliminated by the proposed project, in violation of Coastal Element Policy C 4 2 2 Therefore the proposed project VIOLATES the City's General Plan and must be DENIED The RMND fails to address potentially significant Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife and Sensitive Habitat due to Piecemeal planning The RMND has this to say about the proposed project's impacts to the nearby ESHA Impacts from development of the project site on surrounding habitat areas including the adjacent eucalyptus ESHA east of the subject property could occur from the intrusion of people and pets in the area as well as from noise light dispersal of nonnative plants and introduction of pests and feral species It should be noted that these impacts already occur due to the proximity of other residential development to the habitat areas The proposed project includes several design measures that would reduce or eliminate these impacts such as perimeter fencing to separate and deter humans and pets from disturbing the preserved habitat areas and dark sky lighting as well as restrictions on the type of exterior lighting that residents of the project can use in the future Standard requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) require a Domestic Animal Control Plan a Pest Management Plan and other performance standards for developments adjacent to an ESHA to minimize impacts (RAND pg 33) The RMND essentially dismisses these impacts as already occurring "due to the proximity of other residential development to the habitat areas What the RMND fails to acknowledge is that existing development is currently on the shortest side of the ESHA (the 150ft northern width), with the other three sides of the ESHA currently open space and less threatening to the wildlife in the ESHA The proposed project would be along the 450ft length of the western side Combined with the approved Shea development along the eastern side, the ESHA will effectively be "boxed in" on three sides, a significant impact potentially diminishing the viability of the ESHA 4 The RMND fails to adequately analyze the significant cumulative impacts of development on the ESHA, and therefore the proposed project must be DENIED The RMND fails to adequately mitigate Pet Impacts on Wildlife and Sensitive Habitat I wish to incorporate by reference the following article DOMESTIC CAT PREDATION ON BIRDS AND OTHER WILDLIFE by the American Bird Conservancy (not dated, 2004 referenced in article) http //www abcbirds ora/abcprojzrams/pohcy/cats/materials/predation pdf In particular, " scientists now list invasive species, including cats, as the second most serious threat to bird populations worldwide Habitat fragmentation provides cats and other predators easier access to wildlife forced to live on smaller tracts of land Rather than havens for wildlife, these areas can be death traps " I wish to incorporate by reference the following article Killer among us, Many bird species are in decline, and neighborhood cats_are partly to blame by J Michael Kennedy Los Angeles Times Dec 23, 2003 http //www latimes com/news/science/environment/la-os- cat23dec23,0,350970 story In particular, "Another study in Michigan concluded that a single pet cat killed at least 60 birds in an 18-month period" and "In California, several species of endangered birds are threatened by cats, including the Western snowy plover, brown pelican, least tern and California gnatcatcher, reports the American Bird Conservancy " 5 California gnatcatchers have been known to nest on the adjacent Goodell property, and the three other noted species reside at the nearby Bolsa Chica wetlands For this RMND to dismiss the potentially significant impact of cats on sensitive species is foolhardy And you must be Joking if you think an iron fence (RNIND attachment 2 3 - Site Plan) is going to deter cats from Jumping ship Cats have incredibly flexible spines and can squeeze past nearly anything As for" perimeter fencing to separate and deter humans and pets from disturbing the preserved habitat areas again, the City is clearly underestimating cats' leaping and climbing abilities Even declawed cats can leap and climb Plus, any patio furniture or trellis or foliage in the back yard is a potential means to escape over a wall for any pet Is the city really going to tell homeowners they can't have patio furniture, a backyard BBQ or basketball hoop, or trees9 Besides that, any cat or dog allowed to wander (or simply escapes out a door) outside could take surface streets to the tract entrance and exit that way The environmental checklist asks [Would the project]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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? (RHND pg 30) The RMND claims "less than significant impact" Despite the best efforts of a Domestic Animal Control Plan, pets do escape and wander Putting pets right next to ESHA (on the Shea property) and designated conservation area(gnatcatcher habitat on the Goodell property) is asking for trouble The RMND fails to adequately address the potentially significant impacts of cats on birds and wildlife in such a sensitive location, and therefore the proposed project should be DENIED The RMND fails to address the potentially significant impacts of Overnight Lighting on wildlife and the nearby ESHA Despite the use of"dark sky" lighting, the proposed project will create adverse lighting effects on the environment and nearby ESHA due to lights being left on overnight Although homeowners may be limited in the outdoor lighting they're allowed to use, who is going to enforce that precaution? The RMND does not say And in addition to the street lighting which is left on overnight, the City's Police Department has suggested this condition of approval "The meandering trail and 6 landscape lot to the north of the project should be lighted throughout all hours of darkness " (DECEMBER 3, 2008 memo) The adverse effects of overnight lighting on the environment in general and adjacent ESHA in particular has not been addressed, nor has the effects of lights pointing down towards the ESHA's treetops been addressed I wish to incorporate by reference the following article Ecological Light Pollution by Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich, C The Ecological Society of America, 2004 http //www urbanwildlands org/Resources/LongcoreRich2004 pdf Some excerpts "Animals can experience increased orientation or disorientation from additional illumination and are attracted to or repulsed by glare, which affects foraging, reproduction, communication, and other critical behaviors" "Artificial light disrupts interspecific interactions evolved in natural patterns of light" "Constant artificial night lighting may also disorient organisms accustomed to navigating in a dark environment" "The cumulative effects of behavioral changes induced by artificial night lighting on competition and predation have the potential to disrupt key ecosystem functions " "A `perpetual full moon' from artificial lights will favor light- tolerant species and exclude others If the darkest natural conditions never occur, those species that maximize foraging during the new moon could eventually be compromised, at risk of failing to meet monthly energy budgets " "Artificial night lighting could also alter communication patterns as a secondary effect Coyotes (Canis latrans) group howl and group yip-howl more during the new moon, when it is darkest Communication is necessary either to reduce trespassing from other packs, or to assemble packs to hunt larger prey during dark conditions (Bender et al 1996) Sky glow could increase ambient illumination to eliminate this pattern in affected areas " 7 I wish to incorporate by reference the following article Is l_�pollution killing our birds?By Colin Henshaw and Graham Cliff, 2006 http //www light-pollution org uk/dwnLoads/C1iffSummer 2006 pdf Excerpts "Recent research has shown a reduction in the populations of moths, spiders, sparrows and amphibians, supporting the case for light pollution being considered a threat to the environment as well as to astronomers It is common knowledge that street and security lights attract insects indeed, 2000-watt light traps are used by scientists to study insect species in the Brazilian rain forest The authors think that the increasing numbers of urban street and security lights must have a measurable impact on the environment, as insects fly around the lights all night and eventually fall to the ground exhausted, no longer having the energy to feed themselves or to procreate Consequently, with lights often left on all night, 365 nights a year, the number of insects must be significantly reduced " and "Insects are the primary food source for many predators (such as bats, birds, lizards and frogs), and their decline has a serious knock- on effect for other creatures " Light pollution and its effects on wildlife and the nearby ESHA simply haven't been addressed in the RMND, and therefore the proposed project should be DENIED The RMND dismisses the potentially significant impact on Wildlife and IESHA caused by Noise I wish to incorporate by reference the following article Noise Pollution Threatens Birds by Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience Staff Writer, 2006 http //www livescience com/animals/061101_ovenbird noise html Excerpt 8 "Loud ambient noise affects the sex lives of birds, a new study suggests Man-made noise is increasing in the wild Because birds communicate mainly by sound, loud environments interfere with their communications and reduces pairing by almost 15 percent `This was the first study to isolate noise as the key mechanism influencing pairing success,' said study co-author Erin Bayne, a researcher from University of Alberta" Another article's abstract summarizes the situation Birdsong and anthropogemc noise implications and applications for conservation by Hans Slabbekoorn and Erwin A Ripmeester,Molecular Ecology Jan 2008 Abstract "The dramatic increase in human activities all over the world has caused, on an evolutionary time scale, a sudden rise in especially low-pitched noise levels Ambient noise may be detrimental to birds through direct stress, masking of predator arrival or associated alarm calls, and by interference of acoustic signals in general Two of the most important functions of avian acoustic signals are territory defence and mate attraction Both of these functions are hampered when signal efficiency is reduced through rising noise levels, resulting in direct negative fitness consequences " Noise and its potentially significant impacts on wildlife and the adjacent ESHA simply haven't been addressed in the RMND, and therefore the proposed project should be DENIED The RMND fails to address the potentially significant impacts that human development will have on Coyote populations and the Ecosystem The RMND acknowledges the sighting of coyotes on site (pg 31) However, the RMND does not discuss the loss of habitat to this species so vital to the ecosystem as a top predator Coyotes have already lost substantial territory at Bolsa Chica due to the Brightwater project next door Perhaps not coincidentally, reports of assertive coyote activity in Huntington Beach residential neighborhoods have increased significantly, to the point that the City's Police Department officially labeled them a public safety threat A coyote reduction effort is underway in the city (http //www ocregister com/news/city-242722-council-coyotes html) 9 The negative effects on the ecosystem by the loss of habitat and the reduction program for coyotes has simply not been addressed by the RMND, and therefore the proposed project should be DENIED In summary 1 RMND ignores the fact that Open Space—Parks is a Higher Priority than Private Residential in the Coastal Act 2 The RMND fails to protect Natural Resources and Conflicts with the Coastal Element of the General Plan 3 The RMND fails to protect a Public View and Conflicts with the Coastal Element of the General Plan 4 The RMND fails to address potentially significant Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife and Sensitive Habitat due to Piecemeal planning 5 The RMND fails to adequately mitigate Pet Impacts on wildlife and ESHA habitat 6 The RMND fails to address the potentially significant impacts of Overnight Lighting on wildlife and the nearby ESHA 7 The RMND dismisses the potentially significant impact on wildlife and ESHA caused by Noise 8 The RMND fails to address the potentially significant impacts that human development will have on Coyote populations and the Ecosystem For these reasons, and the reasons previously submitted, I strongly urge you to DENY Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 and its related amendments/ entitlements/permits Thank you ;4A�u F & Julie E Bixby attachment 10 Attachment Julie Bixby's Public Comments to the Planning Commission 4/27/10 My name is Julie Bixby, I'm Vice President of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and a resident of Huntington Beach Does this project really benefit the public or the developer? This project claims a public benefit of improved coastal access The RMND states, Members of the public can currently use this access but since the site as unimproved and provides no sagnage only people that are famalaar with the area take advantage of this access point Coastal Act Section 30531 freely admits that some access-ways primarily serve locals, so there's no harm in that Which begs the question why would anyone bother to encourage non-locals to access the coast from this remote location? It's the LEAST direct route, and even after sprucing up the first 400 feet, the rest of the mile long journey is uneven, unpaved, and unofficial It's not like there aren't any alternatives Both Warner and the Brightwater trail are available for non- locals Coastal Act Section 30210 says access shall be posted Since when is posting signs to follow the law a public benefit9 The City owns this parcel because Hearthside dedicated it as their park requirement for Sandover Now Hearthside wants to repurpose it as coastal access for the Ridge Isn't that taking credit for the parcel twice9 Maybe Shea can make the next claim and call it a scenic overlook for their ESHA This project claims a public benefit of being green But how does building a few 2-story houses—green or otherwise—benefit me, Julie Q Public9 Will these green houses be off the grid? Will these green houses end water rationing in the city? Will the green house owners all be forced to drive zero emissions vehicles? The houses themselves won't be big polluters, but the daily car trips generated by their occupants surely will be Since when is increased air pollution a public benefit 11 Hearthside's feeble excuses for a public benefit pale in comparison to the real thing You want to talk public benefit9 A 2009 study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found that people living near a green space had lower rates for 15 ailments, including asthma, diabetes, intestinal complaints, back and neck problems, depression and anxiety The researchers urge "planners to take the amount of green space in the living environment into account " Guess what? The city's General Plan takes green space into account Recreation Goal #2, states that the city shall "Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of residents " Recreational Policy 2 1 1 quantifies this at 5 park acres for every 1,000 residents However, as noted in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR, city facilities have not kept pace with population growth Even if you think the City has enough parkland, the General Plan says we don't Incredibly, the City says it has no plans to acquire this property even though it's been zoned as parkland for 25 years What's the point of amassing all those in lieu fees if not to acquire land for parks? Why is the city following certain parts of the General Plan and disdaining others9 Who benefits from snubbing the city's parkland policies9 Certainly Not the public If you approve this project, you're essentially saying that landscaping a mere 400 feet, and building 22 private residences, is of greater benefit to the general public than providing 5 acres of green, open space parkland So I ask again, Who is the true beneficiary of this project9 Thank you 12 June 27,2010 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 RE Biological Resources and "The Ridge project Dear city council, On behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust I am submitting this update on Bolsa Chica biological resources in the vicinity of Hearthside Homes' "The Ridge"project I would also like to include by reference into the administrative record for The Ridge" all biological and hydrological observations I have submitted to the California Coastal Commission for the Shea Homes Parkside Estates LCPA as those observations also pertain to many of the resources that will be impacted by construction of"The Ridge' Southern Tarplant On June 13, 2010 1 conducted a GPS based southern tarplant survey Each red dot on this survey map (first attachment) indicates one or more southern tarplants within the+/ 2m margin of error for my GPS unit This recent survey can be compared to a survey of the same methodology that I conducted two years prior on May 26 2008,which was part of my submission pertaining to the Goodell annexation that has been included as the second attachment to this Ridge submission Overall I would characterize the area wide tarplant population as stable to increasing There was one new population on the Goodell property Two prior Goodell tarplant populations could not be found—at the eastern edge of the bunker entrance (presumed extirpated from the uncontrolled bike activity on the property) and at the northern portion of the Goodell lowlands (presumed overtaken by encroaching iceplant) There has been a large increase in tarplant on the portion of the Shea property adjacent to the Goodell lowlands as well as some new scattered individuals along the old city/county border of the Shea property While conducting my June 13 2010 survey I discovered that an approximately 75ft wide strip of vegetation had been removed from the northern portion of the Goodell property adjacent to the Ridge property presumably to facilitate archaeological investigation Removal of this dense, invasive vegetation may promote northward tarplant expansion towards the Ridge property in future years Impacted raptors in Adjacent Eucalyptus ESHA My attached Goodell annexation submission also includes summary results of five years worth of Bolsa Chica raptor observations The primary purpose of these observations was to document the most frequent perching locations and therefore flying raptors that did not perch were seldom logged However, it must be noted that raptors perching in the adjacent eucalyptus ESHA do so in part because the Ridge property provides foraging habitat within visual distance of the raptors Development of The Ridge as currently proposed will result in significant negative impacts to the general Bolsa Chica raptor population through loss of forage Additional significant negative impacts will occur to the adjacent eucalyptus grove ESHA through the cumulative effects of increased lighting, noise, pet intrusion and human intrusion Therefore an EIR must be prepared in order to properly assess and mitigate these impacts Sincerely, n4 P, gza Mark D Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92647 4707 714 625-0876 mark@bixby org Attachments Southern tarplant distribution 06/13/2010 Goodell annexation submission 04/22/2009 Southern Tarplant Distribution 06/13/10 ? z � -- � € * i § � s �Ar j 41 7 T3� 3 k av Y a ti e ee a April 22, 2009 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department ATTN Jennifer Villasenor 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re Goodell Annexation Environmental Assessment No 08 017 Dear Ms Villasenor, I am writing to express the following concerns with the Goodell property pre zoning and annexation project Environmental Assessment No 08-017 Mapping Accuracy No legal boundary descriptions are provided in the EA for the proposed RL OS PR and CC zoning designations Additionally the proposed zoning map included with the EA was produced by generalized drawing software without being geo referenced to latitude & longitude Given this lack of geospatial accuracy it is impossible to know with any certainty the location of the proposed zoning lines in relation to the sensitive biological resources that exist on the property and whether or not the proper buffers mandated by the city's LCP are being provided I'd like to request that for this project and all future projects that GIS software be used to produce proposed zoning maps at the start of the project lifecycle and that the underlying GIS data files be made available to all project stakeholders Only then will it be possible to accurately determine the impacts to sensitive biological resources Southern Tarplant The EA asserts on p 19 that Southern tarplant has the potential to occur within the project site but was not observed during field surveys because no suitable habitat as present for at to exist on the site Those field surveys missed several populations of southern tarplant, a CNPS List 1 B I species (rare threatened or endangered in California or elsewhere, seriously endangered in California) Southern tarplant is actually quite plentiful on certain portions of the property See attached for the results of a GPS-based southern tarplant survey that I conducted last year on May 26 2008 Each red dot on this survey map indicates one or more southern tarplants within the+/- 2m margin of error for my GPS unit My survey shows that both the proposed RL and OS PR areas contain significant tarplant populations The CC zoning area needs to be expanded to encompass these two significant populations Also attached is an independent southern tarplant survey conducted by Huntington Beach resident Dena Hawes on August 5, 2008, and subsequently submitted to the CNDDB This survey corroborates my own findings and provides ground level context photographs Southern tarplant can currently be found in numerous locations on the Goodell property as of April 17 2009 Raptors The EA and referenced biological resources report classifies the eucalyptus trees on the site as "ornamental habitat" and on p 18 the EA asserts The ruderal vegetation as well as the ornamental non-native trees on the site provide foraging area for several raptor species including ferruginous hawk red- tailed hawk white-tailed kite northern harrier prairie falcon and American Kestrel but are not considered sensitive and provide only marginal habitat for amphibians reptiles and small mammals due to repeated ground disturbance over time However whale ornamental habitat as not considered a sensitive habitat type existing eucalyptus trees on the site are contiguous with the ESHA and are considered a significant biological resource This assertion admits the raptor foraging value of the eucalyptus trees, and admits that the Goodell eucalyptus trees are contiguous with adjacent ESHA(which is comprised of the same types of eucalyptus trees found on the Goodell property) yet arrives at the conclusion that the Goodell eucalyptus trees are not ESHA Attached below are maps that document all raptor sightings that I and other observers have made from 2004 through the present day along the eastern edge of the Bolsa Chica mesa These data were submitted to the California Coastal Commission during the processing of the Shea Parkside LCP amendment and resulted in the commission declaring the northern Shea eucalyptus grove to be ESHA along with the southern grove From these maps it is clear that the ESHA should extend onto the Goodell property which is in between the two Shea groves Thus the proposed CC zoning needs to be expanded to encompass all of the ESHA and the OS PR zoning needs to be relocated outside of the ESHA at a minimum distance of 10011 from the ESHA as called for by the city s LCP Note that this 100ft distance will likely be too conservative for the Coastal Commission,which approved a Shea Parkside development envelope no closer than approximately 250ft from the north grove ESHA The attached Google Earth maps provide two data representations for each species The left map of each pair renders all of the sighting location placemarks in the same size but uses color gradations to denote the relative difference in the number of sightings (white indicates a single sighting,whereas fully-saturated red indicates the location with the most sightings) The right map of each pair uses the same red color for all of the sighting location placemarks,but scales the size of each placemark to correspond to the number of sightings (1 e a placemark with 10 sightings will have 10 times the area of a placemark with a single sighting) Note that while the number of sightings is rendered next to each placemark, Google Earth may locate these numbers far from the placemark when many placemarks are crowded into a small area particularly for the scaled placemark maps Thus these sightings counts are really only useful when using Google Earth interactively where mouse over animation makes it clear which count is associated with a given placemark (the KML file for the data can be provided upon request so that interested readers can examine my data further in an interactive manner) Lowland Eucalyptus Trees Omitted from Biological Survey Curiously two lowland eucalyptus trees (one live one dead)on the Goodell property have been omitted from the SWCA biological resources survey referenced by the EA These two trees are amongst the most popular raptor perches of the eastern Bolsa Chica mesa I have annotated the SWCA map below with white icons to show the omitted trees 41 k t +O� 9 � S t t ` � 1 EIR Required Given the important sensitive resources on this site, an EIR is required to assess the impacts since this pre zoning process moves the site one step closer to development Sincerely Ad 4 A D' &�X� Mark D Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 4707 714 625 0876 mark@bixby org Mark Bixby Southern Tarplant Survey — May 26, 2006 -1 Y � IT lz 1 PTO 3 2 acres f � �. py m �XS =' Al s ^t a Xk 7R I r •• a 3 Dena Hares Southern Tarplant survey - August 5, 2008 r G w • Mad to California Natural Diversity Database For Office Use Only Department of Fish and Game Source Code 13 A w G('1000 I Quad Code 1807 le Street Suite 202 Sacramento CA 95814 Elm Code Occ No Fax (916)324-0475 email WHDAS@dfg ca gov EO Index No Map Index No Date of Feld Work mmidd/yyyy J 8/05 California Native Species Field Survey Form Scientific Name Common Name cy lit Species Found? ❑ Reporter Yes No If not why? Address Total No Individuals � Subsequent Visit) ❑yes ❑no ,Nuy7r/vf,T,rJ jb,y l (A cif Tj,�,r�j Is this an existing NDDB occurrence? ❑no Punk Yes occ # E mad Address /L c{T C) o&i r,rY eo%!7 Collection?if yes (7/�r) Number Museum/Herbarium Phone Plant Information Animal Information Phenology 0 /o )0 #adults #Juveniles All larvae #egg masses #unknown vegetative flowering fruiting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ breeding wintering burrow site rookery nesting other Location Description (please attach map AND/OR fill out your choice of coordinates, below) County ( andown D/Mgr J.1A1,0kJD C 6'0n,7Z-'LLr Quad Name Elevation in T R Sec '/4 of 1/4 Mendian H M S Source of Coordinates topo map&type) >F,5 T R Sec t/4 of t/4 Mendian H M S GPS Make&Model 62f?/3)i V C ^0 10/ Datum NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 Horizontal Accuracy l,..i"r metersse—eli Coordinate System UTM Zone 10 UTM Zone 11 OR Geographic(Latitude&Longitude) Coordinates Easting/Longitude W lilk C)� 3-15r Northing/Latitude IJ Habitat Description(plant communities dominants associates substratesrsoils aspects/slope) Ae /S /fie rvS 1V Vc'66-i,-3"W eu//V0,V qTt u� r at 1451 vi. AC(c, P11 ,4> lit?AS$, L3 k--4,'X J�7L Yj/ C`c c vv o rs y/ v55r 7`rLS; , /v6-fr4lIC 39 rA 5,-"A LL A)OO ,47-10Y 0r-- 1Ectcr ' elk' arc r� t7r'�[sc cv f i l .ryr y f LpoSZ �w.Zi�IL LAle e, /LyvL A5T&,W-�,0 -SCc b 15 Z.C VZy- ct A4T/AU LAB v6© IN-V VI S,a OF 77Y.1-m'-s4) Other rare taxa seen at THIS site on THIS date Site Information Overall site quality ❑ Excellent ❑Good ❑Fair /1�-Aoor Current/surrounding land use 1.4efrt,,vl, 4)1' frEt.D AeeC;-L 4t'coc. .,,TE Tit 7°yE 695f � ! 11c +v 0,g- 11i4t 014 li cfi 17166t UC9 FRG'3? A2trf7 m-ew,46tWS 4DJ, ilT It� &b4t) Visible disturbances CYJ C �3�kE 7X041t: &V 9 LL50C, -AM 31kle �rrt�j /` 6AI. ' d/.1611V 00— 6UA?Ii 10 40W!1 Threats A'7V7)Wv r7rotil (FN ,M.,vZC IN ov -At6 TARPLArv;P147-6 qU) d19�' -Vf . 065 I-tttMAIV iT 14/6,, 3/K6S, 13166tIV G , VA AILOLJ.IV Comments A./y � gRC �' (t- 70 3 74u.)A-nlr� 17 V3 / ltYtt�7 ar Lt 6LT�7CC4 T C 3 Lr nt,v t vva L7tL 'TIftCK 3PU rI 7 tAN7r Ark4 r' tr't ✓ramp to.' Determination (check one or more and fill in blanks) Photographs (check one or more) Slide Print Digital Plant/animal Keyed(ate reference) Habitat Compared with specimen housed at Compared with photo/drawing in Diagnostic feature By another person(name) Other May we obtain duplicates at our expenses yes no 1 irMIHDABJ174rR VIMMO3 s ` i m !<. C�'� ; J � t y ,. .. Nit f'k W 118002 395 z­ N33042 567 21 * Mx Photo looking south Nearest intersection is Bolsa Chica Road and Los Patos Brightwater housing development is under construction to the immediate west of the site Tarplant habitat continues deep into the brush in the center of the photo Thick invasive growth of black mustard russian thistle and five-hook bassia makes it difficult to count the tarplants This area supported a substantial population of southern tarplant in 2006 and a smaller number in 2007 (extreme drought year) 2008 population is large and extensive estimated at 85 plants up to 3 tall Area has long history of mountain biking BMX,paintball/BB shooting,and digging Nearby WWII ammo bunker is currently being excavated by area teens,bunker is out of frame to the right of the photo Property owner has partially filled the site with fill dirt and buried the bunker(20047),Bobcat was used to dump&compact the fills Tarplant habitat is in danger of being damaged or destroyed when/if bunker is reburied or fills removed Bunker access by teens likewise increases probability of tarplant destruction from trampling bike activity and vandalism Hillside erosion and silt drift from fills have burred seasonal ponds on the site f 4 4+47 4 t ± a pk W 90 r .g c Mad to California Natural Diversity Database For Ofce Use Only Department of Fish and Game Source Code Quad Code / 1807 13"Street Suite 202 Sacramento CA 95814 Elm Code Occ No Fax (916)324-0475 email W14DAB@dfg ca gov EO Index No Map Index No Date of Field Work mm/dd/yyyy g/6-/08 — I J) California Native Species Field Survey Form Scientific Name J Common Name Soot YCRN �IRIDLIJI Species Found? ❑ Reporter es No 7 if not why? Address Jc?4 Oly&t-1 no D/2 Total No Individuals to + Subsequent Visit? ❑yes ❑no Iy&T 1, 6T j,1 Jt4tH, C,4 Ub`/-J Is this an existing NDDB occurrence? ❑no �unk Yes occ # Email Address Al iLA' GQSnf a/./'/'.er7in Collection?If yes (21 Number Museum/Herbarium Phone Plant Information Animal Information Phenology 7-45,-u % /0 #adults #juveniles #larvae #egg masses #unknown vegetative flowering fruiting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ breeding wintering burrow site rookery nesting other Location Description (please attach map AND/OR fill out your choice of coordinates, below) County OxZ4 r Mgr !/t?tL�r4(7 �f)Ul7 LL Quad Name Elevation L{l T R _ Sec '/4 of % Mendian H M S Source of Coordinates(GPS topo map&type) PS T R _ Sec of % Mendian H M S GPS Make&Model C!�A tit 66KO 01 Datum NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 Horizontal Accuracy 1('0 meter eet Coordinate System UTM Zone 10 UTM Zone 11 OR Geographic(Latitude&Longitude) Coordinates Easting/Longitude W I►SS°0 1'JU Northing/Latitude AL. 3`/-[,;2 Habitat Description(plant communities dominants associates substratesrsoils aspectslslope) �oCA7ruf✓ t� 4 3,,rt0-/y 5,44,JUvCIL POW Cu�L�GnrT �G-6er�rrrcJ Ct�vStS%f of �fr9o/SftJrv(, /3t�� �►�,�� Cl2auiAN DA+Sy, yCttcw S%AW14J LEI Ft7KTA0t 7ti'USS1An+ �/(ISTtC, Sv/L fs F(�2/'4tK/ tn�c Gr2.A+vr-t? 4ec-4 ()e(Gl,vt4ttrly CUvrAW69 CoAS%A(- SAGS 5CA?Ug d 'r 16 .voi,✓ t�i2tntaC�uy Ilvt'ovE Nvv IvAriv6 3foceto 14 2 c--A 15 01111�(2tJ xlA1aiZ5L y &0' )( Zu ' 5m 9 L L pdpVLAr""'l 5 ;7y(-AZiv TAV(4Ai E�zL t t yc 9�'n�ca� Other rare taxa seen at THIS site on THIS date 30 ' D 46- C-457- of P" l"-y 51rC -/s PtA`3). Site Information Overall site quality ❑ Excellent ❑Good ❑ Fair 1;1PPoor Current/surrounding land use 1y-oj Ao,- ,v, D,'vC lEA1— &A/ 4AJI-Ke--nrr f'RO'legly l F4ftw6 Aerrv/ry ©ffl9e Alvl- &Lo w ?W6 S trC /at RNTS A 4 b Fa/�Lfi.✓/yb ,4T 6JC� OF rry-t'C C-S.5 X'!�''�O Visible disturbances pl v'fiAiN d/t!L 1�r '[i"/3i17X ,�K'E ..{L"nPS. vf�ficLe 7y2,a/3ie r C.n Eta rPr Dui Vv ^?OAo P4,,vr:3ALi/13,Q SrtaUirn,u r3x r�JS ruE- 3 fiAN evn� t, FZESF 06Sr VL� rCI , 1�3Threats 7 (f f ' II4VY 7A4�6 Comments Ap6,4 /S c,v,.6A116,0 NaT S/6 fI, 9 vr1 �vo C v,I/ry ?iZ 'Ei{I� r f tle',9 vrt USL"v 4g y Jvv rt<GS 7e,6v5 ue GC EA7Ir dW !bi/),vr'S 7b dU LP (Gr( /7 J5+/&L( fi� Determination (check one or more and rill in blinks) Photographs (check one or more) Slide Pnnt Digital Keyed(cite reference) Plant/animal Compared with specimen housed at Habitat Compared with photo/drawing in Diagnostic feature By another person(name) May we obtain duplicates Other at our expense? yes no H0ilB1t747R iormm I Photo looking northwest Nearest intersection is Bolsa Chica Road and Los Patos Brrghtwater housing development is under construction to the immdiate west of the site Continuation of tarplant habitat area is out of frame to the right of the photo BMX bike lump and bike trail through the tarplant habitat are plainly - } � visible Area supported southern tarplant in M 2006 (approx 25 plants) 2008 population is more extensive Majority of tarplants in this area have died from trampling and bicycle —Azr a4 activity,tarplants out of frame are larger N'4, F wY y„ W 118002 430 N33042 545 ilk - 77N IV A. VJTA Small tarplant colony growing approx 30 due east of the site 10 15 plants v Mad to California Natural Diversity Database For Office Use Only Department of Fish and Game Source Code Quad Code ' I 1807 1 e Street Suite 202 Sacramento CA 95814 Elm Code Occ NO Fax (916)324-0475 email WHDAB@dfg ca gov � EO Index No Map Index No Date of Field work miWddiyyyy �,,` 1/os California Native Species Feld Survey Form Scientific Name e(�?V J R t Common Name :oL —'y6AV Species Found? R ❑ Reporter Dc-a/a Yes No If not why? Address 1/iml—LAiyl) ✓- Total No Individuals r,�7 Subsequent Visit? ❑yes ❑no f-4"7 111LIVal &Aelj /lq q2-&q i Is this an existing NDDB occurrence? ❑no 5(bnk Yes occ # E-mail Address /i I ectf"r�Si,£bt/»/'(' lrm_ Collection?If yes Number Museum I Herbarium Phone l-)) S'4&a 3 Plant Information Animal Information Phenology r0 % qt? % vegetative flowenng fruiting #adults #juveniles #larvae #egg masses #unknown ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ breeding wintering burrow site rookery nesting other Location Description (please attach map AND/OR Fill out your choice of coordinates, below) County 6&4L sf� I�afid. acme /Mgr ,Li�'q 0 ZCac�7 LC Quad Name ` Elevation T R _ Sec '/4 of Y4 Mendian H M S Source of Coordinates(GPS topo map&type) 6A0 T R _ Sec Y4 of Y4 Mendian H M S GPS Make&Model e-" i' -Tjt / z t Ko /o/ Datum NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 Horizontal Accuracy /5 f meters/feet Coordinate System UTM Zone 10 UTM Zone 11 OR Geographic(Latitude&Longitude) Coordinates Easting/Longttude 118002, 3cr3' Northing/Latitude A) 3-V`t9 `iiQ Habitat Description(plant communities dominants associates substrates/soils aspects/slope) �L00 t5 G Z v€t t !4964 1,5 !� /SL'�`� iIG"G Z t'1? N t+4N rVA7iJu` IIVVA.S,�t $t°€UE c(t0ca wt Lr !" t Lr'c r2,J�'(S r�rn/?�lJ�v L , fJvE tJCtou L 4�>Jr4� J301'14 -97v`airS 0. o,,v& oil 7WO !-A5,1 CVL.Ji zP JA� t�' C� i�tnr�S �' �t�, Stu t� �I�J�Urcit �L� CE 9mrv` crw5�rv7A ver9rrvv� I�` Si.Rt A r 5M?9LL6 ,F/Ltr'C.t,97f0V OF 74kloNT (40.31cuX /U f g+t } LI,12uvi 'V( iv de N,>t Wee 547-10AI 50 /V0' 5 c o 7 H Of 5/ti�- ,i2&0 ,-3fGa Ve ,4VUtiC , 4 fl zt-p v 9A 943 Other rare taxa seen at THIS site on THIS date Site Information Overall site quality ❑ Excellent ❑Good ❑Fair rEFPoor Current/surrounding land use�,�1/ZMW& �ti�©lALr>�/" ��'�'�/�f "�'aL,"L4/u� r3 �''� � ��'�"�'�U 75� '`�`'L`�t Visible disturbances /,11?rr'f 11LCt.S5 A", 4PP.vTRW LsflC� i418S r�t�vN` �ttt Sit7� 7��tc 5 /v` �,L vstt t c G1C1 v tT7t jrt}S// A&umUt-Ari`vV Arvd 09N}}gLfSm Threats t31CYcxCs v tL/tSJa t 5, s�? i`�rr[r�;, ,lr>n� ✓ 2 "L,vt,f �AAla'i �^1`' 9fVT, 1LIJ3 400-106, Comments A04-,4 7Ihj &-6V )a�f 97WLy Cr>'40 45 �,9 7) 6QvtA rt3i S t C�+a� (ra�r�s r� 3u�iPC�rjC� "v/'� 47r.-V ',s �S t7G� 390✓4>7,J/1V //f 1 IL a' .C�W,4&,9 6 I4£'�t3 lSS t�f VUI "-�V /2118dWTWV,9L &66 A(-.4 15 (,OmniG7 r r'oev r�r�0 � rrnr Photographs (check one or more) Slide Print Digital Determination (check one or more and fill in btanks) Plant!animalKeyed(cite reference) Habitat Compared with specimen housed at Compared with photo if drawing in Diagnostic feature By another person(name) Other May we obtain duplicates at our expense? yes no GAV140A0i1r47R 10t2=3 r �„S ...� � — j ,� a � 1:-k(• r��r 'dreg 2 ` x�fr°�y Photo looking south farm access road adr� yew k t 9Y Ns F o � visible in the upper left of Image rya # 1 u _X341 , � � Planted field out of frame to the left tWHO � Smaller colony of southern tarplant (approximately 10plants) is growing in the middle of the dense invasive � f�� vegetation in upper center of photo z Site contained approximately 30 "4� ' tarplants in 2006 area is now choked ti Z� r �• r ` ' withgrowth-inhibiting invasive species especially iceplants Photo looking north Farm access road partially visible road , continues up the hill past buried WWII bunker and extensive southern tar plant p colony Planted field visible in upper 9 r � CI ht wt � 1ec AlVP 0 as Tarplant colony is located at the base of y „s #} � x' + 124 •a, "� Sgt"c the mesa and the site has a history of � use as a farm equipment storage area W " Also heavily used by off leash dogs Juveniles/teens for paintball & BB shooting mountain bike trails come off the hillside and bisect the colony Area subject to heavy trampling littering vegetation damage,and erosion from bike trails Fil °� a ems" , `Fy M y r 4 p Y r a s�lu i W 118002 388 N33042 540 Southern tarplants are fairly large,up to 2 in height Found growing amongst dense russian thistle five-hook bassia,and iceplants Adjacent farm field is the site of a proposed housing tract V n �; £ ®®lsa Chica Cumulative Raptor Survey, 2004 to Present American Kestrel (Falco sparvenous) k "r Iv h-. ISM #51 �f �� #� " ,�� ,r x p� u � a,� r ,It * k § I �l� &try S 31 ' +�'�� a a��• �«�, �-"'�� ,,....:�-�..�`s .�•- 4 wily � �aa � ,as- � �, �.".� �"� ,� Barn Owl (Tyto alba) a ** x � ��� � x u fi ro a01 aK gs �s � r A `t T r„ _ a 1 4 tA a s a x r Cooper's Hawk (Acc►p►ter coopers) 31 " t r � ^ � � l°`^ 14 14 160 + �q « - RO ° fi r ys i TA �r ry i tr Great Horned Owl (Bubo v►rg►n►anus) iACAU AY 6ttt itt t �� s s !e#Ct i!# t r * nwi { � "A.�'`A'�" isNZeYV " Al w � g t �� � taMl �r �� Merlin (Falco colu►nbar►us) itttF It t x � � � Its it tit 1 �� 4 01 z •— a� —10 4 41 �72 rut t r�,'" �'�� * s�'�� �� a •^ � ram` ,� as � � �,„� � y" "i� ,„�'�, hF� s Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) fit jr RV r } t 4 s Ile, Tf Aw AIR Osprey (Pandion hahaetus) FiLl �,�� � ^�� s ,�" �9 .cry r��� Sa` �•- u F `" ¢ as re t n `fir lip� #' c^ is 'h Ah 5 t �„ 7 Peregrine Falcon (Falco pereg►rinus) tt Ate' Mo. y iy.l,u 7g V � 14E1t fit r 1011 fie t 0 yak ro 1L a � a At 43 7 w 4�y 'J s fi5mv a ,Vi OWS � s � �� 141 v ua Aa fi r �AW. � +� era Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo hneatus)Ap r $. { h r' A v 3 �#A # �. �p#y f�#a#k k#k ��#`#�� � � n� a'�:,#" 328 ! t a x �j�S ,32 OV 0 Apt -` U'a"s u" Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo,arna►censis) 40 a i 14 "1 ' as AA tP Mi 51 K Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accip►terstriatus) will Is# ''fi jull It I gi " ' z Av V Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) T" rot r r s� w� � x 32, zz If A+ r �t g air q x AIi2� t ;t 'lk White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) 11111 #Ai za + a ,51b9 �' � � �N g ter: ,'� "w�.�-e � �'`•�;��" ,�8t a ��d"r� � �� air �h�a�, z:4� � ��,u�,�',�-.' ��t� �7�" � 4 a c ;e;4. 3n s'✓,*Wt'Y� Y r 51" a Sol PT k �t ' 1' NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date 5/6/2010 To Ponce Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered N/A City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 5/6/2010 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 5/6/2010 City Council Office(1 Copy) Date Delivered 5/6/2010 Administration(1 Copy) Date Delivered 5/6/2010 Filed By Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy Appeal of MND 08 016 TTM 17294 CDP 09 022 CUP 08 046( The Ridge 22 unit planned Re unit development Bolsa Chica Street/Los Patos Avenue) Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A P MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L Flynn CMC City Clerk (714) 536 5227 Fee Collected None Form Completed by Kelly Mandic Deputy City Clerk H CITY OF HUNTIN T CH City Council Interoffice Communication TO Joan Flynn City Clerk FROM Jill Hardy Mayor or Pro Tern DATE May 4 2010 SUBJECT APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08-016, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17294, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO 09-022 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 08-046 (THE "RIDGE" 22-UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT — BOLSA CHICA STREET/LOS PATOS AVENUE) I hereby appeal the Planning Commissions approval of Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 Tentative Tract Map No 17294 Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 and Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 for The Ridge project a 22-unit planned unit development (PUD) southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue The primary reason for my appeal is to enable the Council to review the recirculated mitigated negative declaration and the land use and development permit entitlements concurrently On April 27 2010 the Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment No 08- 011 Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007 Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008 and Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002 along with the recirculated mitigated negative declaration tentative tract map coastal development permit and conditional use permit at a noticed public hearing The Planning Commissions action recommends that the City Council approve the proposed general plan land use and zoning designations on the site to RL (Residential Low Density) and amend Chapter 210 of the City s zoning ordinance to allow alternative parking configurations in conjunction with PUD projects Pursuant to Section 248 18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission SH MBB jv cc Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A Wilson City Administrator Bob Hall Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess Director of Planning and Building 01 W 4 9_ r. � Herb Fauland Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren Planning Manager Robin Lugar Deputy City Clerk ` Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner Linda Wine Administrative Assistant CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT DEPARTMENT �I /1 r I ��K� MEETING DATE CONTACT V� ��� 1� PHONE ( 7/' ))3 H - N/A YES NO ( ) (vj ( ) Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)heanngl Are the date day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal,is the appeilant's name included it the notice? If Coastal Development Permit does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Councill Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size U ( ) ( Z, ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? (✓� ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels' ( ) ( ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the madmg labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached? Is the33343 report attached? (Econorruc Development Dept items only) Please complete the following 1 Muumum days from publication to hearing date O 2 Number of times to be published 3 Number of days between publications tasty Peet'>Labeis 09t8/djl an a wu ne a a O�] l ap a'anbit3IN , Use Avery template 516i1a 109 g�t�a4�rand qI'm algq>�� �4i 163 123 01 163 123 02 163 123 03 Warren S Ziebarth Xuan Mai Thi Nguyen Enza Cianfanelli 17082 Bolsa Chica St 16761 Tim Ln 17122 Bolsa Chica St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Van Nuys CA 91406 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 04 163 123 05 163 123 06 James M Dawson Tr James C &Yue Ching Tsai Tr Mahrukh & Khushroo Fitter 17071 Bolero Ln P O Box 9947 4611 Stellrecht Cu Huntington Beach CA 92649 Fountain Valley CA 92728 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 12307 163 123 08 163 123 09 Allison Prop LP — Esther K Hsu 1997 Tr -- David Blakeman Bishop Tr P O Box 1582 876 Via Del Monte 5267 Warner Ave Lake Arrowhead CA 92352 Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 10 163 123 11 163 123 18 Hatfield Investment Inc Mahrukh & Khushroo Fitter Emil I Ratsiu Tr 876 Via Del Monte 4611 Stellrecht Cir 5122 Dunbar Ave Palos Verdes Estates CA 90274 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 12319 163 123 20 163 123 21 James E Talley Emil I Ratsiu Tr Emil I Ratsiu Tr 2202 Pacific Coast Hwy 5132 Dunbar Ave#A 5142 Dunbar Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 22 939 541 08 939 541 09 Emil I Ratsiu Tr Patricia Tensfeldt Carole L Pardee _ 5152 Dunbar Ave#A 5032 Dorado Dr#101 _ 5032 Dorado Dr#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 un ing on ea 9 939 541 10 939 541 11 939 541 12 e� — John-M Pulera 0 ora o Dr 91937 5032 UoradO-Dr#TOZr— Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 13 939 541 14 939 541 15 Tracey Riverman Deborah A Shubin Kyung S Moh 5032 Dorado Dr#202 5032 Dorado Dr#203 5032 Dorado Dr#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 16 939 541 17 939 541 18 Suzanne M & Bron Bryant Neil A Ruggiero Patricia Hegeman 5032 Dorado Dr#105 182 Trankilo St#402 5032 Dorado Dr#107 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Tamuning Guam 96913 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 19 939 541 20 939 541 21 Elaine Catherine Mock Brian B Cabildo Amy Annette Marrero 5300 Sunset Ln 5032 Dorado Dr#205 5032 Dorado Dr#206 Yorba Linda CA 92886 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 9u peller �!"/ 00 �i I i 1-x 2 5/KeWh el*1W & /8160 / /f� +.averyc®m Q)ttia AVERY®5160 o`I '6quetle 25 mm VWry®5160/ { 14MO-GO-AVERY PUBLLCHEA N j�0199-gig #, § !§4 MAILING LABELS G Labels\Labels\Public Hearing President (9 Huntington Harbor POA 1 B0 Sue Johnson 16 H B Chamber of Commerce P O Box 791 19671 Quiet e i 19891 Beach Blvd Ste 140 Sunset Beach C Hun on Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 l � Dave Stefarudes / Orange County Assoc of Realtors A011D 25552 La Paz Road 6 /4O9 ( / / Laguna Hills CA 92653 i President Jeffrey M Oderman 12 Pactfic Coast Archaeological 8� Amigos De Bolsa Chica RUTAN&TUCKED Society Inc P O Box 1563 611 Anton Blv Floor P O Box 10926 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Costa a CA 92626 1950 Costa Mesa CA 92627 Attn Jane Gothold Sunset Beach Community Asso 4 Pres H B Hist.Society 13 Director Pat Thies Presider C/O Newland House Museum O C Ping &Dev Service ep� t PO Bo 19820 Beach Blvd P O Box 4048 set Beach CA 90742 0215 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa An 92702 4048 President 5 Diane Ryan 14 Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow HRB Chair O C Resources& op Mgt Dept PO Box 865 7701 �.. c e P O�aCA Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hun each CA 92647 Sant02-4048 Juke Vandermost 6� Council on Aging 15 Planning Director 20 BLA-OC 1706 Orange City of Costa Mesa 17744 Sky Park Circle #170 Huntm each CA 92648 P O Box Irvine CA 92614-4441 Cos esa,CA 92628 12{}0 Richard Spicer Jeff Metzel 6 Planning Director SCAG Seadiff HOA City of Fountain V 818 West 7th 12th Floor 19391 Shady r Ord 10200 Slater e Los Angeles CA 90017 Huntm ach CA 92648 Foun alley CA 92708 Jean Kin brell 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director c/o E T I Co 0 Seachff HOA City of Newport Bea 2029 twood CA 19382 S e P O Box 17 untuigton Beach CA 92646 Hun on Beads CA 92648 New each,CA 92663 8915 Robert Smith V Lou Mannone 6 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chair 2009 Seacliff HOA City of Wes r 21352 Yarmouth Lane 19821 Oc uff Cade 8200 W ster Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 W ter CA 92683 Planning Director 24 Ocean View School Ihstnct S HB Hamptons HOA 38 City of Seal Beach Attn Candy Pulfer in Services Progressive Co gmt 211 Eighth St 17200 Pin t Lane 27405 Pu al #300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 H gton Beach CA 92647 M� n Vielo CA 92691 la �§4 Maj 4 M 9 offil Oro WS" Q WO PUBLIC HEARING N Q�d ��$fff�' X 1G 8S jEJ MAILING LABELS G LabeiS\I abelS\Public Hearing Oc $� j� Z Sall Graham 39 California Coastal Commission ��1 Clark Hampton y Theresa Henry �✓ Westminster School Drs Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwo venue 5161 Gel ircle 200 Oceangate loth Floor Wes er CA 92683 H gton Beach CA 92649 Long Beach CA 92802 4302 i Cahforma Coastal Commission 25 Stephen Ritter 33 Cheryle Browning 39 South Coast Area Office HB Union High Scho isrrct Meadowlark 200 Oceangate loth Floor 5832 Bolsa A e 1677 sevelt Lane Long Beach CA 92802 4302 Hun on Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Ryan P Chamberlain Hearthside Homes 1 40) Caltrans District 12 / 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 7: � 0 Irvine CA 92614 Irvine CA 92612-1699 Director 27 Goldenwest College I Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid Waste Enf Attn Fred Owens 5200 Warner Avenue Ste 108 O C Health Care ncy 15744 Goldenwest Huntington Beach CA 92649 P O Box 3 Huntin ach CA 92647 Sant a CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors Beach Bolsa Chica Land st 41 Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Evan He resident 6771 Warner Ave P O Box 4048 181 ort Tiffin Place Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa 92702AO48 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Bella Terra Mall Fountain Valley Elem ool Dist Attn Pat Rogers L e 10055 Slater Av e 7777 Eden ve #300 Fountam ey CA 92708 Hun gton Beach CA 92647 Dr Gary Rutherford Sprer 30 Country View Estates HOA 38 OC Sanitation District 42 HB City Eleme School Dist Came Thomas 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 C r Lane 6642 Trotter a Fountain Valley CA 92708 Hun gton Beach CA 92648 Huntm n Beach CA 92648 David Perry Country View Estates HOA 38 Eric Pendegraft,Plant r 42 HB City Elementary School Dist 00 Gerald Chapman AES Huntuigto LLC 20451 Crauner Lane 6742 Shire Circle Z1730 and Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hun gton Beach CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington B�Softh47 AYSO Region 56 47 9062 Kahului Drive Mike EricksoCommission Gray Huntington CA 92646 P O Box 399522 okey Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92605 3943 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 John Ely 42 AYSO Region ll7 47 AYSO Region 55 47 22102 Rockport Lan John Ahnaa7a Coinmissione lVtarlow Huntington CA 92646 19961 Bushard 18111 twell Grcle Fountain ey CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 IaDej size 1 x 2 5/8 compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Mai ttiquetIM MMJt 2WMxV* N&"b*Q& ` 0/8160 QgGg/pg q@Ajgny sang ejg4sdwo3 ww Lg x ww gz lewjo;ap e4anbi13 Ir PUBLIC HEARING/Nf� Wal8b ii $ - MAILING LABi►S G Labels\Labels\Public Hearing Oc o �� lledwoo $/i X l aZiS lagel HB Coastal Communities Assoc 43 Huntington Valley�LeLittle 47 HB Field Hockey* 47 David Guido Joel GrothMatntlal Pa 143 E Meats Avenue P O Box 511 I-Y etzler Dr Orange CA 92865 H gton Beach,CA 92615 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Downtown Business nation 44 AYSO R�143 47 HB Pop Warner F all** 47 Mr Steve D s Coatnus Paul Lo2 atn Street#106 5552 P x 5066 Huntington Beach CA 92648 H tington$each CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 9261S i t Downtown Residents a on 45 Fountain Valley Pony Base 47 North HB Soccer Club 47 Ms Mane St atn Chris Mahoney Presi�Geoton 505Al a 21212 Sha e 1860t #94 tington Beach CA 92648 Hun gtoa Beach CA 92646 H tington Beach CA 92646 Chairperson 4G H B Jr All American Football** 47 Robinwood Little League 47 Gabneleno/Tongva Tribal Council Randy Wooten Dona Cardona PO Box 693 P O Box 2245 P O $ox San Gabriel CA 91778 Huntin n Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 46 Huntington Beach Soccer Le e 47 Seaview Tattle e 47 Aclachemen Nation Felipe Zapata Brian elroth 31411 La Matanza Street 18442 Stee e #3 P O Box 5305 San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 2625 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92615 South Coast Soccer Club** 47 Ocean View Little Le 47 Westminster V e HOA 48 President Martin Bann Phil Shearer tent 5200 pool Road 8921 Crescent e 1814 entwell Circle Westminster CA 92683 Hun ch,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 West Co Family YMCA* 47 South HB Girls Fast Pitch Softb * 47 Gary Brown 49 Michael Tumer Frank LoGrasso Coastke 2100 Main S 9432 Alit Circle 3151 Airway Ave.Suite F 110 Hun a Beach,CA 92646 Hun n each,CA 92646 Costa Mesa CA 92663 Regional Environmental Officer for Calif 50 Fort Irwin 50 Fort Hunter Liggett 50 Western Region Environ O Lt.CoL Paul D C ec Mr Peter Rubin US Air Force Director o c Works Nsel Tratmng Cntr Director of Works 333 Market S t Suite 625 P O 105097 Combat Support Training Center San F cisco CA 94105 2196 Fort Irwin CA 92310 B790 5tb St Pains RFTA Dublin CA 945680 Sheds Donovan 50 PatrtclChwiman,Director 50 Gold Coast Extreme 47 Community Plans&Lt21SOn or Westeion En ental Office Rick Bauer P enY US Navy US Mo ridding 1164 2050 urbta lane 1220 Pacific way Bch-S Huntington Beach CA 92646 San Dt CA 92132 5190 Camp Pendleton CA 92055-5246 South Coast Bayern Futb u 47 Cahforrua Futbol Club 47 District 62 Challenger Division 47 Manssa Pena Hector Aguilar Gall Harder 22222 Euc tus Lane 10571 Davttaur 17961 Scotia e Lake rest,CA 92630 Garden 92843 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 ��JJ label size 1"x 2 5/8 compatible with Avery'516018160 / 67 /--d,' -0// tbquebbdd i�dM WW Z" ei 60/8160 �-1 4 l—19-)01() 09G9/09�gv(Iany3aAe elggedwoo ww L9 x ww 5Z jewjo;ap auapbg3 09 t810W6q AMVQgdU K FA#pgnbq3 PUBLIC HEARING l�MW90G9Awvwmrjiqqudwoo 8!r,Z-x t azis latlel MAILING LABELS G Labels\Labels\Public Hearing Oc#aber 2oo8 Cannery Hamilton Pr rues LLC Christopher Herre Branch Chief Ascon Landfill e C/o Tamara Zeter Department of Transporuon District 12 One Po five Suite 320 3337 Michelson Dave Suite 380 —43re—a CA 92821 Irvine CA 92612 1Jt I Building Industry Assoc of South Calif Matrix Environmental 17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170 6701 Center Dnv st#900 Irvine CA 92614 Los An A 90045 Attu Elyse Snunada Govt Affairs Asst A awn Gauer Senior Planner label size 1"x 2 5/8 compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ttjqUeNkW6VAMf WzW W'6 6018160 09L8/09L5QhaAd acne olggedwoa ww L9 x ww SZ lewjo;ap allanb43 09[9/09L96 tiaAy glim alggedwoa u8/5 z x„L ezis label Barbara Pepper Robert Pepper Sadhna Patel 5262 Allstone Dr 5262 Allstone Dr 18122 Ivorycrest Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Kort Orbach Anja Orbach Robert P Rube 5931 Ghent Dr 5931 Ghent Dr 5971 Bellfield Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 i Tyler Beardslee Kirk Kennedy Susan Kennedy I 17072 Twain Ln 17511 Tuscan Ln 17511 Tuscan Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I ' Stella Stockman Jason Stockman Donna Meade 5672 Rogers Dr 5672 Rogers Dr 16761 Greenview Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Occupant Gary Grint George Balandran 5921 Donlyn Dr 16602 Maywood 6892 Capstone Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Richard Russell Tom Pell Debbie Pell 6061 Judwick Cr 17602 Beckwell 17602 Beckwell Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 9264 Susan Kruse Cheryl MacDonald Carol Seedle 15801 Aulnay Ln 2807 Francis 16826 Alconquin Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Tom Seedle Rob Rathburn Steve Fruchter 16826 Alconquin 5611 Serene Dr 9462 Joyzeile Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Garden Grove CA 92841 R Rubel&S Rubel Justin Pack 5421 Neargate 5432 Neargate Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Stuart Hubbard 5442 Neargate Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 �� label size 1"x 2 5/8 compatible with Avery/5160/8160 go etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160060 09tg1OgtgOU9ny3ane elcgudwm ww L9 x ww 9Z}ewiol ap ellanbg3 p18/09t5®fumy gpm alggWwoa„8/5 z x.t azis lapel CCRPA II I Department of Fish and Game PO Box 54132 Sandra Gents South Coast ton Re 1586 Myrtlewood g Irvine CA 92619 � 4949 Vtewndge Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sand Diego CA 92123 Chtca atfd"Trust Gabrteleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mark BixbyI Mission,AnthonyMorales Chairperson 5200 W Avenue #108 17451 Hillgate Lane P O Box 693 Hun on Beac A 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 San Gabriel CA 91778 I � I Coalition to Preserve Sacred Sites ( Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Gabrtelino Tongva Nation Susana Salas Acjachemen Nation David Belardes Sam Dunlap Tribal Secretary 28872 Escalona Drive Chairperson � 32161 Avenida Los Amigos PO Box 86908 Mission Viejo CA 92692 San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 Los Angeles CA 90086 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Shaw AcJachemen Nation, Anthony Rivera Chairman Sonia Johnston Tribal Chairperson 8272 Grant Drive 31411 A La Matanza Street PO Box 25628 Huntington Beach CA 92646 San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 Santa Ana,CA 92799 Connie Boardman Margaret Carlberg c/o Cathy Ftkes 17422 Lido Lane Administration Dept Huntington Beach CA 92647 � I 6 0 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery/5160/8160 etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery0516018160 vm a "�vv® a. -a �POA a..vuevasesa ant) iOg18/09ts aimSZImWM� ll qj 0,091S�03 z0sile �any un 91S/S Z X«1 azWlagel ; rib 163-043-19 163-043 20 163 043-21 Joseph C&Kristen Coppa Matthew H &Mary Huecker Ponciana abeck 17231 Greenleaf Ln 17221 Greenleaf Ln 17211 Greenleaf Lri Huntington Be CA 92649 4520 Huntington Be CA 92649-4520 Huntington Be CA 92649-A520 163-043-22 163 045-09 163-045-10 Harry C&Lorraine Thielen Robert Warden Gary L&Teresa Mathisen 3271 Airflite Way 2798 Waxwing Cir 17232 Greenleaf Ln Long Beach CA 90807-5321 I Costa Mesa CA 92626-4850 Huntington Be CA 92649-4521 163-131 11 163 131-12 163-131-13 Tommy Nakachj Glen G Larson Franklin Buccella 19395 Macgregor Cir 3761 Nimble Cir 3541 Courtside Cir Huntington Be CA 92648-5538 Huntington Be CA 92649-2508 Huntington Be CA 92649-2924 163-131 14 163-131-15 163-131-16 Lory E&Sharon Larson Franklin Buccella Lory E &Sharon Larson 3761 Nimble Cu 3541 Courtside Cir 3761 Nimble Cir Huntington Be CA 92649 2508 Huntington Be CA 92649-2924 Huntington Be CA 92649-2508 163-131 17 163 131-18 163-131-19 Richard A Ciancone Howard Stein Byron Bishop*B* 17172 Harbor Bluffs Cir 3541 Sagamore Dr 25416 Boone PI Huntington Be CA 92649-4442 Huntington Be CA 92649-2517 Laguna Hills CA 92653-5205 163-131-20 163-131-21 163-131-22 Franklin Buccella Herbert Swarngan Hilary Chan 3541 Courtside Cir 17132 Harbor Bluffs Cir 9842 Kings Canyon Dr Huntington Be CA 92649-2924 Huntington Be CA 92649-4446 Huntington Be CA 92646-4829 163-131-24 163-131-26 163-131-27 Altic Prop Llc Cabo Del Mar Homeowners Assn Cabo Del Mar Homeowners Assn 4639 Tremont Ln 1176 Main St 1176 Main St Corona Del Ma CA 92625-3130 Irvine CA 92614-6766 Irvine CA 92614-6766 163-281-01 163-281-02 163-281-03 Fkoa Llc David T Balfour Monticello Ltd Huntington Beach 17280 Hampton Ln 2450 Mission St 3 135 S Chaparral Ct 200 Huntington Be CA 92649-6402 San Marino CA 91108-1634 Anaheim CA 92808-2264 163-281-04 163-281-06 163-281-07 Monticello Ltd Huntington Beach Cambridge Anne Laverty-Honuchi 135 S Chaparral Ct 200 2600 Nutwood Ave 10Th 17212 Green St Anaheim CA 92808 2264 Fullerton CA 92831-3145 Huntington Be CA 92649-4411 163-281-08 163-281-09 163-281-10 Tony&Sherry Chao*B* John B Choi Jose&Chen Ramirez 17222 Green St 17242 Green St 17252 Green St Huntington Be CA 92649-4411 Huntington Be CA 92649-4411 Huntington Be CA 92649-4411 ppy�� 48'sil�att rid'® 0/8160�, ®0915 a;eldwagrV as0 1 '.0 D rP -D/�f ttque te�r$rna4 �lOQirPz$f min le aveFAvery05100/8160//(�///) slagej alaad Ase3 *kH3AY-09-008-L ' d AKIM luauaavaeya t 098/09tGA ww SZlape4a�aganbg3;,1 QA945 OA,H Sill nb09t8/d9t5® ab PO3.q/gZx.LezMqqq j 163 281 11 163 281-12 163-281-13 John&Kathnne Dittrick Yung&Shin Chang Chnstos&Christina Tsimerekis 4881 Seapine Cir 4901 Seapine Cir 4911 Seapine Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 I 163-281-14 163-281-15 163-281-16 Russell Newman John Ceccarelli Edward Ramaekers 4921 Seapine Or 4931 Seapine Cir j 4952 Seapine Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 163-281-17 163-281-18 163-281-19 Helen Goum Michael A Barto Michael F Reed 4942 Seapine Cir 4932 Seapine Cir 4922 Seapine Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 r ' 163-281 20 163-281-21 163-281-22 Scott Wilson Si Hyong &June Kim Randy P &Terry Fert 4912 Seapine Or 4902 Seapine,Or 4882 Seapine Cir Huntington Be CA 92649 4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 Huntington Be CA 92649-4412 163-281-23 163-281-24 163-281-25 Eugene Goto John K&Julie Radle Dennis Oba 4881 Los Patos Ave 4901 Los Patos Ave 4911 Los Patos Ave Huntington Be CA 92649-4457 Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 163-281-26 163-281-27 163-281-28 David Johnson Paul Bowman Leslie A&Peggy Wiedema*B* 4921 Los Patos Ave 4931 Los Patos Ave 4941 Los Patos Ave Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 163-281-29 163-281-30 163-281-31 William&Toni Gregory Douglas A Ames Allen Zeroski 4961 Los Palos Ave 4971 Los Palos Ave 4981 Los Patos Ave Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 Huntington Be CA 92649-4458 163-282-01 163-282-02 163-282-03 Elsie N Shigeta-Perna Marlene Short Christine A Rush 4885 Seandge Or 4891 Seandge Cir 4895 Seandge Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4483 Huntington Be CA 92649-4483 Huntington Be CA 92649-4483 163-282-04 163-282-05 163-282-06 Matthew Zior Kevin & Kimberly Eggers Jeremiah R Rodgers 4901 Seandge Cir 39738 S Mountain Shadow Dr 4915 Seandge Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4485 Tucson AZ 85739-2303 Huntington Be CA 92649-4485 163-282-07 163-282-08 163-282-09 Lisa Murphy Donna Carrington Donald Kohut 4921 Seandge Cir 4925 Seandge Cir 4926 Seandge Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4485 Huntington Be CA 92649-4485 Huntington Be CA 92649-4484 Twa rabep a d tibfeAv �31��160 l 1009LS� aietdwal®�Gand ast �r -?/� tbquetth de foci na`� ` HFUMm c aveclvery®51081 slags l®laad Ase naa��a�avu�w "Lail-a® ai a naa iiaOYJVYALy. 4965 09l8/09G5 taco gZpu Woy+a%aanbita, �' i 09L8/Q915®70any nn d oa,8/5 Z X«l azW19gvI 163-282-10 163-282-11 163 282-12 Douglas C Wong Jeffrey Davis John Gratian 4922 Searidge Cir 519 W Portola Ave 4912 Searidge Cir Huntington Be CA 92649-4484 Los Altos CA 94022-1127 Huntington Be CA 92649-4484 163-282-13 163 282-14 163 282-15 Bisson Holdings Llc li Timothy E&Bethel Voyles Brian E Hurley 19815 Windjammer Ln 4896 Searidge Cir 4892 Seandge Cir Huntington Be CA 92648 3051 Huntington Be CA 92649-4482 I Huntington Be CA 92649-4482 163-282-16 163-282-17 163-311-01 Marvin Mine Sea Ridge Homeowners Assn Chong Choi 4886 Seandge Cir 7400 Center Ave 205 4903 Shelburne Dr Huntington Be CA 92649-4482 Huntington Be CA 92647-3068 Huntington Be CA 92649-6404 163-311-02 163-311-03 1 163-311-04 Michael Burley Robert Jouret James Yamashita 4915 Shelburne Dr 4927 Shelburne Dr 4939 Shelburne Dr Huntington Be CA 92649-6404 Huntington Be CA 92649-6404 Huntington Be CA 92649-6404 163-311-05 163 311-06 163-311-07 Kusal Tan Tamara Shaw James Filipan 4953 Shelburne Dr 4965 Shelburne Dr 17280 Hampton Ln Huntington Be CA 92649-6404 Huntington Be CA 92649-6404 Huntington Be CA 92649-6402 163-311-08 163-311-09 163 311-10 J A& Sylvia Kuttel Abilio A Hernandez George Kapnas*M* 17298 Hampton Ln 962 Heron Cir 17347 Hampton Ln Huntington Be CA 92649-6402 Seal Beach CA 90740-5616 Huntington Be CA 92649-6401 163-311-11 163 311-12 163-311-13 William Helzer Michael Mcalister Maurice M &Linda Aouate 17337 Hampton Ln PO Box 922 7184 Holmes Ct Huntington Be CA 92649-6401 Sunset Beach CA 90742-0922 Canton MI 48187-1655 163-311 14 163-311-15 163-311-16 Michael Hanbury Rho Chao Mark J Schwene 11523 Willow Ridge Dr 4930 Shelburne Dr 4918 Shelburne Dr Zionsville IN 46077-7824 Huntington Be CA 92649-6403 Huntington Be CA 92649-6403 163-311 17 163-311-19 163-311-20 Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave 4343 Von Karman Ave 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 163-311 21 163-311-22 163-311-23 Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave 4343 Von Karman Ave 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 I M�� - olabIS f$a li ati v 8160 j ®0915 a;eldwal®band ash w� /)P ��� ttiquet}e de �ff n MITI cue aveAveryO5i6O/8i�6//0 staged®lead Rsez rd d e-f vvo i ratwI-UUd luny u al ial$Aaa ....,.�.a. y a 009LS 9AH3 I zasrll umrAwAe mmm 09L8/09tgAP" wwyZjh<;#+117Sa3ianbg3, OJt8/dgtg® oAd y;im elggEdwoa.8/S Z x.l az[Vlagel 163 311-24 163-311- 163-311-26 Signal mark Sign ndmark Signal La 6 ut+ve Cir 250 6 ecutive Cir 250 6 E_ipetifivie Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 lry6e CA 92614-6732 i 163-311- 163-311- 163-311-29 Signal dmark Signa dmark Signa mark 6 E utive Cir 250 6 cutrve Cir 250 ecutive Cir 250 Iry e CA 92614-6732 1 ine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 i l 163-311-30 163-311-31 1 163-3 Signal Lan rk Signal ark Landmark 6 Exe a Cir 250 6 utive Cir 250 Executive Cir 250 Irvi CA 92614-6732 InAne CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-311-33 163 311-3 163 311-35 � Signal Land Signat mark Si�Land6 Execu it 250 6 cufive Cir 250 6 E Iry A 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 me CA 92614-6732 163-311-36 163-311-37 163 311-38 Signal Land Signal mark Signal La 6 Exec it 250 6 ecutwe Cir 250 6 ve Cir 250 Irvrn A 92614-6732 rvine CA 92614-6732 wine CA 92614-6732 163-311-39 163-311-40 163-311-41 Signal mark Signal Lane Signal Landmark 6 cutive Cir 250 6�E weal"e Cir 250 4343 Von Karman Ave one CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 163-311-42 163-312-01 163-312-02 Signal La ark Signal La rk Lee A&Marcia Zeller 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Ex ive Cir 250 4791 Covevwew Dr Irvrn e CA 92614-6732 e CA 92614-6732 Huntington Be CA 92649-6411 163-312-03 163-312-04 163-312-05 Lin J Ju Sandra Thompson Constance Cafiero 9801 Oceancrest Dr 4811 Coveview Dr 4821 Covevlew Dr Huntington Be CA 92646-8201 Huntington Be CA 92649-6412 Huntington Be CA 92649-6412 163-312-06 163-312-07 163-312-08 Signal Landmark Signal Land c� Signal La < 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Exec Cir 250 6� eve Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Iry A 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-09 � �U // �aa 163-312-11 Signal Land Si Signal mark 6 Execut it 250 6 E 6 cutrve Cir 250 lrvine 92614-6732 6/�� I ine CA 92614-6732 rvme CA 92614-6732 T U a f abIta b9W S s �ati v /8160r ®0915 at ldwal 61Ga asn ' 6quefte de format 25 minx Rrmm a avedyAvery®5108160 slags i®laad Rsea se3 _.W M-11'`-�9 travyvu v '04 � ()y 09LS�H3 I ZWI UWABOWNWAM 09L8/09L5�a ;�Q� wSZteuaAanbg3i t 09L8/09L5® 9AV qpM olgi3tdwoo.8/g Z x.L azi agel 4 �cutive 163-312-13 163 312-14 rk Nikola& Elizabeth Vucurevic Anthony R&Barbara FiCarey 6250 4742 Wentworth Cir 4752 Wentworth Ci r rvine CA 92614-6732 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-312-15 163-312-16 163 312-17 Yen S Pan S� nal andcz�a„�— Johnny T Wong 4762 Wentworth Cir —executive Cir 250 4782 Wentworth Cir j Huntington Beach CA 92649 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 312-18 163-312-19 163-312-20 Michele L Blair Nathan & Katherine Lindsey Tummolo Trust 4792 Wentworth Cir 17322 Tidalridge Ln 17312 Tidalndge Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Be CA 92649-6414 Huntington Be CA 92649-6414 163-312-21 163-312-22 163-312-23 Hyuk Lee Thanh K Tran Michael& Darlane Belshe 16981 S Pacific Ave 17292 Tidalndge Ln 17282 Tidalridge Ln Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Be CA 92649 6413 Huntington Be CA 92649-6413 163-312-24 163-312-25 163-312-26 Chau Nguyen Sean G &Michelle Barrett Joseph Rahman 17272 Tidalndge Ln 17271 Wareham Ln 17281 Wareham Ln Huntington Be CA 92649-6413 Huntington Be CA 92649-6405 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 312-27 163-312-28 163-312-29 Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Ve ur x R FXPcutiye Cir 2 0 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 163-312-30 163-312-31 163-312-32 Signal Landmark an mar 6 Exe ve Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312 33 163-312-34 163-312-35 Signal Landmark I Landmark Execu ' 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 2 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312 36 163-312-37 163-312-38 Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Signal Landmark 6 Executiv - Executive Cir 250 Cu 250 I e A 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6 32 61 -or/ 716116 163-312 39 163-312-40 163-312-41 Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Signal Landmark it 6 Executive Ur r 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 T fl lab�ta�� �aUt11CePf1v /8160 ®09L5 aleldual ,taanf/as0 VU slage-1 laad Ase3 ' �tiqueixe de format 25 min x 6 mm a avec7Avery®516b/8160 e esv av� s 1 4Ra-11—+ d Wu4"A Ii A"WOV -� 00965 OM3 I ZOa3$ w AnnA� 09 t8/0mAMO 4q ww gZ 19M6 +ibil31 09t8!(hJlS®AjaAd glen 9Iggedwoo.8/5 Z x.L az+ IagEl 163-312-42 163-312-43 163 312-44 Signal Landmark a an mar igna an 6 +ve it 250 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Ca 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 I Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 i 163-312-45 163-312-46 163-312-47 Signal Land ignal Landmark Signal Lan ma xecutive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 i I 163-312-48 I __ 163-312-49 163-312-50 Sign-TE5—ndmark Signal Landmark ark 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614 6732 163-312-51 163-312-52 163 312-53 Signal Landmark Signal I and mark Signal Landmark 6 E 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312 54 163-312-55 163-312-56 Signal Landmark Stg—nal Landmar-k-- 6 Executive C 59 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvi 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-57 163-312-58 163-312-59 Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Irvine 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-60 163-312-61 163-312-62 Signal Landmark S,Iona an mar + nal Landmark 6 Ex 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-63 163-312-64 163-312-65 Signal Landmark _ Signal I-andmark mark-- 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-66 163-312-67 163 312-68 Signal Landmark Joyce L Bishop ecu ive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 17272 Wareham Ln Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Huntington Be CA 92649-6406 163-312-69 163-312-70 163 312-71 Alexander Family Living Trust Samuel & Ida Rodriguez Signal Landmark 17282 Wareham Ln 17292 Wareham Ln 6 Executive Cir 250 Huntington Be CA 92649-6406 Huntington Be CA 92649-6406 Irvine CA 92614-6732 T ( a0 0 �sodxa ,ad r ®09i5 aleldmaj oGaAd as0 wi ;fabef a,f 6ipat+ very ft81601 sl8ge-1®faad Rse3 ' tIiqueite de format 25 mm x 67 mm ARMe avec Avery®516@18160 Use Avery Template 51600 O9k8/2915 gyp' ®a� W anb4 o , 960rm 09k8/09k5®tia^tl tWm aiq�mO3.8/ Z «k Rrs 13CH I 163 312-72 163-312 73 163-312-74 Signal Landmark Andy Hong --6-Executive Cir 250 17322 Wareham Ln 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163 312-75 163-312-76 163-312-77 Signal Landmark igna Landmark Signal an mar 6-Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 I 163-312-78 _ 183-312-7-9--_ - - Signal Landmark igna andmark Signal Landmark `6-ExecUP ve Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 I ' 163-312-81 163-312-82 163-312-83 Signal Landmark Bnghtwater Maintenance Corp Signal Landmark x 48 16845 Von Karman Ave 200 6 Executive Cir 2 Santa Ana CA 92702-4048 Irvine CA 92606-4960 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-84 163 312-85 163-312-86 Brightw r Mainten rig twater ain enance Corp Signal Landmark 16845 Von Karman Ave 200 6 Executive Cir 250 6 Executive Cir 250 Irvine CA 92606-4960 Irvine CA 92614-6732 Irvine CA 92614-6732 163-312-87 163-319-01 163-319-02 Si nal igna ompan, s 1AG c CT^iTT9.J4) .1.3 43:::Von i - Irvine CA 92614-6732 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 *** 198 Printed //0 I ( §i�1 x 2 5/ f �l � l/8160 vu1MN i Will AVERY@ 51600 1 bque*ftf I *25 mm tPi{r N9�@ 'Wve'ry0516O/8160 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Easy Peel®Labels 09kS/09tq h9A4aane dppM3 wqhj""g&jgW ap itentiq A 417M Use Avery®Template 51600 j09L8�69IS +a g4 'IaU� 939 541 22 939 541 23 1 939 541 24 Elizabeth Dont Santos Clarissa Raposas 5032 Dorado Dr#207 18627 Brookhurst St#208 5032 Dorado Dr#109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 25 939 541 26 939 541 27 Blaine H Lohman Tr John A Alvarado Craig E Borkowski 5032 Dorado Dr#110 5032 Dorado Dr#111 5032 Dorado Dr#112 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I i i 939 541 28 939 541 29 939 541 30 Peter Gover Michaela M Conroy Teresa S&Rolland M Boceta 5032 Dorado Dr#209 5032 Dorado Dr#210 5032 Dorado Dr#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 31 939 541 32 939 541 33 Jeremy L Mason Carlos Javier Torres Luis C Berban 5032 Dorado Dr#212 5031 Dorado Dr#101 5031 Dorado Dr#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 939 541 34 939 541 35 939 541 36 I Marc S Levin Dino Caramagno Bryan Scott Stahl 5612 E Parkcrest St 13661 Fairmont Way 5031 Dorado Dr#201 Long Beach CA 90808 Tustin CA 92780 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 37 939 541 38 939 541 39 Andrew M Galvin Veronica Carbalal Daniel A Sparks 5031 Dorado Dr#202 5031 Dorado Or#20-3�� _ _ 5031 Dorado Dr#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach �T6— 939 541 40 939 541 41 939 541 42 Ricarde-1 Garda 5031 Dorado Dr#105 5031 Dorado Ural Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 43 939 541 44 939 541 45 Kenneth M Ono Denny N Garrison Gary M Reeb 5031 Dorado Dr#108 5031 Dorado Dr#205 5031 Dorado Dr#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 46 939 541 47 939 541 46 1 Luis R Contreras Kent T Pugmire Claire E&Harold E Via 5031 Dorado Dr#207 5031 Dorado Dr#208 13592 Palomar St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Westminster CA 92683 939 541 49 939 541 50 939 541 51 Joseph R Coghill Tr Stacey L Hunt Garth K Rosenberger P O Box 316 5031 Dorado Dr#111 5031 Dorado Dr#112 Surfside CA 90743 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 labelkize 1 x 2 5/ ® /8160 I Eaqu a peter �Q c .t t �� G / / ww avery c m Uhlis AVERY@ 51600 � bguett -%! 25 mm �Very®51H0/8 �n (J Easy PeelO Labels ' 09 LOO k5c�an ans a wuomd alarig� t ap a�anbg3 Use Avery Template 5160a J 09L8 RAV LWM 3Igq a j".f aggj ® AUM241TC4 939 541 52 939 541 53 1 939 541 54 imad Aldeen Shbeeb Knsty Mulch Darryl K Webb Tr 5031 Dorado Dr#209 5031 Dorado Dr#210 5031 Dorado Or#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 939 541 55 ' 939 541 56 939 541 57 Monmoto Family Trust — Mary L Wurzburg Brad C Gnegy Tr 5031 Dorado Dr#212 17202 Corbina Ln#202 332 Prospect St Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Newport Beach CA 92663 l i j 939 541 58 939 541 59 939 541 60 Frank W Timan Brian Michael McMann Tr Alicia C Wickwire 526 9ch St 16391 Eagle Ln 5071 Dorado Dr#201 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 r 939 541 61 939 541 62 939 541 63 Carolyn & Ryan Marcus Thomas R Adams Victoria Evelyn Bouffard 620 Danube Way 5858 Engineer Dr 5071 Dorado Dr#204 I Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 939 541 64 939 541 65 939 541 66 Matthew S Dingwall Rusty Long Sheela Choudhury 21246 Alanis Cir 17241 Apel Ln 6751 Lafayette Dr I Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 939 541 67 939 541 68 939 541 69 Michelle A Gregory E Manack Joseph E Bobshosky Sr _5fl71-Darado Dr#10$ _ — 4101 Albemarle-St-NW#631 5071 Dorado Dr#206 i Huntington Beach CA 92649 Washington DC 20016 Huntington 9eac CA-92 64-9 939 541 70 939 541 71 939 541 72 Dean Sfiier Mary- fl acchwo-Tr-- -- Ghaflotte-A-Pikor — - 5071 Dorado Or#207 5071 Dorado Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 73 939 541 74 939 541 75 Maureen P Slattery Catherine Gaboune,Tr Colin B Young 5071 Dorado Dr#110 21551 Hanakai Ln 5071 Dorado Dr#112 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 76 939 541 77 939 541 78 David E Wiemer Tr Maria Elena De Imperial Angela P Segal 16751 Barefoot Cir 5071 Dorado Dr#210 5071 Dorado Dr#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 79 939 541 80 939 541 81 Mark Frey Barbara J Rossi Living Trust Theodore W Ramsdell 5071 Dorado Dr#212 16291 Countess Dr#307 17172 Abalone Ln#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ERiq a paler i label4ize l"x 2 5/8 W"&@Wf j@1/8160 wvwu averyeonr ei+.i. avFRO sasn6P -kbquetta-&11 t25 min xr1133 5160/816p��j� 14UXI-GO-AVERY Easy Peep Labels 09M8 91.5.k[anWaane ba wtgdNW",yGAg op 649nbiq Use Avery®Template5160® j 09LIgaa�,[ggllO�daq�l ® � 41TM 939 541 82 939 541 83 939 541 84 Brenda Kay Baldwin Vince J Corella Tr Tuong Nguyen 17172 Abalone Ln #103 17172 Abalone Ln#104 5561 Ridgebury Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 85 939 541 86 939 ,54187 Curtis L Heitkamp Jean A Myers — Allan Dickson Fish 11628 NE 102nd PI 17172 Abalone Ln#203 592 Redwood Dr Kirkland WA 98033 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Santa Cruz CA 95060 I 939 541 88 i 939 541 89 939 541 90 Leslie 1 Maddox TR Veronica Fallon I Graham Martin Tr 17172 Abalone Ln#105 17172 Abalone Ln#106 17172 Abalone Ln#107 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 91 939 541 92 939 541 93 Marnie M Ulrich Tr Kai L Kramer Gavin Calder 17172 Abalone Ln#108 17172 Abalone Ln#205 17172 Abalone Ln#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 94 939 541 95 939 541 96 Mark D Clark David Crow Gloria M Cholota 17172 Abalone Ln#207 17172 Abalone Ln#208 17172 Abalone Ln#109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 97 939 541 98 939 541 99 Christine&Robert Giles III Jan Naomi Lee Tr Donald F Cervantes 47a72 Abalos>e4 n#1.1fl. — 21207 Avalon-Blvd#85 _ 17172 Abalone Ln#1 2 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Carson CA 90745 Huntington eac 92640— -- 939 542 00 939 542 01 939 542 02 Harold E Jackson Tr — Richard L Vanesran -- Elmer-P-h4%sa-r 15402 Maryknoll St 14014 N 16 St — Westminster CA 92683 Phoenix AZ 85022 Huntington Beach CA 92647 939 542 03 939 542 04 939 542 05 Grace E Wipperfurth Tr Grover Wise Mary Patricia McKenna 17172 Abalone Ln#212 5146 Dorado Dr#101 16621 Channel Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 06 939 542 07 939 542 08 Jacqulyn Andrews Michel Lary N Costner Steven Thompson 5146 Dorado Dr#103 5146 Dorado Dr#104 5146 Dorado Dr#201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 09 939 542 10 939 542 11 Kevin Walfred Lester Laura Giles Jeannette Poitevin 5146 Dorado Dr#202 5146 Dorado Dr#203 5146 Dorado Dr#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 �ttqu A paler �� �0; "�//�bel4ze 1 x 2 5/8RI �e /8160 .wwwav com tsit°t avFRVO�� ® Uquett t 25 min °6LL I,�, �� g__-- -- � �1H 51 fi0/8160 14KO-GO-AVERY ° Easy Peel®labels 09t2/b9�5Gh8Aj30ne 90~3 wL%4"j N#4 %01.Op q anbita Use Avery®Template 51600 0918V0Kq n6° elggvdpil%, -&*Wvpql S 41 Tm 939 542 12 939 542 13 939 542 14 Charlotte Velasquez Morgan Stanley Trust 2005 Cindy L Metzgar 5146 Dorado Dr#105 5146 Dorado Dr#106 5146 Dorado Or#107 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 t 939 542 15 939 542 16 939 542 17 Michael Shaver t Lisa Bondy Lisa Baker 5146 Dorado Dr#108 5146 Dorado Dr#205 5146 Dorado Dr#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ; Huntington Beach CA 92649 j 939 542 18 939 542 19 939 542 20 Helene & Robert D Orear Steven G Reed Jennifer Gates 5146 Dorado Dr#211 5146 Dorado Dr#208 757 Ocean Ave#117 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Santa Monica CA 90402 � I I 939 542 21 939 542 22 939 542 23 Raymond Shaw Robert D Orear Everett Michael Sweeney 5146 Dorado Dr#110 5146 Dorado Dr#111 5146 Dorado Or#112 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 l � 939 542 24 939 542 25 939 542 26 Mariusz Sieradzki Judy A Morns John C Eastman Tr 5142 Dorado Dr#209 5146 Dorado Dr#210 840 E 37th St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Long Beach CA 90807 939 542 27 939 542 28 939 542 29 Stacey L McDonald Craig N Eichorn Mary Ludington 1476Hidden Valley Rd _ — 17152 Corbina Ln#191 _ 9 Sanderhnq Ln____ Thousand Oaks CA 91361 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i�telo G V-92656----— 939 542 30 939 542 31 939 542 32 Colin (Matsumoto — Gina Caudillo — Robert H Cordery 17151 Corbina Ln#103 171or ina n Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 33 939 542 34 939 542 35 Lawrence N Grote David P Zagres Gwen S Kuroye 17151 Corbina Ln#202 17151 Corbina Ln#203 17151 Corbina Ln#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 36 939 542 37 939 542 38 Christopher R Palmer Steven K Mossman Tr John L Ayala Tr 17151 Corbina Ln#105 750 Loma Vista St 607 E Las Palmas Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 El Segundo CA 90245 Fullerton CA 92835 939 542 39 939 542 40 939 542 41 Keith Murata Tr Conrad Wilson Athanasios Koubouras 1910 Westmoreland Dr 17151 Corbina Ln#205 17151 Corbina Ln#206 Brea CA 92821 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ftiqu a peter (6j®1VW labelkize i x 2 5/8R�abple wi Aver®5 6(1/8160 ^� 1101 e A\ICON®C<Gn® �� i bgaette*rte�t 25 min LA l�a � ede5160/ ( /�U 1iV11111Ar aVeryCOr91 ' 9 QnnJ11 AIICOV ! Easy Peel®labels 0912/f19I.S hBA lame a wwOjww§gAWWj op 4wtib43 M Use Avery®Template 51600 ,091Sr � g119*hW j"�p V1aq4 U AIM41 939 542 42 I i 939 542 43 I 939 542 44 Eggleson Family Living Trust David Heath Michael T Spangler 301 Forest Ave 17151 Corbina Ln#208 P O Box 2012 Laguna Beach CA 92651 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92647 939 542 45 939 542 46 939 542 47 Barbara J Sowma Kimberly A Fellers Margaret Diane Stewart 17151 Corbina Ln#110 17151 Corbina Ln#111 ( � P O Box 1269 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Valley Center CA 92082 I 939 542 48 939 542 49 ( 929 542 50 Aileen Y Minoru Yoshioka Mary Elizabeth Orewyler Tumkur P Shivananda 17151 Corbina Ln#209 17151 Corbina Ln#210 17151 Corbina Ln#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 51 939 542 52 939 542 53 Claire Maguire Linda Mason Dalsimer Tr Rodney E Pease 17151 Corbina Ln#212 17191 Corbina Ln#101 30510 Passageway PI Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Agoura Hills CA 91301 939 542 54 939 542 55 939 542 56 Sherry Gentilini Georganna Janelli Devin Samaha Tr 17191 Corbina Ln#103 17191 Corbina Ln#104 9726 Willow Glenn Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Santa Ana CA 92705 I 939 542 57 939 542 58 939 542 59 John M Kremer Alan Scherf Robert S Chang 7-11--Atab rria St 17191 Corbina Ln#203 _ 4682 Warner Ave#C216 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington--Beach GA 92649 939 542 60 939 542 61 939 542 62 Armen Asadounan John A Nelson — Ryan M Gates 17191 Corbina Ln#105 420 Noga Huntington Beach CA 92649 Lompoc CA 93436 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 63 939 542 64 939 542 65 Michelle Tan Yvette Helen Palinkas Julio Trinidad 2413 Rockefeller Ln#B 17191 Corbina Ln#205 17191 Corbin Ln#206 Redondo Beach CA 90278 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 66 939 542 67 939 542 68 Tricia Ann Saul Paula M Golden Elaine Mock 555 S Shoal Creek St 17191 Corbina Ln#208 5300 Sunset Ln Banning CA 92220 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Yorba Linda CA 92886 939 542 69 939 542 70 939 542 71 Henry J La Tempa III Lewis M Archer Tr Patrick A Reynolds Tr 6672 Jardines Dr 7371 E Woodsboro Ave 910 Turtle Crest Dr Huntington Beach CA 92647 Anaheim CA 92807 Irvine CA 92603 �tiq a peter 601,9— labeAg�1"x 2 5/8fi ( WRWR /8160 vvvvwavetycom i it.i.c s AVPRv® 1An ( ® )//'ttiquette i�46%;i mm if Air4 ®5160// 14//O 1-800-GO-AVERY ' Easy peel®Labels 09l2/b91.5.k18A*30ne dPPPM3 W%M jy&§a, ep Opnbg Use Avery®Template 51600 J 09t s qq ,g pk ggge� A 241Tm 93954272 939 542 73 939 542 74 Stanley Vielma it Clifford T Richards Tr Donna V Dozier Trust 17191 Corbina Ln#209 17191 Corbina Ln#210 16458 Bolsa Chtca St#418 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 93954275 939 542 76 939 542 77 Roger Wayne Powell Tr Matthew C Kiemle Cynthia Annette Girard 21179 Via Monega 5101 Tortuga Dr#101 5101 Tortuga Dr#102 Yorba Linda CA 92887 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i i 939 542 78 939 542 79 939 542 80 Jenna Paulitschek Christine Stempleski J David Jostak Tr 5101 Tortuga Dr#103 1300 E Ameba St 5101 Tortuga Dr#201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Appleton WI 54911 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 81 939 542 82 939 542 83 Ryan D Redenbaugh Brian Saulson Diane E Dennin 5101 Tortuga Dr#202 5101 Tortuga Dr#203 5101 Tortuga Dr#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 84 939 542 85 939 542 86 Charles O Miller Tr Mabel Shih Henry Uranga Jr Tr P O Box 760 5101 Tortuga Dr#106 5101 Tortuga Dr#107 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 87 939 542 88 939 542 89 Marton F Darungay Eric M Stolp Lon Leilani Paul 51D1 TortugaDr4148 _ - 5101 TortugaDr.#205 __ P O Box 507 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Kailua HI 66734 939 542 90 939 542 91 939 542 92 Janice Elaine Botzbach _ John A Carnahan - James L Utegg Tr 5101 Tortuga Dr#207 16294 Janine r ----5fi0T Tort-g"r#1109- Huntington Beach CA 92649 Whittier CA 90603 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 93 939 542 94 939 542 95 Kelley S Bruemmer L Du Bay 2009 Trust James B Vernon III 373 Playa Blanca 5101 Tortuga Dr#111 5101 Tortuga Dr#112 Encinitas CA 92024 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 96 939 542 97 939 542 98 Kristine M Arnold Michael Morgan Patricia Amstad 5101 Tortuga Dr#209 5101 Tortuga Dr#210 5101 Tortuga Dr#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 99 939 543 00 939 543 01 Reginaldo Aleman Carol M Philip Alma F Bah 5101 Tortuga Dr#212 5145 Tortuga Dr#101 5145 Tortuga Dr#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ! q a pelel labelAze 1"x 2 5/8 t yjr j5W8160wwvwa Iitda eVFRVO CS76n® n / �tiquettgjRill �t?5 min I�, a 160/8 0'"// 9 v Y Easy Peel®Labels 0912/0119A8439ne 4MM3 wUsa4&Mf&wWI ep i1ppbga Use Avery®Template 51608 1 Og L8 ��6�9n9�Qlq�i � 'Z�p� `Ibq� A 241 TM 939 543 02 939 543 03 1 I 939 543 04 Betty Lu Bridge Bergeron Williams David B Buttson 1 5145 Tortuga Dr#103 5145 Tortuga Dr#104 5145 Tortuga Dr#105 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 939 543 05 1 939 543 06 939 543 07 Jo Anne E Alstrand 4 Archie K Komae David R Baker 5145 Tortuga Dr#202 45303 Pauloko PI 2105 Alabama St 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Kaneohe HI 96744 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I i 939 543 08 1 939 543 09 ( 939 543 10 Carl E Beach Jelena Radovic I Richard P Nash 5145 Tortuga Dr#105 5145 Tortuga Dr#106 77 Toledo Way Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 San Francisco CA 94123 939 543 11 939 543 12 939 543 13 Bruce Allen Pouder Molly Bounds Jeanne L Romano 5145 Tortuga Dr#108 5145 Tortuga Dr#205 5145 Tortuga Dr#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 14 939 543 15 939 543 16 Colleen Congelliere Norma F Morales George L Rentena Tr 5145 Tortuga Dr#207 16497 Tropez Ln 816 Hollowbrook Ct Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 San Marcos CA 92078 939 543 17 939 543 18 939 543 19 Chnsta L Gemehi Camelia L Valencia Norman Kenji Suzuki 440 David_Ct#802 _ 5145 Tortuga Dr#111 5145 Tortuga Dr#112 San Francisco CA 94111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA-92649 939 543 20 939 543 21 939 543 22 Victoria R Poure - Dave 8ickelhaupt Larry A Friedlander 5145 Tortuga Dr#209 5145 Tortuga Dr 0— 5'15 T�rtQ9a1�yx211 -- Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 23 939 543 24 939 543 25 Robert R Rice Allan Pollock Paulette Dewire 5145 Tortuga Dr#212 3161 Elliot St NW 17202 Corbina Ln#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Salem OR 97304 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 26 939 543 27 939 543 28 Linda K Curoso Tr Lorraine K Felling Trust Wayne Elus 17202 Corbina Ln#103 17202 Corbina Ln#104 17202 Corbina Ln#201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 29 939 543 30 939 543 31 Mary L Wurzburg Timothy Lee Campbell Steven Nakamoto 17202 Corbina Ln#202 17202 Corbina Ln#203 17202 Corbin Ln#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 hiq a peeler Q(''Y1 Aabel 4¢e 1"x 2 5/8 U160 �/�/O ry i C�P� k i48Yrr9n wnww ave coin i f# AVC@v®c9 GA® ttlquette.&WARt 25 min xA& aiUA �Ie5160/81 14 (D-AVERY i Easy pee1O Labels 09l2/69t9vkj9n13eAR 4NOMM3 wtHeQ l�Kaffd°;ap fuenb4;l Use Avery®Template 51600 10918Y0@d8 ie�gge b sMaq 41TM 939 543 32 j 939 543 33 939 543 34 Daniel Nelson I Kathleen Ann Gentry Patrick J Hegarty 17202 Corbina Ln#105 17202 Corona Ln#106 368 Harvard Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Arcadia CA 91007 939 543 35 939 543 36 939 543 37 Colleen K Moroney -I Crystal L Whodon Robin Lynn Deemer 1314 Santiago Dr 17202 Corbina Ln#205 17202 Corbina Ln#206 9 I Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 1 939 543 38 ! 939 543 39 939 543 40 Viktor D Schreckengost Samien Nol Rickie Hulsey Tr 17202 Corbina Ln#207 17202 Corbina Ln#208 I 13342 Chestnut St I Huntington Beach CA 92649 I Huntington Beach CA 92649 Westminster CA 92683 i r 939 543 41 939 543 42 939 543 43 Heather Morton Christopher W Hliboko Et Al Jamieson N Hopkins 17202 Corbina Ln #110 16 Wescott St 17202 Corbina Ln#112 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Old Tappan NJ 07675 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 44 939 543 45 939 543 46 Michael V Bogert Penelope Nichols Margaret S Riley 17202 Corbina Ln#209 17202 Corbina Ln#210 17202 Corbina Ln#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 47 939 543 48 939 543 49 Richard Skramstad Ward D Cannon Eric Medei 21706 Talisman St 5176 Tortuga Dr#101 _ 5176 Tortuga Dr#102 Torrance CA 90503 Huntington Beach CA 92649 -Ru-n ingtonBeach-CA-92649 939 543 50 939 543 51 939 543 52 Robert - mgg _` _ Harold C Towers Jr William Michael Verna Tr 5176 Tortuga Dr#103 43104 W Suntan r —2801"a'seo Rmcon- — — Huntington Beach CA 92649 Mancopa AZ 85138 Mission Viejo CA 92692 939 543 53 939 543 54 939 543 55 Scott H Runge Tr Linas Raslavicius Lindsay D Tullis 5176 Tortuga Dr#202 5176 Tortuga Dr#203 5176 Tortuga Dr#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 56 939 543 57 939 543 58 Joshua J Litlejohn Charles O Miller Tr Gilberto Valdez Tr 424 Grey Feather Ct P O Box 760 507 13' St Round Rock TX 78665 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Beach CA 92648 939 543 59 939 543 60 939 543 61 Bunch Trust Polina Grace Francisco M Larrea 5176 Tortuga Dr#108 P O Box 750611 5176 Tortuga Dr#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Las Vegas NV 89136 Huntington Beach CA 92649 It q a peter 61019- 06-Jo label&ze 1- x 2 518 TT h1e i Ave 5 60/a160 a vvvvw.averyeom Pw..r��,�„® tbquette cfmt wet 25 mm ,I�nnr.�.ev�av Easy peel®Labels ' Use Avery®Template 51600 09t8/d91.9098 aanE Iq wdll"** aP hbgj SA 241m 7 091.8 anb qjim a ,,=- „ 939 543 62 939 543 63 939 543 64 Michael Hall Shuping Chen Robert Waligurski 5176 Tortuga Or#207 5176 Tortuga Or#208 2113 2151'St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Anacortes WA 98221 939 543 65 939 543 66 939 543 67 Danny Maruki Dune Schug Anderson Darren Stewardson 5176 Tortuga Or#110 5176 Tortuga Or#111 5176 Tortuga Or#112 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 939 543 68 939 543 69 939 543 70 Craig A Branson Tr Denver V Gearhart Ill Michele L Levitt Tr 5176 Tortuga Dr#209 5176 Tortuga Or#210 5176 Tortuga Or#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 71 939 543 72 939 543 73 Lisa M Carmen Living Trust Laura W Maclachlan Michael David Handler 5176 Tortuga Or#212 5096 Tortuga Or#102 5096 Tortuga Or#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 74 939 543 75 939 543 76 Brady J Kooiman Carla J Sgroi Cindy N & Brenton L Reineke 3627 Woodpecker St 5096 Tortuga Or#104 5096 Tortuga Dr#201 Brea CA 92823 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 77 939 543 78 939 543 79 Norman Sands Tr Ann Patrice Dewey Lloyd S Sorensen 5096 Tortuga Or#202 5096 Tortuga Or#203 644 Hillside Or Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Solva qg CA--93463 939 543 80 939 543 81 939 543 82 Lauren McGirr _ Gary Trudeau Patricia Taylor 5096 Tortuga Or#105 50- To uga r##1U6 - -5096-Tortuga-9r-#407— Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 83 939 543 84 939 543 85 Don J Paden Monica Malhotra Lilian Broadway Tr 5096 Tortuga Or#205 5096 Tortuga Or#205 5096 Tortuga Or#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 86 939 543 87 939 543 88 Sharon M Vera William J Solan Salvatore Grasso 5096 Tortuga Or#207 5096 Tortuga Dr#208 5096 Tortuga Or#109 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 89 939 543 90 939 543 91 Gary Heinrichs Gary Mooney Laura M Gdarducci Tr 5096 Tortuga Or#110 6711 Shetland Cir 3201 La Cresta Or Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Bakersfield CA 93305 Maq A peler 6PA-0 —V11 labAz,ge 1 x 2 5/8ft 1 �� �/816-/16 (� �6 avery com 'arieo eVFRVO cafin@ Ittiquette-rTMat25 mm� rr9s 1�ve9y�5]60/ 0 1-90&60-AVERY Easy Peel®Labels 09LWb91•gO&IanW sane 40W3 wtg&WW$Np~ap OWnbiq AI= Use Avery®Template 51600 j 091sil1tD' 'alq+id$7Q�i�,li�9"gaq 41T'" 939 543 92 I 939 543 93 939 543 94 Diron Lai Wendy Beetler Michael J Lester Tr 5096 Tortuga Dr#209 5096 Tortuga Dr#210 334 Carroll Park E i Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Long Beach CA 90814 939 543 95 I Christine Overstreet 1 5096 Tortuga Dr#212 Huntington Beach CA 92649 l i I I I �b A.) �trq a paler + IabelAze 1 x 2 5IN 4hpfi0&@AF�'rAjt/8160 vww�waverycom iltdo AVFRY®51600 bqueit� �41 t2-5 min EQ efe5160/8160 1-800-GO-AVEIKY ; Easy F ee1w Labels Use Avery®Template 51600 0918 j ogto/ a wuPgg allangJqu ofItqu}tanbq3 241 T,� 09t8/ �® b qPM algq , 163 043 22 163 045 09 163 045 09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Greenleaf Ln 17222 Greenleaf Ln#A 17222 Greenleaf Ln#B Huntington Beach CA 29649 Huntington Beach CA 29649 Huntington Beach CA 29649 163 045 09 163 045 09 163 123 04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17222 Greenleaf Ln#C 17222 Greenleaf Ln#D 5032 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16301204 16301204 16301204 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Du r Ave#B 5032 Du Ave#C 5032 D r Ave#D Hu gton Beach CA 92649 Hu gton Beach CA 92649 mgton Beach CA 92649 I 16301204 16301205 16301205 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 D ar Ave#E 5042 nbar Ave#A 5042 Dunbar H ngton Beach CA 92649 H tington Beach CA 92649 Huntm each CA 92649 16301205 16301205 16301205 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5042 ar Ave#C 5042 D r Ave#D 5042 D r Ave#E ntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 H ington Beach CA 92649 16301206 16301206 16301206 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5052 Dunb ve#A 5052 Dunba B 505yB ar Ave#C Hun on Beach CA 92649 Hunt on Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 012 06 163 012 06 163 012 07 OccupankhBeiac�hCA Occupant Occupant 50521D 505 — r�1ve#� 506Y�u ar�ve#A Huntingt 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 012 07 163 012 07 163 012 07 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5062 Dunb ve#B 5062 D r Ave#C 50629 r Ave#D Hunts n Beach CA 92649 n ington Beach CA 92649 Hufifington Beach CA 92649 16301207 163 012 08 - 163 012 08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5062 Du ve#E 507 ar Ave#A 5072 Dun B Huntington Beach CA 92649 untington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 —0// 7/6/ZI 0 163 012 08 163 012 08 163 012 08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5072 Dunb ve#C 5072 D r Ave#D 5072 Dunb Huntingt n Beach CA 92649 H ton Beach CA 92649 I Rmt g on Beach CA 92649 ttatlu peter ; ( ig 1"x 2 5/Wgdlapa�lt��iFM�18160 wwwavery com U1aUs AVERY®51600 ;ttique a425 mmuMlmtkcmbpad[Re Y4dry®5160/8160 1 800-GO-AVERY ' Easy Feel®labels 09L8/Q9t50tanan¢ a wcp�, dp;apanbq� ASM Use Avery®Template 5160® J 09 LOWINMAV qjIWR Ig4H6R � '�U� 41 T* 163 123 08 163 123 08 163 123 09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5072 Dunbar Ave#D-1 5072 Dunbar Ave#EE 5082 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 09 163 123 09 Occupant 16312309 Occupant 5082 Dunbar Ave#B Occupant 5082 Dunbar Ave#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 5082 Dunbar Ave#C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16312309 163 123 10 163 123 10 Occupant I Occupant Occupant 5082 Dunbar Ave#E 5092 Dunbar Ave#A 5092 Dunbar Ave#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 163 123 10 163 123 10 163 123 10 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5092 Dunbar Ave#C 5092 Dunbar Ave#D 5092 Dunbar Ave#E Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 11 163 123 11 163 123 11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5102 Dunbar Ave#A 5102 Dunbar Ave#B 5102 Dunbar Ave#C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 11 163 123 11 163 123 11 Occupant i Occupant Occupant 5102 Dunbar Ave#B-1 5102 Dunbar Ave#C-1 5102 Dunbar Ave#D 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 18 163 123 18 163 123 18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 51_22 Dunbar Ave#A 5122 Dunbar Ave-#A-1 - 5122-Dunbar Ave#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 18 163 123 18 163 123 18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5122 Dunbar Ave#C 5122 Dunbar Ave#D 5122 Dunbar Ave#D 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 18 163 123 19 163 123 19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5122 Dunbar Ave#E 5112 Dunbar Ave#A 5112 Dunbar Ave#A-1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 19 163 123 19 163 123 19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5112 Dunbar Ave#B 5112 Dunbar Ave#C 5112 Dunbar Ave#C-1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Lq a peter W� ©,?V/�labe*ze 1"x2 5/8R =A /8160 �6`/10 vvww.averycom UtilI AVER1(®51600 Ittlquettg t�5 min Av&e5160 60 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel®Labels 09L8 OMA-aA ane a m ' Use Avery®Template 51600 a � � }aP b4� S A 241Tm 10918�09C5®4t�raAV fWAX a144 �My*V"qe1 163 123 19 163 123 19 163 123 20 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5112 Dunbar Ave#D 5112 Dunbar Ave#D 1 5132 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16312320 163 123 20 163 123 20 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5132 Dunbar Ave#B 5132 Dunbar Ave#C 5132 Dunbar Ave#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 20 1 163 123 20 163 123 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5132 Dunbar Ave#A-1 5132 Dunbar Ave#D 1 5142 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 21 163 123 21 163 123 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5142 Dunbar Ave#B 5142 Dunbar Ave#C 5142 Dunbar Ave#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 163 123 21 163 123 21 163 123 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5142 Dunbar Ave#E 5142 Dunbar Ave#A 1 5142 Dunbar Ave#D 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 22 163 123 22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 22 5152 Dunbar Ave#A 5152 Dunbar Ave#B Occupant unt C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 H Dunbar Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 123 22 163 123 22 163 123 22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5152 Dunbar Ave#D 51-52-Dunbar Avee#E- 5152-DunbarAve#A-1- - Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 11 163 131 11 163 131 11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17111 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17111 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17111 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 11 163 131 12 163 131 12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17111 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D 17131 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17131 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 12 163 131 12 163 131 13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17131 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C 17131 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D 17141 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 qW I I ONa petert �e+zg,1"x 2 5/8t h h/8160 -bAo UtlI AVER(0� �� QeetiqueteM&25 min eW5160/816 yy -; e�Y.com 14KKWs"VERY a Easy Peel®Labels 09Lj9�9.h9*aaA¢ a wiad"WMW50g4WWj ap ivantiq AjW Use Avery®Template 51600 1 091L�c' a !q �' �ke� ia 41=«' 16313113 1 16313113 1 16313113 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17141 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17141 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C 17141 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 16313114 163 131 14 163 131 14 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17151 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17151 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17151 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C i Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I i 16313114 163131 15 16313115 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17151 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D 17161 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17161 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 15 163 131 15 163 131 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17161 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C j 17161 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D 17171 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 16 163 131 16 163 131 16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17171 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C 17171 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 l 163 131 17 163 131 17 163 131 17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17172 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17172 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 17 163 131 18 163 131 18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172-Harbor Bluffs-CirVD 17162 Harbor-Bluffs-Cir-#A —— 171621-larbor-Bluffs Gw#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 18 163 131 18 163 131 19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17162 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C 17162 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D 17152 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 19 163 131 19 163 131 19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17152 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17152 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C 17152 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 20 163 131 20 163 131 20 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17142 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17142 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17142 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ttiqu a peler k pl- �'/ labe�ize 1"X 2 5/> I@P �T� n� /81 so `, yw w avery com Utdis AVERY�516040 'Etique ' a 25 mm Mfg Aujry®5160/ /` 14300-GO-AVERY ' Labels O8Al8 a Use Avery Easy PeelO mp ate 51600 E a wu8Onep end ytin alg4 g Eatanbq� A 241Ta 09t 0 163 131 20 163 131 21 163 131 21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17142 Harbor Bluffs Cir#13 17132 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A 17132 Harbor Bluffs Cir#13 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 21 163 131 21 163 131 22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17132 Harbor Bluffs Cir#C 17132 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D 1 17112 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313122 16313122 16313122 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17112 Harbor Bluffs Cir#B 17112 Harbor Bluffs Cu#C 17112 Harbor Bluffs Cir#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 16313124 16313124 16313124 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#1 17172 Bolsa Chica St#2 17172 Bolsa Chica St#3 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#4 17172 Bolsa Chica St#5 17172 Bolsa Chica St#6 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#7 17172 Bolsa Chica St#8 17172 Bolsa Chica St#9 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#10 — 17172 Bolsa Chica St#11 -- 17172 Bolsa Chica St#12 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#13 17172 Bolsa Chica St#14 17172 Bolsa Chica St#15 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#16 17172 Bolsa Chica St#17 17172 Bolsa Chica St#18 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#19 17172 Bolsa Chica St#20 17172 Bolsa Chica St#21 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 n4lamedoft a peter !`7® � �/ to j"x 2 5/8 mare 08160 4,61l p .avery com UtdJI&JO AVE 5160 �hquett aW5 mm xrft4n h5160 60 1-800-GO-AVERY , Easy Peep Labels 091,8/Q9t9�an an¢ a WUJBLg l W� 1 ap a' nbit Use Avery®Template 5160® �� ,tW 241 ra 109t8� y® antl y;inn alggf98 u f 16313124 16313124 16313124 Occupant 1 Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#22 17172 Bolsa Chica St#23 17172 Bolsa Chica St#24 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313124 16313124 16313124 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#25 17172 Bolsa Chica St#26 17172 Bolsa Chica St#27 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 163131 24 163131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#28 17172 Bolsa Chica St#29 17172 Bolsa Chica St#30 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i I , 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#31 17172 Bolsa Chica St#32 17172 Boisa Chica St#33 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#34 17172 Bolsa Chica St#35 17172 Bolsa Chica St#36 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 , 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#37 17172 Bolsa Chica St#38 17172 Bolsa Chica St#39 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Solsa Chica St#40 17172 Bolsa Chica St#41 -- 17172 Boisa Ghica St#42 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#43 17172 Bolsa Chica St#44 17172 Bolsa Chica St#45 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#46 17172 Bolsa Chica St#47 17172 Bolsa Chica St#48 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chita St#49 17172 Bolsa Chica St#50 17172 Bolsa Chica St#51 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 eUq "Pl/ a eA x 2 $ 60 ,O w Y� H t AVER 60 'thqueU i 5 mm it q *05160/ 0 14KX a"VERy i MIWOO&W i a�7� 163 281-03 163 311 24 163 311-25 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#48 17332 Bristol Ln 1 17342 Bristol Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 163 311-26 163-311-27 163 311-28 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4941 Ashville Dr 4951 Ashville Dr 17352 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 163-311-29 163 311-30 163 311-31 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17362 Hampton Ln 4962 Ashville Dr 4952 Ashville Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-311-32 163 311-33 163 311-34 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4942 Ashville Dr 4932 Ashville Dr 4922 Ashville Dr 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311-30 163 312-01 163 312-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4962 Ashville Dr 4781 Coveview Dr 4801 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-312-06 163-312-07 1 163-312-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4831 Coveview Dr 4841 Coveview Dr 4845 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 312-09 163 312-10 163-312-11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4851 Coveview Dr 4861 Coveview Dr 4871 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-312-12 163-312-16 939 541-49 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4881 Coveview Dr 4772 Wentworth Cir 5031 Dorado Dr#110 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 goo Et%a AIIMIV= MIM0 Easy Peel®Labels ® 09Ig/d9 t�LaA�ane - a wuRfqd d'97�4�n1 ap G�anbq A 241 TM Use Aver} Template 5160 109tg tt and V,Wm elg4fdM.