4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 71 / 106
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 72 / 106
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 73 / 106
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 74 / 106
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 75 / 106
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 76 / 106
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition and Hauling for
Disposal
Demolition 2/24/2025 3/11/2025 6.00 14.0 —
Site Preparation/Grading Site Preparation 3/12/2025 3/19/2025 6.00 7.00 — Bore Hole Drilling/Zone
Testing
Site Preparation 3/20/2025 4/21/2025 6.00 28.0 —
Casing/Gravel
Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Grading 4/22/2025 5/7/2025 6.00 14.0 —
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Building Construction 5/8/2025 7/11/2025 6.00 56.0 —
Site
Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Building Construction 7/12/2025 7/28/2025 6.00 14.0 —
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Building Construction 7/29/2025 10/1/2025 6.00 56.0 —
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Building Construction 10/2/2025 1/23/2026 6.00 98.0 —
Water/Sewer/Storm Drain
Pipelines
Building Construction 1/24/2026 3/13/2026 6.00 42.0 —
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Paving 3/23/2026 4/15/2026 6.00 21.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/14/2026 3/21/2026 6.00 7.00 — La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 77 / 106
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 16.0 0.38
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site
Preparation/Grading
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Site
Preparation/Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 78 / 106
Site
Preparation/Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Site
Preparation/Grading
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Preparation/Grading
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site
Preparation/Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site
Preparation/Grading
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Site
Preparation/Grading
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Preparation/Grading
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingTractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingBore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingAir Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingGenerator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingRubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingPumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingSignal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingSweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 79 / 106
Casing/Gravel Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 80 / 106
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Site
Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 81 / 106
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 82 / 106
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Architectural Coating Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Architectural Coating Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Architectural Coating Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 83 / 106
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 16.0 0.38
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Demolition and Hauling
for Disposal
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site
Preparation/Grading
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Site
Preparation/Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site
Preparation/Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 84 / 106
Site
Preparation/Grading
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Preparation/Grading
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site
Preparation/Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site
Preparation/Grading
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Site
Preparation/Grading
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Preparation/Grading
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingTractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingBore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingAir Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingGenerator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingRubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingPumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingSignal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone TestingSweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 85 / 106
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 86 / 106
Well Development Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Pumping/Pump Testing
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Well Development
Pumping/Pump Testing
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Site
Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 87 / 106
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Well Equipping
(Pump/Column/Motor)
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 88 / 106
CMU Well Building and
Appurtenances
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Water/Sewer/Storm
Drain Pipelines
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Site
Restoration/Landscaping
Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Architectural Coating Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Architectural Coating Signal Boards Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.82 Architectural Coating Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
5.3. Construction Vehicles
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 89 / 106
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition and Hauling for Disposal — — — —
Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Worker 30.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Onsite truck — — HHDT Site Preparation/Grading — — — —
Site Preparation/Grading Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation/Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation/Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation/Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing — — — —
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
— — — —
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Worker 32.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Hauling 5.36 20.0 HHDT
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Well Development Pumping/Pump
Testing
— — — —
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 90 / 106
Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingWorker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingVendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingHauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingOnsite truck—— HHDT Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
————
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Onsite truck—— HHDT
Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor)————
Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Onsite truck—— HHDT
CMU Well Building and Appurtenances————
CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Onsite truck—— HHDT Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines————
Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 91 / 106
Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Onsite truck — — HHDT Site Restoration/Landscaping — — — —
Site Restoration/Landscaping Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Restoration/Landscaping Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration/Landscaping Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration/Landscaping Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition and Hauling for Disposal — — — —
Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Worker 30.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Demolition and Hauling for Disposal Onsite truck — — HHDT Site Preparation/Grading — — — —
Site Preparation/Grading Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation/Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation/Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation/Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing — — — —
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 92 / 106
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing Onsite truck—— HHDT
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
————
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Worker 32.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Hauling 5.36 20.0 HHDT
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement Seal
Installation
Onsite truck—— HHDT
Well Development Pumping/Pump Testing————
Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingWorker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingVendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingHauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Well Development Pumping/Pump TestingOnsite truck—— HHDT Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
————
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration/Fencings/Access
Gates
Onsite truck—— HHDT
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 93 / 106
Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor)————
Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Well Equipping (Pump/Column/Motor) Onsite truck—— HHDT
CMU Well Building and Appurtenances————
CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT CMU Well Building and Appurtenances Onsite truck—— HHDT Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines————
Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Vendor 2.64 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Water/Sewer/Storm Drain Pipelines Onsite truck—— HHDT
Site Restoration/Landscaping————
Site Restoration/Landscaping Worker 7.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Restoration/Landscaping Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Restoration/Landscaping Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Restoration/Landscaping Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 6.76 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 94 / 106
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 24,159 8,053 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition and Hauling for
Disposal
0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation/Grading — — 3.50 0.00 —
Bore Hole Drilling/Zone Testing — — 0.00 0.00 —
Casing/Gravel Pack/Cement
Seal Installation
300 300 0.00 0.00 —
Site Restoration/Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 95 / 106
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Light
Industry
79.9 32.1 80.5 26,698 562 225 566 187,682
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Light
Industry
79.9 32.1 80.5 26,698 562 225 566 187,682
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 96 / 106
0 0.00 24,159 8,053 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Light Industry 156,007 532 0.0330 0.0040 569,130
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Light Industry 156,007 532 0.0330 0.0040 569,130
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 97 / 106
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Light Industry 3,724,513 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Light Industry 3,724,513 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Light Industry 20.0 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Light Industry 20.0 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Light Industry Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 98 / 106
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Light Industry Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 99 / 106
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 100 / 106
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 5.68 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 101 / 106
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 53.7
AQ-PM 66.2
AQ-DPM 55.1
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 102 / 106
Drinking Water 50.4
Lead Risk Housing 61.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 75.4
Traffic 72.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 25.6
Groundwater 55.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 63.6
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 24.8
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 30.0
Cardio-vascular 18.5
Low Birth Weights 31.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 14.2
Housing 53.6
Linguistic 64.1
Poverty 16.8
Unemployment 18.3
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 71.94918517
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 103 / 106
Employed 52.68831002
Median HI 63.31322982
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 88.73347876
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 95.7141024
Transportation —
Auto Access 59.70742974
Active commuting 51.12280252
Social —
2-parent households 82.72808931
Voting 35.49339151
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 14.01257539
Park access 7.532400873
Retail density 99.01193379
Supermarket access 35.59604774
Tree canopy 59.51494931
Housing —
Homeownership 31.90042346
Housing habitability 32.77300141
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 6.775311177 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 84.49890928
Uncrowded housing 64.30129603
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 47.91479533
Arthritis 0.0
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 104 / 106
Asthma ER Admissions 82.8
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 83.4
Cognitively Disabled 29.3
Physically Disabled 74.5
Heart Attack ER Admissions 84.2
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 87.3
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 84.9
Elderly 35.4
English Speaking 40.0
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 105 / 106
Foreign-born 70.5
Outdoor Workers 94.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 15.2
Traffic Density 80.9
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 16.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 43.0
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 33.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 69.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
La Cienega - Well 2 (Gregory Well) v2 Detailed Report, 8/3/2023 106 / 106
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Consistent with size and acreage in PD
Construction: Construction Phases Based on applicant provided schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on applicant provided equipment list Construction: Architectural Coatings Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113 Operations: Architectural Coatings Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113 Operations: Water and Waste Water WTP 100% aerobic
Appendix E
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Technical Study
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
Beverly Hills, California
prepared for
Kennedy Jenks
300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 1020
Pasadena, California 91101
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
September 2023
r RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 0 E a s t 1 s t S t r e e t , S u i t e 1 4 0 0
Los Angeles, California 90012
213 7 8 8 4 8 4 2
i n f o @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s September 27, 2023
Project No.: 22-13335
David Ferguson, Vice President
Kennedy Jenks
300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 1020
Pasadena, California 91101
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study, Beverly Hills, California
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
This report presents the findings of a Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study completed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the City of Beverly Hills’ proposed La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 project located in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California. The Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated August 10, 2022.
Thank you for selecting Rincon for this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of any future assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Julie Lynne Welch Torin Snyder, PG, CHG
Director of Due Diligence Principal
Savanna Vrevich
Environmental Scientist
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study i
Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 5 Records Review ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Hazardous Materials Release Sites................................................................................................. 6 Historical Records........................................................................................................................... 8 Landfills........................................................................................................................................... 8 CalGEM Records.............................................................................................................................. 9 NPMS Records ................................................................................................................................ 9 California Statewide PFAS Investigation......................................................................................... 9 Impact Summary...................................................................................................................................10 Construction Impacts....................................................................................................................10 Operation Impacts........................................................................................................................11 References............................................................................................................................................12 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Site Location and Adjacent Land Uses ................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Sites of Hazardous Materials Concern................................................................................ 7 City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Table of Contents
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 1
Introduction
This report presents the findings of a Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study (HMWTS) prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the City of Beverly Hills’ (City) proposed La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 project (project or proposed project) located at two, non-contiguous areas within La Cienega Park in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California (collectively referred to as the “project site;” Figure 1 and Figure 2). The purpose of this HMWTS is to provide a preliminary evaluation of the potential for the environmental effects of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes to impact the proposed project as a result of past or current activities in the area. The report documents areas of potential environmental concern within the project site, which have or may have been impacted by hazardous materials or wastes, and identifies environmental concerns that have the potential to impact the construction or operation of the proposed project.
Project Description
The proposed project includes construction and operation of two groundwater wells for raw water production on two non-contiguous sites within La Cienega Park in the city of Beverly Hills. The purpose of the project is to enhance the City of Beverly Hills’ drinking water supplies. Construction of the two wells would require site preparation, minimal grading, well drilling and constant rate testing during daytime hours, construction of an approximately 420-square-foot concrete masonry unit building around each well, installation of water pipelines that extend from the proposed wells to an existing raw water transmission main within La Cienega Boulevard, and site restoration upon completion of construction. Both wells would be equipped with vertical turbine well pumps with aboveground motors with variable frequency drives, and both buildings would be equipped with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment for the electrical rooms. No nighttime construction activities are proposed. Construction staging and materials laydown would occur adjacent to each well site. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site in the region, and Figure 2 shows the project site in its neighborhood context.
The two proposed groundwater well sites include the following:
▪ Le Doux Well Site: The Le Doux Well site is located on the southwestern corner of Frank Fenton Field within the portion of La Cienega Park located on Assessor's Identification Number (AIN) 4333-026-900. The Le Doux Well site would be accessed via two approximately 15-foot-wide access ramps from the corner of West Olympic Boulevard and Le Doux Road. The total construction impact area (inclusive of the permanent well footprint and the construction staging/laydown area) for the Le Doux Well site would encompass approximately 8,800 square feet (0.20 acre). Approximately 12 trees would be removed to accommodate construction site access, and the existing berm along the western side of the parcel would be removed during construction and partially replaced.
▪ Gregory Well Site: The Gregory Well site is located within the existing maintenance yard within a portion of La Cienega Park located on AIN 4333-031-900. The Gregory Well site is located at the eastern end of La Cienega Park. The total construction impact area (inclusive of the permanent well footprint and the construction staging/ laydown area) for the Gregory Well site would encompass approximately 16,100 square feet (0.37 acre), which would include portions Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
2 Figure 1 Regional Project Location
Imagery provided by National Geographic Society, Esri and their /icensors © 2023. The topographic representation depicted in this map may not portray all of the features currently fou nd in the vicinity today and/or features depicted in this map may hove changed since the original topographic map was assembled. * Project Locations
N
A
Los Padres
National
Forest
Santa Barbara
Bakersfield
99 14
Edwards Air
Force Base
Lancaster
Palmdale
58 Victorville
Santa Clarita Angeles
Simi Valley ~ National Forest
Oxnard
v * L_os Angeles
¥ 60 Riverside
~ Anaheim Corona ij; Santa Ana
Murrieta
Oceanside
Fortlrwm
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 3
Figure 2 Project Site Location and Adjacent Land Uses
Gregory Well Site
0 110
Feet
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
4 of the existing maintenance yard and the La Cienega Park baseball field. The well itself would be installed within the existing maintenance yard, and impacts to the baseball field would be limited to temporary construction staging/laydown. The Gregory Well site would be accessed primarily via the existing maintenance yard gate with secondary access provided from the north on Gregory Way and/or at other locations within the maintenance yard (necessitating temporary removal of existing fencing/materials). One existing light pole associated with the baseball field may need to be removed and relocated in the immediate vicinity to accommodate the proposed well.
