Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Goodell Property - 6.2 Acre site located at Bolsa Chica St
Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case A50479. P R 0 0 F ®F PUBLICATION :cityOF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCEAO.3847 he STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Ady Council on City Council on DECEMBER 7,2009 NCE OF THE SS. CYO OF HUNTINGTON COUNTY ®F ORANGE N�� ` IBEACH AMENDING EC_ �J 1j�1 A 1 JL` RA /1IS- �TRICT MAP �.33, (SEC- j �T-ZONAL 'MAP.28-5-11) OF THE' HUNTINGTON �+ BEACH ZONING'.AND SUBDII am the Citizen of the United States and a NANCEVISI TO�PRE-ZONE resident of the County aforesaid; I am over GOODELs', PROPERTY IN the age of eighteen years, and not a party 'TYY OFEORANGEETo 3.2 to or interested in the below entitled matter. ACRES DENIYY,RESIDENTIAL. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON - PARK OF S AND RECREA- TION AND 1.0 ACRE OF BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of COASTAL CONSERVA-. TION WITH 6.2 ACRES OF general circulation, printed and published in :COASTAL ZONE i OVERLAY; (ZONING MAP the City of Huntington Beach, County of AMENDMENT_ NO. 06- Orange, State of California, and the SYNOPSIS: Z 0 A I N G MAP attached Notice is a true and complete copy AMENDMENT NO.06.003 AND ANNEXATION NO; as was printed and published on the 06-002 WAS A CITY INITIATED REQUEST FOR following date(s). THE PRE-ZONING AND ANNEXATION; OF AP- I PROXIMATELY, 6.2 ACRES OF LAND THAT WAS UNDER THE JURIS- DICTION OF THE COUN- TY OF ORANGE. THE SITE, GENERALLY RE CFERRED TO,AS'THE "GOODELL' PROPERTY, December 17, 2009 IS PRE-ZONED WITH THE FOLLOWING DESIGNA-, TIDNS: 3'.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DEN- SITY(RL);,2.0 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE - PARKS 'AND RECREATION '(OS- PR); AND 1.0 ACRE OF COASTAL CONSERVA- TION (CC).'THE ENTIRE 6'2 ACRE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED' WITH 'A, declare, under penalty of perjury, that the COASTAL ,ZONE ccz> OVERLAY. foregoing Is true and Correct. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington !Beach at a'regular meet- ing held December 7, 2009 by the following Executed on December 21, 2009 roll call vote: AYES: Carchio, Coerper, . at Costa Mesa, California Green, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen , NOES:Hardy ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:None THE FULL TEXT OF THE f /mil/ ORDINANCE IS AVAIL- ABLE IN THE 'CITY Si natul CLERK'S OFFICE. , g This ordinance is effec- tive .30 days after. adoption. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 , 714-536-5227 JOAN L.FLYNNr. CITY CLERK Published; Huntington Beach Independent De cember 17,2009 123- 184 City of Huntington Reach a 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK JOAN L. FLYNN NOTICE OF AC-YSKCLERK November 30, 2009 Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 SUBJECT: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003/ANNEXATION NO. 06-002 (GOODELL PROPERTY) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: 6.2 acre site located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, in an unincorporated area of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach DATE OF ACTION: November 16, 2009 On Monday, November 16, 2009, a public hearing was held and the following action was taken by the Huntington Beach City Council: 1) approved Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 06-003 with findings for approval and approved for introduction Ordinance No. 3847, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Pre-Zone the 6.2 Acre "Goodell'Property Located in the County of Orange to 3.2 Acres of Residential Low Density, 2.0 Acres of Open Space— Parks and Recreation and 1.0 Acre of Coastal Conservation With 6.2 Acres of Coastal Zone Overlay(Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03);"and, 2) approved Annexation No. 06-002 and adopted Resolution No. 2009-69, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving a Property Tax Exchange Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and The County of Orange Regarding the Annexation of the 6.2 Acre Goodell Property to the City of Huntington Beach." Attached to this letter are the Findings for Approval for ZMA 06-003, a copy of Ordinance No. 3847, Resolution No. 2009-69, and pages 4 and 5 of the City Council Action Agenda relating to this item. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan • Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:714-536-5227) If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office at (714) 536- 5227. Sincerely, an L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk Attachments: Findings for Approval for ZMA 06-003 Copy of Ordinance No. 3847 Copy of Resolution No. 2009-69 Pages 4 and 5 of the City Council Action Agenda ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1. Zoning Map Amendment consists of amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5- 11) to pre-zone an approximately 6.2 acre site with 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay. Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan because the pre-zoning designations provide for land uses that are compatible with adjacent existing or approved single-family residential uses to the northwest, west and east as well as open space/conservation areas that are adjacent to the south, southwest and east. The proposed pre-zoning designations would protect existing biological resources within and surrounding the site. The proposed open space/conservation designations would provide a buffer for the environmentally sensitive habitat area south of the site. Finally, the pre-zoning designations would provide for future coastal access opportunities as well as maintenance of existing views to the site. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The pre-zoning designations are compatible with existing zoning designations for the surrounding area and would be consistent with the current existing residential zoning and land use designations of the County of Orange. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The pre-zoning of the site will allow the City to move forward with the annexation of the site, which would result in a fiscal benefit for the City. The pre-zoning designations will ensure that future uses would be compatible with surrounding existing and approved uses and include open space/conservation areas that would allow for enhanced coastal access and recreation opportunities in the future. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The pre-zoning of the site would allow the City to move forward with annexation of the subject site so that an "island" of unincorporated County land will be eliminated and the City may realize the fiscal benefit of annexation of the site. The pre-zoning designations will be consistent with existing zoning and land use designations surrounding the property and provide for the protection of biological and coastal resources. ORDINANCE NO. 3847 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 33 (SECTIONAL MAP 28-5-11) OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO PRE-ZONE THE 6.2- ACRE "GOODELL" PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO 3.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY,2.0 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE—PARKS AND RECREATION AND 1.0 ACRE OF COASTAL CONSERVATION WITH 6.2 ACRES OF COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-03) WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03, which pre-zones the 6.2-acre `Goodell"Property designating 3.2 acres RL(Residential Low Density), 2.0 acres OS- PR(Open Space—Parks and Recreation) and 1.0 acre CC (Coastal Conservation) with a CZ (Coastal Zone)overlay on the entire 6.2 acres;and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the real property that is the subject of this ordinance is generally bounded by Los Patos Avenue to the north and the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street to the west, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit A and, incorporated herin by this reference. SECTION 2. District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended pursuant to Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03,to pre-zone 3.2 acres located within the County of Orange to Residential Low Density with Coastal Zone overlay(RL—CZ), 2.0 acres within the County of Orange to Open Space—Parks and Recreation with Coastal Zone overlay(OS-PR—CZ) and 1.0 acre to Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone overlay (CC—CZ) as shown in Exhibit B, amended Zoning Map, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission but not less than 30 days after its adoption. 09-2060/33026 Ordinance No.3847 .PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2009. Mayor ATTEST: A/P�ROVED AS TO FORM: 3'ty�,,�Iornevy' City Clerk *REVIED APPROVED: INIT ED A TD PPROVED: Planning irector ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Legal Description&Map Exhibit B: Amended Zoning Map 09-2060/33026 Ordinance No.3847 Ordinance No.3847 Legal Description for Goodell Property Commencing at the point of intersection of the center lines of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue, both 60 feet wide, as said streets are shown on the map of Tract 86, Block 20, Coast Boulevard Farms, recorded in Book 10, pages 35 and 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence South 0° 42' 01" East 523.80 feet;thence North 89' 06' 00"East 23.00 feet to the true point of beginning. Thence continuing North 89' 06' 00" East 450.00 feet;thence South 0°42' 01"East 600 feet; thence South 89' 06' 00" West 450 feet; thence North 0°42' 01"west 600 feet to the true point of beginning. Containing 6.20 acres. 20 g 3.710 94 n Al ycto28"36't 2640 12' 0 to E 69,5 e7 0 �------ "l 89026'19 f ,r WIN rERS, AVENUE wa�senl�®.sn�w..�m�rwew�raaan a. w� e�lawe�wa�w®pus dum a arowsa�w.�r lf% tPMlSfOpMCR PAO Pot.rs 29 28 t _r 1� to M. Icy - 35 & 36! �1 J c� C� 0 1 O N.89"31'44"E. 0 3641.80' Q V 0. Ch 1 IT. OFCOM.PAR C£Li•F91 a -. NOATHERLY LINE OF TAA(,,T , `PT, Of COM PARCEL!-C N01"5103"E70 f)5' o S.09''jl'4d'W t60935' cc AVENUE _ _ ��os !RA r0S 1 i + 7' �>ACCESS ROAD I•G — �k (� GOPA. CABLE S0000'S3'I: J ., -0 W cep cc f "� ` 1� v 0 SCA8"p p� C C) t> '25T..0.75 It S ' / 1 : .E,� .'� a,0 �QWENC�AOLl: ! q•� ,/ �sr;2 m.1 11 ai Q pb9O` cr7 0F'� 'QOE O 1• ml'Kt�i. G�( 0 PAH. Mi o WELL a ' PUMP HSEo ivi�-p AN,1' ESNEPIV� POWER W c+ T•, , \ POLES I-E ;RW 8ry.6°:36S"£_156.78' T ._ O TNK w �u, c� o0aS' b OO 20AC.- O,A 00 9 1 o p2 FENCE pa,�Eaoi\1 wELL8�`. ,osc>o1�'f; PT. "E" y�5. 5 8 06,po ov, r F'UlAP HOUR 'q;QNSF(� MEA; �. 1 VAt LA T •a'*II VN.1iT -W22"E,12013' P T OP=gfo. v s.240A7b7"pt 10.QO' A Ordinance No.3847 Ordinance No.3847 PROPOSED PRE-ZONING DESIGNATIONS RL- CZ RA CZ iIBM SP15 CZ residential RL- CZ 3.2 acres o RL*- CZ m; (*Note: The City recently approved ---------- -___ a re-zornng to Cc -Coastal onservation to match Land Use Plan) SP15- CZ residential and open space \ N SP15- CZ ;' RC- CZ open space j Legend RL— Residential Low Density OS-PR—Open Space-Parks and Recreation CC — Coastal Conservation RA— Residential Agricultural SP15— Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) CZ—Coastal Zone Overlav RESOLUTIO-N NO. 2009-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE 6.2 ACRE GOODELL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach intends to file an application with the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the unincorporated territory commonly referred to as the "Goodell Property" which property consists of approximately 6.2 undeveloped acres generally located south of Los Patos Avenue, north of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, east of Bolsa Chica Street and west of Graham Street, as more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Attachment 1; and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 allows cities and counties to adopt and approve property tax exchange agreements to set forth the exchange of such revenues following the addition to a city of previously unincorporated territory; and The County and City staffs have reached agreement, subject to Board and City Council approval, regarding the exchange of property tax as a result of the annexation of the unincorporated territory by the City, whereby upon annexation by the City, the City shall receive 55.9OJ7% of the County's share of the 1% basic levy of property tax and the County shall u-e''44:0383% of the County's share of the 1% basic levy property tax generated within the a to,be4[hexed, pursuant to Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement 80-2093; and The City shall receive 100% of the Structural Fire Fund and 1001/0 of the Library fund generated in the annexed areas upon annexation; and The County staff and the City of Huntington Beach staff desire to have the same adopted and approved by their respective governing bodies, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the City Council does hereby approve the property tax exchange agreement reached between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange, whereby, upon completion of the annexation of the unincorporated area referred to as the Goodell Property to the City of Huntington Beach, the City shall receive 55.9617% and the County of Orange shall receive 44.0383% of the County's share of the 1% basic levy of property tax from the annexed area pursuant to Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement 80-2093. 09-2060.00 1/3 4 56 5 Resolution No. 2009-69� 2. That the City of Huntington Beach will receive 1001/o of the Structural Fire Fund and 100%of the Public Library fund generated in the annexed areas upon annexation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on November 16 , 2009. JA May REVIE APPROVED: MT TED AND APPROVED: City mi istrator direWWA Planning APPROVED AS TO FORM: . City Attorney 09-2060.001/34565 Res. No. 2009-69 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 16, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 44"') ty Clerk and ex-officU Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California accomplishments of our Native American community, who continue to shape our nation and contribute to the rich diversity that is our country's strength. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to call on Lt. Col. Ben Watson from 3/1 Marine Battalion to present a gift to Public Works employees. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to call on Centennial Celebration Sponsors to receive their Centennial memorabilia. PRESENTATION: Mayor Bohr to recognize the members of the Centennial Celebration Committee. PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) 10 Speakers COUNCIL COMMITTEE / APPOINTMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING Reports given by Coerper, Bohr CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Administrator Wilson reported an update on street repair CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 1. (City Council) Notice of Filed Complaint by the City of Huntington Beach vs. Klazina Gaye Garcia, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009- 00314458. Nature of Case: Employee Rick Thomas was involved in an automobile accident while driving a City vehicle on January 23, 2008 at Goldenwest and Pacific Coast Highway. The City is filing suit to recover workers' compensation benefits paid to Mr. Thomas. PUBLIC HEARING 2. (City Council) Public Hearing to approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3847 approving Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 06-003, adopt Resolution No. 2009-69 approving the proposed property tax exchange agreement between the City and the County of Orange for annexation of approximately 6.2 acres located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, generally referred to as the "Goodell" property, and approve Annexation No. 06-002 to the Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCO). Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action Council/Agency Action Agenda—Monday, November 16, 2009 a) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 with findings for approval, and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3847, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5- 11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Pre- Zone the 6.2-Acre "Goodell" Property Located in the County of Orange to 3.2 Acres of Residential Low Density, 2.0 Acres of Open Space - Parks and Recreation and 1.0 Acre of Coastal Conservation With 6.2 Acres of Coastal Zone Overlay (Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03);" and, Approved 6-1 (Hardy no) b) Approve Resolution No. 2009-69, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving a Property Tax Exchange Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange Regarding the Annexation of the 6.2 Acre Goodell Property to the City of Huntington Beach;" and, Approved 6-1 (Hardy no) c) Recommend approval of Annexation No. 06-002 to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Approved 7-0 3. (City Council) Request to consider appeal submitted by Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King& Coldren of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's recommendation to Deny with Findings Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision). Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial. Approved 7-0 4. (City Council) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3848 approving Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 09-006 amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and Resolution No. 2009-72 adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-003 (Religious Assembly Uses in Visitor Commercial District). Recommended Action: a) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-006 with findings for approval and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3848, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance titled Commercial Districts;" and, b) Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-003 with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-72, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-003 and Requesting its Certification by the California Coastal Commission." Approved 7-0 Council/Agency Action Agenda—Monday, November 16, 2009 'ter } r� AMAOLII- a+� Council/Agency Meeting Held: // -16 -do0y Deferred/Continued to: /.A,ZZLo f Ap ov d C,B i ionall Approved ❑ Denied ��city Jerk ignatur Council Meeting Date: November 16, 2009 Department ID Number: PL09-25 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COJJNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIS OR PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, DIRECTOR OF PLA NIN 4,,*Jk SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003, ANNEXATION NO. 06-002 AND AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE (GOODELL PROPERTY PRE-ZONING AND ANNEXATION) Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 and Annexation No. 06-002, a City-initiated request for the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 6.2 acres of land currently under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach. The site, generally referred to as the "Goodell' property, is proposed to be pre-zoned with the following designations: 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay. The proposed tax exchange agreement is required for annexation of the property into the City and is consistent with the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and the County. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. 3847 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Pre-zone the 6.2-acre "Goodell' property located in the County of Orange to 3.2 acres of Residential — Low density, 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation with 6.2 acres of Coastal Zone Overlay (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 2. "Approve Resolution No. 2009-69 , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving a property tax exchange agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange regarding the annexation of the 6.2 acre Goodell property to the City of Huntington Beach (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." 3. "Recommend Approval of Annexation No. 06-002 to the Local Agency Formation Commission." Planning Commission Action on October 13, 2009: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO APPROVE RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-017, WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA, SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA, SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: FARLEY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE ANNEXATION NO. 06-002 AS A MINUTE ACTION AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD, MANTINI, SCANDURA, SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTIONS PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 and Annexation No. 06-002 with findings for denial." 2. "Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 and Annexation No. 06-002 and direct staff accordingly." G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-25 (Goodell Pre-zoning Annexation).doc-2- 10/27/2009 9:33 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November '16, 2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-26 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: 6.2 acre site located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, in an unincorporated area of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 is a request to amend the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map to pre-zone the site with the following zoning designations: 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay. Annexation No. 06-002 is a City-initiated proposal to annex the approximately 6.2-acre Goodell property, into the City of Huntington Beach. The property is currently located within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The City agreed to process this annexation at the request of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in conjunction with the annexation of the Brightwater Residential Project into the City of Huntington Beach. The annexation of Brightwater resulted in the subject site becoming an unincorporated "island," which is contrary to LAFCO policies. Pre-zoning is required for the annexation to be approved. The proposed property tax exchange agreement between the City and the County would split the County's current share of the basic property tax levy in accordance with the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and the County, dated October 28, 1980. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On October 13, 2009jthe Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project including the associated environmental assessment. One speaker, representing the property owner, spoke in favor of the annexation and noted that the property owner was in agreement with the pre-zoning designations proposed by staff. Eight speakers spoke in opposition to the project, particularly the environmental assessment and the proposed pre-zoning designations. The speakers raised concerns with respect to the level of environmental review that was prepared for the pre-zoning and annexation project as well as potential impacts to cultural resources on the property. Several speakers felt that an environmental impact report should have been required rather than a mitigated negative declaration. During discussion, several Commissioners asked questions relating to the appropriateness of the environmental assessment for the project and whether future development would require environmental review. Staff explained that the project does not consider development of the G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-25 (Goodell Pre-zoning Annexation).doc-3- 10/27/2009 9:08 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 site and that the pre-zoning designations would allow the same uses that are currently permitted on the property. Given that no development is proposed or reasonably foreseeable, staff indicated that the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project was the appropriate level of environmental review. Staff stated that the mitigated negative declaration adequately analyzed the project's environmental impacts and provided disclosure of 11 future mitigation measures that would be required for a development project on the site. Staff also informed the Commission that a previously certified County EIR analyzed residential development of the entire site as part of a larger land use plan for the Bolsa Chica area. Staff also stated that any future development proposal would require a project-specific environmental analysis. The Planning Commission voted to approve the recirculated mitigated negative declaration (environmental assessment) and recommended approval of the zoning map amendment and annexation to the City Council with the addition of language to clearly state in the findings that future development of the site will require environmental analysis. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Currently the entire site is zoned as Planned Community in the County of Orange and the County of Orange General Plan land use designation for the site is suburban residential. Allowable uses for the site include low and medium density residential development.' The proposed pre-zoning designations are depicted in Attachment No. 5 and include the following breakdown of land uses: TABLE 1 - PROPOSED PRE-ZONING DESIGNATIONS ZoninDesi9.. 9' nation ``Acreag (� pp e' a rox irate) RL 3.2 CC 1.0 OS-PR 2.0 Total 6.2 The proposed pre-zoning designations would result in the conversion of three acres of existing residentially-zoned property to open space/conservation area. However, staff believes that the proposed pre-zoning designations provide a balance of residentially zoned areas that would still afford the property owner rights to use the property with open space areas that would protect existing resources within and adjacent to the site. Land Use Compatibility With the proposed RL zoning designation, the site would allow development of up to 22 dwelling units based on the RL zoning provisions of seven dwelling units per net acre. Other uses that could potentially be developed on the subject site in the future, provided all applicable codes and regulations can be complied with are: limited day care and residential care homes, nurseries and horticulture facilitiesjand wireless communications facilities. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-25(Goodell Pre-zoning Annexation).doc-4- 10/27/2009 9:08 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 The CC zoning designation is intended to preserve chenopod scrub habitat on the site and protect environmentally sensitive species within and adjacent to the project site. This area consists of steep bluffs and would not be allowed to be developed. In addition, the CC designated area contains a small fraction of the required 100-foot buffer from the Agricultural Pond area that was designated as wetlands on the adjacent Shea property located at the toe of the slope. The majority of the OS-PR designated area is in a slope; however, a small 0.5-acre area in the southwest portion of the site is relatively flat and overlooks the wetlands, lowlands and ESHA below. Because this area overlooks the wetlands, lowlands and ESHA below, it would be conducive to future use as a public viewpoint. This area may also be a start/finish area for users of the existing decomposed granite trail along the boundary of the Brightwater development adjacent to the project site. The remaining portion of the OS-PR designation consists of the sloped area between the RL zoned portion of the site and the Shea property to the east, which begins at the toe of the slope. The OS-PR zoning would allow for revegetation and recreational use of this area. The proposed pre-zoning designations of residential — low density, open space and conservation are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and existing land uses in the area surrounding the Goodell property. Existing, under-construction and approved single-family development is adjacent to the subject property on the northwest, west and east, respectively. Open space/conservation areas are immediately adjacent to the site on the east, south and southwest. The zoning would also be consistent with the RA (Residential Agricultural) zoning to the north that allows agricultural uses and single-family development. In addition, the residential zoning designation on the subject site would not conflict with the OS-P (Open Space — Parks) General Plan land use designation on the site to the north as it is common throughout the City to find uses allowed by the residential zoning designation, single-family homes in particular, adjacent to parks and land designated as OS-P. Annexation The City's General Plan requires the preparation of an Annexation Feasibility Study to determine whether the proposed annexation is compatible with City land uses, has the ability to provide economic benefit to the City and whether the proposed annexation would place an undue or excessive burden on the City and/or School Districts' ability to provide public services for the site. An Annexation Study was prepared by RSG, Inc. for the City (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). The study evaluated three scenarios to determine the fiscal impact on the City if the property is annexed with the proposed pre-zoning designations. Two of the scenarios examined the fiscal impacts if the property were to be developed in the future based on the allowable uses under the proposed pre-zoning designations. The third scenario analyzed the fiscal impacts of the annexation of the property in its current undeveloped state with no development. Under all three scenarios, the study concludes that the City would realize a fiscal benefit from annexation of the property. The Goodell property is adjacent to City boundaries on all sides and, as such, will eliminate an existing "island" of unincorporated County area in the Bolsa Chica area. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-25(Goodell Pre-zoning Annexation).doc-5- 10/27/2009 9:08 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 The subject property is presently served by the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Ocean View School District, both of which will continue to serve the site after annexation. The potential impacts on the City's Fire and Police Departments services were analyzed within the recirculated draft MND. The environmental document concluded that the site could be adequately served by existing resources within both departments. The resolution agreeing to a property tax exchange between the City and the County has been reviewed by staff and the City Attorney. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the tax exchange agreement because it equitably redistributes property taxes to the City and is consistent with the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and the County. Upon approval of the pre-zoning designations and annexation, the City will submit an annexation application to LAFCO. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors must approve a resolution approving a tax exchange agreement between the City and the County. Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 08-017 was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project. Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed on the site. These mitigation measures were included in the environmental assessment and represent the minimum mitigation measures that would be required for a development project on the site. MND No. 08-017 was made available for public review from March 26, 2009 to April 24, 2009. Comments received during the comment period identified presence of biological resources on the property, specifically southern Tarplant, that were not identified in the draft MND and supporting technical reports. Subsequent to the comment period, an updated biological survey was prepared as well as an updated cultural resources report. Based on the information contained in the comment letters as well as the updated technical reports, revisions to the draft MND were made including the addition of two new mitigation measures. These changes resulted in a requirement to recirculate the draft MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Recirculated MND No. 08-017 was made available for a 30-day public review period from July 27, 2009 to August 25, 2009. A Response to Comments and Errata were prepared by staff addressing the issues identified in the comment letters received on Recirculated MND No. 08-017. On October 13, 2009 the Planning Commission approved Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017, including the Response to Comments and Errata, for the project. G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-25(Goodell Pre-zoning Annexation).doc-6- 10/27/2009 9:08 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 Attachment(s): • - qr. ® - p giqn 1. Suggested Findings for Approval — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06- 003 2. Draft Ordinance No. 3847 , "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Pre-zone the 6.2-acre "Goodell' property located in the County of Orange to 3.2 acres of Residential — Low density, 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation with 6.2 acres of Coastal Zone Overlay." 3. Draft Resolution No. 2009-69 , "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving a property tax exchange agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange regarding the annexation of the 6.2 acre Goodell property to the City of Huntington Beach." 4. Project Location Map 5. Map of Proposed Pre-zoning Designations 6. Annexation Study for the Goodell Property, dated August 17, 2009 7. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 13, 2009 8. 1 Powerpoint Presentation G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-25(Goodell Pre-zoning Annexation).doc-7- 10/27/2009 9:08 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003: 1. Zoning Map Amendment consists of amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) to pre-zone an approximately 6.2 acre site with 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2- acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay. Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan because the pre-zoning designations provide for land uses that are compatible with adjacent existing or approved single-family residential uses to the northwest, west and east as well as open space/conservation areas that are adjacent to the south, southwest and east. The proposed pre- zoning designations would protect existing biological resources within and surrounding the site. The proposed open space/conservation designations would provide a buffer for the environmentally sensitive habitat area south of the site. Finally, the pre-zoning designations would provide for future coastal access opportunities as well as maintenance of existing views to the site. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map amendment is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The pre- zoning designations are compatible with existing zoning designations for the surrounding area and would be consistent with the current existing residential zoning and land use designations of the County of Orange. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The pre-zoning of the site will allow the City to move forward with the annexation of the site, which would result in a fiscal benefit for the City. The pre-zoning designations will ensure that future uses would be compatible with surrounding existing and approved uses and include open space/conservation areas that would allow for enhanced coastal access and recreation opportunities in the future. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The pre-zoning of the site would allow the City to move forward with annexation of the subject site so that an "island" of unincorporated County land will be eliminated and the City may realize the fiscal benefit of annexation of the site. The pre-zoning designations will be consistent with existing zoning and land use designations surrounding the property and provide for the protection of biological and coastal resources. ATTACHMENT #2 ORDINANCE NO. 3847 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 33 (SECTIONAL MAP 28-5-11) OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO PRE-ZONE THE 6.2- ACRE "GOODELL" PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO 3.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY,2.0 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE—PARKS AND RECREATION AND 1.0 ACRE OF COASTAL CONSERVATION WITH 6.2 ACRES OF COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-03) WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planning and Zoning Law,the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03, which pre-zones the 6.2-acre `Goodell"Property designating 3.2 acres RL(Residential Low Density), 2.0 acres OS- PR(Open Space—Parks and Recreation) and 1.0 acre CC (Coastal Conservation)with a CZ (Coastal Zone) overlay on the entire 6.2 acres; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows_ SECTION 1. That the real property that is the subject of this ordinance is generally bounded by Los Patos Avenue to the north and the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street to the west, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit A and, incorporated herin by this reference. SECTION 2. District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5-11) of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended pursuant to Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03, to pre-zone 3.2 acres located within the County of Orange to Residential Low Density with Coastal Zone overlay(RL—CZ), 2.0 acres within the County of Orange to Open Space—Parks and Recreation with Coastal Zone overlay(OS-PR—CZ) and 1.0 acre to Coastal Conservation with Coastal Zone overlay(CC—CZ) as shown in Exhibit B, amended Zoning Map, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission but not less than 30 days after its adoption. 09-2060/33026 Ordinance No.3847 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December , 2009. Mayor ATTEST: AP ROVED AS TO FORM: Or C erk 0 7 'ty�IA�torney 4 ,°,� VREVIEKistrator APPROVED: INITI ED A TD PPROVED: Planning irector ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Legal Description&Map Exhibit B: Amended Zoning Map 09-2060/33026 Ordinance No. 3847 Ordinance No. 3847 Legal Description for Goodell Property Commencing at the point of intersection of the center lines of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue, both 60 feet wide, as said streets are shown on the map of Tract 86, Block 20, Coast Boulevard Farms, recorded in Book 10, pages 35 and 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of said County; thence South 0° 42' 01"East 523.80 feet; thence North 89' 06' 00" East 23.00 feet to the true point of beginning. Thence continuing North 89' 06' 00" East 450.00 feet; thence South 0° 42' 01" East 600 feet; thence South 89' 06' 00" West 450 feet; thence North 0° 42' 01"west 600 feet to the true point of beginning. Containing 6.20 acres. 20 .S 3,7 i() At 89"1 6t 2640 12' V 89'26 1�11"F. WIN 7ERSW96 commos Iwo A:3wwpm®mw=9ovlm mut aim .. ...... mew r 5 7' PAD PODS 29 28 V A R D-r ��' C. J, 10. M. 10 3 5 36 CIA (4) PT Of'00A,PARCEI-i-f IIJORT14ERLY LINE OF TRACT GPT, Of C,01A PARCEL'-C X11`5 1*03"F-110.JO 5' a S,6 9"31'44'*1609.1 AVENUE' I ACCESS ROAO I All 7WIPAOLA 7 (E " H I HV N 10 6'02"E,:5 6 111 87' �5 cj WELL R c+ uj PUMP H SIZE Fe) POWER POLES PT oj N'52-'A 3'?"'Al 2(18.97' N uj 0 -C.4 a o Ip. 0' TANK oo 0 A/i C) 0 0 0 620AC' OA 9 t3,zE_ 00 ATER - )"qe 0ox �VIL ENCE oi) F NCE Y)E� L& FAT. S6 1006 co o F)U►AP HOM 4-7- If FUR LT VAU P I %Dl;FIM3. 2410,17`IDVpi 10.06 Ordinance No. 3847 Ordinance No. 3847 PROPOSED PRE-ZONING DESIGNATIONS _saodover Dr._ R L- CZ i RA - CZ i 4 { SP15 CZ residential W RL CZ \\ 3.2 acres RR RC- CZ m' \ \ (*Note: The City recently approved a re-zoning to CC - Coastal onservation to match Land Use Plan) SP15- CZ residential and \\ open space \ \\\ N SP15- CZ RC- CZ open space Legend RL— Residential Low Density OS-PR— Open Space-Parks and Recreation CC — Coastal Conservation RA— Residential Agricultural SP15—Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) CZ— Coastal Zone Overlav Ord. No. 3847 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 16,2009, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 7, 2009, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Carchio, Coerper, Green, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on December 17,2009. In accordance with the City Charter of said City 1- dloswo Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk Ca Clerk and ex-officio Jerk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #3 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF THE 6.2 ACRE GOODELL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach intends to file an application with the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the unincorporated territory commonly referred to as the "Goodell Property" which property consists of approximately 6.2 undeveloped acres generally located south of Los Patos Avenue, north of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, east of Bolsa Chica Street and west of Graham Street, as more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Attachment l; and California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 allows cities and counties to adopt and approve property tax exchange agreements to set forth the exchange of such revenues following the addition to a city of previously unincorporated territory; and The County and City staffs have reached agreement, subject to Board and City Council approval, regarding the exchange of property tax as a result of the annexation of the unincorporated territory by the City, whereby upon annexation by the City, the City shall receive 55.9617% of the County's share of the 1% basic levy of property tax and the County shall receive44:0383% of the County's share of the 1% basic levy property tax generated within the area tote annexed, pursuant to Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement 80-2093; and The City shall receive 100% of the Structural Fire Fund and 100% of the Library fund generated in the annexed areas upon annexation; and The County staff and the City of Huntington Beach staff desire to have the same adopted and approved by their respective governing bodies, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the City Council does hereby approve the property tax exchange agreement reached between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange, whereby, upon completion of the annexation of the unincorporated area referred to as the Goodell Property to the City of Huntington Beach, the City shall receive 55.9617% and the County of Orange shall receive 44.0383% of the County's share of the 1% basic levy of property tax from the annexed area pursuant to Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement 80-2093. 09-2060.001/34565 Resolution No. 2009-69 2. That the City of Huntington Beach will receive 100% of the Structural Fire Fund and 100% of the Public Library fund generated in the annexed areas upon annexation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on November 16 , 2009. May REVIE APPROVED: IMT14LTED AND APPROVED: City mi istrator Dire or o Planning APPROVED AS TO FORM: n City Attorney 09-2060.001/34565 Res. No. 2009-69 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 16, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hansen NOES: Hardy ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ty Clerk and ex-officV Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #4 LOCATION MAP } f f earthside Homes Property §( ity of Huntington Beach f co Q o Bri htwaterCD Development 0° _ o (City of Huntington Beach) • (� a Annexed 2008 � 2 �? i i N ATTACHMENT #5 PROPOSED PRE-ZONING DESIGNATIONS __.Sandover__Dr, RL- CZ RA - CZ t a SP15 CZ residential RL CZ � :3,2 acres R RL*- CZ o; \ (*Note: The City recently approved roved a re-zoning to CC - Coastal Conservation to match i Land Use Plan) SP15- CZ residential and open space MEME01 N SP15- CZ / RC- CZ open space Legend RL — Residential Low Density OS-PR— Open Space-Parks and Recreation CC — Coastal Conservation RA— Residential Agricultural SP15 — Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) CZ— Coastal Zone Overlay ATTACHMENT #6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 VF: XATION STUDY OR Tl-t GOODELL PROPERTY ® � ? City:of Hur'tingtdn.:Beach August,.1,7, 2009 \& i� a \ ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. www.webrsg.com CITY QFHUNONGTON BEACH GOOQELLPROPERTY ANNEXATION STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................1 ASSUMPTIONS - -----'''2 ANALYSIS OF RECURRING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES................ ...............'''5 R2VENUBS-----------------------------........E -.. -----...5 .......................................... ................................ SUMMARY ------_� .. rMEN �� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BACKGROUND The City of Huntington Beach ("City") has requested that Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") prepare a fiscal analysis ("Study") pertaining to the annexation of a small unincorporated area located within the City's Sphere of Influence ("Study Area") and adjacent to incorporated portions of the City. This Study can be used to meet certain applicable requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of 2000, if and when the City desires to pursue annexation of this area. This Study focuses on the ongoing City services that will be provided within the Study Area if annexed, the forecasted cost of those services, and any revenues that may be available to fund those services. The Study Area is currently located in unincorporated Orange County. As a result of incorporation, the City would replace the Countyof Orange ("County") as the primary provider of local municipal services. Though this Study makes every effort to provide a sound and conservative`forecast, there may be differences between the estimated and actual results because events and circumstances,-may not occur as expected. While RSG.has taken precautions to assure the accuracy of the data used m the formulation of this analysis, we cannot ensure that these current and historic fiscal year rev hue and expenditure estimates will continue the same trends in the future. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The Study Area is located on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa along the eastern side`,-bf Bolsa Chica Street where it terminates, immediately south of an undeveloped Heaithside Homes property and to the east of the Brightwater development. It is currently an undeveloped vegetated area approximately 6.2 acres in size and immediately adjacent to the City's incorporated boundary:;Figure 1 below illustrates the Study Area location. Figure 1: Study Area Location , l -- Hearthside Homes Property _ (City of Huntington Beach) Am A `ci v W ,C Brightwater coDevelopment °D o 501,bioct Re (City of Huntington Beach) Annexed 2008 • a �J Source: City of Huntington Beach i P G 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions used to determine the financial impacts of annexation were based on information from City staff, the City budget, the County, the State of California, and case study methodology commonly utilized in fiscal impact analysis. This Study analyzes and projects recurring revenues and expenditures that will be assumed by the City as a direct result of annexation. One time costs such as infrastructure improvements, and one time revenues, such as impact fees, are not included in the fiscal projection. This Study analyzes the recurring fiscal impacts the City may expect after assuming the following services currently provided by the County: law enforcement, fire protection, planning, code enforcement, building and safety, community services, public works, parks and recreation, library services,, and animal control. Other services, such as the school districts, will continue to be funded through their respective property tax shares and will not be impacted by the proposed annexation. Most utility services,`such as electricity, gas, and cable, will be supplied to the Study Area as needed by private utility companies`wtio.receive payment from the user for their services. Any additional infrastructure needed to accommodate utility`service to the Study Area is assumed to be provided by the developer. Zoning In preparation of the annexation, the City has proposed�'to pre-zone the property ,to :'establish zoning designations. The designations are composed of 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density 2.0 acres of Open Space— Parks & Recreation (OS-PR) and 1.0 acre-,of;' Co;Coastal nservation (CC) for the 6.2 acre site. The entire site will also have a CZ (Coastal Zone) Overlay'designation'which requires future development to receive a Coastal Development Permit (unless the development` is exempt) and comply with certain development standards outlined in Chapter,',k! of;the Huntingtomr Beach Zoning Code. It should be noted that coastal bluffs are located in the southeastern portion�tf the Study Area Development Scenarios Nk z �M No development plans currently`exist:for the Study Area As thisWIy,will show, the annexation alone will have no appreciable recurnn§=fiscal impact on City,services. In fact, annexation alone is expected to have a net positive effect generated` by properi ,tax incorr e.,and no direct expenditures. However, the potential recurring fiscal impacts associated with development following annexation vary by development type and intensity. In order to illuse to a range. f otential fiscallimpacts that may be associated with the property, three potential development scenariosere:created by City staff and analyzed in this Study as described below. RSG did not conduct any stint`of market feasibility analysis to determine the viability of the product types the senirjos ar wmeant'toe illustrative in nature. Scertrtd 1: Development of 22 dingle family homes on the 3.2 acres of RL-zoned land (meeting the 7 units:per acre maximurii densit The housing units will be developed along a new public roadway Y)�� 9 p 9 P Y ext entlang from Bolsa Chica ,Street, which will include sidewalks and pedestrian lighting. The intersection create will not be signalized As a part of the development, a publicly maintained neighborhood park will be created;�.approximately 26,(t70 square feet in size in the OS-PR zoned area. The park will feature a tot lot, small t irf'play area, drou i-tolerant landscaping outside of the designated turf, and benches. A small adjacent parking lot will also be constructed. The rest of the land in the Study Area will remain undeveloped. Scenario 1 istt`e most intense development option analyzed for the site. ® Scenario 2: Devela of a children's day care/preschool facility and associated outdoor play area. Access to the preschool would be via a driveway entrance from Bolsa Chica Street, which would be privately maintained. The preschool building is envisioned to be approximately 30,000 square feet, with an equally large adjacent play area. A privately maintained parking lot is also anticipated. The remaining acreage will be undeveloped. • Scenario 3: No development. The property would remain in its current vegetated state with no municipal maintenance required. C~G 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Phasing Any and all development is expected in a single phase for the purposes of this analysis. This Study assumes that the 22 homes proposed in Scenario 1, or the preschool proposed in Scenario 2, will be built and occupied/operational by 2015-16. Property Ownership The Study Area currently has a single owner. In Scenarios 1 and 2, it is assumed the current owner would sell the developable portion of the property to a developer in 2011-12, with the revised assessed values to be shown on the County Assessor Roll in 2012-13. In Scenario 1, the developed homes would subsequently be sold, with new property values on the Assessor Roll in 2015-16 to reflect .the structure development and change in ownership. For the purposes of this study, exact time frames and thus potential revenues associated with supplemental property taxes are not included. In Scenario 3, no change in ownership is anticipated. Assessed Value The 2009-10 assessed value for the Study Area is based upon the 2008-09 assessed value as given by the County Assessor's Office. The County Assessor's Office has`indicated this property's assessed value was not scheduled for review, therefore the 2009-10 value is assumed to be"two,;percent higher than the 2008-09 value. In Scenario 1, an increase in assessed value is assumed in 2012,13 kiased on the sale of the property to a residential developer. The unpredictable nature of land values m the current economic climate make predicting the potential sale value of the u6-1 oped parcel in 2011-12 difficult, therefore a residual land value pro-forma was completed based upon generalrnarket assumptions', resulting in a per square foot land value of $107 for the developable land (3.2 acres), or a total,of approximately $15 million. The subsequent sale of the homes to the future homeowners is assumed to.averago$1,250;000 per unit in 2015-16 based on average sales prices in the adjacent'Srightwater c6rhmunity and adjust ad for inflation. In Scenario 2, the property is essumed to sell to a eveloper for approximately $9.5 million based on current comparable land values a�, nth the new value appearih�� n the 2012-13 assessed value roll. The subsequent structural value of the re�school is bas dupon a pro_' ro.feirma development cost analysis performed by RSG 1T,7and assumed to appear bn,,the 2015 16,assessed value „roll (an additional $5.6 million). This projection assumes the developer will orantmue on'as'the property owner, therefore no additional change of ownership is anticipated ,It should, oe noted,.tNdi'heither the current t arket demand for new homes nor a preschool have been cons�dered'by thts analysis W Current ownership is not expected to qt nge in Scenario 3. In all Scenarios, assessed values are subject to a 2 percerdJnflationary increase sech yeah Persons Per'Household Where appropriate,.,per person costs and revenues were calculated assuming 2.6 persons per household, based on data provided by 1=S21, which forecasts such statistics based upon US Census information. Approximately 58 people are expected to reside in the Study Area upon development of Scenario 1. Consumer Price Index \ Where applicable, this Study uses a 3.4 percent inflationary factor, which is the ten year historical average (1999 to 2008) Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Orange County-Riverside metropolitan area Actual market viability of project not considered. Residual land value analysis assumed development of 22 Class D,Very Good units per Marshall and Swift valuation service, home sales prices averaging$1.25 million, a 12 percent developer profit, and 3.5 percent financing cost. For-sale vacant office and general commercial land values considered based on data from Loopnet listing service. Again, market viability of a preschool at this location was not considered. ( ® RAC 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless otherwise noted, all fiscal projections are based upon current 2009 dollars and inflated annually at 3.4 percent. E3 Am � g i g gg x� , i3 1 'i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ANALYSIS OF RECURRING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES The following discussion outlines the anticipated recurring revenues and expenditures for each scenario. As the most intensive development, Scenario 1 has the greatest fiscal impact on the City, followed by Scenario 2 with minimal impact, and Scenario 3 with virtually no impact. Associated projection tables are included at the end of this Study, Figures 5 through 7, for reference. REVENUES Revenues from the following sources were considered in this Study, shown in;Figure 2. Figure 2: Revenues Anticipated in Each Scenario =2x; Scenario 1 Scenano� , Scenario 3 Property Tax Yes Yes` Yes Property Transfer Tax . Yes k Yes No Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) Yes "' No No Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF Yes" Yes Yes Sales Tax No No No Franchise Fees Yes ,. ;Yes No Utility Users Tax Yes Yes No Fines and Forfeitures 04 Yes = ` No No FireMed � Yes No No Road Fund Subvention Yes, No No Measure M Ni h No" No Property Taxes 9 Based on an analysi 6ff,.the tax rate rea corresp ndmg to the Study Area, the County General Fund currently collects a 6.3k"percent share, the�Orange CountyPublic Library collects a 1.7 percent share, and the Orange Count Fire Autf'6t y ( OCFA") collects an 11 4 percent share of the one percent general tax levy . Ff Upon annexation, a property ,tax�eexxo'hange agre ent Wwould divide the County's share of property tax revenue between the City and the County. The 1980,Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the City and the untyy di lines thatiiapproximately 56 percent of the County's share would be allocated to the City up o exation, thougk taz shafg agreement will need to be created specifically for this annexation prior,to a, vexation through the LAFCo procedures. This Study assumes the property tax agreement will be consistentith the Master Property Tax ETransfer Agreement and authorize the County Controller to transfer approxim6tely,3.5 percent of the one percent tax levy, as well as 100 percent of the OCFA share and County Library share .t the City's General Fund upon annexation, resulting in a total City share of 16.6 percent. These taxes will,;be retained 41,1ipW the City in order to provide local municipal services, including fire protection and library service to the Study Area. Property Transfer Taxes The sale of the property to a developer in Scenarios 1 and 2, as well as the resale of the developed homes in Scenario 1 will generate property transfer tax revenue for the City. Revenue from property transfer tax accumulates at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 of assessed value sold. Based on County Assessor data for the last five years, only about 2 percent of all single family homes in Huntington Beach sell on an annual basis. In Scenario 1, this generally translates into the sale of 1 home every two years within the 22-home development following the initial sale of the homes. This value has been annualized in the financial projection, though in 3 All values shown are net of the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)shift. 4 The County would retain a 2.8 percent share of the tax levy following annexation. 9 PSG 5 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH reality is it likely the City would see some property transfer tax revenue about every other year on average. In Scenario 2, no property sale is anticipated after the developer purchases the property. No property transfer taxes are associated with Scenario 3. Motor Vehicle License Fees and Property Tax In-Lieu The Motor Vehicle License Fee ("MVLF") is essentially a tax on the ownership of a vehicle, and is collected by the State annually. MVLF revenue is then allocated to cities and counties based upon a statutory formula. In 2004, about 90 percent of a city's MVLF revenue was replaced with property tax revenue. Under current law, most of the MVLF revenue allocated to cities and all of the revenue allocated to�counties increases based on assessed value growth instead of population growth in a jurisdiction. Revenue'is;'distributed as property tax in- lieu of MVLF. Based on the Annual State Controller Report, for each $1,.million in assessed value, the City receives $521 in property tax in-lieu revenue. This projection essentiallycredits new development with that value, though other city-wide factors play a role in determining the 4amount; of in-lieu revenue the City receives. For example, if the assessed value of the city as a whol' 'were toy.=decrease due to significant reassessments resulting in a net decrease of property values the:City would not see;a,n increase in the in-lieu subvention, but would realize less of a loss than if the homes or preschool were not built-in the city. Franchise Fees The City currently has franchise agreements with Southern,Cal iforniat Edison (electricity service), The Gas Company (gas service), and Rainbow Disposal (waste hauling). Current agreements provide that Southern California Edison and The Gas Company will pay the City two percent'of their gross receipts to operate within Huntington Beach. Rainbow Disposal will,p y five percent of commercial gross receipts only. Anticipated revenues were based upon average or comkra?a consumption rates for these services and data from the service providers. % � Utility User Tax The City's municipal code permits tI4%R to charfge�a utility user tax at a rate of five percent upon gross receipts for water (provided N the City},:°gas (The Gas,'Company), telephone (Verizon), electricity (Southern California Edison) and:cable (various providers). Anticipated utility user tax revenues were based upon average or comparable onsumption ;tes for these' se�vices and data from the service providers. RSG estimates that the average household w,ill�expend approximately $3,800 per year in utilities, while the preschool is estimated to ex ,rid ab"ou*$4:&0Q 1, er ar Res Fines and, Fq,di`tUeds, The General Fund receives�revenuefrom the fines and forfeitures within the city. These revenues were estimated; on a per capita basis,for Scenario 1, using the budgeted amounts for 2008-09. Revenues were inflated'a#2 3 percent annually;;based on the'five year historical average as reported by the 2008-09 Adopted Budget. Irnmaterial revenues arseXpected in Scenario 2. SAO FireMed - y The City's Fire Department,ch*ges for paramedic and emergency ambulance services. In 1990, the Fire Department began the=FireMed program to help offset the cost of these services. Households in Huntington Beach can elect to partic p to in the FireMed program for $60 per year, entitling them to paramedic and emergency ambulance service at no out-of-pocket costs, as well as certain other benefits like free cardiopulmonary resuscitation classes. Those households that do not participate in the FireMed program must pay for these services. This Study utilizes the 2008-09 General Fund budgeted revenues, including charges for service and FireMed membership fees, to project future revenues from Scenario 1 on a per household basis. An annual growth rate of 3.1 percent is applied, based upon the five year historic average. 5 About 90 percent of these costs are expected to be for electricity. SRSG 6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Road Fund Subventions Gas tax revenue is a subvention collected by the State and allocated to cities and counties based on statutory formulas. Pursuant to Sections 2105, 2106, 2107, and 2017.5 of the Streets and Highway Code, these revenues are apportioned to the City on a per capita basis, except for Section 2107.5 which is determined by population thresholds. These funds can be employed by the City to underwrite road maintenance anywhere in Huntington Beach. Gas tax estimates for the Study Area were generated for Scenario 1 only on a per capita basis based on the State Controller's Annual Report. RSG estimates that upon buildout, about $1,000 in gas tax revenues would be generated annually by the 22-home development. These revenues are held constant over time as State staff has indicated subvention amounts are not expected to increase. Other Revenues Sources Measure M, a half cent sales tax measure, was adopted by Orange County voters in 1990 and renewed in 2006 for the purpose of transportation improvements. Of the funds;collected a portion is distributed to local governments based on a formula accounting for population, road"'miles, and'taxable sales. The proposed annexation is not expected to impact the revenue the City receives from Measure`M funds, as changes in population, road miles, and taxable sales in all cities are considered when the funds are`;disbursed, and even the small amount of development proposed in Scenario 1 is;unlikely to have an impact on:Huntington Beach's allocation. Therefore, Measure M revenues are not considered in any of the Scenarios. Sales tax revenues are not included in this analysis as no saes tax producing uses are anticipated at the site. In Scenario 1, the City may see a minimal amount of sales tax revenue increase due to additional people living and therefore spending money in the vicinity. However, it is difficult to establish a direct nexus between 22 new homes and an appreciable amoun4t,nern!,sales tax revenues-was shopping patterns have a variety of influences. Indirect sales tax disbursements are also made by the State<Board of Equalization for businesses that report receipts on a countywide or statewide basis Officials at the,;State Board of Equalization make adjustments to the locally-generated sales tax 0 enues b zs d on the p.ro",rats share of locally-generated taxes within the County (for countywide indirectpportionfttents) d,within the State (for other statewide indirect apportionments) Ast 01 disbursements consider°changes tcs khe population in all cites, it is unlikely the City will see any increase in this disbursement due to the development of 22 homes. Y � EXPENDITURES Expenditures have been categorized', by departhients within the City's organizational structure and are estimated as follews, 0 Law Er><fdW 6ment The Cortty is currently res ,©risible fob ,providing law enforcement services to the Study Area, though a mutual aidl,agreement between,the County Sheriff and City Police Department can result in the City being the first respondent to the Study Area,sn an emergency6. Upon annexation, the Sheriff's law enforcement duties would cease anti the City Police partment will become responsible for providing police protection services to the Study Area Based on the location of the Study Area and the Police Department's familiarity with the surrounding areas, police staff feels capablelaf serving the site without increased staff or equipment for any Scenario. The site would become part of B&& 10, which generally experiences a lower volume of calls for service (about 940 annually) than other Beats in the city. Existing city-wide police staffing levels generally equate to 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents. At this ratio, the buildout of Scenario 1 would only result in the need for an additional 0.064 officers. However, while there is no direct nexus between development at the site and the need to hire an additional police officer, expenditures may be expected to increase marginally due to the increase in population and personal property in Scenario 1. 6 The Police Department is likely to be the first respondent in Part 1 (major)Crimes. 9 RSG 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH In an effort to assign a fair share to the Study Area for a potential development that is not anticipated until 2015-16, different approaches were considered, but given the small scale of the project and the time lapse between current costs and the development time horizon, a per capita share was determined to be the most straightforward method for projecting potential impacts on service costs for Scenario 1. The fiscal projection considered costs from the City's 2008-09 Adopted Budget for the following divisions: investigations, uniform, and "other',7 funds. Costs associated with the executive and administrative divisions were not incorporated, it is assumed these divisions would be able to absorb any increase associated with the Study Area. Based on these parameters, the current per capita cost for these specific police services is $260 in 2008-09. Since 2005, these costs have increased at an average annual rate of 7.7 percent, a rate which was then applied to future cost increases. Police staff also researched historical calls for service from two local preschools but found no recent activity. Thus, no impacts are anticipated for development of Scenarios 2 or 3 Fire Protection The OCFA currently provides fire protection and paramedic sernces to the Study�Area,_Upon annexation, the City Fire Department will provide these services to the Study Area. Fire Station 7 will be.the primary service provider and Fire Station 8 would be the secondary provider following annexation. According to the Fire Department staff, development of Scenario 1 will result rn_a' proportional increase in service costs. In order to account for increased costs due to development.of 22 homes, a per capita cost projection was utilized. Expenditures included those associated with ernergendyresponse, the FireMed program, fire prevention, and those costs in the "other,8 category; the administrative division was not included, as it is assumed that any additional administrative wore related to the Scenario 1 development would be absorbed without increased costs. Per capita costs fprthese services are currently $156. Costs were increased annually by 2.7 percent, the five year historicat,a ferade Like the Police Department, no relevant examples of calls,'For servtce to a similar preschool were on recent record, therefore no direct nexus can,be found between,,',,"an" increase-in expenditures and development of Scenarios 2 or 3. Nevertheless; based on.information from Fire Department staff, it should be noted that the Study Area could provide�certain challenges due to location Like neighboring properties, the Study Area is an "urban interface" areauutiere undeveloped,unmaintained-,land is directly adjacent to urban development; and in this case much of tH undeveloped,1ertd is a bluff with:steep topography. Containment of a fire in these conditions can be much mdre diffrcult;t ar► a;typaca urban ire on relatively flat topography, and requires that emergency response staff have`specialized trainrn� puto the unpredictable nature of fires and the fact that neighboring propery s rthm tfe<Crty also require specialized training, no direct nexus can be assumed for cost associated with thelre2hazard presented by the urban interface geography. Planning„&Code Enforcement and Building &Safety Upon anne tion of the Study'Area, the Planning Department and the Building and Safety Department will assume the processing, approval;,and inspection of all land use and development-related services. Code Enforcement part'of the Planning Department, will assume responsibility for enforcing the municipal code and issuing warnings and/,or citations for violations. These services will, in most cases, be offset by fees according to City staff. Though staff rn;embers may realize an increase in workloads during the annexation and development periods rt is of expected that new employees would be hired. Once the property is developed, RSG expects that the planning, and building and safety activities in the Study Area would be limited almost exclusively to a limited amount of plan check work for residential remodels, pools, reroofs, and similar renovation and improvements typical of single family homes. The Building and Safety Department experiences a 100 percent cost recovery rate for these services, resulting in a zero net impact for services. The Planning Department has an 86 percent cost recovery rate. Unrecovered costs are Includes narcotic forfeiture,traffic enforcement, domestic violence, homeland security, and grants.According to the 2008-09 Adopted Budget, most 2008-09 costs are associated with helicopter fleet maintenance. 8 Includes Hazmat, the training center, and grants. ® P l 8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH typically generated by telephone and planning counter inquiries, proactive code enforcement, and other miscellaneous tasks performed by staff that are not associated with a project or citation that produces revenue. To estimate the impact of Scenario 1, which could have recurring impacts due to the 22 new homes that are likely to generate some demand for services through ongoing upkeep and renovations, a per capita cost figure was used, based upon budgeted 2008-09 costs, with an 86 percent cost recovery rate, resulting in a net annual cost of $200 in 2015-16. As the development of Scenarios 2 and 3 are not likely to generate ongoing development activities, no appreciable ongoing work for the Planning Department is expected. Public Works Following annexation, the City's Public Works Department will assume maintenance duties for any roads, streetlights, parks, or other public facilities that may be developed in the`-Study Area.s For Scenario 1, this means the Public Works Department would maintain the road and sidewalks that provide access to the 22 homes, the small park and associated parking lot, street and park lighting`and;some stormwater facilities. In Scenario 2, all facilities would be maintained by the property owner o�tenant as access to the preschool is anticipated to be via a private driveway and no other public facilities are intended resulting in no anticipated fiscal impacts. Likewise in Scenario 3, no impacts on the Public Works Department areexpected. The costs associated with Scenario 1 are summarized m Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Scenario 1 Public Works Expenditures F Road Slurry Seal $ 009 per square foot per application Road Overlays $ 1.6 per;square foot per application Road Si na a and Striping 1,000.00 g g p� g per year Street Sweeping $ 760.00 per curk ,mile per year Street Lights M per light per,year �.:.. Stormwater Catch Basins +, 10t};f}t p basin per year Stormwater Debn Unit •..:',:_. $ 1, 0f3.00 per urM•it per year Park Maintenance $ 0.12 per square foot per year a 2 Parking Lvtlamtenance $ -,, 0.08 per square foot per year For estimated''='roadway of 14,688 square feet z Estimated 10,000 square foot parking.lat Source City Public Works Department ' �. Costs are estimated uslrg 29 dol 00iars and an annual inflationary factor of 3.4 percent(the CPI). Community Services The Community Services Dep'artrnent oversees all programmatic recreational activities at parks and other City facilities as.,well as marines fety at City beaches. No programming or activities are anticipated at the nei hborhood'N*:,incor orated into Scenario 1, and neither a park nor recreational amenities are included in Scenarios 2 and'3' Therefore, na.fiscal impacts to the Community Services Department are expected. Animal Control r M11,111, Upon annexation, the City will provide animal control services for the Study Area. The City currently contracts for these services with the County. Due to the small size of the proposed annexation, the County Animal Services Department reports that there will be no change to the contract cost based on the annexation alone nor the development of Scenario 1, should it ever come to fruition. 9 Though this Study assumes most facilities will be publicly maintained,future development could result in a homeowners association which may bear some responsibilities. ® PSG 9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Library Services The Library Services Department operates the City's main Central Library as well as four smaller branches. Library Services staff has indicated that based on the size of parcel and associated potential developments, the annexation will not impact expenditures; therefore no annual expenditures have been projected. General Government General Fund operating expenditures related to General Government include the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance, and Risk Management, etc. The analysis assumes existing positions and equipment can absorb the demands of any potential development scenario and that no,major operating costs would be incurred as a result of the annexation. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Scenario 1 —Annexation and Development of 22 New Homes and=akNeighborhood Park: There will be a net benefit to the City for the annexation of the Study Area, due largely to'the assumed property tax revenues. As discussed in this Study, the market feasibility of this project has not been analyzed however, the assumed home values are based upon existing new homes in an,adjacent development. Additionally, the diminutive size of this annexation leads to a conclusion that onlywrrSnimal additional recurring service costs can be directly associated with the project. Figure 4 below summarizes the anticipated net fiscal impact on the City between 2009-10 and 2018-19. Scenario 2—Annexation and Development of a Preschool: This�scenano results in a net fiscal benefit to the City, as only minimal recurring costs can be directly associated with this type of development. This does not negate the fact that any increase in urbanization, no matter how=minor, can have a marginal impact upon service provision. RSG is of the opinion however, that property tax revenues will be sufficient to offset any marginal costs associated with annexation of the# Study Arep, op an ongoing basis. Scenario 3 —Annexation without 5velopment The City sho,uld 46ect to realize a minor net benefit due as no direct, recurring costs can be as a [ated with the;annexation alone;:;though the Study Area will generate a small amount of property tax revenues�n�n annual bars Figure 4: Net Impact by Scenario for Ten=Years Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Cumulative Total Revenues 34900 184,300 4,100 urr'tuletive Total Expenditures "°(218,500) (8,000) - Cumulative,.Net Ten Year Impact $ 125,400 $ 176,300 $ 4,100 "W" N op--e-V F), SG 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO RECURRING SERVICE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARY FIGURE 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 7/1/2009 7/1/2010 7/1/2011 7/1/2012 7/1/2013 "Ji,112014 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 Revenues by Source Property Taxes 400 400 400 24,800 25 300 25,800 45,700 46,700 47,600 48,500 Property Transfer Taxes - - - 8,200 15,100 300 300 300 MVLF 300 300 300 300 MVLF In Lieu 7,600 % fs 200 200 6,200 300 300 300 Utility User Fees 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 Franchise Fees 600 600 600 600 FireMed 7 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,500 Fines and Forfeitures 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,700 777777 Total 400 400 400 40,600 25,500 26,000 ,75600 66,000 57,000 58,000 Expenditures by Department Public Works(Park) 4,800 .. 4,900 5,200 5,300 Public Works(Stormwater) F^ 2,900 3,000 3,100 3,200 Building and Safety Planning and Code Compliance 200 300 300 300 Fire 10,800 11,100 11,400 11,700 Law Enforcement 25,300 27,200 29,400 31,600 Total 44,000 46,500 49,400 52,100 Annual Net Revenue/(Deficit) 400 400 400 401,6D0, 25 500-' 26,000 31,600 9,500 7,600 5,900 2009.10 To 2018-19 Cumulative General Fund Balance(Defi 800 1 300 d 80W .;$7,300 93,300 124,900 134,400 142,000 147,900 HUNTINGTON BEACH ROAD FUND SUMMARY 9 010 7/1/2 �7/1/2012 7/112013 7/112014 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 Revenues Gas Tax(2105,2106,2107) T 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Expenditures by Type Road Maintenance 3,100 3,200 3,400 3,400 Street Sweeping c 200 200 200 200 Street Lights �` 3,000 3,100 3,200 3,300 Total 6,300 6,500 6,800 6,900 Net Revenue/(Deficit) (5,300) (5,500) (5,800) (6,900) 2009-10 To 2018-19 Cumulative nd Balance(Deficit (5,300) (10,800) (16,600) (22,500) ,k `w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PRESCHOOL SCENARIO RECURRING SERVICE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES SUMMARY FIGURE 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 7/1/2009 7/1/2010 7/1/2011 7/1/2012 7/1/2013 ,7/1/2014 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 Revenues by Source Property Taxes 400 400 400 15,800 1610 p " 16,400 26,100 26,600 27,100 27,700 Property Transfer Taxes 5,200 MVLF In-Lieu 4,800 10tt 100 3,000 200 200 200 Utility User Fees - 2,300 2,400 2,400 2,400 Franchise Fees 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Business License Fees Total 400 400 400 25,$166 16,200 16;a11 '.,::,, 32,400 30,200 30,700 31,300 Expenditures by Department Public Works(Stormwater) H„,; 1,900 2,000 2,000 2,100 a Total �- �,`1900 2,000 2,000 2,100 tsh. Annual Net Revenue/(Deficit) 400 400 400 ', @ 800 1tT 2d0 16,500 30 560 28,200 28,700 29,200 2009-10 To 2018-19 Cumulative General Fund Balance(Def 400 800 1,200 27 boo - 43,200 59,700 90,200 118,400 147,100 176,300 HUNTINGTON BEACH ROAD FUND SUMMARY 7/l/2009 7/1/2010 7/112011 7/1/2012 '711/2013 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 33 No Revenues or Expenditures in NO DEVLOPMENT SCENARIO RECURRING SERVICE R S AND EXPEND S SUMMARY`F FIGURE 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL FUND 7/1/2009 7/1/2011 7/1/2012 7/1/2013 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 101 Revenues by Source Property Taxes 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 500 Total 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 500 No Expenditures Annual Net Revenue/(Deficit) 0 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 500 2009-10 To 2018-19 Cumulative Gene Balance(Defi( 8 0 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,100 HUNTINGTON BEACH ROAD FUND SUMMAR 7/1 7/1/2010 7/1/2011 7/1/2012 7/1/2013 7/1/2014 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 No Revenues or Expenditures F �: 12 ATTACHMENT #7 r k �� �fIuntint® beach �lann� g Dgpartane�t ti 'A I' P TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Plannin BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner t� DATE: October 13, 2009 SUBJECT: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003/ANNEXATION NO. 06- 002/RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-017 (Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 LOCATION: 6.2 acre site located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, in an unincorporated area of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the pre-zoning and annexation of the 6.2-acre site, generally referred to as the Goodell property. • Annexation No. 06-002: - Annexation of approximately 6.2 acres of land currently under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach. • Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003: - Prezoning of the approximately 6.2-acre site with the following zoning designations: 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay. • Staff s Recommendation: Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-016, Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 and Annexation No. 06-002 based on the following: - The proposed project will not result in significant impacts on the environment - The proposed pre-zoning designations will result in a zoning designations for the subject site that are consistent with the existing and approved land uses and zoning designations surrounding the site #B-2 - The pre-zoning designations will provide for conservation areas to protect and buffer existing coastal habitat and biological resources The pre-zoning designations will provide for open space — recreation areas that would allow opportunities to enhance coastal access and maintain coastal views Pre-zoning of the project site will allow the City to annex the property into the City, which would result in a fiscal benefit to the City and allow for more efficient provision of services RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 with findings (Attachment No. B. "Recommend approval of Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 with findings for approval (Attachment No. 2) and forward Draft Ordinance (Attachment No. 3) to the City Council for adoption." C. "Approve Annexation No. 06-002 as a minute action and forward recommendation to the City Council." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Continue Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017, Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 and Annexation No. 06-002 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Deny Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017, Zoning Map Amendment No. 06- 003 and Annexation No. 06-002 with findings for denial." PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 2 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) 8 go __l N 6 i MC! �ya CINt6@ Z BD@IIMII I ♦ ffiQ. wAmvca ♦ WaIR iAI�6�1' 1 y •♦ .Qu=x O / ADOU ? VGHMAPOW A ~ � f flap s Y. 11 7111 f . I R^E �,xx �_ .zr_• 8•a: rk en r � n VICINITY MAP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003/ANNEXATION NO. 06-002/ RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NGATIVE DECLAMATION NO. 08-017 (GOODELL PROPERTY PRE-ZONING AND ANNEXATION) PC Staff Report—10/13/09 3 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Annexation No. 06-002 is a City-initiated proposal to annex the approximately 6.2-acre Goodell property, into the City of Huntington Beach. The property is currently located within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 is a request to amend the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map to pre-zone the site with the following zoning designations: 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay (refer to Attachment No. 6). Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site (refer to Attachment No. 4). The City agreed to process this annexation at the request of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in conjunction with the annexation of the Brightwater Residential Project into the City of Huntington Beach. The annexation of Brightwater resulted in the subject site becoming an unincorporated "island," which is contrary to LAFCO policies. Pre-zoning is required for the annexation to be approved. ISSUES: Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Use, Existing Zoning, and Existing General Plan Designations: The site is currently undeveloped and consists of large cleared or graded areas, ruderal, non-native and ornamental vegetation, chenopod scrub, informal walking and bike trails and the foundation of a World War II-era bunker. The eastern portion of the site consists of a slope approximately 50 feet higher than the adjacent property to the east. Historically, the entire project site has been disturbed by previous uses, including agriculture, World War II activities and terracing for a pole yard. An underground structure containing a plotting and switchboard room was built by the U.S. Army to support Battery 128 on the site in 1943. The current County of Orange zoning designation is Planned Community (PC) with a General Plan land use designation of Suburban Residential (0.5 — 18 du/ac). The state-owned 118-acre Lower Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is located southwesterly of the subject property, and the Brightwater Development, a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 349 homes currently under construction and open space conservation areas, is located immediately west and southwest of the project site. An undeveloped 5-acre site, owned by Hearthside Homes and located within the City of Huntington Beach, is located north of the project site. An application has been submitted for the development of 22 single-family residences on the adjacent 5-acre site. Property owned by Shea Homes and approved by the City for single-family residential development (Parkside Estates) with trails and open space conservation areas is adjacent to the PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 4 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) project site on the east, approximately 50 feet below the subject site. An existing grove of eucalyptus trees, designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, is located south of the subject site. LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Suburban Residential (0.5 — PC(Planned Community) Undeveloped 18 du/ac)—County of —County of Orange Orange North of subject OS-P(Open Space—Parks) RA-CZ(Residential Undeveloped; property Agricultural—Coastal construction staging site Zone) for Brightwater development East and southeast of RL-7(Residential Low RL-CZ(Residential Low Shea property— subject property Density—7 du/ac); OS-C Density—Coastal Zone); approved by the City for (Open Space— CC(Coastal Conservation) single-family residential Conservation) and open s ace West and southwest of Undesignated SP15 —Brightwater Brightwater Residential subject property Specific Plan Development—349 single-family homes and 37.1 acres of habitat restoration and public trail area General Plan Conformance: The Goodell property is currently located within unincorporated Orange County and does not have a City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use designation. Once annexation has taken place, a general plan amendment and a local coastal program amendment to establish land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Element and the City's Certified Local Coastal Program will be required. The proposed pre- zoning and annexation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Goal LU3: Achieve the logical, orderly, and beneficial expansion of the 'City's services and jurisdictional limits. Objective LU3.1: Ensure that any proposed annexation is consistent with the overall objectives and does not adversely impact fiscal or environmental resources, and public services and infrastructure of the City of Huntington Beach. Policy LU3.1.1: Require that any lands proposed for annexation are contiguous with the City. Policy LU3.1.2: Require that the existing and future land uses located within the proposed annexation area are compatible with the adjacent City land uses. Program I-LU 23: Annexation Feasibility Study Upon receipt of a request for annexation, the City shall conduct an"annexation feasibility study" to determine whether the proposed annexation: PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 5 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) a. is adjacent to existing corporate boundaries; b. contains or will contain land uses that are compatible with City land uses; C. contains or will contain land uses that have the ability to provide economic benefit to the City; d. would place an undue or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services; and e. would place an undue burden on school and other public services. The proposed annexation is within the City's sphere of influence and is contiguous with the City boundary on all sides. The proposed annexation is a logical and orderly extension of the City's boundaries and services. The proposed zoning of the project site consists of single-family residential and open space/conservation areas that are consistent with existing, approved or under-construction single-family development adjacent to the project area on the east, and west and northwest and the open space areas to the east, south and southwest. The zoning would also be consistent with the RA (Residential Agricultural) zoning to the north that allows agricultural uses and single-family development. In addition, the residential zoning designation on the subject site would not conflict with the OS-P (Open Space —Parks) General Plan land use designation on the site to the north as it is common throughout the City to find uses allowed by the residential zoning designation, single-family homes in particular, adjacent to parks and land designated as OS-P. Upon annexation of the site into the City of Huntington Beach, police and fire/emergency services would be provided directly by the City of Huntington Beach. The City's Fire and Police Departments have indicated that the proposed project would not result in reduced response times or the need for additional personnel. Other service providers such as schools and libraries will not change with annexation of the site. An annexation study on the fiscal impacts from the annexation of the site into the City was prepared by RSG, Inc. The study concluded that annexation of the site would result in a fiscal benefit to the City. The study will be considered by the City Council prior to their action on the annexation of the site. Goal LUS: Ensure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained. The proposed pre-zoning designations include one acre of Coastal Conservation area that would protect chenopod scrub habitat in addition to providing a buffer for identified wetland features on the adjacent Shea property. The proposed Coastal Conservation and Open Space — Parks and Recreation areas, which total three acres, would provide a minimum 100-foot buffer from residentially zoned areas to the existing eucalyptus ESHA south of the project site in accordance with current City requirements. The environmental assessment identifies existing biological resources on and adjacent to the site. Although development of the site is not reasonably foreseeable, the environmental assessment recommends mitigation measures for the protection of the identified biological resources should development be proposed on the site in the future. PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 6 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-0012) B. Coastal Element Goal C 1: Develop a land use plan for the Coastal Zone that protects and enhances coastal resources, promotes public access and balances development with facility needs. Although the project consists of pre-zoning and annexation only, if approved, an amendment to the City's certified Local Coastal Program would be required in the future. The proposed pre-zoning designations would ensure that the Coastal Land Use designations would be consistent with the above goal. The Coastal Conservation designation would protect coastal habitat on the site. In addition, the three acres of open space/conservation area along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site would provide a buffer from the residentially zoned areas on the site to off-site resources such as the eucalyptus ESHA to the south and the Agricultural Pond wetland area to the east. The intent of the Open Space — Parks and Recreation area is to provide for public views from this part of the mesa to the wetlands and open space in the vicinity. Policy C 1.1.8: The City shall, at a minimum, consider the following when evaluating annexation proposals in the Coastal Zone: 1. Is the area to be annexed adjacent to existing corporate boundaries? 2. Does/will the area to be annexed contain land uses that are compatible with City land uses? 3. Does/will the area to be annexed contain land uses that have the ability to provide economic benefit to the City? 4. Would the area to be annexed place an undue burden or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services? 5. Would the area to be annexed place an undue burden on school and other public services? The proposed project is consistent with the above policy as discussed under Land Use Element goals and policies above. Obiective C 4.1: Provide opportunities within the Coastal Zone for open space as a visual and aesthetic resource. Although the project only proposes pre-zoning and annexation of the Goodell property, the proposed pre-zoning designations would establish three acres (approximately 48% of the site) of open space/conservation area on the site. These areas would provide opportunities for coastal views from the southern portion of the site in addition to preservation of existing landforms within the proposed Coastal Conservation area that would ensure that existing views of the slope from the closest vantage point of the East Garden Grove—Wintersburg Flood Control Channel would be maintained. C. Environmental Resources Conservation Element Goal ERC 2: Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands, for their intrinsic value. The project furthers this goal by providing for the protection and enhancement of biological resources on the subject site. The proposed pre-zoning designations include one acre of Coastal Conservation PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 7 (09sr68 Recirc. MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) area that would protect chenopod scrub habitat in addition to providing a buffer for identified wetland features on the adjacent Shea property. The environmental assessment identifies existing biological resources on and adjacent to the site. Although development of the site is not reasonably foreseeable, the environmental assessment recommends mitigation measures for the protection of the identified biological resources should development be proposed on the site in the future. D. Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all the City's historically and archeologically significant resources are identified and protected. Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017 states that the subject property includes part of the archeological site CA-ORA-144 ("The Water Tower Site"), which is part of the larger archeological site CA-ORA- 83 ("The Cogged Stone Site'). The recirculated draft MND identifies that it is likely that the project area contains intact subsurface deposits that may be important to local and regional prehistory. Only one archeological excavation has occurred on the site. In 1963, two hand-excavated units were dug, but only produced a "few flakes" and no midden deposit was located (SRS 2009). In addition, large portions of the excavated areas of CA-ORA-83 outside of the project boundaries have documented presence of a prehistoric cemetery. Although the subject property is highly disturbed, the recommended mitigation measures require that testing to determine the extent of archeological resources on the site, including presence or absence of subsurface deposits, be conducted prior to submittal of a development proposal. The mitigation measure also recommends consideration of in- situ preservation if site remnants are found. The incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure would ensure that archeological resources are identified, evaluated for significance and protected and/or excavated as necessary. The subject property contains a large underground World War II era bunker that was constructed as part of the Bolsa Chica Military Reservation in 1943. In the event the bunker is proposed to be demolished, the recommended mitigation measures require documentation using the same methodology that was utilized for the removal of other buildings on the Bolsa Chica Military Reservation. The mitigation measure also requires that photo documentation be made available for further studies. Zoning Compliance: Not applicable. No development is proposed for the site. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 08-017 was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project. Although development of the site is not reasonably foreseeable at this time, the draft MND identified mitigation measures, based on information contained in technical reports, in the impact areas of biological and cultural resources that would be required to be incorporated if development of the property were proposed in the future. Draft MND No. 08-017 was PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 8 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) made available for public review from March 26, 2009 to April 24, 2009. Comments received during the comment period identified presence of biological resources on the property, specifically southern Tarplant, that were not identified in the draft MND and supporting technical reports. Subsequent to the comment period, an updated biological survey was prepared as well as an updated cultural resources report. Based on the information contained in the comment letters as well as the updated technical reports, revisions to the draft MND were made including the addition of two new mitigation measures. These changes resulted in a requirement to recirculate the draft MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Recirculated Draft MND No. 08-017 was made available for a 30-day public review period from July 27, 2009 to August 25, 2009. All comments received on Draft MND No. 08-017 and Recirculated Draft MND No. 08-017 as well as responses to each comment, are included in Attachment 5 to this report. Previous environmental review of the subject property included Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 551, which analyzed a proposed County Land Use Plan that included development of 2,500 homes on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach Mesas including the subject site. Although the Land Use Plan was never adopted, the County Board of Supervisors certified the Recirculated EIR in June, 1996. Development of the entire subject site was analyzed in Recirculated EIR No 551 as part of a larger 34-acre planning area within the Bolsa Chica at a density of 6.5 — 12.5 dwelling units per acre. Environmental Board Comments: The Environmental Board was notified of draft MND No. 08-017 as well as Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017. The Environmental Board initially commented on draft MND No. 08-017 regarding the level of detail on the maps included in the document and concerns from the public regarding biological resources. Staff attended the Environmental Board meeting of August 6, 2009 in which the Board considered Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017. Although, no comment letter was submitted from the Board, the Board indicated that their initial comments on draft MND No. 08-017 had been addressed in Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017. Prior to any action on Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 and Annexation No. 06-002, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08- 017. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the recirculated mitigated negative declaration be approved with findings. Coastal Status: The project area is located within the Coastal Zone. The subject site is currently located within the jurisdiction of Orange County and is not included within the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. After annexation, an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program will be required to establish land use designations for the site. The Local Coastal Program Amendment is subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission before the site becomes certified as part of the City's Local Coastal Program. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Des&n Review Board: Not applicable. PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 9 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The conclusions of Recirculated Draft MND No. 08-017 were developed in coordination with other City departments including Fire, Community Services and Public Works. Each department has also analyzed annexation of the property for an Annexation Feasibility Study, which will be presented to the City Council. Additionally, the City has been working with the County of Orange and LAFCO regarding annexation procedures. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on October 1, 2009, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and persons that commented on the environmental document. As of October 6, 2009, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. Comments on the Recirculated draft MND, including responses to comments, are included in Attachment No. 6. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE Environmental Assessment(MND), Zoning Map a Draft MND: Within 180 days of complete Amendment(ZMA), Annexation: July 10, 2009 application: January 6, 2010 ® Legislative Action: Not Applicable ANALYSIS: Currently the entire site is zoned as Planned Community in the County of Orange and the County of Orange General Plan land use designation for the site is suburban residential. Allowable uses for the site include low and medium density residential development. The proposed pre-zoning designations are depicted in Attachment No. 6 and include the following breakdown of land uses: TABLE 1 — PROPOSED PRE-ZONING DESIGNATIONS j ontn'"best'tta#ton :Acres a appPaxitnate RL 3.2 CC 1.0 OS-PR 2.0 Total 6.2 The proposed pre-zoning designations would result in the conversion of three acres of existing residentially-zoned property to open space/conservation area. However, staff believes that the proposed pre-zoning designations provide a balance of residentially zoned areas that would still afford the property owner rights to use the property with open space areas that would protect existing resources within and adjacent to the site. PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 10 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) Land Use Compatibility With the proposed RL zoning designation, the site would allow development of up to 22 dwelling units based on the RL zoning provisions of seven dwelling units per net acre. Other uses that could potentially be developed on the subject site in the future, provided all applicable codes and regulations can be complied with are: limited day care and residential care homes, nurseries and horticulture facilities and wireless communications facilities. The CC zoning designation is intended to preserve chenopod scrub habitat on the site and protect environmentally sensitive species within and adjacent to the project site. This area consists of steep bluffs and would not be allowed to be developed. In addition, the CC designated area contains a small fraction of the required 100-foot buffer from the Agricultural Pond area that was designated as wetlands on the adjacent Shea property located at the toe of the slope. The majority of the OS-PR designated area is in a slope; however, a small 0.5-acre area in the southwest portion of the site is relatively flat overlooks the wetlands, lowlands and ESHA below. Because this area overlooks the wetlands, lowlands and ESHA below, it would be conducive to future use as a public viewpoint. This area may also be a start/finish area for users of the existing decomposed granite trail along the boundary of the Brightwater development adjacent to the project site. The remaining portion of the OS-PR designation consists of the sloped area between the RL zoned portion of the site and the Shea property to the east, which begins at the toe of the slope. The OS-PR zoning would allow for revegetation and recreational use of this area. The proposed pre-zoning designations of residential — low density, open space and conservation are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and existing land uses in the area surrounding the Goodell property. Existing, under-construction and approved single-family development is adjacent to the subject property on the northwest, west and east, respectively. Open space/conservation areas are immediately adjacent to the site on the east, south and southwest. Undeveloped property to the north is zoned Residential Agricultural (RA) and the General Plan land use designation is Open Space — Parks (OS-P). As discussed in the General Plan Conformance section of this report, the proposed pre-zoning designations would be compatible with the allowable uses for both of these designations. Environmental Impacts Recirculated draft HIND No. 08-017 analyzes potential impacts of the proposed pre-zoning and annexation. CEQA guidelines require that a project be evaluated for all direct and indirect physical changes from a project. For example, a direct physical change would include noise impacts from construction of a new water treatment facility. An indirect physical change would include potential increases in population due to the additional water treatment capacity the new facility would provide, which could then result in other impacts such as air pollution and traffic. CEQA guidelines also require that indirect physical changes be evaluated when the impacts are reasonably foreseeable. Given that the proposed pre-zoning and annexation does not include a development project, and it is speculative to assume if a project would be proposed for the site as well as the type of project that may be proposed, indirect physical impacts from the pre-zoning and annexation are not reasonably foreseeable. In addition, since existing zoning for the entire site is residential, the pre-zoning and annexation of the site into the City cannot be construed as facilitating development of the site such that indirect physical changes are PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 11 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-00 ) reasonably foreseeable. To this end, the "project," which is the pre-zoning and annexation of the Goodell site, would not result in significant environmental impacts. Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. These mitigation measures have been included in the recirculated draft MND and represent the minimum mitigation measures that would be required for a development project on the site. It should be noted that additional environmental analysis may be warranted to evaluate impacts of a specific project should development be proposed on the site in the future. At a minimum, the mitigation measures recommended in Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017 would be required in addition to any other mitigation measures that are identified for a particular project to reduce potential environmental impacts. Annexation The City's General Plan requires the preparation of an Annexation Feasibility Study to determine whether the proposed annexation is compatible with City land uses, has the ability to provide economic benefit to the City and whether the proposed annexation would place an undue or excessive burden on the City and/or School Districts' ability to provide public services for the site. An Annexation Study was prepared by RSG, Inc. for the City. The study evaluated three scenarios to determine the fiscal impact on the City if the property is annexed with the proposed pre-zoning designations. Two of the scenarios examined the fiscal impacts if the property were to be developed in the future based on the allowable uses under the proposed pre-zoning designations. The third scenario analyzed the fiscal impacts of the annexation of the property in its current undeveloped state with no development. Under all three scenarios, the study concludes that the City would realize a fiscal benefit from annexation of the property. The Goodell property is adjacent to City boundaries on all sides and, as such, will eliminate an existing "island" of unincorporated County area in the Bolsa Chica area. The subject property is presently served by the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Ocean View School District, both of which will continue to serve the site after annexation. The potential impacts on the City's Fire and Police Departments services were analyzed within the recirculated draft MND. The environmental document concluded that the site could be adequately served by existing resources within both departments. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Suggested Findings for Approval-Recirculated MND No. 08-017 -9—Hraft`6rclirrarree-€erzlPd�rA6-00-3 4. Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 5. Response to Comments for Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration -6. Pfe- effing- 4aP PC Staff Report— 10/13/09 12 (09sr68 Recirc. MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-017 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.08-017: 1. Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017,Annexation No. 06-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Although the project itself would not result in environmental impacts, mitigation measures address impacts to biological and cultural resources in the event that development on the site is proposed in the future. However, if development is proposed in the future, additional project-specific environmental analysis may be warranted and additional mitigation measures may be required to address impacts of a particular development proposal. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. The project consists of establishing pre-zoning designations that are consistent with surrounding designations and cognizant of existing resources on and surrounding the site, for the annexation of the site into the City of Huntington Beach. The pre-zoning and annexation will not create significant environmental impacts. The analysis in Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017 identifies mitigation measures related to biological and cultural resources if development is proposed on the site in the future. ATTAC MET O. PC Staff Report—10/13/09 (09sr68 Recirc.MND 08-017,ZMA 06-003,ANX 06-002) 1. PROJECT TITLE: Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Concurrent Entitlements: Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA)No. 06-03 and Annexation No. 06-02 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Contact: Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Phone: (714) 374-1661 Email: jillasenor@surfcity-hb.org 3. PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 6.2 acre site is located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue, in an unincorporated area of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach. The site is located on the Upper Bench of an approximately 1,600 acre area commonly known as Bolsa Chica(refer to Figure 1). 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Contact Person: Jennifer Villasenor Phone: (714)374-1661 S. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: County of Orange: Suburban Residential(0.5 — 18 du/ac) 6. ZONING: County of Orange:PC(Planned Community) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 6.2 acres of property in the County of Orange unincorporated Bolsa Chica area located on the Upper Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The City agreed to process this annexation at the request of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in conjunction with the annexation of the Brightwater Page 1 ATTACHMENT N . `/1 14 j' F ` 1g { tt 4aIlI 1. t1017 LI 1 n 1 `lF ( p� uMV 4 P c n q Y a sue. = uuiI Am ., t siu11 " r C=> .a�l�.i �����Le7� i aa. ii i�% 1. ■ 1 ✓E �� �IrAlll�,r \ I I ♦♦ I F un �/ 1 ,w i Ir •'rq _ ---�-�, r y R 1 q 611i1t 9 i..rr1 IIIIIIIII{III I J � P � � j S\ �I I _�Tu., f1i 3 - 11.,.I1U.# � •. i<:i'• I.111);.y . �� I-�"_ �--M a E . • 3� 3```I fd - IF 1( I�. s �,, { gg tr OR NVO HI� r♦ tNNg • ti l���iI 1 •l 1111I1 tIS9 a - ' • `�5;• n -� �sir- ,i!. d ;/mq 171t � � a era11/fI►i < t�earll 4l��s v4 i t•t f rM111111Fdr FP III O rt •611, LEGEND -, i • FIGURE 2—PROJECT LOCATION i earthside Homes Property ( ity of Huntington Beach � m a� Uj ( m ® rn i co +� Brightwater C DevelopmentSki ° o (City of Huntington Beach) r ' Annexed 2008 a v ra �J J�'���•r _,A: Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO. B 3 Prior to submittal of an annexation application to the LAFCO, the City must establish zoning for the property and adopt the annexation by resolution. Pre-zoning of the subject site includes a Zoning Map Amendment to establish zoning designations of Residential Low Density(RL),Open Space—Parks & Recreation(OS-PR)and Coastal Conservation(CC)for the 6.2 acre site. The entire site will also have a CZ(Coastal Zone) Overlay designation. The proposed zoning configuration of the site is depicted in Figure 3 and includes the following breakdown of land uses: Zoning Designation Acreage(approximate) RL 3.2 CC 1.0 OS-PR 2.0 Total 6.2 With the proposed RL zoning designation, the site would allow development of up to 22 dwelling units based on the RL zoning provisions of seven dwelling units per acre. Other uses that could potentially be developed on the subject site provided all applicable codes and regulations can be complied with are: limited day care and residential care homes, nurseries and horticulture facilities and wireless communications facilities. The CC zoning designation is intended to preserve important chenopod scrub habitat on the site and protect environmentally sensitive species within and adjacent to the project site. This area consists of steep bluffs and would not be developed. In addition, the CC designation contains a small fraction of the required 100-foot buffer from the agricultural pond area that was designated as wetlands on the adjacent Shea property located at the toe of the slope. The OS-PR zoning designation would carve out a small 0.5-acre recreational area in the southwest portion of the site overlooking the wetlands, lowlands and ESHA below. This area may be developed in the future with a bench and walking path to provide users with a tranquil space for reflection and contemplation. This area may also be a start/finish area for users of the existing decomposed granite trail along the boundary of the Brightwater development adjacent to the project site. The remaining portion of the OS-PR designation consists of a sloped area between the RL zoned portion of the site and the Shea property to the east, which begins at the toe of the slope. This area is intended to remain as a passive area and could potentially be enhanced with native and/or coastal vegetation. No development is proposed for the site. Any development proposed on the site would require a coastal development permit (CDP) and environmental assessment and most likely require a conditional use permit (CUP) and tentative tract map depending on the type of project proposed. Once the zoning of the site has been established and annexation has been approved, the property would also require a general plan amendment and a local coastal program amendment to establish land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Element and the City's Certified Local Coastal Program. Page ATTACHMENT . � / FIGURE 3—PROPOSER ZONING RESIGNATIONS _....9MdMr_Dr__J RL RA SP15 residential (0, RL 3.2 acres 2, RC OE (*Note: The City recently approved a re-zoning to CC -Coastal onservation to match Land Use Plan) SP15 residential and open space SP15 RL" open space Legend RL—Residential Low Density OS-PR—Open Space-Parks and Recreation CC—Coastal Conservation RA—Residential Agricultural SP15—Specific Plan 15 (Brightwater) Page 5 ATTACHMENT NO. �� 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The site is currently undeveloped and consists of large cleared or graded areas,ruderal,non-native and ornamental vegetation, chenopod scrub, informal walking and bike trails and the foundation of a World War II-era bunker. Historically, the entire project site has been disturbed by previous uses, including agriculture, World War II activities and terracing for a pole yard. An underground structure containing a plotting and switchboard room was built by the U.S. Army to support Battery 128 on the site in 1943. The state-owned 118-acre Lower Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa is located southwesterly of the subject property, and the Brightwater Development, a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 349 homes currently under construction, is located immediately west and southwest of the project site. State-owned lands containing eucalyptus trees and a lowland area between the Mesa and the East Garden Grove Wintersburg (EGGWC) flood control channel are adjacent to the southwest. These areas are state-owned properties established as permanent open spaces. An undeveloped 5-acre site, owned by Hearthside Homes and located within the City of Huntington Beach, is located north of the project site. An application has been submitted for the development of 22 single-family residences on the adjacent 5-acre site. Property owned by Shea Homes and approved for single-family residential development (Parkside Estates) with trails and open space is adjacent to the project site on the east, approximately 50 feet below the subject site. 10. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 551 was certified by the County of Orange in June, 1996. The EIR analyzed a proposed Land Use Plan for the entire Bolsa Chica area. Although the Land Use Plan was never adopted, the County Board of Supervisors certified the Recirculated EIR, which analyzed development of 2,500 homes on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach Mesas, which included the subject site. Development of the subject site was analyzed as part of a larger 34- acre planning area at a density of 6.5— 12.5 dwelling units per acre. In 2002, Subsequent EIR No. 551 was prepared to evaluate the Brightwater project Master Site/Area Plan and Project Site Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15460 in the County of Orange. The subsequent EIR was required because the project description and environmental setting had changed substantially since certification of the Final Recirculated EIR No. 551, specifically: the substantial decrease in the number of units being analyzed for the Brightwater Development compared to what was previously analyzed for development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; the State's purchase of a substantial portion of the Lowlands for restoration; and new interpretations of the Coastal Act by the California Court of Appeals. An Addendum to Subsequent EIR No. 551 was approved by the County of Orange in 2005 to address changes in the Brightwater development plans that included a reduction in the number of units from 387 to 349. 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) approval of the proposed annexation of the subject property is required after completion of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map Amendment in order for the annexation to become effective. Once the pre-zoning of the site has been established and annexation has been approved by LAFCO,a local coastal program amendment is subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission before the site becomes certified as part of the City's Local Coastal Program. Page 6 u ATTACHMENT NO.--- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"-or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ® Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑Hydrology/Water Quality ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials ® Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ® Recreation ® Agriculture Resources ® Mandatory Findings of Significance �, RVX-1111it CON (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE(DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment,but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation me oVthaare unposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. 7 Signature Date I / Vi ll , ft a5wo ' A sac)ciok ?1cwna- Printed Name Title Page 7 ATTACHMENT {J/, EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-speck factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate,if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead agency lacks information to make a fmding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, `Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIR. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. g) The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. SAMPLE QUESTION.• Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Page ATTACHMENT N , `�� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Sources: #l,2, 14, 15, 16& Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 41,2, 14, 15, 16&Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below c) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ El (Sources: 41,2, 14, 15, 16&Figure 3) Discussion a—c: The proposed annexation and pre-zoning of the 6.2-acre project site will not result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The site is currently zoned as Planned Community in the County of Orange. The County of Orange General Plan land use designation for the site is suburban residential and would allow for low and medium density residential development to occur on the site. The 6.2-acre site is proposed to have the following zoning designations:3.2 acres of Residential Low Density(RL);2.0 acres of Open Space—Parks and Recreation(OS- PR);and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation(CC). The proposed zoning designations for the City of Huntington Beach would permit similar uses that would be permitted under the County designations such as single-family residences and open space areas. In addition,the proposed zoning is consistent with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO),which requires a minimum of two contiguous acres for properties to be zoned with the OS-PR designation. The proposed pre-zoning and annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element goal LU 3 and related policies LU 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 relating to annexation as follows: "Achieve the logical,orderly,and beneficial expansion of the City's services and jurisdictional limits."(Goal LU 3) "Require that any lands proposed for annexation are contiguous with the City."(Policy LU 3.1.1) "Require that the existing and future land uses located within the proposed annexation area are compatible with the adjacent City uses."(Policy LU 3.1.2) The proposed annexation is within the City's sphere of influence and is contiguous with the City boundary on the north,south,east and west sides. The proposed project is a logical and orderly extension of the City's boundaries and services.The proposed zoning of the project site consists of Page 9 ATTACHMENT NO. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact single-family residential uses and open space/conservation areas that are consistent with existing, approved p£epesed-or under-construction single-family development adjacent to the project area on the new east,and-west and northwest and the open space areas to the east,south and southwest. The zoning would also be consistent with the RA(Residential Agricultural)zoning to the north that allows agricultural uses and single-family development. In addition,the residential zoning designation on the subject site would not conflict with the OS-P(Open Space—Parks)General Plan land use designation on the site to the north as it is common throughout the City to find residential development,single-family homes in particular,adiacent to parks and land designated as OS-P. Upon annexation,the project site will require a general plan amendment and local coastal program amendment,subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission(CCC),to establish land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Element and the City's Certified Land Use Plan. Any future development proposed on the site would require a coastal development permit(CDP)and environmental assessment and most likely require a conditional use permit(CUP)and tentative tract map depending on the type of project proposed. All development would be required to meet the applicable provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program,HBZSO,Municipal Code(HBMC)and all other applicable provisions. The open space/conservation area is intended to preserve important chenopod scrub habitat on the site and protect potential environmentally sensitive species within and adjacent to the project site. The CC designation contains a small fraction of the required 100-foot buffer from the agricultural pond area that was designated as wetlands on the Shea property adjacent to the subject site at the toe of the slope and is consistent with the Open Space-Conservation designation on the City's Land Use Plan for that property. A 0.5-acre portion of the proposed open space/recreation area is located at the southwest portion of the site and overlooks the Bolsa Chica. This proposed open space area is intended to provide a viewing area of the lowlands,eucalyptus ESHA and wetlands,which are visible from the project site as well as provide recreational open space area that is contiguous with an open space trail for the Brightwater residential development adjacent to the site. The remaining portion of the OS-PR designation consists of a sloped area between the RL zoned portion of the site and the Shea property, which begins at the toe of the slope. This area is intended to remain as a passive area and could potentially be enhanced with new vegetation. The project will not physically divide an established community and does not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as there are not any adopted for the City of Huntington Beach. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either ❑ ❑ directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:#1,2&Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ MR necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 41,2&Figure 3) �y f/ Page 10 ATTACHMENT . / Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant and Su PP ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: See discussion below. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ El construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:#1, 2&Figure 3) Discussion a—c: The site is currently vacant;no existing homes or residents will be demolished or displaced. The annexation and pre-zoning of the 6.2 acre property does not propose construction of housing that would induce population growth in the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project establishes zoning on the subject site that would allow for the development of up to 22 residential units on a portion of the property. The 2008 Housing Element indicates that the average household size in Huntington Beach is 2.56 persons,which would result in potentially 57 new residents in the City. This represents 0.03%of the total population of Huntington Beach,which would not be considered substantial population growth. As discussed in Section I.Land Use and Planning,residential uses were anticipated for this area as part of the Planned Community zoning designation in the County of Orange. However,since the property is not currently within the City of Huntington Beach,the project would allow for residential uses not previously accounted for in the General Plan. The General Plan identifies an increase of 18,500 new units to the year 2010. Future residential development on the project site would not result in substantial population growth in the context of allowed General Plan growth,nor in combination with anticipated and planned growth as identified in the City's 2008 Housing Element. Less than significant impacts would occur. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated ❑ on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources:#5 & 13) Discussion: See discussion below. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:#5 & ❑ ® ❑ 13) Discussion: See discussion below. iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction?(Sources:#5 & 13) Discussion: See discussion below. Landslides? (Sources: #5& 13) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: See discussion below. Page 11 ATTIV%ACHMENT N . Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion,loss of topsoil,or ❑ ® ❑ MR changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading,or fill? (Sources:#5& 13) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources:#5 & 13) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources:#5& 13) Discussion: See discussion below. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources:#5& 13) Discussion a—e: Although the seismically active Newport-Inglewood Fault crosses the Bolsa Chica area,the fault does not traverse the project site. In addition,previous environmental analysis.(Recirculated EIR No. 551)indicates that potential for liquefaction and subsidence to occur on the site is low. Due to the steep natural slopes that exist on the site,there is potential for slope instability and erosion of the bluffs if disturbance activities were to occur. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts to geology and soils and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities. Impacts related to geology and soils would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. IV. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ requirements? (Sources: #5) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of Page 12 ATTACHMENT N ® �� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources:# 5) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ 0 site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources:#5) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off-site? (Sources: #5) Discussion: See discussion below. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ❑ the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:#5) Discussion: See discussion below. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ (Sources: #5) Discussion: See discussion below. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:#8) Discussion: See discussion below. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:#8) Discussion: See discussion below. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as Page13 ATTACHMENT NO. I� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:48) Discussion: See discussion below j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: #5) Discussion: See discussion below. k) Potentially impact storm water runoff from construction ® [] activities? (Sources:#5) Discussion: See discussion below. 1) Potentially impact storm water runoff from post El El - construction activities? (Sources:#5) Discussion: See discussion below. m) Result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Source:95) Discussion: See discussion below. n) Result in the potential for discharge of storm water to 0 affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: #5) Discussion: See discussion below. o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources: #5) Discussion: See discussion below. p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the ❑ [] 19 project site or surrounding areas? (Sources:#5) Page 14 ATTP��H�`E ` 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—p: The 6.2-acre project site is undeveloped and does not contain any streams or rivers. However,designated wetland areas east of the subject site on the Shea Property are located within 200 feet of the site and the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel(EGGWC)is located southeast of the project site. Previous environmental analysis(Recirculated EIR No. 551)for the Bolsa Chica area indicates that potential for tsunami and seiche to impact the Bolsa Chica mesa is considered very remote due to the site's higher elevation above mean sea level and insulation provided by the inner Bolsa Bay. Although a majority of the site is located in FEMA Flood Zone X,including the area that would be zoned for residential uses,a small portion of the site at the lowest elevation along the base of the bluff is located within Flood Zone A. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts to hydrology and water quality and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:#9) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: :#9) ❑ ❑x Discussion: See discussion below. c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: :#9) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ 19 applicable air quality plan? (Sources: #9) Discussion: See discussion below. e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ ❑ Q criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: :#9) Page 15 ATTACHMENT No. q t6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—e: The City of Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin. The entire Air Basin is designated as a national-level nonattainment area for ozone,carbon monoxide(CO),respirable particulate matter(PM,o)and fine particulate matter(PM2.5). The Basin is also a State-level nonattainment area for ozone,PM,o and PM2.5. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts to air quality and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such.as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Impacts related to air quality would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ ❑ a relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources:#1, 6& 17) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources:#1,6& 17) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either ❑ ❑ ® ❑X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results insubstantial safety risks? (Sources: #1) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: #1) Discussion: See discussion below. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: #1) ❑ ❑ Discussion: See discussion below. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources:#1) Discussion: See discussion below. Page16 ATTACHMENT N . y�� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigation Impact � PP g ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (Sources:#1) (Discussion a — f: Existing intersections near the project site at Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street/Los Patos Avenue operate at acceptable levels of service. Previous environmental documentation (Subsequent EIR No. 551) for the Brightwater residential development, which analyzed the development of 387 single-family units on land adjacent to the project site, studied several intersections that are within the vicinity of the subject site. These intersections included Bolsa Chica Street at Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street at Los Patos Avenue. The results of the study indicated that project traffic for the Brightwater Development in the year 2005 (assuming construction of 300 homes had occurred)as well as long-term project traffic would not change the level of service(LOS)at any of the study intersections under"without project"baseline and long-term conditions. In terms of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue,although the LOS would not change,the existing LOS at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue was considered unacceptable and the development of the Brightwater residential project would further impact the intersection. Physical constraints of the intersection and Coastal Act requirements pertaining to the presence of coastal wetlands along Warner Avenue prevented the implementation of any feasible mitigation measures at that time. It is important to note that an Addendum to Subsequent EIR No. 551 was certified in 2005 based on changes to the Brightwater residential project that included a reduction in the number of units from 387 to 349, but did not negatively affect the conclusions of the earlier traffic/transportation analysis for the project. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts to traffic and transportation and does not contemplate development of the site. Although future development of the subject site would likely be single-family residential units, other uses consistent with the Residential Low Density (RL) zoning of the site could potentially be developed. Given the size of developable land and likely potential uses,the annexation and pre-zoning of the site for future development in the City would not result in significant impacts to traffic even when combined with the completion of the Brightwater residential development. However, impacts related to traffic and transportation would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. VII. BIOLOGICAL.RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service?(Sources:#3, 18) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:#3, 18) (Discussion: See discussion below. Page 17 ATTACHMENT H o � �� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ® ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?(Sources: #3, 18) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources:#3, 18) Discussion: See discussion below. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ El biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources:#3, 18) Discussion: See discussion below. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?(Sources:#3, 18) Discussion a—E The proposed project is for the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site. The proposed zoning includes approximately 3.2 acres for single-family residential(RL)uses, 1.0 acre for Coastal Conservation(CC)area and approximately 2.0 acres designated as Open Space—Parks and Recreation(OS- PR). Existing Setting The site is currently undeveloped and consists of large cleared or graded areas,ruderal,non-native and ornamental vegetation,chenopod scrub,informal walking and bike trails and the foundation of a World War H- era bunker.. The chenopod scrub area is approximately 0.23 acres in size and located in the southeastern portion of the site along the bluff. In addifien, The chenopod scrub patch and adjacent shrubs are located in the area that would be zoned for Coastal Conservation. There are three eucalyptus trees on the site. Also,mature eucalyptus trees are located on the adjacent property to the west,along the western boundary of the subject site. These trees would be preserved in place by Signal/Ilearthside,the owner of the adjacent property. In addition,two Monterey pine trees and a Mexican elderberry shrub,which are located in the proposed®S-PR designated area,also exist on the site. A grove of eucalyptus trees determined to be an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA)is located immediately south of the site. Coastal Commission Action: The property owner was previously cited for removing trees that provided nesting and foraging habitat on the property. Six existing shrubs adjacent to the chenopod scrub habitat Page 18 ATTACHMENT NO.� �� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact in the southeastern portion of the site as well as the Monterey pines and Mexican elderberry shrubs were Blanted in 2007 to mitigate impacts from the removal of the tree habitat on the site. Sensitive Habitats A Biological Resources Assessment was prepared for the site by the consulting firm of SWCA in November 2007. The report included a survey of the various vegetation types existing on the site. The report concluded that there were no sensitive habitat types located on the site. The report states that the site provides only marginal habitat for amphibians,reptiles and small mammals due to repeated ground disturbance over time. 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 habitat. In addition,consultation with staff from the California(Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)in 2007 concluded that the site is not considered an important foraging area for raptors. It was also determined during the consultation that removal of non-native ornamental trees may be beneficial as they provide perches for raptors that hunt threatened and endangered species within the nearby Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. While ornamental habitat is not considered a sensitive habitat type,existing eucalyptus trees on the site are contiguous with the ESHA and are considered a significant biological resource. In addition,the coastal California gnatcatcher,a Federally Threatened species,is known to forage and nest within adjacent coastal scrub habitat and was previously observed within the chenopod scrub patch in 2005. However,a subsequent biological survey was conducted by LSA.Inc.in June 2009 for the presence of coastal California gnatcatchers. No gnatcatchers were present on the site or on the adjacent property. The results of the survey concluded that the coastal California gnatcatcher is no longer present in the project area. It was also noted that due to habitat restoration activities on the adjacent Brightwater development project site,there is significantly more coastal sage scrub,the coastal California 2natcatcher's preferred habitat,in the vicinity and,therefore, the patch of chenopod scrub habitat on the Goodell site is fikely less critical to potential reoccupation of the species on the Bolsa Chica mesa and bluffs in the future. However,since it is unknown if and when development would occur on the site,a mitigation measure is recommended to require focused surveys prior to ground disturbing activities. No potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S.were identified within the project site,however potentially jurisdictional wetland features occur as close as 100 feet east of the site's boundary. Also,the project site does not serve as a wildlife corridor because of its isolation from other similar habitat areas. The Biological Assessment Report recommends that any future development avoid all eucalyptus trees on the project site. There are three existing eucalyptus trees on the site. All three are within the area proposed to be zoned for Open Space—Parks and Recreation and will be preserved on the site. The report also recommends that all non-native trees to be removed as part of any future development,be replaced with native trees that will provide nesting sites for raptors. Chapter 221 of the HBZSO requires that a minimum 100-foot buffer be maintained between any development adjacent to an ESHA and the ESHA boundary. The area on the project site within 100 feet of the ESHA boundary would be zoned for open space or conservation area and the uses that would be permitted are similar in nature to existing uses near the project site and existing ESHA;therefore, any future development in the RL zoned area would be in compliance with the minimum 100-foot buffer in accordance with the HBZSO. Although future development would be analyzed for environmental impacts at the time development is proposed,any future development proposal shall,at a minimum,include the following mitigation measures to protect sensitive habitats surrounding the project site: w BIO-1: The three eucalyptus trees shall be preserved on the site. If the trees cannot be preserved in place, they shall be relocated and preserved elsewhere on the site prior to any ground disturbing Page 19 ATTACHMENT NO. q Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact activities. Specifications for any eucalyptus trees to be relocated shall be submitted by a quaked arborist for review and approval by the Department of Public Works in coordination with the California Coastal Commission (CCC)and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). if the trees eammet be releeated, • BIO-2: All non-native ornamental trees to be removed from the site shall be replaced on-site with native trees species that will provide suitable nesting sites for raptors, such as the coast live oak or western sycamore. Each tree shall be replaced with either two 24-inch box trees or four 5-gallon trees. Trees should be of local stock and acquired from a reputable local native plant nursery. Details of these replacement measures, including a final number, size,planting design, method for installation, watering plan, maintenance and establishment criteria shall be included in a revegetation plan prepared by a quaked botanist or arborist and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. • BIO-3: A minimum 100 foot buffer from the boundary of the existing ESHA located immediately south of the project site shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 221 of the HBZSO. To minimize erosion and sediment deposition in wetland areas within the vicinity of the project site,the following standard practices may implemented: scheduling construction so that it occurs during the dry season, installation of silt-fencing or straw wattles to trap sediments that may escape from construction areas, application of a mulch layer to keep topsoil in place,installation of vegetative buffers along the base of the bluff to trap sediments and management of stormwater runoff using appropriate drainage methods. Special Status Species According to the 2007 SWCA report,no special status plant species were identified or expected to occur within the project site. More recent botanical surveys conducted by LSA in June 2009 confirmed the presence of southern Tarplant on the site. Most of the southern Tarplant was documented in the center of the proiect site in the area proposed to be designated as residential low density(RQ and along the eastern boundary of the site in the proposed Open Space-Parrs and Recreation(OS-PR)and Coastal Conservation(CC)designations. While southern Tarplant is not listed as threatened or endangered by any State or federal agency,it is listed as endangered by the California Native Plant Society, The survey notes the freauencv of small numbers of the species throughout the site and in recently disturbed areas and the presence of a large group of very small seedlings,which indicates that the introduction of southern Tarplant in the area is recent and has high dispersal rates. The survey also notes the species ability to flourish in harsh environments and disturbed conditions. The repo indicates that a population of several thousand in a relatively natural habitat should be considered significant,warranting avoidance or relocation, however,the number of well-developed Tarplant individuals on the subiect site would not be a significant mopulation because they are fairly recent in disturbed non-native habitat. The report concludes by stating that a finding of significance at this time would be speculative. The survey indicates that implementation of a tarplant relocation program in the event development is proposed in the future and avoidance cannot be achieved would mitigate impacts. The most suitable area for relocation would be within the one-acre area designated for Coastal Conservation(CC)and, given the species'ability to flourish in disturbed areas,along the southern boundary of the site,which is rro osed for Open Space—Parks and Recreation(OS-PR). The survey notes that successful relocation of southern Tarplant has been well documented. As such a mitigation measure is proposed to reduce potential impacts to southern Tarplant. y Page20 ATTACHMENT . Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Although the project site provides habitat for the monarch butterfly,wandering skipper,silvery legless lizard, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit,western(California)mastiff bat and western yellow bat,which are all sensitive wildlife species, it is not likely that they would occur on the site because the habitat quality is marginal or more abundant in areas adjacent to the project site. Therefore,no significant adverse impacts to these species would occur if the site were developed in the future and no mitigation would be required. The project site provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of special status and protected bird species. Some of these birds including the white-tailed kite,great-horned owl,barn owl,Anna's hummingbird and Costa's hummingbird are known to nest year-round. The report recommends several mitigation options for potential impacts to special status species including the California gnatcatcher, Burrowing owl,nesting raptors and nesting migratory birds and raptors. Although future development would be analyzed for environmental impacts at the time development is proposed,any future development proposal shall,at a minimum, include the following mitigation measures to protect special status species: ® BIO-4: coastal California gnatcatcher: Prior to any grew g-demolition.Pradi or or equivalent activity,focused surveys shall be conducted within the project site and accessible areas within 500 feet of the site during the appropriate season in accordance with United States Fish and Wildlife Service(VSFWS) established protocols. If the survey results are negative for presence of coastal California gnatcatchers, no further mitigation is required. If the surveys detect coastal California gnatcatchers adjacent to but not within the project site, construction shall be limited to outside of the nesting season and a qualified biological monitor shall be present during construction to ensure that no adults are destroyed. The project applicant shall coordinate construction scheduling with the USFWS. If the surveys detect coastal California gnatcatchers within the project site, additional mitigation would be required as determined through the Section 7 or Section 10 consultation process with USFWS. Mitigation options are likely to include:avoidance of impacts to occupied habitat; creation/restoration of habitat on property adjacent to the project site;creation/restoration or preservation of habitat on other local property that has occupied or unoccupied habitat;preservation of occupied and/or unoccupied coastal sage scrub habitat in a bank such as the Viejo conservation Bank in Orange County;preservation of occupied and/or unoccupied scrub habitat in other portions of Orange County;or other mitigation options developed in conjunction with USFWS and the United States Army Core of Engineers (USACE). ® BIO—S: Burrowing Owl:Prior to greund distwh any demolition,grading or equivalent activity, surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls where suitable habitat is present within the construction areas. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with established protocols of the California Burrowing Owl Consortium(CBOC)and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). If unoccupied burrows are found during the non-breeding season, the property owner may collapse the unoccupied burrows, or otherwise obstruct their entrances to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows. This measure would prevent inadvertent impacts during construction activities. If no occupied burrows are found in the survey area, a letter report documenting survey methods and findings shall be submitted to the City and CDFG for review and approval, and no further mitigation is necessary. If occupied burrows are found, impacts on the burrows shall be avoided by providing a buffer of 165 feet during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or 250 feet during the breeding season(February 1 through August 31). The size of the buffer area may be adjusted ifaa� Page21 ATTACHMENT NO. ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant � pP g ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact qualified biologist and CDFG determine it would not be likely to have adverse effects on the owls.No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied.If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair, a minimum of 7.5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breeding season is over. If impacts on occupied burrows are unavoidable, onsite passive relocation techniques approved by CDFG shall be used to encourage owls to move to alternative burrows outside of the impact area. However, no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods thatjuveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Mitigation for foraging habitat for relocated pairs shall follow guidelines provided in the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's April 1995 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, which ranges from 7.5 to 19.5 acres per pair. • BIO—6: Nesting Migratory Birds:Prior to any construction ep gPewiddWuPhh x demolition, grading or equivalent activity, a qualified Biologist shall survey the project impact area for the presence of any active bird nest(common or special status)within 72 hours prior to the onset of construction activities. Any nest found during the survey efforts will be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation is required. Results of the surveys will be provided to the CDFG and the City of Huntington Beach. If any active migratory bird nest is present, the nest will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any active nest, the following restrictions on construction are required until the nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist: (1)clearing limits will be established with a 300 foot buffer around any occupied nest, or as otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest will only be allowed if the qualified Biologist determines that the proposed construction activities would not disturb the nest occupants. Construction during the nesting season can occur only at the sites if a qualified Biologist has determined that the construction activities are not a disruption to the breeding activities or if the fledglings have left the nest. • BIO-7: Nesting Raptors:Prior to any construction er gFeumd disfwbi , demolition,grading or equivalent activity, a qualified Biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the project impact area for the presence of any active raptor nests (common or special status)at least seven days prior to the onset of construction activities. Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation is required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the CDFG and the City of Huntington Beach. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site, the active nest site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site, the following restrictions on construction are required until nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist: (1)clearing limits shall be established with a 500 foot buffer, or as otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist, around any occupied nest. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be allowed if the qualified Biologist determines that the proposed construction activities would not disturb the nest occupants. Construction during the nesting season can occur only at the sites if a qualified Biologist has determined that the construction activities are not a disruption to the breeding activities or if the fledglings have left the nest. If an inactive nest is observed within the area to be directly impacted during the non-nesting season, Page 22 ATTACHMENT o����� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Impact � PP g ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist, and when the raptor is away from the nest, the nest will be relocated so raptors cannot return to it. The quaked Biologist will supervise the relocation of the nest. ® BIO-8:southern Tarplant. Prior to any construction,demolition,grading or equivalent activity, a qualified Biologist shall survey the proiect site for presence of southern Tarplant Any impacted colonies of southern Tarplant within the proiect site shall be relocated to open space areas on the site. A southern Tarplant relocation program shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist and implemented prior to construction. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources:#5) Discussion: See below. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ MR mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: #5) Discussion a& b: Although Huntington Beach has been the site of oil and gas extraction since the 1920s,oil production has decreased over the years,and today,oil producing wells are scattered throughout the City. Previous environmental analysis(Recirculated EIR No. 551)for the Bolsa Chica area indicates that there are no existing wells on the project site. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts to mineral resources and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Given that there are no known mineral resources on the site and no development is being proposed,the project will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impacts would occur. IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATEItMLS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ MR environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:#) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ - ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous Page23 AT . �a �� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact materials into the environment? (Sources: #1) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ El acutely hazardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources:#1) (Discussion: See discussion below. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 91 & 12) Discussion: See discussion below. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources:#1&11) Discussion: See discussion below. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: #1) (Discussion: See discussion below. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources:#1) Discussion: See discussion below. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,or death involving wildland fires,including ❑ ❑ ❑ El where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:#1) Discussion items a—h: The nearest school,Marine View Middle School,is located approximately%z mile from the project site. In addition,the project site is not listed on any list of hazardous sites. The City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,but is not located within two miles of a public or private airport. Page 24 ATTACHMENT A Y. � Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: #1 & 14) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources:#1 & 14) Discussion: See discussion below. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ project?(Sources: #1 & 14) Discussion: See discussion below. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ without the project? (Sources:#1 & 14) Discussion: See discussion below. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:#1 & 11) Discussion: See discussion below. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:#1 & 14) Discussion a—f. The City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Page 25 ATTA CHMENT Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Base Los Alamitos,but is not located within two miles of a public or private airport. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in noise impacts and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Impacts related to noise would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. X1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources:#1, 5&6) ❑ ❑ Discussion: See discussion. b) Police Protection? (Sources:#1, 5 &6) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion: See discussion below. c) Schools? (Sources: #1,5 &6) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: See discussion below. d) Parks? (Sources:#1, 5 &6) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: See discussion below. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? ❑ ❑ (Sources:#1,5&6) Discussion a—e: The proposed project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2 acre site and does not propose any new construction or development that would cause immediate impacts on public services. However,the project does propose annexation in the City and pre-zoning of a site that would allow future development on a portion of the site. The proposed zoning would allow up to 22 residential units to be developed. Currently,the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department(OCSCD)and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)would provide police and fire/emergency services to the site. However,through mutual aid agreements,the City of Huntington Beach is also a first responder. Upon annexation of the site into the City of Huntington Beach,police and fire/emergency services would be provided directly by the City of Huntington Beach. The City's Fire Department has indicated that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on the City's fire protection services. The project site is located within the Ocean View School District(grades K-8)and the Huntington Beach Union High School District. Five City parks,Bolsa Chica State Beach and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are all located within one mile of the project site. Libraries in both the City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange library systems would serve the project site. Previous environmental documentation(Recirculated EIR No. 551)for the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, Page 26 ATTA `� . I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact analyzed the development of 2,500 residential units on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas,which included development on the project site at a density of 6.5—12.5 dwelling units per acre. Impacts to public services were determined to be either less than significant(police,fire,schools,parks and libraries)or less than significant with mitigation(emergency services specific to OCFA capability of meeting adequate response times). Future residential development on the site would be required to pay park, school and library fees as applicable. Given that the scope of future development would be much smaller than what was previously analyzed and anticipated for the Bolsa Chica mesa,less than significant impacts to public services would occur. XIV. UT'ILIT'IES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources:#1, 5 &6) )[Discussion: See discussion below. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: #l, 5 &6) (Discussion: See discussion below. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:#1,5&6) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources:#1,5 &6) Discussion: See discussion below. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 41, 5&6) Discussion: See discussion below. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 27 ATTACK mzfi. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: #1, 5 &6) (Discussion: See discussion below. g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? (Sources:#1,5 &6) (Discussion: See discussion below. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice(BMP),(e.g.water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality treatment basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources:#l,5&6) Discussion a—h: The proposed project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2 acre site and does not propose any new construction or development that would cause immediate impacts or create additional demand on utilities and service systems with the exception water supply to the site. However,the project does propose zoning that would allow future development on a portion of the site. The proposed zoning would allow up to 22 single-family homes to be developed and irrigation(temporary and permanent)may be needed for the open space areas. Previous environmental documentation(Recirculated EIR No. 551)for the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, analyzed the development of 2,500 residential units on the Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach mesas,which included the project site. It was determined at the time,that existing utilities were available to serve the development and any potential impacts to utilities and service systems were determined to be either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The Public Works Department has indicated that the water demand for the subject site was not accounted for in the 2005 Water Master Plan Update and 2005 Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP). Although the project would result an increase in water demand,it would not present a significant impact to the current water supplies according to the water surplus identified in the 2005 UWMP. In addition,future development proposals would require a separate environmental analysis in which the water supply available to serve the property would be assessed using the water surplus identified under the adopted UWMP at the time development is proposed. Therefore,impacts would be less than significant. XV. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources:#Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but ❑ ❑ ❑ MR not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources:# Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 28 ATTACH ENT H . �b Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources:# Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the ❑ ❑ ❑ area? (Sources:#Figure 3) Discussion a—d: The subject site is situated at approximately 50 feet above mean sea level(msl)and views of the wetlands,lowlands,eucalyptus ESHA as well as distant views of the Pacific Ocean can be captured from the site. A portion of the Open Space—Parks and Recreation(OS-PR)area is proposed to maintain existing views from the site and provide a public vista point. The Coastal Conservation(CC)as well as the remaining OS-PR area will maintain views of the slope to persons on the bicycle trail along the channel. The existing character of the surrounding area consists of residential and open spaces uses,which are similar to the uses that would be allowed under the proposed zoning of the site. The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. The project would not result in impacts to aesthetics and does not contemplate development of the site. However,a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Impacts related to aesthetics would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. XV1. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ® ❑ a historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources: #4,19) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 815064.5? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (Sources:#4, 19) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources:#4, 19) Discussion: See discussion under item d. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ® 0 outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources:#4, 19) Page 29 ATTACHMENT NOa ��` Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion items a—d: The proposed project will establish zoning on a 6.2 acre site that would be annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed zoning includes approximately 3.2 acres for single-family residential uses, 1.0 acre for Coastal Conservation area and approximately 2.0 acres designated as Open Space —Parks and Recreation. Historically,the project site has been disturbed by previous uses,including agriculture,World War H activities and terracing for a pole yard. An underground structure containing a plotting and switchboard room was built by the U.S.Army to support Battery 128 on the site in 1943. City planning staff observed a portion of an underground structure during a site visit in June 2008. It is likely that the structure is related to structures that may have been constructed on the site during World War H. A Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 6.2 acre site was prepared by the consulting firm of SWCA in November 2007. The Report indicated that 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted within or adjacent to the project area. 11 of the studies are specific to the previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site CA-ORA-83,which is listed on the California Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites. A pedestrian survey was conducted for the Cultural Resources Survey Report by SWCA in September 2007. The pedestrian survey identified indications of the presence of CA-ORA-83 within the project area. These indications included scattered concentrations of shell and possible midden soils. A possible historic World War H concrete foundation for the underground plotting/switchboard room was also observed during the site survey. In addition to the survey that was conducted by SWCA in 2007,a report on the history of archeological investigations on the Broiect site was prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys(SRS),Inc.in May 2009. The report refers to the Goodell property as part of the archeological site CA-ORA-144 or"The Water Tower Site",which is part of the larger archeological site CA-ORA-83 or"The Coggsed Stone Site." The report also provides an aerial photograph history of land use on the site. The aerial history shows the amount of disturbance that has occurred on the Goodell property over the years. The most significant disturbance occurred during World War H and the construction of the Bolsa Chica MVlilitary Reservation. Construction included Batteries 128 and 242,which have since been demolished,and placement of a plotting and spotting room(PSR)on the G000dell site. The war ended before the facilities were completed and the facilities were used for training and storage until the Bolsa Chica Miltiary Reservation was closed permanently in 1948. Construction of the PSR building on the Goodell site required heavy grading and excavation on the site, consequently destroying most of the archeological site on the property. Other disturbances that occurred on the site include agricultural plowing and disking,terracing for a pole yard and activities from the Bolsa Chica Gun Club. The report concludes that as a result of all the disturbance that has occurred on the Goodell property,only the western and northern boundaries of the site have the potential to contain remnants of subsurface deposits. However,it should be noted that previous excavations on the adjacent property to the north,as well as previous site disturbance,indicate that it is not likely that deposits would remain in the northern portion of the property. According to die-both reports,the subject site has never been tested to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of CA-ORA-83/CA-ORA-144 and that it is likely that the project area contains intact subsurface deposits that may be important to local and regional prehistory. Only one archeological excavation has occurred on the site In 1963,two hand-excavated units were dug,but pull produced a"few flakes"and no midden deposit was located(SRS 2009). In addition,large portions of the excavated areas of CA-ORA- 83 outside of the project boundaries have documented presence of a prehistoric cemetery. As such,further testing would be required prior to future development of the site. Page30 ATTACT NO. �, 30 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The proposed project would not directly result in impacts to cultural resources,however it would establish zoning that would allow for future development of the site. Therefore,the following mitigation measures shall be required prior to any proposal for future development: • CR-1: Prior to determination of a complete application submittal for development of the site, testing shall be done by a qualified archaeologist to determine the vertical and horizontal extents of site CA-ORA-83/CA-ORA-144 within the property, including the presence or absence of subsurface deposits. The testing program should be multi phased including a full nronerty survey and documentation of present condition. Backhoe trenching in and amongst historic structure locations and along parcel boundaries shall be conducted to verify the presence or absence of intact historic and prehistoric deposits if such exist. hand excavations shall be conducted in order to establish the extent,death,nature and content of mWen deposits if such remain. ReaaMient Plank If site remnants are located,in-situ preservation shall be considered If preservation is not possible,a data recovery program shall be required If required, data recovery excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbing activities. Although future development would be analyzed for environmental impacts at the time development is proposed,any future development proposal shall,at a minimum,include the following mitigation measure in the environmental assessment: • CR-2: Documentation of the World War II PSR building shall be documented using the same methodology and techniques developed for documenting Batteries 128 and 242 prior to demolition, which includes photo documentation. The documentation shall be available for a comparison of interior and exterior construction techniques and other uses,such as for graffiti or artistic expression between all three bunkers and associated outbuildings. • CR-3: If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notes the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC), which will determine and note a Most Likely Descendent(MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. XVII. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood,community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:#1 &Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require El the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the Page 31 ATTACHMENT . �a1_ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact environment? (Sources: #1 &Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources:#1 El ❑ &Figure 3) Discussion items a—c:The proposed project will establish zoning on a 6.2 acre site that would be annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed zoning includes approximately 3.2 acres for single-family residential uses(RL), 1.0 acre for Coastal Conservation(CC)area and approximately 2.0 acres designated as Open Space—Parks and Recreation(OS-PR). A 0.5-acre portion of the proposed open space is located at the southwest portion of the site and overlooks the Bolsa Chica. The proposed open space area is intended to provide a viewing area of the lowlands,eucalyptus ESHA and wetlands,which are visible from the project site. In addition,this area is adjacent to an existing decomposed granite trail that is part of the Brightwater Development. The trail meanders along the southern boundary of the residential portion of the Brightwater development adjacent to the open space ESHA within the Brightwater Specific Plan area. Currently,the site is used by hikers,joggers and kids riding their bikes through informal paths on the site. However,the site is private property and not considered a recreational amenity by the City. Five City parks,Bolsa Chica State Beach and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve are all located within one mile of the project site. The General Plan Recreation and Community Services Element includes a standard of five acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Based on a maximum density of seven units per acre,there is potential for approximately 22 homes to be constructed,which would result in approximately 57 people. Although it is possible that some of the residents of any future proposed development on the site would already be Huntington Beach residents,the park requirement for 57 people would be 0.30 acres. While the introduction of new homes would contribute to increased usage of parks in the vicinity of the project site,the project is proposing to designate approximately 2.0 acres for park space. In addition,future development would be required to comply with HBZSO requirements for dedication of land and/or payment of park fees. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial deterioration of existing park facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur. XVIII.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? (Sources:#15, 16&Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. Page 32 ATTACHMENT N®. �a 3�— Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ MR Williamson Act contract? (Sources:#15, 16&Figure 3) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources:#15, 16& Figure 3) (Discussion a—c:The proposed pre-zoning and annexation of the subject property will not convert farmland or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. The site is currently located within the County of Orange and zoned Planned Community(PC),which would allow for the development of residential and open space uses. The proposed project would establish similar zoning on the project site and as such,no impacts would occur. XIX.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ® ❑ the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources:#1-16) Discussion: As discussed in Sections VII(Biological Resources)and XVI(Cultural Resources),the pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site would not result in direct impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitat, nor would it result in direct impacts to cultural resources. However,the proposed project would allow for a portion of the site to be developed in the future,which could potentially result in impacts to biological and cultural resources. Based on the analysis in the sections referenced above,these impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively ❑ ❑ considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources:#1-16) Discussion: See discussion below. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly? (Sources:#1-16) Discussion: The proposed project will establish zoning on a 6.2 acre site that would be annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed zoning includes approximately 3.2 acres for single-family residential uses(RL), 1.0 acre for Coastal Conservation(CC)area and approximately 2.0 acres designated as Open Space—Parks and Page 33 ATTACHMENT No. q. � Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Recreation(OS-PR). Although,the project does not contemplate development of the site and would not result in adverse impacts to the environment,including cumulatively considerable impacts,the project does propose zoning that would allow development on a portion of the site. The site could potentially be developed with up to 22 single-family residences and open space areas. If and when development is proposed,a separate environmental analysis based on the project description would be required. Therefore,the proposed project will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts or a substantial increase in environmental effects that will cause adverse effects on human beings.Less than significant impacts would occur. Page 34 � ATTACHM T N � XX. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (a)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,2000 Main St.,3rd Floor, Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance " 3 Biological Resources Assessment(November 2007) " 4 Cultural Resources Survey Report(November 2007) " 5 Recirculated EIR No.551—County of Orange(1996) " 6 Subsequent EIR No. 551—County of Orange(2002) " 7 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report " 8 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(February 18,2004) " Map No.06059CO233H 9 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality " Management District(1993) 10 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 13 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " 14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code " 15 Orange County General Plan Map " 16 Orange County Zoning Map « 17 Addendum to Subsequent EIR No. 551—County of Orange « (2005) 18 Supplemental Biological Surveys(LSA,July 2009) « 19 History of Archeological Investigations(SRS,May 2009) « Page 35 AT NO, Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Biological Resources • BIO-1: The three eucalyptus trees shall be preserved on the site. If the s Have a substantial adverse trees cannot be preserved in place,they shall be relocated and preserved effect,either directly or elsewhere on the site prior to any ground disturbing activities. through habitat modifications, Specifications for any eucalyptus trees to be relocated shall be submitted by on any species identified as a a qualified arborist for review,and approval by the Department of Public candidate, sensitive,or special Works in coordination with the California Coastal Commission(CCC)and status species in local or California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). If the tFees eanflet be regional plans,policies,or . regulations,or by the California Department of Fish • BIO-2: All non-native ornamental trees to be removed from the site shall and Game or U.S,Fish and be replaced on-site with native trees species that will provide suitable Wildlife Service nesting sites for raptors,such as the coast live oak or western sycamore. Each tree shall be replaced with either two 24-inch box trees or four 5- Have a substantial adverse gallon trees. Trees should be of local stock and acquired from a reputable effect on any riparian habitat local native plant nursery. Details of these replacement measures, or other sensitive natural including a final number,size,planting design,method for installation, community identified in local watering plan,maintenance and establishment criteria shall be included in a or regional plans,policies, revegetation plan prepared by a qualified botanist or arborist and approved regulations,or by the by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and . BI0-3: A minimum 100-foot buffer from the boundary of the existing Wildlife ESHA located immediately south of the project site shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 221 of the HBZSO. ♦ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected BI04: coastal California enatcatcher: Prior to any wetlands as defined by Section demolition,grading or equivalent activity,focused surveys shall be 404 of the Clean Water Act conducted within the project site and accessible areas within 500 feet of the (including,but not limited to, site during the appropriate season in accordance with United States Fish marsh,vernal pool,coastal, and Wildlife Service(USFWS)established protocols. If the survey results etc.)through direct removal, are negative for presence of coastal California gnatcatchers,no further filling,hydrological mitigation is required. If the surveys detect coastal California gnatcatchers interruption,or other adjacent to but not within the project site,construction shall be limited to outside of the nesting season and a qualified biological monitor shall be ♦ Interfere substantially with the present during construction to ensure that no adults are destroyed. The movement of any native project applicant shall coordinate construction scheduling with the USFWS. resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with If the surveys detect coastal California gnatcatchers within the project site, established native resident or additional mitigation would be required as determined through the Section migratory wildlife corridors or 7 or Section 10 consultation process with USFWS. Mitigation options are impede the use of native likely to include: avoidance of impacts to occupied habitat; wildlife nursery sites creation/restoration of habitat on property adjacent to the project site; creation/restoration or preservation of habitat on other local property that has occupied or unoccupied habitat;preservation of occupied and/or unoccupied coastal sage scrub habitat in a bank such as the Viejo conservation Bank in Orange County;preservation of occupied and/or unoccupied scrub habitat in other portions of Orange County;or other Page 2 TTACHMENT NO-- A mitigation options developed in conjunction with USFWS and the United States Army Core of Engineers(USACE). ® BI®—5: Burrowing Owl:Prior to ground distu-bing aetivitydemolition, grading or equivalent ,surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls where suitable habitat is present within the construction areas. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with established protocols of the California Burrowing Owl Consortium(CBOC)and the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG). If unoccupied burrows are found during the non-breeding season,the property owner may collapse the unoccupied burrows,or otherwise obstruct their entrances to prevent owls from entering and nesting in the burrows. This measure would prevent inadvertent impacts during construction activities. If no occupied burrows are found in the survey area,a letter report documenting survey methods and findings shall be submitted to the City and CDFG for review and approval,and no further mitigation is necessary. If occupied burrows are found,impacts on the burrows shall be avoided by providing a buffer of 165 feet during the non-breeding season(September 1 through January 31)or 250 feet during the breeding season(February 1 through August 31).The size of the buffer area may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and CDFG determine it would not be likely to have adverse effects on the owls.No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied.If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair,a minimum of 7.5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be maintained until the breeding season is over. If impacts on occupied burrows are unavoidable,onsite passive relocation techniques approved by CDFG shall be used to encourage owls to move to alternative burrows outside of the impact area.However,no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.Mitigation for foraging habitat for relocated pairs shall follow guidelines provided in the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's April 1995 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines,which ranges from 7.5 to 19.5 acres per pair. ® BI®—6: Nesting Mi rgratory Birds:Prior to any construction ergret dishing-, demolition,grading or equivalent activity,a qualified Biologist shall survey the project impact area for the presence of any active bird nest(common or special status)within 72 hours prior to the onset of construction activities. Any nest found during the survey efforts will be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found,no further mitigation is required. Results of the surveys will be provided to the CDFG and the City of Huntington Beach. If any active migratory bird nest is present,the nest will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any active nest,the following Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO. , restrictions on construction are required until the nests are no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist:(1)clearing limits will be established with a 300-foot buffer around any occupied nest,or as otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest will only be allowed if the qualified Biologist determines that the proposed construction activities would not disturb the nest occupants. Construction during the nesting season can occur only at the sites if a qualified Biologist has determined that the construction activities are not a disruption to the breeding activities or if the fledglings have left the nest. • BIO-7: Nesting Raptors:Prior to any construction e - irg, demolition,grading or equivalent activity,a qualified Biologist shall survey within 500 feet of the project impact area for the presence of any active raptor nests(common or special status)at least seven days prior to the onset of construction activities. Any nest found during survey efforts shall be mapped on the construction plans. If no active nests are found,no further mitigation is required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the CDFG and the City of Huntington Beach. If nesting activity is present at any raptor nest site,the active nest site will be protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any nest site,the following restrictions on construction are required until nests are no longer active,as determined by a qualified Biologist:(1)clearing limits shall be established with a 500 foot buffer,or as otherwise determined by.a qualified Biologist,around any occupied nest. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the known nest shall only be allowed if the qualified Biologist determines that the proposed construction activities would not disturb the nest occupants. Construction during the nesting season can occur only at the sites if a qualified Biologist has determined that the construction activities are not a disruption to the breeding activities or if the fledglings have left the nest. If an inactive nest is observed within the area to be directly impacted during the non-nesting season,the nest site shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist,and when the raptor is away from the nest,the nest will be relocated so raptors cannot return to it. The qualified Biologist will supervise the relocation of the nest. • BIO-8: southern Tarplant: Prior to any construction,demolition, grading or equivalent activity,a gualiffjed Biologist shall survey the project site for presence of southern Tarplant. Any impacted colonies of southern Tarplant within the project site shall be relocated to open space areas on the site. A southern Tarplant relocation program shall be prepared by a gualified Biologist and implemented prior to construction. Page 4 ATTHET ®. s SL Cultural Resources a CR-1: Prior to determination of a complete application submittal for ♦ Cause a substantial adverse development of the site,testing shall be done by a qualified archaeologist to change in the significance of a determine the vertical and horizontal extents of site CA-ORA-83/CA- historical resource as defined ORA-144 within the property,including the presence or absence of in 815064.5 subsurface deposits. The testing program should be multi-phased including a full Rroverty survey and documentation of present ♦ Cause a substantial adverse condition. Backhoe trenching in and amongst historic structure change in the significance of locations and along parcel boundaries shall be conducted to verify the an archaeological resource presence or absence of intact historic and prehistoric deposits if such pursuant to 515064.5 exist. Hand excavations shall be conducted in order to establish the extent,depth,nature and content of midden deposits if such remain. ♦ Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique T+eatmefftl If site remnants are located,in-situ preservation shall geologic feature be considered. Iff preservation is not possible,a data recovery program shall be required. If required,data recovery excavation shall be ♦ Disturb any human remains, completed prior to any ground disturbing activities. including those interred outside of formal cemeteries CR-2: Documentation of the World War H PSR building shall be documented using the same methodology and techniques developed for documenting Batteries 128 and 242 prior to demolition,which includes photo documentation. The documentation shall be available for a comparison of interior and exterior construction techniques and other uses,such as for graffiti or artistic expression,between all three bunkers and associated outbuildings. s CR-3: If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth- moving activities,no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric,the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC),which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent(MLD).The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Pages ATTACHMENT NO. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT RECIRCULATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-017 I. This document serves as the Response to Comments on Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation Project as of August 25, 2009 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017, and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of August 25, 2009. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. The Errata to Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 is provided to show corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017. Based on the information contained in the public record, the decision-makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW A draft MND was made available for public review from March 26, 2009 to April 24, 2009. Comments received during the comment period identified presence of biological resources on the property, specifically southern Tarplant, that were not identified in the draft MND and supporting technical reports. Subsequent to the comment period, an updated biological survey was prepared as well as an updated cultural resources report. Based on the information contained in the comment letters as well as the updated technical reports, revisions to the draft MND were made including the addition of two new mitigation measures. These changes resulted in a requirement to recirculate the draft MND in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Recirculated Draft MND No. 08-017 was made available for a 30-day public review period from July 27, 2009 to August 25, 2009. The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of ATTACHMENT Na GAVillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017. 1. A cover letter and copies of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 were filed with the State Clearinghouse on July 27, 2009. The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 2009031094 to the proposed project. A copy of the cover letter and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. 2. An official 30-day public review period for Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 was established by the State Clearinghouse. It began on July 27, 2009 and ended on August 25, 2009. Public comment letters were received by the City of Huntington Beach through August 25, 2009. 3. Notice of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on July 23, 2009 as well as advertised on the City's website. Notices were also sent to property owners and tenants within a 1,000' radius of the project site. 4. Copies of the document were made available to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals at the following locations: ■ City Hall—City Clerk's Office ■ City Hall—Planning & Zoning Counter ■ Central Library ■ On the City's website III. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of August 25, 2009 are contained in Appendices A& B of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. Since the project included two 30-day comment periods: one on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 and one on Recirculated draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017, all comments are included in this section. Comments on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 are included in Appendix A. Comments on Recirculated draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 are included in Appendix B. All comments are referenced by number with the responses directly adjacent to the reference number for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment that was submitted on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 and Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 that raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. I11. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 was distributed to G:\VillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT N®o5• 2 responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days. The public review period for Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 was established by the State Clearinghouse on July 27, 2009 and expired on August 25, 2009. The City of Huntington Beach received comment letters through August 25, 2009. Copies of all documents received as of August 25, 2009 are contained in Appendices A & B of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment that raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a"comment acknowledged" or similar reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS —DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) NO. 08-017 (Comment period 3/26/09—4/24/09) State Departments Department of Transportation DOT-1: This comment does not bring up any environmental issues. Comment acknowledged. DOT-2: This comment indicates that the DOT does not have comments at this time. Comment acknowledged. Department of Fish and Game DFG-1: This comment describes the project and identifies the DFG as a responsible agency. Comment acknowledged. DFG-2: This comment reiterates statements made in the draft MND regarding biological resources on the Goodell site. Comment acknowledged. DFG-3: The comment indicates that the project could result in further restriction of open space and a potential edge-effect created by new development that could have an impact on resources on the site and lead to an increase in use of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER)thereby resulting in negative impacts. However,the project does not propose to "further restrict open space" as the proposed pre-zoning designations would result in the conversion of three acres of existing residentially zoned property to open space designations. In addition, the project does not propose development of the site. DFG-4: Consultation with DFG staff in 2007 concluded that existing trees on the Goodell property provide nesting and roosting habitat for raptors and vegetation on the site provides foraging habitat for raptors. However, it was determined that the site is not GAVillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT NO 3 /1 considered important foraging habitat and that removal of non-native trees from the site would be beneficial since they provide perches for raptors that hunt threatened and endangered species within the nearby BCER. This information was added to the analysis in the recirculated draft MND. Since the project does not propose development, it would not result in a reduction in raptor foraging habitat and further impacts as a result of a reduction of raptor foraging habitat. In addition, if development is proposed in the future mitigation measures incorporated in Recirculated draft NMD No. 08-017 require that all non-native trees to be removed from the site be replaced with native trees such as the coast Live Oak or western Sycamore. This is consistent with DFG recommendations from the 2007 consultation. In addition,the proposed mitigation measures require surveys for nesting raptors and nesting migratory birds prior to ground disturbance. DFG-5: This comment indicates the DFG's responsibility to manage the BCER. The comment indicates that additional development in the area would result in additional strain on DFG staff and the BCER and recommends that the applicant work with the Department to minimize impacts to the BCER. It should be noted that the project does not propose development of the site. However, if the property is annexed into the City of Huntington Beach and development is proposed in the future, the City will inform the applicant of the DFG's concerns and provide contact information for the DFG to the applicant. DFG-6: Comment acknowledged. The project does not consist of any development. However, the concerns of the DFG regarding invasive species in the BCER will be forwarded to a project applicant if development is proposed for the site in the future. DFG-7: The project does not propose development of the site. Although a coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in a patch of chenopod scrub in 2005, subsequent biological surveys were conducted in July 2009 and concluded that coastal California gnatcatchers are not present on the site. The surveys indicated that they would likely not be present on the site in the future due to conservation and enhancement of coastal sage scrub, the coastal California gnatcatcher's preferred habitat on an adjacent site. This information is reflected in the recirculated draft MND. Even so, the draft HIND identifies a mitigation measure for focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers in the event development of the site is proposed in the future. In addition, the patch of chenopod scrub is proposed to be designated as Coastal Conservation area and therefore, would not result in a reduction of foraging habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. It should also be noted that the existing zoning and General Plan designation for the site in the County of Orange is residential. DFG-8: Comment acknowledged. The City notes that future coordination with the DFG will be required to address the issues outlined in the comment letter in the event that development is proposed on the site in the future. California Coastal Commission CCC-l: This comment summarizes the project. Comment acknowledged. CCC-2: This comment indicates that the final land use designations will be subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission. The comment outlines four areas of concern, GAVillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc 4 ATTA ENT .' which are addressed in the comments/responses that follow: sensitive biological habitats and species, archeological/cultural resources, compatibility of surrounding land uses and whether the proposed pre-zoning designations account for recent actions in the surrounding areas. Comment acknowledged. CCC-3: The draft MND has been revised to identify the revegetation that occurred as mitigation for the removal of trees on the site. The revegetation is adjacent to the chenopod scrub habitat in the area proposed to be designated as Coastal Conservation. This information is included in the recirculated draft MND. The rest of the comment reiterates the draft MND conclusions that existing eucalyptus trees on the site are an important biological resource. CCC-4: Comment acknowledged. The comment states that the ESHA in the vicinity of the project site is generally referred to as the "eucalyptus ESHA", but other tree species are included in the ESHA. The comment indicates that all trees on the site should be considered in the context of the "important ecosystem functions they provide." The draft MND identifies that existing trees on the site support raptor species in the area. The mitigation measures provide for the preservation of the eucalyptus trees on the site and require that any non-native trees be replaced with native trees. The replacement of trees will ensure that the functional value that existing trees on the site provide would not be lost if a development is proposed on the site in the future. See also response to DFG-4. CCC-5: The comment requests that the draft MND consider the habitat function of trees that were removed without authorization. The recirculated draft MND discusses the revegetation that occurred on the site as mitigation for the unauthorized removal of trees on the site. However, since the trees that were removed no longer exist,their habitat function cannot be considered. Additionally, the loss of those trees was mitigated through the revegetation that took place in 2007. None of the existing trees on the site has been determined to be ESHA. Finally, the draft MND considers raptor use of the site and recommends mitigation measures to be incorporated into future development proposals. See response to DFG-5. CCC-6: The draft MND did not identify the presence of southern Tarplant or coastal California gnatcatchers on the subject site. Subsequent biological surveys were conducted by LSA in July 2009. The surveys identified the presence of southern Tarplant on the site. The discovery of southern Tarplant on the subject site is analyzed in recirculated draft MND. The recirculated draft MND also recommends a mitigation measure for the relocation of southern Tarplant if development is proposed in the future in areas on the site where southern Tarplant is present. The biological surveys also noted that coastal California gnatcatchers are not present on the site. The survey report indicated that they are not likely to inhabit the site due to an abundance of their preferred habitat on the adjacent Brightwater property. A mitigation measure is proposed that would require focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers if development is proposed on the site in the future. See also response to DFG-7. CCC-7: The mitigation measure in the draft MND has been revised to state that a"minimum" 100-foot buffer from the boundary of the existing ESHA located immediately south of GAVillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc AT 5 TACHMENT NO.�- the project site shall be provided. This revision was reflected in the recirculated draft MND. CCC-8: The mitigation measures have been revised to clarify that all eucalyptus trees shall be preserved on site. Two of the eucalyptus trees are located in the area designated for Coastal Conservation, the other eucalyptus tree is located in the Open Space—Parks and Recreation area. Although the location of the trees in the open space/conservation areas would likely ensure that they could be preserved in place, the mitigation measure indicates that if the trees cannot be preserved in place they shall be relocated elsewhere on the site in coordination with the California Coastal Commission and the DFG. Language allowing the trees to be replaced with native trees in the event the trees could not be preserved or relocated has been deleted from the mitigation measure. In addition, the mitigation measures clarify that all non-native trees to be removed shall be replaced"on site"with native trees. This mitigation measure incorporates recommendations of the DFG. The revised language was included in the recirculated draft MND. See also response to CCC-7 and DFG-4. CCC-9: This comment states that a recent Biological Assessment will be required by the California Coastal Commission at the time a Local Coastal Program amendment is submitted to the Coastal Commission. Comment acknowledged. CCC-10: This comment reiterates the discussion and analysis of cultural resources in the draft MND. Comment acknowledged. CCC-11: Comment acknowledged. An amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program, subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission, would be required to establish land use designations for the subject site prior to or concurrent with a development proposal. Per the recommended mitigation measure, archeological testing is required prior to a development proposal for the subject site. It is acknowledged that a testing program would require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. CCC-12: Comment acknowledged. The City has conducted early consultation with tribes identified on the Native American Heritage Commission tribal contact list. CCC-13: The mitigation measure in the draft MND requiring testing of the site for archeological resources has been revised to include consideration for in-situ preservation of discovered artifacts. The revised language was included in the recirculated draft MND. CCC-14: An expanded discussion of the World War I1 structures on the subject site was included in the recirculated draft MND. In addition, a mitigation measure for documentation of the demolition of the structure was incorporated in the recirculated draft MND. The mitigation measure requires documentation utilizing the same methodology that was used for documenting the demolition of the other structures that made up the Bolsa Chica Military Reservation. GAVillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc p,ITA HMENT N®° 6 CCC-15: Figure 3 has been revised to show the City's recent action to re-zone the portion of the Shea property immediately east of the subject site to Coastal Conservation. The figure was revised in the recirculated draft MND. CCC-16: Figure 3 of the draft MND has been revised to indicate both the zoning of the adjacent Brightwater site as SP-15 (Specific Plan 15) and the approved land uses for those areas since the zoning designation itself does not describe the land use. The figure was revised in the recirculated draft MND. CCC-17: Based on the information in this comment,the language under Land Use and Planning in the draft MND has been revised to analyze the compatibility of the proposed pre-zoning designations with the current zoning and land use designations for the property north of the subject site as well as recent actions to change the zoning designation on a portion of the property immediately to the east to Coastal Conservation. The recirculated draft MND states that the proposed pre-zoning designations would be consistent with existing, approved or under-construction single-family development adjacent to the project area on the east, west and northwest and the open space areas to the east, south and southwest. The zoning would also be consistent with the RA(Residential Agricultural) zoning to the north that allows agricultural uses and single-family development. In addition, the residential zoning designation on the subject site would not conflict with the OS-P (Open Space—Parks) General Plan land use designation on the site to the north as it is common throughout the City to find uses allowed by the residential zoning designation, single-family homes in particular, adjacent to parks and land designated as OS-P. Exhibits in the recirculated draft MND have been revised to reflect recent re-zoning actions on the Shea property to the east. CCC-18: See response to CCC-17. The comment is noted that a proposal to change the land use designation on property north of the subject site would require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program subject to approval by the California Coastal Commission. CCC-19: Recirculated EIR No. 551 analyzed residential development on the subject site at a density of approximately 6.5 — 12.5 dwelling units per acre. The EIR was certified and as such, concluded that the subject site could support development at a similar density as what would be allowed under the proposed pre-zoning designation for 3.2 acres of the subject site. In addition, any future development proposal for the subject site would warrant additional environmental analysis to assess environmental impacts of a particular development proposal. The comment notes that a residential low density zone could result in development that would be inconsistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. However, any proposal for development of the site would be required to conform to the City's certified Local Coastal Program, which would effectively conform to the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Also, the proposed pre-zoning designations must be found to conform to the City's General Plan including the Coastal Element,which provides for the implementation of the California Coastal Act. G:\VillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT N®.�' 7 CCC-20: Comment acknowledged. The draft MND lists all actions on Recirculated EIR No. 551 to provide a complete and accurate record. Although Addendum to Subsequent EIR No. 551 is not referenced in the draft MND, it is described so that the full record of actions on Recirculated EIR No. 551, which did consider the subject site, is disclosed. CCC-21: The draft MND cites analysis that was done for the subject site in Recirculated EIR No. 551 as it relates to that particular impact area. However, the draft MND states that a future development project would warrant additional environmental analysis so that impacts of a particular development project can be evaluated for that specific project. The draft MND is also based on recent technical reports for biological and cultural resources. Recirculated draft MND includes revised language and exhibits to reflect recent actions on surrounding properties, including the Shea property to the east, as well as supplemental biological and cultural resources reports with updated information. The mitigation measures identified in the recirculated draft MND require further studies and surveys if development is proposed on the site in the future to provide current(at the time that development may be proposed) analysis of resources on the site. CCC-22: This comment suggests that public views to and from the subject site should be protected and maintained even if the land use plan is changed from the current proposal. It should be noted however, that the subject site is private property and existing views from the property would not be considered"public views." Comment acknowledged. CCC-23: The comment suggests that potential for connectivity between existing public trails on adjacent sites should be considered in the pre-zoning process. The 2-acre Open Space —Parks and Recreation designation would provide for potential connectivity to existing formal and informal trails on surrounding properties in the future. Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC-1: This comment summarizes the project as proposed in the Draft MND. Comment acknowledged. DTSC-2: This comment indicates that the Draft MND ("ND") should identify"whether current or historic uses at the project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances." Although the Draft MND indicates that the site is not listed on any lists of hazardous sites, the document has been revised to indicate that historic uses included agricultural operations that may have resulted in traces of pesticides or organic waste in the on-site soils (refer to Section V). However,this issue would be further analyzed if development is proposed in the future. DTSC-3: This comment indicates that the Draft MND ("ND") should identify if the site is listed in any database of contaminated sites. The document already indicates that the site is not included on any list of contaminated sites. DTSC-4: The comment indicates that the Draft MND ("ND") should identify a mechanism to initiate remediation for a contaminated site. The project site has not been determined to be a contaminated site, and therefore this comment would not be applicable at this G:\VillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT N®n�b 8 time. However, further environmental review would be required, including analysis of possible impacts from hazardous materials/waste, if development is proposed in the future. DTSC-5: The project does not propose construction or demolition of existing structures, and therefore would not require soil excavation or filling. Further environmental review would be required, including a geotechnical and soils analysis, if development is proposed in the future. DTSC-6: The project does not propose construction or demolition of existing structures. Further environmental review would be required, including analysis of possible impacts from hazardous materials, if development is proposed in the future. DTSC-7: The project does not propose construction or demolition of existing structures. Further environmental review would be required, including a geotechnical and soils analysis, if development is proposed in the future. DTSC-8: The proposed project does not propose construction or demolition of existing structures. Further environmental review would be required, including analysis of possible impacts from hazardous materials, if development is proposed in the future. DTSC-9: The proposed project does not propose construction or demolition of existing structures. Further environmental review would be required, including analysis of possible impacts from hazardous wastes, if development is proposed in the future. In addition, proposed pre-zoning designations for the site would likely not generate hazardous wastes. DTSC-10: Previous uses for the site include agricultural, World War II activities and a pole yard. If development of the site is proposed in the future, further environmental review would be required, including a geotechnical investigation and soils analysis. DTSC-1 l: This comment provides information on guidance offered by the DTSC for cleanup of contaminated sites. Comment acknowledged. Local/Regional Agencies Huntington Beach Environmental Board EB-1: The City utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS)technology to prepare the exhibits in the draft MND. In addition, the text of the draft MND includes a detailed description of the site and potential impacts. Additional information was provided in the recirculated draft MND. The Board reviewed the recirculated draft MND at their meeting on August 6, 2009 and indicated that comments on the draft MND (EB-1 and EB-2) were addressed in the recirculated draft MND. EB-2: The comment indicates that input from the local community should be solicited in evaluating the issues of the project, particularly biological resources. Prior to preparation of the draft MND, a biological resources assessment was conducted to identify sensitive biological resources on the project site. ACH ENT NO.� •� GAVillasenorAGoodell pre zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT 9 The 30-day comment period provided an opportunity for the local community to provide input on the draft MND, including the analysis regarding biological resources and all reference documents cited within. The City received several comments pertaining to biological resources from agencies and the local community. Based on comments received, additional biological surveys were conducted on the site. Additional surveys were conducted for southern Tarplant, which was not identified in the draft MND but was identified as present on the site in a comment letter, and coastal California gnatcatchers. The updated surveys were included in the recirculated draft MND including mitigation measures to ensure impacts to these resources would not be significant in the event development is proposed on the site in the future. Huntington Beach Historic Resources Board HRB-1: This comment is requesting a more comprehensive report be generated as a result of the comments provided in the letter. Comment acknowledged. HRB-2: This comment states that there are two important historical resources on the site,the prehistoric site ORA-83 "the cogged stone site" and a portion of a World War II military bunker. Both of these resources are discussed in the cultural resources section of the draft MND and recirculated draft MND (pages 29 - 31). In addition, expanded discussion of the World War II bunker, including a mitigation measure to address impacts if demolition of the underground building is ever proposed, is included in the recirculated draft MND. HRB-3: See response to HRB-2. Cultural resources on the Goodell site have been documented for purposes of analyzing potential impacts from the proposed pre-zoning and annexation of the site in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The analysis contained in the draft MND was based on a Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared by SWCA in 2007. Subsequent to the comment period on draft MND No. 08-017, a supplemental cultural resources report was prepared by SRS, Inc. in May 2009. This information was utilized to expand the discussion in Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017. The comment indicates that different pre-zoning designations for the site are warranted based on the significance of cultural resources on the site. However,the military bunker is not a significant historical resource. A proposed mitigation measure provides for documentation of the building in the same manner as the other two World War 11 buildings that have been demolished in the vicinity. Mitigation measure CR-1 requires testing of the entire subject site to determine the extent of archeological resources on the subject site, although the site has been heavily disturbed in the past by previous uses. Based on the information provided in both cultural resource reports for the subject site, it is likely that any intact resources would be discovered in the areas pre- zoned for Coastal Conservation and Open Space - Parks and Recreation where the least amount of disturbance has occurred. It should be noted that since the site has never been tested, it is possible that resources may be discovered in the area proposed to be pre-zoned for Low Density Residential. However,the proposed pre-zoning designations would be adequate based on information currently available for the site. Testing of the site would be premature since no development is proposed or reasonably foreseeable at this time. HRB-4: See response to HRB-3. The comment indicates that the pre-zoning designation for residential uses is "premature",but it should be noted that existing zoning on the site is G:\VillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT 10 residential. In this context, pre-zoning of approximately half of the site for uses that the property is currently zoned for would not be considered premature, especially given that previous Recirculated EIR No. 551, which was certified in 1996, analyzed environmental impacts of residential development of the site. HRB-5: The proposed pre-zoning designations for the site are based on information regarding biological and cultural resources on the site as well as existing surrounding land uses and zoning/land use designations. The draft MND identifies the existing County zoning of the site for comparative purposes, which is important since an EIR was previously certified for the zoning and potential residential development of the site. The draft MND does consider archeological resources that have been discovered on the Brightwater site and, in part, bases the likelihood of archeological resource discovery at the subject site on this information. Mitigation measures for resource recovery on the Brightwater site were certified as adequate and sufficient with previous environmental analysis for the project(Subsequent EIR No. 551 and Addendum to Subsequent EIR No. 551). Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017 includes expanded discussion of the military bunker on the subject site, which includes a proposed mitigation measure if the bunker is proposed to be demolished in the future. See response to HRB-2 and HRB- 3. The analysis in the draft MND and recirculated draft MND disclose the potential significance of the resources and, as such, provide mitigation measures in the event that development is proposed on the site in the future to ensure the proper treatment of the resources. HRB-6: Pre-zoning designations are required for annexation of the property into the City. The pre-zoning designations were determined based on a number of factors, including available information regarding biological and cultural resources on the property. The property is not currently designated as open space. The property is currently designated as residential and the current condition of the site is undeveloped. Organizations/Individuals Mark Bixby BIX-1: The exhibits in the draft MND &recirculated draft MND show the general locations for assessing environmental impacts of the proposed pre-zoning and annexation project. The City's Geographic Information Systems (GIS)program was utilized in preparing the exhibits and provides sufficient detail to adequately assess the impacts of the project. Legal descriptions are not required at this point in time. BIX-2: See response to BIX-l. In addition, mitigation measures ensure that future development maintain adequate buffers from existing ESHA in accordance with the City's certified LCP. BIX-3: See response to BIX-1. Access to GIS data can be obtained from contacting the City's Information Systems Department. BIX-4: The comment indicates that the draft MND failed to identify"several populations" of southern Tarplant on the Goodell site. Subsequent to receiving this comment, additional surveys were conducted in July 2009 and concluded that southern Tarplant is present on the site. The survey notes the frequency of small numbers of the species GAVillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc TTACHMENT NO. 11 throughout the site and in recently disturbed areas and the presence of a large group of very small seedlings, which indicates that the introduction of southern Tarplant in the area is recent and has high dispersal rates. The report indicates that a population of several thousand in a relatively natural habitat should be considered significant, warranting avoidance or relocation; however, the number of well-developed Tarplant individuals on the subject site would not be a significant population because they are fairly recent in disturbed non-native habitat. The new information has been added to the recirculated draft MND. In addition, the recirculated draft MND identifies a mitigation measure for the relocation of southern Tarplant if development is proposed on the site in the future in areas where southern Tarplant is present. BIX-5: The eucalyptus trees on the Goodell site, while adjacent to the ESHA, have not been determined to be ESHA. In addition,two of the eucalyptus trees are located within the Coastal Conservation designation and the third eucalyptus tree is located within the Open Space—Parks and Recreation designation. Recognizing the importance of the eucalyptus trees as a resource, a mitigation measure has been identified that would require the preservation of the existing eucalyptus trees on the site if development is proposed in the future. See response to DFG-4. BIX-6: See response to BIX-5. Prior to or concurrent with a development proposal for the site, an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program to designate land use designations for the subject site will be required. The amendment will be subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission. BIX-7: This comment provides information on the raptor sightings that the commenter and others have observed on the subject site and surrounding area. The commenter offers to make his data files available to interested readers. Comment acknowledged. BIX-8: The commenter provides information on the location of two eucalyptus trees that were not identified in the biological resources survey prepared by SWCA in 2007. Subsequent to receiving this comment, staff verified the number of eucalyptus trees on the subject site. The two eucalyptus trees that were initially identified in the southwestern corner of the site are outside of the boundaries of the Goodell property. Therefore,the number of eucalyptus trees on the site is three. The two eucalyptus trees identified by the commenter are located in the area proposed to be designated as Coastal Conservation and the third eucalyptus tree is located within the Open Space— Parks and Recreation designation. The recirculated draft MND has been corrected to reflect this (refer to Section V). BIX-9: The commenter asserts that an EIR is required"since this pre-zoning process moves the site one step closer to development." However,the site is currently designated as residential in the County, and the proposed pre-zoning designations would convert three acres of existing residentially zoned land to open space/conservation area. As such, the pre-zoning designations do not facilitate development of the site such that the proposed project moves the site one step closer to development. The project under consideration is for the annexation to bring a County"island" into City jurisdiction. Pre-zoning the site is required for annexation and essentially retains the existing County zoning that already governs the property and is in fact more protective in that it proposes three acres to be designated Open Space/Conservation in light of adjacent GWillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT NO.5- 12 land use activities. In addition, based on the environmental analysis of Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017, impacts from the proposed project were not determined to be significant and an EIR would not be required. It should also be noted that Recirculated EIR No. 551 was certified for the property in 1996. The EIR analyzed potential development of the property in conjunction with a proposed land use plan for the Bolsa Chica. The property was part of a larger 34-acre area that was analyzed for residential development. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance CCRP-I: This comment refers to the archeological site (CA-ORA-83/86/144) that is discussed in the draft MND. The comment notes that the site has been determined for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and is listed on the sacred site registry of the Native American Heritage Commission. The commenter indicates that the project is subject to SB18, a statute that requires consultation with Native American tribes prior to amendments or adoption of a general plan, local coastal program or specific plan. Although the proposed project does not propose any of the amendments that trigger consultation under SB 18, staff conducted pre-planning outreach consultation with the responding tribes for the project. The SB18 consultation is conducted separate from the CEQA process. CCRP-2: The commenter expresses concerns regarding the proposed"pre-zoning and annexation and development plans for the 6.2 acres of property known as the Goodell property." The project does not propose development of the site and no development plans have been submitted in conjunction with the project. The remaining part of the comment expresses concern with the loss of the archeological site and is acknowledged. CCRP-3: The comment indicates that there is no discussion of archeological resources on the Goodell site. The draft MND and recirculated draft MND discuss the potential for archeological resources on the site and analyze impacts as they relate to the pre-zoning and annexation project. In addition, the recirculated draft MND includes mitigation measures for further testing of the site prior to a proposal for development. Bolsa Chica Land Trust BCLT-1: This comment indicates the commenter's position that the entire 6.2-acre property is part of the archeological site CA-ORA-83. The draft MND and recirculated draft MND acknowledge that the archeological site exists on the Goodell property. However, the Goodell property has never been tested to determine the boundaries of the archeological site. Therefore, it would be premature to assume the exact extent or acreage of the archeological site on the property. It should be noted that the information contained in the Cultural Resources Survey Report (SWCA 2007) and the supplemental report, History of Archeological Investigations on the Goodell Parcel (SRS 2009), indicate that the Goodell property is highly disturbed and may not contain the same number, type and nature of resources found on adjacent properties. A mitigation measure is recommended to require testing of the entire Goodell property to determine the extent of the archeological site prior to a development proposal on the property. The mitigation measure requires further mitigation such as in-situ preservation or data recovery excavation if resources are encountered. G:WillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHM NT N0 �' 13 BCLT-2: This comment states that the commenter has attached exhibits to support the position that CA-ORA-83 exists on the entire Goodell site and"to illustrate the significance of ORA 83." The discussion that follows summarizes the attachments and generally discusses the resources that were found at the adjacent Brightwater site. The draft MND and recirculated draft MND disclose that large portions of the excavated areas of CA-ORA-83 outside of the project boundaries have documented presence of a prehistoric cemetery. The draft MND and recirculated draft MND also disclose that it is likely that intact resources may exist on the Goodell site based, in part, on this information. To this end, a mitigation measure requiring further testing on the site to determine the extent of the archeological site on the property is recommended for future development proposals on the site. BCLT-3: This comment lists several reasons why it is "important to preserve the archeological site on the Goodell property." The pre-zoning and annexation project does not propose to destroy the archeological site on the Goodell property. In fact, the draft MND and recirculated draft MND recognize that the property may contain resources that are important to local and regional prehistory and, as such, recommend a mitigation measure for further testing of the entire property for archeological resources prior to a development proposal on the property. It should be noted however, that the site is highly disturbed in areas due to historical use of the site including construction of an underground building for World War 11 purposes and grading and terracing for a telephone pole yard. BCLT-4: The comment states that archeological sites are "fragile and non-renewable". The comment requests that a "witness area" be preserved for future generations and that advanced non-destructive techniques be used. Comment acknowledged. The proposed pre-zoning designations provide for approximately three acres of open space/conservation area. The area designated for Open Space -Parks and Recreation could be utilized as a "witness area" in the future, although discussion of this idea is not applicable to the proposed project and would be more relevant if development is proposed in the future after testing has occurred on the site. In addition, areas of CA- ORA-83 have been kept in open spaces areas on the adjacent Brightwater site. Mitigation Measure CR-1 has been revised to delete language requiring backhoe trenching during testing of the site and instead calls for the utilization of available technology as appropriate and feasible during site testing (See Section V). BCLT-5: The comment asserts that"residential development on this archeological site is not appropriate." The comment suggests that an EIR is required. The proposed pre- zoning and annexation project does not propose residential development of the site. The project under consideration is for the annexation to bring a County"island" into City jurisdiction. Pre-zoning the site is required for annexation and essentially retains the existing County zoning that already governs the property and is in fact more protective in that it proposes three acres to be designated Open Space/Conservation in light of adjacent land use activities. In addition, it is not known if the residentially designated area is within the portion of the site that contains archeological resources. CEQA requires that all direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a project be evaluated. The project does not result in direct environmental impacts since no development is proposed. In addition, it is not known if a development project would be proposed in the future. Since the project would result in the same zoning that GAVillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACH ENT N ®� 14 _'LL currently exists on three acres of the site and would convert three acres of residentially zoned property to open space/conservation area, the project does not facilitate development of the property such that development of the property is "reasonably foreseeable". As such, the project would not result in environmental impacts. Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. Furthermore, an EIR was certified for this site in 1996. The EIR analyzed potential residential development of the site in conjunction with a proposed land use plan for the Bolsa Chica area. See response to HRB-3. Sandra Genis GEN-1: Commenter is submitting comments on behalf of herself and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. Comment acknowledged. GEN-2: The comment discusses the various biological and cultural resources on the subject site. See response to BIX-4 and BIX-5. GEN-3: The comment summarizes the proposed pre-zoning designations. Comment acknowledged. GEN-4: Comment acknowledged. Recirculated draft MND No. 08-017 discloses that the Open Space-Parks and Recreation designation would allow revegetation and grading. GEN-5: The draft MND discloses the range of allowable uses under the pre-zoning designations. 22 residential units would represent the maximum, or most intense use, that could be permitted under the residential pre-zoning designation. The draft MND further states future entitlements that would be required in order to develop the site. However, the draft MND does not speculate the nature and extent of a future project on the site. Additionally, the pre-zoning and annexation project does not necessarily mean that development of the site is anticipated. CEQA requires that all direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a project be evaluated. The project does not result in direct environmental impacts since no development is proposed. In addition, it is not known if a development project would be proposed in the future. Since the project would result in the same zoning that currently exists on three acres of the site and would convert three acres of residentially zoned property to open space/conservation area, the project does not facilitate development of the property such that development of the property is "reasonably foreseeable". Therefore,the project would not result in indirect environmental impacts. Finally, it should be noted that Recirculated EIR No. 551 analyzed environmental impacts of residential development of the site. The EIR was certified as adequate in 1996. GEN-6: This comment references CEQA and case law regarding the requirement for preparation of an EIR. Comment acknowledged. GEN-7: This comment asserts that adoption of a MND for the project is inappropriate and indicates that the project would result in the potential for significant adverse impacts. See response to GEN-5 and GEN-8 below. L L A G:WillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 15 GEN-8: See response to GEN-5. The discussion in the draft MND and recirculated draft MND provides information, when available, as to potential areas of impact if development is proposed in the future. The information regarding these future impacts should not be construed as evidence that the proposed project will result in environmental impacts, since, as discussed above, the project, will not result in direct or indirect environmental changes. A future development project would warrant environmental review. The extent of the environmental review is not known since the details of a future project are unknown. The draft MND indicates that environmental impacts would be analyzed for a specific development project if a development project is proposed in the future. The draft MND does not "promise" anything beyond additional environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA requirements. GEN-9: Although the subject site is vacant land, the site's zoning and General Plan land use designations are residential. Recirculated EIR No. 551, which analyzed residential development on the subject site, was certified by the County of Orange in 1996. The proposed pre-zoning designations do not represent a change in the allowable uses that would result in physical changes in the environment that were not previously considered when the County's General Plan was adopted. The proposed pre-zoning designations would not establish a development envelope for the site, rather it would reduce the existing development envelope on the site. GEN-10: See responses to BIX-9 and GEN-5. GEN-11: This comment summarizes the points made in the next several comments regarding potential impacts in several topical areas including geology, water quality, traffic/transportation, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and aesthetics, which are responded to below. Comment acknowledged. GEN-12: The proposed project(pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site) would not result in impacts to geology and soils. Development of the site, if proposed in the future, would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including geology and soils, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. The draft MND also identifies best management practices that would be implemented to avoid impacts from runoff and erosion to these resources if development is proposed on the site in the future. See also response to GEN-5. GEN-13: The proposed project(pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site)would not result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. Development of the site, if proposed in the future, would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including hydrology and water quality, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained G:WillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 16 consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. The draft MND also identifies best management practices that would be implemented to avoid impacts from runoff and erosion to these resources if development is proposed on the site in the future. See also response to GEN-5. GEN-14: The proposed project(pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site)would not result in impacts to air quality. Development of the site, if proposed in the future, would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including air quality, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. See also response to GEN-5. GEN-15: The proposed project(pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site)would not result in impacts to traffic. Development of the site, if proposed in the future, would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including traffic, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. See also response to GEN-5. In addition, the potential contribution of daily vehicle trips for 22 units,the most intense use allowed by the pre-zoning designation, would likely not result in significant impacts. The cumulative impact of 22 units at an intersection already experiencing capacity issues would likely not contribute to a reduction in level of service at that intersection. It should also be noted that the recirculated draft MND indicates that no feasible mitigation for the intersection was available at the time the Brightwater project was analyzed. Mitigation at the intersection would not be precluded in the future. GEN-16: See responses to DFG-4, CCC-4, BIX-4 and BIX-8. Impacts due to predation by domestic pets and planting of invasive species are not applicable to the proposed project as the project would not increase the number of domestic pets or invasive plant species in the area. The comment indicates that a 100-foot buffer is inadequate (presumably to area determined to be ESHA). However, the 100-foot buffer is the current minimum required by the City' certified Local Coastal Program and is reflected in the proposed mitigation measures. GEN-17: The recirculated draft MND provides expanded discussion on the World War II underground building on the site. The analysis also includes a mitigation measure for documentation of demolition of the structure if demolition is proposed in the future. See also response to CCC-14. The comment goes on to indicate reasons why the archeological site is important and should be preserved. Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that if intact resources are discovered during testing, in-situ preservation shall be considered first. If in-situ preservation is not feasible a data recovery plan would be required. GEN-18: The comment asserts that the site contains intact cultural deposits. Since the site has not yet been tested, it is speculative to assume that it is certain that intact deposits exist on the site. However, it should be noted that both cultural resources reports prepared for the project indicate that it is likely that intact deposits exist, although the extent of the deposits would be limited due to the high degree of previous disturbance on the site. See also response to BCLT-4. GWIlasenorAGoodell P 9 P re-zonin \Res onse to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT N®. 17 GEN-19: The proposed project(pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site) would not result in impacts to noise. Development of the site, if proposed in the future, would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including noise, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. See also response to GEN-5. GEN-20: The proposed project(pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site) would not result in impacts to aesthetics. Development of the site, if proposed in the future, would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including aesthetics, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. However, the open space designations would provide for opportunities to establish public viewpoints from the site. See also response to GEN-5. GEN-21: The proposed project (pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site) would not result in climate change impacts. Development of the site, if proposed in the future,would be analyzed for impacts to the environment, including climate change, at the time development is proposed. It is not reasonably foreseeable at this time to assume that a development project will be proposed for the site. In addition, the project itself, when compared to the existing zoning designation, would be limiting potential for environmental impacts in the future since the project itself is reducing the area allowable for residential development on the site by nearly half. See also response to GEN-5. GEN-22: Based on the analysis of the recirculated draft MND, which was prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines, the proposed project(the pre-zoning and annexation of the subject site) would not result in significant environmental impacts either directly or indirectly. G:\VillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc �' � 18 ATTACHMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)NO. 08-017—(comment period 7/27/09— 8/25/09) State Departments California Coastal Commission CCC-1: Comment states that the CCC is in receipt of the document and appreciates the opportunity to review the document. Comment acknowledged. CCC-2: The comment states that the recirculated draft MND more accurately reflects the existing surrounding land uses and land use designations. The comment also states that the CCC retains concerns regarding the pre-zoning designations protection of"on- site environmentally sensitive habitat areas and all necessary buffer areas." Comment acknowledged. It should be noted that neither all nor a portion of the subject site has been determined to be ESHA. CCC-3: The comment indicates that the CCC did not review the subsequent biological surveys and therefore retains concerns in the initial comments on draft MND No. 08-017. See responses to CCC-1 through CCC-23 for draft MND No. 08-017. CCC-4: See responses to CCC-11 and CCC-12 for draft MND No. 08-017. CCC-5: Comment acknowledged. See responses to CCC-1 through CCC-23 for draft MND No. 08-017. Organizations/Individuals California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (815109) CCRP(A)-1: Comment acknowledged. The extent of the archeological site on the Goodell property is unknown since the site has not yet been tested. The discussion of archeological resources in the recirculated draft MND is based on two technical reports on the issue. The analysis in the recirculated draft MND provides adequate information and detail for analyzing potential environmental impacts for purposes of CEQA. See also response to GEN-8 for draft MND No. 08-017 CCRP(A)-2: The comment indicates that the subject property has recently been listed as part of the archeological site CA-ORA-83 eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The comment asserts that an EIR would be required due to this listing. The fact that the National Park Service has recently determined that CA-ORA- 83 is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places does not automatically require preparation of an EIR under the provisions of CEQA. It should be noted that CA-ORA-83 was deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the State Office of Historic Preservation in 1983 based upon a petition filed by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. EIR No. 551 was certified for Bolsa Chica in the early 1990s recognizing that the site was eligible for listing on the National Register and prescribed mitigation measures based on that fact. GWillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc _,� 1 ATTACHMENT N { 9 This comment recommends that consultation should be conducted under SB 18 since "a General Plan change is involved." Staff has conducted consultation with responding tribes as pre-planning outreach. It should be noted that the project does not propose a General Plan amendment. An amendment to the General Plan would be required prior to or in conjunction with a development proposal for the site. CCRP(A)-3: This comment indicates general support for the annexation of the site but requests that future development of the site employ avoidance or preservation of the archeological site. Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires testing of the entire subject property to determine the extent of the archeological site on the property. If intact subsurface deposits exist, the mitigation measure requires that in-situ preservation be considered first. If in-situ preservation is not feasible then a data recovery plan would be required. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (81201091 CCRP(B)-1: The comment requests that preservation of intact site remnants, if any, be given a high priority during zoning of the site. The comment also states that"indiscriminately zoning the level areas of the site for low density housing will almost certainly result in the destruction of this significant property." See response to HRB-3 from draft IVIND No. 08-017. In addition, Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that if intact subsurface deposits are discovered on the site, in-situ preservation shall be.considered first. If in- situ preservation is not feasible then a data recovery plan would be required. See also response to CCRP(B)-2. CCRP(B)-2: This comment requests that backhoe trenching not be utilized during site testing. To this end, Mitigation Measure CR-1 has deleted language requiring backhoe trenching during site testing and instead provides for the utilization of available technology as appropriate and feasible. CCRP(B)-3: See response to CCRP(B)2. CCRP(B)-4: Comment acknowledged. The Open Space—Parks and Recreation designated area would allow for an interpretive center on the subject property. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (8122109) CCRP(C)-1: This comment provides additional information regarding available technology for archeological site testing. The comment will be forwarded to the property owner for reference. See also response to CCRP(B)-2. CCRP(C)-2: Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that in-situ preservation be considered first in the event that intact cultural deposits are discovered during site testing. Isabelle Chasse CHAS-1: This comment raises opposition to future development of the site. Comment acknowledged. G:\VillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc AT N .6 20 Sandra Genis GEN-1: Commenter is submitting comments on behalf of herself and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. Comment acknowledged. GEN-2: The comment request that all comments on draft MND No. 08-017, circulated in March/April 2009 be included in the record. Comment acknowledged. See responses to GEN-1 through GEN-22 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-3: This comment is the same as comment GEN-2 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-2 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-4: This comment is the same as comment GEN-3 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-3 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-5: This comment is the same as comment GEN-4 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-4 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-6: This comment is the same as comment GEN-5 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-5 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-7: This comment is the same as comment GEN-6 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-6 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-8: This comment is the same as comment GEN-7 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-7 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-9: This comment is the same as comment GEN-8 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-8 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-10: This comment is the same as comment GEN-9 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-9 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-11: This comment is the same as comment GEN-10 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-10 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-12: This comment is the same as comment GEN-11 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-11 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-13: This comment is the same as comment GEN-12 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-12 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-14: This comment is the same as comment GEN-13 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-13 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-15: This comment is the same as comment GEN-14 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-14 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-16: This comment is the same as comment GEN-15 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-15 for draft MND No. 08-017. G:\VillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACH T � 21 GEN-17: The recirculated draft MND indicates that a finding of significance for the southern Tarplant that exists on the site would be speculative since the number of well- developed Tarplant individuals on the subject site do not meet the criteria to be considered a significant Tarplant population. It is speculative to consider the existing southern Tarplant on the subject site because it is not known if the species will flourish and grow to become a significant population of southern Tarplant. The recirculated draft MND indicates that a population of several thousand in a relatively natural habitat should be considered significant, warranting avoidance or relocation. The recirculated draft MND also indicates that implementation of a tarplant relocation program in the event development is proposed in the future and avoidance cannot be achieved would mitigate impacts. As a conservative approach,the recirculated draft MND recommends a mitigation measure requiring relocation of impacted southern Tarplant colonies regardless of whether they are considered a significant population. In this case, the recirculated draft MND does treat the tarplant as significant. The recirculated draft MND recommends relocation of the tarplant in the area proposed to be designated as Coastal Conservation and along the southern boundary of the subject property in the area proposed to be designated as Open Space—Parks and Recreation. In addition, the recommended mitigation measure requires that a southern Tarplant relocation program be prepared by a qualified Biologist. The qualified biologist would recommend the most appropriate location on the site for relocation and would ensure that the relocation would not displace other potentially sensitive species. As the recirculated draft MND states, the Open Space—Parks and Recreation designated area would be suitable for relocation given the species ability to flourish in disturbed areas. See also response to GEN-16. GEN-18: See response to GEN-17 for draft MND No. 08-017. In addition, the project itself would not result in significant environmental impacts. However,because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. These mitigation measures have been included in the recirculated draft MND and represent the minimum mitigation measures that would be required for a development project on the site. It should be noted that CA-ORA-83 was determined to be significant and was analyzed as such in Recirculated EIR No. 551. The EIR was certified for Bolsa Chica in the early 1990s recognizing the significance of the site and prescribed mitigation measures based on that fact. GEN-19: See response to GEN-17 for draft MND No. 08-017. All material received from the Bolsa Chica Land Trust has been included in the record for the proposed project. The recirculated draft MND does not intend to "belittle"the significance of archeological resources. The discussion and analysis included in recirculated draft MND is based on two separate technical reports for cultural resources. The level of disturbance that has occurred on the site is well documented in the reports and is stated in the recirculated draft MND as a matter of disclosure as well as to analyze environmental impacts of the project. G:\Vi11asenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT 22 GEN-20: This comment is the same as comment GEN-18 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-18 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-21: This comment is the same as comment GEN-19 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-19 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-22: This comment is the same as comment GEN-20 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-20 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-23: In general, the uses permitted under the proposed RL (Low Density Residential)pre- zoning designation on 3.2 acres of the subject property are consistent with the uses permitted under the existing (RA) Residential Agricultural zoning designation to the north. Even though the RL zoning designation would allow residential units at a higher density, the uses would be compatible because the nature of the allowable uses is the same. Additionally, the proposed RL pre-zoning designation would be compatible with the General Plan Land Use designation on the site to the north. See response to CCC-17 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-24: This comment is the same as comment GEN-21 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-21 for draft MND No. 08-017. GEN-25: This comment is the same as comment GEN-22 from draft MND No. 08-017. See response to GEN-22 for draft MND No. 08-017. Bolsa Chica Land Trust BCLT-1: This comment indicates that the subject site is included as part of the archeological site CA-ORA-83, which was determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This is reflected in the final Recirculated draft MND (see Section V). The comment also asserts that due to this listing an EIR is required. The listing of the subject site on the National Register of Historic Places does not trigger the requirement for an EIR. The fact that the National Park Service has recently determined that CA-ORA- 83 is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places does not automatically require preparation of an EIR under the provisions of CEQA. It should be noted that CA-ORA-83 was deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the State Office of Historic Preservation in 1983 based upon a petition filed by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. EIR No. 551 was certified for Bolsa Chica in the early 1990s recognizing that the site was eligible for listing on the National Register and prescribed mitigation measures based on that fact. BCLT-2: This comment provides a summary of the attachment provided,which includes a copy of the revocation request for the Brightwater coastal development permit. Comment acknowledged. BCLT-3: The project itself would not result in significant environmental impacts. See responses to GEN-5 and GEN-9 for draft MND No. 08-017. Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources G:\VillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT N o � 23 as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. These mitigation measures have been included in the recirculated draft MND and represent the minimum mitigation measures that would be required for a development project on the site. It should be noted that CA-ORA-83 was determined to be significant and was analyzed as such in Recirculated EIR No. 551. The EIR was certified for Bolsa Chica in the early 1990s recognizing the significance of the site and prescribed mitigation measures based on that fact. GWIlasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc ATTACHMENT '' 24 — V. ERRATA TO RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08- 01E The following changes to Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 and Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Revisions are below as excerpts from the Initial Study text, with a line threugl} deleted text and bold and double-underlined font beneath inserted text. In order to indicate the location in the Initial Study where text has been changed, the reader is referred to the page number of the Initial Study. Page 19—Biological Resources There are three existing eucalyptus trees on the site. All three are within the area proposed to be zoned for Open Space—Parks and Recreation and Coastal Conservation and will be preserved on the site. Page 25—Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of a 6.2-acre site currently located in unincorporated County of Orange. Historic uses on the site included agricultural operations that may have resulted in traces of pesticides or organic waste in the on-site soils. The project would not result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials and does not contemplate development of the site. However, a portion of the site is proposed to be zoned for single-family residential uses and would allow for a range of residential uses as well as limited commercial use classifications such as nurseries and wireless communication facilities to be proposed. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur. Pages, 17, 18 & 29—Biological &Cultural Resources Because there are biological and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site, the City retained consultants to prepare technical reports for biological and cultural resources as part of the environmental assessment. These reports recommended mitigation measures in the event that development were ever to be proposed. These mitigation measures have been included in the recirculated draft MND and represent the minimum mitigation measures that would be required for a development project on the site. However,the project itself would not result in significant environmental impacts, and therefore, the environmental checklist should be checked for the appropriate impact heading. In this case,the box under the heading of"potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated"would be deleted and the box under the heading of "less than significant"would be checked. Note that the mitigation measures are still incorporated for future inclusion in a development proposal for the site. GWIlasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc AT C M NT N ,2TA 25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Imp, VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or El 9 through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: ) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat El 9 19 El 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? (Sources: c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean WaterEl iR ® ❑ Act(including, but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources:_) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El 0 El a historical resource as defined in 615064.5? (Sources:_) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El ig El an archaeological resource pursuant to 615064.5? (Sources:_) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: d) Disturb any human remains, including those interredEl fK outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources:_, ATTA H T . Page 30—Cultural Resources The Report indicated that 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted within or adjacent to the project area. 11 of the studies are specific to the previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site CA-ORA-83, which is listed on the California Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites. CA-ORA-83 is also listed as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Page 31 —Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to determination of a complete application submittal for development of the site, testing shall be done by a qualified archaeologist to determine the vertical and horizontal extents of site CA-ORA-83/CA-ORA-144 within the property, including the presence or absence of intact historic and prehistoric deposits ifsuch exist subs-Hrfiee depesW9. The testing program should be multi phased including a full property survey and documentation of present condition, and utilize all available and appropriate technoloQv. as easible. remain. If site remnants are located, in-situ preservation shall be considered. If preservation is not possible, a data recovery program shall be required. If required, data recovery excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbing activities. G:WillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc AT TAC ' 26 APPENDIX A Comments on Draft MND No. 08®017 (comment period 3/26/09 — 4/24/09) ATTACHMENT No. 5 , 9LT- GAVillasenorJ\Goodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Governor DEPARTMENT OF T�.I-k-NSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine,CA 926I2-8894 �� ���r_ �' t i 1'._-. c Tel:(949)724-2267 t i - # 949 724-2592 �� - Flex your power. Fax: ( Be energy efficient: APR ( ZC� 9 April 23, 2009 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH #: 2009031094 Planning Department Log#: 2237 2000 Main Street SR-1 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Project. The 41 proposed project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 6.2 acres of property in the County of Orange unincorporated Bolsa Chica area located on the Upper Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The City of Huntington Beach agreed to process this annexation at the request of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in conjunction with the annexation of the Brightwater Project into the City of Huntington Beach. Theproposed zoning would allow up to 22 single-family homes to be developed. The project site is located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue, in an unincorporated area of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach. The California Department of Transportation, District 12 is a commenting agency on this project, and has no comment at this time. DOT- Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Zhongping(John) Xu at(949) 724-2338. Sincerely, CHRISTOPHER HERRE Branch Chief, Local Development/Intergovernmental Review c: Terry Roberts,Office of Planning and Research ct- Caltrans improves mobility across California ATTACHMENT N O. , " Callfomia Natural Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DONALD KOCH,Director South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 (858)467-4201 http://www.dfg.ca.gov April 23, 2009 Jennifer Vilasenor City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach Ca, 92648 `L Phone#: 714-374-1661 Fax#: (714) 541-5157 �A Subject: Comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Goode Pr p Pre- zoning and Annexation(Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03 an nexation No. 06-02 in the City of Huntington Beach,Orange County, California (SCH#2009031094). Dear Ms. Vilasenor: The Department of Fish and Game (Department)has reviewed the above-referenced Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the proposed project relative to impacts to biological resources and regional conservation planning. The proposed MND was received by the Department on March 26, 2009. The site is located to the east of the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, north and wrest of the Shea Hearthside Homes site. The existing unimproved open space is contiguous with the Department-managed Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve("BCER", southwest of the property). The proposed project is the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 6.2 acres of County of Orange property into the City of Huntington Beach. The City agreed to annex the property in conjunction with the annexation of the Brightwater development which abuts the parcel to the west. Currently, the property is unincorporated County land surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach. The re-zone and annexation would allow future development of the site with up to 22 units. Any development on the site would require a subsequent CEQA document. The site would include a 3-acre open space dedication(1 acre of coastal conservation and 2 acres as open space park). The Department is a Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Section 15386) and Responsible Agency(Section 15381)over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act(Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.). We offer the following comments on the MND based on our expertise in the area as the land managers of the BCER and our knowledge of the biological resources in the area. The MND states the site supports 0.23 acre of chenopod scrub and "other ruderal habitats", which are not sensitive. However, the MND goes on to state the site is utilized by several raptor species including the fully protected white-tailed kite(Elanus leucurus)and the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)a species of special concem. In addition to the raptors on site, the MND also states a California gnatcatcher(Polioptila cal fomica califomica) has been observed foraging in the chenopod scrub in 2005. Conserving Caffornia's WiCcfCife Since 1870 ATTACHMENT N05, Jennifer Vilasenor Aptil 23, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Based on the information provided in the MND, it appears that although the site is small and does not support pristine native habitat, the remaining habitat is extremely important to the wildlife associated with the BCER. The Department is concerned that although a portion of the site is proposed as conservation, the further restriction of open space and additional edge-effect r created by new development on the 3.2 acres could have a significant impact on the resources utilizing the site. This would negatively impact the BCER by reducing foraging habitat for raptors thereby forcing them onto the BCER, increasing public use of the BCER, increasing invasive exotic plants and animals into the BCER, and potentially impact coastal California gnatcatchers known to forage on the project site. 1. Raptor habitat. The site supports not only raptor roosting habitat(i.e., trees), but also supports critical foraging habitat(i.e., nonnative grasses and ruderal vegetation that supports ground squirrel and small mammals). The reduction of foraging habitat for raptors would negatively impact BCER by forcing the raptors on the Goodell property to move to the remaining open space habitat of BCER. Increased competition can result in prey-switching by raptors on the BCER from small mammals to bird species including sensitive species like the fully protected California least tern (Stemula antillarum brown) and western snowy plover(Charadhus alexandrinus nivosus). Any increase in predation on sensitive species by the displacement of raptors from the Goodell property would be significant under CEQA. 2. Impacts to Public Use. Part of that Department's responsibility in managing BCER is the management of access by the surrounding residents. The Department continues to expend a significant amount of resources for public outreach to control off-leash dogs, trespassing by pedestrians, unauthorized trails, all-terrain vehicles, and bicycles. The additional homes and access would result in additional strain on the Department's staff. S To fully minimize the impacts to the BCER below a level of significance,the Department recommends the applicant pursue methods to restrict access to the BCER from the development, or work with the Department to fund patrols and public outreach to minimize the development's impact to the BCER in perpetuity. 3. Invasive Species. The proposed project could have a significant impact to the BCER by further subjecting the BCER to an increase of invasive species from the development. The Department recommends the applicant use non-invasive and native vegetation for landscaping in all areas that abut open space. Furthermore, the applicant should avoid all plants listed as invasive on the Califomia Exotic Pest Plants Council website at http://www,cal-ipc.org. 4. Impacts to California Gnatcatcher. The MIND indicates a California gnatcatcher (federally listed endangered, state species of special concern)was observed foraging in the chenopod scrub habitat in 2005. The Department is concerned that the proposed project could have a significant impact on California gnatcatcher. California gnatcatcher is known to nest in the coastal sage scrub habitat on the Brightwater property and BCER r adjacent to the proposed development, and is known to forage on the Goodell property. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the reduction in foraging habitat has the ability to result in"taken as defined by the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Department recommends the applicant consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential"take" of California gnatcatcher and propose adequate mitigation to replace the function and values of the foraging habitat lost by the development of the property. TTA N ENT Jennifer Vlasenor April 23, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Erinn Wilson, Staff Environmental Scientist, 'D at(714)968-0953. Sincerely, ��.. Edmund J. Pert Regional Manager South Coast Region cc. Helen Birss, Los Alamitos (electronic copy only) Erinn Wilson, Huntington Beach (electronic copy only) Matt Chirdon, Oceanside(electronic copy only) Jeff Stoddard, Newport Beach Kelly O'Reilly, Huntington Beach Jonathan Snyder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad ATTACHMENT N0e13, STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOL_ _:S AGENCY Arnold Schwarzennegger, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 V Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 , (562)590-5071 RECEIVED APR 2`3 2009LP�LANNIN(-,3 April 22, 2009 _ _ , n 3 2009 Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner uEp City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Dear Ms. Villasenor: Coastal Commission staff received the above referenced document on March 30, 2009. TJas City is in the process of soliciting comments from interested parties on the Mitigated Negat Declaration (MND) prepared for the proposed pre-zoning and annexation of the site known the Goodell property. The subject site is an approximately 6.2 acre site located at the CCU" terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue, in an unincorporated area of Orange County, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed pre-zoning includes 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL), 2 acres of Open Space - Parks and Recreation (OS-PR), and 1 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). Thank you for forwarding the document for Coastal Commission staff review. Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to comment early in the process. Following are our comments. As noted in the MND, final land use designations and zoning for the subject site will need to be approved by the Coastal Commission via a Local Coastal Program amendment. Commission staff has concerns with aspects of the proposed pre-zoning, as described in , further detail below. The most significant areas of concern are with the adequacy of the a( proposed pre-zoning to protect: 1) identified and potentially present sensitive habitats and species, 2) archaeological/cultural resources likely to be present on site; and 3) compatibility with surrounding land uses (existing or approved); and, 4) whether the proposed pre-zoning reflects the most recent actions in the surrounding areas with regard to the above-identified biological and cultural/archaeological resources, and with recently approved land uses). Biological Resources The MND identifies areas to be pre-zoned Coastal Conservation (CC) and Open Space - 'Parks Recreation (OS - PR). The area proposed to be pre-zoned OS — PR includes three eucalyptus trees. Also present at the site are a Monterey pine and Mexican elderberry shrub C(� which were planted as mitigation for removal of trees without appropriate authorization, including the necessary coastal development permit. It is not clear from the information included in the MND what pre-zone category these trees fall within. The MND references a ATTACHMENT NO. 5 3 Mitigated N(--' yjtive Declaration/Environmental Asp_-isment No. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Page 2 Biological Resources Assessment (November 2007) prepared by SWCA. According to the MND, the Biological Assessment finds that the existing eucalyptus trees on site are I 3 considered a significant biological resource. far}' It should be noted however, that eucalyptus trees are not the only type of vegetation in and around the subject site that have been deemed Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Although ESHA identified in this area is typically referred to as "eucalyptus grove ESHA", other trees included in this ESHA are palm trees and pine trees that are used by raptors and herons. None of the trees are part of a native plant community. Rather, they ccc j have been recognized as ESHA due to the important ecosystem functions they provide to a suite of raptor species. The "eucalyptus grove" in the vicinity has been recognized as ESHA 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 the grove provides. It is important that all the trees on the subject site be considered in this context and pre-zoning be assigned accordingly. In addition, the habitat function provided by the trees that were removed without authorization should be considered as if the unauthorized work had not occurred. The trees that were removed were mature trees that may have had greater habitat value than the newer replacement trees presently do. This should be taken into consideration when assigning appropriate zoning for the subject site. It should also be noted that the mitigation for the C oc unauthorized removal included planting four trees (two western sycamores, two Catalina cherries), and two shrubs (two toyon). If vegetation (including but not limited to eucalyptus, palm and pine trees) on the subject site is found to constitute ESHA, the appropriate zoning would be Coastal Conservation. Also, necessary buffer area would be appropriately zoned Coastal Conservation as well. Also, as noted in the MND, other sensitive plant and animal species have been found in the vicinity such as California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica), a species listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, Southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. CCC_ Australis), a California Native Plant Society 1 b.1" species (seriously endangered in California), and the Burrowing Owl. Biological surveys should address whether these or other sensitive species exist on the subject site. Gnatcatcher habitat and Southern tarplant were identified on the adjacent Shea property. These habitats are located in areas now land use designated Open Space — Conservation. The MND states: "Chapter 221 of the HBZSO requires that a 100-foot buffer be maintained between any development adjacent to an ESHA and the ESHA boundary." Chapter 221, Section 221.22 requires a minimum buffer of 100 feet. At the adjacent Parkside site, the ccc_ appropriate buffer distance from the eucalyptus grove ESHA was found to be a range of between 297 feet to 650 feet. A one hundred foot buffer distance may not be adequate to protect ESHA. The MND establishes biological mitigation measures. The first would "preserve" the three eucalyptus trees, but allows them to be relocated on-site. The second mitigation measure CC& ATTACHMENT NO, 5,S Mitigated N�-,,.itive Declaration/Environmental As< isment No. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Page 3 would allow removal of all non-native trees and replacement with natives, but does not specify replacement on-site. The third mitigation measure requires a 100 foot buffer from the ESHA identified on the adjacent Shea Homes property. Preservation of the eucalyptus trees should include preservation in place, not relocation. The mitigation measure allowing removal of non-native trees on site appears to conflict with the requirement to preserve the three eucalyptus trees on site. In addition, if the non-native trees are determined to provide ICCC-' significant habitat value and/or determined to be ESHA, relocation and/or removal would not f be allowed under the Coastal Act. As described above, the 100 foot buffer requirement is a Q 4 minimum requirement. All area determined to be ESHA and all area necessary for buffer area would be appropriately zoned Coastal Conservation. Open Space - Parks Recreation does not protect against significant disruption of ESHA and does not afford the protection necessary to assure the continuance of the ESHA. A recent, comprehensive Biological Assessment will be required at the time an LCP amendment request is submitted to the Commission for consideration. CcCA � Cultural Resources The MND states: "A Cultural Resources Survey Report for the 6.2 acre site was prepared by the consulting firm of SWCA in November 2007. The report indicated that 16 cultural resource studies have been conducted within or adjacent to the project area. 11 of the studies are specific to the previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site CA-ORA- 83, which is listed on the California Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites. A pedestrian survey was conducted for the Cultural Resources Survey Report by SWCA in September 2007. The pedestrian survey identified indications of the presence of CA-ORA-83 within the project area. These indications included scattered concentrations of shell and possible midden soils. A possible historic World (CC'I War 11 concrete foundation for the underground plotting/switchboard room was also observed during the site survey. According to the report, the subject site has never been tested to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of CA-ORA-83 and that it is likely that the project area contains intact subsurface deposits that may be important to local and regional prehistory. In addition, large portions of the excavated areas of CA-ORA-83 outside of the project boundaries have documented presence of a prehistoric cemetery. As such, further testing would be required prior to future development of the site. Due to the known significance of CA-ORA-83, it may be most appropriate to develop an Archaeological Research Plan (ARP) prior to submittal of an LCP amendment request to the Commission. Without such information it will be difficult to find that the zoning proposed for the site is consistent with the requirements of Coastal Act Section 30244. Approval of a C� coastal development permit for an Archaeological Research Plan would be necessary prior to carrying out the ARP. ATTACHMENT NO. 5-3 CD Mitigated Nc,,jtive Declaration/Environmental As- ;sment No. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Page 4 Developing future zoning for the subject site as well as preparing an Archaeological Researc Plan for the site must include consultation with affected Native Americans/Most Likely Descendants. Evidence of such consultation, as well as any written comments received, must be included with any applications for a coastal development permit and/or LCP amendment request. The MND includes cultural resources mitigation measures. However, preservation in place is not identified as one of the alternatives. Please note that the preferred alternative, based on the directions of the affected Native American(s)/Most Likely Descendant(s), may be preservation in place (in situ preservation). This is particularly important if pre-historic human CC- remains are discovered. This possibility underscores the need for early consultation with affected Native Americans/Most Likely Descendants. The historic extent and significance of on-site World War II era structures should be examined. CC( Figure 3 - Proposed Zoning Designations Although Figure 3 shows current City zoning on surrounding sites, Commission staff is concerned that it does not adequately reflect recent Commission and City actions relative to land uses and/or surrounding land use designations. Although the City zoning on the Shea property(immediately east and southeast of the subject site) at this point is Residential Low Density (RL), the City recently adopted a land use designation of Open Space - Conservation UC-7 at this site in the area that abuts the subject Goodell site. Zoning for the Shea site is expected to be modified to reflect this land use designation. Although the MND discusses the OS - C designation on the Shea property elsewhere in the body of the document, it is not shown on a graphic and does not appear to have been factored into the City's analysis of land use compatibility. In addition, while the zoning on the Hearthside property immediately to the north of the subject site is Residential Agriculture (RA), the land use designation for that site is Open Space - Parks (OS - P). Please see below for further discussion on this. Finally, the SP 15 (Specific Plan 15) zoning shown on Figure 3 for the area of the Brightwater site that abuts'the C�C- subject property to the west and southwest, does not adequately convey that the area to the southwest is preserved as open space for habitat protection. Commission staff believes these distinctions are important when considering appropriate zoning for the subject site. Land Use and Planning Page 6 of the MND, under the heading "Surrounding Land Uses and Setting, includes the following description of the 5 acre Hearthside property to the north: "An application has been submitted for the development of 22 single-family residences on the adjacent 5-acre site." In addition, on page 9 - 10, the MND states: "The proposed zoning of the project site consists o CSC' single-family residential uses and open space/conservation areas that are consistent with ATTACHMENT NO, 5,3( Mitigated NEyative Declaration/Environmental A& _o-sment No. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Page 5 existing, proposed or under—construction single-family development adjacent to the project area on the north, east and west and the open space areas to the east, south and southwest." This seems to treat the Hearthside property to the north as if it has been �Cj �® approved for single family residential development. And it does not adequately reflect the fa that the entire east and south sides of the subject property are preserved in open space for r�, habitat protection. Commission staff has concerns that in considering compatibility with surrounding land uses, the site to the north is being considered as if residential development is the accepted land use. However, the certified land use designation at that site is Open Space — Parks. As such, compatibility with the OS — P land use designation should be included in the MND C(C I analysis. Commission staff points out that before development other than that which is consistent with the current OS- P land use designation could proceed, that site would first need to receive approval of an LCP amendment by the Coastal Commission. Staff cautions that OS-P is a higher priority use under the Coastal Act and conversion to the lower priority residential use is by no means certain. Furthermore, with regard to land use, the proposed pre-zone includes pre-zoning 3.2 acres as Residential Low Density (RL). This would allow up to 22 single family residences on the single parcel subject site. A residential low density zone at the subject site may result in CCU zoning that could allow development that would be inconsistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act and may result in more development than the subject site could support. The MND compares the proposed pre-zoning of the site to the County's zoning for the site. The MND also refers to Recirculated EIR No. 551 — County of Orange (1996)[MND Reference No. 5]. While the MND also includes the Subsequent EIR No. 551 — Orange County (2002) CCC� [MND Reference No. 6] and Addendum to Subsequent EIR No 551 — Orange County (2005) [MND Reference No. 17] in the list of references, the 2002 EIR document is cited much less frequently in the MND and the 2005 EIR document is not cited at all. The project considered in EIR 551 (1996) was a project that contemplated considerably more development than what has ultimately come to pass. While these are appropriate to include in the analysis, consideration of appropriate zoning for the site should not use these as the basis for what constitutes appropriate zoning today. Because there will be less development CSC than was once contemplated, does not necessarily mean all resources needing protection will be protected. Appropriate zoning designations must be based on current, site specific information including current surrounding land use and zoning designations and recent site specific studies. Aesthetics The MND states: "The subject site is situated at approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and views of the wetlands, lowlands, eucalyptus ESHA as well as distant views of the Pacific C(< ATT ' ENT NO.5 ,31 Mitigated New itive Declaration/Environmental As,- -isment No. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-Zoning and Annexation Page 6 Ocean can be captured from the site. A portion of the Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS— PR) area is proposed to maintain existing views from the site and !!�� provide a public vista point. The Coastal Conservation (CC) as well as the remaining OS— PR area will maintain views of the slope to persons on the bicycle trail along the C®n} channel." Commission staff concurs with this assessment of the need to protect public views to and from the subject site. It is important to note that if the area zoned Coastal Conservation must be expanded beyond what the MND currently contemplates, these public views must still be protected and maintained. Recreation The site appears to be the subject of historic public use. Aerial photographs clearly depict pathways pioneered through human use. In addition, it may be strategically located to link future public trails that are anticipated within the adjacent Shea property to the east at lower c�( p elevation, and the public trail system along the Bolsa Chica Mesa that exists within the Brightwater development. Public trail connectivity should be considered as part of the pre- zoning and zoning process for the subject site. Again thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed pre-zoning and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, �"41 __c, C,_L� Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst cc: Mary Beth Broeren,Senior Planner Goodell MND EA 08-017 later 4.21.09 me ATTACHMENT NO. S, W Department of Toxic Substances Control 0 Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director "`; Linda S.Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue Hold Schwarzenegger Secretary for C G ypress, California 90630 �' ,, Governor Environmental Protection �:��rl April 22, 2009 RECEIVED APR 23 2009 2 �o n AD 0`9 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 jvillasenor(a�surfcity-hb.org DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR GOODELL PROPERTY PRE-ZONING AND ANNEXATION (SCH# 2009031094) Dear Ms. Villasenor: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The proposed project involves the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 6.2 acres of property in 'DTSC the County of Orange unincorporated Bolsa Chica area located on the Upper Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The City agreed to process this annexation at the request of the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in conjunction with the -annexation of the Brightwater Project into the City of Huntington Beach. The annexation of Brightwater resulted in the subject site becoming an unincorporated "island" which is contrary to LAFCO policies". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments: 1) The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the pTSC- a project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2) The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the j regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). ATTACHMENT N . 5, 3 Printed on Recycled Paper Ms. Jennifer Villasenor April 22, 2009 Page 2 • EnviroStor, a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, at www. Envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. . • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. S� e Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both C open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state laws, regulations and policies. 4) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another ATTACHMENT NO. `�C� Ms. Jennifer Villasenor April 22, 2009 Page 3 location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of IC oil contamination. 5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by _ the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if ���� there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 6) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 7) If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain herbicide residue. If so, _ proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at ��SC the site prior to construction of the project. 8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that DISC hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 9) If the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. ATTACHMENT NO. 6. Ms. Jennifer Villasenor April 22, 2009 Page 4 10) DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami@DTSC.ca.gov". Sincer y, A Al mi Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program — Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 CEQA#2533 ATTACH N °AJ CITY OF HUNTIN T BEACH 101D ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD April 29, 2009 City of Huntington Beach RECEIVED MAY 01 2009 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Mr. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation Dear Mr. Talleh: At the April 2, 2009 Environmental Board meeting, the members reviewed the subject project Environmental Assessment document. The Board offers the following comments for your consideration: 1. The Proposal is difficult to evaluate in its present form due to a conspicuous absence of useful mapping of the area. The maps provided in the Assessment do not provide sufficient detail, of the area as a whole or breakdown of the proposed project sections, to give the Board a workable impression of the �� impact of the proposed usage, both to the site and surrounding area. The Assessment should at least utilize available satellite imaging technology (such as Google Maps) so the Board and all other interested parties can fully appreciate the potential impact to the site. 2. The Board received comment from citizens concerned with the maintenance of existing foliage, including trees, bushes, and scrub,,as being vital to the C - C� local ecosystem. The Board recommends further study and solicitation of L input from local citizenry and involved organizations to more fully examine this issue. The Board appreciates the opportunity of commenting on this project. Please don't hesitate to contact us with questions or concerns. Very truly yours, HB ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD David Guido, LEED A.P. Chair CC: City Council Members ATTACHMENT NO. S.' R�,V60 (jre�Z,6 board An advisory board to the Huntington Beach City Council Planning Department RECEIVED MAY 01 2009 Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Goodell Property Annexation, W�-v the Historic Resources Board of Huntington Beach has several concerns we would like to address in the hope that a more comprehensive report will generate the most appropriate finding. The Goodell property, located just off Warner Avenue immediately north of the recently annexed Brightwater Development, in addition to being a contiguous part of the Bolsa Chica ecosphere is host to two important historical resources. The first is well documented as ORA-83, an archeological site containing possibly the I 0 ,g world's richest collection of prehistoric cogstones, matched only by its mirror twin in �9 the southern hemisphere (see Bolsa Chica Land Trust report). There are also Native American remains from more recent prehistoric tribal activities at this site. The second is a portion of the battery and bunker complex installed across the Bolsa Chica by the United States military for coastal artillery defenses during WWII, a rare extant example of Huntington Beach's participation in that historic conflagration. Our main concern is twofold. One, the historic resources that share the site are not documented to the extent their significance deserves and that significance merits a different initial prezoning designation for the site. Two, the proposed prezoning fo residential development seems premature, given the available data for the aforementioned resources and the current/past use. The initial prezoning combination that includes residential development on the upper mesa on the property is, to a degree, based on the current Orange County designation from a previous residential development proposal. That proposal and the designation that goes with it, does not have and could not consider the most recent developments surrounding ORA-83 and it's multiple resources on the neighboring Brightwater property. Similar mitigation measures for that project have been insufficient at best and more in depth study should be required before a residential designation is given. The more recent historic structures (bunkers, etc.), though less glamorous than an archeological site, are deserving of more attention as well. Further, the current Mitigated Negative Declaration documents do not explain how proposed mitigation measures are to be implemented or supervised should residential development occur, a likely scenario given the current proposal and the recent history of the city. Finally, the criteria for the level of significance given these resources are not transparent in the current Mitigated Negative Declaration documents and therefore could seem Huntington Beach Art Center 538 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach , California ♦ 92648 Phone ( 714 ) 536 - 5258 ATTACHMENT ° 5, ( fli6torie 1 6oure 6 board An advisory board to the Huntington Beach City Council subjective or even, to a small degree, arbitrary. It makes far more sense to the Historic Resources Board for the city to annex the property with a designation for what it actually is currently, open space, or has actually { � been in the past, agricultural, etc. Then, with the studies and mitigation measures '� .i; called for, the process for a residential development designation could start from an appropriate baseline. Respectfully submitted, Historic Resources Board Huntington Beach Art Center 538 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach , CaJ, �aA 48_� ��� Phone ( 714 ) 536 - 5258 M e „G � 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 � I data files be made available to all project stakeholders. Only then will it be possible to i 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 is present for it to exist on the site. " Those field surveys missed several populations of southern tarplant, a CNPS List IB.I species (rare,threatened, or endangered in California or elsewhere; seriously endangered in California). �X_ Southern tarplant is actually quite plentiful on certain portions of the property. Ll 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. ATTA�C NT p 5a q(0 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 r�� amphibians, reptiles and small mammals due to repeated ground disturbance over time. However, while ornamental habitat is 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 100ft 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. 'i 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 (i.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 ATTAC ENT Ow Ja `� count is associated with a given placemark (the KML file for the data can be provided upon r� request so that interested readers can examine my data further in an interactive manner). �)j Loveland 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 Jl� 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: tn r -xm rP � 2 r 1 M S fi 4 i, k ` r L. ATTACHMENT EIR Required Given the important sensitive resources on this site, an EIR is required to assess the impacts V, since this pre-zoning process moves the site one step closer to development. Sincerely, 7&44 A glio� Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.org �°I ENT ATTAR ,. .���. s ",-_9 `.,ir{ R"q�R �� "P 1 4 _ �'' S •'E " `;t �a� CIF ..y 1 E 4 w. i r •'{� s € ��� � f� # a.���y, s w..� . A 9 X € ,�.,: ;3,h 1.`4 °es t2 r 7 i r H ✓ # .,. :�5'1 F "n J{�"W1 "cf w " & 3 -s '£7 u• z+ poi n t�•. r'" a & cm ea mab q�. 1 {r�,'�sn 'Via' et' i€ +, >,a d k r ,�a+r S� y,.r S `zy �rl,r�z ' .: o r ry t„�- :�'� �a t. :'i r t.. r c`'• as �`qRqEli, x s• �,.- � -'� r ��a ,y,�'a � r- t C ,a' ,r xc � � r .e .,,%,r+ui•..7 "9a�a"." ,: •.r R Y7 i-s a. 'w m ( Ai, r t __' ..,,_,y .q .:.< � ,,"„,,, .Y .,: .,,...,.�.tir �. .,� � .: S a; �`�•n' svbk 'ti,l,,s 4 ,;ik'n � - v ,. ... s ; t kkraa� j 4 r ,ey .'..s.# ,::a „., E .� { c ,s, lr€ Y :iq,p •tea { r:gi q a W f a �' r„ 8x a:>a M. '; .,. F..:_ '"9� .dr •.rbgtY €. 4'r A�,"'a' .,.•s 4!� ^` s•' �v k*;"y F ,k t a r, �.ar g e, r '$ _ MOM t`' =s b.'�.� A r"'1&°�t n;:.'+'nq 1 "1'�a'. t j-J .. Y' a C,, r2 't��% a •` W. � ,rra .ti ,"f � MMON, 5��� ;, ., �°��. '�/ ,': a�^�kr`�i°.�e,y'^F. i,y �.tea �. '^a�..:•`+` "" �, ...k`<,a , b , r : : °�s.,e ',,^,, d'> a ,u`aV �"k^�'` .:'a 4'+a"`'rn4•;k a'a `^ Y . 00, ... •���� "'``•,,* ktt"�°�`a. a+"fn.A a �'{,a ..,. 4'•..'h`.",+'k .,q"k�'"' it s <4 X:,: q,�, tl .��. ,✓ d /��"�+�p���". F��q � `°+,+,,`„6�',�^•�q,•,,+�;,y.3,'9Yy,',+;, ���°,i;<`c`'1"°• k••ti;. € r # b � .:i« ^! t ��.•��'`�:".,°4.�5�+:.ti'v�+4'4M M1:.'n�.21:n��`"+'S "k'4.•t•, � 'k' Sk' tl •�} ' i,ry" .t`--. ,�P`r'• � a,:'�:r,;r'",f,a" , �:':'r•+° tsfi"_.;rd''St � '"�,°4�;[. � ,� M,�t �, :~:, �••`•': ' 't ;=2m � '' ' I. � d �.e��.+`al.", � �� r€ �F.:✓� �,r�r�'f,� e'� k o'^+„ '1,'•,•>'"'Z+ �?y"i'''h. {ti :k'.ss F'v.. � .`v..� '',,4k.. IN .. f q� f rF''1 s y✓..'Y ra y4, _-• at `, # 'f a '°��!„ 'd,•r e.��r 4`�a„ '".+ a ra�``kya'4''ba",4,:':tl, N f'a ;: L f0 - r�, t>~ �a i.. �` y:a,. :.w'n,"f+''` >�✓r,?'�.�'�;.a �, w" 'y `'a f�$ ,~a' js b>?� � a �.��° �;; Y � � r� "" � � �� �'�+'..dafis';`•* r����t� "y y`+,.'c"i^"�k�'� "�" �.��r 1£ :t.� 4,N:' 'a r^w 'tits €+a,t '� ,e ' r. � °� r r� «� ` � •r ��..d rf "y"yty .+a°i ,,.+ •".v t.� t P e € Y � a, , �,�Y, x� q ga{ ,sr'z t �!� �,,+ f.� ,��,✓,r; "'`���wWW .. , .� f _fit •', ' _ + .. , �" � td��,,+'��„+���.a,•�� 'trk 1� �a� t �:: s r� k ? - f n i � _ ..,�y 1'_ 7 `° t �* ..as f�✓�y+'�r'e��«"r er. s a✓d'� i� n yrya ' q "' Nib "m' fyy sT � � ir � x ,,;5 t "^az } x�d�r a.£x y?, }r��,rme•,+ N '� �n R'4� w?' `Q",r r•t." �"� >i.:�Mr.+a,�+^�r''"r ��f.+ !„✓��,,f•''""r�r�+ P � r�aq ,r � M r ! € £,... r .�', „�' + r sn`"'�I r "a,=" ��'` y'r,9•<r�i✓ ��, �r.r'�;,,� `5�;,+ } .: .,'9q l -- - �a � .,, s ��F°t� �.r�T "'',t'£*`,m� ,�rwi`a ,� ,.•y`:r's a � `'Mx, a -v ,++.,' o •u,^ a a r , �� ,:..�v�� r�F" Pt`� �. t .aka ��'+ � .., .�s�,.;.. •r 4,p a 1z' r'^ tl 9 £' ; r 'a *si •� q F— '`.,n a '�°+S,tt 'akJ.,µ����+. *3g N�� t -"`-="� 'y7 r k�y� a T��k �' n.,t+'A{^ru,� `°� i x' 7 t ✓ h r r, '" a '< � � .,:�°.� � � � ,.a �. l � P�g {�� ��� ��a -.3„r z� �`�� �'`��.';`�a•,3in >ui e '" a t +k'n.,. xt .o-^F. tt,� 9 y F�fi+.�'. '~2ma 3 '' t i 4q t q k£M y 4 ,'#F4tgnrt °� r`#i� k't•:'2'"e 'i,�k� ,'7 k d.'a` t,s''r,'Sw.:;;ra• - r .�},', �""s € :3� "k'`";�b., `iF t . '.L ;;!'s .:,' S,' :+9 yr.,#.. "Lm r �,r, +, s Dena Hawes Southern Tarplant Survey —August 5, 2008 ATTACH ENT N , � l f' 4 •� Mail to: -California Natural Diversity Database For Office Use Only Department of Fish and Game Source Code HA 000 { Quad Code f 1807 le 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 mm/dd/yM.- California Native Species Field Survey Form Scientific Name: &V` ., Ls. ti .c Common Name: —P--?LA Species Found? r)9 ❑ Reporter. �L n/A �/t7wfs Yes No If not,why? Address: 51.5a VJ VL-IAAJ 17/Z Total No. Individuals 55 Subsequent Visit? ❑yes ❑no �/ulri 1NtTDrJ � ALt�, 1A ���2/r`/ Is this an existing NDDB occurrence? ❑no Funk. �/ Yes,o�.# E-mail Address: h/ccrT r� ScCc.i/,/'r.cam Collection?If yes: Phone: (71y) gV a,9"3c1 Number Museum 1 Herbarium Plant Information Animal Information Phenology: 5V % J7? % % #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: andown /Mgr.: %fib .AI-D t 600-DELL._ Quad Name: Elevation: 10 T R _ Sec '/4 of '/4, Meridian:H M S Source of Coordinates PS topo.map&type): C/-5 T R _ Sec '/of '/<, Meridian:H M S GPS Make&Model l A121 Datum. NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 Horizontal Accuracy /5` meters/(e Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10 UTM Zone 11 OR Geographic(Latitude&Longitude) Coordinates: Easting/Longitude ) t19 3g,5-' Northing/Latitude K) •�3`' `i ,`1Z % Habitat Description(plant communities,dominants,associates,substrates✓sods,aspects/slope): AL'44 1:5 VE66551TW wjrvc?w W IASive - 7-L-6---7-013.AC(ol ?14.T2495 Lf?Ass, 3G-gc/< yr�yr C�'tXtJn� /7Ar5Y� �vSS/A�v f><i/STLE/ )C1V6-H6QX B4 Z/,9, 6414 CL /A"t°uL-47-144 a,= 3-A,519- f1EL1&7'i2�' f►L/Sc?s�zE SOrt. is 7�SltiF�/�CK Wf f/N� E�C9r/I/v j_,,sel LfCvjji . 1116 L, f �/i fZ l�� �iLc 15' 6J,0t/E,0 IN7V 7716 .Silk OF M6 Other rare taxa seen at THIS site on THIS date: Site Information Overall site quality: ❑Excellent ❑Good ❑Fair 111�oor Current/surrounding land use:F,4&a,w6 DN fIEcD /�QECTL y !3E(c S/TE TY& 61.5 j , 6Q-R(- �,ny+r..v �r� ✓//� n cf 2�1G6tN6 )Cr201V A2Ef7A662S.,4Z)�4tEti% iU FQ.2ljt .(?�aqo Visible disturbances: tY1UrrN%AJ.nl /�rfiE l t11t dr) f/iLLSraE��lY1X $/KE T PSG E/✓$ i?i�(1NG �vT %3cJ'e!Cfl Lcrtu 11 Threats: Artl?1V/vrvaV 3l4N�k-(6v7-k4,y6E Lib' an/ THE T ro: ARAiA ,P(A7-�1l u) 0#L6 5rf D065 1-f,%/mAh1 7,PAm,l w6;, SiKES, 2)1661/v c",r Van LI'lW SAP Comments: ?44-J S /9RE ZAR66 (Up 70 3`74c)AND 0&,v5 C) 11n '�igL4, -10 !E7 Act c,;�4TC- .3r&t4 M Vv C0VN?Due 77410< aeu ,4 T iAAIT Si R 7/77PPc,4Afi` ti Er2S 40x b` 4Pj6,4 f5 -RgMcrw Photographs:(check one or more) Slide Print Digital Determination:(check one or more,and fill in blanks) Plant l animal Keyed(cite reference): Habitat Compared with specimen housed at Diagnostic feature Compared with photo/drawing in: By another person(name): May we obtain duplicates Other: at our expense? UIGITA162 no ATTACHMENT N . .� . Fp wNDAerT74T Rev.TOB2d03 i t t b''. - a' :n .> i. 'rc`..';> �. f r f, . '`J"'T�iaiini € t }• d r i e 4 Z e 'x ±'k•� e a+'� `yM� '"• yX L ,� r 2t ti v A 01 E � § .,x £3 " Kv ,� 3`'ybS.e �,y�t'' .:ram ,» '-•r .y �r ,•, � ."'�_ sAx.,,1 � g+ �' ..+< �� x ��.�`3'`�a �" '�," '1�• '"t'�vesi.i .�'� ��r s:, i4 t �'p ti y a .x"f t r.'Sd i � z a, a t pn ' �" '� s�" a r+ar � .gat--.. � `� .�. ...m..# R3 'a4v:.:•l�,,� G' �,:"� x 's+ � � - }s..�" � +a:-'a4 ry �.�.."s, �� s '�,.2 5 ;• +'. a �..'�+ �; t 4..,,r R �'. � r y Mail to: California Natural Diversity Database For Office Use Only Department of Fish and Game Source Code Quad Code 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. flap Index No. Date of Field Work mm/dd/yyyy: � California Dative Species Field Survey Form Scientific Name: l G/ Common Name. SUtt 7-N CtZry Species Found? ❑ Reporter. �r=rrlA 1{g 1 uL S es No !f not,why? Address: :7.9'50? Vi"VL LA'yo t7iZ Total No. Individuals _1W 4 Subsequent Visit? ❑yes ❑no }/�(flr('TV1y EACH, C/-1 Is this an existing NDDB occurrence? ❑no �unk. Yes,o�.# E-mail Address: A/CA7-2V-5ttL ct I_l'/'.Cem Collection?If yes: / Number Museum I Herbarium Phone: _I�lf� 9 It&—2,2 3 9 Plant Information Animal Information Phenology: 7-5.-Q% F % % #adults #juveniles #larvae #egg masses #unknown vegetative flowering fruiting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ breeding wintering burrow site rookery nesting other Location Description (please attach map ARID/OR fill out your choice of coordinates, below) County: 0-&4, 6 Landowner Mgr.: //t?11J.'-1l p E. bUU�ELL Quad Name: Elevation: 10, T R _ Sec '/of 1/, Meridian:H M S Source of Coordinates(GPS,topo.map&type):�PS T R _ Sec '/.of '/,, Meridian: H M S GPS Make&Model C.-Kt>l GKQ it?t Datum. NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 Horizontal Accuracy 161, mete eel Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10 UTM Zone 11 OR Geographic(Latitude&Longitude) Coordinates: EastinglLongitude L) I►�c Q nZ,�3U` Northing/Latitude A/3 3`'zi'l ..`i`I5 Habitat Description(plant communities,dominants,associates,substrates/soils,aspects/slope): , Sri� t-A7u/ !S � itv C . " r� a C/2C?wN `DAISY, yGt 4ow .5«/4N(377-E1 f C1�l.4ftr j vSS1,1N 71115A , Scit_ rS /-0,12(•'A' 6K/ Frrv� 6&A"VE4. "IteGif be!& NAC 6VvT,4WW Co,45TAL S46-,4, 5(126,8 3U, r6 rvC4✓ ?iZlmgF�r�y 11v0t5lizE Nc7N-NATrvL- SPC--eI6j, 42EA is 411�oxtAv,(-�t_y CCU/ )i "I S r1gL� r�lF'v��ru.� c}r= Sa,7NCZN T.4�GA,l, E��'cvtrv� .SIC'T,ZiDc Other rare taxa seen at THIS site on THIS date: 3 a' D LE C-AS' o/- Site Information Overall site quality: ❑Excellent ❑Good ❑Fair Poor Current/surrounding land use: f( ,Sw , Deveu !t6�" CAI ,s�bJ4,Y-uT p�[Y1 /Z7�'J �AQ7►uvb ,4criv/r`/ a/ Visible disturbances: sWa..r.�,.� �F v6 a��cCG-ss �04 yTR(n1 �/KE C ��d7X ( RE JCM"S� V614,ceE 7?'A�cl/=� E( Y&Af 44 e/v n?LaO, t�Arnrr atc/(�!3 SH04 INN- dimd5evEA,7,6 Threats:X&mArV 7�rJn2�CLtr(�, egL6>9S>{ �065, VCK/C[�`5, RrtyCC_6Y,, v�vdn�(f7►t, �/1ctS�' f'iAtiS N�1v� fib�'Y Comments: A&A ' IS r,,vF6&Z c0 AlcT-_qj&'V"-lo 4'v') / o -ZCU/21l-y �i1A�FilTy /S t!6<9 wL y USCG ay A/Z A/�6Sr®l-.✓r' av .c�s 7 v ve -c E�97l� a w &Av s 'MBw t-0 1 /� n v�t<c FI1� " Photographs:(check one ormare) Slide Print Digital Determination:(check one or more,and fill in blanks) Plant I animal Keyed(cite reference): Habitat Compared with specimen housed at: Compared with photo 1 drawing in: Diagnostic feature By another person(name): May we obtain duplicates Other: at our expense? s na ATTCHI� DAe,1TA7Rev.lorzao3 •� • • • • • t i � 7 ' fif r' J S 'wY 'x;�'� �T F ,+ .7 :.,��-•��`�:: 3� 'qu. 4 t'�.�;,a.� �s.Y ��� . f r y F� {stx+„ �. +.n+,S "•': _s r y,.-. air r .}v,3'' w•.,r 5 A�"�. t..-> ,^.}, t - r -.y .�}�4 ~ '�,r �•�Sd ..:..�5� Tr� .kji�'i ��5 ,r: ��7 ,�~ S i K.+k "3� # e'v�e^� •9 r--:�,�'t':c �'^ ����tT'E •. '.� C.,� .3�,mb'£ - �y .��.t�� .r:- ..C' ywr �a^' Y�'.��',�t^'�-°�Y r' �,i - Y«, �k ,A•,c �^�t t�.. y���!`Ji � .r' ^c yr "�v - "e�'"s 3 r;iE_.Yc`t��C'� �"� � kx 7��i��.r s J'-• -+� � ,y. rr�� �r-ie ��s�,,/r�`�:� > � �r '.: r 'ry a� a.rx .'r •� 3 r ,, i l c'4:'sa � ^�1'�.' -ram '1*S�."r •.'ram .'�z'. ' 'S-� '�� '` �+ � •,x.:� :�""s t�"� rX"��yk� �"��t��� x r i N, y t��� 'g.g. #��� ,t,� .1 s�,s { �� i� � -.T�•�,...�'t c� t .�.tr }�` s�.' t#.:�t •ris' .tv� sib <� _� � ,., : r { u r . � r d.t v 5� L� �" 's� .,�.t �,ra p i 4 k i � \{� tcr�� a^•�r. .� � s � ; x F - '4.s J 5�T.'vel y y,��� 4 tl a 9 rx t.f br),'yn"T3�t s J 'yF k'` ,�"„• S m=` 'r- °5�cy"4� 3, FY �'.r fib; - � x is M f• 4 t :t h A Y �.ti F �y i -,x ..CFI �, iI}•�.y .xsyr ,� x Tc •S, t •€r; < � �. rxs: n � ���„Si>3 b� 4: �� � s�'kb{'r`t # `��;r 7ii�.P J '"'"�'X'd 1 -' � t,�,,, � �die� YA' zs� k4� � .v"t`4 r�;� ,�"ax`•��,�t s-n+'C'�°fir?�z2 1 y �,r i� K ri -.- �, .Y }F s _r t3 t s at s.��Y ^. -}�,�'<.�y` fc. �.A �t{ �✓'' s �i`x � �` �t s� �.-r,' a yi {� i zt,s C a:. £` � t;x,r �.r ��.0 'o'C �� � ,,�#,;L � 't � .v 4 # � � y .3 �� < Y. `"�,y �F✓:h ��'r. � �: ,x...-5 s"i a .,!•x' �"a�� 'xcv^��t f� �,a,�, � � �.l S ''� ' �,i x• f y � -� ^Y :` #�', �,� � ••rt ..�.:.fvr- !�`°'' � .i�s.! � . k� -sue'r �-, emu- .•� �1 F , �- _ a - x 2�+"d,s.,,,�5 Y��c� ':`r ,i �-�..,� � a�;'�, h y r 'v d� '+H•t"t' �"A £s ��, � t'�" ^'c cft .ia' x .Y.,��`�`-,..h� n��r -�•'' ),u,�,v �..,� �:ts�.���»�r'� '=s.'S 2 � { yr As s w�9�^- ^"5'Sz �t`�'��.o"�r '�:, � ,+-, �•i� � - �S�� ��� ELAN •o' '1 q s'�� fi -. y, .��•pLy R '3 1' $.-�. �t1t�...h'�S $TG. y X`-.�. �..� Q �S ` Mail to-- California Natural Diversity Database For Office Use Only Department of Fish and Game Source Code Quad Code 1807 le Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95814 Elm Code OCc. No. Fax:(916)324-0475 email: VVHDAB@dfg.ca.gov EO Index No. Map Index No. Date of Field Worle mm/ddryyyy: .��s�o� California Native Species Field Survey Form Scientific Name: - WCr Common Name: Species Found? ❑ Reporter. "7wyp X. No if not,why? Address: JaS.S Lrr✓' A y0 Total No. Individuals as 77 Subsequent Visit? ❑yes ❑no }{�ri,;r1y[,Ty2/ n�a Is this an existing NDDB occurrence? ❑no 6pnk. Yes,occ.# E-mail Address: ti oaf 0 5,,ee,1,rr.Col Collection?If yes Phone: Number Museum/Herbarium �]r�) ��F7"` 3q i Plant Information �j Animal Information Phenology: � % % % #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: 61G4�rfr �lMgr.: 9.cr� t;Gar3�L( Quad Name: Elevation: T R _ Sec '/4 of '/,, Meridian: H M S Source of Coordinates(GPS,topo.map&type): T R _ Sec '/4 of '/4, Meridian:H M S GPS Make&Model 9CX0 /0-/ Datum: NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 Horizontal Accuracy /S ' meters/feet Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10 UTM Zone 11 OR Geographic(Latitude&Longitude) Coordinates: Easting/Longitude I I Ac'0 rd, 3 81 Northing/Latitude M 33"/-t 9.,`T-/f Q 1 Habitat Description(plant communities,dominants,associates,substrates/soils,aspects/slope): SGuP& 15 !6v6� �95C �''" t�• .4RM t5 t�E�SCr-y vGC�E Gv�,tiov yRrJt !N✓Afi�f� SAiUt-S - trCySTA(�/.vL ![�/�i,�.v.-� S1Lru. Z-lEA✓e17/lLRANT, 1fCttotai uCE� ECak.,&2,/cvS5i,4n/7�fr �E, f/vE-1�bvic 3455,-4 B(A414 Mt'5742Q, O IC- et? � G f-,rf5 VL,46KO r vn��j(y 7H12W&C-0 i tA�v�S ,��c-Sc'r✓;, 5v;4 r'S tl�r/2r),�ci� t�I/ tfl�Gf Ar.�c�- - �� cI�vSI�C-v �?690 vE6&TFr/uni 1Gc 4, Sv.R/ ACE, 5177!4LLEe- or .Sav7Hl'WIV 74AR,91vT(91�&,X IU At4,,11-s) vIiawlIV( ,,v 17C-NSA VL-&-7-4770A1 56,-IoCi' Sec-rTf! OF ate• 260.3;&PqW 6oc,�codv � 1 tvI--NGtir�C �955/� /�r� 77crYlrt/tlI✓� ,AC3Q fCE,olA1v S, Other rare taxa seen at THIS site on THIS date: Site Information Overall site quality: ❑Excellent ❑Good ❑Fair moor / v� Current/surrounding land use:��1N6 vn/A4✓RLE ��'��f' -��1?tA'YJ� ✓S SIB �' '��E© ✓SZ'-/�Uc+Sf % Visible disturbances: ff}r�p ACCESS .fc ,//1GtrA17-AW lKE /SS DCwvA✓ JPU-51,0 7C'r4/cs n,1 '3f2 vSH nv1L'v ¢ T.� , t/Wfv17Y. 7rr43,4 4,vd 09-Cpl LISm. Threats: /cYecES V,%-LMSt! CxGS, 1 1Rm t��tlCrCS, rr�rn i it,noc.rnt�� (IAni sttSm, %39�vTr 9e�lf�f3 lac+�lVGf 7l2iJaSr�itk Comments: 4A Ln4 �S LY�n1 ,�EPC�LY c�v �S ��rr� 60"PrWIO SiZ' 96 ,0/5C,�2ac1� 5a2APtk,�Tc�.Pa�au�rrv+t I� c3rSECTL� 2?Orr�AlN a/KE / IC .CDWL-O h F��� � - L�GR�, tli y f/�a4✓ /c�LL�Er4TrCae gC L!$E Si E;A ,5 C&rR,67- Ly !J)v11R&76rrG0, Photogr8phS.(check one or more) Slide Print Digital Determination:(check one or more,and fill in blanks) Plant/animal Keyed(cite reference): Habitat Compared with specimen housed at-- Diagnostic feature Compared with photo/drawing in: By another person(name): May we obtain duplicates Other: a r y no HDAa1747R-10*= ..3 �ir r . 61, g a{ ,S x�} � a.+�to• r �5 yyak* u hd! ir sUX ,? * � �,. P. . i • • i . • • ' • • ♦ 1 • • � + j � ! 1 1 1 '1 ' •. 1 4' {„ f L ��� 31k,' i '^t�." r R 4N • • • ry�f'r ` r�,/t�ah X''--�"..,"r'.e�5�� �� P�A� -d?� � •!, '• • • ••i r .g,�i`�..Y o 2 r 1� a t �`b � � f-�,F � � +- F; ,- :�.� : ��^r.t's'g-��..� � �`. • •. •• � •• 'ri.>4 t 4 r ` "' � :�! e Ek �a F r.,e 4 s • • ' • • • y -' �, S a�«�t ,�� ,.z 1.-'t C�„y ��,{ � fg♦�.' .}� ��Y-.. Y f i'may Y f ^S`.r✓:�� '+es*��._ }Y may,.ysu, fi.: d•.. {lea A€ram }Wk- .41 r.� ���`�'� ,w� ` � , "st.��: �`�". Vie: - • • • • • . • Bolsa Chica Cumulative Raptor Survey, 2004 to Present M g 0, -,%5 va�3hlw f., n p,4 TO 41 tijw. FIT,: 6 A g,F 346 wo Vw A P�7 A .......... ............. 4A 21� M -1 IJ 2d, ivy .................... .............. .............. '4 v, n, ern IV 4 oll Z f A-1 vr 3' Y Ar, MVIM% �00 iml I �yq way WWI -01,021— QW- A on, Mo, Z' No l,13'1 0.- A 2500"Pif van, I -50 Wid ME", 0 Igo" . sh., . ......... _1Y SIM ON P A ENS 81 MN, -"i "�45 VM US,,, M A, ge wag "M WON MM�4w�x MG. di my ZgAA Igo I EMU AM I ad "WOMMA MPN " i YfflH, W A m WA y TM EON Emm U& .. ... ..... RMW TIME ".-t Will a NY.04 if wo J-41"-W"'' lows— v low IV 1. , - ",, v'"�4 1 A";'I who% i 'Ntl .111M H --OT j ------..... A 41 7-d FW74 1 MOM mm", mm 4 Woods'. 2L A c. Emu A Lk, AMY- ��r Ann. 153+ A -w-I,0 S 1�Jmwfv �77 vast Iq ;—V,A 11 a 3 46.,It —wa M% .gP k1k7w 21 ptir sr 4 R, • N� vg- -IT 6 M-, k4 J-v -Cugilq A - JIM "AN em W" -A� :i vm "y xw=M wm�" j"Mm T 'Q Im. coES ,} ��s �i �,: „F'�"r ..ttF�a f 4 �,,,<k°��'wrJ,mas t"''�n'{" :d"> t w 45 55 19 4m,�P AM ym, Jflw- -W p, S 4 dda�" '.�.- �i ., '. ,:. � I_ ,.. �fr; a w Ad k.e�. ..;✓:-r•� M..�t:,. i 2 10 j , iri u oil Vol Yt� N BwE "n y t� p� 1�A1r 1iE�•1 Yl 'fit a wxr � t�§�`yyte��ti �+ q Q�AHQQ Isms M Y �t S� z{fir-� 2>t0-1 i Ole 3if"'9'Pi��� 1( �� ���{�.� C+�v. i"' � '� � �..���` � t t, '� .�• }t r`-� �'�.4.3 ' of w`}�:' .. } ,n$ P ar b t��z4,r a a 9'.'53 ,:' sk, a}3 - "z k }> a •' ( �# c 'err � ¢ Y w :: t ��� 1 x'� r 3 Va;' � '3•J e12l �tRp.51 AR sm ATPOT h 4 e ° '., x k v, }t� t`1 +�{ �V5u"ta Q,! CiL: z 4�:, ,.{ � ,� "rY�: a?' rf i rya t _ '✓ 5 i���#�++b'' e pc� �' -ti'., t yl ,� . -.Yt �, 'r �.,._ �>r>� i ' '., v :.y.0 r' � �,•^ 5' a shk' 1} ? • ° t ^td 3. Y x r :� ��4 �°tYr``vr U fi t�}t�r Yw y.< :.t �1 � l >�+rr"/ t t tvs r. d r r as r x yt' w a�, o,� 3 _ 64, Y F'r 1iq '� ,5 3`{ 1 "W"M tiam— P'` _Ono Y r .' ayy f.. rw,4t 1t secs -tb $ .}v "'` n r°•'Y': t F c �b c1S v " u'�'+� 'th -;°:u,. z ' x '�+° e?+`✓I e t .r rmt f� V�'.0I A#� -OiR `�' ���h�'� _ -- �- ,,'t a�e wr�'K ..' �o I�1 M a�' '�'�?�:'."`' h ta?'�?, ;: .' .�. �at�t`•,,� t f � �.,�t"`Lu .. ;;.�� -. �. k{Ali ={' .t , �R'� tpf fir. ja...' "S" ., "V- 'S- _ ✓ bra.,ti `�"^` r .,�H. � �� ,�`� ''at 7 t��'' s ; ::�. p.. �+;y C �` a r �,° ��at�}», �,`� t�� ����"� !9a�' ~• .i'.,� t ,c-,, b .: � v�, ,. _' aaY +a.��• .N°'- �S. e, ^t3 �'.+'z+�' '�. l, F : t 3a r M "�" '^f 3 �vb•diP+! M„ Y. ' > ..; i ? �''.�..,.nF� �•. {'�u', -,� �` rSa„"a v'S''rx r'@t�d� `r' a-"�ro"``•�.�.�'s t `"1�'� r.ar.`�+�.�'�' r�:_ t 'T'r� �aF �'s� L9` h� ! a�:� .. ._.z �., . :• :'. b;,^r -„•.'' e .7p F r JS � 3s+"'. `.:::T a PT'..,. v ,trr' <a s `tii."? Np•_at,'�c?:.� ,ore. ,,..cr,t -;r� '+ �:*.�Ima e.rt,2009C�i �talGlobe :Kr�rS rf . ';,:,4 s x:.t.lr .. .cr✓pant "_''.� -:S?�� '�,+ _..,. .�:.y '-3 9� a .1. .. Y7°��o.. ., ia."', 9 „-. � -.. ;:".+. ,,a� �ii° ;,,� V �C ,,!a ._i .;,v,t'"� •,�`J - 0s �+ r a.�rk*,'x'� '�'�"a�` °iv : €fit as:.:;r �"".,:'✓ v:,EX �.:�r� ��(1C, 1�. q,r a� ", ; m gala l �YEl{ lPP'k. 'r �':{F + ,v6.�. >CVF x•h"., yor .. '�„m;,'7 ..,Z Sn.,,a ,°;.! �h`'�k.. ,� ,�,"'" yr as, p 4p;� .�" .�'`.. „g i i Vital ........... py of, Alm lz NSA".". most twyf::��l MAC 1 ......... EEO Ny z" ROD VW TW "P "S ova Phu., Aw mgmMy 0,20 M1 gmt Oak wools'. a INA, 13 A OEM IR n A"M NE mo 0ys 1 ! sw W p W m Ic ;0M Way sm- Ems ANI xjj n� 'own ova IF Mow& W?f jq n, 'A 'IL M._"_Wz a-y- M'V Y 2 -AA ........................ 0 ... Te , F." Aw EPA xi TA. its 6z A I Ism InTy: 1 TAW top FIRM 'j, foil 01`T1i1,jVj 'P, nxnp" a yon mg: Ing IM 1",xRRrftr1_;v1Z%i� ACT? 02 ARM X 1 R! AWN �,01 _73 'n, x 1p M VAN Mis o AWN &V "n ....... M""P-MQx� J� mom AI:R ;i Fin V,10 w V, 61" it swq J_A :1111�1;1 VV'� A INS - "N m MRo I k Q AIM, eq "7 -VON- 0"N ,WWI 3 �W�Pr,kve. '06 N 2 101 j -TOW 1-2 12AY �IRP NN lam Es AQ:,:. LAM "gx Re '0 MEL, i" N MINE IN IV 11"�av , '�cam TY X Ewa z will "MZ"'M ...444 .......... ;h k Moog so MY 04 ............. OEM can MIS X Mo.-So 11MM"".2MY ly, tog mv- ox , NMI oaymp OWED Wn Vivo, A—MQ l A-Not 0 Upy ART 'ma WOO qj .......... -"'tit i YU, - V4 coil 5- A01" 0 4WK M 0,V" viol A, T .......... .........oa AS. SAW 0 -owns, "vX, 1b, WWI arhyj Q MIN, P, ' go PC ""AN 4: NEtF w"i is rt fit FIR' m 1 4 Z gr.0 Of W I M. -g die-M-0 ...................... . ........ .................... �M W, 'ip U "ig Nola stool Mae p z" 1 20 1 NWAx:u� Elm mp N a O V_ SAWS Q-lam J-7 ""a, Ow KIM' Z 0 S� F. P ra Not W., Rito -61 low" w! ............................................................ ........... ....................... I. ism loss Q� MM% WAS Hip Pf" I QW_ MEN My hfWf* ey 0 16 I'N 0 W", map I-"', low AVON X N KIV 7,WO1 N_%_1 Wf 10 kA hum 1,21 MQ U&MV7 hot PE ear 'e�oo� KAMRAT x A , Ilm 11 otV W Yil u - n 4W AS awe- Ws _07 41 Ott ;:rf'"4;f, q n WAIN, lastr.Alaw-W r ✓Gt,� W W � hills Of t tM^ ' t,� 'f ;:� S t is t 5 ,. F7� w �., t,s;_-•, ".,._ s� 'A_ ✓ - - 1`'1¢' j41, � � •x " � Y r`+,r T T to 'W $ 1 ; ;K afr"`��� t-.+aY., .� - S 2, 1 p t @C r k.r ' a: $ - "�y iS9a� ,edv Jim r " � n�r" n (� g :, r�tP pzi t r � S'r �' r; ionly ,� W r �. \�q, IF�v"h,+ �.a '? �j .•:, d.-. }S, w w, Sty r��s(fa u� f•' � i - a '� .�� f '9. 1 "i' rc�/ '�5 < t c;; �r ° "' ➢ y � ,a,'� yf�Jt mr i�f , T t a��'; PE2' 'r' y4 E a s�o to .�k.•?r _a r g._ vr x .,:Y sira n k rfs i fi QQ „ ry it 3 tk S k- op y t eJ a < MW k � ;` �� ``a v z y �'�' iG h-�z �� �' ��S �r f ��� ,�u,ua � .,� bj �, ,t �. ,t •s .�' n'�r ��Sa r �� :s .'� rdk t �� ..� ,^ sit + `�� '� wa x r� '� v _t �` • #� as •t .-,& a w,�� v:. .t ti kf s'* _ .,qda .�As 5.+ , ems: is 3Q ? i' � " i 3� t, iOf i w +z. 3 .: "�' wF> " Lg rh t .5 'a .'' ,,+i Ga>• :Ctiq _ �,"a�,'.�. (r �a �'�, >k:. $ 'w" a '° ",Y�s' ',� s '` Xi.� jE, f ,E.� t'�'. .h u': t �,k.«ls.'�`: ri t°r` vs...' ,y' '`: ( 'r ;z:! £� ��f... r ,-r.r rh ,r_. :✓ „� s `Fc .#,r .4 r �, k. y.. ,',fir" z � � :,k.;.� {a.. c.l. u n ..:;ti•�'�,g/? �.;'� A a � y+. ,•a+ .`ti, 4 ,..�; .M: .,#r`4. .4+J' k.� �%'::,r .�.?i4 �r. i,:�. 4 .F.,S„v �✓ �.�,. ,u#gyq 'r`i" `�' ,v;:d to '2 �x .�." � ,ttC'•:!:,�. �' v'Srs, �;•.�:. • t ' ♦ �a{k .I. � ,1,.•. .aa ',, ...'""`.c ,•,r«"y:�" � :�-. '. "„� a °s ,.. ,�' �",`€r� 'i='" 'fir�� fi '' .,s�; �.. ', z !:iq y.. .g' a..a.:rr# , � y r ` ., r- a z.;"^y >qh4.�+,.;•, $rr�'�, k+ ",.r �:� t�.& �� :; ",�' d ;s .,a. �� a"" 9 b�.•, ' '�r'f'` as' ���, ..*" Yax� YkF h -,LL � fY '^;'��" s,✓ - -5:����. "& f,'Y_ r '.,+, a.'^S`: � �-s '�.-ra'r�a ,�. ��,4'' : �,:, f s�.: d 'f:� �° .'.•" ,ay"+7 ,..� :.;; ,;R ,.:; � ..,.k„ka t••fi :h+" kF •A.. F s,�• Y', w,.-„ -Meg:'.; -'1 "� '� Y. e 23". r.....6.Y::� .„ o Q ...r 1, >aAec ,� x.,,.. i•,.,,. .t;� :,Ck _,w:., w�",..r y,�h .s.. �..,, -;� .. Im " .�' �' 1 ��'��:�• ,."faj re. -'s. w,9 Nut t, km t q �,. 9. .f " • [a ,0;°. � . ). �t 5: 'lam 'i�� r r• �6�r• �_n'�' '�s'Y .�3:i��1") 1�:''. �t •.� �.':', r' s � �•a..a ,, r d�° B d s #• v,.o- •±r:�'a� 'a.w�I'9 .,,=Fr•�As c, �ter.. f. ,. 4. as`,�t �s. �Nd;rFWi �i•rwkr ac�'3 � p�r�� �€���„y yay"t �':. ,�, 6`''�a. ft�ar fi;� -H Q1 "Now 'full YNQ,j ApAjb- jam PQ Own= T-A 0 1"4 '14 ARM IRS. �"ARWI-0 0*x -A 1% 0"Q Eli Mo f W Fix is j Rt r wAsk,. WNW INV MAWN lot Zvi g' 4 ".V1,P A�:, 'O 12�" "APT M . 2, OV zi KER g.'4 V,11'��' a.✓smay MEW ""WWW1 MO. son, shAV xr Y0 10 —N own Aw "A not 00 Q! 'hops n- 000gK,, oil r1_ vy wz W WIN , zV1 W % w .camA TA�lf?I f am Mum( its p --o- , Fes, 3 %REt — t w t 4>5a a ♦ [ e J r � r 's a w'P p •yC i f..-.r�uri• � � . .�G i' �� K �, 31' a k n e n o ay r 4 { Ica p 2 t i C d } w FP - ht� s�"@ a,. "q g,4 a5c d - i io,.r• WU sow—of Cd 4 � R ��k rz,! I s fr Fit .5��a Sy C -! x� a.e�y - y ; .✓ s ' b. F �v too ,,,'4x'� .'e''� '+ x ,;A ,y,' >< w, a 1z�• p r �'Yr" "' .,�`. Y�+i rr4 .r,✓ �:#` exfic^ t.�',' 21ta' �'�. « 'S :�vt a `•�'�`c o;lr�,N �} ar a�,Y ,� r - ""�� e t t ,� t�„`..}o '� s d'�'3�' fic;.t<. � °r. 4.. sBtT�y''�F'':" �.x,. 4.- ;Peck �:z >, y:�"d'r��5 d �. ,d{ � �.+?�3(s �'` i��;• Z' asaa y s r - 1'P Y's. S �.n y r .�' _ �S ^r�. � .:�a M:Y ��5 j �'� u'r 7� ,�?kfi"%k•� ys..x,: t � � 3a<g �.�^ �,p� -�'�t4.� +.s� x ��p��` °' z?,--: _ _►�.'. r y!r rt,a,e�`�.'z'ir:wz'P f4w'1a da`5Ge�`y s.y,,P�`n.k#+^'s..,.sr;?'f:$r�r''y"✓aa§s a .;:'z+i`p m z?r kAhhcp c"ri ' xa,. ,.F �rj i•� 9:tz,i ✓d ".r � :� a ^ : r y y a §z^r �3tzs r,q6°# s. "rro ."'' .sEno, <'�.' - i� y'e " A .t , >wi r'S 7. i ma a& .. t tq• Fyta i N-` Ida, v:t 4 ,�'.'S #'', $ �,yi L;;2• ,Q t .x t r{:. 1 .,?+ ,v t�4 �r r r yY w t I0 ,�' L a L # s ._ 5'>'�"a... t t %..,. ,t a .� a 3i ".., •5 r^.pu •� sd I 5#_��, � "5p9 e :. S l*ri;y g�, t° i � ry�� x;. .�".k;�s+* r ` I ':�: Fo � s .✓""^,aa�.�"�'.. � -M` '�F .�:,'� � y�`�,ri'✓ks,�„ :;: - F.;Hu>s�,'�' %x�,s S. 'I�� � � �'2" �,' - i �`:�.al,: �:! �+y �'...-��_ ._ .. . .„y:f�. .:...�.; 7%,, i« �. t ', - ,� ix�},xe. �i :AV 'e•�,. � r'.. r w< d ,.�. c �;;-✓� i..*':�",. .�'" -. `r"�,..,..w c a� ,:, a.� ',,;.r �'g3 +-����^,,��:+ r�'a .,.. �"�k` :.z„. � � !f� ~.,E � Y- .r xr S.a.�:;'`.�. � I..�. F � a+^;; r, t +';° �."a`e'7 �,•c... �J� 4"�;.,;.ro� '��r^.m" .;,� wr �'�' � � "1, z �'�:;. �'� e:�'> w�"' � P .may „�i�. Rr., M-�y§P:. ... �, -.e•a d,'"'- �;� ,..:...:r;-�. .,,.y.:' 'n � '?z.>�'bu s.. ,,.^.:. ,i, r�3':a � '�; �e� :�. l`M' a W 'a+�' ,�..s� #u' :_. ,yF:.„, .,.,;.., .., r ..,.a:lmae.•9,?2D09sRlgtalGlobei 4y„�.,� ' 3r,.•:� ay ;..ra .�'�`.,-.,t_.. w.+;.av e .,, .,,r .�. ,.. ,,�5. ,<rlmagerr 009Digi(alGlobe,y �:•` $,,,�,.»+, 1 r,<�° f ,,,r -4•i �c W" '> a s ec J1Y u" ? °,r&+."'- U� Mf a'"`r a„ r�"' #f s yat^ .i .,��•_�, �; .a5_ "� • t lotig; r �nwom fir' a 8r ri t i t f TO 8.x t- t .aI fit£ t{fit r 6 D d CtZnowt 4 p1 S.^u p Ain HOW 'R ��rl 3s, ^r s t 3 ray .P y � 4' #-� "`" re�yel! VAN Ty RU N'r t Rj 6 d s k , gat 0 p E _ •, ""'M. ;. 3r 'a >� ��,.. �,,i:1 . L a�� '.v�'t "y .:-, „ �'i + .,,s: LL�: } p�,aTo- d'd"., !"; �Y r: a» "r`7 •e 4 Yh3 pi ,p { _ 11 ,.a t5 s r E S , s y k H z 4 r � "� a x �� Y.a n w5 es xe. e y� i�e,�S.,u;ntz 'Pr,. �� t,_,zf�'�, .�y� •�°� �. �� a .� �{ t t ���4:^ tfi •"S!,,ro ;F��'F�..zs'� :,4 tr �,e�.ta,,p+;. �4�i ;r�' ���e r..>;v„ �� y:'3£ t.Y a "��..� L�' ,,:..::f' rays ��> !tk.r `#- ,z � { 5,;. `, J Ssr t� 'S ?^# � f,7. "v 3s `3�t '>�£" t^P { 'i SS as:r' k '� r c,. fg �aAss 43, - $ fatx ,"9 �t I #,n1 p x tr fir 'kF _ �t r x I0 a � s r F P;kr g low i t h a 3' ,S sR'1' .: '+.}�'�. v �' viol, f 231 —W VP ale �,j{�. ,,., ,'.`. y!.:; k,.*s ....;. ..... ,- �`iF :"1�.� }*r, {!�' C�. S �fl xA .rt ���. �• .w; z . �v.:., q .;,., r d...r 3�,.�'....�; s!' .� q���,� S�}�`:-> r� y,+,"t^y, �,� .t'u, a`�} 4 :i ,i. t,` ,� � �.m``"r"ry, �^+>ffi .,.bm '�`�::r �.�'�a •": NEW 6 .:::P- Y 6 ,,: " 4r eJ` � ? <±s�' a t�; "'? �';,t,,F�`�` ;.r✓- aY�'p•�`a; 5 : ¢t�. ;a' ,! € r wk� l �� '.' q. ,;,,, �ybtw ga•t. s,fi s, � ;�� y'' �r -k..� t -v;, + .., y 3 m ,n t.7{':� � �'.:7 .,^.',... .Si� •s'.;V`�,�.>., .�St� es i,.t, R'� .,,gT t �5:..:�.: t i" a?t�, � } �'f`�� i'�^•� ?;:,'� t, ta4.�. �.'�.-. � uz'r� .�°�,.6�' �s .� .,.;;. � :,�,�'.. ✓„�;,r'`""r„ .� »:.�T�; `'�z "�.ifi�:`�a ..r �2:, �ai� F.,t"`��':,e �P"i r�rP: r, ,s•`�&}: ' ��-' r r:,:a. I-...f.rK! u;� rv, ..- r. ...dy.� .,:, '3�..• . .r.:`.- .. ;�' •.r v. a�: ,:�' '�. Y r, ,r ,.e� ? a m --. °�• rlma ek,<Ud...Di"!tal to " CA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance,inc. P.O.Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. April 20, 2009 [APR 2 2 200,9 Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department g 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: environmental Assessment No. 08-017 (Goodell Property) Dear Miss Villasenor: Evidently you did not read my letter of March 20, 2009 where I wrote to alert you to the fact that the aforementioned property is part of the 17.2 acre archaeological site(CA-ORA-83/86/144)that has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is listed on the sacred site registry maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission. The proposed zoning and C�- annexation is an action that requires the City to comply with Senate Bill 18. SB 18 requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes prior to making certain planning decisions to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places. We are deeply concerned about the proposed pre-zoning and annexation and development plans for the 6.2 acres of property known as the Goodell property. With the destruction of 11 acres of the site for the Brightwater housing project,the 6.2 acres represent all that is left of this significant archaeological site C o that most certainly contains the last remaining burials and cultural artifacts that are part of the ancient cemetery and village. The loss of the remaining portion of this world class archaeological site'and most importantly,the disturbance of the remaining burials,would be a tragedy. It is troubling that nowhere in this proposal is there any mention of the fact that the property contains a significant archaeological site and cemetery or its importance to the local Native American descendants whose ancestors are buried there. The uses mentioned would disturb more burials and prohibit access to the site for ceremony. SB 18 amended Government Code §66560 to include open space for the protection C of cultural places as an allowable purpose of the open space element. We hope that the City will take care to protect the cultural resources and will give at least as much consideration to California Native American descendants as they would to natural resources on the property. If you have any questions,I can be reached at pmartzkcalstaela.edu or(949) 559-6490. Sincerjy, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President ATTACHMENT N . J �l (. PA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance,ins. W.O.Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. Cc: Fred Wilson, City Administrator Keith Bohr,Mayor Joe Carchio, Council Member Gil Coerper, Council Member Devin Dwyer, Council Member Jill Hardy, Council Member Cathy Green, Mayor Pro Tern Don Hansen,Council Member Joe Shaw, Planning Commissioner Dave Singleton,Native American Heritage Commission Jennifer McGraf,City Attorney ATTA T N01 0 ica La.-, MAPR 4 2009 e 9LL Sa n each each OFFICERS President April 24, 2009 Paul Arms Vice President Julie Bixby City of Huntington Beach Treasurer Jim Anderson Planning Department Secretary Marinka Horack Attn: Jennifer Villasenor 2000 Main Street BOARD DIR CTORS Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Connie Boardman Dr.Gerald Chapman Re: Goodell Annexation Environmental Assessment No. 08-017 Vii Cowden Sandy Genis Dave Hamilton Mike McMahan Dear Ms. Villasenor,, Joe Shaw Marc Stirdivant Laurel Teller It is the Bolsa Chica Land Trust's position the entire 6.2 acres of the DE Goodell Came Thomas being considered for annexation b Huntington Beach is art of the 8,000 Dr.Jan Vandersloot property g Y 1� P Rudy Vietmeier year old, internationally significant,ORA 83 Cogged Stone site. This site was Karen Merickel-Wood originally comprised of over 17 acres of which eleven acres were destroyed by the ADvisow BOARD Hearthside Homes Brightwater development. Those 11 acres are now gone forever. Former Mayor Debbie Cook Diana Casey Nancy Donaven The attached exhibits support the Land Trust's position. They represent either the Former Mayor Norma Gibbs Bob Goodrich entire 17 acre ORA 83 site or the 1 I acres within the Hearthside Homes Brig htwater Paul Horgan development. They are submitted to the City for review to illustrate the significance Janice Kellogg Eileen Murphy of ORA 83. Linda Moulton Patterson Rochelle Pazanti ® In 2001,the State Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voted Louis Robles Jayson Ruth ORA 83 a State Historic Site. (Exhibit A) Dr.Richard Sax . A memo from the Native American Heritage Commission dated April 4, Former Mayor David Sullivan Former Mayor Grace Winchell 2008 (Exhibit B)raised the following concerns: ENDORSEMENTS o ORA 83 is a sacred cemetery. "In the project archaeologist's memorandum to the company,dated January 17,2007,it refers to a Amigos de Bolrive R sear February3 2007 ceremonyand assumed reburial. This action hica Algalita Marine Research � Foundation would be after AB2641 extending the definition of a cemetery and a Anza Borrego Foundation Ballona Wetlands Land place with"multiple burials"to private land." "Therefore, Trust City of Huntington Beach considering the 87 burials from ORA 83,whose chronology is Friends of Harbors, unknown or certainly unclear, and given the number of burials at this Beaches and Parks Huntington Beach project site,how can one say it is not a Cemetery?" Wetlands Conservancy Huntington Beach Tomorrow o The developer has stated since 1992 that there were no human Orange Coast League of Y remains found at ORA 85. et in a memo from Nancy e Women Voters Y Wiley to Ed Orange County Mountford,Ms. Wiley state"Ted and I will wrap each burial with its Coastkeeper Peninsula Open Space Trust grave goods... Each individual will be wrapped again in a colored Sea and Sage Audubon Sierra Club burlap coded to male (blue),female(red)and unknown(beige). Angeles Chapter Surfrider Foundation Children will additionally have a color separation or other designator." 5200 Warner Avenue - Suite 108 - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 - (714) 846-1001 www.balsachicalandtrust.org ATTA" T NO. ��� � o In an email message of December 6, 2007, 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 attorney— Susan Hori." ® In an April 8, 2008 letter to the Coastal Commission(Exhibit C), Larry Myers, Executive Director of the Native American Heritage Commission, states the following: T� . "The NAHC has not received a report clearly showing the dates, locations and i< details of burial discoveries. At this point based on the 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 Brighwater 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 reburials of remains and artifacts occur as agreed." The Bolsa Chica Land Trust believes it is HAPORTANT TO PRESERVE THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ON THE GOODELL, PROPERTY for the following reasons. 1. It is all that remains of the 8000 year old village, cemetery,and ceremonial site that is the oldest prehistoric village in Orange County. 2. Eleven acres of the seventeen acre site have been destroyed to make way for a housing development. 3. To date, at least 178 human bone concentration representing an unknown number of individuals,over 100 thousand artifacts, semi-subterranean house pits, and numerous cogged stones have be recovered from the 11 acres. The burials were recovered from an area adjacent to the remaining 6 acre Goodell property. 4. The site was the manufacturing and distribution center for the ancient stone sculptures known as cogged stones which played an important part in an ancient California Native American religion. 5. Over 700 of the cogged stones have been found in the area of the village. Only a few have been found at any other archaeological site in the region. 3 6. The site may contain evidence for a connection between the prehistoric peoples of northern Chile where the only other cogged stones outside of California have been found. 7. As the remaining intact cultural deposit representing this ancient village and cemetery, it should be preserved as a historic park honoring the first settlers in the region,the California Native Americans. 8. As such, it could be an educational resource for school children and the public as well as a place where the descendents of the California Native Americans of the region could celebrate their cultural heritage. 9. The descendants of the tribelets known as the Gabrielino/Tongva and Juaneno/Acjachemem consider this to be the place of their ancestors and a sacred ceremonial site. ATTACHMENT N 51 'J r 10. Archaeological sites are fragile and non-renewable. Archaeology is a destructive process. It is essential that a"witness area"of this highly significant archaeological site be preserved for future generations with advanced, non- destructive, archaeological techniques which can provide answers to the questionsJ`I we cannot answer with today's technology. Residential development on this archaeological site is not appropriate. Follow the previous court decisions and do an EIR at the earliest time, which is now. It will savDap'll-C lot of time and expense in the future. Sincerely, GNL. Chaan Goodell Committee Chairman Bolsa Chica Land Trust Attached Exhibits: Exhibit A SHPO Staff Recommendation Exhibit B April 4,2008 NAHC Letter Exhibit C April 4,2008 NAHC Letter ATTACH q Apgkp OftA Z r Alk An Cogged Stone Site Staff Evaluation CA-ORA_83 Huntington Beach, Orange County The Cogged Stone Archaeological Site (CA-ORA-83) is a large prehistoric village site and cemetery situated on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa overlooking the Bolsa Chica wetlands and, in pre-Contact times,;the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The site was occupied from ca. 8000 to 2000 years before present and takes its name from the over 400 unique artifacts known as cogged stones that have been recovered from deposits within the site, some of which appear to represent various stages of production. The cogged stones show no recognizable signs iof wear and some have been found within the context of Native American human burials. Smaller numbers of the cogged stones have been found throughout the region with the majority of them found in sites along the Santa Ana River drainage. The Cogged Stone Site is significant under Criteria A and D. The site is significant under Criterion A in the area of native American;history and tradition for its association with the traditional oral history and folklore of the Maritime Shoshone as the burial ground of exalted beings and the site of the cogged stones (called "star stones" by the elders), which were part of an astronomically-baked religion; and because of its association with a strong emphasis on plant food procurement and processing, along with new cultural concerns relating to non-utilitarian artifacts such as beads, pendants charmstones, discoidals, and cogged stones. As such, the site is significant to the cultural traditions of the contemporary Maritime!Shoshone community and plays a role in their historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. The site is significant under Criterion D in the area of prehistoric archaeology because, although the property has been previously subjected to limited archaeological excavations that have yield important scientific data, the site contains intact cultural deposits. Site CA-ORA-83 has the potential to p� rovide important information regarding an Early Holocene transportation corridor and ritual interaction sphere that extended from the Orange County coast along the Santa Ana River drainage to the Mojave ' Desert. The numerous time-sensitive artifacts recovered from deposits within the site may be used to assess the chronological place(nent of many site sin the southern California region that do not have datable materials, but have yield some time-sensitive artifacts. Additionally, because the site was occupied during periods of significant environmental change, it has.the potential to provide important information regarding cultural responses to major environmental change. The Cogged Stone Site (CA-ORA-83) is the earliest-dated occupation and cemetery in the region and one of the last remaining early Holocene-era sites along the Orange County coast of southern California. Staff recommends listing at the state level of significance. J. Charles Whatford Associate State Archaeologist October 14, 2001 ATTACHE A � f n se. s a • Ait# s-_ -A,: �_` Eli js•= e'♦'t[ �i ..�r .t `"_e '. �'!� •.. *� . `a E►g nt1 ''� �5#t,,"t7iti.�j'•`�'� r `C�`.i '�`-�a_a._ �' i gIL ii oj,u., ,,. P� G- °.�Sij z%d iW ra a. _ 2.e z. _v iei F,1 t s,a� P R'f • ■ R1 `I "r` :L+Pi 5='I'Y>!t-' ��1 Fh s: �t19'PI a i - ° o: l, Qs•: it ® • ,� •° ,•e @ �• '♦ of F-: �f-♦ : ":.ea.. `o t s .a �, ': d. e `.o;t m ♦; ta ' •'. t :,= �.c ed, rt ?.�l.8�.. "1 .'Fl .i,as1EF =. F'• P '`-" ai:2�tC9e•'t.".- a; �P' •`� • ' Pdp, iP �.0�. }k' Rti�r Fiis F �'e 6 'Sia FF ill q Far a _ e1,41 ♦ • • • 10 nl' '• s Fa':'0 r °s ►- e e .• r• r i«: _'a _t=' • • s -. t- a r : �-'•.♦ ,: c s x`t. G � ;:fPl@ oA• • Pd_1 i�-! P ?, - a'i a �, •, a. -. +d o : :!• • �•' F ♦ • + 'EY:j 0 't�' "•.f : 2 6 :� I�f 'P 8{ v!.-- •i - ,'•*: :• ! ` - a - - ♦ - + m �_e'� G•: i._._ •' • 'is •:•r R is { F2/2014 07:40 FAX CJ002 the material In the'2,000 boxes and bags of remains would be sorted and documented. 2• : it is customary for the NAHC to accept the determination and definition of'associated grave goods' as presented by Californla Native American tribes. With regard to the more than 400 cogged stones found at O'RA_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. Ailey, "there is no other such deposit of cogged stones anywh®re In the worid" 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 dogged stones at the site must have meant something very special. The NAHC does have access to photos of that house pit site as well,a3.0her house pit sites that contained cogged stones and locations wrhere,concentrlated 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(ML:Ds)that the priority 'associated grave goods' includes cogged stones, chartnstones, discold$is and beads. 'There Is little disagreement, in our view about these. There may be some disagreement that sorng of cogged stones and other items, discovered at a location other than a burial, are not 'associated grave goods; this would be.a matter for mediation, a rate requested by one of the MLDs and accepted by the NAHC and the other MLD. Also, the California a Appellate Court Decision In the case of P."Rk verse.V&b9n (218 Cat.App•3 1378; 267 CatRptr. 804.(tiltar. 19901 may strengthen the right of culturally-affiliated Native American tribes as to who has the authority over both remains and associated grade goods. 3. issue: is the ORA 83 a sacied cemetery? As a junior staff person at the NAHC, I believe it is. This Is based on the lack of information provided to the NAHC, the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner, and apparently the MLDs about wrhen remains were discovered. When the NAHC requested that information, the project archaeologist responded by saying that she"...cannot prepare a chr+onology.....(Please.see Exhibit"D') Furthermore in the project archaeologist's memorandum to the company, dated January 17, 2007,.d refers to a February.3, 2007 ceremony and assumed reburial.(please see Exhibit"A") this action would be after to law extending the definition of a cemetery and a place with ftmultiple burials°to private land. fonywrly,.the definition of a cemetery as comprising sic or more burials was limited to public cemeteries; now, AB 2641 extends the definition among other provisions. lt.amends Public Resources Code §5097.9$that stays(a) Descendants shall complete their inspection and make recojrimendations or preferences for treatment(to the landowner)within 48 hours; and(b) pre'ferences for treatment shall Include all reasonable options InctudIng associated items (e.g. grave.goods).