§ ll*.V 'l%gpj 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#52 17172 Bolsa Chica St#53 17172 Bolsa Chica St#54 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313124 16313124 1 16313124 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#55 17172 Bolsa Chica St#56 17172 Bolsa Chica St#57 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313124 163 131 24 ' 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#58 17172 Bolsa Chica St#59 17172 Bolsa Chica St#60 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I � 16313124 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#61 17172 Bolsa Chica St#62 17172 Bolsa Chica St#63 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 163 131 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#64 17172 Bolsa Chica St#65 17172 Bolsa Chica St#66 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 131 24 163 131 24 4 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#67 17172 Bolsa Chica St#68 17172 Bolsa Chica St#69 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16313124 163 131 24 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St#70 — 17172 Bolsa Chica St#71 — 17171 Bolsa Chica St#1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#2 17171 Bolsa Chica St#3 17171 Bolsa Chica St#4 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#5 17171 Bolsa Chica St#6 17171 Bolsa Chica St#7 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#8 17171 Bolsa Chica St#9 17171 Bolsa Chica St#10 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 �tiq paler (,,� — �� is h 11"x 2 5/8 ULeia o dSQ/8160 7-/�o//6 wvvw avery com Ut'I� AVfR 51600 Etique s e 25 min ety®516018160 1-800-GO-AVERY ' Easy Peet®Labels 09to/w%aPen sane a w�g9dcat0o t sp�a&13 a241TM A Use Avery®Template 5160� ,09Lg�09t5®fli an qV eIgq@MW.W ffla Taq� 163 281 06 163 281 06 16328106 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#11 17171 Bolsa Chica St#12 17171 Bolsa Chica St#13 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#14 17171 Bolsa Chica St#15 17171 Bolsa Chica St#16 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 163 281 06 163 281 06 I 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#17 17171 Bolsa Chica St#18 17171 Bolsa Chica St#19 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#20 17171 Bolsa Chica St#21 17171 Bolsa Chica St#22 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#23 17171 Bolsa Chica St#24 17171 Bolsa Chica St#25 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#26 17171 Bolsa Chica St#27 17171 Bolsa Chica St#28 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#29 -- 17171 Bolsa Chica St#30 — 17171 Bolsa Chica St#31 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#32 17171 Bolsa Chica St#33 17171 Bolsa Chica St#34 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#35 17171 Bolsa Chica St#36 17171 Bolsa Chica St#37 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#38 17171 Bolsa Chica St#39 17171 Bolsa Chica St#40 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 �1aq h peler 6pt4 L*) label She i x 2 5/8 bg WAMMAI§ 8160T8Y/6 wviw avert'com t avER st6o® tigaetteZ5 mm x 5i&0 1-800-GO-/�yftiY Easy Peep Labels 09 t8/b9l a sane m c��� &WVA3 P!! so ap qaanbi}3 A 241TOA Use Avery®Template 51600 ] 8 ®PfferV gtim algq$� ��� 's lagP 163 281 06 163 281 06 I 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#41 17171 Bolsa Chica St#42 17171 Bolsa Chica St#43 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I i 163 281 06 163 281 06 163 281 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#44 17171 Bolsa Chica St#45 17171 Bolsa Chica St#46 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 � I 163 282 05 163 282 11 163 282 13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4911 Seandge Cir 4916 Seandge Cir 4902 Searidge Cir Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 09 163 311 12 163 311 13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17308 Hampton Ln 17327 Hampton Ln 17317 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 16331114 16331117 16331119 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17301 Hampton Ln 4906 Shelburne Or 17261 Bolsa Chica St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 311 20 163 311 22 939 541 17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17326 Hampton Ln 17348 Hampton Ln 5032 Dorado Or#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 19 939 541 23 939 541 25 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dorado-Or#108 5032 Dorado Or#208 — 5032 Dorado Or#110 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 32 939 541 34 939 541 35 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5031 Dorado Or#101 5031 Dorado Or#103 5031 Dorado Or#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 40 939 541 43 939 54146 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5031 Dorado Or#105 5031 Dorado Or#108 5031 Dorado Or#207 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 48 939 541 54 939 541 56 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5031 Dorado Or#109 5031 Dorado Or#211 5071 Dorado Or#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 q e e oe-4/1 2 518R Qi81so jd j/(� .averyco I tda AVE1t 5160 'ttiquetta mm xff#eff k J4O&O516018160 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel®Labels 0918/p9450han#sans a wwqgkawsvwmw,ap8anbiq 41 f TM Use Avery®Template 51600 0918F/ antf ��►a1riR� ��a� r 939 541 57 939 541 58 939 541 59 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#102 5071 Dorado Dr#103 5071 Dorado Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 93954161 939 541 62 939 541 64 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#202 5071 Dorado Dr#203 5071 Dorado Dr#105 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 i 939 541 65 1 939 541 68 939 541 74 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#106 5071 Dorado Dr#205 5071 Dorado Dr#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 76 939 541 80 939 541 84 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5071 Dorado Dr#209 17172 Abalone Ln#101 17172 Abalone Ln#201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 541 85 939 541 87 939 541 98 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln#202 17172 Abalone Ln#204 17172 Abalone Ln#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 00 939 542 01 939 542 02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Abalone Ln#209 17172 Abalone Ln#210 17172 Abalone Ln#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 05 939 542 20 939 542 26 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5146 Dorado Dr#102 - 5146 Dorado Dr#10 5146 Dorado Dr#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 27 939 542 29 939 542 37 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5146 Dorado Dr#212 17151 Corbina Ln#102 17151 Corbina Ln#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 38 939 542 39 939 542 42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17151 Corbina Ln#107 17151 Corbina Ln#108 17151 Corbina Ln#207 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 44 939 542 47 939 542 53 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17151 Corbina Ln#109 17151 Corbina Ln#112 17191 Corbina Ln#102 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ttiq a peterW,� � � labe4z 1"x 2 518ft l WWfi 18160d10 j6 yvyvvv averycom Wills AVER6 ® ' bquett& 25 min 1V1& u ee5i60 1-800-GO-AVERY ; Easy Peel®Labels 09L8/0915an rue wt�ggai� l ap ' anb Use Avery®Template 51b0® !09t8/rr►tlUpMalq „� ' �[ {agr� 3 241T"" 939 542 56 939 542 57 939 542 59 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln#201 17191 Corbina Ln#202 1 17191 Corbina Ln#204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I , 939 542 61 939 542 63 939 542 66 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln #106 17191 Corbina Ln#108 17191 Corbina Ln#207 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I i 939 542 68 939 542 69 939 542 70 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbin Ln #109 17191 Corbina Ln#110 17191 Corbina Ln#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 71 939 542 74 939 542 75 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln#112 17191 Corbina Ln#211 17191 Corbina Ln#212 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 79 939 542 84 939 542 89 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5101 Tortuga Dr#104 5101 Tortuga Dr#105 5101 Tortuga Dr#206 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 542 91 939 542 93 939 543 06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5101 Tortuga Dr#208 5101 Tortuga Dr#110 5145 Tortuga Dr#203 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 07 939 543 10 939 543 15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5145 Tortuga Dr#204 5145 Tortuga Dr#107 5145 Tortuga Dr#208 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 16 939 543 17 939 543 24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5145 Tortuga Dr#109 5145 Tortuga Dr#110 17202 Corbin Ln#101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 34 939 543 35 939 543 42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17202 Corbina Ln#107 17202 Corbina Ln#108 17202 Corbina Ln#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 47 939 543 51 939 543 52 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17202 Corbina Ln#212 5176 Tortuga Dr#104 5176 Tortuga Dr#201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 trtiq a pseleWr , [at�ei'S�tz�e 1"x25/8'lt thelrwe 16d6Q,8160 1 6 (� wwwaverycowlut, AVER00 tt uet=eaI.CuieaL25 mm xi�h7eilii We Ve ®5160 8 60 1-800-GO-AVERY ; Easy PeelO Labels 09k8/09G9�an�ane a w ;ap daebq3 W A 49"i Use Avery®Template 51600 �0918�d9���� q , ' k 'bqqj 939 543 56 939 543 57 1 939 543 58 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5176 Tortuga Or#105 5176 Tortuga Dr#106 1 5176 Tortuga Or#107 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 60 939 543 64 939 543 74 Occupant Occupant I Occupant 5176 Tortuga Or#205 5176 Tortuga Or#109 5096 Tortuga Or#103 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 79 939 543 87 939 543 90 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5096 Tortuga Or#204 5096 Tortuga Dr#208 1 5096 Tortuga Or#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 939 543 91 939 543 94 Occupant Occupant 5096 Tortuga Or#112 5096 Tortuga Dr#211 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 /6 111a Etlq a peter j label&ze i"x 2 5/8 t W�y@r�` MdV816o r avery eom I Itil� AVFRV®S1600 hquette r ??5 mm i= Mlp jy. e05160/8160 1-800-GO AVERY ' 8A EnWO S � diL103U!{il X(}L�ii RtUd©i 2�I 3l10 b17�� � ��m���S Z� �� 1�en�4�' 163 12304 163 123 04 163 123-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#B 5032 Dunbar Ave#C 5032 Dunbar Ave#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 l 163 123 04 163 123 05 163 123-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 15032 Dunbar Ave#E 5032 Dunbar Ave#A 5032 Dunbar Ave#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 I 163-123-05 163 123-0� 163 123-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#C 5032 Dunbar Ave#D 5032 Dunbar Ave#E Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 163-123-06 163 123-06 163 123-06 'Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#A 5032 Dunbar Ave#B 5032 Dunbar Ave#C Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-123-06 163 123 06 163 123-07 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#D 5032 Dunbar Ave#E 5032 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-123-07 163 123-07 163 123-07 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#B 5032 Dunbar Ave#C 5032 Dunbar Ave#D Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-123-07 163 123-08 163 123-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#E 5032 Dunbar Ave#A 5032 Dunbar Ave#B Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-123-08 163 123-08 163 123-08 l Occupant Occupant Occupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#C 5032 Dunbar Ave#D 5032 Dunbar Ave#E Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-06 163-043 22 163 281-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Cluca St#47 17191 Greenleaf Lane 4972 Warner Ave Unit 101 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-01 163 281-01 163-281 01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4972 Warner Ave Unit 102 4972 Warner Ave Unit 103 4972 Warner Ave Unit 104 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 0 �/�- 0 '�/ Q�u�fo"rm'�� mmmm com i e avecAve 5tQ —/ 6 //O 1 163 281-01 1 163 281-01 163-281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant { 4972 Wamer Ave Unit 201 4972 Warner Ave Unit 203 49�2 Wamer Ave Unit 100 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 163-281-02 163-281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Wamer Ave Urut 101 1 4952 Warner Ave Unit 105 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 163-281-02 163-281-02 163 281-02 i Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 107 4952 Warner Ave Unit 109 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 110 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 163-281-02 163-281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 102 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 104 4952 Warner Ave Unit 201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-02 163-281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 202 4952 Warner Ave Unit 203 4952 Warner Ave Unit 205 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-02 163 281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 216 4952 Warner Ave Unit 217 4952 Warner Ave Unit 221 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281 02 163 281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 223 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 225 4952 Warner Ave Unit 227 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281 02 163 281-02 163-281-02 a Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 229 4952 Warner Ave Unit 230 4952 Warner Ave Unit 231 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-02 163-281-02 163-281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 232 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 235 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 236 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281-02 163 281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 237 4952 Warner Ave Unit 239 4952 Wamer Ave Unit 300 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ny Q Huntington Beach,CA 92649 U9 2iMMY idnV J IRU 0jrtltUauJ00 WW&,x fdW 9U IL IGA OP a4NO10 09C8 ome kian1/tWm eiggedutoa«8/5 Z x j ons JOPI 163 281-02 163 281 02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant i Occupant j 4952 Warner Ave Unit 241 4952 Warner Ave Unit 243 4952 Warner Ave Unit 301 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-02 163 281 02 163 281 02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 307 4952 Warner Ave Unit 309 4952 Warner Ave Unit 315 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 163-281-02 163 281-02 163 281-02 1 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 317 4952 Warner Ave Unit 210 4952 Warner Ave Unit 242 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-02 163 281-02 163 281-02 Occupant Occupant Occupant 1 4952 Warner Ave Unit 250 4952 Warner Ave Unit 251 4952 Warner Ave Unit 253 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-02 163 281-03 163 281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 4952 Warner Ave Unit 256 17052 Green Ln#1 17052 Green Ln#2 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163 281 03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#3 17052 Green Ln#4 17052 Green Ln 45 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163 281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#6 17052 Green Ln#7 17052 Green Ln#8 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281 03 163 281-03 163 281-03 1 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#9 17052 Green Ln#10 17052 Green Ln#11 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163-281-03 163 281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#12 17052 Green Ln#13 17052 Green Ln#14 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163 281 03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#15 17052 Green Ln#16 17052 Green Ln#17 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 labetl�MEEM I� D� �l��ttque '® 1 size 1 ,fc� �lV�e�11 6018160� 6 //U Cbquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Ave 5160/8160 � r 163-281-03 163 281-03 163 281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#18 1170�2 Green Ln#19 17052 Green Ln#20 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I 163 281-03 163 281-03 163 281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#21 17052 Green Ln#22 17052 Green Ln#23 Huntington Beach CA 92649 l Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 j 163 281 03 1 1163 281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#24 17052 Green Ln#25 17052 Green Ln#26 Huntington Beach CA 92649 I Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163 281 03 163-281-03 163-281-03 Occupant ! Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#27 17052 Green Ln#28 17052 Green Ln#29 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 163 281 03 163-281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#30 17052 Green Ln#31 17052 Green Ln#32 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163-281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#33 17052 Green Ln#34 17052 Green Ln#35 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163-281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#36 17052 Green Ln#37 17052 Green Ln#38 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 163 281 03 163-281-03 163 281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#39 17052 Green Ln#40 17052 Green Ln#41 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163-281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#42 17052 Green Ln#43 17052 Green Ln#44 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-281-03 163-281-03 163-281-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17052 Green Ln#45 17052 Green Ln#46 17052 Green Ln#47 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92649 °jd A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } Inter-Department Communication Planning and Building Department TO Honorable Mayf, Director ity Council Members VIA Fred Wilson, Cmistrator " 4 FROM Scott Hess, AIC of Planning and Buildm M DATE July 6, 2010 SUBJECT The Ridge—Additional Public Comments Following the publication and public release of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration ("RMND"), and the responses to comments received on the RMND that were attached as Attachments 9 1 to 9 203 to the Planning Commission Staff Report on The Ridge project, dated April 27, 2010, various individuals and entities have submitted letters to the City on the proposed project and RMND The majority of these letters were received on June 28, 2010, approximately one week before the scheduled City Council hearing Specifically, the City received comment letters from the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, the law firm of Chatten-Brown & Carstens on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Sandra Gems, Julie Bixby and Mark Bixby This memorandum considers and responds to these new comment letters, which are presented below in chronological order These letters have been forwarded to the City Council and have been made available to the public It should also be noted that the City received numerous other comment letters prior to the July 6 City Council meeting The issues raised in the letters are either addressed in the record or do not pose any substantive issues other than general opposition to the project A Summary of and Responses to Bolsa Chica Land Trust Letter dated June 24,2010 Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BCLT) submitted a letter dated June 24, 2010, which was received by the City on June 28, 2010 BCLT previously submitted comments on the RMND by letter dated October 9, 2009 from Sandra Gems The June 24, 2010 BCLT letter presented comments regarding archaeological issues The letter provides a summary of the history of archaeological investigations on various prehistoric cultural resource sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa, including development approved by the City for Sandover which is across Bolsa Chica Street from the proposed Ridge project The letter cites 33 prior investigations that have occurred for the archeological site ORA-86 that were mentioned in the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration(RMND) The archeological report (and RMND) that was prepared for the project states that the archeological site CA-ORA- 86 (not the project site) has been the subject of 33 prior investigations The publicly available information in these reports is available for public review at each of the locations cited in the reference list at the end of the report In addition, the prior investigations are summarized in the archeological report that was prepared for the project and made available for public review in its ,q_ G\AdmLtr\2010\0706w 1 (The Ridge)doc /` //� / D`I'/`.— Mai.a /�Q 1 (p t_ �.�is7ltd�c.u'� Sty/2'a-y 1 entirety The information on the prior investigations is provided as information to show the extent of study that has been done with respect to ORA-86 and is not the sole basis for determining potential impacts to cultural resources As noted in the comment letter, portions of archaeological site, ORA-86, are located on portions of the project site Generally, when a prehistoric archaeological site is identified as being within the area of a proposed project, investigation of the site and its significance is conducted through preparation of a research design conduct of a walkover survey to determine if there are any surface artifacts, and conducting a test excavation to determine the presence of any intact, subsurface cultural resource deposits As described in the RMND, ORA 86 has been the subject of over 33 separate archaeological investigations over time in which walkover surveys, test excavations in the form of a systematic auger program backhoe trenching, and hand excavations were conducted In the case of the proposed project, a multi-phased research design program, which included excavation of the entire property was conducted in 2001 Subsurface deposits were recovered from the southeast corner of the project site and no other intact deposits were discovered It is due to the fact that the site has already been excavated that it is anticipated that significant deposits would not be discovered during construction of the proposed project Not, as the letter implies because of an assumption made that the site was too disturbed As a result of the information derived from the cultural resource investigations, the City was able to determine whether the project would have a significant impact, and identify mitigation measures to ensure that impacts would be less than significant The figure referenced in the letter as Attachment No 1 is a 1989 figure that was utilized presumably (based on the title of the figure) to show previous work areas of ORA-83 The test dates on the figure do not reflect the past 20 years of archeological work in the Bolsa Chica area wherein archeological sites have been investigated and boundaries further defined The project site does not consist of the archeological site ORA-83 as stated in the letter The comment letter provides a letter from J Daniel Rogers of the Smithsonian which was written over 11 years ago about ORA-83, not ORA-86 ORA-83 is an archaeological site that is on another parcel of property that is in the same general vicinity of the project site, but is not part of the project site Moreover, the letter from Mr Rogers was written without benefit of having spoken to the principal investigator who has conducted a majority of the excavations on the site, without benefit of having reviewed any of the reports from prior archaeological investigation, and without benefit of having viewed and visited the site It was based on information provided to him by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, who at that time, was advocating against development of the property on which ORA-83 was located No evidence of the information reviewed by Mr Rogers was cited by Mr Rogers in his letter, and its accuracy cannot be verified The comment also includes a letter from Brian Fagan Professor Fagan raises a number of questions in his letter regarding the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee who concluded that data recovery, i e , the mitigation program used to recover artifacts from an archaeological site, had been conducted at ORA-86 In response to the questions presented by Professor Fagan, the following information is provided The peer review members include professional archaeologists and professors of archaeology from regional institutions The members of the Peer Review Committee were appointed by the Coastal Commission originally to resolve issues regarding the scope of mitigation to be conducted at ORA-83 The members of the peer review committee have all visited the area in which ORA-83 and ORA-86 are located and have examined the excavations that occurred at ORA-86 As required by Coastal Commission permits for archaeological work at ORA 83, the Peer Review Committee also reviewed and approved the G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 2 research design for work on these prehistoric sites Over the years, reports on the prior excavations have been prepared and submitted to agencies such as the County of Orange, the California Coastal Commission and data centers As a result of the investigations conducted at ORA-86, it was determined that the test excavations and data recovery excavations were sufficient to mitigate the potential impacts of future development of the project site As with many archaeological sites, once data recovery work has been completed, archaeological monitoring during ground disturbing activities is recommended as mitigation to ensure that in the event any undisturbed deposits or human remains are discovered, that appropriate mitigation measures are employed to ensure that impacts are properly addressed and mitigated Given the extensive mitigation program that has already been conducted at ORA- 86 (research design, walkover survey, surface artifact collection, test excavations, auger program, trenching, hand excavations and completion of a data recovery program) the City concluded that the site had been mitigated in accordance with all appropriate archaeological procedures and that with mitigation requiring archaeological monitoring during grading, all impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant The City appreciates the comments of Professor Fagan, but as the responses above would indicate, his questions have been responded to, the Peer Review Committee has had ample opportunity to visit the site, review the excavations and findings, and the reports that have been prepared such that the City can conclude that impacts to ORA-86 on the project site have been appropriately mitigated even before its consideration of this project and that the measures recommended for adoption will ensure that any potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant The letter concludes by asserting that a fair argument is presented in the letter to require an EIR and deny the project However, the argument in the letter is based on an inaccurate reading of the RMND (that impacts were less than significant due to previous site disturbance) and the analysis for concluding that the project would result in less than significant impacts Therefore, the letter does not present a fair argument that impacts would be significant and that an EIR is required B Summary of and Responses to Chatten-Brown & Carstens Letter dated June 28, 2010 The Chatten-Brown & Carstens letter was submitted on behalf of the BUT The following responses are provided Page 1, Paragraph 1 The comment states that the Project lies within the historic Bolsa Chica wetlands The Project site is located on a mesa well above the wetland area— even maps showing the historic extent of wetlands have always depicted an elevated mesa area on which the proposed project site is located The City's General Plan and Zoning designation for the project site is inconsistent The project site is designated Open Space-Park under the City's General Plan, but was zoned for residential use The comment asserts that the site is too small to accommodate all 22 units that are proposed This is inaccurate because the project site, under the proposed Residential Low Density zoning designation, is large enough to allow seven units to the acre or 35 units G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doc 3 Page 2, Paragraph 1 The comment cites various provisions of CEQA case law regarding the preparation of environmental impact reports (EIRs) but fails to note that CEQA permits a lead agency to prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration when all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to less than significant The City's RMND determined that with mitigation, all potentially significant impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated to less than significant and substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will have a significant effect on the environment has not been presented to the City For the reasons set forth below in the responses to specific issues raised in the letter the "evidence" cited by the commenter is not relevant to the proposed project as it pertains to other proposed developments, not the project, is not supported by any facts, let alone substantial evidence, or is based upon a misstatement of the facts These types of arguments are unfounded and not supported by substantial evidence and do not constitute a"fair argument"requiring preparation of an EIR Page 2, Paragraph 3 CCC ESHA and State Planning and Zoning Law The comment here states that the project would violate the California Coastal Act and State Planning and Zoning Law The purported violations are elaborated in the text of the letter and are responded to accordingly within this memorandum Page 4, Section I An EIR is Required Because Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that The Ridge Will Have Significant Impacts on the Environment The City's RMND determined that with mitigation, all potentially significant impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated to less than significant and substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project will have a significant effect on the environment has not been presented to the City For the reasons set forth below in the responses to specific issues raised in the letter, the "evidence" cited by the commenter is not relevant to the proposed project as it pertains to other proposed developments, not the project, is not supported by any facts, let alone substantial evidence, or is based upon a misstatement of the facts These types of arguments are unfounded and not supported by substantial evidence and do not constitute a "fair argument" requiring preparation of an EIR Page 4, Section A The Fair Argument Standard The CEQA Guidelines set forth the process by which a lead agency, such as the City, can utilize a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, to evaluate the potential impacts of a proposed project CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 states in pertinent part A public agency shall prepare of have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when (b) The initial study identified potentially significant effects but (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposal made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv 1 (The Ridge)doc 4 released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to point where clearly no significant effects would occur and (2) There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) further states Prior to approving a project the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency s independentjudgment and analysis CEQA defines "substantial evidence" as "fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment" (Cal Public Resources Code Section 21080(e)(1)-(2) ) As the courts have noted, evidence that if viewed in isolation may seem to give rise to a "fair argument' may in fact prove to be insubstantial if other information in the record shows that the evidence is merely speculation or unsubstantiated opinion, or is inaccurate or misleading Speculative possibilities, or assumptions that something may potentially occur, do not constitute substantial evidence (Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles v City of Los Angeles (2001) 90 Cal App 4th 1162, 1173-1176 ) In examining the claims and assertions and "evidence," presented in the comment letter, the City concludes that none of the arguments presented constitute a fair argument of a significant effect that is supported by substantial evidence As an example, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust has submitted two letters from "experts" that express their personal opinion that ORA-83, an archaeological site which is NOT on the project site and must be differentiated from ORA 86 which is on the project site, should be preserved First, the letter from Mr Rogers of the Smithsonian pertains to ORA-83, not ORA-86 so at the outset it is not directly relevant to the proposed project and its impacts Second, Mr Rogers merely expresses an opinion that ORA-83 should be preserved — which is not the same as the conclusion that development of the property would significantly impact the cultural resources that may or may not be present at ORA-83 He does not base his opinion on a review of any reports of the site, or based upon knowledge of the research and excavation that has occurred at the site It is merely stating a preference that a site— which is not even on the project site — be preserved This is not substantial evidence of a potential significant effect Second, the letter from Professor Fagan, questions the recommendations of the Bolsa Chica Peer Review Committee with respect to whether data recovery has been completed at ORA-86, but again bases his opinion on conjecture Professor Fagan has not reviewed any of the reports on the site or the previous work that has occurred on the site and expresses an opinion without having fully apprised himself of the facts The same deficiencies occur with respect to the "arguments" raised with respect to biology On G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doc 5 page 7 of the comment letter, the statement is made that the City's biological consultants failed to perform a survey during the southern tarplant growing season As cited in the RMND, a biological resource assessment for the site was prepared in January 2010 Based upon the work of the biologists site survey there are only two types of habitat present on the project site a 1 5-acre gravel area and 3 2 acres of fallow agricultural land The gravel area was found to be barren with nearly no vegetation other than a few tumble mustard and dwarf nettle individuals The 3 2 agricultural area contained amaranthus, lamb's quarters, nettle-leaved goosefoot, Italian thistle, common horseweed and shortpod mustard Remnants of southern tarplant and annual plant were not observed on the project site based upon survey of the site by LSA On page 8 of the comment letter, reference is made to a recommendation by Dr Dixon, the Coastal Commission's biologist, that 100 meters must be provided as a buffer to protect ESHA from degradation Again, the ESHA which Dr Dixon was referring to is located on another parcel of property not the project site Further in reality, the Coastal Commission and Dr Dixon did not impose a 100 meter buffer, but determined that a smaller buffer would provide equal protection for the ESHA Again, the "fair argument" presented by the commenter is based upon an inaccurate set of facts On page 11 of the comment letter the comment is made that the RMND is deficient because it does not address the dewatering of adjacent parcels No argument is presented as to the potentially significant impact that may result from dewatering and why it should have been analyzed Similarly on the same page, the comment states that the "MND fails to address the impacts of residential noise on species of wildlife but fails to present any argument as to why residential noise is a potentially significant impact on wildlife and fails to support it with substantial evidence In short, these statements are mere speculation or unsubstantiated opinions that an impact may potentially occur Absent substantial evidence, the mere expression of an opinion does not constitute "fair argument" of a significant impact supported by substantial evidence For these reasons, while a number of issues may be raised in the comment letter, they are mere assertions of personal opinions, and wishes (e g , ORA-83 should be preserved), or mere speculation of a potential impact unsupported by evidence As such, they do not constitute 'fair arguments ' supported by substantial evidence requiring preparation of an EIR Page 5, B Biological Resources Location on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Near the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve The project site is not part of the wetland ecosystem The site is located on Bolsa Chica Mesa which has historically always been elevated above the wetland where the Ecological Reserve is located The project is not adjacent to the Ecological Reserve and is located over 1,500 feet from the Reserve The comment states that the MND contains an `abbreviated mention of hydrology ' However, the RMND provides a detailed description of the project's drainage concept and how runoff will be treated prior to discharge resulting in less than significant impacts to the beneficial uses of downstream receiving waters The comment also states that the project will result in impacts to the wetlands due to the introduction of invasive species However the project includes a condition of approval, pursuant to existing zoning ordinance requirements that would prohibit the planting and proliferation of invasive species at the project site G\AdmLtr\2010\0706v1 (The Ridge)doe 6 The comment states that the City used a piecemeal approach in analyzing development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa by chopping a large project into many little ones This is not the case The City has only processed one previous development project on the Mesa This was the Sandover project, which was done 10 years ago The Brighwater project was processed under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange Both the Brightwater project site and the Goodell property were the subject of a previously certified EIR that contemplated a land use plan for the entire Bolsa Chica Mesa that was under County of Orange jurisdiction The Shea/Parkside project is not located on the Mesa Page 6,2 Special Status Bird and Butterfly Species The comment states that development of the site will impact special status bird and butterfly species that "inhabit" the project site The special status species discussed in the RMND and Biological Assessment Report were observed on the site and not known to "inhabit" the site The comment also states that the MND does not name the special status species that were observed on the site The special status species that were observed on the project site are listed in the RMND as well as in the Biological Resources Assessment and identified in the Appendix In addition to the special status species that were observed on the site, the RMND as well as the Biological Resources Assessment identifies several other special status species with the potential to occur on the site The comment states that since special status species have been observed on the site, development of the site would result in significant impacts Observation of special status species on a project site does not necessarily result in significant impacts to that species As analyzed in the RMND, the project site is relatively small and of marginal quality to support special status habitat Since the project site does not provide habitat of significant value, impacts to special status species and their habitat would be less than significant This is addressed in the RMND The comment states that the MND's conclusion of"no impact is refuted by substantial evidence in the record, the MND's disclosure that special status species are present" The RMND discloses both special status species that have been observed on the site as well as the site conditions that would make potential habitat for special status species marginal at best The RMND does not contradict itself nor is there substantial evidence of significant impacts to special status species as a result of development on the site The comment discusses the white-tailed kite as a special status species known to occur in the adjacent ESHA The RMND discloses the white-tailed kite as a species that occurs in the area The comment states that a fair argument exists "that impacts to special status species will occur if the site's habitat is destroyed " The project site does not provide important habitat for the white-tailed kite As analyzed in the RMND, impacts to the adjacent ESHA would be less than significant and therefore, impacts to white-tailed kites would be less than significant Page 7,3 Southern Tarplant Occurs on Similar, Nearby Property Southern tarplant was not observed on the project site during the survey of the site by LSA As cited in the RMND, a biological resource assessment for the site was prepared in January 2010 Based upon the work of the biologists' site survey, there are only two types of habitat present on the project site a 1 5-acre gravel area and 3 2 acres of fallow agricultural land The gravel area was found to be barren with nearly no vegetation other than a few tumble mustard and dwarf nettle individuals The 3 2 agricultural area contained amaranthus, lamb's quarters, nettle-leaved goosefoot, Italian thistle, common horseweed and shortpod mustard No tarplant was observed G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 7 Southern tarplant is a seasonal plant but once it has established identifiable remnants often remain present Since the biologist might have been able to observe tarplant if it was present, and the habitat is not especially conducive to the presence of the species, the City could have determined that no mitigation was required However, because of the presence of tarplant on adjacent properties, if tarplant seeds are blown onto the site and tarplant grows on the site, in an abundance of caution, the City has identified a mitigation measure requiring the project applicant to survey the site once more prior to ground disturbance and has identified mitigation in the event tarplant is found Page 7,3 Herbicide application Although herbicide has been utilized on the project site due to past agricultural uses, this is not the reason why southern tarplant was not found to be present on the site The biological resources assessment indicates that although southern tarplant could occur on the site, substantial populations are not likely to occur on the site due to the type of soil present on the site Since the project site provides marginal conditions for the growth of southern tarplant, the loss of potential southern tarplant habitat as a result of development on the project site would likely not be significant such that mitigation would be required The comment also indicates that by directing runoff away from the Shea property, southern tarplant on the Shea property would be impacted due to a reduction in the amount of water it receives The southern tarplant that will be preserved on the Shea property is in an area that will not be affected by runoff from the project site Furthermore, the wetlands that have been designated for restoration in the current agricultural field on the Shea property will require substantially more water than currently is provided by existing runoff Therefore, the water for creation of the proposed wetlands on the Shea property will be provided by the proposed Natural Treatment System wetlands, and the occasional runoff from the project site will be insignificant The final part of the comment asserts that the MND fails to discuss impacts that the project would have with respect to the introduction of invasive species The project's proposed conditions of approval and standard code requirements prohibit the planting naturalization or persistence of invasive species Therefore, impacts due to invasive species would not be significant and no mitigation is required Page 8, 4 Eucalyptus Grove ESHA Degradation is a Significant Environmental Impact The comment states that the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the project site has been designated as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and that the project's placement of homes within 160 250 feet of the ESHA will ` significantly degrade the ESHA " The comment then provides citations and issues provided by the Coastal Commissions ecologist in 2007 in analyzing an appropriate buffer on the Shea/Parkside project on the east side of the ESHA The buffer that was required by the Coastal Commission for the Shea/Parkside project was due to the specific conditions of the Shea project and the proposed aspects of that particular project The Shea/Parkside property is differentiated from the Ridge site in topography, soil conditions, biological resources, and hydrologic conditions among others The Parkside/Shea property encompasses a larger site area and is not located on the Mesa The comment asserts that the same buffer that was applied to the Shea/Parkside project should be required for the proposed project, but does not provide any substantial evidence as to why a larger buffer would be necessary on the project site The comment asserts that the two projects are similar but does not present any similarities in the two project sites that would constitute substantial evidence that the G\AdmLtr\2010\0706v1(The Ridge)doc 8 same buffer requirements would be required for the two projects The comment states that there is a difference in expert opinion based on the Coastal Commission's ecologist's rejection of flushing studies The flushing studies the comment is referring to were for the Brightwater project It should be noted that the Coastal Commission's decision on the Brightwater project's buffer to the ESHA was generally 150-250 feet with the largest buffer width at 382 feet As demonstrated by the fact that the majority of the buffer was approved at 150-250 feet, the staff ecologist's opinion of the applicability of the flushing studies and his recommendation to require a larger buffer did not weigh heavily on the Coastal Commission's decision on the appropriate buffer Page 9, 5 Harm to Raptors Would Occur from Removal of a Foraging Resource The comment states that "harm to the eucalyptus grove ESHA will adversely affect the raptors for which the ESHA was set aside " The comment cites noise, light and cat populations as potential impacts All of these issues are addressed in the RMND and again in this response memorandum The comment also states that impacts will be caused by harm to the habitat quality of the ESHA due to inadequate buffers The comment cites a 2007 memorandum for the Coastal Commission's staff ecologist analyzing buffer widths of an adjacent project with separate conditions The excerpts cited detail the importance of the eucalyptus grove and wetlands on the Shea site for raptor roosting and nesting Therefore, it is important to point out that these areas have been preserved as open space area as part of the land use approvals for the Shea/Parkside project The RMND does not diminish this in any way The comment states that development of homes will effectively lower the height of treetops relative to surrounding areas, which will reduce the utility of these treetops for foraging raptors This claim is not supported by any substantial evidence In addition, there are two- and three- story buildings within 40 feet of the northern part of the ESHA The height of the buildings on the proposed Ridge project, at the proposed distance from the ESHA, will not have an effect on the value and function of the ESHA for raptors, when considered in the context of the existing conditions with the much nearer buildings The comment states that the removal of foraging resources will cause direct harm to raptors and is a significant environmental impact The project does not propose to remove any preserved foraging area on the Shea/Parkside property and the project site itself does not provide significant foraging area Therefore, no significant impacts as a result of removal of foraging resources would occur and no substantial evidence is presented that would indicate otherwise The comment also states that the cumulative impacts of human residence on raptors have been ignored The RMND discloses the potential for impacts based on human presence but appropriately concludes that the potential impacts from human presence as a result of residential development would be less than significant The RMND discloses that presence of hikers and other human activity would be more of a disturbance to raptors However, since this is an existing condition, impacts must be evaluated in that context The additional human presence associated with the residential development, which would be even more minimal than the existing hikers, etc , would not result in a cumulative impact that would be significant In fact, when considered with the Shea/Parkside plans to remove hikers from the close proximity to the ESHA, the cumulative impacts would be less than the existing conditions The comment concludes by stating that there is substantial evidence that the project will "harm G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1 (The Ridge)doe 9 raptors and that a larger buffer is required " However, all of the reasons that the project will have significant impacts on the ESHA are either unsubstantiated or rely on analysis for a separate project with different site and biological characteristics Page 11, 6 Drainage into Wetlands The approvals for the Parkside project require that the development "shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of the wetlands" on the Parkside site This would require that a permanent water source to the wetlands be maintained regardless of development that occurs outside of the Parkside project site, which is beyond the project's control Although development of the project site may result in less stormwater flowing to the Parkside site, stormwater flows from the project site were not identified as the only water source and would not be relied upon to provide water to the wetland in the future In addition, the Parkside approvals are clear in that a water source must be established and maintained as part of the responsibility of the Parkside project The comment states that the MND does not address concerns that contamination will be removed from discharges from the project to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve This statement is not true The RMND discusses the project's drainage concept and the various ways the project will treat stormwater prior to discharging to downstream waters The project's drainage concept also provides for infiltration to reduce the amount of runoff that would occur on the project site Page 11, 7 Pet Impacts In addition to the project's fencing design plan, the proposed conditions of approval and standard code requirements provide that the project shall submit a Domestic Animal Control Plan that details methods to be used to prevent pets from entering any resource protection areas Therefore, potential impacts from pets would be less than significant The comment states that the MND fails to address potential impacts that human habituation and pets will have on coyote populations It should be noted that the project site is currently fenced and coyotes do not use the site As noted in the Response To Comments document, it is possible that coyotes may use the site, however, from a biological standpoint, coyotes are not designated as sensitive or special status species and potential impacts would be less than significant Page 11, 8 Noise This comment states that the MND fails to address noise impacts This is incorrect The RMND addresses potential noise impacts and appropriately concludes that impacts would be less than significant The comment also states that impacts may be greatest on species that rely on hearing to forage This is nothing more than an assumption made by the commenter The commenter does not state any species that this statement would apply to or the probability that the particular species would inhabit the area Page 12, 9 Light The comment states that the use of'dark sky" lighting needs to be enforceable as a mitigation measure or project design feature However, the project s conditions of approval and standard code requirements would be an enforceable method to ensure that project lighting will minimize impacts to wildlife in the adjacent resource areas and would prohibit spillage onto adjacent properties The comment also states that the proposed project lighting may still have impacts on G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1 (The Ridge)doe 10 the adjacent ESHA and asserts that the applicant is not in compliance with the "dark sky" lighting that was implemented at the adjacent Brightwater development However, the Brightwater project was conditioned to submit a lighting plan to Coastal Commission staff The lighting plan was certified by a lighting engineer as to it's conformance with the "dark sky" regulations All of the lights that were installed within the Brighwater project area complied with the "dark sky" requirements In addition, the "dark sky" lighting requires certain light fixtures to be utilized with lights within a specific range of illumination Even if lights are directed up to highlight the project entrance trees (as is the case in Brightwater), this is not a violation of the "dark sky" regulations as long as the specified fixtures and lights are installed The fixtures and lights used at the Brightwater project site are compliant and the Orange County building inspectors have verified compliance Therefore, although the comment claims that the applicant's past compliance history can be used as substantial evidence, no past compliance issues can be cited or exist with respect to the Brightwater project's lighting Page 12, 10 Other Biological Impacts The RMND addressed whether the proposed project would impact federally identified wetlands, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities and conservation plans The RMND concluded that the project would not impact conservation plans because there are no applicable conservation plans in the area There are no wetlands or riparian habitat present on the project site The project would not impact delineated wetlands on the Shea site since the Parkside (Shea) project must provide a water source for the wetlands and would not depend on runoff from the Ridge property Finally, impacts to the adjacent ESHA were addressed in the RMND, Response To Comments documents and this memorandum Page 12, C Cultural Resources The comment states that a "major flaw of the MND is its near dismissal of the project site's cultural resources, without adequate investigation The comment also implies that further investigation is necessary due to the discoveries of ORA-83 on the Brightwater site Both of these statements are incorrect A full archeological site investigation was done on the site in 2001 The cultural resources section of the RMND relies on this investigation to analyze the impacts to cultural resources The discovery of human remains on an adjacent project site with a separate archeological site does not trigger a requirement for subsequent site investigation on the project site — especially since the 2001 investigation consisted of a multi-phased program that included a variety of archeological methods for testing the site including excavation During the 2001 investigation, intact resources were discovered on a small portion in the southeast section of the property The resources were excavated and salvaged A draft report has been made available but a final report has not been finalized because the resources are still being analyzed in the context of the Bolsa Chica area In addition, archeological reports typically take a number of years to finalize This does not diminish the draft report in any way since full disclosure has been made as to the extent of archeological resources discovered on the project site The comment claims that the MND states that site disturbance has likely destroyed any remaining artifacts so the site's archeological value is limited This is not true The RMND does not state this The reasons for concluding less than significant impacts is due to the 2001 archeological excavation that was done on the site not because of heavy site disturbance G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 11 The comment states that the peer review letter came from the developer's interests However, the peer review was conducted by three members of the Bolsa Chica peer review committee The members are qualified archeologists approved by the Coastal Commission for peer review The archeological report (and RMND) that was prepared for the project states that the archeological site CA-ORA-86 (not the project site) has been the subject of 33 prior investigations The publicly available information in these reports is available for public review at each of the locations cited in the reference list at the end of the report In addition, the prior investigations are summarized in the archeological report that was prepared for the project and made available for public review in its entirety The information on the prior investigations is provided as contextual background information and is not provided as a basis for determining potential impacts to cultural resources The comment letter submitted by Brian Fagan did take issue with the archeological report and peer review letter, but none of Dr Fagan's comments provided substantial evidence pointing to significant impacts such that an EIR would be required Responses to Dr Fagan's letter are included in the Response To Comments document The comment states that the MND falls below the Coastal Commission's level of expectations in their October 14, 2009 letter The Coastal Commission indicated that the archeological report should be subject to peer review and review by Native American groups The comment states that this does not appear to have occurred This comment does not make any sense as the peer review required by the Coastal Commission occurred in December 2009 and was forwarded to the decision makers for consideration In fact, the preceding comments reference the peer review acknowledging that the author understands that the peer review already occurred In addition, all Native American tribes listed as contacts by the NAHC were noticed for the RMND and the public hearing meetings In addition, Native American tribes were contacted for consultation in accordance with state law Finally the comment states that the requirement for an EIR "cannot be waived merely because additional studies are required " This would not applicable to the project as there is no requirement for additional studies in the area of cultural resources Page 15, D Aesthetic Impacts The comment describes the site as part of the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs on the northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve The project site is not located along the northwestern side of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve However, the Coastal Element of the General Plan does state that the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs are a visual resource Although the slope along the eastern edge of the project site is not considered a coastal bluff, it does contribute to the overall views of the area Although the site would be permanently altered, the slope along the eastern boundary of the project site would be preserved as a scenic resource Public views from the 30 foot wide parcel along the northern boundary of the property would also be altered However, as analyzed in the RMND, views from that parcel would be preserved from the eastern portion of the proposed access trail The comment asserts that aesthetic impacts from change in views to and from the project site are not analyzed in the RMND This is not correct as the RMND analyzed aesthetics impacts with respect to views The comment also states that view losses would be cumulative as residential development occurs on the Shea Parkside and Goodell properties Since the project was found to have less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative loss of views in the area G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doc 12 In addition, it should be noted that there is no development proposed for the Goodell property nor is residential development reasonably forseeable at this time Page 15, E 1 Land Use Impacts The comment states that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and conflicts with existing land use plans However, it seems that the commenter does not consider what constitutes the project The project not only consists of the proposed development and related entitlements, it also includes amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Map, Local Coastal Program and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The proposed amendments have been analyzed for conformity to the General Plan and other applicable provisions Based on the analysis in the Land Use and Planning Section of the RMND as well as the General Plan consistency discussion in the April 27 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, the entire project (including land use amendments and development entitlements)would not conflict with the City's General Plan and certified Local Coastal Program Therefore, the project, as a whole, would not result in significant impacts to Land Use and Planning Page 16, E 2 Public Benefits Allowing a PUD Are Illusory The comment states that the proposed public benefits are illusory because the project would not enhance coastal access and does not really constitute a "green" project The project would provide enhanced coastal access by improving a 30-foot wide City-owned property Although the property is an existing public property, it is an unimproved, vacant lot and does not provide signage, an improved pathway, or any other noticeable demarcation of existing coastal access Only people that are already familiar with the area would know that coastal access exists from this parcel The second public benefit would be the project's proposed "green"building features The comment claims that the project is not really green, but the project has been conditioned to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) — Silver status and exceed State energy efficiency standards (Title 24) by 15 percent The comment further states that even if "public impacts on runoff and energy are reduced, The Ridge will produce limited public benefits, if any " The comment does not state the reasons for coming to this conclusion The comment states that any public benefits will be offset by the project's impacts and therefore, the project does not qualify for a PUD and thus is in violation of the HBZSO standards for lot width and size However, the adequacy of the proposed public benefits is not an environmental matter The City Council, when considering the project, will determine whether the public benefits are commensurate with the request for a PUD Page 17, 3 Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan The comment states that the project is incompatible with the Recreation and Community Services Element of the General Plan because it "will remove 5 acres of land designated as open space-park without identifying replacement parklands " The proposed project would not result in the loss of park space or existing recreational opportunities since the project site is not developed as a park Also, since the project site is privately owned, passive use of the property by the public does not exist If, as the comment states, the site is used by "hikers, birdwatchers and other recreational users for many years," it would have been considered trespassing In addition, the property is not included on the City's inventory of parks and the City does not intend to acquire the site in the future for a park or recreational use As analyzed in the RMND, the project would be required to provide 0 29 acres of park space to meet the current General Plan standard of 5 acres of park space for every 1,000 residents The Huntington Beach Zoning G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doc 13 and Subdivision Ordinance HBZSO) requires a project's park requirement to be met either through the dedication of open space or payment of in-lieu fees The Community Services Department has indicated that the project would be required to pay in lieu fees to satisfy the project's entire park requirement In addition the project is proposing a 0 13 common open space with passive park amenities While the City has an overall existing deficiency in park space according to the General Plan standard, the projects contribution would be less than significant as the project would be providing for its total park requirement through in-lieu fees plus an additional 0 13 acres of open space area The comment states that additional cumulative impacts on parkland would occur with loss of potential parkland and increased population at the Brightwater, Shea Parkside, and Goodell sites It should be noted however, that the Brightwater project approval included 37 acres of open space and the Shea Parkside project approval included 23 acres of open space Finally, while there is no development project proposed on the Goodell site, the City has approved pre-zoning designations for annexation of the site that would convert three acres (half the property) from residentially designated land to open space (parkland and conservation) area In the context of the Bolsa Chica area as a whole, development would make up approximately 6 percent of the land area with the remaining 94 percent preserved as open space Page 17, 4 Inconsistent with the Land Use Element The comment states that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, specifically Policy LU 5 1 1 The text of Policy LU 5 1 1 is as follows Policy LU 5 1 1 Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations During the development review process a Review any development proposal for the Bolsa Chica area, Huntington Beach Wetlands and throughout the City to ensure that no development is permitted in Federally and state delineated wetlands, and b Review any development proposed for non wetland areas to ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality The project is consistent with the policy The project site is adjacent to an existing grove of eucalyptus trees that has been designated as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) As such, the project is required to be designed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 221 of the HBZSO, which includes performance standards for development adjacent to an ESHA Compliance with these provisions would ensure that impacts from the proposed project on the ESHA would be minimized The project site does not contain any wetland areas and is located outside of the required buffer area for delineated wetlands on the adjacent (Shea) property to the east The drainage concept for the proposed project and compliance with applicable requirements related to water quality and water discharge would ensure that impacts to downstream waters, including the Bolsa Chica Wetlands would be less than significant The project exceeds the minimum buffer requirements for development adjacent to an ESHA pursuant to the HBZSO and the City s certified Local Coastal Program Notwithstanding G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 14 compliance with the minimum buffer requirements, the project's proposed distance to the ESHA east of the project site has been analyzed by a qualified biologist and determined to be adequate in terms of minimizing impacts to the ESHA Page 17, 5 Inconsistent with the Coastal Element The comment cites a portion of the City's Coastal Element that directly refers to the Shea/Parkside property and recent land use decisions that preserved 23 acres on the Shea/Parkside as Open Space — Conservation The comment doesn't point out that the figure associated with the cited text clearly shows the Open Space — Conservation area on the Shea/Parkside site and does not extend onto the project site Therefore, the entire comment is incorrect In addition, the project site has never been designated as conservation area to protect delineated wetlands on the Shea site The comment also states that the project site is zoned for open space This is incorrect as the project site is currently zoned Residential—Agricultural with a General Plan land use designation of Open Space — Park Prior land use designations on the project site include Low Density Residential until the City amended it to Open Space — Recreation, which was later changed to Open Space—Park Page 18, 6 Protect is Prohibited by the LCP Bluff Protections The comment states that the City's Local Coastal Program prohibits the project because it would constitute development along the "northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica lowland" However, the project site does not constitute the northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica lowland and therefore, the entire comment is incorrect Page 18, 7 Protect will have cumulative impact on land use The project will not have cumulatively significant impacts on parking as the proposed amendment to the City's zoning ordinance does not allow for reductions in required parking spaces Therefore, all future PUD projects would be required to provide parking in accordance with the adopted parking standards of the City's zoning code The project will not result in cumulative impacts on land use and open space as, as the comment states, "proposed residential developments surrounding The Ridge are approved and built" There are no other residential projects proposed surrounding the project site Several projects have already been approved (Parkside residential development) or are under construction (Brightwater residential development) Each project surrounding the Ridge property that was previously approved conducted environmental review including an analysis on land use and open space impacts Although the project site is designated Open Space — Park, the site is not currently used for a public park or public open space area In addition, the property is not included on the City's inventory of parks and the City's Community Services Department does not intend to acquire the site in the future for a park or recreational use Also, since the project site has been privately owned since it was incorporated into the City, passive use of the property by the public has never existed Therefore, the proposal to convert the project site from an open space designation to low density residential would not result in the cumulative loss of existing park space, passive public open space or planned future park and recreational opportunities When combined with other projects in the area, the development footprint for the Bolsa Chica area only represents approximately six percent of the entire land area Therefore, cumulative impacts to open space and land use would not be significant Page 18,F Parking and Traffic Impacts G\AdmLtr\20 I 0\0706jv I (The Ridge)doe 15 The amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is proposed to allow alternative configurations for required parking but would not allow reductions in the number of parking spaces required and thus provided The project is proposing to provide the parking as required by the City's zoning ordinance The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance would accommodate the project s desired site layout not grant a reduction in the number of required parking spaces provided by the project Without the proposed amendment, the project would likely still be able to achieve the required number of parking spaces with changes to the site layout The RMND analyzes potential impacts to parking both from the proposed project and future PUD developments The changes proposed by the amendment to the zoning ordinance would only be applicable to PUD projects It should be noted that PUD developments are not commonly proposed in the City as the City has adopted more updated zoning practices (such as mixed use zoning requirements and form-based standards) that developers tend to request and utilize more frequently Since the changes proposed by the amendment to the zoning ordinance would not allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and all projects would be required to provide the required number of parking spaces, the RMND correctly identifies a less than significant impact in the potential for the project to result in inadequate parking capacity The comment states that the MND "fails to account for the fact that tandem spaces rarely accommodate the intended number of vehicles due to constraints they place on vehicle access " The comment does not provide the factual basis to support this claim and instead relies on an assertion that tandem spaces place constraints on vehicle access While tandem spaces may result in vehicles needing to be moved in order for another vehicle to move, this does not provide evidence to support the comment's purported fact about tandem spaces In addition, a person purchasing a property in the development would assess whether or not the project had features desirable to that particular individual's needs The comment states that if visitors are unable to find street parking, they may have to park outside the project's development boundaries This is true anywhere in the City Any person can park on a public street where on-street parking is permitted This statement does not indicate a significant parking impact The comment states that the project estimates the number of potential new residents based on the City's average household size of 2 56 people The comment states that since the project is proposing homes with four and five bedrooms the number of people may be underestimated The comment states that since the number of people may be underestimated, the parking and traffic analyses "may downplay the significance of impacts ' This comment's statement that the impacts "may be downplayed" means that even the commenter isn't certain that the statement is true To clarify, the parking analysis is based on the City's established parking ratios not the number of people that may inhabit the homes However, the City's established single-family parking ratios are based on number of bedrooms provided in a dwelling unit Since the project complies with the City s parking ratios, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity Similarly, the project's traffic analysis is based on the number of daily trips and the project's potential to decrease the level of service at affected intersections Since the project would not result in significant traffic impacts by resulting in a change in the level of service or intersection capacity utilization at the nearest two intersections, the projects contribution to cumulative impacts at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway would not be significant G\AdmLtr\2010\07061v1(The Ridge)doe 16 Page 19, G Air Quality and GHG Impacts The comment states that the "prior MND predicted localized significance thresholds would be exceeded for particulate matter" This is incorrect The initial MND that was circulated did not include an analysis of localized significance thresholds Analysis of localized significance thresholds (LST) is voluntary but can provide an assessment of ambient concentrations of a pollutant during construction based on the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor During the initial comment period, a commenter stated that localized significance thresholds would be exceeded for PM10 In responding to the comment, the City conducted an analysis of the project's potential LST emissions In addition, the City ran the air quality program (URBEMIS2007 v 9 2 4) recognizing that the project would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 —Fugitive Dust The model was run using standard dust control measures to give the most accurate assessment of project emissions The RMND does provide a summary of the measures that would be used It should also be noted that compliance with Rule 403 is required, not optional Based on the data, neither regional nor localized significance thresholds would be exceeded during construction In addition, similar to a previous commenter's assertions, the comment states that the reduction in emissions is overstated Even if the air quality emissions were reduced by 50 percent, as indicated would be the maximum reduction in the comment, emissions would not exceed established thresholds Therefore, using the RMND's own emission's estimates, established thresholds would not be exceeded and no substantial evidence exists to support the comment's claim that the project will have significant construction impacts on air quality The RMND states that since there are no established thresholds of significance, any cumulative contribution of greenhouse gas emissions can be considered significant This should not be interpreted to mean that any contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is significant It is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine the significance of a project's greenhouse gas emissions in a cumulative context The RMND supports the conclusion that the project would not result in greenhouse gas emissions that are cumulatively considerable due to the negligible percentage of emissions when compared to those of the State of California and the project's "green" building features, which are consistent with the greenhouse gas reduction measures recommended by the California Climate Action Team and the Office of the Attorney General The comment states that the project does not provide enough green features to "offset its predicted impacts or meet a reduction of 20 to 30 percent to meet AB 32 and its implementation regulations " However, there are currently no adopted requirements for a project to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to zero or meet a reduction of 20 — 30 percent in order to mitigate to a less than significant level In addition, the comment does not explain how it claims to know that the project's green features do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 to 30 percent or even to zero The project is conditioned to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) — Silver rating and exceed Title 24, California's energy efficiency standards, by 15 percent Conditions of approval, similar to mitigation measures, are enforceable The comment states that more mitigation is required but does not give reasons to support why more mitigation would be required and how much more mitigation would be required Page 20, H Hydrology and Water Quality Could Be Impacted G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1 (The Ridge)doc 17 The comment states that the project will alter drainage to the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the MND does not analyze impacts to habitat and water quality The comment states that the MND "falls to account for impacts to the Shea Parkside wetlands, or to the quality of its habitat, attributable to the project's dewatering " The approvals for the Parkside project require that the development "shall assure the continuance of the habitat value and function of the wetlands' on the Parkside site This would require that a permanent water source to the wetlands be maintained regardless of development that occurs outside of the Parkside project site, which is beyond the project's control Although development of the project site may result in less stormwater flowing to the Parkside site, stormwater flows from the project site were not identified as the only water source and would not be relied upon to provide water to the wetland in the future In addition, the Parkside approvals are clear in that a water source must be established and maintained as part of the responsibility of the Parkside project The comment also states that the MND does not provide information on treatment of runoff prior to being discharged to the Bolsa Chica wetlands and concludes that there is a fair argument that "this runoff will impact the water quality and habitat of these wetlands " This is incorrect First, the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the RMND provides a detailed description of the project's drainage concept and stormwater treatment best management practices The section describes how the project will treat polluted runoff through various methods Second, the comment states that there is a fair argument that runoff from the project site will create impacts on water quality and habitat of the wetlands Yet no substantial evidence is provided to support this claim The comment states that the MND does not analyze the lateral movement of subsurface water, does not discuss subsurface conditions, or anticipated percolation, or an increase in the rate of bluff erosion However, all of these issues are discussed in the Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality sections of the RMND The RMND discusses the existing conditions of the site including soil conditions soil type, and groundwater depth and states that the site's soils are suitable for the project's drainage concept, which includes retention and infiltration The RMND also analyzes potential impacts from liquefaction, subsidence and lateral spreading The RMND also provides analysis of potential erosion of the adjacent slope along the eastern boundary of the site Due to the project s drainage concept and a requirement for an erosion control plan, significant impacts from erosion of the existing slope would not occur The comment cites bluff erosion at another location in the City and references S Gems letters It should be noted that S Gems has submitted several letters all of which have been responded to by the City Page 20, I Cumulative Impacts This comment states that the project, when combined with previously approved projects will have "extensive cumulative impacts on the remaining Bolsa Chica wetlands and mesa" The comment lists several impact areas but does not state what the cumulative impacts would be Instead, the comment refers to a letter from J Bixby J Bixby has submitted several letters on the project so it is not clear what letter the comment is referring to although it should be noted that two J Bixby letters were responded to in the Response To Comments document and one is responded to in this memorandum Page 21, A Biological Resources G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 18 The project site was surveyed and no southern tarplant was observed Despite the absence of southern tarplant on the project site, because it is present on adjacent properties, under the remote possibility that tarplant may establish itself on the project site, Mitigation Measure Bio-1 was developed to require the applicant to re-survey the site prior to ground disturbing activities The RMND made a determination as to whether the southern tarplant was on the site It was not and that determination was based upon a 2010 biological survey and a December 2009 site survey Analysis of this impact has not been deferred Page 21,B Cultural Resources The comment states that no site examination occurred despite "recent discovery of human remains during grading operations on adjacent parcels " A full archeological site investigation was done on the site in 2001 The cultural resources section of the RMND relies on this investigation to analyze the impacts to cultural resources The discovery of human remains on an adjacent project site with a separate archeological site does not trigger a requirement for subsequent site investigation on the project site — especially since the 2001 investigation consisted of a multi-phased program that included a variety of archeological methods for testing the site Because the site has been the subject of a multi-phased investigation, potential impacts to cultural resources were properly analyzed in the RMND Therefore, the letter incorrectly states that "the MND improperly defers analysis of cultural impacts and the importance of CA-ORA- 86 to after the City approves the project" The letter states that a "full site investigation should be done prior to project approval as part of an EIR" However, a full site investigation has been done Intact resources were discovered on a small portion in the southeast section of the property The resources were excavated and salvaged No further analysis or investigation is necessary However, the proposed mitigation measures serve as a pre-cautionary method in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during grading and construction activities Page 21,III MND Contains Inadequate Mitigation Measures BIO-1 The mitigation measure requires substantial populations of mature individuals to be preserved on site or relocated to a suitable area if preservation is not feasible A mature individual is one that would grow to achieve seed production or has the ability to reproduce As indicated in the Biological Resources Assessment, a population of only a few hundred individuals would not constitute a significant population such that mitigation would be necessary While the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) disfavors transplantation and relocation as a general policy, the policy is not specific to southern tarplant as implied by the comment The CDFG policy is in place because transplantation and relocation is not proven for some plant species However, successful relocation of southern tarplant is well documented and is an appropriate mitigation measure for reducing impacts to the species The next part of the comment is somewhat contradictory as the comment states that mitigation for southern tarplant should consist of avoidance The comment goes on to state that individual plants should be retained in place or if necessary relocated The recommendations in the comment are essentially the same recommendations of the mitigation measure Therefore, the comment's claims that the mitigation measure is inadequate are contradicted by the G\AdmUr\2010\0706w1(The Ridge)doc 19 recommendations for mitigation, which match those of the actual mitigation that is proposed in the RMND The only difference is that the comment states that all individuals should be preserved and relocated However from a biological standpoint, preservation or relocation of single individuals would not ensure the survival of the species and would not constitute meaningful mitigation In addition, the comment does not provide any supportive evidence for making this recommendation CULT 1 & CULT-2 The comment suggests that better mitigation measures are required because an adjacent project (Brightwater) had similar mitigation measures and archeological resources were discovered at the project site The mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the proper treatment of cultural resources in the event that resources are discovered during construction activities Since the project has been the subject of a multi-phased research design program for archeological resources which uncovered a small area of resources in the southeastern portion of the site, it is not likely that resources remain on the site The mitigation measures proposed for the project provide an additional layer of protection for any resources that may still exist on the project site Therefore, the mitigation measures would be adequate to address potential impacts to cultural resources in the unlikely event that resources are discovered during construction activities The comment states that the mitigation measures for cultural resources are inadequate because the option for preservation in place is not provided in the mitigation measures This is incorrect Both mitigation measures include language for the protection and preservation in place of any resources discovered during project related ground disturbing activities Finally, the comment states that the "MND fails to include mitigation to ameliorate impacts related to hydrology and water quality, traffic and parking, or land use " As evidenced in the record including analysis in the RMND, Response To Comments document and this memorandum, no significant impacts would occur in these areas and no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur has been presented Page 23, IV Hearthside Has a History of Noncompliance with Mitigation Measures The commenter asserts that the applicant has a history of noncompliance with mitigation measures and therefore this "history" jeopardizes the MND's conclusion that no impacts will occur to cultural resources with incorporation of mitigation The applicant's compliance with cultural resource mitigation has been reviewed twice, as a result of petitions filed by the commenter the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, with the California Coastal Commission to revoke permits issued by the Coastal Commission to the applicant to conduct an archaeological mitigation program and to develop the Brightwater project In both instances, the Coastal Commission conducted a lengthy investigation, prepared a detailed staff report and analysis, and held a public hearing after which the Coastal Commission determined that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that any violation of the permits had occurred and that the permit should be revoked (See California Coastal Commission, Staff Report Revocation Request, R5-05- 020, dated October 29, 2008 for hearing of November 13, 2008 ) The project applicant further responds to this comment in a letter provided in Attachment No 1 Page 24, V Project will significantly degrade ESHAs in violation of the Coastal Act This comment re states earlier comments on the letter with respect to proposed buffer widths and the ESHA east of the project site Based on the responses herein as well as the analysis in the G\AdmUr\2010\0706vt(The Ridge)doe 20 RNIND and project record, the project would not significantly degrade the ESHA and will not violate the Coastal Act The comment states that the Coastal Commission's own reports provide substantial evidence that the placement of homes within 160 feet of the ESHA will cause significant impacts on the ESHA However, those reports were specific to another project and therefore, do not present substantial evidence that the proposed project's distance to the ESHA will result in significant impacts Page 24, VI Protect Approval Violates the State Planning and Zoning Law Because it is Inconsistent with the General Plan The project does not violate State planning and zoning law The conditions of approval on the tentative tract map assert that the tentative tract map approval shall not be effective until the project entitlements are approved and the Local Coastal Program Amendment is certified by the Coastal Commission In addition, the conditions of approval on the Coastal Development Permit and the Conditional Use Permit state that the project entitlements are not effective until the Local Coastal Program Amendment is certified by the Coastal Commission C Summary of and Responses to Julie Bixby Letter The first comment in the letter states that the project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act because it would allow a lower priority residential use on privately-owned land suitable for visitor- serving commercial recreational facilities While residential uses are considered a lower priority use than visitor-serving commercial recreation uses, the project site is not currently designated for visitor-serving commercial uses and amending the Land Use Plan to allow visitor-serving commercial is not a part of the project request As stated in the record, the City does not intend to acquire and develop the site for a recreational park as the existing land use designation allows However, the project does propose a 0 29-acre open space area as a recreational amenity for the proposed residential units and the general public In addition, the project would be improving an existing City-owned parcel to enhance access to existing coastal recreational resources The comment letter sites a policy in the Coastal Element of the General plan that refers to the bluffs along the northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica The project site is not located along the northwestern edge of the Bolsa Chica The comment also refers to the project's grading proposed for the residential pad elevations The residential pad elevations are not proposed on the existing eastern slope of the property In addition, the project would preserve the existing slope along the eastern boundary of the project site The comment letter states that the project would impact public views from the 30-foot wide City- owned parcel that is proposed to be improved as a public benefit of the project This issue is addressed in the record, and as stated in the RMND and Response To Comments document, the project would preserve existing public views from the eastern portion of the 30-foot wide parcel The comment also takes issue with the text of the RMND stating that the project would "provide" views from the 30-foot wide parcel since they already exist However, in the Response To Comments document, which includes errata to the RMND, the text has been changed to state that views from the parcel would be preserved from the eastern portion of the parcel The comment letter states that the project would have cumulative impacts on the adjacent ESHA G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 21 The comment states that development will "box in" the adjacent ESHA on three sides as development already exists north of the ESHA and is approved east of the ESHA The comment states that the RMND fails to address this issue However, in analyzing potential impacts to the ESHA, the RMND and Biological Resources Assessment, consider both the existing development north of the ESHA as well as the approved development on the Shea/Parkside property that preserved 23 acres of open space/conservation area for the ESHA and wetland areas on that property Due to these conditions, as well aspects of the project design, conditions of approval, code requirements and raptor tendencies impacts on the ESHA were determined to be less than significant The comment letter states that the project will cause significant impacts on birds and wildlife due to the presence of domestic pets from the project The letter provides excerpts from, and incorporates by reference two articles on impacts pets can have on wildlife These articles have a broad context and do not provide information specific to the project area or proposed project Recognizing that potential impacts could occur from further presence of domestic pets in the area, the RMND and project record analyzed this potential impact Based on the project's design utilizing perimeter fencing and a condition of approval requiring a Domestic Animal Control Plan to minimize impacts from pets on the adjacent ESHA, impacts were determined to be less than significant The comment letter states that the project will create adverse effects on the environment and nearby ESHA even with the use of"dark sky' lighting The letter provides excerpts from, and incorporates by reference two articles that address this issue The articles have a broad context and do not provide information specific to the Bolsa Chica area and proposed project The use of "dark sky" lighting has been recognized as an acceptable method for lighting in areas adjacent to ESHA The street lighting and lighting for the 30-foot wide parcel are subject to the same "dark sky" lighting requirements Use of `dark sky' lighting in addition to a proposed condition of approval and standard code requirements that would require lighting that would minimize impacts to the adjacent ESHA and avoid spillage onto adjacent properties would ensure that impacts from lighting would be less than significant The comment letter states that noise impacts would have significant impacts on wildlife and the adjacent ESHA and offers excerpts from an article on worldwide effects of noise on wildlife and avian species The article is acknowledged and incorporated by reference An article that discusses worldwide noise effects on bird species would not provide evidence that noise from the project would cause significant impacts on wildlife since it does not consider the specific conditions of the project area as well as specific aspects of the project Analysis of potential impacts from noise are analyzed based on the specific aspects of the proposed project and have been determined to be less than significant The comment letter brings up the issue of potential impacts to coyotes The same comment has been raise in a previous comment letter as well as in the Chatten-Brown & Carstens letter As such, the issue has been responded to both in this memorandum and in the Response to Comments document The letter concludes by urging the City Council to deny the project D Summary of and Responses to Mark Bixby better The first part of the comment letter incorporates, by reference, previous studies and observations G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doe 22 submitted by the commenter on the Parkside Estates LCPA The next comment refers to observations of southern tarplant the commenter has conducted on the adjacent Goodell and Shea/Parkside properties The commenter characterizes the area's southern tarplant population as "stable to increasing " The comment also notes that removal of vegetation on the northern portion of the Goodell property may promote growth of the species on the Ridge property The RMND discloses the potential for southern tarplant to occur on the project site even though no southern tarplant was present on the site during a December 2009 survey As such, the RMND recommends a mitigation measure to ensure that potential impacts to southern tarplant would be less than significant The comment letter states that impacts to raptors will occur due to a loss of foraging area on the Ridge site as well as impacts from light, noise, pet and human intrusion The RMND, Biological Resources Assessment, Response To Comments document and this memorandum address the issue of light, noise, pet and human intrusion from the project in light of existing and future conditions surrounding the project site Development of the site would not result in the loss of an important foraging area such that mitigation would be required due to the property's present site conditions and suitability as foraging area The comment states that an EIR is required to properly assess and mitigate the impacts The commenter also attached comments and observations that were submitted for the Goodell property pre-zoning and annexation RMND E Summary of and Responses to Sandy Gems Letter The first comment raised in the letter indicates that the City cannot approve a coastal development permit or tract map because they are inconsistent with the City's certified Local Coastal Program The comment states that the City can only approve the project in concept until the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is certified by the Coastal Commission and therefore, the project must be re-noticed The City has permit jurisdiction for the project's proposed coastal development permit request Therefore, the project's coastal development permit as well as the tentative tract map may be approved by the City but would not become effective until the Local Coastal Program Amendment is certified by the Coastal Commission The recommended conditions of approval for the project's entitlements state that the project's entitlements, including the coastal development permit and tentative tract map, will not be effective until certification of the LCPA by the Coastal Commission occurs The public notice also discloses the requirement for the LCPA to be certified by the Coastal Commission The figure referenced in the comment shows the various landforms in the coastal zone However, it should be noted that the slope along the eastern boundary of the project site is not designated as a ` coastal bluff" Notwithstanding, the existing slope on the project site would be preserved The comment states that the proposed zoning text amendment would result in significant parking impacts citywide However, the proposed text amendment does not allow for reductions in required parking spaces for a planned unit development (PUD) project The comment states that the proposed text amendment would reduce available street parking for guests and other visitors, however, the parking requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) consider guest parking requirements It should also be noted that the text amendment also requires that the alternative parking configurations should provide for the utility and accessibility of the proposed development In addition, as with all projects in the City, each development would be reviewed on a project specific basis to ensure that adequate parking is provided Within the coastal zone, all new development is required to have publicly accessible streets and on-street parking that would be open to the general public G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1 (The Ridge)doc 23 The comment states that the site is "highly sensitive as part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem " The comment also points out that there is an environmentally sensitive habitat area east of the project site The points of this comment have been addressed within this document (refer to the responses to the Chatten-Brown & Carstens Letter) and throughout the record, including the RMND and Response To Comments document The comment also states that archeological resources in the area include CA-ORA-83, which has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places This comment is noted The project site does not contain portions of ORA 83 The comment reiterates the Bolsa Chica Land Trust's concerns regarding the Ridge project and the Goodell property (which is immediately south of the project site) entitlements that the City is currently processing The comment states that the City is processing the project in a"piecemeal" fashion However the Ridge project includes legislative amendments as well as a development project, which includes the subdivision of the site for construction of 22 homes and associated landscaping, open space and infrastructure The Goodell property is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange and the City has processed pre zoning designations, which would convert three acres of the property from residential to open-space zoning The City has also approved annexation of the property into the City's corporate boundaries Since the City approved these entitlements in 2009, the Goodell property owner has applied for General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments to establish land use designations consistent with the approved pre zoning designations No physical development is proposed for the Goodell property and development is not reasonably foreseeable at this time Both the Ridge RMND and the Goodell property pre zoning and annexation RMND disclose and consider projects surrounding the site In addition The Ridge project includes physical development of the site, while development of the Goodell property is not reasonably foreseeable and is not within the jurisdiction of the City at this time Therefore, both properties have separate distinct "projects" under CEQA and separate environmental review would not be considered piecemeal review of a larger project into smaller ones The final comment states that the RMND does not adequately address numerous potential impacts as noted in the commenter's April 2, 2010 letter The commenter submitted several attachments from previous Coastal Commission staff reports on separate and different projects as well as several academic articles It should be noted that each of the comments raised in the commenter's April 2, 2010 letter have been addressed in the Response To Comments document and do not provide any substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental impacts The responses contained in this memorandum adequately respond to the comments in the letters received on June 28, 2010 and will become part of the record for "The Ridge"project Attachments 1 Letter from applicant's counsel in response to non compliance comments in the Chatten-Brown& Carstens letter SH MBB JV jr xc Bob Hall Deputy City Administrator Mary Beth Broeren Planning Manager Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner Jan Richards Administrative Assistant Cathy Fikes Administrative Assistant G\AdmLtr\2010\0706jv1(The Ridge)doc 24 ATTACHMENT # 1 1 Susan K Hon 1-ini a n a Manatt Phelps&Phillips LLP manatt I phelps I phdDps Direct Dial (714)371 2528 E mail shon@manatt com July 6 2010 Client Matter 24970 031 BY E-MAIL SHESS a,SURFCITY-HB ORG Scott Hess Director of Planning and Building 2000 Main Street P O Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re Chatten-Brown &Carstens Letter dated June 28,2010 re the Recirculated Environmental Assessment No 2008-016 (The Ridge) Dear Mr Hess On behalf of my client Hearthside Homes, applicant for The Ridge project I would like to provide you with the following background information regarding certain allegations made in the letter that was addressed to the City Council dated June 28 2010 from Chatten-Brown & Carstens In Section IV of that letter,beginning on page 23 allegations are made regarding Hearthside s history of noncompliance with mitigation measures Contrary to the statements in the letter Hearthside Homes has not been repeatedly reprimanded for its failure to implement mitigation measures In fact the applicant s compliance with cultural resource mitigation has been placed under the microscope not once but twice as a result of petitions filed by the commenter,the Bolsa Chica Land Trust with the California Coastal Commission to revolve permits issued by the Coastal Commission to the applicant to conduct an archaeological mitigation program and to develop the Bnghtwater project In both instances the Coastal Commission conducted a lengthy investigation,prepared a detailed staff report and analysis and held a public hearing after which the Coastal Commission determined that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that any violation of the permits had occurred and that the permit should be revoked (See California Coastal Commission Staff Report Revocation Request R5-05 020 dated October 29 2008 for hearing of November 13 2008 ) We hereby enclose with this letter a copy of the Coastal Commission Staff Report and the final determination of the Coastal Commission regarding this revocation request both of which we request be incorporated by reference into evidence and iecord before the City Council with respect to this matter As described in the referenced Coastal Commission Staff Report and supporting documents upon the discovery of human bone fiagments notification to the Coroner was made 695 Town Center Drive 14th Floor Costa Mesa California 92626 1924 Telephone 714 371 2500 Fax 714 3712550 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington D C Ir-wo-onaft manatt I phelps I phillips Scott Hess July 6 2010 Page 2 as required by Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 In addition,notification to the Native American Heritage Commission was also made which as mandated by Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 appointed a most likely descendant' to provide recommendations to the landowner regarding the treatment and disposition of the human remains Once the Native American Heritage Commission appoints a `most likely descendant, it has fulfilled its obligations under Public Resources Code Section 5097 98 A full and complete discussion of the Native American notification process and review by the Coioner s office is included in the materials submitted to the Coastal Commission and cited in the Staff Report all of which is herein incorporated by reference In approving the Coastal Development Permit 5-05-020 the Coastal Commission adopted as a special condition a very detailed archaeological nutigation program for which the applicant prepared and implemented an Archaeological Monitoring Plan The City has been informed by the applicant that it was in receipt of letters from the Coastal Commission staff regarding the proper interpretation and implementation of the Archaeological Monitoring Plan and has resolved with Commission staff the interpretation of the approved plan and is in compliance with the requirements of the plan as interpreted by the Coastal Commission Contrary to the commenter s characterization at each step of the way the applicant has developed and implemented one of the most detailed archaeological mitigation programs and when questions have arisen regarding the interpretation and implementation of the program measures the applicant has worked with the involved agencies to address any issues and to resolve any outstanding concerns immediately The applicant s response to agency inquiries and the Coastal Commission s refusal to revoke its issued permits do not demonstrate a history of noncompliance If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us Very truly yours Susan K Hon Manatt Phelps&Phillips LLP Enclosures cc Jennifer Villasenor Ed Mountford STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 90802 4302 (562)590 5071 November 18 2008 DENIAL OF REVOCATION REQUEST Application No 5-05-020 Name of Applicant Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Development Description Approval of VTTM 15460 for the subdivision and development of the 105 3 ac (Bnghtwater development) site into 349 single family residential lots on 68 acres and 37 acres of habitat restoration Also included are two local parks, public trail along the blufitop edge and 3 public vertical accessways leading to the blufftop trail Two known archaeological sites, ORA-83 and ORA-85 are located within the project site Persons Requesting Revocation 20 individuals from various Native American tribal groups, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust This letter is to inform you that the California Coastal Commission has found that grounds do not exist under Administrative code Section 13105 for the revocation of the permit Whereas, a public hearing as required under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 13108 was held on November 13, 2008 the request for revocation of permit number 5-05-020 is denied Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission on November 19, 2008 PETER M DOUGLAS Executive Director By qd44�4-- District Manager/Project An lyst Groups/Denial 15 05 020/revo doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office o� 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 90802 4302 (562)590-5071 1a Filed 6/2/08 49th Day NA 180th Day NA Staff Teresa Henry LB Staff Report 10/29/08 Hearing Date 11/13/08 Commission Action STAFF REPORT REVOCATION REQUEST APPLICATION R5-05-020 APPLICANT Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark AGENT Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes Susan Hon Manatt Phelps & Phillips Dave Neish D B Neish PROJECT LOCATION 17201 Bolsa Chica Road Bolsa Chica, Orange County PROJECT DESCRIPTION Approval of Vesting Tract Map 15460 for the subdivision and development of the 105 3 acre (Brightwater development) project site into 349 single family residences on 68 acres and 37 acres of habitat restoration Also included within the development are two local parks a public trail along the blufftop edge and three public vertical accessways leading to the blufftop trail Two known archaeological sites ORA 85 and ORA 83 the Cogged Stone Site are located within the project site INDIVIDUALS REQUESTING REVOCATION 20 individuals from various Native American tribal groups (see Exhibit 1, page 6) California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission after public hearing deny the request to revoke Coastal Development Permit 5-05-020 because the request fails to establish the grounds required pursuant to Section 13105 of the Commission s Regulations The revocation request fails to demonstrate intentional inclusion of inaccurate erroneous or incomplete information in connection with the subject coastal development permit application where accurate and complete information would have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on the permit or deny the application R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Protect) Revocation Request Page 2 of 27 SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR) 551 (State Clearinghouse No 1993071064) Vol I Brightwater Development Protect Orange County California prepared by LSA Associates Inc November 17 2001, Coastal Development Permit files 5-84-983 5-83-702 as amended 5 89-772 as amended Executive Director Report to the Commission Regarding ORA-83 R5-98-772, 5-04-192 5-05-020 PROCEDURAL NOTE The Commissions regulations Tale 14 of the California Code of Regulations state the grounds for the revocation of a coastal development permit as follows Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be (a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application where the Commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application (b) Failure to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054, where the views of the person(s) not notified were not otherwise made known to the Commission and could have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application 14 Cal Code of Regulations Section 13105 STAFF NOTE Revocation of a permit removes a previously granted permit Even if a permit is vested i e the permittee has undertaken construction of the protect if the Commission revokes the permit the applicant is required to stop work and if wishing to continue to reapply for the protect In fact if the Executive Director determines that evidence clearly shows that there are grounds for revocation Section 13107 provides that the operation of the permit shall be suspended In this case the Executive Director has not determined that grounds exist for revocation and the operation of the permit is not suspended Because of the impacts on a permittee the grounds for revocation are necessarily narrow The rules of revocation do not allow the Commission to have second thoughts on a previously issued permit based on information that comes into existence after the granting of the permit no matter how compelling that information might be Similarly a violation of the Coastal Act or the terms and conditions of a permit or an allegation that a violation has occurred are not grounds for revocation under the California Code of Regulations The grounds for revocation are of necessity confined to information in existence at the time of the Commissions action The revocation request is based on subsection (a) of Section 13105 of the Commissions regulations The three elements of Section 13105(a)that must be proved before a permit can be revoked are R5 05-020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 3 of 27 1)That the applicant provided incomplete or false information, AND 2) That false or incomplete information was supplied intentionally, AND 3)That if the Commission had known of the information it would have denied the permit or imposed different conditions I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission A Motion `9 move that the Commission grant revocation of Coastal Development Permit Number 5 05 020 ' The staff recommends a NO vote on the motion This will result in denial of the request for revocation and adoption of the following resolution and findings The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present Resolution to deny Revocation The Commission hereby denies the request for revocation of the Commission s decision on coastal development permit no 5-05-020 on the grounds that there is no intentional inclusion or inaccurate erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application where the Commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application II FINDINGS AND DECLATIONS The Commission hereby finds and declares A Project Description, Location and Summary of Archaeological History of Site On April 14 2005 the Commission approved Coastal Development Permit 5 05-020 for the approval of Vesting Tract Map 15460 for the subdivision and development of the 105 3 acre Brightwater development project on the Bolsa Chica Mesa The development consists of the construction of 349 single family residences on 68 acres and 37 acres of habitat restoration Also included are two local parks a public trail along the blufftop edge of the property and three public vertical accessways leading to the blufftop trail Two known archaeological sites ORA 83 the Cogged Stone Site and ORA 85 the Eberhart Site are located within the project site The project site is located in Orange County on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, east of Pacific Coast Highway south of Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue west of Bolsa Chica Street and north of the recently restored Bolsa Chica Wetlands At the time of the R5-05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 4 of 27 Commissions action in April 2005 the Bolsa Chica Mesa was located in unincorporated Orange County It has been recently annexed Into the City of Huntington Beach The archaeological history of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and surrounding area is well documented and dates back before the Coastal Act According to the 2001 EIR for the Brightwater project archaeological investigations began in the area in the 1920s and became more intense in the 1960s including excavations at ORA-83 and ORA-85 in 1961 and 1964 respectively' There are 17 known archaeological sites within the greater Bolsa Chica area Four of the 17 archaeological sites have been recorded on the Brightwater project site However two of the four sites ORA-84 and ORA-288 were destroyed in the early to middle1970 s The two remaining archaeological sites on the project site ORA-83 and ORA-85 have fairly extensive permit histories with the Coastal Commission The staff report for Coastal Development Permit 5-05-020 contained a detailed history of the Coastal Commissions action regarding the two archaeological sites located on the Brightwater project site which is found in Appendix A Following is a summary of the Commissions action concerning the two archaeological sites located on the Bnghtwater project site At the time of the Commission s review of the subject Brightwater CDP application 5-05- 020 in April 2005 (and the predecessor application 5-04-192 in October 2004 which was withdrawn at the hearing prior to the final vote) the applicant had received approval and had carried out archaeological testing excavation and salvage activities within ORA-83 and ORA-85 for nearly 20 years pursuant to CDPs approved by the Coastal Commission As summarized in detail in Appendix A the applicant received several Coastal Development Permits (CDPs)from the Commission to implement an archaeological research design for ORA-83 in 1984 and in 1988 for ORA-85 [5-83-984 5-83-702 A3 5- 89-772, 5-89-772-A1 5 89-772-A2 a 1994 ED Report and R5-89-772] These CDPs conditionally allowed for among other things total salvage of the archaeological sites with reburial of the human and animal remains associated grave goods and artifacts pursuant to a Reburial Agreement with the Most Likely Descendents (MLD) of the affected Native American tribal groups designated by the Native American Heritage Commission Testing and excavation within ORA-83 was approved under CDPs 5 83-984 and 5-89-772 as amended and work within ORA-85 under CDP 5-83-702 as amended CDP 5-89-772 was issued in December 1989 and was the final phase of the archaeological testing excavation and recovery program to carry out the first phase of the program approved under the earlier CDP 5-83 984 in 1984 Following the Commissions approval of CDP 5-89-772 in 1989 there was controversy and disagreement among some members of the archaeological community [Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS)] over the percentage and extent of ORA-83 that should be examined The applicant proposed to excavate a smaller portion of the archaeological site ' Final Supplemental EIR(SEIR)551 (State Clearinghouse No 1993071064) Vol I Brightwater Development Project Orange County California prepared by LSA Associates Inc November 17 2001 pp 4 11 5 Table 4 11 A History of Bolsa Chica Bay Archaeology R5-05-020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 5 of 27 and PCAS wanted the entire area to be sampled, suggesting that it could be done using a fine-scale operation with heavy machinery removing thin layers at a time under archaeological supervision The applicant agreed to a Memorandum of Agreement with the three peer reviewers at the request of the Commission in response to the concerns of PCAS In April 2005 the Commission approved the subject Brightwater development project but did not modify the previously approved coastal permits that allowed archaeological testing excavation and salvage of the two known archaeological sites although there was considerable testimony concerning the archaeological resources of the project site The archaeological concerns included the fact that the site had been twice nominated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the recent discovery of the semi- subterranean house pit features at the base of the site There was considerable testimony that the site was also important for archaeoastronomical reasons including letters from Native American groups and individuals the Smithsonian Institute, environmental groups and professors of archaeology as well as politicians regarding this issue The Commission approved the project, but it imposed two Special Conditions dealing with the protection of cultural resources in conjunction with its action on the Brightwater project Special Condition 23 requires the protection of potential cultural resources by requiring continued monitoring by an archaeologist and Native American monitors even after the previously approved archaeological testing excavation and salvage work is completed and construction grading activities begin Special Condition 23 further requires that if additional cultural deposits are encountered during construction grading that work stops to allow the Executive Director to determine if the discovery is significant warranting a modification to the archaeological mitigation program Special Condition 24 deals with the curation of the artifacts and the dissemination of the information gamed from the site (Exhibit 4) B SUMMARY OF THE REVOCATIONS CONTENTIONS On June 2 2008 staff received a request from 20 individuals from various Native American tribal groups (see Exhibit 1 page 6) California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust that the Commission investigate specific allegations concerning the discovery of cultural resources of the Brightwater project site covered by coastal development permit 5-05-020 and if the allegations are found to be true that the Commission revoke or suspend the permit pursuant to Section 13105(a)of the California Code of Regulations (Exhibit 1) It asserts that the applicant may have provided the Commission with less than complete information regarding cultural resources which has caused the sacred site to be systematically destroyed The revocation request also includes a petition with approximately 500 signatures On June 9t' Commission staff informed the applicant of the filing of the revocation request and requested certain information in order to evaluate the claim including a detailed annotated chronology maps showing the location where all human remains and artifacts R5-05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 6 of 27 were found on the project sites and the dates on which purposeful or archaeological grading was completed and project grading commenced within the two archaeological sites (ORA 83 and ORA 85) The applicant responded on July 14 with a draft submittal of a chronology of publications testing, excavations archaeological and construction grading salvage and reburial activities during a meeting with staff At that meeting the applicant also showed staff maps indicating the locations where burials were found but would not leave copies of the maps Although Commission staff requested information on the dates as well as the location where burials and grave goods were found in order to analyze the revocation request, the applicant refused to provide this information on the maps The applicant provided a July 12 2008 memo from David Belardes one of the two MLDs for the project which requests that detailed maps of ancestral remains and their belongings not be disclosed pursuant to California Public Records Act Exemption (6254(r)) relating to Native American graves cemeteries and sacred places maintained by the NAHC and their policy and religious beliefs prohibiting the public from having access to this information The draft submittal was followed up with a final version of the same material on September 5 2008 The applicant submitted similar maps without burial locations (Exhibit 5) The parties submitting the original revocation request supplemented the request with two additional submittals including a letter from Dr Gerald Chapman Bolsa Chica Land Trust on October 15 2008 and a letter from Dr Patricia Martz California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance on October 23 2008 2 The contentions are summarized below The full text of the revocation request is included as Exhibits 1 2 and 3 1 Questions whether artifacts and/or human remains were discovered during archaeological grading or project grading If artifacts and/or human remains were found during project grading Special Condition 23 of the coastal development permit would have required the applicant to carry out significance testing subject to the review and approval of the Executive Director to determine whether the discovery was significant This could have allowed the Commission to consider additional cultural resource mitigation options similar to what happened in the Hellman Ranch project in Seal Beach 2 The applicant stated that the project would not adversely impact either of the two archaeological sites since a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of future development have been implemented completely in the case of ORA 85 and at the time of the October 2004 hearing 97% complete in the case of ORA 83 yet at least 87 additional burials were found as well as significant artifacts 3 The applicant stated in a July 27 1992 letter that other sites on the Bolsa Ch►ca Mesa including ORA-85 have already been fully excavated and mitigated and no human remains were found during the course of any of the excavations 2 A draft version of the same letter from Dr Patricia Martz was received electronically on October 13 2008 which was a State holiday Dr Martz finalized the letter put it on letterhead and sent it via U S marl The final version was received in the South Coast District office on October 23 2008 R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 7 of 27 4 When the Commission approved the full recovery of ORA-83 in Coastal Development Permits prior to its action on 5-05 020 it was unaware of the semi-subterranean house pits beneath the shell midden Twenty-two cogged stones were found at the house pit of an apparent Shaman or tribal leader as confirmed by the project archaeologist Therefore the cogged stones are clearly associated grave good Staff verified that the house pits had been excavated and backfilled in November 2004 When was the house pit destroyed? 