In addition, as part of the construction contractor specifications and as a standard best management practice to achieve regulatory compliance, the City would require the project construction contractor(s) to retain a qualified consultant (i.e., Professional Geologist [PG] or Professional Engineer [PE]) to prepare a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP). The SGMP, or equivalent document, would be prepared to address on-site handling and management of impacted soils, groundwater, or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and off-site receptors during construction. The SGMP would establish remedial measures and/or soil and groundwater management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
▪ Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of Best Management Practices
▪ Collection of groundwater samples during dewatering and/or drilling ▪ Proper transportation and disposal procedures of impacted materials in accordance with applicable regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 22 ▪ Monitoring and reporting
▪ A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection and outlines proper soil and groundwater handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction
If odorous or visually stained soils or groundwater, other indications of piping or equipment (including hydrocarbon piping or equipment), or debris are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area would be halted, and a qualified consultant (i.e., PG or PE) would be contacted immediately to evaluate the site conditions. Work may continue on other parts of the project while impacted soil or groundwater investigation and/or remediation takes place.
The City’s Public Works Department would review and approve the SGMP prior to construction and would require the project construction contractor(s) to implement the provisions of the SGMP during construction as part of the construction contractor specifications.
Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site consists of two non-contiguous areas within La Cienega Park in Beverly Hills.
Currently and historically, land uses on the project site include recreational land uses (park with sports fields). Figure 2 depicts land uses surrounding the project site, including residential and recreational land uses to the north, east, and west, and residential and commercial/retail uses to the south.
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 5
Methodology
The following methodology was used to conduct the HMWTS:
▪ Review of environmental documents available online at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker website and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor website for known on-site and/or adjacent releases, including Cortese sites.
▪ Review of known solid waste landfills near the project site using the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) website.
▪ Review of known oil and gas wells and oil fields near the project site using the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) website.
▪ Review of known buried hazardous material pipelines near the project site using the Department of Transportation (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) website. ▪ Review of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) investigations near the project site using the SWRCB website.
▪ Review of reasonably ascertainable historical resources (e.g., aerial photographs, topographic maps) to assess the historical land use of the project site and adjacent properties.
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
6 Records Review
Hazardous Materials Release Sites
According to Rincon’s review of the online Cortese List Data Resources (California Environmental Protection Agency 2023), there are no Cortese-listed sites within one-eighth mile of the project site; however, there are several known release sites in the vicinity.
According to Rincon’s review of the online SWRCB GeoTracker (SWRCB 2023a) and DTSC EnviroStor databases (DTSC 2023), three release sites are located within one-eighth mile of the project site.
Figure 3 shows the project site in relation to these release cases, which are detailed in the following subsections.
Former ARCO Service Station #1361 (6739 West Olympic Boulevard) This currently vacant site is located adjacent to the Le Doux Well site to the east, across South La Cienega Boulevard (Figure 3), and is associated with a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case. A release of gasoline to groundwater was reported, and the case was closed in 2007.
Case documents available on GeoTracker include a Request for Low Risk Closure Report (SECOR International Inc. [SECOR] 2006), which indicates the site formerly operated as a gasoline station from the 1940s through 1990 and was a vacant lot in 1990. Three underground storage tanks (USTs) and associated infrastructure were reportedly removed from the site in 1990 during site decommissioning activities, and petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil was detected in the area of the former USTs and dispenser islands. Groundwater monitoring, extraction, and treatment occurred at the site from 1992 to 1996, and a soil vapor extraction system operated at the site from 1993 to 1995. Confirmation soil samples collected at the site in 1995 detected low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon constituents, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) issued a “no further action” letter for the case in 1996. However, additional soil and groundwater assessments conducted at the site in 1998 reported petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil and groundwater, and the LARWQCB reopened the case in 2002. Groundwater monitoring was conducted at the site from 2003 to 2007, and additional soil vapor and groundwater treatment was conducted in 2004 and 2005. According to the most recent groundwater monitoring report for the site available on GeoTracker (SECOR 2007), groundwater was reported to be between 13 and 15 feet below ground surface and flowing toward the southeast. The petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted groundwater plume was depicted on report figures as extending to approximately 340 feet east of the Le Doux Well site with undefined western limits because no groundwater analytical data between this release site and the Le Doux Well site is available. Therefore, there is the potential for petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil vapor and groundwater associated with this release site to be migrating beneath the Le Doux Well site.
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 7
Figure 3 Sites of Hazardous Materials Concern
Gregory Well Sit e
0 110 220
Feet
Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2023. 1 - Former ARCO Service Station #1361
(6739 W. Olympic Blvd.)
2 - Tosco-76 Station #0981
(1004 S. La Cienega Blvd.)
3 - Former All Star Cleaners
(8500 W. Olympic Blvd.)
3 J'.>tl: H
I I Co
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
8 Tosco-76 Station #0981 (1004 South La Cienega Boulevard) This release site is located adjacent to the Le Doux Well site to the southeast, across the intersection of South La Cienega Boulevard and West Olympic Boulevard (Figure 3), and is associated with an open LUST case. A release of gasoline to groundwater was reported, and the case has an “Open – Remediation” status as of 1997. Case documents available on GeoTracker include a Site Assessment Report (GHD 2022), which indicates the site has been operating as a gasoline station since 1964 and remediation activities since the LUST case opened in 1986 have included soil removal, soil vapor extraction, and groundwater extraction and treatment. According to the most recent groundwater monitoring report for the site available on GeoTracker (GHD 2023), groundwater was reported to be between 17 and 21 feet below ground surface with a variable flow gradient. The petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted groundwater plume was depicted on report figures as extending to approximately 330 feet southeast of the Le Doux Well site with undefined northwestern limits; no groundwater analytical data between this release site and the Le Doux Well site is available.
Therefore, there is the potential for petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil vapor and groundwater associated with this release site to be migrating beneath the Le Doux Well site.
Former All Star Cleaners (8500 West Olympic Boulevard)
This site is located adjacent to the Le Doux Well site to the south, across West Olympic Boulevard (Figure 3), and is associated with a Cleanup Program case. The case has an “Open – Site Assessment” status as of 2019. Case documents available on GeoTracker include a Conceptual Site Model Report (AdvancedGeo, Inc. 2022), which indicates the site was previously developed with a gasoline station from the 1930s to the 1970s, then developed with the existing shopping center structure in 1984 in which one unit was occupied by a dry cleaner from 1984 to 2015 but has been vacant since 2015. The Conceptual Site Model Report figures depict tetrachloroethene (PCE)- impacted soil vapor and a groundwater plume extending to approximately 280 feet southeast of the Le Doux Well site (AdvancedGeo, Inc. 2022). There is the potential for volatile organic compound (VOC)-impacted soil vapor and groundwater associated with this release site to be migrating beneath the Le Doux Well site.
Historical Records
According to a review of online aerial photographs and topographic maps, the Le Doux Well site has been a portion of an open grassy area (park/soccer field) since at least 1947. The Gregory Well site was previously developed with tennis courts from at least 1947 to 1989, and a portion of this site has been a baseball field since at least 1992 (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC 2023).
Landfills
According to a review of the CalRecycle online SWIS database, no landfills are located within oneeighth mile of the project site; the nearest landfill (the closed San Vincente & Beverly solid waste disposal site at 8655 Beverly Boulevard), is located approximately one mile north of the project site (CalRecycle 2023).
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 9
CalGEM Records
According to a review of CalGEM online oil/gas well records, the project site is located within the South Salt Lake and Beverly Hills oil/gas fields, but there are no oil or gas wells located within oneeighth mile of the project sites (CalGEM 2023). However, there are three oil and gas wells located within 0.25 mile of the project site as follows (CalGEM 2023):
▪ API 0403706478 – plugged core hole well located approximately 0.21 mile northeast of the Gregory Well site
▪ API 0403715159 – idle oil and gas production well located approximately 0.23 mile northnortheast of the Gregory Well site ▪ API 0403706335 – plugged core hole well located approximately 0.24 mile south of the Le Doux Well site
According to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Information Management System, the project site is not located within 300 feet of an oil or gas well, or within 1,000 feet of a methane-producing site (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 2023). The database indicated the project site is subject to the City’s methane code. However, the City’s code of ordinances does not include ordinances for oil/gas wells or methane (City of Beverly Hills 2023).
According to a phone conversation with a City representative in the Building and Safety Department on September 7, 2023, the City does not have codes for oil/gas wells or methane and thereby defers to the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, or State for oil/gas and methane regulations.
Therefore, the Los Angeles County Code regulations for methane gas hazards (Title 26, Chapter 1, Section 110.4) would be applicable to the project (Los Angeles County 2023). Because the project site is not within 300 feet of an oil or gas well, mitigation of methane gas hazards is not required by the County of Los Angeles.
NPMS Records
According to a review of the PHMSA online NPMS database, there are no natural gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipelines located within one-eighth mile of the project site (USDOT 2023).
California Statewide PFAS Investigation
According to a review of the SWRCB online PFAS databases, there are no current airport, chrome plating, Department of Defense, landfill, or publicly owned treatment works PFAS orders at any facilities located within one-eighth mile of the project site. In addition, there are no drinking water wells with orders for PFAS monitoring located within one-eighth mile of the project site (SWRCB 2023b). In addition, none of the facilities listed on the SWRCB’s March 12, 2021, Bulk Fuel Terminal/Refinery Investigative Order are located within one-eighth mile of the project site (SWRCB 2021a).
As part of a PFAS investigative order, five drinking water wells approximately 1.4 to 1.7 miles northwest of the project site were analyzed for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (SWRCB 2023c). PFOA and PFOS were not detected in these drinking water wells. No other drinking water wells are known to have been tested for PFAS within two miles of the project site (SWRCB 2023c).
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
10 Impact Summary
Based on the research conducted as part of this HMWTS, potential hazardous materials and wastes impacts were identified at the project site as described below. The analysis takes into consideration whether the project would have the potential to result in any of the following due to existing conditions related to hazardous materials and wastes:
▪ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist threshold 9a) ▪ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist threshold 9b) ▪ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist threshold 9c)
▪ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because of the project site’s location on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist threshold 9d; exception [e] to the use of a CEQA Categorical Exemption) ▪ A reasonable possibility to cause a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances (exception [c] to the use of a CEQA Categorical Exemption) Construction Impacts
Based on the research conducted as part of the HMWTS, the project site is located within oil/gas fields, and known groundwater impacts are present in the vicinity of the project site. If shallow groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during construction activities and/or if dewatering is necessary during construction activities, the groundwater encountered may be impacted by off-site contamination.
Chemicals known to be present in groundwater at the nearby release sites include, but are not limited to:
▪ Former ARCO Service Station #1361 (6739 West Olympic Boulevard): total petroleum hydrocarbons (full range) and VOCs
▪ Tosco-76 Station #0981 (1004 South La Cienega Boulevard): total petroleum hydrocarbons (full range) and VOCs
▪ Former All Star Cleaners (8500 West Olympic Boulevard): VOCs Depth to groundwater at the project site is expected to be encountered first at approximately 13 to 21 feet below ground surface and may be impacted by off-site sources of contamination. Because the proposed project involves the construction of groundwater wells with perforated casing at or deeper than 100 feet below ground surface and the installation of water pipelines, impacted soil or shallow groundwater may be encountered during construction (drilling) of the proposed groundwater wells and installation of water pipelines.
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 11
However, as indicated under Project Description, as part of the construction contractor specifications and as a standard best management practice to achieve regulatory compliance, the City would require preparation and implementation of an SGMP would to avoid potential construction-phase impacts as a result of hazardous materials contamination through additional investigation and remedial measures, proper transportation and disposal of impacted materials, and soil and groundwater management practices that protect the health and safety of construction workers and the public. Therefore, no significant construction-phase impacts related to existing hazardous materials and wastes conditions would occur.
Operation Impacts
In response to the 1996 federal Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, the SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water established the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection (DWSAP) Program, which requires the completion of a Drinking Water Source Assessment for a proposed drinking water supply source as part of the permitting process (SWRCB 2021b). The Drinking Water Source Assessment “includes a delineation of the area around a drinking water source through which contaminants might move and reach that drinking water supply; an inventory of possible contaminating activities (PCAs) that might lead to the release of microbiological or chemical contaminants within the delineated area; and a determination of the PCAs to which the drinking water source is most vulnerable” (SWRCB 2021b).