` Therefore, considering the 87 burials:irom ORA-83,whose chronology is unknown or certainty unclear, and given the number of burials at this project site, how can one say that It Is not a sacred cemetery? The Dative-American Heritage Commission determined-a University of California,San Diego site, with 30 discovered burials-and.perhaps fewer artifacts and Breve goods a'sanctified cemetery"at their rpaeetjnO of lurch 12, 2008 In San Diego County. 4. a it ls,generally accepted that the cogged stones are found in the coastal eases extending from Ventura County in Catifarrria to parts of raja California moots,of the t public of Mexico. When, they are found in coastal %mea nf Central Chile.tn touth America.- AISO,A."�fir t ure on l2014 07:44 FAX Z 003 the cogged stones that they were very spercial items to the Juanen$as well as the Gabrieleno Tongva people. The Handbook of Nor#h American inn' !is. voi. I, 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 Gabrieleno Tongva. The 1925 map of the Juaneft territory, prepared by Alfred Louis Kroeber, eminent ethnologist, shows the Jusnefio territory below Aliso Creek In present-day Orange County. I attach copies of those maps as Exhibit"C." However, the NAHC accepts that the Bolsa Chica project area is a 'shated 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 Boise Chica and ends at Puvungna on the campus of California State University, Long-Beach In Los Angeles County. Therefor®,they NAHC fools that both have standing for their recommendations regarding the ORA-83, Bolsa 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, 4SM:cerrely, t Dave Singleton Program Analyst ATTACHMENT N . '5, FO 1/2014 07:46 FAX 11 004 January 19, 2007 ux TO: Ed Mountford, Brian Bartlett-Hearthside Homes [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 this Friday, January 26,2007. Joanne is in the process of completing'a comprehensive tracking sheet for the reburial 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 out within the pit so that there can be an exact placement.of each individual on the reburial date. By Friday, Paul Langenwalter will t produce his customary burial chart listing all known characteristics of each burial and most importantly, sex and age, when possible. .Accordingly, we anticipate_and,request.your cooperation for the following: 1] On Monday; January 29u, the final pit be excavated by Hearthside at the far western di end of the tiewly designated reburial area according to the specifications of the reburial .� 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 w much area in the designated reburial area as undisturbed as possible. 3] On Tuesday and Wednesday, January 30a'and 31a. 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 I", 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. 51 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. b] 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 ATTACHMENT No. . OF/2014 07:48 FAX skins] for reburial. The first reburial in the early 1990s did have these materials. This was a preference of Raymond Beiardes, the first Most Likely Descendant on this project. The Gabrielino should be reimbursed for this purchase since you are paying fro the white cloth requested by the Juaneno. 81 We have also had one of our people paid to pick up elders of a tribal group to attend the reburial 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 rernemb'er.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 IkW. All artifa&'associated with the burials will be 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 burial-related materials only. In additiosi, 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 Marie Cottrell 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 83 reburials for future repatriation of additional materials. The Ora-85 non-burial artifacts, therefore, will not be reburied on February 3d 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 arrive in Orange County on Monday, January 29a' 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 - or talk with me in person on Tuesday. We look forward to-a respectful' and successful. reburial on February 3rd ATTACHMENT N . From: Dave S.Ino*on<do_rWwQp II.net> Sub}ect: Telsphom Conversations s with Nancy Ansataale Wiley,Ph.D.,Pres.of SRS lne. Bate: April 3,2008 4'§5:07 PM PDT To: Larry Dyers dm_tathc*pacbait.net> Co: Anthony McArigal-am_nahoOpacbe{I.net> April 3,2008 HI Larry&Anthony: This is an outline of my recent Conversations with Nancy Anastasia Wiley,the Project Archaeologist for Heartlwde Homes,developer of Brighttwater Komes,a W.4de ntial.pro)ect of proposed 349 homes butt on the 8oisa Chica Mesa,adjacent to the northern city limits for Huntington Beads,Orange County. The property is ohxned by Signal Landmark of Twine;Orange County The main pants of my conversadom with Dr.Wiley are: Cogged Rones as'jasociated grave goods;'Dr.Wiley confirmed that the 22 cogged stones ground at the'house-pit'of an apparent Shaman or r�tribal leader are dearly assolcated grave-goods;2. Or.Wiley also irk#r.ated that other personal Items such as diarrnstones,beads,diseoldals and cogged stones,if found with burials are clearly 'assodatei grave gam;' 3. The dow nentatioh on the Identified four types of grave goods has been sutxtantlaliy done but Is NOT COMPLETE; Dr.Wiley seemed to . w lcDme the NAHC 94port for the Immedlate and the longer-range(the 100,000 artifacts,at a!)documentation to be done; 4. Dr.Wiley also send Oct welcome the NAHC as a'me daW In the pro,jest at MLD Monde request. S. Dr.Wiley wants tp retain good relations with the NAHC and has offered to take a presentation in the NAHC offtoes on MA-83 with t9ims of the cogged stories 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 facts of the 174 burials disoovered;87 still to to re-burled,the number of cogged stones(whom thw 400),the 100,000 artfacts and thousands of ar clhaeologtcat features of significance,had not Dr.Wiley provided that Information to the NAHC. She also cooperated with photgrapning of the:2,000 boxes of un-sorted material in three trailers In Temecula. Dave TTACH NT N A 07:53 FAX ' Exhibit "0" From: wileycoyote*arscorp.net Subtect: (Fwd:ORA-82,The Cogged Stone Site.) Date: December 17,2007 6-.W.42 PM PST To: dssahoQpacpeit.rxn ( 1 Attachment,32.0 KB Dave-Let's try this agalniif __.._._ Original Message-----�_._..._........_.. Subject:[Fwd:ORA-83,The Cogged Stone Site] From: w11eycoyot6Osrscorp.net Deft Thu,December 6t 2007 6:54 pm To: ds nahcOpacbeli.net _-------- --------------------_�. .�:_...__._.,.._.�.--•Original Message ---------------_�...... Subject:ORA-83,The Cogged Stone Site From: wlieycayotsoorp.net Date: Thu,December,6,2OG7 6:52 pm To: �rrach0padoell.net Dave- In regards to our phone conversation today: 2-aid Is the Inventory List of Unfinished Work'that I submitted to the Pabdellno and Mneno groups when Ed decided to have a meeting with therm wit rite; 2.a p w%heet of photos will be e-mailed to you by my staff later today; printed copies wilt be given to Anftny on Monday; 3-Ed Mowtftd has said that 1 cannot a Chronology for you until her tails to his lawyer-Susan Hors. If this is not in writing by Monday- I will give one vernally to Anttwny at ifte meeting. it was good talkIng with you. The!Native people speak N�highly of you. Nancy Anastasia Wiley UHL i\toveniber SthLd2c-t320 KBl ATTACHMENT NO, 5stj NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Ste SAW f UI_ROOM 364 O,CA"918 FU MO? tCl�SRe s•ac�l: �rrt�tepee '- April O,2008 ` Theresa Henry The California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 908024302 Fax(562)590 5094 Re:Brightwater-Bolsa Chica Project Dear Ms. Henry: The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)is informed by-the NAHC .appointed Most Likely Descendent, Anthony Morales, that Heatthside Homes has proposed reburial of 87 human remains from ORA 83 cm Alxil 21, 2008.The NAHC is also deformed that documentation on the associated grave goods has been substantially done but is not complete. These associated grave goods=rude 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 iCultund 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 remmains)-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:_(essociated. ve goods)will be kept with the human remains and ecamined and documented,-and will be reburied together with the human remains. The NAHC notes that based on information received from the project archaeologist,22 cogged stones were discovered-in a large burial pit. These,ace cItMy.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(aver 400 on the project)and the NAHC is informed that only artifacts associated with remains are being processed at ATTACHMENT NO, 3 , l�) 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 Desceardant 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 NAHC 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 reburial 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 Chiea 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 discoveries. At this pointbased 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 NAHC 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 reburials Of remains and artifacts occur as agreed. Sincerely, Larry Myers,Executive_Secretary NAHC Cc:;Bill Mungry,Chairman NAHC Anthony"Madrigal;Generd--Cmunsd NAHC Dave Singleton,.NAHC Susan Hon,Counsel Biightwater Homes Nancy Anastasia Wiley,Project Archaeologist ATTACHMENT NO, . SANDRA GENIS,PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA,CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX(714)754-0814 April 24, 2009 Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: MND for Goodell annexation and pre-zoning (SCH# 2009031094) Dear Ms. Villasenor, Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation(SCH # 2009031094) located on 6.2 acres of (�' � ff property in the County of Orange unincorporated Bolsa Chica area located on the Upper Bench ,E 1� of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and myself. The site is highly sensitive both on its own and as part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem, including but not limited to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Trees and snags on the site provide nesting for raptors and important plant species such as southern tarplant have been observed on the site, as noted by Mr. Mark Bixby in his letter on this MND. Cultural resources include Ca- Ora-83, which is listed by the Native American Heritage Commission registry of sacred sites. The portion of Ca-Ora-83 on the Brightwater property was found to contain human remains, and was likely a prehistoric cemetery. In an April 8, 2008 letter to the Coastal Commission, Larry Myers the Executive Director of the Native American Heritage Commission 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. [emphasis added] Resources from the historic era potentially include an underground plotting and switching room from the World War II era. The proposed project will entail the pre-zoning and annexation of the 6.2 acre project site to allow for residential and open space uses. Under the proposed pre-zoning, 3.2 acres will be designated for Residential Low Density (RL), 2.0 acres will be designated Open Space-Parks & Recreation(OS-PR), and 1.0 acre will be designated Coastal Conservation (CC). ' The RL designation allows for single-family residential uses as well as limited commercial uses such as nurseries, and wireless communications facilities. Up to twenty two dwelling units could be built in the area to be designated RL (MND p. 4). Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT NOa , While the MND indicates that the area to be designated OS-PR is intended to be utilized only for passive recreation, the designation would permit more active uses. The designation would6N -L certainly allow clearing of vegetation and grading. By contrast, the MND repeatedly states that "The project...does not contemplate development of the site" (MND pp. 12,15,16,17, 22,23,24, and 28). Clearly this is not the case, when the MND itself identifies future development of twenty two dwelling units (p. 4) and a recreation area. Environmental review for the pending project must reflect this anticipated future development, though as stated in the N4ND (p. 4), prior to development of the site the City anticipates that future project approvals would include a coastal development permit, general plan amendment, local coastal program amendment, tentative tract map and, potentially a conditional use permit.. . The Process As stated in Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1323: CEQA provides that generally the governmental agency must prepare an EIR on any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. (§§ 21080, subd. d , 21100, subd. (a), 21151, subd. (a);Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998 6) 8 Cal.App.4th 556, 570-571 [80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2941, quoting Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601-1602 [35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 4701.) Whenever there is ( � '+ substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR normally is required. ( 2§ 1080, subd. (c)(1); Guidelines, § 15070, subd. (a), Gentry v. City ofmurrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399 [43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1701; Pocket Protectors v. City o Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 [21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7911 (Pocket Protectors).) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. [Citations.] It is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, supra, at p. 928.) A mitigated negative declaration is one in which"(1)the proposed conditions `avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and(2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.' ( 2§ 1064.5, italics added.)" (Architectural Heritage Assn. v. Cougy ofMonterey, supra, at p. 1119; see also Citizens'Com. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1167 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2881.) In reviewing an agency's decision to adopt a mitigated negative declaration, a trial ATTAH f 8 � court applies the "fair argument" test. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399; see also Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, supra, 68 Cal.Ap .4p th at p. 571.) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate in this case inasmuch as the clear G�N - I potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment exists. These include but are not 1 limited to impacts on geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, cm transportation/traffic, biological resources, cultural resource, noise, and aesthetics. For many of these potential impacts, including geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, and noise, the MND concludes that: "Impacts related to ...[XYZ]... would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur." This approach fails on two counts. First, evidence in the record does not support a conclusion that"no impacts would occur". While investigation of impacts may be deferred to future study, the City cannot conclude that no impacts will occur without recognizing the significance of the potential environmental effects, committing itself to mitigating their impact, and articulating specific performance criteria(Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296; Gentry v. City of Murrieta(1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359; 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170). For many potential impacts, the MND does none of that. Further, promises regarding future environmental review ring empty, when one recognizes that pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 the City can approve, and has approved,projects where EIRs identify significant unavoidable environmental impacts which will not be fully mitigated. In accordance with Section 15004(b) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California ' Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), an environmental document is to be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process. Per Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California(1988 ) 47 Cal. 3d 376: ...the later the environmental review process begins,the more bureaucratic and financial momentum there is behind a proposed project, thus providing a strong incentive to ignore environmental concerns that could be dealt with more easily at an early stage of the project. ,. This is necessary if an EIR is to fulfill the stated purpose of CEQA which is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (Bozung v. LAFCO(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263) Per Guidelines Section 15003): The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also demonstrate to the public that it is being protected...The EIR is to inform other governmental Page 3 of 8 ATT HI T , agencies and the public generally...The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has...considered and analyzed the ecological implications..." Thus, an EIR must be prepared at a point in time when it may actually influence decision making. The proposed pre-zoning will limit the range of future alternatives for the project site and will establish a development envelope for the site. All impacts of development within that C� envelope must be examined in full, based on the existing environmental baseline, i.e. vacant land (Christward Ministry v. Superior Court(1986) 184 Cal.App.3d.180). The question is not whether or not the proposed project will bring the project site and surrounding area to an environmental point of no return, but whether the proposed project will move one step closer to that point of no return. To the latter question, the answer is a resounding "yes!" While it is recognized that certain detailed analyses can only occur when detailed plans have been developed, many analyses can and should be conducted now. Where no analyses can be pursued, the City must identify the potential impact, articulate a framework for mitigation, and - I� commit to mitigating the impact now. Absent such commitment, evidence does not exist to support any finding of no impact. This can best be achieved by use of a program EIR as provided in Guidelines Section 15168. The program approach can provide for review of the complete project prior to the time that any actions are taken to irretrievably commit the lead and responsible agencies to a course of action. The program EIR may be supplemented with a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR if new information regarding a project, anticipated impacts, or the existing environment becomes available later. Potential Impacts As noted above, potential impacts may occur on geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, 1, t �� air quality, transportation/traffic,biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and aesthetics. These are described in more detail as follows: Geology and Soils As stated in the MND (p. 12), "Due to steep sloes that exist on the site, there is potential for slope instability and erosion of bluffs...". Erosion of bluffs is of particular concern both due to their status as unique coastal resources and the potential that eroded materials may be carried ~� into sensitive resources of the Bolsa Chica. While the MND articulates the potential impact, no framework for mitigation nor commitment thereto is provided. Thus, it cannot be concluded that no impacts will occur. Pagp,AT, 08, Hydrology and Water Quality Though not identified in the MND, use of the site according to the proposed pre-zoning would result in increased impervious surfaces which would create or contribute runoff water, including increased urban runoff, with potential impacts on wetlands resources of the Bolsa Chica. Impacts could occur both due to changes in freshwater flows as well as pollutants such as heavy metals, fertilizers, pesticides, and petroleum residues which may be carried into the wetlands. �� The MND fails to identify this potential impact or provide a framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. The failure to acknowledge potential impacts due to erosion is particularly puzzling inasmuch as this potential impact is mentioned in the discussion of geology and soils (MND p. 12). Potential impacts would likely be greatest during grading and construction, but could continue. Air Quality The MND notes that the basin is a non-attainment area for various pollutants (p. 15), but fails to examine how construction of twenty two and a park may affect air quality. The potential for C10i generation of dust to surrounding residential areas as well as the Ecological Reserve must be examined and mitigated. The MND fails to identify this potential impact or provide a framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. Transportation/traffic Impacts on traffic will clearly occur. The MND, in reliance on Orange County Subsequent EIR No. 551, states that no impacts on transportation and traffic would occur, yet presents information from SEIR No. 551 which indicates otherwise. As stated in the MND (p.17): The results of the study indicated that...the existing LOS at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue was considered unacceptable and the development of the Brightwater residential project would further impact the intersection [emphasis added]. Physical constraints of the intersection and Coastal Act requirements pertaining to the presence of coastal wetlands along Warner Avenue prevented the implementation of any feasible mitigation measures." Thus, increased traffic at Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue would create an unavoidable, unmitigable, adverse impact. The MND notes that anticipated development at Brightwater was decreased from 387 units contemplated in SEIR No. 551, to 349, but provides no evidence that development of even the reduced Brightwater residential project would not "further impact the intersection". Incredibly, the MND the goes on to conclude that the proposed project"would not result in significant impacts to traffic even when combined with the completion of the Brightwater residential development". Are we to believe that development of 387 dwelling units as contemplated in SEIR No. 551 "would further impact the intersection", but development of 371 ATTAR , dwelling units (349 at Brightwater+ 22 at Goodell) would not? This makes no sense. Clearly any additional traffic at the intersection of the already substandard Pacific Coast highway and ��� I C� Warner Avenue intersection would result in an adverse impact, on both an individual and \v cumulative basis. (WA Biological Resources While the MND identifies certain resources and commits to a framework for mitigation,this is not the case for all resources. The proposed project could potentially result in impacts to southern tarplant which exists on the site. Further, the MND fails to address all raptor roosts on the site, including two lowland eucalyptus. A major issue in the review of the Brightwater project was how loss of upland forage would affect raptor predation on sensitive species in the wetlands below. While not pristine, the project site, like the previously undeveloped Brightwater site,provides forage area for raptors including American Kestrel (Falco sparverious), Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Cooper's Hawk(Accipiter cooperii), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), Merlin(Falco columbarius),Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Peregrine Falcon(Falco peregrinus), Red- shouldered Hawk(Buteo lineatus), Red-tailed Hawk(Buteo jamaicensis), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) . The potential exists for impacts on those raptors as well as lowland species which may be subject to increased predation, including such sensitive species as Belding's Savannah Sparrow and Light- footed Clapper Rail. Potential impacts will also occur due to propagation of additional introduced plant species. Absent measures which would ensure that invasive species are not planted on the site, it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur. Potential impacts would occur due to predation by domestic pets including cats and dogs. Absent measures which would ensure that domestic pets are fully controlled at all times, it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur. Potential impacts would occur due to increased light, glare and noise, with potential impacts on sensitive species. A one hundred foot buffer is inadequate to ensure that no impacts will occur. Rather, a minimum one hundred meter buffer must be provided for all sensitive habitat. Cultural resources The proposed zoning would allow elimination of pre-historic(CA-Ora-83) and historic (World War II) resources on the site. While inadequate, some framework is provided for mitigation of impacts on pre-historic resources, but no provision is made regarding historic resources. The Bolsa Chica Land Trust believes it is important to preserve the archaeological site on the Goodell property due to the following: rk I a ���— • It is all that remains of the 8,500 year old village, cemetery, and ceremonial site that is the oldest prehistoric village in Orange County • Eleven acres of the 17 acre site have been destroyed to make way for a gated community. • To date, 178 human bone concentrations representing an unknown number of individuals, over 100 thousand artifacts, semi-subterranean house pits, and numerous cogged stones have been recovered from the 11 acres. The burials were recovered from an area adjacent to the remaining 6 acres owned by Mr. Goodell. • This site also represents the birthplace of the ancient stone sculptures known as cogged -� stones. 1 • The site was the manufacturing and distribution center for the cogged stones which c� played an important part in an ancient California Indian religion. • Over 700 of the cogged stones were found within the area of the village. Only a few have been found at any other archaeological site in the region. • The site may contain evidence for a connection between the prehistoric peoples of northern Chile where the only cogged stones outside of California have been found. • The descendants of both the Gabrielino/Tongva and Juaneno/Acjachemem consider this site to be the place of their ancestors and a sacred ceremonial site. As the remaining intact cultural deposit representing this ancient village and cemetery, it should be preserved as a historic park honoring the first settlers in the region, the California Indians. As such, it could be an educational resource for school children and the public as well as a place where the descendants of the California Indians of the region could celebrate their cultural heritage. Upon implementation of development according to the proposed RL and OS-PR � , (� zoning the resource would be lost. 1 Archaeological sites are fragile and non-renewable. Archaeological "recovery" is a destructive process. It is essential that a"witness area" of this highly significant archaeological site be preserved for future generations with advanced archaeological techniques that can provide answers to the questions we cannot answer with today's technology and that is non-destructive. Noise Development of the site will result in increased noise during construction and upon occupation of the site. Noise from concrete mixers (85 dBA at 50 feet), generators (81 dBA at 50 feet) and other construction equipment(74 to 98 dBA at 50 feet) would affect nearby residents as well as wildlife. The MND fails to articulate the potential impact, or provide a framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. Aesthetics Views of the site will sustain significant adverse impacts due to implementation of the proposed project. Open space would be replaced by housing and nighttime views would include additional outdoor lighting. Views across the site from existing public streets toward the Reserve would be lost. Views toward the site from public trails within the Reserve would also be significantly altered. The MND fails to articulate the potential impact, or provide no ATTARHNi -7N framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. Potential mitigation measures would include limitations on color palette, limitations on outdoor lighting and preservation of view corridors. `�� Climate Change Development of the site will result in increased generation of greenhouse gases. In addition, development of the site will increase stress on wildlife species already subject to stress from changes in climate. Thus provision of adequate buffers in critical. The MND fails to address any impacts in relation to climate change at all. Conclusion Based on the above, it cannot be assured that no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result 1 of the proposed project. On the contrary, it is likely that impacts can and will occur. Thus, the proposed MND should not be adopted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep us informed as this project proceeds. Yours Truly, Sandra L. Genis ATTACH a 4� APPENDIX Comments On Recirculated Draft MND No. 08-017 (comment period 7/27/09 - 8/25/09) ATTACHMENT ° q5 GAVillasenorAGoodell pre-zoning\Response to Comments DRAFT.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL,RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 908024302 (562)590-5071 August 25, 2009 3 Jennifer Villasenor, Associate City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-017 (Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation) Dear Ms. Villasenor: Coastal Commission staff received the Public Notice of Availability for the above referenced document on July 27, 2009 and accessed the document on the City's website. Commission staff previously commented on the original draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project in a letter dated April 22, 2009. We appreciate the opportunity for continued involvement as project review proceeds. In response to one of our prior comments, changes have been made in the document reflecting recent land use actions on the adjacent property to the east (commonly known as the Parkside site) and clearer identification of the location of open space/ESHA grope to the west (commonly known as the Brightwater site), as well as discussion of approved land use designation and zoning on the property to the north (Residential Agriculture and Open Space Parks). These changes in the MND appear to more accurately reflect the existing situation of the surrounding areas. However, we retain concerns that the proposed pre-zoning will not adequately accommodate protection of on-site environmentally sensitive habitat areas and all necessary buffer areas. New studies of the site have also been performed including a subsequent Biological Survey conducted by LSA, Inc. in June 2009, and a report on the history of archaeological investigations on the project site, prepared by Scientific Resource Surveys (SRS, Inc.) in r May 2009. We appreciate the need for additional information that drove the preparation of �«1 these documents. However, Commission staff has not had an opportunity to review these documents and therefore retains concerns expressed in the April 22, 2009 comment letter on the initial MND. Furthermore, it should be noted that the additional archaeological report did not involve any new site specific, subsurface work and also that it references the fact that the only site specific, subsurface work that has been conducted on the site was two hand excavated units dug in 1963. As expressed in our letter of April 22, 2009 we continue to believe that, in order to develop appropriate land use designations and zoning for the site, it may be most appropriate to develop an Archaeological Research Design Plan (ARP) prior to submittal of an LCP amendment request to the Coastal Commission. Also, as previously noted, approval of a coastal development permit must be obtained prior to carrying out an ATTACHMENT , M_� 9 b ..a Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 08-017 Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation Page 2 ARP. Early and continued consultation with the affected Native Americans/Most Likely Descendants is also very important in this case. C�( In sum, Commission staff retains the concerns with the proposed pre-zoning as expressed in our letter of April 22, 2009 and incorporates that letter by reference. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Meg Vaughn Staff Analyst cc: Mary Beth Broeren, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT NO. CCWA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. August 5, 2009 (@ E E C�j jl`1✓���D Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner L l� U City of Huntington Beach AUG 10 2009 Planning Department Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street PLANNING DEPT Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 (Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation) Dear Miss Villasenor: In our letter of December 13, 2008 we wrote to alert you to the fact that the Goodell property contains the last remaining intact portion of the archaeological site CA-ORA-83, the cogged stone site, and that the property almost certainly contains human burials. We were gratified to see that a brief mention of cultural CJ resources was mentioned in your notice and your checklist, but it seems that the significance of this world class site is not taken seriously. We wish to inform you that on July 17, 2009,the entire site, including the Goodell property is listed on th National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Please see www.nps.gov/histoU/nr/listings/20090717.htm. means that a"Mitigated Negative Declaration" is not the right document for this process as California case law supports the fact that impacts to a NRHP eligible or listed cultural resource cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. Please see "The Writ...or the Wrecking Ball"in the California \� State Bar Environmental Law Section of the Environmental Law News Volume 6.Number 304 Fall W\ Winter 1997 http://www.calbar.org. Therefore,the city needs to return to step one and do (at a minimum) a focused EIR to address this significant impact to the environment. In addition, since a General Plan change is involved, SB 18 requires extensive, open-ended with the Native American community. While we support the annexation by the city of Huntington Beach,the proposed RL zoning designation that will allow development of up to 22 dwelling units as well as other potential development is ill conceived. This development, and indeed any ground disturbing activities,will result in the destruction of C " the National Registered archaeological site. As with the important chenopod scrub habitat on the site,the A) only mitigation is avoidance and preservation. If you have any questions,please call me at(949) 559-6490, or email at pmartz@calstatela.edu. Sincer ly, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. ATTACHMENT NO. ccRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, ins. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. President Cc: Joe Shaw, Planning Commissioner Dave Singleton,Native American Heritage Commission Teresa Henry, California Coastal Commission ATTACHMENT NO. CIC California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. August 20, 2009 ' Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner k City of Huntington Beach Planning Department A Huntington Boacb 2000 Main Street NP LNN Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 (Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation) Dear Miss Villasenor: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with us last Friday. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the concerns and recommendations that were discussed. We are glad that the City of Huntington Beach plans to annex the Goodell property. Our main concern is for the preservation of the remaining portions of the unique cogged stone site (CA-ORA-83). As the manufacturing place for the ancient stone sculptures known as cogged stones and the center of a ca 9000 year-old ritual congregation, 4 @' there is no other archaeological site like it in the entire world. Preservation of the intact areas of this site, and in particular the human burials, should be a high priority in the decisions regarding zoning. Indiscriminately zoning the level areas of the site for low density housing will almost certainly result in the destruction of this significant cultural property. Instead, intact cultural deposits should be identified using the least destructive methods as possible and zoned as conservation or open space. Another concern is the language regarding testing and"mitigation". Pg. 31 of the Recirculated Environmental Assessment states that back hoe trenching shall be conducted in and amongst historic structure locations and along parcel boundaries. The site is too fragile and culturally sensitive to be tIdlif using a back hoe. The western parcel boundaries adjacent to the Brightwater parcel almost certainlyC _ contain human burials as the majority of the 178 "human bone concentrations"was found beneath th `\_road adjacent to the Goodell property. A cut bank at the southern end of the property shows 200 cm intact cultural deposits and dark, cultural bearing soil can be observed eroding out of the eastern bluf the property. The tribal community and the scientific community do not want any more burials to be exposed by heavy machinery. Please revise the language on pg. 31 to eliminate the use of a backhoe and to require observations of cut cCp? banks and remote sensing methods to identify the areas of the site containing cultural deposits. I have / i" enclosed some articles regarding the use of magnetic imaging and ground penetrating radar. We also request that the zoning plans include interpretive materials and a place similar to that at Hellman Ranch where the tribal community can hold ceremonies to honor the ancestors. If you have any questions, � Q- please call me at(949) 559-6490, or email at pmartz@calstatela.edu. ATTACHMENT . U� CU'O-`dWA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President Cc: Joe Shaw, Planning Commissioner Dave Singleton,Native American Heritage Commission Teresa Henry, California Coastal Commission ATTACHMENT a D R. SUNDAY,JANUARY 9,2000 ens-a 'Id E .L _P r ®-! Wheorogya Using magnetic imaging a German tealm - Rather- than dig up colossal only the second such in the world amounts of mud and disturb farm- after Austria=based experts,Becker maps a Vast underground metropolis that M#have b,ee> ing,'Punch called on Egyptian and added; R ises II's capital Excavating it would take t lifet e.' German geophysicists;to help,map The technique.is used in Qantir =` the grounds". using an:ultra- only a few days each year,depend- Ily MARIAM SAMI -to the Nile Delta: .; sensitive;portable cesiuir .ratagne= ing on the availability of geophysi- AS OciATEp PRESS Punch bell' Ramses II moved tometer: The technique is akin.to.- cists. Since 1996 about 810,000 the capital to Qantir to'escage the looking into a `person's chest square feet have been covered, or QANTIR,Egypt-This is a typi- powerful priests;who�esided-r",the through an X-ray,image;'only'o_n a one-15th of the total area, Punch cal Nile Delta farming village, its south and also,to'be`-close.to-the much grander scale: said. simple mud=brick houses sitting coasts of Turkeyand Syria Transferred to.computers, the "We need:'another 10 years to Oft dirt roads amid the green "It was ideal for,,him and.-his readings become lines and shapes finish" the city center alone, he carpetingof rice and cornfields. military campaigns to have:a,post like a blueprint.of a building. said. Yet there's (grandeur. h"ere=a like ibis;"Punch said'. Magnetic mapping.has been:used Producing the magnetic images vast, buried.metropolis from mil- Some statues,teats and remains" for oil prospecting and military uses hasso far cost more than$2 million, lelir►lurns ago that was discovered of pottery had pointed to the.an dike detecting.submarines from the with most of the money provided erman archeologists using cut dent ca ital's be'p'- mg near the clus- air; .said Helmut.-Becker of the by the German government. ,midge imaging technology, ter of villages around Qantir,about Bavarian State Authority.for Monu "It .gives us one .of the best �e. explgrahon team Believes 60 miles.northeast of Cairo.Qantir ` melt"Conservation. chances tolook into everyday life �te is the long lost capital of- _ had beenexeavated on and_off A'serious appcation to archeol of ancreiit lagypt in an area whit) es II 'a,-mighty pharaoh who since the 1920s without ever before ogy has existed only since, 1994, has not been investigated se deeply Amore than 3,200 years`ago: yielding much. and the team working in'Qatitic is until now;,'Punch said � � orkmg�vvith magnetic imaging - ---�-,- - e ili irient,used bygeophysicists to — - h`:for till; the "archeologists v mapped.`an underground city, y estimat th� e spread aver 12 is - quare nines. est o, e s e t"is so vast and so big that there` wliese light,-two-wheeled war g `ots were manufactured and h" are no words to'describe it," said. +cigar Pusch, head of the archeo- mtairied-Nwnerous-reliefs on° - teple and tomb.walls"show such � ogcal team-from the Pelizaeus �seum m Hildesheim, Germanyots pulled by two horses and �cin by"two soldiers Ramses II �Qmeth _g bike this has never elf was depicted-riding one en detected before in Egypt" �j 'he computerplottings produced ; , arms assembly.hne is nearby team lies-dug uP clltariot ' ytlie team show-winding streets; _ I stru tures that look like small' hoes, spacious buildings;"palaces ea , javelin heads. daggers and ' 4 . 4, tine scales of bodyarmor. , and a lake shore in ghostly white ° yje on Black: 3'tiie sciEs�ts Sl only a feW �dlien cula�Cl therest of a . ong the marvels are a huge s. nes =Tf we. eaca 51e with attached royal chariot all; vve;wouldraeed_a' arms factories. _ a, '"This stable is an-amazin e' 1?ischsaid. ., g rthethouparl,theieaiiirelies thuig,' Pesch Said., e maa�rietic imag es to look at " �Coveriag nearly 185,000 square the stable.had six identical � ncient city i ?C hen small areas:are excavated; -of halls connected to vast g 'a are filled back m.so-farmn = �yard Each hall had 12 rooms, , resume.Pusch"said the village 01 "40 feet long The floors sloped to-.holes for collecting horse of be quarantined as a storic hi s� that Punch speculates was i t could be done is to open uz dyeing;cloth, softening#> vation windows' in certain atier and fertilizing vineyards l interesting areas-like a., a,or: .. �sch said the;stable held up to s ` IF one,-he said. ._ gypt fi0 horses;making it""the largest Y also envisions a local museum eue ancient stable." use objects dug from the site,. I � ,els of the whole city and three tonal, computerized Images' _ sting h Y. ATTACHMENT NO. IC�Z storaans know Ramses II r d ancient1gypt s:capital frnzn �outh,known-as Upper Egypt, i aj!'li'uQ`i1cf1. 'yam k,kY if y. mslo i P x1dTJ 1USC ,r jffoea G' a u td f Uaf C Jxva A11O"tCh fUSS21 SPc12 Cg1' paleontologist Chris"Shaw and " s anthropologist. Manuel Flores,-,', . : atZ A' P Muse�un pulsated .radar signals into: a� $dots Sitbterranea>nt ter lawn imowii as the Pit 61 s7 Cqm ey pouxad,It is west of the muse' tn {{ �e epits butn®blips of one. bu>iding I o i Resembling a one-wheeled 4.�f r ByBos t'oaz lawrimower-being pushed me TYmes Sti .iVttter thOdic is ,, r � 9i � j ��� i, I � � � ail,,,back arid`forth the�grassy area, the contrapti on. wicket was, to , at=screen.moxnIt wa <more stickS than groundbreaking moment for 20 feet away that.displayed d 4 Tuesday,when,sciefitists tried to the outline of any;object within 6, h use high tech electronic��imaging fee'of surface-, )r equipment to find prehistoric Conyers and Harris peered;at fossils buried in Los Angeles, the screen, ,whose. unwavering,,,E All that the ground-penetrat- lings suggested that nothing was ing.radar.equipment scanninwa hldden under-thela,rm.In actual t subterranean.area at" the l:,a ity,the screen was depicting_a�� 1 "Brea Tar Pits;discovered was,, thick deposit of I tar be .a, well,tar,- layer"of sand,soil and,grass."Any It turns.out:that,.the gooey,,, fossils;caught in the.stiq- mass�,A l black tar.'that trapped Ice Age were blending right m with the-� animals and preserved.their ' ,tWs radar image � bones also makes#.be resixktant "We'd hoped to see individ"uni fossils lnvfsible to ground radar " bodesutwcic�C3trnoctvbat,a "'bi.lilce s. eMt ,�absok`bebt bts -gol afiker°� a ers til i "" coverlr►gs ipake "ste`alth.itghters. "GVe':were jn a pit,.on d, invisible to aerial,xadar. '` bones earlier.today and didn't Anct to.top it off,:heavy cell- see anything:Tar deposits are a, phone use akonghearliy Wilshire total wipeout:You don't see any-_ Boulevard.and commercial radio .thing, at all when, you` come. . broadcasts in the area were jam- across them.;See how everything g the ground radar disappears,3t,'S all smeared:" "T can fee radio:talk shows in-: I arrss said the bones have; �. terferkn with our signar here," become'totaUy impregnateci;by scientisLawrence,Conyers said' tar over the;eoris..,That, along.. ashestudiedhi$iadar:s,ereen. wkth'their;subinersion;in the'as Tuesday's ,experunent was'. pbaltic sediment, makes.them Wined' determining:if"radar "invisible to radar. could be tiled instead of time- Conyers.speculated that cel- consuming;randoiri often hit- !alai.phone and broadcast radio or-2rtiss digging to Find prehis- signais In the Mid-t?Vilshire area toric bones:° : .might be interfi rdng tiviW he,ra-" Aesem- fi,ers -said the test, dal receiver. He Baia, broadcasts in the area were jam- across them.See howeverything ming the ground radar, disappears;its all smeared." "I can see radio talk shows in- Harris said the bones have terfering with our signal here,' become-totally impregnated by scientist Lawrence Conyers said tar over the eons.,That, along as he studied his radar screen. with their submersion in the as- Tuesday's experiment was phaltic sediment, makes them aimed at determining if radar invisible to radar. could be used instead of"time- Conyers speculated.that•cel- consuming,random—often hit- lular phone and broadcast radio or-iniss—diggingto find prehis- signals:in.the Mid-Wilshire area torlebones; might be interfering-with the ra- Researchers, said the test dar ..receiver. He said,he would proved that buried deposits of use:speciai computer software in tar could;`be located.by ground hopes of_cleaning up radar sig- radar:'And tar,after all,is where nals recorded at the Pit-61=67 , the,fossils are found, said John Compound. ' Harrk%.chief curator and head of What little,he saw on-,the m-. z the Natural History Museum of dar screen,however,was enough -w ' : . sx,Fhv�La Lo3.Anparns rime; Los Angeles County's vertebrate to signal to Harris that the test_�w NO LBILS'Anthropotog£stManueZ FZores,deft,and paleontologist Chris Shdw use ground- studies division. was not a*,aste,oftime. penetrati�zg a ii>•ar at the La Brea Tdr Ptts in ari xtnsuccessfzat attempt to nd fossit bon'e's. Conyers,,a University of Den- "We found out what tak pit de - ver anthropology professor who posits underground:look like;"he also is an e�WA on geology,and. said."•we"coiild well be digging L•Sea geophysics,provided the$35,000 right here In the future for fos ,,�Ch�rig In d . worthbfImaging equipment and ails." conducted the experiment with Tuesday's test was prompted Ground radar didn't find bones during the:test in the La Brea Tar Pits,but it found tar,where out charge' in part by ari uPcorning Venezue xperts say,prehistoric bones'tray beaYidden :A piokreer;in the use of,groupd lan archeology expedition:Even ..t radar in what he calls"noninya- with'the hone-imaging setback, .without tar With tar Weak.reflection's slue Aft eulogy" Conyers lies .the,Wilahire Boulevard test indi Ground-penetrating radar,sends Most of the ground-penetrating The darker the color,the stronger used his,;gear to pinpoint a Ma- sated that there will be a role for ,Y a back strong.rehl ions,sh6wing radar signal passes through the'refledtions.The.white spot,in yanvlllage'buriedundervolcanic radarwheri fossil excavation be, ; e location and,Mze bf"ari obiect. tar soaked bones. this image from the La Brea test ash,:a 1,700=year=61d burled§et- gins in the Lake Maracaibo re- Strong is a tar pit. tlermint in Peru;and.anclent.pit gionin-late spring. reflection Tar-soaked tonnes houses used by Indians in,Utah. Harris and Shaw have.:been Ground-penetrating radar is appointed to the Board of SCien a rn a•,,•�, x � commonly used ' en eers tire Advisors at-the Foundation looking for�pipes at construction for Quaternary.Paleontologlasl a: sites,by trans' i tation 4ficials •Research,a consortium oY scien y 3 inspecting roadbeds and bridge fists and oil-industry spoWnso . s 4t Mpfsupports,and 9n police investiga- that heads the paleoecologi l tions,where buried bodies or evi investi tion of fossil deposits, denceis being sought. _ northern Venezuela. � o �s, . r R. con. Six:',.,z> .v• i� �...a •` � US tab size radar antenn At the a guided along Page Museum-s-style box- OfdcWs hope to S Sources:Ill Lawrence B.COttyCfs,UtL�UBtdilJ!Of rT2tlttCt 7P,Q"LtaC2uS;fISQS AouL RAffoA Los Angus rimea the ground by Page Museum center in country. . � �? 7" n -M-, Y 0 k-.,CWA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Me. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources, August 22, 2009 AUG 25 2009 Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach ? rlAtn� � Planning Department �. � J1 Jid 1u Ul�T 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 (Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation) Dear Miss Villasenor: This is an addendum to my letter of August 20, 2009. In conducting further research regarding remote sensing methods to locate cultural deposits in the Goodell property, I find that ground penetrating radar is best for locating bone deposits, stone cairns and burial pits, but not for intact midden(dark soil from fires and carbon with food remains and artifacts). Instead systematic coring (not auguring)would be the least invasive and most effective method. Coring was used at the Playa Vista development to locate ancient cultural deposits beneath a wetlands. Also, in recognition that a site that is listed as eligible on the National Register of Historic Places cannot be mitigated to a level of no significance through data recovery excavations,the language on pg. 31 regarding the treatment of the cultural deposits when found should strongly support preservation and �CI require the developer to explore alternatives for preserving the site with most likely descendants appointed 1 by the Native American Heritage Commission,the concerned scientific community, the city planners and J the Coastal Commission. Please give these recommendations your sincerest consideration. Thank you, Patricia Martz,Ph.D. President Cc: Joe Shaw, Planning Commissioner Dave Singleton,Native American Heritage Commission Teresa Henry, California Coastal Commission ATTACHMENT NO, Page 1 of 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Chasse, Isabelle M [Isabelle.Chasse@uhc.com] Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 7:35 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Hello, Ms. Villasenor. I'm writing this not only as a resident of Huntington Beach but also as someone concerned about preserving CA and USA heritage. I live at the edge of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, I walk there, I've learned a lot about the history, the wildlife, changing seasons and what it brings and I have read many books about the history of the peoples who have lived there before we did. I equate the building of this site as if England decided that Stonehenge was no longer a significant historical site, tore it down to build condos or Egypt got tired of the pyramids. From all I've read,this place is culturally and archeologically valuable. Cog stones! Found in only one other place in the world! Graves and aritifacts as old as 20,000 years! There is no amount of money that could make up for the loss of what we haven't even discovered yet and it's right in our backyards! I am not Native American, I have no vested interest in saving this place other than the fact that I can see, daily,the cost to the ecosystem that building on it brings. There are so many other ways for CA to profit from this land- allow the Natives to be the guardians of the site, let them be the ones who teach visitors (for a price)about the rich history,to show dances or food, perhaps,to show how the people lived, what they ate,how they fished, what they wore. Let archeologists excavate certain areas and display the finds for prosperity, don't bury them under homes that no one but the very wealthy can afford. Make this a place of peace and refuge, not refuse. I'm only one voice but when I walk there, I hear the voices of the birds and the coyotes,the wind,the earth,the buried,the living. I try not to hear the voice of greed and construction..I.understand that the land was bought fairly at some point but there is more here to lose than just a few acres of land,there is the richness of America before she was bought and sold,when people treated the land with respect and did not presume ownership. Just something to add your stack of those who wish the building would stop while cool heads considered the real price. Once gone, it's gone forever. Sincerely, Isabelle M. Chasse Isabelle M.Chasse Sr.Underwriting Coordinator Cypress CA 714-226-4829 This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. ATTA N N 1 D 8/25/2009 SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA,CA. 92626 PHONE/FAX(714)754-0814 August 24, 2009 n Jennifer Villasenor AUG 2 5 Z009 City of Huntington Beach Hu P n," kNNING DEPTingion Beach -A Huntington Beach City Hall L—," 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Recirculated MND for Goodell annexation and pre-zoning (SCH # 2009031094) Via hand delivery and Fax at 714-374-1540 Dear Ms. Villasenor, Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Goodell Property Pre-zoning and Annexation (MND No. 08-017; SCH 2009031094) located on 6.2 acres of property in the County of Orange unincorporated Bolsa Chica area located on the Upper Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and myself. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project was previously circulated in March 2009. We request that all comments submitted in response to the March 2009 MND be included in the public record for this recirculated MND. The site is highly sensitive both on its own and as part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem, including but not limited to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Trees and snags on the site provide nesting for raptors and important plant species such as southern tarplant have been observed on the site, as noted by Mr. Mark Bixby in his letter on this MND. 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. The portion of Ca-Ora-83 on the Brightwater property was found to contain human remains, and was likely a prehistoric cemetery. In an April 8, 2008 letter to the Coastal Commission, Larry Myers the Executive Director of the Native American Heritage Commission 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 may be a burial ground [emphasis added] Resources from the historic era potentially include an underground plotting and switching room from the World War 11 era. ,hTTACHMENT NO.,.(;, Page I of 9 %I The proposed project will entail the pre-zoning and annexation of the 6.2 acre project site to allow for residential and open space uses. Under the proposed pre-zoning, 3.2 acres will be designated for Residential Low Density (RL), 2.0 acres will be designated Open Space-Parks & Recreation (OS-PR), and 1.0 acre will be designated Coastal Conservation (CC). The RL �1 designation allows for single-family residential uses as well as limited commercial uses such as nurseries, and wireless communications facilities. Up to twenty two dwelling units could be built in the area to be designated RL (MND p. 4). While the MND indicates that the area to be designated OS-PR is intended to be utilized only for C passive recreation, the designation would permit more active uses. The designation would certainly allow clearing of vegetation and grading. By contrast, the MND repeatedly states that "The project...does not contemplate development of the site" (MND pp. 12,15,16,17, 22,23,24, and 28). Clearly this is not the case, when the MND itself identifies future development of twenty two dwelling units (p. 4) and a recreation area. Environmental review for the pending project must reflect this anticipated future development, r - though as stated in the MND (p. 4), prior to development of the site the City anticipates that future project approvals would include a coastal development permit, general plan amendment, local coastal program amendment, tentative tract map and, potentially a conditional use permit.. . The Process As stated in Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1323: CEQA provides that generally the governmental agency must prepare an EIR on any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. (§§ 21080 subd. d , 21100, subd. (a), 21151, subd. (a);Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 570-571 [80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2941, quoting Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas(1994) 29 Cal_App_4th_1597,_1601-1602j35_Cal___Rptr__2d.4701.)Whenever there is + substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR normally is required. (§ 21080 subd___(p)(1_); Guidelines__§---15070,__subd,_(a); Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399 [43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1701;Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento 2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 [21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7911 (Pocket Protectors).) "The fair argument standard is a `low threshold' test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. [Citations.] It is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, supra, at p. 928.) A mitigated negative declaration is one in which "(1)the proposed conditions C avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant l ATTACHMENT � �- O Page 2 of 9 effect on the environment would occur, and(2)there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.' (§ 21064.5, italics added.)" (Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County_ofMonterey supra, at p. 1119; see also Citizens'Com. to Save Our Villa eg v. City _of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1167 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2881.) In reviewing an agency's decision to adopt a mitigated negative declaration, a trial court applies the "fair argument" test. (Gentry v. Ci o Murrieta supra, 36 g Cal.App_4th At__p,_1.399; see also Pala Band of Mission_Indians_v___Count _pf San (( Diego, supra, 68 Cal.AppAth at p. 571.) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate in this case inasmuch as the clear potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment exists. These include but are not limited to impacts on geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, transportation/traffic, biological resources, cultural resource, noise, and aesthetics. For many of these potential impacts, including geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, air quality, and noise, the MND concludes that: "Impacts related to ...[XYZ]... would be analyzed if and when development is proposed. No impacts would occur." This approach fails on two counts. First, evidence in the record does not support a conclusion that"no impacts would occur". While investigation of impacts may be deferred to future study, the City cannot conclude that no impacts will occur without recognizing the significance of the potential environmental effects, committing itself to mitigating their impact, and articulating specific performance criteria(Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296; Gentry v. City of Murrieta(1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359; 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170). For most potential impacts, the MND does none of that. Further, promises regarding future environmental review ring empty, when one recognizes that pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 the City can approve, and has approved, projects where EIRs identify significant unavoidable environmental impacts which will not be fully mitigated. In accordance with Section 15004(b) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental document is to be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process. Per Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California(1988 ) 47 Cal. 3d 376: ...the later the environmental review process begins, the more bureaucratic and �� ~ C financial momentum there is behind a proposed project, thus providing a strong incentive to ignore environmental concerns that could be dealt with more easily at an early stage of the project. This is necessary if an EIR is to fulfill the stated purpose of CEQA which is ATTACHM T a lJ . Page 3 of 9 not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263) Per Guidelines Section 15003): The EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also demonstrate to the ` public that it is being protected...The EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally...The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has...considered and analyzed the ecological implications..." Thus, an EIR must be prepared at a point in time when it may actually influence decision making. The proposed pre-zoning will limit the range of future alternatives for the project site and will establish a development envelope for the site. All impacts of development within that envelope must be examined in full, based on the existing environmental baseline, i.e. vacant land (Christward Ministry v. Superior Court(1986) 184 Cal.App.3 d.180). The question is not whether or not the proposed project will bring the project site and surrounding area to an environmental point of no return, but whether the proposed project will move one step closer to that point of no return. To the latter question, the answer is a resoundin yes!"CC While it is recognized that certain detailed analyses can only occur when detailed plans have been developed, many analyses can and should be conducted now. Where no analyses can be ww _ pursued, the City must identify the potential impact, articulate a framework for mitigation, and commit to mitigating the impact now. Absent such commitment, evidence does not exist to C�� , support any finding of no impact. This can best be achieved by use of a program EIR as provided in Guidelines Section 15168. The program approach can provide for review of the complete project prior to the time that any actions are taken to irretrievably commit the lead and responsible agencies to a course of action. The program EIR may be supplemented with a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR if new information regarding a project, anticipated impacts, or the existing environment becomes available later. Potential Impacts As noted above, potential impacts may occur on geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, , air quality, transportation/traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and aesthetics. These are described in more detail as follows: Geology and Soils As stated in the HIND (p. 12), "Due to steep slopes that exist on the site, there is potential for G N slope instability and erosion of bluffs...". Erosion of bluffs is of particular concern both due to ATTACHMENT NO. Page 4 of 9 their status as unique coastal resources and the potential that eroded materials may be carried into sensitive resources of the Bolsa Chica. While the NIND articulates the potential impact, no framework for mitigation nor commitment thereto is provided. Thus, it cannot be concluded that no impacts will occur. )Hydrology and Water Quality Though not identified in the MND, use of the site according to the proposed pre-zoning would result in increased impervious surfaces which would create or contribute runoff water, including increased urban runoff, with potential impacts on wetlands resources of the Bolsa Chica. Impacts could occur both due to changes in freshwater flows as well as pollutants such as heavy metals, fertilizers, pesticides, and petroleum residues which may be carried into the wetlands. The NM fails to identify this potential impact or provide a framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. The failure to acknowledge potential impacts due to erosion is particularly puzzling inasmuch as this potential impact is mentioned in the discussion of geology and soils (MND p. 12). Potential impacts would likely be greatest during grading and construction, but could continue. Air Quality The MND notes that the basin is a non-attainment area for various pollutants (p. 15), but fails to examine how construction of twenty two residential and an active recreation facility may affects n�� air quality. The potential for generation of dust to surrounding residential areas as well as the Ecological Reserve must be examined and mitigated. The HIND fails to identify this potential impact or provide a framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. Transportation/traffic Impacts on traffic will clearly occur. The MND, in reliance on Orange County Subsequent EIR No. 551, states that no impacts on transportation and traffic would occur, yet presents information from SEIR No. 551 which indicates otherwise. As stated in the MND (p.17): The results of the study indicated that...the existing LOS at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue was considered unacceptable and the development of the Brightwater residential project would further impact the intersection [emphasis added]. Physical constraints of the intersection and Coastal Act requirements pertaining to the presence of coastal wetlands along Warner Avenue prevented the implementation of any feasible mitigation measures." Thus, increased traffic at Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue would create an unavoidable, unmitigable, adverse impact. The NM notes that anticipated development at Brightwater was decreased from 387 units contemplated in SEIR No. 551, to 349, but provides no evidence that development of even the reduced Brightwater residential project would not "further impact the intersection". ATTACHM W �,I I ! Page 5 of 9 Incredibly, the MND the goes on to conclude that the proposed project "would not result in significant impacts to traffic even when combined with the completion of the Brightwater residential development". Are we to believe that development of 387 dwelling units as GE contemplated in SEIR No. 551 "would further impact the intersection", but development of 371 dwelling units (349 at Brightwater+ 22 at Goodell) would not? This makes no sense. Clearly C any additional traffic at the intersection of the already substandard Pacific Coast highway and Warner Avenue intersection would result in an adverse impact, on both an individual and cumulative basis. Biological Resources While the MND identifies certain resources and commits to a framework for mitigation, this is not the case for all resources. The proposed project could potentially result in impacts to southern tarplant which exists on the site. The MND states that"a finding of significance at this time would be speculative." (p. 20). Would not a finding as to lack of significance be equally speculative? Based on the fair argument standard discussed above, impacts to tarplant should be considered potentially significant. The MND proposes a relocation program for tarplant if necessary (BIO-8, p., 23), with tarplant to be relocated to open space portions of the site. It is unclear where this would be. Does the CEN City proposed to locate the tarplant in areas designated for park purposes, potentially utilized for active recreation? That would hardly be consistent with species protection. Or would the tarplant be located in conservation areas where it may displace other sensitive resources? A major issue in the review of the Brightwater project was how loss of upland forage would affect raptor predation on sensitive species in the wetlands below. While not pristine, the project site, like the previously undeveloped Brightwater site, provides forage area for raptors including American Kestrel (Falco sparverious), Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Cooper's Hawk(Accipiter cooperii), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Osprey(Pandion haliaetus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Red- shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus), Red-tailed Hawk(Buteo jamaicensis), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) . The potential exists for impacts on those raptors as well as lowland species which may be subject to increased predation, including such sensitive species as Belding's Savannah Sparrow and Light- footed Clapper Rail. Potential impacts will also occur due to propagation of additional introduced plant species. Absent measures which would ensure that invasive species are not planted on the site, it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur. Potential impacts would occur due to predation by domestic pets including cats and dogs. Absent measures which would ensure that domestic pets are fully controlled at all times, it cannot be concluded that no impact would occur. T N0• Page 6 of r-xw MENT AT Potential impacts would occur due to increased light, glare and noise, with potential impacts on sensitive species. A one hundred foot buffer is inadequate to ensure that no impacts will occur. Rather, a minimum one hundred meter buffer must be provided for all sensitive habitat. `v Cultural resources The proposed zoning would allow elimination of pre-historic(CA-Ora-83) and historic (World War II) resources on the site. While some framework is provided for supposed mitigation of impacts on pre-historic resources, but no provision is made regarding historic resources. In any case, the loss of any additional portion of CA Ora-83 would constitute a significant adverse effect, even if resources-are documented and recovered. As stated by Susan Stratton, supervisin archeologist at the California Office of Historic Preservation: I don't see how you can mitigate for this. Let's say you completely destroy a building. How are you going to compensate for the destruction? Maybe you build a replica. But in this case you have an archeological site and it's a non-renewable resource so whatever remains of this particular site, it's forever. It will never be duplicated. You can't build a replica of this. The Bolsa Chica Land Trust believes it is imperative that the archaeological site on the Goodell property be preserved due to the following: • It is all that remains of the 8,500 year old village, cemetery, and ceremonial site that is the oldest prehistoric village in Orange County • Eleven acres of the 17 acre site have been destroyed to make way for a gated community. • To date, 178 human bone concentrations representing an unknown number of individuals over 100 thousand artifacts, semi-subterranean house pits, and numerous cogged stones have been recovered from the 11 acres. The burials were recovered from an area adjacent to the remaining 6 acres owned by Mr. Goodell. • This site also represents the birthplace of the ancient stone sculptures known as cogged ^ C stones. • The site was the manufacturing and distribution center for the cogged stones which played an important part in an ancient California Indian religion. • Over 700 of the cogged stones were found within the area of the village. Only a few have been found at any other archaeological site in the region. • The site may contain evidence for a connection between the prehistoric peoples of northern Chile where the only cogged stones outside of California have been found. • The descendants of both the Gabrielino/Tongva and Juaneno/Acjachemem consider this site to be the place of their ancestors and a sacred ceremonial site. Additional material concerning Ora-83 has been submitted to the City under separate cover by Ms. Flossie Horgan, Executive Director of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. That material must be included in the public record for this environmental review. We are extremely disappointed that the MND (p.30) belittles the significance of on-site archaeological resources, referring to the site as highly disturbed in language reminiscent of ATTACHM T ® � ��� Page 7 of 9 environmental documents for the Brightwater project. As we now know, the Brightwater development site has yielded numerous cog stones and human remains not acknowledged or �✓ anticipated in environmental documents for the project, resulting in a tragic loss of cultural values and desecration of burial sites. As the remaining intact cultural deposit representing this ancient village and cemetery, it should be preserved as a historic park honoring the first settlers in the region, the California Indians. As such, it could be an educational resource for school children and the public as well as a place where the descendants of the California Indians of the region could celebrate their cultural heritage. Upon implementation of development according to the proposed RL and OS-PR zoning the resource would be lost. Archaeological sites are fragile and non-renewable. Archaeological "recovery" is a destructive process. It is essential that a"witness area" of this highly significant archaeological site be preserved for future generations with advanced archaeological techniques that can provide answers to the questions we cannot answer with today's technology and that is non-destructive. Noise Development of the site will result in increased noise during construction and upon occupation of `� I the site. Noise from concrete mixers (85 dBA at 50 feet), generators (81 dBA at 50 feet) and other construction equipment (74 to 98 dBA at 50 feet) would affect nearby residents as well as wildlife. The MND fails to articulate the potential impact, or provide a framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. Aesthetics Views of the site will sustain significant adverse impacts due to implementation of the proposed project. Open space would be replaced by housing and night time views would include additional outdoor lighting. Views across the site from existing public streets toward the " Reserve would be lost. Views toward the site from public trails within the Reserve would also be significantly altered. The MND fails to articulate the potential impact, or provide no framework for mitigation or commitment thereto. Potential mitigation measures would include limitations on color palette, limitations on outdoor lighting and preservation of view corridors. Land Use The MND (p. 10) indicates that the proposed zoning would be consistent with the RA zoning to _ the north. However, the RA zoning permits only one dwelling unit per acre, with a maximum of five dwellings permitted on a single parcel (Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9104). Thus, the project site would be permitted a maximum of six dwellings for the entire site, and a maximum of three dwellings for the site proposed for residential use. Thus, the proposed project is not consistent with the RA zoning, but is significantly more intense. The MND fails to address this potential impact. AT TAW IT 1! Page 8 of 9 N'� Climate Change Development of the site will result in increased generation of greenhouse gases. In addition, development of the site will increase stress on wildlife species already subject to stress from ck 1 changes in climate. Thus provision of adequate buffers is critical. The HIND fails to address any \v impacts in relation to climate change at all. Conclusion Based on the above, it cannot be assured that no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. On the contrary, it is likely that impacts can and will occur. Thus, the proposed MND should not be adopted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep us informed as this project proceeds. Yours Truly, t Sandra L. Genis TTA H 'ENT -�( �� Page 9®f 9 A -X'�Ca N Q 4 0 OFFICERS President August 20,2009 Paul Arms Vice President Julie Bixby AU 2009 G 2 1 Treasurer Jim Anderson Huntington Beach Secretary PLANNING DEPT. Marinka Horack Jennifer Villasenor BOARD OF City of Huntington Beach,Planning Dept DIRECTORS 2000 Main Street- Connie Boardman Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dr.Gerald Chapman Vi Cowden Sandy Genis Subject:Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for Goodell Property Pre zoning Dave Hamilton and Annexation NO 0"17 Mike McMahan Joe Shaw Marc Stirdivant Dear Ms.Villasenor, Laurel Teller Carrie Thomas Dr.Jan Vandersloot Attached you will find two documents. Rudy Vietmeier 1. An article which appeared in the OC Register on August 6,2009.This article Karen Merickel-Wood refers to the recent declaration(July 9)by the National Registry of Historic C ADVISORY BOARD Places regarding the ORA 83 site which includes the entire 6.2 acres of the l E Debbie Cook subject property of this MND. it is critical that the City pay attention to the Diana Casey importance of preserving this pre-historical National Historic eligible Nancy Donaven archaeological site.CEQA requires an EIR. Norma Gibbs Bob Goodrich Paul Horgan Janice Kellogg 2. A copy of the Revocation request made to the Coastal Commission in 2008. Eileen Murphy Linda Moulton Patterson This document will clarify the ongoing 20 year campaign by the developers at SC(,T'-- Rochelle Pazanti Bolsa Chica to disregard the archaeological significance of the Bolsa Chica Louis Robles Jayson Ruth specifically ORA 83,ORA 85. Dr.Richard Sax David Sullivan Grace Winchell Impacts to a resource that is eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places � ENDORSEMENTS cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. Data recovery "mitigation" Ec LT- Amigos de Bolsa Chip mitt and demolition destroy rather than preserve and are not appropriate. A Algalita Marine Research mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)can only be used when there are no residual Foundation adverse impacts after mitigation- Anza Bwego Foundation Ballona Wetlands Land Trust Please consider these issues when addressing this zoning project. City of Huntington Beach Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks Huntington Beach Sincerely, Wetlands Conservancy Huntington Beach Tomorrow Orange Coast League of Women Voters Flossie Horgan Orange County Coastkeeper Executive Director Peninsula Open Space Trust Sea and Sage Audubon Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Surfrider Foundation 5200 Warner Avenue-Suite 108 - Huntington Beach, CA 92649 - (714) 846-1001 www.boisachicalandtrust.org ATTACHMENT NO.'D Thursday, August 6, 2009 Ancient burial gets round national g designation 'Cogged stone' site at Bolsa Chica Mesa listed as eligible with the National Register of Historic Places. BY CINDY CARCAMO THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER A site that is widely regarded as an ancient American Indian burial ground at the Bolsa Chica Mesa has received national historic designation, exciting preservationists who say the move grants the area slightly more protection against future development. Federal officials last month determined the "cogged stone" site at Bolsa Chica as eligible for listing with the National Register of Historic Places. The area was named after the hundreds of carved stone disks—cogged stones—found on the site. The disks were possibly used for sacred rituals. "We value the property as a significant resource," said National Register of Historic Places historian Paul Lusignan. "There was dtremendous amount of information about the prehistoric site and distinction for the fact that it has the cogged stone site, which is a unique archeological feature found in very few other locations." The designation makes the cogged stone site the only archeological spot along the Orange County coast to receive such an honor. The area captures some of the land within the Hearthside Homes development and an estimated six acres of unincorporated land owned by Don Goodell that the city of Huntington Beach is proposing to annex. Only four other.archeological sites in the county have received the distinction. The honor is just the latest chapter in a decades-long battle among preservationists, tribal members and developers. In 2008, tensions reignited after an announcement about the unearthing of 174 ancient American Indian remains, half of them found over an 18-month period on a site slated to become a community with more than 300 homes. The land was once shared by the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno-Tongva. The discovery of hundreds of mysterious cogged stones and human bone fragments that are up to 8,500 years old confirmed the decades-long rumors that the Brightwater Hearthside Homes site was an ancient burial ground of international importance, Native American officials have said. The site would have ultimately been listed with the National Register of Historic Places. However, the land owners -- Hearthside Homes and Goodell -- opposed the official listing, Lusignan said. Ed Mountford, senior vice president of Hearthside Homes, did not say in a written statement why they opposed the listing. He said they did not have more information to change their position at this time. ATTACHMENT NO.�� C(� r Regardless, the listing is simply a technicality, Lusignan explained. The eligible status still affords the area the same protection as an official listing. While the national designation is more of an honorary distinction, he said it carries a lot of weight, enough to be taken into consideration during environmental reviews. In addition, the designation makes it much harder for local governments to issue a "mitigated negative declaration." The issuance declares that a project does not have enough of an environmental impact to warrant an in-depth study. The new historic designation changes some things for the cogged stone site, which ' is largely in the process of being developed. It deems the site a significant resource and therefore does not allow the city to skip an environmental impact report for development, said Susan Stratton, an. archeologist who supervises a team at the California Office of Historic Preservation. "I don't see how you can mitigate for this," Stratton said. "Let's say you completely destroy a building. How are you going to compensate for the destruction? Maybe you build a replica. But in this case you have an archeological site and it's a non- renewable resource so whatever remains of this particular site, it's forever. It will never be duplicated. You can't build a replica of this." GOODELL PROPERTY MOST AFFECTED That's why preservationists contend the city of Huntington Beach will now have to re- evaluate the proposed annexation of the Goodell property. In the past, city officials have,said they could skip the environmental impact report for the undeveloped 6.2 acres, saying-the annexation would not have enough of an environmental impact to warrant an in-depth study. Patricia Martz,.a professor of anthropology and archeology at Cal State Los Angeles who spent about a decade preparing the application for the national designation, said she plans to meet with city planners soon about a re-evaluation. However, Jennifer Villasenor, the city's Planning Department manager, said the city can move forward without the environmental review at this stage in the annexation process and still be in compliance with state standards laid out in the California Environmental Quality Act. "We have a cultural report that shows that it's eligible for listing on the national register," she said. "We didn't exempt it from CEQA and we're going through the CEQA process." "It's sort of like the first step in a long series of steps. This is just looking at the pre- zoning designations," she said. "There's nothing right now that tells us (a development) would be proposed." NO EFFECT ON HEARTHSIDE HOMES As for Hearthside Homes? Martz says it's too late. "Unfortunately that site has been almost totally destroyed except for buffer areas. If we'd got the site listed sooner it would have applied for this as well," she said. Mountford said it essentially would not have made a difference. ATTACHMENT z-5-- 1(1 r "...Eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places does not change the way (the site) has been treated by the landowner or the regulatory agencies," he said. The developer said he plans to rebury the last set of human remains and associated grave goods in about a month. Mountford added that the area had already been recognized in 1983 by the State Office of Historic Preservation. However, Stratton who works at the state office, said the National Register bears a lot more weight, especially in the realm of public opinion. "It's hard to see whether it will grant more protection than 1983," she said. "However, it plays into public opinion. You have the groups out there that will say 'Oh my gosh. We are going to destroy a national registered site.' It doesn't mean you'll be able to keep if from being destroyed, but in terms of how it's going to play out there in the public?Who knows." T ATTACHMENT N , . June 2, 2008ECEag Coast Region California Coastal Commission UN D 2008 Teresa Henry, District Manager 200 Oceangate, 10 h floor ± ;Zip is Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 � t1,:`-�'' L vIVtM1SSIN 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 Brightwater site, resources of which the applicant may have been aware. ATTACHMENT Page 2 The following are staff report sections and correspondence from applicant: July 27, 1992 letter from attorney for Hearthside, Susan Hori to Cindi Alvitre(Exhibit B) "As you know,other sites 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 97016 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 backf lled." 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 destroyed? ATTACHMENT NO.1 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 Brightwater 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 materials • 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 Brightwater. 