5 A September 14, 2006 photo was taken at the area of ORA-85 This is not archaeological grading but rather construction grading Since it is unclear when human remains were found and that if they were found during grading that Special Condition #23 must be followed 6 In a November 2007 memo the project archaeologist disclosed to the applicant that the following had been recovered at the project site ® 87 human remains that need to be reburied ® 83 prehistoric features that were uncovered with the burials ® 4 217 artifacts found during grading monitoring on ORA 83 ® 1 622 artifacts found during grading monitoring on ORA 85 ® approximately 2 000 boxes of material ® over 100 000 artifacts that have been collected 7 There are several allegations that the applicant did not report the discovery of human remains to the County Coroner as required 8 The revocation request cites the April 4 2008 letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to Anthony Morales one of the two Most Likely Descendents (MLD) for the project site, discussing the following ® Reburial of the human remains occur only after documentation of all associated grave goods is complete pursuant to Special Condition#23 of CDP 5-05-020 ® What are considered associated grave goods • Is ORA-83 a sacred cemetery under AB 2641 ® The Balsa Chica area is a shared territorial area between the Juaneno and Gabrielmo/Tongva people 9 The revocation request quotes a portion of the April 8 2008 letter from the Executive Secretary, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)to the Coastal Commission which states The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates, locations and details of burial discoveries At this point based on information available and the large number of burials recovered and associated items it appears that the whole area may be a burial ground Southern California Indians created and used discrete areas as cemeteries R5 05-020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 8 of 27 10 If the Commission had received all information known to exist by the developer and developers consultants Commission review of Permit 5-05-020 would still be in order in accordance with Special Condition#23, adopted by the Commission on October 13 2005 We request the Commission to investigate whether or not complete information was provided with the Brightwater application, that the Commission determine if any testing plan or supplementary plans were prepared in accordance with Condition 23C and 23D as required by the Permit Further, as required by Special Condition#23 subsection D and E the NAHC is to be given the opportunity to review and comment on all plans required to be submitted pursuant to the special condition We are not aware that such plans exist or were reviewed 11 The issue comes down to what did they know and when did they know it ? Based on dates of 2003 2001 etc as to the date of find on materials cited above it appears that at least some of the finds were known to the applicant Unfortunately, not all of the forms are completely filled out with dates After reviewing the applicants September 5t'submittal CCRPA made the following additional comments 12 The map entitled Excavation Units and Trenches Composite All Seasons does not show the location of the `hand excavations conducted sometime between 1990 and 1994 that resulted in the recovery of 32 bone concentrations There is no reason to omit this information since the burials have been removed and the site is fenced and patrolled unless more burials are expected 13 The map does not show the location of the archaeological grading and backhoe trenching conducted sometime between 1998-2003 that resulted in the recovery of 40 bone concentrations There is no reason to omit this information since the burials have been removed and the site is fenced and patrolled 14 The map shows excavation units excavated in 2006 but not the area of archaeological grading that resulted in the recovery of the 87 bone concentrations , 76 features and 15 categories of sacred artifacts Given the lack of information regarding the location of over 150 concentrations containing human remains as well as how many actual individuals are represented we can only assume that the cemetery is extensive and the potential for impacts to additional burials during further ground disturbing construction activities is high 15 The following comments were made concerning the report Archaeological Site CA- ORA-83 The Cogged Stone Site Synopsis A History of Archaeological Investigations (2003) ® The report states that the Brightwater development will not adversely impact the resources of ORA-83 due to the data recovery mitigation measures The Native American community does not consider the remains of their ancestors to be archaeological resources but an ancient cemetery Native American human remains represent values that cannot be mitigated through R5-05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 9 of 27 the recovery of archaeological materials to be analyzed for scientific purposes ® The report fails to mention that a portion of the site was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by the State Historic Resources Commission in 1983 although portions of the site were disturbed and the developer archaeologist and Juaneno MLD objected to the listing ® The statement between 1990 and 1994 an extensive data recovery program was conducted by SRS within and around the eucalyptus trees providing full mitigation for ORA-83 is premature and misleading ® The statement The decade of the 90 s saw the completion of the Final Data Recovery Program at CA-ORA-83 in 2002 as described in the following reports is premature and misleading 16 The applicants chronology the History of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Research and Salvage Work conducted by Scientific Resource Survey Inc [SRS] 1980-2008 lists approximately 46 documents when only nine were made available to the Coastal Commission Further, the applicant states that all of the archaeological resource information that was known to Hearthside Homes was provided to the Coastal Commission either prior to or as part of its CDP application package Does the Commission have any records showing that they received all this information? 17 The final report on ORA 83 has not been completed 18 There is an inherent conflict of interest when the developer selects and pays the monitors and members of the peer review committee The developer refused to disclose the location of human remains and artifacts when the monitor MLD requested that they not be disclosed Previous members of the peer review committee were removed when their positions did not agree with the developer True peer review is independent If it is not it is not peer review 19 Although Special Condition 23 may not apply to the revocation request the questions raised in the request for revocation letter of June 2 2008 point out the lengths the developer is willing to go in order to get his protect built If there are violations of this condition sanctions are appropriate C DISCUSSION OF THE REVOCATION REQUEST CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 13105 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS As stated above because of the impacts on a permittee the grounds for revocation are necessarily narrow The rules of revocation do not allow the Commission to have second thoughts on a previously issued permit based on information that came into existence after the Commission acted no matter how compelling that information might be Similarly a violation of the Coastal Act or the terms and conditions of a permit or an allegation that a R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brghtwater Protect) Revocation Request Page 10 of 27 violation has occurred are not grounds for revocation under the California Code of Regulations The grounds for revocation are of necessity confined to information in existence at the time of the Commissions action The three elements that must be proved before a permit can be revoked under Section 12105(a) are (1)That the applicant provided incomplete or false information (2)That false or incomplete information was supplied intentionally AND (3)That if the Commission had known of the information it would have imposed different conditions or would have denied the permit D CONTENTIONS THAT DO NOT ALLEGE VALID GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION None of the contentions raised by the revocation request allege grounds for revocation consistent with Section 13105 of the Commission s regulations For purposes of analysis staff has summarized and consolidated these contentions into general categories below (a) Contentions 1, 2, 3 and 6 allege that ORA-83 and ORA-85 had already been fully excavated at the time of Commission action on CDP 5-05-020, as early as 1992 in the case of ORA 85 and questions whether artifacts and/or human remains were discovered during archaeological or project grading Therefore, the 87 additional human burials and significant artifacts listed in a November 2007 memorandum prepared by the developer's archaeologist must have been known by the applicant prior to the Commission's action on the 2005 CDP In response to the subject revocation request the applicants archaeologist submitted a detailed chronology of the archaeological and construction grading that has occurred on the project site since 1980 entitled History of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Research and Salvage Work conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc [SRS] 1980-2008 Also submitted were maps for both ORA-83 and ORA-85 showing the archaeological site boundaries as they were modified by information learned through implementation of the approved research design locations of test pits excavation units backhoe trenches and manmade features such as water tanks agricultural and cement pipes, communication cables and roads (Exhibits 7 and 8) The chronology indicates that no human remains were found on either archaeological site from 1980 through 1983 (Exhibit 6 page 2 Burials Located ) As indicated in the chronology between 1990 and 1993 thirty-two human bone concentrations3 and two animal bone concentrations were found within ORA-83 pursuant to CDP 5-89-772 issued in 1989 allowing this activity All burials were found in the 3 According to the protect archaeologist the bone material from ORA 83 was normally highly fragmented and it was difficult if not impossible to determine how many individuals were represented by bone fragments that were recovered Therefore the excavated bone fragments were organized into groups or concentrations A bone concentration was defined as three or more bone fragments found together during excavation or found during sorting within the same meter square quadrangle and same level The average number of bone fragments in a concentration was six R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Bnghtwater Project) Revocation Request Page 11 of 27 eucalyptus grove area on the southwestern portion of the mesa using hand excavations (Exhibit 7 CA-ORA-83 Map Excavation/Unit/SRS/1990 ) A reburial ceremony occurred in 1994 pursuant to the Rebunal Agreement with the Gabrielino/Tongva and Juaneno MI-Ds In addition to the human and animal remains, associated grave goods, defined as those materials found to be directly associated with each bone concentration including those materials and artifacts within a known or projected burial pit were also buried According to the applicants chronology additional human remains were found within ORA-83 beginning in 1999 through 2002 with the use of grading (backhoe) equipment The use of heavy equipment to carry out archaeological or shallow layered grading of the site over a greater area had been requested by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) During this period, 40 additional human bone concentrations were found as well as 25 circular structures or house pits (Exhibit 6 page 6 Exhibit 7, Map CA-ORA-83 Survey Gnd/SRS/1999/Grid Extention Excavation/Backhoe Trench/SRS/1999 `Excavation/Urnt/SRS/1999 ) In 2003 a second reburial ceremony was conducted pursuant to the previous Reburial Agreement with the Gabrielino/Tongva and Juaneno MI-Ds Therefore prior to Commission action on CDP 5-05-020 in April 2005 the applicant had carried out approved archaeological testing excavation and salvage programs pursuant to CDPs for both ORA-83 and ORA-85 A total of 72 human and 2 animal bone concentrations had been found within ORA 83 between 1990 and 2002 and two reburial ceremonies of those remains had been held in 1994 and 2003 in accordance with the wishes of the Most Likely Descendents Eligible Native American monitors designated by the NAHC were present during all work None of the special conditions of the previous coastal permits required the applicant to submit reports to the Executive Director or the Commission when burials were found Following Commission action on the subject CDP 5-05-020 archaeological or purposeful grading continued pursuant to the previously approved CDPs for archaeological testing excavation and salvage work According to the applicants chronology the first time human remains were found within ORA-85 occurred in 2006 during continued archaeological grading activities A total of 12 human bone concentrations and 5 animal bone concentrations were found within ORA-85 between May 2006 and July 2006 (Exhibit 6 page 8 and Exhibit 8 CA-ORA-85 Map Excavation/Archaeological Grad ing/SRS/2006 ) The fact that human (and animal) remains were found within ORA 85 in 2006 during archaeological grading appears to be inconsistent with statements made in the 1992 letter cued in the revocation request and with information given to Commission staff in a 2003 status report by the applicant concerning the archaeological site These documents stated that ORA-85 had already been fully excavated The applicants archaeologist however explains the cause of this apparent inconsistency in a September 5 2008 memo titled Definition of Site Boundaries CA-ORA-85 The Eberhart Site by stating although R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 12 of 27 extensive trenching and excavations occurred in the 1990s under the general oversight of the three member peer review committee no human or animal bone concentrations or other features were found either (1) because the area where the human and animal remains or other features were ultimately found were inaccessible during the 1990s or (2) the human and animal remains or other features that were ultimately found were found well outside of the boundaries of ORA-85 (Exhibit 8) Dr Wiley explains that the boundaries of ORA-85 were once thought to be much larger and have changed over the 40 year time period that the site has been studied as a result of new information gathered by each successive investigation Further by the time SRS became involved in exploring the site in the late 1980 s the site boundary had already been established In 1990 Dr Wiley s archaeological firm SRS, carried out a multi-phased data recovery program with the use of backhoe trenching and hand excavated units to further refine and delineate the site boundary Examination of Exhibit 8 Map CA-ORA-85 indicates that there are two agricultural pipelines built in the early 1900 s, running through the core area of ORA-85 The applicant did not have a coastal development permit to remove those pipelines in order to determine if there were human or animal remains or other features beneath them prior to the Commission s action on the BrEghtwater permit Subsequent to the Commission s action on CDP 5-05-020 the applicant continued archaeological grading within both ORA-85 and ORA-83 While the Commission did not modify the previous CDPs approving archaeological excavation and salvage, the applicant was required to complete the previously approved archaeological grading and reburial of remains and grave goods as mitigation with Native American monitors present prior to commencement of construction grading and implementation of the remainder of the project Therefore the applicant submitted a grading monitoring plan pursuant to Special Condition #23 along with condition compliance documents for the remaining Special Conditions The Executive Director issued Coastal Development Permit 5-05-020, after which the applicant was able to demolish existing structures on the project site complete archaeological grading and begin construction grading and implementation of the development approved under the subject CDP After complying with the Special Conditions of the subject CDP that were required to be completed prior to issuance of the permit and receiving the permit in December 2005 the applicant commenced comprehensive archaeological grading well beyond the boundaries of ORA-85 This archaeological grading took place in 2006 prior to commencement of construction grading According to the applicant s archaeologist the entire western portion of the mesa was slowly graded under archaeological supervision despite the fact that only a small portion of the mesa was believed to contain subsurface materials Twelve human bone concentrations and 20 animal bone or rock features were discovered through either archaeological grading or hand excavation Only 1 of the 12 human bone concentration was found within the core delineated boundary of ORA-85 (within the red polyline) and was located under the northernmost pipeline No human remains were found within the larger site boundaries (magenta polyline) No rock features were found within the core delineated boundary of ORA-85 (Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 8) R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 13 of 27 Based on the information contained in the chronology and the mapping information submitted by the applicants archaeologist the 12 human bone concentrations 20 animal bone concentrations and other features found within the boundaries of ORA-85 and adjacent to ORA-85 were not known to the applicant at the time of the Commission s 2005 action on CDP 5-05-020 Additionally 74 human bone concentrations and 15 animal bone concentrations were found within ORA-83 between April 2006 and November 2006 according to the chronology submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 6 page 8) Information submitted by the applicant in conjunction with the subject CDP submittal to 2003 indicated that ORA-83 had been 97% excavated Dr Wiley explains that, similar to the situation with ORA-85 not all of ORA-83 was accessible prior to issuance of the subject Coastal Development Permit After issuance of said permit the applicant was able to remove manmade features and perform subsurface exploration on 100% of the archaeological site Pipelines oil derricks, World War If structures cables and roads were impediments to earlier excavation Also the boundaries of the archaeological site became more refined with time and exploration In the case of ORA-83 the boundaries of the site were redefined three times by the applicants archaeologist (Exhibit 9) Following issuance of the Brightwater coastal permit in December 2005 the entire eastern portion of the mesa was slowly graded under archaeological supervision and Native American monitoring pursuant to the grading monitoring plan required by Special Condition#23 Archaeological grading took place for ORA-83 between April 2006 and May 2006 and July 2006 and November 2006 prior to construction grading According to the applicants archaeologist 75 human bone concentrations and 76 animal bone concentrations or rock features were discovered in 2006 70% of the total burials 55% of the animal bones or rock features and 8% of the house pits or circular depressions were found outside of the original boundaries of ORA-83 (Exhibit 9) The majority of the human remains and other features were found under two roads that had been actively used prior to issuance of CDP 2-05-020 (Exhibit 7) Based on the information contained in the chronology and the mapping information submitted by the applicants archaeologist the 75 human bone concentrations 76 animal bone concentrations and other features found within the boundaries of ORA-83 and adjacent to ORA-83 were not known to the applicant at the time of the Commission s 2005 action on CDP 5 05-020 Further the November 2007 memo written by the project archaeologist cited in Contention #6 does not state that these items were discovered in 2007 The memo refers only to the status of the items listed in the memo as of the date of the memo R5-05-020(Hearthside Homes-Bnghtwater Project) Revocation Request Page 14 of 27 (b) Contentions 8 and 9 cite portions of two letters from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and allege that the project site is a burial ground or a sacred cemetery under the law NAHC Executive Secretary Larry Meyers states in a April 8 2008 letter to the Coastal Commission At this point based on information available and the large number of burials recovered and associated items it appears that the whole area may be a burial ground (Exhibit 11) Mr Meyers also expressed his frustration over not having received the promised map from the project archaeologist showing burials, house pits photos and features, and a report clearly showing the dates locations and details of burial discoveries despite his contact with the applicant The April 4 2008 NAHC letter raises the question of whether the project site is a sacred cemetery under AB 2641 The program analyst concluded that the site was a sacred cemetery but made it clear that his determination was based on the lack of information about when remains were discovered He stated that he was not given a chronology by the project archaeologist but was using a February 3 2007 reburial date and assuming that human remains had been discovered after January 1 2007 which, according to the NAHC is the date the law extending the definition of a cemetery and a place with multiple burials to private land took effect Formerly the definition of a cemetery as comprising six or more burials was limited to public cemeteries (Exhibit 12) It is unknown whether NAHC has now received the requested maps photos and reports containing the information regarding dates locations and details of burial discoveries similar to what Coastal Commission staff received on September 5 2008 from the applicant and the project archaeologist and if the information was received whether NAHC is still of the same opinion However as detailed above in the Background Section Appendix A and the response to the first group of Contentions the Commission approved CDPs beginning in 1984 allowing the applicant to test excavate and salvage the known archaeological sites within the project site with reburial of the human remains grave goods and artifacts to occur in accordance with Reburial Agreements with affected the Native American Most Likely Descendants (MLDs) According to the applicants chronology all of the human burials were discovered by no later than November 2006 Therefore Contention #4 does not establish grounds for revocation under Section 13105 of the Commission s regulations (c) Contentions 7 and 11 allege that the applicant failed to report the discovery of human remains to the County Coroner as required and that reporting forms were not filled out properly The requirement to report the discovery of human remains to the County Coroner is pursuant to the Health and Safety Code and enforced by the County of Orange The R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 15 of 27 primary purpose of the law is to ensure the timely discovery of recent deaths and to assist with the investigation of crime scenes The Health and Safety Code is not carried out by the Coastal Act or its regulations Therefore this contention does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commissions regulations (d) Contention 4 alleges that the Commission was not aware of the "semi subterranean house pits" beneath the shell madden when it acted on the subject CDP Twenty-two cogged stones were found at the house pit of an apparent Shaman or tribal leader, as confirmed by the project archaeologist The discovery of the semi-subterranean house pits since the Commissions approval of the earlier CDPs for archaeological testing excavation and salvage beginning in the1980s was discussed at the 2005 Commission hearing (See Appendix A Findings of the Cultural Resources Section of CDP 5-05-020) The Commission found that this information did not justify changes to the earlier approvals Therefore this contention does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commission s regulations (e) Contentions 12-14 pertain to the map titled "CA ORA 83 Excavation Units and Trenches Composite All Season" and states that the location of hand excavations, backhoe trenching and archaeological grading that resulted in the recovery of burials and sacred artifacts is not shown The revocation request further alleges that the site is a cemetery that is extensive and the potential for impacts to additional burials is high during construction activity As explained in response to the first group of contentions the applicant has refused to show the locations where actual burials were found at the request of one of the two MLDs Mr Belardes as Most Likely Descendant requested that this information not be disclosed The map does however show the location of all archaeological and construction grading activities all initial and final boundaries of both the archaeological sites the locations of the test pits (augers) excavation units and backhoe trenches The information on the map is to be used in conjunction with the chronology which indicates when all human remains grave goods features and artifacts were discovered Therefore the omission of the exact location of where the material was found within the mapped excavation units and trenches even if it had been intentional does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commission s regulations Special Condition 23 was imposed by the Commission to address the potential for impacts to any additional burials should they be discovered The Special Condition requires that all archaeological resources be recovered prior to construction grading activities in the same area to avoid impacts to cultural resources The archaeologist and Native American monitors are to be present during all grading operations until sterile soils are reached (f) Contention 15 comments on statements made in a report of the ORA-83 Cogged Stone Site written in 2003 by the project archaeologist The revocation request R5 05-020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 16 of 27 takes exception to the terminology used to describe Native American human remains, states that the report fails to mention the site's status with regards to the National Register of Historic Places and other statements such as "full mitigation" and "Final Data Recovery Program" as being premature and misleading Whether the applicant states in a Site Synopsis report that the site was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places is a decision to be made by the applicant The Commission was aware of this fact as this was discussed during the 2005 hearing The applicant believed that the data recovery program had provided for full recovery based on the information they had at the time Based on later discovery of additional human remains and features, the statements were indeed premature However this contention does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commissions regulations (g) Contention 16 alleges that while the applicant's chronology includes approximately 46 documents, only 9 were submitted to the Coastal Commission The number of documents submitted to the Coastal Commission is irrelevant to the issue of whether there are grounds established for revocation of the permit The applicant was asked to provide information showing when and where burials, grave goods and artifacts were discovered and if they were discovered during archaeological or construction grading activities Therefore this contention does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commission s regulations (h) Contention 17 alleges that the final report on ORA-83 has not been completed While this is correct it does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commissions regulations The applicant had not stated at the time the Commission approved the subject CDP that the final report was completed (i) Contention 18 alleges that there is an inherent conflict of interest in the archaeological monitoring, MLD and peer review process Whether or not this is true does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commissions regulations 0) Contentions 1, 5, 10 and 19 question whether artifacts and/or human remains were found during project grading or archaeological grading If artifacts and/or human remains were found during project grading, Special Condition 23 of the CDP would have required the applicant to carry out significance testing to determine whether the discovery was significant The applicant further contends that this could have allowed the Commission to consider additional cultural resource R5-05 020(Hearthside Homes Bnghtwater Project) Revocation Request Page 17 of 27 mitigation options, similar to what happened in the Hellman Ranch project in Seal Beach If the project is not in compliance with Special Condition 23 there would be grounds for enforcement action not revocation of the permit However in this case non-compliance with Special Condition 23 could have significant ramifications for the project since it could have the potential to allow the Commission to consider other mitigation options If archaeological resources defined in the permit condition as cultural deposits including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave related artifacts, traditional cultural sites, religious or spiritual sites or other artifacts are encountered during construction grading operations, grading operations would have to stop until Significance Testing occurs to determine if changes to the project are necessary in this case the applicant has submitted a chronology and maps of the two archaeological sites indicating that all human and animal bone concentrations, grave goods features and artifacts within the previously established boundaries of ORA-83 and the extended boundaries of ORA-83 (beneath Bolsa Chica Street)were discovered through hand excavation and archaeological grading between 1994 and 2006 However, in the case of ORA-85 the applicants information indicates that one human bone concentration was found in July 2006 during grading monitoring (Exhibit_ page 8) It was the last bone concentration (#17)found in ORA-85 According to the chronology archaeological grading and monitoring of ORA-85 ended in July 2006 and construction grading and monitoring began that same month The applicant did not notify the Executive Director of the discovery of the human bone concentration in July 2006 when it was discovered The Executive Director was made aware of this discovery for the first time with the submittal of this information in response to the subject revocation request As stated non-compliance with the terms and condition of a permit is not grounds for revocation of the permit The Executive Director will investigate this issue as an enforcement matter Therefore this contention does not establish grounds for revocation of the permit under Section 13105 of the Commissions regulations Conclusion The Commission finds that the revocation request shall be denied because none of the contentions in the revocation request establish all the grounds identified in Section 13105(a) R5-05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 18 of 27 APPENDIX A CULTURAL RESOURCES FINDINGS OF CDP 5 05 020 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 30244 of the Coastal Act protects cultural resources in the coastal zone and states Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required Coastal Act Section 30244 states that reasonable mitigation measures shall be required where development would adversely impact Identified archaeological resources The applicant contends that the Brightwater development project will not adversely Impact either of the two on-site identified archaeological sites due to the fact that a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of future development have been implemented completely in the case of ORA-85 and at the time of the October 2004 hearing 97% complete in the case of ORA-83 4as approved by the County of Orange and the Coastal Commission The coastal development permits and other actions that have been taken by the Coastal Commission for ORA-83 and ORA 85 are reviewed below Despite the fact that approvals were obtained from the County and the Commission for complete recovery of cultural resources as proposed by the applicant and archaeological testing and recovery work has been on-going since the mid-1980 s under these permits, there still remains considerable opposition to removal of the cultural resources of ORA-83 During the preparation of the staff report for the October 2004 hearing Commission staff received several letters from archaeologists including university professors and several letters from environmental groups, Native Americans and individuals calling for the preservation of ORA-83 even though they are aware that a full recovery program for the site has long since been approved Staff received a copy of a 1999 letter from the head of the archaeology division of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History supporting the preservation of what remains at ORA-83 and a 2001 letter from Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez supporting the listing of ORA 83 in the Federal Register as a National Historic Site Some request that the site be capped and left as open space after the data has been recovered instead of allowing residential development at the site 4 Archaeological Site CA ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site Synopsis A History of Archaeological Investigations Nancy Anastasia Desautels PhD Scientific Resources Surveys Inc Project No 926 April 28 2003 Archaeological Site CA ORA 85 The Eberhart Site Synopsis A History of Archaeological Investigations Nancy Anastasia Desautels PhD Scientific Resources Surveys Inc Project No 926 September 2003 R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 19 of 27 of an identified prehistoric and historic cultural resource While others suggest that further destruction of ORA-83 be avoided relocation of proposed development away from ORA- 83 Yet others assert that recent mechanical excavations at ORA-83 have revealed the presence of numerous semi-subterranean house pit features at the base of the site, beneath the madden deposit and contend that this feature represents a new significant area of needed research Although the Commission approved the full recovery of ORA-83 as proposed by the applicant in the previous permits listed below the Commission finds no evidence in the record of those permits at the time of their approvals that the semi- subterranean house pits were known or expected to exist beneath the shell madden The July 10 2003 brief update statement by the applicants archaeological consultant signed by the three current peer reviewers stated that The Peer Review Committee members over the last several years have overseen the nature of the ongoing phases of the Ora-83 site investigation and had made recommendations on strategies appropriate to address the unusual breadth of the emergent field discoveries The update further states that the special new topics evolving at Ora-83 include, describing and evaluating the patterns of the multitude of semi-subterranean house pit features revealed Professor Pat Martz a past member of the California State Historical Resources Commission states in revisions to her 2001 nomination of ORA-83 for listing on the National Register of Historic Places to the State Historic Preservation Officer that house pit structural features are rarely found in Southern California and are extremely rare since the site was occupied during the Early Holocene/Millingstone Horizon of California prehistory Semi- subterranean house pits are large circular depressions that were excavated below the surface a few feet and framed with poles and then thatched Under normal climatic conditions (not consistently dry or consistently wet) organic materials would not preserve It is likely that the house pit structures would have a hard packed floor post-holes and a hearth Professor Martz contends that these house pit features are probably still present at the base of the site and that these semi subterranean house pits have the potential to address important questions regarding village structure social organization settlement patterns gender activities and demographics as well as relationship of the structures to astronomical features In November 2004 Commission staff accompanied the applicant and their consulting team on the project site to revisit a number of issues that had been raised at the October 2004 Commission meeting At that time staff verified that the house pits had all been excavated and backfilled Archaeologists have recognized the astronomical significance of numerous archaeological sites in Southern California for more than 25 years and celestial observations have been conducted at several archaeological sites Recently among both scientists and Native Americans there has been a growing interest in studying ORA-83 to determine if the site was a key location in the complex spiritual/philosophical system of knowledge regarding the Cosmos held by prehistoric Native Americans Beginning in 1994 a Cogged Stone Site study team made up of scientists and Native Americans has tested its astronomical research design for ORA 83 several times The According to Dr Martz the team proposed that the view from the elevated mesa encompasses geographic features that ethnographic R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 20 of 27 data suggest may have functioned as cyclical astronomical alignments such as Catalina Island to the southwest and Point Fermin Heights to the west The team discovered that the sun sets over West End Point of Santa Catalina Island for three days in late December signaling the winter solstice and that it rises directly over the Point Fermin Heights to indicate the spring and fall equinoxes The Commission has found no evidence in the record of the previous permits that the approved mitigation measures were for impacts to archaeoastronomical resources A Native American from the Band of Luiseno Mission Indians representing the Maritime Shoshone Inc a not-for-profit Native corporation has sought to preserve a 7 4 acre portion of ORA-83 for its archaeoastronomical value In Ms Jeffredo-Warden s May 2004 nomination submittal to the State Historic Preservation Officer for listing of the site on the National Register of Historic Places she states that the archaeological and archaeoastronomical data obtained at the CA-ORA-83 site dated from 8 660 to 1 098 RYBP, evidently constitutes in addition to the earliest reliably dated observatory site in North America one of the earliest fixed astronomical observation points in the world At the time of the October 2004 hearing Ms Jeffredo-Warden was also requesting that the Coastal Commission preserve a 7 4-acre portion of ORA-83 in order to conduct additional astronomical tests and to do further research on the site as well as the preservation of the existing site contours to preserve the existing solstistical alignments and Ms Jeffredo- Warden submitted a copy of the nomination to the Commission A letter was received from Senator Diane Feinstein dated August 4 2004 urging the Commission to fully consider the concerns raised by Ms Jeffredo-Warden regarding appropriate mitigation for cultural resources of ORA 83 Several letters of support of the archaeoastronomical resources preservation were received from including but not limited to, professors of archaeology the director of the Griffith Observatory and the International Indian Treaty Council (these letters were attached as exhibits as well as the public portion of Ms Jeffredo-Warden s nomination of the site to the State Historic Resources Commission to the staff report for the October 2004 hearing) Ms Jeffredo-Warden is also a trained anthropologist and folklorist She has been working for several years with Mr C Thomas Hoskinson among others a mathematician aerospace engineer/scientist and author of numerous professional papers on rock art and Native American astronomy regarding the archaeoastronomical significance of ORA-83 and the project site Mr Hoskinson is nationally recognized and regarded as a founder of California archaeoastronomy (Exhibits 30 and 31) The credentials of the members and consultants of the Maritime Shoshone, Inc are detailed in the Attachments to Exhibit 31 Based upon the research and investigations of Jeffredo-Warden and Hoskinson Paul Kleven on behalf of Ms Jeffredo-Warden and Maritime Shoshone Inc submitted a letter dated April 6 2005 challenging the statements made by Ms Martz and the applicants archaeological consultants SRS contained in the staff report among other things (Exhibit 30) On April 12 2005 staff also received a letter from Amy Minteer on behalf of Maritime Shoshone Inc objecting to the appropriateness of the Brightwater development project without what they believe to be adequate feasible mitigation to the archaeoastronomical R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 21 of 27 significance of ORA 83 The letter Exhibit 32 included in this exhibit package cites many of the same issues as Exhibits 30 and 31 including recommending additional mitigation measures and goes further to include a map asking for further protections Staff also received a letter on April 12 2005 from the State Office of Historic Resources Exhibit 33 in which they clarified their conditional action on November 5 2004 On November 5 2004 the State Historic Resources Commission conditionally moved to recommend that the State Historic Preservation Officer submit the nomination to the Keeper of the National Register for a determination of CA-Ora-83 s eligibility for inclusion in that register (Exhibit 13) The November 5t'action went on to say that `The Commission agrees that the property is elig►bie at the national rather than the state level of significance and then set out five conditions that need to be met including the completion of the revisions and the submittal of the registration form to the Keeper no later than May 5, 2005 The third condition of the motion dealt specifically with the significance of the site as a prehistoric archaeoastronomical observation point stating that the case should be made more of a consideration rather than a major aspect of the property s significance (Exhibit 13) The applicant has submitted several letters in rebuttal to the statements of the archaeoastronomical significance of the site The applicant contends that several studies over a period of years were done and no archaeoastronomical significance was found to exist on the site The applicants archaeologist has submitted a letter to this effect signed by the three peer reviewers, agreeing that the project site was found to possess no archaeoastronomical significance Ms Jeffredo-Warden has countered that neither the applicants archaeologist nor any of the three peer reviewers have expertise in this field Pursuant to Section 30244 of the Coastal Act the Commission must decide whether the proposed project would adversely impact identified archaeological resources If such a finding is made reasonable mitigation measures shall be required As stated above and as detailed below the Commission has granted the applicant and previous land owners several coastal development permits to carry out extensive archaeological research testing and full recovery of ORA 83 and ORA-85 Though some features were not specifically discussed in the research design application submittals, the peer review committee required by the Commission often requested that the applicant carry out additional investigations to ensure that no resources were overlooked in order to get a full understanding as much as possible of the past The applicant is proposing to leave in open space that portion of ORA-83 that lies within their proposed Eucalyptus Tree and Burrowing Owl ESHA buffers The area would become a part of the proposed coastal sage scrub and native grassland habitat creation and monitoring plan and include a public trail and fuel modification in the upper portions Therefore if the Commission requires that this area be preserved as open space to protect the raptors that use the Bolsa Chica Mesa as detailed in Section D of this staff report a portion of ORA-83 will be preserved Further Exhibits 18, 19 and 22 and 23 are letters from Native Americans including the Acjachemem Nation Ancestor Walk Coordinator and from the president of the California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance (CCRPA) an alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for the preservation of archaeological sites and other R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 22 of 27 cultural resources They request the Commission impose a 100 meter setback or the greatest open space possible However the Commission finds that the applicants proposed 150 to 382 foot wide open space area for habitat protection purposes under Section 30240 of the Coastal Act can also serve to further protect the area previously used as a prehistoric and historic archaeological site and is therefore consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act As stated above, and submitted in Exhibits 30 31 and 32 Maritime Shoshone Inc has submitted significant research and investigative material concerning the archaeoastronomical significance of a portion of the project site based on extensive experience in the field They are requesting additional mitigation beyond that recommended by staff and is detailed in Exhibits 31 and 32 They further request access to the portion of ORA-83 inside of the fenced mesa area in order to verify the observation area Additional mitigation includes but is not limited to, no grading or changing of existing elevations and no benches or public trails within the observation area Exhibit 32 includes a map of additional area to be considered The Native American Heritage Commission sent a letter to the Commission during its October 2004 deliberations requesting that that the Brightwater project includes interpretive signage along the Mesa detailing the area s prehistoric and histonc history Finally the above letters also request signage concerning the Native American past of the site as well as dissemination of the wealth of knowledge that has been gained over the two decades of study at the site and curation of the appropriate portions of the artifacts recovered from the site Only as conditioned to place appropriate interpretive signage along the public trail informing the public of the cultural resources of the area to disseminate the series of required final reports to institutions and interested groups to curate the artifacts recovered from the site in a facility in Orange County meeting established standards and to have an archaeologist and Native American monitor present when grading operations commence to ensure that if any additional cultural resources are found there are procedures in place to go about determining the significance of the resources and to ensure that work can procedure without adversely impacting archaeological or paleontological resources Description and Status of ORA-83 ORA-83 is 11 8 acres in size and is located at the southeastern bluff edge of the Brightwater ORA-83 is commonly known as the Cogged Stone Site and consists of a shell midden Cogged Stones are unusual artifacts that are manufactured and used in ceremonial practices More Cogged Stones over 400 or roughly half of the total found have been found on ORA-83 than any other site and are thought to have been distributed throughout coastal and near coastal California Similar stones have also been found on the coast of northern Chile It is also believed that the Cogged Stone site served as a ceremonial center and a center for the manufacture of the Cogged Stones ORA-83 has been twice found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places However the listing has been declined by the property owner R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 23 of 27 According to the applicant s archaeological consultant the site was 97% recovered at the time of the application submittal for the October 2004 hearing Based on staff observations in November 2004 the site appears to be virtually 100% recovered Description and Status of ORA-85 ORA-85, the Eberhart Site is described by Dr Desautels of Scientific Resource Surveys Inc (SRS) as a shell midden located on the western edge of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Knowledge of the Eberhart site has existed since the 1920 s Based on the numerous investigations of the site carried out by other researchers beginning in the mid-1960 s and by SRS beginning in the 1980 s the Eberhart site was determined to be a residential base or village and was not a limited special-purpose shellfish gather and processing station No evidence of ceremonial or other structures were found Other than four quartz crystals, which may be evidence of ceremonial utensil manufacture no obvious objects associated with religious ceremonies were recovered Finally no evidence of human remains in the form of burials or cremations was found However over 2,000 artifacts more than 1 500 fire affected rock and thousands of faunal remains have been recorded at the site Although analysis of the recovered material had not been completed as of September 2003 the applicant states that the approved testing and data recovery program approved by the Coastal Commission concerning ORA 85 in 1989 was completed in 1991 Past Coastal Commission Action Concerning Archaeological Resources on or Adjacent to the Brightwater Project Site The Coastal Commission reviewed and approved several coastal development permits and permit amendments for archaeological activity on and adjacent to the project site beginning in the early 1980 s The Commission also acted on a revocation request of one of the coastal development permits for activities within ORA-83 in 1999 Additionally in 1994 at the request of the City of Huntington Beach the Executive Director undertook an investigation and made a report to the Commission concerning ORA-83 The Coastal Development Permit actions and Executive Director report are reviewed below 5-83-984 The first coastal development permit for archaeological activity on the project site was permit 5-83-984 granted to Signal Landmark on April 11 1984 for Phase I of Final Research and Data Recovery Program on ORA-83 known as the Cogged Stone Site The archaeological testing program was a five step program which involved (1) an extensive survey and evaluation of all recorded prehistoric sites (done in 1970) (2) a series of archaeological test excavations (done between 1971and 1975) (3) an evaluative report based on a synthesized data from all test excavations (prepared in 1975) (4) an archival research focused on understanding the nature and extent of man s historic disturbances of the site with particular emphasis on delineating portions of the site likely to be least disturbed and worthy of further archaeological work (undertaken in 1981 and R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Bnghtwater Project) Revocation Request Page 24 of 27 1982), and (5) a final research and salvage program to define the remaining remnants of archaeological madden which still existed on the subject site This permit was to allow the applicant to do further testing in order to determine the nature of the relationship between the surface concentration of cogged stones (that had been long since collected) and the underlying madden deposit(that had been heavily disturbed) The permit dealt with two main areas within ORA-83 the plowed field and the area around the eucalyptus grove It was determined that the greatest amount of cultural material (which consists mostly of shell)was located within the eucalyptus grove since the presence of trees discouraged grading and plowing over the years The narrow strip of land directly adjacent and north of the trees and a small area east of the grove were determined to contain shallow deposits of basal madden The Commission imposed one special condition on permit 5-83-984 The Commission required that the Archaeological Research Design be modified to provide (1) clarification that preservation of all or part of the site may be appropriate depending on the results of the exploratory phase of the investigation (2)clarification that the augering program was principally for delineating site boundaries, (3) definition of the term disturbed as used in the research design and (4) provision for Executive Director review and approval of the work planned in subsequent tasks after Task 5 (Auger Program) and Task 7 (Hand Excavation Units— Initial series) Prior to the issuance of this permit in 1984 the Research Design for the first phase of the project came under much scrutiny and opposition by the general public several archaeologists and Native American groups as well 5-83-702-A35 The first coastal development permit for archaeological activity at ORA-85 the Eberhart Site also included work at ORA-289 The Signal Landmark permit amendment for a testing and evaluation program for the two archaeological sites became effective on August 23 1988 after no objection was received of the Executive Director's determination that the permit amendment was consistent with the Coastal Act 5 Coastal development permit application 5-83-702 and permit amendments 702-A and 702 A2 did not involve activity within any archaeological site They were approved between September 1983 and September 1987 authorizing geotechnical trenching and sod borings to determine the location of faults and to gather other geotechnical information on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Lowlands The original 1983 permit was granted to Signal Landmark and the Huntington Beach Company The first permit amendment was granted to Signal Landmark and the permittee of the second amendment was Signal Landmark Inc on behalf of Signal Bolsa Corporation R5-05 020(Hearthside Homes Brightwater Project) Revocation Request Page 25 of 27 5-89-772 This coastal development permit application granted to Signal Landmark Inc on December 14, 1989 approved Phase II of the Final Research and Salvage Program for ORA-83, the Cogged Stone Site This work represented the second half of the last stage of the five step archaeological program for ORA-83 that began with the work approved under permit 5-83-984 in 1984 One key element of the program was to ensure that it contributed to the understanding of history or prehistory through a carefully thought out research design By the time of this application ORA 83 had been nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and was recommended for this designation by the State Historic Resources Commission on November 4 1982 based on the significance of the archaeological artifacts the site had produced The coastal development permit approved the excavation of 17 two-meter by two-meter hand units in six areas within the eucalyptus grove of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa However if features or in-place cogged stones were found during the approved excavations, the excavation of additional intervening units would be allowed if needed, in order to fully expose document and remove those resources The excavation of up to 12 additional units was authorized by the permit The Commission imposed one special condition on the permit requiring the submittal of written evidence that the applicant had retained a County certified archaeologist to monitor the work approved by the permit and the submittal of evidence that a copy of the report on literature and records search and field survey for the site had been reviewed and approved by the Orange County manager of Harbors, Beaches and Parks Further the applicant was required to demonstrate that the proposed project had received review from the above designated County official from members of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) and from the Native American Groups (more particularly those who belong to the Juaneno and Gabrielino tribes) In an attempt to avoid the controversy that surrounded permit 5-83-984 Commission staff met with representatives of the Juaneno and Gabnel►no Indian tribal groups and the applicants consulting archaeologist to determine who would represent both tribal groups in monitoring the proposed excavations The applicant also published a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation of its application for a coastal permit for the proposed project 5-89-772-A1 The first amendment to permit 5 89-772 was issued on March 8 1991 The applicant requested an amendment to the special condition of the original permit requiring the review of the proposed archaeological testing and recovery plan by members of the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS) because they had reached an impasse with the members R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Bnghtwater Project) Revocation Request Page 26 of 27 of the group The dispute was over the percentage and extent of ORA-83 that should be examined The applicant proposed to excavate only 7 acres of the 11 9-acre site because it was the least disturbed PCAS wanted 100% of ORA-83 to be sampled including the plowed field area and suggested that it could be done using a fine-scale operation with heavy machinery removing thin layers at a time under archaeological supervision The Commission ultimately modified the special condition, not by removing PCAS, but by providing that any comments by PCAS be reviewed by a three member peer review team Further any conflicts between PCAS comments and the applicants archaeologists scope of work were to be resolved by the peer review team and by the State Office of Historic Preservation 5-89-772-A2 This amendment request was to delete the requirement of review by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP) from the special condition The requirement for SOHP review had been added in 5-89-772-A1 to help mediate disputes between the applicants archaeologist and the PCAS reviewers The applicant requested this change because there was a delay in getting SOHP to review and comment on the project Initially the Commission decided that review by SOHP should not be eliminated because the agency had continued to express a desire to do so However ultimately the State Office of Historic Preservation sent a letter stating that they would not be able to review and comment on the project due to staffing shortages The Commission then approved the requested amendment Executive Director Report to the Commission On February 28 1994 the City of Huntington Beach requested that the Executive Director investigate and determine whether any of the Commission permits issued for testing and excavation within ORA-83 or the demolition of the adjacent World War II bunkers should remain in force or be rescinded The Executive Director focused the investigation on whether there was any evidence that the permits were not in compliance with the terms and conditions of their approvals and secondly whether there was any merit to suspending any of the permits and processing a revocation request The specific permits that were investigated were 5-89-772, as amended and 5 90-1143 a permit issued on September 27 1991 for the demolition of the two World War II gun emplacements that were located adjacent to ORA-83 The specific questions asked by the City to be investigated were (1)was significant information concerning the presence of human remains on ORA-83 intentionally not disclosed (2)why were the discovery of human remains not reported to the County Coroner over a year after the discovery in violation of the applicable law that they be reported within 24 hours of discovery (3)was there an attempt to circumvent the system and its definition of proper handling of human remains (4) had proper procedures (daily logs preservation techniques disposition of artifacts and timely reports) been followed in the work conducted at ORA-83 (5) should ORA 83 be designated a cemetery and remain R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes-Bnghtwater Project) Revocation Request Page 27 of 27 intact (6) the scientific integrity and cultural sensitivity of personnel performing work at ORA-83 and whether their work had been monitored by appropriate State agencies on a regular basis (7) should the Archaeological Information Center at UCLA receive the extensive information that had been obtained from the site (8)should the site be placed on the National Register of Historic Places as was previously recommended, and (9) should there be better legislation to protect archaeological sites like ORA-83 The Executive Directors response to many of the above questions was that they were beyond the purview of the Coastal Commission and that some of the issues raised should be addressed by the Native American monitors and/or peer review team that were required by the permits to be consulted in decisions regarding certain aspects of the development The Executive Director concluded that the applicant was in compliance with the terms and conditions of both permits and that there was no merit to the grounds for processing a revocation request R5-89-772 Although Commission staff held meetings between the applicant and the affected Native American groups and required the review of the proposed work by PCAS, the controversy surrounding ORA-83 did not end On November 3, 1999 the Bolsa Chica Land Trust fled a request with the Commission to revoke the Phase it approval of the final research and data recovery program permit The contentions raised in the revocation request were that further archaeological work, not in the immediate vicinity of the eucalyptus grove and therefore beyond the approved scope of work was occurring that the permitted work has been completed in its entirety for over five years that the permit is also ten years old and therefore should be revoked or suspended that the work under the permit was not pursued with due diligence as required by the standard conditions of the permit additional scraping and clearing within the recognized boundaries of ORA-83 The Commission denied the revocation request finding that it did not establish the grounds required to do so pursuant to Section 13105 of the Commissions Regulations R5 05 020(Hearthside Homes Bnghtwater)Nov 08 doc June 2 2008 `, ' IV,, Coast 9eglon California Coastal Commission JIJN 1 Z658 Teresa Henry District Manager 200 Qceangate 10`'floor 1�nNIA Long Beach CA 90802 4416 :OMM1S51W RE Brightwater/Bolsa Chica Permit 5-05-020 Dear Ms Henry We the undersigned(petitioners)along with over 500 interested citizens who have submitted signatures,request an immediate investigation by the California Coastal Commission with respect to Permit 5-05-020 Brightwater approved April 14,2005 (Condition of Approval 23 attached as Exhibit A) If any of the following allegations are discovered to be true we request that the Commission immediately revoke or suspend this permit The petitioners want to preface the above request by noting that over decades the petitioners have come to believe that the Bolsa Chica sacred site is being systematically destroyed or, at a minimum placed in grave peril The petitioners do not fault the Coastal Commission or any other public agency for this state of affairs However,we believe the following presents such a clear case of improper action relative to the Bolsa Chica sacred site that specific action must be taken immediately Revocation of Permits Section 13105 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations provides as follows Grounds for revocation of a permit shall be a Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application,where the commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application In accordance with Title 14 CCR Section 13053 5 c an application is to include a dated signature by or on behalf of each of the applicants, attesting to the truth completeness and accuracy of the contents of the application We are concerned that the Commission may have been provided with less than complete information regarding the cultural resources on the Bnghtwater site resources of which the applicant may have been aware Page 2 The following are staff report sections and correspondence from applicant July 27,1992 letter from attorney for Hearthside Susan Hon to Cindi Alvitre(Exhibit B) "As you know, other sates on Bolsa Chica Mesa have already been fully excavated and mitigated(ORA 289, ORA 78 and ORA 85) No human remains were found during the course of any of the excavations All of the material which was recovered i e shells beads,etc are in the possession of the landowner or the archeological consultant (Emphasis supplied) April 14,2005 Coastal Commission staff report Revised Findings 10/13/2005(ExhibitC) Page 97 of revised findings The applicant contends that the Brightwater development project will not adversely impact either of the two on-site identified archeological sites due to the fact that a series of measures to mitigate the impacts of future development have been implemented completely in the case of ORA 85,and at the time of the October 2004 hearing,97% complete in the case of ORA 83 as approved by the County of Orange, and the Coastal Commission (Emphasis supplied) Page 101 of revised findings ORA 85 No evidence of ceremonial or other structures were found Other than four quartz crystals, which may be evidence of ceremonial utensil manufacture,no obvious objects associated with religious ceremonies were recovered Finally, no evidence of human remains in the form of burials or cremations was found (Emphasis supplied) Page 101 of revised findings"According to the applicant's archeological consultant,the site was 97% recovered at the time of the application submittal for the October 2004 hearing Based on staff observations in November of 2004 the site(ORA 83)appears to be virtually 100%recovered"(Emphasis supplied) Page 98 from revised findings for 5-05-020 (Brightwater) Although the Commission approved the full recovery of ORA 83 as proposed by the applicant in the previous permits listed below the Commission finds no evidence in the record of those permits at the time of their approvals that the `semi subterranean house pits' were know or expected to exist beneath the shell midden `In November 2004 Commission staff accompanied the applicant and their consulting team on the project site to revisit a number of issues that had been raised at the October 2004 Commission meeting At that time staff verified that the house pits had all been excavated and backfilled" From the NAHC memo dated April 4 2008 The NAHC staff noted that the archeologist stated that'Cogged stones as associated grave goods Dr Wiley confirmed that the 22 cogged stones found at the house pit of an apparent Shaman or tribal leader are clearly associate grave goods" The question here is when was this house pit destroyed9 X l p,�, Page 3 The following are what we believe to be the facts which support this revocation request 1 Photos taken September 14, 2006 at the area of ORA 85 This is not archeological grading but rather construction grading Since it is unclear when human remains were found and that if they are found during grading that the Special Condition#23 must be followed we have included these photos (exhibit D) 2 In a November 2007 memo(exhibit E)from the developer's archeologist to Ed Mountford et al in which it was disclosed that the following had been recovered at the Bnghtwater site The following is stated ® There are 87 human remains that need to be reburied ® There are 83 prehistoric features that were uncovered with the burials ® There are 4 217 artifacts that were found during grading monitoring on ORA 83 ® There are 1,622 artifacts that were found during the grading monitoring ORA 85 ® There are approximately 2 000 boxes of matenals There are over 100 000 artifacts that have been collected 2 April 2008,the Bolsa Chica Land Trust filed a public records request from the Coroner of Orange County to determine how many reports to the Coroner of human remains had been made as a result of the archeological work at Bnghtwater The request was for any findings from 1990 until present The Land Trust was provided with records for only 6 cases since 1990 to present relative to ORA 83 and 85 (Exhibit F) e 9/30/93 Case#93-5868-LL reported 1113/93 ® 8/3/99 case#99-05178me additional human remains found 11/29/99 e 11/4/99 Case#99 07108-LL reported 11/5/99 * 3/30/00 Case#00-02277-RO reported 4/4/00 ® 4/27/00 Case#00-02791-LY reported 4/27/00 ® 6/12/02 Case#02 03972 GA reported 6/14/02 3 May 22,2008 letter to Rebecca Robles,Aclachemen Nation,from NAHC staff refers to the following Coroner reports (Exhibit G) m April 19 2008 `concerning sets'of Native American human remains that were originally reported to NAHC December 17,2007 as 87 sets of burials of Native American human remains When were these remains found?? ® August 19 2006 ® June 22 2003 date Most likely descendant contacted June 22 2006 ® September 6 2001 ® January 16 2001 ® May 2000 ® May 2000 These Coroner reports were not included in response to the request of the Land Trust Page 4 4 In an April 4,2008 letter to Anthony Morales from staff at NARC (Exhibit H),the following concerns are raised © The issue of reburial of the remains and all associated grave good is to occur after documentation is complete ® ORA 83 is a sacred cemetery "In the project archaeologist's memorandum to the company dated January 17 2007 it refers to a February 3,2007 ceremony and assumed rebunal(see Exhibit E)this action would be after AB2641 extending the definition of a cemetery and a place with`multiple burials' to private land" Therefore considering the 87 burials from ORA-83 whose chronology is unknown or certainly unclear and given the number of burials at this project site how can one say that it is not a cemetery • The developer has stated since 1992 that there were no human remains found on ORA 85 Yet in a memo from Nancy Wiley to Ed Mountford, Ms Wiley states"Ted and I will wrap each burial with its grave goods Each individual will be wrapped again in colored burlap coded to male (blue),female(red) and unknown(beige) Children will additionally have a color separation or other designator ' • In an email message of 12/6/07 the developer s archeologist(Nancy Wiley),when asked by the NAHC staff when the human remains were found,told the staffer that"Ed Mountford has said that I cannot prepare a chronology for you until he talks to his lawyer Susan Hon'(Exhibit H) o "While the NAHC and her archeologist peers may disagree with the manner in which Dr Wiley and SRS have managed this project,the NAHC and others would not have the hard facts of the 174 burials discovered, 87still to be re-buried, the number of cogged stones(over 400),the 100,000 artifacts and thousands of archeological features of significance,had not Dr Wiley provided the information to the NAHC (Emphasis supplied) 5 In an April 8 2008 letter to the Commission Lary Myers from the NAHC(Exhibit 1) states the following ® The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates, locations and details of burial discoveries At this point based on information available and the large number of burials recovered and associated items, it appears that the whole area maybe a burial ground Southern California Indians created and used discrete areas as cemeteries The NAHC understands that the Coastal Commission will be reviewing its permit for the Bnghtwater Project The NAHC suggests that the Coastal Commission consider requiring some sort of guarantee or performance bond m order to assure that all required Ex. / `� Page 5 reports are provided on a timely basis and that documentation is completed and reburials of remains and artifacts occur as agreed"(Emphasis supplied) In addition, even if the Commission had received all information known to exist by the developer and developer s consultants,Commission review of Permit 5-05-020 would still be in order in accordance with Special Condition 423, adopted by the Commission on October 13 2005 as outlined below 1 In accordance with 23 A 3 artifacts were to be tested The time frames are unclear The Executive Director is to determine if the resources are significant This implies that the Executive Director would be informed immediately We do not believe that the Executive Director was informed as the project progressed 2 In accordance with 23 A 4,construction is to cease if artifacts or human remains are found during construction,until allowed to proceed by the Executive Director per Condition 23 C We do not believe that the Executive Director was informed of the excavation of human remains during grading 3 Per condition 23C, work may recommence after reporting the find to the. Executive Director and approval of a significance testing plan by the Executive Director We are not aware of such a plan being approved 4 Per Condition 23 C,if the Executive Director determines that the measures recommended in the testing plan require more than minimal changes from previously approved plans the Commission must approve the changes 5 Per Condition 23 A 6,Hearthside is to comply with all applicable state and federal laws Based on a review of the coroner reports and the NAHC letter of May 22 it appears that there was a three year tune lag(2003 2006)in reporting in at least one case(p 13 of pdf file) Other sheets do not provide complete data as to date of find and date of report 6 In accordance with 23 B,construction is to cease if artifacts or human remains are found during"the course of the project and a fifty foot wide buffer is to be provided Construction may only recommence if approved by the Executive Director (Condition 23 D) 7 Per condition 23D,work may recommence after reporting the find to the Executive Director and approval of a Supplementary Archaeological Plan by the Executive Director We are not aware of any such Supplementary Plan The issue conies down to what did they know and when did they know it"? Based on dates of 2003 2001 etc as to the date of find on materials cited above it appears that at least some of the finds were known to the applicant Unfortunately,not all of the forms are completely filled out with dates � 9 O Page 6 We request the Commission to investigate whether or not complete information was provided with the Brightwater application We request that the Commission review and determine if any testing plan or supplementary plans were prepared in accordance with Condition 23C and 23D as discussed above Further, according to Special Condition#23 subsection D and E the NAHC is to be given the opportunity to review and cone rent on all plans required to be submitted pursuant to this special condition We are not aware that such plans exist or were reviewed The information referred to above became known to the undersigned in February of 2008 We have been researching the facts about the above project since that date and believe that we have exercised due diligence Thank you for your consideration in this matter Sincerely, Alfred G Cruz, Jr Juaneno Band Mission Indians Rommel Cruz,Juaneno Band Mission Indians Richard Silva Juaneno Miles Harry, Paiute/Lakota Rhonda Robles, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. Louis Robles Jr Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aejachemen Nation Alfred G Cruz Sr Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Lloyd Valenzuela Acjachemen Susan Diaz,Chumash/0 odham Christopher Diaz Chumash/O'odhazn Raymond Diaz,O'odham/Mayo Lenore Vega, Chumash/0 odham Angel Diaz, Chumash/O odham/Taiwanese John Moreno Chumash/Tohono/Akimel O odham Ted Vega, Chumash/Taino Georgiana Sanchez, Chumash/O odham Roger Leon Chumash Cindi Alvitre/Tongva Susana Salas Yaqui Paul Moreno MicMac Nation 28872 Escalona Drive Mission Viejo CA 92692 Professor Patncia Martz California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance Box 54132 Irvine CA 92619 4132 Gerald Chapman Bolsa Chica Land Trust 5200 Warner Ave 4108 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Over 500 signatures on petitions attached exlubit J --jv ter.,.-r. FS �r IL, YA f pA►"r-6-z-A vo AO-7 %Zr4je-A, Jt-c 12,n e.,, A4.o d �, All s f, �.,of, tee,,S Acf�clyame�r �,l«fion �c9t,t,Gy % � `� " ��ct n e.,a ✓c�-r�c� OT �/ 5,5��rt �°�p�cZr,f �ct.obrt en.o 1�Can.A d � t i-fS' U� 1 yt i r2 tn..S Lrh40/ L"Ib 69 : 'r" ire t wdo7� ��iu 71G�.�-��� rv7/��iv,f �G�LL✓'G'rrc-E'a.�_ 1-P= �� r 1� rJJ ��'✓ �. �evbsW CAIA(yl(a C(! )i cj rcll-4 P S a wac P3 �tPs� L C�\ T\ Ch ,',qLArvo J ► v6T `w 5a06 W)4rn,� v-Av� #1 �� Ijvn+ lnYcn o mj,1, (-� � �oY? Ex /IP Attached exhibits A Condition 923 B July 27, 1992 Paone Callahan Mcholm and Winton letter C Revised Findings 10/13/05 D Photos of grading 9/14/06 E November 5, memo F Coroner reports G May 22, 2008 NAHC memo H April 4, 2008 NAHC letter r April 8, 2008 NAHC letter J Petitions signatures aOV7 November a Memo To Ed Mountford Hearths►de Homes David Belardes, Juaneno Band Anthony Morales, Gabne►lino Band Prof Paul Langenwalter CC Jeff Couch Tracy Stropes This memo is to inform you that Ed Mountford has requested that only himself and the two most likely descendants attend the meeting on Tuesday the 6th 1 will, therefore, not be attending In accordence with a request from all three of you 1 am submitting a tentative listing of concems that should be resolved at this meeting 1 Status of SRS AArchaaolog►cal Work a !g am ar huMln.h0132 coaUnftj&rw that need to Ag reburied —83 are completely removed from stretcher pedestals and pod --4 remain to be removed from pods-completion expected mini-December —Prof Langenwalter cannot complete his studies unbl the last 4 are done —Prof Langen"Iter will need 4-6 weeks to complete his work when the last four are done-completion expected mid-February —Coroner must see all 87 burials last 4 must be completed for Coroner and exarriansd by Lengenwelter prior to Coroner's visit —All 87 will be laid out at once for Coroner in all three bone trailers b Th@M of 8 _prehr&M future mfiLmmmmmmd With the burtats All 83 features have not been processed yet some have artifacts some do not —Theses include 4 cogged stones features c. M2M am. rl artifacts that wm f 2up dUdW tb gffldn M2nrfonncx eCL..Q --Only the artifacts directly associated with the burials are In the processing of being processed and prepared for reburial —These include dogged stones,dlsca►dals,charmstones and bends d ,�M are 1622+A adAM that Wgry found..dunneft Mdfug MW126 n 8 --Only the arhfacts directly assomated w dh the have been processed and reburied —Artifacts to be processed include discoldals, charmstones and beads e Th2M gm gRerog ely .=box+as of�atenats[Including soils samples,rock features shell features shell samples and animal boner] from all 30 years of excavations on 6olsa Chma Mesa in a trader on-site —These have not been culled for distribution to the County of orange or for rebunal since there has not been any electricity in this trailer f Mere or* t�0 o [Including debitage and other smaller items]that have been collected for the last 30 years on Bois&Ch►ca Mesa --These have not been fully calalogued or fully analyzed —Some were collected before computers were in common usee and the informaWn is not in the site database —Some still have field numbers from surface coilecWns, etc —Includes cogged stones d►scoidals charmstones and beads Ex / P, IZ_ 2 Heatdhs;de Homes is Nql&oaq a, mbar Id Rebunq(of Human Bone only with whatever burials are completed If some are not completed they are requesting that the remsining pods be reburied at that time 3 Heartwdo&MU as M,-Mg a Second Rebvnal of all other materials at a later date-to be determined-when funding Is available d The Gabnelt►ro gnt r gue-fto tPra�t QM bay con on some artifacts and individual isolated teeth gathered from the sate --The Juaneno are opposed to DNA studies --The Native Amervan Heritage Commission has approved the project —Hearthside has approved the proled in concept only --SRS is donating funds to aid in the artifact DNA studies 5 The JUM-029 AM WO—Agna thaat the aft h2ft bg dmatgj to thq;.Wig AgUftrAdobe for saafekoeping —The Gabrielino prefer rebunal of artifacts --The County of Orange has a legal agreement for the artifacts from all excavations (Om-83 only] 6 at Jumamm are aeoogllg a donaabon of tins to help establish displays in the Slas Aguilar Adobe —The County of Orange will display materials from the site for a full-year period with rotating displays —SRS will donate the displays from the County Courthouse exhibits to the Blass Aguilar when they are rotated out -SRS will donate side shows and Poston prepared for aaaadonvc presentabons about the site to the Bias Aguilar when completed 7 =bas&gd obba to the Native American Heritage Commission Caldomaa Coastal Commission and the County of Orange the Native American Montage Commission —to complete the human bone analyses fare analyses artifact analyses and other material analyses --to cooperate with the Orange County Comnases representative by fully disclosing all human bone from the Mesa and offering these materials for inspection -to robury the human remains and associated matenals according to the washes of of the Naaiive Americans, and to produce a series of catalogues and final interpretative reports (cf CEQA CCC Special Condition of Approval#23,County of Orange Development Requirements) acwca Lao yt Y OFFICERS ti President October 13 2008 Paul Arms CO r IAL( _ i'}I'�ti+✓i� Vice President Juhe Bixby Treasurer Teresa Henry Treasurer Jim Anderson Cahforiva Coastal Commission Mannka Horack 200 Oceangate, 10'floor BOARD of Long Beach,CA 90802 DIRECTORS Connie Boardman Re Revocation Request of Coastal Development Permit Dr Gerald Chapman No 5-05-020(Bnghtwater) vl Cowden Sandy Genis Dave Hamilton Dear Ms Henry Mike McMahan Marc Stirdivant Laurel Teller Garria Thamas This letter is in response to your request for additional information pertaining Rudy Van requested b dersigot �l 3r ier to the revocation re the Native Amer Dr Jan Venicans,the Cahforrua Cultural Karen Menckel Wood Resources Preservation Alliance, and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. ADWSORv BOARD We believe that there is ample evidence that Section 13105(a)of Title 14 of State Senator Tom Harman the California Code of Regulations was violated by the intentional submission Mayor Cade Cock of inaccurate,mcomplete or erroneous information- Nancy Nancy Donavan Hbric0000dh 1 In the History of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Research and Salvage Paul Horgan Janice Kellogg Work Conducted by y �Scientific Resource Surveys,INC [SRS] 1980- Eileen Murphy Linda Moulton Patterson 2008,the developer would like you to believe that all the L Rochelle Pazanh archaeological investigations,property survey reports,property survey Louis Robles Jayson Ruth reports,test excavation reports,data recovery programs and reports, r RichaDavid f Sax Sullivan g Or David and monitoring reports were given to the Coastal Commission when D Grace Wincheli only nine out of approximately 46 were made available On page 4 of ENDOMEMENT6 the developer's attorney letter to Teresa Henry,it states"all of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica archaeological resource information that was known to Hearthside Algalita Marine Research Homes was provided to the Coastal Commission either prior to or as Foundation Anza Borrego Foundation part of its CDP application package" Does the Commission have Bettina Wetlands Land records showing that they received all this information Trust City of Huntington Beach 2 The final report on ORA 83 has not been completed FriendsofHarbors Beaches and Parks 3 There is an inherent conflict of interest when the developer selects and Beaches Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy pays the monitors and the members of the peer review committee The Huntington Beach Tomorrow developer refused to disclose the location of human remains and Orange of W m nVote sages artifacts when the monitor inld requested that they not be disclosed Orange County Coastkeeper How convenient' Previous members of the peer review committee Peninsula Open Space Trust were removed when their positions did not agree with the developer Sea and Sage Audubon Slerra Club True peer review is independent If it is not,it is not peer review Angeles Chapter Surfrider Foundation 5200 Warner Avenue - Suite 108 - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 - (714) 846-1001 vrww bolsachrcalandtrust org 4 What credibility does the archaeologist have when they state that the recovery is 100%on ORA 85 and 97%on ORA 83 prior to the CLAP and the find the large number of human remains during the grading process? 5 Attached is a time line which shows the relationship between the Commission's actions,perm-it and site work,discovery of human remains,and other actions Although Special Condition 23 may not apply to the revocation request,the questions raised in the request for revocation letter of June 2,2008 certainly point out the lengths the developer is willuig to go to in order to get his project built. Please refer to the revocation letter for our issues regarding Special Condition 23 If there are violations of this condition,sanctions are appropriate We believe that if the Commission received all the information in a complete,true and timely fashion,its decision would have been different and the Hearthside portion of ORA 83 would not have been destroyed Thank you for your consideration of this matter and please contact us if there are any questions Smcerel , f ---a*lvz Gerald Chapman Balsa Chica Laud Trust DATE COMMISSION PERMITSISITE WORK ANCESTORS OTHER 7/27/1992 Hon letter No human remains Coroner notified of bones found on 9/30/1993 ORA-83 Beiardes leter to Suchey 2/25/1994 re media Coroner notified of bones found Bolsa Chica St/Los Patos 1 8/3/199_9_ ancestor Coroner notified of bones found on 11/3/1999 ORA-83 1 or 2 ancestors Coroner notified of bones found on 3/30/2000 ORA 83- 1 or 2 ancestors _ Coroner notified of bones found on 4/27/2000 ORA 83-1 ancestor T Two reports of finds on ORA 83 dated only May 2000 1 or 2 May o0 ancestors 6/26_12000 Martz letter to Rynas re LCP Bones found on ORA 83 up to 18 ancestors unclear when coroner 1/16/2001 notified Coroner notified of burial found on ORA 83 1 ancestor report refers 9/6/2001 to ongoing grading on site Coroner notified of bones found at 17201 Bolsa Chica Rd -9 6/12/2002 ancestors 8 ancestors found on ORA 83 per 6/2212003 report to coroner on 6/22/06(�) Martz letter to Henry re destruction of pit houses at ORA-83 and app 5 3120/2005 05 020 Staff report ORA 85 completely mitigated ORA 83 97%completed ORA 83 virtually 100% recovered no evidence of structures ceremonies or _Apr_05 ancestors 5/10/2 006_ _ Perimeter fencing delivered T Pics of the day text reference to 6/3/2006 active grading Mass Grading permit issued for entire 6/20/2006 project Coroner notified of burials found on ORA-83 on 612212003(?)-8 6/22/2006 ancestors Coroner notified of burial found on 8/19/2006 ORA 83 on 8/19/06 1 ancestor See 06 Grading photographed Staff reports all excavations 12/6/2006 completed (email from Teresa)fh Precise Grading permit issued for Tract 12/21/2006 17032 Wiley memo to Mountford at at re 1/19/2007 reburial scheduled for 2/3107 6111/2007 Precise Grading permit issued(tract) Last 17 from ORA 85 reburied (per Summer 07 private conversation) Production Precise Grading permit 8/29/2007 issued for Tract 17034 Wiley memo to Mountford et at re reburial—87 ancestors 83 prehistoric features 4217 artifacts from ORA 83 1622 artifacts from ORA 85 more than 100 000 (,� 11/5/2007 artifacts from SC over the years 11/29/2007 Precise Grading permit issued(tract?) Precise Grading permit for Lots 1 21 12M412007 _ issued Precise Grading permit for Model 12/16/2007 Homes issued Excavation of 87 burials from ORA 83 reported to NAHC,by 12/17/2007 archeologist Wiley email to Singleton saying she can t do chronology without Hon s 12/17/2007 OK. Precise Grading permit issued for Tract 1/28/2008 17076 Email from Dave Singleton Mountford says no discoveries in past two 3/27/2008 years Singleton email re talks with Wiley 174 burials discovered including 87 4/3/2008 not yet reburied Singleton/NAHC letter to 4/4/2008 Morales re app 5 05-020 Myers/NAHC letter to Henry re Brightwater the whole area may 4/8/2008 be a burial ground Coroner notified of burials found on ORA 83 these are the ones that 4M912008 were reported to NAHC on 12/17/07 Singleton email to Wiley enquiring about circumstances of finding 5/18/2008 of 8 ancestors in 2006 (see 6122/06) N 11/06/2008 09 00 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC Ei1�t t 7a. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION mot,apposes SA s�cRaa$eaRAMM ra ca BM94 (9f81 1104251 Fag(ate)667-WO Wee Xiowww.eahe,aa.00v smell its rmha0paeW rest November 6,2008 Ms Term Henry, Chstnct Manager CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast District Office 200 Oceangate, 101'Floor Long Beach CA 90802 4416 Re Staff invest>ixatioyl of the Native Amencan Heritage Commission(NAHG in_oromss. for a ReooLl kr Conslderation at the Qqcember 12.2008 NAHC Meeting at the CAy Council Chambers, City Qf_San Juan Capistrano Dear Ms Henry This is to Worm you that the staff investigation and report preparation on the Dative American cultural resources concerns at the Brightwater Development Project site at 17201 Boise Chins Road Orange County,well be presented to the Native Amencari Heritage Commission at their next meeting December 12 2008 at the Guy cbm"c.il Chambers, City of San Juan Capistrano,Orange County The NAHC continues to be concerned that the Native American cultural resources at this site have not been property accounted for pursuant to state lava The NAHC Exera.ifiv� Secretary requested certain information from the site and protect oumeddeveloper Hearthside Homes, IneJSignal Landmark, on March 31,2008 including a map of ViF, showing excavations, house pits,burials or human remains discovered photos and archaeological features Jeff Crouch of the protect archaeological firm Scientific Re-%O irce Surveys inc (SRS)aikmowdedgedthe NAHC request in an a-mad of April 7,2008 and n copy was furnished to you The NAHC Executive Secretary in his letter to you of April 8, 2008 summarized the NAHC request Yet,to date,this requested information has not been provided to the Native American Heritage Commission Furthermore the NAHC concerns have heightened by the reports from the Orange Coun-tV Coroner and the project archaeologist of 104 sets of Native American human remains anti thousands of associated grave goods and other Native American artifacts made to the NAHC since 2006 Details of these reports have also been available to you Tree NAi ir:. understood in 2004 that the archaeological work on the project was complete, that the etsil at the site was sterile and the likelihood of additional Illative Amenian cultural raboul Cos was nil. In the SRS Report,"Archaeological Site G"RA-g3 The Cogged Stone Situ,"tt states on page 30 that.All formal field excavations are completed on this site CatalOD►.isn,1 and analysis of all recovered materials in process The results of this work will be presented in a series of final reports,which fulfill the requirements of County and State agendes" From this report,the NAHC deduced that the data recovery work on this protect was finished and than there would be no further discoveries,particularly in gram numbers of Native American human remains and associated artifacts Vet this prni7c-d not to be the case The most recent report to the NAHC was April 26,2009 c oriVnsod, according to a report from the SRS archaeologist, of 87 separate sets of human remairi-,�- I�V 11/06/2008 09 00 PAX 916 657 5390 NAHC 0 009 In addition,there apparently are as many of 6,000 bags of material in traders adjacent to the Brightwater Development Site gar more than had previously been reported to the NAHC And a so-called `power sort of ten boxes or bags of the material yielded evidence of human remains,according to a report from SRS archaeologist Dr Paul Lagenwalther To date,the{NAHC has not been wftrmed that this finding was reported to the Orange County Coroner This find also raises the question about the balance of the material in those bags that may comprise many more fragments of human remains and possible associated grave goods Therefore,the NAHC staff remains concerned that there may be a significant possibildy Of additional human remains and artifacts being unearthed by the construction process of building`pads for the proposed homes at the Brightwater Development Site The insufficient and inadequate response of the landowner and its agents to respond io NAND requests In a timely manner gives rise to the possibility that the Native American cultural resources at the site have been`understated' The NAHC does have jurisdiction in suoi matters as the state`trustee'agency for the protection of Native American cultuinal resources and b nal sites pursuant to Public Resources Code§21070 Sin rely, vngli3ton Program Analyst Attachments uV1/ LU( LUUQ/xVij 11, UU AM t Vu[. r � tt FORM FOR DISCLOSURE ����-� OF EX PA TE OCT 2 0 200p CCDIlMA UNICA ION STA��pM CAL M�55lppr Date and tm e,of coninm iicubon October 20,2008—i2 53 a tn. CDA (.For messages seat to a Com=ssiot= by mad or faosuu=ule or received as a tool phono or other message,date tune ofreeergt should he indicated) Location of IL Eureka, CA—,Via.Email. (For communications setit by mail or faesamle,,or received as a telephone or other message,indicate the mewls of btau=ission-) Person(s)mtmtmg conam=cation. Susaaa Salas Person(s)receiving communication Bonnie Neely,Commissioner Name or desanptwn ofproject. Permit#5-05-020--.Bolsa Chico Deta;Red substamtrve desariptlon of content of commumeation (If eommumeatiou included wxltten inatarma attach a copy oftbe complete test of the mT=en material) (See Attached Email) 10/20/08 Date Signature of Coiaussioner If the communication was provided at the same tune to staff as it was provided to a Commissioner,the communication is not ex pane and this foam does not need to be fWed out If communication occurred seven or mom days in advance of the Commiskon hearing on the item that was the su'q,4at of-&e aammmunwahon,complete this form and tramsmnt it.to the Executive Director within seven'taw of tbo eommumcation If it is reasonable to believe that the completed form will not arrive by U S mail at the Commission s main office prior to the commencement of the meetui& other means of dehvery should be used,such as facsimile,overnight mail or personal delivery by the Commissioner to the Executve Director at the meeting prior to the time that the heating on the matter commences If communwataon occurred wiftn seven days of the hearing,oompleto this form,provide the information orally on the record of the prmeedings and provide the Executive Director with a copy of any written material that was part of the aommunicatlon -291 OCT/20/2008/MON 11 00 AM r UUJ From Neely, Bonne Sent. Monday October 20 200B 12 53 AM To Hayes Kathy Subject. FW Request meeting re Permit 06-06-020 Brightwater Do an exparte regarding this email Thanks -----Original Message---- From SUSAN SAi S [mailto monkoeyo®hotmail cam) Sent The 10/16/2008 4 40 PM To Neely, Bonnie Ca Sub)ect Request meeting re Permit 05-05-020 Brightwater Bonnie Neely My name is Susana Salas I aia a member of the So California Native American community and petit:.onex who is requesting that the California Coastal Commission snvestigate the BrIghtwater development and consider revoking Pe=m-Lt 5--05-020 Native ,Ameriosa community members bel2eve that our sacred site at Bolsa Chica is being destroyed We have a tentative revocation hearing dates) of November 12 13 or 14 We would lxke to meet with you prior to the hearing Please let me know when you are availarile to meet with Netsve American commmnsty members in the so California area Respeetfully, Sueana Salaa You Ia.-we life beyond your PC So now Windows goes beyond your PC See how <http //elk atdmt com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/> 2 Nov 4 2008 2 46PM 17, 0 5117 P 5 F Q1W ff OR DIS CIO SURE RECEIVED OF EX PARTE NOV 0 4 Z008 COMAMCA,71ONS CALIFORNW COASTAL COMMISSION Name or description of protect, LCP, etc Date and ti me of recei pt of rommuni cats on 6 u� 31 DeA_ t:'Z.'_ba.°"i w4 location of communication Type of coMununi�ation (letter, facsimile, etc ) I Persons) initiating communication ,� �► i i� � au�.