Because the project is subject to the requirements of the DWSAP Program, the DWSAP that will be prepared for this project will address the potential for the groundwater VOC plume in the vicinity of the well sites to impact groundwater that will be pumped by the proposed extraction wells. If impacts are identified, additional design measures or engineering controls may be prescribed.
Therefore, no significant operational impacts related to existing hazardous materials and wastes conditions would occur.
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
12 References
AdvancedGeo, Inc. 2022. Conceptual Site Model Report, All Star Cleaners (Former), 8500 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. August 1, 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000012796 (accessed March 2023).
Beverly Hills, City of. 2023. “City Code of Beverly Hills, California.” https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-1 (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2023. “Well Finder.” Last modified: 2023.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023. “Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/Site Documents.” Last modified: 2023. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search (accessed March 2023).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. “EnviroStor.” Last modified: 2023. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed March 2023).
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Last modified:
2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed March 2023).
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021a. “March 12, 2021 Bulk Fuel Terminal/Refinery Investigative Order.” March 12, 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/order_wq2021-0006-dwq_pfas.pdf (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2021b. “Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program.” https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/DWSAP.html (accessed April 2023).
_____. 2023a. “GeoTracker.” Last modified: 2023. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2023b. “California PFAS Investigations.” Last modified: 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/ (accessed March 2023). _____. 2023c. “GeoTracker PFAS Map.” Last modified: 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/pfas_map (accessed March 2023).
GHD. 2022. Site Assessment Report, Union Oil 0981/Phillips 66 Site 5903, 1004 South La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. May 18, 2022.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0603700871 (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2023. Second Semi-Annual 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Report, TOSCO – Former 76 Station 0981/Phillips 66 Site 5903, 1004 South La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. May 18, 2022.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0603700871 (accessed March 2023).
City of Beverly Hills La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study
Hazardous Materials and Wastes Technical Study 13
Los Angeles, County of. 2023. “Code of Ordinances, Title 26: Building Code, Chapter 1:
Administration, Section 110.4: Methane Gas Hazards.” http://lacountyca.elaws.us/code/coor_title26_ch1_sec110.4 (accessed March 2023).
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 2023. “Solid Waste Information Management System.” Last modified: 2023. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/OnlineServices/searchmethane-hazards-esri.aspx (accessed March 10, 2023).
Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC. 2023. “Historic Aerials by NETR Online.” Last modified: 2023. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer (accessed March 2023).
SECOR International Inc. (SECOR). 2006. Request for Low Risk Closure Report, Former ARCO Facility 01361, 6739 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. November 30, 2006. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T0603701103 (accessed March 2023).
_____. 2007. First Quarter 2007 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former ARCO Facility 01361, 6739 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. March 26, 2007. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T0603701103 (accessed March 2023).
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2023. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) – National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Public Map Viewer. Last modified: 2023. https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/ (accessed February 2023).
Appendix F
Cultural Resources Technical Report
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
Cultural Resources Technical Report
prepared for
Kennedy Jenks
300 North Lake Avenue, Suite 1020
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: David Ferguson, Vice President
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
September 2023
r RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com
Please cite this report as follows:
Rodriguez, A., M. Vader, P. Gonzalez, J. Murphy, and R. Perzel 2023 La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project, Los Angeles County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 22-13335. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Table of Contents
Cultural Resources Technical Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................2 Project Site and Description................................................................................................2 Personnel ............................................................................................................................3 2 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................................................8 California Environmental Quality Act..................................................................................8 National Register of Historic Places.......................................................................9 California Register of Historical Resources......................................................... 10 California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014..................................................................... 10 California Health and Safety Code ................................................................................... 11 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.......................................................... 11 Local Regulations ............................................................................................................. 11 3 Natural and Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................ 13 Natural Setting ................................................................................................................. 13 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................ 13 Pre-Contact History............................................................................................. 13 Ethnographic Setting........................................................................................... 15 Post-Contact Setting ........................................................................................... 17 4 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 20 Background and Archival Research.................................................................................. 20 California Historical Resources Information System Records Search................. 20 Sacred Lands File Search..................................................................................... 20 Field Survey...................................................................................................................... 20 5 Findings........................................................................................................................................ 22 Cultural Resources Studies............................................................................................... 22 Known Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 23 Sacred Land File Search.................................................................................................... 26 Historic Map and Aerial Photograph Review...................................................... 27 Geologic and Soils Map Review .......................................................................... 28 Summary ............................................................................................................. 28 Field Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 28 6 Impacts Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 32 Historical Built Environment Resources........................................................................... 33 Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources............................................................. 35 Human Remains............................................................................................................... 35 7 References................................................................................................................................... 36
1.1 1.2
2.1 2.1.1
2.1.2 2.1.3
2.2 2.3
2.4 3.1
3.2 3.2.1
3.2.2 3.2.3
4.1 4.1.1
4.1.2 4.2
5.1 5.2
5.3 5.4.1
5.4.2 5.4.3
5.5 6.1
6.2 6.3
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
ii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Project Site Location ...........................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Rendering of Proposed Building at Le Doux Well Site, View Southeast .............................7 Figure 3 Rendering of Proposed Building at Gregory Well Site, View Southwest............................7 Figure 4 Primary Elevation and Tower of Water Treatment Plant No. 1, View Southwest........... 29 Figure 5 Primary Elevation of Water Treatment Plant No. 1, Including Trees, Landscaping and Hardscaping, View Southwest ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 6 West Elevation of Water Treatment Plant No. 1, View East............................................ 30 Figure 7 West Elevation and Parking Lot, View East...................................................................... 31 Tables
Table 1 Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 Mile of Project Site.............................................. 22 Table 2 Known Cultural Resources within 0.5 Mile of Project Site .............................................. 24 Appendices
Appendix A California Historical Resources Information System Results Appendix B Sacred Lands File Results
Executive Summary
Cultural Resources Technical Report 1
Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by Kennedy Jenks to prepare a cultural resources assessment for the La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project (project) in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California. Totaling 0.57 acre, the project encompasses two non-contiguous sites on the west and east sides of La Cienega Park, which is bisected by the north-south oriented La Cienega Boulevard. The project proposes the construction and operation of two groundwater wells (Le Doux Well and Gregory Well). The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Beverly Hills (City) is the lead agency under CEQA.
This assessment included a background research effort, including a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, a cultural resources survey of the project site, and the preparation of this report to summarize the results of these activities.
The cultural resources survey confirmed the presence of one historical resource adjacent to the project site, Beverly Hills Water Treatment Building No. 1, a formally designated City Local Landmark (No. 21) located at 333 La Cienega Boulevard (subject property). The subject property was previously recorded, evaluated, and recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and as a City of Beverly Hills Landmark. It is therefore considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. The analysis conducted for this assessment indicates the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to this historical resource. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of less-than-significant impact to historical resources.
No known archaeological resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site as a result of the current assessment. Furthermore, a review of historic maps and aerial photographs, as well as geologic and soils maps, suggests a low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits within the project site as a result of previous disturbances associated with the construction of La Cienega Park. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of less-than-significant impact to archaeological resources that may qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA. Although there is low potential for encountering subsurface archaeological deposits, in the unlikely event archaeological materials are encountered during project construction, Rincon recommends a standard measure to address unanticipated finds during construction.
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
2 1 Introduction
Kennedy Jenks retained Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon) to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project (project) in support of an environmental document to be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project proposes the installation of two new groundwater wells within La Cienega Park in the city of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County. This cultural resources assessment was conducted to identify cultural resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources that could be subject to impacts as a result of the project. This assessment summarizes the methods and results of the following: a background research effort including a cultural resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a cultural resources survey. The City of Beverly Hills (City) is the CEQA lead agency.
Project Site and Description
The project site is located in the city of Beverly Hills in west-central Los Angeles County. Specifically, the project site is located in an unsectioned portion of Township 1 South, Range 14 West on the Beverly Hills and Hollywood, CA 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles (Figure 1). The project site consists of two non-contiguous areas (Le Doux Well and Gregory Well) within La Cienega Park, which is bounded by Gregory Way to the north, Schumacher Drive to the southeast, Olympic Boulevard to the south, and LeDoux Road to the west (Figure 2).
The project proposes the construction and operation of two groundwater wells within La Cienega Park. The purpose of the project is to enhance the City of Beverly Hills’ drinking water supplies.
Construction of the two wells would require the following: site preparation; minimal grading; well drilling and constant rate testing during daytime hours; construction of an approximately 420- square-foot concrete masonry unit building around each well, installation of water pipelines that extend from the proposed wells to an existing raw water transmission main within La Cienega Boulevard, and site restoration upon completion of construction. Both wells would be equipped with vertical turbine well pumps with aboveground motors with variable frequency drives, and both buildings would be equipped with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the electrical rooms.
The Le Doux Well site is located in the southwestern corner of Frank Fenton Field within the portion of La Cienega Park located on Assessor's Identification Number (AIN) 4333-026-900. The Le Doux Well would be accessed via two approximately 15-foot-wide access ramps from Le Doux Road. The total construction impact area (inclusive of the permanent well footprint and the construction staging/laydown area) for the Le Doux Well would encompass approximately 8,800 square feet (0.20 acre). Approximately 12 trees would be removed to accommodate construction site access, and the existing berm along the western side of the parcel would be removed during construction and partially replaced. The proposed accessory building that would house the Le Doux Well would be installed approximately 200 feet southwest of the existing Water Treatment Building No. 1 and would measure approximately 14 feet by 32 feet. The accessory building would be a concrete masonry structure (Figure 3).
1.1 Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report 3
The Gregory Well site consists of the existing maintenance yard within the portion of La Cienega Park located on AIN 4333-031-900. The Gregory Well is located at the eastern end of La Cienega Park and is bordered by Gregory Way to the north and single-family residences to the south/east.
The total construction impact area (inclusive of the permanent well footprint and the construction staging/ laydown area) for the Gregory Well would encompass approximately 16,100 square feet (0.37 acre), which would include portions of the existing maintenance yard and the La Cienega Park baseball field. The well itself would be installed within the existing maintenance yard, and impacts to the baseball field would be limited to temporary construction staging/laydown. Additionally, one existing light pole associated with the baseball field may need to be removed and relocated in the immediate vicinity to accommodate the proposed well. During construction, the Gregory Well site would be accessed primarily via the existing maintenance yard gate with secondary access provided from the north on Gregory Way and/or at other locations within the maintenance yard (necessitating temporary removal of existing fencing/materials). The proposed accessory building that would house the Gregory Well would be similar in size and materials to that of the Le Doux Well (Figure 4).
As part of the construction contractor specifications, the City would require that, in the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities, work within 50 feet of the find to halt, and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983) to be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative would also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility would be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist would prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan would identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource.
Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, would recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance. The City would review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the CHRIS, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).
Personnel
Rincon Archaeologist Michael Vader served as the project manager and provided management oversight for this assessment; he requested the SLF search and served as co-author of this report.
Rincon Archaeologist Pedro Gonzalez performed the field survey. Architectural Historian Andrew Rodriguez conducted the cultural resources record search, performed background research, and served as the primary author of this report. Senior Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy provided oversight and is a contributing author of this report. Senior Architectural Historian Rachel Perzel reviewed this report for quality control. Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Murphy, and Ms. Perzel meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) for history (NPS 1983). Ms.
Murphy and Ms. Perzel also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS for architectural history. Rincon Senior Archaeologist and Program Manager Hannah Haas, M.A., RPA, reviewed this report for
1.2 Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
4 quality control. Ms. Haas meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS for archaeology (NPS 1983). Principal Shannon Carmack reviewed this report for quality control.
Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report 5
Figure 1 Regional Location
Basemap provided by National Geographic Society1 Esri and their licensors © 2023. Beverly Hills and Hollywood Quadrangle. T015 R14W 514, 29. The topographic representation depicted in this map may not portray all of the features currently found in the vicinity today and/or features depicted in this map may have changed since the original topographic map was assembled.
I c:::::J I Project Location
0 I
1,000 2,000 Feet
I
N
A
Santa Barbara
99 L~~~~~~~s V Forest
Edwards Air
Force Base
Lancaster
Palmdale
Santa 14
Clarita Angeles National
58 Victorville
@ii
Oxnard
Simi Valley ~ Forest
_ Los Angeles
p
()
T ,...A..,,.9 Ontario ¥ X Riverside so
Anaheim Corona
V SantaAna iji
Murrieta
Oceanside
ortlrwin
V
San Diego
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
6 Figure 2 Project Site Location
Gregory Well Site
250 N A 125
Feet
Introduction
Cultural Resources Technical Report 7
Figure 3 Rendering of Proposed Building at Le Doux Well Site, View Southeast Figure 4 Rendering of Proposed Building at Gregory Well Site, View Southwest Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
8 2 Regulatory Setting
This section includes a discussion of the applicable state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during implementation of the project.