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) • 9/30/93 Case# 93-5868-LL reported 11/3/93 • 8/3/99 case# 99-05178me additional human remains found 11/29/99 • 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,Acjachemen Nation, from NAHC staff refers to the following Coroner reports (Exhibit G): • 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. P,ATTACHMENT N�- a 1 Z Page 4 4. In an April 4,2008 letter to Anthony Morales from staff at NAHC (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 reburial (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 Hori."(Exhibit H) • "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;87 still 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, Larry Myers from the NAHC (Exhibit I) 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 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 ATTACHMENT N®.T .12-3 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#23,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 23C, 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 time 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 23.1)). 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 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. ATTACHMENT N , W 2.-'l 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 comment 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 Acjachemen Nation Alfred G. Cruz, Sr. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Lloyd Valenzuela Acjachemen Susan Diaz,Chumash/O'odham Christopher Diaz, Chumash/O'odham Raymond Diaz,O'odham/Mayo Lenore Vega,Chumash/O'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 Patricia Martz, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance Box 54132 Irvine, CA. 92619-4132 Gerald Chapman, Bolsa Chica Land Trust 5200 Warner Ave,#108, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Over 500 signatures on petitions attached exhibit J ATTACHN� T .' f (' )jYhrl . ro �orn� Cu Itvrcr�l lIFSUu'r� P; e� rn N C; sL Cc \o��� a rv5T r�OC) w4rnt, rAvt Il! ve 14 v r,T i vie .4 ��(��L�'�� r� ATTACHMENT O. 5. 12�- .1 21 11475 C ry ATTAC H M E N T N 0.'-6 , lc ` r #A P-9 PAS z Q Gj�cc�y Pir►Qa �a�i0n s �6tu� �10��• � ✓ �a <s e n a Jcw�c+�Ot" �/ $,j i ors .L�pli ct.s J -q- / �% /� r� ctoa st Ba.o f�Cdre,,/ ® T � t i-7'S:t) 1 ra ol;Q y.� ATT OHMPNI � - 1 Z9 Revised Findings for 5-05-020(B rig htwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 43 20. STRUCTURAL APPEARANCE - EXTERIOR BUILDING TREATMENT All structures, walls and building exteriors that would be visible from the proposed on-site public trail within the native grassland and coastal sage scrub creation and preservation area, the trails within the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, or the trails or interpretive display area within the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve shall be finished in earth tones including muted shades of brown, gray and green, with no white, light or bright colors, except as minor accent features. A color palette board shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director pursuant to this special condition. The color shall be maintained throughout the life of the structure(s). 21. RESIDENTIAL AREA HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND HABITAT BUFFER SETBACKS A. The heights of residential structures shall not exceed 35 feet above finished grade as shown on the final approved grading plan. Further, the heights of the residential structures that abut the Eucalyptus Grove ESHA buffer and the burrowing owl buffer shall not exceed the heights as proposed on the "Development Area (DA) 8 Site Plans", prepared by FORMA, dated May 2002, submitted November 6, 2002 in the Brightwater Development coastal development submittal package. B. Structures (enclosed) and appurtenant buildings on residential lots shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the rear yard property line and shall be consistent with the above height limits. Rear yard walls on the residential lots abutting the Eucalyptus Grove and burrowing owl ESHA buffers shall not exceed a total height of six feet six inches above finished grade shown on the approved final grading plan. The lower two feet of the rear yard wall shall be of concrete material and the upper four feet six inches shall be of plexiglass material. Future development shall conform to these heights and setbacks unless such heights are changed by an amendment to this permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment to this permit is required. 22. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION This permit is only for the development described in Coastal Development Permit No. 5- 05-020. Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, sections 13250(b)(6) and 13253(b)(6), the exemptions otherwise provided in Public Resources Code, section 30610(a) and 30610(b) shall not apply. Accordingly, any future improvements to the single family houses and other structures described in this permit, including, but not limited to, repair and maintenance identified as requiring a permit in Public Resources Code, section 30610(d) and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, sections 13252(a)-(b), shall require an amendment to Permit No. 5-05-020 from the Commission or shall require an additional coastal development permit from the Commission or from the applicable certified local government, unless the Executive Director of the Commission determines that no dment or new permit is required. 23. ROTECTECTION OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DURING RADING ATTACHMENT H S- Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 44 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; 2. 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; 3. 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. The permittee shall extend the existing reburial agreement with the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians regarding the treatment and disposition of prehistoric Native American human remains discovered on the project site, if any additional remains are discovered. 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 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. ATTACHMENT Na .t 5 Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 45 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 archaeologist(s), 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 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 archeologist's 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. ATTACHMENT " Y3Z Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 46 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 arch aeolog ist(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 be constrained by the 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 ATTACHMENT NO. �. I Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 47 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 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, except for those that have been reburied pursuant to State Law, prior to issuance of the permit. In carrying out the provisions of this special condition regarding the curation of the artifacts that have been recovered from the project site and any future artifacts to be recovered through the development of the approved project, it is the intentions of the Commission to make this special condition consistent with the County's special condition regarding curation of recovered artifacts. 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. 25. OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the permittee shall provide to the Executive Director a copy of a permit, or letter of permission, or evidence that no permit or permission is required for the project subject to this coastal development permit, issued by the following entities: County of Orange; City of Huntington Beach, California Department of Fish and Game; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Regional Water ATTACHMENT No. 15Lf Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 48 Quality Control Board; Orange County Fire Authority; Orange County Sanitation District and the State Lands Commission. The applicant shall inform the Executive Director of any changes to the project required by the cited entities. Such changes shall not be incorporated into the project until the applicant obtains a Commission amendment to this coastal development permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 26. COMPLIANCE All development shall occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any changes approved in this permit and subject to any approved revised plans provided in compliance with the Commission's special conditions and any other special conditions noted above. Any proposed change from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director to determine if an amendment or new permit is necessary. 27. INSPECTIONS The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the project during its development, subject to 24-hour advance notice. IV. Revised Findings and Declarations Staff Note: These revised findings include the staffs recommended findings that were set forth in the April 1, 2005 staff report and the April 13, 2005 addendum for the April 14, 2005 hearing for coastal development permit application 5-05-020. When the Commission approved the permit, it also modified staffs recommended Special Conditions. The portions of the findings that the Commission rejected are crossed-out: fejested peFtiees. The supplemental findings added in support of the Commission's April 14, 2005 action are identified with underlined text. The Commission hereby finds and declares: A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND PROJECT SITE Bolsa Chica Mesa is.made up of a lower bench and an upper bench (also referred to as the lower mesa and upper mesa) separated by a gentle slope. The upper bench is located adjacent to and south of Los Patos Avenue and west of Bolsa Chica Street in the unincorporated area of Bolsa Chica, County of Orange. Although the majority of the upper bench (105.3 acres) is located within the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of Orange County, approximately 0.95 acres in the northeasterly corner of the Brightwater development is located within the corporate boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit 1). Huntington Beach has a certified Local Coastal Program. Therefore, the City of Huntington Beach would be the agency to which the applicant must file a coastal development permit application for these nine homes. The site is surrounded on the north (across Los Patos Avenue) and northeast by (the Sandover development in the City of Huntington Beach) residential development, the Goodell property and Bolsa Chica Street; ATTACHMENT N0. 5 - i3 • it _. .,. L AO I'. [it}/O) �HOMAS P APLIN n. P013ERTE CALLAHAN A!WLEENCARQT I ,'( ;IM CH160UCAS TIM PAONEp SUSAN K HOPI C ONRAYMONO KING'IlUL1[ QENE E. ZtEBAA a � ' JOHN LEHR' -LSO AOMITTEO IN nISTA:!'- - •` ^. LAWYERS •-OLUMBiA -LSO ADMIRFO III NEW+^ex -• July 27, 1992 Ms. Cindi M. Alvitre „r." Gabrielino Tribal Council 2462 Avocado 1`= Riverside, California 92507 ` io Re: Bolsa Chica Archaeology vRj Dear Cindi: a' -- Following up on our recent telephone conversations, I have compiled some info rmation• you regarding the Bolsa Chica archaeological sites. First,I am enclosing a copy of theuosi =' ,.` recent draft of the Reburial Agreement for your review. I hope that some ofthe=changes' ;;. which have been made address your concerns. The revised agreement provides,,for'r buriah on the Huntington Mesa on the Bolsa Chica property. _ It also clarifies the.hold,harimlen' F provision. As we discussed, we wish to avoid the situation where we have�arranged.:,toa rebury the artifacts and human bone fragments in accordance with your wishes;but.then.area ';?+ faced with other Native Americans claiming to be the most likely descendants and who hold:: up resolution of these issues. . In the event that occurs, the agreement,asks.th:it yc-u':>and : M=„', David Belardes resolve the issue of most likely descendants and appropriate represe.ntatiori .,' s:_" among the tribal members and that the landowner not get involved in having to chogse:.. between one representative or another. Second, I have enclosed maps of the site showing the location of the various archaeological sites. The site that is currently being excavated is ORA-83. As you know, other sites,on ` Bolsa Chica Mesa have already been fully excavated and mitigated(ORA-289, ORA-78,and- ORA-85). Raymond Belardes served as the Native American monitor on all of those.'.: excavations. 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 archaeological consultant. 072292 I 5(K)6 1 00 VCN KARMAN • $1h FLUOR q,:INE CALIFQRNIA 9'715 • 7'•1 955-2anr1 . _.955 9009 POST Of=rl('E 9C 'PF13 • IaVINE _'•LIFORNIA I�TTACHM T NO.5 as y.�rt JP Y^ „ Ms. Cindi Alvitre r.._ . + July 27, 1992 Page s� Third, you asked about the status of the environmental impact report for the project. 'Ttte.M City of Huntington Beach and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are jointly preparing environmental impact statement environmental impact report EIS EIR for the pro'ect the project includes both the annex tion of the property to the City and approval of a loca : coastal program as well as the issuance of a Section 404 permit by the Corps to conduct. : ;;.: .Z work in waters of the United States. The City and Corps have estimated that the Drafty; EIS EIR will be published sometime in August 1992. I will see to it that you receive wcqpy. for your review. ;s n; Fourth, you asked about the ownership of the property. The property is owaed;'by=l ' Signal Bolsa Corporation. Signal Bolsa Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidi ` of:„ :: .�,:. corporation known as the Bolsa Chica Corporation. The Chief Executive Officer of the" Bolsa Chica Corporation is Michael Dingman. Because the Bolsa Chica Co oration headquartered on the East Coast, the Bolsa Chica Corporation has hired The IColi:,`". Company, an Orange County-based development company to oversee the :day-to-day,,- management of the project. The Chief Executive Officer of'Ire Koll Company is Donald „ w=` P Y YA. Koll. The President of The Koll Company is Ray Wirta and the President for Southera:.' California Operations, under whose direction the Bolsa Chica project falls is :Richard: Ortwein. The project manager for the Bolsa Chica project is Lucetta Dunn who is.Senior a " ; Vice President of The Koll Company. (Ms. Dunn was formerly an officer and general:, counsel to the Signal Bolsa Corporation.) Assisting Ms. Dunn in managing the project.+ "" - Mr. Larry Brose, Vice President of The Koll Company. In terms of the archaeology issues, Ms. Dunn will be the signatory on the reburial11.1'�_ ` agreement for The Koll Company and the Bolsa Chica Corporation. The agreement :`. negotiations and any issues arising in connection with the archaeological work, such as retention of a Native American Monitor,will be handled by Mr. Brose or myself.Therefore �:,_-' if you have any questions regarding the project or The Koll Company's involvement,please ,v='I.�,.' feel free to contact either Mr. Brose at 833-3030 or me. If you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate' ,,: . t to contact either of us. After you have completed your review of the enclosed materials, ` and have had an opportunity to discuss these issues with members of your tribal council and . 1 . L 172292/Soo6.1 a ;1 ATTACHMENT NO y Ms.,Cindi Alvitre ' July 27, 1992 y c. Page 3 L. David Belardes or Phil Ibanez, we would like to meet,,vith you and Mr. Belardes to finalize V�" the agreement and discuss any other issues that you or he may have with respect to the, Y Y P excavations. y'''m Very truly yours, Susan K. Hori Enclosures ' cc: David Belardes (w/enclosures) Nancy A. Whitney-D esaute Is, Ph.D. (w/reburial agreement.) Lucy Dunn (w/reburial agreement) Darlene A. Shelley (w/reburial agreement) d e f , a 072292/5006 1 IiTTAGHT Nye J STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLQ SCHWARZENEGGER,Govemor -CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Filed: 3/11/05 South Coast Area Office Approved: 4/14/2005 .� 200 Oceangate,suite 1000 Staff: TH-LB Long Beach,CA 90802.4302 (562)590-5071 Staff Report: 9/22/2005 Hearing Date: 10/13/2005 Commission Action: TH 11 STAFF REPORT: REVISED FINDINGS APPLICATION NUMBER: 5-05-020 APPLICANT: Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark AGENT: Ed Mountford, Dave Neish, Donna Andrews, Susan Hod PROJECT LOCATION: 17201 Bolsa Chica Road, Bolsa Chica, Orange County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 15460 for the subdivision and development of two existing parcels into the 105.3-acre Brightwater community consisting of 349 residential lots on 67.9 acres and 37.1-acres of habitat restoration and public trail, located primarily on the upper bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The project also includes the construction of 349 single-family homes and the construction of two local parks within the residential community. The 37.1-acre habitat area consists of a 29.2-acre coastal sage scrub and native grassland community located along the western and southern slope and bluff top edges and the construction of a 2.5-acre Los Patos Wetland and Southern Tarplant preserve. (The Los Patos Wetland and Southern Tarplant preserve is 2.5 gross acres and 2.9 net acres). The remaining 5 acres of the 37.1-acre habitat area is the existing Eucalyptus grove. Public access, including pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and public parking will be allowed throughout the community. Three vertical walkways providing resident access to the habitat trail will also be available to the public. The Los Patos Avenue frontage will also be widened, paved and landscaped creating 114 (unstriped) public parking spaces. The Tract Map also includes the creation of an 11.8-acre residual parcel located on the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Grading consists of 440,000 cubic yards (220,000 c.y. cut, 220,000 c.y. fill). Infrastructure improvements include the construction of a 1.2-million gallon underground drinking water reservoir and aboveground pump station on 0.3 acres and a new 54" to 66" storm drain and rip-rap energy dissipater discharging treated runoff to the off-site Isolated Pocket Lowland area. DATE OF COMMISSION ACTION: April 14, 2005 COMMISSIONERS ON Burke, Iseman, Kram, Kruer, Neely, Potter, Reilly, Secord, PREVAILING SIDE: Shallenberger, Wan, and Chair Caldwell. ATTACHMENT o .1 J, Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 97 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. They 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-831�as 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 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 midden 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 midden. 12"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. ATTACHMENT N0.15. 110 Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 98 The July 10, 2003 brief update statement by the applicant's 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 backfiiled. 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 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 archaoeastronomical value. In Ms. Jeffredo-Warden's May 2004 ATTACHMENT NO.le � f Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 99 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 soististical 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 applicant's 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 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 5"'action went on to say that, "The Commission agrees that the property is eligible 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 ATTACHMENT . 1 L(2 Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page100 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 applicant's 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 applicant's 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 portionsTherefore 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 cultural resources. They request the Commission impose a 100 meter setback or "the greatest open space possible". However, the Commission finds that the applicant's 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 ATTACHMENT N ®�.I f Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 101 elevations, and no benches, or public trails within the observation area. Exhibit 32 3 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 historic history. Finally, the above letters also request signage concerning the Native American past of the ite 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. 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-8.5 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 h man remains in the ATTACHMENT NO. Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page102 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 Brlghtwater 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 ORAL- ,.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 1971 and 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 1982); and (5) a final research and salvage program to define the remaining remnants of archaeological midden 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 midden 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 midden. 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 pf 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 ATTACHMENT NO. � ��� Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page103 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-A313 8T �Z Al J111'd The first coastal development permit for archaeological activity at ORA-85 the Eberhart Site, and 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. 5-89-772 �l3 This coastal development permit application, granted to Signal landmark Inc. on December 14,1989 approved Phase 11 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 13 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 soil 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. ATTACHMENT NO. S. 1-'7'6 Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page104 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 Gabrielino Indian tribal groups and the applicant's 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-Al �3 The first amendment to permit$-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 1mRASWWM,the members of the group. The dispute was over the percentage and extent RA- at should be examined. The applicant proposed to excavate only 7 acres of the 1.9-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 applicant's archaeologist's scope of work was to be resolved by the peer review team and by the State Office of Historic Preservation. 5-89-772-A2 g` This amendment request was to delete the requirement of review by the State Office of istoric 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 applicant's 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. ATTACHMENT NO. .IL Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page 105 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 11 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 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 Director's 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 filed a request with the Commission to revoke the Phase II 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 ATTACHMENT N0o ,19` Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page106 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; the additional scraping and clearing 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. K. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) Section 13096 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations requires Commission approval of coastal development permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned by any conditions of approval, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A)of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment. The proposed project has been conditioned to be found consistent with the biological resources, public access, water quality, and archaeology policies of the Coastal Act. The special conditions would require that 1) an open space restriction be placed on the habitat areas; 2) an offer to dedicate the proposed Coastal Sage Scrub and Native Grassland Creation habitat and Southern Tarplant and Seasonal Pond Environmental Protection Area be recorded; 3) a trail easement be offered over the public trail and over the portion of the grassland habitat area that will be subject to approved fuel modification; 4) a public access and habitat management program be developed and funding be identified to carry out these activities; 5) the applicant abide by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium guidelines for avoiding and mitigating impacts to burrowing owls during construction,6) the CC&R's of the subdivision reflect certain requirements, primarily dealing with public access and habitat protection conditions; 7) construction and development phasing be carried out in a manner that is protective of the biological resources and assures that the public access and recreation are prioritized; 8) erosion control measures are in place to prevent impacts to the marine environment; 9) the fencing off of habitat areas and the identification of construction staging areas that will not adversely impact sensitive resources; 10) the preparation of a final habitat management plan with appropriately sized, planted and managed ESHA buffers, controls activities within those buffers, and the addition of the Southern Tarplant and Seasonal Pond Environmental Protection Area into the Plan; 11) native and non-native, non-invasive appropriate landscaping throughout the project area; 12) fuel modification within the ESHA buffer areas be regulated; 13) lighting be directed away from habitat buffer areas; 14) certain i requirements relating to walls , fences, gates, safety devices and other habitat barriers be followed; 15) all subdivision streets, sidewalks, parking and trails and parks be open to the general public; 16) additional requirements on the proposed water quality management plan be observed; 17), a revised tentative tract map eliminating the proposed residual parcel on the lower bench, and revised plans showing the enlargement of the Eucalyptus Tree and Burrowing Owl ESHA buffers, public access signage and cultural resources interpretive plan along the habitat trail, revised stormdrain plan, and off-site raptor foraging habitat plans be submitted;18) additional slope stability analysis for the revised grading plan be performed ATTACHMENT ® Lu �� 5 Revised Findings for 5-05-020(Brightwater) Hearthside Homes/Signal Landmark Page107 and the developer conform development plans to geotechnical recommendations; 19) the developer assume the risks of development; 20) the developer treat the exterior appearance of structures visible from the public areas; 21) the height of the structures abutting and visible from the public trails be kept to no more than 31.5 feet, as proposed; 22) procedures for the review and approval of future development be followed; 23) requirements and procedures established herein to be, Wowed regarding thy'possible AW dovery of additional archaeological resources during;g m- ditnW,,,24) the reports required to be prepared in conjunction with the research, investigation and salvage of ORA-83 and curation of the artifacts recovered from the archaeological site be disseminated; 25) the applicant obtain all other necessary agency approvals; 26) the applicant perform work in strict compliance with all of the special conditions of this permit and 27) applicant be informed of the Commission staffs right to inspect the site. 5-05-020(Brightwater).RevisedFindings.doc.October05 Sri -vn MW P o4 ATTACHMENT N0.2550 � s +x ,: - - --� -_� .., ,' ,U. v-r :� ��u �. .. '�wt.*3rw F +,,.kk i `�b'l��y'� .� �A.T r .rt" .� ti ; fiE � ,K m - ,� '�r.�"� `"'� �3§,. �l.�r' 'N s5,�c '.fin� r s t-. �?H� � P a d "i x�.+�"���"Z '' � 'P',xt.,���"5i„C 3 � t. n_ t .: � a'cam _ r�^t^'+, �,��` S+ ,Y � �� d �� �' �t_ —> � �y° � a r�4 �,fro"'{' � �+p�-`� "�� �`- �}`s x.'�,,.k k f.�t 5 s{'' ��a�;3 r� .w vs��i a�r�.p��,�����u»nx"�:- `�°�.�i�'+ "''�^��;'�����'` v n �+„�' ¢ s� '� z vim;s.�'�-.r..T�:. �.>'-.�, "i.a»t'.'.��-,`�'�_a w��,'�i`�,� � �.t'"a??'�'7�'s!.w.'At^;c_'i ��«r.- r�, 37: ��,s • •' �` „r SK fin^ .� FBI ... r •'":^'... '�.. .".ice ✓'.. BAR R' _ �sr S F �QTJ7 November e: Memo To: Ed Mountford, Hearthside Homes David Befardes, Juaneno Band Anthony Morales, Gabrielino 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 Sth. I will, therefore, not be attending. In accordance with a request from at three of you, I am submitting a tentative listing of concerns that should be resolved at this meeting.. 1. Status of SRS Archaeological Vftrk; a. L� re ga 87 human one cons U9Mf 2IR that MW W A&neburrsrd —83 are completely removed from stretcher pedestals and pod -4 remain to be removed from pods-completion expected mid-December —Prof. Langenwalter cannot complete his studies until the fast 4 are done —Prof. Larqwwalter 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 examined by Longenwaker prior to Coroner's visit —All 87 will be laid out at once for Coroner, in all three bone trailers b EMN ere 83 gM Mafer�c/�' ftilltuma 9W wars uncoWad*Wh the hurmig AI183 features have not been processed yet some have artifacts,some do not. --These include 4 cogged stones features c. There an 421 U&artitscts fhat ware 9l79W WN#ham 9neIno rrrortiloRno nn 2m83 Only the artifacts directly associated with the burials are In the processing of being processed and prepared for reburial. —These include cogged stones, discoidals,charmstones and beads d. There ale l 2 _+k art&&Mgt were Hound d nnn fhe OWN m►trortitorina gn Ora-8S --Only the artifacts directly associated with the have been processed and -reburied. —Artifacts to be processed include discoidals, chor mstones and beads e. There are anomxximataJv 2 M 6ox®s ot rras [Including soils samples, rock features, shell features, shell samples and animal bone] from all 30 years of excavations on Balsa Chico Mesa in a trailer on-site. —These have not been culled for distribution to the County of Orange or for reburial since there has not been any electricity in this trailer. f. ,Theta Big ever MOW artJlaca's(Including debitage and other smaller items]that have been collected for the last 30 years on Balsa Chico Mesa. —These have not been fully catalogued or fully analyzed. —Some were collected before computers were in common use and the information is not in the site database. —Some still have field numbers from surface collections, etc. —Includes cogged stones, discoidais, charmstones and beads. ATTACHMENT S-15 2. Hearthside HYomes is n OMM a December I'd of Human Bone only with whatever burials are completed. If some.are not completed, they are requesting that the remaining pods be reburied at that time. 3. jtgd&ids hton is reaues 0a a Second Re r ail of all other materials at a later date-to be determined-when funding is available. 4. The Gabrfe/Ino alai lygos5in®that QM be conducted on some artifacts and individual, isolated teeth gathered from the site. —The Juaneno are opposed to DNA studies. —The Native Arneriew Heritage Commission has approved the project. —Hearthside has approved the project in concept only. —SRS is donating funds to aid in the mWact DNA studies. 5. Tire Juaneno W Miggft that the SokM be gMW to the®igs ARWAr Adobe for safekeeping. -The Gabrielino prefer reburial of artifacts. —The County of Orange has a legal agreement for the artifacts from all excavations [Ora-63 only]. 6. The Juaneno are nraue&g,a donaWn of funds to help establish displays in the Blas 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 froom the County Courthouse exhibits,to the Bias Aguilar when they are rotated out. --SRS will donate slide shows and posters prepared for academic presentations about the site to the Bias Aguilar when completed. 7. =has AtW aW&N t M to the Native American Heritage Commission, California Coastal Commission and the County of Orange, the Native American Heritage Commission: --to complete the human bone analyses, feature analyses, artifact analyses, and other material analyses; —to cooperate with the Orange County Coroner's representative by fully disclosing all human bone from the Mesa and offering these materials for inspection; —to rebury the human remains and associated materials according to the wishes of of the Native Americans; and to produce a series of catalogues and final interpretative reports --[cf. CEQA, CCC Special Condition of Approval 023, County of Orange Development Requirements]. ATTACHMENT N0. 5. 15S ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER MICHAEL S.CARONA,SHERIFF- CORONER JURISDICTIONAL INQUIRY REPORT Report Date: 08/08/2002 NAME OF DECEASED(LAST,FIRST MIDDLE) CALL DATE AND TIME TYPE CASE NUMBER Bones,Human Ancient =., , 2y" 16:30 Jurisdictional Inq. 02-03972-GA CORONER INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Alex C.Gassler Paul Langenwalter Scientific Resource Surveyor LOCATION OF DEATH ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) AT RESIDENCE Lj COUNTY Dig site 17201 Bolsa Chica Road,Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Orange DATE AND TIME OF DEATH DATE OF B7 AGE GENDER RACE 06/12/2002 12:30 Found Unknown Not Applicable RESIDENCE(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) COUNTY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER N/A,,CA Orange MARITAL STATUS LEGAL NEXT OF KIN TELEPHONE NO. ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) OCCUPATION NOTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME FOUND BY d PRONOUNCED BY AGENCYIRELATIONSHIP PA CASE _J IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME Paul Langenwalter Anthropology 06/12/2002 12:30 ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ADDRESS/PHONE MORTUARY RELEASE DATE TIME CIRCUMSTANCES OF INQUIRY These are founds bones at a known OC archeological dig site found in close proximity to other previous finds. AT N01 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF CASE NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number: 02-03972-GA DECEDENT NAME: Bones,Human Ancient DATE OF DEATH: 06/12/2002 Date,Time And Initials On All Entries SUPV/MGT CASE REVIEWS: Reviewed cleared for filing 0, 320 LY SCENE: On W/4&0,2 at 0850 hours I arrived at archaeological site ORA-83 and was met by archaeologist Paul Langenwalter. Per Langenwalter, the entire area was a known burial site within the precincts of ORA-83, and past discoveries included isolated human remains and burials. The isolates had been discovered in a large area that was currently under grading and controlled construction, and two bulldozers were observed working at the site. The overall area was labeled MAC(mechanically assisted collection) 6, and feature numbers had not yet been assigned to the isolates. Instead,each isolate was assigned a tentative MAC 6 number that will later be given a feature number. The material of each isolate was covered with a white cloth that was then covered and protected by a large black plastic container. The area around the isolate was taped off by bright orange tape,and per protocol the isolates were flagged and active grading continued around the material. • MAC 6-1: Consisted of small limb bone fragments,with not a lot available for formal identification. Per Langenwalter,the pattern of diagenesis for the wall of the bone was typical of human burial remains from this area and time period,and manganese staining was observed on the bone fragments. An associated chert flake was found approximately 1-2 feet away. • MAC 6-2: Consisted of a human skull,the top having been sheared off during grading. Associated shell fragments were scattered around the skull portion. • MAC 6-3: Consisted of loose bone fragments,possibly a second portion of skull also sheared due to grading. The skull was still deeply embedded in the soil and it was not discernable if it was the top or bottom of the skull. • MAC 64: Interesting because it was at a different level from the other discovered isolates and in different soil. These isolates were possibly from an earlier time period,and consisted of a portion of sheared skull with additional small,loose bone fragments. A contemporary swig of sage and yam had been placed near the bones as an offering by Native American monitors present on the site. • MAC 6-5: Consisted of bone fragments,tentatively identified by Langenwalter as human humeral shaft. • MAC 6-6: Consisted of a bone fragment that was possibly mammal,not necessarily human,per Langenwalter. The cortical pattern was ambiguous and until the bone was cleaned in the lab Langenwalter was reluctant to give an opinion. A contemporary tobacco offering had been placed near the bone fragment by Native American monitors present on the site. • MAC 6-7: [MAC 6-6 and MAC 6-7 were flagged together as one group,though considered separate isolates.] Consisted of small bone fragments exhibiting manganese staining. A contemporary tobacco offering had been placed near the fragments by Native American monitors at the site. • MAC 6-8: Consisted of several small,loose,ambiguous bone fragments;very little material present. Per Langenwalter, preservation matched burial rather than non-burial characteristics. • MAC 6-9: Consisted of very small bone fragments,not yet identified as human or non-human. (06/14/02 22:45 Bin EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY/DISPOSITION: CREVIINAL ffiSTORY/LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS: PND(S):(NAME.ADDRESS,PHONE&DATES): MEDICAL HX: SURGERIES:(DATES): INFORMANTS:(NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): Paul Langenwalter,Forensic Anthropologist,Scientific Research Surveyor,(562)943-4813 CONTROLS DISPOSITION OF DECEDENT:(NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): ADIDITIONAL KIN:(NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): ATTACHMENT N 0].. l Report Date:06/14/2002 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF CASE NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number: 02-03972-GA DECEDENT NAME: Bones,Human Ancient DATE OF DEATH: 06/12/2002 Date,Time And Initials On All Entries STATEMENTS:(NAMES,DATES&TWES): 6 ,":2- @ 1625 hrs.Per P.Langenwalter.At est 1230 hrs today at dig site#ORA-83,during grading,the crew came across some ancient human bone remains.They consist 2 skull fragments and 3 individual bone features(long bones)and 2 probable with bone features.Today in the late morning and early afternoon 2 more bone fragments were found as well.This is a new area at an old excavation site that is currently being graded;no grid coordinates have been assigned.This new area is known to have human remains; previous remains have been found in this area and are preserved in the same manner as the previous remains have been found.The bones found today and yesterday were found an est 10-30 meters from the old known dig site.There is not a problem if Dep Burch wants to come out and evaluate the site.Her contact person is Kevin Hunt.6-13-02 @ 1700 hrs(GA) OnkO /1 l2 at 0730 hours I contacted Paul Langenwalter of Scientific Research Surveys. Per Langenwalter, the human bones were found at ORA-83, in an area currently being graded. At this point seven different bone isolates have been identified. One of the isolates includes a skull that had been sheared and exposed in the grading process. The other isolates contain fragments of large and small human limb bones. Each area has been flagged off and will be excavated using conventional archaeological techniques. Two of the isolates were discovered yesterday, and Langenwalter has not yet had a chance to examine them. Per Langenwalter, all the material is consistent with ancient human remains,and the monitors from the Most Likely Descendants have examined the material in situ. I arranged to meet Langenwalter at the site at approximately 0830 hours this morning. (06/14/02 07:43 BU) PA STATEMENTS: (NAMES,DATES&TIMES): FOLLOW UP REQUEST&ACTIONS TAKEN: On,:I36/'l4 "at 2320 hours I contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and left a message for Rob Wood on the answering machine; I notified him I had responded to the site and had not found anything of modem forensic significance. (06/14/02 23:24 BU) CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS: 63y-02 Case number was issued and Dep BU will respond to dig site location 6-14-02 in am hrs.(GA) 6-13-02 @ 2200 hrs.Native American Heritage Commission was contacted,left voice mail with Gloria.(GA) NOTIFICATIONS (wHo NOTIFIED,DATE&TIME): Report Date:06/14/2002 ® °TTAC 2 t � 02/11/2008 10:34 FAX 7148400537 LAZARUS-AND-Co G��`3c�7�Z001/001 'S 1�,p169' Qffm February 11,2008 aM$~t ofta an TO:Lelonnie Pau, A Orange County Coroner Office Jim Anderm 714-647-6122 serrerary uarinka H wk FROM:Flossie Horgan n A o s Phone n=ber 714-846-1001 Dr.Jan vandwsloot Email belaadMist@verixon.net June Baby 5 2 6 cards Thomas Swdyt Kmw wd RE:human remains from archeological site Bolsa China Vi coVden emn Saaftim Mom senMnt n This request is for the total number of human remains found on the Bolsa Mike Mclifahan China mesa M' Orange County,California and reported to the Coroner's A mu-AARD Office. 9tata Senator Tom Heiman cook This request is for the following time frames Diam Casey Nanny Donayen January 1, 1990-February 1994 NVM abbe And Bob Coaadth �0" January 1994 January 2000 KOM Fuse++mufft And PatlerconROOM Pend January 2000-January 2002 Laws Pawn And ax January 2002-present Dr.David Man Mary Utashlma Qraee WlndW This request includes but is not limited to all records of human remaiLls EN2269HEMn found on the archeological sites known as ORA 83 and ORA 85. eo�a cn�ca ORA 85 informatiou may be under a housing development called a r e Sandover by Hearthside homes Anne BWmW FoundaW ORA 83 information may be under a housing development called BaWha WOW&Land Brightwater by Hearthside Homes. Cry of Hunt wbn beach i FAands or Haftm, beadles and Paft Fleme respond by email(bclandtrus4verizon.net) HuWroon Beach i wetlands comenancy Or FlunwMian Beach Tomorrow Address below orange Coast league of woman Yo6ere I orange CCU* Coasao"W Thank you for prompt attention to this matter. Panlnsula open space Tmat Sea and$age Audubon Sion Club Sudildw Foundalkm I 5200.Warner Avenue-Suite 108-Huntington Beach,CA 92649- (714) 046-2001 I w vw.balsachicalandtrust.org i ATTACHMENT11 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF - CORONER DEPARTMENT FAX COVER SHEET TO: Flossie Horgan PHONE: FAX: 714 536-7262 ORGANIZATION Bolsa Chica Land Trust FROM: Le'Lonnie PHONE: (714) 647-7400 FAX:.-(714) 647-6122 DATE: 02/21/08 NUMBER OF PAGES (+COVER) 7 CORONER CASE/NAME: Several Indian or ancient bones CLASSIFICATION OF DEATH: 0-J ITEM(S) FAXED: TOX MICRO VOD NEURO NEUROMICRO CI SUMMARY X NOTES: WWAIZNING/CONFIDENTIAL This facsimile transmission constitutes a confidential communication intended only for the addressee indicated above. Please notify us as soon as possible at the telephone number shown above of any error in transmission. Thank you for your cooperation. ATTACHMENT �� F ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER CORONER DIVISION INVESTIGATIVE WORKSHEET Report Date: 4/14/2008 NAME OF DECEASED(LAST,FIRST MIDDLE) CALL DATE AND TIME MANNER CASE NUMBER BONES,Human-ancient indian r;4p4 2�2Qp0;,=20:35 Jurisdictional Inq. 00-02'791-LY CORONER INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Joseph D.Luckey LOCATION OF DEATH FNO Lj ER/OP IP D ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) AT RESIDENCE LJ PHONE ORA#83 Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve,,California DATE AND TIME OF DEATH DATE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 04/27/2000 14:00 Found I I Unknown Not Applicable NAME AKA: RESIDENCE(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) RESIDENCE PHONE MARITAL STATUS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OCCUPATION/EMPLOYER Lj FOUND BY Lj PRONOUNCED BY AGENCY/RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY COLLECTED? Lj PA CASE El IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME DL STATE/NUMBER LOCATION OF INCIDENT AT WORK U ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) COUNTY Orange INJURY DESCRIPTION INJURY DATE/TIME INVESTIGATING/LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER OFFICER MORTUARY CORONER AUTOPSY? BODY EXAMINATION DATE/TIME RELEASE DATE AND TIME No ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ADDRESS ATTENDING PHYSICIAN PHONE PHOTOS TAKEN? ADMITTED FROM ADMITTED FROM DATE/TIME No HEIGHT WEIGHT EYE COLOR GLASSES COMPLEXION TEETH HAIR COLOR HAIR TYPE HAIR LENGTH FACIAL HAIR ENVIRON.TEMP, CALOR LIVIDITY RIGOR SCARS MARKS TATTOOS CLOTHING SUMMARY Received a call reporting the discovery of ancient human bones at the ORA#83 site. Case number issued. ATTAC T 5 (�oI ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF � FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION - ..�n Case Number: 00-02791 -LY DECEDENT NAME: Bone,Bone DATE OF DEATH: 04/27/2000 Date Time And Initials On All Entries SUPV/MGT CASE REVIEWS:Reviewed/cleared for filing 5110100 1810 LY SCENE: ORA#83 INFORMANTS: (NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE):Paul Langenwalter ph#562-943-4813;ORA#83. CONTROLS DISPOSITION OF DECEDENT:(NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): STATEMENTS:(NAMES,DATES&TIMES):4/27/00 2035 hrs.I received a call from Mr.Paul Langenwalter at the site of the discovery of ancient human bones. . Wredaflie scovei y v dg1pp"r'oac ISO meters from the last.such find in the area;but it is much el i ti teat rtmati ei3iaii�s<+disso Bred=in4s98.0',s!nd-Iatt- 999: He was unable to examine the bones and determine if they were infact human until this hour. The subject bone was described as a dislodged femur shaft. The bone was left in the possession of Mr.William Larson at the site.LY 4/27/00 2050 hrs.I contacted MA and notified him. He requested I leave word for the day shift WC to contact Larson in the morning in regards to rolling out to the site.LY 4/27/00 2100 hrs.I attempted to recontact both Paul Langenwalter at 562-9434813(busy signal)and William Larson at 562-967- 9976(bad phone#)and was unable to. LY FOLLOW UP REQUEST&ACTIONS TAKEN: Contact Paul Langenwalter or William Larson about responding to the discovery site. LY. 4/28/00 @ 0820 1 attempted to contact Paul Langenwalter but his daughter answered the phone. She told me that her father was busy at the moment. I left my name and phone number with her. (TO 4/28/00 @ 0825) 4/28/00 @ 0825 I attempted to reach William Larson but found that the number listed above was a bad number. (TO 4/28100 @ 0825) 4/28/00 @ 0830 I spoke to Gayle McNolty of the Native American Heritage Commission and notified her of this find. I told her that we would more than likely role out to the site but we are awaiting a call back from Paul Langenwalter to confirm the accessibility to the find. She asked that we call her back once we confirmed that the remains were indeed of Native American Origin. (TO 4/29/00 @ 0830) 4/28/00 @ 1135 I attempted to call Paul Langenwalter at the number provided above and received only a busy signal. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1135) 4/28/00 @ 1205 1 left a voice message at Paul Langenwalter's residence requesting that he call this division in reference to the find. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1210) 4/28100 @ 1215 I attempted to contact Dr.Judy Suchey. I received no answer at her cell phone. Her pager was no longer in service. So I left a voice message on her voice mail system at her residence. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1215) ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number: 00-02791 -LY DECEDENT NAME: Bone,Bone DATE OF DEATH: 04/27/2000 Date Time And Initials On All Entries 4/28/00 @ 1225 I attempted to contact Scientific Resource Surveys(SRS)at 909 767-2555 but only got an answering machine. I left a voice message requesting a call back on accessibility to the remains. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1230) 4/28/00 @ 1315 I received a telephone call from William Larson(562 697-9976)who informed me that the remains were currently locked in an office onsite at ORA#83. The site had been closed down after the find last evening and would not be reopened until 511100 at 0700 hours. I told him that we wanted to have our Forensic Anthropologist and a Deputy Coroner respond to the site on Monday 5/l/00 and exam the find. He indicated that the find consisted of a femur/long bone. The site where the remains were found appears to have more remains just below the location where the long bone was found. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1315) Awaiting a call from Dr.Judy Suchey concerning availability to view the site and the find. Ask her if she would be available to go to the site on Monday 5/1/00 morning. (TO 4/28/00 @ 1330) 4/28/00 @ 1550 I received a call back from Dr..Suchey who.indicated that'shevould.be able to respond to the site 3/1/00 @ 1I00 hours. She said that she would come to FSC and drive.to the site with-the assign6i Deputy_Coroner. TO _4/28/00 @ 1555) @ 1130 hrs—Dr.Suchey and I drove to site ORA#83 and arrived at 1200 hrs.We spoke with Mathew Dorame and Joyce Perry and they told us the bones were uncovered on 4/27/00 at 1430 hrs by Chuck Burnette(field tech)..The rMeMfo d nearr efk' where,previously,other bones had been located.Dr.Suchey took several pictures and examined the bones and deemed them to be of no forensic value.(5/6/00 @ 1055 hrs HO) 5/17/00 @1605 hrs.A call was received from Paul Langenwalter reporting a discovery at 14:30 at ORA#83 of A femur shaft and long bone fragments approx.5-7 meters from the discovery on 4/27/00 at this site. Information of this find was documented on the ancient discovery log in public records. LY On 5/18/00 @ 0840 hours I spoke with Cathy at the Native American Heritage Commission and notified her of yesterday's find. (TO 5/18100 @ 0840) CASE DEPUTY ACTIONS: Entry made on the DESIGNATED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES,log,5/10/00 1809 LY. NOTIFICATIONS (WHO NOTIFIED,DATE&TMM):MA 4/27/00 2050 hrs. ATTA HMEKIT Nip .S '.63 ► V • i i f � Al LA wo / /Arm, r / ,ice . .. T. '. THE GABRIELINO TONGVA INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA TRIBAL COUNCIL MATHEW DORAME TRIBAL SECRETARY 5450 SLAUSON AVENUE Surm 151 CULVER Cm•CAUFORNIA 90230 PHONE:714.679.4456 FAx:562.9209449 1 ' a - i,�:�.� •.ti Gr.!A'•a ';'r'.!'. 'J f `,: 't:'4•' 7�'N `,i° , _ ':� ..�,,ay� ..i. .e..aa, v,+:i• •';j`'p';. (r °Y 'i; +�•' ••i•''�:?� '4:i ',�Yi ,•j ii., i, ����.�` •.i.: d'. �'.�.P..ol R' �:av .'A.• ��✓' et;' A *{• •r'J)."• .� t3. }.�� .t.,� iff,''li ("''• �(i�� .J'i_ .7a�• �`^��::. .y.f', s yy,9^,•,?r l'., �.,..I,'.`4... .`r• 'r,,..v• ,`i .y.:; .� •at;.•-'' •,1.t•�.."�,`y�)jp, �':ti°:;'I irv«: .mot_ .S, ♦ .1,'••• •,�'). ^�A),v.r ', N .41 1. `�l ,Y;. .t.'^•°it,a ..,:,�;.�.r .J� /,v,"✓;�� �.r,i.� ..rr.<•.,•,.,,1` .. '' c7 r. I' yrll, - i. •"jb •� 1 / if '�l•l�, , ir�•'f vy.,J :.A.'�+f; w .l'Y�1'. .i� .I •.e %, a•`.+' �w t ( . q. ;1 :.r• 7,�r`•' �e'i yy//v yk:,4, / �"f"� � t• y 9: a' yy _Jy 't'�',": •. ..4.i$ 9.. x." 'die >> i:l:.! ��' �,� °w.lr � •"�" �'�'ii•'�.1'��111•� �+.ytl M.• �,'1 •Kr••� tip A i V ..^ .� �*P.ga� Yt .� �1,�• _ �,;.. . "1,•..�}... .x•+Y::.,., l:::EJ1:i.N.. ..`iJ.: ..•....i{..ali• .... .... ",.1i`l:.,'!,�. _11., ., �'�i. ..n �.' ,1" .. �1• �` tis�'. .. .. .... .:. .. 1'•!. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF - CORONER DEPARTMENT 'FAX COVER SHEET T0: Flossie Horgan PHONE: FAX: 714 536-7262 ORGANIZATION Bolsa Chica Land Trust FROM: Le'Lonnie PHONE: (714) 647-7400 FAX: 714) 647-6122 DATE:_ 02/21/O8 NUMBER OF PAGES (+COVER) 7 CORONER CASE/NAME: Several.Indian or ancient bones f/� CLASSIFICATION OF DEATH: ITEMS) FAXED: TOX . MICRO VOID . NEURO NEUROMICRO CI SUMMARY X NOTES: . WARM vG/cONMENTLAL This facsimile transmission constitutes a confidential communication Intended only.for the addressee Indicated above. Please notify us as soon as possibie.at the telephone number shown above of any error.in transmission. Thank you for your cooperation. 5 .(z ATTACHMENT N( OKA1NGE C:OUIN I Y SHEKWY-UOROINER CORONER DIVISION I b INVESTIGATIVE WORICSHEET Report Date: 4/14/2008 NAME OF DECEASED(LAST,FIRST MIDDLE) CALL DATE AND TIME MANNER CASE NUMBER BONES,Human-ancient Indian ��UMM46tl` 12:30 Jurisdictional Inq. 00-02277-RO CORONER INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Richard L.Rodriguez Dr.Paul Langenwalter Archeologist for SRS Const. LOCATION OF DEATH FND IVI ER/OP U IP ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) AT RESIDENCE Ll PHONE Construction site aY Bolsa Chica Mesa,Irvine,California DATE AND TIME OF DEATH fbATE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 03/30/2000 0:00 Found I I Unknown Not Applicable NAME AKA. RESIDENCE(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) RESIDENCE PHONE MARITAL STATUS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OCCUPATION/EMPLOYER 1-/1 FOUND BY L PRONOUNCED BY AGENCYIRELATIONSHIP PROPERTY COLLECTED PA CASE SRS IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME DL STATE/NUMBER Dr.Suchey Anthropology 04/07/2000 15:15 LOCATION OF INCIDENT AT WORK Ll ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) COUNTY Orange INJURY DESCRIPTION INJURY DATEITIME INVESTIGATING/LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER OFFICER MORTUARY CORONER AUTOPSY? BODY EXAMINATION DATEITIME RELEASE DATE AND TIME No ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ADDRESS ATTENDING PHYSICIAN PHONE PHOTOS TAKEN? ADMITTED FROM ADMITTED FROM DATEITIME No HEIGHT WEIGHT EYE COLOR GLASSES COMPLEXION TEETH HAIR COLOR HAIR TYPE HAIR LENGTH FACIAL HAIR ENVIRON.TEMP. CALOR LIVIDITY RIGOR SCARS MARKS TATTOOS CLOTHING SUMMARY The Coroner's Office was notified of possible human remains discovered at a construction site.Dr.Suchey,Forensic Anthropologist,responded to the site with Deputy Coroner Rodriguez and determined the remains were of non forensic value and consistent with ancient human remains.The bones were released to the Native American Heritage Commission. ATTACHMENT NO. S ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF "Y n FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number: 00-02277-RO DECEDENT NAME: BONES, Human DATE OF DEATH: 03/30/2000 Date Time And Initials On All Entries SUPV/MGT CASE REVIEWS: 04/08/00:I reviewed this case and noted a handwritten report from Dr.Suchey. She indicates that human determination was made from molar morphology,long bone shafts that were present.Prehistoric status was determined from extreme wear on the molars.She also indicated that additional information will be provided by Dr.Langenwalter following completion of the excavation.This inquiry is complete,as the remains have no forensic value and the Native American Heritage Commission has been notified.(MA) SCENE: EVIDENCE: PMD(S):(NAME.ADDRESS,PHONE&DATES): MEDICAL HX: SURGERIES:(DATES): INFORMANTS: (NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): CONTROLS DISPOSITION OF DECEDENT:(NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): ADDITIONAL KIN:(NAME.RELATIONSHIP,ADDRESS&PHONE): STATEMENTS:(NAMES,DATES&TIMES): On 03-30-00 1755 Dep.Luckey received a call from Paul Langenwalter,reporting findings of possible Native American Human Remains,which consisted of long bone fragment and a vertebra.Paul was calling from ORA#83 at Bolsa Chica Mesa.The bones were found in the side wall of trench#8 of the site.The site that day was dark until Monday 04-03-00.He had not made an inspection of the bones yet to determine if they were human or animal.The find is approximately 100 yards north of the most recent find at ORA #83.Asst.Chief McAnally was notified of the circumstances.04-04-00 1458 ES On 04-04-00 1220 hours,Asst.Chief McAnally requested I follow-up on the above circumstances.I contacted Paul Langenwalter(562-9434813)who did a preliminary examination of the remains at the site.He was able to observe the inner part of the bone that appeared to be a long bone.He stated,based on his examination,that it was a large mammal,but could not rule out a deer.He stated the diagnosis is consistent with the preservation of other human remains found at the site.He feels they are consistent with the other Indian Remains found at the site.He did not disturb the site,and planned on a more extensive examination on 04-05-00. 04-04-00 1510 ES 04-04-00 1430 hours,I advised Asst.Chief McAnally of the above circumstances.He requested further inquiry into the initial exam and that Dr.Suchey be advised of the situation.04-04-1511 ES 04-04-00 1500 hours,I contacted Dr.Suchey regarding the above circumstances.She received a call from Paul Langenwalter regarding his initial examination. She understood it was presumed human,but that he should continue with his excavation if there is any question.Dr. Suchey stated Paul is very competent regarding the distinction between human vs non-human,and encouraged further examination.She will contact Paul regarding the findings. She agreed with Asst.Chief McAnally decision regarding coroner involvement if any question.She will contact Paul regarding his findings and call the Coroner's division back once she has spoken with him.04-04-00 1518 ES 4/4/00 @ 16:35 received call from J. Suchey she has been of the phone with Paul Langenwalter who she says is a very capable. He is going to the site Wednesday morning. Judy will fax a copy of what Langenwalter's procedure will be to the office. I received this fax and gave it to the Asst. Chief McAnally who will follow-up with Dr.Suchey.4/4/00 17:21 (EL) 04/04/00 1720:1 spoke to Dr.Suchey by phone.She said her recommendation is that Dr.Langenwalter continue with the excavation to the point he is able to determine if human. Ofitil[ayiyiul3l;stop ey is a�ai�able to ATTACHMENT NO•V� / �� ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION ` y Case Number: 00-02277- RO DECEDENT NAME: BONES, Human DATE OF DEATH: 03/30/2000 Date Time And Initials On All Entries respond any time Thursday with a deputy coroner if necessary.(MA) FOLLOW UP REQUEST&ACTIONS TAKEN: Contact Dr.Langenwalter and advise him to stop the dig and notify us if he recognizes the bones are human.A deputy coroner and Dr. Suchey will respond if human and handle per established policy.04/04/00 1730(MA) 4/7/00 @ 1000 I attempted to contact Paul Langenwalter per Assistant Chief s directive. I left a voice message requesting he contact this division with an update on the remains. (TO 4/7/00 @ 1005) 4/7/00 @ 12196 I received a call back from Paul Langenwalter who said that he has determined that the remains discovered on 3/30/00 were indeed human. Wednesday 4/5/00 crews excavated and exposed a skull,limb bone,a jaw with teeth and a left foot. There were prehistoric artifacts uncovered along with the remains which included an abrading stone. The wear on the teeth were consistent with prehistoric specimens. It was determined that the remains were prehistoric Native American remains. . 'f`att vine i n_Co, isslon wasp ad•--Wsedhandhasj ad r-tipfeseutatives on sight the;past.fevv da}s. The remains were in the process of being further exposed. There is no ��. . �ing construction ongoing. The excavation at this point is purely of an archeological nature. He anticipates that the excavation build will conclude this afternoon along with the removal of the remains by the Native American Council members. Dr.Judy Suchey has been made aware of the situation. (TO 4/7/00 @ 1245) 4/7/00 @ 1300 1 spoke to Dr.Judy Suchey via her cell phone and requested she respond with one of our Deputies to the excavation site. She agreed but said that she would meet the responding Deputy at FSC and proceed with them to the site. (TO 4/7/00 2 1305) 4/13/00 @ About 0830 I received a telephone call from Gayle of the Native American Heritage Commission inquiring into the status of site ORA483. I told her that Dr.Suchey and a Deputy from our division went out to the site last week and confirmed that the remains were of no Forensic Value. She seemed upset and asked why she was not notified of the findings. I told her that Paul Langenwalter relayed to me during my conversation with him on 4/7/00 that Native American Commission representatives were at the site during the excavation and were aware of the findings. (TO 4/13/00 @ 0950) 4/13/00 @ 0955 Per MA's direction,I called Paul Langenwalter to get the names of the individuals he notified and were present from the Native American Commission. Paul's daughter answered and said that Mr.Langenwalter was not available at the time and would not be in until sometime this afternoon. I left a message for Mr.Langenwalter to contact FSC and ask for the Watch Commander. (TO 4/13/00 @ 0955) 4/13/00 @ 1055 lepresentatives: eceived a call back from Paul Langenwalter who said that he had contacted and was dealing with the following"tribal" Joyce Perry,David Bollardy,Nation Ponva representative Gabriel Alenia,and the onsite representative was Robert orme. I asked specifically if he had contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and he said he had spoken only to those dividuals listed above. He knows nothing about the Native American Heritage Commission. (TO 4/13/00 @ 1100) ASE DEPUTY ACTIONS: On 04/07/00 Deputy Rodriguez responded to the scene with Dr.Suchey.Dr. Suchey examined the remains and confirmed they were of no forensic value and consistent with ancient human.(MA) 04/07/00 @ 1355 I received instructions from Assistant Chief R.MacAnally to assist and escort Dr.Judy Suchey,Forensic Anthropologist to a site know as Bolsa Chica Mesa,where skeletal remains had been unearthed during construction. Prior information had been received in the coroner's office on 03-30-00 of this find that the remains were of possible Native American Indian.A case number was assigned, however,the case had not been assigned an investigator,pending the examination of Dr. Suchey. This area has been given a site area ATTACHME T a5 �� of—) ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF X y. FOLLOW-UP NOTES CORONER DIVISION Case Number: 00-02277-RO DECEDENT NAME: BONES,Human DATE OF DEATH: 03/30/2000 Date Time And Initials On All Entries code#ORA#83 site trench#8. F0:00 Dr. Suchey and myself responded to the above mentioned location at 1435 hours,arriving at Bolsa Chica Mesa at 1505 hours. Upon our arrival we were met by Nancy A.Whitney-Desautels,Director of Research,Scientific Resource Surveys,Inc. Phone#(714)625-3487,who subsequently directed us to site trench#8 and at which time I noted a partially excavated site which contained partial skeletal remains. Also,present was Mr.Robert F.Dorame,Tribal Chairperson,of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council,c/b#(714)879-4456. Dr.Suchey examined the partially exposed remains and determined the remains were prehistoric.This was based on the examination of the molars which revealed extreme wear.For further details,refer to Dr.Judy Suchey's handwritten report cc#00-02277-RO,page 1 of 1, 1615 hours,(Analysis of Humam Sketelal Remains)35mm Photographs of the site were taken by Dr. Suchey. We were 10-98 at 1540 hours.(RO) On 4/13/00 at 1425 hours I officially notified Gail McNulty of the presence of native american remains.(4/13/00 1430h LL) NOTIFICATIONS (WHO NOTIFIED,DATE&TIME): CHI�ENT NOS - ATTVI « m� vri ta.rvvv ate.Vs ♦� yYDYVV VV! L/14t11\VA-Kl\L-VV �UU1/VV1 r 6� February 11,2008 rM °WN a eatw# TO: Lelonr e PAUI A" ."'� Orange County Coroner Office asmAnderson 714-647-6122 sacretery Lwnxa Horam FROM:Flossie Morgan ws��os� Phone number 714-846-1001 f�e M*Y Email belandaust@vedzon.net 1_.t�'� c�rnanas 7 ✓ fo �O . sa++dr renle � �°°d RE:human remains from archeological site Bolsa Chica �men Mom ntt This request is for the total number of human remains found on the Bolsa WM`air' Chica mesa in Orange County,California and reported to the Coroner's Anmax Maw office. Mqw Nibble Stets Sbnator Tom Harman cook This request is for the following time frames Djaw cam Donaven January 1, 1990-February 1994 Gibbs Boa cooarkh .And HO January 1994-January 2000 EAWAN"Y And Rodwk nt January 2000-January 2002 case ROWN And fk Id� January 2002-present vr.DwId Su*an = t This request includes but is not limited to all records of human remaiws ate EN= found on the archeological sites known as ORA 83 and ORA 85. 8�ea cnlca ORA 85 information may be under a housing development called Re Sandover by HeardWde homes Ann Bormw Fouodepan ORA 83 information may be under a housing development called tn►st Le"� Brightwater by Hearthside Homes - Cfry of Huaftton Own i Friends of Ham. Bead►es and Parks Please respond by email(bclandtrust�la�. eenzon.net) M W � Or Hantmgton Beach Tomorrow Address below amme coast LOOOUG of f orange CCU* 00880ewer Thank you for prompt attention to this matter. Peninsula Open Space Trust Sea and Sage Audubon Sign Club Surfrider rF Chaptar ounWw 5200 WarMr Avenue-Suite 108-Huntington Bch,CA 92649 - (714) 6465-1001 www.balsachicalandtrust.org ATTACHMENT N0 , I . ��� `f ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF - CORONER DEPARTMENT FAX COVER SHEET TO: Flossie Horgan PHONE: FAX: 714 536-7262 ORGANIZATION Boisa Chica Land Trust FROM: Le'Lonnie PHONE: (714) 647-7400 FAX:_(714) 647-6122 DATE: 02/21/08 NUMBER OF PAGES (+COVER) 7 CORONER CASEMAME: Several Indian or ancient bones (/I-5 ,5 CLASSIFICATION OF DEATH: 00-® z 2 7 -9.15 ITEMS) FAXED: TOX MICRO VOD NEURO NEUROMICRO CI SUMMARY X NOTES: WAR2NING/CONFIDENT 4,L This facsimile transmission constitutes a confidential communication intended only for the addressee indicated above. Please notify us as soon as possible at the telephone number shown above of any error in transmission. Thank you for your cooperation. NT O.� a ATTACH COS ( ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF-CORONER JURISDICTIONAL INQUIRY REPORT NAME OF DECEASED(LAST,FIRST MIDDLE) AKA CASE NUMBER BONES,Human Ancient 99-07108-LL INVESTIGATOR REPORTED BY REPORTING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER Bruce E.Lyle Nancy Desautels Scientific Resources Surveys None CALL DATE AND TIME DISPATCH DATE AND TIME ARRIVAL DATE AND TIME RETURN DATE AND TIME 17:20 11105/1999 12:00 1 111051 999 12:31 11/05/1999 DATE AND TIME OF DEATH DATE OF BIRTH AGE GENDER RACE 11/03/1999 10:30 Found Not Applicable Not Applicable RESIDENCE(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) UNINCOPORATED AREA COUNTY TELEPHONE NO. Orange MARITAL STATUS I SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER j DRIVER'S LICENSE NO.AND STATE OCCUPATION EMPLOYER LOCATION OF DEATH AT RESIDENCE ORA 83/Huntington Beach ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) UNINCOPORATED AREA COUNTY 17201 Bolsa Chica Road,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Orange FOUND BY PRONOUNCED BY AGENCY DATE AND TIME Scientific Resources Surve s Archeologist LOCATION OF INCIDENT AT WORK TT ORA 8341untin on Beach ADDRESS(STREET,CRY,STATE,ZIP) UNINCOPORATED AREA Lj COUNTY 17201 Bolsa Chica Road,Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Orange INVESTIGATING AGENCY REFERENCE NUMBER OFFICERS Oran a County Coroner's Office 99-07108 Coroner Investigator D.Ralsten CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH Probable Native American remains found at development site. NAME OF PERSON NOTIFIED RELATIONSHIP Native American Heritage Com. State Agency ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) TELEPHONE NO. (916)653-4082 NOTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME Investigator Ralsten Phone 11/05/1999 16:48 LEGAL NEXT OF KIN RELATIONSHIP ADDRESS(STREET,CITY,STATE,ZIP) TELEPHONE NO. IDENTIFIED BY METHOD DATE AND TIME Judy Suchey,PhD Anthropology 11/05/1999 ATTACHMENT NOV. 4. 1999 6:46PM P 1 OM SRSINC PHONE NO. : 909 767 0305 ScientI is Resource Surveys, Inc. P.O. Box 2349 �. Temecula, CA 92593 (M) 767-2555 (909)767-0305 (Fax) m TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: did sS•c�iak L/r,�:t> clg a VIA: /FAX —MAI-L SUBJECT: 7 � /;; Q2:2faa,� -Y3r NOTES: 4&a-4g Aa4��_aze 62 G- g1 _9t Ply. la!AQ A.lay 4�9. 0694U 499 I .mot^' ew n 711-63 crr e.. 0. OF PAGES:_ � /1J (Including this page) '°�: 3-5r TA ENT ` CASE NOTES DATE PAGE _ CASE # � 1 6 TIME ! ROBERT M.BEER ® Vice President ® NANCY A.WHIT NEY DESAUTELS,PH.D. Environmental Operations President/Director of Research Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. ARCHAEOLOGY•PALEONTOLOGY•HISTORY•GEOSCIENCES - ARCHAEOLOGY P.O.Box 2349,Temecula,CA 92593-2349 ' PALEONTOLOGY•HISTORY•GE OSCIENCES Phone 9091767-2555 Fax 909f767.0305 P.O.Box 2349.Temecula,CA 92593.2349 Phone 9OW67-2555 Fax909/767.0305 i . 1 1 1 1 14EAMSIDE HOMES, INC. ED MOUNTFORD SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 6 EXECUTIVE CIRCLE,SUITE 250,IRVINE,CA 92614 (949)250-7700 DIRECT(949)250-7760 FAX(949)250-7770 T " 1 1 1 1 I 1 _ . 1 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 l 1 1 I — 1 I 1 — 1 1 1 1 - 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 t ATTACf� T . Scene At Autopsy ❑SUICIDE 0 HOMICIDE ` onca;rr-�.vr;av;vca�vcro%mS VMS-e ACCIDENT 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE,CALIFORNIA �.work LD.case# INVESTIGATOR'S CASE NOTES Im ❑TRAFFIC 0 INDUSTRIAL ❑OTHER ember of Polarold(s)Submitted By Type Case No. Reviewed tysical Evidence Place Investigator L 7 L d By GSR Kit# I Billing: OYES XNO spoeitloMTaken by Zip Code: CLASSIFICATION ❑Natural-A O Homicide ❑Accident ❑Officer Involved cod&Tox.Taken Disposition Date Tme I Natural-NA O Suicide ❑SIDS ❑In Custody igerprints Taken By Weapon i ❑Natural-Dual ❑Traffic ❑Undetermined ❑Refer to PA antified By Ser,No. Dlspo ❑No Wants O Consult Donor:4 Approachadd ❑/Declined ❑Cornea ❑Other Registered Owner Decedent's Name NEXT OF KIN MINOR CHILD o Suicide Note OYes ONo Dispo OAKA G AEG/G yt — tme Relationship Type of Vehicle License OTentative I.D.(dress Reg.Owner - Address Zip Coda: Tow Company Phone City Zip Code: ts.Phone Bus.Phone Decedent: Driver Psg'r Pedestrian Telephone Age DOB tme Relationship Restraints ❑Yes O No ❑Unk Helmet(s) ❑Yes ❑No ❑Unk Sex Race Ht Wt Hair Eyes (dress Deployed Air Beg ❑Yes ❑No Ejected Cyst; ❑No III O Married ❑Divorced ❑Never Married ❑Widowed C)Children Zip Code: Travel Direction on Occupation[Before Retirement] is.Phone Bus.Phone position in Vehicle �r 1 SS#/ d U/l. difled By Date Time Other Vehicle License Date of Deairg� 7 ! rime /o 3 Day,, Billing Party Travel Direction on Place o /ath ZO/ /1jL LS/9 C/y/C.4 'A (dress i Number of Persons in Decedent's Vehicle Other Vehicle i — 0A Hospital ❑ER/OP ❑IP O DOA O Convalescent Hosp ❑Board&Care WITNESS/INFORMANTS y zt, REPORT DATE Pronounced By p� me��/¢-�[CGf!/� T�LS Pho�/ ���2�✓! Police Agency Time PD Called ReportingP rty/•/f/�LY p'-m"'rer L'S Time /72d ,areas S�lEAtrtfic /Lt`SocvLcc� Sul1/iCrys� !.1{�_- Officer File No. //� Data fo-a 10-97 to-se ime Phone Investigator Charges ❑Yes O No Placed Received /C J`G - (dress Mortuary Phone Ime Phone NOTIFICATIONS Requested By Relationship (dress O CAR Record ❑Yes ❑No Transport by Time Called PROPERTY DYES NO O CDC ❑DA O Side O OSHA ❑State Lic ❑NTSB Name: Autopsy:O No ❑Coroner ❑Private ❑Tox ❑Cultt4ras ❑SO•ID ;position: ❑NOK ❑Mortuary O FSC Safe.O OCS Property Name Dept Date Time MD Cause of Death Oth> Relationship Per MD Llc No: P.A. ite epo ad P.A.Investigator Investigator Data z PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BODY NOTES I NOTES ere Made Time //�/-w s..7.�•r!0� /��J-�'Er<!/Gr® /-,L d .. l,..i✓C t o,Body t�= /J fir ar lk/��c -riif �/r✓ •�,c� thing y or G der �G'Sl��,�f Esj J�/LGcS�Id'Q LC tnosis loos/scars �- AN' 0 3,p ,y Temperature Viewable: ❑I.D. ❑Service ❑No uma(describe) Al ojf .d tJ 0 f 'S/�S, �G� T pG•O or EDICAL HISTORY M.D.Lic,# I C�v � to e-,L coding Physician Last Visit A'T Irese Telephone aled For �!� L L./A/W i f 7-0 e •¢•mac is �' D� /ram /`d�tr�l/G (��C.lJ�l• ��'v/. e of Operation d 14 S l T G% Fop Date �• ��� ®Lf/r/L`j� /r/"/�°./nLr�.7 � � ,a/�!/</J pitted Date Time J r ught in By From .C �OLls, Iress L mined By - 's nplaints/Admit DX/Symptoms - _� UV tsfused ❑Yes ❑No BA.Level </ L7 ey. Bloo�! ❑yes O No Date/Time Drawn r..� FA—)—Date/Time I FOM-58(R5/95) V M 7i CASE NOTES g *� DATE PAGE CASE # i b � — TIME � r e _ Z,J o -- AIT'ACHMEN r rb 1 E CASE NOTES Case Number: 99-07108 DECEDENT NAME: BONES, Human DATE OF DEATH: 11/03/1999 Date I Time . tnitiais I tomwghts 11/5/99 0940 LY Spoke to Nancy Desautels at the site and she will not be there the remainder of the day. She also stated no one will be at the site until Mon. 11/8,d/t they work M-F, 10 hours shifts. I left another message on Judy Suchey's answering machine to this fact. LY 11/5/99 11:00 LY BE informed me that Judy Suchey would be responding to the FSC and accompanying RA to the site of the dig. RA&Judy left for HB at approx 1145 hrs..LY.*A 11-5-99 1633 Ra At the direction of CDC Berndt,I and Dr.J Suchey went out to 17201 Bolsa Chica Ave. leaving at 1200 hours and arriving at 1231 hours. We spoke to Robert Beer Scientific Resource Surveys,Inc 909)767-2555.He showed us the bone specimens and directed us out to site where an additional bone was in-situ.There were 3 bones along with a few fragment out and anoither one exposed in side wait of trench.The bone in trench wall has about 2"exposed and is about 1 '/2`-2'down from surface. Although surrounded by browner dirt it extends into redish dirt which,R.Beer said is pre ice age. Trench was about 50 yards long about 3'wide and about 5' deep.Dr.Suchey examined the bones and determined them to be ancient , R.Beer said he thought this find was not with in the boundies of ORA83 but was not sure of it.Also there were no other artifacts or tools found with the bones or in the immediate area.The normal process of digging is scooping aout 15 cm at a time.The trench was dug as a geologic survey for soil conditions.The bones were found on Wednesday(11-3-99)at unknown time.The bones were first found by an archeologist and a native american monitor at the same time.The loose bones were collected from the loose dirt next to the trench.He was unaware of who the native american monitors were.The"nearest decendent"for this sit is David Belardes.The area over the find has been used as agriculture land for some 75+/-years. I spoke to Edward Mountford with Hearthside Homes Inc. 949)250-7700.He said the area is planed to be single family homes eventualy.He said that although he did not try to call the coroners office his staff member Lucy Dunn(spelling?)called the Sheriff's office yesterday"AM" (114-99)to report the find,A message was left for the Sheriff to call back.After a couple hours a second call was put into the Sheriff re:the bones R/P was unaware of what transpired from then I spoke to Nancy Whitney-Desautels Scientific Resource Surveys(909)767-2555,she said the find was with in ORA83.The bones were found in the loose fill dirt about noon by native american monitor Matt Doame and SRS employee Bill Larson. SRS will now perform an excavation of area for recovery of existing bone.I instructed her that if there are any more bones foundthat they should call the Coroners office not the Sheriff. She seemed to understand this(t The three loose bones and fragments were released to,Robert Beer for transfere to the Native American Heritage C 11-5-99 1648 Ra I called the Native American Heriatge and left a message on voice mail of"Gloria"(916)653-4082 informing her of the find and of our determination of"ancient"C� ATTACH ENT N .L 2( ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF - CORONER DEPARTMENT FAX COVER SHEET TO Flossie Horgan PHONE: FAX: 714 536-7262 ORGANIZATION Bolsa Chica Land Trust FROM: Le'Lonnie PHONE: (714) 647-7400 FAX:_(714) 647-6122 DATE:_ 02/21/08 NUMBER OF PAGES (+COVER) 7 CORONER CASE/NAME: Several Indian or ancient bonesC,45 CLASSIFICATION OF DEATH: 7m -GLL ITEMS) FAXED: TOX MICRO VOD NEURO NEUROMICRO CI SUMMARY X NOTES: WARNING/CONFIDENTIAL This facsimile transmission constitutes a confidential communication intended only for the addressee indicated above. Please notify us as soon as possible at the telephone number shown above of any error in transmission. Thank you for your cooperation. ATTACHMENT NO, Scene At Autoeav L."I OUIVIUC lJ f7V1y1ri,tuG ' ------•-- -----------------"------ ),work I.D.case# ACCIDENT COUNTY OF ORANGE,CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATOR'S CASE NOTES Im ❑TRAFFIC ❑INDUSTRIAL ❑OTHER qq-0 51-1 S IiA E ember of Polarold(s)Submitted By Type I Case No. ❑Dictate rysical Evidence Place I Inveetlgator Reviewed By " Aw 6SR Kit# Bitting: ❑YES 1I NO sposttion/Taken by Zip Code: j CLASSIFICATION wd&Tox.Taken Disposition Date T1me ❑Natural-A ❑Homicide ❑Accident ❑Officer involved O Natural-NA ❑Suicide ❑SIDS ❑In Custody igerprints Taken �'J L By weapon ❑Natural-Dual ❑Traffic ❑Undetermined ❑Refer to PA mtined By i St.ic L e •• 6 A lktv.a y t Cn6wg Bar.No. Dispo ❑No Wants D Consult Donor:DApproached 0 ,,D1e1clined D Co as ❑Other Registered Owner Decedent's Name NEXT OF KIN MINOR CHILD❑ Suicide Note ❑Yes ❑No Dispo j QAKA �+�tricc as Relationship Type of Vehicle License D Tentativs t.D. dress Reg.Owner Address Zip Code: low Company Phone Clry ZIP Code: s.Phone Bus.Phons Decedent: Oliver Psg'r Pedestrian Telephone Age DOB me Relationship Restraints ❑Yes ❑No ❑Unk Helmet(s) ❑Yes ❑No ❑Unk Sex Race HI Wt Hair _ Eyes dress Deployed Air Bag ❑Yes ❑No Ejected ❑Yes ❑No I: ❑Married ❑Divorced ❑Never Married ❑Widowed ❑Children Zip Coda: Travel Direction � on Occupation(Bsiore Retirement) s.Phone Bus.Phone Position In Vehicle SS# i 0 tined By Date Time OMer Vehicle Llcenae Date of Dealh� �ga l7me 11�C] Day 713.Au - 31111ng Party Travel Direction on Place ad Death�� •s-...c4'�ate. S �_if � dress Number of Persons in Decedent's Vehicle Other Vehicle « Hospital ❑ER/OP ❑IP O DOA ❑Convalescent Hosp ❑Board&Care A, WITNESSIINFORMANTS I ®�s REPORT DAME j pronounced By /� me !S� CRX>dD W��y Phone Police Agency Time PD Called Reporting Part, Qo t e.- Ohl 1[_R `?nm`134c areas e Aff r_-Af I Y S r^W Officer File No. - r 10-98 �— ms Phone Investigator Charges ❑Yes ❑No Placed Received!-s cress Mortuary Phone ne —Phone NOTIFICATIONS Requested By Relationship cress ❑CAR Record ❑Yes ❑No Transport by Tlme Called PROPERTY OYES ®NO 0CDC ❑DA ❑Bids ❑OSHA ❑State uc ❑NTSB Name: Autopsy.11 No ❑Coroner ❑Private ❑Tox ❑Cultures ❑SO-10 position: ❑NOK ❑Mortuary ❑FSC Safe ❑OCSD Property Name Dept Date Time MD Cause of Death )the —'A Relationship PA. Per MD Lic No: P.A.Investigator a TOTInJesllgator Date z 0 1�F q 1 '1 YKtUrIlINAKT GXAM;NAI WN Vh 13UUT nvr ca (here Made Time ••v• V osnlon of Body uo r%oi- V"a_L b y 1-100V CS. lothin9 , C'R�CR.\vjc@ aL. Go..�� •�`�ty�nt'�O [�9 "`\�(� do lelrt.hf'tPG� �'UM-SR�f o..S v�c.s_. tTYs, oT ��1) � -4o••Y�u-, by '"4Li'�vis�hs" � t^or.r;r,o� -1r Igor vidity -�-Q.,... c�.s wu�y o.� b�.x.s o i o- c.ar,s�ruc�'i ..�-e,a S. Nc.. bps -4+-\.crl: -+o ccr--tv.�F Qa-�-•l yanosis tttoos/sCara S.\ - t].r\-� $�9•ta.}Q�vJ[.S'� C®�C1ltt- O� 12>O R.h �S1s7, "}•O :Q�C0.r-tiis..l, �DOv�I.S. 1-! ti C 3.t cc- ; S Pa o S t r, kA%x NA r,q y" et.O Co\. word -to low xty Temperature Viewable: ❑I.D. ❑Service ❑No 'jF;t S \5 ot.a r.Ad ct 1��1 e10�eu- .1- tom-�_\4 6,_ -c 6 U_ -b tdv,-At aums(describe) taxis ho} k-o.�O wr) _ 13tS A.B�dfg d pt L 1 1 1µ }p F�cii- �`Siut'lo car<a o�' bm. v"o 1- a.r, 1 C04 6CrV -S iher � ta>G-S w✓�Qx�YQ-C.�['�. o� '�,\S l�rCMmS�{vtiC.a. "�'fr�+..� w i\\ Voo� 0-A- IEDICAI.B�ISTORY M.o.uc y �+� \�*t.cs •,�terG �lv sco\,argil abc,�,�lr ��,�i, Q,� ' 113 0�.�s. fi��• 5�.4c_ n-.oY+\-kr�t3 ourc_ tending Physician Last Malt , (dress. 8t\1 La.Y'S0✓^. J' 5 W f�0�W Q../� ..-n',R•• 1 �y � •�•O b - pond �-"1 S� asjarn. 4' Telephone p/k$ i JL.O'2 � z" So,1 OS I h0 W (�1$ p 1 Atn. sated For ,1 l pC0 ,6r S Okd. \S4T\f t 'SOY, ho.s IcaeR►, dk act to 40 ar\A+-r ' xis- ro.M Oh pa of Operation 9 r 1� �� Y 8rCr1S�C d�v, Date Imitted Date Time C,_ ought In By From C,,Ll_ \��jC� Q'c at 6C71tiA,S' kiress / ansned By ,mpiaints/Admi X/Symptoms .1 _ 6-7 T3a+r• t �S„�,r�G.\.��� t�.'1.1•L �i5. \,P'� �oa�G-�o� 01- �. uisful> Oyes ❑No B.A.Level { A 81 ❑Yes ❑No DateMme Drawnt(`��J c.Fr� Dawn..— ri40 1r2.M,OVC.f:a ` 'Ira- �!!..>rc�R. CQ»h}L.. e f-1- t►�.t- F0680-58(R6/85) t� CASE NOTES DATE PAGE CASE # .-C7S/�A A.(� i TIME i i � •3�1G1 �����m� , ��v�,�n P���- . �� Yee e.•�' ��� rv`�� c9� 'riff C.s`.., CCi-,s �_ 1`jk,-\cs_ ire.�k J< i oo�'l�� 1 So -- can, -- s 3��5 AA11)4 UY, -T COW rl (ALL %s i&XIA.)4 To 0737 , Lj Sr} �.�ov�w�2� � �v�r✓ ���ci��n�j l��2 W;c� v2�s�cw� ' TV se ENS t- npru- �"' CORONER INVESTIGATION CASE NOTES PAGE# 2 CASE# 99-05178ME DATE TIME 08/04/99 I received a call from Judy Suchey and she gave me the following information; She went to the site where the bone fragments were found and examined them. She determined the bones to be 1355 hrs. Native American Human. SRS with take the remains to their lab to hold for the Native American Heritage Council. Suchey told SRS to call the coroner if any more bone fragments are found. SRS told Suchey the operation at that site is complete and there will be no more work done. Suchey will fax a copy of her report to FSC this evening. Suchey asked that I contact the Native American Heritage Council to advise them of her determination. SRS had contacted the Native American Heritage Council yesterday about the possibility of Native American Indian remains. 1405 hrs. I contacted Gail Mc Nolte at the Native American Heritage Council(916)653-4082 and advised her of the above. She will contact Robert Beer at SRS regarding the bones. ATTACHMENTIVAa . m cz LU to V 5 CORONER INVESTIGATION CASE NOTES PAGE# CASE# 99-05178-ME DATE TIME 08/13/99 1030 hrs I spoke to Gale McNulty of the Native American Heritage Commission(916)653-4040. She told me the Commission does not want the burial site further disturbed. They are arranging for s the bones to be reinturred in a manner consistent with the involved tribal customs. The Commission's position, is the Coroner has met the responsibility of determining the bones in question have no forensic value and are prehistoric. Therefore,the Coroner has no jurisdiction to proceed in this matter. I informed her that the Coroner has concluded his inquiry into this matter and would not be returning to the construction site. R.McAnally Asst. Chief Deputy ATTACHMENT Ne_ .k( � CASE NOTES 1 DATEPAGE # CASE #11 d f TIME 1 1 i i\ z2.q� (AU- F2c�..^ ,�`},,tc�/ D`S!�J �S qo�t �� Zs�S Ar it+E 1 [50LSA C%AkCA SETT 0!2A - 83 . AJ 1 — _ E P��uSco �2;zJj . �1 .� XDJ S i LA, 20 i4 A,,J 1 1 - , :Qcr 6F- /,ojGA ,� t, R i 71� ttoUkJAgS , e A 1 1 a 1 a 1 1 1150 A04 8F or— cii2tS � .�QJCSFJ� J�7 SU�,4 3� HfJ.i,S� 1 op c�RcS . i 1 — 1 1 1 1 I - - �� Chw 1-{Lc,-YN. 17 2. Si;CAA Ey , L S�i� t 1�u2, 0 F L 2C 1 S,}.F 5i19't�I, i7��i ��Ut� �rlGkxl�.:A�iF.�.J iS QJA�-•rii� i� �`�E 1 - 1 l bra c C- /��JC ��.:�'. r !y.e a C��f�i . ��tail�- 01 uno k� 1 1JrJlj SJGG S-C-)&4 PAO CAS -k E}Fzp— I I ' tti T1-� (L _per 2T o r cAL, , FSC Ao . 1 1 -7 I )l IZEI -CAll L i i 1 � tr�vL- T1-4%-1i CA.S lid r�t7 ���.t�tStilC I t /1 =, j�'v1F �}t,����?}�(� �f�J�• �^�1 ,�' S1 LJ ! `��l �(�:• �u,A-NA 1 t iq N, oL-) k h-M_ Li i t l,l AIIAGHMENT 00 Judy Myers Suchey, Ph.®. FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST CONSULTANT TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER/CORONER FOR THE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES,ORANGE,RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY P.O.Box seas FAX To FULLERTON,CA 92e34.6646 PHONES 714.524.1266 Orange County Coroners Investigators 714.773417" FAX 714-5244150 Meader BEEPER 714.29RS91 Ellingburgh Lyle Please see my report on 99-05178ME to follow. In the past, I was always told when a Coroner's Investigator would accompany me to the site of construction bones. If I was not told that an investigator would go, it was assumed that I would go alone. In this case, in my discussions with Ellingburgh and Lyle, there was no mention of an accompanying investigator. Next time I get a call , I will specifically ask, WILL I BE GOING WITH AN INVESTIGATOR? This will eliminate misunderstandings . Sincerely, ATTV+CHM NT N .� Judy Myers Suchey, PhA FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST CONSULTANT TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER/CORONER FOR THE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES,ORANGE,RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO August 5, 1999 PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY In situ examination of skeletal remains at P.O.BOX6846 FULLERTON,CA 92834-68" construction site ( Orange County Coroner Case 99-05178ME) PHONES 714524-1265 7%773.3706 FAX 714-524.5.150 BEEPER 714.295-0591 On August 4, I went to the construction site at the intersection of Bolsa Chica and Los Patos in Huntington Beach. At this location skeletal fragments were fou.nd underneath a Native American artifact in bulldozed area where the construction of condominiums is planned. The archaeological company involved in the mitigation is SRS (Scientific Resource Surveys) . This location is near the former archaeological site CA-Ora-83 where I did an in situ examination of remains on October 12, 1993. I do not have a Coroner's case number in my file for that visitation but I have a one page report with attachments . At the site on August 4 I talked with Lisa Woodward (of SRS) 909-323-9340 who explained to me the .situation surrounding the skeletal fragments. I identified them as human (based on the left orbit--largely zygomatic'and incisor tooth); prehistoric (based on severe dental attrition on the tooth, coloration and mineralization of bone). The remains are extremely fragmentary--consisting of only one tooth and multiple small fragments of cranium. The remains are consistent with being from a single individual . Woodward told me that Robert Beer (Presndent of the company 909-767-2555) had already phoned the Native American Heritage Commission with a tentative diagnosis. I indicated that the Orange County Coroner would be making official notification. David Belardes (Native American) was at the site at the time of my visit. I instructed Lisa Woodward to call the Orange County Coroner again if additional human remains are found in the area. The construction is over so it is not likely that there will be additional finds . The plan was to remove the area surrounding the remains and keep them in the lab of SRS. The remains would be held until the construction had been totally finalized and then the remains could be reburied. If the Coroner has further instructions , Lisa Woodward can be notified. If new calls come in regarding remains I suggest that the investigator (Meader) speak with me on the phone and we can make suggestions as to the best manner to handle the situation. The nearby site Ora-83 was a highly controversial site where multiple burials of great antiquity became the subject of a dramatic controversy between environmentalists and developers. To avoid a re-play of this drama, the Coroner needs to keep track of the number of burials being found at this location. Hopefully, the one observed on August 4 will be the only one. Photographs were taken to document the evidence. FURTHER ACTION NEEDED: Native American Heritage Commission should be notified by Inv. Meader or other Coroner personnel . ATTACHMNT NO. 0 009 P01 ' ve,.vy Myv1.7 vMv18%gyy I IN.af. �r FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST CONSULTANTTOTHE MEDICAL EXAMINER/CORONER FOR THE COUNTIES OF LOS ANGELES,ORANGE,RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO August 10, 1999 PROPESBOR DEPARTMENT OF AHMPOPOLOGY CALIFOMIIASTATE UNIVERSITY PO.Box 5" Further communication regarding 99-05178ME FULLVnWCA 1X$44W PHORIEB �ui?A.1166 »aTrsarale FAX n46Z+ no Bevel na2001111 I learned from a phone call with Joyce Perry that SRS and the Native Americans had reburied the skeletal remains reported in my report of August 5, 1999 (site visitation on August 4, 1999) . The agreement at the site was that SRS was to hold the remains in their lab until the end of the site construction. It was also understood that if there was any further discussion of any matter that the investigator on the case (Meader) was to be called. Their reburial was clearly a violation of the agreement at the site visitation. I recommend that in the future when there are any skeletal remains found by SRS that the Coroner officially supervise or take control of the excavation and remove the remains, taking them to the Coroner facility until an appropriate time. r ATTACHMENT NO. S, Ile l Baer _of _ LtIS ANGaES TIMES turoi'- -- _ J IJ ^+,A-' kS an, -r.Y%i3i4t.J 'k7'=tY<•5.',&oi „ .jt.ty,' :�.'