� ,¢� Person(s) receiving communication `'�uwv►�� Detailed substantive description of content of communication (Attach a copy of the complete text of any written material received ? la"v.t ALB° V1���t9.2. �--40�g�1w �)rSioPd[. A M two WQJ `r. 1 Date Signature�ot Commissioner If the communication was provided at the same time to staff as it was provided to a Commissioner the communication is not ex parte and this form does not need to be filled out If communication occurred seven or more days in advance of the Commission hearing on the item that was the subject of the communication complete this farm and transmit it to the Executive Director within seven days of the communication If it is reasonable to believe that the completed form will not arrive by U S mail at the Commission's main office prior to the commencement of the meeting other means of delivery should be used, such as facsimile, overnight mail, or personal delivery by the Commissioner to the Executive Director at the meeting prior to the time that the hearing on the matter commences j If communication occurred within seven days of the hearing complete this 6 form provide the information orally on the record of the proceeding and provide the Executive Director with a copy of any written material that was part of the communication ' National Register of Historical Places CALIFORNIA(CA) Orange County NMI='z d u 1"JP 10 INNS com - ft-ItUrm c�ti ioi{lin{ry s hr.toY it prup itu.�, nt S.ac�4d � �{c{�lct trine CALIFORNIA- Orange County R E C' t Cogged. Stowe Site--CA-ORA-83 ** (added 2001 Site OCT 1 5 2008 -#01001455) CAL,SFr r Address Restricted, Huntington Beach COASTAL Historic Significance Event Information Potential Area of Significance Prehistoric Native American Cultural Affiliation Millingstone Horizon Intermediate Horizon,California Channel Islands Pehod of Significance 4500-4999 BC, 4000-4499 BC, 3500-3999 BC 3000-3499 BC Owner Private Historic Function Agnculture/Subsistence Commerce/Trade Domestic Funerary lndustr)/Processing/Extiaction Ri-ligion Historic Sub function Cereniont-tl Site Graves/Bunals Manufacturing Facility Pioeessing, Trade(Archeology) Village Site Cuiitntrunction Lindscape CUlient Sub Iurittion Uno�,UuhiLd 1 -111d uk.,P%PA California Cultural Resource PfeSElVa�lOn Allianc e inc P O Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific commumhes working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources rw October 20,2008 x Teresa Henry GF r Ion District Manager South Coast Distnct California Coastal Comuussion 200 Oceangate, I Oh floor Long Beach,CA 90802 '01�1 Dear Ms Henry The attached information is supplemental to the revocation requested by the Native Americans,the Cahfornia Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust Sincerely, Patricia Martz,Ph D President INCOMPLETE INFORMATION BASED ON A COMPARISON OF THE MAP ENTITLED"EXCAVATION UNITS AND TRENCHES COMPOSITE ALL SEASONS" RECEIVED BY TIME COASTAL COMMISSION SEPT 5,2008 , `HISTORY OF BOLSA CHICA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND SALVAGE WORK CONDUCTED BY SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES SURVEYS,INC(SRS) 1980- 2008"AND TBE 2003 REPORT"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CA-ORA 83 THE COGGED STONE STIE SYNOPSIS A HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 1)The map does not show the location of the"hand excavations"conducted sometime between 1990 and 1994 that resulted in the recovery of 32"bone concentrations" Since the burials were removed and reburied and the site is fenced and patrolled,there is no reason to omit this information,unless of course,more burials are expected (CLAP 5-83- 984, CDP 5-83-702) 2)The 32"bone concentrations"were reburied in 1994 (`History of Bolsa Chtea Archaeological Research and Salvage Work Conducted by Scientific Resources Surveys INC(SRS) 1980-2008") This means that they were human bone concentrations and that the term'bone concentrations throughout SRS reporting is an obvious attempt to obscure the fact that they are the fragile human remains of an ancient cemetery 3)The map does not show the location of the archaeological grading and backhoe trenching conducted sometime between 1998-2003 that resulted in the recovery of 40 "bone concentrations" Since the burials were removed and reburied and the site is fenced and patrolled,there is no reason to omit this information (CLAP 5-83-9841 CDP 5-83-702) 4)The map shows excavation units excavated in 2006,but not the area of archaeological grading that resulted in the recovery of the 87"bone concentrations",76 features and 15 categories of sacred artifacts The 2006 excavations cover a large area and if this is where the 87'bone concentrations'were found,this is a very large cemetery area,the extent of which is unknown Given the lack of information regarding the location of over 150 concentrations containing human remains, as well as how many actual individuals are represented,we can only assume that the cemetery is extensive and the potential for impacts to additional burials during Ruther ground disturbing construction activities is high (CDP 5-05-020) 5)The report `Archaeological site CA-ORA-83 The Cogged Stone Site Synopsis A History of Archaeological Investigations (2003 pg 1)states"that Brightwater development will not adversely impact the archaeological site at Ora 83 because a series of mitigation measures approved by the Coastal Commission and the County of Orange to mitigate the impact of future development on this resource have already been implemented These measures provided for mitigation through data recovery of the site specifically designed to recover archaeological resources from the site" The Native American community does not consider the remains of their ancestors to be 1 "archaeological resources" They are the remains of the first people to occupy California and are the revered ancestors of the present day descendants The destruction of an ancient cemetery and the disturbance of Native American remains cannot be"mitigated' through data recovery excavations to recover scientific information,or rebunal and is an adverse impact 7)Would the Coastal Commission and the County of Orange approved the mitigation measures and the determination that the Brightwater development would not adversely impact the archaeological site at Ora-83 had they realized that an ancient cemetery was being impacted, not merely"bone concentrations"? We would hope that these decision makers consider Native Americans and their ancestors to be equal in dignity and rights to all other peoples with respect to their dead ADDITIONAL OMISSIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CA-ORA-83 THE COGGED STONE SITE SYNOPSIS A HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS"2003 1)Pg 9 fails to mention that in spite of the fact that portions of the site were disturbed and over the objections of the developer,Nancy Desautels,of SRS,and Ray Belardes of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians,ORA-83 was determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by the State Histoncal Resources Commission in 1983 This pattern of playing down the significance of the site in order to facilitate development is evident throughout the 25-years of archaeological investigations at the site 2)Pp 12-13 the locations of these archaeological investigations should be clearly identified on the Sept 5,2008 map "in field'and"in trees"is not sufficient information 3)Pg 15 `Between 1990 and 1994 an extensive data recovery program was conducted by SRS within and around the eucalyptus trees providing full mitigation for Ora-83 " This is a premature and misleading statement 4)Pg 28"The decade of the 90's saw the completion of the Final Data Recovery Program at CA-ORA-83 in 2002 as described in the following reports " Again a premature and misleadmg statement 5)Pg 29 Conclusions reiterate that the Brightwater development will not adversely impact the archaeological site ORA-83 because of the data recovery mitigation measures conducted pursuant to Coastal Development permit 5-89-772 It further says that the site has been mitigated in accordance with Coastal Commission and County of Orange Conditions and there is no evidence that the Bnghtwater development will adversely impact the site or that any further mitigation measures are necessary,other than grading monitoring This raises the question of what kind of grading they are referring to 2 construction or archaeological What does CIDJP 5 05-020 call for archaeological or construction gradnmg9 Evidently 87 more"bone concentrations were found in 2006 Does the permit indicate that the Coastal Commission was aware that the development would impact an ancient cemetery,not a few"bone concentrations"9 Why should we believe that"full mitigation"has been completed when proof to the contrary has repeatedly been discovered Summary (1)There is a pattem of saying that the"mitigation"measures are complete and then they go onto find more human remains and features Examples Pg 15 "Between 1990 and 1994 an extensive data recovery program was conducted by SRS within and around the eucalyptus trees providing full mitigation for Ora 83"And Pg 28 "The decade of the`90's saw the completion of the Final Data recovery Program at CA-ORA-83 in 2002 as described in the following reports " (2)There is a pattern of referring to the human remains as"bone concentrations"rather than evidence for an ancient cemetery Example See"History of Bolsa Chica Archaeological Research and Salvage work conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc (SRS), 1980-2008 (3)The map and reporting of the archaeological investigations does not allow an outside, independent observer to determine the extent of the cemetery or features or to determine how much of the site has not been graded and thus has the potential for the discovery of additional human remains during construction grading (4)The statements that the Bnghtwater development will not have an adverse effect on ORA-83 because mitigation measures specifically designed to recover archaeological resources from the site have been completed is wrong Native Amencan human remains represent values that cannot be mitigated through the recovery of archaeological materials to be analyzed for scientific purposes 3 � �'P, 5 05 020(Brightwater) Special Conditions 23 and 24 - 1 23 PROTECTECTION OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DURING GRADING A PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT the applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director an archeological monitoring and mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that shall incorporate the following measures and procedures 1 Archaeological monitor(s) qualified by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards Native American monitor(s) with documented ancestral ties to the area appointed consistent with the standards of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the Native American most likely descendent (MLD) when State Law mandates identification of a MLD shall monitor all project grading, 1 The permittee shall provide sufficient archeological and Native American monitors to assure that all project grading that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits is monitored at all times 2 If any cultural deposits are discovered during project construction including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts traditional cultural sites religious or spiritual sites or other artifacts the permittee shall carry out significance testing of said deposits and if cultural deposits are found by the Executive Director to be significant pursuant to subsection C of this condition and any other relevant provisions additional investigation and mitigation in accordance with all subsections of this special condition, 4 If any cultural deposits are discovered including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts traditional cultural sites religious or spiritual sites or other artifacts all construction shall cease in accordance with subsection B of this special condition 5 In addition to recovery and reburial in situ preservation and avoidance of cultural deposits shall be considered as mitigation options to be determined in accordance with the process outlined in this condition 6 if human remains are encountered the permittee shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws Procedures outlined in the monitoring and mitigation plan shall not prejudice the ability to comply with applicable State and Federal laws including but not limited to negotiations between the landowner and the MLD regarding the manner of treatment of human remains including but not limited to scientific or cultural study of the remains (preferably non destructive) selection of in-situ preservation of remains or �efP= 1 5-05-020(Brightwater) Special Conditions 23 and 24 - 2- recovery repatriation and reburial of remains the time frame within which reburial or ceremonies must be conducted or selection of attendees to reburial events or ceremonies The range of investigation and mitigation measures considered shall not be constrained by the approved development plan Where appropriate and consistent with State and Federal laws the treatment of remains shall be decided as a component of the process outlined in the other subsections of this condition 7 Prior to the commencement and/or re-commencement of any monitoring the permittee shall notify each archeological and Native American monitor of the requirements and procedures established by this special condition Furthermore prior to the commencement and/or re-commencement of any monitoring the permittee shall provide a copy of this special condition the archeological monitoring and mitigation plan approved by the Executive Director and any other plans required pursuant to this condition and which have been approved by the Executive Director to each monitor B if an area of cultural deposits including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts, traditional cultural sites, religious or spiritual sites or other artifacts is discovered during the course of the project all construction activities in the area of the discovery that have any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options or the ability to implement the requirements of this condition shall cease and shall not recommence except as provided in subsection D and other subsections of this special condition In general the area where construction activities must cease shall be 1) no less than a 50-foot wide buffer around the cultural deposit and 2) no more than the residential enclave area within which the discovery is made C An applicant seeking to recommence construction following discovery of the cultural deposits shall submit a Significance Testing Plan for the review and approval of the Executive Director The Significance Testing Plan shall identify the testing measures that will be undertaken to determine whether the cultural deposits are significant The Significance Testing Plan shall be prepared by the project archaeologists) in consultation with the Native American monitor(s) and the Most Likely Descendent (MLD)when State Law mandates identification of a MLD The Executive Director shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of the Significance Testing Plan within 10 working days of receipt If the Executive Director does not make such a determination within the prescribed time the plan shall be deemed approved and implementation may proceed Once a plan is �`x. 1 p 5-05 020(Brightwater) Special Conditions 23 and 24 3 - deemed adequate the Executive Director will make a determination regarding the significance of the cultural deposits discovered (1) If the Executive Director approves the Significance Testing Plan and determines that the Significance Testing Plan s recommended testing measures are de minimis in nature and scope the significance testing may commence after the Executive Director informs the permittee of that determination (2) If the Executive Director approves the Significance Testing Plan but determines that the changes therein are not de minimis significance testing may not commence until after the Commission approves an amendment to this permit (3) Once the measures identified in the significance testing plan are undertaken the permittee shall submit the results of the testing to the Executive Director for review and approval The results shall be accompanied by the project archeologist's recommendation as to whether the findings should be considered significant The project archeologists recommendation shall be made in consultation with the Native American monitors and the MLD when State Law mandates identification of a MLD If there is disagreement between the project archeologist and the Native American monitors and/or the MLD both perspectives shall be presented to the Executive Director The Executive Director shall make the determination as to whether the deposits are significant based on the information available to the Executive Director If the deposits are found to be significant the permittee shall prepare and submit to the Executive Director a supplementary Archeological Plan in accordance with subsection E of this condition and all other relevant subsections if the deposits are found to be not significant then the permittee may recommence grading in accordance with any measures outlined in the significance testing program D An applicant seeking to recommence construction following a determination by the Executive Director that the cultural deposits discovered are significant shall submit a supplementary Archaeological Plan for the review and approval of the Executive Director The supplementary Archeological Plan shall be prepared by the project archaeologist(s) in consultation with the Native American monitor(s) the Most Likely Descendent(MLD)when State Law mandates identification of a MLD as well as others identified in subsection E of this condition The supplementary Archeological Plan shall identify proposed investigation and mitigation measures If there is disagreement between the project archeologist and the Native American monitors and/or the MLD both perspectives shall be presented to the Executive Director The range of investigation and mitigation measures considered shall not pe constrained by the 5-05-020(B rightwater) Special Conditions 23 and 24 - 4 - approved development plan Mitigation measures considered shall range from in-situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation A good faith effort shall be made to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as but not limited to project redesign capping and creating an open space area around the cultural resource areas In order to protect cultural resources any further development may only be undertaken consistent with the provisions of the final approved Supplementary Archaeological Plan (1) If the Executive Director approves the Supplementary Archaeological Plan and determines that the Supplementary Archaeological Plan s recommended changes to the proposed development or mitigation measures are de minimis in nature and scope construction may recommence after the Executive Director informs the permittee of that determination (2) If the Executive Director approves the Supplementary Archaeological Plan but determines that the changes therein are not de minimis construction may not recommence until after the Commission approves an amendment to this permit E Prior to submittal to the Executive Director all plans required to be submitted pursuant to this special condition shall have received review and written comment by a peer review committee convened in accordance with current professional practice that shall include qualified archeologists and representatives of Native American groups with documented ancestral ties to the area Names and qualifications of selected peer reviewers shall be submitted for review and approval by the Executive Director The plans submitted to the Executive Director shall incorporate the recommendations of the peer review committee Furthermore upon completion of the peer review process and prior to submittal to the Executive Director all plans shall be submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)and the NAHC for their review and an opportunity to comment The plans submitted to the Executive Director shall incorporate the recommendations of the OHP and NAHC if the OHP and/or NAHC do not respond within 30 days of their receipt of the plan the requirement under this permit for those entities review and comment shall expire unless the Executive Director extends said deadline for good cause All plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director F The permittee shall undertake development in accordance with the approved final plans Any proposed changes to the approved final plans shall be reported to the Executive Director No changes to the approved final plans shall occur without a Commission amendment to 5-05 020(Brightwater) Special Conditions 23 and 24 - 5- this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is required 24 CURATION OF ARTIFACTS AND DISSEMINATION OF CULTURAL INFORMATION PROIR TO ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT the applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director, evidence of a written agreement with a curation facility that has agreed to accept any artifacts recovered from the project site Any such artifacts shall be curated within Orange County at a facility meeting the established standards for the curation of archaeological resources Further, the applicant shall request in the agreement that the facility receiving the collection prepare an appropriate display of significant materials so that the public can view the investigation results and benefit from the knowledge gained by the investigations If permanent curation facilities are not available, artifacts may be temporarily stored at a facility such as the Anthropology Department of the California State University at Fullerton until space becomes available at a facility meeting the above standards The applicant shall submit written proof of acceptance from the above curation or temporary facility of 100 percent of the recovered artifacts prior to issuance of the permit PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT the applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Executive Director a written agreement to distribute the series of ORA 83 Research and Salvage Program Final Reports to interested area institutions vocational groups and Native American tribal units within Southern California as well as to appropriate City County and State agencies as proposed in the Archaeological Research Design ORA-83 `The Cogged Stone Site Final Research and Salvage Program by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc dated November 11 1983 and conditioned in coastal development permit 5 89-772 as amended Susan K Horl manaft Manatt Phelps&Phillips LLP manatt I phelps I phillips Direct Dial (714)371 2528 E mail short@manatt corn September 5,2008 Client Matter 24970 030 S I'VE D clsf Region BY HAND DELIVERY 5EP 5 ` 2008 Teresa Henry California Coastal Commission CAU"O(Z lIA 200 Oceangate IOth floor COA�iAL COMMISSION Long Beach CA 90802 Re Revocation Request of Coastal Development Permit No 5-05-020 (Brightwater) Dear Teresa This letter responds to the revocation request filed by various Native American individuals Professor Patricia Martz on behalf of the California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance and Gerald Chapman on behalf of the Bolsa ChiLa Land Trust on Jun 2,2008,and your letter of June 9, 2008,informing Hearthside Homes of the Coastal Commission's receipt of the revocation request The Section I3I05(a) Grounds for Revocation Are Not Satisfied, There is No Evidence oflntentional Submission of Inaccurate,Incomplete or Erroneous Information The grounds for revocation are set forth in Section 13105 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 13105(a) states the grounds for revocation cited in the requesting parties documents (a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information m connection with a coastal development permit application,where the commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application The Section 13105 grounds for revocation requires a finding that the applicant (Hearthside Homes)intentionally included inaccurate,erroneous or incomplete information in its application The enclosed document titled History of Bolsa Cluca Archaeological Research and Salvage Work Conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc (SRS) 1980 2008 (hereafter History Document )identifies the reports on each phase of archaeological excavations that were submitted to the Coastal Commission and which were before the Commission when it took action to approve the CDP in 2005 The documents submitted with the CDP application included 695 Town Center Drive 14th Floor Costa Mesa California 92626 1924 Telephone 714 3712500 Fax 714 3712550 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington D C nin a n aft manatt I phelps i phdiips Teresa Henry September 5,2009 Page 2 the research designs that were prepared to guide the mitigation program for these two sites,the subsurface test plans for the sites and completed reports for each of the sites demonstrating completion of the data recovery program The History Document provides a detailed chronology of the(1) site boundary determination work conducted in the early 1980 s, (2)the archaeological test excavations to determine those areas of intact cultural deposits and site significance conducted between 1983 and 1988,and(3) archaeological data recovery programs to mitigate the two sites conducted between 1990 and 2003—all of which were completed and reported to the Commission prior to consideration of the CDP in 2005 The History Document also describes the Archaeological Grading Monitoring Program conducted pursuant to Special Condition 23 in 2006 The document also identifies when human bone concentrations were discovered when reports to the Coroner s office were made when consultations with the Native American most likely descendants occurred,and when the human bone concentrations and associated artifacts were reburied As demonstrated by this extensive listing of reports and materials the Coastal Commission was provided with an extensive collection of reports concerning the archaeological work at these two sites including reports of the discovery of human bone concentrations prior to taking action on the CDP At no point in the process was incomplete inaccurate or erroneous material intentionally included in the application The second component of Section 13105(a)requires a finding that if accurate or complete information were provided to the Coastal Commission that it would have either required additional or different conditions,or denied the application The significance of ORA-83 and the desire to preserve this site has been at issue before the Coastal Commission and other local, state and federal agencies since the early 1980 s beginning with the proposal to list ORA-83 on the National Register of Historic Places in 1981 Since that time archaeological mitigation work at ORA 83 and ORA 85 have been permitted by the California Coastal Commission and carefully monitored and scrutinized by the public In 1999, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust filed a revocation request to revoke the permit issued to conduct the archaeological mitigation work at ORA 83 The Commission denied the request for revocation In 2005 at the hearing on CDP 5-05 020, members of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust testified at the hearing expressing their concerns regarding the permit, and the sigruficance of ORA-83 and the mitigation measures recommended by the Coastal Commission were commented on by several members of the public including Louise Jeffredo Warden from the Pechanga Luiseno Mission Indians and the Maritime Shoshone California Jan Chatten-Brown on behalf of the Mantime Shoshone California,Protect California and the Coastal Protection Network Tom Hoskinson,and Jack Hunter of the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance Given the considerable amount of testimony regarding ORA 83 that was placed before the Coastal Commission,there is no evidence to indicate that the Commission was unaware of the existence of archaeological resources or that it would have required additional or different conditions beyond those already included as a 6j<. !"P z rn a n a ft manatt(phelps I phAps Teresa Henry September 5,2008 Page 3 condition of the CDP,or denied the application In fact the Commission staff and Commission noted in rendering its decision that the footprint of development that was approved under the CDP provided not only greater setback from sensitive habitat,but in so doing, also protected a larger portion of ORA 83 In short there is no evidence to support that inaccurate erroneous or incomplete information was intentionally submitted or that additional information would have rendered a different decision The fact that ORA-83 and ORA.-85 are significant cultural resources was a fact known to Hearthside Homes,the Coastal Commission and the public since the early 1980's The significance of these sites was recognized in the environmental impact reports prepared by the County of Orange, as well as in the coastal development permits issued by the Coastal Commission for archaeological mitigation work and CDP 5-05-020 Because the Coastal Commission required Hearthside to prepare and implement an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Hearthside conducted an unprecedented purposeful archaeological grading momtonng program and as a result of this unprecedented level of archaeological mitigation additional artifacts and human bone concentrations were recovered and were treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Commission approved archaeological monitoring and mitigation plan The presence of these artifacts and human bone concentrations were not known until the Coastal Commission issued CDP 5 05 020 and required the purposeful grading The fact that Hearthside Homes fully complied with the requirements of Special Condition 23 has allowed these cultural resources and human bone concentrations to be safely recovered and— in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendants—to be reburied in the future with respect and dignity The archaeological work in question which resulted in the discovery of additional human bone concentrations and artifacts that are the subject of the revocation request was completed in 2006 after issuance of the CDP and prior to commencement of construction grading activities Hearthside's archaeological consultant, SRS, is in the process of documenting the recovered cultural materials in preparation for reburial of these artifacts with the human bone concentrations that were discovered during the 2006 work done pursuant to the Archaeological Grading Monitoring Plan The procedures that were employed upon discovery of the human bone concentrations are described in the enclosed documents however, as required by law,the Orange County Coroner s office was notified and reviewed the human bone concentrations The most likely descendants identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were also notified and consulted regarding their recommendations Finally, as required by the CDP all archaeological work was monitored by representatives from Native American tribal groups from the Orange County/Los Angeles County area(Juanenos and Gabnehno) and these monitors notified the Native American Heritage Commission as these discoveries occurred In accordance M Onaft manatt I phelps I phlllips Teresa Henry September 5 2008 Page 4 with the wishes and recommendations of the Native American most likely descendants the human bone concentrations and cultural artifacts will be reburied in an area in accordance with State law Of significance as it pertains to the pending revocation request is that all of Ilse archaeological work and recovered materials(including human bone concentrations)that are the subject of the revocation request were conducted a ter issuance of the CDP in December 2005 Equally important,all of the archaeological resource information that was known to Hearthside Homes was provided to the Coastal Commission either prior to or as part of its CDP application package There was no intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information,or an intentional exclusion of information regarding the archaeological resources As the enclosed History Document demonstrates,at the conclusion of every phase of archaeological work information regarding the discoveries was submitted to the California Coastal Commission Although not relevant to the Commission s consideration of the revocation request we wish to also underscore that Hearthside Homes and SRS complied with the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the Health and Safety Code by notifying the Orange County Coroner of the discovery of human bone concentrations,and consulting with the Native American most likely descendants appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission to obtain their recommendations In your letter you requested that Hearthside Homes provide a detailed annotated chronology and maps of all human remains and artifacts found within the two archaeological sites(ORA-85 and ORA-83)located within the area covered by Coastal Development Permit No 5-05-020(the `CDP ) In response to your request,representatives of Hearthside Homes met with you on July 14, 2008 to review the history of the archaeological work on these two archaeological sites and the status of the project s compliance with the Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan(or'Archaeological Grading Monitoring Plan')prepared pursuant to Special Condition 23 of the CDP and approved by the Coastal Commission staff Transmitted with this letter are two maps showing the location of all archaeological work that has occurred at both of these sites since the 1980 s,including delineation of those areas in which purposeful or archaeological grading occurred You also requested that the maps depict the location of all human remains and artifacts found David Belardes one of the Native American most likely descendants has requested that the location of human remains and artifacts not be disclosed, and we have honored his request (See enclosed memorandum from David Belardes dated July 12 2008) In conclusion the parties requesting revocation have failed to demonstrate that grounds for revocation exist There is no evidence to support that inaccurate erroneous or incomplete manaft manatt I pheips I phillips Teresa Henry September 5,2008 Page 5 information was intentionally submitted or that additional information would have rendered a different decision We respectfully request the Coastal Commission to deny the revocation request Very truly yours Susan K Hon Manatt,Phelps&Phillips,LLP Enclosures cc Ed Mountford 700645341 Juaneno Band of Mission Indian, Acjachemen ration 31742 Via Belardes San Juan Capistrano Ca 92675 949 493 0959 kaamalamngmml corn Memorandum Date July 12 2008 To Ed Mountford,Vice President,Hearthside Homes Cc Nancy Desautels Wiley,President,S R S From David Belardes,Chief Chairman and MLD RE Maps of human remains and their belongings The intent of this memorandum is to express our concerns regarding the California Coastal Commissions request for detailed maps of our ancestral remains and their belongings that were unearthed on your project known as Bnghtwater As you are aware California Public Records Act Exemption from Disclosure(6254(r)requires records of Native American graves,cemeteries and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission to be kept confidential While the law forbids disclosure to public agencies,more importantly our policy and religious beliefs prohibit the public from having access to this information The Coastal Commission is a public agency and if detailed maps of our burial sites are made public we would view this as a blatant disrespect to an already painful situation Additionally,we would like to prevent our ancestors from being used as a political tool We strongly urge you to maintain the agreements that Hearthside and the JBMI have established and not provide ANY copies of this confidential information to any public agency We thank you for your consideration Fx' HISTORY OF BOLSA CHICA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND SALVAGE WORK CONDUCTED BY SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEYS,INC ISRSI, 1980 2008 The Boisa Chica Mesa has been subject to a 28-year integrated extensive research program conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys Inc [SRS] This research spanned the years 1980 2008 and included a comprehensive and systematic series of archival research, surface surveys test excavations and data recovery programs conducted pursuant to Coastal Development Permits 5-83-702 5-83-984, 5-89-772 and 5-05-020 and the cultural resources guidelines of the County of Orange The Research and Salvage Program was first established in the 1983 Research Design for the project and over the years included the following phases SUMMARY CHRONOLOGY OFARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE BRIGHTWATER PROJECT 1980-1983 Feld & Library Work Property Surveys Background Research 1983-1988 Field Work Test Excavations CA-ORA 78 83 84 85-289 [CDP 5 83 984 CDP 5-83-702] 1990-1994 Field Work Data Recovery Programs CA-ORA-83-85 [CDP 5-89 772 CDP 5 83 702] 1994 Reburial 32 bone concentrations found by hand excavation from CA-ORA-63 1999 Field Work Survey Background Research Test Program Grading Monitoring CA ORA 86 [City of Huntington Beach Permit] 1999 Reburial 1 bone concentration found by Construction Grading Monitoring for Sandover Project City of Huntington Beach from CA ORA-86 1998 2003 Field Work Data Recovery Programs CA ORA-83 [Peer Review MOA work] 2003 Rebural 40 bone concentrations found by Archaeological Grading and Backhoe Trenching from CA ORA 83 25 circular depressions also located 2006 Field Work Grading Monitoring Feature Recovery CA ORA-83-85 [CDP 5 05 020] 2007-2008+ Laboratory Documentation Human Remains Associated Artifacts 2007 Reburial 17 bone concentrations found by Archaeological Grading and Construction Grading Monitoring from CA ORA-85 2008 Reburial to come 87 bone concentrations 76 features and 15 categories of sacred artifacts found by Archaeological Grading from CA ORA-83 RECOVED South Coast Regicn SEP 5 - 2008 CAUrORNIA CQa-sTA�;QMMISSION 1980 83 FIELDWORK PROPERTY SURVEYS BACKGROUND RESEARCH _Reported Plan An initial archival search included aerial photo documentation and studies of previous academic and amateur searches of the property followed by a thorough field survey in 1980 Two successive evaluations were prepared from this work [1981 19821 and the first of a series of research designs[1983] Coastal Commission submittals are starred [*] Analytical Reports 1981 Ora-83 An Archaeological Evaluation for National Register Status Principal Authors R J Desautels and N A Whitney-Desautels 1982 Ora 83 An Archaeological Re-evaluation for National Register Status Principal Author, R J Desautels 1983* Archaeological Research Design Ora-83 The Cogged Stone Site, Final Research and Salvage Program Principal Author, N A Whitney Desautels 1983-1988 FIELD WORK TEST EXCAVATIONS ON CA-ORA 78-83 84-85 [CDP PEROT 5 83 702, 5-83-984] Reported Plan Subsurface exploration programs occurred during the years 1983-1988 Test excavations on CA-ORA-78-83-84 85 determined the boundaries of the various archaeological resources for project avoidance/mitigation at this time resulting in the preparation of four test reports [1986 1987b 1987c 1987d] First phase data recovery work at CA ORA-83 was conducted pursuant to CDP-5-83-984 A second research design regional in scope was also prepared for the second phase of data recovery excavations at CA ORA-83 [1987a] Coastal Commission submittals are starred(*] Burials Located None on any site Alika Herring allegedly found human bone fragments in the late 1960 s on the surface of CA ORA 85 during his field work as previously reported by SRS in analytical report 1987d Analytical Reports 1986* Archaeological Evaluation of CA-ORA-83 The Cogged Stone Site on Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County California Principal Authors N A Whitney-Desautels and Roger D Mason 1987a* Research Design for Evaluation of Coastal Archaeological Sites in Northern Orange County California Principal Author R D Mason 1987b Archaeological investigations at CA-ORA 76 Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County CA Revised Version Principal Author N A Whitney- Desautels 1987c Archaeological investigations at CA ORA 84 Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County CA Revised Version Principal Author N A Whitney Desautels 1987d* Archaeological Assessment of a Portion of CA ORA-85 Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County CA Revised version Principal Author N A Whitney-Desautels 2 � . G p 2. 1990-1994 FIELD WORK DATA RECOVERY PROGRAMS [CDP PERMIT 5 89 7721 Reported Plan The second phase of the CA-ORA 83 data recovery program ensued In 1990 and continued through 1994 CDP Permit 5 89-772 was for conducting the second phase data recovery program on CA-ORA-83 as mitigation to impacts from proposed development The excavations were to occur within areas containing site materials as determined by the 1980 s test programs on CA ORA-83 (primarily in the eucalyptus grove) Burials Located 32 bone concentrations, on CA ORA-83 including 1 dolphin [partial] and 1 deer[articulated neck vertebrae] and a maximum of 32 individuals [two double burials] All burials were found by hand excavation and were confined to the eucalyptus grove on the southwest portion of the property All data below is from this site Dates 1990 June cut human bone located treated as an artifact 1992 June November 12 concentrations 1993 April-December 19 concentrations Coroners 17-June-92 29-June 92 Reporting 22-July-92 Letter of qualifications Dr Nancy A Wiley to Bruce Lyle, O C Coroners office Dr Wiley authorized to monitor remaining finds to insure Native American origin May-Aug 1993 3 calls [one per month average] 15 Aug-93 30 Sept 93 Case#05868 LL assigned 12-Oct-93 Dr J Suchey Forensic Anthropologist Coroners office authorizes SRS physical anthropologist, David Kice to monitor remaining finds to insure Native American origin 3-Nov 93 26-Nov 93 14-Dec-93 NAHC June 1992 Sacramento visit to Larry Meyers NAHC Notifications by David Belardes Juaneno and Dr Nancy Wiley SRS Inc Presented and discussed only human bone-found to date [in June 1990] cut and modified [whittled] human bone 17-Jun 92, 29 Jun 92[call and letter by SRS liason P Ibanez] Continual calls on a monthly basis by Ibanez 15-Aug-93 3 Nov 93 10 Nov-93 by coroners office MLD s/ March 1990 June 1990 Raymond Belardes [Juaneno] Native Michael Barthelemy[Gabrielino] MLD s R Belardes &sons monitored Monitors June 1990-November 1993 David Belardes [Juaneno] MLD Do Belardes D Fritze M Bracamontes S Dunlap monitored P Ibanez was monitoring supervisor represented C Alvitre[Gabrielino] January 1994 NAHC appt d 5 MLD s for this project D Belardes [Juaneno] C Alvitre M Alcala V Rocha J Velasquez[Gabrielino] February 1994 NAHC appt d 1 additional MLD L Robles [Juaneno] Rebunal 1994 Reburial at designated reburial area 3 Associated grave goods defined as those materials found to be directly associated with each bone concentration including those materials and artifacts within a known or protected burial pit Reporting Several drafts of a burial data report were prepared by David Kice physical anthropologist for SRS Inc and forensic anthropologist for the LA Coroner s office A final burial data report was prepared in 1995 Synopsis and boundary definition reports were also prepared as a result of this effort[1995a 1995b 1995c]and the third research design a research design for analysis of the excavated materials was prepared [1995d]with two subsequent revisions [1997 1998] Coastal Commission submittals are starred[*] Burial Data Reports 1995 Third Draft Report on Human Skeletal Remains from CA-ORA-83 The Cogged Site Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County California Principal Author David Kice Analytical Reports 1995a* Synopsis Reports CA-Ora 85 The Eberhart Site CA-Ora-83 The Cogged Stone Site History of the Development of Conclusions Author N A Whitney Desautels 1995b Bolsa Chica Lowlands Natural Shell Deposits Investigation Author N A Whitney-Desautels 1995c Site Boundanes CA-ORA 83 The Cogged Stone Site Author N A Whitney-Desautels 1995d- Compendium of Themes and Models Vol 1 Research Design for 1998 Analysis Principal Author N A Whitney-Desautels Revised 1997 1998 Draft Manuscript submitted to The Koli Company 4 EX (o 1999 SURVEY BACKGROUND RESEARCH TEST PROGRAM GRADING MONITORING CA ORA 86 [SANDOVER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH] Reported Plan In 1999, a survey background research and test program was conducted on CA ORA-86 This is the only site on Bolsa Chica Mesa that is situated within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach After the completion and acceptance of three reports [1999a 1999b and 1999c]construction grading monitoring occurred Burials Located One burial consisting of small skull fragments was found under an upside down metate while monitoring construction grading for the Sandover Project City of Huntington Beach Dates August 3 1999 Coroner's August 3 1999 call and site visit by J Suchey forensic anthropologist Reporting for the coroners office Case#99-05178 ME assigned NAHC August 4 1999 by coroners office Also by J Perry Juaneno monitor Notifications MLDIs/ David Belardes Juaneno MLD Joyce Perry Juaneno monitor Native Monitors Rebunal 1999 in designated reburial area Reporting A total of four reports were prepared for this site in 1999 which include a survey and background summary [1999a] a research design for test excavations [1999b] findings of test excavations [1999c]and a grading monitoring report[1999d] Analytical Reports 1999a Archaeological Site ORA-86 Herring s Site E and the Sandover Project Author N A Whitney Desautels 1999b Research Design for Test Excavations ORA-86 Herang's Site E Author N A Whitney Desautels 1999c Summary of Findings Test Excavations on ORA 86 Herang s Site E Author N A Whitney-Desautels 1999d Grading Monitoring for the Sandover Project Herring s Slte E Author N A Whitney Desautels 5 �, 4p s 1998-2003 FIELD WORK DATA RECOVERY PROGRAM [CDP PERMIT 5 89 772, PEER REVIEW MOA] Reported Plan Final Data Recovery was completed on CA-ORA-83 in 2003 under the final research design for recovered material evaluation [2003a] and described in two analytical documents [2003b, 2003c] This excavation phase was conducted pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement [MOA] by the CCC peer reviewers for this project in response to concerns by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society The excavations included backhoe trenches in the `plowed field surrounding the eucalyptus trees a rock picking program to collect as many cogged stones from the plowed sods as possible and hand- excavation of any features exposed by the trenching Archaeo grading to find and recover unknown features comprised the final portion of the work Burials Located 40 bone concentrations located initial backhoe trenching discovered several bone concentrations hand excavations followed for these and other features [i a 25 circular structural remains] located by this method Archaeological grading was conducted as a final part of this phase in order to locate and remove any additional bone concentrations or other features Dates 1999 The first bone concentration was found by backhoe on November 3 1999 2000 7 bone concentrations found by Backhoe Excavations 2001 16 bone concentrations found by Archaeological Grading 2002 17 bone concentrations found by Archaeological Grading Coroners 1999 4 Nov 99 Case#99 07108 LL[human bone in backdirt pile] Reporting 22 Nov 99 Case#99 05178 ME [remainder of first burial] 2000 4 Apr-00 Case#00 02277 RO 27-Apr-00 Case#00-02791 LY May-00 [twice in May under same case] 17-May 00 Case#00 02791-LY 13-Jun 00 Case#00-03972-GA P Langenwalter approved to monitor human bone for coroner 2001 2 Sept 01 2002 Jan 02 18 bone concentrations reported for remainder of 2001 and January 2002 12-Jun 02 02-03972 GA reported Archaeo Grading started again NAHC 1999 5 Nov-99 Notifications 2000 13-Apr 00 28-Apr 00 18 May 00 14-Jun-00 2001 Sept 01 by J Perry Juaneno and continually as found 2002 14-Jun 02 MLD sl Project started with original 6 MLD s designated by NAHC in 1994 Native D Belardes L Robles C Alvitre M Aicala V Rocha J Velasquez Monitors M Alcala was removed as an MLD by NAHC and both L Robles and V Rocha died during this project Monitors included J Perry T Perry [Juaneno] R Dorame M Dorame[Gabrielino] Rebunal 2003 Reburial at designated reburial area 6 �'� P, Associated grave goods as in 1994 defined as those materials found to be directly associated with each bone concentration including those materials and artifacts within a known or projected burial pit. Reporting This phase was completed in 2003 under the final research design for recovered material evaluation [2003a] and described in two analytical documents [2003b 2003c] Coastal Commission submittals are starred['] Burial Data Report 2004 CA-0ra-83 Burial Report Form Principal Author Paul Langenwalter Analytical Resorts 2002a* Status Report on ORA-83 Archaeological Investigations Principal Author Nancy Anastasia Desautels 2003a* The Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Vol 9 Research Design and Implementation Principal Author Nancy Anastasia Desautels 2003b* Archaeological Site CA ORA-65 the Eberhart Site(Synopsis A History of Archaeological Investigations) Principal Author Nancy Anastasia Desautels 2003c* Archaeological Site CA-ORA-83 the Cogged Stone Site[Synopsis A History of Archaeological Investigations] Principal Author Nancy Anastasia Desautels 2003d The Bolsa Bay Archaeological Project Abstract Special Site Functions and the Extraordinary Authors Nancy Anastasia Desautels Henry C Koerper Jeffrey S Couch Joanne S Couch and Robert M Beer Draft manuscript submitted to Hearthside Homes Publications 1999d A Cowry Shell Artifact from Bolsa Chica An Example of Prehistoric Exchange Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(2 and 3) 81-95 Authors Henry C Koerper and Nancy Whitney Desautels 1999e Astragalus Bones Artifacts or Ecofacts' Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(2 and 3)69 80 Authors Henry C Koerper and Nancy A Whitney-Desautels 2002b Quartz Crystals and Other Sparkling Minerals from the Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 38[4], 61-83[Winter 2002] Authors Henry C Koerper Nancy Anastasia Desautels and Jeffrey S Couch Printed 2006 2003d Prehistoric Dolomite and Obsidian Disc Beads New California Artifact Types from Orange County Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 39 (1)53 64 [Winter 2003] Authors Henry C Koerper Joanne H Couch Jefferey S Couch and Nancy Anastasia Desautels Printed 2007 7 4ex. �v P. 2006 CULTURAL RESOURCES GRADING MONITORING FEATURE RECOVERY [CDP PERMIT 5 05-0201 Reported Plan A Cultural Resources Grading Monitoring Plan was prepared in 2005 and submitted to the Coastal Commission as required by Special Condition 23 of CDP 5-05 020 This program consisted of large area archaeological grading encompassing the full parameters of archaeological site areas CA ORA-85 and CA ORA-83 that would be impacted by construction grading Archaeological grading on both sites produced numerous rock features shell features artifact concentrations and human burials or reburials as anticipated under the Grading Monitoring Plan As discovered each feature or burial was hand excavated fully documented and recovered SRS Inc then conducted monitoring of construction grading in these areas Archaeological Grading Monitoring 83 April 2006-May 2006 Archaeological Grading Monitoring 85 May2006-July 2006 Construction Grading Monitoring 85 began July 2006 Archaeological Grading Monitoring 83 July 2006-November 2006 Construction Grading Monitoring 83 began October 2006 Burials Located CA-ORA-85 17 bone concentrations 12 human 5 animal CA-ORA-83 89 bone concentrations 74 human 15 animal Dates All bone concentrations from both sites were found in 2006 CA-ORA-85 11 human bone concentrations and all animal bone concentrations found during Archaeological Grading 1 human bone concentrations found during Construction Grading CA-ORA-83 All human bone concentrations found by Archaeological Grading 2 animal bone concentrations found during Construction Grading Coroners CA-ORA-85 30 May-06 first bone concentration found call to OC Reporting Coroners office Case# 06 03433 WI assigned to this site 22 Jun-06 site visit by T Williams forensic anthropologist OC Coroners office 8 [#1 8] bone concentrations exposed for her review P Langenwalter assigned to monitor remains Coroner will view all at end of the project 28-Jul-06 last bone concentration [#17]found 28 Jan 07 Cullen Eliingburgh Supervising Deputy OC Coroners office sees no forensic issues and clears burials for reburial [e mail] CA-ORA 83 25-Jul 06 first bone concentration found call to OC Coroners office Case# 08 02374 WI assigned to this site at project end 19-Aug-06 site visit by T Williams forensic anthropologist OC Coroners office A partial burial was available for her review P Langenwalter assigned to monitor remains Coroner will view all at end of the project 26 Apr-08 Final review of bone concentrations [both human and animal] Report states no modern forensic evidence found 8 ��C. � P NAHC CA-ORA-85 30-May 06 J Perry Native American monitor calls when Notifications first burial is found and continually as concentrations are found 22 Jun 06 by OC Coroners office T Williams forensic anthropologist CA-ORA-83 J Perry Native American monitor calls when first burial is found and continually as concentrations are found 4-Oct-06 Letter from NAHC appointing Anthony Morales as Gabrielmo MLD as proxy for C Alvitre 17-Dec-07 26-Apr-08 by Coroners office with forensic report MLD s/ Both sites MLD s D Belardes[Juaneno]and C Alvitre[Gabrielino] Native J Velasquez died before project began Monitors Monitors J Perry T Perry A Silva M Mendez T Rostivo R Sellars [Juaneno], R Dorame G Dorame Go Dorame M Dorame K Dorame Jordan[Gabrielino] 4-Oct-06 Letter from NAHC appointing Anthony Morales as Gabrielmo MLD as proxy for C Alvitre Rebunal CA ORA-85 2007 17 bone concentrations 12 human 5 animal Associated grave goods defined as those materials found to be directly associated with each bone concentration including those materials and artifacts within a known or projected burial pit CA-OR4-83 [to come] 89 bone concentrations 74 human 15 animal Associated grave goods defined as all features and artifacts that can reasonably be shown to have been buried with the deceased including 1 artifacts uncovered at the same soil level of the human remains located either within the burial pit or a projection of the pit when a pit is absent 2 artifacts located in the level above the human remains but still within the actual or projected grave pit 3 artifacts located in the level below the human remains which may have been buried contemporaneously but was uncovered at a deeper level because of rodent action or other disturbances 4 features [a cluster of 3 or more items] located within a few meters of the burial [such as hearths artifact caches or killed artifacts]that are buried to the side of the human remains in a separate pit but which appear to be contemporaneous with the human remains and 5 artifacts and features that appear to be associated with the human remains such as those located in a house pit that also contain the human remains 6 In addition all artifacts that are thought to be sacred or ceremonial including cogged stones discoidals charmstones crystals bowls beads blades eccentrics gaming pieces pendants rattles sweat scrapers whistles other talisman and all collected ochre[15 categories] 9 4ex (of-9 Reporting Final Laboratory Work and the preparation of Data Recovery Reports are in process A total of four artifact specific articles [1999d 1999e, 2002 2003d3 have been published from this project, as reported earlier and several more are in process In addition two academic presentations were made to state-wide colleagues in both 2007 and 2008 Coastal Commission submittals are starred(*] Analytical Reports 2005* Cultural Resources Grading Monitoring Plan Special Condition#23 Permit Application No 5-05-020 Author Nancy Anastasia Desautels Original Submitted to Signal Landmark Sept 2003 2006-2010 Multiple Feature Documentation and Excavation Final Laboratory Analysis and Data Recovery Reports In Process Completion expected 2010 Academic Presentations 2007 The Keystone Cache Saved by the Well , Proceedings of the Society of California Archaeology,2007 Annual Meeting San Jose California Authors Jeffrey S and Joanne S Couch and Nancy Anastasia Wiley 2008 State of the Art ifact 360° Curational Photo Modeling of the Keystone Cogged Stone Cache Proceedings of the Society of California Archaeology 2008 Annual Meeting Burbank California Authors Jeffrey S Couch Charles Stratton and Nancy Anastasia Wiley 10 CA- ORA- 83 : RECEIVED CDP 5-8 -772 oath Coc.,t IZeyion Or-1 - 9 Zoos CDP 5-89-772 C Peer Review M®A >��i roar li a Co Z)TAL C-01'/I /iNSSIoN CDP 5--05-020 Excavation Units and Trenches Composite All season Survey Grid I ARI/1974 1975 Survey Grid/Prehistoric Area Previously Defined(1975 Butzbach Carter&Howard) Ej Survey Grid/SRS/1984/Grid Extention Survey Grid I SRS/1999/Grid Extention Survey Grid/SRS/2006/Grid Extention o Excavation/Auger/ARI 11975 0 Excavation/Auger/ARI/1975 Soils O Excavation/Auger/SRS 11984 Excavation/Backhoe Trench/ARI/1971 ® Excavation/Backhoe Trench/SRS/1984 ® Excavation/Backhoe Trench I SRS/1999 Excavation/Backhoe Trenches/SRS/Wet Screen Trench Areas ®Excavation/Unit/Eberhart/1968 Excavation/Unit/ARI/1971 Excavation/Unit/SRS/1984 IM Excavation/Unit/SRS/1990 Excavation I Unit/SRS/1999 Excavation/Unit/SRS 12006 Excavation/Archaeological Grading/SRS . Feature/Historic/Cement Pipes Feature/Historic/Communication Cable Feature/Historic/Metal Pipes -OR 83 CDP 5 89 72 eer Review M A CDP5 d5 20 Uis and Ten es "YExcava All 8 eason tHILCOAN'A r I } j l ® - 11 I J ` 4 ��° Sf Poi! L'� HIV SourF, CoG,t,��yron Oc' - 9 2008 C C,Cr1 ':OR 1SSIGN 5 0 CDP 5-63--702 CDP 5--05-020 Burials and Prehistoric Features 1990 and 2006 Excavation season [Hand Excavation and Archaeological Grading] [:]Survey Grid/ERC/1988/Shell Surface Collection ®Survey Grid/ERC/1988/Shell Surface Collection Limit ®Site Boundary/ERG 11988/Dispersed Shell Area —Site Boundary!SRS/1990/Sub Surface Site Boundary O Excavation/Units/ERG 11988/STPs Excavation/Backhoe Trench I HHH 11986 i Excavation/Backhoe Trench/ERG 11988 ® Excavation/Backhoe Trench/SRS/1990 Excavabon/Units/Eberhart/1964 Excavation/Unit/SRS/1986 Excavation/Units/ERG/1988 Excavation/Units/SRS 11990 Excavation/Units/SRS/2006 ®Excavation/Archaeological Grading/SRS/2006 Feature!Historic/Agricultural Pipe SoUfR CO4 r „ron OCT -g�J08 coa„r(-Ar`r)-nI,A CA-ORA-85 T CDP 5-83 702 w i CDP 5-05-020 E ua Bunals and Prehistonc Features ¢4 d 1990 and 2006 Excavation Season m [Hand Excavation and Archaeological Grading) It I L.0 S F AT E _ A AF r ( l r J E EIVE South Coast Region SEP5 - 2008 DEFINITION OF SITE BOUNDARIES CA-ORA 83 THE COGGED STONE SITE CALICORNIA COASTAL.COMMISSION Site Definition Before 2005 Over the past 40 years scientific investigations have been completed on the Cogged Stone Srte CA-ORA-83 by California State University at Los Angeles and the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society[CSULA and PCAS 1960 s] Archaeological Research Inc [ARI 1970 s] and SRS [1980s 2006] The boundaries of the archaeological site changed over time as a result of information gathered by each successive investigation The collection and excavation areas of each investigator are color coded on the attached map The original site boundary was determined by surface evidence only[grid area] Limited test programs began to refine the subsurface aspect of the site and particularly that portion which might be still intact and not subject to years of disturbance by plowing deep ripping agricultural activities and the construction of World War II facilities on-site By the time SRS, Inc became involved in the site in the early 1980 s the site boundary had already been established by CSULA PCAS and ARI This boundary is shown on the attached map by teal-colored blocks Site testing by SRS in the 1980 s revealed that a portion of the mesa south of the defined site area in fact contained a much richer deeper and relatively intact midden than had been identified in the previously defined teal site area resulting in a redefinition of the site boundaries[see excavations unit grid] A multi phased data recovery program by SRS began in 1990 The excavations occurred within areas containing site materials as determined by the 1980 s test programs on CA-ORA 83 (primarily in the new southern extension) verifying that in fact the southern area outside the teal site boundaries was the best area for site sampling and characterization From 1998-2003 excavations were carried out pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA] by the CCC peer reviewers for this project in response to concerns by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society that additional work in the originally defined teal site area was needed The excavations included backhoe trenching a rock picking program to collect as many cogged stones from the plowed sods as possible and hand-excavation of any features exposed by the trenching To be thorough the archaeological work extended beyond the original teal site area These Investigations again redefined the site boundaries by locating significant features north of the previously defined teal site area Several areas within the defined site boundaries were inaccessible due to numerous historic features including roads pipelines oil derrick remains and World War II communication cables running between three bunkers The SRS Data Recovery Program was then expanded in order to expose and collect an approximately 97% sample of the accessible areas within the refined site boundaries Site Definition After 2005 Excavations At the request of the CCC peer review group a unique final data recovery measure was instituted which ensured that a 100% sample of the site was taken Pursuant to Special Condition 23 CDP Permit 5 05-020 an archaeological grading program commenced in 2006 prior to construction grading The entire eastern portion of the mesa was slowly graded under archaeological supervision despite the fact that only a portion of this area was known to contain subsurface site materials A total of 151 features were uncovered by archaeological grading and hand excavation These included 75 human bone concentrations and 76 animal bone or rock features The majority of these features were located northeast of the previously defined teal site area in an area inaccessible during previous investigations under two roads that had been actively In use P The site boundaries had now been redefined three times by SRS during the 1980 s 1990 s and first decade of 2000 The redefinitions included dense madden to the south of the previously defined teal site area and feature locations in non-madden sterile areas to the north both located before 2005 with additional features in sterile areas northeast of the defined site uncovered In 2006 A complete listing of recovered features from all investigations and their locations vis-a-vis established site boundary definitions are itemized below A total of 70% of the human remains and 55% of the animal bone and rock features were located outside the defined teal site boundaries Conversely 92% of the circular depressions [or structural remains] were found in the defined teal site area It appears then that the teal site area as defined by previous investigators was essentially reflecting activities associated with dance floors and structures while the areas outside the original teal site boundaries that were discovered by SRS included the human bone complexes and their associated rock features With the exception of the southern complex the remainder of the human bone concentrations and features were located in non-madden sterile soils Nothing existed either on the surface or in the subsurface soils to indicate that the site may extend into these areas Consequently these portions of the site were not examined by previous investigators and only fully recorded after the 2006 archaeological grading effort Total Burials [147] 32 south of original madden definition teal-colored blocks 15 north of grid area and original teal site area 45 northeast of grid area and original teal site area 8 within grid but outside defined teal site area 100[70%]outside original teal site boundaries Total Features [127] 25 south of original madden definition teal colored blocks 5 north of grid area and original teal site area 25 northeast of grid area and original teal site area 15 within grid but outside defined teal site area 70[55%]outside original teal site boundaries Total Circular Depressions [26] 2(8%]outside original teal site boundaries &X7 9�mz RECEIVED South Coast Region DEFINITION OF SITE BOUNDARIES SEP 5 2008 CA-ORA-85, THE EBERHART SITE CAL►cORNIA Site Definition Before 2005 COASTAL COMMiSSION Over the past 40 years scientific investigations have been completed on the Eberhart Site CA-ORA-85 by California State University at Los Angeles and the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society [CSULA and PCAS 1960 s] Archaeological Research Inc [ARI 1970 s] Environmental and Engineering Services Co , ERC [1980 s] and SRS [1980s- 2006] The boundaries of the archaeological site changed over time as a result of new information gathered by each successive investigation The collection and excavation areas of each investigator are color coded on the attached map The original site boundary was determined by surface evidence only [magenta polyline] Limited test programs began to refine the subsurface aspect of the site particularly that portion which might be still intact and not subject to years of disturbance by plowing, deep ripping and the construction of World War II facilities on-site By the time SRS Inc became involved in the site in the late 1980 s, the site boundary had already been established by CSULA PCAS ARI and ERC [red polyline] A multi phased data recovery program by SRS was conducted in 1990 Backhoe investigations verified that a large shell scatter could be seen which closely approximated the previously established site boundaries [magenta line] A series of hand excavated units were then used to further refine and delineate the subsurface aspect of the site so that the core area could be determined an area that contained subsurface evidence of an intact sequence of sods deposits This area is delineated on the attached map by the red polyline Two metal pipelines associated with 1900s agricultural irrigation on this site rendered portions of the core area inaccessible The SRS Data Recovery Program was then expanded in order to expose and collect a nearly 100% sample of the accessible areas within the refined site boundaries Site Definition After 2005 Excavations At the request of the CCC peer review group a unique final data recovery measure was instituted which ensured that a 100% sample of the site was taken Pursuant to Special Condition 23 CDP Permit 5-05 020 an archaeological grading program commenced in 2006 prior to construction grading The entire western portion of the mesa was slowly graded under archaeological supervision despite the fact that only a small portion of the mesa was believed to contain subsurface site materials This extensive grading effort resulted in uncovering significant features outside the site boundaries A total of 32 features were uncovered by archaeological grading and hand excavation These included 12 human bone concentrations and 20 animal bone or rock features The feature locations vis a-vis established site boundary definitions are itemized below Only 1 bone concentration situated under the northernmost pipeline was located within the core site area as established by SRS [red polyline] no human remains were found within the larger site boundaries [magenta polyline] No rock features were located within the core site area as shown by red polyline only 3 rock features were located within the magenta polyline The remainder [17 features] were not found within the delineated site boundaries but were in isolated locations on the mesa in completely sterile soils Total Human Bone Concentrations 114 Total Other Features [20] 1 in core area [red polyline] 0 outside core area[red polyline] 0 in shell scatter[magenta polylinel 3 in shell scatter[magenta polyline] 11[92%]outside site boundaries 17[85%]outside site boundaries axe ®o STATE OF CALIFORMA Arnold Srhwarzenegger.Go r NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall Room 364 Sacrarnento CA 95814 (916)653-4082 (916)657 5390 Fax Web Site tivww nahc ea eon , Apn18,2008 RECEIS' Theresa Henry Soutb Coast Region California Coastal Commission APR 1 9 10 South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suites 1000 Long Beach CA 90802-4302 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Sent Via Fax (562)590 5084 #Pages include cover 3 pages Re Bnghtwater-Bolsa Cluca Project Dear Ms Henry The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)is iiformed by the NAHC appointed Most Likely Descendent,Anthony Morales,that Hearthside Homes has proposed reburial of 87 human remains from ORA-83 on April 21 2008 The NAHC is also informed that documentation on the associated grave goods has been substantially done but is not complete These associated grave goods include cogged stones,charm stones beads and discoidals and other items The NAHC supports the Most Likely Descendants request that documentation on all associated grave goods be completed before reburial and that all grave goods be reburied with remains In this regard the NAHC notes that the Cultural Resources Grading Monitoring Plan at page 6 dated 12-12-05 adopted pursuant to Special Condition No 23 of the Coastal Permit indicates that human remains and any "artifacts associated with human remains"will be reburied after documentation is complete It is also noted that the above 12 12 05 Monitoring Plan at page 7 also specifies that the location of the artifacts (associated with human remains)in the ground in relationship to the human remains will be documented so that when the human remains are reburied the artifacts can be placed in the same relationship to the remains as they were when discovered The Monitoring Plan also specifies that the artifacts(associated grave goods)will be kept with the human remains and examined and documented,and will be reburied together with the human remains 'r e N AHC rotes 'iat based on,nformaLtun receiver rrom the project archaeologist 22 cogged stones were discovered in a large burial pit These are clearly associated with the human remains The NAHC also notes that there are approximately 4217 artifacts that were found on ORA-83 including numerous cogged stones(over 400 on the project)and the NAHC is informed that only artifacts associated with remains are being processed at this time Based on information received from the project archaeologist the NAHC believes that there are numerous other artifacts that must be analyzed and documented and that many of these maybe determined to be artifacts associated with human remains and should be reburied with remains NAHC is aware of information that indicates there were numerous bone clusters where cogged stones were present which suggests these features are burial areas As you are aware Public Resources Code 5097 98 requires that the recommendation of the Most Likely Descendant with regard to treatment of remains and associated items be given great deference by the land owner and that if an agreement as to disposition cannot be reached the law mandates hat the remains and associated items be reburied on the property in a dignified manner not subject to subsurface disturbance The NARC strongly supports the recommendations of the Most Likely Descendants in determining which artifacts are artifacts associated with human remains and that otherwise pertain to the burial The Most Likely Descendent has specialized knowledge of the local tribal community burial practices and beliefs The NAHC is informed that both Most Likely Descendants support waiting 6 months for the first rebunal until major features that are clearly associated with individual burials can be studied and documentation on these completed The NAHC supports this disposition The NAHC remains concerned about the Brightwater Bolsa Chica Project Although the NAHC has been in contact with the project archaeologist and has received a January 2007 and a November 5 2008 status report,as of this date the NAHC has not received a promised map from the project archaeologist showing burials house pits photos and features The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates, locations and details of burial discovenes At this point based on information available and the large number of burials recovered and associated items it appears that the whole area may be a burial ground Southern California Indians created and used discrete areas as cemeteries The NARC understands that the Coastal Commission will be reviewing its permit for the Brightwater Project.The NAHC suggests that the Coastal Commission consider requiring some sort of guarantee or performance bond in order to assure that all required reports are provided on a timely basis and that documentation is completed and rebunals of remains and artifacts occur as agreed Sincerely �LMye��� Executive Secretary Cc Bill Mungary,Chairman NAHC Anthony Madrigal,General Counsel NAHC Dave Singleton NAHC Susan Hon Counsel Brightwater homes Nancy Anastasia Wiley,Project Archaeologist David Belardes Anthony Morales x �l, dip Z- 08/02/2014 07 37 FAX Z 001 SSA'[ O�CAt 1F� N1A ..... Qmnld 9r � e n NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 91 S CAPITOL MALL Room sm SACRAMENTO,CA 9014 (919)068-WS1 Pax(910)es?8890 Web Otte yowUj aha Laa e-mail de_naho0paobell not Apni 4, 2008 " The Hon Anthony Morales, Chairman GabrielanolTongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians P O Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Sent by FAX to 858-694-3373 Number of pages 3 Re My drAff!St@ff Reggil go Eaftsionalss the 1jearthaW2 HgMes PMget at§411;g ghigg W2saJSn!2MM-,a,l G tg_htwater Homea.a 49 Sirtal® Norm evelooment Eoay lna on t4 !Q „&3 Isaue&201Z Site is Acl air nt to ft City of Hutli,igtgg Bgck Oranae County, California Dear Chairman t am writing you as the most Likely Descendant(MLD), one of two assigned to the above reference project, in response to your questions about Special Condition 023 of the California Coastal Commission Permit Application No 5-05-020 The NAHC is preparing another and an official response to concerns raised by Teresa Henry, Coastal Commission District Manager however, it may not be submitted in a timely manner That Is why I am addressing answers to concerns raised by you My comments and response are as follows 1 lssue of Rehuapt-of tbg_Remains and Ill A,§sociated Grave Paood to Occur after Documentpftn 11 Q2 olgte This issue is stated as a requirement on page 6 of the CCC Special Condition#23 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)supports this requirement We understand from the landowner's contact archaeologist, Nancy Anastasia Wiley, Ph 0, President of Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc (SRS)that much of the documentation has been done but Is NOT COMPLETE We support its completion In this manner a)pnonty documentation be given to those items that are generally accepted associated grave goods,'therefore,the cogged stones ch:arrnstonss discoidrals and beads be documented prior to rebunai b)that sufficient time be allowed for proper preparation of the bunals(e g wrapped in white sheets or If children, sheets of other colors) as the archaeologist(e g SRS)outlined in the January 19, 2007 memorandum to Hearfhside Homes Senior Vice President(please see Exhibit A) The rebunai with associated grave goods is customary for both the Gabrieleno Tongvra and Juanetlo people(note,from the Handbook of North Amer}qaIt indlgns, voi, S.California Robert F Heizer,volume editor - Smithsonian Institution Washington, D C, 1978) "Here the dead were buned with artifacts used during life"(page$45) Also,apparently, both MLDs and the archaeologist are in agreement that the balance of more than 100,000 artifacts, excavated at the ORA-83 and the project site,can be sorted and documented . after the reburials take place on a power sort way that is only a percentage of �, 08/02/2014 07 40 PAX ZrJO2 the material In the 2 000 boxes and bags of remains would be sorted and documented 2 1g1ue Qf Whal aM 6s,12ctategPrave Goods It is customary for the NAHC to accept the determination and definition of'assoclated grave goods'as presented by California Native Amencan tribes With regard to the more than 400 cogged stones found at ORA-83 archaeologists are not certain what they ` represent Yet they are a spectacular discovery and in the opinion shared with the NAHC on April 2 2008 of Dr Wiley, "there is no other such deposit of cogged stones anywhere in the world" What is acknowledged is that 22 were found In one house pit meaning both the burial therein was a person of perhaps spiritual or political significance and the use of cogged stones at the site must have meant something very special The NAHC does have access to photos of that house pit site as well as other house pit sites that contained cogged stones and locations where concentrated bone fragments were discovered at scattered sites that also included cogged stones Now,the NAHC feels there is general agreement from the project archaeologist and between both Most Likely Descendants(MLDs)that the priority'associated grave goods'includes Cogged stories, charmstones, discoidels and beads There is little disagreement in our view about these There may be some disagreement that some of cogged stones and other Items, discovered at a location other than a burial, are not 'associated grave goods this would be a matter for mediation, a role requested by one of the MLDs and accepted by the NAHC and the other MLD Also,the California Vd Appellate Court Decision in the case of People vem—u§Van Hom (218 Cal App 3` 1378,267 CatRptr 804[Mar 19901 may strengthen the right of culturally-affiliated Native American tribes as to who has the authority over both remains and associated grave goods 3 JpM Is the ORA 83 a sacred cemetery? As a junior staff person at the NAHC, I believe It is This is based on the lack of information provided to the NAHC the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner, and apparently the MLDs about when remains were discovered When the NAHC requested that information the project archaeologist responded by saying that she" cannot prepare a chronology "(Please see Fich►bit°D°) Furthermore in the project archaeologist's memorandum to the company, dated January 17,2007 it refers to a February 3, 2007 ceremony and assumed reburial(please see Exhibit"A") this action would be after the law extending the definition of a cemetery and a place with°multiple bunals"to private land Formerly the definition of a cemetery as comprising six or more burials was limited to public cemeteries now,AB 2641 extends the definition among other provisions It amends Public Resources Code §5097 98 that says(a) Descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment(to the landowner)within 48 hours, and(b)preferences for treatment shall include all reasonable options including associated items(e g grave goods)" Therefore, considering the 87 bunals from ORA 83,whose chronology is unknown or certainly unclear, and given the number of bunals at this project site how can one say that it Is not a sacred cemetery? The Native American Heritage Commission determined a University of California San Diego site,with 30 discovered bunals and perhaps fewer artifacts and grave goods a sanctified cemetery" at their meeting of March 12 2008 in San Diego County 4 Temtor-at lssues it is generally accepted that the cogged stones are found in the coastal areas extending from Ventura County in California to parts of Baja California Norte, of the Republic of Mexico Then, they are found in coastal areas of Central Chile in South America Also, it is clear from the literature on 08/02/2014 07 44 FAX Z 003 the cogged stones that they were very special items to the Juanen8 as wall as the Gabrieleno Tongva people The Hs►dt o4 k of North AmePcan ipdtans. vol % referenced above, Includes the Bolsa Chica project site within the Gabrieleno Tongva territory Lowell Bean, one of California's most respected scholars, edited the article on the Gabnleleno Tongva The 1925 map of the Juane6o territory, prepared by Alfred Louis Kroeber eminent ethnologist, shows the Juaneflo territory below Aliso Creek in present day Orange County I attach copies of those maps as Exhibit"C" However,the NAHG accepts that the Soles Chico project area is a'shared area'between the two tribal groups,both groups participate In an Annual Pilgrimage that starts at the ancient village of Panhe in northern San Diego County, includes Soiss Chico and ends at Puvungna on the campus of California State University, Long Beach in Los Angeles County Therefore, the NAHC feels that both have standing for their recommendations regarding the ORA-83, Solsa Chica site, its discovery and treatment of the Native American human remains and the associated grave goods If you have any questions, please contact me at(916)653-6251 S ncerely, Da N. ve Singleton Program Analyst 6/0 '/2014 07 46 FAX 7 IM 004 January 19, 2007 TO Ed Mountford Brian Bartlett-Hearthside.]'Tomes [cc Joyce Perry,David Belardes,Robert Dorame, Anthony Morales] FROM Ted and Nancy Wiley-SRS Inc [cc Jeff and Joanne Couch,Tracey Stopes, Paul E Langenwalter] RE Reburial- Ora-85 Internments and Associated Materials This memo provides a quick update regarding the status of our work towards the final reburial of human remains and associated grave goods on February 3, 2007 All work is on schedule and will be finished by tins Friday, January 26,2007 Joanne is in the process of completing a comprehensive tracking sheet for the rebunal of all associated materials including artifacts and sacred earth Jeff has nearly completed the reburial map to include size of the reburial pit and a proportional layout of the Ora-85 individuals A grid will then be laid outwithin the pit so that there can bean exact placement of each individual on the rebunal date By Fnday, Paul Langenwalter will 4 produce his custom burial chart listing all known characteristics of each burial and P �' g most importantly, sex and age when possible Accordingly, we anticipate and request your cooperation for the following �Y 1 On Monde January 29a' the final it be excavated b Hearthside at the far western �i ] Y� m'Y p Y end of the newly designated rebunal area according to the specifications of the reburial j map.and under the direction of Jeff Couch 21 The access ramp be placed at the south end of the pit in order to leave U much area in the designated reburial area as undisturbed as possible 3] On Tuesday and Wednesday January 30a' and 31", Jeff will grid the pit and Eric and his Pacific Paving crew will haul all associated earth from behind the trailers down to the pit and place the appropriate dirt in the corresponding square in the grid 4] Then on Thursday February 1" matrix from the sorting process will also be taken to the pit and placed in the appropriate grid squares In this way, all materials besides the human bone and associated artifacts will already be placed in the ground at least two days prior to the Saturday reburial 5] On Friday, February 2nd Ted and I will wrap each burial with its grave goods in whit cloth as requested by the Juaneno Band Each individual will then be wrapped again in colored burlap coded to male [blue] female [red], and unknown [beige] Children will additionally have a color separation or other designator This coding will aid the participants in the various ceremonies in addressing the reburied individuals in a more personal manner 6] On Saturday, February P, Ted and I will place the Ora 85 people in the ground within _ their reserved space for the morning ceremony 7] We have requested that the Juaneno have their ceremony first so that after their ceremony, mats and animal skins may be added to the individual wrappings as requested by the Gabrielino There is a precedent by Signal Landmark for purchasing leather [or ��e ems) P,� 08/02/2014 01 48 FAX Z 005 skins] for reburial The first rebunal in the early 1990s did have these materials This was a preference of Raymond Belardes, the first Most Likely Descendant on this project The Gabnelino should be reimbursed for this purchase since you are paying fro the white cloth requested by the Juaneno 8]We have also had one of our people paid to pick up elders of a tribal group to attend the rebun al if they cannot drive or do not have transportation We suggest that you offer to provide compensation for one person from each tribal group to do the same 9]Please have extra security on Saturday from sunrise to sunset 10]Please remember that Hearthside has always been responsible for filling in the pit at day's end with both the removed earth and placing in the pit a chain link fencing barrier As an aside,I further understand from my staff that there has been some discussion about reburying all of the artifacts from the site at the same time as the reburial SRS has an obligation to document any artifacts to be reburied as mandated by County and Coastal Commission Guidelines and State law All artifacts associated with the burials will he documented beforehand and then reburied on Saturday with the appropriate individual The remaining site artifacts cannot be reburied at that time because they have not been processed or documented yet, since all efforts have been focused on bunal-related materials only In addition, Cal State Los Angeles has an extensive collection of materials removed from this site by Prof Hal Eberhart prior to ARI, Westec or SRS's work, and ARI's artifacts were given to PCAS when Mane Cotti ell dissolved that non- profit corporation in the early 1980's The Native Americans would have to request that these artifacts be returned from Cal Sate LA and PCAS under the Repatriation Act before a reburial of artifacts could occur There is, however, an adequate area designated by Hearthside for Ora-85 and Ora-81 reburials for future repatriation of additional materials The Ora-85 non-burial artifacts, therefore, will not be reburied on February 3`d but legally this matter has no bearing on the repatriation of human remains and associated grave goods from that site This is a brief outline of the anticipated activities for next week Ted and I will amve in Orange County on Monday, January 29`h at 10 00 pm and will be on-site starting late morning on Tuesday If any party has Questions or requests changes to this schedule please call me at 907-723-1896,e-mail me at it t or talk with me in person on Tuesday We look forward to a respectful and successful reburial on February Yd U8✓02/2014 07 51 r,.A from Dave SIngletonadsWnahc@pacbell neb Subject Telephone Oanvermlons with Nancy Anastasia Wiley,Ph D,Pros of SRS Inc Data April 3 200e 4 35 07 PM PDT To Larry Myers dm_naho@pacbell net> Cc Anthony Madrigal<im_naho®pacbeli neb April 3,2008 HI Larry&Anthony This Is an oudlne of my recent conversations with Nancy Anastasia Wiley,the Project Archaeologist for Hearthslde Homes,developer of 8dghttwater Homes,a residential project of proposed 349 homes built on the Bolsa Chica Mesa,adjacent to the northern city limits for Huntington Beach,Orange County The property is owned by Signal Landmark of Wne,Orange County The main points of my conversations with Dr Wiley are "'i.L Cogged Stones as'assoclated grave goods,'Dr Whey confirmed that the 22 cogged stones found at the horse-pit of an apparent Shaman or tribal leader are dearly assoicated grave goods, 2 Dr Wiley also Indicated that other personal Items such as charmstones,beads,dlseoidals and cogged stones,if found with burials are deafly 'assodated grave goods; 9 The documentation on the identified four types of grave goods has been substanUaliy done but is NOT COMPLETE,Dr Whey seemed to welcome the NAHC support for the Immediate and the longer-range(the 100,000 artdfac s,et al)documentation to be done, 4 Or Wiley also seemed to welcome the NAHC as a'medlator'In the project at MLD Morales'request 5 Dr Wiley wants to retain good relations with the NAHC and has offered to make a presentation in the NAHC offices on OftA 83 with films of the cogged stones and other items, While the NAHC and her archaeologist peers may disagree with the manner In which Dr Wiley and SRS has managed this project,the NAHC and others would not have the hard fads of the 174 burials discovered,67 still to be re-buried,the number of oogged stones(more then 400),the 100,000 artifacts and thousands of archaeological features of significance,had not Dr Wiley provided that information to b)e NAHC She also cooperated with photgrapning of the 2,000 boxes of un sorted material In three trailers In Temecula Dave �X. /Z 6 08/02/2014 07 55 FAX Z Important Southern California Indlan villages relattve to modem cities Major Indian temtones are also shown. d St \\ y ti trt A+�ww tY� p � �P�iGtPX�bM1iDVKrJ'r•9����* i � ,d} a tag .va� a9ss' 3 Pa Q ,�yt��,�weene+ C�xin. t tuy,emo Nueem euP,sba N t~ ei Moo A t � OAttua C Berne 7n4tµ NxH a0 ° 1p°�P 9m,O tet°at iN.�axp4 At y CA �t61 oaoa0 v OtSadlaoda } LOH N AftM Hook Aa7 OPo,nau HlYwww °a etC 7 atma aM ��YY 11 a H1H°"'p° OAlvetNda ,� udYt laout r 5aa Down n 0 emowwrwts� °j Hut ►.v y one6alat to NO �fYyr N eaava � 7meha Dodo C AYte o) a.sewn p n 4a 1a y° IV"° 1 f P.%AS 64�T 5an7ee1nto0 erow p,t,x,w°M h sr as P°A f P°WRWa S °a�pY If Maea 1 Lu" Hertgao O4 of V1njo ty MW W—1 M°w'oottely Mole N��. taeRaw as Moaa 'lhsooa�a t `a Santa ca�Wad Phil ti Paw uarTj�a�rr ``b My Y'N9�oW�aa`xx'�l a �FhMaMI a° I�� OeAe MpaflW at°e ""' IIdNW YixJer YYY Ben fJaJoaau Talead �0 xiffm 5 ae +ti tY ew.x Ybtwmi ,t,r y°.a. taw Atd �V4ty Ct m Oraadn G wan ►aAe ices ieo i der s°Q,a o k K*a Is mean P"T0 0 t ow —— ►rv.e k H �' � w t $a Rt ar Ma Im f Aatotantu" ay�ti t M eo 014te.0ho tietwat t t ,rO�a/�nto� H D!iE O eti St°utwn 41. pwMvNS( I.we.xut We �ww tt,. +al + otpx � �arw 0 Adapted from Haxdbook of lkt 144-of Cnk/orntd by A16cd Louie Kroeber Bureau of�4mwcan prhnolDgy 5mlthsordan institution 9 i 08/0272014 07 63 FAX Exh-Lbit "D" .from wUeycoyote(Parecorp net Subject. (Fwd ORA$3,The Cogger!Stone Sit®] Date December 17 20D7 6 03 42 PM PST To ds_taho@pacbeil net 1 Attachment 32 0 KB Dave lets try this agalnlll ..............�.....� Original Message........ ._.. Subject-[Fwd ORA 83,The Cogged Stone Site] From wlleycoyote0srscorp net Date. Thu,December 6,2007 6 54 pm To ds_nahc@pacbell net --»----�---�---- Original Message �----- Subject.ORA-83,The Cogged Stone Site From wiieycoyot:e0stscorp net Date Thu,December 6,2007 6 S2 pm To ds_nachapacbeti net Dave- In regards to our phone conversation today I advOed is the'inventory List of Unfinished Work'that I submitted to the Gabrldlno and Juaneno groups when Ed decided to have a meeting with them without me, 2 a proofsheet of photos will be a mailed to you by my staff later today, printed copies will be given to Anthony on Monday, 3 Ed MouWor d has said that I cannot prepare a chronology for you until her talks to his lawyer Susan Hors If this Is not in writing by Monday I will give one verbally to Anthony at the meeting it was good talking with you The Native people speak my highly of you \1 Nancy Anastasia Wiley it blovern 5th.d ac(32,0 KR O^TOiVG`�A GABRIELINO ,.TONGVA TRIBE A California Indian Trzbe hutoricaRy known as San Galmel Band ofMuszon Indians r 501 Santa Monica Blvd Ste 500 Santa Monica CA 90401 2490 www gabriehnotribe org a tel 4310)587 2203 fax (310)587 2281 q O $4F��s cPy�F July 7 2008 So, I - a a )atjirJtl AWI, i SQ�u Teresa Hemy District Manager t- i California Coastal Commission Cd 4 j` A 200 Oceangate, 1011'Floor Long Beach CA 90802-4416 Dear Ms Henry This letter is being written to request that the Cahfornia Coastal Commission start an immediate investigation of the Bright Water Development We are requesting this on the grounds that we believe that vital uitom-iation regarding the discovery of human remains and artifacts was withheld from the California Coastal Commission Native Americans and all Californians We believe with die numerous discoveries of human remains and artifacts that tins site should be preserved for all Gabrielmos and Juaneno people Building should be stopped immediately before anymore destruction takes place This site is also a concern to all Californians,because tlus is part of our history Sincerely `e T al uncilwo an Linda andelaria Tribal Councilman Charles lvarez ri al Counicilman Bernie Acuna aribZalCou�G�� heernan Tribal Councilwoman Martfd G nzalez Cc Dave Singleton Native American Heritage Commission Tribal Council Hon Bernie Acuna lion Martha Gonzalez iemos Tribal Administrator Barbara Garcia Hon Charles Alvarez Hon Felicia Sheerman Tribal Controller Steven K Johnson Hon Unda Candelaria ,r ®� F kMFOP,DISCLOSURE OF RX PARTS C€DIIDIUNI<CA.TION ' Tate and tztue of eoxnu=C11t ion Thursday,7uno 26 2008—2 00 pm (For imsaZa stntao a Counumahes bymail Brim mlb arroadva)w a xlephnne or ocher m mc6&to dmo afw&pt ehoWd be iadicaDt d) Locattna of commumcahon Eureka ordvv r'hone Meeting OFor owwmonaahwa sestbymail or t;sMinge,orreodvad sr a tolgpbmze or orhminusm4e,ladicau IS mwu oftrmimbi m.) Panon(s)iwttatmg comp=oabon Dave Nmall rorsoo(s)recetvwg commuzucahom Commissioner-Bonwe Nce]y Name or desonphoza of project Wsa.Heardode HomWSW4 Lance oxaup Co Duelled subst mtive descpption of colakmt of eon=unmatlon C coaztmutaixatlott xocludna wnttcatmaterial attach a copy of t'be Complete test of 13ae w,*= motonal) Th,cre bag been a request for revocation of the orlgW4 CDP map There will be no hoamg this meeting,lust a staff report. The Item wM be(bscussed m.August. Date.Tone 26,2008 Signattuta of Ca ont;r oely Tf the cotnalanieatton wag provided at the mw time to staff m it was pmvMed to a Com=%fonee,the ` eoaommuatton as not ex pkU and this form doesmot need to be fllled out, If oouttnunicattoA occurred seven or more days m advance of the Commkdon hen=on the stem that was the subject of the oommunicadoa,coWlete fiat form and transmit it to the Executive Duootor vathm seven days of the oommunicatim If it is xeasoasble to believe that iha completed faun twill not arrive by U S mail at The Cou=nnn's main office poor to ttto Comtaxa 0&ftW of the tlleeftux other===of delivery should bs used,zuebt as fatosbu le,ovemtgltt sweat,or persoiW do4vul by the couuws,noncr to the 8xecutive Director At the ufctmg prior to the UMD that the hearing Ott rho Matta commences If communication occuued wrtl=seven days of the hearty&cm*leee tbra foam,provide the hiforsnaton orally an rho record of ft pxocecdmgs and provide ibe Exeaatwe Duector with a oopy of any written material t4t&t was part of the cammattticatim Coastal Conmalssion Fax. 415 904 5400 Ex. 14 2008/JUN/27/FRI 11 56 AM HUCOLDT CO RDMIN FAX No 707 445 7299 P 002 RECEIItEr South C st Re9ion FORM FO I?,DISCLOSURE JUN 3 0 2008 OIL EX PARTS COBDIU( (CATION 4CAUfi Date and tuoae of comtntai�tcatzon Thursday,rune 2-6 2048—2 am 7A6 C(DM'�"SSION (For messages split to a Contnussioner bypW or faasmdle or waived as a telepbone or other messagc date Uwz ofrxaiptahould be indicated) Location of communication Eureka Office/Pbone Meeting (iron communicatmA sentby mail or famimtie or received as a tatgphone or ottxzMcssage,indicate the moms ortransmisslon) Pdrsoii(s)imtzatzng commumcatlon Dave Neish `�ersou.(s)receiving oomIIiul CAton Com=s%oxterBo=e Neely Name or description of project W$a Hearthside Homesf ftu l Laudmark, Orauge Co D;tailed substl�utxve description of content of communication (If t ornmumcation included wntton mavAial,attach a copy,of the oomplete test of the written mat mial) There has been a request for revocation of the ongmal CDP map There will be no hearing this meeting,just a;staff report The 1tetxt wW be discussed m August Date June 26,2008 Sign�t=�,DfCo�5svpna rely If$to communication was-provided at the same time to s#ff as it was provided to a Commissioner,the communication is not ex paste and this fb=does not need to be filled out, If communication occurred stven or more days in advance of the Commission hearing ontJae itsrn that was tbz sublect of the communication,complete tins form and transmit it to the F..xccutive Dueotor within seven days of the communicatim zf it is reasonable to believe that the completed form will not arrive by U S mail at the Coinrztissxon s mart office pnor to the commencement of the meetxo&other xe=of dehvery should be used,such as facsimile oveivz&Iif mai),or personal delivery by the Coix=ssioner to the Paecutive Dnwtor at the meeting prior to the tune that the hoantig on the matter commences If communication occurred within,seven days of the hearing,cozuplete this form,providt the itiformati=orally on the.record of the proceedings acid provide the Executive Director with a copy of any wrrtxeii material that was part of the communication. - Coastal Commissmn Fax 415 904 5400 4�5k. IS OCT/20/2008/MON H 00 AM P 002 FORM FOR DISCLOSURE O7Et EX 1PARTE OCT 2 0 2008 C49Ml.VllMCA.1`ION CAtIfiOgNlA COASTA4 COMMISStOfV Date and.time of communicnaon October 20,2008—12 53 a m. {For messages sent to a Commissioner by mail or faosunile or received as a telephone or other xaessage,date tune ofrecetpt should be indicated) So w South Coast P,o�lQn Location of communicatiom Eureka, C.A.—Via,Email (For cornmumcataons seat by mall or OCT 2 t 2000 facsmul'.e,or received as a telephone or other message,indicate the meow CAL1P oftransmmsston.) CQAST'AL COMMA SStON Person(s)m tmttng cort==cation. Susaua Salas Person(s)re exvwg con=umcahon Bonmc Neely,Cozaz mszonear Nam or description ofproject Pe nit#s-O5-020—Bolsa Cl ca Det4ed substantive desmptlon of content of commumcationz (If communication maluded WV ten matenal,attach a copy o£the complete test of the vailten material.) (See Attached Email) I0/20/08 -- Date Signature of Commssioner lfthe wmmumeatton was provided at the same lime to staff as it was provided to a Commissioner,the communication is not ex parse aid this form does not need to be;filled out. 1 If communication occurred seven or more days in advance of the Commiskon hearbag on the item that. was the subject of the communication,complete this fora and UV=nnt it to the Executive Director within seven days of the eojumumcataon If it is reasonable to believe that the completed form will not arrive by U S mail at the Commission s main office prior to the commencement of the meeting other means of delivery should be used,such as faostmrle, overmght mail or personal dehvety by the Commissioner to the Fxecuttve Director at the meeting pnor to the tune that the hearing on the matter commences If eo*n*numcatton occurred within seven days of the Bearing,complete this form,provide the.information orally on the record of the prmeedings and prcvxde the Executive Director with a copy of any written material that was part of the communication �/top t OCT/20/2008/MON 1l 00 AM P 003 Hayes, Kathy From Neely, Bonne Senf, Monday October 20 2008 12 53 AM To Hayes, Kathy Subject. FW Request meeting re Permit 05-05-020 Brightwater Do an exparte regarding this email Thanks __---CrigiDal mmpsages-- From SUSAN SALAS [mailto monkeeyo®hot maa.l com] Sent Thu 10/16/2008 4 40 PM To Neely, DOZAie Ca Subject Request Meeting re Permit 05--05-020 Brightwater Bonnie Neely My name is Susana Sales I am a member of the So Califo=ia Native American community and petitioner who is requesting that the 0al9,fornia Coantal Commission investigate the Bx;,ghtwater development and oonsader revok-i-rig Permit 5--05-020 Native Amorloan community members believe that our sacred site at Bolsa Chica is being destroyed We have a tentative revocation hearing date(s) of novernbex 12 13 or 14 We would like to meet with you prior to the hearing Please let me know when you are availabtle to meet with Native American co=mnity members in the So Cala.