California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1 requires lead agencies to determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA. Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may still be considered significant under CEQA if it meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as outlined in PRC Section 21083.2. PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources are less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.
According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner of those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
2.1 Regulatory Setting
Cultural Resources Technical Report 9
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a][b]).
The requirements for mitigation measures under CEQA are outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1). In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impacts of the project. Generally, a project that is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to have impacts mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).
National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The NPS recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property
2.1 .1
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
10 Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The NPS states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluate significance (NPS 1997:41).
Properties that are less than 50 years in age must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing.
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC Sections 5024.1 and Title 14 Section 4852.
The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (PRC Section 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2).
A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria:
Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014
As of July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was enacted and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the CEQA
2.1.2 2.1.3
Regulatory Setting
Cultural Resources Technical Report 11
lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and that meet at least one of the following criteria, as summarized in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process with California Native American tribes that must be completed before a CEQA document can be adopted/certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” California Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. Each tribe that has requested notification of projects, must be notified within 14 days of the decision by the lead agency to initiate a project or when a complete application is submitted by a project applicant.
California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the Coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant [MLD]) that it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
Local Regulations
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Beverly Hills Municipal Code [BHMC] Section 10-3‐3212) authorizes the Cultural Heritage Commission to recommend the nomination of properties as local landmarks to the City Council. The Council may designate local landmarks and historic districts by
2.2 2.3
2.4 Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
12 the procedures outlined in the ordinance. An eligible property may be nominated and designated as a landmark if it satisfies the following requirements:
A. A landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements:
1. It is at least 45 years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;
2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and
4. It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
1. It is listed on the NRHP;
2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
3. It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person’s endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
5. It is an iconic property; or
6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.
Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Technical Report 13
3 Natural and Cultural Setting
This section provides background information pertaining to the natural and cultural context of the project site. It places the project site within the broader natural environment that has sustained populations throughout history. This section also provides an overview of regional indigenous history, local ethnography, and post-contact history. This background information describes the distribution and type of cultural resources documented within the vicinity of the project site to inform the cultural resources sensitivity assessment and the context within which resources have been evaluated.
Natural Setting
The project site is located in an urbanized area of Beverly Hills within the Los Angeles Basin at an approximate elevation of 38 meters (125 feet) above mean sea level. The project site and vicinity have been fully developed with single-family residences and apartment complexes as well as La Cienega Park, which is a community park containing sports fields, tennis courts, and the Margaret Herrick Library (a designated Beverly Hills Local Landmark; formerly the Beverly Hills Water Treatment Plant No. 1).
Cultural Setting
Pre-Contact History
During the 20th century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain prehistoric cultural changes within all or portions of southern California (c.f., Jones and Klar 2007; Moratto 1984). Wallace (1955, 1978) devised a prehistoric chronology for the southern California region based on early studies and focused on data synthesis that included four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Though initially lacking the chronological precision of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), Wallace’s (1955) synthesis has been modified and improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by southern California researchers over recent decades (Byrd and Raab 2007:217; Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002; Mason and Peterson 1994). The prehistoric chronological sequence for southern California presented below is a composite based on Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as later studies, including Koerper and Drover (1983).
Early Man Horizon (circa 10,000 – 6000 BCE)
Numerous pre-8000 Before Common Era (BCE) sites have been identified along the mainland coast and Channel Islands of southern California (c.f., Erlandson 1991; Johnson et al. 2002; Jones and Klar 2007; Moratto 1984; Rick et al. 2001). The Arlington Springs site on Santa Rosa Island produced human femurs dating to approximately 13,000 years ago (Arnold et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2002).
On nearby San Miguel Island, human occupation at Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261) has been dated to nearly 13,000 years ago and included basketry greater than 12,000 years old, the earliest on the Pacific Coast (Arnold et al. 2004).
3.1 3.2
3.2. l
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
14 Although few Clovis or Folsom style fluted points have been found in southern California (e.g., Dillon 2002; Erlandson et al. 1987), Early Man Horizon sites are generally associated with a greater emphasis on hunting than later horizons. Recent data indicates that the Early Man economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, including a significant focus on aquatic resources in coastal areas (e.g., Jones et al. 2002) and on inland Pleistocene lakeshores (Moratto 1984). A warm and dry 3,000-year period called the Altithermal began around 6000 BCE. The conditions of the Altithermal are likely responsible for the change in human subsistence patterns at this time, including a greater emphasis on plant foods and small game.
Milling Stone Horizon (6000 – 3000 BCE)
Wallace (1955:219) defined the Milling Stone Horizon as “marked by extensive use of milling stones and mullers, a general lack of well-made projectile points, and burials with rock cairns.” The dominance of such artifact types indicates a subsistence strategy oriented around collecting plant foods and small animals. A broad spectrum of food resources was consumed, including small and large terrestrial mammals, sea mammals, birds, shellfish and other littoral and estuarine species, near-shore fishes, yucca, agave, and seeds and other plant products (Kowta 1969; Reinman 1964).
Variability in artifact collections over time and from the coast to inland sites indicates that Milling Stone Horizon subsistence strategies adapted to environmental conditions (Byrd and Raab 2007).
Lithic artifacts associated with Milling Stone Horizon sites are dominated by locally available tool stone and in addition to ground stone tools, such as manos and metates, chopping, scraping, and cutting tools, are very common. Kowta (1969) attributes the presence of numerous scraper-plane tools in Milling Stone Horizon collections to the processing of agave or yucca for food or fiber. The mortar and pestle, associated with acorns or other foods processed through pounding, were first used during the Milling Stone Horizon, and increased dramatically in later periods (Wallace 1955, 1978; Warren 1968).
Two types of artifacts that are considered diagnostic of the Milling Stone period are the cogged stone and discoidal, most of which have been found within sites dating between 4000 and 1000 BCE (Moratto 1984:149), though possibly as far back as 5500 BCE (Couch et al. 2009). The cogged stone is a ground stone object that has gear-like teeth on the perimeter and is produced from a variety of materials. The function of cogged stones is unknown, but many scholars have postulated ritualistic or ceremonial uses (c.f., Dixon 1968:64-65; Eberhart 1961:367) based on the materials used and their location near to burials and other established ceremonial artifacts as compared to typical habitation debris. Similar to cogged stones, discoidals are found in the archaeological record subsequent to the introduction of the cogged stone. Cogged stones and discoidals were often purposefully buried, or “cached.” They are most common in sites along the coastal drainages from southern Ventura County southward and are particularly abundant at some Orange County sites, although a few specimens have been found inland as far east as Cajon Pass (Dixon 1968:63; Moratto 1984:149). Cogged stones have been collected in Riverside County and their distribution appears to center on the Santa Ana River basin (Eberhart 1961).
Intermediate Horizon (3000 BCE – CE 500)
Wallace’s Intermediate Horizon dates from approximately 3000 BCE to Common Era (CE) 500 and is characterized by a shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy as well as greater use of plant foods. During the Intermediate Horizon, a noticeable trend occurred toward greater adaptation to local resources, including a broad variety of fish, land mammal, and sea mammal remains along the coast. Tool kits for hunting, fishing, and processing food and materials reflect this Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Technical Report 15
increased diversity, with flake scrapers, drills, various projectile points, and shell fishhooks being manufactured.
Mortars and pestles became more common during this transitional period, gradually replacing manos and metates as the dominant milling equipment. Many archaeologists believe this change in milling stones signals a change from the processing and consuming of hard seed resources to the increasing reliance on acorn (e.g., Glassow et al. 1988; True 1993). Mortuary practices during the Intermediate typically included fully flexed burials oriented toward the north or west (Warren 1968:2-3).
Late Prehistoric Horizon (CE 500 – Historic Contact)
During Wallace’s (1955, 1978) Late Prehistoric Horizon, the diversity of plant food resources and land and sea mammal hunting increased even further than during the Intermediate Horizon. More classes of artifacts were observed during this period and high-quality exotic lithic materials were used for small, finely worked projectile points associated with the bow and arrow. Steatite containers were made for cooking and storage, and an increased use of asphalt for waterproofing is noted. More artistic artifacts were recovered from Late Prehistoric sites, and cremation became a common mortuary custom. Larger, more permanent villages supported an increased population size and social structure (Wallace 1955:223).
Warren (1968) attributes this dramatic change in material culture, burial practices, and subsistence focus to the westward migration of desert people he called the Takic, or Numic, Tradition in Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties. This Takic Tradition was formerly referred to as the “Shoshonean wedge” (Warren 1968), but this nomenclature is no longer used to avoid confusion with ethnohistoric and modern Shoshonean groups (Heizer 1978:5; Shipley 1978:88, 90).
Modern Gabrielino/Tongva in western Riverside County are generally considered by archaeologists to be descendants of these prehistoric Uto-Aztecan, Takic-speaking populations that settled along the California coast during the Late Prehistoric Horizon.
Ethnographic Setting
The project site lies in the traditional territory of the Tongva/Gabrieleño. The name “Gabrieleño” denotes those people who were administered by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission. It includes people from the Gabrieleño area proper as well as other social groups nearby (Kroeber 1925, Plate 57; Bean and Smith 1978: 538). The term Gabrieleño was imposed upon the Tribe by Spanish Missionaries. Thus, descendants have chosen to use their original name, Tongva (Welch 2006). This term is used in the remainder of this section to refer to the pre-contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants. Archaeological evidence points to the Tongva arriving in the Los Angeles Basin sometime around 500 BCE, and the Tongva note their presence in the area going back thousands of years (Villa 2017). Today, the Tongva people are active in protecting their Tribal cultural resources in the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands: present-day San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina.
The Tongva language belongs to the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, which can be traced to the Great Basin region (Mithun 2001). This language family includes dialects spoken by the nearby Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Tataviam to the northwest. Yet, it is considerably different from the Chumash people living to the northwest and the Diegueño people (including the Ipai, Tipai, and Kumeyaay) to the south.
3.2.2 Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
16 The Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams, and in sheltered areas along the coast. The overall tribal population is estimated to have been at least 5,000 in 1770 (Bean and Smith 1978: 540), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a number closer to 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Political organization followed a patrilocal and patrilineal pattern.
Typically, the oldest son would lead a family. Chieftainship was also passed down patrilineally. A Chari, or chief of a village or political grouping, was separate from religious leadership (King 2011).
At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Tongva religious life was the Chinigchinich belief system, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and taught people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925: 637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups as Christian missions were being built. Elements of Chinigchinich beliefs suggest it was a syncretic mixture of Christianity and native religious practices (McCawley 1996: 143–144).
Houses constructed by the Tongva were large, circular, domed structures made of willow poles, thatched with tule, and sheltered up to 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and probable communal granaries. Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages (McCawley 1996: 27).
The Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the Tribe exploited the mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, including riparian and estuarine areas, as well as open and rocky coastal ecological niches. Like most Native Californians, acorns were the staple food. By the time of the early Intermediate Period, acorn processing was an established industry. Acorns were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Freshwater and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, insects, and large and small mammals were also consumed (Kroeber 1925: 631–632; Bean and Smith 1978: 546; McCawley 1996: 119–123, 128–131).
The Tongva used a wide variety of tools and implements to gather food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, digging sticks, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. The Tongva made oceangoing plank canoes (known as a ti’at) capable of holding six to 14 people and used for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands. Tule reed canoes were employed for near-shore fishing (McCawley 1996: 117–127). Tongva people processed food with a variety of tools, including hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Kroeber 1925: 629; McCawley 1996: 129–138).
Deceased Tongva were either buried or cremated. Inhumation was more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation was more predominate on the remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996: 157). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the Post-Contact Period (McCawley 1996: 157).
Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Technical Report 17
Post-Contact Setting
Post-Contact history for California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1822), Mexican Period (1822 to 1848), and American Period (1848 to present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.
Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
Spanish exploration of California began when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542. For more than 200 years after his initial expedition, Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements. In 1769, Captain Gaspar de Portolá led an expedition composed of soldiers, missionaries, Native Americans from Baja California, and Mexican civilians into what was then known as Alta California. The Spanish Period in California begins in 1769 with the establishment of first Spanish settlements at the presidio of San Diego (a military outpost) and Mission San Diego Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823. The expedition proceeded north and reached the present-day boundaries of Los Angeles two months later. On September 8, 1771, Fathers Pedro Benito Cambón and Angel Fernandez Somera y Balbuena established the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel east of present-day downtown Los Angeles (Kyle 2002). In addition to Mission San Gabriel, the Spanish also established a pueblo (town) known as El Pueblo de la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciúncula in the Los Angeles Basin in 1781 (Rice et al. 2012). This was one of only three pueblos established in Alta California and eventually became the city of Los Angeles. The Spanish crown also began to make land grants permitting soldiers and other prominent citizens to establish ranchos during this period. To manage and expand their herds of cattle on these large ranchos, colonists enlisted the labor of the surrounding Native American population. Native populations were also negatively affected by the mission system, which was put in place to govern them as well as convert them to Christianity. The increased European presence during this period led to the spread of diseases foreign to the Native Americans, contributing to the devastation of their population.
Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican War of Independence (1810 to 1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. The federalization and distribution of mission lands in California occurred during this period with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. This Act enabled Mexican governors in California to distribute former mission lands to individuals in the form of land grants. Successive Mexican governors made more than 700 land grants between 1834 and 1846, putting most of the state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Rice et al. 2012). During the supremacy of the ranchos, landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. The land within which the project site is located was once part of Rancho El Rodeo de las Aguas, initially claimed in 1822 by Mexican settlers Maria Rita Valdez Villa and her husband Vicente Valdez, a Spanish soldier.
3.2.3 3.2.4
3.2.5 Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
18 American Period (1848 – Present)
The American Period officially began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which ended the Mexican-American War and made California a territory of the United States.
California was made a state with the Compromise of 1850 (Waugh 2003). The Gold Rush began in 1848, resulting in an influx of people to California seeking gold. Cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but were also important for their meat and other by-products. Eventually, the cattle boom ended, and severe drought years reduced the productivity of the ranchos (Cleland 2005).
Many ranchos in Los Angeles County were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans in the mid1800s, and most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns. The county of Los Angeles was established on February 18, 1850, and the city of Los Angeles incorporated two months later. By 1876, the County had a population of 30,000 (Dumke 1944).
History of Beverly Hills
Beverly Hills is situated on the former rancho lands of the 4,449-acre El Rodeo de las Aguas, initially claimed in 1822 by Mexican settlers Maria Rita Valdez Villa and husband Vicente Valdez, a Spanish soldier. Maria Rita, an Afro-Latina, built an adobe ranch house near the present-day intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Alpine Drive and raised cattle and horses on the land. In 1854, Maria Rita sold the rancho to Benjamin D. Wilson and Henry Hancock for $4,000 (Johnson Heumann Research Associates 1986; Wanamaker 2005).
The rancho changed ownership multiple times through the late 1800s due to a series of failed subdivision attempts by land speculators. By 1906, the rancho was under the ownership of oil investor Burton Green with several partners. After locating water instead of oil, the partners reorganized the former rancho lands as the Rodeo Land and Water Company and began development of a new community. Green later named the town Beverly Hills, in honor of Beverly Farms, Massachusetts (Wanamaker 2006).
Landscape architect Wilbur Cook was hired to help design the new town. An apprentice of famed landscape designer Frederick Law Olmstead, Cook designed the town to include wide, curvilinear streets and Santa Monica Park, which spanned three blocks. The first streets to be developed were Rodeo, Canon, Crescent, Carmelita, Elevado and Lomitas, all constructed in 1907 (City of Beverly Hills 2012; Johnson Heumann Research Associates 1986).
Following construction of the Beverly Hills Hotel in 1912, the community quickly drew the attention of Hollywood, attracting a cadre of film celebrities including Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marion Davies, and Rudolph Valentino. The Speedway, a wooden racetrack, was constructed in 1920 just south of and parallel to Wilshire Boulevard (Johnson Heumann Research Associates 1986).
In the first several decades of the 20th century, Beverly Hills became the preferred community of the region’s wealthy and elite, over Hollywood and the city of Los Angeles’ Wilshire district (Longstreth 1998; Wanamaker 2005). During this period, its population also expanded, increasing from 700 to 17,000 between 1920 and 1930. This expansion continued in the post-World War II period, along with the city’s reputation as a destination for the glamorous and wealthy. In recent decades, the city’s commercial district has also expanded significantly, in particular through the addition of luxury retailers. Beverly Hills has been depicted in countless images, films, and television programs (City of Beverly Hills 2012). Today, the city has a population of nearly 32,000 residents (California Department of Finance 2022).
3.2.6 Natural and Cultural Setting
Cultural Resources Technical Report 19
Development History of Project Site
In the early 1900s, businessman and oil magnate Burton Green hired California park planner Wilbur F. Cook, Jr. to assist in planning a new community that would be comprised of “Beverly” and “Beverly Hills” to create a consolidated “garden city” (Ostashay & Associates Consulting 2014).
During Beverly Hills’ early stages of development in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a major push to expand the City’s park system (Ostashay & Associates Consulting 2014). As part of this development, La Cienega Park was established in 1925.
The earliest available historical aerial image of the park, dated 1927, depicts the park as open space with the same footprint as it has today - two portions bisected by La Cienega Boulevard and bounded by West Olympic Boulevard to the south, La Doux Road to the west, Schumacher Drive to the east, and Gregory Way to the north. The 1927 aerial indicates the park, including the portion west of La Cienega Boulevard, was not yet fully developed and appeared under construction at that time (University of California, Santa Barbara [UCSB] 2023). Similarly, the neighborhood west of the present-day park was not yet fully established in 1927.
Review of an aerial image dated 1937 reveals that by that time, the portion of the park west of La Cienega Boulevard had been developed with tennis courts, playing fields, an open field, and the currently extant Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building. The portion of the park east of La Cienega Boulevard was developed at the time with a large circular shaped field, additional tennis courts, open recreation areas, and a U-shaped building with a central pool on the corner of La Cienega Boulevard and Gregory Way, which is no longer extant (UCSB 2023). The 1937 aerial also indicates the neighborhood around the park was more densely populated with houses by that time. The park and its surroundings remained consistent with that observed in the 1937 aerial until the early 1960s, when many of the surrounding single-family houses west of the park were replaced with multifamily residences. By 1972, the large circular field previously occupying the portion of the park east of La Cienega Boulevard had been replaced with a baseball diamond and a soccer field (NETR Online 2023).
Between 1972 and 1980, the building formerly at the southeast corner of La Cienega Boulevard and Gregory Way was demolished, and by 1985, it was replaced with the current La Cienega Park Community Center (NETROnline 2023). A review of newspaper articles from the mid-1980s indicates that by that time the park was seen as “outdated” and there were plans for park improvements that included the development of a soccer field, two little league diamonds, and one regulation-sized baseball diamond as well as the addition of an exercise area in the portion of the park east of La Cienega Boulevard (Chazanov 1986). In the early 1990s, a large soccer field was developed between the baseball diamonds in the portion of the park on the east side of La Cienega Boulevard, and additional tennis courts were added to the west of La Cienega Boulevard (NETROnline 2023). During this period, the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building received a rear addition, resulting it is current L-shaped plan, and a second rectangular building was constructed adjacent to the tennis courts. The park’s appearance has remained mostly consistent since the early 1990s, with occasional seasonal changes to the athletic field orientations.
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
20 4 Methods
This section presents the methods for each task completed during the preparation of this study.
Background and Archival Research
California Historical Resources Information System Records Search
On February 27, 2023, Rincon staff conducted a records search for the project at the CHRIS SCCIC (Appendix A). The SCCIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records and reports for Los Angeles County. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded archaeological resources and previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it, as well as previously recorded built environment resources within a 0.25-mile radius surrounding the project site. Rincon also reviewed the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory, as well as its predecessor the California State Historic Property Data File, in addition to the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.
Sacred Lands File Search
Rincon contacted the NAHC on February 2, 2023, to request a search of the SLF, as well as a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area (Appendix B).
Map and Aerial Photograph Review
Rincon completed archival research in support of this study in February 2023. The desktop archival research included a review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs as well as geologic and soils maps. The intent of the archival research is to provide a development history of the project site and its vicinity as well as to assess the likelihood for the project site to contain subsurface archaeological deposits.
Field Survey
Under the direction of Rincon Architectural Historian Rachel Perzel, MA, Rincon Archaeologist Pedro Gonzalez conducted a cultural resources survey of the project site on March 30, 2023. The built environment resources within the project site, including buildings, structures, portions of the adjacent Cienega Tennis Center, and landscape elements, were visually inspected. Mr. Gonzalez also performed a pedestrian built-environment survey of the immediate area surrounding the project site. Mr. Gonzalez photographed the area and noted potential historical resources, along with their integrity and potential character-defining features. Mr. Gonzalez took extensive photographs of Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building, discussed in more detail in Section 6, Impacts Analysis and Conclusions, and its surroundings in support of field observations. Site characteristics and conditions were documented using notes and digital photographs which are maintained at the Rincon Los Angeles office.
4.1 4.1. l
4.1.2 4.1.3
4.2 Methods
Cultural Resources Technical Report 21
The project site is located within La Cienega Park in a developed portion of Beverly Hills and is comprised of paved and landscaped surfaces that are not conducive to the preservation of surface archaeological manifestations. To the extent practicable, Mr. Gonzalez inspected landscaped areas for any exposed soils.
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
22 5 Findings
Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search and background research identified 20 cultural resources studies that have been previously conducted within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site (Table 1; Appendix A).
Of these 20 studies, two are directly adjacent to the project site, and the remaining 18 are located outside the project site. The project site has not been included as part of previous cultural resources studies on file at the SCCIC.
Table 1 Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 Mile of Project Site Author
Report
No. (LA-) Title Date
Relationship
to Project
Site
Anonymous 03760
Historic Property Survey Carrillo Drive and Crescent
Heights Boulevard - Commodore Sloat Drive to First
Alley South of Olympic Boulevard 1976 Outside
Anonymous 07565
Technical Report Archaeology Los Angeles Rail Rapid
Transit Project "Metro Rail" Core Study, Candidate
Alignments 1 to 5 1987 Outside
Anonymous 08020
Technical Report: Cultural Resources Los Angeles Rail
Rapid Transit Project "Metro Rail" Core Study 1987 Outside Anonymous 11005
Westside Subway Extension Historic Property Survey
Report and Cultural Resources Technical Report 2010 Outside Bissell, Ronald M. 01968
Cultural Resources Literature Review of Metro Rail Red
Line Western Extension Alternatives, Los, Angeles, Los
Angeles County, California 1989 Adjacent
Bonner, Wayne 11585
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate LAR032-01,
USID 11951 (Wilshire/San Vicente), 8300 Wilshire
Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California 2011 Outside Bonner, Wayne 11946
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for
T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SV11698A (Emack
Building), 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California 2012 Outside
Bonner, Wayne 12004
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for
T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SV01671B (01671 Amir
Development) 8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills,
Los Angeles County, California 2012 Outside
Daly, Pam and Sikes,
Nancy 11642
Westside Subway Extension Project, Historic Properties
and Archaeological Resources Supplemental Survey
Technical Reports 2012 Outside
Duke, Curt 04603
Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile
Services Facility La 577-02, County of Los Angeles,
California 1999 Outside
Greenwood, Roberta S. 07562
Additional Information for Dseis, Core Study
Alignments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 1987 Outside
Hatheway, Roger G 11822
Archival Documentation Report for the Chateau Arnaz
Condominium Project. Documenting Buildings Located 2001 Outside
5.1 Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report 23
Author
Report
No. (LA-) Title Date
Relationship
to Project
Site
at 143, 145, 147, and 149 N Arnaz Dr, Beverly Hills,
California
Hatheway, Roger G. and
Peter, Kevin J. 07566
Technical Report Dseis, Core Study Alignments 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 1987 Outside
Kyle, Carolyn E. 07088
Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless
Facility Sm 226-01 City of Los Angeles Los Angeles
County, California 2002 Adjacent
Lapin, Philippe 05008
Cultural Resource Assessment for Modifications to
Pacific Bell Wireless Facility La 281-04, County of Los Angeles, Ca 2000 Outside
Loftus, Shannon 11207
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey
Clearwire Wireless Site CA-LOS4777A, Rodeo De Las
Aquas, 6310 San Vicente Blvd , Los Angeles County,
California 90048 2010 Outside
Loftus, Shannon 11432
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey and
Historic Architectural Resource-Inventory and
Assessment. AT&T Site: EL0456-12, 156 North La
Cienega Boulevard Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County,
California 90210. CASPR#3551016878 2011 Outside
Loftus, Shannon 11437
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey and
Historic Architectural Resource-Inventory and
Assessment. AT&T Site: EL0456-10, 8725 Wilshire
Boulevard Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California 90211. CASPR#3551016878 2011 Outside
Stickel, Gary E. 03486
A Cultural Resources Inventory for the East Valley
Water Reclamation Project 1994 Outside
Supernowicz, Dana E. 08415
Cultural Resources Study of the Ionic Building Project, Royal Street Communications Site No. La0378b, 1122 S.