.•rb".n..nr:,hv .,l,J, .ABM'.•.. Y rr+P r _ _ a�w sY✓,i,1.",,;.>i`„"Tt,',^pp��yy 4Vi.".- .h'ar,z"^e`r.�,?.:1..•-, ..9.:§;'. x' - .oldTc _ ' O/. _ _ :•.fro. —44, J. T CiiCu Laird use:.Fragl 186 of ancient liWag TeeMauis��e foiiritl at Q1sa:chi J. ca. Co i'rtheari ` today: 9- .... ..,,.,.: too late,aAMW1ogiit .. r. :M FIMESSTAfFWR,(TER.j:,.Y`: , �,..,-•.;:';:; - :..,:; E; Ilorkers confinue to excavateF.land where:i6 homes are to.ba built. Ancientt Human emailis li ve been i found;`•at'-ta';development'site,bn tie ' , Bolsa'Chica insa; ddingo;"thy`- uxor; :;' { menujnthecompanys.possession ']a,, 1L 1 Tuesday-at the site:. aver_tfie eoriti<oersial.iousi project .Y ! . She: nd.'an?It ther monitor:haite gkeletalr4`4 ow, ve re'.=t ieiii l e i. ,.y +Continued from B1,. - watched.all the•grading.activity; Iast WegLc:`during ig�aLling at a =acre i , °:..:': ,noon in Orange County.'Superior she said, and no. other human site.,werehoznes.are; lartneiyont°a ;:;:. blta#f:averIook rig.fhe$ols liica vet== .'C6,".;on the land trust's request to remains have been unearthed. 2arids > - v' s '' stop the bulldozing,which.also has Patricia Martz; an° archeologist ,. .ctivists momtoring.the Zito ay ;! drawn the ire of environmentalists. and professor. of anthropology at _ .;;they.are :eoricer veil_that grading; though, is already Cal State Los Angeles,-said Tues- liuial `.grdund':may have:'.1ae _de ; _ :cmmpleted,several officials said. day she feels sick about the grading stroyed: .. " Y` ':° A �`Z+'G`ther complicating the issue at the site; w}ieh is adjacent _to "This is a big deal" said, ,Tuana , •l wire conflicting accounts of who has where a giant 'prehistoric village Mueller of'the Bolsa Chica Viand Ti'nst' ;the bones, once stood. whch`is seeking a:ieinporar .restrain= ; bavid,Belardes,chairman of the She has tracked the .housing ing order to stop bu Idozing.atntfie'sitQ Jua�neno`Band of Mission Indians, development closely and'' tad The;;ooz es _uhcaveied;#1ug: :by Ya..; r aatd the:remains have-been turned" 'pushed-Huntington:Beach offic'ials scraper blade;tb`bId'be as:`o?d as•8;000:' ' o er to_him for reburial. to.require more detailed testing years,she::said:"That's way befo;e;tfie'.°•:,' 1 x y e31g ozmg gan: e.'alread have.add ted before the bulld -' be ` amide.That s reap rehistar I �ral �on site;'he said.p3'I F Y When she.heard 'about the hu; Hearths de:::. oides;:for rierly`Kole !, 'that`s what I do.-1 take care of rnan'zemaiits found:Iast week, she �. Real Estate Group,.plans:t6^}�tuld $;, .. the ancestors' remains.Tt's impor said„she feared that an invaluable ." houses on.;tfie §its;which is.resat.Los; I.!tant.because the ancestors need to sitehadbeendestroyed.::. Paton and Bolsa Chica avenues :in', i,be left alone and laid to rest.Where "It's possible.there could just be luntington Beach =':`. , % ''vve hake a development like this,we. an isolated burial,". she said,."or `=the r company did"xiat`•_ .: ut them in a place-_where` there ould, have been a "whole try ibZ,p .; c return callsseeking coinirie" t:" ey'll'never bedistuibed`agaln'7. ' : .burial ground. F . Judy..`Mye _Suchey,alie_consulting �111But archeologist Woods Yard .of : `There's.a range.of-possibilities. . forensic"anthropologist wHoaviewed they.`"". � eientific:Resource Surveys,which You just can't see under the ground find last:-week, eptired,a'report-for :�f ..:. �,..; monitoring the site,said she has. to know, and note that, it's been. = :the..Orange:::bounty;coroners office; a remains under cock and key. destroyed, that"means we`ll never stating that the remains-rcra hl bone:- there." � ' -- `.$he said.she,saw the bone frag knovr what was there.' *x fragmedssandA'tooth-are.ptehistorie;:,-:`,.: -- . ;re "It's quite possible;'<slie,� Tues = day; that.,a°:tiurialgroundtias destroyed by.the grading.-`'_, But,Lin':W.00 Far a staff arctic-: ologist. fore:the firm:,that:fias' eei monitoring'the,_cgnkruction .site: .for:." z the builder; aid•slier dos;=noti thiilC that pis the—cal 4*'e .-News of thee:'.scovery,:dame on the .'. eve of a hearing_schedul'i this after PleaseaeeREMArNS; T ATTACHMENT NO, = Iq i ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF - CORONER DEPARTMENT FAX COVER SHEET TO: Flossie Horgan PHONE: FAX: 714 536-7262 ORGANIZATION Bolsa Chica Land Trust FROM: Le'Lonnie PHONE: (714) 647-7400 FAX:—(-714) 647-6122 DATE: 02/21/08 NUMBER OF PAGES (+COVER) 7 CORONER CASE/NAME: Several Indian or ancient bones O --SAS' CLASSIFICATION OF DEATH:" ITEM(S) FAXED: TOX MICRO VOD NEURO NEUROMICRO CI SUMMARY X NOTES: WARNING/CONFIDENTIAL. This facsimile transmission constitutes a confidential communication intended only for the addressee indicated above. Please notify us as soon as possible at the telephone number shown above of any error in transmission. Thank you for your cooperation. ATTACHMENT NO.5. �k ' a ;,eAFAT e,CAUJ"v S TVWT.4 A McH" Ar-HAAD J.FOSTEA "n+tEeN CAAOri'E►.S tSAOt�E CAL- ,A I I.A.1 AGG"A C.RMXE- TM MONE . y� yy S=JSA. K tom• VAAVA SC)LEY k1ICHOL21I Y.EA.ETN O.JOHNSON LIA.YEL K WATON p _ JJ M J.1rXWL tA/YYEA$ -s!y�A7V TTE0 A/56-PCt Oi �.OLtJl9A •-+-50 A=4LTTEC M PEW IOPW February 14, 1994 VIA-EA-X Judy Myers Suchey,Ph.D. Department of Anthropology Callibmia State University Fullerton, CA 92634 Ile: Boisa Ch[ca Dear Dr. Suchey: 'thank you for sending me your response to my letter. I appreciate you taking the time to review the articles and questions that I raised. During the last several days, one other item of information was presented tome regarding the release of your report to the newspapers. I know that you have stated that you did not send it to the press, and I believe you. I have spent the last several days in discussions with the Coroner's office, however, regarding the release of the map that was attached to your report. I was particularly disturbed by the release of the reap because, as you know, the location of archaeological sites is normally kept confidential to discourage site vandalism and destruction. The last thing I want to see is a map to and of ORA-83 published in the newspapers or shown on Huntington Beach public television. As a professional in your field, I am sure that you understand and share with me the sensitivity of this information. I have been informed that the map-was released because you requested the Coroner's office to release your report to Pat Ware. Absent your request, the map would not have been released so easily. I would like to know why you requested this information be disclosed to Nis. Ware. Did she make any representations to you regarding her need for this information? Given the fact That you spoke to her and discussed with her the existence of this report, why did you choose to give Nis. Ware the information, and were you made aware of her intentions to 'go public' with your report? Given the sensitivity of archaeological sites, did it not occur to you to ask Nis.Ware what she intended to do with your report--and more importantly--what she intended to do with the map? While I respect your request to be left out of any future discussions on this issue, you must understand that your decision to request the Coroner's office to release the report to Nis. Ware 191OrJ VW..4 KAASIAN•bth FLOOR•!AVIRE.Cn!-KR.N?A 92715• 714-95VeM• FAX- 714-9554CA9 POST OFF+CE LOX ISM3 ':'::":E.CALIFORNIA 92713-9613 ATTACHM NT NO, 1, Ludy Myers Suchey, Ph.D. February t4, 1994 Page 2 has had tar-reaching consequences and that it has changed the way in which archaeological issues and the confidentiality of excavation sites will W.treated in the future by the press and public. As I am preparing for a minimum of two more public hearings on this'issue,a meeting of'most likely descendants,' and will be briefing my client for interviews with the media--the central focus of all being the disclosure and contents of your report--I would like your response so that we can answer questions about the disclosure of your report more knowledgeably. 'Thank you in advance for faxing this information to me as soon as possible. If you have any questions, of if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, a Susan K. Hori cc: Lucy Dunn(via fax) Nancy Desautels, Ph.D. (via fax) mina��anr-e a � F C5 THE JUANENO.- BAND OF MISSION INDIANS AWACHEMEN NATION Chairperson: David Belardes Vice-chairperson: Jean Frietze Kenner at Large: Alfonso 011ivares Treasurer: Adeline Williams February 25, 1994 Judy Myers Suchey, Ph.D. Professor, Dept. of Anthropolgy California state University Fullerton, Ca 92634 RE: OUR ANCESTORS R04AINS FROM CA-ORAL 83 and 423 Dear Judy, Because of the recent press coverage and the lack of sensitivity surrounding our ancestors remains found at Bolsa Chica and Aliso Creek, I request that no further comments, maps or locations be revealed to the media, government officials, and or any other persons other than what the law requires. I request that no photographs be taken of our ancestors and: that any photographs previously taken be returned to the tribe. Also, it would only be appropriate that any reports written regarding our ancestors remains be submitted to the tribe first. I have been in contact with Mr. Eisner, Mr. Lyles, and Ms. Gayle McNully regarding the possibility of having a workshop so that all parties will be clear of the policies and laws surrounding Native American remains. In closing, I would hope you would consider using compassion when dealing with the "remains" of our great grandparents, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Their spirits touch us deeply! Sincerely, (24vi D vi Be ardes, Chairperson Enclosure CC. Tim Bisner! Bruce Lyles Gayle McNully .ta=eao!a.-A ,f maafoa rzU ats, hc3aftem9 WAU*& - 31142 Via Was as - US QN."CaFfateaao, CA 02615 ATTACHMENT N ' 5.19 LA%1 OFFICES _ CLec.k tj q60 !O,r f:1f BAKER AND BURTON '���_ _. is re-4u rtiel A PAOFESSIOUAL CORPORAVOtf fO Mr t{O/(]e%w Oh IS its F-0140 DCACN 00VLtVAg0 Ole WJ1ft 306 (] AtOT 6uA1or. LONG BEACH. CAUFOR►itA 90802 MtNNOSA MACH OFF/CC •14A0 N. 11ARtg PAVL M014OA°f 13?I 494.9537 515 P/tH AViNVt NigNOSA 5C4CN,4CAL1Pp AN1p 90154 FAX 13:01 41E•3221 13901 3f6•9693 FAX 13101 376.2463 ' Gota.et fQs�"1tc1�_O��SJ-LL." CERTIFIED_ NAIL - RETURH RECEIPT REQUESTED Coro••oR C••ge # �f 3-0_,Tr6$" t L danuaty 19, 1994 � u�,-{ - Y Kr. Janes Beisner ree rd, Chief Deputy Coroner Orange County Coroner's office i S fi0. 7._�, �> Rc e- 1071 WA Santa Ana Boulevard Santa Aria, CA 92701 �'c, sr re 1w�j 56 Dear tor. Beisners r�r c e fes of il,e recc,,h This, letter is a request, pursuant to Government Code Section 6250 St se . , that the Orange County Coroner's office forward to me, at the Long Beach office listed above, the :following records In the possession of the Coroner's offices xX- All records of human remains found on the Bolsa Chica mesa in Orange County, California, received by the Orange County Coroner's office between January 1, 1990 and the present. This request includes, but is not limited to, all records of human remains found on the archeological site known as CA-ORA 83. ° Pursuant to Government Code Section 6257, I an including with this request a check in the amount of $25.00 in favor of the Coroner's office to .pay for copying charges. If the amount is Insufficient, please notify me and I Will pay all reasonable additional copying charges. I Thank you. Very truly yours, - -- - - --- - - ---- - ------ - PAUL HQRGAN PH/pc PAUL C HORGAN 450 enclosure FLORENCE HORGAN s_tt,,us (71 O SX 7262 vsto!4ev�;NE1LVDBY-A / +4 �1.LV a mat CA WA*2 A= c Pay bPe Woof aRrst Interstate :;' 83N c•1.v.v rat ���eS� N_5.-J/�C for e• ISO30t•t,0is• 01 o Lti e.• ti��000zb8 • .w.'t•e.o.s.ar•! ATT CH T NO. �� ------------- ;537140 COUNTY OF ORANGE 6HERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT :� L . 2 Ns � ' a c:Ec-At of: _ ,�I': +� � ��� ��1 ltf� Date AddfEss: ;� 006 s.�, iA t> Sre,3o c - city Ljs 'jG 0 V[s pifod By: Cts Ct;eck No. By s _s �� s •w - ON ET aw_ �i ,-,.`e'.>= x�`,�,^,,. '�' �,�,a: � " eEa��a.��,,•��J e�,>c t`.<:.,,ck„r h.is�d' ,F K•R`- {rq>x,�,' - "a'i'-., ..N� ". ,.Z:�r.:;r i-,c�,.:,,a ,���.�. .,,;,,., 6," T a•"� „tSR'+++Fz:,uA�fie.... ',4, .rYr•..'� _�, gg.,y._ 1<,+r..,w �,a�,'"n ,w�ti � Y ..*�-.t<<S�,..e� ,:".*s, �..,r a '•fit".,,$r .,s w�<, va�=l�r a - ars:i.-. ,,x• �-f, ,F"t.P?r .so. .i:¢: :ab. ..,�,<,.<:.,,. W ...•.,:.. .,,P qs:^..`<..,, ,.�^, TS ,.�,,.., ,., ..'," ," '- .2`< di �.' Ga' „+...'+'$-; :ia;"'.>: ,:ah,.> �: #'� -;te-..� } 'S; ,<`i-> y�+�,is. s.�'." ^a >„a �:N+:,�;�, „'`•c�1,v+S .,.,Y„„"c` ,'�>,.. ,�y ��a.F ar „'£K,. wc�'u�=,,si`�"�^ 'it" .�r•n"p, w`!X.;:v�"�v ,.. ��i _ ^'%E,e:S ,+, a>j+,.,P ',F,,:N',n`"-�,`v^R.. _25`:"° ��. � ;.R-,^st, n.N-, 'q�.g. .� �r,, '�. ..%rx �; � , ' .;5 t:�".':'ki:a,-�w +?>x;.".g;Saa.,,:,£ri;v._'".;}- .�✓;>,.�,.a �.c.a.. -{7. ,+.��,:' 7; .'.>+",�-..�'e •J�1 "� �.r->s�7c�.'s,a � fi a �"�` •,.,t<„ ,T � �,yve.z.. � g.=:.�i'».°:f..- s,sA„ ).x,?-"s , •M � 05, "4x,ii�;t o-fink2^ i ',"r`'$`,Fd''.s<::i?i"<>s'�:•.:,R ta::.< ,6. .3k'ua'i <., -„a't;- -?���., R +:, { .A. � � ',� ,x.a� ^X•iM1 ' �t.•, fi! 'T,i '',l "{"• .,UF ..yY,i.ri 3?*'„'-�'?iS. .:.•v.:t.,, ��+3y y,£, y� �,� .<`.!a'd a.,u�, J a 3 w 4.r+ S,d.�.'<',t:+�T.:,:'k`.,•:' "a,,,.,..T�, s, 'c5;•,�a`a.`>.7.,:,.�.<.,t<M,,t .`.c„'•e;::.f'r::,e�.:"'.." '.»:,a a+,,..,,t...,,(<.:,,,,:...-Sa� `<.c J.., , .. -. .�P`, - � .. :`� _8. ...-- _ >-^r x`.'� .a:Y' •:.F.. y:,"at r` Wiz.'„a°^e":, x. », .3 t, , .?3�':., , .< .... .. , .. „ a,. «< _ .. .,. s0 wsn � , .u.v ..P..;.•;"' .x{'^r:. �d,_,x°'}'., aK,s^�a +',."�§. .,�,:,F`,'^ti^"`;., z �=`c:- .cam •.�-r` _" u > v' b'+'"':,.,,. .<<`.:`-.'-c'.: "A,, <.,,,«Y. .., 4 .a .d?.'`" '� -£.'x�i''' � - ,'::tr..,r,.,<�,•`e"i^' nr v s .. • .a"+ ,_. c,<.,s., ma"+.,._<s., .<,..,.:r>K. .. r.n, .m',;o, r,. .. ., r >, a,„.. :',..:. `i:J .1 9�*.. r ; at.,. ,., .. ,�. .a , : < Y 1>F^.,_.,., ..e„= v. .. .4-"ir K, .. ....., .1'a r a < ,. .. ". �, :.x ... .s l.. .•�+_,... i.•<x.,, .,'t'+; "'.d< '^,:rt,Yi:::.. ,,,_, s 3..+,,:..".•:,, .<'.:�.::e,z.�.<E,.,ye- .a ^,'?.y to ,,.. �;, s, ., .,<,yyF x,,„+ ;,i{;', ;Kf',`,,�..a'S r r„ man >z^+s>' ,4 �`;fix- 4=, x , - "?�<,,. ,..,.� x.".. ..<t.... ?Ca, ,-," r ..,. �^;ec'.:,,,.e,..,�+,.,., ,, f<,� ....•x"'t.,xa,,, .'ya''"ro'ev -i�.� ...K. - , v , haw � y �'+ ,> r w ,n.. Fs', --a" is " ., a =k8'_ ,-' ..'`" `uF:• -..:'lit vs:�x:? �j, 7,_ ?:*xy'""'v ,.•%w?.,a ,n rt,C:. i�n ,t,v:`+w•M•�"ry,., -.,:� - . �,...�' a`�`�St t " • .,,..`.,Tv yh',x� a p § - is d',i'i.,;�4`•<�.�.'.,, .,'#, ( 3,. .,a'�L`l?�x iY',. <.:Re .t:.yY;: b�, ., '>.+ ;3a, +nz<„r•k:<'..^». Ra.'. ,s.€. ,a `' »":`n' _a J ,.a a -a§.._m.,'-- •": , .,- .>, .,,. S"�" ,_•,_,:,N,"n'"e ...a.5-,.,�"• r,.._ PC. �o- `,,Y'. .c`•Y -"S);a.^ ''.x.:ev.,.•;".. .^<5_.. d f, ±'r. :'':is a ram,, ,._`FIF v;<°'-�,-r•fl.c.a rzi .., ..,�..>.,:., .c, ,b,, ..., t, < w" :a•v ,r v e•,�..,F � �"'.',• .:�:i. ,F ^ >n .., ..,., e,,,. ..> ..-.a e, y.,,, ... »...:?,, o-.. .< � t.,A♦., k....,....rx« ,,r.,R'.-.n•,.t,.� ,+r ,=Y'u+. C i'�``y lam` �!.`5. .. .. ,..., .-, r. ." v�',,n f.,, J... , x,^> {e 4;n:,. �.,), ,< .�i, J.a,.... .., .., .nl._. .,, z ,a`F',l. ,'.�U•:y'�'.�C'�a w.,•.�. ",�, a� it.., e...1l+.'+`mx•,.,,r.2 a^t.$x,r+ .,>� �, �" a^„m.. .i•^a.,hY .<,,. .. '):. .a i ..,.. +,,..•�,. h,+. 4�3>..x - �'. w�a.` - ,`,cs,K" L �:z,'ao' .^;i` +n�:,." .<�.<<u,": .,a: fi`.�iaY- �,s^;+%-'s;• - �'.S' �,{ <<+.,-� �<.. - ,,,;._.._ ..• ";�'� ate; ' �, .� `:) .,'-72121, .,,t't#5,az•^.,y, .,r 3 .N. > •;, ,R ,x, 'eGn, 'F v - M r ,n ,-......� �4.r''.?d,.-.,.'�.Xtm..Er`'�.,.>^v..v,.4's', ,y+r:z ,,�. �'��`s. �,Z h.{�>.�d<=»mxi.",t,:' v},. .:§,'":•`n: .:,a-. :3"'M''„'a'..,,. �z a,,;`•.';;^ :,'a8s,�,s�..,..<z^?;; ,.,, �,.>� sa ;-,� J `�.,r a zr:g. :h;^ ,4 y3...;. �t:.S:'.'s�r`, x'•a a M.r'''.Y�"" ';+Gift' 'w?'*'`��:-r +u ;.'n. ,,:.a• yp � 4 r } yyx 'fit,' ,•c a� "�"��` � ♦ ., ( yti`%'df `-Z :�:«r„? - '.:�. Aee.o`xa?..F-":T•`•"y)rvx. ..X,.�... •F '3 Z` .t.' :•`,'k,. wfc: 5 ,3xiryx h•. 11``a S>' «r r{r.ar... i=. '� °=fin" F„=s•t• `;tA•� „';TI 7ahzss;,Xd";:<.r= dam,.: � ,� �,� Nb::, • <i •-%•. .....,.-_..!•.. .,. ..'�,' „, 5, a�' tx ,.. 3 >r. -... ,h. ,. . ., , ... ,.t +•, F1e. �«r._•Z"'t= •42' ��, w°'S Fed ,,. , ,. ',.."..-„ ...,:"' :>_,x :rx '1�<," •`>;,,>,. ,..>;'� .��,<o- 5h,.•� .'r..� ^fir: ::,,=°,> >...,r.,,�, s-...<,�.. ,r-- •.. ,� .<.,. a, ., "v3, e s,a.,3,*„::„-..,,�-i� >. xR_a yr= ,:c., .< + 'nza. ,.�.. ..i....<. 1.t�'!:x',r,_.^,.�„-„, ',s,.•a. ,S?<<> +.,av r -..,.. .,, <.,t7 v., r , ,..P.p» ,.A,,.,+A,... > .,.,5, ..,.�,<n .t ».tk,^., k, "=d'�.,ulW;...,a-'%;3"='.h3^ .. ti.(2. ... ..5 .. •`C: F, .< , �. .#. .. ,>" ' d! .-. A,n.. t z '4,e'•(.yY�',.<vs. .,...,., ., �,. .. �'-�, ,.. -- ".:. :sv�=:; .;;#�.ea�•« 'rd,.• 'Fa>'. a^ ...,, 574, y,,..,:'•rr.•,•.n'Tm , t .,f u?"v .., f F..._ <... _„ ,.< f ... ,, h,< # ...>i, ncha. <,a°v�rro= .. ., .. >. ", ,,,,.�� i < .. n .,x,.,�t�XA.-....r, r,< .<v.r ,..ry =dvi•„ ,.: n,. <, ., �.�-,>,r .,.., S. ., ., d., "..✓",. r'ka.>>•'. ,fry r, ^ ,gas 1 t+r " . „ a =..a.. .-,,-. ,,, < ._,- .,�,. - „e- .. ,F<, ..,.,,.,:.�.•. =,. v, ..,.F Ntx.:�sr „.<cvx=t -+as,:,.' c,-?`u.:" ,>tz -�, �•ta""a� r', .9 {it � >x'' �.. « dam".;:'^ ,.-5eit�«•� " 5�W ! tr• �'3=t Y- -� *;r`:-', ,�`'+',;: #r'_ fir` � Via.# rczr w. ' ,1� e°' .�}y< t 6', 3 r, z''��'f.,r, Y', •`,.i!'i", rt<:�.•.w., ysc i;zx'r,< ,,;�'•rr>,',.�',3=Fwr..<.t w;�',. �. 7�;„a.:<;:� r: r '^ .•� �'.c. k•��,r..x. ,.t"a.},':t� „•'' � ,»��`„;b` ' � �-r,<,. r*a - y„ a� oC� t GENERAL COMM9EWS & NOTES in. w,ti� sue. a Pu: __ I SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT cfi v sue. 0 Pou -- I T to S !T� � G�i�.f-E �t � COUNTY OF'ORANCE, CALIF ra INVESTIGATOR'S CASE NOTES NrUf Of Pdaod(+) S.b-i:C7_^ Br _ Q' (/ /L O9A_ 0 Lomfol TIVA N "_' po�mr R/iat f~ce Ukan- B/ Gte<fJCr�oe �. �l/vy SU c1le /(6 /¢/((, BPM• O YES No S CLASSIFICATION &YA a Tce Taus OcsV.s`.on r • p O Isa+ra-A p Hr•�dLa O Aocdve O O"Ru t.dves i'rgWfr`a TAam 8/ rp/g 3 e'd a C e/J/'�t�'�'Q �"4<i/ 19 W-M-m O S.vfw ❑SUS O h 0AW, foe'e`•M aw O NeIg-" O Traces p 0-4wmw W O Rdu a PA f ueN:�yr- 9He w16 e o 0 C"-A Over.DAxrta&41 0066red NEXT OF KIN j �� Dece�erYa 7taTe pe'ya. o 5J/�rNCs s< 6 T'o S"ITCs >�/l c/ Nave• fiea/fe it A� � AKA: AGieu &;y fire ReaY.ryiA Ax OC8 A6*M A1,4p A P:ue ' /e o /'f„' /e/'"" } O►krrN OW,,.e Owen.A&,W OYIdw.A OO"v- I&AS64 or or. QB PayhJ t «I! /7e5,[urE s P S1R 7�77 Date Co oen WITNESSIINFORMANTS 1 '� i u � �r.a �'. i 4e G � s o 4 .yyc, LJf A.dea 7AJr A&4 C;e �F� eef � /!!R r 5-Aveyr iiie, t` ji''/� vrPQvl! F�JA /l,S� / �'� •t s �f e�.r,�Ham_ / 1:re P'rie I f --• Pnalcs4 8p 'jigb \GS Cal P 2 fO �0,'C( Wee Tre +, O&V +.7� I I"__—1097 1095 PROPERTY OYES 03 NO t �� CQ ��k �,13 IA" 2- G' � �►'Z7 Pac.Prn�rtA FS� __ o tm CI►war O fsc save t t FSc Lb -ay �Oter PcQ�tate!B� Pe�;vs'iy Trrs Ce!ee Trra,1Rrc4 Psa!nstiP n1 A,�ytr•f3tsa ptm dA r�. prca ❑onr�s OS4D G P.A. �Q�, ro P.e,,ored PIUY.•.wlyac. �r 'V�rJ�� t 1 1�`.tJ 6o Cal"of O6aA �.—. A*A"Of RDPvx O Yn Q lb rr °*` Le tic "m REPORTS G G a� dro gKra�s Sgea fOEadsa.7 fA0t47J �ty+`� Oes i PRELIMWARY EXAMINATION OF BODY ACCIDENTAL DEATH SCENE Yr.&-e wee Te» I-] TRAFFIC ❑INDUSTRIAL El OTHER Pci3^Of" Typo Of ArOW% _ place ws:T r:�e cyrv� �u aa"-___ re•�e T&X% Trre Of voi* _ L-Wds Ton Co%my Ba.SI ier.PaT1e K4esDo: o 10. O SWI46 O Na oeoedert O+w PW( WASYr iraisa(Eesorts) Hester* o Yss ❑tb O(1rh Hece(s) o YH p Pia ❑ult Travel DrrWf'A a ftl;%m M vey de GGcted O Yes o W O�v scxs Ot"Ye e* oewbe CIRCUMSTANCES MEDICAL HISTORY IAD.uc s_ TraM Orsatut cn AVA"y 06-<x4'TfL$ ///a Y�t cIlede 6yl Njrbv Of Persons h D%eWs YMide Oder VO;do A—drg Fry -% last Kit OSHA Nyred ❑Yes o tss Ovb rrre /sS e C Amress REPORT DATE TvA/ltrva .1,Wl/fees , J'//ey 4,?,- al "a'rr6 Tr*&A for Po'!x A-dsray nine Po Ca'YH AT /)? $/TE u_66c.t -�s 3 � Cd•a•u-36,f> CSter Flo tlo. LWl lrvssspetr ants oyes of;* f/s�V�= eJKeetrERt'o 6ar�GT. /gortlC'S ge SWS:H"lh V"t mdr"8y Oae Trre CAR W,-led o Yes ❑M Heard gC/�C*i� F�UfG�st{�,trTf �'f/4rr STl6 L Trrs Or 0,--a�v. Nave Doe rrr® y/ CD.C. fisted lS � /ff�P.ft L Pr"7" Ad-;nw Din _Tr*- - DA. Wl.M oeb Toro sv.o,t 1,ey . Fros _ SUICIDE O HOMICIDE Q Ad6ess Type Kp({> O it! r"o �'f/f' Bcu*rl oae r.-e W";- VW3 AG-rrg OX set. M. U Wr s �crpc'f!" we' c ovrArr y"uof. SaciYPyi Trr3t4ed o Yes o M 8A.teal P,ays7rrr!Ore< xu eood ❑Yes 0 W. Date _.Tre &A:Sdo We oYes D So avo Ave Hrl UGC �L C/fL f: iv�NG� G P.et.Fromm S sx�1s f:a�e" _ Ot Calxy 71 e /6,:t r /� �- tmt Rms. DA PAGE / cAISZ1 a time ; s s Ail (kill ,1"A 445 �M mot. � � �a� �-lr�►N�r . ��t�r� �:Cc.�.. � . _. _ ! .�f�tyi� �.iCIZ — 316 39�5ly3 Sys I y �'�e, ems. ► �. ,,d 's SHE-e- s a ! o ��- M& _. om Will , a a rss a6 ATTACHMENT N®.5- 2-v 1 < S Judy Myers Suchey;Ph.®.-411�fij11J�'��� FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST + C"AYAW TO TPA YEOiCAt E]I�t 6tE1V t0RONER f00.THE ommm co lot Amones.00'J V E ArdAvoE Ako"M tS PAMOWO October 3, 1993 r�E1s11 tALV ers>VaseEirt aE enesarE�.eal f1VUEi 111.CA12634 " Examination of tooth and borne fragments from 1`1e9E 111-61E-I:15 AC-1 t Unit -103, depth 78 cm flit 111-121.111+3 IEEIE!�EIl1S 151f On October 3, 1993 I Dent to'the office of the Chambers Group, Inc. (16100 Aston Street, Irvine, CA), having been called by Philip de 8arros, Ph.- 0. regarding9 a recent find on the east side of A➢iso Creek in an excavation regarding the San Joaquin Hflls Transportation Corridor. The bone and tooth were found Oct 1, 1993 and Or. de 8arros called arse that sane day. The tooth wat hun+an, probably a canine.' It showed considerable attrition to the crown and appears to be prehistoric (therefore, dative Merican). The bone fragments are small and ➢ find theme non- diagnostic. I do not see identifiable human traits on then!. Kork say continue in this location Oct and Hoy of 1993. A human tooth does not constitute a human burial as a person can live without a tooth. Teeth fall out at tires during adult, as well as children's lives. Furthermore a tooth can be pulled for therapeutic reasons. Given the clinate of professional ,Judgments being made in California today, the tooth should be reported to the Native American Heritage Commission. The tooth is still in the possession of Dr, de Barros and the Coroner can contact him regarding their decisions on this matter. Slides were taken to document the evidence and these slides as well as the hard copy of this report will be mailed to the Orange County Coroner (Investigator Bruce Lyle) when they are developed. This report is being FAX£D to both Or. de 8arros and the Coroner on today's date (Oct 3, 1993). The tooth is from an adult as evidenced from its morphology (it is permanent) and the attrition ( the individual would be 20 or older). PbRip de 8arros, Ph.D., SOFA Sty R"a,cpzt hr,!�or Chambers Group, Inc. trrrrorsrK[a1 Conv�zrts•SfQ'rJ:iS(S•P4+ri[n•Erg'r!'lts 167GOEst�nSacct P.O&A S70A1 1114)161-S414 irre_CA91619M1 fa!'1,)tElI6lE950 1 ATTACHMENT N . �� Judy Mye s.Suchey; PhA d FORENSMANTHROP0LOOM C*WSA^ t/TOTf9YEOIC4tIMAMER/COAOMEA r FOR THE 00MW3*FLO VW t[RMARMO October 9, 1993 FROM M C"GOWTA ENIwt® r Examination of teeth and maxillary fragment from futt"118 tt 1167i AC-1, Unit . 103 roost 11/124-1 l3 /EEK4114 t14 I$11 On October 8, 1993, I went.to the office of the Chambers-Group, inc., having been called by Phillip de Barros. on 10-4 43 rogardlog additionaD bone evidence at AC-1. On 10-4=93 additional adult.huaan bone and dental evidence was found several can lower than the tooth discussed 'in sbr report dated October 3, 1993. Six nEd fragmentary teeth and a roxillary'fragment (weighing 9.3 9M) were found. These rematas.are human and appear to consist of a single individual (the previously discovered tooth included in this same individual). The teeth appear to be a maxillary canine and three Incisors; identification is difficult due to the extrerie atttition. The other two teeth appear to be .two fragmentary premolars. All are heavily worn and the 1wxilla is highly mineralized, the material appears to be ancient Native American. The Native American Heritage ComisSton needs to be notified regarding this additional esaterial. Slides were taken to doctsrent these remains. Fey - tvl- 1130 ATTACHMENT . - 1 Judy buyers Suchey,011.0. t/A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGISTHE CC 4WA-VT TO T WE01M E�Ull %VVC*A'�WA /O f OR TiSE fArF(TtEB Of l04 AYGELES,ORMiGf.WfYERSKE AND$l.V BEIWAAO.wiO r wE:arz EXAMINATION OF iilA{Ata SKELETAL REMAINS FROM CA-Ora-83 rrr�ureurfrrlureeotrresr Site visitation on October 129 1993 CAUFC40 SWE A4IYEQSM RKEUTDI W 02611 IMeE 114310-USS IAH 11011-1I5I KULA I142M521 On October 12, 1993 I visited the site of CA•Ora-83, located inithe beach area near the intersections of Bolsa Chica and Warner. I spoke with Nancy Desautels, Archaeologist with SRS (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc)a David Kice, Human Osteologist working with SRS; and Phillip Ibanez, Native American Monitor. I examined the excavation pits and photographed-.burial 19 (BB9) which had been pedestalled and partially exposed. I photographed overall views of the excavation including Vie wet screening processing area. I examined briefly the skeletal material which had previously been excavated in the laboratory facility and spoke with both Nancy Desautels and David Kice regarding the analysis to date. The skeletal remains coming from this site are very old, approximately 8000 years old as indicated from somne current dating procedures. The remains reserble the Ebrly Horizon material from Central California regarding the heavy mineralization of the material. The bone comes from a uniform layer, the upper part of the Pleistocene terrace depositio For this reason, the bone is clearly prehistoric and cannot be confused with modern skeletal material of forensic interest to the Coroner. The mineralization and the poor preservation ( usually the only bone retraining is long bone nidshafts and cranial vault) rake determination of prehistoric status a1relfable procedure. Mr. Kice, currently working with SRS, has a good background in osteological procedures. His experience allows him to determine the nature of the bone and if any wrodern forensic reterial is ever found at the site there is no doubt that he will recognize it at once: I instructed both Nancy Desautels and David Kice to irmdiately inform the Coroner if such should occur. Further site visitation should not be necessary if 'the-rerrains continue to be highly diagnostic and prehistoric. I spoke with Phillip Ibanez, Native American monitor and we discussed general outlines of the Coroner responsibility including why 1 take photographs to legally docv,ent r•;f conclusions. Finally, I photographed and examined a cranial fragrent in the laboratory which had an enigmatic feature which reseirbled, in part, trephination. At the end of the excavation (som. tare during 1993 or early 1994) it was decided that David Kice and I would submit this material to Steve Dowell at the L. A. Coroner's office for examination of the defect with the dissecting microscope. The Native Americans are in agree:rient with the iaportance of examining this feature in order to properly interpret past events at the site. Judy Myers Suchey, Ph. D. Forensic Anthropologist Report written on October 16, 1993 Attachrents: rap of bone concentrations on CA-Ora-83 and resume of David Kice ATTACHMENT NO. �� CA - Ora - 33 f 1 Wei as 211 ssm G u� rrs_xx oat I ![b Gd Q2f CfJ Ct<, Ct7 d.•t>:.: Y f Y• aar! ee:, qy Zf vs t�A caa2 CIO X x w. x Q 4 O g -: : A m ao as a er- s Asa > : tcX':. 3-•�i % v;4t ass �s oaf co. VII t4 � IMP .18 1 .H.]CA^S --7t ;Xul L, to st 1 XI - SX SS _iYA_:�it9: Jtt ,.- 40 Pat VB :�, Y_ 0C4C.\ TO CZA ��f— ="zXl1 = _ 1 fet ,X US K • ..x )(whn Bone Concentrat•4A8 X00: x (Dash Rage:66 000ratynieace) s� t s s s 000 a l f urfft wmpleod t ®� Roc�C Featwes wt ,s ,s jW�t 1C. s i Coggad St�rres ttf I cFi ! 25 sc 0 charma!or*s s i Cf 4SE 9]rJ .:s A Treetrur)cs a. Trash.deVs,Gush Tree one x Waled bone uagments ® Shot Fea"xes ATTACHMENT NO, g2� Cot YOf to$APM-US FORENSIC CONSULTANTS REPOIRT oFvaaT1 Od OF COROMR � Coroner's Inquiry AHTHROPOi.OGY � ODOlITOLOGY 9a-5o516 QNEUROPATHMOGY El RADIOLOGY OOTHER (Sf'ECif'Yj NIALYSIS OF WW1 SKELETAL REMAINS DATeoFrxAastriaT�ori: 1_27-94 PAGE 1 OF l On Januar4XMA1 1`ab I Kent to California State University, Long Beach for the purpose of examination of a collection of skeletal remains and assessing whether there were any skeletal remains which were modern and of forensic interest to the Coroner. I ret Or. Sathyavagiswaran (Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Coroner) at this location and the two of us were taken to a storeroom where the trays and boxes of an Anthropology Laboratory had been taken for inventory. Or. Dan Larson (Associate Professor of Anthropology) and Susan Dohr (Graduate Assistant) helped us in our examination of-the relevah t osteological materials in these boxes. It was known that certain of the skeletal remains had originated from the Los Altos site 0_270) in Long Beach and ice were given a journal which reported on this site ific Coast Archaeological Society quarterly Vol. $, No. 2, April 1972). I examined all skeletal remains 1humnan and non-hurnani and determined that all man remains were prehistoric and not of-forensic interest to the Coroner. In fty assessment I examined the amount of attrition on the teeth, when teeth were n, present. I assessed the amount of mineralization of the bone itself and noted the various color patterns. I assessed the facial features, when the skull was present for "Mongoloid" traits ( shovel-shaped incisors, prominent zygu;^.a). I took a photographic inventory of the containers, which were numbered 1-32. 1. Facial portion of skull? jAr jJ&Y 22. Postcranial 2. Facial portion of skull ) 23. Postcranial by element 3. Child's skull and postcranial ,� ,�,�,� 24. Skull, Also Abalone 4. Adult skull and postcranial 26. Drawer of misc, Also worked 5. LAn-272 5-1 Skull, 2 more skulls, misc postcranial bone 6. fragmentary crania and postcranial 26. Cretrains 7. misc vertebrae 27. Buried skeleton in matrix S. Skull, mist postcranial. Also cultural items. 28. Buried skeleton in matrix 9. Sacra, radii, postcranial 29. Artifacts, includes worked W 2 Skulls, LAn x-l. Also Faunal items bone . il. 2 Skulls, postcranial 30. Cranium and misc 12. Ribs 31. Skull and misc. 13. InnocrAnates and hirers 32. ft%an and non-hurran frags 14. Postcranial. Also Abalone 15. Skull and misc postcranial 16. Skull and misc postcranial. Also Aniral Bones 17. Postcranial Also Faunal items 18. Postcranial 19. Skull and misc. 20. iiisc postcranial by eler,,ent 21. Hisc postcranial by element Judy livers Suchey I Ph. 0. Forensic Mthropologist wN.T[ TILs coTT CANARY- f.OitTICAT.ON P NA, CLRT.T.CATION I GOLOQ..ROD CONSULTANT J.J Y 1[se.2 iT ATTACHMENT NO. s PA ti E C R 9"i E CNAAFM STEVEN a WJ#" . Q5 R+p'A Fb J.FOSTER KV)a1EH CP.A0rW-iS P:4W CAL11-AHAN WAR"-GRAM MR �YACrIOiL�I YZAti'-TH 6 JOW64M 0"EL X W90 t JLAN J_KESSEI u nrrEsls •ALSO X".rfaNas=.sits e VW" -ALSO A:AEnEO w NEW VOF,c February 9, 1994 HAND DELIVERED James Beisner `a,,r g 7 Chief Deputy Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department 1071 W. Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92703 Re: Case No. 93-5868-LL; Bolsa Chica Dear Mr. Beisner: During my meeting with Bruce Lyle of your office on Monday, he reviewed with me Judy Suchey's report on her site visit to Boisa Chica. Noted as an attachment to her report was a map of the ORA-83 site. The map appeared to be quite detailed showing the general location R of the excavation area with detailed annotations as to the nature of material found at the site, such as cogstones and charnlstones. I believe that the map was prepared by the archaeologist and was provided to Dr.Suchey by either the archaeologist, Dr. Desautels, or a member of her staff;however, I do not think they anticipated that it would be attached to Dr. Suchey's report or included in the public file on this case. It is my understanding that you have authorized the release of this map to Pat Ware. h4s. Ware has previously released Dr. Suchey's report to the newspapers and I do not doubt that she may also release copies of this map to members of the press, archaeological organizations and homewi ner groups with whom she is working. Ms.Ware and members of her organization also announced at a televised public hearing in Huntington Beach that other members of the public could go to the coroner's office to obtain copies of Dr. Suchey's report (and map). While there is no way to retrieve this reap from Pat Ware after it has been distributed to her, I would like to request on behalf of my client,The Koll Company,the archeological consultant, and the Native American representatives with who I am working with on this matter, that in the event any other requests for copies of the material are made, that copies of the map not be provided. We understand that Dr. Suchey's report is a matter of public record, but we believe that in order to protect the site from archaeological vandalism and sightseers, maps showing the OYMA r 1%.'01 19100 VON KAR-VM•&h FLOOR• 1RYNE,CAUFOFNIA 92715•714-955.2900 9 FAX 714-956-9W9 POST OFMC SOX 19613. 1RVIINE,CAUFORMA W7139613 ATTACH MENIT INC, • �v' i i Jams Beisner February 9, 1994 Page 2 location of the site and the nature of material discovered there should not be released to the public. 1 would appreciate it if you could give the a call so that we can discuss this matter further, if necessary. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact tne. Very truly yours, Susan K. Hori cc: David Belardes Nancy Desautels Lucy Dunn ATTA HMENT NO. .�U �/ >��w:r..� • rrM, �:•ir••rrr,-�•Yr •1 J , i..• rl^Y° ,.,�,\w..11Mwn•II I•.�.,.....;._i•, r,�1 �J��� .��r `�\\ "Lai r ♦•r•r••rrp•t•� :' r«...•r.w -'wr• • l ►w+ ,.w..w• )) �7 � r.0.r ...hV\ "�•\1 p F`�..wn-r.w �.FOINGfN a AM.:yt.q\\. o• .•r��w: fiC!!�..� ✓�� .'l'• 01 G AVI I ,�•. '1 1'. i r -'��9••� LN .fP V r Ly'/�"F'°L""'' a M'i en..t '��.1'e��.4w..• Ii'Mu :' ,Y►swr r •rr .,w "yNl1lC •f '� 1:r�• VY'p�ll�� 1 ►� 1 �S r"Il Y -;♦�' • awe• tW�► �,�' i w✓,�'V-A nwr yA,'1dI. rrr'f�p � 1 .r S� .w✓'r � ,�♦ �\�. I 1•X �!h.• °rii '``tea ��.7 ✓�+�� �� • t�°� �.' ;'1 ? , ra�-(�.y�+ .p�+,w.w., nrnr 1�ti ' � u-��YY � ➢I a � �..'""",..°„ ,L„'1"� •✓•� ^ ®•• +,./ 9 � .M• �'. .1�."�MU'. . \ Y. ,,.ap .. , yg. l ;l+rw ".rlM�w�. op}}\��4 � •' \`•I�'► Y� \ p' t '0°J w��,f SI"`. �• ` .. :1 ! 3 �� � „ �o e•"°i1.'i SIV � • J \ ! :� ,,,, tiaAy�pXlt��., Y r� � w°p'•,wr• �• waw.rra` ;� ` �' ° r{Yrw- + ,. , d M t +tv'� �'' i ~ J�,`�� ` \ 11- ' '+".�"'7 ( � .�may` � I t � \trM.+��-"�..•- >' i .�� •'.^�`}" � ,,,Yn,: r ,� .St ,,�a � ti•�,;.�®•°'`ar � 1 s. 1 . a �•n >,�«wL,r'IKuMNKK.,`� �p �• .» d —a•+ S. Sw /'����;~•�', �. � `�.!~ . � � '�\�a� � '� �� uv..w."� � "•�?: '•{� 1:S� i ,,ram ,y,���j,,, � . vs �R ,...1 rU L t�+�: .w 1"'".""MM ant�,p 4+q f .�n • S • r CC •.�. `/ 1 • Alk� Try Y✓1 u••Y °��9fw1•• .9t0 wrN�:, NwAe.a►.rr aM1Mi' � r.il'N°0 --ri 7��' w �� ys�•M� wsw� +•, SUN 3 ♦ \\^ Y �l t+• .. . :� Nw;a. .�: i iA GoM tlr►':".ow l�.rat 1Yyl�ro ,v.,; �✓�w r M • • I I t y� }fit�...�' \ •.al t ;a• W �l.•�v1L .....r... Q .. 1-« C �•� t '°7 h 'r �nP �',.� � '.''�f•.' .r •��tj;�...°. ;.�`�'..�.a ,"""►" .:.1', �,'• .v. � �+wa��Mr,,, �ta..l�LtyA ''"� �_ '.' _ B,E AC `. ♦ /�r��•. \e�. 1 '' 'h �.y„Vy Y. r� p r. i,..'� f �.1,1:1 ....� .,� Ay Z t Y ' :w 9 •M�,'„� y �e4gn7.a�?. ..15 wARN R •:'~ !� !1►{�/O�i � \• � C4.-' Yh` h i ;y( .M M — ...n✓•.r�wy�}.�1.'�f1 ....,•y�''-' ." 1 u •� a.�.°.�_._ _.......�Va M. • a �.+ " Iwo /'� /�/D �+'\ �rl ` !tR.., �'`Sny •� , I r r+ �I11• « -..:isa:.w',3 � . �i I •T -M A ! e ll� Pq ►!!l ►,• \,1`� _ •'\� °t • 1 y hw.w ` '•... r 1 wr. '..'Lr"W r .Y ° •a '• I �� � awsl s ' • !• w i�_y•,. ` r,•,' rY • .,1 t W�� �, Q wrwr d V 'l � `�%L � YMtl\�MIy{N� ` I � �,r �� S � • r� , M. • j, `w W� �\ I Y �{ ; ��.n. I \ no I NVrE P�1`a ~ Nowtl. 9 •' {�,J� .� VA,, 3 RC : 1 1 ft /// L Y trnN i Ir.•rwr .. aw ,.. •,•; I I - � "J11�; a /�., ■ � I %volt I .. • q I I ,•1, I ,�•rww•r�wr� Vero..►w I p � '1 .. VieI i 11 l.���. �'a.�,'q NOW. —---.-.r......——�.....�/p...r........r •' ........ ....... .1- d�..�—....,....��.\.`w N'M 1 M II 1 ^ �^'••�.-ie°•�ewi+a , m W AW I 1 4 I •l1 J a,. -I. r .L.� r111n u► f�(• � ,((r ir, i3 �• b w�. — _I-.�..•.r....-.....mow..- ......�..�-..�.«..�-I. ..�.....r...........�1« \�•.' t a'./(swrH ftNtA M�' �^.!� �.�,�JJ�� m `�� _ I I I .... 1 � I .� }yb;t �n,T,P�:ZL'•1'► '�' . 11!! . o.a► I I � l I I r4�'•,1�,..•e•r�•.r� rtti•� `�� h w .a•a r .r 6 ( I I I INGTON ® ( NCH :' `' � I I � � I ,\ +� t;y..►,y +fit +1� r1�� I w•w•V I "�• ci a O"P 70 r"�i�i-u�:SI2Q4! n We+MMW � PaMe.Ip M+M,1 so "NAP 900wew � �� ► �, r 7C ~ a \ ON, >•Yf+��. �r'• -. :.. _;•��_��".'y/c��RL�-;:-�tng-*rncAs,�' ?yz�s--'�s_w. 1i ^:t��- `�'rxJaUf�t .�-•�. r;-r?.ar:t••i'=:.ffa�7..i's i_VIC/WAro pESEfiC�f- �6f�FJS(%C • T' _'• Vt_ ' 'f J tSSfSyii�CRRT�'�•-. .; _.'''�E�E+.1J1CA 4g":•r' FXi.:i-wit'iP1S�....•`;c�9r�li�i:'fS^:{_- :..yClyw.r}�.-�•itr?pi::- - R48EA7yy�t��_,,�B��EER .� _ .. En:.�us-eta O,<_-at�u s � - - • �*AAJ � Sclunti/ic R@sourc � - sneo 'DbeDwdlCalS7, rsm�rfarTq�+caCz �. �I ✓i' y v - ATTACHMENT NO, ? a 1 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mail, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-6251 May 22, 2008 MEMO TO: Rebecca Robles, Acjachemen Nation The Hon. Anthony Morales, Chair—Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and Most Likely Descendant(MLD) on the Brightwater Homes— Bolsa Chica Construction Site in Orange County, California RE: Native American Human Remains Reports to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); Forms, Notes, a-mails for the period August 3, 1999 to April 26, 2008; all Reports are Identified as CA-ORA-83 From the Bolsa Chica Mesa Brightwater Homes Housing Site Enclosed are the reports in descending (start with most recent) order. The first is the very unusual report on the Coroner's investigation of Aoril 19,2008 concerning sets of Native American Human Remains that were originally reported to the NAHC by the archaeology firm SRS, Inc. December 17, 2007 as 87 sets (or burials) of Native American Human Remains; My notes taken from telephone conversations with Orange County Deputy Sheriff-Coroner Tiffany Williams follow the typed report. Also, an e-mail to Ms. Williams offering NAHC assistance in reviewing how these human remains were reported (and not reported) to the NAHC as required by CA Health & Safety Code Sec. 7050.5. The next sheet is a report to the NAHC of 8-19-2008, again by Deputy Tiffany Williams of a partial burial; The next sheet is a find, a"complete burial," of 9-6-2001 as a result of'grading' activity; The next sheet is a report of a find of 1-16-2001 of 18 body parts representing an "unknown number of individuals;" The next sheet is a find in 5-2000 of 1 burial;" The next sheet is another find in 5-2000 of a "femur& long bone;" "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." -Martin Luther King, Jr. ATTACHMENT NrZ The next sheet is the August 3, 1999 finding of a "skull and tooth fragments" as a result of grading on Bolsa Chica Road . Dr. Judy Suchey's Coroner report is consistent with this NAHC report except the Dr. Suchey indicated "skeletal fragments" perhaps not mentioned in the telephone report to the NAHC by Orange County Investigator Meader(misspelled in the NAHC report); The last sheets are an e-mail to Dr. Nancy Anastasia Wiley, Ph.D and President of SRS, Inc., the archaeology firm of record for the Brightwater Homes project at the Bolsa Chica Mesa in Orange County. The e-mail encloses the 1999 report of Dr. Judy Suchey and the 2003 Native American Human Remains find, reported in 2006 by Orange County Deputy Sheriff Tiffany Williams. As you can see from the reports, they are incomplete and in some cases very insufficient, a condition that has been a hallmark of this project. Let me know if you have any questions. Dave Singleton Program Analyst NAHC "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter. " -Martin Luther King, Jr. ATTACHMENT NO. Doge County Sheriff-Coroner Case #08-02374-VI DATE (OF CALL 4-26-2oos�.�� DATE OF CIOMPUTER INFU7' - 1Pi1TIAL.S NG FURTHER ACTION (NFA) a INITIALS REQUEST' FaR ASSISTANCE REGARDING NATN2 AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS NAME Deputy Sheriff Tiffany Williams -I-cLPHONE714-647-7411 AD 0 RSS S 1071 West Santa Ana Blvd; Santa Ana, CA 92708 CnurFrY ORANGE cOIIN'1'r aRGANIZATION �_ Caenner, Police, Private eta sH�xl�-coxaiasR Coroner Investigator, DATE� OF FIND: UnDisclosed TIME. ' Al l Ak*a,i n,S ; elR Date.of Coroner Investigation:� 4-19-2008 DESCRIPTION' OF P.Ea�IiAINS:IgsJWX�r QPtR of � r�;ra [`icot+� e _•� •� Anc i Material; nt i ne Inv q for has "reason to believe remains areiRat.Burial c merican r Hen c�r�� elc �1 •- D ES C RISE �g�**�- *�a� r'xA-83 AZZS--CIA c Cry �`-� :�"`�'l= Material from Anc ent Burial Site. Investigator determined: "No modern forensic evidence found" Again, ne details provided by the Coroner Investigator on either material or human oyce erry - Juaneno M(3& TOR oN St i= YES g NO NAME Adrian*Xorales - Gabrieleno Tongva LOCA T ION WHERE- RENNIN. FOUND: (CrY) Adjacent to City of Huntington Asaar CAIIQRE=C) Warner. Avenue at the Huntington Beach Wetlands Area FOUND ON: FED. STATE— COUNTY`CITY FRIVAT E LAND FgOJEC T 'NAME: MUGHTWAMM HOBS DEVEWPMM NAME -OF DEVELQPEFdPROPER T Y OWNER, smz. zw -- Ed Mountford, Senior Vice President TEL. ? (949) 250-7700 LOCATION WHERE REMA1NS E EiNG HELD In Two TrailerR - 1980s: Juaneno MOST LIKELY DESCENDENT CONTACTED: YES z DATClo/2006: Gabrielenc ` David Belardes - Juaneno Tongva NAME OF NIOS T LIKELY DESCENDENT: Anthony Morales - a FINAL DIS^rOSI T ION AND DATE: NA i t-di 'ir-nal II'i1C rnation malf bG Pla d Gri back. 6Ff4rA _-o 9 A H C 17-11: J Za a 4 as V� ( f 1 ATTACHMENT NO, ❑ATE OF CALL DATE OF COMPUTER INPUT______„_,,,_INMAL.S _ NO FURTHER ACTION (NFA) a mMALS O$f RSQUT V A p ASSISTANCE CAN HUMAN REGARDING �}. �(w h _ AF.3�lA1N NAME { cLEP ONES ADDRESS 0 t . �GLH a �V -Sccvc ' Z r COl1 1 __._ COU)TY 5 i a R ANLZATION Caranef, Pciice, Friv a et -\t TTE OF Fi1ND: — 2 TIME- DATE ,yam 00QS ❑ESCRIFTION' OF REMAINS: ` ASSOCIATED GRAVE C0005: YES_X, N0 DESCn1EE 1 0 �r F MONITOR ON S== YES NO NAME T LOCATION WHERE- REMMAINS FOUND. (Ci TYl (AIIQRES S) � QS FOUND ON: FED._ STATE COUNTY_,C1►Y PRIVATE LAND PROJECT NAME: it, NAME -OF DEVELOPpERIPROPERTY OWNER, S i� �-�� cat, C:� 1-�� ✓ TEL = e -------------- LOCATION WHERE REMAINS E EiNC HELD: MOST LIKELY DESCENDENT CON►ACTED]: YE �_ DATE NAME OF MOST LIKELY DESCENDENT: FINAL DiSP055TiON AND DATE: r NAME Aceijicnal inrermaticn may to Piiacet cc, bulk, RE'!.S/Z a �(Vef0 , °C54. ATTACHMENT NO. �f Request for Asshitance Regarding Hadve Amwican Hunion ons; New of romputer Discovery Discovery update of Previom Dses Deftinput Document Filed: month Yew No Futhsr Action C Coroner Ceae County Orww Nwnber Site Number CA-ORA-83 onto of call 8/19AHM Name Tiffany Williams Phone Number (714)647-7411 Address Organization Type Organization Coroner Date of Find: Month August Date t9 Yew 2M Time Burial No. Description Associated Grave Goods Humerous,femur, partial burial "act Name Hearthside Homes ownership Land Agency Private Project city Lotion BDisa Chico Huntington Beach Developer/ Property Owner Phone Number monitor Joyce Deny Monitor Phone Number MLD David Belardes,Cindi Alvitre Coed 8/19/2006 MLD Phone (949)493-0959 Remains Being Held Number Final Disposition Date Disposition comments Received voice mail message. New concentrations:Z27, Z28, Z30 and DC89, which was identified as a partial burial. ATTACHMENT .�� �� Request for Asshitance Regarding Hafte Amerlcn Human Remains Di � X Update Discomy � Date ofC Inpu 11/14/2002 Document Filed: Month Year No Futher Action Coroner Cass County Number Site Number CA-ORA-83 Data of Cox 9/7)2001 Name Tiffany Burch Phone Number 714-647-7410 Address Organization Tree Orgy Coroner Date of Find: Month Septerretier Date 6 Year 2001 Time 1600 Burial No. Description Associated Grave Goods Complete Burial Rocks and Shells "so Name Bolsa Chica ownership Load Agency Private Prolect City Location Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Devomay Heartside Homes, Ed Mountford Owner Phone Number 949-250-7760 monitor Joyce Perry Monitor Phone Number Mt.D David Belwdes Date MLD Contacted 9r1�01 Mb-D Phone Remains Being field In Situ Number Disposition Final Date Disposition comenerds Grading being conducted on site. Will be reburied upon completion or project. ATTACHMENT No a L -q From: Dave Singleton<ds_nahc@pacbell.nefl Subject: Orange County Coroner's Case#08-02374-WI Date: Apnl 29,2008 3:52:00 PM PDT To: NMiams@ocsd.org Cc: Carry Myers<lm_nahcQpacbell.net>,Anthony Madrigal<am_nahc@pacbell.neb April 29,2009 Dear Deputy Tiffany Williams: Thank you for the report of Native American Human Remains reviewed by you at the Brightwater Homes Development Site,on the Bolsa Chica Mesa north of Huntington Beach, Case No.08-02374-WI. We understand that you were able to review the remains and material in a trailer at site in the presence of Ed Mountfo, ,Sr.Moe President of Heartltside Homes,the developer,and Dr.Paul Cagenwalther of SRS,Inc.,representing the project archaeologist. As you indicated to me,there was"no modem forensic evidence"at the site and that you"have reason to believe that the remains were Native American,"and so reported to the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with California Health&Safety Code Section 7050.5. On the matter of reviewing how the reporting requirements for discoveries of Native American human refrains are handled by the Orange County Sheriffs Office,please accept our willingness to participate with the Office In evaluating the Hearthside Hones experience and making suggestions for future such discoveries. We would look forward to worWng with the Department in a cooperative manner. Sincerely, Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission ATTACHMENT No .G�� Request for Assistance Regarding Native American Human Remains New Update of Previous Update Date of Computer Discovery Discovery X Date Input Document Filed: Month January Yew 2002 No Futher Action county Orange Coroner Case Number Site Number ORA-83 Date of Call Name Phone Number Address Organization Type Organization Date of Find: Month January Date 16 Yaw 2001 Time Burial No. Description Associated Grave Goods 18 Body Parts, unknown number of Individuals Project Nw. BOlsa Chica Ownership Lead Agency Project City Location Developer/ Property Owner Phone Number monitor Joyce Perry Monitor Phone Number MLD David Belardes Date MILD Contacted MLD Phone Remains Being Held Number FinalDisposition Disposition Date commands Joyce Perry called with an update. ATTACHMENT NO.�..7A Request for Assistance Regarding Native American Human Remains New Update of Previous Update Date of Computer Discovery Discovery Date Input Document Filed: Month May Year 2000 No Futher Action County Orange Coroner Case Number Site Number ORA-83 Date of Call Name Phone Number Address Organization Type Organization Date of Find: Month May Date Year 2000 Time Burial No. Description Associated Grave Goods 1 burial Project Name Bolsa Chica Ownership Lead Agency Project City Location Developed Property Owner Phone Number monitor Monitor Phone Number MLD David Befardes Date MLD Contacted MLD Phone Remains Being Held Number Disposition Final Date Disposition Comments ATTACHMENT NO. -2�v Request for Assistance Regarding Native American Human Remains Now Update of Previous Update Date of Computer Discovery Discovery [We Input Document Filed: Month May Year 2000 No Futher Action Oran Coroner Case County Orange Number Site Number ORA-83 Date of Call Name Phone(dumber Address Organization Type Organization Data of Find: Month may Date Year 2M Time Burial P(o. Description Associated Grove Goods Update-femur&long Bone Project Nome Boisa Chica O,ners,ip Lead Agency Project City Location Developer/ Property Owner Phone Plumber monitor Monitor Phone Number MLD David Belardes Date WILD Contacted MLD Phone Remains Being Held Plumber Disposition Final Date Disposition Comments ATTACHMENT , �� Request for Assistame Regarding NOWe Annrken Hun win R®fnains New date of Previous update Discovery X scovery D Data of iputff 7P20=4 Document Filed: Moves Year No Futhsr Action County Orange Coroner Case Number Site Number CA-ORA$3 Dote of CON OM999 Name Deputy K. Murine? Phone Number Address OrganksNon Type Cosner Doe of Find: ItIonth August Data 3 Yew 19N rkne Burial No. Description Greve Goods Skull and tooth fragments Prolect Name Southwest Bolsa Chica Mesa Ownership Lead Agency Private act City LLoeatiion Bolsa Chica Huntington Beach SRS Project, Robert Beer Or LY phompkanim 909-767-25551767 9805 monitor Monitor Phone Number MAD David Belardes Date ULD Contested PAL.D Phone Ruins Being Wield SRS Lab Number Disposition Final Date Disposition Cort is On going project Bolsa Chica(Cole Co.) Mesa. Record discovered in Bolsa Chica file July 2004. ATTACHMENT NO, ,7 Z CA From: Dave Singleton<ds_naha@pacbell.ne> Subject: Fwd:Wes Chico Mere Date: May 12,2006 6:52:19 AM PDT To: wileycoyote@srscorp.net ( 1 Attachment,162 KB t May 12,2008 TO: Dr.Nancy Anastasia Wiley,Ph.D. RE: Bolsa Chka Discovery of Remains Good Morning Nancy: Attached is a 1999 report from the Orange County Coroners Office. Also,a NAHC report of eight discovered remains in 2006. Do you know Cite circunsmixes surrounding these discoveries. Were they on County or Coastal Commission jurisdiction? Were they the result of Construction or ardiaeological grading. We appreciate your time In considering these issues. Best, Dave Sinoeton Program Analyst Native Arneican Heitage Commission 915 Caprtok Mail,Room 34 Sacramento,o,CA 95814 (916)653-6251 (760)801-8011-cell Begin forwarded message: From:"G.David Singleton"<adavidsinale@rocketmail.com> Date:May 11,2008 7:06:03 PM PDT To:Dave Singleton<ds nahc@oacbell.ne> Subject:Bols`a Chico Mesa Bolsa Chica...t,jdf(162 KB1 ATTACK T 0. 2Z3 05J0712805 23:53 6262861262 GAEiRIELENO TOWVA PAGE 03104 Judy Myers suchey, Ph.©. FORENStO AHTHRorOLOGIST G�:SIATANTTOTh"6RtE0rG►LE)cA.WVE9+LOr�+ER /Y �( FOR:r+.t COUN-IES of ws ANoeC•.3.0AAgGee;yViAS10$ANo SAN 8ERNARO-No Augus t PA(�ESSOA tpi _ ' oEwurtaer<r Of AvNWPOLOGY �tia\ a Ce CALtMMARTATS MWERSnY In sitLtifia,rrinatiop. of skeletal remains at gQ�Et aa.ecx:eu FuuERroVc.�euea.c construction Site ( Orange County �P 1 a�99-4517F ) FMONES ;; lovo. Rem tit REeR WY 7tQ3tA•E79� BEEPER zWbS-WM On Muyust,4, 1 .gent to the construction site at the intersection of Balsa Chica and Los Patos in Huntington Beach. At this location skeletal fragments were found underneath a Native American artifact in bulldozed area where the construction of condominiums is planned. the archaeological company involvee in the mitigation ;s SRS (Scientific Resource Surveys). This, location is rear the former zrchaeological site CA-Ora-83 where I did an in situ examination of remains on October 12, 1993. I do not have a Coroner's case number in my file for that visitation but I have a one papa report with attachments. At the site or. August 4 I talked with Lisa Wood-ward (of SRS) 909-323-9340 who explained to ire the situation surrounding the skeletal fragments. I identified then as human (based on the left orbit--largely zygomatic'and incisor tooth); prehistoric (based on severe dental attrition on the tooth, coloration and mineralization of bone). The remains are extre*ly fragmentary--consisting of only one tooth and multiple small fragments of cranium. The remains are consistent with being frw- a sinule individual. Woodward told me that Robert Beer (president of tie company 969-767-2556) had already phoned the Native American Heritage ConBnission with a tentative diagnosis. 1 indicated that the Orange County Coroner would be making official notification. David Belardes (Native American) was at the site at the time of my visit. I instructed Lisa Woodward to call the Orange County Coroner again if additional- human remains are found in the area. The construction is over so it is not likely that there will be additional finds. The plan was to remove the area surrounding the remains and keep them in the lab of SRS. The remains would be he'd until the construction had Seen totally finalized and then the remains could be reburied. If the Coroner has further instructions, Lisa Woodward can be notified. .f new calls come in regarding remains I suggest that the investigator (Meader) Speak with ne an the phone and vie can make suggestions as to the best manner to handle the ,ituatlon. The nearby site Ora-83 was a highly controversial site where multiple burials of great antiquity became the subject of a dramatic controversy between environmentalists and developers. To avoid a re-play of this drama, the Coroner needs to keep track of the number of burials being found at this location. Hopefully, the one observed on August 4 will be the only one. Photographs were taken to dccument the evidence. FURTHhR ACTION fdECCEC: Native Americar. Heritage Commissior. should be notified by Inv. Meader or other Coraier personne . Cer;ivied to be-a true copy of original report on h,e i r 8 M IC%i v Corl eCOfifJidER 8Y Deputy ATTACH a 71—f GAERIELEM TOMVA PAGE 04104 05/07l20AR 23:53 5262861262 OW pot t.VMJ f4fs b/� tffrbflvr, 1 f1•V. FORFMSIC ANTNAopoloafSr COKW TANTTOTSC UMCAIf7cAWV4VVCOAON R • ION flit COUNTIES 04 LOS AMttES.CHANGE.RNEPSIOX AUb SAN BSarAPOOkO August 10, 1999 DEMMVW OF MrdWMLOor CWAO aus MMMER07Y ►.ay"4W further coamuniCatior regarding 99-05178ME FALCA CAOX94M ROM 7"4*129 iT{QtWm sawVt ruterorf I learned from a peon call with Joyce Perry that SRS and the Native Americans had reburied the skeletal remains reported in my report of August S. 1999 (site visitation on August 4, 1999). The agreeMent at the site was that SRS was to hold this remains in their lab until the end of the'site construction. tt was also understood that if there was any further discussion of any matter that the investigator on the case (Meader) was to be called. Their reburial was clearly a violation of the agreement at the site visitation. I r+erom end than in the future when there are any skeletal remains found by SPS tha* the Coroner officially supervise or take control of the excavation and remove the remains, taking them to the Coroner facility until an appropriate time. ATTACH E T NO. Z25 lns maw X Daft of Computer Discovery Date InF4 Docu ord F"W* 4in"Oh Your No Fu0w Aaron 0Brw Case Plate Site Number CA-0f IA-83 Qtfe of Ce68 NIMM TiffanyVNiams Phonef r (714)647-7411 Address TOD caromOrgaidandon CMOs,of FkW,. Voldh .hrrse Dade Yens Time SUM No. Dowr#Won Associated Gnme Gonda 8 Burials LIDO r Hearthside Homes ownership LeadAgancy Private Bolsa Chica ok+ Huntington Beach toa� Phone Wanim Monitor Joyce Perry Mora"Phase Number FAW David Belardes,Cindi Alvttre W 6/ =006 MUD Phone (949)493-M59 Rine eeM Hold Number owpoeluon Firms Ch" coma Archaeologists on site are Nancy Wgey and Paul LmVenwaiter. Discussed with Joyce PerTy 6J23P2006 and received update on the finds. ATTACHMENT NO. per.. __.- O8/02/2014 07:37 FAX Z 001 - 9T�A,E-�F -A F[RHIA o, Aerrold 9ellw�rronaeeer_de YslBoi NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 916 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM$64 "CRAMRNTO,CA M14 (910)663-6251 Fax(916)867.6690 Web efts*Uz.0AbA,8L= *-mail:d6_n*h**pncbeII.net April 4, 2008 The Hon. Anthony Morales, Chairman GabrielenolTongva 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 draft Staff Report and ProfetWonal Assessment Regarding the Hearthslde Homes Project at BOlsa gbigg Mesa Known as Briathtwat®r Homes.a M.Single Homes Deyei®mment Finaln®on ft QA:QRA=U Issues only:%to is Adiaoent to the City of HuLltingWn Beach: Orange County. California Dear Chairman: I 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#23 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. Issue of Reburial of the Remains and all Associated Grave Good to Occur after Docunnentation is Complete: 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 contract archaeologist, Nancy Anastasia Wiley, Ph.D., 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) priority documentation be given to those items that are generally accepted associated grave.goods,'therefore,the cogged stones charmstones, discoldels and beads be documented prior to reburial. b)that'suffcient time be allowed for proper preparation of the burials(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 Hearthside Homes Senior Vice President(please sane Exhibit A). The reburial with associated grave goods is customary for both the Gabrieleno Tongva and JuanefI6 people(note,from the Handbook of North American Indians vol. 6: California; Robert F. Heizer, volume editor, Smithsonian Institution; Washington, D.C.,4978): "Here the dead were buried - with artifacts used during life." (page 545) Also, apparently, both MLD 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 sorteA - d after the reburials take place on a power-sort way; that is qql f w~ 7Z Q 002 08/02/2014 07:40 FAX the material In the 2,000 boxes and bags of remains would be sorted and documented. 2. issue of What are Associated Grave Goods: It is customary for the NAHC to accept the determination and definition of associated grave goods' as presented by California Native American 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 edes 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 stores, channstones, discoide/s 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 Califomis 3r°AVeliats Court Decision in the case of peoale versus Van HM (218 Cal.App.31378; 267 CalRptr. 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. : 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 Exhibit"D") Furthermore in the project archaeologist's memorandum to the comparry, dated January 17, 2007, it refers to a February 3, 2007 ceremony and assumed reburial (please see F�chibn"a this action would be after the law extending the definition of a cemetery and a place with"multiple burials"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 ttherra provisions.shall . It a ate mens Public Resources Code§5097.98 that says(a) 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 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 sacred cemetery? The Native-American Heritage Commission determined a University of California,San Diego site, with 30 discovered burials and perhapsfewer artifacts and grave goods a"sanctified cemetery" at their meeting of March 12, 2008 in San Diego County. 4. Territorial sues: it is generally accepted that the cogged stones are found in the coastal areas extending from Venture County in Califomia to parts of Baja Califomia Norte, of the Republic of Mexico. Then, they are found in coastal areas of Central Chile in South America. Also, it is clear frATfF 'T N 0 5, �� Z 003 ,08/02/2014 07:44 FAX the cogged stones that they were very special items to the Juanenb as well as the Gabrieleno Tongva people. The Handbook of North American Indians,vol. % referenced above, includes the Bolsa Chica project site within the Gabneleno Tongva territory. Lowell Bean, one of California's most respected scholars, edited the article on the Gabriieleno Tongva. The 1925 map of the JuaneAo territory, prepared by Alfred Louis Kroeber, eminent ethnologist, shows the JuaneAo territory below Aliso Creek in present-day Orange County. 1 attach copies of those maps as Exhibit"C" However, the NAHC accepts that the Bolsa Chica 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 Penhe in northern San Diego County, includes Bolsa Chica 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, Bolsa 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. Sincerely, Dave Singleton Program Anal4yst ATTACHMENT NO, c . d/02/2014 07:46 FAX 10 Q 004 January 19, 2007 ca TO: Ed Mountford, Brian Bartlett-Hearthside Homes [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 this Friday, January 26,2007. Joanne is in the process of completing'a coiiiprehensive tracking sheet for the reburial 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 c( individuals. A grid will then be laid out within the pit so that there can be an exact t placement.of each individual on the reburial date. By Friday, Paul Langenwalter will `y produce his customary burial chart listing all known characteristics of each burial and j most importantly, sex and age, when possible. p we anticipate and request-your cooperation for the following: , Accordingly, �7 1] On Monday, January 29*, the final pit be excavated by Hearthside at the far western end of the newlydesignated reburial 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 as much area in the designated reburial area as undisturbed as possible. 3] On Tuesday and Wednesday, January 30a`and 31t, 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. 4 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 Yd, Ted and I will place the Ora-85 people in the ground within their reserved space for the morning ceremony. 71 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 ATTACH , 1, _ Q005 08/02/2014 07:48 FAX skins] for reburial. The first reburial in the early 1990s did have these materials. This was a preference of Raymond Belardes, the first Most Likely Descendant on this project. The Gabrielino should be reimbursed for this purchase since you are paying fro the white cloth requested by the Juaneno. Oup to attend 8]We have also had one of our people paid to pick up elders of a tribalsuggest ou offer the reburial if they cannot drive or do not have transportation. We .Y one person from each tribal group to do the same. to piovide compensation for 9]Please have extra security on Saturday from sunrise to sunset. in the it at 10] Please remember.that Hearthside has always been responsibl a chain link fencing barrier. day's end with both the removed earth and placing in the p 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 as mandated by time as the eCounty and Coastal obligation to document any artifacts to has an be reburied Commission Guidelines and Stafe'law. All artifactss associated Propnate th individual. documented beforehand and then reburied on Saturday The remaining site artifacts cannot be reburied at have�been focused used onme because*they hburial-rela ed processed or documented yet, since all effortsof In addition, Cal. State Los Angeles has an extensive collection 's materials only. ma terials removed from this site by Prof. Hal Eberhart prior to ART, Westec or SRS work, and ARI's artifacts were given to PCA hArnE�aans would have to request that, profit corporati Cottrell dissolved that non- on in the early 1980 s. The Native these artifacts be returned from Cal Sate LA and pCVe uaneadequate arer the a designated by a reburial of artiion Act befor facts could occur. There is, howe > Hearthside for Ora-85 and Ora-0 reburials for future repatriation bured on February 3 d but legally The Ora-85 non-burial artifacts, therefore, will not be this matter has no bearing on the repatriation of human remains and associated grave goods from that site. ed 1 arrive in This is a brief outline of the anticipated activities for next wdeeekll be on-site s�ltarting late Orange County on Monday, January as at 10;00 p� morning an Tuesday. If any party has questions or requests changes to this schedule g kLDSLor talk with me please call me at 907-723-1896; e-mail me at reburial on in Parson on Tuesday. We look forward to 'a respectful and successful February 3'. ATTACHMENT NO., oL� US%02/2014 07:55 FAX 2 outhem Califarcria'�dian villages relative to mode rn sties.Malor 7nd�temtories aYe�a shown. rtant S Ya\1H Y • • a N\IIaM wa«na \e4° ®°a narern° Ka 4ty a S/� { ei.yuru 4ia° amp Kakamo San Dom udl°° au•no 4Far4N'a°"mIA •.16a1q INS k�%'• o y�'O• .. at A•ak• Q �, 0psasa Calms. o"ands ,Yl.l Naa ty�, TofW AtaanOk ,,,, wk°Fp•t ``� SanOab ama 1 oPo,mon° Krowa�w aoye�°b� w�at `'� t Arata Noal pal naram0o osivaratdo °+s gadn " �,.•,�w'o.°>a+++N;,.- '.a'� .� Dow S° �. .. Epp 8 f IWWatY9° `at .•dlyt, i1M m Aaahslm to O fib: ��' my,k\Pk ti 0y son ti leatatoo•.• a"a"a T@aho Ab1-1 sate fy�p o� adoado V4 Ahau Pubs jI `0��,•• • z -4 9 CIS i< I'o soots Aa° oa a\aPK 3 Mass laauP�, La#a ts4 G\ � Kenoao Vt\S "'Wvo,tow µ0ry0 • as ° ,• Tom,sawB `� N* -a\ San Iuaa , A Soule GWtna bland M°P• a *yda.��w,`� Puna �gmA". L P.M. ' ' a` vow° , wd Noah `' 4° qOm 8tr .� •• ?L", ad\ µa*Nd Udwd .-• f °aa°d eaa arando Qatnaato Ulu& ,u-i•°�bJK•Y a`A �y mdc roondd vpa r !r-1, 4 �� Ato- NdM art *d6B'° 4110 a w..red °« "Na t ® ` "d a� A • 001 � _ Rtaa <5wn004 a� atA Pj tY N D1E00 a 4aa+d W; ba,Butr$u of Asnen° Ethnology,5 �'onian �tution,1976, Cdo,k by Adapted fromNaw0ip0k of tht Indiatns� Al&cd Louie Kroe ' AeeeelR 9rhir�rroer 6e career IA �p — NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1 91s CAPITOL!WALL,ROOM 864 SACRAME, NTO,CA 95914 (916) F=(916)W-6890 web Site UNAMnOWMAW s wl: Im_fI8hp 9.IMt April 8,2008 Theresa Henry The California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate Suite 1000 Long Beach CA 908024302 Fax(562)590 5084 Re: Brightwater-Bolsa Chica Project Dear Ms.Henry: The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)is informed by the NAHC appointed Most Likely Descendent,Anthony Morales,that Hearthside Homes has proposed reburial of 87 human remains from ORA-83 on April 21,2009.The NAHC is also informed that documentation on the associated�s ingoods has been substantially ude cogged stones,charm done but is not complete.These associated grave g 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. The NAHC notes that based on information received from 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 . ATTACHMENT N05 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 NAHC 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 reburial 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,rations 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. The NAHC 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 reburials of remains and artifacts occur as agreed. Sincerely, Larry Myers,Executive Secretary NAHC Cc:Bill Mungry,Chairman NAHC Anthony Madrigal,General Counsel NAHC Dave Singleton,NAHC Susan Hori,Counsel Brightwater Homes Nancy Anastasia Wiley,Project Archaeologist ATTACH TNO. �' ATTACHMENT #8Ll \\:\l\\NO INS, IS 0 \MR, ----------- ;4j -51 eo Al kK� ........... 15 MIS 'N'A Sl !A"6 .......... kz \ .\, \ \, tea.• \ \\ .,\�. \ \ \.\ �. \ \:: \e,. \. \ .\ a\ \ \ \ \ ,. ...\ \\\\\\ \. 01,112810 ,\ \\ 1a, ,\�\...\,..\\. \\ .\ \\ \ \a\, \ \ \ >.\\,\ 111 \.IS \ \ \ ,a\\ ;c= \ \ ,.\ \ .\\ \ \. \ \ t„ \ \ \,\ \\\\\ 2 \ .c 211 g\ I \ \\\\ \\ \ \\ earthside Homes \E Property ity of Huntington Beach a) \� v v vv Avvy�wAwvv�\yAvyw���v\Vy y�yvvy\ CL0 yw wk \vAv ��\V� VAv. v���A V�VA .wAV�A ® v v v A w\\ Vy VGA. y�V VAV V Av @�° P .' '_' `. r Vv vA \ VA vA v vyv vvv VA AA\ A AAAVv\ , v AVAVAAAvv .AA\A\V� \VAvv A�AV VAvV v � CO ..yv vv v yAA��AA\y�V v\� y� Ay \VAAy ��VAv v Av } \ y��yvvy��,vvvwy��� ��, vvvvv y Brightvvater (� D \y A yv� \y yvyvyv A\v \y vvv' A V vVA v\v�A\�wA�v VvvvA\vv. w vAv wN Development O f F\vA VvAVAv vAA\yyA<vvA\vAvvvAAVVAA .-yAA\y�\vAvVA v 'v 3 �J� vvvvv v ca` \ vv VA\VAyVAv�V\A 'Vy z 4JJ ��\�A\yA\\\VAvvAvy�AyvA v v \vvAV v } v ;vv ywwv\�\� yvyvyvyyv���yy�w wv (City of Huntington Beach) _ v Annexed 2008 tU yv, F v����\ vAv Av A,A\Vv AVvAAwv vAV v vv ® ® v �"„ �� v�V�\� AVV�yA\vv v Av Av v A yvvAA A A h vVAV�A\�A Av V AVA V�VvVvV�\vv VvAA�AyA vvA\ Vv\y y > wAyvvAv\vvA\.vvy��oyyy Avvv��wAvvvv v vvvvv A VA Vv�VAV AV AV vV\ vAAv A VAAvvA Avv A A VAAv v � yAV �v. \ A \v A A vvv AV\ \\\vvv v� AA vv vvv �\ \ v vv v AAyvv yv v o v v vvvV vvv v v � s � .A VAv v AA\ � �� vAvAVAV�AV A\. >f vAV Avvv A v v \ � yA\�A\\Vv vV \yy vyAyy�y v y\vim\vy�yvAVy�yv�\vy� v� �GC, I to��AAV�� � Av�V\vVV v vvAy vy v�y�Avv Av�, v 4" 'Af d t IIN Jt'. RR ,wkm�,, SUI -5 W IV Is. MIK %A, & IIRRO \R MEII OMER ,\Imllft, me St W,MEMO �RM\ , M 'I, W M \R\,M, Z .: .c. `moo IN \ `.� \\ \ \\ \ am W." < \ \, Al ,v \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\ \\ Sandover_Dr._i \\ \\\\ E \ RL- CZ RA - CZ \ SP15 CZ EMIR MON -Awl"'-,\ \\ \\\\\ \\\ \\ \\\ \\ residential RL-'CZ . \ \, \ \\\\\ `\ \ \\ \\, (pON IN \\\ \ IN 3.2 ,acres \vA A V A \AVA\ \V A\V A A v VAV (n Vv vvA vv -\ vvAA\\VvVv\vA\Vv\v \\\ 3RL:— CZ A: Oi tee A. vvv\ 'AVv��AAVAAQA� AyvvVv � Wi * 1., �+ A� Note: The City �y: qA recently re-zoning to \\ g y Vwvvvvwv��Ay�yv���y` yv\ Vyv A y AvAvv �\ �� SIR \ CC -Coastal v�y�_ A y; OnSerVatlOnt0171atC�1 v ��vsv yyy\\yyyYyyy yA\� w ; y Land Use Plan) v vy VA\v vvv\ vvvv\�� v v:. wvv. s � Y vv v\ vAVvy� AAA \ vA vv v v A\V v v vVZ V V A V A \ vv v\ v A v \ � kvvv � �A A v�, vy y y A v�y SP15 CZ v v vv vv y vvwvvyvyyvv vv�yvvv�A v vv vyvAyy residential and �y \ y\\y\ yA\ y\ vv \�Ay o, vAVA V \\\yy AAv A \V\V AVvvVv. AAv, open space VAS t s vA A A vvA v vv v A \ � A \A Va qgg WN, �• v AvV�vV o v v v vv RIO vv��vvvA�vvv �\ v' v yA`\vA A �vAA`\ vv A vv vy\vy yvv v v\yAv, vyvv�yv v y y\y`\ SP15- CZ Rc- CZ V v v A v t°-'� � � �vvowAv wvv�AVv\V\Vvvy vyA y AAv yv \��vvv'v Open Space \/ g\gm ................................. ........................1, ' 4' FAU MEN, ......... I lg\\l mom "gT Ns VIV wwl 4,� �`k, TA' ME Ap, �JF"Y'I IN WE, -pp "o", 'M—1 'OR O:N, RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING SUBJECT: ZMA No. 06-003, ANX 06-002 (Goodell Property Pre- zoning and Annexation) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 RCA ATTACHMENTSST�►T�S Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable ❑ Contract/Agreement w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ ( pp ) Not Applicable 11 (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Not Applicable (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Certificates of Insurance (Approved b the City Attorne Attached ❑ ( PP Y Y Y) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Re ort If applicable Attached p ( pp ) Not Applicable ❑ Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Attached ❑ p ( pp ) Not Applicable s/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached Findin g pp Not Applicable ❑ 'EXPLAMATM FOR PHSSNG ATTACHP liu EHT3_`_:!.`11.' REVIEWED RETURNED '-, FOR A D D Administrative Staff ( ) 4' ), Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) -City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: ' RCA Author: _ SH: MBB: J.Villasenor NOTICE OF PUBLIC:HEARING - " BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OE THE Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of gei CITY OF.HUNTINGTON BEACH circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Sup Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994, NOTICE:IS HEREBY G1VEN.that,on Monday,November.l6 2009,at 6 D2p m in;the:r A50479. City Council.Chambers, 2000 Main'Street, Huntington,Beach,the City�Co6 ci_l,',, l� hold a_publidhearingori the following planning,and`zor�ing'rtems �< g ��®®� ®� APPLICANT: City of HuntingtonBeach, 2000.Main Street, Huntington Beach California 92648. dJ���C�T�®� REQUEST Zoning Map Amendment No.'06-1103 To amend the city of Huntington Beach Zoning Map to pre-zone the-site with the following zoning designations: 3 2,, acres:of Residential, Low;=Density (RL);ZO: acre',"of dpem Spacefl_:Parks4nd; 'Re creation,(OS I ift,and 1:0'acre of Coastal;Conseryation(CC). The=entire 6:2=ecre_x m A 1� 1�T A property'would be designated.with,a Coastal.Zo6e(CZ,),'Overlay „Annexation N0 A6 =' STATE ATE OF CALIFORNIA 002:To annex the approximately 6.2=acre site, generally referred to asahe,Goodell property,into the City-of Huntington Beach.The property is currently located within the COUNTY �y p ATr SSe jurisdictron,of the,Coupty of Orange:'Project.Planner:,Jennifer,,R/itlasenor CO V l�T L OF ORANGE � NOTICE.IS 14EREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for the above 4 k iterri-was-processdand-bompleted:in accordance;with.thealifQmia:Enyironmental. Quality Act.: It-Was ,determinedthat the project Would-not-,ha any significant am the Citizen of the United States and a environmental effects and that'a mitigated negatrve declaration",isw4rranted>" On, resident Of the Count aforesaid; lam over October l3 2009 the-:Plarining;Commission approved-Re-circ, test Mrtigat�d Nega'ti4re ' y Declaration No. 08-017. A copy,of Recirculated Mitigated Negative DedlarationANo -:2 the age Of eighteen years, and not a party 08-017 is bh fide at the City of"Huntington Beach Planning,D6'a " erit;:"2000 Main ' t0 Or interested in the below entitled matter. Street',and�is available,for public inspectiori by contacting th6 'lanhih' 60 rtment,'or,� by.telephoning(714)536 5271. ; am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper Of NOTICE IS•HEREBY GIVEN that the project will require a Local Coastal Program Amendment certified by the California Coastal Commission general circulation, printed and published in PRO'JECT LocATION: the City Of Huntington Beach, County Of 6.2 acre site tocated'atthe.terminus'of,Bolsa Chica:Street, south:of,,L"s Patos' Orange State of California and the Avenue,'east-of Bolsa Chica Street,'on.the-Bolsa Chica Mesa(Unmcotporated County , ' of Orange,.adjacent to the'City of Huntington Beach),(APN 1 701;6 attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the , following date(s): . HearthsideHomes, ?: Property =(dity of Hun6rri n'Beich , i ..-...-. i fix. . November 5, 2009 .� tgtratr, - . 5evetapmnt V).� {Gsry Gf kfunlgrgton �l declare, under penalty of perjury, that the ; foregoing is true and correct. 41i ell : i ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request,is on file in the Planning Deparime'nt,2000 Executed on November 9, 2009 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648;for inspection by the public. Acopy at Costa Mesa, California of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on November 12,2009. . 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,oniy those issues:you:: or someone else raised at,the public hearing described in,this notice, or-in-written" Sign i correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at(714),536-5271 and refer to i 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 i Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)536-5227 32976411, NOTICE OF:PUBLIC HEARING„,' - BEFORE THE CITY cOUNCILOF THE ,, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of genera circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatonMonday,November,'16,2009;at-6:00,p:m.:Jnjhe Court of Orange County, State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,cas City Council-Chambers,.2000,Main'Street,;Huntington Beach;,the-City CoUneif will A50479. hold a:,p'ublic°hearing'on the following planning and.ioning items: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach', 2000,`"Main,^Street,`Huntington PROOF OF California;92648� PUBLICATION RE UE T:.Zo 11 nin0 Map,ArtmendmentNo =06=003 To-amend.'the-City of Huntington 1 Beach Zoraing Map fo pre zone the.,site-with the following zoning`designations'3;2 aci,es�,of Residential_Low Density`(RL); 2 0�acres'of=_Open,Space_, Parks and Recreation(OS PR);and,1.0"acre of Coastal:Conservation(CG) Theentire;,6'.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone(GZ)Averlay. Annexation Nd 06- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 002 To annex the approximately 6:2-acre site generally referred to as the Goodell property,'into the City.of Huntington Beach.,;The,property rs;currentlyaoc2ted.within the SS. judsdictiomofthe County of Orange:;Pro ect-Planner:Jenrnfer-Villasenor COUNTY OF ORANGE ) NOTICE 18-HEREBY GIVEN that the initial_environ"mental assessment for the above item was,processed and 67,, eted•in:accordance:with the,Cali[ornra�Envirorim, ntal Quality Act. "",It•was determined that they:project...would,not have:any significant am the Citizen Of the United States and a environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. On October 13;2009 the Planning Commission approved,Recirct�lated Mitigated Negative resident of the County aforesaid; I am over Declaration No 08-617 'A copy of;Recirctalate,d Mitigated Negative Declaration;No. the age Of eighteen ears, arid not a art 08-017-is on-file atthe City ofHuntington,_Beach.Planning;Departrrjent,`2000'Main 9 9 Y Y Street,and is available,for public inspectiori;by.contacting the Planning Department,or to or interested in the below entitled matter. by telephoning;(714)53&5271 am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON : p p NOTICE-;IS HEREBY_GIVEN that tfae pI•olect will require a,Local Coastal'P'rograrri BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of Amendmentcertified by the,California-Coastal.Commiss ion general circulation, printed and published in PRO�ECT'cocATioN the City of Huntington Beach, County Of 6.2.acre.site located at;the terminus of,Bolsa Chica Street; south:of Los;Patos Avenue"eastof;Bolsa Chi Street,,on the BoIsa Chica Mesa(Unincorporated County Orange, State Of California, and the of Orange,adjacent to the'City of'Huntington Beach)(APN:110-046 16)_ attached Notice is a true and complete copy }:_ � � r as was printed and published on the ° -a OS following date(s): e earihstdetlomes r - ) Property € foitY of i iuntmpfisr#Beedi - November 5, 2009 �Brtgat+ r +E s Dvft?elitt .0 Ir -(!•`ti t�7irof f tlpang2C[F.-BBF1Ch} �� 4' a .. declare, under penalty of perjury, that the p Y P 1 ry, foregoing is true and correct. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed-request is on file-irj.the Planning Department,'2000 Executed on November 9, 2009 Main Street,Huntington Beach;California g2648;-forinspection by the,public. A copy,. of the staff report will be available t6interested parties at-the.City Clerkis Office on at Costa Mesa, California November 12,2009. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are:invited to attend said hearing and'express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined.above.,-lf you challenge the City Council(B 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 Signature correspondence.delivered to the City at,or priorto,the public'hearing If there.are' any further questions please,call the Planning 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 3297841 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 16, 2009, 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: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648 REQUEST: Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003: To amend the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Map to pre-zone the site with the following zoning designations: 3.2 acres of Residential Low Density (RL); 2.0 acres of Open Space — Parks and Recreation (OS-PR); and 1.0 acre of Coastal Conservation (CC). The entire 6.2-acre property would be designated with a Coastal Zone (CZ) Overlay. Annexation No. 06- 002: To annex the approximately 6.2-acre site, generally referred to as the Goodell property, into the City of Huntington Beach. The property is currently located within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor 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 the project would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. On October 13, 2009 the Planning Commission approved Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017. A copy of Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-017 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the project will require a Local Coastal Program Amendment certified by the California Coastal Commission. CADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK15B\091116(Goodell)(2).DOC PROJECT LOCATION: 6.2 acre site located at the terminus of Bolsa Chica Street, south of Los Patos Avenue, east of Bolsa Chica Street, on the Bolsa Chica Mesa (Unincorporated County of Orange, adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach) (APN: 110-016-18) Hearthside Homes Property ( ity of Huntington Beach) � U 5 m O ^^L � )COW Brightwater o ca Development m o e (City of Huntington Beach) ' Annexed 2008 i i � I Q rr � l M ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning 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 November 12, 2009. 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 Council's 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 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 CADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\091116(Goodell)(2).DOC 1 / CITY CO UNCILJREDEVELOPM ENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: Q � u .. =5 tr I 0 DEPARTMENT. `�' Y, M ING DATE: Z CONTACT: ����A�'1 'e ��� PHONE: NIA YES NO Is the notice attached? ( ) { 1 ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ( ) ( ) if an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? { ) ( ) ( Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? { ) (VI ( )f Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) (1v�' Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? (vf ( ) ( ) 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 mailing labels? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels"attached? ( ( ) ( ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: fl_ Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications A113AV-09-008-L 1 widn-dod pjogaj aljalaA9.a luawsuaeN: 009LS pAH3aAV I!!aege6 al zasimn ,T tq'%VW !PW L It Sp�i i �a�� � ���aai�a tUa�rm'43 T 009 LS Joann �+.� �l ph a suss uto:)-AjaAe'MMAA ap wle a,ny-3ey el a zaildaa s salad a salpe1 sallanb!a President 1 Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P.O- Box 791 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dave Stefanides 2 Orange County Assoc_of Realtors 25552 La Paz Road J Laguna Hills,CA 92653 President Jeffrey M_Oderman v,' Pacific Coast Archaeological Amigos De Bolsa Chica RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP v Society,Inc_ P.O_ Box 1563 611 Anton Blvd_, 14'h Floor P.O. Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1950 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum O.C_ Plug.&Dev.Services Dept_ PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd_ P.O. Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702AO48 President Community Services Dept Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O. C. Resources &Develop. Mgt. Dept_. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P_O_ Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging 15 Planning Director 20 BIA-OC 1706 Orange Ave. City of Costa Mesa 17744 Sky Park Circle, #170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P_ O. Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614-4441 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 Richard Spicer Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Director 21 SCAG / Seacliff HOA City of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th, 12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Jean Kimbrell 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director 22 c/o E.T_I_ Corral 100 Seacliff HOA City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood Cir_ 19382 Surfdale Lane P.O_ Box 1768 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92663-8915 Dave Guido Lou Mannone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Westminster 21241 Lochlea Lane 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 8200 Westminster Blvd_ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster,CA 92683 Planning Director 24 Nancy Sebring 31 HB Hamptons HOA 38 City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary School District Progressive Community Mgmt. 211 Eight St. 17200 I'Mehurst Lane 27405 Puerta Real,#300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Mission Viejo,CA 92691 T I w1a6P3 dn-dod asodxa jaded paaj r ®09LS aleldwal®t(aany asB T11 wi096S 0AU3AV wi��l� �ui��dpags$�xa aadeTpaaj .09LS I .nQrc — ■xe-7 wv a 6 - v tll6�l(Q181EstM jiu!1N� 4a2H ii � 1SB�FE�! Vr California Coastal Commission 25 Clark Hampton 32 Sally Graham 39 Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circle 200 Oceangate,loth Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission Stephen Ritter Cheryle Browning 39 j South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disnct Meadowlark Area 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor 5832 Bolsa Avenue 16771 Roosevelt Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Ryan P.Chamberlain 26 Hearthside Homes 4� Caltrans District 12 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 Director 27 Goldenwest College 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid Waste Enf.Agy. Attn: Fred Owens 5200 Warner Avenue,Ste. 108 O.C_ Health Care Agency 15744 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 P.O. Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors,Beach 36 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Evan Henry,President -6771 Warner Ave. P_ O. Box 4048 1812 Port Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Bella Terra Mall 37 Fountain Valley Elem_School Dist_ Attu_ Pat Rogers-Laude 10055 Slater Avenue 7777 Edinger Ave.#300 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Dr.Gary Rutherford,Super_ 30 Country View Estates HOA 38 OC Sanitation District HB City Elementary School Dist- Carrie Thomas 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane 6642 Trotter Drive Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 David Perry 30 Country View Estates HOA 3�8 Eric Pendegraft,Plant Manager 42 HB City Elementary School Dist_ Gerald Chapman AES Huntington Beach,LLC 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shure Circle 21730 Newland Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington Beach Girls Softball* 47 AYSO Region 56 47 9062 Kahului Drive Mike Erickson Commissioner John Gray Huntington Beach CA 92646 P.O. Box 3943 9522 Smokey Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3943 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 John Ely 42 AYSO Region 117 47 AYSO Region 55 47 22102 Rockport Lane John Almanaa Commissioner Russ Marlow Huntington Beach CA 92646 19961 Bushard St. 18111 Brentwell Circle Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 $ a I;jK L 77. (� wig} �9 a �,a �Ppaa ; ��JCS 5, �aa p 4 � ei1ObO(�Oo r} itf1# N 1 �d ; 0 , if ���es �l raj ial HB Coastal Communities Assoc- 3 Huntington Valley Little League 47 HB Field Hockey' 47 David Guido Joel Groth Manilal Padhiar 143 E- Meats Avenue P-O Box 5111 17782 Metzler Dr. Orange, CA 92865 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Downtown Business Association 44 AYSO Region 143 47 HB Pop Warner Football** 47 Mr.Steve Daniels Commissioner Phillip Mce Paul Loflin 200 Main Street#106 5552 Harold Place P.O. Box 5066 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92615 Downtown Residents Association 45 Fountain Valley Pony Baseball* 47 North HB Soccer Club 47 Ms. Marie St_Germain Chris Mahoney President George Milton 505 Alabama 21212 Shaw Lane 18601 Newland Street, 494 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Chairperson 46 H.B_Jr. All-American Football** 47 Robinwood Little League 47 Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Randy Wooten Dona Cardona PO Box 693 P_O_Box 2245 P_O Box 1384 San Gabriel,CA 91778 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Huntington Beach Soccer League* 47 Seaview Little League 47 Aclacherien Nation Felipe Zapata Brian Semmelroth 31411 La Matanza Street 18442 Steep Lane,#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 League 47 Westminster Village HOA 48 President Martin Bannon Phil Shearer,President 5200 Blackpool Road 8921 Crescent Drive 18141 Brentwell Circle Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 West Co_Family YMCA* 47 South HB Gids Fast Pitch Softball** 47 Gary Brown Michael Turner Frank LoGrasso Coastkeepers 2100 Main Street 9432 A5i Circle 3151 Airway Ave-Suite F-110 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Costa Mesa,CA 92663 Regional Environmental Officer for Calif 50 Fort Irwin 50 Fort Hunter-Liggett 50 Western Region Envuoa Office Lc CoL Paul D-Cramer Mc Peter Rubin US Air Force Director of Public Works Nat'l Training Cntr Director of Public Works 333 Market Street Suite 625 P O Box 105097 Combat Support Training Center San Francisco CA 94105-2196 Fort Irwin CA 92310 B790 5,h St Parks RFTA Dublin CA 945680 Sheila Donovan 50 Patrick Christman,Director 50 Gold Coast Extreme 47 Community Plans&Liaison Coordinator Western Region Environmental Office Rick Bauer-President US Navy US Marine Corps Building 1164 20501 Surburbia Lane 1220 Pacific Highway Box 555246 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 San Diego CA 92132-5190 Camp Pendleton CA 92055-5246 South Coast Bayern Futbol Club 41 California Futbol Club 47 District 62 Challenger Division 47 Marissa Pena Hector Aguilar Gail Harder 22222 Eucalyptus Lane 10571 Davitaur 17961 Scotia Circle Lake Forest,CA 92630 Garden Grove,CA 92843 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 41, TV t a 4 1 Uavre T *WA*WAto Cannery s iamilton Properties, LLC Christopher Pierre, Branch Chief Ascon Lasrdfill Site c/o Tamara Zeier Department of Transportion,District 12 One Pointe Drive, Suite 320 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Brea, CA 92821 Irvine,CA 92612 Buildi-ag Industry Assoc_of South Calif. 17744 Sky Park Circle,Suite 170 Irvine, CA 92614 Attn: Elyse Snrinada, Go%t Affairs Asst. WAN d,n-d�od asodxa jaded paaj � @09LS ejeldwa�,r@�(aany asn 1 ,1 Tj wJ1,�g(S�a W��®dll'Wua�p xa aad�paaj G09LS ki e'PxSwf ip"1iU91i�a � of auu fiun�o n.aa �• Easy Peeler =XnXRn� i w A° a 9 u%P � ' L i]e��a `zesi i111 lon lie a ® t Jse Avery® ! �� ► 1 Pop Up Ed 1 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 1 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 10 17171 Bolsa Chica St Un it 100 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4425 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 126 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-550-z 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 101 17 t71 Bolsa Chica St Unit 102 17171 Bolsa Chica St Un it 103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5502 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5502 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-550-z 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 104 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 105 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5149 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5149 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5145 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171_Bolsa,Chica St Unit 107 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 108 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 109 Huntington Heacii, CA 92649-5149 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5149 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5150 163-2$1-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupa __ Occupant Occupant 17171,_�-61sa Chica St Unit 11 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 110 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit I I I Hunting4on Beach, CA 92649-5126 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5150 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5150 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 112 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 113 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 114 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5150 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5150 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5503 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 115 17171 Botsa Chica St Unit 116 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 117 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5503 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5503 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5503 163-281-06 163-291-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 118 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 119 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5503 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 t 51 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5126 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 120 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 121 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 122 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5 1 5 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 1 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 123 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 124 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92649,5151 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5152 se 1i8 x z �, 'aave aM b 4�3�e tin® .. �. I TM Easy Peel® i � along lils X, $E Ose Avery®w ; e ex o Pop-Up Edges"" j 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 126 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 127 17171 Bolsa Chica St Un it 128 -5152 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5152 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 163-281-06 163-28 l-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 129 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 13 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 130 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5152 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5124 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5- 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 14 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 15 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 16 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5124 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5124 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5124 163-2 1-06 8 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 17 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 18 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 19 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5124 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5124 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 2 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 20 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 21 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4425 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 22 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 23 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 24 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 25 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 26 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 27 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5127 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5127 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5127 :163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 28 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 29 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 3 .Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5127 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5127 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4425 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 'Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 30 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 31 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5127 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-S 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5125 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant :17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 33 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 34 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 35 'Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5125 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5125 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5125 �r Wire r ezbWM a dices i® ,n0 i. je i Damn-i TM �_ann Win_ asy Peef0 ;;w, l a a alonly. �� ' melIWA se Avery® 1 , Pop-Up ;' a sa 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 36 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 37 17171 Bolsa Chica St Ua it 38 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5128 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-512� 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 39 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 4 17171 Bolsa Chica St Un it 40 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5128 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4425 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-512f 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 41 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 42 17171 Bolsa Chica St Un it 43 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5128 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5128 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5195 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 44 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 45 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 46 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5198 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5198 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5195 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 47 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 48 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 49 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4426 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4426 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4426 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 5 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 50 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 51 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4425 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4426 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4426 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 52 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 53 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 54 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5199 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5199 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5199 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 55 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 56 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 57 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5199 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5199 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5130 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 58 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 59 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5130 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5130 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4425 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 60 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 61 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 62 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5130 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5130 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4496 R 60® iYtis o°"Ir ler I op TM ; 1 800 ftoob i1 v �d ry Peel® 11 �,,,ukh �a alongli'r t � 4' n g��tin f as7 �se Averyo , Pop Up c� J a s sa 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 j Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 63 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 64 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 65 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4496 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4496 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4496 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 66 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 67 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 68 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4496 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 129 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5129 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 69 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 7 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 70 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5129 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5126 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5129 i 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 71 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 72 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 73 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5129 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5500 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5500 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 117171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 74 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 75 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 76 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5500 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5500 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5500 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 77 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 78 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 79 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 3 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 3 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5131 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 8 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 80 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 81 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5126 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 3 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5131 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 82 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 83 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 84 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5501 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5501 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5501 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 85 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 86 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 87 !Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5501 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5501 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4461 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 88 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 89 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4461 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4461 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5126 Y%mm" ��fl flag r Ww s t2 600 i fhar�;�..�;�+rf��UOR fer f oP- i 1-800-GO e ry Peel® - -� (w° ��. - ,.o along flit fl 94P '09 nn i s a �$I f Po E S { O Q Avery® J � I Pop-Up �. J S ale d a sa�i�e�saanbil 163-281-06 163-281-06 16 3-281.-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 90 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 91 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 92 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4461 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4461 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-446 1 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 93 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 94 1717 l Bolsa Chica St Unat 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5148 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 i 48 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5148 163-281-06 163-281-06 163-281-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 96 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 97 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unat 98 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5148 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5148 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5148 163-281-06 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 99 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 1 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5502 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 163-131-24 163-131-24 16 3-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 11 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 12 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 13 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 14 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 15 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 16 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5132 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 17 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 18 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 19 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 2 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 20 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 21 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513_ 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 22 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 23 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 24 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513-- 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 25 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 26 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 27 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5133 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 3-- o s xa,� jjp�'at��d I rr 0915 a;eldwal60® ; '�ha a i1t Uel P er 1 op- ®load Ase3j' lumWalb f�asy Peel® i P 6 ' along II ' Ise Avery® Pop-Up Ed I 163-131-24 163-131-24 t63-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 28 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 29 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4428 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4428 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-442 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-l 31-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 30 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 31 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4428 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4428 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-442; 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 33 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 34 t7172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 35 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513, 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 36 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 37 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 38 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513, 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 39 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 4 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 40 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513z 163-131-24 - 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 41 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 42 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 43 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 t 3, 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 44 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 45 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 46 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513, 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 47 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 48 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 49 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513' 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 5 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 50 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 51 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5135 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513' 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 52 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 53 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 54 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5135 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5135 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-513' F( '&ftFd SIP a r YAIVIIoVtp aj a5 $RINVEMOWS600 i�itis� � � a er lmmlw P-� i ! 1-800-GOS I�daV�ae3e tsesy Peel® -40lal. ld1 ! along r t ptc854fp Avery®® e� 1�1 Pop-Up Edgy*" 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant j 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 55 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 56 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 57 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-442� 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 li Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 58 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 59 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 60 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 61 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 62 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 1163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 63 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 64 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 65 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4429 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 3 6 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 66 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 67 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 68 :Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5136 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5136 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 13 6 163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 'Occupant Occupant Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 69 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 7 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 70 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5136 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5136 '163-131-24 163-131-24 163-131-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant '17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 71 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 8 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5136 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4427 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-442.7 T ®it d s v Val A?f i Se e � iA , ez le aa'ban 60® ! 1� _ 'rave er le oo-U M ! 1-800-GO. asy Peel®I v�§ -t i 0.0'44� along I se Avery 1 1 1+ W 4 Pop-Up EdW- Owner/Occupant 4821 Coveview Dr. Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant n 481 1 Coveview Dr. 4801 Coveview Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant 4791 Coveview Dr. 17272 Tidalridge Lane 17282 Tidalridge Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant 17292 Tidalridge Lane 17302 Tidalridge Lane 17312 Tidalridge Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant 17322 Tidalridge Lane 4791 Edgartown Dr. 4781 Edgartown Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant 4775 Edgartown Dr. 4771 Edgartown Dr. 4765 Edgartown Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant 4761 Edgartown Dr. 4751 Edgartown Dr. 4741 Edgartown Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant Owner/Occupant 4742 Edgartown Dr. 4752 Edgartown Dr- 4762 Edgartown Dr. Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Owner/Occupant 4772 Edgartown Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i iSe � OS60® I seze R ��`� ' sy Peel®I> 1 ��ffi6r �iw> U 'd along� �9i $ � se Avery W1 6b#^ , Pop-up EE'a 1 L` 163-043-23 163-311-12 110-016-19 Trotz Edward J Me Alister Michael Shea Homes Limited Partnershi 17201 Greenleaf Ln 17327 Hampton Ln Po Box 487 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4520 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6401 Walnut, CA 91788-0487 163-131-26 163-281-10 i63-131 Cabo Del Mar Homeowners Ramirez Jose &Cheri D 1176 Main St 17252 Green St Irvine, CA 92614-6766 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-441 1 163-131-16 163-271-28 163-271-27 Larson Lory E & Sharon L Cf Of Huntin each_ Clifford Gregory 16812 Baruna Ln Po Bo 17501 Tuscan Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3020 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-0190 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-472� I110-016-23 163-252-60 163-252-12 Sh tries Li artnershi Cit3_Qf Huntington Rand Timothy Po Bo Po Box 17502 Tuscan Cir nut, CA 91788-0487 rngton Beach, CA 92648-0 0 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-472S 163-271-19 163-271-26 163-281-13 Conway Richard Patrick & Kris Kennedy Living Trust Tsimerekis Christos& Christi 17521 Bates Cir 17511 Tuscan Cir 4911 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4715 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4729 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 163-281-14 163-281-12 163-281-15 Newman Russell L Chang Yung Wei &'Shin Chi Wan Ceccarelli John A 4921 Seapine Cir 4901 Seapine Cir 4931 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4412 163-131-27 163-281-16 163-131-24 Cabo Del Mar Homeowners Ramaekers Edward J Attic Prop Llc 1176 Main St 4952 Seapine Cir 4639 Tremont Ln Irvine, CA 92614-6766 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-3130 163-281-06 163-271-25 163-271-23 Cambridge, The Janda Joseph Conti James A 2600 Nutwood Ave FI 17521 Tuscan Cir 17552 Bates Cir Fullerton, CA 9283 1-3 145 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4729 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4715 163-271-20 163-271-16 163-271-21 Hoshijo Lois S Hix Jo Ellyn Juline Edward L 17522 Bates Cir Po Box 2413 17532 Bates Cir Huntington Beach, CA 926494715 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-0413 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4715 163-271-14 163-271-18 163-271-22 State Of California Moore S C & J A Living Trust Murphy Victor H& Jennifer 100 Howe Ave Ste 100 17531 Bates Cir 17542 Bates Cir Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4715 Huntington Beach, CA 926494715 �sez a R 600 i �harnnmont a er loop-�7M !! 1-800-GO- Sy Peel® �_� i � e �� alongir �s� � ie Avery® - ��' Pop Up Edg�"' j 163-271-24 163-271-17 163-281-22 Inabinet James C & Esther E Ying William H& Catherine T Felt Randy P&Terry L 17531 Tuscan Circle 17541 Bates Cir 4882 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4715 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-441 163-281-20 163-281-19 163-281-18 Archambault Bret Living Trust Reed Michael F Barto Michael A 4912 Seapine Cir 4922 Seapine Cir 4932 Seapine Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-441 163-281-17 163-311-09 163-31 1-13 Gouin Helen J Trust Hernandez Abilio A Aouate Maurice M & Linda M 4942 Seapine Cir 17308 Hampton Ln 7184 Holmes Ct Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6400 Canton, M148187-1655 163-271-13 163-043-21 163-292-39 Gorsuch Karen S Obeck Martin A Khouraki Mohamed&Noha 5242 Allston Dr 17211 Greenleaf Ln 17231 Green St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4709 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4520 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-510o 163-281-21 163-281-31 163-043-20 Kim Si-hyong &June S Zeroski Allen Beauregard Charles R Jr & Col 4902 Seapine Cir 4981 Los Patos Ave 17221 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4520 163-281-23 163-281-29 163-281-30 Goto Eugene S Gregory Family Trust Ames Douglas A 4881 Los Patos Ave 4961 Los Patos Ave 4971 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4457 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 163-281-25 163-281-26 163-281-27 Oba Dennis T Johnson D A& G A Living Trus Bowman Paul W 4911 Los Patos Ave 4921 Los Patos Ave 4931 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 163-281-28 163-292-41 163-271-15 Wiedemann Leslie A & Peggy J Donaven Nancy M Bowden John M 4941 Los Patos Avenue 4831 Los Patos Avenue 17561 Bates Cir 'Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4715 163-271-12 163-043-19 163-045-10 Mathews Scott& Joanna Coppa Joseph C& Kristen H Mathisen Gary L&Teresa Powe 5252 Allston Dr 17231 Greenleaf Ln 17232 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4709 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4520 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4521 110-016-20 1 10-016-35 163-31 1-18 She es Limit nersl-i Signal Landmark Signal Landmark Po Box 6 Executive Cir Ste 4343 Von Karman Ave nut, CA 91788-048 Irvine, CA 92614-6732 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2099 VWW %Mtsez"40*2600 4h..-- I* v e�le�op-0. ; �� 1 800 GO- � � Easy Peel®INWk-O"08-1 i i wAn-d d along�� k� 111R ise Avery®M9OU*"Nft PAP Pop-Op Ed 1 !34 16,-11 1-l9 163-31 1-02 163-311-04 Signa ar ' Burley Michael R Yamashita James Glen 4343 Vo arman 4915 Shelburne Dr 4939 Shelburne Dr 9 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6404 N port Beach, CA 92660- 163-31 1-07 163-311-03 163-311-01 Filipan James Jouret Robert S Choi Chong 17280 Hampton Ln 4927 Shelburne Dr 4903 Shelburne Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6402 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6404 163-31 1-05 163-31 1-06 163-281-24 Tan Kusal Shaw Tamara J Radle John K &Julie A 4953 Shelburne Dr 4965 Shelburne Dr 4901 Los Patos Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6404 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-6404 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4458 163-045-09 163-292-40 163-045-08 Warden Robert H Langer Scott Wei Hsing-hsiung& Ching-tzu 2798 Waxwing Cir 4861 Los Patos Ave 5242 Kenilworth Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626-4850 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4456 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4525 16>Vorman 163-311-17 163-311-15 Sig Signal 6a dmar Chao Rho & Ping Trust 43 A 4343 V arma 4930 Shelburne Dr Neh, CA 92660-2 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6403 163-31 1-14 163-31 1-08 163-311-21 Hanbury-craven Family Trust Kuttel J A&Sylvia--J Si andmark 17301 Hampton Ln 17298 Hampton Ln 4343 Von Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6401 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6402 Ne rt Beach,CA 9 -2099 110-016-3 3 163-311-20 110-016-21 City untingto Stg andmark State ali is 2000ingaton a' 4343 Vo ve 100 e AV 100 Hu Beach, CA 92 - 702 Ne ort Beach, CA 92 - 9 Sa ramento, CA 9582 - 1 -311-22 163-311-11 163-311-10 Sign dmark Helzer William D Kapnas George M 4343 Von ve 17337 Hampton Ln 17337 Hampton Lane New each, CA 92 99 Huntington Beach CA 92649-6401 Huntington Beach CA 92649 163-31 1-16 163-252-62 Schwene Mark J f Huntin each 4918 Shelburne Dr Po Box Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6403 Hu tngton Beach, CA 9264 - 190 u r ru dtlt i�+lrrebart � 1( Vt _ rlQfila� fq R 60® ! �� _____�l er I oo-l1�M ! ii 1-800 GO- "* fas Peel® OWk i h-A alongllularua6re�y jlse Avery®7l± g4 i ��� Pop-(p W ; 939-541-08 939-54 t-09 939-541-10 Tensfeldt Patricia Pardee Carole L & John L Rankin Patricia D 5032 Dorado Dr #101 5032 Dorado Dr 9102 5032 Dorado Dug 103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-510( 939-541-1 1 939-541-12 939-541-13 Jarolimek Martin Pulera Jotui M Riverman Tracey 5032 Dorado Dr 9104 5032 Dorado Dr 9201 5032 Dorado Dr 9202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 1( 939-541-14 939-541-15 939-541-16 Shubin Deborah A Moh Kyung S & Mee H & Caroline Miller Kelly D 5032 Dorado Dr 9203 5032 Dorado Dr 9204 5032 Dorado Dug 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5105 939-5414 7 939-541-t 8 939-541-19 Ruggiero Neil A Hegeman Patricia Mock Elaine Catherine 5032 Dorado Dr 9106 5032 Dorado Dr 9107 5300 Sunset Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4915 939-541-20 939-541-21 939-541-22 Cabildo Brian B & Sibyl M Marrero Amy Annette Toumaj[an Elizabeth 5032 Dorado Dr 14205 5032 Dorado Dr#206 5032 Dorado Dr#207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 t 0 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-511 C 939-541-23 939-541-24 939-541-25 Santos Dorit Raposas Clarissa Lohman Blaine H 18627 Brookhurst St 9355 5032 Dorado Dr P109 6372 Braemar Dr Fountain Valley, CA 92708-6748 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6517 939-541-26 939-541-27 939-541-28 Markovitz Jack Borkowski Craig E Gover Peter Po Box 1604 5032 Dorado Dr#112 5032 Dorado Dr 9209 Sunset Beach, CA 90742-1604 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 Huntington Beach, CA 9 2649-5 1 1C 939-541-29 939-541-30 939-541-31 Conroy Michaela M Boceta Teresa Santamana Mason Jeremy L 5032 Dorado Dr #210 5032 Dorado Dr 9211 5032 Dorado Dr#212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-511C 939-541-32 939-541-33 939-541-34 Torres Carlos Javier Berbari Luis C& Kimberly L Levin Marc S 5031 Dorado Dr 11101 5031 Dorado Dr#102 5612 E Parkcrest St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5107 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5107 Long Beach, CA 90808-2031 939-541-35 939-541-36 939-541-37 Caramagno Dino Stahl Bryan S Galvin Andrew M 13661 Fairmont Way 5031 Dorado Dr#201 5031 Dorado Drive#202 Tustin, CA 92780-1 8 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 r bMMWR*60® ! L�$e P e�l op lam"' ! i 1-800-C OS 4uatuab l asy Peel® -09-008-1 �� i a s?l llel along liMptWft lase Avery® , � g Pop-Up Edgol- 939-541-38 939-541-39 939-541-40 Carbajal Veronica Sparks Daniel A Caramagno Dino 5031 Dorado Dr #203 5031 Dorado Dr 9204 l 3661 Fairmont Way Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 108 Tustin, CA 92780-1810 939-541-41 939-541-42 939-541-43 Sullivan Susan C Garcia Ricardo B Ono Kenneth M& Shirley E 5031 Dorado Dr#106 5031 Dorado Dr #107 6552 Dohrn Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5107 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5107 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-561� 939-541-44 939-541-45 939-541-46 Garrison Denny N Reeb Gary M & Bridget A Mulen Contreras Luis R & Lucy 5031 Dorado Dr#205 5031 Dorado Dr 9206 542 Eaker Way li Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 Antioch, CA 94509-6539 939-541-47 939-541-48 939-541-49 Pugmire T Kent& Georgia A Via Harold E& Claire E Coghill Joseph R 5031 Dorado Dr 4208 13592 Palomar Street Po Box 316 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 Westminster, CA 92683 Surfside, CA 90743-0316 939-541-50 939-541-51 939-541-52 Hunt Stacy Lynne Rosenberger Garth K& Marcela Shbeeb Imad Aldeen & Lina 5031 Dorado Dr fit 1 1 5031 Dorado Dr 91 12 5031 Dorado Dr#209 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5107 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5107 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 939-541-53 939-541-54 939-541-55 Mutch Kristy Webb Darryl K Morimoto Mark M & Mary Jane -5031 Dorado Dr 4210 6262 Pacemont Dr 5031 Dorado Dr#212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1089 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5108 939-541-56 939-541-57 939-541-58 Wurzburg Mary L Gnegy Brad C Timan Frank W&Nancy E 17202 Corbina Ln 9202 332 Prospect St 526 9th St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5158 Newport Beach, CA 92663-1916 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4639 939-541-59 939-541-60 939-541-61 Me Mann Brian Michael Wickwire Alicia C Marcus Ryan &Carolyn 16391 Eagle Ln 5071 Dorado Dr#201 620 Danube Way Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2715 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-3143 939-541-62 939-541-63 939-541-64 Adams Thomas R Bouffard Victoria Evelyn Dingwall Matthew S & Jennifer J 5858 Engineer Dr 5071 Dorado Dr#204 21246 Alanis Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1166 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5323 939-541-65 939-541-66 939-541-67 Long Rusty Choudhury Sheela Conway Michelle A 17241 Apel Ln 6751 Lafayette Dr 5071 Dorado Dr #108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4603 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4045 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5105 `" 0 3 dn-dodAr'e Ig'M�l m'® \ senoWmIl BuoleM ,h i sez e a R 60 i��__-_�__� lerl op-U i-soa�o- asy Peel® _t -Y d along i i Ise Avery® j Pop up 939-541-68 939-541-69 939-541-70 Manack Gregory E Bobshosky Joseph E Sr Shier Dean & Vannah 276 Hubbard St 5071 Dorado Dr 9206 5071 Dorado Dr#207 Glastonbury, CT 06033-3060 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 10( 939-541-71 939-541-72 939-541-73 Giacchino Mary M Living Trust Pikor Charlotte A Slattery Maureen P 5071 Dorado Dr #208 5071 Dorado Dr 9109 5071 Dorado Dr#1 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5510 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-551C 939-541-74 939-541-75 939-541-76 Gabourie Catherine Benon Jeffrey & Susan Wiemer D E & N E Living Trust 21551 Hanakai Ln 10 Brownsbury Rd 16751 Barefoot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7926 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-9381 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 939-541-77 939-541-78 939-541-79 Imperial Maria Elena De Segal Angela P Frey Mark 5071 Dorado Dr #210 5071 Dorado Dr #211 5071 Dorado Dr 9212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5106 939-541-80 939-541-81 939-541-82 Rossi Barbara J Ramsdell Theodore W Shook Jackson E 17172 Abalone Ln 9 10 1 17172 Abalone Ln #102 1510 W Cowles St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5155 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5155 Long Beach, CA 90813-1225 939-541-83 - 939-541-84 939-541-85 Corella Vincent Nguyen Tuong Heitkamp Curtis L 17122 Abalone Ln 9104 17172 Abalone Ln#201 17172 Abalone Ln B202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4486 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4486 939-541-86 939-541-87 939-541-88 Myers Jean A Fish Allan Dickson Maddox Leslie I 17172 Abalone Ln 9203 592 Redwood Dr 17172 Abalone Ln#105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4486 Santa Cruz, CA 95060-1232 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5155 939-541-89 939-541-90 939-541-91 Fallon Veronica Martin Graham Ulrich Marme 17172 Abalone Ln 9t06 17172 Abalone Ln 4107 30590 Lake Pointe Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1.5 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5155 Menifee, CA 92584-8019 939-541-92 939-541-93 939-541-94 Kramer Kai L Calder Gavin Clark Mark D 17172 Abalone Ln 9205 17172 Abalone Ln ft206 17172 Abalone Ln fi207 Huntington Beach, CA 926494486 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4486 Huntington Beach, CA 926494486 939-541-95 939-541-96 939-541-97 Crow David Cholota Gloria M King Ruth L 17172 Abalone Ln 9208 17172 Abalone Ln P109 1430 Los Vecinos Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4486 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5155 Walnut Creek, CA 94598-2910 TAW$OWR 60® i 'CC''��►► N6uole p ler loop-t*M i i 1-800-GO 1� rharneme Easy reel- x$ 1 1� ; ��Y81�4 �>t'� alon ji 2p:Yj Ose Avery® J1 PAP OP J i; 939-541-98 939-541-99 939-542-00 Lee Jan Naomi Cervantes Donald F & Lila Lee Jackson Harold E 21207 Avalon Blvd #85 550 S Palm St 15402 Mary knoll St Carson, CA 90745-6644 La Habra, CA 9063 1-5736 Westminster, CA 92683-6 115 939-542-01 939-542-02 939-542-03 Vanesian Richard L & Kathleen S Phibbs Elmer Wipperfurth Grace E 14014 N 16th St 16382 Oakmont Ln 17172 Abalone Ln #212 Phoenix, AZ 85022-4591 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4002 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-448, 939-542-04 939-542-05 939-542-06 i Wise Grover& Wilimena Mc Kenna Mary Patricia Michel Jacqulyn Andrews 5146 Dorado Dr #101 16621 Channel Ln 5146 Dorado Dr 9103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 1 l Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2841 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 1 939-542-07 939-542-08 939-542-09 Costner Larry N Thompson Steven Lester Kevin W 5146 Dorado Dr 9104 5146 Dorado Dr 9201 5146 Dorado Dr#202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5112 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 1"< 939-542-10 939-542-11 939-542-12 Giles Laura Poitevin Jeannette Velasquez Charlotte 5146 Dorado Dr 9203 5146 Dorado Dr#204 5146 Dorado Dr#105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 1 939-542-13 - 939-542-14 939-542-15 Iv�1e 2005-wmc2 Metzgar Cindy L Shaver Michael N/avail 5146 Dorado Dr#107 5146 Dorado Dr Apt 108 N/ 11, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 9 2649-511 1 939-542-16 939-542-17 939-542-18 Bondy Lisa Baker Lisa Orear Robert D& Helene 5146 Dorado Dr#205 5146 Dorado Dr 9206 5146 Dorado Dr 9111 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 2 Huntington Beach, CA 9 2649-511 1 939-542-19 939-542-20 939-542-21 Reed Steven G Gates Jennifer Shaw Raymond .5146 Dorado Dr#208 757 Ocean Ave 4117 5146 Dorado Dr 9110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 12 Santa Monica, CA 90402-2653 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 1 939-542-22 939-542-23 939-542-24 Orear Robert D Sweeney Everett Michael Sieradzki Mariusz '5146 Dorado Dr 14111 5146 Dorado Dr 9112 5146 Dorado Dr#209 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 l 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 It Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5112 939-542-25 939-542-26 939-542-27 Morris Judy A Eastman John C Mc Donald Stacey L 5146 Dorado Dr Apt 210 840 E 37`t' Street 5146 Dorado Dr#212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5112 Long Beach, CA 90807 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5112 t$auettes faciles a ele ; I - I j Ud L 600 ,Sr„o '1 �dW WWer le P-UPP 1 1-800-GO- Lsy Peel®A V �M along li 11 1 ®R I se Avery® ll > l e Pop-Up Edgem 939-542-28 939-542-29 939-542-30 Eichorn Craig N & Linda R Ludington Mary Matsumoto Colin 17151 Corbina Ln #101 9 Sanderling Ln 17151 Corbina Ln 4103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5168 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-1219 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5161 939-542-31 939-542-32 939-542-33 Caudillo Gina Cordery Robert H Grote Lawrence N 17151 Corbina Ln 9104 17151 Corbina Ln 9201 17151 Corbina Ln 9202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5168 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 1= 939-542-34 939-542-35 939-542-36 Zagres David P &Kimberly J Kuroye Gwen S Palmer Christopher P- 17151 Corbina Ln#203 17151 Corbina Ln 9204 17151 Corbina Ln #105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5113 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 13 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-516E 939-542-37 939-542-38 939-542-39 Mossman Steven K Ayala John L Murata Keith & L Family Trust 750 Loma Vista St 607 E Las Palmas Dr 1910 Westmoreland Drive El Segundo, CA 90245-2107 Fullerton, CA 92835-1617 Brea, CA 92821 939-542-40 939-542-41 939-542-42 Wilson Conrad Koubouras Athanasios Eggleson Michael S 17151 Corbina Ln 4205 17151 Corbina Ln 9206 2975 Dorn Ct Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 13 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-51 13 Laguna Beach, CA 9265 1-20 1 8 939-542A3 939-542-44 939-542-45 Heath David Spangler Michael T Sowma Barbara J 17151 Corbina Ln 9208 Po Box 2012 17151 Corbina Ln 9110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 13 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-0012 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5168 939-542-46 939-542-47 939-542-48 Fellers Kimberly A Stewart Margaret Diane Nourse Jane : 17151 Corbina Ln 4111 17151 Corbina Lane 9112 17151 Corbina Ln 9209 ,Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5168 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 3 939-542-49 939-542-50 939-542-51 Orewyler Mary Elizabeth Shivananda Tumkur P & Alaka D Maquire Claire 17151 Corbina Ln#210 17151 Corbin Ln 11211 17151 Corbina Ln 9212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 13 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 3 939-542-52 939-542-53 939-542-54 Dalstmer Linda M Trust Pease Rodney E&Joyanne Gentilini Sherry 17191 Corbina Ln 4101 30510 Passageway PI 17191 Corbina Ln 9103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5114 Agoura Hills, CA 91301-2033 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5114 939-542-55 939-542-56 939-542-57 Jane-III Georganna Samaha Devin Kremer John M 17191 Corbina Ln#104 9726 Willow Glenn Cir 711 Alabama St Huntington Beach, CA 92649--51 14 Santa Ana, CA 92705-6104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4709 ® F—�(5e�Ow le !i ISCz a 60 1_______� Pv Pr la�oo-ll +a Tiasy Peel'1' J14b alonj �a6ae r �99 Y se Avery1 r �$ Pop U I i P 939-542-58 939-542-59 939-542-60 Scherf Alan Chang Robert S Asadourian Armen 1.7191 Corbina Lane 9203 4682 Warner Ave #C2 l6 17191 Corbina Ln 14105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 1-luntington Beach, CA 92649-3992 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 1, 939-542-61 939-542-62 939-542-63 Nelson John A& Deanne L Gates Ryan M Tan Michelle 420 Nogal 17191 Corbina Ln #107 2413 Rockefeller Ln#b Lompoc, CA 93436-2617 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 14 Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3806 939-542-64 939-542-65 939-542-66 Palinkas Yvette Helen Trinidad Julio Saul Tricia Ann 17191 Corbina Ln #205 17191 Corbina Ln 1/206 555 S Shoal Creek St Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 15 Banning, CA 92220-52 1 O 939-542-67 939-542-68 939-542-69 Golden Paula M Mock Elaine La Tempa Henry J 1 I 1 17191 Corbina Ln #208 5300 Sunset Ln 6672 Jardines Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-51 15 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4915 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6666 939-542-70 939-542-71 939-542-72 Archer Lewis M Reynolds Patrick A Vielma Stanley Ii 7371 E Woodsboro Ave 910 Turtle Crest Dr 17191 Corbina Ln 0209 Anaheim, CA 92807-2427 Irvine, CA 92603-1010 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 5 939-542-73 - 939-542-74 939-542-75 Richards Clifford T Dozier Donna V Powell Roger Wayne 17191 Corbina Ln 4210 16458 Bolsa Chica St 21179 Via Noriega Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 5 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-2603 Yorba Linda, CA 92887-2544 939-542-76 939-542-77 939-542-78 Kiemle Matthew C Girard Cynthia Annette Paulitschek Jenna& Vivian A 5101 Tortuga Dr#101 5101 Tortuga Drive #102 5101 Tortuga Dr#103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5165 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5165 939-542-79 939-542-80 939-542-81 Stempleski Christine& Anne Jostak J David Redenbaugh Ryan D 5101 Tortuga Dr#104 5101 Tortuga Dr 11201 5101 Tortuga Dr#202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5165 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5166 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5166 939-542-82 939-542-83 939-542-84 Saulson Brian Dennin Diane E Miller Charles O 5101 Tortuga Dr #203 5 10 1 Tortuga Dr 9204 P.O. Box 760 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5166 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5166 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 939-542-85 939-542-86 939-542-87 Shih Mabel Uranga Henry Jr Carungay Marton F 5101 Tortuga Dr #106 5101 Tortuga Dr#107 5101 Tortuga Dr#108 Huntington Beach, CA 9264975165 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5165 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5165 ll�l �-8011-G�- sy Peel® w-GO8-k ; gn-do al jaila'Aal along lid WU egr6'al-gawIR Se Avery® lP Pop-Up Edem n 939-542-88 9 39-542-89 939-542-90 Stolp Eric M Suzuki Lori Leilani Botzbach Janice Elaine 5t01 Tortuga Dr #205 5145 Tortuga Dr 9112 5101 Tortuga Dr 9207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5167 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5162 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-516 939-542-91 939-542-92 939-542-93 Carnahan John A Utegg James L Bruemmer Kelley S 16294 Janine Dr 5101 Tortuga Dr #109 5 l01 Tortuga Dr #l 10 Whittier, CA 90603-1530 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5166 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-516( 939-542-94 939-542-95 939-542-96 Du Sinh Q & Dong Q & Bay L New en u quity 2005-4 Arnold Kristine M 5101 Tortuga Dr Apt I I I N/ava- 5101 Tortuga Dr 9209 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5166 N/avail, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-516 1 939-542-97 939-542-98 939-542-99 Carter Terry T Arnstad Patricia Aleman Regmaldo 7332 Douglas Cir 5101 Tortuga Dr 9211 5101 Tortuga Dr 8212 La Palma, CA 90623-1319 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5167 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5167 939-543-00 939-543-01 939-543-02 Philipp Carol M Bath Alma F - Bridge Betty Lu 5145 Tortuga Dr #101 5145 Tortuga Dr#102 5145 Tortuga Dr#103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5161 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5161 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5161 939-543-03 939-543-04 939-543-05 Bergenson-williams K M Trust Buttson David B Alstrand Joanne E 5145 Tortuga Dr#104 5145 Tortuga Dr 9201 5145 Tortuga Dr 9202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5161 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5162 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5162 939-543-06 939-543-07 939-543-08 Komae Archie K Baker David R Beach Carl E 45-303 Puutoko PI 2105 Alabama St 5145 Tortuga Drive 9105 Kaneohe, HI 96744 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2824 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 939-543-09 939-543-10 939-543-11 Radovic Jelena Nash Richard P & Barbara S Pouder Bruce Allen 5145 Tortuga Dr#106 1 Malibu Ct 5145 Tortuga Dr 9108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 6 1 Merced, CA 95341-8463 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5161 939-543-12 939-543-13 939-543-14 Bounds Molly Romano Jeanne L Congetliere Colleen 5145 Tortuga Dr 11205 5145 Tortuga Dr 9206 5145 Tortuga Dr 9207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5163 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5163 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5163 939-543-15 939-543-16 939-543-17 Morales Norma F Renteria George L Gemehl Christy L 16497 Tropez Ln 816 Hotlowbrook Ct. 440 Davis Ct 9802 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1873 San Marcos, CA 92078 San Francisco, CAcc��94111-2471 i Se @Ws irI!!!O v IVe Sea"I fiN �sez a fin® ! _ ��� IPlnn-�t� ! stnrLrn�e asy Peel® �Otl'ir ifl along li S se Avery® 1W*M ItM Pop-Up EdgW" 939-543-18 939-543-19 939-543-20 Valencia Camelia L Suzuki Norman Kenji& Abigail lchiko Poure Victoria R 5145 Tortuga Dr #1 l 1 S 145 Tortuga Dr#112 5145 Tortuga Drive 9212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5162 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5162 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 939-543-21 939-543-22 939-543-23 Bickelhaupt Dave Friedlander Larry A Rice Robert R& Dolores J 5145 Tortuga Dr #210 5145 Tortuga Dr#21 1 5 l45 Tortuga Dr#212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5163 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5163 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5163 939-543-24 939-543-25 939-543-26 Pollock Allan& Joshlene A Dewire Paulette Curoso Linda K Trust 17202 Corbina Ln #101 17202 Corbina Ln#102 17202 Corbina Ln#103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 l 57 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5157 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5157 939-543-27 939-543-28 939-543-29 Felling Lori K Elus Wayne Wurzburg Mary L& Michael T 17202 Corbina Ln#104 17202 Corbina.Ln 9201 17202 Corbina. Ln 9202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5157 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5158 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5158 939-543-30 939-543-31 939-543-32 Campbell Timothy Lee Nakamoto Steven Nelson Daniel 17202 Corbina Ln#203 17202 Corbina Ln 9204 17202 Corbina Ln#105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5158 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5157 939-543-33 - 939-543-34 _ 939-543-35 Gentry Kathleen Ann Hegarty Patrick J &Patricia L Moroney Colleen K 17202 Corbina Ln#106 368 Harvard Dr 17202 Corbin Ln#108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5157 Arcadia, CA 91007-2636 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-5157 939-543-36 939-543-37 939-543-38 Whorton Crystal L Deemer Robin Lynn Schreckengost Viktor D 17202 Corbin Ln#205 17202 Corbina Ln 11206 17202 Corbina Ln 9207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5159 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5159 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5159 939-543-39 939-543-40 939-543-41 Nol Samien& Vivara Hulsey Rickie Morton Heather 17202 Corbina Ln#208 13342 Chestnut Street 17202 Corbina Ln#110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5159 Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 8 .939-543-42 939-543-43 939-543-44 Hliboki Christopher W Hopkins Jamieson N Bogert Michael V 16 Wescott St 17202 Corbina Ln#1 12 17202 Corbina Ln 9209 Old Tappan,NJ 07675-7426 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5158 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5159 939-543-45 939-54346 939-543-47 Nichols Penelope Riley Margaret S Skramstad Richard Po Box 196 17202 Corbina Ln#211 21706 Talisman St Seal Beach, CA 90740-0196 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5159 Torrance, CA 90503-6442 ' ,,,^^• i CI Easy Pee10AX1A*4W4WA � (, I i is d r' d along lugs i; %=_a � tse Avery@ � �Pop-up E 9W 939-543-48 939-543-49 939-543-50 Cannon Ward D Medel Eric Zingg Robert G 5176 Tortuga Dr #101 5176 Tortuga Dr #102 5176 Tortuga Dr #103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 t 71 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 171 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-317 939-543-51 939-543-52 939-543-53 Towers Harold C Jr Verna William Michael Runge Scott H 43104 W Sunland Dr 28012 Pasco Rincon 5176 Tortuga Dr#202 Maricopa, AZ 852384700 Mission Viejo, CA 92692-2625 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5171 939-543-54 939-543-55 939-543-56 Raslavicius Linas Tullis Lindsay D Littlejohn Joshua J 5176 Tortuga Dr #203 5176 Tortuga Dr 9204 424 Grey Feather Ct Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5170 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5170 Round Rock, TX 78665-7458 939-543-57 939-543-58 939-543-59 Miller Charles O Valdez Gilberto Estrada Daniel M P.O. Box 760 507 13th St 5176 Tortuga Dr 9108 Sunset Beach,90742 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4037 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-517-, 939-543-60 939-543-61 939-543-62 Tan Rudy Larrea Francisco M Hall Michael Po Box 750611 9048 Buttercup Ave 5176 Tortuga Dr 9207 Las Vegas, NV 89136-0611 Fountain Valley,CA 92708-1902 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-517C, 939-543-63 939-543-64 939-543-65 Chen Shuping Waligurs obert Maruki Danny 5176 Tortuga Dr 4208 2310 th S 5176 Tortuga Dr 9110 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 t 70 aco 8221-2028 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5172 939-543-66 939-543-67 939-543-68 Anderson Diane Schug Stewardson Darren Branson Craig A& Robert E 5176 Tortuga Dr 4111 5176 Tortuga Dr#112 5176 Tortuga Dr#209 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5172 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5172 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5171 939-543-69 939-543-70 939-543-71 Gearhart Denver V Iii Levitt Michele L Trust Carmen Lisa M 5176 Tortuga Dr 4210 5176 Tortuga Dr 4211 5176 Tortuga Dr 9212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 7 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 7 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5171 939-543-72 939-543-73 939-543-74 Maclachlan Laura W Handler Michael David Kooiman Brady J 5096 Tortuga Dr 4101 5096 Tortuga Dr 9102 5096 Tortuga Dr#103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 939-543-75 939-543-76 939-543-77 Sgrot Carla J Kim Francisca Sands Norman 5096 Tortuga Dr 4104 5096 Tortuga Dr 9201 5096 Tortuga Dr 9202 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 iffMAUN R 60® GO- Fsy Peel®A111VAffi-O"08-L ; ; w mp' a +aong �ca� �e Avery4l1N tom% " Pop-Up Edg87m 939-543-78 939-543-79 939-543-80 j Dewey Ann Patrice Sorensen Lloyd S & Sharon A Me Girr Lauren 5096 Tortuga Dr 9203 644 1-lillside Drive 5096 Tortuga Dr 9105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 Solvang, CA 93463 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-517C 939-543-81 939-543-82 939-543-83 Trudeau Gary Taylor Patricia Paden Don J 5096 Tortuga Dr 14106 5096 Tortuga Drive 4102 5096 Tortuga Dr Apt 108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5176 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 l76 939-543-84 939-543-85 939-543-86 Malhotra Monica Broadway Lilian Woods Neil & Debra 5096 Tortuga Dr #205 5096 Tortuga Dr #206 5096 Tortuga Dr#207 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 939-543-87 939-543-88 939-543-89 Solan William J & Elaine T Grasso Salvatore Heinrichs Gary D 5093 Tortuga Dr#208 5096 Tortuga Dr#109 5096 Tortuga Dr#1 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5176 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5176 939-543-90 939-543-91 939-543-92 Mooney Gary & Barbara Mitchell Peter C Living Trust Lai Diron 6711 Shetland Cir 3201 La Cresta Dr 5096 Tortuga Dr 9209 .Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1526 Bakersfield, CA 93305-1017 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 ;939-543-93 939-543-94 939-543-95 Beetler Wendy Lester Michael J Overstreet Christine 5096 Tortuga Dr 4210 334 Carroll Park E 5096 Tortuga Dr 9212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 Long Beach, CA 90814-2211 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 l qu fa v i &. 0%4"N3VV-eq i@ P er le oa U " ! 1 800 GO- U �e ��'PMSOma 11 ;$ aper ® eAi CCRPA Department of Fi§h and Game I PO Box 54132 Sandra Genis South Coast Region Irvine,CA 92619 1586 Myrtlewood 4949 Viewridge Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sand Diego, CA 92123 DTSC GabrielenolTongva San Gabriel Band of Maziar Movassaghi, Director Mark Bixby Mission,Anthony Morales,Chairperson 5796 Corporate Avenue , 17451 Hillgate Lane P.O.Box 693 Cypress, CA 90630 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 San Gabriel,CA 91778 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Coalition to Preserve Sacred Sites Gabrielino Tongva Nation Acjachemen Nation,David Belardes, Susana Salas Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary Chairperson 28872 Escalona Drive PO Box 86908 32161 Avenida'Los Amigos Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Los Angeles, CA 90086 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians ;Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Shaw Acjachemen Nation,Anthony Rivera, Sonia Johnston,Tribal Chairperson --8272 Grant Drive '31411-A La Matanza Street Chairman ,PO Box 25628 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Santa Ana, CA 92799 i Connie Boardman Margaret Carlberg Angel Eyes c/o Cathy Fikes 17422 Lido Lane PO Box 714 Administration Dept. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 c t.' r - -- I ' e a 9 MC ' Repliez A la hachure afin de -onsu ez a eui ,ay m very.co i iseizl g� �� 51�6®� d 6 aemlentent rdsv6ler le rebord Pop-UpTM i d'instruction 1_800-Goi 0-AVERY i Notice of Public Hearing ZoningWap Amendment No. 06-0.03 - leAnnpexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property = 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office o{tfie�Citq� erk a M yam' 4121116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH LU ® y $00.414 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 to 11/05/2009 Mailed From 92648 IL" US POSTAGE 939-542-65 JBLIC HEARING NOTICE Trinidad Julio 1719 l Corbina Ln 9206 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 1 5 X 927 NEE .1 00-01 01 11/09/09 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 2ACS-t — TRYNiDAD 5951 PRICE DR FIUNTINCTN SCH CA 92649-4904 RETURN TO SENDER 9264000190 I Office of the City Clerk 0121116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH LU` E2 5 L: $00.414 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 w� a 11/05/2009 w ffi Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE IC HEARING NOTICE 939-543-45 �... Nichols Penelope Po Box 196 Seal Beach - - - °SACS<— RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD SC: 92E4Ec0�909C3 .xOBiO t 5�E7- t0-37 '�a7 4c C\ illy U�;-/UUU ® Mailed From C 9?8dR CIS POSTAGE JBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-271-13 Gorsuch Karen S 5242 Allstone Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4709 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Item #2 ' Office of the City Clerk o ^ �.L 012H16299932. CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH a�1 4) OOA 14 00 - O.BO 90 CALIFORNIA 92648 tif 11/05/2009 UJU) Mailed From 92648 u. US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 110-016-19 Shea Homes Limited Partriershi - Walnut, CA 91788-0487 NIXIE 917 4C 1 06 11116109 - RETURN TO SENDER C p lNt3'P T C?ELIVEREBO F WARD SEA I_✓�{`//,f I'/1 ���/�� `/�/� UNAOI< TO FORWARD i ��{ BC: 92j64i9019]09(0 *2100-00025-10--ae I C13HL JW2 5,3,.I90 l Notice of Public Hearing— Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - to}nnexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda ' Office oft tf Aerk DO 0121116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH wq? 00.4 4 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11/05/2009 � Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE IBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-541-91 Ulrich Marnie 30590 Lake Pointe Dr Menifee, CA 92584-8019 NIXIE 923 CE 1 06 11/1!2/O!V 2AOSt- RETURN TO SENDER NOT DE_LIwERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD SC. 92648019090 *1977-01932-12-04 „1111I,I1,,,,,,111111111,1i1,1,111,„III III Office of the City Clerk a �, "�"�` 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH W W 14 0 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (of- 11/05/2009 lib tt± 3: Mailed From 92648 IL°L US POSTAGE 3LIC HEARING NOTICE Bella Terra MaU 37 -{ --'�~-y- Attn: Pat Rogers-Laude 7777 Edinger Ave.#300 Huntington Beach CA 92647 N1"XX rl 927 trill 1 01 liiI4/09 .PACs t- RETURN TO SENDER NOT I,2taLIVERsdDLE AS ADDRESSED UNAOL.0 TO FORWARD EtC; 9 s49019090 *2177--02-1042-11-15 9264709998 P.U. BUX 190 RPaaled From 92648 US POSTAGE 3LIC HEARING NOTICE 939-542-93 Bruemmer Kelley S 101 Tortuga Dr 91 10 J untington Beach, CA 92649-5166 Notice-of Public-Hbaring — Zoning-Map Amendment No. 06-003 - _ Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office I�tFie-City2 Clerk Q to ! 012HI6209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH UJ 1. ® • P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 UU) 1110512009 w_ Railed From 92648 US POSTAGE 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-281-06 Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 121 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 1 NIXIE 927 CM 1 01 11/12109 2ACS<- RETURN 1.0 SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD DC : 9.2640019090 *2077-04444-12-00 92264000190 11111)1,11IJ11)111)11„1111)1171,11111,1111„1,1„I1„11)1111 Office of the City Clerk ;�. d``°• 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH UJ $OOA14 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 v3 111051 2009 balled From 92648 a, E US POSTAGE �39-54 -81 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE Ramsde 1 Theodore W 17172 A alone Ln#102 untie n Beach, CA 92649-5155 X 912 7 NEE I 700C 01 11J 10J 09 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 2ACSc — RAMSDELL 2215 TERRACE WAY CAPITOLA CA 95010-00'SO RETURN 'TO SENDER 9264900190 11,1,11,l,1111,,,1)111)1111I11,1,.!II,I1,II,1,1,1111I,,,,11,11 ..�. . ... w k_P%L1rVKIV1A Wb425 [ / ... W, -�2,c R180ed From 92648 US POSTAGE IC HEARING NOTICE 939-543- 1 Larrea Fra sco M 9048 Butt p Ave Fountai all , CA 92708-1902 Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 —Agenda ' Item #2 Office of the City Clerk ®�y x 0121116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH UJ Cc %. $00.414 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1)F= M 1110512009 LU co w Ce (balled From 92648 IL US POSTAGE UBLIC HEARING NOTICE rr auren 5096 Tortuga Dr 4 10 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5176 NIXIE 927 C".E 1 01 i1/12/09 2ACS<— RE'TURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD CC: 92649019090 *2077—OSSSO--12--29 LCaF�Qt t ��.F's4°3 9264900190 11 11 1 1,)J,J1JJ11)i pill 11I JIl,„1,JJJ1J„JJ,,,I,l►11J 111f 1J111 Office of the City Clerk 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH JU $00.41 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 w 1 � 11/05/200; w L1C Mailed From �2648 CL ..� US POSTAGE BLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-542-79 Sterripleski Christine & Anne 5101 Tortuga Dr 11104 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5165 x 927 NEE 1 -SOOF° 01 11112109 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO 'SEND 2ACS-t — STEMPLESK1 4 CHRISTINE A 1300 E AMELIA ST APPLETON WI 54911-3914 RETURN TO SLENDER 9.284800190Uj J1,J,1,11,J1JJ,1ii,�ll„J,II,,,,1,111,J„1J1„J1J„1J.1„1,J,J1 _ ® !balled From 92648 US POSTAGE V PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-281-06 Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 68 1{untingtonReach, CA 92649-5129 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No.- 06-003 - 4 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda ' Office AARtjZlerk cl Cc 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH +J 00. 14 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 w 1- is 11/05/2009 w it 1` hailed From 92648 STAGE 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-043-20 Beauregard Charles R Jr& Col 17221 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach, CA 926494520 '. NIXIE 927 CE 1 O1 11J12109 2ACS - RETURN 7O SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD OC: 92s 4GO19090 *2077-06855-12-29 92648Ci�,,0190 11111l1i1i1)l�11)1)1111)J11111ii)11IIi13)111i1111i1111)1))1111 Office of the City Clerk 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTO LLI� 1, 00.414 P.O. BOX 190 CALIDR7 fir'"05i2009 Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE 163-045-08 PUBLIC HEARING NWei Hsing-hsiung& Ching-tzu 5242 Kenilworth Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4525 NXX;IE 9:27 CE 1 O1 11/12109 S2ACS t— RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNAMLEe' TO FORWARD DC: 92640019090 *20 77-05054—:1.2—:.29 9264000190 11111111131)1111111)11})1i11i71ii)11111)JIM]111)11311)11111 r.U. t5UA I JU C,ALRUKNIA 92648 t 5 11'0512009 uj OG�' MailedFrom 92648 US POSTAGE C HEARING NOTICE 939-543-74 Kooiman Brady J 5096 Tortuga Dr#103 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5175 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning-Map Amendment-No: 06-003 - - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office AWl #21erk 0 M E 012H16209932 ' CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH Uj _ 00.4 `t P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 W r 1!/05/2009 Q` Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-54 t-39 Sparks Daniel A 5031 Dorado Dr 9204 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 108 NIX112- 927 CE 1 01 11/12/09 2ACSt — RETURN TO SENDER NOT DEL.IVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE 7® FORWARD DC: 92649019090 *2077-06959-1 2-29 9.254800190 Office of the City Clerk v� 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH � *� 4, f 0 y P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (all- a ro 11/05i 2009 Uj Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE PUBLIC_ HEARING NOTICE 939-541-17 Ruggiero Neil A 5032 Dorado Dr #106 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 NIXIE 927 of 1 01 11112/09 2ACS4— RE'FURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 92649019090 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 ° TM05i2009 UJI lZ Mailed From 92648 a US POSTAGE UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-541-16 Miller Kelly D 5032 Dorado Dr #105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5109 �{ � 1 1 - Notice-of Public Hearing.— Zoning.Map Amendment No. 06-003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda t o�tgm #2 Office t e City Clerk S16 012H16209932 a CO CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH �, 00®� '�4 00 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11105/2009 !c& Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE ILIC HEARING NOTICE 939-54 47 Stewart Margaret Diane 17151 Corbina Lane#112 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 X 927 NEE I SOOF 01 11Ji2✓09 RETURN TO SENDER 2ADS4— UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER DC.: 92649019090 *20 77--0606 1--1 2-29 9.264900190 11111111IfIJI,„I„��„ I Office of the City Clerk ® 6 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH U' l f P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 t 11/0612009 LU CO 1%0: � Mailed From 92648 a EIS POSTAGE 939-541-85 JBLIC HEARING NOTICE Heitkamp Curtis L 17172 Abalone Ln #2P2 / Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4486 NIXIE 327 CE 1 0:1. it/12/09 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNAML.E TO FORWARD 0c: 92540019090 *20'77--06060- 12-29 92S4900190 I1,1,,,,i,I,Il,,,i„ll„{,fi,,,,,,111,!„Il,,,l,l„11,,,,,1,li - - -- / - V rr Mailed From 92648 CL US POSTAGE BLIC HEARING NOTICE 93 541-80 Rossi Barbara J 17172 Abalone Ln #101 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5155 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment'No: 06-' 003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office oftfil 0i#21erk a 0) _ '� 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH w Ce f � T $00.414 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 W� 11/05/2009 a Mailed From, 92648 US POSTAGE HEARING NOTICE i 939-543-69 , Gearhart Denver V Iii. 5176 Tortuga Dr B210 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5171 J NIXIE 927 cc 1 01 11/12/09 2ACS.4- RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERAGLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD SC: 92649019090 *2077-06 966-1 2--2 9 9264900190 1 1,1,,,,1,i,l 1,,,l,,I l„l,l l e r r,,,i t 1,l„l l,,,1,l„I l,,,,,1,11 ' Office of the City Clerk 012H16209932 f f CITY o HUNTINGTON BEACH U r OOA 14 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 w is 11/05/2009 Uj w�_ Mailed From 92648 IL " US POSTAGE JBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-543-35 Moroney Colleen K 17202 Corbina Ln#108 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5157 \ / NIXIE: :327 C'E:: 1 01 11/12/09 2ACS<- RETURN To SENDER NOT DELIVERAMLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD CC: 92640019090 *2077-06964-12•-29 VWR-Z+N ♦ ti�2'34IC3 9264000190 Jill,,,il,11II,,,I,ill,,I,llil,ilrlllll„Ill„I,I#tll„ii,lill P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 W 2 "aaiied From 92648 E oS POSTAGE 3LIC HEARING NOTICE 939-543-24 Pollock Allan& Joshlene A 17202 Corbina Ln #101 �` Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 1 5 7 Notice of-Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 = - An�npexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office o��Tie-Gift'?erk %%r 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH UJ CO .4 1. � �14 1 0 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 W� -.e +� 11/05/2009 LU Lb !g _ Mailed From 926AS US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Owner/Occupant 4742 Edgartown Dr. Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 NIXIE 927 CC 1 01 11112109 2ACS(- RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD DC: 92640019090 �^�077-o�OS£3-12-29 92644900190: MI)IlliJlJIliiii�i!!!r!>>)l��rl,l„!l�i��r1i!! I Office of the City Clerk 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH JU ' I O 4 4 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Q I- - . _ 11105i2009 �� r AAaifea!Frotst 92648 US POSTAGE JBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-311-14 Hanbury-craven Family Trust 17301 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6401 N'1X1C 927 CE' 1 01 11/12/09 2ACS t - RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERADI-a AS ADDRCSSED UNADLE TO FORWARD DC: 92640019090 *207 7- 07297-1 2-2 513 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 m T11`05,2009 �J W Ix 111114A, Mailed From. 92648 U. US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-31 1-09 Hernandez Abilio A 17308 Hampton Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-6400 11 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No.106-003 - - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda ' Office of fbffiit#gerk 0 0 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH j CO) 0 •4 1 4 . c� P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 - 11/05/2009 LU d e - MailaB From 92648 V61- �+ US POSTAGE PUBLIC_ HEARING NOTICE 163-281-06 Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 40 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5 128 NIXIE 927 DD 1 01 11/12/09 2AC:S 4 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE 70 FORWARD BC:: 92S40019090 *2077-03347-12-29 -------------------------------------- ' ° 'tiY•Office of the City Clerk ®� 012HI6209932 UJ CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH •a $00.414 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 Uj ,1/05/2009 We te Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 7'�'�= 163-281-06 Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 36 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5125 NIXIE 927 CE 1 01 1111.2,/09 2ACS<- RETURN 7`O SENDER ATTE2. MPTED UNABLE TO FORWARDWN Ec : 9,--6,40019090 x2077-03040--12-29 92648 0190 �11/05/2009 Uj W Maltart From 92648 `( k•� .s US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Owner/Occupant 4772 Edgartown Dr_ Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Notice of Public Hearing - Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda I Office of ft fii Jerk 13 % 0121-116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH Ul P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11105/2009 LU • Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Owner/Occupant -- 4752 Edgartown Dr_ Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Nxx:cr— 927 CE 1 tit 11112l09 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT KNOWN UNAMUE TO FORWARD SC: 9.2640019090 -*2077-03299-12-29 @� }lllifll 111111111l111h)l111111111111111111111}1}I1I11)11)111! Office of the City Clerk 0121-116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH Ul 5 00.414 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11/05/2009 LU a Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE 3LIC HEARING NOTICE 163-281-06 Occupant 17171 B01sa Chica St Unit 19 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5196 Ad'It XIt: 927 CE 1 01 11112J09 2Ae s t- RE'TURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT KNOWN UNAOLE TO FORWARD? IOC: 92 5 4001 9090 *2077-03343--12-129 926401@0190 1111,1,111}1}1111l,1}Ilil1}1111111}I}1}li}!„1}ii111),1,1,1�}) P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 0) 111051009 W W 4 Mailed From 92648 a US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 16 281-06 Occupant 17171 Bolsa Chica St Unit 90 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4461 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property - 11-16-2009 — Agenda Item #2 Office of the City Clerk ® ~ 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH0.4 14 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11-- 11105/2009 LU ix _� mailed Erort2 92648 \ a ,� Av- �F id US POSTAGE 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE West Co_Famil rMCA* .0- Y Michael Turner 47 2100 Main Street Huntngtou Beach,CA 92646 N'.IxIE 927 CC 1 01 11/11,/ -3 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DEL.IVERA®L-E AS ADDRESSED UNAM-C TO FORWARD BC:j 19.2640019090 *2077-04798-1 0-29 M.s`.+�.-'..•t..t-.+sv`•.�..,r—•^'�"•�G.���, }1i11711}i}7}}1.11}3l}}illl}�lJilll�#}1�31��i)i}!}7d}�it))1}i}} Office of the City Clerk m 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH o 00.4 4 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11/05i20Q9 OG _ Mailed Fro -�m- 648 d `� US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Jean Kimbrell 8 C/o E.T_L Corral 100 20292 Eastwood Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Na;tIE 9 7 GIu 1 01 IA!2ACSC9 RETURN TO SENDER No-r DE.L_IVCRABL.E AS ADDRESSED UNASLE TO FORWARO BC4 92646019090 *2077-02413--10•-26 Iv6RIZZ 1%92V1W.Q .;I.aa W U) 11/05/2-0 0 J ce W Mailed From 92648 ���✓ j `� us POSTAGE 0 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE Fountain Valley Pony Baseball* 47 Chris Mahoney 21212 Shaw Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 1.17Y YC� C-1"h-7 f^C Notice of Public Hearing --Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003-- Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda yg m #2 012HI6209932 Office e City Clerk CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH UJ li!i 0 $00.414 C) 'G P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (A 11/0512009 LU W_ Mailed From 92648 IL US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-542-27 Mc Donald Stacey L 5146 Dorado Dr#212 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5112 N xx T a 917 cc I cis 11109/09 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DIMI—MVERAMLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 92640019090 *1609-013:37-09--42 Office of the City Clerk 012HI6209932 ca CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH W M . li:5 2 $00.414 00 %A P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (1)P_ M 11/05s2009 UJI 0) Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-131-24 Occupant 17172 Bolsa Chica St Unit 36 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5134 NXXZE S17 CI-!, 1 06 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD DC; 92IS49019090 *1608-03257-09-42 9264000190 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 CC 1— S#_ it it Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE L)BLIC HEARING NOTICE AYSO Region 117 47 John Almanza 19961 Bushard St Fountain Valley,CA 92708 N1.X_E E 9127 C E6 -1 -- -Notice otPublic Hearing-- Zoning Map Amendment No.-06-003- - - - - - - - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda ' Office oN e-City?lerk OW 012HI6209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH c�CO Z. . 14 f P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 w� 11/05/2009 UA w d flailed From 92648 iL o- US POSTAGE BLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-281-20 Archambault Bret Living Trust 4912 Seapine CIF Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4412 927 NEE 1 9091 01 11 J 07/09 RETURN TO SENDER 2ACS C- ARCHAMMAUL.T'GRET MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNADL.E TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER SC: 926 40019090 *2177-020365 07-29 9264600190 lJ,l,,,,l,i,I1,,,!„11„1,li,,,,,,)11,11)JI,,,111„Il,,,,,1,II _ ' Office of the City Clerk 0121-116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH WA 14 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 9264800 LU(a � 11105E2009 w w Mailed From 92648 CL" US POSTAGE IBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-541-84 - Nguyen Tuong 17172 Abalone Ln 4201 Huntington Beach, CA 926494486 X 927 NEE 1 Goal 01 11J07.109 FORWARD TIME E XP F?TN TO SEND 2ACS t-- NGU+IEN'TUONG 5 PALM HDR AL.:ISO V IEJO CA 928SS-6005 RETURN TO SENDER 9264900190ww 0. Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE 'UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 163-281-06 Cambridge, The 2600 Nutwood Ave FI Fullerton, CA 92831-3145 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office oilftmi#Aerk ato 15; 012HI6209932 UJ CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH $00414 0 VW P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 1-- a . 11/05112009 UJI (a fe W Mailed From 92648 IL FL US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 939-542-70 Archer Lewis M 7371 E Woodsboro Ave Anaheim, CA 92807-2427 N I-A I r- 927 CE 1 01 :11/11/09 RC7*0RN 70 SENDER NOT OtLIVERAML-C AS ADDRESSED UNAMLE TO FORWARD MC: 92648019090 *2077-ODl 06--:11--26 Office of the City Clerk 012H16209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH UJ $00E414 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11105/2009 Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE -IC HEARING NOTICE 939-543-44 Bogert Michael V 17202 Corbina Ln #209 Huntington Beach CA ()-)�AO Cn 927 MCC 1 9091 01 11/09/09 RETURN TO SENDER 2ACS( - SOGMRT'M1CHAC1- MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNAMLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER BC: 92649019090 *2077-01900--09-1 G 9284000190 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11 IT 5 112 Ili 0 9 Lu It Mailed From 92648 EL US POSTAGE ;LIC HEARING NOTICE 939-543-76 Kim Fuanci-sca 5096 Tortuga Dr H201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-5174 Notice of Pubfic Hearing —Zoning., lap Amendment No..OM03 - Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Office AeTig?lerk 0 cc 012HI6209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH ju ca - �55 00 $00.414 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 111015/2009 Lu Mailed From 92643 US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Huntington Beach Lids Softball* 47 Mike Erickson P.O- Box 3943 Huufingt4 v- 9 9=1-7 GC 1 0:1 111a019JID9 RE TURN TO SENDER ATTE.MPTED -- NOT KNOWN UNASL.E TO FORWARD SC: 92S40019090 Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - -An-nexation No. 06-002 ---Good pl I.Property 11-11.6-2009 7 Agenda - Item #2 Office of the City Clerk 0121116209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACH tu 1%011. $00.414 00 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 11,105/2009 lu w 73 Mailed From 92648 CL US POSTAGE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Regional Environmental Officer to,calif~ 50 Western Region Euviroa Office US Air Force 333 Market Street Suite 625 San Francisco CA 94105-2196 N M]A M r_ 941 C-S -1 70 -11/20109 ( RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED — NOT XNOWN UNAGLE TO FORWARD GC: 92640019090 *0940-07126-20-29 Vigo Notice of Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 - _ Annexation No. 06-002 — Goodell Property — 11-16-2009 — Agenda Item #2 _- IOffice of the City Clerk 012HI6209932 CITY of HUNTINGTON BEACHUJ VA _ $00.414 1 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 0 " w 0 11'f0512009 C US POSTAGE 163-1 1-24 UBLIC HEARING NOTICE 'V Occu ant N 1717 Bolsa Chica St Unit 63 Hunt gton Beach, CA 92649-4429 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT DC: 92640019090