£ornia. area Respeotfully, susana sal4s, You live life beyond your PC So now Windows goes beyond your PC See how <http //clk atdmt com/MRT/ga/115288555/direct/01/> 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 6 2010 at 6 00 p m in the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items 1 Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016, General Plan Amendment No 08-011, Zoning Map Amendment No 08-007, Zoning Text Amendment No 09-008, Local Coastal Program Amendment No 09-002, Tentative Tract Map No 17294, Coastal Development Permit No 08-022, Conditional Use Permit No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22-unit Planned Unit Development — Legislative Amendments and Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Entitlements) Applicant Ed Mountford Hearthside Homes 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92614 Appellant Jill Hardy Mayor Pro Tern City of Huntington Beach Request Recirculated MND to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and legislative amendments GPA to amend the Land Use Designation from Open Space — Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) ZMA to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture — Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density — Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) ZTA to amend Chapter 21012 — PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development LCPA to amend the certified Land Use Plan from Open Space — Park (OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) and to reflect the proposed Zoning Map and Text Amendments TTM to subdivide the approximately 5-acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine lettered lots CDP to subdivide the subject property and construct 22 single-family residences common open space and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone and CUP to permit construction on a site with greater than a three-foot grade differential The applicant as part of the proposed public benefit for the PUD development is also proposing to improve an existing 30-foot wide City-owned parcel north of the project site to enhance public coastal access The City- owned parcel extends from Bolsa Chica Street to the eastern boundary of the subject property Location 17202 Bolsa Chica Street (5-acre site located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue) Project Planner Jennifer Villasenor NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No 08-022 filed on November 3 2008 in conjunction with the above request NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act It was determined that Item #1 with mitigation would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted C\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content Outlook\EVZ11 ETS\070610 (The Ridge) (3) DOC The recirculated mitigated negative declaration (No 08-016) is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department or by telephoning (714) 536-5271 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report public hearing City Council discussion and action The City Councils action may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from the date of recipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245 32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations or unless Title 14 Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach CA 90802-4302 phone number (562) 590-5071 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment that upon approval would be forwarded to and is required to be certified by the California Coastal Commission ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 for inspection by the public A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerks Office on Thursday July 1 2010 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City Councils action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Huntington Beach California 92648 (714) 536-5227 http //www huntingtonbeachca gov/ C\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content Outlook\EVZ11 ETS\070610 (The Ridge) (3) DOC SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA,CA 92626 PHONE/FAX(714)754 0814 June 28 2010 City Council City of Huntington Beach �- Huntington Beach City Hall C= 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 ry Subject The Ridge project (MND SCH# 2009091043) ; u N) Via e-mail cA3 Dear Mayor Green and Members of the City Council Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Ridge project located on approximately 5 acres of property in the City of Huntington Beach These comments are submitted on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and myself are in addition to comments previously submitted regarding this project and related Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2009091043) The applicant proposes to construct twenty—two dwelling units roadways drainage improvements private open space amenities and related infrastructure on the project site The project would be developed as a Planned Unit Development In order for development to proceed the following discretionary approvals would be needed • General Plan Amendment changing the site s land use designation from Open Space- Park(OS-P) to Residential Low Density (RL) • Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment changing the site s LUP land use designation form Open Space-Park (OS-P)to Residential Low Density (RL) • Zoning Amendment, changing the site s zoning designation from Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay (RA-CZ) to Residential Low Density-Coastal Zone Overlay (RL-CZ) • Amendment to Chapter 210 12 of the Zoning Code to allow greater flexibility in provision of required parking including provision for tandem parking • Tentative Tract Map • Coastal Development Permit • Conditional Use Permit According to the public notice I received in the mail approval of the coastal development permit (No 08-22) may be appealed to the Coastal Commission within ten working days However in accordance with Section 30600 5(c) of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) a permit may only be approved it if is in conformance with the certified LCP land use plan (LUP) In this case the proposed project is not consistent with the certified LUP inasmuch as the property is currently designated for Open Space—Park (OS-P) and an amendment to the LCP is being processed Until that amendment is approved and certified by the California Coastal 9 -14110 c��-,z comma -#7 9 Page 1 of 3 Commission no CDP may be approved for any project inconsistent with the OS-P designation The City may however approve the project in concept This must be clarified and re-noticed if necessary Just as the City may not approve a CDP inconsistent with the LCP the City may not approve a tract map which is not consistent with the general plan (Government Code Section 66473 5) The City s LCP is incorporated into the general plan as the Coastal Element Thus the amendment of the Element can only occur upon certification of any amendment by the California Coastal Commission Even if the property were already designated for residential uses consistency issues would remain as to resource protection due to the need to protect nearby ESHA to the east on the Parkside property and to preserve on-site landforms Exhibit C-17 Bluff Areas and Scenic Opportunities of the Coastal Element shows that bluffs exist on the project site In accordance with Policy 33 natural landforms and coastal bluffs are to be preserved The proposed project fails to conform to this policy The project proposes to amend the zoning code such that Planned Unit Development Standards will be altered citywide and approval of the alternate parking arrangement will wet a precedent for other similar arrangements city wide Specifically, the amendment provides for the following alternate parking arrangements a Required enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 231 14 b Required open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on- street spaces as long as the total number of required parking spaces is provided with the development site As noted in Recirculated EA No 2008-016 (p 43) This may result in more on-street parking spaces being occupied more often It should be noted that this is a potential impact city wide This would then reduce available street parking for guests and other visitors such as repair people and could ultimately result in reduced parking available for the general public seeking to access coastal resources These types of parking problems often result in neighborhood disputes which spill over into the public arena This is a significant city wide impact that has not been addressed The site is highly sensitive as part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem including but not limited to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Resources in the immediate area include an environmentally sensitive habitat area to the east and important cultural resources Cultural resources include Ca- Ora-83 which is listed by the Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites and was recently determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places We remain concerned that the City is processing projects for the Ridge and Goodell sites at the same time Both projects involve zoning action and both projects involve general plan action on adjacent sites in about the same time frame with the same individual representing both projects before the Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 CEQA mandates " that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones--each with a minimal potential impact on the environment-- which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences " (Bozung v Local Agency Formation Com supra 13 Cal 3d at pp 283-284 99 Cal Rptr 745 492 P 2d 1137) As noted in [San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v City and County of San Francisco ((1984) 151 Cal App 3d 61 198 Cal Rptr 634) analyzing only "piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the urban environment Yet that appears to be what has happened here The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to adequately address numerous potential impacts, as noted in my letter of April 2 2010 In that regard the attached material is provided providing information regarding impacts due to cat predation night lighting need for adequate buffers • California Coastal Commission July 29 2004 staff report Agenda Item Th 23e August 12 2004 • California Coastal Commission September 24 2004 staff report Agenda Item W 12g October 13 2004 • California Coastal Commission April 1 2005 staff report Agenda Item Th 7a April 14 2005 • California Coastal Commission staff report Agenda Item Th 1 la, October 13, 2005 • California Coastal Commission July 26 2006 staff report Agenda Item Tu 8c August 6 2006 • California Coastal Commission November 1 2007 staff report Agenda Item W 16a November 14 2007 • Effects of Artificial Lighting on Wildlife Wildlands CPR(http Hwww wildlandscpr org ) • Domestic Cat Predation On Birds And Other Wildlife American Bird Conservancy • Landowners And Cat Predation Across Rural-To-Urban Landscapes by Christopher A Lepczyk Angela G Mertig Jianguo Liu • Cats and Wildlife A Conservation Dilemma By John S Coleman, Stanley A Temple and Scott R Craven Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment Please keep us informed as this project proceeds Yours truly Sandra L Genis Page 3 of 3 t'xc.c,rpt of California Coastal Conums oon Rity 29 2004 stiffreport Agenda Item I h 3 Augtxz,t 12 2004 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 19 D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Although 82 6 acres of the105 3-acre Brightwater development project site (78%) is dominated by non-native annual grasslands and forb or ruderal communities the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa also contains a Eucalyptus grove Southern Tarplant coastal bluff scrub communities and two wetlands These native and non-native communities combine to make the Bolsa Chica Mesa ecologically valuable The mesa and its associated bluffs provide habitat for over 88 species of land birds including some 33 resident species 38 migrants 15 wintering species and 3 summering species Reptiles and at least ten species of mammals also utilize the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Bolsa Chica Mesa must also be viewed in the larger context of its role in the upland/ wetland ecosystem According to both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the lowland wetlands are biologically interdependent Together with the Bolsa Chica wetlands a part of the roughly 1 300 acre Bolsa Chica Lowlands the mesa communities which include both the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Huntington Mesa to the south of the Lowlands combine to make this area an important upland-wetland ecosystem These biological interdependencies are vital to maintaining biological productivity and diversity However it must also be recognized that over the years this resource area has declined due to human impacts and development pressures Commission staff ecologist Dr John Dixon summarizes the declining but still valuable overall ecological condition of the greater Bolsa Chica area in his July 15 2004 memo on the Proposed Brightwater Development Project in this way The Bolsa Chica wetlands once covered over 30 square miles and on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Mesas were bounded by coastal sage scrub communities that interacted ecologically with the wet lowlands Although the wetlands have been reduced to less than two square miles and the adjoining mesas have been substantially developed and the remaining open space much altered the U S Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979 nonetheless identified the Bolsa Chica ecosystem as one of the last remaining viable wetland-bluff ecosystems in southern California This viewpoint was echoed by conservation biologists over twenty years later Bolsa Chica is one of the last remaining areas in coastal southern California with a reasonably intact upland-wetland gradient which is of high ecological importance and generally lacking in representation in reserves in the region In nearly all other coastal marsh ecosystems in southern California the upland components have succumbed to urban development Uplands provide pollinators for wetland plants nesting and denning sites for avian and mammalian predators that forage in wetlands important alternative prey populations for many of those predators and critical habitat for primarily upland species Many species have life-stages that rely on both wetland and upland habitats [citations omitted] Dr Dixon s memo can be found in its entirety as Exhibit 20 to this staff report and is incorporated herein by reference Due to the special communities of the Bolsa Chica 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 20 Mesa many areas of the mesa have previously been determined to constitute environmentally sensitive habitat areas as defined by and protected by the Coastal Act or if not previously so recognized nevertheless qualify as such The Coastal Act defines environmentally sensitive habitat areas or environmentally sensitive areas as Section 30107 5 Environmentally sensitive area means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role rn an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments Further Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that land resources that constitute environmentally sensitive areas or environmentally sensitive habitat areas as defined by Section 30107 5 be protected by allowing only resource dependent uses within those areas Additionally development adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas and parks and recreation areas must be sited and designed such that the adjacent development will not degrade the habitat or recreation values of the sensitive resource Finally uses adjacent to environmentally sensitive land resources and park and recreation areas must be compatible with the continuance of the resource area Coastal Act Section 30240 states Section 30240 (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas In the November 2 2000 Commission staff report concerning a proposed amendment to the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program the following Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) were identified (1) the Eucalyptus grove on and along the edge of both the upper and lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa (2) Warner Pond located on the lower bench a marine habitat connected by culvert to Huntington Harbor (3) the natural habitats within the California Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve along the western edge of the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa (4) the coastal sage scrub community throughout the mesa (5) habitat of the southern tarplant throughout the mesa and (6) the degraded wetlands in the lowlands that are part of a restoration plan The Eucalyptus 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 21 trees Warner Pond and the Ecological Reserve were generally depicted the locations of the other ESHA types were not mapped Dr Dixon notes that there has been no change in circumstances in the intervening four years that would cause the removal any of these habitats from the recommended list of environmentally sensitive habitat areas on or adjacent to the Bolsa Chica mesa Thus for the reasons stated in Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo the Commission finds these areas to constitute ESHA In addition to the abovementioned habitats the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa contains two small but functioning wetlands the 0 2 acre Los Patos seasonal wetland (referred to as seasonal pond by the applicant) located near Los Patos Avenue and the 0 06 acre pocket wetland located in the central slope/bluff edge area (Exhibit 4) The Los Patos wetland is a seasonally ponded depression dominated by herbaceous vegetation including the rare Southern Tarplant The pocket wetland is a small borrow pit dominated by a stand of willows and mulefat with very little understory vegetation These wetlands are protected under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and only certain enumerated uses are allowed if no less environmentally damaging feasible alternative exists and if feasible mitigation measures are provided However these freshwater wetlands do not constitute ESHA as defined above The proposed Brightwater development project however does not propose to fill these wetlands but will retain them in place with a 100-foot wetland buffer This wetland buffer is consistent with numerous past Commission actions to protect wetlands from the effects of adjacent development However care must be taken during grading and construction to assure that impacts to the wetlands are avoided Another habitat of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that was not identified as ESHA in the Commission s previous actions on the Bolsa Chica LCP is that of the burrowing owl The burrowing owl is considered a California Species of Special Concern by the Department of Fish and Game Burrowing owls use the Bolsa Chica grassland and ruderal habitats as well as abandoned burrows of rodents or other small mammals In the winters of 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 the applicants biologist documented use of specific areas of the mesa by this owl (Exhibit 17a) The characteristics of the burrowing owl habitat its ESHA status on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the proposed project impacts are detailed below The residential and park facilities of the proposed Brightwater development project as currently proposed will significantly impair the biological productivity of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and indirectly impact the adjacent lowland wetlands Adverse impacts from residential development and park facilities include disturbances to wildlife including nesting from human activity and disruptive noise and lights due to the inadequate buffer adjacent to the Eucalyptus grove ESHA loss of terrestrial habitat including the protected Southern Tarplant and burrowing owl ESHAs and coastal sage scrub due to residential fuel modification encroachment into the ESHA and ESHA buffer recreation center facility construction impacts on the Tarplant ESHA and the encroachment of residential fuel modification and the installation of the proposed detention basin into the burrowing owl ESHA loss of foraging habitat caused by the development footprint and 5 04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 22 associated elimination of 75 acres of non-native grasslands and ruderal vegetation that is utilized by several California Species of Special Concern (CSC) loss of wildlife movement corridors adverse impacts to native plants and animals from domestic pets especially cats and the introduction of pollutants through residential landscaping and irrigation runoff and human activities The Brightwater development project features and their impacts to the various sensitive land resources of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa are detailed below 1 Eucalyptus Grove ESHA and ESHA Buffer In 1982 the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) designated the Bolsa Chica Mesa Eucalyptus grove as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) based on its value for nesting and roosting for a variety of raptors In their 1982 report Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolsa Chica DFG noted the presence of eleven raptor species Raptors found to be using the grove included the white tailed kite marsh hawk sharp- shinned hawk Coopers hawk and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the upland areas of the Bolsa Chica Mesa for their food Other raptor biologists who have studied the Bolsa Chica Mesa have also found it to be particularly significant to a large number of birds of prey including the Northern Harrier prairie falcon burrowing owl and the loggerhead shrike The grove is also recognized by the Coastal Commission as an environmentally sensitive area or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) as defined by Section 30107 5 of the Coastal Act The Commission first recognized the ESHA status of the grove many years ago and the California appellate court in 1999 did not challenge the designation of the Eucalyptus grove as an ESHA protected by the Coastal Act when in 1995 the County of Orange on behalf of the predecessor applicant Koll Real Estate Group attempted to relocate the Eucalyptus grove, through the LCP process to the Huntington Mesa, in order to make room for full development of the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Eucalyptus grove along the southern bluff edge of the mesa is considered an ESHA because of the important ecosystem function it provides for birds of prey However the adjacent grassland ruderal and coastal sage scrub function as foraging habitat and must also be preserved in order for the ESHA function According to Dr Dixon some of the raptors that use the Eucalyptus trees forage in the wetlands some forage in the mesa grasslands and some forage within the coastal sage scrub along the bluff edge and many of the raptors forage in more than one habitat The need for hunting perches and roosting or nesting sites cannot be separated from the need for an effective hunting area It is believed that the Eucalyptus grove would cease to function as ESHA were there not adequate foraging habitat nearby The Commission found in November 2000 during its deliberations over the Bolsa Chica LCP that the ESHA along with the adjacent non-ESHA areas are interdependent and constitute an ecological system The Department of Fish and Game stated in its 1982 report that habitat diversity is further enhanced by 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 23 associations of eucalyptus-grasslands eucalyptus-coastal sage scrub eucalyptus (snags)- wetland communities" This important point was also made by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service in its 1979 report on the Bolsa Chica Area reiterated in the 1996 EIR for the Bolsa Chica LCP and by LSA Associates in 2001 in the subsequent EIR for the subject Brightwater development project The adjacent upland mesa area is important to the functioning of the ecosystem because (1) many of the species that are dependent on the Eucalyptus trees or on burrows near the pocket wetland on the central slope area forage over the entire Mesa (2) habitat areas need to be large enough to avoid habitat fragmentation and to provide connectivity to other habitat areas and (3) habitat areas must be large enough to promote and maintain habitat and species diversity Development must be separated from ESHAs by buffers in order to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas DFG and the USFWS previously recommended the establishment of a 100-meter buffer on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the 1980 s Dr Findlay of the University of Ottawa in a letter to the Coastal Commission dated February 9 2000 recommended a 150-meter buffer for the Eucalyptus grove The Coastal Commission staff ecologist recommends a minimum 100-meter (328 ft ) buffer around the Eucalyptus grove ESHA In further studying the appropriate buffer for the Eucalyptus grove ESHA in light of the proposed adjacent development Dr Dixon states The buffer around the Eucalyptus tree ESHA is particularly important if those trees are to continue to function as nesting habitat for a variety of raptors The California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a 100-m buffer A literature review found that raptor biologists recommended buffers for various species of nesting raptors from 200 m to 1500 m in width with the exception of 50-m buffers from visual disturbance for kestrels and prairie falcons in an independent review concerning a prior development proposal at Bolsa Chica with 100-foot (30-m) buffers raptor expert Brian Walton opined that developers often rely on buffers that I find largely ineffective for reducing raptor fright/flight response [and] [t]hey describe unusual tolerance habituated individuals or exceptions to normal raptor behavior rather than the more common behavior of wild birds Dr Dixon concluded after evaluating the various case studies and independent reviews specifically of the raptor behavior of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that a minimum 100-meter buffer is necessary if the Eucalyptus trees are going to function as nesting sites in the future He further opined that larger buffers are necessary during the extraordinary disturbance that takes place during construction If raptors are nesting a 152-m (500-ft) buffer should be established around the nest during construction activities The sensitive habitat areas of the project site on the upper bench of the Bola Chica Mesa including the recommended buffers are shown in Figure 1 of Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo on the subject project (Exhibit 20) 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 24 As discussed above the Brightwater development project proposal of a 100-ft buffer around the Eucalyptus grove ESHA is inadequate to protect the ESHA from myriad human and domestic pet activities that occur when residential development is adjacent to a sensitive area Dr Dixon notes that buffers serve several important functions they allow for some error in assigning boundaries (for example extent of wetlands or southern tarplant habitat) they keep disturbance at a distance they provide important auxiliary habitat (e g foraging or pollinator habitat) and they provide water quality functions around wetlands Buffers should not be used for activities that have negative effects on the resources that are being protected The proposed Brightwater development project includes a 100-foot buffer between the proposed single-family residential lots and the Eucalyptus ESHA Dr Dixon does not thing that such a narrow buffer is adequately protective of the ESHA In addition there is also proposed several types of development within the buffer that would cause adverse impacts to the adjacent ESHA The development proposed between the residential lots and the Eucalyptus grove ESHA includes (1) park amenities including a 12 foot wide paved pedestrian/bicycle trail 30 public parking spaces bicycle racks and the extension of Bolsa Chica Street (32 ft wide park entry road —the only vehicular access to the park) (Exhibit 4) (2) significant grading activity including a fill slope up to 30 feet in height (Exhibit 15) (3) a water quality treatment facility for the residential community including five created wetlands and a 1 3 ac detention basin (Exhibit 4 and 15) and (4) 100% of the fuel modification requirements for the lots that abut the ESHA buffer ((Exhibit 14) Incompatible development within the ESHA buffer compromises the goal of the buffer The impacts of the fuel modification activities are discussed in this staff report in Section G Hazards the impacts of the park amenities are discussed in Section E Public Access and Recreation the impacts of the grading is discussed in Section F Scenic and Visual Resources and the impacts of the water quality treatment facilities is discussed in Section H Marine Resources of this staff report As is explained in those sections each of these features has impacts that in addition to being inconsistent with the primary policies discussed in those sections is also inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The approved vesting tentative tract map for the Brightwater subdivision includes residential lots abutting the proposed 28-acre upland habitat park The southeast portion of the upland habitat park includes the existing 5-acre Eucalyptus grove ESHA The Brightwater development project s proposed 100 ft wide ESHA buffer is also a part of the proposed upland habitat park (Exhibit 8) The park is located along the slope between the upper and lower benches of the mesa immediately below the proposed residential lots Under the County s approval the homes on each of the lots that abut the park are allowed to have 100% of the required fuel modification located in the upland habitat park that again includes the 100-foot wide ESHA buffer in the southeast portion of the park The required fuel modification for approximately 16 of the residential lots in this area extends beyond the ESHA buffer and encroaches into the Eucalyptus tree ESHA itself The Orange County 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 25 Fire Authority (OCFA) has conceptually approved the Fuel Modification Plan for the proposed project Fuel modification is an on-going activity that is required as long as there are adjacent habitable structures The goal of the fuel modification is to control the plant palette and the location and design of development in order to minimize the risk of wild fires This goal is at odds with the protection of native plant species because many of the native species are combustible Further methods of fuel load suppression are at odds with maintaining a natural plant community Those methods include irrigation of native plants and thinning and vegetation removal of certain important native plant species that are a part of native plant communities Therefore if residences are allowed in the proposed location there will be continual impacts in the ESHA with the on-going implementation of fuel modification requirements In addition to fuel modification activities within the ESHA and the Brightwater projects proposed 100 ft ESHA buffer other incompatible development within the buffer includes (1) approximately 600 linear feet of the proposed 12 ft wide paved pedestrian/bicycle trail (at one point the trail is as close as 10 -12 ft from the ESHA) and (2) approximately 250 linear feet of the 32 foot wide Bolsa Chica Street extension and five of the proposed 30 public parking spaces and (3) extensive grading (fill slopes as high as 30 ft ) These development encroachments into the ESHA buffer also compromise the effectiveness of the buffer in the protection of the adjacent ESHA As explained by Dr Dixon an ESHA buffer is supposed to contain transitional native vegetation provide important auxiliary habitat and keep disturbance at a distance Buffers are not intended to contain development such as that which is being proposed Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas namely the Eucalyptus grove ESHA on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 2 Southern Tarplant ESHA The Southern Tarplant is a Federal Species of Concern and listed as a 1 B (Rare Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere) plant by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and meets the CEQA definition of rare (threatened) and endangered species Southern Tarplant is an annual plant that favors damp disturbed areas and is generally restricted to grasslands wetland edges vernal pools and alkaline flats in the coastal counties of southern California and has been greatly reduced and populations have been fragmented by development According to Dr Dixon Southern Tarplant has become rare in California and its remaining habitat is particularly valuable due to the loss 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 26 of its natural habitat The Department of Fish and Game further noted in their January 16 2002 EIR comments on the proposed project that one of the characteristics of the Southern Tarplant is that as an annual (life cycle is completed within one year) the number of detectable (above-ground flowering) plants visible in any one year vary sharply depending on factors such as soil moisture Because of this characteristic of the plant quantifying populations and determining the impacts of a development project on existing tarplant communities can be problematic (Exhibit 9) Therefore the long-term health of the tarplant population depends on an extensive seed bank The applicant s consultant conducted tarplant surveys of both the upper and lower benches in 1999 2000 2001 and 2002 The largest concentration of tarplant by far is on the lower bench however the upper bench also contains several sizeable patches of the sensitive plant (Exhibit 16) Dr Dixon notes that based on the applicants recent surveys the tarplant tends to be much more widely distributed among the habitats on the lower bench than on the upper bench where it is almost entirely confined to the area surrounding the seasonal pond adjacent to the Los Patos wetland There may be habitat differences between the upper and lower benches that account for this phenomenon Southern Tarplant is most abundant near trails and other open disturbed areas Scattered individual plants on the upper bench do not constitute ESHA However the significant Tarplant populations around the Los Patos wetland on the upper bench should be considered ESHA under the Coastal Act definition Similarly the patches of tarplant near the western edge of the development area are part of the extensive population on the lower bench and area part of the ESHA As environmentally sensitive habitat areas the tarplant populations must be preserved in place and cannot be eliminated or translocated in order to use their existing locations for residential use The Brightwater development proposal would eliminate two of the existing ESHA populations of Tarplant within the proposed 28-acre Upland Habitat Park and a third tarplant population located in the area of the proposed 2 5-acre private recreation center surrounding the existing Los Patos seasonal wetland would also be eliminated (Figure 1 of Exhibit 20) The Brightwater development project as approved by the County of Orange and as submitted by the applicant in both the original application 5-02-375 and the subject application does not propose the preservation any of the existing tarplant on the upper bench All tarplant will be translocated to the lower bench through implementation of the "Translocation Plan Southern Tarplant (Centromadia Parryi ssp Australis) Brightwater Development Project Bolsa Chica Mesa Orange County California LSA May 1 2003 However habitat that qualifies as ESHA under the Coastal Act must be protected in place except under limited situations pursuant to Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Only resource dependent uses are allowed to impact ESHA and only if there is no other less environmentally damaging feasible alternative Therefore the proposed Southern Tarplant translocation is not permissible under the Coastal Act since it would be done for residential purposes The courts have already established this standard in previous rulings concerning the Bolsa Chica site when the Commission approved the translocation of the 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 27 existing Eucalyptus grove ESHA over to the Huntington Mesa to make way for residential development The Southern Tarplant populations that constitute ESHA must also be protected from adjacent development with an adequately sized buffer Commission staff ecologist recommends that a 50-foot buffer be established adjacent to the ESHA boundaries defined by the presence of tarplant as illustrated in Figure 1 of his memo (Exhibit 20) The Commission has used such a buffer to protect sensitive vegetation in past actions consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act After conversations with staff concerning the tarplant surrounding the Los Patos wetland the applicant verbally agreed to preserve any tarplant that is within the proposed 100-foot wetland buffer (since the tarplant basically rings the wetland) The applicant did not however modify the project description in writing to formalize this agreement Further the applicant is not willing to preserve all of the Tarplant ESHA surrounding the wetland i e any of the tarplant that is more than 100 ft from the wetland When staff discussed Further the applicant is unwilling to provide the necessary 50-foot buffer around the Tarplant ESHA in order to protect it from the adjacent planned recreational uses of the proposed 2 5-acre private recreation center The 2 5-acre recreation center adjacent to the Southern Tarplant ESHA includes a tot lot picnic areas on decomposed granite a boardwalk and gazebo several swimming pools and a 1 300 square foot clubhouse There could certainly be a redesign of the private recreation center to allow the necessary preservation of the Tarplant ESHA Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas namely the Southern Tarplant ESHA populations on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 3 Burrowing Owl ESHA One of the sensitive raptor species that uses the Bolsa Chica mesa is the burrowing owl The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) considers the burrowing owl (Athene cuniculana) a California Species of Special Concern It hunts for prey in open grasslands and areas of ruderal vegetation The upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa contains 75 acres of such habitat In addition to foraging over the grasslands the burrowing owl uses the abandoned burrows of the California ground squirrel and other small rodents as shelter during the nesting and wintering seasons The burrowing owl is in decline in most areas of California especially in the coastal zone due to the loss of habitat as a result of 5-04-192 (Brlghtwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 28 development and rodent control activities The rapid decline of this species in Orange County has been chronicled in the latter half of the 20th century s The Brlghtwater development site contains many burrows that have probably been used by the burrowing owl One or two wintering birds are thought to use the Bolsa Chica Mesa as evidenced by repeated observations of a one owl or two owls in the winters of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 by the applicants biologists (Exhibit 17a) However it is believed that the Bolsa Chica Mesa is used by an unknown number of migrant burrowing owls as a stop-over foraging area according to Dr Dixon s communications with other raptor biologists It is raptor biologist Peter Bloom s professional opinion that migrant and wintering burrowing owls use the Bolsa Chica Mesa during most years The Bolsa Chica Mesa is one of the few areas in the region that still has the potential for nesting by this species in the future Additionally the burrowing owl is one of three species of raptors at Bolsa Chica that DFG biologist Ron Jurek thinks is most in need of habitat protection Based on this information Dr Dixon has determined that the area on the Bolsa Chica Mesa as mapped by the applicants biologist as burrowing owl habitat constitute an ESHA as defined by the Coastal Act and therefore also should be protected as required by the Coastal Act The Commission agrees Additionally the DFG in its January 16 2002 comments on the project EIR recommended that the burrowing owl habitat on the upper bench be retained if feasible Upon receipt of the applicants mapping showing the burrowing owl habitat location at the request of Commission technical staff planning staff suggested that the applicant again review the submittal of the mapped burrowing owl use area It appeared to staff that the area might have been drawn overly broad The applicant however declined the offer to provide refined data However several months later the applicant agreed to resurvey the project area for signs of burrowing owl use On June 15 2004 the applicants consultant LSA submitted the results of a survey taken on June 2 2004 (Exhibit 17) The applicants June 2004 survey of ground squirrel activity found approximately 130 ground squirrel locations providing a rough approximation of how squirrels are distributed on the site as explained by the consultant The highest use areas were areas where there is a break in topography at the edge of the slope of the upper mesa on the west and at the bluff edge on the south and on the bluff edge of the lower bench overlooking Outer Bolsa Bay and the lowlands on the southeastern bluff edge of the lower bench LSA concluded that the best way to offset potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would be to enhance owl habitat suitability somewhere on the lower mesa where human disturbance could be managed However Dr Dixon recommends that the Commission use a similar approach in identifying the burrowing owl ESHA on the Bolsa Chica as it did in a recent project in the South Central Coast District the Arco Dos Pueblos Golf Links (December 11 2002 Commission Hearing) In that case the Commission designated only trees known to have ° Hamilton and Willick (1996) and Gallagher and Bloom (1997) according to Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Volume I Bnghtwater Development Project Orange County California SCH #1993071064 LSA November 17 2001 page 4 9 21 5 04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 29 been used by white-tailed kites for nesting or perching and adjacent trees as ESHA In the present instance LSA Associates has identified the area containing burrows known to be used by wintering burrowing owls Burrowing owls tend to reuse burrows year after year and an area should be considered occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow there within the last three years according to the California Burrowing Owl Consortium recognized by the Department of Fish and Game Therefore the LSA field observations are good evidence of occupied habitat and Dr Dixon recommends that the Commission designate as ESHA the area mapped by LSA as the Primary roosting areas used by wintering burrowing owls This designation would be made in recognition of its important role in the ecosystem of providing support to a species of special concern that has nearly been extirpated from the coastal zone by conversion of habitat to urban uses This LSA mapping is shown in Exhibit 17a and is reflected in Figure 1 of Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo (Exhibit 20) The Commission agrees and hereby designates those areas as ESHA Again once an area is designated as ESHA the Commission cannot sacrifice it in exchange for another (except in limited circumstances not applicable here) Thus the existing burrowing owl habitat as provided by the applicants biologist and shown on Figure 1 of Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo must remain in tact given the evidence of the previous use of the area by the burrowing owl Although enhanced owl habitat suitability somewhere on the lower mesa where human disturbance could be managed as recommended by LSA may be beneficial it cannot be used to justify removal of existing habitat Instead of retaining the burrowing owl habitat the County of Orange in its approval of the project required the applicant (in Project Design Feature (PDF) 9-5) to conduct surveys for the burrowing owl prior to grading and construction but ultimately will allow the existing burrow to be eliminated with mitigation If the burrow is found to be in active use the bird(s) is (are) required to be passively relocated to enhanced or created alternative burrows at a 1 1 ratio DFG requested that the applicant conduct a formal burrowing owl survey and perform all activities concerning the burrowing owl using the 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines prepared by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium following the DFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation dated September 25 1995 Further DFG requested that when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable enhanced or new burrows be provided on a 2 1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to the occupied burrowing owl habitat if possible As approved by the County the applicant only has to provide mitigation at a ratio of 1 1 as opposed to the 2 1 suggested by DFG Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas namely the burrowing owl ESHA on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 30 4 Annual Grassland and Ruderal Foraging Habitat The vegetation type on the project site is predominantly non-native annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation Of the 105 3-acre development area 82 6 acres of open vegetated areas are dominated by annual grasslands (55 9 acres) and areas vegetated with ruderal grassland/forb (26 7 acres) according to the project EIR Although annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation are generally not considered to be sensitive resources because of the exotic character of the dominant species these habitats nevertheless provide important support for many native species of the plants and animals It is particularly important as foraging habit for many species of birds of prey and it is being rapidly replaced by development in much of coastal southern California At the Bolsa Chica mesa the annual grassland and ruderal vegetation provides critical support for the any species of birds that use the Eucalyptus and palms trees along the bluff edge for perching roosting and nesting Without adequate foraging habitat nearby the existing Eucalyptus grove of the Bolsa Chica Mesa would not continue to function as ESHA In the past little concern has been expressed nor any actions taken about the loss of annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation given their status as non-native habitat However in recent years with the increasing loss of native prairies it has recently come to the attention of Department of Fish and Game and other raptor biologists that the remaining non-native annual grassland and ruderal vegetation are becoming a critical food source which is essential to the health of populations of many birds of prey and other native species For this reason DFG has recommended mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act for the loss of such non-native habitat In over 60 recent actions DFG has required preservation of foraging habitat at a ratio of 0 5 acres preserved to each acre lost to development At Bolsa Chica the foraging habitat on the mesa is absolutely necessary for the continued presence of many of the raptors that utilize the Eucalyptus ESHA Furthermore concerning the interconnectedness of the foraging habitat and the Eucalyptus ESHA DFG biologist Ron Jurek wrote in an October 2000 independent review of the potential effects of development on raptors of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that the Eucalyptus ESHA is a zone of trees with good perching and nesting conditions within raptor habitat It is not the raptor habitat itself In my professional opinion for most of the raptor species known to use the ESHA raptor use depends primarily on the availability of the food resources of the surrounding lands As proposed the Brightwater development project would eliminate 75 2 acres of annual grassland and ruderal habitat combined In approving the development the County of Orange also adopted the project s subsequent El The El states that the proposed loss of foraging habitat will not be significant considering the existence of the remaining habitat on the mesa and in the region The Commission notes that of the existing grassland and ruderal habitat on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa the Brightwater development 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 31 project eliminates all but 1 5 acres of grassland and all but 6 acres of ruderal vegetation Therefore the EIR statement must be referring to the grassland and ruderal habitats remaining on the lower bench of Bolsa Chica Mesa However the Commission notes that the lower bench is not before the Commission given that the applicant has refused to include it in this or the original Brightwater application There is no guarantee that the lower bench will be sold for conservation purposes The project EIR also suggested that the loss of foraging habitat would not be significant based on a statement of another October 2000 independent reviewer of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Brian Walton that concluded that the overall population status would not be changed for any species of raptor at Bolsa Chica Although this statement is true Dr Dixon points out that this standard is not adequate in the context of resource conservation and states it would be a very low standard that ignores the local or regional significance of a species presence It simply means that the viability of the species in California is unlikely to be measurably decreased by local losses Similar claims can be made of impacts even to many endangered species where the loss of a few individuals is unlikely to push the species to extinction That fact is however not a compelling argument for additional impacts In fact Mr Walton did not intend to suggest that the raptor habitat at Bolsa Chica was unimportant This is obvious in the following excerpts from Mr Walton s letters to the Department of Fish and Game and to the Coastal Commission Pete [Bloom] and I have studied raptors in coastal California for the last 25+ years No one else can say that We still feel that the raptors and the Bolsa Chica habitat are important That has been a consistent opinion for nearly 20 years from the only two people who have been continuously focused on these species in these locations During that period the rest of Orange County has largely been paved over and upland grasslands near coastal wetlands are almost non existent Hence it would be likely that the opinions we had in 1982 on the importance of this habitat are even more relevant in 2000 1 have difficulty in understanding why any development is allowed to occur in this area and The clearest case where development is impacting raptors and their prey species but where the Commission still is uncertain of the real impact on raptor populations is in Orange County There most raptor species have been completely eliminated from the coastal zone as breeders and most of the region has vastly reduced wintering population range Even still the last bit of available open space (Bolsa Chica) is being considered for some development with the idea that the remaining raptors will move elsewhere or not be impacted or live in remnant open space within the developed area It is not accurate in fact that individual raptors when impacted by development simply move elsewhere and everyone survives If that were true there would be areas of incredible density in non developed areas where the impacted raptors have moved 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 32 and are now living with pre existing birds This philosophy would be analogous to thinking that if you tore down one of two adjacent apartment buildings that all the residents would simply move into the remaining building and live two families to an apartment The density of raptors is dependent on a variety of things so birds cannot actually just get denser in adjacent areas by moving off development sites Given the above facts concerning the importance of grasslands and ruderal habitats for the proper functioning of the adjacent Eucalyptus ESHA for the many raptors that use the Bolsa Chica Mesa a decision has to be made as to whether the non-native habitat alone constitutes ESHA as defined by the Coastal Act Dr Dixon outlines the issues that have to be factored when making such a determination Although the raptor foraging habitat at Bolsa Chica is clearly of high ecological value because of its context in maintaining the raptors including the burrowing owl the non-native habitat alone does not constitute ESHA However its loss as contemplated in the proposed Brightwater development project would clearly be inconsistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act that requires that significant impacts to ESHA not be allowed As discussed herein the importance of foraging habitat is clearly such that the loss of a large amount at Bolsa Chica would result in impacts which would significantly degrade the adjacent Eucalyptus tree ESHA such that it would no longer be especially valuable to birds of prey Therefore to be in compliance with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act development must be sited such that this does not occur Because of the significant adverse effects of development on raptor foraging habitat Dr Dixon suggests that the Commission should follow the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game and seek mitigation for the destruction of annual grassland and ruderal foraging habitat on the Bolsa Chica Mesa by preserving 0 5 acres of such habitat for each acre lost to development Preservation should be on the project site adjacent to the Eucalyptus tree ESHA and could reasonably include the recommended buffer areas for the Eucalyptus trees and for the burrowing owl habitat described above Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements that development in areas adjacent to ESHA shall be sited to prevent impacts that would seriously degrade the ESHA The proposed development would remove the annual grasslands and ruderal habitat on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that are necessary for the continued functioning of the Eucalyptus tree ESHA The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted E PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION Excerpt of California Coastal Commission, September 24 2004 staff report Agenda Item W 12g October 13 2004 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 29 be compatible with the continuance of the resource area Coastal Act Section 30240 states Section 30240 (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas In the November 2 2000 Commission staff report concerning a proposed amendment to the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program the following Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) were identified (1) the Eucalyptus grove on and along the edge of both the upper and lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa (2) Warner Pond located on the lower bench a marine habitat connected by culvert to Huntington Harbor (3) the natural habitats within the California Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve along the western edge of the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa (4) the coastal sage scrub community (5) habitat of the southern tarplant throughout the mesa and (6) the degraded wetlands in the lowlands that are part of a restoration plan The Eucalyptus trees Warner Pond and the Ecological Reserve were generally depicted the locations of the other ESHA types were not mapped Dr Dixon notes that there has been no change in circumstances in the intervening four years that would cause the removal any of these habitats from the recommended list of environmentally sensitive habitat areas on or adjacent to the Bolsa Chica mesa Thus for the reasons stated in Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo the Commission finds these areas to constitute ESHA In addition to the abovementioned habitats the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa contains two small but functioning wetlands the 0 2 acre Los Patos seasonal wetland (referred to as seasonal pond by the applicant) located near Los Patos Avenue and the 0 06 acre pocket wetland located in the central slope/bluff edge area (Exhibit 4) The Los Patos wetland is a seasonally ponded depression dominated by herbaceous vegetation including the rare Southern Tarplant The pocket wetland is a small borrow pit dominated by a stand of willows and mulefat with very little understory vegetation These wetlands are protected under Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and only certain enumerated uses are allowed if no less environmentally damaging feasible alternative exists and if feasible mitigation measures are provided However these freshwater wetlands do not constitute ESHA as defined above The proposed Brightwater development project however does not propose to fill these wetlands but will retain them in place with a 100-foot wetland buffer This wetland buffer is consistent with numerous past Commission actions to protect wetlands from the effects of adjacent development 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 30 However care must be taken during grading and construction to assure that impacts to the wetlands are avoided Another habitat of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that was not identified as ESHA in the Commission s previous actions on the Bolsa Chica LCP is that of the burrowing owl The burrowing owl is considered a California Species of Special Concern by the Department of Fish and Game Burrowing owls use the Bolsa Chica grassland and ruderal habitats as well as abandoned burrows of rodents or other small mammals In the winters of 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 the applicants biologist documented use of specific areas of the mesa by this owl (Exhibit 17a) The characteristics of the burrowing owl habitat its ESHA status on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the proposed project impacts are detailed below The residential and park facilities of the proposed Brightwater development project as currently proposed will significantly impair the biological productivity of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and indirectly impact the adjacent lowland wetlands Adverse impacts from residential development and park facilities include disturbances to wildlife including nesting from human activity and disruptive noise and lights due to the inadequate buffer adjacent to the Eucalyptus grove ESHA loss of terrestrial habitat including the protected Southern Tarplant ESHA and burrowing owl ESHA foraging area and coastal sage scrub due to residential fuel modification encroachment into the ESHA and ESHA buffer recreation center facility construction impacts on the Tarplant ESHA and the encroachment of residential fuel modification and the installation of the proposed detention basin into the burrowing owl area loss of foraging habitat caused by the development footprint and associated elimination of 75 acres of non-native grasslands and ruderal vegetation that is utilized by several California Species of Special Concern (CSC) loss of wildlife movement corridors adverse impacts to native plants and animals from domestic pets especially cats and the introduction of pollutants through residential landscaping and irrigation runoff and human activities The Brightwater development project features and their impacts to the various sensitive land resources of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa are detailed below 1 Eucalyptus Grove ESHA and ESHA Buffer In 1982 the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) designated the Bolsa Chica Mesa Eucalyptus grove as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) based on its value for nesting and roosting for a variety of raptors In their 1982 report Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolsa Chica DFG noted the presence of eleven raptor species Raptors found to be using the grove included the white tailed kite marsh hawk sharp shinned hawk Cooper's hawk and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the upland areas of the Bolsa Chica Mesa for their food Other raptor biologists who have studied the Bolsa Chica Mesa have also found it to be particularly significant to a large number of birds of prey including the Northern Harrier 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 31 prairie falcon burrowing owl and the loggerhead shrike The grove has also been recognized by the Coastal Commission as an environmentally sensitive area or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) as defined by Section 30107 5 of the Coastal Act in previous Commission actions The Commission first recognized the ESHA status of the grove many years ago and the California appellate court in 1999 did not question the designation of the Eucalyptus grove as an ESHA protected by the Coastal Act when in 1995 the County of Orange on behalf of the predecessor applicant Koll Real Estate Group attempted to relocate the Eucalyptus grove through the LCP process to the Huntington Mesa in order to make room for full development of the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Eucalyptus grove along the southern bluff edge of the mesa is considered an ESHA because of the important ecosystem function it provides for birds of prey However the adjacent grassland ruderal vegetation and coastal sage scrub function as foraging habitat and some significant portion of these must also be preserved in order for the ESHA to function According to Dr Dixon some of the raptors that use the Eucalyptus trees forage in the wetlands some forage in the mesa grasslands and some forage within the coastal sage scrub along the bluff edge and many of the raptors forage in more than one habitat The need for hunting perches and roosting or nesting sites cannot be separated from the need for an effective hunting area It is believed that the Eucalyptus grove would cease to function as ESHA were there not adequate foraging habitat nearby The Commission found in November 2000 during its deliberations over the Bolsa Chica LCP that the ESHA along with the adjacent non-ESHA areas are interdependent and constitute an ecological system The Department of Fish and Game stated in its 1982 report that habitat diversity is further enhanced by associations of eucalyptus-grasslands eucalyptus-coastal sage scrub eucalyptus (snags)-wetland communities" This important point was also made by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service in its 1979 report on the Bolsa Chica Area reiterated in the 1996 EIR for the Bolsa Chica LCP and by LSA Associates in 2001 in the subsequent EIR for the subject Brightwater development project The Commission hereby arrives at the same conclusion again today The upland mesa area adjacent to the Eucalyptus grove is important to the functioning of the ecosystem because (1) many of the species that are dependent on the Eucalyptus trees or on burrows near the pocket wetland on the central slope area forage over the entire Mesa (2) habitat areas need to be large enough to avoid habitat fragmentation and to provide connectivity to other habitat areas and (3) habitat areas must be large enough to promote and maintain habitat and species diversity Development must be separated from ESHAs by buffers in order to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas DFG and the USFWS previously recommended the establishment of a 100-meter buffer on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the 1980 s Dr Findlay of the University of Ottawa in a letter to the Coastal Commission dated February 9 2000 recommended a 150-meter buffer for the Eucalyptus grove The Coastal Commission staff ecologist recommends a minimum 100-meter (328 ft ) buffer around the Eucalyptus grove ESHA In further studying the appropriate buffer for the Eucalyptus grove ESHA Dr Dixon states 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 32 The buffer around the Eucalyptus tree ESHA is particularly important if those trees are to continue to function as nesting habitat for a variety of raptors The California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a 100-m buffer A literature review found that raptor biologists recommended buffers for various species of nesting raptors from 200 m to 1500 m in width with the exception of 50-m buffers from visual disturbance for kestrels and praine falcons In an independent review concerning a prior development proposal at Bolsa Chica with 100-foot (30-m) buffers raptor expert Brian Walton opined that developers often rely on buffers that I find largely ineffective for reducing raptor fright/flight response [and] [t]hey describe unusual tolerance habituated individuals or exceptions to normal raptor behavior rather than the more common behavior of wild birds Dr Dixon concluded after evaluating the various case studies and independent reviews specifically of the raptor behavior of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that a minimum 100-meter buffer is necessary if the Eucalyptus trees are going to function as nesting sites in the future He further opined that larger buffers are necessary during the extraordinary disturbance that takes place during construction If raptors are nesting a 152-m (500-ft) buffer should be established around the nest during construction activities The sensitive habitat areas of the project site on the upper bench of the Bola Chica Mesa including the recommended buffers are shown in Figure 1 of Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo on the subject project (Exhibit 20) As discussed above the Brightwater development project proposal of a 100-foot buffer around the Eucalyptus grove ESHA is inadequate to protect the ESHA from myriad human and domestic pet activities that occur when residential development is adjacent to a sensitive area Dr Dixon notes that buffers serve several important functions they allow for some error in assigning boundaries (for example extent of wetlands or southern tarplant habitat) they keep disturbance at a distance they provide important auxiliary habitat (e g foraging or pollinator habitat) and they provide water quality functions around wetlands Buffers should not be used for activities that have negative effects on the resources that are being protected The proposed Brightwater development project includes a 100-foot buffer between the proposed single-family residential lots and the Eucalyptus ESHA Based on Dr Dixon s evaluation such a narrow buffer is adequately protective of the ESHA In addition several types of development are proposed within the buffer that would cause adverse impacts to the adjacent ESHA The development proposed between the residential lots and the Eucalyptus grove ESHA includes (1) park amenities including a 12 foot wide paved pedestrian/bicycle trail 30 public parking spaces bicycle racks and the extension of Bolsa Chica Street (32 ft wide public road) (Exhibit 4) (2) significant grading activity including a fill slope up to 30 feet in 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 33 height and 2 acres in size (Exhibit 15) (3) a water quality treatment facility for the residential community including five created wetlands and a 1 3 ac detention basin (Exhibit 4 and 15) and (4) 100% of the fuel modification requirements including irrigation of the ESHA buffer for the lots that abut the ESHA buffer (Exhibit 14) Incompatible development within the ESHA buffer compromises the goal of the buffer The impacts on the ESHA resources of the site due to the proposed fuel modification activities park amenities public access facilities water quality BMPs and restoration grading activities are discussed later in this section below Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas namely the Eucalyptus grove ESHA on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 2 Southern Tarplant ESHA The Southern Tarplant is a Federal Species of Concern and listed as a 1 B (Rare Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere) plant by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and it also meets the CEQA Guidelines definition of rare (threatened) and endangered species Southern Tarplant is an annual plant that favors damp disturbed areas and is generally restricted to grasslands wetland edges vernal pools and alkaline flats in the coastal counties of southern California and has been greatly reduced and populations have been fragmented by development According to Dr Dixon Southern Tarplant has become rare in California and its remaining habitat is particularly valuable due to the loss of its natural habitat The Department of Fish and Game further noted in their January 16 2002 EIR comments on the proposed project that one of the characteristics of the Southern Tarplant is that as an annual (life cycle is completed within one year) the number of detectable (above-ground flowering) plants visible in any one year vary sharply depending on factors such as soil moisture Because of this characteristic of the plant quantifying populations and determining the impacts of a development project on existing tarplant communities can be problematic (Exhibit 9) Therefore the long-term health of the tarplant population depends on an extensive seed bank The applicants consultant conducted tarplant surveys of both the upper and lower benches in 1999 2000 2001 and 2002 The largest concentration of tarplant by far is on the lower bench however the upper bench also contains several sizeable patches of the sensitive plant (Exhibit 16) Dr Dixon notes that based on the applicants recent surveys the tarplant tends to be much more widely distributed among the habitats on the lower bench than on the upper bench where it is almost entirely confined to the area surrounding the seasonal pond adjacent to the Los Patos wetland There may be habitat differences 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 34 between the upper and lower benches that account for this phenomenon Southern Tarplant is most abundant near trails and other open disturbed areas Scattered individual plants on the upper bench do not constitute ESHA because over the four-year survey period these plant populations have remained only a few scattered individuals However the significant Tarplant populations around the Los Patos wetland on the upper bench should be considered ESHA under the Coastal Act definition because Southern Tarplant has become rare in California due to the loss of its native habitat and therefore its remaining habitat is particularly valuable As stated above Southern Tarplant is a Federal Species of Concern as well as a California Native Plant Society 1 B species (rare threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere) Similarly the patches of tarplant near the western edge of the development area are part of the extensive population on the lower bench and are part of the ESHA The southern tarplant at Bolsa Chica is one of the more significant populations in terms of numbers in southern California according to Dr Dixon As environmentally sensitive habitat areas the tarplant populations must be preserved in place and cannot be eliminated or translocated in order to use their existing locations for residential use The Brightwater development proposal would eliminate two of the existing ESHA populations of Tarplant within the proposed 28-acre Upland Habitat Park and a third tarplant population located in the area of the proposed 2 5-acre private recreation center surrounding the existing Los Patos seasonal wetland would also be eliminated (Figure 1 of Exhibit 20) The current Tarplant translocation proposal is now to translocate each of the three identified ESHA populations either to other existing nearby ESHA populations as in the case of the tarplant adjacent to the Los Patos wetland or translocate the tarplant ESHA population immediately adjacent to its present location as in the case of the population near Warner Avenue or to translocate the tarplant to a nearby location to avoid the such as with the tarplant populations that are located within the footprint of the created wetlands portion of the water quality BMPs (Exhibits 6b and 22 pages 1-4) The proposed On-Site Preservation/Translocation Plan for the relocation of the three Southern Tarplant ESHAs to outside of the proposed development footprint is inconsistent with section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act does not allow impacts to existing ESHA even to move or translocate it adjacent to its current location as opposed to an off-site location as was initially proposed Further as explained above the Tarplant exists where it is currently located because the soil conditions and other factors and there is no guarantee that the plants will survive in a new location Habitat that qualifies as ESHA under the Coastal Act must be protected in place except under limited situations not applicable here pursuant to Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Only resource dependent uses are allowed within areas designated as ESHA and only if there is no other less environmentally damaging feasible alternative Therefore the proposed Southern Tarplant translocation is not permissible under the Coastal Act since it would be done for residential purposes The courts have already clarified this limitation in the 1999 appellate ruling- concerning the Bolsa Chica site when 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 35 the Commission approved the translocation of the existing Eucalyptus grove ESHA over to the Huntington Mesa to make way for residential development The Southern Tarplant populations that constitute ESHA must also be protected from adjacent development with an adequately sized buffer The Commission s staff ecologist recommends that a 50-foot buffer be established adjacent to the ESHA boundaries defined by the presence of tarplant as illustrated in Figure 1 of his memo (Exhibit 20) The Commission has used such a buffer to protect sensitive vegetation in past actions consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act The recently submitted On-Site Preservation/Translocation Southern Tarplant Plan provides for a 50-foot buffer around the translocated Tarplant However there are significant encroachments proposed within the Tarplant (and wetland) buffers As shown in Exhibit 22 pages 1 and 2 a decomposed granite maintenance road and an elevated boardwalk for wetland viewing are located between immediately adjacent (and above for the elevated boardwalk) to within approximately 25 ft from the wetland The exhibit does not delineate the Los Patos wetland However there does not appear to be a 100 ft buffer beyond the existing wetland Both structures are within the 50 ft Tarplant ESHA buffer These encroachments are inconsistent with Sections 30240(b) and 30233 of the Coastal Act as the structures, and the people and maintenance vehicles they will accommodate are too close to the ESHA and wetland area they are supposed to be protecting Bird use of the wetland will be decreased if people are placed above the wetland on the proposed elevated boardwalk Additionally the proposed 2 million gallon underground water reservoir is proposed adjacent to the Los Patos wetland and the Tarplant ESHA between Los Patos Avenue and the wetland and the tarplant Although the utility is not located directly beneath the wetland excavation for the structure will occur within several feet of the wetland and will cause the removal of some of the Tarplant ESHA located to the west of the wetlands (Exhibit 22 pages 1 and 2) Additionally the 2 5-acre recreation center adjacent to the Southern Tarplant ESHA and Los Patos wetland includes a tot lot- picnic areas on decomposed granite a boardwalk and gazebo several swimming pools and a 1 300 square foot clubhouse There could certainly be a redesign of the private recreation center and the underground water reservoir to allow the necessary preservation of the Tarplant ESHA and the Los Patos wetland Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas namely the Southern Tarplant ESHA populations on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the protection of the Los Patos wetland as required by Section 30233 of the Coastal Act The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 36 3 Burrowing Owl ESHA One of the sensitive raptor species that uses the Bolsa Chica mesa is the burrowing owl The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) considers the burrowing owl (Athene cuniculana) a California Species of Special Concern It hunts for prey in open grasslands and areas of ruderal vegetation The upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa contains 75 acres of such habitat In addition to foraging over the grasslands the burrowing owl uses the abandoned burrows of the California ground squirrel and other small rodents as shelter during the nesting and wintering seasons The burrowing owl is in decline in most areas of California especially in the coastal zone due to the loss of habitat as a result of development and rodent control activities The rapid decline of this species in Orange County has been chronicled in the latter half of the 20th century a The Brightwater development site contains many burrows that have probably been used by the burrowing owl One or two wintering birds are thought to use the Bolsa Chica Mesa as evidenced by repeated observations of a one owl or two owls in the winters of 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 by the applicants biologists (Exhibit 17a) However it is believed that the Bolsa Chica Mesa is used by an unknown number of migrant burrowing owls as a stop-over foraging area according to Dr Dixon s communications with other raptor biologists It is raptor biologist Peter Bloom s professional opinion that migrant and wintering burrowing owls use the Bolsa Chica Mesa during most years The Bolsa Chica Mesa is one of the few areas in the region that still has the potential for nesting by this species in the future Additionally the burrowing owl is one of three species of raptors at Bolsa Chica that DFG biologist Ron Jurek thinks is most in need of habitat protection Based on this information Dr Dixon has determined that the area on the Bolsa Chica Mesa as mapped by the applicants biologist as burrowing owl habitat constitute an ESHA as defined by the Coastal Act and therefore also should be protected as required by the Coastal Act The Commission agrees Additionally the DFG in its January 16 2002 comments on the project EIR recommended that the burrowing owl habitat on the upper bench be retained if feasible Upon receipt of the applicants mapping showing the burrowing owl habitat location at the request of Commission technical staff planning staff suggested that the applicant again review the submittal of the mapped burrowing owl use area It appeared to staff that the area might have been drawn overly broad The applicant however did not alter the map of burrowing owl primary roosting areas However several months later the applicant did survey the project area for for potential burrow habitat On June 15 2004 the applicant s consultant LSA submitted the results of a survey taken on June 2 2004 (Exhibit 17) The applicants June 2004 survey of ground squirrel activity found approximately 130 ground squirrel burrow locations providing a rough approximation of how squirrels and their 8 Hamilton and Willick (1996) and Gallagher and Bloom(1997) according to Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Volume I Brightwater Development Project Orange County California SCH #1993071064 LSA November 17 2001 page 4 9 21 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 37 burrows are distributed on the site as explained by the consultant The highest use areas were areas where there is a break in topography at the edge of the slope of the upper mesa on the west and at the bluff edge on the south and on the bluff edge of the lower bench overlooking Outer Bolsa Bay and the lowlands on the southeastern bluff edge of the lower bench LSA concluded that the best way to offset potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would be to enhance owl habitat suitability somewhere on the lower mesa where human disturbance could be managed However Dr Dixon recommends that the Commission use a similar approach in identifying the burrowing owl ESHA on the Bolsa Chica as it did in a recent project in the South Central Coast District the Arco Dos Pueblos Golf Links (December 11 2002 Commission Hearing) In that case the Commission designated only trees known to have been used by white-tailed kites for nesting or perching and adjacent trees as ESHA In the present instance LSA Associates has identified the area containing burrows known to be used by wintering burrowing owls Burrowing owls tend to reuse burrows year after year and an area should be considered occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow there within the last three years according to the California Burrowing Owl Consortium and the Department of Fish and Game Therefore the LSA field observations are good evidence of occupied habitat and Dr Dixon recommends that the Commission designate as ESHA the area mapped by LSA as the Primary roosting areas used by wintering burrowing owls This designation would be made in recognition of its important role in the ecosystem of providing support to a species of special concern that has nearly been extirpated from the coastal zone by conversion of habitat to urban uses This LSA mapping is shown in Exhibit 17a and is reflected in Figure 1 of Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo (Exhibit 20) The Commission agrees and hereby designates those areas as ESHA Again once an area is designated as ESHA the Commission cannot sacrifice it in exchange for another (except in limited circumstances not applicable here) Thus the existing burrowing owl habitat as provided by the applicants biologist and shown on Figure 1 of Dr Dixon s July 15 2004 memo must remain intact given the evidence of the previous use of the area by the burrowing owl Although enhanced owl habitat suitability somewhere on the lower mesa where human disturbance could be managed as recommended by LSA may be beneficial it cannot be used to justify removal of existing habitat Instead of retaining the burrowing owl habitat the County of Orange in its approval of the project required the applicant (in Project Design Feature (PDF) 9-5) to conduct surveys for the burrowing owl prior to grading and construction but ultimately will allow the existing burrow to be eliminated with mitigation If the burrow is found to be in active use the bird(s) is (are) required to be passively relocated to enhanced or created alternative burrows at a 1 1 ratio DFG requested that the applicant conduct a formal burrowing owl survey and perform all activities concerning the burrowing owl using the 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines prepared by the California Burrowing Owl 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 38 Consortium following the DFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation dated September 25 1995 Further DFG requested that when destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable enhanced or new burrows be provided on a 2 1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to the occupied burrowing owl habitat if possible As approved by the County the applicant only has to provide mitigation at a ratio of 1 1 as opposed to the 2 1 suggested by DFG Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas namely the burrowing owl ESHA on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 4 Annual Grassland and Ruderal Foraging Habitat The vegetation type on the project site is predominantly non-native annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation Of the 105 3-acre development area 82 6 acres of open vegetated areas are dominated by annual grasslands (55 9 acres) and ruderal grassland/forb (26 7 acres) according to the project EIR Although annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation are generally not considered to be sensitive resources because of the exotic character of the dominant species these habitats nevertheless provide important support for many native species of plants and animals This habitat type is particularly important as foraging habit for many species of birds of prey and it is being rapidly replaced by development in much of coastal southern California At the Bolsa Chica mesa the annual grassland and ruderal vegetation provides critical support for the many species of birds that use the Eucalyptus and palms trees along the bluff edge for perching roosting and nesting Without adequate foraging habitat nearby the existing Eucalyptus grove of the Bolsa Chica Mesa would not continue to function as ESHA In the past little concern has been expressed nor any actions taken about the loss of annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation given their status as non-native habitat However in recent years with the increasing loss of native prairies it has come to the attention of Department of Fish and Game and other raptor biologists that the remaining non-native annual grassland and ruderal vegetation are becoming a critical food source which is essential to the health of populations of many birds of prey and other native species For this reason DFG has recommended mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act for the loss of such non-native habitat In over 60 recent actions DFG has required preservation of foraging habitat at a ratio of 0 5 acres preserved to each acre lost to development At Bolsa Chica the foraging habitat on the mesa is absolutely necessary for the continued presence of many of the raptors that utilize the Eucalyptus ESHA Furthermore concerning the interconnectedness of the foraging habitat and the Eucalyptus ESHA DFG biologist Ron Jurek wrote in an October 2000 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 39 independent review of the potential effects of development on raptors of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that the Eucalyptus ESHA is a zone of trees with good perching and nesting conditions within raptor habitat It is not the raptor habitat itself In my professional opinion for most of the raptor species known to use the ESHA raptor use depends primarily on the availability of the food resources of the surrounding lands As proposed the Brightwater development project would eliminate 75 2 acres of annual grassland and ruderal habitat combined In approving the development the County of Orange also adopted the project s subsequent EIR The EIR states that the proposed loss of foraging habitat will not be significant considering the existence of the remaining habitat on the mesa and in the region The Commission notes that of the existing grassland and ruderal habitat on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa the Brightwater development project eliminates all but 1 5 acres of grassland and all but 6 acres of ruderal vegetation Therefore the EIR statement must be referring to the grassland and ruderal habitats remaining on the lower bench of Bolsa Chica Mesa However the Commission notes that the lower bench is not before the Commission given that the applicant has refused to include it in this or the original Brightwater application There is no guarantee that the lower bench will be sold for conservation purposes Moreover even if the lower bench were to be preserved the Commission believes that the loss of more than 75 acres of annual grassland and ruderal habitat directly adjacent to the eucalyptus ESHA would still be a significant loss For the reasons stated in the extended quotation listed below the impacts on the raptors is likely to be directly related and proportional to the size of the vegetation removed regardless of the presence of similar vegetative communities nearby In fact if anything the ratio should be higher here due to the particular significance of the Bolsa Chica Mesa to a great variety of raptors The special importance of the Eucalyptus trees and adjacent foraging habitats to many species of nesting and wintering raptor species has been recognized by the wildlife agencies for over 20 years The project EIR also suggested that the loss of foraging habitat would not be significant based on a statement of another October 2000 independent reviewer of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Brian Walton that concluded that the overall population status would not be changed for any species of raptor at Bolsa Chica Although this statement is true Dr Dixon points out that this standard is not adequate in the context of resource conservation and states it would be a very low standard that ignores the local or regional significance of a species presence It simply means that the viability of the species in California is unlikely to be measurably decreased by local losses Similar claims can be made of impacts even to many endangered species where the loss of a few individuals is unlikely to push the species to extinction That fact is however not a compelling argument for additional impacts In fact Mr Walton did not intend to suggest that the raptor habitat at Bolsa Chica was unimportant This is obvious in the following excerpts from Mr Walton s letters to the Department of Fish and Game and to the Coastal Commission 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 40 Pete [Bloom] and I have studied raptors in coastal California for the last 25+ years No one else can say that We still feel that the raptors and the Bolsa Chica habitat are important That has been a consistent opinion for nearly 20 years from the only two people who have been continuously focused on these species in these locations During that period the rest of Orange County has largely been paved over and upland grasslands near coastal wetlands are almost non existent Hence it would be likely that the opinions we had in 1982 on the importance of this habitat are even more relevant in 2000 1 have difficulty in understanding why any development is allowed to occur in this area and The clearest case where development is impacting raptors and their prey species but where the Commission still is uncertain of the real impact on raptor populations is in Orange County There most raptor species have been completely eliminated from the coastal zone as breeders and most of the region has vastly reduced wintering population range Even still the last bit of available open space (Bolsa Chica) is being considered for some development with the idea that the remaining raptors will move elsewhere or not be impacted or live in remnant open space within the developed area It is not accurate in fact that individual raptors when impacted by development simply move elsewhere and everyone survives If that were true there would be areas of incredible density in non developed areas where the impacted raptors have moved and are now living with pre existing birds This philosophy would be analogous to thinking that if you tore down one of two adjacent apartment buildings that all the residents would simply move into the remaining building and live two families to an apartment The density of raptors is dependent on a variety of things so birds cannot actually just get denser in adjacent areas by moving off development sites Given the above facts concerning the importance of grasslands and ruderal habitats for the proper functioning of the adjacent Eucalyptus ESHA for the many raptors that use the Bolsa Chica Mesa a decision has to be made as to whether these vegetative communities themselves constitutes ESHA as defined by the Coastal Act Dr Dixon outlines the issues that have to be factored when making such a determination Although the raptor foraging habitat at Bolsa Chica is clearly of high ecological value because of its context in maintaining the raptors including the burrowing owl the non-native habitat alone does not constitute ESHA However its loss as contemplated in the proposed Brightwater development project would clearly be inconsistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act which prohibits development adjacent to ESHA that would significantly degrade the ESHA As discussed herein the importance of foraging habitat is clearly such that the loss of a large amount at Bolsa Chica would result in impacts which would significantly degrade the adjacent Eucalyptus tree ESHA such that it would no longer be especially valuable to birds of prey Therefore to be in compliance with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act development must be sited such that this does not occur 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 41 Because of the significant adverse effects of development on raptor foraging habitat Dr Dixon suggests that the Commission should follow the recommendation of the Department of Fish and Game and seek mitigation for the destruction of annual grassland and ruderal foraging habitat on the Bolsa Chica Mesa by preserving 0 5 acres of such habitat for each acre lost to development Preservation preferably should be on the project site adjacent to the Eucalyptus tree ESHA and could reasonably include the recommended buffer areas for the Eucalyptus trees and for the burrowing owl habitat described above However the current proposal does not offer any mitigation for the loss of the annual grasslands and ruderal vegetation Moreover providing the level of mitigation the Commission finds appropriate (0 5 1) on the project site would reduce the developable area by a third necessitating a significant redesign of the project This magnitude of redesign more than is appropriate for the Commission to do through conditioning the project Therefore for reasons detailed above the Brightwater development project as currently proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act requirements that development in areas adjacent to ESHA shall be sited to prevent impacts that would seriously degrade the ESHA and must be denied The proposed development would remove the annual grasslands and ruderal habitat on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that are necessary for the continued functioning of the Eucalyptus tree ESHA The Commission therefore denies the proposed project as submitted 5 Biological Impacts of the Proposed Bluff Edge Grading and its Associated Recreation Support Development The proposed Brightwater project includes the construction of a 30 ft high 2-acre fill slope at the current edge of the southern bluff overlooking the Bolsa Chica Lowlands This proposed grading constitutes significant landform alteration as discussed later in this staff report The proposed bluff edge grading is also inconsistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act in that the proposed fill will be located immediately adjacent to the existing Eucalyptus grove ESHA (within the already reduced 100 ft wide ESHA buffer) causing significant adverse impacts to the threatened and endangered species that use the ESHA As discussed in Section F Visual and Scenic Resources and Section E Public Access and Recreation of this staff report the proposed fill not only results in a significant visual impact and further significant alteration of the natural landform of the Bolsa Chica Mesa but also includes the placement of a 32 ft wide paved vehicular road a 30-space paved parking lot and a trailhead on the proposed fill slope for recreation support purposes The fill slope will be located at an elevation that would place parked cars and their horns and lights at roughly the same elevation as the tops of the Eucalyptus trees of the ESHA that are located on the face of the adjacent slope The impacts of the people and noise within such close proximity to the raptors and other animals and that use the Eucalyptus grove ESHA is directly counter to the purpose of ESHA buffers This parking location and design creates the potential for significant adverse impacts to the raptors that use the 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 42 Eucalyptus trees for nesting and perching The Commissions staff ecologist is recommending a 100-meter buffer between the proposed park support and residential development and the Eucalyptus grove ESHA The proposed fill slope and its associated development would be located immediately adjacent to the Eucalyptus grove ESHA inconsistent with section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act Therefore the Commission is denying the proposed Brightwater project as currently designed Finally the proposed park design is further inconsistent with the ESHA protection policies of the Coastal Act due to the location of the proposed multi-use pedestrian/bicycle trail with respect to the Eucalyptus ESHA The proposed trail alignment has been modified so that it is no closer than 75 ft to the Eucalyptus ESHA The Commission staff ecologist is recommending a 100-meter buffer between the ESHA and the proposed development however allowing the proposed park trail within the 5 meter area closest to the residential development As proposed approximately one third of the trail length is too close to the Eucalyptus grove ESHA Similarly the trail alignment in other locations is proposed within the burrowing owl and Tarplant ESHA buffers The proposed subdivision design seeks to use virtually all of the existing upper bench mesa top land area for private residential development and locates the public recreation and recreation support facilities on the proposed fill slope or within ESHA buffer areas As a cross-section of the proposed park indicates the public trail is located on the face of the slope that separates the upper and lower mesas and not on the bluff top as far away from the Eucalyptus burrowing owl habitat and Southern Tarplant ESHAs as possible Facilities within the upland habitat park for public park purposes must also be sited and designed so that the do not adversely impact the existing ESHAs As proposed the park design creates the potential for significant human disturbance of the endangered and threatened species that use the Eucalyptus grove ESHA Therefore the proposed park design unnecessarily conflicts with the Coastal Act policies promoting protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas under the auspices of promoting public access As detailed above the proposed project as designed causes the public access and public recreation facilities to have significant adverse impacts on sensitive land resources There are feasible design alternatives available that can provide appropriate public access and passive recreational opportunities while protecting the adjacent environmentally sensitive resources as required by the Coastal Act However the proposed project must be significantly redesigned in order to bring it into conformance with the public access recreation and land resources protection policies of the Coastal Act Therefore the project currently before the Commission must be denied 6 Biological Impacts of Fuel Modification on the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 43 Although the proposed project is not located within a high fire danger area the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is still requiring that the applicant prepare a fuel modification plan to reduce the potential for fire damage to property and life OCFA Fuel Modification Guidelines are as follows Zone A— provide a minimum 20 feet wide level graded area at the top or base of slope and immediately adjacent to the protected development no combustible structures fully irrigated with automatic irrigation system all vegetation shall be highly fire resistant and shall not include undesirable combustible vegetation Zone B — provide a minimum 50 feet wide irrigated area and must be planted with plants from the approved OCFA Plant List No combustible construction is allowed Zone C and D — are considered the non-irrigated thinning zones Zone C is 50 feet in width and requires 50% thinning with removal of all dead and dying undesirable species Zone D is 50 feet in width and requires 30% thinning with removal of all dead and dying growth and undesirable species Specific requirements for these zones include all fuels be reduced to a maximum of 8-12 inches in height and native grasses when used shall be cut after annual seeding and shall not exceed 8 inches in height All plants within these zones must be chosen from the approved OCFA plant list Trees which are being retained with the approval of the agency having jurisdiction shall be pruned to provide clearance of three times the height of the under story plant material or 10 feet whichever is higher Dead and twiggy growth shall also be removed All existing plants or plant grouping except cacti succulents trees and tree-form shrubs shall be separated by a distance of three times the height of the plant material or 20 feet whichever is the greater The Guidelines do however allow special consideration for rare and endangered species geologic hazards tree ordinances or other conflicting restrictions as identified in the environmental documents The applicant has chosen to design the proposed subdivision such that the residential lots are within approximately 100 feet of the existing Eucalyptus grove ESHA in order to maximize ocean and wetland views of the homes owners and to maximize the use the upper bench for residential development Eucalyptus trees are highly flammable and are not allowed by OCFA to be planted or retained within 170 feet of habitable structures However the existing Eucalyptus grove on the upper and lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa has been designated and environmentally sensitive habitat area by DFG the Coastal Commission and is recognized as such by the Court Therefore the Eucalyptus trees must be retained in place In August 2002 the applicant sought conceptual approval of their required Fuel Modification Plan from OCFA OCFA responded that that the applicant could move the proposed houses back 50 feet to meet the Zone D fuel modification requirements due to 5 04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 44 the presence of the Eucalyptus trees within 170 from the proposed residential lots9 OCFA also stated that the applicant could propose alternate construction for the structures that would be adjacent to the Eucalyptus trees The applicant applied for approval of Alternate Means and Methods to the above fuel modification guidelines Instead of moving the homes an additional 50 ft away from the ESHA as suggested by OCFA In addition to use of alternative construction methods for the 16 homes whose Zone D fuel modification requirements overlap with the Eucalyptus ESHA (installing automatic sprinklers in the homes and Class A construction of all roofs of the affected buildings) the applicant is proposing modifications to both Zones C and D in lieu of moving the structures back 50 feet Those changes to the above OCFA guidelines include the irrigation of both zones where they are adjacent to the overlap of Zone D and the Eucalyptus ESHA (Exhibit 14) According to the applicants biological consultant the irrigation of this area increases its equivalent width when compared to non-irrigated zones The applicant received approval of their Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan from OCFA in August 2002 However OCFA approval of the Precise Fuel Modification Plan is still necessary The Conceptual Fuel Modification approval also requires that some plants normally associated with coastal sage scrub communities not be allowed to be planted or retained within the fuel modification area Those plant species are California Sagebrush (Artemisia Californica) and Black Sage (Salvia Melllifera) as listed in Exhibit 14a The alternate means and methods application was also for the proposed planting of wetland and coastal prairie habitats within the fuel modification plan area as well as the retention of the Eucalyptus trees The plans for the upland habitat park also show coastal bluff scrub vegetation not normally allowed within 170 ft of habitable structures being used in the northwestern portion of the park near Warner Avenue but not in the southeastern portion near the Eucalyptus grove ESHA where it currently exists(Exhibit 14) The proposed public upland habitat park located on the slope between the upper and lower benches serves the dual role of providing the full 170 foot wide (Zones A— D) required fuel modification area for the 57 residential lots that are proposed on the slope and bluff edges of the upper bench of the mesa (Exhibit 14a) The upland habitat park is 28 acres in size including the existing 5-acre Eucalyptus grove ESHA Based on the current design of the subdivision 731 000 sq ft or 17 of the 28 acres of the upland habitat park is required fuel modification area Therefore nearly three-quarters of the public park must be planted irrigated and maintained in a manner that provides fire protection for the adjacent private residential use The required fuel modification area also includes 33 500 sq ft or 0 8 acres of the 5-acre Eucalyptus grove ESHA according to OCFA figures 10 Of the total 57 lots that abut the public park 25 residential lots abut the proposed 100 ft wide 9 OCFA SR#68164 (1 9 Conceptual Fuel Modification) Brightwater Tentative Tract#15460 Unincorporated Huntington Beach Bret Anderson of OCFA to FORMA April 26 2002 page 2 item 8 This letter is attached as Exhibit 14 10 These figures were obtained from the applicant on Attachment A of their 8/12/02 correspondence to Brett Anderson of OCFA concerning the Brightwater Conceptual Fuel Modification Plan OCFA Service Request No 68164 page 2 of 2 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 45 Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer However it is the fuel modification requirements for 16 of the lots that encroach into the ESHA affecting 0 8 acres of the ESHA (Exhibit 14) The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in their review of the proposed fuel modification program expressed concerns over the non-compatible goals of habitat protection and fire protection for adjacent habitable structures DFG noted in its April 24 2003 review of several documents associate with the Brightwater development approval that a modified plant palette has been prepared to avoid native coastal sage or coastal bluff scrub species prohibited by the County s list of undesirable species including California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and other common coastal sage scrub species Also cited by DFG is the irrigation of coastal sage scrub (css) that is being protected in place and the normal requirement that css vegetation be thinned and removed as stated above in the Zones C and D requirements Concern was also expressed over the limited list of species proposed for the coastal prairie plant community especially given the abundance of non- native grasses and forbs that will compete with this new habitat DFG suggested that additional local native species be added to the coastal prairie palette in order to increase native diversity and include native coastal grassland species that are more disturbance adapted for use in the detention basin Finally DFG commented on the likely results of the introduction of irrigation mowing thinning and other habitat disturbance that will be created by using the upland habitat park including the Eucalyptus ESHA buffer for fuel modification purposes Specifically cited examples are the negative alterations of native arthropod communities and vegetation thinning requirements requiring the removal of species such as California sagebrush In response to the DFG concerns noted above the applicant stated that they will work with OCFA in the required Precise Fuel Modification Plan approval process to avoid or minimize any thinning of existing coastal sage scrub that is being retained and to keep its irrigation to a minimum The applicants biological consultant further noted that they were allowed by OCFA to retain existing css in another coastal project without any thinning requirements after requiring the homes to implement similar alternate construction methods The applicant further stated that irrigation is expected to be infrequent and minimal and applied only when needed during the dry summer period and that many native species including the species identified in the coastal bluff scrub palette for the project can tolerate occasional summer irrigation although they do not need it DGF ultimately concurred with the applicant that the Eucalyptus ESHA will not be affected by the proposed project if all of the specific construction and management activities of the conceptually approved fuel modification plan are followed Nonetheless DFG also stated that they do not consider fuel modification zones regardless of their native species content to be considered acceptable as mitigation for biological impacts Coastal Commission staff ecologist Dr Dixon recommends against the proposed use of the Eucalyptus ESHA buffer as a fuel modification zones to protect the proposed adjacent residential development from fire damage This use would be inconsistent with section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act The purpose of an ESHA buffer is to surround 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 46 environmentally sensitive habitat areas in order to maintain the integrity and protect the resource values of the habitat areas Buffers allow for some error in assigning boundaries and also keep disturbances at a distance The proposed project has already reduced the ESHA buffer by more than two-thirds of its necessary width to adequately protect the Eucalyptus ESHA as detailed above Buffers are also supposed to provide important auxiliary habitat (e g foraging or pollinator habitat) for the adjacent ESHA The fuel modification guidelines as shown above are not consistent with the goals of protecting adjacent habitat Buffers should be planted with appropriate native vegetation (drought- tolerant) and allowed to grow naturally after some initial irrigation if necessary However as approved in the conceptual fuel modification plan the entire width of the ESHA buffer would be irrigated thinned and trimmed to meet fire suppression requirements and certain native coastal sage scrub species would not be allowed Therefore ESHA buffers should not be used as fuel modification zones to protect adjacent development The proposed use of the already reduced Eucalyptus ESHA buffer for fuel modification practices is inconsistent with section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act Therefore the Commission must deny the proposed Brightwater project as currently designed E PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION The provision of public access in new development proposals is one of the main tenants of the Coastal Act especially in conjunction with new development located between the sea and the first public road such as the subject project The 225-acre Bolsa Chica Mesa is located between the first public road and the mean high tide of the sea At nearly 50 ft above mean sea level spectacular views of the wetlands and the associated wildlife and uninterrupted views of the Pacific Ocean are available from the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Bolsa Chica Wetlands at approximately 1 000 acres is the largest remaining wetland in Southern California Following the 1997 State acquisition of most of the remaining wetlands that were under private ownership a comprehensive Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration effort is now underway Given the prominence of the adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands appropriate public access and passive recreational opportunities must be conspicuously posted and provided Further the Coastal Act gives priority to land uses that provide opportunities for enhanced public access public recreation and lower cost visitor recreational uses Section 30210 Access, recreational opportunities, posting In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution maximum access which shall be conspicuously posted and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights rights of private property owners and natural resource areas from overuse (Amended by Ch 1075 Stats 1978 ) 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 47 Section 30211 Development not to interfere with access Development shall not interfere with the public s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization including but not limited to the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation Section 30212 New development projects (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where (1)It is inconsistent with public safety military security needs or the protection of fragile coastal resources (2)Adequate access exists nearby or (3) Agriculture would be adversely affected Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway (b)For purposes of this section new development does not include (1)Replacement of any structure pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (g)of Section 30610 (2)The demolition and reconstruction of a single family residence provided that the reconstructed residence shall not exceed either the floor area height or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited in the same location on the affected property as the former structure (3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the intensity of its use which do not increase either the floor area height or bulk of the structure by more than 10 percent which do not block or impede public access and which do not result in a seaward encroachment by the structure (4)The reconstruction or repair of any seawall provided however that the reconstructed or repaired seawall is not a seaward of the location of the former structure (5)Any repair or maintenance activity for which the commission has determined pursuant to Section 30610 that a coastal development permit will be required unless the commission determines that the activity will have an adverse impact on lateral public access along the beach As used in this subdivision bulk means total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure (c)Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Sections 66478 1 to 66478 14 inclusive of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution (Amended by Ch 1075 Stats 1978 Ch 919 Stats 1979 Ch 744 Stats 1983 ) Section 30212 5 Public facilities, distiibution 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 48 Wherever appropriate and feasible public facilities including parking areas or facilities shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts social and otherwise of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area Section 30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities, encouragement and provision, overnight room rentals Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected encouraged and where feasible provided Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred The commission shall not (1)require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel motel or other similar visitor serving facility located on either public or private lands or(2)establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities (Amended by Ch 1191 Stats 1979 Ch 1087 Stats 1980 Ch 1007 Stats 1981 Ch 285 Stats 1991 ) The proposed project does not provide for maximum public access to and along the bluff edge where views of the coast are available as required by the Coastal Act While the proposed project includes a 28-acre upland habitat park at the slope and bluff edge public access to the proposed public recreational amenity is limited by the uninviting guard-gated community design and the fact that general public vehicular access is not allowed within the residential community The extension of separate public road on the eastern project boundary (Bolsa Chica Street) is the only public entry into the entire 105-acre site Notice to the public of the availability of the proposed recreational amenity is inadequate The public park is also being used to place facilities and uses to support the adjacent private residential community As further discussed in the Biological Resources and Landform Alteration sections of this staff report as currently designed the proposed park entry road and public parking spaces supported by a 30 ft high 2 acre fill slope are all located within the already reduced Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer and the fill slope on which they are located represents significant landform alteration Further the trail alignment is too close to the Eucalyptus grove ESHA and should be moved closer to the houses within the landward most 5 meters of the 100-meter wide buffer instead of the proposed 100-foot wide ESHA buffer The Brightwater development portion of the site is 105 3 acres and the proposed residual parcel is another 11 8 acres for a total project site of 117 1 acres The applicant is proposing a 28-acre upland habitat park along the slope between the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the southern bluff edge of the upper bench of the mesa (Exhibit 4) Therefore 24% of the project area is devoted to public access and recreation land use along bluff and 76% of the site is used for residential and unspecified purposes The proposed public park provides public passive recreational uses including wildlife viewing opportunities of the adjacent wetlands and scenic views of Bolsa Chica State Beach and the Pacific Ocean beyond Seating areas up to 20 bike racks and interpretive information will also be provided along the 0 6 mile long paved 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 49 pedestrian/Class I bike trail The entire park will be dedicated to the County of Orange Department of Harbors Beaches and Parks for recreation and conservation purposes upon completion of construction However it must be noted that the proposed upland habitat park is being used for more than public park purposes Of the 28 acres making up the proposed upland habitat park 5 of those acres are the existing Eucalyptus grove ESHA which must be preserved in place and must be adequately protected by a buffer separating it from the proposed residential development 100% of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) required 17 acre fuel modification plan area to protect future homes that abut the park is located in the public park Additionally a vegetated treatment system the major part of the water quality management plan to treat low flow and storm runoff from the private community development is also located in the public park Finally the park acreage also includes the extension of Bolsa Chica Street the only vehicular access to the park and 30 public parking spaces at the end of this new road To determine whether a development meets the Coastal Act goal of providing maximum public access and recreational opportunities at a level appropriate for a particular site the ease with which the public can use the amenities and not just the acreage devoted to such use must also be considered The Coastal Act requires that public access opportunities be conspicuously posted to inform the public of the on-site amenities The applicant is proposing a guard-gated private residential community between the public road (Los Patos Avenue) and the proposed public upland habitat park along the slope and bluff of the upper mesa at the opposite end of the 105-acre site Pubic vehicular access within or through the community are prohibited The general public is not allowed to drive into the residential community and park on its streets to get to the three proposed resident only interior vertical accessways that lead to the various segments of the more than half mile long park and trail Public vehicular access to the park is available only from Bolsa Chica Street on the inland most (eastern) boundary of the project site farthest away from PCH the route most visitors to the area travel There is no signage concerning the proposed park or vehicular access thereto at the project site on Warner Avenue nor visible from PCH The vehicular park entry location is not known to individuals who do not reside in this particular area of Huntington Beach The off-site signage informing the public of the availability of the proposed park is located at Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street The signage program includes no signage on Warner Avenue at Pacific Coast Highway The existing publicly owned Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve parking lot is located at Warner and Pacific Coast Highway Many visitors from outside of the local area use this parking lot to enjoy the wetlands This would be a much better location for signage to inform the public of the proposed upland habitat park The applicant should seek permission from the Department of Fish and Game managers of the Ecological Reserve to place public signage concerning the upland habitat park in the Ecological Reserve parking lot 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 50 Private guard-gated communities are not publicly inviting and are therefore not encouraged between the sea and the first public road A visitor-friendly signage program that informs the public of the on-site public access and recreational amenities including parking may help to overcome the psychological public access barriers created by private