La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County, California 90035 2007 Outside
Source: SCCIC 2023
Known Cultural Resources
The CHRIS search results indicate 13 built environment resources have been previously recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site (Table 2). No archaeological resources were identified within 0.5 mile of the project site as a result of the records search. Although not identified as part of the records search, one additional built environment resource consisting of the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building, a Beverly Hills Local Landmark (No. 21), was identified as part of the background research effort. Of the total 14 built environment resources, the 13 identified by the CHRIS search are located outside of the project site and one, the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building, is located immediately adjacent to (within 200 feet of) the Le Doux Well portion of the project site. This resource and its previous documentation are described in detail following Table 2.
5.2 Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
24 Table 2 Known Cultural Resources within 0.5 Mile of Project Site Primary No.
(P-19-) Other Identifier Description
Date(s)
Recorded
California
Register of
Historical
Resources
Eligibility
Status Code
Relationship
to Project Site
-
Water Treatment
Building No. 1
(Local Landmark
No. 21)
Historic-period built resource:
water treatment facility building
constructed in 1927-28
1979, 1985,
1986, 2004,
2006, 2014 3S
Immediately
Adjacent
-
Saban Theatre
(Local Landmark
No. 13)
Historic-period theatre
constructed in 1930 2012 1S Outside
-
Clock Drive-In
Market (Local
Landmark No. 31)
Historic-period drive-in market
constructed in 1929 2016 5S1 Outside
-
Fine Arts Ahrya
Theatre
Historic-period theatre
constructed in 1937 2014 5S2 Outside
150446 -
Historic-period built
environment resource: South
Carthay Residential District 1995 3S Outside
150447 -
Historic-period built
environment resource: singlefamily residence constructed in 1936 1995 2D2 Outside
175295 -
Historic-period built resource:
Carthay Center Elementary
School 1996 6Y2 Outside
177312 -
Historic-period built resource:
commercial building constructed
in 1929 2011 3S; 3CS Outside
177314 -
Historic-period built resource:
theater building constructed in
1938 2010 3S; 3CS Outside
177330
California Historic
Landmark 665
Historic-period built resource:
plaque commemorating Portola
Expedition campsite 1979 6J; 7L Outside
186500 -
Historic-period built resource:
North Arnaz Drive Historic
District 1999 3CD Outside
189265 -
Historic-period built
environment resource:
commercial building constructed
in 1951 2010 3S; 3CS Outside
189266 -
Historic-period built
environment resource:
commercial building constructed
in 1939 2010 3S; 3CS Outside
189275 -
Historic-period built
environment resource: Beverly
Center Area District 2010 3CD Outside
Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report 25
Primary No.
(P-19-) Other Identifier Description
Date(s)
Recorded
California
Register of
Historical
Resources
Eligibility
Status Code
Relationship
to Project Site
189315 -
Historic-period built
environment resource:
commercial building constructed
between 1939 and 1947 2011 3S; 3CS Outside
189953 -
Historic-period built resource:
commercial building constructed
in 1929 2011 6Z Outside
190269 -
Historic-period built resource:
commercial building constructed
in 1969 2012 6Z Outside
1S: Listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. 2D2: Contributor to a district determined eligible for National Register of Historic Places by consensus through Section 106 process.
Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources 3CD: Appears eligible for California Register of Historical Resources as a contributor to a California Register of Historical Resourceseligible district through a survey evaluation 3S: Appears eligible for National Register of Historic Places as an individual property through survey evaluation 3S; 3CS: Appears eligible for National Register of Historic Places as an individual property through survey evaluation. Appears eligible for California Register of Historical Resources as an individual property through survey evaluation 5S1: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 5S2: Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 6J; 7L: Landmarks or Point of Interest found ineligible for designation by State Historical Resources Commission; State Historical Landmarks 1-769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to January 1998. Needs to be reevaluated using current standards. 6Y2: Determined ineligible for National Register of Historic Places by consensus through Section 106 process. Not evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources or local listing 6Z: Found ineligible for National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or local designation through survey evaluation
Source: SCCIC 2023
Previous Evaluations of Water Treatment Plant No. 1
One built environment resource, Water Treatment Plant No. 1, located at 325 (333) South La Cienega Boulevard in Beverly Hills is approximately 200 feet north of the Le Doux Well site. The resource, a commercial building designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, was built in 1927 and has been recorded and evaluated a number of times. The building currently houses the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and film archive.
The property was first documented on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Historic Resources Inventory form in 1976 by Dennis Smith and Tom Sitton of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, in which the property was described but not evaluated. According to the DPR form, the building was designed by architect Arthur Taylor and was the first plant built with recreational considerations in mind. Its main purpose was concealed by its aesthetic qualities such as its church-like appearance (Smith and Sitton 1976). This documentation was prepared while there were plans to demolish the building because it was no longer functional and sustained earthquake damage. The property was subsequently evaluated as part of the 1985-1986 Beverly Hills Historic Resources survey and was assigned a status code of “3”, meaning it appeared to be eligible for inclusion in either the NRHP and CRHR for its historical associations with early water development in Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
26 Beverly Hills and its Spanish Colonial Revival architecture. In 2004, an update to the 1976 DPR form was prepared by Jan Ostashay and Peter Moruzzi of PCR Services. The update concurred with the previous findings for eligibility and the property was assigned a California Historical Resource status code of 3S, meaning it appeared eligible for the NRHP as an individual property through survey evaluation (PCR Services 2004). In 2013, the City of Beverly Hills submitted a Cultural Heritage Commission Report to nominate the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 for inclusion into the Local Register of Historic Places due to its association with the early history of Beverly Hills, its architectural style, and its retention of integrity as outlined by local criteria 10-3-3212 (City of Beverly Hills 2013).
In 2014, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, Leslie Heumann of Ostashay & Associates Consulting prepared a City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report for Water Treatment Plant No. 1. The report presents the following information related to the property: detailed architectural description; presentation of alteration history; list of site and exterior character-defining features; statement of significance including summary of significance, a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, and the California Historic Resources Inventory; identification of period of significance (1927-1928); review of building permits and tax assessor records; presentation of supporting historic context, developmental and ownership history; and a discussion of the property’s integrity.
The assessment included information on the previous evaluations of the property, described above and concurred with earlier findings. The assessment found the property additionally appeared to meet the City’s criteria for designation (BHMC 10-3-3212[A][1]; BHMC 10-3-3212[A][3]; BHMC 10-3- 3212[A][4]; BHMC 10-3-3213[B]; BHMC 10-3-3213[C]) as a local landmark for its close association with, and representation of, the development of water resources in the area as well as it retention of integrity and architectural significance as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, a prominent style during that period of development in Beverley Hills, and as an important example of the work of the firm Salisbury, Bradshaw and Taylor, which is included in the City’s List of Master Architects. The property is also notable for its representation of engineering and architectural achievement and was recognized as a landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers. The assessment concluded Water Treatment Plant No. 1 possessed the design, materials, workmanship, setting, and overall character of the Spanish Colonial Revival style to convey its historic significance.
The study additionally identified the property’s following character-defining features: gabled roof; cornice treatment; tower, buttress-like, scalloped wing walls and blind arches; church-like design of the east and west elevations of central wing; focal windows; portals on east and west; multi-light, double-hung sash, casement windows, and industrial sash; window detailing, including pierced stucco grilles; wrought iron balconies and grilles (Ostashay & Associates Consulting 2014).
Sacred Land File Search
On February 16, 2023, the NAHC responded to Rincon’s SLF request, stating the results of the SLF search were negative for the presence of Native American cultural resources. See Appendix B for the NAHC response.
5.3 Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report 27
Archival Research
Historic Map and Aerial Photograph Review
Historic topographic maps reviewed include the 1894 and 1900 Los Angeles 15-minute topographic quadrangles; the 1898, 1902, 1921 Santa Monica 15-minute topographic map;, the 1924, 1953, and 1966 Hollywood 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles; and the 1950 and 1966 Beverly Hills 7.5- minute quadrangles. Historic aerial photographs of the project area were available for the years 1947, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1985, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2005, and 2016 (NETR Online 2023). Additionally, a 1927 utilities map of the project site provided by the City was also reviewed.
The 1894, 1898, 1900, and 1902 maps show the project site is undeveloped and situated between two intermittent drainages, approximately 0.5 mile east of a wetland, within the eastern portion of the Rodeo de Los Aguas land grant. The 1921 map shows the project site is still undeveloped, but the Pacific Electric Railway is depicted along the present-day route of San Vicente Boulevard just northeast of the project site, and a road analogous to present-day Wilshire Boulevard is depicted to north of the project site. The map also shows the nascent development of residential neighborhoods in the project site’s vicinity. The 1924 map shows the project site is bounded to the north by a road analogous to present-day Gregory Way, and residential neighborhoods continue to expand in the project’s vicinity. The 1927 utilities map shows the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building between Le Doux Road and La Cienega Avenue. The utilities map shows the building located in the southwestern portion of the park, with a large five-million-gallon concrete reservoir directly north of the building. The 1950, 1953, and 1966 maps show the project site as surrounded by residential development and labeled as La Cienega Park. The maps also depict the Water Treatment Plant Building No. 1 in the park’s southwestern corner and an unnamed building along the park’s northern boundary.
The 1947, 1948, 1952, and 1964 aerial photographs show the present extent of La Cienega Park, with the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building and associated reservoir located in the southwestern portion of the park. The eastern portion of the park appears to have a circular track, with adjacent tennis courts to the east. The 1972, 1980, 1985, and 1989 photographs show the park’s western portion remains largely the same; however, the track in the eastern portion is replaced with baseball diamonds in 1972, and by 1985, the existing community center is present. The 1992 photograph shows a series of tennis courts was installed at the location of the reservoir associated with Water Treatment Plant No. 1. The 1992 photograph also shows an additional baseball diamond constructed in the park’s eastern portion where tennis courts were previously depicted. The 1996, 2005, and 2016 photographs show the park in its present configuration.
In summary, the historic map and aerial imagery review shows the present boundary of La Cienega Park was established sometime in the 1920s as the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building and its associated reservoir were constructed. The park has undergone a number of changes since its original establishment with sports fields reconfigured in the 1970s and 1990s and the construction of the park’s community center in the mid-1980s. Furthermore, the reservoir associated with the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 was replaced sometime in the early 1990s with a series of tennis courts affiliated with the present-day Beverly Hills Tennis Club.
5.4 5.4.1
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
28 Geologic and Soils Map Review
Geologic mapping indicates Holocene-age (11,650 years ago to present) Quaternary alluvium (Qa) is mapped at surface within the project site (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1991a, 1991b). The age of this geologic unit spans human occupation of the region and is conducive to the preservation of subsurface archaeological deposits. Soils mapping indicates the project site is underlain by the Urban land-Biscailuz-Pico soil complex (United State Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2023). The “Urban land” identifier indicates the soils are comprised of human-altered materials, or minimally altered native soils, meaning they have been subject to varying degrees of disturbance (USDA 2019).
This characterization is expected given the project site is located in an urban area, which has been subject to past disturbances associated with the development of La Cienega Park. The typical Urban land Biscailuz-Pico soil complex is comprised of human-transported material (i.e., fill) overlaying mixed alluvium derived form granite and sedimentary rocks (USDA 2023). The typical soil profile includes the following: an Ap-horizon (disturbed topsoils) from the surface to a depth of 13 inches; a B-horizon (mineral layer) extending from depths of 13 to 49 inches below the ground surface; and a C-horizon (sedimentary parent material) from 49 inches to 79 inches below the ground surface (USDA 2023).