communities However the proposed public signage program is also inadequate further exacerbating the inadequacies of the overall public access and recreation provisions of the development Therefore although the proposed project includes a 28-acre upland habitat park to be dedicated to the public public access to the park is made difficult and therefore public access is actually discouraged These design elements render the proposed project inconsistent with the public access and public recreation provisions of the Coastal Act Section 30212 5 of the Coastal Act advocates the distribution of recreation support facilities such as parking throughout an area as opposed to a single location in order to prevent overuse of any one area This is especially significant given the sensitive land resources of the project site The location of the only on-site public parking to support public use of the park is not approvable as detailed in the Biological Resources section of this staff report because it is proposed within the Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer and would be located on a proposed 30 foot high fill slope placing people and cars at about the same level of the tree tops (Exhibit 4 and 15) No public parking is proposed within the subdivision providing more direct access to the park and outside of sensitive resource areas Therefore the proposed project is inconsistent with Sections 30212 5 of the Coastal Act By simply allowing the general public to drive into the subdivision park along the streets of the community aong with the use of three vertical accessways and by providing adequate signage to alert the public to these options the proposal could meet the Coastal Act goal of maximizing public access and public recreational opportunities On September 14 2004 the applicant made revisions to the propsed public access plan The applicant will now allow public pedestrian and bicycle access through the community to access the proposed upland habitat park including the use of the three paseos located throughout the residential community To make the 114 off-site parking spaces viable the applicant has also added a gated entry from Los Patos Avenue allowing the public to park off-site and more easily get to the park through the residential community by foot or bicycle While this is an improvement without any on-site public parking the proposed project does not provide maximum feasible public access as required by the Coastal Act F SCENIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Coastal Act seeks to minimize the alteration of natural bluffs and cliffs in the coastal zone in order to protect the scenic views to and along the coast and throughout coastal areas generally Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 51 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas to minimize the alteration of natural land forms to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas and where feasible to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting 1_ Existing Geomorphology and Past Development Activities The Brightwater residential project site is located on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the slope between the upper and lower benches The proposed residual parcel is located on the lower bench at the toe of the slope separating the two benches (Exhibit 15) Existing ground elevations on the upper bench range from 30-50 ft above mean sea level (MSL) The surface elevation of the lower bench is 10-30 ft above MSL The two benches are separated by a slope approx 25 ft high with an average gradient of 10-15% Also at the toe of the slope running parallel to it lies the surface trace of the Newport- Inglewood fault suggesting that the slope is a fault line scarp created by differential movement across the fault According to the Commissions staff geologist Dr Mark Johnsson the Bolsa Chica Mesa is one of the few places in Orange County where a fault line scarp can be observed and is often the site of college level geology class site visits to see this feature first hand (Exhibit 13) Grading and urbanization have destroyed most fault line scarps associated with the Newport-Inglewood fault zone The southeastern bluff edge of the project site has a steeper gradient than the slope separating the upper and lower benches The bluff face averages 45% slope with some areas being near vertical At the toe of the southeastern bluff edge is the Isolated Pocket Lowland and the EGGW Flood Control Channel The southeastern bluff was formed by fluvial erosion by the Santa Ana River when its alignment flowed in this part of the lowlands The natural topography of the Bolsa Chica Mesa has been modified over the past 100 years Previous activity includes agricultural use the grading of access roads for the construction of oil wells and oil/gas pipelines construction (in the early 1940 s) and demolition (in the 1990 s) of two World War 11 gun emplacements or concrete bunkers archaeological investigation and excavation of portions of the bluff and slope edges to be used for fill for development in the City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit 19) All of the past development with the exception of the demolition of the WW II bunkers and the later archaeological investigations was done prior to the Coastal Act Development on the Balsa Chica Mesa pursuant to coastal development permits approved by the Coastal Commission include the demolition of the WW II bunkers in the early 1990 s and several archaeological investigation (two meters square hand excavation units trenches auger holes and controlled grading) and data recovery has also occurred on the 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 52 Bolsa Chica Mesa pursuant to coastal development permits Issued between 1983 and 19901, 2 Bluff/Slope Edge Delineation Commission staff and the applicant spent several conversations and written correspondence dealing with the location of the bluff edge of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa The applicant contends that because of the prior activity on the mesa including alterations to the slope and bluff edges that they do not constitute natural landforms The Commission staff geologist disagreed with this assessment and continued to ask for a delineation of the top-of-slope In addition identification of the top-of-slope is relevant to an evaluation of the safety of the proposal irrespective of whether or not the slope constitutes a natural landform The applicant also argues that the slope separating the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is not a bluff Commission staff geologist concurs in the determination that the slope separating the upper and lower benches is probably not a bluff given the gradual nature of the slope separating the two benches (Exhibit 13) However again Commission staff continues to believe that a delineation of the top-of-slope for the western edge of the project site is necessary because of its usefulness in evaluating various aspects of the project The applicant finally produced a map showing the top-of-slope between the upper and lower benches to be a line drawn part way down the slope Apparently this line was chosen because it corresponds to an interpolated line that is the top of a steep road cut on the slope Although staff does not agree that the applicants line conforms to the top of the actual altered slope we do agree that the determination of top-of-slope is made difficult by the previous alteration that has resulted in the gradual rounding of the slope Given the circumstances Commission staff geologist indicated that it is probably best to determine the slope face on the basis of its measured gradient which is markedly steeper than the very gentle gradient of the mesas above and below The applicant also produced a map containing a delineation of the edge of the river bluff on the southern edge of the upper mesa overlooking the Lowlands The applicant drew the line using the guidelines of the California Code of Regulations Section 13577(h)(2) Commission staff geologist review of the applicant s bluff edge delineation found that while there are some small areas of disagreement there is one major discrepancy The discrepancy is the area of the large borrow pit where the applicant is proposing a 30 ft high fill slope approximately two acres in size (Exhibit 15) The applicant places the top of bluff at the outer edge of the cut However Section 13577(h)(2) states that in cases where there is a step like feature that the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge Following the above cited Regulations Commission staff geologist draws the bluff edge considerably inland of the applicants line (Exhibit 13) " Several coastal development permits have been issued for archaeological investigation/salvage activities The previous permits are discussed in Section_ Cultural Resources of this staff report 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 53 3 Proposed Grading As currently designed the 105 3-acre upper bench portion of the Brightwater project includes 630 000 cubic yards (cy) of balanced grading No grading is proposed on the lower bench residual parcel A breakdown of the grading reveals 330 000 cy of cut 300 000 cy of fill and 30 000 cy of overexcavation or expected shrinkage of cut material due to compaction of the fill material The grading plan retains the existing grade differential between the upper and lower benches and also aims to restore the transitional slope to a natural appearance along the proposed public park area according to the application submittal No grading is proposed within the existing Eucalyptus grove ESHA or two freshwater wetlands However the area adjacent to the 0 2 ac pocket wetland on the central slope area will be contour-graded to construct a series of interconnected wetlands and a detention basis to treat the residential low flow and storm water run off of the project as a part of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (Exhibit 9) The grading for the proposed 1 3-acre detention basin will also result in impacts to the habitat of the burrowing owl which has been determined to constitutes environmentally sensitive habitat protected by the Coastal Act The majority of the site work is to smooth out high points and the fill of low points including areas where roads archaeological investigations and similar ground disturbances have occurred over the years With the exception of the fill of the previous borrow area and the removal of the mound containing the crushed concrete from the WW II bunkers the proposed grading plan shows that a majority of the cut areas will be 0 to 5 feet The area nearest the project entry at Warner and Los Patos will receive the greatest cut 10 to 20 feet and then 5 to 10 feet further into the site (Exhibit 15) The majority of the fill areas are 0 to 5 feet in depth but 5 to 10 feet along Los Patos and through the center of the site Along the area abutting the upland habitat park approximately 12 lots will receive 10 to 20 feet of fill Additionally approximately nine lots located at the current southeastern bluff edge where the 30 foot high fill slope is proposed will receive up to 30 ft of fill on some portion of the lots Significant landform alteration should not be allowed to occur at the bluff edge in order to extend the development footprint The Commission has approved significant landform alteration (such as the construction of large fill slopes) in scenic areas following such events as massive landslides However the Commission has allowed these large fill slopes where this method of stabilization was necessary to protect existing structures from further geologic danger and there was no other feasible alternative method that would have less of an impact on the scenic values of the area However this is not the case with the proposed project There are no structures that are in danger The applicant simply wishes to expand the development area of the site instead of locating the proposed public improvements (the park entry road extension and public parking to serve visitors to the proposed upland habitat park) landward of the existing bluff edge The area where there will be the most significant amount of earthwork and landform alteration is the borrow site on the south edge of the bluff overlooking the Isolated Pocket Lowland The application proposes a 30-foot high two-acre fill slope at the southeastern 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 54 edge of the bluff The applicant states that there are two purposes for the fill to restore the bluff to its 1939 contours and to allow the placement of the extension of Bolsa Chica Street and 30 public parking spaces for public use of the proposed 28-acre upland habitat park However a review of the grading plan shows that the fill also extends the rear yards of approximately nine lots that abut the park As explained in the preceding section of this staff report Scenic and Visual Resources the proposed 2 acre 30 ft high fill slope on the bluff edge constitutes significant landform alteration and results in adverse visual impacts to visitors using the public trails in the Bolsa Chica Lowlands below the project site as well as creating an adverse impact to views along the coast as viewed from PCH The grading and proposed uses on the fill slope also are detrimental to the viability of the raptors that use the Eucalyptus grove ESHA as detailed in the Biological Resources section of this staff report The paved road and cars people and noise will be placed at approximately the same elevation as the tops of the trees that are on the bluff face The proposed restoration grading therefore cannot be found consistent with section 30251 of the Coastal Act However the remainder of the site grading does not raise an issue of consistency with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act The applicant proposes grading at the current southerly edge of the bluff overlooking the Isolated Pocket Lowland now owned by the State of California The new fill would be located within the applicant s proposed 100 ft wide Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer According to the applicant the upper bench bluff edge grading is proposed in order to restore the bluff edge to its 1939 configuration The bluff was altered in the early 1940 s with the construction of two World War II gun embankments and in 1971 with the removal of material from along the slope overlooking the lower bench and the bluff above the Isolated Pocket Lowland The applicant further states that the proposed fill is to support public access the extension of Bolsa Chica Street the only public road into the project site and 30 public parking spaces are to be located on the proposed fill slope area The proposed 30-foot high fill slope approximately 2 acres in size constitutes significant landform alteration in the opinion of Commission staff geologist Dr Mark Johnsson (Exhibit 13) Whether or not the proposed work qualifies as restorative it is nevertheless true that the land form in its existing condition still retains its essential natural shape thus Dr Johnsson states The relative merits of such a restoration are debatable but in my opinion it is clear that the proposed grading represents significant alteration of a natural landform The proposed grading represents significant landform alteration in an area that currently contains scenic views and whose multi-million dollar wetlands restoration efforts will also restore and enhance the visual quality of the overall area by removing the existing extensive oil and gas facilities from the Lowlands The proposed bluff edge grading would be visible from the Bolsa Chica Lowlands wetland trails below and the manufactured slope would adversely impact scenic views from the Lowland trails Some of the cars that would be parked on the new fill slope would be visible from below Finally the residential development on the upper bench will be located closer to the existing bluff edge due to the proposed two-acre fill slope at the current bluff edge With the proposed Brightwater project views of the upper mesa from Pacific Coast Highway and from the Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve Overlook on the lower bench 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 55 will be changed from an open space area to an urban area The closer the homes are to the bluff edge the greater this adverse visual impact on views from PCH looking toward this natural landform This grading is therefore inconsistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act The proposed fill slope would also be located within the proposed 100 ft wide Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer immediately landward of the ESHA itself Although the applicant has stated that the proposed bluff edge fill is to support public access and recreation review of the project grading plans shows that this statement is not completely accurate The proposed 2-acre fill slope will contain a portion of the extension of Bolsa Chica Street but it also contains and supports the rear yards of approximately nine residential lots (lots 13 - 21) under the proposed subdivision designHowever the subdivision design could easily be reconfigured to move this access road and public parking to a location that would not require the proposed fill In addition greater public access could be achieved by removing the prohibition on public vehicular access into the guard-gated residential subdivision where on-street parking is available Thus this fill is by no means necessary to satisfy the public access provisions of the Coastal Act The fill slope 32 ft wide road and 30-space parking area will be at the bluff edge immediately adjacent to the Eucalyptus trees on the face of the slope beneath an existing dirt road and at roughly the same elevation as the tops of the Eucalyptus trees Commission staff ecologist Dr John Dixon recommends against this development adjacent to the ESHA citing significant disturbance to the raptors that perch and nest in the treetops as detailed in the Biological Resources section of this staff report The proposed bluff edge grading constitutes significant landform alteration The proposed landform alteration and subsequent parking lot and residential development of the fill slope is significant in that it will adversely impact scenic views from the Lowland trails within the now primarily publicly owned Bolsa Chica Lowlands views from the Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve Overlook located on the lower bench and views from Pacific Coast Highway The visual impact of the grading should also be considered in light of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Program that has as one of its goals the enhancement and restoration of the visual qualities of this important coastal area by removing the extensive oil and gas facilities The project EIR confirms that one of the unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the proposed project from converting the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa from an open space area to one of an urban area It is indisputable that the numerous past activities on the Bolsa Chica Mesa have resulted in alterations to the natural landform of the Mesa including the slope and bluff edge of the upper bench The slope that the applicant is proposing to restore was further graded in the early 1970 s prior to the Coastal Act to support development in adjacent Huntington Beach Despite this previous grading the Bolsa Chica Mesa remains a distinctive natural coastal landform that together with the Bolsa Chica Lowlands and wetlands form an important ecosystem Most areas of southern California have sustained a certain amount of alteration however it is also appropriate to consider areas such as the project site that 5-04-192 (Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 56 have been left alone subsequently for almost 30 years as natural landforms warranting protection Indeed when the Commission acted on the Bolsa Chica LCP in 2000 one of the suggested modifications was to delete the policy that proposed this very same remedial grading at the southern bluff edge as discussed in Section C of this staff report Moreover the Commission notes that most of the bluffs throughout the coastal zone have been altered to some extent This situation does not change the fact that coastal bluffs including the bluffs at the project site are natural landforms which pursuant to Section 30251 of the Costal Act should not be further significantly altered This bluff area is visible from the public wetland trails below the project site Therefore the proposed fill represents significant landform alteration in an area whose scenic value is being further restored through the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration project Finally the landform alteration is also has significant adverse impacts on the adjacent Eucalyptus grove ESHA as discussed in Section D Biological Resources of this staff report The applicant proposes to extend Bolsa Chica Street with 30 public parking spaces at the new street end into the proposed public park as the only public vehicular access to the entire site The proposed fill is also used to add land area to and/or stabilize approximately nine of the proposed residential lots along the bluff edge The elimination of the proposed bluff edge fill will therefore necessitate redesign of the proposed subdivision layout The Commission is denying the proposed project as submitted However as detailed in the Alternatives section of this staff report there are feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives to development of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa with residential and public recreation land uses while avoiding significant landform alteration of the Bolsa Chica G HAZARDS Section 30253 Minimization of adverse impacts New development shall (1)Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic flood and fire hazard (2)Assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs (3)Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as to each particular development (4)Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (5)Where appropriate protect special communities and neighborhoods which because of their unique characteristics are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses Excerpt of California Coastal Commission April 1 2005 staff report, Agenda Item Th 7a April 14 2005 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 7 the Burrowing Owl does not reside on the project site but only winters on-site The burrowing owl (Athene cuniculana) is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game This bird hunts for prey over open areas and grasslands and typically nests in the abandoned burrows of rodents Evidence of burrowing owl use of the site was documented in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and denoted burrowing owl use area by the applicants biologist The applicant objected to Commission staff ecologists designation of the applicants burrowing owl use area as ESHA The applicants consultant countered that the Commission should use the actual burrows used by the owls rather than all of the nearby potential habitat and provided staff with a polygon created by connecting those burrows with straight lines In their revised map of the owl use area the applicant s consultant LSA omitted one burrow where an owl was seen once but then abandoned Staff accepts this smaller burrowing owl use area as the Burrowing Owl ESHA boundary after going out in the field with the biologists who conducted the original surveys and a review of the information submitted subsequent to the October 2004 hearing (Exhibit 17b) Although there is merit in accepting the applicants reduced Burrowing Owl ESHA delineation as proposed there is no justification for the proposed reduction in the Burrowing Owl ESHA buffer or the grading within the buffer Staff continues to recommend a 164 ft (50 meter) buffer and the applicant is proposing a buffer of only 100 feet with an additional 50 ft wide permanently irrigated area immediately adjacent to the residential lots' Further the proposed project also includes grading within the 50 foot area closest to the residential lots in order to create the residential pads As conditioned the applicant must also abide by the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines by California Burrowing Owl Consortium to determine if there is any occupation of the burrows of the Burrowing Owl ESHA Only as conditioned to submit revised plans for a 164 ft wide Burrowing Owl buffer elimination residential grading in the Burrowing Owl buffer and planting and maintaining of the buffer for habitat purposes consistent with the approved fuel modification and habitat management plans can the project be found consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act with regards to the provision of an adequate buffer to protect the Burrowing Owl ESHA Another area in which the applicant has made insufficient changes is the size of the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer and encroachments into it for fuel modification purposes In the previous applications the Eucalyptus tree ESHA buffer was proposed at 100 ft in width as measured from the edge of the Eucalyptus grove ESHA This is less than half the width of the staff-recommended 328-foot (100-meter) Eucalyptus tree ESHA buffer In addition to the grossly undersized buffer the applicant previously proposed several significant encroachments into the buffer and into the ESHA itself Due to the proximity of the future homes along the southern bluff edge to the Eucalyptus trees under the applicant s proposal the entire 100 ft wide buffer would also double as the Orange County The Initial January 21 2005 application proposed a 150 ft buffer between the Burrowing Owl ESHA and the residential lots This is already 14 ft smaller than the staff recommended 164 ft (50 meter) Burrowing Owl ESHA buffer Then on March 11 2005 the applicant informed staff that the Orange County Fire Authority wanted the 50 ft closest to the homes permanently irrigated for fire protection purposes The applicant then requested that staff not consider the 50 ft area closest to the home as habitat buffer but as ecotone area as a transition between the habitat and the residential area(Exhibit 4) 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 8 Fire Authority (OCFA) required Fuel Modification area Not only did Fuel Modification Zone D include the entire habitat buffer it also overlapped the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA itself In order to protect sixteen of the homes closest to the trees the entire ESHA buffer was required to be permanently irrigated and its plant palette strictly controlled for fire suppression purposes instead of being planted and minimally managed to protect the ESHA from adjacent proposed urban uses (Exhibit 14) Additionally there was encroachment into the actual Eucalyptus grove ESHA for initial and continued modification of the understory of the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA affecting approximately 0 8 acres of the existing five acre grove In addition to the use of the entire habitat buffer for required Fuel Modification additional encroachments into the reduced Eucalyptus Grove ESHA buffer under the October 2004 project included (1) approximately 600 linear feet of the proposed 12 ft wide paved all-weather pedestrian/bicycle trail (2) significant grading activity (including a 30 ft high fill slope two acres in size) (3) five of 30 proposed public parking spaces and (4) approximately 250 ft of the 32 ft wide paved extension of Bolsa Chica Street Under the current application a public trail is still being proposed to allow bird watching and scenic views of the wetlands and Pacific Ocean but the trail has been reduced to 6 ft in width will have a decomposed granite surface and will be relocated closer to the residential lots The 2-acre 30 ft high fill ( restoration ) slope has also been eliminated as well as the public parking that was proposed atop the fill and the extension of Bolsa Chica Street The southern bluff face area will now be left in open space as part of the Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer with the elimination of the proposed fill slope As measured from the landward edge of the Eucalyptus tree ESHA the applicant is now proposing a Eucalyptus ESHA buffer that varies from 150 ft (46 meters) in the western portion to 382 ft (116 meters) in the eastern portion of the buffer with the average width being 274 ft (84 meters) Staff notes that where the Eucalyptus grove ESHA buffer would be the widest is where there is a fairly steep slope separating the trees from the bluff top development area In that area the proposed residential lots are set back 100 ft from the bluff edge Therefore the majority of this wider ESHA buffer is vertical slope area and not horizontal distance at the same elevation of the proposed residential development The horizontal buffer distance (between the proposed lots and the bluff edge) is 100 ft Further the Commission notes that the raptors generally use the upper portion of the trees for nesting roosting and perching Therefore it is the distance - in a straight line — between the development and the tops of the trees that is important Staff is continuing to recommend that the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer be no less than 328 feet (100 meters) in width measured from the landward-most trees for the entire length of the Eucalyptus ESHA and that no residential support development be allowed in the buffer in order to adequately protect the viability of the trees that have been designated ESHA under the Coastal Act by the Department of Fish and Game and recognized as such by the courts as well as the Coastal Commission In order to be found consistent with the Coastal Act provisions regarding the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer must be sufficiently sized to protect the raptors that use the trees For the reasons detailed in Section D of this report only as conditioned to increase 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 9 the size of the buffer to 328 feet (100 meters) can the proposed project be found consistent with the Coastal Act regarding this resource There is a gap through the Eucalyptus tree ESHA where there is an existing oil pipeline The applicant is proposing to use that same alignment to construct the proposed new 54 to 66 storm drain The proposed project is conditioned to avoid grading within 500 feet of the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA during the breeding season if raptors are present The proposed project is also conditioned to employ erosion control and water quality BMPs during grading and construction as conditioned the proposed project can be found consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Under the October 2004 Brightwater project proposal residential development covered all of the area that was formerly occupied by the significant archaeological site ORA-83 known as the Cogged Stone Site Although the applicant has carried out a comprehensive data recovery program through coastal development permits issued by the Coastal Commission beginning more than 20 years ago there is still merit under the Coastal Act for further mitigation of the significant archaeological resources of ORA-83 ORA-83 has twice been recognized by the State Historical Resources Commission as being eligible for listing on both the State and National Register of Historical Places The applicant states that under the current application unlike the 2004 proposal a significant portion of the area previously occupied by ORA-83 will be preserved in open space and accessible to the public However this mitigation is inadequate in meeting the requirements of Section 30244 of the Coastal Act The applicant proposes no interpretive signage or displays along the trails acknowledging the importance of the site to prehistoric and historic Californians and informing the public of ORA-83 nor the curation or dissemination of the wealth of data and artifacts that have been recovered from the site in over 20 years of investigation Finally there is still the possibility that additional cultural resources may be discovered when grading commences on relatively undisturbed portions of the site Only as conditioned to provide for the protection of any further discoveries of significant cultural deposits to provide for appropriate interpretive signage concerning the cultural heritage of the site to agree to donate the recovered artifacts to an appropriate curation facility in Orange County and to disseminate the series of final reports that were required to be prepared and to have an archaeologist and Native American monitor present during further grading activities is the proposed project consistent with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act Further the Commission notes that a significant portion of ORA-83 is within the staff recommended 328 foot Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer Therefore if the full habitat buffer is required the majority of ORA-83 will also remain in an undeveloped state which is the desirable disposition of this area as stated by most of the Native Americans archaeologists anthropologists astronomers and environmentalists who have written to the Commission concerning the 2004 application regarding the preservation of the cultural resources of the site and in the current application (Exhibits 18 19 22-24) The issue of arch aeoastronomy and its importance has also been raised at the Brightwater site in both the 2004 and current application Although there is dispute among the applicants archaeologist and Ms Jeffredo-Warden as to whether the Brightwater site possesses significance in this area if ORA-83 is preserved in open space the opportunity for these observations if they are available from the project site are also preserved 1 5-05-020(B ri g h twate r) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 10 Finally there are two Issue areas in which the applicant has made no changes Namely the applicant still refuses to Include the 103 acres2 they own on the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa in this current application and there is no mitigation proposed for the significant loss of raptor foraging habitat that the project would cause on the upper bench In all of the Commissions previous consideration of the Bolsa Chica Mesa beginning with the first LCP action in the mid 1980 s both the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa as well as the Bolsa Chica Lowlands have been before the Commission Beginning with the applicant s first coastal development permit application for the proposed Brightwater development in November 2002 the applicant has not included its103-acre ownership on the lower bench The lower bench is a critical part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem and thus it is critical that the lower bench be included in the assessment of project impacts on the ecosystem Despite numerous staff requests that the applicant include its lower bench holdings in the application for development of the upper bench and the slope between the upper and lower benches the applicant has refused to do so with the exception of the 11 8-acre portion of the existing Parcel 2 which Iles primarily on the upper bench The applicant is requesting that the Commission split off the lower bench portion of Parcel 2 making it a separate legal parcel The applicant refuses to include its lower bench ownership in the current application because they wish to sell it to the Wildlife Conservation Board and in August 2004 entered into an agreement to sell it for $65 million The applicant stated in a September 13 2004 letter to staff that Hearthside Homes does not wish to include their lower bench holdings in the coastal development permit application because [a]mending our application to include the Lower Bench would expose Hearthside to the possibility of a Commission decision imposing a conservation easement and jeopardize the agreement between Signal Landmark and WCB (Exhibit 6a) The applicant made the assumption about the imposition of a conservation easement over the lower bench based on the Commissions 2000 LCP suggested modification to do so in conjunction with allowing development on the upper bench with a reduced 100 ft setback from the bluff edge as explained in Section C of this staff report If the applicant were to include the lower bench area in the application and the Commission indeed imposed a conservation easement over it as staff would recommend the applicant may not get $65 million for the sale of the land as the purchase price in the existing purchase-sale agreement is at market rate based on the value of residential development not based on a more restrictive conservation land use Because the applicant has refused to include the lower bench in the subject application thereby preventing the Commission from assuring that it will be restricted to conservation land uses the Commission cannot allow a reduced setback for development on the upper bench as the applicant continues to propose As conditioned the applicant must submit a revised tentative tract map showing that the 11 8 portion of Parcel 2 that Iles on the lower bench be connected to an adjacent parcel that will remain with the proposed VTTM 15460 that is before the Commission 2 The 103 acres of land on the lower bench owned by the applicant includes the 11 8 acre remnant portion of Parcel 2 that would be left over under VTTM 15460 The majority of Parcel 2 is located on the upper bench (Exhibit 5) Therefore the applicant has included in this application a proposal for development on 11 8 acres of the 103 acres of their lower bench ownership through their request to create a separate legal parcel of this 11 8 land 5 05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 11 Seventy-five acres of raptor foraging habitat the non-native annual grassland and ruderal vegetation that covers the majority of the project site was being eliminated without mitigation under the previous application The current application reduces the development footprint by approximately 9 acres and thus results in a reduction in the amount of annual grassland//ruderal vegetation being eliminated Although the impact area has been reduced to 68 acres this loss is a significant unmitigated loss of important habitat Dr John Dixon Commission staff ecologist asserts that the Eucalyptus Trees would cease to function as ESHA were there not adequate foraging habitat nearby because many of the raptors that use the Eucalyptus trees for hunting perches and roosting or nesting sites forage in the wetlands the coastal sage scrub along the bluff edge and the mesa grasslands being impacted by the proposed project While not considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area within the meaning of Section 30107 5 of the Coastal Act the non-native annual grassland and ruderal vegetation that covers the majority of the 105 3-acre project site is important foraging habitat for many species of raptors including white-tailed kites (a Fully Protected Species) and several California Species of Special Concern (CSC) such as the northern harriers and burrowing owls This vegetation is also considered significant because it represents one of the last significant grasslands adjacent to a coastal wetland making it an integral part of the wetland/upland ecosystem Because of the importance of the non-native annual grassland/ruderal vegetation the Department of Fish and Game recommended mitigation for the loss of this habitat at the project site at a ratio of 0 5 acres of preservation to 1 0 acres of loss Following this recommendation the applicant should provide 34 acres of preserved grasslands Although the applicant is not proposing to mitigate the loss of raptor foraging habitat the Eucalyptus Tree and Burrowing Owl ESHA buffers can be used to partially mitigate this loss since the applicant is planning to restore this area partially with native grassland However the applicants proposed buffer falls far short of the 34 acres needed to mitigate the loss of the non-native grassland With the varying width 150 to 382 ft (counting the permanently irrigated area) and counting even the non-grassland habitat the applicant would have less than 30 acres The Department of Fish and Game has stated that they would not give the applicant credit for non-grassland habitat and no credit will be given for any areas that are subject to any fuel modification As conditioned to widened these buffers and remove the restriction on the plant palette from all but the first 50 feet of the buffer closest to the homes to plant the majority of the remainder of the buffer in native grassland species and to provide the remainder off-site of the 34 acres of native or annual grassland that cannot be provided on-site consistent with the final approved final habitat management plan the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Act concerning the protection of raptor foraging habitat Areas of Remaining Maior Controversv • Inadequate Buffer Between Eucalyptus Tree ESHA and Adjacent Development The trees of the Eucalyptus Grove are used as nesting roosting and perching sites by many species of raptors including white-tailed kites red- tailed hawks and great horned owls Adequate buffers between habitat areas 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 12 and development are essential in maintaining the viability of habitat areas In order to provide adjacent foraging habitat and to prevent disturbance to nesting areas staff continues to recommend a 328 foot (100-meter) buffer between the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA and the adjacent development If grading occurs when raptors are nesting an even larger buffer of 500 ft (152 meters) should be provided around the nest during construction activities as detailed in Section D Biological Resources of this staff report The currently proposed Brightwater development project provides a varying width Eucalyptus Grove buffer ranging from 100 to 332 feet between the most landward trees and the proposed residential lots However the Commission notes that where the buffer is widest is at the easternmost portion of the site There the majority of the Eucalyptus trees are located further down the fairly steep bluff face and the distance between the trees and the proposed residential lots represents a significant vertical distance In this area the residential lots are set back only 100 ft from the bluff edge but the lot is setback up to 382 feet from the northernmost Eucalyptus tree in one instance Further it must be remembered that it is the tops of the trees that are used by the raptors for nesting roosting and perching The distance from the tree-tops to the residential lots is much closer to 100 than to 332 ft • The Eucalyptus Tree ESHA Buffer Further Reduced by Fuel Modification Requirements As stated above the proposed Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer at 100 to 332 ft in width is inadequate to protect the raptors from adjacent development and should be a minimum of 328 ft (100 meters) When the current application was submitted on January 21 2005 the proposed Eucalyptus ESHA buffer was proposed at 150 to 382 ft in width The applicant revised the buffer due to the concerns of Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Because OCFA is now requiring that the 50 ft nearest the homes be permanently irrigated the applicant has removed this area from the habitat buffer (Exhibit 4) Although the applicant has been working with OCFA for months they do not have conceptual approval of their fire management program to date An area that is permanently irrigated containing a controlled plant palette and mowed thinned and pruned to protect adjacent development from fire damage is not planted or managed to protect the adjacent ESHA from disruption of its habitat value as required by Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act Therefore if these activities were to occur in the already inadequately sized Eucalyptus ESHA buffer the proposed project would be further inconsistent with the Coastal Act The Commission notes that under the previous October 2004 project OCFA still required the typical fuel modification activities as well as the requirement of 100 ft of permanent irrigation in addition to the normal requirement of 70 ft of irrigated area between combustible structures and certain vegetation due to the presence of the Eucalyptus grove These fuel modification requirements were imposed despite the fact that the applicant was also proposing to plant the area with native coastal prairie and coastal bluff scrub as well as provide other significant fire management mitigating features within the fuel modification area 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 64 place with a 100 foot wetland buffer Special Condition 10 the final Habitat Management Plan requires the proposed 100-foot wetland buffer to be implemented This wetland buffer is consistent with numerous past Commission actions to protect wetlands from the effects of adjacent development However care must be taken during grading and construction to assure that impacts to the wetlands are avoided Special Condition 9 Construction Staging Area and Fencing assures that the wetlands and all habitat areas are protected during grading and construction Another habitat of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that was not identified as ESHA in the Commission s previous actions on the Bolsa Chica LCP is that of the burrowing owl The burrowing owl is considered a California Species of Special Concern by the Department of Fish and Game Burrowing owls use the Bolsa Chica grassland and ruderal habitats as well as abandoned burrows of rodents or other small mammals In the winters of 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 the applicants biologist documented use of specific areas of the mesa by this owl (Exhibit 17a) The characteristics of the burrowing owl habitat its ESHA status on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the proposed project impacts are detailed below The proposed residential development project will significantly impair the biological productivity of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and indirectly impact the adjacent lowland wetlands Adverse impacts from residential development include disturbances to wildlife including raptors from human activity and disruptive noise due to the inadequate buffer adjacent to the Eucalyptus tree ESHA improper use of undersized Eucalyptus ESHA and Burrowing Owl ESHA buffers for residential fuel modification encroachment into the Burrowing Owl ESHA buffer for the construction of residential lots and the unmitigated loss of 68 acres of raptor foraging habitat (non-native grasslands and ruderal vegetation) that is utilized by several California Species of Special Concern (CSC) The Brightwater development project features and their impacts to the various ESHA sensitive land resources of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and adjacent Lowlands are detailed below 1 Delineation of the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA and the ESHA Buffer Eucalyptus trees are not native to California The trees were planted primarily along the southern slope of the lower and upper bench by the property owners as a wind break Dr Dixon notes that historically the eucalyptus tree ESHA associated with the Bolsa Chica mesa has been considered to be the area occupied by the roughly linear grove of trees along the southern bluff of the mesa (Exhibit 20) Most of the trees grow along the base of the bluff in the lowlands However some grow on the mesa top near the bluff edge at various locations Since most of the trees are eucalyptus the grove is often referred to as the eucalyptus grove or eucalyptus tree ESHA However it is important to note the grove also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless this grove 5-05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 65 of trees has been recognized as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) for over 25 years (USFWS 1979 CDFG 1982 1985) because of the important ecosystem functions it provides including perching roosting or nesting for at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Chica Some of the raptors found to be using the grove included the white tailed kite sharp-shinned hawk Cooper's hawk and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the upland areas of the Bolsa Chica Mesa for their food Other raptor biologists who have studied the Bolsa Chica Mesa have also found it to be particularly significant to a large number of birds of prey including the Northern Harrier prairie falcon burrowing owl and the loggerhead shrike The grove has also been recognized by the Coastal Commission as an environmentally sensitive area or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) as defined by Section 30107 5 of the Coastal Act in previous Commission actions The Commission first recognized the ESHA status of the grove many years ago and the California appellate court in 1999 did not question the designation of the Eucalyptus grove as an ESHA protected by the Coastal Act when in 1995 the County of Orange on behalf of the predecessor applicant Kill Real Estate Group attempted to relocate the Eucalyptus grove through the LCP process to the Huntington Mesa in order to make room for full development of the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa There was little or no discussion in the site-specific definition or delineation of the eucalyptus ESHA in the case of this non-native habitat at the Bolsa Chica Dr Dixon notes that the map in the 1982 CDFG report truncates the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA in a straight line that corresponds to an extension of Bolsa Chica Street This arbitrary man- made division does not correspond to anything in nature The trees continue as a coherent grove along the base of the mesa for several hundred feet beyond the Bolsa Chica Street line without a gap and raptors have been observed to use those trees Therefore staff has included all those trees in the ESHA maps accompanying staff reports (Exhibit 20 Figure 1) In the 2000 and 2004 recommendations some of the trees on the mesa top adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street were also included in the ESHA maps (Exhibit 28 Figure 1) Subsequent to the October 2004 hearing the applicant argued that the latter trees were so far distant from the rest of the grove and so separated vertically that they ought not be considered part of the ESHA Based on the relative isolation of those trees Dr Dixon agreed to recommend that only the trees that were part of the coherent grove (i a trees in close proximity to one another) be considered as eucalyptus tree ESHA and altered the maps accordingly This decision was based in part on the fact that trees that are part of a grove are thought to be more attractive to raptors for nesting than isolated trees because they provide a greater visual barrier for the nest However after agreeing to this a pair of white tailed kites (California Fully Protected Species) were seen nesting this spring in one of the pine trees at the top of the bluff near Bolsa Chica Street And according to the applicant s biologists currently the kites appear to be incubating eggs Based on this use of the upper area tree by the birds Dr Dixon recommend that the cluster of three trees at the top of the bluff adjacent to the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street be considered part of the ESHA And thus the residential development respect the 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 66 Eucalyptus Grove buffer as explained below and as reflected in Figure 1 of Exhibit 20 and in Special Condition 10 of this permit As stated above the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA of the Bolsa Chica mesa is unique in that it is the non-native trees that are used by numerous raptor species for nesting roosting and perching When the ESHA was designated there was little or no discussion of the site- specific definition or of its delineation Dr Dixon opines that perhaps it was because the intuitive and obvious approach was to define and delineate the ESHA by simply drawing a line between the outermost trees of the grove The 1982 CDFG report defined the ESHA as the eucalyptus grove adjacent to and on the Bolsa Chica mesa and included a map with a rough outline of the Eucalyptus grove (which included palm trees) (Exhibit 20) All subsequent maps from a variety of sources have been roughly similar Commission staff has also created ESHA maps with the same approximate boundaries and has done so by simply connecting the outermost trees This approach proved adequate for planning purposes until recently but now appears insufficiently specific due to the issues raised by the applicant s proposal under the current project to discharge runoff water through buried pipes that traverse the eucalyptus grove The current proposal is to discharge runoff from the mesa top through a new 66-inch pipe leading to the lowlands and the construction of rip-rap apron below the discharge to prevent erosion in the lowlands This would require digging a trench across the eucalyptus grove to the adjacent lowland The corridor proposed for the pipe contains no trees is vegetated by non-native grasses and other weedy species and currently contains an aboveground pipeline that is part of the oil field infrastructure Dr Dixon states that the placement of a subterranean pipeline over a period of a few weeks if it is done in a manner that does not injure nearby trees and construction takes places at a time when birds are not nesting and Best Management Practices are employed to prevent erosion or slope instability a significant disruption of habitat values would not occur and would therefore pass the first test of Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act Special Conditions 8 9 10 16 and 17 deal with the construction water quality and habitat protection issues associated with the new stormdrain However Dr Dixon points out that the second test of Coastal Act section 30240 is whether the proposed use is dependent on the ESHA resource and the installation of a pipe to convey runoff from a new residential development is clearly not so dependent (Exhibit 20) Therefore if the Eucalyptus ESHA is the grove of trees as defined and delineated by a single two-dimensional polygon that encompasses all the trees plus all the area above and below the plane created by that polygon the pipeline installation is not an allowable use However if the aboveground portions of the trees themselves constitute the ESHA then the gaps between the trees are not part of the ESHA and placement of the pipe in the identified corridor would not violate Section 30240(a) Dr Dixon states In addition if appropriate Best Management Practices were employed during installation and if the corridor was subsequently revegetated it is my opinion that the installation would not create impacts which would significantly degrade the ESHA and would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA and therefore would not violate Section 30240(b) of 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 67 the Coastal Act either (Exhibit 20 page 4) Special Conditions 9 Construction Staging Area and Fencing Special Condition 10 Final Habitat Management Plan and Special Condition 17 Revised Tentative Tract Map and Plans require the protection of ESHA areas during grading and construction require the planting of all non-native or denuded areas and require the construction of a rip-rap apron below the stormdrain outlet to prevent erosion in the lowlands Dr Dixon goes on to explain in Exhibit 20 how the above definition of the Eucalyptus ESHA at the Bolsa Chica is reasonable given the site specific circumstances and that this definition should not be extended to a more traditional grove or portion of a forest with native species if it were a part of a natural vegetation community where the trees would be just one element in the community or ecosystem and the overall system would be defined by and dependent on complex interactions between the trees the understory plant species physical soil characteristics soil microbes and fungi and the host of invertebrate and vertebrate animal species that act as pollinators dispersal agents parasites herbivores and predators among other things This type of ESHA determination should only be made in substantially similar cases where there are non-native species or horticultural plantings where it is only the trees themselves that provide the important ecosystem functions upon which the site-specific ESHA determination is based Given the site specific characteristics of the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA at the project site the Commission finds the proposed ESHA definition and delineation and stormdrain proposal as conditioned consistent with sections 30107 5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act The applicants biological consultants have pointed out that there is always an arbitrary element in assigning dimensions to protective habitat buffers or development setbacks Dr Dixon admits that this is true at one level He goes on to say that the biological effects between a 100 foot buffer compared to a 110-foot buffer or those of a 300-foot buffer from a 328 foot (100-meter) buffer are probably indistinguishable We tend to choose round numbers in whatever units we are using However the difference between the 100-foot buffer that the applicant has suggested as being amply protective or the 150-foot minimum buffer in the current proposal and the 100-meter buffer recommended by the wildlife agencies and by staff is not arbitrary These large differences reflect different opinions concerning the sensitivity of raptor species to disturbance and differences in opinion concerning the acceptable risk of disturbance impacts to raptors especially raptors that have the potential for nesting at Bolsa Chica (Exhibit 20) In an urban environment development setbacks often usually inadequate to protect all individuals of wildlife species of concern from significant impacts In an urban setting a buffer is usually no more than one to several hundred meters and usually less whereas in a natural setting a buffer of two kilometers has been found to be significantly more protective Dr Dixon cites an example of Findlay and Houlahan (1997)where a negative correlation was found between species richness in wetlands and the density of roads on land up to 2000 meters from the wetland and concluded that narrow buffer zones were unlikely to protect biodiversity (Exhibit 20 page 6) 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 68 Development must be separated from ESHAs by buffers in order to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas DFG and the USFWS previously recommended the establishment of a 100-meter buffer on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the 1980 s Dr Findlay of the University of Ottawa in a letter to the Coastal Commission dated February 9 2000 recommended a 150-meter buffer for the Eucalyptus grove The Coastal Commission staff ecologist recommends a minimum 328 ft (100 meter) buffer around the Eucalyptus trees In further studying the appropriate buffer for the Eucalyptus tree ESHA Dr Dixon states The buffer around the Eucalyptus tree ESHA is particularly important if those trees are to continue to function as nesting habitat for a variety of raptors The California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a 100-m buffer A literature review found that raptor biologists recommended buffers for various species of nesting raptors from 200 m to 1500 m in width with the exception of 50-m buffers from visual disturbance for kestrels and prairie falcons In an independent review concerning a prior development proposal at Bolsa Chica with 100-foot (30-m) buffers raptor expert Brian Walton opined that developers often rely on buffers that I find largely ineffective for reducing raptor fright/flight response [and] [t]hey describe unusual tolerance habituated individuals or exceptions to normal raptor behavior rather than the more common behavior of wild birds Dr Dixon concluded after evaluating the various case studies and independent reviews specifically of the raptor behavior of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that a minimum 328 foot (100- meter) buffer is necessary if the Eucalyptus trees are going to function as nesting sites in the future He further opined that larger buffers are necessary during the extraordinary disturbance that takes place during construction If raptors are nesting a 500-ft (152 meter) buffer should be established around the nest during construction activities As discussed above the Brightwater development project proposal of a varied width buffer including a minimum of only 150 feet around the Eucalyptus grove is inadequate to protect the ESHA from myriad human and domestic pet activities that occur when residential development is adjacent to a sensitive area Buffers should not be used for activities that have negative effects on the resources that are being protected The eucalyptus tree ESHA is being fairly heavily used by hikers runners dogs bikers and four-wheel drive enthusiasts who use the steep slopes on the upper mesa as a test track and more recently by youthful paintball warriors who conduct their battles within the eucalyptus grove (and occasionally cut down small trees) In fact Dr Dixon states the current types and intensities of use within and adjacent to the ESHA violate the provisions of Section 30240 of the Coastal Act Therefore most of the raptors that currently use the trees for perching or nesting are probably from the subset of the regional population that is relatively tolerant of such human disturbance due to some combination of genetical makeup and individual history 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 69 Dr Dixon suggests that this be kept in mind when assessing the results of a flushing study done by the applicants biological consultants (LSA 2000) They found that when their perches were approached by a pedestrian raptors flushed at distances that varied among species individuals and height of the perch The lower the perch the sooner the birds flushed Kestrels were most tolerant of human presence often not flushing at all (flushing range 0 — 13 m) At the other extreme the single turkey vulture approached flushed at a distance of 70 m White-tailed kites which are a good model for setting buffer widths because they are sensitive to human intrusion in natural settings generally flushed when approached to 30 m Dr Dixon asserts that given the current level of disturbance within the ESHA it is reasonable to assume that these birds are relatively tolerant of human presence and these flushing distances should be considered minimums Less tolerant birds would flush much sooner and may currently avoid many areas in the ESHA Jurek (2000) pointed out that Individuals within a species may have differing levels of response to human activities owing to variation in the population for tolerating unusual situations or to differences in habituating to human activities out of past experience or upbringing The same level of activity that would not adversely affect one of the habituated raptors might be perceived by a newly arrived individual of the same species in the ESHA to be threatening causing the bird to not return there (Exhibit 20 page 6-7) These data indicate that the 328 foot (100 meter) buffer recommended by USFWS (1979) CDFG (1982) and by staff is not only necessary to prevent disturbance to raptors that utilize the eucalyptus ESHA but is also large enough to provide significant foraging opportunities close to the nest This is particularly important because distant foraging increases the risk of nest predation White-tailed kites are a fully protected species in California have frequently nested at Bolsa Chica and are generally considered relatively sensitive to human disturbance Therefore Dr Dixon recommends that buffers that are adequate to protect nesting white-tailed kites should be adequate for most of the other species that are likely to nest in the Bolsa Chica ESHA and notes that the following minimum spatial buffers have been recently recommended for nesting white-tailed kites 100m (Bloom 2002) 100m (Holmgren 6/7/2002) 50m (J Dunk (raptor researcher) in personal communication to M Holmgren 2002) 46-61m (with low-frequency and non- disruptive activities Froke 2002) These estimates suggest that a 100-m buffer is probably adequate but not overly conservative The applicants biological consultants (LSA 1999) have concluded that a 100 foot buffer will provide adequate distance to permit nesting by the most common and least sensitive raptor species in all suitable portions of the ESHA Even if true this is a low standard of protection and the current proposal for a minimum of 150 feet is only marginally better in the affected areas In the same report LSA states that The southern side of the ESHA will have a great deal of utility for virtually all the nesting birds because it is bordered by hundreds of acres of open space it will be screened from the development area by the northern edge of the ESHA and a substantial portion of the grove is a least 100 meters from future development Dr Dixon s opinion of the statement by the applicants consultant is that taken together these statements indicate that development closer than 100 meters will reduce the utility for nesting raptors of those portions of the ESHA that are 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Bolsa Page 70 closest to the development footprint and therefore a reduced buffer would violate Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act because the portions of the ESHA nearest the development would be significantly degraded and no longer suitable for nesting by some of the raptor species at Bolsa Chica He recommends that the northern side of the ESHA be provided with a level of protection that is fundamentally the same as that described by LSA for the southern side and a 100-m buffer will accomplish this goal (Exhibit 20 page 8) For the reasons cited above the proposed project can only be approved if final Habitat Management Plans are submitted showing a Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer of 328 ft in width as measured from the western and northern boundary of the Eucalyptus ESHA as required in Special Condition 10 The Eucalyptus Tree ESHA boundary is generally depicted in Figure 1 of Exhibit 20 Only as conditioned is the proposed project consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act 2 Southern Tarplant ESHA The Southern Tarplant is a Federal Species of Concern and listed as a 1 B (Rare Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere) plant by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and it also meets the CEQA Guidelines definition of rare threatened or endangered species Southern Tarplant is an annual plant that favors damp disturbed areas and is generally restricted to grasslands wetland edges vernal pools and alkaline flats in the coastal counties of southern California and has been greatly reduced and populations have been fragmented by development According to Dr Dixon Southern Tarplant has become rare in California and its remaining habitat is particularly valuable due to the loss of its natural habitat The Department of Fish and Game further noted in their January 16 2002 EIR comments on the proposed project that one of the characteristics of the Southern Tarplant is that as an annual (life cycle is completed within one year) the number of detectable (above-ground flowering) plants visible in any one year vary sharply depending on factors such as soil moisture Because of this characteristic of the plant quantifying populations and determining the impacts of a development project on existing tarplant communities can be problematic Therefore the long-term health of the tarplant population depends on an extensive seed bank The applicant s consultant conducted tarplant surveys of both the upper and lower benches in 1999 2000 2001 and 2002 The largest concentration of tarplant by far is on the lower bench however the upper bench also contains several sizeable patches of the sensitive plant (Exhibit 16) Dr Dixon notes that based on the applicants surveys the tarplant tends to be much more widely distributed among the habitats on the lower bench than on the upper bench where it is almost entirely confined to the area surrounding the seasonal pond adjacent to the Los Patos wetland There may be habitat differences between the upper and lower benches that account for this phenomenon Southern Tarplant is most abundant near trails and other open disturbed areas Scattered individual plants on the upper bench do not constitute ESHA because over the four-year survey period these plant populations have remained only a few scattered individuals However the Tarplant populations around the Los Patos wetland on the upper bench should be Excerpt of California Coastal Commission staff report Agenda Item Th 1la October 13, 2005 Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 62 buffer adjacent to the EUGalyptUStroo Burrowing Owl ESHA improper use of undeFSized the Eucalyptus ESHA and Burrowing Owl ESHA buffers for residential fuel modification encroachment into the Burrowing Owl ESHA buffer for the construction of residential lots and the unmitigated loss of 68 acres of raptor foraging habitat (non native grasslands and ruderal vegetation) that is utilized by several California Species of Special Concern (CSC) The Bnghtwater development project features and their impacts to the various ESHA and sensitive land resources of the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and adjacent Lowlands are detailed below 1 Delineation of the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA and the ESHA Buffer Eucalyptus trees are not native to California The trees were planted primarily along the southern slope of the lower and upper bench by the property owners as a wind break Dr Dixon notes that historically the eucalyptus tree ESHA associated with the Bolsa Chica mesa has been considered to be the area occupied by the roughly linear grove of trees along the southern bluff of the mesa (Exhibit 20) Most of the trees grow along the base of the bluff in the lowlands However some grow on the mesa top near the bluff edge at various locations Since most of the trees are eucalyptus the grove is often referred to as the eucalyptus grove or eucalyptus tree ESHA However it is important to note the grove also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless this grove of trees has been recognized as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) for over 25 years (USFWS 1979 CDFG 1982 1985) because of the important ecosystem functions it provides including perching roosting or nesting for at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Chica Some of the raptors found to be using the grove included the white tailed kite sharp-shinned hawk Cooper's hawk and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the upland areas of the Bolsa Chica Mesa for their food Other raptor biologists who have studied the Bolsa Chica Mesa have also found it to be particularly significant to a large number of birds of prey including the Northern Harrier prairie falcon burrowing owl and the loggerhead shrike The grove has also been recognized by the Coastal Commission as an environmentally sensitive area or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) as defined by Section 30107 5 of the Coastal Act in previous Commission actions The Commission first recognized the ESHA status of the grove many years ago and the California appellate court in 1999 did not question the designation of the Eucalyptus grove as an ESHA protected by the Coastal Act when in 1995 the County of Orange on behalf of the predecessor applicant Koll Real Estate Group attempted to relocate the Eucalyptus grove through the LCP process to the Huntington Mesa in order to make room for full development of the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa There was little or no discussion in the site-specific definition or delineation of the eucalyptus ESHA in the case of this non-native habitat at the Bolsa Chica Dr Dixon notes that the map in the 1982 CDFG report truncates the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA in a straight line that corresponds to an extension of Bolsa Chica Street This arbitrary man- made division does not correspond to anything in nature The trees continue as a Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 63 coherent grove along the base of the mesa for several hundred feet beyond the Bolsa Chica Street line without a gap and raptors have been observed to use those trees Therefore staff has included all those trees in the ESHA maps accompanying staff reports (Exhibit 20 Figure 1) In the 2000 and 2004 recommendations some of the trees on the mesa top adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street were also included in the ESHA maps (Exhibit 28 Figure 1) Subsequent to the October 2004 hearing the applicant argued that the latter trees were so far distant from the rest of the grove and so separated vertically that they ought not be considered part of the ESHA Based on the relative isolation of those trees Dr Dixon agreed to recommend that only the trees that were part of the coherent grove (i a trees in close proximity to one another) be considered as eucalyptus tree ESHA and altered the maps accordingly This decision was based in part on the fact that trees that are part of a grove are thought to be more attractive to raptors for nesting than isolated trees because they provide a greater visual barrier for the nest However after agreeing to this a pair of white-tailed kites (California Fully Protected Species) were seen nesting this spring in one of the pine trees at the top of the bluff near Bolsa Chica Street And according to the applicant s biologists currently the kites appear to be incubating eggs Based on this use of the upper area tree by the birds Dr Dixon recommended that the cluster of three trees at the top of the bluff adjacent to the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street be considered part of the ESHA And thus the residential development respect the Eucalyptus Grove buffer as explained below and as reflected in Figure 1 of Exhibit 20 and in SpeGial Condition 10 of this perrni However, the Commission found that because white-tailed kites do not use the same trees year after year and have not previously been observed nesting in these isolated trees, it is not necessary to expand the boundary of the eucalyptus ESHA in order to protect raptor habitat Instead the Commission found that any subsequent raptor use of these trees will be adequately protected by modifying Special Condition 10 B 1 requiring that there be a 500-foot buffer between construction activities and any active nests As stated above the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA of the Bolsa Chica mesa is unique in that it is the non-native trees that are used by numerous raptor species for nesting roosting and perching When the ESHA was designated there was little or no discussion of the site- specific definition or of its delineation Dr Dixon opines that perhaps it was because the intuitive and obvious approach was to define and delineate the ESHA by simply drawing a line between the outermost trees of the grove The 1982 CDFG report defined the ESHA as the eucalyptus grove adjacent to and on the Bolsa Chica mesa and included a map with a rough outline of the Eucalyptus grove (which included palm trees) (Exhibit 20) All subsequent maps from a variety of sources have been roughly similar Commission staff has also created ESHA maps with the same approximate boundaries and has done so by simply connecting the outermost trees This approach proved adequate for planning purposes until recently but now appears insufficiently specific due to the issues raised by the applicant s proposal under the current project to discharge runoff water through buned pipes that traverse the eucalyptus grove The current proposal is to discharge runoff from the mesa top through a new 66-inch pipe leading to the lowlands and the construction of rip-rap apron below the discharge to prevent erosion in the lowlands This would require digging a trench across the eucalyptus grove to the adjacent lowland The corridor proposed for the pipe contains no trees is vegetated by non-native grasses and other weedy species and currently contains an Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 64 aboveground pipeline that is part of the oil field infrastructure Dr Dixon states that the placement of a subterranean pipeline over a period of a few weeks if it is done in a manner that does not injure nearby trees and construction takes places at a time when birds are not nesting and Best Management Practices are employed to prevent erosion or slope instability would not constitute a significant disruption of habitat values and would therefore pass the first test of Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act Special Conditions 8 9 10 16 and 17 deal with the construction water quality and habitat protection issues associated with the new stormdrain However Dr Dixon points out that the second test of Coastal Act section 30240 is whether the proposed use is dependent on the ESHA resource and the installation of a pipe to convey runoff from a new residential development is clearly not so dependent (Exhibit 20) Therefore if the Eucalyptus ESHA is the grove of trees as defined and delineated by a single two-dimensional polygon that encompasses all the trees plus all the area above and below the plane created by that polygon the pipeline installation is not an allowable use However if the aboveground portions of the trees themselves constitute the ESHA then the gaps between the trees are not part of the ESHA and placement of the pipe in the identified corridor would not violate Section 30240(a) Dr Dixon states In addition if appropriate Best Management Practices were employed during installation and if the corridor was subsequently revegetated it is my opinion that the installation would not create impacts which would significantly degrade the ESHA and would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA and therefore would not violate Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act either' (Exhibit 20 page 4) Special Conditions 9 Construction Staging Area and Fencing Special Condition 10 Final Habitat Management Plan and Special Condition 17 Revised Tentative Tract Map and Plans require the protection of ESHA areas during grading and construction require the planting of all non-native or denuded areas and require the construction of a rip-rap apron below the stormdrain outlet to prevent erosion in the lowlands Dr Dixon goes on to explain in Exhibit 20 how the above definition of the Eucalyptus ESHA at the Bolsa Chica is reasonable given the site specific circumstances and that this definition should not be extended to a more traditional grove or portion of a forest with native species if it were a part of a natural vegetation community where the trees would be just one element in the community or ecosystem and the overall system would be defined by and dependent on complex interactions between the trees the understory plant species physical soil characteristics soil microbes and fungi and the host of invertebrate and vertebrate animal species that act as pollinators dispersal agents parasites herbivores and predators among other things This type of ESHA determination should only be made in substantially similar cases where there are non-native species or horticultural plantings where it is only the trees themselves that provide the important ecosystem functions upon which the site-specific ESHA determination is based Given the site specific characteristics of the Eucalyptus Tree ESHA at the project site the Commission finds the proposed ESHA definition and delineation and stormdrain proposal as conditioned consistent with sections 30107 5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act The applicants biological consultants have pointed out that there is always an arbitrary element in assigning dimensions to protective habitat buffers or development setbacks Dr Dixon acknowledges that this is true at one level He goes on to say that the biological Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 65 effects between a 100-foot buffer compared to a 110-foot buffer or those of a 300-foot buffer from a 328 foot (100-meter) buffer are probably indistinguishable We tend to choose round numbers in whatever units we are using However the difference between the 100-foot buffer that the applicant has suggested as being amply protective or the 150- foot minimum buffer in the current proposal and the 100-meter buffer recommended by the wildlife agencies and by staff is not arbitrary These large differences reflect different opinions concerning the sensitivity of raptor species to disturbance and differences in opinion concerning the acceptable risk of disturbance impacts to raptors especially raptors that have the potential for nesting at Bolsa Chica (Exhibit 20) In an urban environment development setbacks are usually inadequate to protect all individuals of wildlife species of concern from significant impacts In an urban setting a buffer is usually no more than one to several hundred meters and usually less whereas in a natural setting a buffer of two kilometers has been found to be significantly more protective Dr Dixon cites an example of Findlay and Houlahan (1997) where a negative correlation was found between species richness in wetlands and the density of roads on land up to 2000 meters from the wetland and concluded that narrow buffer zones were unlikely to protect biodiversity (Exhibit 20 page 6) Development must be separated from ESHAs by buffers in order to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas DFG and the USFWS previously recommended the establishment of a 100-meter buffer on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the 1980 s Dr Findlay of the University of Ottawa in a letter to the Coastal Commission dated February 9 2000 recommended a 150-meter buffer for all of the sensitive habitats on the Bolsa Chica Mesa The Coastal Commission staff ecologist recommends a minimum 328 ft (100 meter) buffer around the Eucalyptus trees In further studying the appropriate buffer for the Eucalyptus tree ESHA Dr Dixon states The buffer around the Eucalyptus tree ESHA is particularly important if those trees are to continue to function as nesting habitat for a variety of raptors The California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a 100-m buffer A literature review found that raptor biologists recommended buffers for various species of nesting raptors from 200 m to 1500 m in width with the exception of 50-m buffers from visual disturbance for kestrels and prairie falcons In an independent review concerning a prior development proposal at Bolsa Chica with 100-foot (30-m) buffers raptor expert Brian Walton opined that developers often rely on buffers that I find largely ineffective for reducing raptor fright/flight response [and] [t]hey describe unusual tolerance habituated individuals or exceptions to normal raptor behavior rather than the more common behavior of wild birds Buffers should not be used for activities that have negative effects on the resources that are being protected The eucalyptus tree ESHA is being fairly heavily used by hikers runners dogs bikers and four-wheel drive enthusiasts who use the steep slopes on the upper mesa as a test track and more recently by youthful paintball warriors who conduct their battles within the eucalyptus grove (and occasionally cut down small trees) In fact Dr Dixon states the current types and intensities of use within and adjacent to the ESHA violate the provisions of Section 30240 of the Coastal Act In recognition of these Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 66 destructive activities, the Commission imposed Special Condition 10 B 13 requiring that the eucalyptus tree ESHA be included within the required Habitat Management Plan and be restored and managed to provide undisturbed perching roosting and nesting raptor habitat To this end, the ESHA shall be fenced and the current public access shall be modified consistent with the ESHA protection provisions of the Coastal Act As indicated above, raptor use of the eucalyptus ESHA has been significantly impacts by inappropriate use of the area Therefore most of the raptors that currently use the trees for perching or nesting are probably from the subset of the regional population that is relatively tolerant of such human disturbance due to some combination of genetical makeup and individual history Dr Dixon suggests that this be kept in mind when assessing the results of a flushing study done by the applicants biological consultants (LSA 2000) They found that when their perches were approached by a pedestnan raptors flushed at distances that varied among species individuals and height of the perch The lower the perch the sooner the birds flushed Kestrels were most tolerant of human presence often not flushing at all (flushing range 0 — 13 m) At the other extreme the single turkey vulture approached flushed at a distance of 70 m White-tailed kites which are a good model for setting buffer widths because they are sensitive to human intrusion in natural settings generally flushed when approached to 30 m Dr Dixon asserts that given the current level of disturbance within the ESHA it is reasonable to assume that these birds are relatively tolerant of human presence and these flushing distances should be considered minimums Less tolerant birds would flush much sooner and may currently avoid many areas in the ESHA Jurek (2000) pointed out that Individuals within a species may have differing levels of response to human activities owing to variation in the population for tolerating unusual situations or to differences in habituating to human activities out of past experience or upbringing The same level of activity that would not adversely affect one of the habituated raptors might be perceived by a newly arrived individual of the same species in the ESHA to be threatening causing the bird to not return there (Exhibit 20 page 6-7) The 328 foot (100 meter) buffer recommended by USFWS (1979) CDFG (1982) and by staff is necessary to prevent disturbance to raptors that utilize the eucalyptus ESHA and based on raptor expert Peter Bloom s estimates of foraging distances is also large enough to provide significant foraging opportunities close to the nest This is particularly important because distant foraging increases the risk of nest predation White-tailed kites are a fully protected species in California have frequently nested at Bolsa Chica and are generally considered relatively sensitive to human disturbance Therefore Dr Dixon recommends that buffers that are adequate to protect nesting white-tailed kites should be adequate for most of the other species that are likely to nest in the Bolsa Chica ESHA and notes that the following minimum spatial buffers have been recently recommended for nesting white- tailed kites 100m (Bloom 2002) 100m (Holmgren 6/7/2002) 50m (J Dunk (raptor researcher) in personal communication to M Holmgren 2002) 46-61 m (with low- frequency and non-disruptive activities Froke 2002) These estimates suggest that a 100-m buffer is probably adequate but not overly conservative The applicant s biological consultants (LSA 1999) have concluded that a 100 foot buffer will provide adequate distance to permit nesting by the most common and least sensitive raptor species in all suitable portions of the ESHA Even if true this is a low standard of Revised Findings for 5 05 020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 67 protection and the current proposal for a minimum of 150 feet is only marginally better in the affected areas In the same report LSA states that The southern side of the ESHA will have a great deal of utility for virtually all the nesting birds because it is bordered by hundreds of acres of open space it will be screened from the development area by the northern edge of the ESHA and a substantial portion of the grove is a least 100 meters from future development Dr Dixon s opinion of the statement by the applicants consultant is that taken together these statements indicate that development closer than 100 meters will reduce the utility for nesting raptors of those portions of the ESHA that are closest to the development footprint and therefore a reduced buffer would violate Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act because the portions of the ESHA nearest the development would be significantly degraded and no longer suitable for nesting by some of the raptor species at Bolsa Chica He recommends that the northern side of the ESHA be provided with a level of protection that is fundamentally the same as that descnbed by LSA for the southern side and a 100-m buffer will accomplish this goal (Exhibit 20 page 8) Dr Dixon concluded after evaluating the various case studies and independent reviews specifically of the raptor behavior of the Bolsa Chica Mesa that a minimum 328 foot (100- meter) buffer is necessary if the Eucalyptus trees are going to function as nesting sites in the future However, the Commission found that the applicants proposed eucalyptus ESHA buffer, which ranges from 150 to 382 ft with an average width of 274 ft exceeds the staff s recommended width of 100 meters in some locations Opinions of general support from two of the raptor biologists (Bloom and Walton) who reviewed earlier as well as the current proposal for the protect and greater Bolsa Chica site concerning the adequacy of the eucalyptus ESHA buffer were also presented The Commission found that there is a wide range of tolerance of human presence within species of raptors especially for the species that are present in the eucalyptus ESHA and that the variable width eucalyptus ESHA buffer proposed by the applicant is consistent with Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act Ke Dr Dixon further opined that larger buffers are necessary during the extraordinary disturbance that takes place during construction If raptors are nesting a 500-ft (152 meter) buffer should be established around the nest during construction activities The Commission agreed and imposed Special Condition 10 B 1 reguirinq this additional buffer between any active nests and development areas during construction s�.TaFsGsed above the BrightwateF development projeGt proposal o �aaried Wlfdif� buffer lnGlUdR� For the reasons cited above the proposed project can only be approved if final Habitat Management Plans are submitted showing a variable width Eucalyptus Tree ESHA buffer of 150 to 382 ft 328 ft in width as measured from the western and northern boundary of the Eucalyptus ESHA as submitted by the applicant and required in Special Condition 10 The EUGalyptus Tress ESHA bc)undaFy is gene-Fally depiGted in Figure 1 of Exhibit Only as conditioned is the proposed project consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act 2 Southern Tarplant ESHA Excerpt of California Coastal Commission July 26 2006 staff report, Agenda Item Tu 8c August 6 2006 Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 29 including earthwork assure that the no significant adverse effects on the wetlands will result Thus even if no grading were to occur within the wetlands and buffer areas adverse impacts to the quality of on-site wetlands might result from the LUP amendment as proposed Further when invasive and/or non-native species are planted within the buffer areas or within areas adjacent to the buffer those species can displace the plants within the buffer and wetland Introduction of non native and invasive plants within the wetland and buffer resulting in displacement of the wetland plants degrades the wetland and creates significant adverse effects on the wetland which is a coastal resource inconsistent with the requirements of Section 30250 of the Coastal Act In order to protect the wetlands and increase the likelihood of continuation of the wetland only non-invasive native plants should be allowed within the buffer In sum as submitted the LUP amendment does not adequately protect wetland resources as required by Coastal Act Sections 30233 and 30250 It therefore does not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity with that policy and therefore must be denied 2 Eucalyptus ESHA Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat area and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas In addition the City s certified LUP includes the following policies Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas In the event that development is permitted rn an ESHA pursuant to other provisions of this LCP a no-net-loss policy (at a minimum) shall be utilized And Development rn areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 30 The City s certified LUP also includes policy C 7 1 4 which requires that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones The subject site contains environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) The trees in the eucalyptus grove within and adjacent to the subject site s western boundary are ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species The trees are used for perching roosting or nesting by at least 12 of the 17 species of raptors that are known to occur at Bolsa Chica Although it is known as the eucalyptus grove it is important to note that the grove also includes several palm trees and pine trees that are also used by raptors and herons None of the trees are part of a native plant community Nevertheless this eucalyptus grove has been recognized as ESHA for over 25 years (USFWS 1979 CDFG 1982 1985) not because it is part of a native ecosystem or because the trees in and of themselves warrant protection but because of the important ecosystem functions it provides Some of the raptors found to be using the grove included the white tailed kite sharp-shinned hawk Cooper's hawk and osprey Many of these species are dependent on both the Bolsa Chica wetlands and the nearby upland areas for their food The trees have also been recognized by the Coastal Commission as ESHA as defined in Section 30107 5 of the Coastal Act in previous Commission actions The Commission first recognized the ESHA status of the grove many years ago and the California appellate court in 1999 did not question the designation of the Eucalyptus grove as an ESHA protected by the Coastal Act when in 1995 the County of Orange on behalf of the predecessor applicant Koll Real Estate Group attempted to relocate that portion of the Eucalyptus grove within their property through the LCP process to the Huntington Mesa in order to make room for full development of the upper and lower benches of the Bolsa Chica Mesa It should be noted that the Eucalyptus grove ESHA mapped by DFG in 1982 stops abruptly along the extension of Bolsa Chica Street However the grove continues east from there and wraps around the base of the bluff at the western edge of the subject property (see exhibit ) There is however no functional distinction between the area of the grove to the west of the Bolsa Chica Street extension and the rest of the grove Raptors and other wildlife use and benefit from the entire grove The abrupt truncation is not consistent with actual wildlife use and the habitat function of the entire grove Thus there is no justification for treating only the western end of the grove as ESHA and not the entire grove For these reasons the Commission finds that the entire Eucalyptus grove constitutes ESHA that must be protected Section 30240 requires that ESHA be protected from significant disruption of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources are allowed within ESHA Development adjacent to ESHA must be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas Section 30240 further requires that development be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas This policy is carried over into the City s certified LUP in the policies cited above Although the area of the Eucalyptus ESHA in the southwest corner of the site is appropriately proposed to be designated Open Space Conservation the area of the Eucalyptus ESHA located in the Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 31 northwest corner of the site is proposed to be land use designated Open Space Parks The Eucalyptus ESHA in the northwest corner is known to have supported a nesting pair of white tailed kites in the spring of 2005 In addition to the nesting kites this area of the Eucalyptus ESHA provides similar roosting and perching opportunities for the suite of raptors The Open Space Parks designation allows uses such as tot lots playing fields and bike paths Such uses are not resource dependant and as such allowing these uses within the ESHA is inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act In addition these active uses within the ESHA would likely cause significant disruption also inconsistent with Section 30240 Therefore as proposed the amendment is inconsistent with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Act and therefore must be denied as submitted In order to assure the ESHA is protected and remains viable in addition to precluding non- resource dependent development within the ESHA a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established A buffer zone would require that development adjacent to the ESHA be set back an appropriate distance from the ESHA The setback is intended to move the development far enough away from the ESHA so as to reduce any impacts that may otherwise accrue from the development upon the ESHA and that would significantly degrade the ESHA or be incompatible with its continuance The distance between the ESHA and development the buffer zone must be wide enough to assure that the development would not degrade the ESHA and also would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA For purposes of establishing protective buffers the eucalyptus grove ESHA boundary should be considered to fall along the drip line of the outermost trees of the grove (see exhibit ) The specific area of an appropriate buffer is more difficult to quantify There is to some degree a subjective approximation element in assigning dimensions to protective habitat buffers or development setbacks For example it probably would not be possible to distinguish the different biological effects of a 100-foot buffer compared to a 110-foot buffer or those of a 300-foot-buffer from a 100-meter (328-foot) buffer We tend to choose round numbers in whatever units we are using However the difference between a 100-foot buffer and a 100-meter buffer would provide discernable benefits to wildlife Commenting on a proposed development that borders the eucalyptus grove ESHA on its western side (coastal development permit application,number 5-05-020 Brightwater) wildlife agencies recommended a buffer width of 100 meters However the applicant s consultant s for that project recommended a 100 foot buffer These large differences reflect differing opinions concerning the sensitivity of raptor species to disturbance and differences in opinion concerning the acceptable risk of disturbance impacts to raptors especially raptors that have the potential for nesting at Bolsa Chica In an urban environment development setbacks are usually inadequate to protect all individuals of wildlife species of concern from significant impacts In an urban setting a buffer is usually no more than one to several hundred meters and usually less whereas in a natural setting a buffer of two kilometers has been found to be significantly more protective For example Findlay and Houlahan (1997) found a negative correlation between species richness in wetlands and the density of roads on land up to 2000 meters Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 32 from the wetland and concluded that narrow buffer zones were unlikely to protect biodiversity Development must be separated from ESHAs by buffers in order to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas Again with regard to the Brightwater development buffer recommendations from the same ESHA included a 150-meter buffer recommendation by Dr Findlay of the University of Ottawa CDFG and USFWS previously recommended the establishment of a 100-meter buffer on the Bolsa Chica Mesa in the 1980 s The Coastal Commission staff ecologist recommended a minimum 100-meter buffer around the eucalyptus ESHA In further studying the appropriate buffer for the Eucalyptus ESHA Dr Dixon (staff ecologist) stated The buffer around the Eucalyptus tree ESHA is particularly important if those trees are to continue to function as nesting habitat for a variety of raptors The California Department of Fish and Game and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a 100-m buffer A literature review found that raptor biologists recommended buffers for various species of nesting raptors from 200m to 1500 m in width with the exception of 50-m buffers from visual disturbance for kestrels and prairie falcons In an independent review concerning a prior development proposal at Bolsa Chica with 100-foot (30-m) buffers raptor expert Brian Walton opined that developers often rely on buffers that I find largely ineffective for reducing raptor fright/flight response [and] [t}hey describe unusual tolerance habituated individuals or exceptions to normal raptor behavior rather than the more common behavior of wild birds The 100 meter buffer recommended by USFWS (1979) CDFG (1982), and by staff is necessary to prevent disturbance to raptors that utilize the eucalyptus ESHA and based on raptor expert Peter Bloom s estimates of foraging distances is also large enough to provide significant foraging opportunities close to the nest This is particularly important because distant foraging increases the risk of nest predation White-tailed kites a fully protected species in California have frequently nested at Bolsa Chica and are generally considered relatively sensitive to human disturbance Therefore buffers that are adequate to protect nesting white-tailed kites should be adequate for most of the other species that are likely to nest in the eucalyptus ESHA The following minimum spatial buffers have been recently recommended for nesting white-tailed kites 100m (Bloom 2002) 100m (Holmgren 6 7 2002) 50m (J Dunk (raptor researcher) in person communication to M Holmgren 2002) 46-61 m (with low-frequency and non-disruptive activities Froke 2002) These estimates suggest that a 100-m buffer is probably adequate but not overly conservative Thus the Commission finds that a buffer zone from the eucalyptus ESHA that is 100 meters wide would be appropriate to allow continuance of the ESHA and not cause significant disruption to it However no uniform buffer zone from the Eucalyptus ESHA is proposed as part of the LUP amendment In fact active park area would be allowed immediately adjacent to the trees under the LUP amendment as proposed In addition residential development would be allowed immediately adjacent to the ESHA even though it cannot be considered compatible with the continuance of the ESHA Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) Page 33 Buffers should not be used for activities that have negative effects on the resources that are being protected Under the proposed LUP amendment uses appurtenant to low density development such as roads would be allowed as close as 100 feet from the ESHA The Open Space Park designation is proposed within and adjacent to the trees in the northwest corner of the site Both of these uses within the locations proposed would not be consistent with the requirements of Section 30240 of the Coastal Act to protect ESHA The land use designations that are acceptable within the ESHA are limited to only those designations whose uses are dependent upon the ESHA In addition an appropriate buffer zone must be established As proposed the LUP amendment would land use designate areas within and adjacent to the ESHA with designations that would allow uses that are not dependent upon the ESHA and that could significantly degrade the ESHA The proposed amendment is not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act and therefore must be denied Active park uses may be acceptable within the outer third of the buffer but are not compatible uses any closer to the ESHA Thus the Open Space Park designation within the ESHA and within the inner two thirds of the buffer zone are also inconsistent with Section 30240 Therefore the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with Section 30240 which requires that ESHA be protected and so must be denied 3 Water Quality Section 30230 of the Coastal Act states Marine resources shall be maintained enhanced and where feasible restored Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance Uses of the manne environment shall be carved out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long- term commercial recreational scientific and educational purposes Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters streams wetlands estuaries and lakes appropnate to maintain optimum populations of manne organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and where feasible restored through among other means minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment controlling runoff preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial Interference with surface water flow encouraging waste water reclamation maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect npanan habitats and minimizing alteration of natural streams Excerpt of California Coastal Commission November 1 2007 staff report Agenda Item W 16a November 14 2007 Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) November 2007 Page 42 amendment be found to be consistent with and adequate to carry out Sections 30233 and 30250 of the Coastal Act regarding wetlands 3 Eucalyptus ESHA The subject site contains environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) The trees within the eucalyptus grove within and adjacent to the subject site s western boundary are ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species Section 30240 requires that ESHA be protected from significant disruption and that only uses dependent upon the resource are allowed within ESHA In addition Section 30240 requires development adjacent to ESHA be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas Section 30240 further requires that development be compatible with the continuance of the habitat area This policy is carned over into the City s certified LUP ESHA policies In order to assure the ESHA is not significantly degraded and is protected and remains viable in addition to precluding non-resource dependent development within the ESHA a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established A buffer zone would require that development adjacent to the ESHA be set back an appropriate distance from the ESHA The setback is intended to move the development far enough away from the ESHA so as to reduce any impacts that may otherwise accrue from the development upon the ESHA and that would significantly degrade the ESHA or be incompatible with its continuance The distance between the ESHA and development the buffer zone must be wide enough to assure that the development would not degrade the ESHA and also would be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA The property owner has suggested a variable width buffer as a means of protecting the ESHA The property owner's consultant (Homrighausen 2007) has indicated that such a variable width buffer would average 334 feet (see Figure 8 of Commission s staff ecologists 7/25/07 Memorandum Exhibit QQQ) However this result appears to have been obtained by averaging the development setback from both the southern grove of Eucalyptus trees and the northern grove and by including the active park area with the buffer It is obvious that the proposed development which includes the park is effectively less than 164 feet (50 meters)from the northern Eucalyptus trees that provide raptor habitat rather than the claimed 334 feet As described in greater detail in the findings for denial of the LUPA as submitted (see Appendix A) a buffer area less than 100 meters is inadequate to protect the ESHA as required by Section 30240(b) of the Coastal Act As proposed ESHA area would be land use designated Open Space Parks which would allow active park uses within the ESHA In order to assure the ESHA is protected in addition to precluding development within the ESHA a buffer zone around the ESHA must be established As proposed the LUP amendment designates necessary buffer area Open Space Parks and Low Density Residential The proposed designations would allow residential and park uses within the required buffer areas Residential and park uses Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) November 2007 Page 43 within ESHA and its buffer are inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The land use designation that protects ESHA by limiting uses within ESHA to those allowed under Section 30240 and that prevents disruption of the habitat is Open Space Conservation In order to assure that development adjacent to the ESHA does not significantly degrade or impair the continuance of the ESHA the appropriate land use designation for both the ESHA and its buffer area is Open Space Conservation It is also worth noting that California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act are known to frequent the subject site especially the western portion Also Southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp Australis) a California Native Plant Society 1 b 1 species (seriously endangered in California) also exists at the site However the Southern tarplant exists in scattered areas on the site A focused survey documented the presence of 42 individuals distributed in 6 locations The Commissions staff ecologist in a memo dated 12/19/06 (see exhibit N) concludes that neither the seasonal gnatcatcher foraging habitat nor the Southern tarplant on the subject site meet the Coastal Act definition of ESHA Nevertheless regarding gnatcatcher habitat on-site the staff ecologists memo states regarding gnatcatcher habitat on-site it is worth noting that the areas of marginal habitat where gnatcatchers have been observed are not proposed for development Regarding the Southern tarplant the memo states In contrast to the habitats on the Bolsa Chica mesa the scattered areas containing southern tarplant on the Parkside property do not appear to be significant habitat for this species and it is my opinion that these areas do not meet the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act In any case if the amendment is modified as suggested the gnatcatcher's habitat and the southern tarplant on site will be retained within the Open Space Conservation designation The land use designations within the ESHA must be limited to the designation that allows only those uses dependent upon the ESHA In addition the land use designation within the buffer zone must be the designation that allows only those uses compatible with the continuance of the ESHA and that will not degrade the ESHA Furthermore it is important to assure the continuance of the raptor community by reserving adequate foraging area In fact the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) provided statements to this effect in a letter to the City dated June 15 1998 commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Parkside project (see Exhibit ZZZ) In that letter CDFG states that [a]gricultural areas grasslands and wetlands are of seasonal importance to several species of raptors in Orange County by providing important if not vital staging and wintering habitat These habitats also provide foraging areas for resident breeding raptors " CDFG goes on the express concern about the loss of raptor foraging areas within the project site and vicinity and the impacts such loss may have on the adjacent Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve However CDFG didn t suggest any specific mitigation for this loss in this letter However in recent years CDFG has routinely recommended a mitigation ratio of 0 5 1 (preservation area to foraging area lost) Were this ratio applied at the subject site about 17 acres of the subject site would need to be designated Open Space Conservation just to mitigate the loss of foraging habitat of raptors As proposed the LUP amendment would not preserve all ESHA areas and would not reserve adequate Huntington Beach LCP Amendment 1-06 (Parkside) November 2007 Page 44 foraging area or provide required buffers and thus is not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act In addition because the proposed land use designations within and adjacent to ESHA do not limit the uses to those consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act the proposed LUPA is inconsistent with this Coastal Act requirement to protect ESHA Therefore the amendment must be denied as proposed However if the proposed amendment were modified to land use designate all ESHA and necessary foraging and buffer area Open Space Conservation as depicted on 3`d revised exhibit NN the amendment would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act The above referenced exhibit depicts all areas on site that are recommended for designation as Open Space Conservation (OSC) The recommended OSC area encompasses all known wetland areas on site and necessary buffer and mitigation area all ESHA on site and the required buffers and includes the intermingled raptor foraging area By retaining adequate area on site as OSC a Residential designation on the remainder of the site could be found compatible with continuance of the ESHA Within the area that is recommended to be designated OSC but that does not fall within existing or filled wetland ESHA or required buffer or mitigation area a water quality natural treatment system (or equivalent) would be appropriate An NTS would be appropriate in this area because it would provide habitat value including raptor foraging area The shallow water habitat would increase the variety of habitats within the OSC area potentially contributing to biodiversity of the site It should be noted that construction of a flood protection levee within the ESHA buffer provided it is the least environmentally damaging alternative would not significantly degrade the ESHA Alternatives that minimize encroachment into buffer area are preferred According to the related coastal development permit application for the subject site and the project proponent the type of flood protection levee to be constructed would be a vegetated flood protection feature (VFPF) essentially a vegetated earthen berm with an internal sheet pile wall The VFPF would not be expected to degrade the ESHA because 1) there would only be temporary construction-related impacts 2) once constructed the VFPF would be planted thus providing habitat and 3) the VFPF would not require maintenance once constructed thus intrusions into the ESHA buffer due to the VFPF would be limited only to those necessary during construction For these reasons locating a flood protection levee such as the vegetated flood protection levee described above within the ESHA buffer would be consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act regarding protection of ESHA The actual design and construction of the flood protection levee would depend on its location In addition to land use designating all ESHA area and necessary buffer and mitigation areas Open Space Conservation additional measures must be incorporated into the LUP amendment for the subject site to assure that future development does not adversely impact the ESHA For example fuel modification requirements necessary to protect future development from fire hazard must be addressed to assure habitat values within the ESHA and required buffer areas are not adversely affected In addition if no restrictions were Wildlands , CPR MWMH a Mood 0 Published on Wildlands CPR(http Hwww wildlandscpr org) Effects of Artificial Lighting on Wildlife The U S is home to 3,981,512 miles of public roads(US Dept of Transportation 2004) Unfortunately, the number of these roads that are currently lighted or will be lighted is not recorded by either the Department of Transportation nor the Federal Highway Administration and therefore is unknown We can infer that the majority of these roads are at least illuminated over specific portions Ritters and Wickham(2003)report that 20% of the coterminous United States lies within 127 in of a road In addition U S Homeland Security is developing plans to illuminate vast portions of the border with Mexico bisecting major wildlife corridors and flyways Therefore the road system potentially constitutes a serious problem for wildlife, as the number of species unaffected by light pollution is fast diminishing 'Ecological light pollution affects wildlife at the individual community and ecosystem level through direct glare,chronically increased illumination, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in lighting (Longcore and Rich 2004 191) A form of this pollution is known as "sky glow" and results from the accumulation of various artificial lighting sources, creating a glow that is reflected back to earth(Longcore and Rich 2004) The glow is naturally more pronounced near urban and other well-lit areas,but can also affect wildlife outside the city Ecological light pollution stems from a wide variety of lighting systems, each of which is in use worldwide throughout the day and night Effects on Wildlife The effects of ecological light pollution are widespread They include disorientation from and attraction to artificial light, structural-related mortality due to disorientation and effects on the light-sensitive cycles of many species Disorientation Exposure to artificial light can create problems for species adapted to using light- or the absence of light-to aid in orientation In these cases,ecological light pollution may interrupt natural behaviors, expose individuals to higher predation levels or disrupt navigational abilities Nocturnal frogs are especially vulnerable to the effects of artificial lighting A study conducted by Buchanan(1993) suggests that any exposure to artificial light impedes the ability of nocturnal frogs to locate and capture prey This is probably due to their inability to adjust their eyes to new light levels quickly a process that can take anywhere from minutes to hours(Cornell and Hallman 1984) Many predatory birds and reptiles, usually active only during the day, will forage at night under artificial lights (Longcore and Rich 2004) While this appears to be beneficial to these predators prey species may suffer over time Light pollution also modified the behavior of prey species such as sockeye salmon fry (Oncorhynchus nerka) Exposure to any light above 0 1 lux causes the fry to stop swimming downstream and seek cover in low-velocity waters near the shore Unfortunately,this brings them into increased contact with predatory cottids along the shoreline(Tabor et al 2004) These results help explain the recent sockeye salmon decline in the Cedar River Washington, which is exposed to both direct light and sky glow The most well-known example of disorientation occurs among hatchling sea turtles Hatchlings find their way to the sea by differentiating between dark elevated areas, and the bright flat sea surface (Salmon 2003) Artificial lights, especially roadway lights, severely disrupt this ability However, the use of embedded instead of overhead street lighting allowed hatchlings to orient normally to the sea(Bertolotti and Salmon 2005) Wildlife are watching to see how we'll handle this problem Structure-related Mortality Lighting produced and compounded by human structures can result in high mortality rates of wildlife living around them This effect is related to disorientation,but specific to structures such as lighthouses skyscrapers and streetlamps The Long Point lighthouse on Lake Erie, Ontario, Canada has been the site of high mortality rates in the past Previously,the lighthouse used a constant, rotating beam of light which appears to have been highly attractive to birds However in 1989 the Long Point lighthouse was automated and its beam replaced with a lower intensity flashing system This change brought a dramatic drop in the mortality rate at the lighthouse (Jones and Francis 2003) Skyscrapers and other buildings are also hazardous as they form a` light maze'that entraps and disorients wildlife Within the sphere of lights birds may collide with each other or a structure, become exhausted, or be taken by predators (Longcore and Rich 2004, 194) Petrel and shearwater fledglings undertaking their first flight to sea are attracted to any type of light in the attempt to secure their first meal of biolummescent squid(Imber 1975) Individuals will circle the lights until exhaustion sets in grounding the birds on shore and exposing them to starvation and predation Of problematic lighting structures on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean streetlights and stadium lights were the most detrimental resulting in 78% of groundings Between 20 and 40%of the island s population is lost to ecological light pollution each year greatly affecting the population's viability(Le Corre et al 2002) Light-sensitive Cycles Many species of wildlife operate specific internal cycles or rhythms that help them determine when to initiate foraging, migratory or reproductive behavior The addition of artificial light to the nighttime environment disrupts the precision of these cycles, thus modifying behavior — Tiffany Saleh iv an Environmental Studies graduate student at the University of Montana References Bertolotti L and M Salmon 2005 "Do embedded roadway lights protect sea turtles? Environmental Management 36(5) 702-710 Buchanan,B W 1993 'Effects of enhanced lighting on the behavior of nocturnal frogs ' Animal Behavior 45 893-899 Cornell E A , and J P Hailman 1984 `Pupillary responses to two Rana Pipiens - complex anuran species "Herpetologica 40 356-366 French, C E , L C McEwen N D Magruder, T Rader T A Long,R W Swift 1960 Responses of White-Tailed bucks to artificial light 'Journal of Mammology 41(1) 23-29 Imber,M J 1975 'Behavior of petrels in relation to the moon and artificial lights "Notornis 22 302-306 Jones, J , and C M Francis 2003 "The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses 'Journal of Avian Biology 34 328-333 Le Corre M, A 011ivier, S Ribes P Jouventm 2002 'Light-induced mortality of petrels a 4- year study from Reunion Island(Indian Ocean) 'Biological Conservation 105 93-102 Longcore, Travis and Catherine Rich 2004 'Ecological Light Pollution Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4) 191-198 Ritters,K H, and J D Wickham 2003 How far to the nearest road?"Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(3) 125-129 Miller, Mark W 2006 'Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins ' The Condor 108 130-139 Salmon M 2003 Artificial night lighting and sea turtles Biologist 50(4) 163-168 Tabor R A , G S Brown, V T Luitmg 2004 The effect of light intensity on sockeye salmon fry migratory behavior and predation by cottids in the Cedar River Washington"North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24 128-145 United States of America Department of Transportation 2004 ' System mileage within the United States Washington,D C Bureau of Transportation Statistics Retrieved December 6 2006 http//www bts gov/publications/national transportation statishcs/html/ [1]) American robins exposed to high levels of artificial light will initiate their morning songs significantly earlier(in relation to the onset of dawn)than those exposed to less light sometimes up to 100 minutes earlier(Miller 2006) Prolonged singing could result in higher energy demands, greater predation risk, or earlier yearly feeding times Threatened and vulnerable species especially may not be able to cope with these changes When days were extended to 16 hours by artificial lighting White-tailed bucks began rutting 2 weeks earlier and weighed 20 lbs more at winter s end(French et al 1960) Unfortunately,this study did not record how these changes affected reproductive rates but the lack of winter weight loss could potentially reduce mortality among mothers and fawns Nesting sea turtles selectively choose beach areas shaded by dark buildings over lighted areas As a result artificial lighting causes higher nest concentrations on rapidly decreasing shaded stretches of beach, resulting in higher mortality and predation rates among hatchlings Types of Lighting The standard of measurement for all lighting systems is the Lux or footcandles unit Lux expresses brightness and intensity of light as perceived by the human eye (Longcore and Rich 2004) However this system ignores some biologically important aspects of light Researchers must focus not only on light intensity but on radiation and spectrum as relevant to the organisms being studied Conclusions and Recommendations Alternatives to the current lighting systems are often surprisingly simple (1)Eliminate all bare bulbs and any lighting pointing upward This is especially true for decorative lighting and would reduce contributions to overall light pollution (2)All new developments should use the latest management technologies so that continued growth and expansion leads to no increase in the impact of light pollution(Salmon 2003) (3)Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety The Long Point lighthouse garnered great success by changing its beam to a less intense, flashing system This is the minimum amount of light required to ensure the safety of ships at sea while dramatically reducing avian mortality rates (4)Use narrow spectrum bulbs as often as possible to lower the range of species affected by lighting (5) Shield canter or cut lighting to ensure that light reaches only areas needing illumination This will significantly reduce sky glow (6)Light only high-risk stretches of roads, such as crossings and merges allowing headlights to take up the slack at other times If that is not possible, then (7) use embedded road lights to illuminate the roadway By enacting these alternatives we can reduce the impact of ecological as well as astronomical light pollution, while still maintaining an optimal level of lighting for humans Much future research is required to enhance our understanchng of the effects of roadway lighting and general light pollution on wildlife Research should focus on the amount and types of current lighting, intensities and spectrums used, and any possible road-specific effects It is true that light is essential to life Yet we would do well to remember that darkness can be just as indispensable Source URL http//www wildlandscpr org/biblio-notes/effects-artificial-lighting-wildlife Links [1] http//www bts gov/publications/national transportation stahstics/html/table_01_01 html ti AMERICAN WRID LL-],," iCAfS INDOORS DOMESTIC CAT PREDATION ON BIRDS AND OTHER WILDLIFE How many birds and other wildlife do domestic cats Cats Compete With Native Predators kill each year in the U S I Owned cats halve huge adNantages o%er name predators 1 hey Exact numbers are unknown but scientists estimate that nation"ide recen e protection from disease predation competition and cats kill hundreds of millions of birds and more than a billion star%ation factors which control natne predators such as small mammals such as rabbits squirrels and chipmunks each owls bobcats and foxes Cats with dependable food sources year Cats kill common species such as Cardinal Blue Jay and House are not as N ulnerable to changes in prey populations Unlike Wren as well as rare and endangered species such as Piping Plo,,er many natne predators cats are not strictly territorial As a Florida Scrub Jay and California LeastTern result cats can exist at much higher densities and may out compete natn e predators for food Unaltered cats are also There are more than 77 million pet cats in the United States A prolific breeders In warmer climates a female cat can ha%e 3 1997 nationwide poll showed that only 35% are kept exclusnely litters per year with 4 to 6 kittens per litter indoors leming the majority of owned cats free to kill birds and other wildlife at least some of the time In addition millions of stray Cats Transmit Disease to Wildlife and feral cats roam our cities suburbs farmlands and natural areas Un,,accinated cats can transmit diseases such as rabies to other Abandoned by their owners or lost(stray) or descendants of strays cats natn e wildlife and humans Cats are the domestic animal and In mg in the wild (feral) these cats are victims of human most frequently reported to be rabid to the Centers for Disease irresponsibility due to abandonment and failure to spay or neuter Control and PreN ention Cats are also suspected of spreading pets No one know s how many homeless cats there are in the U S fatal feline diseases to natn e wild cats such as mountain lion but estimates range from 60 to 100 million These cats lead short the endangered Florida panther and bobcat For more miserable In es information see the fact sheet The Great Outdoors is No Loss of wildlife habitat Place For Cats at wyNw abcbirds org/cats q f � as f and fragmentation due to human dek elo ment � t � P Cat Predation Studies } are the leading causes Extensn a studies of the feeding habits of free roaming k of declining bird domestic cats halve been conducted over the last 55 years in o � populations However Europe NorthAmerica Australia Africa and on many islands A scientists now list These studies show that the number and types of animals <� inN asn e species killed by cats%arees greatly depending on the indn idual cats o k including cats as the the time of year and aN ailability of prey Roughly 60%to 70% second most serious threat to bird populations worldwide Habitat of the wildlife cats kill are small mammals 20%to 30%are fragmentation provides cats and other predators easier access to birds and up to 10 are amphibians reptiles and insects w ildhfe Forced to In a on smaller tracts of land Rather than haN ens How et er birds can be up to 100% of a cats prey on some for wildlife these areas can be deathtraps islands Cats Are Not a Natural Part of Ecosystems Some free roaming domestic cats kill more than 100 animals The domestic cat Felis catus is a descendant of the European and each year One well fed cat that roamed a w ildlife experiment African wild cats Domesticated in Egypt more than 4 000 years station was recorded to have killed more than 1 600 animals ago cats maybe the most widespread predator in the world In the (mostly small mammals) o-,er 18 months Rural cats take U S cats were not abundant until the late 1800s when they were more prey than suburban or urban cats Birds that nest or feed brought to help control burgeoning rodent populations associated on the ground such as California Quail are the most with agriculture Some people view cat predation of rodents as susceptible to cat predation as are nestlings and fledglings of beneficial but natn a small mammals are important to maintaining many other bird species biologically dnerse ecosystems Field mice and shrews are also prey For birds such as Great Horned Owl and Red tailed Hawk The following are summaries of specific studies East Bay Regional Park District,CA A two year study eery poor ratters The researchers concluded Although it is was conducted in two parks with grassland habitat One park unlikely that cats alone w ill cause any species to become endangered had no cats but more than 25 cats were being fed daily in the in Britain for those which are already under pressure for other other park There w ere almost tw ice as many birds seen in the reasons such as thrushes hart est mice grass snakes and slow park w ith no cats as in the park with cats California Thrasher worms cats could become significant (The Mammal Society 1998 and California Quail both ground nesting birds were seen Look what the cats brought inf www_,ab(ln�acauk/mammal/ during surreys in catk lls) othe no cat area x r whereas they Wichita,KS In a study of cat predation in an urban area 83%of were never seen in the 41 study cats killed birds In all but one case when feathers the cat area In w ere found in scat the owner was unaw are that their cat had ingested p� > � addition more a bird In fact the majority of cat owners reported their cats did not than 85% of the bring prey to them Instead the owners obser,,ed the cats with the i natn e deer mice bird or found remains in the house or in other locations A de 1kand harvest mice clawed cat killed more animals than any other cat in the study trapped were in the no cat area whereas 79% of the house (Fiore C and K B Sullnan Domestic cat(Fels catus)predation of mice an exotic pest species were trapped in the cat area The birds in an urban environment wwwgeocities com/the srco/ researchers concluded Cats at artificially high densities Article html) sustained by supplemental feeding reduce abundance of natn e rodent and bird populations change the rodent species Wisconsin Researchers at the Unnersity of Wisconsin coupled composition and may facilitate the expansion of the house their four year cat predation study with data from other studies mouse into new areas (Hawkins C C WE Grant and M T and estimated that rural free roaming cats kill at least 7 8 million Longnecker 1999 Effect of subsidized house cats on California and perhaps as many as 217 million birds a year in Wisconsin birds and rodents Transactions of theWestern Section ofTheWildl fe Suburban and urban cats add to that toll In some parts of the state Society 35 29 33) free roaming cat densities reach 114 cats per square mile outnumbering all similar sized name predators (Coleman J S San Diego, CA In a study of the relationships between S A Temple and S R Craven 1997 Cats and Wildlife A coyote mid sized predators such as cats and scrub dwelling Conser-vation Dilemma 6 pp www.wisc.edu/extension/ birds cat owners hNmg along the rims of canyons collected catfly 1htn-i) In an ongoing but unpublished study of cat prey the prey their cats brought home These canyons are isolated items including stomach contents scat analysis obsertiations of pockets of habitat with species that may not occur elsewhere kills and prey remains birds were 19 6%of 1 976 prey captured OnaNerage each outdoor cat that hunted returned 24 rodents by 78 outdoor cats (Temple S A Unity of WI personal 15 birds and 17 lizards to the residence per year Birds were communication 1/22/04) 26 7% of the prey killed by cats The researchers estimated that cats surrounding mid sized canyons return 840 rodents Virginia Researchers compared a free roaming domestic pet cat 525 birds and 595 lizards to residences each year This leN el of in a rural area with 4 urban cats The rural cat captured a total of 27 predation appears to be unsustainable The study also found natn a species (8 bird 2 amphibian 9 reptile and 8 mammal that in small canyons where the coyote was absent there was including the star nosed mole a species of special state concern) an increase in mid sized predators such as cats and a drastic The 4 urban cats captured 21 native species(6 bird 7 reptile and 8 decline in do ersity or elimination of scrub breeding birds mammal) Between January and No-,ember 1990 each cat caught But in the larger canyons where coyotes were still present the on a v erage 26 natin e individuals in the urban area and 83 m the scrub breeding birds were also present (Crooks K R and rural area The study did not count prey killed and completely M E Soule 1999 Mesopredator release and a%ifaunal consumed prey killed and left elsewhere prey that escaped but extinctions in a fragmented system Nature 400 563 566) died later from infection or injury or non natn a prey (Mitchell J and R A Beck 1992 Free ranging domestic cat predation on natn e England The Mammal Society conducted a sure ey of animals N ertebrates in rural and urban Virginia Virginia Journal of Science brought home by domestic cats During a fire month period 43 197 206) in 1997 964 cats killed more than 14 000 animals The mean number of catches or kills per cat was 16 7 and birds were Cats on Islands Because some island bird populations e%ohed 24%of the prey The mean kill rates for belled cats was 19 and in the absence of mammalian predators they hay e no defense for no bells 15 In other words cats wearing bells killed mechanisms against them When cats are introduced or abandoned more Only 162 rats were killed by the cats making them on an island elimination of entire bird populations can result Domestic cats are considered primarily responsible for the 1976 The interaction of hunger and preying in the domestic extinction of 8 island bird species including Stephens Island Wren cat (Fells catus) an adaptive hierarchy? Behavioral Biology Chatham Island Fernbird and Auckland Island Merganser and the 18 263 272) eradication of 41 bird species from New Zealand islands alone On Marion Island in the Sub Antarctic Indian Ocean cats were Cats With Bells onTheir Collars DC)Kill Birds Studies estimated to kill 450 000 seabirds annually prior to cat eradication hav e show n that bells on collars are not effectiv e in preventing efforts (Veitch C R 1985 Methods of eradicating feral cats from cats from killing birds or other wildlife Birds do not offshore islands in New Zealand ICBP Technical Publication 3 125 necessarily associate the sound of a bell with danger and 141) cats with bells can learn to silently stalk their prey Even if the bell on the collar rings it may ring too late and bells Cats in Habitat Islands Cats can have significant impacts on offer no protection for helpless nestlings and fledglings local wildlife populations especially in habitat islands such as suburban and urban parks wildlife refuges and other areas Most Birds That Seem to Escape Don't Survive surrounded by human development The loss of bird species from Wildlife rehabilitation centers report that most small habitat islands is well documented and nest predation is an animals injured by cats die Cats carry bacteria and viruses in important cause of the decline of neotropical migrants (WilcoNe their mouths some of which can be transmitted to their D S 1985 Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of victims Even if treatment is administered immediately only z migratory songbirds about 20%of victims survive the ordeal A birdthat looks Ecology 66 1211 perfectly healthy may die from internal hemorrhaging or a s 1214) The injury to vital organs -- a s � endangered Point A large percentage of patients at wildlife rehabilitation N $ Arena mountain centers are cat attack victims and animals orphaned by cats beaver Stephen s At Wildlife Rescue Inc in Palo Alto California > kangaroo rat and approximately 25%of their patients between May and June tiai &3� } Pacific pocket mouse 1994 were native cat caught birds and almost half were Wedge tailed Shearwater David G Smith now In e on habitat fledglings Thirty percent of birds and 20%of mammals at islands created by the LmdsayWildlife Museum in California were caught by destruction and fragmentation of their habitat in California cats Cat predation of wildlife is especially frustrating to Predation by pet and feral cats on these species is a serious threat wildlife rehabilitators These losses are totally unnecessary to their future existence (Thelander C G and M Crabtree 1994 because unlike other predators pet cats do not need to kill Life on the Edge A Guide to California s Endangered Natural these animals to survive Resources Wildlife BioSystems Books Santa Cruz California) Cat Colonies Are a Problem for Birds and Other Cat Predation of Federally-Protected Wildlife Wildlife Domestic cats are solitary animals butgroupsoften The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the hunting form around an artificial feeding source such as garbage dumps taking capturing or killing of any migratory bird In seeming or food specifically put out for them These populations can v iolation of this landmark law ow ners of free roaming cats permit grow v cry quickly can have significant impacts on w ildlife their pets to kill birds protected by the MBTA As noted above populations and can cause significant health risks to other cats domestic cats are also killing birds and other wildlife protected wildlife and humans Feeding these cats does not prey ent the under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Through the ESA thu predation of birds and other"-ildlife federal government protects and restores wildlife at risk of extinction Although cats may not be responsible for the perilous Conclusion Ultimately cats are not ultimately responsible status of endangered w ildlife the loss of ev en a single animal can for killing our nativ e w ildlife people are The only way to be a setback to the survival of some species prevent domestic cat predation on wildlife is for owners to keep their cats indoors) TheTruth About Cats and Birds For more information contact Well-fed Cats DQ Kill Birds Well fed cats kill birds and other AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY w ildlife because the hunting instinct is independent of the urge to CATS INDOORS THE CAMPAIGN FOR SAFER BIRDS AND CATS eat In one study six cats w ere presented w ith a In e small rat while 1731 C,onnecticutAv enue NW 3rd Floor Washington DC,20009 eating their preferred food All six cats stopped eating the food Phone 202/234 7181 Fax 202/234 7182 killed the rat and then resumed eating the food (Adamec R E E mail abe(aabcbirds org Web site www abcbirds org Available online at www sciencedirect com sctrric c DIRECT BIOLOGICAL -qv CONSERVATION ELSEVIER Biological Conservation 115(2003) 191-201 www elsevier comrlocate biocon Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes Christopher A Lepezyka *, Angela G Mertiga b, Jianguo Llua Dcpatmuit n/Fnhuas and Wddh1c Michigan Statc Unncisn} Eust Lansing M148324 1111 USA 'Dcpmtmcnici Sociolog} MichiganStaic Unnusit} East Lansing M1433241222 USA Received 12 September 2002 received in revised form 31 January 2003 accepted 20 February 2003 Abstract Fluctuations of bird abundances have been attributed to such factors as supplemental feeding landscape change and habitat fragmentation Notably absent from consideration however is the role of private landowners and their actions such as owning free ranging domestic cats (Felts tutus cats allowed free access to the outdoors) To understand the impacts of cat predation on birds we surveyed all 1694 private landowners living on three breeding bird survey(BBS)routes(^-120 km) that represent a con tinuum of rural to urban landscapes in Southeastern Michigan where the majority (>90%) of land is privately owned Our data indicate that among the 58 5% of landowners that responded one quarter of them owned outdoor cats On average a cat depre dated between 0 7 and 14 birds per week A total of 23+ species (12 5% of breeding species) were on the list of being killed including two species of conservation concern(Eastern Bluebirds and Ruby throated Hummingbirds) Across the three landscapes there were —800 to ^-3100 cats which kill between ^-16 000 and ^-47 000 birds during the breeding season resulting in a minimum of ^-1 bird killed/km/day While the number and density (no/ha) of free ranging cats per landowner differed across the rural to urban landscapes depredation rates were similar Landowner participation in bird feeding showed no relationship with the number of free ranging cats owned Similarly selected demographic characteristics of landowners were not signiheantly related to the number of free ranging cats owned Our results even taken conservatively indicate that cat predation most likely plays an impor tant role in fluctuations of bird populations and should receive more attention in wildlife conservation and landscape studies 2003 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved Kcyitads Domestic cat (Fths tutus) Landowner Human impacts Breeding bird survey Rural to urban Bird feeding Private land Human dominated landscape 1 Introduction consideration in the potential mechanisms responsible for influencing breeding bird abundances are the land Since the mid 1960s long term data on breeding birds owners that live in the landscapes being investigated have indicated that many species are declining or flue Because private landowners are the ultimate controllers tuating throughout the Midwest and Eastern United of their land they may be carrying out a wide variety of States (Robbins et al 1989 Terborgh 1989) These actions that could influence bird abundances and dis declines and fluctuations have been attributed to factors tributions Their cumulative and collective effects across such as habitat fragmentation and destruction (Robbins large areas and over time may be even more drastic et al 1989 Donovan and Flather 2002) landscape Furthermore landowners living in rural landscapes may change (Flather and Sauer 1996) and direct mortality carry out activities at different levels than those in urban due to events (e g culling by farmers) on the wintering landscapes Such differences may in part explain the grounds of the neotropics (Rappole and McDonald substantial variations in bird abundances and diversity 1994 Basili and Temple 1999) Largely absent from often noted along urban to rural gradients or in urban contexts (e g Emlen 1974 Hohtola 1978 Cam et al 2000) * Corresponding author Present address Department of Forest Because of the potential for significant landowner Ecology and Management University of Wisconsin Madison 1630 Linden Drive 120 Russell Labs Madison WI 53706 USA Tel +1 effects on birds there has been increased attention direc 608 261 1050 fax +1 608 262 9922 ted towards the integration of social and economic com E mal udcbc ss clepczyk(awisc edu(C A Lepczyk) portents into questions of avian distributions (Hostetler 0006 3207 03 S see front matter < 2001 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved dol 10 1016 S0006 3207(03)00107 1 192 CA Lcpcz}I ct al /Biological Conwiation 115(2003) 191-201 1999) However until recently ecologists have largely even larger predatory effect due to a mesopredator ignored the human components in ecological research release effect (Crooks and Soule 1999 Risbey et al (Lubchenco et al 1991 Gallagher and Carpenter 1997 2000) The mesopredator release effect is simply the sit Vitousek et al 1997 Liu 2001) As a result ecologists uation in which top level predators have either been understanding of how humans interact with and influ greatly reduced or extirpated resulting in an increase of ence different ecosystems and the species they contain second tier predators such as skunks raccoons and is still in its early stage (Redman 1999) To move domestic cats Fourth cats often depredate birds more beyond this basic level ecologists are increasingly during the breeding months when nestlings and fledg incorporating socioeconomics human demography lings are bountiful (Eberhard 1954 Dunn and Tessa and social science techniques such as social surveys to glia 1994) Fifth cats may be directly competing with understand the interrelationship between humans and avian predators such as American Kestrels (Falco the ecosystems within which they live (Turner et al yparvertuy) Northern Harriers (Circus cyaneuy) and 1996 Liu et al 1999 2001) As human behaviors are Red tailed Hawks (Buteo jamatcenyty George 1974) the direct force affecting ecosystems it is essential to Finally even very low cat depredation could negatively incorporate human behaviors into the understanding of impact the breeding success and viability of a species ecological patterns such as abundance and diversity of (Crooks and Soule 1999) bird species As part of a larger effort to understand and integrate One specific behavior that could negatively impact the social and ecological factors influencing breeding breeding birds is allowing domestic cats (Felts cam) bird abundances among different rural to urban land free access to the outdoors Although free ranging scapes (Lepczyk et al 2002) we sought to address the domestic cats (i e house cats that have free access to the roles of free ranging cats and the landowners that own outdoors a k a outdoor cats) predominantly depredate them Specifically we were interested in ascertaining (1) small mammals (Fitzgerald and Turner 2000) birds the proportion of landowners that allow their cats out constitute a large secondary source of prey (Coman and side (2) the number and density (cats/ha) of cats each Brunner 1972 Pearre and Maass 1998) While the fact household owned that were allowed access to the out that cats prey upon birds is unquestioned the degree to side (3)how many dead or injured birds a week the cats which they negatively impact bird populations (or any brought in during the breeding season (i e April prey species) has been a point of contention in the lit through August) (4) what cat predation rates were at erature (Barratt 1998) Because domestic cats have the landscape level (5) what bird species were brought coexisted with humans for centuries Fitzgerald and home by the cats and (6) if differences existed across a Turner (2000) argue that any continental population of rural to urban gradient birds that could not withstand predation by cats would Aside from understanding the six aforementioned have been extirpated long ago Another perspective issues we also tested three a priori hypotheses Our first holds that cats are simply occupying the role of a nat hypothesis was that because bird feeders may act to ural predator That is cats are assumed to fill a role magnify local bird densities a relationship would exist similar to that of species such as raccoons (Proc)on between both the number and density of bird feeders lotor) skunks (Mephttty Inephttty) and raptors A final and cat depredation rates We predicted that as the point that has been made is that people simply observe number and/or density of bird feeders increased there avian depredation by cats more than other natural phe would be a related increase in the number of birds nomena because it takes place during the day time and depredated per cat In addition because the role of often close to the house which results in the assumption domestic cats as predators has received widespread that cats are reducing bird populations (see Patronek attention among academic and professional organza 1998 for details) tions (e g Cooper Ornithological Society s resolution Countering the previous points is the fact that on Public Policies Regarding Feral and Free ranging domestic cats are subsidized predators and are thus Cats American Bird Conservancy Resolution on Free likely to have a larger total effect on bird species Spe roaming Cats) non academic venues (e g National cifically humans provide domestic cats a level of main Audubon Society Resolution on Cats Wisconsin Nat tenance that other predators do not receive (Coleman ural Resources Magazine) veterinarians and non profit and Temple 1993) As a result they may exist in higher educational programs (e g American Bird Con densities and exert a greater predatory effect than nat servancy s Cats Indooryt) we also sought to integrate ural predators Second cats are opportunistic predators our results with demographic parameters of the land (Coman and Brunner 1972) both in terms of time and owners to test two other hypotheses Specifically we habitat location (Barratt 1997) meaning they will hypothesized that the number of free ranging cats depredate a prey item if they encounter it Third in would be a function of a landowners age and educa many human dominated landscapes where top level tional level In the case of a landowners age we pre predators are absent domestic cats may be extolling an dicted a positive relationship between age and number CA Lcpcz}I ct al BiologicalConuiiation 115(2003) 191-201 193 of free ranging cats they would own since the impetus and city center locations In addition all three routes to keep cats indoors has been a relatively recent phe occur in a heterogeneous and human dominated region nomenon that likely influences younger landowners that is undergoing rapid urbanization (Rutledge and more than older landowners Likewise we predicted a Lepczyk 2002) which is representative of many other negative relationship between education and free ran regions in North America The last reason for selecting grog cats such that the more education a landowner these three routes is that they remain active BBS routes had the fewer free ranging cats they would own We monitored annually by the United States Fish and based this prediction on the grounds that many public Wildlife Service which allows for future evaluations to and private organizations as well as veterinarians have be conducted and hence comparisons made over time strongly advocated keeping cats indoors and that the To integrate information about human behaviors into more education a landowner has the greater the chance the understanding of landowner impacts on bird abun that they have been exposed to such a message dance we conducted a social survey of landowners For our study we chose all private landowners who owned property immediately adjacent to the road along which 2 Methods each of the three BBS routes is run We identified the landowners through a combination of driving each To address the research questions test our hypoth route and using county tax records and plat maps eses and match the scale of study areas with locations Utilizing this combined approach we identified a total where long term data on bird abundance and distribu of 1694 private landowners (331 on Rural 390 on tion have been collected (Vogt et al 2002) we used Suburban and 973 on Urban) three breeding bird survey (BBS) routes (route numbers We administered a mail survey instrument between 53 167 and 168) in Southeastern Michigan United October and December of 2000 following the Total States (Fig 1) where >90% of the land is privately Design Method (Dillman 1978 2000) The survey owned We chose these three routes because they repre instrument and procedures were fully evaluated for sent a continuum from rural to urban landscapes based ethical appropriateness by the Michigan State Uni on their geographic locations average land parcel sizes versity Committee on Research Involving Human Sub and socio demographic compositions Specifically route jects prior to mailing To encourage responses we 53 (hereafter termed Rural) is very rural has a low established a toll free telephone line for landowners to population density large land parcels and is removed contact us with any questions and offered prize draw from any large city center or urban location Route 168 rags as an incentive Briefly an initial survey was mailed (hereafter termed Urban) ranges from being very sub during the first week of October 2000 A reminder/ urban to being urban has a high population density thank you postcard was sent out 2 weeks later Finally small land parcels and transacts or parallels residential a second survey was sent out 2 weeks after the postcard locations and city centers Finally route 167 (hereafter to those who had not responded to the prior mailings termed Suburban)straddles the demographic differences Our sampling framework was designed to capture between routes 53 and 168 by being suburban has inter only private landowners hence any survey returned mediate population density and land parcel sizes and from a church business or public land owner that might runs parallel to (but never intersects) large residential have accidentally been included in the initial sample was removed from the study Similarly surveys that were returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service (USPS) where the recipient was deceased or where different landowners had the same address as i another landowner and were returned as undeliverable a by the USPS were removed from the sample Surveys i received after 31 December 2000 were not included in Nany analyses If landowners owned multiple parcels that were not connected to one another then they were asked to complete the survey in relation to only one of 0 90 18the parcels However if the landowner owned multiple KILOMETERparcels that were all contiguous with one another then they were asked to fill out the survey in relation to the entire block of land Surveys that were returned blank (i e not filled out) or contained notes indicating no Fig 1 Location of the three BBS routes study landscapes in South interest in participating in the survey were considered a eastern Michigan Route 53 is Rural route 167 is Suburban and route non response Similarly landowners that called to indi 168 is Urban Each BBS route is 19 4 km in length cate they were unable or had no desire to participate in 194 CA Lcpcz)k ct al /Biological Con sutiation 115(2003) 191-201 the survey were considered non respondents Non landscape Redbirds and red birds were assumed to be respondents were included in the final corrected sample Northern Cardinals (Cardinahv cardinahv) Turtle doves size and doves were assumed to be Mourning Doves To ascertain the impact of free ranging cats on bird (Zenaida macroura) Honey sucking birds and hummers abundance we asked the following questions in our sur were assumed to be Ruby throated Hummingbirds vey (1) How many cats does your household own that (Archilochus couhriv) as no other hummingbirds inhabit are allowed access to the outside9(2)If you or members Michigan Canary yellow canary wild canary yellow of your household own cats that are allowed access to finch and golden finch were assumed to be American the outside approximately how many dead or injured Goldfinches (Carduelry trivtty) Crackles or crackens birds a week do all the cats bring in during the spring were assumed to be Common Grackles (Qurvcaluv guty and summer months (April through August) (0 1 2-3 cula) Red finches and red breasted finches were 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-15 16-20 more than 20)9(3) Can you assumed to be Purple Finches (Carpodacuv purpureuv) or anyone in your household identify any of the bird Finally barn sparrow was changed to Sparrow even species brought home by your cat(s) (yes no unsure)9 though it is most likely a House Sparrow because of the (4) Please list the names of the bird species that your potential for misidentification cat(s) has brought home during the spring and summer Because of the potential for under reporting cat months on the lines below With regard to the number depredation (see Section 4) we initially calculated a and density of bird feeders the following questions were predation rate based on all landowners that had out asked (5) Does anyone in your household feed birds on door cats even if they indicated predation rates of zero your property (yes no)9 (6) How many bird feeders do (Predation Rate 1 hereafter termed PR1) However we you have on your property9 (7) Approximately how also calculated a second predation rate (Predation Rate large is your parcel of land9 Finally to ascertain basic 2 hereafter termed PR2) based only on landowners that demographic statistics of the landowners we asked the had outdoor cats for which they reported one or more following questions (8)In what year were you born9(9) birds killed or injured per week Given the uncertainty Are you Male Female9 (10) How many people cur related to the number of cats and their associated pre rently live in your household9 (11) What is the highest dation rates with regard to the non respondents we level of school completed or degree you have received used several different estimates of non respondent out (Some school completed but no high school diploma door cat ownership to provide a plausible range when High school graduate or general equivalency diploma scaling up the results to the landscape level To estimate some college but no degree Associates degree in col the total number of birds depredated over the breeding lege Bachelors degree Masters professional or doc season in each landscape we considered non respon toral degree)9 The six educational choices offered were a dents from three perspectives (1) non respondents have condensation of the nine categories used in the United the same number of outdoor cats as respondents (2) States Census form that pooled post baccalaureate non respondents have 50% the number of outdoor cats degrees together as respondents and (3) non respondents have 150% the In cases where the respondents did not explicitly fol number of outdoor cats as respondents Under each low the survey instructions we edited the data as assumption we applied both rates of predation such follows For fill in the blank questions that asked for a that under Predation Rate 1 the total number of single numeric response we took the arithmetic mean if birds killed over the breeding season=(number of a respondent put a range In a single case a respondent non respondents)x(mean number of cats/land put a question mark for the number of cats allowed owner)x(weekly predation rate)x(22 weeks)+(number access to the outdoors Because all subsequent questions of birds killed over 22 weeks from respondents) In the that were contingent upon the number of cats were case of Predation Rate 2 we calculated the total number answered as owning an outdoor cat we conservatively of birds killed over the breeding season=(number of assumed that the landowner had at least one cat How non respondents)x(proportion of landowners that had ever in cases where landowners had no cats allowed cats that killed or injured one or more bird a week) access to the outdoors but answered questions con x(mean number of cats/landowner)x(weekly predation tangent on the fact that they did own them we converted rate)x(22 weeks)+(number of birds killed over 22 the values to blank (i e no data) entries In the cases weeks from respondents) We estimated the potential where respondents were asked for only a single response proportion of landowners involved in allowing their to a categorical question but filled in two blanks we used cats outdoors across each landscape by assuming that a coin toss to decide the answer For the bird species all non respondents did not have cats allowed outdoors brought home by the cats we corrected all spelling/ (minimum estimate) and then assuming that they all did grammatical mistakes and made the following assump have cats allowed outdoors(maximum) tions based on colloquial terminology and bird descrip Statistical analyses were performed using the multi tions compared to known species in the surrounding variate general linear hypothesis module in SYSTAT CA LcpczjI ct al/Biological Conuriatton 115(2003) 191-201 195 5 03 (Wilkinson 1992) All density measures were cal 125 —�- culated using the parcel sizes reported by the land owners Response rate and the proportion of landowners owning outdoor cats across each landscape 100 were compared using a two way contingency table with co a Pearson Chi square test statistic Comparisons between cat and non cat owners were carried out using o 75 t tests while comparisons across landscapes were car reed out with ANOVA Landscape differences were Cc compared using Tukey s HSD procedure (Zar 1996) 4i 50 Data are reported as means±SE (as 100% of the E population was sampled but only —59% responded) z unless otherwise noted with a P value of 0 05 con 25 sidered significant Of the 1694 landowners initially identified 40 were removed from consideration because they were a buss 0 90 ness or church had property outside the sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 15 2e 30 region already responded based on another parcel of Number of Cats per Landowner land within the study landscapes or their address all 2 Frequency landowner upon of the number of cats reported to be information was incorrect thus reducing the corrected allowed outdoors perer landowner population size to 1654 Among these 1654 we received 968 completed surveys yielding a 58 5% response rate Response rates in different landscapes were 64 8% for between the Rural and Urban landscapes (P=0 0013) Rural (212 of 327) 61 5% for Suburban (233 of 379) Similarly the density of cats (no/ha) was significantly and 55 2% for Urban (523 of 948) which were sig different by landscape (F=9 74 df=2 239 mficantly different (x2=11 11 df=2 P=0 0039) P=0 000086) with the Urban landscape being different from both the Rural (P=000045) and the Suburban landscapes (P=0 00086 Table 1) 3 Results Of the 253 landowners owning outdoor cats the mean number of birds depredated per cat per week (PR1) A total of 253 (26 1%) landowners had cats that were across all landscapes was 0 683±0 12 (n=245) and was allowed access to the outside Of these 253 landowners similar among all landscapes (F=0 213 df=2 242 71 (33 5%) were in the Rural landscape 75 (32 2%) P=0 808 Table 2) Recalculating predation rates based were in the Suburban landscape and 107 (20 5%) were only on landowners that had outdoor cats (PR2) for in the Urban landscape indicating a significantly dif which they reported one or more birds killed or injured ferent proportion of respondents due to the lower fre per week reduced the sample size to 118 (Table 2) Of quency in the Urban landscape (x2=19 09 df=2 these 118 landowners the mean number of birds depre P=0 00007) The total number of free ranging cats dated per cat per week (PR2) across all landscapes was across all landscapes was 656 (Table 1) ranging from 1 1 42::L0 22 (Table 2) As with PR1 PR2 was similar to 30 per landowner with a mean of 2 59±0 20 per among all three landscapes (F=0 567 df=2 115 landowner (Fig 2) Overall the mean number of free P=0 57 Table 2) Based upon PR1 the overall average ranging cats per landowner was significantly different by total number of birds killed per cat during the breeding landscapes (F=6 175 df=2 250 P=00024 Table 1) season was 15 compared with an overall overage of 31 but specific landscape differences were only significant using PR2 (Table 2) Summing each individual cat s Table 1 Summary information for free ranging cat owners by landscape Landscape Average Rural Suburban Urban Free ranging cats(no landowner)' 3 62f 0 37(71) 2 56±0 36(75) 1 94±0 30(107) 2 59±0 20(253) Total no of free ranging cats 257 192 207 656* Cat density(no ha) ' 1 19t0 22(66) 1 37±0 24(75) 3 43f0 53(101) 2 18±0 25(242) Values are means±SE with values in parentheses indicating the sample size Superscript letters represent significant differences between landscapes Suburban and Urban and'Rural and Urban * The number is a total not an average 196 CA Lcpczyl ct al Biological Conunation 115(2003) 191-201 Table 2 Predation rates for free-ranging cat owners by landscape Landscape Average Rural Suburban Urban Predation rate 1 (no birds killed cat/week) 0 77±0 32(67) 0 58±0 13(72) 0 70±0 15(106) 0 68±0 12(245) Predation rate 2(no birds killed cat week) 1 48±0 59(35) 1 09±0 22(38) 1 65±0 31 (45) 1 42±0 22(118) Total birds killed(no cat)under predation 1 1699 1264 1540 1502 Total birds killed(no/cat)under predation 2 32 52 2395 3627 31 19 Total birds killed by cats during breeding season 1138 910 1632 3680* Values are means±SE with values in parentheses indicating the sample size * The number is a total not an average predation rate over the breeding season indicated that groups of birds were identified by the landowners the total number of birds killed across the three land (Appendix) which is undoubtedly a conservative esti scapes was 3680 (Table 2) Depredation rates were not mate (see Section 4) The species identified in greatest correlated with the number of bird feeders located on numbers were Sparrows and Blue Jays (Cyanocitta errs each landowners property (r2=0 015 P=0 10 Fig 3) tata) while the least common were Dark eyed (Slate and were not influenced by landscape type (land colored var) Junco (Junco hyemalts) and the Tufted scapexnumber of bird feeders F=0 281 df=2 180 Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor Appendix) P=0 756) Similarly depredation rates were not corre In terms of landowner demography the average age lated with the density (no/ha) of bird feeders (n=241) of the respondents owning outdoor cats was (r2<0 001 P=0 631) Scaling the proportion of land 51 310 86 years compared with 50 4f0 51 years for owners that have outdoor cats to the landscape level(by respondents not owning outdoor cats (n=690) indicat incorporating assumptions about non respondents) mg no significant difference in age (t=0 905 df=929 indicates that between 15 and 56% of landowners P=0 366) Similarly there were no differences in age potentially have outdoor cats (Table 3) At the land among free ranging cat owners across the three land scape level the total number of predatory outdoor cats scapes (F=0 633 df=2 238 P=0 532 Table 4) In ranged from —800 to ^-3100 which killed between addition there was no relationship between respondent s —16 000 and —47 000 birds (Table 3) age and the number of cats allowed access to the out Of the 118 landowners that reported their cats killing doors (r2<0 0005 P=0 925) With regard to educa or injuring one or more birds a week 75 (63 6%) were tional level there was a significant difference among able to identify specific species of birds brought home free ranging cat owners across the landscapes by their cats Twenty three unique species of birds or (F=26 897 df=2 238 P<0 000005 Table 4) but not between free ranging cat owners and non free ranging cat owners (F=1 650 df=1 926 P=0 199) nor was 15 there an interaction between free ranging cat ownership CD r' = 0015 p = 010 and landscape type (F=0 083 df=2 926 P=0 921) a . The significant difference in educational level among owners of free ranging cats was found to be between v Rural and Suburban and Suburban and Urban land 10 scapes but not between the Rural and Urban land m scapes Similarly there was no relationship between a respondents educational level and the number of cats o allowed access to the outdoors (r2<0 002 P=0 461) a� 0 co 5 -2 . a m 4 Discussion Overall our results indicate that free ranging domes zi ° s tic cats depredated a minimum of 12 5% of the known 0 breeding bird species (based on 23 of —184) including 0 5 10 15 two species of conservation concern (Eastern Bluebird Number of Bird Feeders per Landowner and Ruby throated Hummingbird) In the case of the Fig 3 Number of bird feeders per landowner versus number of birds Eastern Bluebird the location of the three landscapes depredated per week per cat represents an area of Michigan where the species is rarest CA Lcpczyl ct al Biological Con scriation 115(2003) 191-201 197 Table 3 Landscape level results of the proportional range of landowners allowing cats outdoors the number of possible cats that are predatory the density per linear kilometer of predatory cats and the total number of birds killed under differing estimation procedures Route classification Total Rural Suburban Urban Potential range(/)of landowners having cats 21 7-56 9 19 8-58 3 11 3-56 1 15 3-56 8* Total numbu of cats(no lln 1 m) (assumption 1&predation 1) 465(11 8) 379(9 6) 619(15 7) 1463(12 4) (assumption 1&predation 2) 290(7 3) 205(5 2) 325(8 3) 820(6 9) (assumption 2&predation 1) 671(17 1) 566(14 4) 1032(26 2) 2271 (19 2) (assumption 2&predation 2) 419(10 6) 307(7 8) 542(13 7) 1267(10 7) (assumption 3&predation 1) 881 (22 4) 753(19 1) 1444(36 6) 3078(26 0) (assumption 3&predation 2) 549(13 9) 408(10 4) 758(19 2) 1714(14 5) Total bncA l illcd (assumption 1&predation 1) 4664 3295 7981 15 919 (assumption 1&predation 2) 5356 3340 9483 18 179 (assumption 2&predation 1) 8190 5679 14 329 30 260 (assumption 2&predation 2) 9573 5770 17 333 32 677 (assumption 3&predation 1) 11 716 8064 20 678 40 458 (assumption 3&predation 2) 13 791 8201 25 184 47 176 The three assumptions are that(1)non respondents have 50/ the number of cats as respondents (2)non respondents have the same number of cats as respondents and(3)non respondents have 150/ the number of cats as respondents Each assumption was estimated with two predation rates the first of which(predation rate 1)includes all cats even if they have predation rates of zero whereas the second(predation rate 2)includes only cats that killed or injured one or more birds per week * The number is an average not a total Table 4 Age and education of free ranging cat owners by landscape Landscape Average Rural Suburban Urban Respondent age 514f167(68) 526t147(72) 503±135(101) 513f086(241) Respondent educational level h* 3 09f0 17(67) 422±0 17(72) 3 58f0 14(102) 3 64±0 10(241) Values are means±SE with values in parentheses indicating the sample size Superscript letters represent significant differences between landscapes Rural and Suburban 'Suburban and Urban * Educational level was a categorical response from 1 to 6(see Section 2)with a higher number indicating more education and not always identified on bird atlas survey routes Although no extremely rare species or species of state (Brewer et al 1991) Ruby throated Hummingbirds are or national concern were identified by landowners that the only species of hummingbirds that breed in Michi does not mean that cats were not preying upon them In gan and are not typically associated with cat predation fact several factors would lend support to the fact that given their small body size Aside from the Eastern other species are likely being depredated First because Bluebird and Ruby throated Hummingbird the species only two thirds of landowners were able to identify the depredated in our study are concordant with other birds brought home by their cats it is very probable studies that most of the birds being taken by cats were that other species were taken in the properties of the ground or low brush feeders (Appendix) and typically remaining one third of landowners that acknowledged associated with bird feeders and suburban landscapes cat depredation Second the ability of respondents to (Mead 1982 Dunn and Tessaglia 1994 Carss 1995 identify birds correctly is unknown People are most Barratt 1997) Although the species group of Sparrows familiar with common and brightly colored species could not be broken down into species it is very likely Furthermore most people tend to use general colloquial that the dominant species observed was the House terms such as Sparrows Because the ability to discern Sparrow (Passer doinesticus) Sparrows were also the specific Sparrow species can be very difficult (Sibley most commonly observed depredated species found in 2000) and other sparrows such as the Chipping Sparrow England and Australia (Churcher and Lawton 1987 (Spizella passerina) often occur in residential areas it is Barratt 1997) very likely that the group Sparrows in the Appendix 198 CA Lcpcz)l ct al Biological Consu tation 115(2003) 191-201 consisted of at least two to three separate sparrow spe the greater number of landowners in the Urban land cies Thus there is most certainly a detection bias scape coupled with greater cat densities is one of the among the respondents Third respondents only identi main reasons for a greater total predatory effect in the fied birds that were brought home by their cats Thus Urban landscape (Tables 1 and 3) no measure of what species may have been consumed in Because cat predation is often witnessed at bird fee the field were recorded Fourth cats often depredate ders (Dunn and Tessaglia 1994) and bird feeders can nestlings (Churcher and Lawton 1987 Dunn and Tes act to magnify bird densities we had predicted that there saglia 1994) which can be very difficult to identify would be a positive correlation between bird feeder especially if very young or recently hatched Fifth cats number or density and depredation rates However we are opportunistic predators suggesting that they are found no support for this hypothesis The lack of a likely to prey upon any species that is present in their relationship may be due to the fact that there are rela territory Finally our survey made no attempt to tively few landowners that both allow their cats out establish predation rates by feral cats which also have doors and feed birds or that place bird feeders in an effect on birds and wildlife As a result of these fac accessible places for cats Regardless of the specific rea tors the observed species and species groups being son(s) why we found no support for our hypothesis the depredated are almost certainly an underestimate of the lack of correlation is important in that it suggests that true number of species Keeping these points in mind bird feeding is not exasperating predation rates by cats our estimate of the number of species depredated should Similar to our first hypothesis we found no relation be considered quite conservative ships between age or education of the respondents and At the landscape scale the total number of outdoor the number of free ranging cats owned indicating that cats and the number of birds killed over the breeding our last two hypotheses should also be rejected The fact season is quite wide ranging depending upon the that age and educational level show no relationship with assumptions regarding non respondents Under the the number of cats allowed access to the outdoors is assumption that only respondents had outdoor cats somewhat troubling Given the amount of attention there were only 656 cats reported (Table 1) and 3680 being directed toward keeping domestic cats indoors by birds killed over the breeding season However as dis private interest groups veterinarians public school sys cussed later it is unrealistic to assume that non respon tems and professional scientific organizations we had dents had no outdoor cats Using three different predicted a positive effect of age and a negative effect of estimates of non respondent cat numbers (Table 3) education on the number of cats allowed access to the along with the two predation rates yielded an estimate outdoors Instead we found no relationship suggesting of between —16 000 and —47 000 birds killed during that either the information is not reaching the targeted the breeding season across the three landscapes Con audience or that there is a general indifference to the sidering that the three landscape routes cover —120 km role of cats as predators One additional reason may be (each BBS route is 39 4 km long) even the low estimate that people may know not to let cats outdoors but not of birds killed represents nearly one bird killed per day act accordingly (i e action does not follow knowledge) per kilometer (16 000 birds/120 km/22 weeks/7 The only factor that showed any relationship with the days=0 87 birds killed per km per day) There were number of free ranging cats was household size (i e several notable differences observed across the three number of people living in a residence) Although not landscapes selected in this investigation Specifically explicitly tested as an a priori hypothesis we investi landowners in the Urban landscape were significantly gated the effect of household size simply as a possible less likely to own free ranging cats than were land demographic factor The positive relationship between owners in either the Rural or Suburban landscape the number of people living at a residence and the However in terms of the number of free ranging cats number of cats is not totally surprising as larger resi per landowner a steady decline existed from the Rural denees are more likely to have children who own pets landscape to the Urban landscape (Table 1) even One caveat of our study is that landowners may have though only the Rural and Urban landscape were sig underestimated the number of cats they allow access to nificantly different from one another Landowners in the outside Such a result was found in a similar study the Urban landscape however had significantly higher of landowners in Wisconsin (Coleman and Temple densities of free ranging cats(i e they had more cats per 1993) This underestimate may be due to incomplete hectare)than did landowners in either the Rural or Sub knowledge or a desire to positively bias answers that the urban landscapes(Table 1) This increase in cat densities respondent felt were associated with negative connota from Rural to Urban landscapes is similar to what was tions (Dillman 1978) In addition we found that a very recently found by Haskell et al (2001) where greater cat common volunteered response among landowners that densities were associated with greater housing densities had no outdoor cats was that either their neighbors in Urban landscapes Ultimately while predation rates owned outdoor cats or that feral cats were present in the displayed no difference across the landscapes (Table 2) vicinity of their land Given the frequency of these CA Lcpcz}k ct al Biological Con smation 115(2003) 191-201 199 responses relative to the number of landowners that other special concern threatened and endangered bird reported owning outdoor cats suggests that at least species occur within the vicinity of the study areas but some landowners under reported or chose not to report can be considered at lower potential for free ranging cat the number of outdoor cats they owned Thus Just as depredation due to either their large body sizes or nesting our estimate of bird diversity is likely to be conservative locations [e g Red shouldered Hawk (Buteo hneatus)] so is our estimate of free ranging cat density As a Although our research highlights a number of impor result the actual number of free ranging cats is in all tant findings regarding outdoor cats there remains likelihood larger than our estimate many aspects that are in need of further research First Besides the potential underestimate of outdoor cats there is a general paucity of research related to preda our study almost certainly underestimated the predation tion and behavior of feral cats and how they compare rate This underestimate can be attributed to the fol with outdoor cats Given the increase in feral cat colo lowing points First only 47% of outdoor cat owners roes throughout the United States and their con indicated that their cat(s) brought home dead or injured troversial management an understanding of specific birds It is improbable that the remaining 53% of land differences if any between outdoor cats and feral cats is owners cats simply did not prey upon birds Second urgently needed (Clarke and Pacm 2002) Second con respondents based their cat s predation rate only on the servation biologists lack data on how specific levels of birds actually brought home or visible to them thus cat predation depress wildlife populations and if there missing birds killed and/or consumed in the field Third are thresholds at which cat densities become a biologi Just as with outdoor cat ownership respondents may cally significant source of mortality Third a similarly have underestimated the predation rate as they associate related unknown is how cat predation affects wildlife it with negative connotations As a result the actual populations at different spatial scales Fourth no infor predation rate and hence total number of birds killed matron exists on how declawing or neutering and spay are most certainly underestimates Even in the face of ing may affect cat behavior and predation rates Fifth such underestimates our study demonstrates the sig aside from the present study no information exists on nificant impact of outdoor cats on birds the human dimensions of allowing cats outdoors and While we cannot specifically conclude that cats are what factors underlie this human behavior Lastly con depredating rare or threatened species in the three nervation education efforts need to be assessed specifi landscapes there is a strong likelihood that they are cally in regards to outdoor and feral cats and this impacting some species of concern The fact that both assessment needs to be repeated over time to investigate Eastern Bluebirds and Ruby throated Hummingbirds if peoples attitudes and behaviors change These six were listed indicates that some species of concern are points represent specific next steps for conservation being captured Furthermore given the opportunistic research on the domestic cat but by no means are an predatory nature of cats coupled with one third of exhaustive list respondents inability to discern bird species suggests In terms of management and conservation imphca that our finding of 23 species or groups of birds being tions our results even taken conservatively indicate depredated by free ranging cats is a conservative esti that free ranging cats are killing a large number and wide mate Similarly by incorporating the potential for range of bird species Our results also highlight the fact undercount of cats by respondents and the lack of any that there is still an urgent need to educate landowners evaluation of feral cats the number of cats per land and policy makers regarding the negative impacts of free owner is also likely to be a conservative estimate Given ranging cats Furthermore our study illustrates how these factors it is noteworthy to point out that a number important private landowners are in influencing the eco of additional bird species that merit special concern system around them Only by incorporating their occur along the three BBS routes and/or in the sur knowledge decisions and actions into ecological rounding landscape These species include three listed as research can ecologists fully understand the complex special concern in Michigan [Western Meadowlark nature of populations and ecosystems on the landscape (Sturnellla neglecta) Hooded Warbler (Wilconia crtrtna) and Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotarra citrea)] one species that is listed as threatened by the Acknowledgements State of Michigan[Yellow throated Warbler(Dendrorca domintca)] three that the US Fish and Wildlife Service We would like to thank the staff at the Ingham Living designated as being of management concern [Henslow s ston Oakland and Washtenaw county Equalization Sparrow (Ammodramus hensloxn) Cerulean Warbler Offices which allowed us access to landowner records (Dendrorca cerulea) Golden winged Warbler (Vermr Keith Pardieck and Jane Fallon at the USGS Patuxent vora chry soptera)] and species that are at the edge of Wildlife Research Center kindly assisted with providing their range such as the Dickcissel (Spiza americana) maps and details of BBS routes We are grateful to (Adams et al 1988 Brewer et al 1991) A number of Kimberly Baker Jayson Egeler and Mike Mascarenhas 200 CA Lcpcz)I ct al Biological Con scrmahon 115(2003) 191-201 for assisting with the survey logistics and data entry References Robert Holsman and Sam Riffell provided critical review of the draft survey Daniel Brown Katherine Gross Adams Jr R J McPeek G A Evers D C 1988 Bird population Nan Johnson and Patricia Soranno criticallyreviewed changes in Michigan 1966-1985 Jack Pine Warbler 66 71-86 American Bird Conservancy Cats Indoors) Available from http the manuscript and provided many helpful suggestions www abcbirds org/cats/catsindoors him In addition we would like to thank Alice Clarice George American Bird Conservancy Resolution on Free roaming Cats Fenwick Linda Winter and Gerald Wright for helpful Available from blip www abcbirds org'cats Resolution pdf and constructive reviews Support for this research was Barratt D G 1997 Predation by house cats Fch%talus(L) in Can provided by an N S F CAREER Award to J Liu a berry Australia I Prey composition and preference Wildlife Research 24 263-277 Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station grant and a Barratt D G 1998 Predation by house cats Fcln tutu,(L) in Can Michigan State University College of Social Science berra Australia II Factors affecting the amount of prey caught Grant to J Liu A Mertlg and P Sorrano and a US and estimates of the impact on wildlife Wildlife Research 25 475- EPA Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship 487 (Grant No U 91580101 0)to C A Lepezyk This paper Basdi G D Temple S A 1999 Dickcissels and crop damage in Venezuela Defining the problem with ecological models Ecological was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements Applications 9 732-739 for C A Lepczyk s doctoral degree in Fisheries and Brewer R McPeek G A Adams R J 1991 The Atlas of Breeding Wildlife and the Program in Ecology Evolutionary Birds of Michigan Michigan State University Press East Lansing Biology and Behavior at Michigan State University MI Cam E Nichols J D Sauer J R Hines J E Flather C H 2O00 Relative species richness and community completeness birds and urbanization in the Mid Atlantic states Ecological Applications 10 Appendix Bird species reported to be depredated by 1196-1210 outdoor cats and the number of different respondents Carss D N 1995 Prey brought home by two domestic cats (Fch, identifying each species talus)in northern Scotland Journal of Zoology London 237 678-686 Churcher P B Lawton J H 1987 Predation by domestic cats in an English village Journal of Zoology 212 439-455 Bird Species No of Clarke AL Pacin T 2002 Domestic cat colonies in natural areas a growing exotic species threat Natural Areas Journal 22 observations 154-159 American Goldfinch (Carduehy trtstty) 6 Coleman J S Temple S A 1993 Rural residents free ranging domestic cats a survey Wildlife Society Bulletin 21 381-390 American Robin (Turdus migratoriuy) 12 Coman B J Brunner H 1972 food habits of the feral house cat in Barn Swallow (Htrundo ruytica) 4 Victoria Journal of Wildlife Management 36 848-853 Blackbird 2 Cooper Ornithological Society s resolution on Public Policies Regard Black capped Chickadee (Poecile 8 ing Feral and Free ranging Cats Available from http/cooper org/ atrlcapilla) cosr67thResolutions htm#POP Crooks K R Soule ME 1999 Mesopredator release and avifaunal Blue Jay (Cyanocitta erwata) 14 extinctions in a fragmented system Nature 400 563-566 Common Grackle (Quivealuy guivcula) 1 Dillman D A 1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys The Total Design Eastern Bluebird (Scala viahy)h 6 Method Wiley Interscience New York European Starling (Sturnuy vulgarts) 5 Ddlman D A 2000 Mail and Internet Surveys The Tailored Design Finch 3 Method second ed John Wiley and Sons Inc New York NY Donovan T M Flather C H 2O02 Relationships among North House Finch (Carpodacus mevicanuy) 1 American songbird trends habitat fragmentation and landscape House Sparrow (Passer domevacus) I occupancy Ecological Applications 12 364-374 Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 6 Dunn E H Tessaglia D L 1994 Predation of birds at feeders in Northern Cardinal (Cardinally cardinally) 2 winter Journal of Field Ornithology 65 8-16 Nuthatch 2 Eberhard T 1954 Food habits of Pennsylvania house cats Journal of Wildlife Management 18 284-286 Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) 2 Emlen J T 1974 An urban bird community in Tuscon Arizona Ruby throated Hummingbird 3 derivation structure regulation Condor 76 184-197 (Archdochuy couhriy)i Fitzgerald B M Turner D C 2000 Hunting behaviour of domestic Dark eyed (Slate colored var)Junco 1 cats and their impact on prey populations In Turner D C Bate son P (Eds) The Domestic Cat The Biology of its Behavior sec (Junco hyemalry) and ed Cambridge University Press Cambridge pp 151-175 Song Sparrow (Meloypiza melodia) 1 Flather C H Sauer J R 1996 Using landscape ecology to test Sparrow 51 hypotheses about large scale abundance patterns in migratory birds Swallow 3 Ecology 77 28-35 Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) 1 Gallagher R Carpenter B 1997 Human dominated ecosystems Wren 2 Science 277 485 George W G 1974 Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter Two or more possible species could be interpreted thus species shortages of raptor prey Wilson Bulletin 86 384-396 level information is not presented Haskell D G Knupp A M Schneider M C 2001 Nest predator i Denotes species of conservation concern abundance and urbanization In Marzluff J M Bowman R CA LcpczJI ct al Biological Con citation 115 (2003) 191-201 201 Donnelly R (Eds) Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urba Rappole J H McDonald M V 1994 Cause and effect in population nizing World Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston pp 243-258 declines of migratory birds Auk 111 652-660 Hohtola E 1978 Differential changes in bird community structure Redman C L 1999 Human dimensions of ecosystem studies Eco with urbanisation a study in Central Finland Orms Scandmavica 9 systems 2 296-298 94-100 Risbey D A Calver M C Short J Bradley J S Wright I W Hostetler M 1999 Scale birds and human decisions a potential for 2000 The impact of cat and foxes on small vertebrate fauna of integrative research in urban ecosystems Landscape and Urban Heirisson Prong Western Australia II A field experiment Wildlife Planning 45 15-19 Research 27 223-235 Lepczyk C A Mertig A G Liu J 2002 Landowner perceptions Robbins C S Sauer J R Greenberg R S Droege S 1999 Popu and activities related to birds across rural to urban landscapes In lation declines in North American birds that migrate to the neo Chamberlain D Wilson E (Eds) Avian Landscape Ecology tropics Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Proceedings of the 2002 Annual UK IALE Conference pp 251-259 United States of America 86 7658-7662 Lin J 2001 Integrating ecology with human demography behavior Rutledge D T Lepczyk C A 2002 Landscape change Patterns and socioeconomics needs and approaches Ecological Modeling effects and implications for adaptive management of wildlife 140 1-8 resources In Liu J Taylor W W (Eds) Integrating Landscape Liu J Ouyang Z Tan Z Taylor W Groop R Tan Y Zhang Ecology into Natural Resources Management Cambridge Uni H 1999 A framework for evaluating effects of human factors on versity Press Cambridge pp 312-333 wildlife habitat the case of the giant pandas Conservation Biology Sibley D A 2000 The Sibley Guide to Buds Knopf New York 13 1360-1370 Terborgh J 1989 Where Have All The Birds Gone9 Princeton Uni Liu J Linderman M Ouyang Z An L Yang J Zhang H versity Press Princeton 2001 Ecological degradation in protected areas the case of Wolong Turner MG Wear D N Flamm R O 1996 Land ownership and Nature Reserve for giant pandas Science 292 98-101 land cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Lubchenco J Olson A M Brubaker L B Carpenter S R Holland Olympic peninsula Ecological Applications 6 1150-1172 M M Hubbell S P Levin S A MacMahon J A Matson P A Vitousek P M Mooney H A Lubchenco J Melillo J M 1997 Melillo J M Mooney H A Peterson C H Pulliam H R Real Human domination of Earth s Ecosystems Science 277 494-499 L A Regal P J Risser P G 1991 The Sustainable Biosphere Vogt K A Grove M Asblornsen H Maxwell K B Vogt D J Initiative an ecological research agenda Ecology 72 371-412 Sigur6ardottir R Larson B C Schibli L Dove M 2002 Link Mead C J 1982 Ringed birds killed by cats Manurial Review 12 ing ecological and social scales for natural resource management 181-186 In Liu J Taylor W W (Eds) Integrating Landscape Ecology National Audubon Society Resolution on Cats Available from http into Natural Resources Management Cambridge University Press www audubon org local cn 98march cats html Cambridge pp 143-175 Patronek G J 1998 Free roaming and feral cats—their impact on Wilkinson L 1992 SYSTAT for Windows version 5 SYSTAT wildlife and human beings Journal of the American Veterinary Evanston IL Medical Association 212 218-226 Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine Available from http! Pearre Jr S Maass R 1998 Trends in the prey size based trophic www wnrmag com stories 1996 dec96 cats htm niches of feral and House Cats Fclis tutu+ L Mammal Review 28 Zar J H 1996 Biostatistical Analysis third ed Prentice Hall Upper 125-139 Saddle River r � r r }r r < r v �41 1 Cats and Wildlife A Conservation Dilemma By John S Coleman, Stanley A Temple and Scott R Craven Introduction Domestic cats first arrived in North America with European colonists several hundred years ago Since that time cats have multiplied and thrived as cherished pets, unwanted strays, and semi- wild predators Although often overlooked as a problem, free-ranging cats affect other animals, often far from the homes and farms they share with people Because we brought the domestic cat to North America we have a responsibility to both the cats and to the wild animals they may affect Here are some interesting and perhaps surprising facts concerning the contemporary dilemma posed by free-ranging domestic cats in the United States How cats became domesticated Domestic cats originated from an ancestral wild species Feks silvestris the European and African Wild Cat The domestic cat is now considered a separate species named Fehs catus In appearance domestic cats are similar to their wild relatives and many of their behaviors such as hunting and other activity patterns, remain essentially unchanged from their ancestral form Cats were first domesticated in Egypt around 2000 BC [I] Domestic cats spread slowly to other parts of the globe possibly because Egyptians prevented export of the animal they worshiped as a goddess However by 500 BC the Greeks had acquired domestic cats and they spread cats throughout their sphere of influence The Romans introduced the domestic cat to Britain by 300 AD Domestic cats have now been introduced around the world mostly by colonists from Europe How many cats are there in the United States9 The estimated numbers of pet cats in urban and rural regions of the United States have grown from 30 million in 1970 [2] to 60 million in 1990 [3] These estimates are based on U S Census data and include only those cats that people claim to "own" as pets, not cats that are semi-wild or free-ranging Nationwide approximately 30% of households have cats In rural areas where free- ranging cats are usually not regarded as pets, approximately 60% of households have cats In the state of Wisconsin alone with approximately 550,000 rural households the number of rural free ranging cats (not house pets) may be as high as 2 million [4] The combined total of pets and free-ranging cats in the U S is probably more than 100 million Because of their close association with humans, most of these cats are concentrated in areas where people live rather than in remote undeveloped areas The legal status of domestic cats The laws that relate to domestic cats vary by local government In most areas the person who provides care for a cat is legally responsible for its welfare and control As with other domestic animals, if ownership can be established by collars or other means of identification a cat is considered personal property [5] It is usually the responsibility of the owner to control the cat's movements In most areas, cats { s` can be live trapped and either returned to the owner or turned r , C1. over to authorities if they wander onto other peoples' property E Many municipalities have leash laws and require vaccination and ne utering of pet cats Because laws vary one should check local ordinances for the appropriate way to deal with stray cats -1 A yr What effects do domestic cats have on wildlife` Although rural free-ranging cats have greater access to wild animals and undoubtedly take the greatest toll even urban house pets take live prey when allowed outside Extensive studies of the feeding habits of free-ranging domestic cats over 50 years and four continents [6] indicate that small mammals make up approximately 70% of these cats' prey while birds make up about 20% The remaining 10% is a variety of other animals The diets of free-ranging cat populations however reflect the food locally available Observation of free-ranging domestic cats shows that some individuals can kill over 1000 wild animals per year [7] although smaller numbers are more typical Some of the data on kills suggest that free-ranging cats living in small towns kill an average of 14 wild animals each per year Rural cats kill many more wild animals than do urban or suburban cats [8] Several studies found that up to 90% of free-ranging rural cats' diet was wild animals and less than 10% of rural cats killed no wild animals [9] Recent research [10] suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million birds are killed in the state each year Nationwide, rural cats probably kill over a billion small mammals and hundreds of millions of birds each year Urban and suburban cats add to this toll Some of these kills are house mice, rats and other species considered pests but many are native songbirds and mammals whose populations are already stressed by other factors such as habitat destruction and pesticide pollution Despite the difficulties in showing the effect most predators have on their prey, cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds Worldwide cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause except habitat destruction Cats are contributing to the endangerment of populations of birds such as Least Terns, Piping Plovers and Loggerhead Shrikes In Florida, marsh rabbits in Key West have been threatened by predation from domestic cats [11] Cats introduced by people living on the barrier islands of Florida's coast have depleted several unique species of mice and woodrats to near extinction [12 13] Not only do cats prey on many small mammals and birds but they can outnumber and compete with native predators Domestic cats eat many of the same animals that native predators do When present in large numbers cats can reduce the availability of prey for native predators such as hawks [14] and weasels [15] Free-ranging domestic cats may also transmit new diseases to wild animals Domestic cats have spread feline leukemia virus to mountain lions [16] and may have recently infected the endangered Florida Panther with feline panleukopema(feline distemper) and an immune deficiency disease [17] These diseases may pose a serious threat to this rare species Some free- ranging domestic cats also carry several diseases that are easily transmitted to humans including rabies and toxoplasmosis [18] Domestic cats vs native predators Although cats make affectionate pets many domestic cats hunt as effectively as wild predators However they differ from wild predators in three important ways First people protect cats from disease predation and competition factors that can control numbers of wild predators, such as bobcats, foxes or coyotes Second, they often have a dependable supply of supplemental food provided by humans and are, therefore not influenced by changes in populations of prey Whereas populations of native predators will decline when prey becomes scarce cats receiving food subsidies from people remain abundant and continue to hunt even rare species Third, unlike many native predators, cat densities are either poorly limited or not limited by territoriality [19] These three factors allow domestic cats to exist at much higher densities than native predators In some parts of rural Wisconsin densities of free-ranging cats reach 114 cats per square mile In these areas cats are several times more abundant than all mid-sized native predators (such as foxes raccoons skunks) combined With abundant food densities can reach over 9 per acre and cats often form large feeding and breeding "colonies" (81 cats were recorded in one colony, and colonies of over 20 are not uncommon) [20 21] Unlike some predators a cat's desire to hunt is not suppressed by adequate supplemental food Even when fed regularly by people a cat's motivation to hunt remains strong so it continues hunting [22] In summary Free-ranging cats are abundant and widespread predators They often exist at much higher densities than native predators They prey on large numbers of wild animals some of which are rare or endangered They compete with native predators, and they harbor a variety of diseases Yet cats are popular pets In order to have and care for our pets--and still protect our native wildlife--we must make an effort to limit in a humane manner the adverse effects free-ranging cats can have on wildlife What you can do Keep only as many pet cats as you can feed and care for Controlling reproduction and humanely euthanizing unwanted cats will keep cat populations from growing beyond the size that can be i adequately cared for On farms, keep only the minimum number of free-ranging cats needed to control rodents _ Well-fed neutered females will stay closest to farm buildings and do most of their killing where rodent control is needed most Traps and rodenticides as well as rodent- proof storage and construction will usually contribute 4 u, more to effective rodent control than cats 4 If at all possible, for the sake of your cat and local wildlife, keep your cat indoors Confinement will eliminate — — — — - unwanted reproduction predation on wild animals and the spread of disease Bells are mostly ineffective in preventing predation [23] because even if the bell rings it's usually too late for the prey being stalked Declawing may reduce hunting success but many declawed cats are still effective predators Keeping your cats indoors helps protect the wildlife around your yard and prevents your cat from picking up diseases from strays or getting injured The two most common causes of death for rural cats in south central Wisconsin are disease and being struck by automobiles If cats must be allowed outdoors, consider using a fenced enclosure or runway Neuter your cats or prevent them from breeding and encourage others to do so Support or initiate efforts to require licensing and neutering of pets In areas where such laws already exist, insist that they be enforced For information on local licensing and neutering laws contact your local health department or humane society Locate bird feeders in sites that do not provide cover for cats to wart in ambush for birds Cats are a significant source of mortality among birds that come to feeders [24] To prevent cats from climbing to bird nests put animal guards around any trees in your yard that may have nesting birds Don't dispose of unwanted cats by releasing them in rural areas This practice enlarges rural cat populations and is an inhumane way of dealing with unwanted cats Cats suffer in an unfamiliar setting, even if they are good predators Contact your local animal welfare organization for help Eliminate sources of food such as garbage or outdoor pet food dishes that attract stray cats Don't feed stray cats Feeding strays maintains high densities of cats that kill and compete with native wildlife populations Cat colonies will form around sources of food and grow to the limits of the food supply Colonies can grow to include dozens of animals [21] Maintenance of colonies of free-ranging or feral cats through supplemental feeding benefits no one The cats suffer because of disease and physical injury native wildlife suffers from predation and competition and colonies can be a source of disease for animals and humans Those concerned with the welfare of animals can improve the lives of the many native species that suffer from lack of food and shelter by protecting and improving the habitats they require [25] Literature cited [1] Serpell S A 1988 The domestication of the cat Pp 151-158 In D C Turner and P Bateson (eds ) The Domestic Cat The Biology of Its Behaviour Cambridge University Press Cambridge [2] Pet Food Institute 1982 Pet food information fact sheet Pet Food Institute Washington, DC [3] Nassar R and J Mosier 1991 Projections of pet populations from census demographic data Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 198 1157-1159 [4] Coleman J S and S A Temple 1993 Rural residents' free-ranging domestic cats a survey Wildlife Society Bulletin 21 381-390 [5] Boddicker, M L 1983 House Cats (feral) Pp C25-C29 In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Nebraska, Lincoln Nebraska [6] Fitzgerald B M 1988 Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations Pp 123- 147 In D C Turner and P Bateson (eds )See[1] [7] Bradt G W 1949 Farm cat as predator Michigan Conservation 18(4) 23-25 [8] Churcher P B and J H Lawton 1987 Predation by domestic cats in an English village Journal of Zoology London 212 439-455, Eberhard, T 1954 Food habits of Pennsylvania house cats Journal of Wildlife Management 18 284-286 Fitzgerald B M 1988 See [6] [9] Fitzgerald B M 1988 See[6], Davis D E 1957 The use of food as a buffer in a predator- prey system Journal ofMammalogy 38 466-472 Eberhard T 1954 See[8], and Liberg, 0 1984 Food habits and prey impact by feral and house-based cats in a rural area of southern Sweden Journal ofMammalogy 65 424-432 [10] Coleman J S and S A Temple 1996 On the Prowl Wisconsin Natural Resources 20(6) 4- 8 [I I] Anni Simpkins Key West Navel Air Station personal communication [12] Humphrey S R and D B Barbour 1981 Status and habitat of three subspecies of Peromyscus pohonotus in Florida Journal ofMammalogy 62 840-844 [13] Gore J A and T L Schaefer 1993 Cats condominiums and conservation of the Santa Rosa beach mouse Abstracts of Papers Presented Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation, Tucson Arizona June 1993 [14] George W G 1974 Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey Wilson Bulletin 86 384-396 [15] Erlinge W G Goransson G Hogstedt, G Jansson O Liberg, J Loman I N Nilsson, T von Schantz and M Sylven 1984 Can vertebrate predators regulate their prey9 American Naturalist 123 125-133 [16] Jessup D A K C Pettan, L J Lowenstine and N C Pedersen 1993 Feline leukemia virus infection and renal spirochetosis in free-ranging cougar (Fells concolor) Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24 73-79 [17] Roelke M E D J Forester, E R Jacobson G V Kollias F W Scott M C Barr J F Evermann and E C Pirtel 1993 Seroprevalence of infectious disease agents in free-ranging Florida panthers (Felts concolor coryi) Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29 36-49 [18] Warfield M S and W I Gay 1986 The cat as a research subject Pp 41-54 In W I Gay (ed )Health Benefits ofAnimal Research Foundation for Biomedical Research Washington DC [19] Liberg O and M Sandell 1988 Spatial organization and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids Pp 83-98 In D C Turner and P Bateson (eds )See [1] Natoli, E and E de Vito 1988 The mating system of feral cats living in a group Pp 99-108 In D C Turner and P Bateson (eds )See [1] [20] Coleman J S and S A Temple 1993 See[4] [21] Natoli E and E de Vito 1988 See[19] [22] Adamec, R E 1976 The interaction of hunger and preying in the domestic cat (Fells catus) an adaptive hierarchy Behavioral Biology 18 263-272 [23] Paton D C 1991 Loss of wildlife to domestic cats Pp 64-69 In C Potter(ed) Proceedings of a Workshop on the Impact of Cats on Native Wildlife Endangered Species Unit, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Sydney Australia [24] Dunn E 1991 Predation at feeders close encounters of the fatal kind Feeder-Watch News 4(1) 1-2 [25] Bourne R (ed) 1974 Gardening with Wildlife The National Wildlife Federation Washington D C 190 pp Additional reading Jurek R M 1994 A Bibliography of Feral Stray and Free-ranging Domestic Cats in Relation to Wildlife Conservation California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Management Division 24 pp Contacts Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street NW Washington D C 20037 Website http //www hsus org American Bird Conservancy, 1250 24th Street NW, Suite 220, Washington DC 20037 Phone (202) 467-8348 Native Species Network P O Box 405, Bodega Bay CA 94923 E-mail nsn@wco com Authors John Coleman is a biologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Stanley Temple is the Beers-Bascom Professor in Conservation in the Department of Wildlife Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Scott Craven is a professor and Extension wildlife specialist in the Department of Wildlife Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Special thanks for layout design and production assistance to Darrel Covell, wildlife outreach specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Funding This publication was made possible by financial support from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center Division of Education Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work Acts of May 8 and June 30 1914, in cooperation with the U S Department of Agriculture University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative Extension University of Wisconsin-Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and programming including Title IX and ADA requirements Wisconsin residents can obtain copies of this publication from county Extension offices or from Cooperative Extension Publications Room 170 630 W Mifflin Street Madison WI 53703, (608) 262-3346 Before publicizing, please check on this publication's availability This publication will also be made available on the World Wide Web at http //www wisc edu/wildlife/e-pubs html Produced 1997 This publication is not copyrighted Duplication is permitted and encouraged by the authors Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Thursday July 01 2010 7 13 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5696 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Kenneth Muzzy Description The City Council should stop "The Ridge" project or any other project to build on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Expected Close Date 07/02/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored ZA- i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Thursday July 01 2010 9 40 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5697 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Jill Brennan Description Please do not allow further development on the priceless bluffs of Bolsa Chica The current housing project there is an eyesore and an invasion into sacred Native American and Ancients' land Open Space is a rare commodity in Huntington Beach, please keep and save this precious, undeveloped land history for our children, our grandchildren, and their children Teach them about their ancestors, and ask yourselves Are you being good ancestors? What are you leaving for the future generations? Thank you for protecting and preserving sacred and historic land I walk in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands several times a year and always bring out of town visitors to visit this area Their only negative comment is about the obscenely huge and unattractive houses ruining the view They are appalled about the intrusion into sacred Native American and Ancients' land and the damage to the Wetlands Expected Close Date 07/02/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i FROM TOMgLIVENGOODsa Chica FAX NO 7148469443 Jul 02 2010 07 1OPM P1 ---— -- Page 1 of 1 Ridge Projei✓t From tomneillivengood@aol com To ppcgreen@venzon net gleoerpl@gte net j devindwyer@venzon net donth@balboacapital com Cc shessasurfcaty HB org Bec blair@surfc+tylocals com eburnett@cuttingedgelic com Subject Ridge Project Date Fn Jul 2 2010 7 11 am Mayor, Council Members Subject Ridge Project Public Hearing July 6 2010 First 1 am submitting my recommendation as a resident of Hun tington Bea ch not in an official capaclty This project can not meet City budding standards The list is long of all the changes to codes zoning Local Costal Plan and General Plan so this project can be squeezed into the property These changes have impacts City wide reducing parking requirements and other building standards The Coastal Commission has already set i standards for set backs�`E��adjacent t t is p op more with their action on the Shea property developmentp 9 With the high density apartments on Bolsa Chica adjacent to the property there is no park space for these residents The current zoning of park and open space needs to be retained In the future a low maintenance park with parking would fill the need My recommendation is to deny the project and establish a priority of establishing a park on the site Tom Livengood HB Forty Six Year Homeowner 110 L Col http//webnmil aol com/32213-111/aol-1/en-us/mail/PrintMessage aspx 7/2/2010 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline (noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Friday July 02 2010 10 32 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5700 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name ellie waldrum Description I am saddened by your latest intention to yield power to the real estate moguls once again The untimely death of JanVandersloot seems to have opened the door for those currently on the Council who feel they can now feed into the Corporate greed our City should be rejecting This is SURF CITY1 Be creative) Bulk up the revenue with bake sales, open a contest to the citizenry for ideas, open another Wa1Mart, but NOT TheBolsaChical As a resident of HB since 1967, I want to thank you for all you do that's right don't blow it now Expected Close Date 07/06/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 1216110 �Z �m Esparta, Patty From Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Friday July 02 2010 11 36 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5704 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Pete Melvin Description Dear HB Council members My family lives in the area adjacent to the proposed Parkland at Bolsa Chica project and have supported the efforts of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust for many years Our family and many other persons actively use this area for outdoor recreation This area is also important for wildlife in the area Building more homes in this area will further degrade the wetlands ecosystem and reduce the available open space for citizens of Huntington Beach We oppose approving of any housing developments or other structures on this land and support keeping this area as open space Expected Close Date 07/06/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored �9 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Friday July 02 2010 4 23 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5707 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Margaret Carlberg Description Dear Mayor and City Council Members As a resident of Huntington Beach and active in the environmental community since 1968, long before the Coastal Act passed, I urge you to DENY the General Plan and Land Use amendment proposed to allow development of'The Ridge'property, and its accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration The existing General Land Use Plan, and Local Coastal Plan have been prepared with years of serious and tedious study by citizen groups and staff considering the best interests of the majority of residents of the city infrastructure, and of the overall environment of our community Extensive public hearings in the city and at the Coastal Commission need to occur before any changes are approved These General Plan and LCP should NOT be changed just to allow one small development that is also requesting many irregularities or exceptions to existing city and state regulations, such as reduced and tandem parking, limiting public view access, and reduced buffer adjacent to the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Please support Mayor pro tem Jill Hardy's appeal of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's action regarding this project, and deny the changes to the General Plan, and MND 2008-016 for the Ridge project Sincerely, Margaret Carlberg Expected Close Date 07/06/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Saturday July 03 2010 2 56 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5716 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Ron Lundgren Description Please vote to stop the "Ridge" project on the Bolsa Chica bluffs, Expected Close Date 07/06/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Pa$ty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Monday July 05 2010 6 52 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5733 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Linda Moon Description Enough is enough The currently proposed Ridge project would destroy important wildlife habitat as well as historical Native American burial lands Property zoned as open space should not be rezoned absent a compelling reason to do so Please vote against this proposal Expected Close Date 07/06/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Monday July 05 2010 10 53 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5734 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Julian Vochelli Description Re Coastal Zone (RA-CZ) zoning designation on an approximately 5-acre parcel on the Bolsa Chica Mesa We are deeply disappointed to witness the furious pace of H B 's "stacked" City Council and Planning Commission to pave the way for builders and developers to "gobble-up" every last possible square foot of open space without regard for an aesthetic balance between man-made "improvements" and the beautiful natural features we inherited in this land once called, America The Beautiful" From the look of things now, WE MAY AS WELL PROMOTE A SURGE OF TOURISM TO H B WITH POSTERS THAT SAY, "SEE HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHILE IT LASTS 1" Expected Close Date 07/06/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 1 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Tuesday July 06 2010 8 04 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5735 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Jacki King Description Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members As a 35 year resident of Huntington Beach, a Yoga Teacher at the Murdy community center, I am a concerned citizen of how Huntington Beach will look and feel in 50-100 years long after you and I are gone I urge you to forever DENY the General Plan and Land Use amendment proposed to allow development of'The Ridge'property I'm continually dismayed with how short sighted people who allow developers to develop land for the temporary almighty dollar when there only a few who benefit VERSUS the unselfish visionaries who wish to maintain undeveloped, pristine wetlands and/or parks for generation after generation to enjoy Respectfully, Jacki King shant15 gverizon net Expected Close Date 07/07/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i 6 C10% 11 { Bloom Buolog,cal, Inc Research IConsulting Conservation July 2, 2010 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk, Joan Flynn 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Council, The following are my opinions and comments related to the evaluation of the proposed buffer provided by the Ridge project for the eucalyptus ESHA on what is known as the Parkside property in Huntington Beach at Bolsa Chica I have also provided a short natural history appendix that demonstrates some of the space needs for the species involved By way of introduction, I am a research biologist and biological consultant with a strong background in the ecology, status, and conservation of birds of prey in California I am a PhD candidate at the University of Idaho with dissertation topic on natal dispersal in southern California hawks My Masters topic was on habitat and home-range use of Red- shouldered Hawks I have more than 40 years experience studying raptors in detail, mostly in southwestern California where I and my associates have banded in excess of 30,000 resident and migratory raptors I was raised and educated in Orange County so most of my research efforts have been focused here in southwestern California I worked 716 Ile) Z_4- --:A69 13611 Hewes Avenue Santa Ana CA 92705 telephone 714 544 6147 facsimile1714 8324414 a mail 1phblooml@aolcom on the California Condor program from 1982-1987 and with condors again on Tejon Ranch since 2007 Habitat Raptor use (nesting, roosting, and foraging) of the Eucalyptus ESHA and adjacent area on the Bolsa Chica Mesa has been documented by my work from 1982 to the present to include State Fully Protected peregrine falcon, and white-tailed kite, and more abundant species including osprey, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, kestrel, turkey vulture, northern harrier, great horned owl, and barn owl The Parkside parcel is a vital ecological magnet for the area for raptor perching, nesting, and foraging and has been recognized as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) by the California Coastal Commission(November 2007) The southern Eucalyptus grove on the Parkside property extends in a continuous row about 175 meters from the lower west end to the uplands in the east and includes two properties While politically the southern row involves two separate properties (Parkside and Goodell) the row of trees form one ecological unit in terms of its use by raptors and other wildlife The northern Eucalyptus grove extends in a continuous row about 150 meters south from the adjacent Cabo del Mar condominium complex The southern grove trees are in poor health, perhaps suffering from lack of water while the northern grove trees are substantially healthier The Eucalyptus ESHA associated with Bolsa Chica Mesa is adjacent to prime raptor foraging habitat Due to the increase in development in the area, remaining habitat plays an inverse corresponding role of ecological importance to predator and prey The linear grove of eucalyptus near the southern bluff of the mesa serves as key raptor habitat for roosting, foraging, and nesting of at least 12 raptor species The Eucalyptus ESHA was initially declared as important by the USFWS (1979) and CDFG (1982, 1985) because of its value to raptors The trees are used for nesting, roosting, and foraging by 12 of the 17 species that have been found in Bolsa Chica ESHA's are defined by the state of California as areas where "plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem" (California Public Resource Code § 30107 5) These species have included, American Kestrel Falco sparverius Barn Owl Tyto alba Coopers Hawk Accipiter coopern Great Horned Owl Bubo virgmianus Merlin Falco columbanus CA species of special concern Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus CA species of special concern Osprey Pandion haliaetus CA species of special concern Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrmus CA fully protected species Red shouldered Hawk Buteo lmeatus Red tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura White tailed Kite Elanus leucurus CA fully protected species During Fall 2005, Moore (Bloom 2005) conducted 10 surveys during the 2005 fall season to detect raptor use at the Eucalyptus ESHA Each survey included about 3 hours of observations in the afternoon and 3 hours at night During these surveys, she noted raptors on every visit (Table 1) using the Eucalyptus ESHA, and in some instances, the adjacent property Table 1 Summary of Karly Moore's 2005 raptor monitoring at Eucalyptus ESHA Species 30 Aug 6 Sept 13 19 3 Oct 18 Oct 31 Oct 8 Dec 20 Dec 05 05 Sept Sept 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 American 1 1 1 2 1 1 Kestrel Bam Owl 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coopers 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hawk Great 1 1 1 1 1 Horned Owl Merlin 1 Northern 1 1 3 1 1 Harrier Osprey 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peregrine 1 1 1 Falcon Red 1 1 shouldered Hawk Red tailed 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 Hawk Turkey 2 1 Vulture White 1 3 3(2) 2 2 2 2 3 3 tailed Kite Eagle 1 (unknown species) Accipiter 1 (unknown species) Three total kites found on the property one dead two alive Bixby (2006) summarized observations and specific sightings made by himself and Dana Hawes, Jeff Wear, and Mark Stirdivant from October 2003 to 04 February 2006 Their work shows locations where raptors were found during surveys of wintering, migrant, and nesting periods The data contained on the maps show the level of raptor use per tree and grove The entire Eucalyptus grove and palm trees in the ESHA and the adjacent habitat (to be conserved) are used uniformly These sightings include the following, American Kestrel (N=17), Barn Owl (N=3), Cooper's Hawk (N=101), Great Horned Owl (N=3), Merlin (N=3), Northern Harrier (N=10), Osprey (N=9), Peregrine Falcon (N=5), Red-shouldered Hawk (N=13), Red-tailed Hawk (N=35), Turkey Vulture (N=48), and White-tailed Kite (N=62), (N = number of sightings of the species, not individuals) Bixby (2006) produced GIS maps of the species sightings listed above, which clearly demonstrate the importance of the Eucalyptus ESHA and additional proposed ESHA habitat for raptors through direct observations of 12 species of raptors that were found nesting roosting, and foraging during the surveys Surveys in the Eucalyptus area during fall 2005 by Moore showed regular use by numerous species of raptors Comparable surveys were accomplished at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach during the fall/winter 2005 The results of these surveys found that raptor use was reduced during the 2005/2006 winter field season contrasted to previous years As many as 220 red-tailed hawks have been observed daily in peak years however during the 2004/2005 a daily high of only 65 red-tailed hawks were observed While raptor use at the Eucalyptus ESHA was also comparatively down, the use by raptors of the grove remained constant throughout the fall The groves provide function and structure to the local ecosystem for raptors and their prey that have been made unavailable due to large-scale development around the Bolsa Chica, and throughout Orange County The northern Eucalyptus grove contains the largest and healthiest of the trees and at this end actually becomes more of a grove instead of a row This grove consists of the last of the best available habitat of this type in the local area, and the loss of this habitat, whether through direct removal or habitat degradation, would have a lasting adverse effect on raptors in the Bolsa Chica area, and may result in localized extirpation for nesting of some species, and reduce foraging potential Buffers The sensitivity of raptors to disturbance varies per season, weather, and species (see Fyfe and Olendorf 1976) Despite these potential variations, the linear Eucalyptus grove and the additional habitat are used heavily and consistently by raptors and have been recorded as such since 1979 (USFWS 1979) This habitat has proven to be an important wintering area for raptors and is used significantly during the spring and summer for nesting and roosting A similar buffer width or greater to that already afforded the trees in the Parkside area will be needed to protect nesting and wintering raptors I have been formally involved in Bolsa Chica raptor monitoring and related work at Bolsa Chica from 1982 to the present day, over 28 years I conducted a raptor inventory and assessment in 1982 (Bloom 1982) of the Bolsa Chica area, including habitat around the existing and proposed eucalyptus grove ESHA During my observations then, I noted that the eucalyptus and palm trees in the Bolsa Chica area are "significant because they provide the only nesting habitat for such tree nesting species as the white-tailed kite red shouldered hawk American kestrel and barn owl," (Bloom 1982 4) LSA (2000) noted that during 17 surveys of the Parkside property from Jan-June 2000, confirmed nesting was noted by Great Horned Owl, with nesting attempts by White- tailed Kite and American Kestrel While LSA suggests that disturbance may not have been a factor in the nest failures, Kites, like other raptors, are known to be sensitive nesters, and respond to human presence in a manner comparable to all raptors (see Fyfe and Olendorf 1977) LSA acknowledges that varying conditions may adversely affect bird species, i e The raptors and herons that are most likely to utilize the ESHA have varying ranges of tolerance to human presence both among the species and depending on the specific activity of the species (LSA 2000 8) The Eucalyptus ESHA remains critical to the conservation of raptors in the Bolsa Chica area Indeed, not only the structural habitat of the grove, but the surrounding foraging habitat located in and near the ESHA are critical to the long term conservation and retention of raptors in and near the ESHA, as the Eucalyptus ESHA offers respite for migrating raptors that are traveling north or south The Bolsa Chica restored salt marsh and the adjacent Eucalyptus ESHA offer one of the last remaining vestiges of usable habitat in the Orange County coastal basin Raptors are a vital component of any arboreal and terrestrial ecosystem, and their loss has the potential to affect the population demography of their prey Most raptors are sensitive to the presence of people and will flush from their hunting perches or nests at varying distances depending upon the species of raptor, previous individual experiences of the bird with people, time of day, season, weather, and the activity of the people involved For this reason, no residential development should be located within 100 yards of the trees Most raptors with the exception of the American Kestrel and Red-shouldered hawk will flush if humans approach to 100 yds and virtually all, including kestrels and Red- shouldered Hawks will flush at 100 ft While individuals vary, the more sensitive species that occur on the Bolsa Chica Mesa are Rough-legged Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Prairie Falcon, and Great Horned Owl which will usually flush when the observer is at a distance of 100 yds or greater Likewise, Ferruginous Hawks are very sensitive to the approach of people and fly at the same distance The bottom line is that the eucalyptus trees are essential to the preservation of significant numbers of raptors that forage on the Mesa, and a 100 in buffer is the absolute minimum acceptable A buffer of only 50 in would not be enough from either the perspective of the behavioral buffer or habitat/space needs of the species involved Conclusion Maintaining ecosystem integrity (see Karr 1992, De Leo and Levin 1997) of the Eucalyptus ESHA remains an important attribute for maintaining the remnant local raptor ecosystem component, present and future contributions to the regional raptor population and migration corridor, and to support prey components that contribute to a functional ecosystem The Eucalyptus ESHA is critical to that task and it must be properly protected through provision of adequate buffers Should you have any questions, I may be reached at 714-544-6147 Sincerely, pt'- Y G1411 Peter H Bloom Zoologist 13611 Hewes Avenue Santa Ana CA 92705 Literature Cited Bixby, M D 04 Feb 2006 Letter Mark Bixby, Huntington Beach, CA Bloom, P H 1982 Raptor inventory and habitat assessment for the Bolsa Chica area, Orange County, California Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group, UCSC Bloom, P H 2O05 Letters to Marc Stirdivant summarizing Karly Moore's raptor observations at the Eucalyptus ESHA Bloom Biological, Inc , Santa Ana De Leo, G A , and S Levin 1997 The multifaceted aspects of ecosystem integrity Conservation Ecology [online]1(1) 3 Available from the Internet URL http //www consecol orv-/voll/issl/art3/ Karr, J R 1992 Ecological integrity, protecting earth,s life support systems Pp 223- 238 IN Contanza et al Ecosystem Health Island Press LSA May 11, 2006 Analysis of raptor use of the eucalyptus groves adjacent to Shea Homes Parkside Estates USFWS 1979 Special Report Bolsa Chica Area May 1979, Laguna Niguel, California Appendix I Natural History Notes on Raptors at Bolsa Chica Mesa and Estuary Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) - Occurs both as a resident and migrant Turkey Vultures often occur in flocks and roost in communal groups Vultures have been extirpated as a breeding species in the local area The species roosts in the eucalyptus trees and scavenges on the mesa and in the estuary Based upon results of 30 wing-tagged individuals, southern California Turkey Vultures have a home range in excess of 15 square miles (Bloom unpub ) Resident birds probably come here to forage from the closest roost site near the 405 and 605 interchange Osprey (Pandion hahaetus) - A specialist,the osprey occurs regularly on migration and fishes in the estuary and perches on the eucalyptus trees of the Mesa Ospreys are almost exclusively piscivorous and use the eucalyptus trees as perches, and perhaps roost sites The distance at which most migrant ospreys flush when people approach is greater than 100 yards Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) - A generalist, the Red-tailed Hawk is the most abundant raptor on the mesa Red-tails prefer the uplands over the estuary due to higher rodent densities and snakes Three resident Orange County radio-tagged adults occupied a home range of 1 to 15 sq miles (Bloom unpub ) Occurs both as a resident and a migrant One to two pairs breed in the vicinity, probably not on the property in question Hunts mainly from perched positions but also when soaring or hovering Rodents, snakes, and rabbits, but also birds are the usual prey Most prey are taken within 100 yards of the perch but is often taken 100-300 yards distant Some hawks regularly attempt to capture prey 0 25 miles from their hunting perch The vast majority of hawks will flush when approached by people to 100 yards Red-shouldered Hawk (B lineatus) -Red-shouldered Hawks are non-migratory riparian and woodland specialists that hunt grassland ecotones Only one resident pair is on the mesa and usually nest in a eucalyptus in the vicinity of the palm trees and Great Blue Heron rookery A small number of floaters occur regularly on the mesa The average home range size for seven adult male Red-shouldered Hawks in southern California was 121 sq km(Bloom et al 1993) Red-shouldered Hawks are strictly perch hunters and rely on the eucalyptus trees to capture rodents, arthropods, and small snakes Most prey is taken within 100 feet of the perch A very adaptable species (Bloom and McCrary 1996), but not enough to tolerate many people on a hiking trail through a narrow band of trees Most individuals will flush if approached to 100 yards Rough-legged Hawk (B lagopus) -Rough-legged Hawks are now rare winter migrants that utilize grasslands to capture small rodents Grassland habitat loss is one of the principal reasons for the decline of this species in southwestern California (Bloom unpub ) They most frequently hunt from a perched position but also from hovering flight The vast majority of hawks will flush when approached by people to 100 yards White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) - A State Fully Protected Species, White-tailed Kites are non-migratory grassland specialists At least one pair nest in the eucalyptus on the mesa, White-tailed Kites are not perch hunters and capture all of their prey from hovering positions 50-150 feet above the ground Greater than 957c of their prey consists of house mice and western harvest mice White-tailed Kites in southern California occupy a home range of 0 62 - 120 sq km (Henry 1983) The flushing distance for most White-tailed Kites is about 100 yards Northern Harrier(Circus cyaneus) -Now a very rare breeder in southwestern California, Bolsa Chica is one of the few places in Orange County where there may still be nesting Northern Harriers are grassland and marsh specialists and occur both as resident and nomadic individuals Northern Harriers hunt by flying low over the ground and surprising their quarry from the air They perch on the ground,on low bushes and fence posts,but not trees The species nests on the ground either in the ecotone between marsh and grasslands or in the surrounding uplands Northern harriers prey on small rodents,birds,reptiles and amphibians The median home range size of eight studies was 260 ha(Macwhirter and Bildsteinl 996) American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) -American Kestrels tend to forage mostly in grasslands but are habitat generalists Both resident and migratory populations occur at Bolsa Chica Resident pairs nest in cavities in the eucalyptus and palm trees of the uplands American Kestrels hunt from perched locations as well as from hovering flight and occupy a home range of about 12 6 km(Balgooyen 1976) Merlin (F columbarius) - Occurs only as a migrant Hunts small flocking birds such as sandpipers in estuaries or Horned Larks in grasslands Winter home ranges in Canada of adults and juveniles averaged 19 6 and 17 9 sQ km ,respectively (Warkentm and Oliphant 1990) Many migrating Merlins pause at Bolsa Chica with only one or two staying for a portion of the winter each year Many individuals are quite tame and can be approached to about 50 yards Most foraging is accomplished via aerial pursuits 75-400 yards distant Peregrine Falcon(F peregrinus)-Peregrines are bird hunters that occur year round and during migration at Bolsa Chica In southern California, Peregrines hunt in a variety of habitats including urban environments Observations of transmittered peregrines studied in 1997-98 revealed home ranges varying between about 2-11 square miles (Bloom et al unpub ) Peregrines commonly use the eucalyptus trees on the mesa to launch attacks on birds in the adjacent estuary and grasslands Most hunting sorties are directed at birds 150-500 yards distant The flushing distance from people is variable with most individuals flushing at about 100 yards Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperu) - Occurs both as a migrant and resident Cooper's Hawks are not known to nest on the mesa but may nest in surrounding areas and use the mesa for hunting Home ranges vary from 400 - 1,800 ha in North America (Rosenfield and Bielefeldt 1993) Most Cooper's Hawk foraging attempts occur between 50 and 250 yards distant The eucalyptus trees on the mesa are commonly used as night roosts and hunting screens to ambush birds in surrounding grasslands Typical flushing distances from people for this species are about 100 yards or greater Sharp-shinned Hawk -(A striatus)-Occurs only as a migrant and hunts small birds in the trees and shrubs principally in the uplands Sharp-shinned Hawks hunt from perched positions or in flight but often remain perched in trees awaiting small bird s to come to them Most hunting attempts from perched positions occur between 50 and 150 yards distant Most individuals depart when approached to about 75 yards Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) -This species occurs only as a resident and probably nests in the eucalyptus trees on the mesa Great horned owls feed on small mammals up to the size of sub-adult jack rabbits and occasionally on birds up to the size of large ducks Radio-telemetry studies from Orange County(Bennett 1999)reveal that male Great Homed Owls need 425 ha Most hunting attempts of Great Horned Owls occur within 100 yards of the perched bird but regularly hunt 300 yards distant Most Great Horned Owls will be disturbed from their hunting perch if approached to 75 yards Short-eared Owl (Aszo flammeus) - Short-eared Owls formerly nested in estuaries of southwestern California but now occur only as migrants They are grassland and marsh specialists that hunt low over the ground from the air Short-eared Owls seek prey within 50 yards of where they are perched or flying They occupy diurnal roosts on the ground and also nest on the ground in secluded areas During the daytime Short-eared Owls flush at distances from 10-30 feet and in the night flush at about 100 feet Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia) - This species occurs both as a resident and a migrant but has not been observed breeding in many years However, since this species nests in the burrows of ground squirrels it may go undetected if focused surveys have not been completed in recent years At least two owls were present at Bolsa Chica during the Christmas Bird Count in 1999 The last four breeding pairs in Orange County are holding on at adjacent Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach Loss of grassland habitat is the single most important reason for the near complete extirpation of this species in coastal Los Angeles and Orange Counties Burrowing Owls perform most of their hunting activities from the ground and low bushes and feed mainly on small arthropods, small rodents, and birds Burrowing owls are known to use home ranges of from 0 14-4 81 sc� km (Haug and Oliphant 1990) They are not easily disturbed by people until they come to within 20 yards The hunting distance for Burrowing Owl in hovering flight or from the ground is about 50 yards Barn Owl (Tyro alba) - Barn Owls nest at Bolsa Chica in the palms and possibly the eucalyptus trees No migrants enter the region(Bloom 1985) Barn Owls feed mainly on small rodents, arthropods, and occasionally, small birds The home range size of Barn Owls has not been studied in California but based upon recapture information is at least 0 5 sq mi (Bloom unpub ) Barn owls hunting attempts are usually within 25 yards but will respond to prey from at least 100 yards The flushing distance for Barn Owls in the daytime is about 10 yards and at night, 100 yards Literature Cited Balgooyen, T C 1976 Behavior and Ecology of the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) in the Sierra Nevada of California Univ of Calif Publ In Zool 103 1- 83 Bennett, J R 1999 Home Range and Habitat Use by Great Horned Owls in Southern California Master's Thesis, California State University, Long Beach 45 pages Bloom,P H 1985 Raptor Movements in California Proceeding of the Hawk Migration Conference IV Hawk Migration Association of North America Pages 313-323 Bloom,P H,M D McCrary,and M J Gibson 1993 Red-shouldered Hawk Home- range and Habitat Use in Southern California J Wildl Manage 57 258-265 Bloom,P H and M D McCrary 1996 The Urban Buteo Red-shouldered Hawks in Southern California Raptors in Human Landscapes Academic Press Pages 31-39 Haug, E A and L W Oliphant 1990 Movements,activity patterns, and habitat use of Burrowing Owls in Saskatchewan J Wildl Manag 54 27-35 Henry, M E 1983 Home Range and Territoriality in Breeding White-tailed Kites Master's Thesis, San Diego State University 122 pages Newton, I 1979 Population Ecology of Raptors Buteo Books 399 pages Rosenfiield, R N and J Bielefeldt 1993 Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter coopers) In The Birds of North America,No 75 (A Poole and F Gill, Eds ) Philadelphia The Academy of National Sciences, Washington D C The American Ornithologists Union Warkentm, I G and L W Oliphant 1990 Habitat Use and Foraging Behavior of Urban Merlins (Falco columbarius) in Winter J Zool , Lond 221 539-563 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Tuesday July 06 2010 9 07 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5740 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Laura Description Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am very concerned that the Council may decide to alter the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan for 22 houses without regard for the impact on future projects The Council should not be taking away parkland from the residents of Huntington Beach This is a quality of life issue Rezoning the property is a shortsighted idea sure to create long term problems for the city, its people and benefits only for the developer Laura Holdenwhrte 17982 Larcrest Circle Huntington Beach Laura laholdegearthlink net Expected Close Date 07/07/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Patty From Villasenor Jennifer Sent Tuesday July 06 2010 9 44 AM To Lugar Robin Esparza Patty Subject FW Surf City Pipeline You have been assigned a new Request# 5714 Late comm for tonight s Ridge item Jenngfer Vfflasenoir Cott' of G;luntunggon Beath From Surf City Pipeline [mailto noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Tuesday, July 06, 2010 9 22 AM To Villasenor, Jennifer Subject Surf City Pipeline You have been assigned a new Request # 5714 Request# 5714 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you by Jason Kelley Request type Comment Request area Planning Commission- Comments on Agenda Items Citizen name Marina Homby Description I was a steward at Bolsa Chica our goal was to change the environment back to coastal sage I feel they have a made a success of it Many groups have been involved including the scouts To allow more houses in the area will affect the environment, with pollution, pets, and people not being careful with such a sensitive area I have spoken to many visitors and apparently this is on the international roster for bird watching What does this say to our international image if we damage is what is the last vestige of our historical coastal environment This will also affect tourism these dedicated birders will travel far to see our indigenous environment and birds I was talking to gentleman from Germany before it was decided to keep it open He looked at me with a shocked expression and said of course it should be saved what's the big decision I was embarrassed for us bec ause of course his right once we've built on it it's gone forever I realize this is a recession but we must think of our future generations who may not get to see what CA used to look like Please think carefully before allowing more houses in the area I'd like to come to the meeting but I work too late PLease consider this message before building If you have Huntington Beach as an environmental area you will get eco-tounsts, from abroad and other states who are not blessed this special environment Thank you, Marina Expected Close Date 07/19/2010 //cO / Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do hot reply to this email Email replies are not g p � Y py p monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Tuesday July 06 2010 10 04 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5742 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Sandra Silverman Description Message received via fax As a registered voter in Huntington Beach, I emplore you to STOP building on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Please save this valuable resource The possible bankruptcy of the builder is not a city responsibility Please acknowledge receipt of this fax via email S Silverman Expected Close Date 07/07/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Tuesday June 29 2010 5 52 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5646 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Mike Martinez Description July 6th vote on "The Ridge" and "Goodell Property" Dear Mayor, I would like to express my concern for development of these two sites Once paved over they will have the opportunity to become part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem for eternity These two sites are unique in the fact that Cogged stones were found on this property and they are already designated as park land In addition, they would also be the highest point wthin the Bolsa chica which offer a future view point location, a Natural entry for those entering off of Bolsa Chica St,a natural buffer between the wetlands and existing housing and condo's as well as a possible native american exhibit which would add to the tourism for our area It also seems that the massive Brightwater development struggling financially, and not keeping up with the revegitation of the trail around the property (it looks like they have stopped watering) that building more large expensive homes in this ecomony is not the smartest thing for a developer to do Ultimately, I believe it is in the best interest for the town of HB to put this land back to it's native state, which will uitmately add to the beauty of our town increasing home values and tourism on the Bolsa Chica In the end, this will help generate more tax revenue than more homes Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts, Mike Expected Close Date 06/30/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 8 11 AM To CITY COUNCIL age ndaalerts@su rfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5654 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Description Please deny "The Ridge" project and retain the land use designation on 5 acres of the Bolsa Chica Mesa as open space For nearly 30 years this Bolsa Chica bluff area has been designated as open space/parkland for all to enjoy It should stay that ways Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 8 12 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5655 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Roger and Judi Rohrdanz Description There should be NO DEVELOPMENT on the Mesa Chica Bluffs,M Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 7 ��a Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 8 17 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5656 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Anne Myer Description For nearly 30 years, the Bolsa Chica bluffs area has been designated as open space and parkland for all to enjoy It should stay that ways Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 7 16 i Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request 5657 Entered on 06/30/2010 08 57 AM Customer Information Name Melanie Manning Phone 7145365087 Address Alt. Phone Huntington Beach CA Email mmelmane@gmad co Request Classification Topic Proposed Major Development Projects Request type Comment Status Closed Priority Normal Assigned to Jennifer Vdlasenor Entered Via Web Description Please vote NO on the proposed Ridge Project adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlandst The density in the area and resultant traffic is but one concern in a development that is already encroaching on what is a jewel in the crown of Huntington Beach Do not let short term gam overshadow the loss of a natural wonder of which the City should be proud and should defend for present and future generations Once paved too late to save Reason Closed Thank you for your comments They will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration Jennifer Vdlasenor Planning and Building Department Date Expect Closed 07/15/2010 Date Closed 06/30/2010 5 20 PM By Jennifer Vdlasenor Enter Field Notes Below Notes Notes Taken By Date http//user govoutreach com/surfcity/printrequest php9curid=415331&type=0 6/30/2010 Esparza, Paa From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 9 06 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5658 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name ANDREW & WENDY EINHORN Description I do not support the building of additional homes in Bolsa Chica We already have enough homes in the area that are available for purchase I road do not need further cars and pollution Water is also a shortage I do not support further building on this property KEEP THE REMAINING LAND FREE OF HOMES AND INSTEAD LEAVE SOME OPEN SPACES FOR US HB RESIDENTS THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 9 11 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5659 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name PHIL WILDER Description WE ARE 77 YEAR RESIDENTS AND HAVE WATCHED THE GIVE AWAY OF OUR WONDERFUL CITY, TO THOSE THAT WANT TO COVER ALL OPEN SPACE LEFT WITH ASPHALT OUR STREETS ARE IN HORRIBLE CONDITION, WE HAVE TO LOWEST AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, PER CAPITA OF ANY ORANGE COUNTY CITY-- AND YOUR PEOPLE ALWAYS COUNT EDISON RIGHT AWAY, AND THE STATE BEACHS----AS CITY OPEN SPACE--HELLO-- PLEASED GIVE THIS SERIOUS THOUGHT--LOOK WHAT YOU DID TO BRIGHT WATER--ON TOP OF A GRAVE YARD--HELLO Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 9 25 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5660 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Jeremy Groves Description Please save this critical park and retain its land use designation Thank goodness for Jill Hardy for appealing the Planning Commission's vote to build on this important site This is a major archeological resource, and has very sensitive animal species In addition according to the city's own studies, Huntington Beach has a shortage of parkland Thank you for giving this your full consideration and doing what is best for us, the ordinary residents of HB Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 7- � /•� - � Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 9 36 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5662 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Gary Hoffman Description No more development where we can have trees and birds and less traffic BTW, Jesse Hoffman, who you had for math years ago, now teaches part time at Rutgers where he is finishing up his PhD Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored -7-�6 `//0 — i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 9 59 AM To CITY COUNCIL age ndaalerts@su rfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5665 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Barney Ridder Description No A very bad idea to annex territory where 80% of the residents don't want to be annexed Will cost existing HB taxpayers more to annex and destroy a way of life that is disappearing making our experiences a bit less enjoyable for all of us Barney Ridder barneyridderkyahoo com Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored b //0 -- � Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 11 05 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5667 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Isabelle Chasse Description I am asking you all to please reconsider building houses on what has recently been zoned residential, that used to be Open Parkland We need wild places much more than we need more housing No amount of cash will be able to make up for the loss of habitat, wildness and Just plain breathing room Please reconsider and vote it back to Open Parkland As an HB resident who lives right on the edge of that area, I am speaking from my heart Once it's gone, you can't ever change it back so don't change it to begin with, wart at least until the homes on the other side have been completed and sold Why rush?Nature doesn't,take your cue from the area-peaceful, calm, open, content Thank you Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 11 13 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity-hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5668 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Description I am writing to let the entire council know that the idea of rezoning the Bolsa Chica bluff area so that more homes can be built is absolutely abhorrent not only to me and my entire family, but to everyone else in my neighborhood We all enjoy the open space very much, and not a single person will say that they are looking forward to even more traffic in our area(near Bolsa Chica and Edinger) Please do not let the developers and their money sway you from doing what is right for your consituents, Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Flynn Joan Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 1 50 PM To Esparza Patty Subject FW Surf City Pipeline You have been assigned a new Request# 5670 From Surf City Pipeline [mailto noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1 44 PM To Flynn, Joan Subject Surf City Pipeline You have been assigned a new Request # 5670 Request# 5670 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to you by Jan Richards Request type Comment Request area Planning Commission - Comments on Agenda Items Citizen name Barney Schlmger Description I write to urge denial of the proposed housing project on the Ridge overlooking Bolsa Chica As a Professor of Biology and Chair of a Physiology department at UCLA the only time I ever visit Huntington Beach is to visit Bolsa Chica for its wildlife This is a city treasure, attracting people from all over southern California This certainly must be an economic boost to your community (we always eat lunch at a local restaurant, for example) It is a place I frequent often, bringing students and out of town guests It would be tragic to lose this valuable site by degrading it further with additional development of which there is already so much Expected Close Date 07/15/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 6/30/2010 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 12 28 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5671 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name David Jostak Description Please DO NOT build on the Bolsa Chica Ridge HB needs more open space and parks (not more houses or buildings) Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline (noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 1 04 PM To CITY COUNCIL age ndaalerts@su rfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5673 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Larry Geisse Description I am sorry that I cannot attend the meeting this Monday I am not in favor of any further building on the Bolsa Chica The ridge is so important to the entire ecosystem of that area You cannot do anything more important than to preserve this area Anyone can build homes anywhere - it will never end Homes are never financially helpful to a city They require more services than they pay for This is a losing proposition But a wildlife destination can be financially beneficial to the city A treasure like this cannot be duplicated Thanks for your help Larry Geisse, M D Larry Geisse, M D Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 1 25 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity-hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5674 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Neva Koon Description Please please please DO NOT build any more houses on Bolsa Chica ridge property We need to preserve this beautiful open area for wild life for our next generations We have enough concrete, houses and development in that area now We need to preserve this as public park area Help us save the ridge from more development Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 6/30/2010 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 4 31 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5678 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Joyce Dalman Description Common sense should prevail and the ridge project must be stopped As a nearby resident, driving through HB, the beautiful Bosla Chica Wetlands are glorious Then comes the overdeveloped portion of PCH Don't make HB more dense, uglier, and deny the open space that California has precious little of left) Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 4 58 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5680 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Kristen Bender Description This land was set aside as open space by the City decades ago The uplands support the Bolsa Chica wetlands with natural runoff, natural plant fertilizer & increased diversity of animals &plants This is also the most important archaeological site in Southern California, & not repeatable elsewhere The zoning should not be changed We need the natural vegetation there much more than we need a few more million dollar houses Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request 5686 Entered on 06/30/2010 10 07 PM Customer Information Name Bridget Reeb Phone Address 5031 Dorado Dr Alt Phone Huntington Beach CA 92649 Email bamulen@hotmail com Request Classification Topic Proposed Major Development Projects Request type Comment Status Closed Priority Normal Assigned to Jennifer Villasenor Entered Via Web Description Please help support stopping the Ridge project on the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluffs It is a highly sensitive ecological area that NEEDS to be preserved as an open space Thank you Reason Closed Thank you for your comments They will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration Jennifer Villasenor Department of Planning and Budding Date Expect Closed 07/15/2010 Date Closed 07/01/2010 08 24 AM By Jennifer Villasenor Enter Field Notes Below Notes Notes Taken By Date http //user govoutreach com/surfclty/printrequest php9curid=415882&type=0 7/1/2010 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 10 09 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5687 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Sandra Fazio Description When your grandkids ask what you are proud of will you be proud to tell them that you saved the Bolsa Chica Mesa Bluffs? Or will you tell them that you allowed a few with a lot of resources to benefit at the expense of the many and gave away your grandkids open space9 Enough is Enough Already Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored �16 //0 - 5 1 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday June 30 2010 11 05 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5688 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Jean& Dennis Towgood Description Please deny "The Ridge" project and retain the land use designation of this Bolsa Chica area as open space We have already lost too much of our open space in this city and as a resident living in that area I want to continue to enjoy what's left We came here 40 years ago and were able to look out our upstairs balcony to a sign saying "site of future city park" We now look into rows of houses i know this is a different city council but please hold the line on our open space and protect the Bolsa Chica wetlands abnd historic geological sites Thank you, Jean and Dennis Towgood Expected Close Date 07/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Thursday July 01 2010 7 08 AM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5689 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Brian Goebel Description I just heard about a Ridge Project in the Bolsa Chica area, in the bluffs I understand this project will allow even more building on the current park land PLEASE, PLEASE do not allow this to happen) The Bolsa Chica area is the pride of Huntington Beach It is one of the reasons I live here is the first place It would be a shame to allow this area to be ruined by building on it And it would take away a recreational area enjoyed by many, many people Please do not allow the Ridge Project to happen Sincerely, Brian Goebel Huntington Beach Expected Close Date 07/02/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored `D� ` J � /D3�fi�sLe- Lti����^-- � o w Alf154 11-1" Tz ` 107 ,a a t r� � s'f f w .� (9/ 9 �- rf d4Y AMM r ' ' I June 29, 2010 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Councilmember, Please deny the General Plan and Land Use amendments for "The Ridge" property For nearly 30 years, this Bolsa Chica bluff area has been designated as open space/parkland for all to enjoy It should stay that way The site's proximity to sensitive habitat, its spectacular views, and its significance as a historical site for Native Americans make it unsuitable for private development Name 1e, �� �► Address 5E) 1 Doo1�6-10 gWe-, 4 IM City}�ot► ceid-1z 1 , State Gi\ Zip e124A-e-1 � �d June 29, 2010 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Councilmember, Please deny the General Plan and Land Use amendments for "The Ridge" property For nearly 30 years, this Bolsa Chica bluff area has been designated as open space/parkland for all to enjoy It should stay that way The site's proximity to sensitive habitat, its spectacular views, and its significance as a historical site for Native Americans make it unsuitable for private development Name 0 CM 7h' a1� Address (' r City LIState Zip_ K2 JUL-1-2010 03 04P FROM TO 17145365233 P 1 A im o d e B o ls a (.-' ',rb z CCe o-1. PO Box 1563 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone/Fax 714 840 1575 info@amigosdebolsachica org www amigosdebolsachua org July 1, 2010 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach VIA FAX Dear Mayor and City Council Members We are writing you in strong support of Mayor pro tern Jill Hardy's appeal of the planning commission action regarding the Ridge project We feel that the planning commission's action was a serious error The changes that were made represent the worst land of city planning policy without regard for their impact on future projects We are also concerned about the loss of public parkland through rezoning and changes in the City General Plan and the City Local Coastal Program This change is especially troubling in an area that is not known for an abundance of useable public parkland Some may argue that the 1300 acres of the nearby Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve represent considerable open space, but in reality only an extremely small fraction of the reserve is open to the public and for very limited activities at that The commission also erred in approving certain details of the project that are contrary to established policies For example,the developer has clearly ignored requirements for buffers surrounding ESHAs Some planning commissioners claimed that the size of such buffers is highly flexible and is set by a case by case determination 1 hey are wrong While some minor adjustments have been made in past instances such as with the Parkside project, a 100 meter buffer is the standard that has been set by the California Coastal Commission and various state and federal wildlife agencies If submitted to the Coastal Commission,the current Ridge plan will most certainly be rejected and be returned to the city, incurring wasted time and expense We urge you to take action in the best interest of the residents of Huntington Beach by supporting Mayor pro tem Hardy's appeal and rejecting the flawed action of the planning commission Please DENY the General Plan and Land Use amendments for"The Ridge"property and DENY acceptance of Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2008 016 Sincerely, �1� 7C.4. Jennifer Robins President Esparza, Patfy From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Tuesday July 06 2010 2 13 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5745 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Jessica Montoya Description Dear Councilmembers, When deciding the zoning, and whether or not to preserve this corner of Bolsa Chica Please consider HB residents because this is space that should rightfully remain open for ALL Huntington Beach residents to enjoy Also, it's important open space for our wildlife If houses are built on it then you're going to have another neighborhood coming to you and asking you to help them in fixing their aggressive coyote problem It will cost you another fee for hiring a trapper and killing the coyotes Then you get bad press from those who don't want the coyotes trapped Please, do NOT allow this open space to be developed Thank you, Jessica Montoya Expected Close Date 07/07/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i RECEIVED FROM To Huntington Beach City Council AS PUBLIC RECOF FO COUPtCtL MEETING 7 - -c> From Virginia Bickford MA LFLYN OFFICE YCLERK Date July 6 2010 RE Fair Argument for an EIR on ORA-86 The law states In accordance with Section 21080(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment an environmental impact report shall be prepared As stated in Pocket Protectors v City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal App 4th 903 Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared neither the lead agency nor a court may weigh conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance Guidelines >section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with others ___ substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect; >No Od(, supra,] 13 Cal 3d 68) Thus as Claremont itself recognized `Consideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration '>City of Carmel-by-the Sea v Board of Supervisors(1986) 183 Cal App 3d 229, 244-245 [227 Cal R tr 8991 Friends of B ">Street v City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal App 3d 988 f 165 Cal Rptr 5141 >Claremont, supra, 37 Cal App 4th at p 1168 ) It is the function of an EIR not a negative declaration to resolve conflicting claims based o_n substantial evidence as to the environmental effects of a project (See '>No Oil, supra, 13 Cal 3d at p 85 ) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate for ORA-86 because of the clear potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment Depending on who is speaking ORA-86 is contiguous to or the same as the northern portion of ORA-83 the Bolsa Chica Cogged Stone Site Prior to development ORA-86 along with ORA-83 84 85 and other sites formed the Bolsa Chica complex of sites occupied as long as 9 000 years ago and known internationally for cog stones astrological alignments ceremonial sites and ancient house floors As one of the last remaining parts of this complex ORA-86 is of great importance scientifically and it is listed as a sacred site by the Native American Heritage Commission Destruction of this site would constitute a significant impact to the environment It has been stated that 33 studies have been done on ORA-86 Actually only 3 of the studies included any excavation Only a small percentage of the five acres remaining of ORA-86 has actually been investigated The majority of the 33 studies cited were the same studies cited for ORA-83 hearings Actually 30 studies included only walking the surface of the site looking for or collecting artifacts (site surveys surface collections site form recordation) or were assessments based on other documents For the past 29 years there has been a pattern of testing small portions of the Bolsa Chica sites then writing them off as not significant because of plowing or other agricultural disturbance Subsequently human remains artifacts and significant cultural deposits are found during grating for construction More than eighty human remains were reburied in March Total count may be well over 200 Einstein s definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results That is what acceptance of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for ORA-86 amounts to On one side adjacent to ORA-86 a burial was found during the Sandover Project On the other side of the site near the bluff approximately one meter of madden and a house floor were excavated It can be inferred from these facts that there is a high probability that pockets of madden containing features and burials exist below the plowed zone in ORA-86 The method of auguring (drilling) used to test the site have has proved over and over again to be inadequate for identifying burials and features Recent cases in point are ORA-83 and the recent Hellman Ranch Heron Pointe Development The archaeological evidence and previous experience at Bolsa Chica indicate that an EIR should be required for the remaining portions of ORA-86 The site should be tested using remote sensing coring and shovel test pits to locate burials and cultural features For the sake of clarity and impartiality in dealing with sensitive issues the entire testing process should be peer reviewed by unprejudiced reviewers not selected or hired by the contractor or developer being reviewed Decisions regarding preservation of witness areas or excavation should be made after reports of current and previous testing are completed and made public No more burials found by the bulldozer Virginia Bickford MA Archaeologist ® 20 years in California coastal and desert archaeology ® Testified at numerous hearings regarding Bolsa Chica issues ® Currently Senior Staff Archaeologist Epsilon System Solutions Inc an environmental company serving China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station ® City of Seal Beach Archaeological Advisory Committee 2009 to present Good evening Mayor Green and City Council My name is Eileen Murphy and Vi Cowden my friend who I know you all know was coming with me tonight but she had her eyes dilated today and cant see tonight Shell be fine Just has to wear off We are both residents of HB We were going to stand here tonight with 187 years of striving to protect Bolsa Checa from development Our hope is tonight you will vote NO to changing the zoning of these undisturbed acres from open space to residential If you vote NO everything that has been on Bolso Chlca will remain undisturbed as it is today For iB years our goal has been to buy this site and keep It as open space for generations to come Please remember tonight that you seven Council members have a chance to make history by voting No on changing the zoning Please don t kill our dream Thanks for allowing me to speak ✓ � H i�'Y lX i I �4t� fr ate RECEIVED FROM�� s°�C ME PUBICETING AS RECORD OF FOR 0� 0 CI CLFRK Cr-FIC MAN L rt,,A CITY CLERK Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [norepl user ovoutreach com] Sent Tuesday July 06 201 6 13 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5753 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Question Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Craig Schwartz Description I am a 16 year HB resident and I live next to the wetlands on Gamsford Lane I am not able to make the meeting tonight but I am against(as is my wife) any further development of the properties surrounding the wetlands, including the properties on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Please save our open space and don't "sell out" to the developers Expected Close Date 07/07/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i Esparza, aa From Surf City Pipeline (noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Wednesday my 07 2010 2 47 PM To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts a surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5757 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Isabelle Chasse Description Hi, Jill Last night was my first time attending any kind of city meeting, it was quite an adventure I wish the ending had been different - I live in the Los Patos Apartments at the corner of Los Patos and Bolsa Chica St so you might imagine my disappointment that no one else on the council seemed to take our requests very seriously Perhaps that's not fair-the shaved headed man to your left made a very bad first impression on me, as if he has forgotten that a public servant must be happy to serve, not have an attitude of being above those who voted him to his position That might also be unfair, as I don't know the man at all, only what he said, his voice and body language as he said it To say that we all feel entitled to have a home but not want Hearthside to build more is unfounded We KNOW now what we are building over, it's not like years ago when people were not involved To ignore the Smithsonian's opinion that this site is historical, beyond the value of ancestorship for the native Americans, is to be short sighted Older than Stonehenge and the pyramids but because it's mostly below ground and out of sight I can't imagine the loss of the area I moved to the apartments five years ago, mainly because I fell in love with that place I didn't know that it was an old burial ground, I only know that the sense of peace when I walked there, especially near the big, old pine trees, was real and profound Where young men have built a biking jump area, I sat for hours, waiting for the rabbits and ground squirrels to forget I was there I have seen babies following their mothers up the branches to eat figs in season, I have seen a rabbit come out of the brush and make a squirrel leap into the air A chase session followed, the likes of which I have seen only on tv before but this time, it was in front of my eyes The squirrel chased the rabbit, then they rested a moment, the rabbit turned and chased the squirrel When they rested again they were close and they touched noses before moving off on their own path to who knows where I didn't know back then that the name of that place I sat was The Snake Pit (a docent told me that months later) but it didn't matter, I was mesmerized I had never seen Herons hunting lizards in grass, I had never seen a bee hive in a tree hole I'd love to show you and your son where it is, before it's gone I've gone very close, never had a bee bother me Some of the boys on bikes call it the Winme the Pooh Tree Will it be cut down? Will the fig tree that is necessary to the lives of the community of creatures who are born and die there be cut down? Does the builder know they exist apart from the monetary value of the land? There are homes already there, Our apartment complex has a pair of Hawks and Owls and I've seen some ground 1 squirrels moving on the grass, along with possum and racoons Now and then, a coyote will scout around Will the buyers of the new small 'green' houses put up with coyotes in their backyards or rodents digging? I doubt it I wonder if the man who was representing Hearthside (Is that right? I'm not good at names and such and I don't know what Ersha and EIR are, either) would be so quick to destroy that site if he wasn't involved on the building side, if he had walked here with binoculars and a docent or even with just me, showing him the relationships that you have to slow down to see - the snails that live in the bee tree, the wasp that landed on, stung and flew off with a tiny green worm to feed to her yet unhatched egg? It takes speed to cut through things with a bulldozer, speed and thick goggles It takes a long slow walk - or many -to see the real value that has nothing to do with money I am not a speaker or I would have tried to explain all this last night but we all felt as if you were the only one with open ears I don't know that I want to keep living where I do if the view is gone, if the sense of peace is gone By the way, the picture of the trail that was on the screen last night was so misleading If that picture had been taken a month ago, it would have shown a sea of bright yellow, almost like a wedding bower It's drought and that was a sneaky, though effective,trick to pull on people who are not familiar I took some of my grandchildren along the trail a few months ago, where Brightwater is still going up We were having a good time counting bunnies and when we came around a corner, my grandchild, Klarissa, stopped and said, "Who would want to live right here and wreck it all?" She was only 8 at the time but I must say, she is wiser than some who sit on councils and smirk while they listen Thank YOU so much for your attention to our heart's work Isabelle M Chasse ps - I'm WAY over 3 minutes BEEP * ^ Expected Close Date 07/08/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored 2 Esparza, Patty From Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent Thursday u�1� 1 44 To CITY COUNCIL agendaalerts@surfcity hb org Subject Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5760 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson Request type Comment Request area City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name Terry Glynn Description Mayor Green, I disagree with the city council decision last night to approve building homes on the Bolsa Chica Mesa If it is a question of jobs and revenue for the city from home builders, there are plenty of vacant land parcels around the city that should be developed first There are at least ten within the downtown area alone The wetlands make Huntington Beach unique we should think twice before building near it or over it Thank you Terry Glynn Expected Close Date 07/09/2010 Click here to access the request Note This message is for notification purposes only Please do not reply to this email Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored i a > nn City Clerk 012H16209932 tington Beach w ie City Clerk ii 15 _ 00414 3ox 190 w a (tea 06/24/2010 each CA 92648Notice of Public Hearing — IVIN® No 0 0�1 - mailed From 92648 011 } ZMA No 08-007,FZ EA No �C -002 uS POSTAGE TTNI N 172 - 0 08-046 The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Ur Pe lopment — 7-0-10 — Agenda Item # 9 z _ 16313124 Occupant ® 17172 Bolsa Ctnca St#70 Huntington Beach rA a')ada NIXIE 927 or 1 QO 07f 1B11C RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD BO 92648019090 *2077-06990-16 24 9284800190 nn City Clerk tington Beach 012�116209932 he City Clerk Ix 41,I � r 4 1T each CA 92648 (A I-- � 06/24I2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND Nccaao of-; C�f2 Box 190 13 - -;1 �8- Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA NOLAQ��T �AI'rmLI�w�AiN _ Z _ 1. -00�'s PosrAG1= TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, C P No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit D lopment — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 163-28 1 4 it 203 Hun each CA 92649 4 ��.. sti 4 •- 14 �.��t��S i ������ Irf .rrlirlrlrfllrttrfl'Ifrlllftllct,rfrrlllrrtllll"ltrl,lf nn City Clerk 012i16209932 tington Beach he City Clerk _ VO 414 Box 190 00 , OO/24/2010 each CA 92648 9�_ a Mailed From 92648 D- US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HE RING —.�— t-1, 163-281- 2 occu pA v 49 ve t 202 Hunti e h CA 92649 VAC Ir.�,%�r-I�.....t i. ��..��� rrfrrlll't'llrrtltillrlllr .f111111111�lti���t���1��1111 le IrILy t,lerK _ U 4 It' lox 190 ° 06/24/2010 'ach CA 92648 �_ Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEAR]W—ZS-Z-11 .' s 939 541 39` Daniel A Sparks Dr#204 — ` 5031 Dorado tt��049 Huntington Beach nn City Clerk . v 012H16209932 tington Beach w ie City Clerk ar (}( 1� Sox 190 w 1 J 06124/2010 aach CA 92648 w(A MailedFrom 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 1 08- US POSTAGE. 011 , ZMA NoI- GOTZ fAPWZLI® , tCP No 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, P No 8-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit P61 TT Unit Deve �5men� 7-6-10 — _ Agenda Item # 9 occupant 4861 Coveview Dr ® Huntington Beach CA 92649 1 'Itt is I's�l §)) slJi i lit Est allsst1111 s inn City Clerk itington Beach 012ril6209932 he City Clerk 00 414 Box 190 06/24,2010 each CA 92648 a r cc 1w Ma)Jad Fro-n 92648 US POSTAGE. LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC 163-281 Oc p 495 v n Hunt A 92649 9s LAC 1 00 06—301 10 10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT L1,4ADLE TO FORtJARD E3C 92Sj 49}01))90,590t t �1`2077- i09-49-- 00-29 :.v 29 EF::EiHL_1 i S IJlS!)1 1)1lI�!!!1!}�1311)1�)JJ! P, J)J )h 1 V V 1 - i 4 ox 190 t. w1i0612412010 ach CA 92648 Uj 0a r Mailed Frase• 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARII -==`--_: ' • 163 281- 1 Occu 4 A nit 201 Hu n eac,h CA 92649 in City Clerk ington Beach CoUJ MNO S. Q12H162t932 e City Clerk � ( 4 ,ox 190 06124/2010 ach CA 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 1C - tVSa,led t=rorra 92648 011 , Zn/IA NCLL � TIZTPP I0q &C -002, i�osTACE e TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 8-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit De�4.op — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item #1,9-312-08 4&—cupant 4845 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 I EC�sY CS1 1 =? 4 J11411,11p,,�t1'lil[1 sh, tilt tl� 11,1111Al �#af ,in City Clerk ington BeachUJ 0121622 ie City Clerk = 5i 00 1, Sox 190 00 0612412010 each CA 92648 t� sr Mailed rrom 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163-281-03 Qgcupant 17052 Green Ln#42 Huntington Beach CA 92649 C�=rTirJl �3s'� 4`� If Llt ILt%! s 4 falj �l s a� t� tlsl lil tt I t i 4t � tr ie City Clerk ~� 3ox 190 each CA 92648 � �'- �6'2�12010 w_ ties From �?648 �`� US DO TALE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ® 1 163 281 03 Occupant 170�2 Green Ln#2 Huntington Beach CA 92649 nn City Clerk 012H16209932 tington Beach a� r' 'r -ie City Clerk e fA each CA 92648 w 06'2412010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 6 �08- US POSTAGE 011 , ZNIA NoL ( (Y1pT9AiiV0L18NECPA No 09-OQ2, TTM No 17294, CDP No 02 U "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned it D�qprrient — 7-6-10 — Agenda (tern 12-09 dZ9pant ® -4'851 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach C Al IX EE 27 Dom' 1 00 0—/01/10 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT i;iPdOWN ����.�1 ��'��Q �ll�li}il}�l l�}7 ittl�l}i}11173117�S1t1f7113ii�t1711t171ff17�S nn City Clerk 012H16?09932 tington Beach Ul Ca he City Clerk Box 190 � � t� 11 -� 06i24 2CIj each CA 92648 W _ ss CL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING5--s='--=-1, 0 163-312-21 Hyuk Lee 16981 S Pacific Ave Sunset Beach CA 90742 NX VIE B 17 DE: 1 fit$ 061 231 its RCTURN TO SCNDER NOT DELIVERABLE As ADDRESSED i. NADLC TO PORWAR.D 3 64 114011F3F3}33JJ11lFF31i371ftIFIIF773f3iIt})fillfii) 13i1it3tltj313 he City Clerk WAk Box 190 � �- 414 each CA 92648 to96 2412010 % MaHea From 926A8 CL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 0 939 541 85 Curtis L Heltkamp ® 11628 NE 102"d Pl + Kirkland WA qRnV1 nn City Clerk + 012H16209932 tington Beach c6 ie City Clerk 1.Sox 190 0 11- in a 06124/2010 -3ach CA 92648 lu 0 92648 Notice of Public Hearin IVIN® No 08 6 08- �'eaFO AGE g — �� Pc��TA�� 011 , ZMA N0L 0&0Tr�ITAFN®LI® �tC A No 09-002, ® TTIVI No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 {The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit ®eves rp t 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 occupant v q,y,, ® 4841 Coveview Dr 49 Huntington Beach CA 926 142 X IE 927 DE 1 00 08/291 10 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNADL>E TO F"CA"sWARC EC 92646019090 A2077-0 3106-29-26 in City Clerk p 012HI62090-32 ington Beach cl w ; ie City Clerk M i $0041 Sox 190 rO 1 CO 1- z 0612419-010 ach CA 92648 _ R �,aea�£� 926-� C" US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING s � _ 163-281-03 Q� Occupant 11 ® 17052 Green Ln#35 Huntington Beach CA 9� iax xzE 927 DE 1 00 015/29Y 1 G RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNAGL=E TO FORWARD BC 92540019090 A2077-0744S-29-29 Jill, , Ill It ,t It tall )„J}},1 t1 1 J, 1I„ „t it Sox 190 0 J $00414 ;ach CA 92648 a to06/2412010 iY w Plaoied From C)2 48 id, US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARWG—,- --,:t 163 312-01 Occupant ® 4781 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA°��d9 nn City Clerk tington Beach a ` 012HI6209932 he City Clerk Box 190 - 00 414 uj each CA 92648 ' 0 06124/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 6 06- Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA NoL Q3TIUAP 9Ll@ �k C o -002,us POSTAGE TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, C P No -046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Devel �7-6-10 — _ Agenda Items#39-2s ® Oct 173�Hampton Ln Huntington Beach CA 9 ra a X xE: 927 De 1 00 06/29Y 1 U RETURN TO SENDCP ATTEMPTED — NOT KNOWN UNABLE T4 rORWARD c- BC 92640019)09tj3jl 4207j7-03118-29-26 swaSA29 0 113i} 3}I3+3+13 !1 11I! 1 11! a}} 11I31! li} 13I331I 333313II nn City Clerk tington Beach �1?H s2 ��2 he City Clerk 0 �ZI)Box 190 WE 06lL4I2J1each CA 92648cry w iK Mailed From 92648 CL U IIs PO TAGS LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 311-29 Occupant 17362 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 N:EX IE 927 UC 1 00 06/29/10 RCTURN 170 SENDER ATTEMPTED — Y40T KNOWN UNABLE TO F'DRWARD SC 9,Ys^134001'9090 2077-03119—29-26 V_vz�s I lcl\Op e" I ft-li�n0 lld, "I Im !}1"11} 1,11 1 3 1 11 W-j W- L � 1" Sox 190 w F- 06/2412010 Bach CA 92648 1�0) W.1ZManed From 92648 s POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING o � (�- C- 1/ 14-1-312-06 Q-,cupant ® 4831 Covevi+ew Dr Huntington Beach C ra'E x xH 927 L)E 1 00 06/29!1 L7 nn City Clerk 012H16209932 tington Beach w M '° he City Clerk _ % 0 4 4 Box190 0612412010 each CA 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — IVIN® No 001 06- ma,6edFrom 92648 011 , ZMA No 08-007TZ EA No 9 0 a.�C -002us POSTAGE No - o -046 The TTM 172 , d l�o U ® "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit ®evel 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 163 311 31 v Occupant 4952 Ashville Dr Huntington Beach ( NZ F- 92 7 DF- 1 00 06/29/10 RF—TURN TO &P—NDER ATTEMPTED — NOT KNOWN UNABLE: TO FORWARD DC 92S49039090 *2077-0;aI22-29-26 1,11 , , ,Ili I ,li,,,1,1� n City Clerk 012H16209932 ngton Beach a City Clerk 0 4 ,14 ox 190 w a 06124 2010 ach CA 92648 w W ` Maded From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ® A,/ e ;�C y 3 a VVV 163 311 30 ® Occupant 4962 Ashville Dr Huntington Beach ��yx� �2� �� �' 00 c>s/29/10 RC TURN TO SF-?4DF-R ATTr MPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD 8C 92649019090 ox 190 s 06 24 2C1 ach CA 92648 u CAr t� �° �led Fresrre 9264 iz US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ® 4%- _ 163 31 t-30 Occupant r w 4962 Ashville Dr + Huntington Beach C n 4�A,49 nn City Clerk hngton Beach j3 0 � , ti 012H16209932 ie City Clerk -� ( , 3ox 190 00, �, each CA 92648 ca 1 �� Z 06124/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MN® No 08- 67 - 8- Mailed From 92648 AGE US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA Nod TZTAPNmi0 , &CP No 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CU ment+-w/7-6-1 o -046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit ®evelo 0 — Agenda Item #A-311-34 ° Occupant 4922 Ashville Dr Huntington Beach r4 g y I E 927 LSE 1 00 06/29/3 0 RETURN TO SENDER 4TTEmP rEo - NOT KNOWN UNADL E TO FORWARD n City Clerk _ C 12H 6209g32 ngton Beach a City Clerk _ ox190 06 2412010 ach CA 92648 w Mailed From 92648 tL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ® Y, C q4A _ 163 311-3 3 Occupant ° 4932 Ashville Dr ` Huntington Beach C N2 X2E 9: DE 3 CC 06/29/10 RETURN TO SCNDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABL-C TO FORWARD 0 11 1}F 1,) 11 JIM 111, 1}), 11, "J 1) W _ l 3ox 190 0 fu 06,24,2010 each CA 92648 w w Mailed From 92648 la U- US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ® j ' _ 163-311-3 2 'Occupant ° 14942 Ashville Dr Huntington Beach nn City Clerk 012H16209932 tington Beach UJ W he City Clerk fe. _ 4 4 Box 190 'm l- 0612412010 each CA 92648 Notice of Public Hearin HIND No 0 1 1MailedPO 92648 AG g — 08- �, Pt��T��E 011 , ZMA No.LP8AQQI-6T7£T-AI LIQ%Q NbC o 09-002, TTIVI No 17294, CDP No 08-022, P N 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Dev b;: t — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 1 311-26 Occupant 0 4941 Ashvrl#e-Dr Huntington Beach CA o-)Ant) NIXIE 927 L7E i 00 06J29/10 PE rURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT MNOWN L1A ADZE TO FORWARD BE 92640019090 *207 7-03129-29ii-26 nn City Clerk 12,416l209932 tington Beach ` 1. ie City Clerk 1- - Q- 004 11F 3ox 190 0-6124f 2010 ww each CA 92648 w€e r° ' 26 - US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING r ® C u 163 3;W5 Occupant e 17342 Bnstol Ln Huntington Beach CA 9 92— DE 1 00 05.�29l 10 RETURN TO SENDER UNAMLE To FORWARD BC 7 92E 1460 19090 t )#j�js t07 t> C1j3127—' j9—26 CtvEl 0 t5ox I&U (a W24 20*10 each CA 92648 r ' a€ed From 92648 U. US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ljt�-c- 163 311 24 4-0 Occupant ' 17332 Bnstol 1 n Huntington Beach 1`41 Y IE- 92T nn City Clerk tington Beach a 10 012H16209932 ie City ClerkUJ Sox 190 - :ach CA 92648 u) 06/24/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No (0 1 (fig- }7edFrom 92648 011 , ZMA NoL P&Z-1A 1�� �t�ll`V C -002US POSTAGE pUjTTM No 17294, CDP No 08-0 CUP 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit op nt — 7-6-10 — _ Agenda Item #�b9_312-16 1�ftcupant ® 4772 Wentworth Cir Huntington Beach C NZXZF- 927 VE era 066?29a 10 RE rtaR N O SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT XNOWN UNABLE TO PORWARD 7� t� 13cj t92C-490 .y9090 *)2 77-031;31-2t9-.2e in City Clerk ington Beach W Cc _ ie City Clerk Sox 190 �6 /-4 2s ach CA 92648 wix_ t r m E S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING tz r 163 281 06 o Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St#40 Huntingtor r �x� 92} DE 1 00 06;2S/10 RETURN TO SENDER MC 92t-,48019090 U ,each CA 92648 a 06/24/2 '0 Lu� Im W Uded From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 311-27 Occupant la w 4951 Ashville Dr Huntington Beach nn City Clerk tington Beach �` 012H1620992 w he City Clerk 0 14 Box 190 s' each CA 92648 ' d a M 06124/2010 Mailed From 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 16 08- DS POSTAGE 011 , ZMA NOL@940()'PTITAFN6L10 NE PA NO 09-002, ® TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, ' UP N 08-046 (The "Midge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Deve opnit — 7-6-10 — Agenda Iterri�--a211 OGcupant 4871 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA 927 Da 1 cis 08/29/10 }RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - ► O-r KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD OL 92e 4801909{3 - �.r,��.e�t�� -in City Clerk 012H1620g932 ington Beach ww ie City Clerk _ Vu 3ox 190 ej Klc 06��� .� ach CA 92648 ,€e Frame c)264� CL t,, US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE -'PUBLIC HEARING 163-28 0 r e 4 - 't 243 14i n Beach C 927 LAC 1 00 05/29/ 10 v RE-TUPN TO SENDER No SUCH NUMBER UNABLE TO FORWARD BC jS2 jS4Fr.�C31j9Ljj39i'jj�fi) k2077-0 j42jj 0-29-25 UJ ie City Clerk _ 0` 3ox 190 w 1 06 24 2010 3ach CA 92648 w w mailed From 92648 $-a: POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Qt C r� e 163-312-12 Occupant ® 81 Coveview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92649 rnn City Clerk '�h itmgton Beach 012H18209932 he City Clerk J-5 Box 190 IX(- �' 0 0414 each CA 92648 06J2,412010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 1 08-US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA NoL 009)T1E-TAFNbL10 , O-CPA No 09-0027 ' . TTNI No 17294, CDP No 08-022, C 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Dev t — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item 4l% 281-03 Occupant 17052 Green Ln#I c Huntington Beach NZ Y Z E 927 OE 1 00 05/29/10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNAOL-C TO FORWARD nn City Clerk tington Beach U, ie City Clerk A 3ox 190 - 1 aach CA 92648 2� 0 a€€era �264E 0 us STAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING _ 939 542 84 Occupant 5101 Tortuga Dr#105 Huntington rn CORAQ RETURN TO SENDER VACANT IJN940LC TO FORWARD SC j92b49319090 1.2077 0435*7-i2]9-26 e uty Clerk _ ox 190 0 us i- a to 06 24i2010 ach CA 92648 w it at e Vail-d From 92548 uS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 91 ® Occupant T 5036-Tortuga Dr#1,2 Huntington Beac nn City Clerk tmgton Beach Gr12#i16209932 UJ he City Clerk w:5 - Box 190 L�. f M 06/2412010 each CA 92648 ui c�a w� Maaled From 92648 Notice of PubtF&pq6E_fll A 0''�g16, US POSTAGE 08- 011 , ZMA No 08-007, ZTA No 09-008, LCPA No 9-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 _ "Ridge" 22 — unit PpggUnot Development — 7-6-1 — Agenda Item # 9 Occupant ® _ 5145 Tortuga Dr#110 C� Huntington 6 N:E V:EE 927 DE 3 00 0511,29-/10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNAELE TO FORWARD BC 92640019090 *2077-04370-29-26 nn City Clerk tmgton Beach 0"241)209932 it ie City Clerk f- 3ox 190 g 00 414 ach CA 92648 -� W24 2C 7 fe w )ied P r- 2 48 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Occupant 0 17052 Green Ln#33 ' Huntington Beach CA NzvZE OF- 1 00 05J29,E30 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNA9LE TO FORWARD DC 1 j92 15�ji 019Cal9ij�i1 tt1T2077-0 4a6 -]2j9-26 the City Clerk Box 190 0 ; - 00414 leach CA 92648 03� Y - M 0612q 12010 M lX M2ded From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163-281-03 �Occupant 0 52 Green Ln#3 ntington Beach CA 92649 N71 Y'rT= nn City Clerk tington Beach Y 0}21 t16209932 UJ CO ie City Clerk 3ox 190 L- t- J to 06/24/2010 each CA 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 8 Po�ailedFroM 92648 � 6 0 01 , ZMA NO US POSTAGE L Q� TZ-[AFNgLI0 WbC o 9-002, `fTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 We "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6- Agenda Item # 9 939 543 42 o Occupant 17202 Corbina Ln#111 -- Huntington N-1 1E 927 8E 3 DO 36J�9�1t7 RETURN T3 SENDER VACANT UNAGL.E TO FORWARD Dc 92e46019090 *2077-0437 6-2.s9-26 'EC3>'5. 3 VIP 6*WN 5o ��;� + �,I}I)+ }] }I1Fal+lla+aYiil�)FI a�l)YYlilaillF,F+}1}ll ynn City Clerk -itington Beach r 12-H6- 109".. COD the City Clerk 3 Box 190 3each CA 92648 06 24 2i C CL S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING r 939 543 06 Occupant 5145 Tortu Huntington l3Y?'2E 927 DM 1 00 OrM.l.29330 RETURN 70 SENDER VACANT UNAMLE t3 FORWARD MC 92640019090 j( * 07 77- 4375-�{2(9-16 0 7 ox 190 v t u3 + + 06124 2010 ach CA 92648 Uj c) w w Ana led F orr Q2646 US POSTAGE. LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING I 939 543 16 ® Occupant 5145 Tortuga Dr#109 nn City Clerk itington BeachCe c� �J12H16209932 he City Clerk J-500 4 14 Box 190 w� M 06124/2010 each CA 92648 w ffi Mailed FrOM 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — NIN® No 089 6 m- US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA No LnekoffT I L ►' Ate' 09-0021 TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, C P No 08-046 (The " "Ridge" 22 — un*- Agenda it opment — 7-6-10 — Item # ® m 31 h CA 92649 raxx� 927 roc 3 Do Gr�v�29�id RETURN TO SrNOLR UNABLE TO FORWARD Cj) 92S480190909264-.1 �2fl?j7—G+f+8�3�-29-2� nn City Clerk 0,12W 209932 tington Beach ie City Clerk 4 Sox 1900 — fa 06124 2010 each CA 92648 T, s a iea From ;2641� US POSTAGE AW LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC AIRING 0 163 281 Occ a 2 ve n 15 o Hu h CA 92649 QLTURN TO SENDER vACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD BC 92848019090 A2077-042A8s-2"P-26 LVA 5 it 1, I'll), 1 11 1}I1) } 111 1 }1l}e City ox 190 Jerk 00 4 ' ach CA 92648 0� � 06 21'r 201t1 Ma e€9 Frew,} 92648 B POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARINR---- --� !L e 163-281 o Occu In 4V 0,0- -11L. W nn City Clerk tmgton Beach '�'� 092H16209032 ie City Clerk It c Sox 190 to 06124/2010 3ach CA 92648 � L Maded From 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — NIND No 0io1 08-US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA N®L t)�TI7-TAI'f4�-I10�I��CPA No 9 2, ' TTIVI No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-04 "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6- Agenda Item # 9 939 542 13 Morgan Stanley Trust 2005 ® - 5146 Dorm a-#106 Huntington Beach CA 92649 N2"K2E 927 DE Z pQ t7 T 79 t�! RC rURN TO SENDER VACANT UNA9L C TO FORWARD 80 92649019090 *207--04080-29-26 nn City Clerk tmgton Beach ? � r ie City Clerk Sox 190 0ja 3ach CA 92648 06 2= 2',O w rw € sie-i From 9264c CL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 28101 Occupant 17052 Green La-#34 Huntington Beach CA 92649 NI Ic 927 O£ 3 00 06j29�10 RETURN TO SENOCR VAOAN r UNABLE TO FORWARD nG 92648019090 *2077-04059-29-26 rr�V1%S'w-*069 0 it i, i,l�ll }13 Il�,i it>� i]i i, �►�, ?il� ,� II 19t.ul I LJVaU - e City Clerk W. a _ , € ox 190 0 1- 0612412010 ach CA 92648 � Maded From 92648 IL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARM-Z==--=-' 163 28Rvc Occup e 49013o7 Hun — r----a r r- 5 inn City Clerk 012H16209932 itington Beach UJ he City Clerk w _ 00 4 1 Box 190 .each CA 92648 o f- 06124/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND Nqo� (0��% 6 0t- Mailed From 2 011 , ZMA NoLP9AQT�IO'TtCPFYJ9LI�`HPA'f�iNhC -0021U8 POSTAGE TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08- (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — - - Agenda Item # 9 939 542 74 Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln#211 o Huntington Beach CA 92649 \ 7d2 28 9a? Dr- A 00 C)SI?-9,110 RETURN ro sr'ADER VACq)4T UtaG BBC TO FORWARD C Y SG 92640019090] i _�.®--®,.--.�-_..--r. -ate.-._. ----i---�-. �--r '•-----^��^S7'",_�".,R' _` "'_ ,.�.a tea-�- ,-`- ynn City Clerk '112 62(1 9&32 ritington Beach UJ the City Clerk Box 190 (0 - 06 2 n 201' 3each CA 92648 k ,erg From 26-0 a. - US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 01 Occupant ` 17172 Ahnin— i n lf')An i r-, Huntingti NZ le2E st227 DE 3 00 Rr rURN TO SENDER VACA)tT UNA01-a ro FoRwAivo DC 9254E-3!©.199St? *2077-04:302-29-'2b QA z '1go III 1 l 1 11 11 ,)I l 11 T1lli 1 it 11,111 T 1 11 Sox 190 M� 1-° ca t- 06/24/2010 each CA 92648 tu M (3 _ maned From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 541 85 w Occupant 17172 Abalone - Huntington Bea, NZ'Kzy 92-7 9E 1 00 osj�C=4a 30 nn City Clerk tington Beach �i 012H162f}9932 �e City Clerk UJ _ 00 4 3ox 190 each CA 92648 �" fa 06I2Qe2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08-O 6 0�- Ma#edFrom 92648 0113 ZnilA NoL �JQ3TIAi9LIQ9s�hC -002,� ' �� � TTIVI No 17294�, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-0 The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7- _ Agenda Item # 9 939 541 25 ` Occupant 5032 Dorad, "'7^ �- Huntington I NZ ,xE 92 f DE 3 Ob 0sj?2q_?3O RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARO BO 92c-46019099 A2077-04-39Z-29—'25 LIM } 11 11 I)117) ) III I'M } 1J.11} 7 1,11 in City Clerk ington Beach U�12 s162 9' ? ie City Clerk Sox 190 06 2& 20113 ach CA 92648 w(a X _ MaOed F or— 92648 S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 59 ® Occupant 17191 Corbina Ln#204 A Huntington I NZXIB 92-7 OE 3 DO C7c--/�9130 RETURN TO SENDER VQC ANT UNABLE TO FORWARD BC 92E40029090 *2077-04377- 29-26 �.��-��c�� � � 1171) 171 31)))1)711}71t11) )!)t111t17)lllttl 1��I1 )lt i}11 Sox 190 00 n F5 ach CA 92648 a 06d24f2£}1�J W IX f a)ac€ sam 92648 CL a" US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING _ 939 542 57 Occupant itbs ` 17191 Corbina Ln#202 Huntington E w � w in City Clerk a fl12N16209932 ington Beach 130)w ie City Clerk _ $004 4 iox 190 1A F- 06124/2010 each CA 92648 ua W ?ftNotice of Public Hearin MND No 0 ( 1 08- S PO AGE g — US �o�T��� 011 , ZMA NoL iZ 1&—I® ,(LCPA No 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 {The "Ridge" 22 — unit Plann -ppit Development — 7-6-10 — 21 Agenda Item # 9 Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 RE�F URN 10 SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS 94DDRESSE D UNABLE TO F-ORWARO DC j s-je4aolsosjDi jAj2077-006SO-29-22 C s-.�Ilc.5*IAZ 84MAMUa 0 �li�)))ilt�)I�) }�lif�iai�l�iilt))ll�I�ii17 I 1)1} l�ai)}i�I�� nn City Clerk tington Beach DoLU 3 12 ie City Clerk 3ox 190 - aach CA 92648 LU ��E6`24 2 )6 fe _ €. CS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 163-311-19 Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave 0 Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 I'll a 2E 92-7 DE 1 fill 081?129/io RETURN TO SEt+DLR NOT DELI FRs ALE AS nDDRESSED UNABLE TO F QRWARD 111 I I; III fall) ) I}111)I ill , i II)ll,i 1 11 le City Clerk JA Sox 190 to 0612$J2610 ach CA 92648 LU U) lit Ir Mailed From92648 W, LDS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 163-311 17 Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave r3 w Newport Beach CA 92660 2099 l nn City Clerk tington Beach 012H162t39932 he City Clerk i 81. W� _ each CA 92648 001- to 06124/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 6, 8f Mailed From _92643 011 , ZMA NOL�AQQ3TIZ_fAFNQLI@ NhC o -002, US POSTAGE • TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 163-311-41 Signal Landmark 0 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach 011 Q'?aan_�naa 3d3yT 92"7 PE 1 00 0SP29,/10 REST-rRN 10 s>vraDER NOT P9LI%*ERA13LE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO f'ORWAR9 t� ,,.C�, f...s'� 1 t9276j4t�73p1i9 t090 j*I120797-it'3L315SS-29-22 WQ ewr4-ft�D90 �19I71t}! )t1}! }31t1�1Y }}I 37} !#1111!}! !!}1Y17!!3!! !t 11 ,nn City Clerk itington Beach c 012H16209g32 LU he City Clerk0 4 Box 190 each CA 92648 W I.- tu 0 /24 2310 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163-311-23 Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave _Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 NIXIE 92-7 DE i 00 06 02st`id.3" k- -JRti 10 &E,4DER NOT DELIVERABLE AN ADDRESSED UNABLE TO f-ORWARD 13C 92640019090 j] j*77207iy7-iL�t�6i756-j2?9-22 IIII}tY I!IlII!!YIliII I!}11 11 1111llilll1111l1ilIIIi Y Jill ie c,lty uertc UJ 4 if- Sox 190 ach CA 92648 w99 x f3 12 =2 W I #ftaed-ror� 9264F IL rL S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163-311-22 _ Signal Landmark 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach CA 92660-2099 in City Clerk 012N16209932 ington Beach oaf to City Clerk W 0 4 4 Sox 190 O� 06/24/2010 ach CA 92648 In 0 - Mauled Praha 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — IVIND No 0 08- US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA Now TiZffPP I09 SPA=:N® 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Midge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 163-319-01 ` igna mm�aniac Ins Newpo NZXIE: 927 DE 1 00 05129f o RETURN -10 SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO r:`OPWARD 912G �tlllllalilll�aaa a}��;ai aaialiija�lr��ll a�aal�a �l �� nn City Clerk tington Beach 012,4162C3912 le City Clerk 0 Sox 190 0612412M -ach CA 92648 w ix Mmied ROM CL US POSTAGE biLEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC PF 163-319-02 c $3q Newport *� dEs � F�cET—RN 10 SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD PC 192S4t 0ii0i119it7 90 1 1-k112071 t7—tO tOSSO 12 j9—22 ���°4�� f��f 1) i aii lllla}rl)ali )�al�)lal a���liar�lrallallrlttalaai 11 ie City Clerk00414 3ox 190 ach CA 92648824 23 w aed F�,r 92r--„ tL L6 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e 163-311-20 Signal Landmark ® 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach r^ -- nn City Clerk mgton Beach o W 012H16209932 Uj ie City Clerk 1z _ r� Q 14 3ox 190 0 to , �- lach CA 92648 �" tz 06/2412010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 1 6g-NbiledFrom 92648 011 , ZMA NOL P3TIZT�@LI0 I& O 9-002" POSTAGE TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The ' "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7- 10 — Agenda Item # 9 -- 939 542 65 juko Trinidad 17191 Corbin Ln*206 ^^ Huntington B RETURN T6 SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO rORWARO 0C 92646019090 *2077-055701-29-2S nn City Clerk tington Beach Cl W 80 + 012H16209932 ie City Clerk 0 3ox 190 0 J w 1W k— + to r-16/24/2010 :ach CA 92648 �u d -- `� mailed F oar 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 4 939 542 14 Cindy L Metzgar 5146 Dorado Dr#107 Huntington Beach('F, q)Ra4 N NM CIE 927 DE: 3. 00 045, !29t 10 R€TuRN TO s€NtP1Et NOT DELTVERAELsE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE: TO FORWARD DC t92640019090 *207)j7-05752-29-26 e L,iry uierK _ '+ 1", ox 190 a c: ach CA 92648 w*' �' 0612412010 0)_ i } mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e 163 123 10 occupant 5092 Dunbar Ave#E Huntington - A 00k nn City Clerk ' 012H16209932 tington Beach to ie City Clerk � _ 0 414 v ox 19 M 06/24/2010 each CA 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 �` 1 0 _ Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA N Us POSTAGE �.L�A�aTI�� �I� �Nc�C o -002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — _ Agenda Item # 939 541 25 K Blaine H Lohman Tr - 0 5032 Dorado Dr#110 Huntington Beacl RETURN TO sEP2D€R NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE To FORwARo 8C 92640019090 *2077-05775-29-25 nn City Clerk 612�116299932 tington Beach he City Clerk Cc� l) ' - Box 190 Of- 06124/2G10 each CA 92648 Iv to w w mailed From 92648 C' l: US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 93954124 Clarissa R Clarissa Raposas 5032 Dorado Dr#109 Huntington p-,,h A 92649 r Nm le 9:27 DE 1 DO 05/d9,/10 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD C � f SC 92j6480AS090 *2077-OS778-29-25 v :ach CA 92648 w co � 06/24/2010 lr le ` { mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING i 939 543 69 Denver V Gearhart III 5176 Tortuga Dr--9210 j Huntington B(--,-h rn a')a,lo t J i n nn City Clerk tmgton Beach ®U) 012H16209932 he City Clerk J. Box 190 0 0 4 14 each CA 92648 ca 1- 4z 06/24/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No O ( ""I a 0t— Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA N9L 0Qi5,TaZ-[AiN9LIQ9tMN CHA No -002,us PoszAGE TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 {The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item 3 54140 Huntington Beach CA 92649 - -- A I X= 927 DE i 00 05/291 i is RE7URN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TC FORWARD SC 9264a11f33 solo *12 7}J7-05771-29-2S I111)111111113!)1JlMi�aJ1)}13t�)�1lli}}!1s}#}}�!}3�?}) nn City Clerk tington Beach �y ' s 012HI6209c)`2 he City Clerk 0C 4 Box190 ' a 06/2-4'2010 each CA 92648 W._Ce Mailed Fr,.m 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e i 1 939 541 43 ` Kenneth M Ono J 5031 Dorado Dr#108 Huntington Beact r3Z`'SE 927 DE i co 05.?291 io RETURN 'O SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE To FORWARD PC ] `9. e4solso90 t'2077-057)72-29-25 IEVY---a V. 1L26)rC0"$Q-O C Lily I�iCIR M � }�sVox19006/2-/2010 ach CA 92648 w A cc t1CMailed From 92648 IL isUS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e 939 541 72 — -Gharlette-A-P*01' — - Dorad Wintington 8earh['A 92649 ♦a-r v r� o�y rv� � ni's r'yF l r?d 3-! Pl nn City Clerk { 012HI6209932 tington Beach lr Uj -ie City Clerk 00 414 0 each CA 92648 U�' - 06/24=2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08- 6, T Mailed From 92648 0113 ZMA NOL 0@3TZ-9AFN9LI0 �IbCP o -002, us POSTAGE e TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 939 54181 Theodore W Ramsdell 17172 Abalone U4n, Huntington Bea NIXIE �127 VL 1 00 05/29tlO RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE To roRwARo Q09V 6 4ft6dift0 1�3� st13� 1�331�t 3y 1�333)31 i�17113'�� t ��3l ttj73��11 nn City Clerk tington Beach OW if 012HI620993' ie City Clerk � i iguv- r 3ox 190 ; :ach CA 92648 = 06'24 2010 ac Ma led From 9264E CL MIA i2l� US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING s 939 541 97 Christine & Robert Giles III 4 74-72-Abal(--- i„W a-I n Huntington I 42 V IE: 92-7 DE: 1 00 05/29/iO RETURN TO MENDER NOT DELI v ERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORT,•ARO t 8C 92640019090 �j�'j2)077-05 769-2 3-26 C.��x�.�.f` 1 �s �I))iii717171�7)7177�17 11111 i111I713 7111 3 7 1 7l13ll )3) Jill ox 190 v �� r/3 t5 C6124/2010 ach CA 92648 w W d Mailed From 92648 _ M � US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e 939 541 54 Darryl K Webb Tr i 5031 Dorado Dr#211 ` Huntington BParh CA g7RdQ nn City Clerk tmgton Beach n 012H16209932 he City Clerk _ $0041� Box 190 0 t3 each CA 92648 g — W t- ' M 06/24/2010 Notice of Public Hearin ND No 08 6 08- Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA NoL�O�$-Q�i NYoo -002,vs POSTAGE TTM No 17294 9DP No 8 08- 0 U046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planne Unit De lopment — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item #193-281- O u 49 ve t 2 Hun a 0° o')Ad9 N%7(3 E 927 DC 1 00 08,30/10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNASLE TO FORWARD DC 9MS49019090 *2077-09092-30-29 nn City Clerk r6 012H16209932 tington Beach ClLu he City Clerk 004 s Sox 190 (Of- z 06124'2010 each CA 92648 tu V) cc_foe: Mated F om 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBL HEARIM-=='--L`T10 i 163-281-02 O cu 4 102 Hun ch CA N3XXEE 927 DE 1 00 08/ZD/10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNADLE TO FORWARD FC 92640019090 A2077-0999t-SO-29 E+��11-1I_ 9?64 Sox 190 u g i`, 3ach CA 92648 aP to 06/24J2010 W Ce Mailed From 92648 0-iz US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 282-17 Sea Ridge Homeowners Assn 7400 Center Ave 205 Huntington Be CA 92647 3068 nn City Clerk 012H16209932 tington Beach ® � o VY` ie City Clerk a 00 4 4 3ox 190 y _ In 0 06/24/2010 :ach CA 92648 - w Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 081 6 0 - Mailed From 9292648011 , ZNIA NoLQt0WTIZjF I0 = _ -002, s POSTAGE TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, C P N 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit De t — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 ''� 163 311 19 Occupant 17261 Bolsa Chica St Huntington NS'xSE 927 CE i £al5 05+00J10 RETURN TO SLNDER ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN ONAMLE TO F-ORWARD 9C 92849019090 �2077-t�E�sg$-00-22 9-26-9:9 01a ��xjx�xx s��l��ax�>xII>>�xll�r�xxil��a xx �s x�xj x!!xx>>�Ix�� 52%4 n City Clerk 0 n 12H14,:20z)9?2 ngton Beach U City Clerk M P 1014 ox 190 �` +�_ � � 6t24 20'0 ach CA 92648 LU w m,Jed From 92648 US PCSTAOE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARINS—=='—.E`10 s n� _ 163 311 17 qAv Occupant 4906 Shelburne Dr ' Huntington B---- 'n "'n ?NIXIE 9.2- DE t 00 051f3ojio RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KN01dN UN+C.B"E TO FORWARD DC 92S 49019090 *2077-09 B7 `o-P2 9264000190 11xl,xxxIJIMMI) ll _ 4 1-7 x 190 `� "� ch CA 92648 w 0) a° 66 24 ,�1� w w Maafec From 02648 0- iz US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLI,C HEARINS—_—r—Z_?.f0 163 281 Occu 4 309 Hunt o c nn City Clerk tington Beach a ti 012H16209932 ie City Clerk at at� - IV 0 1� Sox 190 + 06/24/2010 :ach CA 92648 Mailed From 92648 Notice of Public Hearin — IVIND No 08-61 , 08- US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA NoLWbb?Ti�iAPNBLibY NECPA No 09-0021 TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Plannrr Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item # 9 Fune CA 9 831 3145 e NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 05120/10 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DMI-IVERA LE AS ADDRESSED UNAMLE TO FORWARD cc i 92641, 019090 3} *207t7 0 j2644— {2 je 25 '�,��j�t],��t�'��Qr'6190 I�t�tsts�s�sl�sss�ss�lttlsi{ttsstt�t�s�tt3�tst�sissj�sfsttls3� nn City Clerk tington BeachLU j 912N16209932 ie City Clerk 3ox 190 00 in 0 1— co — 06/24/2010 aach CA 92648 to g cc Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING-ZS'--DI 163 311 22 e Occupant 17348 Hampt^^ I Huntington B ,y x a c 92— DE 1 00 06/--0Y 10 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN JN€'aDLE ro PoRwApo DC 92640019090 *2077-OOSSO-00-22 9s6 2%0-148,0 IltlItttltltlIMI)tlltt{JI t, 1tIttlltt,t ItII ie City Clerk io— w 00 414 Sox 190 ccn 06124/2010 ach CA 92648 uj co w lY Mailed From 92648 fL E' US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARII -:=----21, i 163 311 20 11110 a Occupant 17326 Hampton I n Huntinntnn R nn City Clerk tington Beach U r 012H16209932 he City Clerk 1-� _ ( � Box 190 g .� W each CA 92648 06/2412010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 16 0A_ mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA NoL }�Qt�1�;T �AF�biJ�Ll�-i�,�pvbC o 09-002,us POSTAGE e TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 8-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development 6-10 — Agenda item # 9 0 163 131 20 Occupant _ 17342 Harbo Huntington E NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 06.# 0/ RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD 0C 92649019090 *2077 Ossia 29 22 ���r's'S.' R�'��a �1JIlJJ)�)�)��lsJ�)JI1►sl)��!!!Jlslll)I!)��lsllllJs��))!Jsl3il nn City Clerk 012rH16209932 tington Beach 13 U) ie City Clerk �, _ Sox 190 P 0 414#� a M 06/2412010 3ach CA 92648 ui W._� Mailed From 92648 I €9S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e 163 123-07 ` Dcupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Beach NIXIE 927 9E i 00 06!291 19 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD MC{ t9264€019090)j F* j2 j977 06927 j2 j9 22 �V s Y�4a P��8�Y4��{� 1�1))ii)�111��))1�}I llf)�!3})S)i J1111)1153�)ti11�1111))i5i{)II till)/ lilCl l'l (gi 1�r1p� F 14 �x 190 6 C, W�,i .}�y¢V v i 3ch CA 92648 w to 06124/2010 w w mailed F om 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING e �0-123 06 Qccupant 5032 Dunbar Ave#A ",,,t►nv,ton Beacl inn City Clerk itington Beach n 012H16209932 Box 190 he City Jerk 00 � each CA 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No A 6 - 06124/2010 011 , ZMA No 08-007, ZTA No 09-008 2-' -0b2,Mailed From 92648 TTM No 172WkUR8A&- nH o - e US POSTAGE "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6- Agenda Item # 9 163 131 17 ` Occupant 17172 Harbor Bluffs Cir#A o- Huntington B NZX2E 921 DE 1 00 0151?20/10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD s^.ira ra��aa _DC 1 92164901{{91090 ! 1Aj i207j}7 lfl 9t17 .2a .22 �.�IX�2 0 �I}It)YYI>1)Ilt))I))ll)ii)!It)))!)IllilYtll!lilF l)Yllit!))I)II nn City Clerk tington Beach m 012H16209932 ie City Clerk q 3ox 190 0 . k N 3ach CA 92648 w� d M 06/24/2010 Mailed Fro-n 92648 �LL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 131 11 e Occupant ` 17111 Harbor Bluffs Cif#A Huntington NIXIE 92'7 DE 1 00 05.O'20/10 RETURN To SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD �«.�?4_.rZ�`����J{� ))>!)i))1)I!!It))13t111)IiIIYil i)Illlillill )i131)Illt )t!}}ll 3ch CA 92648 w r '- Railed From 92648 IL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING t 163 123 22 Occupant 5152 Dunbar i N 2 A X r- S02? DE 1 00 cis i-ka.0 10 nn City Clerk tington BeachUl - 012H16209932 -ie City Clerk _ -0'00 414 Sox 190 w E- a 06/24/2010 each CA 92648 Uj(0 1: MaiW From 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0EM51 08- US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA NoLWbd?T AFNBLib� N�CPA 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08- (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development - 0 — Agenda Item # 91 1 Occupant 5142 Dunbar Ave#A ` Huntington Bee " NIXIE 927 OE 1 00 06,0#20i10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD MC JJ jj 92649019090j ( t i }*207 j7 fl) 6833 ]2 1e 22 in City Clerk ington Beach 00 0-12h ca e City Clerk 44 ox 190 � ,� 00' - ach CA 92648 to 06124/2:�10 w flC Mailed From 92648 a. US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING z 163 123 21 Occupant _ { ` 5142 Dunh- ° *17 I Huntington N X X I E 927 DE 1 00 06/20.E 10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD �Y BC 92j6�l49019`09}0 .{ *2 j07j]7 OieS 3i4- .2ja 22 �.r?`'����`� `4��� il)�Y))]I17)I�)F)�YY}ISY)FIJi I)F))�i� IFl3IF)1IFlF)331i)YF�}rl ox 190 0 -. — ach CA 92648 w� ` 06,24J2010 �.'�_ Y Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING r 163 123 08 o Occupant ` 5072 Dungy^ Huntingto mn City Clerk vvc 012H16209932 itington Beach he City Clerk $00414 BOX 190 to06/24/2010 each CA 92648 x Mailed From 92648 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08-01 ,G 08- US POSTAGE 0111 ZMA NoL 011PT AqqdLQq NV PA No 09-002, ® TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP f7-6-1 046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Developm0 — Agenda Item # 9 163 123 19 Occupant 5112 Dunbar Ave#D -� Huntington 8e N3x2C 927 BC 1 00 08,?28110 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD 0C) 92S 49019090 *}207 s7 iO jL O a 2 j 22 E�a'�.�Y.�,11'-:"���9t7 11F1}}f 1}})11>))li)111)11115)}})1111lIY11113J1l13)I1)i)})1111 nn City Clerk tmgton Beach U) I 012H16209932 he City Clerk all $00414 Box 190 each CA 92648 06 2402010 Mailed From 92648 OS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING s 163 123 19 Occupant n 5112 Dunbar Avr, Huntington Beac N1-111mC 927 OL 1 00 Os.?20,e 1O RC rvRN TO SENDER VACANT UNAALC TO ➢ OR1.tARD 0C 92640019090 *2077- 0603t 29 22 Efw-��otlb 1))FI))11))1)11)F)))1111)1))1IM1)1))11))1)11111 !c vl�y v)c n W -J Q 2 Zb VUli 3ach CA 92648 w I to 06i 24/2010 w r� N Mailed From 92648 ME US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 0 163 123 18 Occupant 5122 Dunbar Ave-#E Huntington B NaxaF- 927 DE 1 00 06✓281P I0 nn City Clerk tington Beach ® vy , 012H16209932 ie City Clerk w 3ox 190 0.3 - h 00 41 aach CA 92648 w F_ �' 06/24/2010 Nonce of Public Hearing — MND No 08- 6, 8 Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA NoL[WA0Qa�� y�Ll� $Nc�Cu. -002, us POSTAGE TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-0 6 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7 -10 — Agenda Item # 9 163 123 04 Occupant ` 5032 Dunbar Ave#A Huntington Bi N2A:Er- 927 DC 3 GAO 06/20i to RETURN To SENDER VACANT UNADL E: TO FORWARD DC ti 92640019090 )*j2(077 jC 6825- 2 ja 22 in City Clerk ington Beach 012i16209932 ie City Clerk _ :s Sox 190 w I.- 06124/201C each CA 92648 W� ��_ Jailed Fro)r 92648 LL�` US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 123-08 p giant 5032 Dunbar Ave#A ^^�A Huntington Beach Ct }fig rt3RN ro sENDCR VACANT UNABLE To FORWARD -, t�, E3C j '92648019090 xj12'407'j!7 t060i2sr j2 j9j- 22 Er�C�T�13f209006aS O 113 )Fi)I)I)Ilt)FIS>11t)lill)tt}t)Il3FIFSII)St1Fl1)11i1lF7F)II lox 190 _ UU 4 1 ach CA 92648 W I M 06/24/2010 5 Mailed From 92648 U' US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 123 11 Occupant 5102 Dunb nn City Clerk tington Beach w 012H16209932 ne City Clerk X 5 W 0 4 J4 Box 190 t� each CA 92648 w 11- a 06/24/2010 Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 1 IA- Mailed From 92648 011 , ZMA NoLP§RPA3Tr_TA �I:_1R"�C -002, POSTAGE ili TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08- 46 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — - 10 — _ Agenda Item # 9 163 131 22 Occupant C a _ 17112 Harbor Bluffs Circe \ -=r#luntington Be N3xIC 927 DE 1 GAD O61'291:10 RETURN T6 SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD MC ] 92649019090}901j9090 j *) j207j A 06920 }2]D 22 �('�'�("y + � fS �f}�YJ)I�Ti>IiI3tI3i3�))�l�I))}Itlf�I31JIIititl}1JJ3�i))J)3}3� _-- 7'-,- -. in City Clerk ° ington Beach 012r'1620993 ie City Clerk 4 ,44 Sox 190 '00 l ach CA 92648 Lu 06`24i2 11 ix#e Mailed crow 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 123 18 Occupant - 5122-Dunbar Ave#B Huntington E -An NIXIE 927 DC 1 00 015,#20,P10 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD 0C 92649019090 )*2 i0-77 069j2a !29! 22 II)Ii)J!I)I)IIJJiITT�I i}Illlii)i}IIIIlI))Ili til)Ii TII!)Tiil)II e uty t,ierK W _j -r ox 190 06i24/2010 ach CA 92648 �_ Mailed From 92648 CL us POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING i 163 123 05 Occupant 0 �)032 Dunbar Ave#A ` Huntington Bead "a �1�fi49 uIr V ITi= cb�_Y DE i 00 01512ai la nn City Clerk tington Beach ®LU� ` 012Hi6209932 -ie City Clerk _ $00 414 30X 190 00 a 06/24/2010 each CA 92648 UJI Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 0 61 08- mailed POSTAGE 011 , ZMA NoL (009)TZTAPI5L18ECPA No 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — _ Agenda Item M43 44 Bogert aet V Bog 0 T7202 Corbina Ln 209 92649 HuntmgtonBeach CA 927 NFE 1 9093 00 06128110 RETURN TO SENDER DOGERT'MICHACL MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER BC 92640019090` t jj "`�++#217 7-00246-2e-29 Ji1111tf11i,}I111I,1'11t�il I111t1I47I 111111 till 1111111111111 nn City Clerk a 012,4162CL) -,2 tington Beach V11 UJ he City Clerk 0A A , Box 190 06�2a 201C each CA 92648 tu mailed Cror ;264 CL US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 66 Tricia Ann Saul ® 555 S Shoal Creek St Banning CA 9222( 4 923 NFE 1 109I 0:3 06/26/ LO F0€ wAgD "IME EXP RT;4 TO SEND SAUL 'TRICIA A 7197 MARTIN OR tlOHAVF VALLFV AZ 06440-912— RETURN TO SENDER Eca TVA —hs 0 I�slssss ►Ir)Ilrrlrr�jlrlt�Issssssl��l�ssf�rs Is�ss�Irsssrlt�I e city t,lerk M 0 414 ox190 0 06/24/2010 ach CA 92648 �a c ♦ :Ce Mailed From 92648 (L a: US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 163 13121 Occupant ® 17132 Harbor ni rf, Huntington B 7N T x'T F A r`9 L]F' i r Cf Cf 1C ,nn City Clerk itington Beach f 012H16209932 CO he City Clerk �5 00 414 Box 190 00 01- z 06124/2010 each CA 92648 iu w °` 8 Mailed From 9264E Notice of Public Hearing — MND No 08 6, US POSTAGE 011 , ZMA No> M0ff,TZTA t_109 NLCPA No 09-0021 TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Rjael Unit Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item #-9 Lauren McGirr __ 5096 Tortuga Dr#105 Huntington Bear C,4 92649 x 32 7 NFE i 209I 00 orw 28i io FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND MCGXRR'i-AURCN M 29004 S ]WESTERN AVE UNIT 216 SAN PEDRO CA 90732-1269 it RETURN TO SENDER E�aS1CS1♦ 9284900190 �li�ttit�t�t��ail�it�litlt'ltttitt���tlttt�ttt�t�ttllilltt�tl� nn City Clerk tington Beach 11 C12r'i209P 32 LU W) ,ie City ClerkUG A Sox 190 Cam-,; 4 each CA 92648 06J2 �20 cc Ir Y r. mailed F o-; 92643 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 543 75 Carla J Sgroi 0 5096 Tortuga Dr#104 Huntington Beach CA 926A9 X 9 e7 NFE 1 6091 00 06/29J 10 FORWARD r cmc CXP RTN TO SEND SGROX CARLA 10OS N SWEETZER AVE APT la W HOLLYWOOD CA 90069-6232 RETURN TO SENDCR tt t�3����� � r�������lyi.� I�i�iiit}e1i11111111I14111��itililll�llti'�It}Ii�tt1111titllli e City Clerk s 14 14 ox 190 M 06/24/2010 ach CA 92648 lu 0) iY a: �P Mailed From 92546 IL � DB POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939 542 25 Judy A Morris 5146 Dorado Dr#210 Huntington Beach CA 92649 /nn City Clerk rtington Beach im M 012H162C9932 Cc � Us t he City Clerk � � Aa A Box 190 each CA 92648 �6'24 ?n10 Notice of Public Hearin MND No 080611 08- �7 g — POSTAGE 011 , ZMA NoL a0O0TZTAFN8L18 i.CPA No 09-002, TTM No 17294, CDP No 08-022, CUP No 08-046 (The "Ridge" 22 — unit Planned Unit Development — 7-6-10 — Agenda Item #L90 542 94 L 15uBay 2009 Trust e 5101 Tortuga Dr#111 Huntington Beach CA 92649 ` — *X 927 NDF— 1 4091 88 06/29110 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND DU'HAY LONG I" RIVERSIDE AVE STE F NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-4000 ,f� RETURN TO SENDER j jj 9264800190 llillflllilliltlilililillllllitlllllllll lilt t till l III tilllllil ,nn City Clerk itington Beach r 12HI 2a0'-' 2 he City Clerk _ � Box 190 zD each CA 92648 Uj10 CC 612! 2 CK W mailed Frcr• 92 48 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING s - 939 543 13 Jeanne L Romano 5145 Tortuga Dr1206 Huntington Beac 7f 927 NFE 1 2091 00 06>2f31 10 FORWARD TIME CAR RTN TO SEND ROMANO'JF—ANNE L 416 N CITRUS ST ORANGE CA 92960-2141 RETURN TO SENDER Ec��Ycat 9264 FO190 111lilfl1l17llli fill lilt ll III]llllllllitllltllllll lilt ltllllll llc a.lty �.lcln Ix J m OX 190 U)i3 111 r 10 06/24120,10 each CA 92648 LU(a , CC W mailed From 92648 tL a: US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING i 939 541 60 Alicia C Wickwire 5071 Dorado Dr#201 Huntington Beach CA 92649 NOTICE OF PUBLOC HEARING Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.OF TH circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the S CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 199 Ao0479 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday July 6 2010 at 6 00 p m.in the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will fiord a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items rn"®F OF 1 Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-016 General Plan Amendment No 08 011 Zoning Mai)Amendment No 087007. Zoning Text Amendment Ng: o 09 008 Local Coastal PPmgram Amendment No 09 002. Tentative Tract Man No 17294 Coastal Development PUBLICATION `_������ ®� Development- No.m na m2 Conditional Use Permit No 08 046(la Ridge 22 unit Planned Umt [Y�,VI Development-Legislative Amendments andA�peat of the Planning Commisson s Approval of the Rearoufated M! atedidegabveDeclaration and Development EntrtlementslApplicant- Ed Mountford Hearthside Hornes 6 Executive Circle Suite 250 Irvine CA 92614 Appellant Jill Hardy Mayor Pro Tem City of Huntington Beach Request Recirculated MND to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and legislative amendments GPA to STA �T ®� CALIFORNIA ) amend the Land Use Designation from Open Space-Park(OS-P)to Residential Low Density(RL) f L ZMA.to amend the existing zoning designation of Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay (RA CZ)to Residential Low Density-Coastal Zone Overlay(RL CZ) ZTA.to amend Chapter 21012- PUD Supplemental Standards and Provisions to allow flexibility in accommodating SS the total number of required parking spaces within a PUD development LCPA.to amend the ®T TTrg,gT ®� ORANGE l�T�� certified Land Use Plan from Open Space-Park(OS P)to Residential Low Density(RL)and to J NL 1 Y i reflect the proposed Zoning Map and Text Amendments TTM to subdivide the approximately 5-acre lot into 22 single-family residential parcels and nine lettered lots CDP to subdivide the subject property and construct 22 single-family residences common open space and associated infrastructure in the coastal zone and CUP to permit construction on a site with greater than a I am the Citizen of the United States and a three-foot grade differential The applicant as part of the proposed public benefit for the PUD development is also proposing to improve an existing 30 foot wide City owned parcel north of resident Of the County aforesaid I am over the project site to enhance public coastal access The City owned parcel extends from Bolsa Chica Street to the eastern boundary of the subject property Location 17202 Bolsa Chica Street the age of eighteen years and not a party (5 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue) Proiect Planne Jennifer Villasenor to Or interested in the below entitled mutter r NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item#1 is located in the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone I am a principal clerk of the HUNTiNGTON and includes Coastal Development Permit No 08022 filed on November 2008 in conjunction with the above request BEACH INDEPENDENT a newspaper Of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for the above item was general circulation printed and published inprocessed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act it was determined that item #1 with mitigation would not have an significant environmental the City of Huntington Beach County Of effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted The recirculated mitigated negative declaration (No 08 016) is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street and is available for public inspection and Orange State of California and the comment by contacting the Planning and Budding Department or by telephoning attached Notice is a true and complete copy (714)536 5271 NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report as was printed and published on the public hearing City Council discussion and action The City Councils action may be appealed following date(s) to the Coastal Commission within ten(10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245 32 of the Huntington Beach C Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations or unless Title 14 Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable The Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate 10th Floor Long Beach CA 1 90802 4302 phone number (562)590 5071 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Rem #1 includes a Local Coastal Program Amendment that upon approval would be forwarded to and is required to be certified by the California Coastal Commission June 24 2010 ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Budding Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 for inspection by the public A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk s Office on Thursday July 1 2010 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City Councils action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City I declare under penalty Of perjury that the at or prior to the public hearing if there are any further questions please call the Planning and Budding Department at(714)536 5271 and refer to the above items Direct your written foregoing is true and correct communications to the City Clerk Joan L Flynn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Executed on June 24 2010 Huntington Beach California 92648 at Costa Mesa California (714)536 5227 http//www huntingtonbeachca gov/ - r-} y _ ) Signa ure -� CD i iu