Summary
The archival materials reviewed suggest the project site has been developed since as early as the mid-1920s when the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 building was constructed and that it has undergone further development as recreational facilities associated with La Cienega Park were constructed throughout the mid- to late-20th century. The degree of disturbance associated with the park’s development is supported by the soil map review, which indicates the project site is underlain by “Urban Land” soils, meaning the project site’s native soils have been replaced or altered as a result of urban development. Based on the degree of previous disturbance associated with the park’s construction, the likelihood for the project site to contain subsurface archaeological deposits is low.
Field Survey Results
The field survey confirmed the presence of one historic resource, the Water Treatment Building No. 1, approximately 200 feet north of the Le Doux Well site. The subject property is situated on a large,
7.05-acre rectangular shaped parcel (Los Angeles County Assessor’s Identification Number 4333- 026-900) that spans across two blocks within La Cienega Park and is located on the west side of La Cienega Boulevard between Gregory Way to the north and West Olympic Boulevard to the south.
The property includes one building constructed in 1927 the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The building features a prominent façade with a large arched entryway, barrel roof riles, and tower which are emblematic of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Ground surface within the project site was comprised of landscaped and paved surfaces and no native ground surface was noted during the survey (Figure 5). The primary elevation includes hardscaping in front of the entrance as well as various landscaping elements such as manicured and organized hedges and various trees; mature trees sporadically occupy the lawn on either sides of the hardscaping as well as a parallel row of palm trees that lead up to the entrance (Figure 6). A portion of the building extends to the back of the parcel on La Doux Road (Figure 7), and a parking lot is located behind the subject property (Figure 8). The survey confirmed the property remains in a condition consistent with that observed
5.4.2 5.4.3
5.5 Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report 29
at the time the City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report was prepared in 2014 by Ostashay & Associates Consulting and that no significant alterations have occurred since that time. Ground surface within the project site was comprised of landscaped and paved surfaces. Therefore, no native ground surface was noted during the survey.
Figure 5 Primary Elevation and Tower of Water Treatment Plant No. 1, View Southwest Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
30 Figure 6 Primary Elevation of Water Treatment Plant No. 1, Including Trees, Landscaping and Hardscaping, View Southwest
Figure 7 West Elevation of Water Treatment Plant No. 1, View East Findings
Cultural Resources Technical Report 31
Figure 8 West Elevation and Parking Lot, View East
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
32 6 Impacts Analysis and Conclusions
The impact analysis included here is organized based on the following cultural resources thresholds, which are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form:
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Threshold A broadly refers to historical resources. To more clearly differentiate between archaeological and built environment resources, the analysis under Threshold A is limited to built environment resources. Archaeological resources, including those that may be considered historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and those that may be considered unique archaeological resources pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2, are considered under Threshold B.
Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
The following information is provided as context for the evaluation of project impacts to historical resources. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), projects that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would result in a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner of those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
For the purposes of CEQA, impacts to a historical resource are considered mitigated below a level of significance when the project conforms to the Standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][1]).
The goal of the Standards is to preserve the historic materials and distinctive character of a historical resource. Character-defining features are the tangible, visual elements of a building, including its setting, shape, materials, construction, interior spaces, and details, that collectively create its historic identity and conveys its historic significance.
The Standards establish professional standards for the treatment of historic properties, provide advice on the preservation and protection of historic properties, and make broad-brush recommendations for maintaining, repairing, replacing historic materials, and designing new additions or making alterations. The Standards cannot be used, in and of themselves, to make essential decisions about which features of a historic property should be saved and which might be changed. Rather, once an appropriate treatment is selected, the Standards provide philosophical consistency to the work. The Standards cover four distinct but interrelated approaches to the treatment of historic properties: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The Standards most applicable to the proposed project are those related to rehabilitation.
Impacts Analysis and Conclusions
Cultural Resources Technical Report 33
According to the Standards, rehabilitation is deemed appropriate “when repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary, when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use, and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment.” The following lists the Standards for Rehabilitation:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Historical Built Environment Resources
The current assessment confirmed the presence of one historical resource, the Water Treatment Building No. 1, located directly adjacent to the project site. 1 The subject property encompasses a
portion of the western section of the park and includes one parcel developed with a commercial building constructed in 1927 in the Spanish Colonial Revival Style. As outlined above, the subject property was previously identified as eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR and is a City of 1 Project impacts to other nearby designated local landmarks, including the Saban Theatre, Clock Drive-In Market, and Fine Arts Ahrya Theatre, are not evaluated because these landmarks do not have direct line-of-sight to the project site and are sufficiently far enough away from the project site that direct or indirect project impacts would have no potential to occur.
6.1 Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
34 Beverly Hills Landmark. The research conducted as part of the current assessment did not identify any information that conflicts with previous findings and concurs with these findings. As a result, the property is considered a historical resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).
The project proposes the construction and operation of two groundwater wells (Le Doux Well and Gregory Well) on two non-contiguous sites within La Cienega Park. The proposed Le Doux Well is approximately 200 feet south of the southern wing of the Water Treatment Plant No. 1. In addition to the underground well installation, the proposed project would include the construction of a onestory accessory building to house the well and its associated electrical and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to Water Treatment Building No. 1.
The proposed accessory building for the Le Doux Well would be installed across the lawn from Water Treatment Building No. 1, approximately 200 feet southwest of the historical resource, and would measure approximately 14 feet by 32 feet. The accessory building would consist of a concrete masonry structure and would feature a side-gable red tile roof. The one-story structure would be inset from the street and oriented east to west, on a new concrete pad, measuring approximately 70 feet by 120 feet, and accessible from two new 15-foot access ramps from Le Doux Road. Views of the proposed accessory building will be partially shielded from the right-of-way by the extant mature trees to the north and east of the proposed Le Doux Well (Figure 3).
The Standards are primarily focused on alterations occurring directly to and/or within the boundaries of a historic property. The Standards do, however, provide guidelines related to changes in the setting of a district or neighborhood, which is described as the larger area or environment in which a historic building (or property such as a park) is located. That guidance recommends the identification, retention, and preservation of buildings and landscapes that define the overall character of the setting of the particular resource, such as roads and streets, or important views and visual relationships and additionally recommends the identification, retention, and preservation of spatial relationships that characterize a property.
The proposed project would result in the construction of the Le Doux Well and an associated accessory building, approximately 200 feet south of the Water Treatment Building No. 1. While the well and its accessory building would represent new visual feature in the vicinity of this historical resource, the nature of the building’s existing setting and that of the proposed additions to its setting are such that the setting of the historical resource would not be significantly altered by the project.
The building proposed by the project at the Le Doux Well site would be most proximately located near Water Treatment Building No. 1’s secondary elevation (i.e., the side of the building as opposed to the front of the building) and would be limited to a single, one-story building. As previously described, the proposed building would be set back from the street and would be partially shielded from the public right-of-way by the extant mature trees along Le Doux Road and West Olympic Boulevard. The building would employ a simple, unobtrusive/utilitarian design featuring concrete masonry construction, a side-gable roof, and limited openings. It would be devoid of ornamentation or elaboration and would not detract from Water Treatment Building No. 1. Although the project would add an additional feature to the vicinity of the historical resource, the spatial relationships that characterize this resource (primarily the relationship of Water Treatment Building No. 1 to the adjacent roadways) would remain intact. Furthermore, the proposed new accessory building would be constructed in such a manner that, if removed in the future, it would not alter the essential form and integrity of Water Treatment Building No. 1, consistent with the Standards. The proposed project does not include any changes to Water Treatment Building No. 1 and would not result in the Impacts Analysis and Conclusions
Cultural Resources Technical Report 35
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historical resource such that its significance would be materially impaired. Furthermore, the potential impact of the proposed adjacent new construction on Water Treatment Building No. 1 would be largely reduced due to the existing setting of the resource and the nature of the proposed new features.
Additionally, the construction of the Gregory Well would not result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historical resource such that its significance would be materially impaired. In addition, its proposed location at the eastern end of La Cienega Park, across La Cienega Boulevard, and largely within the existing maintenance yard would not impair important views, visual, or spatial relationships of the Water Treatment Building No. 1.
Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources
No known archaeological resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site as a result of the archival research. Furthermore, the map review suggests a low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits within the project site as a result of previous disturbances associated with the construction of La Cienega Park. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of less-than-significant impact to archaeological resources under CEQA. In addition, as described in Section 1.1, Project Site and Description, the City would require implementation of standard construction best management practices in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources.
Human Remains
No human remains are known to be present within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD. The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains.
If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. With adherence to existing regulations, Rincon recommends a finding of less-than-significant impact to human remains under CEQA.
6.2 6.3
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
36 7 References
Arnold, Jeanne E., Michael R. Walsh, and Sandra E. Hollimon 2004 The Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(1):1-73.
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978 “Gabrielino.” In “California,” edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beverly Hills, City of
2012 “History of Beverly Hills”
http://www.beverlyhills.org/citygovernment/aboutbeverlyhills/historyofbeverlyhills/.
Accessed April 11, 2023.
2013 Cultural Heritage Commission Report, “Initiation of Nomination Proceedings for inclusion onto Local Register of Historic Resources of the ‘Beverly Hills Water Treatment Plant’ at 331 S. La Cienega Blvd. Beverly Hills,” October 9.
Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. AltaMira Press, New York.
California Department of Finance
2022 E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed April 28, 2023.
California Office of Historic Preservation
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
2011 “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California Chazanov, Mathis
1986 “Something for Everyone in La Cienega Park Plan: Park Improvements,” Los Angeles Times, October 12.
Cleland, Robert Glass
2005 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-80, second ed., sixth printing.
The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.
References
Cultural Resources Technical Report 37
Couch, Jeffrey S., Joanne S. Couch and Nancy Anastasia Wiley 2009 Saved by the Well: The Keystone Cache at CA-ORA-83, the Cogged Stone Site.
Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21:147-156.
Dibblee, T.W., and H.E. Ehrenspeck
1991a Geologic map of the Beverly Hills and Van Nuys (south 1/2) quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA. 1991b Geologic map of the Hollywood and Burbank (south 1/2) quadrangles, Los Angeles, California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA.
Dillon, Brian D.
2002 California Palaeoindians Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga. William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, eds. Pp. 110-120. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 60. Berkeley.
Dixon, Keith A.
1968 Cogged Stones and Other Ceremonial Cache Artifacts in Stratigraphic Context at Ora-58, a Site in the Lower Santa Ana River Drainage, Orange County. In Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3):57-65.
Dumke, Glenn S.
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library.
Eberhart, Hal
1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California. In American Antiquity 26(3):361-370.
Erlandson, Jon M.
1991 Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten.
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Glassow, Michael A., Larry R. Wilcoxen, and Jon M. Erlandson 1988 Cultural and Environmental Change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory in The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines. G. Bailey and J. Parkington, eds.
Pp. 64–77. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harrington, John P.
1942 “Cultural Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast.” University of California Anthropological Records 7(1): 1–46.
Heizer, Robert F., ed.
1978 California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
38 Johnson Heumann Research Associates
1986 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, 1985-1986. Prepared for the City of Beverly Hills, CA.
Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie and Don P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited in Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. D.
Browne, K. Mitchell and H. Chaney, eds. Pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp and Jon M. Erlandson
2002 The Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) and Its Implications for New World Colonization.
American Antiquity 67(2):213–230.
Jones, Terry L., and Kathryn A. Klar
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. AltaMira Press, Lanham Maryland.
King, Chester
2011 “Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains.” Topanga Anthropological Consultants. Prepared for the National Park Service Pacific West Region. Topanga, California.
Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.
Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County in Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. Volume 6: Perspectives in California Archaeology. Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, eds. Pp. 63–81. Los Angeles, California: Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kowta, Makoto
1969 The Sayles Complex, A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6:35–69. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Kroeber, Alfred J.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78.
Originally published 1925, Smithsonian Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
References
Cultural Resources Technical Report 39
Kyle, Douglas E.
2002 Historic Spots in California. 5th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Longstreth, Richard
1998 City Center to Regional Mall: Architecture, the Automobile and Retailing in Los Angeles, 1920-1950. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mason, Roger D. and Mark L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Summary and Discussion. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California.
Mithun, Marianne
2001 The Languages of Native North America. Reprinted. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.
National Park Service
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Accessed online at http://www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/Arch_Standards.htm., April 2023. 1997 National Register Bulletin-How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Accessed online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB15_web508.pdf. October 2022.
NETR Online
Var. Aerial Images of Project Site. Accessed online https://netronline.com/, April 2023.
O’Neil, Stephen
2002 “The Acjachemen in the Franciscan Mission System: Demographic Collapse and Social Change.” Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
Ostashay & Associates Consulting
2014 City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report, Water Treatment Plant No. 1 325 South La Cienega Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, April.
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
40 PCR Services
2004 California Department of Parks and Recreation Update Form for Water Treatment Plant No. 1. On file at the City of Beverly Hills Community Development Department.
Reinman, Fred M.
1964 Maritime Adaptations on San Nicolas Island, California. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1963–1964. Pp. 47–80. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Rice, Richard B., William A. Bullough, Richard J. Orsi, and Mary Ann Irwin 2012 The Elusive Eden: A New History of California, 4th edition.
Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, and Rene L. Vellanoweth 2001 Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. In American Antiquity 66(4):595-613.
Shipley, William F.
1978 Native Languages of California in California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 80-90.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Smith, Dennis and Tom Sitton
1976 Historic Resources Inventory Fork. On file at the City of Beverly Hills Community Development Department.
True, Delbert L.
1993 Bedrock Milling Elements as Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in Northern San Diego County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(2):1–26.
United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2019 Urban Soils Fact Sheet. Electronic resource,
https://www.nrcs.usda.gove/sites/default/files/2022-11/Urban-Soils-Fact-Sheet.pdf, accessed March 24, 2023.
2023 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Resource,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gove/App/WebsoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 24, 2023.
University of California, Santa Barbara Framefinder
Var. Historical Aerial Images of Project Site, Accessed online, https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/, April 2023.
References
Cultural Resources Technical Report 41
Villa, Sam
2017 “Tongva People: Introduction.” Tongvapeople.org. Electronic document. Accessed October 22, 2021.
Wallace, William
1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians Volume 8: California, edited by William C. Sturtevant and Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
Wanamaker, Marc
2005 Early Beverly Hills. Arcadia Publishing, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. 2006 Beverly Hills, (Ca): 1930-2005. Arcadia Publishing, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast in Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. C. Irwin-Williams, ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.
Waugh, John C.
2003 On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.
Welch, Rosanne
2006 “A Brief History of the Tongva Tribe: The Native Inhabitants of the Lands of Puente Hills Preserve.” Department of History, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California.
Kennedy Jenks
La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
42 This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A
California Historical Resources Information System Results ReportNum Authors CitYear CitTitle CitPublisher ReportType InventoryDisclosure InventoryCollections LA-01968 Bissell, Ronald M. 1989 Cultural Resources Literature Review of Metro Rail Red Line Western Extension Alternatives, Los, Angeles, Los Angeles County, California RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. Literature search LA-03486 Stickel, Gary E. 1994 A Cultural Resources Inventory for the East Valley Water Reclamation Project Environmental Research Archaeologists: A Scientific Consortium Management/planning
LA-03760 Anonymous 1976 Historic Property Survey Carrillo Drive and Crescent Heights Boulevard - Commodore Sloat Drive to First Alley South of Olympic Boulevard Department of Public Works Other research LA-04603 Duke, Curt 1999 Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility La 577-02, County of Los Angeles, California LSA Associates, Inc. Literature search LA-05008 Lapin, Philippe 2000 Cultural Resource Assessment for Modifications to Pacific Bell Wireless Facility La 281- 04, County of Los Angeles, Ca LSA Associates, Inc. Literature search LA-07088 Kyle, Carolyn E. 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility Sm 226-01 City of Los Angeles Los Angeles County, California Kyle Consulting Literature search LA-07562 Greenwood, Roberta S. 1987 Greenwood and Associates Architectural/historical, Evaluation, Literature search Not for publication No
LA-07565 Unknown 1987 Greenwood and Associates Management/planning Not for publication No LA-07566 Hatheway, Roger G. and Peter, Kevin J. 1987 Greenwood and Associates Archaeological, Architectural/historical, Other research Not for publication No
LA-08020 Anonymous 1987 Technical Report: Cultural Resources Los Angeles Rail Rapid Transit Project "metro Rail" Core Study Southern California Rapid Transit District Architectural/historical, Evaluation LA-08415 Supernowicz, Dana E. 2007
Cultural Resources Study of the Ionic Building Project, Royal Street Communications Site No. La0378b, 1122 S. La Cienaga Boulevard, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California 90035
Historic Resource Associates Architectural/historical, Evaluation, Other research
LA-11005 Unknown, Mr./Mrs. 2010 Westside Subway Extension Historic Property Survey Report and Cultural Resources Technical Report Cogstone Other research Not for publication No LA-11207 Loftus, Shannon 2010
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey Clearwire Wireless Site CALOS4777A, Rodeo De Las Aquas, 6310 San Vicente Blvd , Los Angeles County, California 90048
ACE Environmental Other research
LA-11432 Loftus, Shannon 2011
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey and Historic Architectural ResourceInventory and Assessment. AT&T Site: EL0456-12, 156 North La Cienega Boulevard Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California 90210. CASPR#3551016878 ACE Environmental Other research
LA-11437 Loftus, Shannon 2011
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey and Historic Architectural ResourceInventory and Assessment. AT&T Site: EL0456-10, 8725 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California 90211. CASPR#3551016878
ACE Environmental Other research
LA-11585 Bonner, Wayne 2011
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate LAR032-01, USID 11951 (Wilshire/San Vicente), 8300 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Environmental Assessment Specialists Archaeological, Field study LA-11642 Daly, Pam and Sikes, Nancy 2012 Westside Subway Extension Project, Historic Properties and Archaeological Resources Supplemental Survey Technical Reports Cogstone Archaeological, Field study, Other research LA-11822 Hatheway, Roger G 2001
Archival Documentation Report for the Chateau Arnaz Condominium Project.
Documenting Buildings Located at 143, 145, 147, and 149 N Arnaz Dr, Beverly Hills, California
Hatheway and Associates Architectural/historical, Evaluation, Management/planning Unrestricted No
LA-11946 Bonner, Wayne 2012
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SV11698A (Emack Building), 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
MBA Archaeological, Field study
LA-12004 Bonner, Wayne 2012
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SV01671B (01671 Amir Development) 8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California
MBA Archaeological, Field study
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
PrimaryString ResourceName ResType Age Attribs ResourceDisclosure RecordingEvents Reports CountyName Maps P-19-150446 South Carthay District District Historic HP39 Unrestricted 1995 (C. McAvoy, Historic Resoucres Group) LA-03787, LA-08415, LA-11432 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-150447 1149 S Alfred St Building, Element of
district Historic HP02 Unrestricted 1995 (C. McAvoy, Historic Resources Group) LA-03787 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-175295 Carthay Center Building Historic HP15 Unrestricted 1996 (C. McAvoy, HRG) LA-11946 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-177312 Beverly Hills Porsche/The Clock
Drive-In Market Building Historic HP07 Unrestricted 2011 (Pam Daly, Cogstone Resource Management); 2011 (Pamela Daly, Cogstone Resource Management) LA-11642 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-177314 Fine Arts / Regina Theater Building Historic HP06; HP10 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005, LA-11642 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-177330 Portola Trail Campsite #2 Site Historic HP03 Unrestricted 1979 (J. Arbuckle) Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-186500 N Arnaz Dr Historic District District Historic HP39 Unrestricted 1999 (R. Waldow) LA-09432, LA-10580, LA-10661, LA11437, LA-11822, LA-12004, LA-12522 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-186501 141 N Arnaz Dr Building Historic HP03 Unrestricted 1999 (R. Waldow) LA-10580, LA-10661, LA-11437, LA12004, LA-12522 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-186502 142 N Arnaz Dr Building Historic HP03 Unrestricted 1999 (R. Waldow) LA-10580, LA-10661, LA-11437, LA12004, LA-12522 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-186503 143 N Arnaz Dr Building Historic HP03 Unrestricted 1999 (R. Waldow) LA-10580, LA-10661, LA-11437, LA11822, LA-12004, LA-12522 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-186504 144 N Arnaz Dr Building Historic HP03 Unrestricted 1999 (R. Waldow) LA-10580, LA-10661, LA-11437, LA12004, LA-12522 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-186505 145 N Arnaz Dr Building Historic HP03 Unrestricted 1999 (R. Waldow) LA-10580, LA-10661, LA-11437, LA11822, LA-12004, LA-12522 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-188021 Ionic Composite Masonic Center Building Historic HP06; HP13 Unrestricted 2007 (D. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates) LA-08415 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS,
HOLLYWOOD
P-19-189265 Building Historic HP06 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005, LA-12004 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-189266 Building Historic HP06 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005, LA-12004 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-189275 Historic District 4 (Beverly Center
Area District) District Historic 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189276 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189277 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189278 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189279 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189280 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189281 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189282 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189283 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189284 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189285 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189286 Building, Element of
district Historic HP03 Unrestricted 2010 LA-11005 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-189315 Red Medicine Restaurant Building Historic HP07 Unrestricted 2011 (Pam Daly, Cogstone Resource Management) LA-11642 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD .. ..
.. ..
P-19-189832 EL0456-10, Street Sign Structure Historic HP11 Unrestricted 2011 (Shannon L. Loftus, ACE Environmental) LA-11437 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-189834 EL0456-12, Light Pole Structure Historic HP11 Unrestricted 2011 (Shannon L. Loftus, ACE Environmental) LA-11432 Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-189953 Landmark Center Building Historic HP06 Unrestricted 2011 (K.A. Crawford, Crawford Historic Services) LA-11585, LA-11946 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD P-19-190245
Medical Office, T-Mobile West LLC
SV01671B/01671 Amir
Development
Building Historic HP07 Unrestricted 2012 (K.A. Crawford, Crawford Historic Services) Los Angeles BEVERLY HILLS P-19-190269 T-Mobile West LLC
SV11698A/Emak Bldg Building Historic HP07 Unrestricted 2012 (K.A. Crawford, Crawford Historic Services) LA-11948 Los Angeles HOLLYWOOD Appendix B
Sacred Lands File Results
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
February 16, 2023
Michael Vader
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 22-13335 City of Beverly Hills La Brea Wells 2 and 3 Project, Los Angeles County
Dear Mr. Vader:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides:
Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources.
The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as:
1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.
All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10.
3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative.
4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and
5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE.
Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.
This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
~~
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 22-13335 City of Beverly Hills La Brea Wells 2 and 3 Project, Los Angeles County.
PROJ-2023-
000709
02/16/2023 11:40 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Los Angeles County
2/16/2023
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
345 Foothill Road
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 285-2467
FAX: (310) 278-1838
BeverlyHills.org
Categorical Exemption
Name of Project: La Cienega Well Nos. 2 and 3 Project
Location: La Cienega Park (AIN#’s 4333-026-900 and 4333-031-900) Type of Business (if commercial)
Project Description: This project includes the development of two ground water wells and installation of related piping to an existing transmission main.
Applicant’s Name: City of Beverly Hills Phone: 310-285-1000 Applicant’s Address: 455 N Rexford Drive
City: Beverly Hills Zip: 90210
If different, provide:
Agent’s Name Phone
Agent’s Address
City Zip
The undersigned, having received this project for processing, has reviewed it for environmental impact and concluded that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption under the procedures adopted by the City of Beverly Hills and no further environmental assessment is necessary.
Applicable Exemption Class 32, CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Comments: The project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Exemption Class 32, CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, because it: a) consistent with the general plan and applicable zoning regulations, b) occupies a site less than 5 acres, c) has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species, d) does not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Reviewed by Date
Tristan D. Malabanan, P.E., Project Manager
11/22/23
Attachment 4
WHAT:
• Pavement spot repairs throughout the City.
•
WHAT:
WHEN:
WHERE:
MEETING NOTICE
City of Beverly Hills
Public Works Department
345 Foothill Road
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
www.beverlyhills.org
For questions:
Public Works Customer Service
Tel: 310.285.2467
Email: [email protected]
Community Meeting regarding the
proposed ground water wells at Le
Doux and Gregory Way
DATE:
Wednesday, November 8, 2023
TIME:
6:00 pm to 7 pm
Online virtual meeting attendance
option
www.beverlyhills.org/LaCienegaWells
Meeting ID: 235 052 923 964
Passcode: kHYevR
Project: Le Doux and Gregory
Way No. 2 & 3
Dear Resident,
The City’s Public Works Department invites you to participate in a meeting regarding the construction of two ground water wells at Le Doux and Gregory Way. Topics of discussion will include:
• Location of the two proposed wells
• Scope of work
• Potential impacts and mitigations
• City Council Formal Meeting November 21, 2023
MORE INFORMATION: www.beverlyhills.org/LCW2&3
YOUR DOLLARS AT WORK
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT