Carson City Council
June 3, 2026

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the denedproject area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWIWetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Los Angeles County, California
Local oce
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Oce
 (760) 431-9440 (760) 431-5901
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) forspecies are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in thatarea (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species byreducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are notguaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listedor proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensedby any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting anocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doingthe following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.3. Log in (if directed to do so).4. Provide a name and description for your project.5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and thesheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries forspecies under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed,for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location:

Mammals
Birds
1 2

NAME STATUS
Pacic Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris pacicusWherever foundNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8080 Endangered

NAME STATUS
California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browniWherever foundNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104 Endangered
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californicaWherever foundThere is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8178 Threatened
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillusWherever foundThere is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945 Endangered

Insects
Crustaceans
Critical habitats
Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have eects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey,banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your projectintersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply).To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your projectlocation.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growingcollection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s)which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Actrequirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in yourproject area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosusThere is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035 Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippusWherever foundNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate

NAME STATUS
Riverside Fairy Shrimp Streptocephalus woottoniWherever foundThere is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8148 Endangered
There are no documented cases of eagles being present at this location. However, if you believe eagles may be using your site, please reachout to the local Fish and Wildlife Service oce.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Managment https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-managementMeasures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birdsNationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdfSupplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contactyour local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Oce if you have questions.

Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list orwarrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list isgenerated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will befound in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area,visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the AtlanticCoast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links toadditional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properlyinterpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on yourlist, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breedingin your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats shouldfollow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-managementMeasures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birdsNationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdfSupplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 1 2
3 NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasinThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637 Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in thecontinental USAhttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8 Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmaniThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9591 Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Black Skimmer Rynchops nigerThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5234 Breeds May 20 to Sep 15
Black Tern Chlidonias nigerThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3093 Breeds May 15 to Aug 20
Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularisThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9447 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 31

Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This informationcan be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand theFAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week ofthe year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (seebelow) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if thecorresponding survey eort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected dividedby the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee wasfound in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability ofpresence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 forthe Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relativeprobability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockiiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in thecontinental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicusThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31 Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkiiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosaThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in thecontinental USAhttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Lawrence's Goldnch Carduelis lawrenceiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464 Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoaThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481 Breeds elsewhere
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttalliiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in thecontinental USAhttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410 Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914 Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseusThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalisThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Willet Tringa semipalmataThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds elsewhere

no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fallbetween 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ()Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow barsshown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Eort ()Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km gridcell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ()A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey TimeframeSurveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o theAtlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's HummingbirdBCC Rangewide (CON)
Belding's SavannahSparrowBCC - BCR
Black OystercatcherBCC Rangewide (CON)
Black SkimmerBCC Rangewide (CON)
Black TernBCC Rangewide (CON)
Black-chinned SparrowBCC Rangewide (CON)
Bullock's OrioleBCC - BCR
California GullBCC Rangewide (CON)
Clark's GrebeBCC Rangewide (CON)
Common YellowthroatBCC - BCR
Lawrence's GoldnchBCC Rangewide (CON)
Marbled GodwitBCC Rangewide (CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Nuttall's WoodpeckerBCC - BCR
Olive-sided FlycatcherBCC Rangewide (CON)
Short-billed DowitcherBCC Rangewide (CON)
Western GrebeBCC Rangewide (CON)
WilletBCC Rangewide (CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of thesemeasures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of anyactive nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project

area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and thetype of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your projectlocation.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growingcollection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s)which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Actrequirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in yourproject area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derivedfrom a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presencegraphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using theRAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the proles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratorybird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframespecied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, thePacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (fornon-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on thislist, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimizemigratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o theAtlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you inyour project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modelingand Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data maynot include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel orPam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list isgenerated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birdspotentially occurring in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlapyour project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for theexistence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presencescore can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presenceof the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they mightbe there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you inknowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learnmore about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at thebottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted bythe Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no sh hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or otherState/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWIdata is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of theseresources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. Amargin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries orclassication established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data andthe amount of ground truth verication work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mappingproblems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries orclassications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detectwetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastalwaters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, goundetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory.There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or toestablish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within oradjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietaryjurisdictions that may aect such activities.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment B:

Noise Report

12782.05
1 October 2025

MEMORANDUM
To: VESI 27 LLC (applicant)
From: Mark Storm, INCE Bd. Cert. (Dudek)
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project -- Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study Date: October 5, 2025
cc: Bradley Cole (Dudek)
Attachments: Figure 1 – Noise Level Contours / Receptor Noise Level Results Attachment A -- Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets

Dudek has prepared the following summary of predictive noise analyses for proposed operation associated with the proposed Griffith Energy Storage Project (project) and offers a discussion with respect to relevant City of Carson (City) Noise Ordinance and General Plan 2040 Noise Element standards.

Project Background
The proposed project site is located on a parcel of land at 18800 S. Broadway Street, Carson, California, currently designated as a Heavy Manufacturing Zone per the City’s Zoning Map (City of Carson 2017). The project will consist of modular battery energy storage enclosures, inverters, medium-voltage (MV) transformers, and a high-voltage (HV) transformer.

Site Operation Noise Limits
Noise sources affecting outdoor sound levels on the project site and in the vicinity include industrial operations and electrical generation facility operations. Operational noise levels from the project are expected to be compatible with existing outdoor sound environment in the area, which includes the adjacent Southern California Edison Nola Substation. The following noise standards apply at nearby off-site noise-sensitive receptors such as the existing residential homes east and southeast of the project site, across South Main Street.

City of Carson Noise Ordinance
Chapter 5, Noise Control Ordinance, of the City’s Municipal Code adopts, with some specific amendments, Chapter

12.08 from the Los Angeles County Code (City of Carson 2021). Section 12.08.390 of the Los Angeles County Code (County of Los Angeles 2009) establishes “Standard No. 1” exterior noise thresholds for residential properties (i.e., “Noise Zone” type II land uses) at 45 dBA during nighttime half-hour periods (from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and 50 dBA for daytime half-hour periods (from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). For industrial-type receptors (Noise Zone IV) such as the heavy and light manufacturing zones that are adjacent to the proposed project site, the noise threshold is 70 dBA during any half-hour period. These quantified limits may not be exceeded for more than fifteen (15) cumulative minutes within any half-hour period. Because the proposed project is an energy storage facility featuring electrical equipment and ventilation/cooling systems that tend to operate in a steady-state manner and thus produce relatively continuous sources of noise, demonstrated compliance with these Standard No. 1 thresholds— as predictively assessed herein—can be reasonably interpreted to mean that compliance with Standard No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 would also be met.

Memorandum
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project – Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study 12782.05
2 October 2025
With respect to construction activity not undertaken by the City, the applicable noise thresholds refer to Section

12.08.440 of the Los Angeles County Code and vary with the type of receiving property, time of day, and day of the week. Including some City adjustments on the durations of construction activity, these construction noise limits are interpreted as follows for assessment at the nearest receiving single-family residential properties on the eastern side of W. Main Street:
 Mobile equipment (<20 days duration) – 75 dBA from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily (except Sundays and legal holidays); and
 Stationary equipment or mobile equipment (>20 days duration) – 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily (except Sundays and legal holidays).

Furthermore, Section 12.08.440.A from the County’s noise ordinance states: “operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real-property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the health officer is prohibited.”
City of Carson General Plan Noise Element
According to Table 9-3 (Noise Generation Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Sources) in the recently revised Chapter 9 (i.e., the Noise Element) of the City’s 2040 General Plan Noise Element, the exterior noise thresholds “as measured at the edge of the property line” (City of Carson 2023) and attributed to the aggregate of project operational noise sources would be as follows:
 Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) = 55 dBA hourly Leq, 75 dBA Lmax; and  Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) = 45 dBA hourly Leq, 65 dBA Lmax.

Despite the preceding summary of the City’s Noise Ordinance, the revised General Plan Noise Element states: “In case of any discrepancies between the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance standards, standards in the General Plan prevail” (City of Carson 2023); thus, the above hourly Leq and Lmax limits would apply to project operation.

Prediction Model Methodology
Operation
Using DataKustik’s CadnaA software, which models three-dimensional outdoor sound propagation based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613-2 algorithms and relevant reference data, an operational scenario of the proposed project was modeled for purposes of this analysis. The modeled scenario included the following operating assumptions for the anticipated noise sources: 132 battery energy storage enclosures, 33 inverters, and one (1) substation transformer operating nominally at 200 MVA. Proposed project facilities are expected to operate as often as 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The predictive analysis assumes that all the above equipment is operating under a charging or discharging condition that may last up to a full continuous hour. For purposes of this preliminary analysis, the overall A-weighted levels appearing in Table 1 were used to define the individual project sound sources.

Memorandum
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project – Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study 12782.05
3 October 2025
Table 1. Reference Sound Levels for the Modeled Individual Sources of Onsite Major Equipment Noise Emission
Source
Reference Sound Power Level (dBA) per 1/3-OBCF (Hz) Overall Sound
Level (dBA) 31.5 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 Battery Container
(4-hour, 5-fan, 20%
cooling capacity)*

37.3 50.5 58.4 57.3 57.0 59.3 56.2 50.5 39.3 70.0
Battery Container
(4-hour, 5-fan, 40%
cooling capacity)*

37.7 50.9 55.3 69.2 63.0 67.0 64.5 61.8 48.2 76.9
Substation
Transformer 30 49 61 63 69 66 62 57 48 72.4
Medium Voltage (MV)
Transformer 30 49 61 63 69 66 62 57 48 72.4
Notes: 1/3-OBCF = One-third Octave Band Center Frequency; dBA = A-weighted decibels; BESS = battery energy storage system. *Operational equipment reference noise levels used for the project noise study are based upon project-specific information provided by the currently proposed battery vendor (Tesla Energy 2024).

Construction
The predictive analysis herein evaluates project construction noise emission with two approaches: 1) it locates multiple sound-emitting sources (i.e., operating stationary and mobile equipment) associated with each distinct project construction phase as a collective idealized single point at the approximate geographic centroid of the project construction area; and 2) it locates a set of equipment for the phase as a point source just within the project construction area boundary position nearest to the offsite representative noise-sensitive receptor of interest (i.e., the existing single-family homes on the eastern side of W. Main Street). The first method is comparable to that of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) “general assessment” technique that locates the two loudest expected equipment at the acoustic center of a work zone, which represents a time-averaged position of the studied heavy equipment when their actual locations moment to moment are uncertain. The second method assumes, more conservatively, that the equipment could be active at the construction site boundary and thus closer to the same studied noise-sensitive receiver position.

Using a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) emulator that relies upon reference sound levels as shown in Table 1 of the RCNM User’s Guide (FHWA 2006), aggregate construction noise exposure levels can be predicted at the noise-sensitive receptor position for each studied sequential project construction phase. The model inputs appear in Attachment 1, and assume the inclusion of the existing 6.5’-tall solid privacy wall that separates W. Main Street from the backyards of the single-family homes.

Prediction Results
Operation
Figure 1 displays the predicted aggregate project operational noise level as an hourly Leq value, which is consistent with the assessment metric per the City’s Noise Element, for what is anticipated to be a “loudest hour” of operation with respect to the operation of battery container thermal management systems (a.k.a., cooling fans). The Memorandum
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project – Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study 12782.05
4 October 2025
concentric bands of different colors appearing in Figure 1 representing 5-decibel-wide ranges of sound pressure level, consistent with the color band legend appearing at the bottom right of the image. The predicted operational noise emission displayed in Figure 1 includes the effects of the following project features and offsite surroundings:
 An existing offsite building southeast of the project site.  An onsite 10-ft tall precast masonry fence near the project’s eastern, northern, and southern property lines, and a 3.5-ft tall rod iron fence near the west side of the project.  22 feet east of the above-referenced western rod iron fence is a 10-ft tall masonry fence in which there are two openings for onsite driveway access gates (assumed to be closed with solid sound-blocking materials and assembly).
 An existing offsite 8-ft tall barrier on the east side of SCE Nola Substation, and an existing 6.5 ft barrier on the east side of Main Street. These existing barriers would help reduce operational noise levels generated by the proposed project at the noise-sensitive residential receptors located east of the project site, across South Main Street. Table 2 provides the predicted sound pressure levels at the modeled receptors (NSR1-3) surrounding the project site.
 The battery containers are currently modeled as parallel side-by-side pairs, so that air intakes are facing north and south (not east or west).

Table 2. Predicted Project Operation Sound Pressure Levels at Modeled Receptors Modeled Receptor
(as abbreviated on Figure 1)
Predicted Aggregate
Operation Noise Level
(dBA hourly Leq)
General Plan Noise Element Nighttime
Threshold at Project Property Line
(dBA hourly Leq)
Compliance?
(yes or no)
NSR1 37.3 n/a yes*
NSR2 32.6 n/a yes*
NSR3 31.8 n/a yes*
Northern PL, west (PLNW) 41.6 45 yes
Northern PL, east (PLNE) 36.1 45 yes
Eastern PL, south (PLES) 35.4 45 yes
Eastern PL, north (PLEN) 33.3 45 yes
Southern PL, west (PLSW) 40.7 45 yes
Southern PL, east (PLSE) 38.4 45 yes
Western PL, north (PLWN) 44.5 45 yes
Western PL, south (PLWS) 43.3 45 yes
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = energy-equivalent level. *compliance is with respect to the City’s noise ordinance, which is also 45 dBA at night but applied at the receiving land use—not the project property line as the Noise Element requires.

As shown in Table 2, the predicted aggregate sound emission from an hour-long period of all operating battery energy storage enclosures, inverters, and the collector substation transformer is as high as 44.5 dBA Leq at the Memorandum
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project – Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study 12782.05
5 October 2025
project site boundary line. Therefore, and as depicted in the adjoining predicted color-coded decibel bands (“contours”) of Figure 1, project operation is expected to comply with the nighttime hourly Leq value of 45 dBA as applied at the project property line as required by the General Plan 2040 Noise Element.

While the City’s Noise Element includes an accompanying 65 dBA Lmax standard that must also be satisfied at the project property line, its magnitude is twenty decibels greater than the 45 dBA hourly Leq criterion. For electro- mechanical equipment like the onsite battery containers, MV inverters, and collector substation transformer that feature rotating, reciprocating, or oscillating components that operate in a generally steady-state manner when active, the decibel variance between a measured Lmax and the hourly Leq is expected to be much smaller; hence, predicted compliance with the latter as shown in Table 2 and in Figure 1 logically implies compliance with the former acoustical metric.

Construction
Construction noise emission from a well-defined area typically attenuates at approximately 6 decibels (dB) per doubling of distance. Project construction would take place as close as 395 feet to the nearest existing noise- sensitive uses (single-family residences east of the project site); or, the distance between the Project site geographic centroid and these same nearest receptors would be approximately 720 feet. The results in Table 3 display the predicted noise levels for each anticipated construction phase with respect to these different evaluation distances.

The prediction results and the corresponding construction activity noise model input parameters appear in Attachment A.

Table 3. Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase Construction Phase
Hourly Leq (dBA) at Nearest Noise-
Sensitive Receptor to Construction
Site Boundary (CSB) 395 ft
Hourly Leq (dBA) at Nearest Noise-
Sensitive Receptor to Acoustical
Centroid of Site (ACS) 720 ft
Access Road Site preparation,
Grading, and Paving 58.7 53.2
Site Preparation 61.7 56.1
Switchyard site Preparation 56.9 51.4
Grading 64.0 58.5
Switchyard grading 59.8 54.2
Wall Earthwork and Installation 59.7 54.2
Battery/Container installation 60.4 54.9
Switchyard Installation 63.6 58.1
Loop-in Transmission Foundation
and a Tower Erect 56.3 50.8
Loop-in Transmission Stringing and
Pulling 57.7 52.2
Stormwater Structure and
Waterline Installation and
landscaping installation

59.6 54.1
Decommissioning 63.0 57.4
Notes: Leq = equivalent noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.

Memorandum
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project – Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study 12782.05
6 October 2025
Potholing operations are anticipated to occur at six different locations along West Griffith Street as part of the construction activities. These operations will take place as close as 250 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Equipment expected to be used includes a concrete saw and a vacuum truck. Based on this distance and equipment type, the calculated hourly Leq at the nearest receptor is approximately 63.5 dBA.

Although nearby off-site residences would be exposed to elevated construction noise levels, the increased noise levels would be temporary and conclude upon completion of Project construction activities. Noise levels associated with construction noise are predicted to be below the City noise limit of 65 dBA hourly Leq. It is also anticipated that construction activities associated with the proposed project would take place primarily within the allowable hours per the City Code. Therefore, construction noise is not anticipated to adversely affect the nearest offsite noise- sensitive receptors.

Memorandum
Subject: Griffith Energy Storage Project – Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study 12782.05
7 October 2025

References
City of Carson. 2021. City of Carson Municipal Code; Chapter 5: Noise Control Ordinance. Accessed August 2021. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Carson/html/Carson05/Carson050500.html City of Carson. 2017. City of Carson Zoning Map. August. Accessed August 2021. https://gis.carson.ca.us/pdfs/mapgallery/Zoning_11x17.pdf City of Carson. 2023. Chapter 9 in Carson General Plan 2040. Adopted April. Accessed January 3, 2024 at https://www.dropbox.com/s/q923ahszefj24h8/9%20Noise.pdf?dl=0 County of Los Angeles. 2009. Los Angeles County Code, Title 12, Chapter 12.08 Noise Control. Accessed August 2021 at
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT12ENPR_C H12.08NOCO_PT4SPNORE_12.08.470NODINONSZO
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User’s Guide. Final Report. FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. August. Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8895.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September. Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf Tesla Energy 2024. Personal communication via email, Wanning Lyu (Tesla Energy Staff Engineer), April 18.

0#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!#RE F!123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117FIGURE 1 -- Noise Level Contours / Receptor Noise Level ResultsGriffith Energy Storage (Dudek Project No. 12782.05)053.5107FeetPredicted BESS Operations, Loudest Hour Leq (battery container cooling at 40% capacity, modeled with area sources; 10'-tall wall) 10'-tall Solid Perimeter Wall
Substation Transformer
BESS Unit(typ. 132)
Inverter (typ. 33)
NSR3
NSR2
NSR1
PLNW
PLNE
PLEN
PLES
PLSE
PLSW
PLWS
PLWN
SCE Nola Substation
3'-tall Landscaping Barrier
Noise Grid Calculation BoundarySound pressure level (dBA) countours > 30.0 dBReceptorTagdBANSR1 NSR1 37.3NSR2 NSR2 32.6NSR3 NSR3 31.8PL - North - West PLNW 41.6PL - North - East PLNE 36.1PL - East - South PLES 35.4PL - East - North PLEN 33.3PL - South - West PLSW 40.7PL - South - East PLSE 38.4PL - West - North PLWN 44.5PL - West - South PLWS 43.3 Griffith Energy Storage Project --
Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study Attachment A -- Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae air abs? 1 65 Source, receptor, and barrier all share same reference grade elevation; unless otherwise noted) enter "0" to turn off air or grnd absorption terms, "1" to turn on grnd abs? 1 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged =1 = Barrier of input height inserted between source and receptor Project
Phase No. Project Phase Description
Comparable FHWA RCNM
Construction Equipment Type Quantity
AUF % (from

FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation
Time (hours)
Allowable
Operation
Time (minutes)
Predicted 1-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft)Abarr (dB) Heff (with
barrier)
Heff (wout
barrier)
G (with
barrier)
G (without
barrier) ILbarr (dB)
1 Access road site preperation, grading and paving grader 1 40 85 720 3 53.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 1 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 front end loader 1 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 44 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 front end loader 1 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 44 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Access road site preperation, grading and paving Phase53.2 2 Site preperation grader 2 40 85 720 3 53.6 1 60 53 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 1 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 backhoe 1 40 78 720 3 46.6 1 60 43 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 dozer 2 40 82 720 3 50.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 front end loader 2 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Site preperation Phase56.1 3 Switchyard site preperation front end loader 2 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 dozer 2 40 82 720 3 50.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Switchyard site preperation Phase51.4 4 Grading grader 4 40 85 720 3 53.6 1 60 56 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 dozer 2 40 82 720 3 50.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 2 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 compactor (ground) 2 20 80 720 3 48.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 roller 2 20 80 720 3 48.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 front end loader 2 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Grading Phase58.5
5 Switchyard grading roller 2 20 80 720 3 48.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 dozer 2 40 82 720 3 50.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 2 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Switchyard grading Phase54.2 6 Wall earthwork and installation excavator 2 40 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 rock drill 2 20 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 2 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 man lift 2 20 75 720 3 43.6 1 60 40 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Wall earthwork and installation Phase54.2 7 Battery/container installation compressor (air) 4 40 78 720 3 46.6 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 crane 2 16 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 excavator 2 40 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 generator 4 50 72 720 3 40.6 1 60 44 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 roller 2 20 80 720 3 48.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 man lift 2 20 75 720 3 43.6 1 60 40 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 front end loader 2 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 compactor (ground) 2 20 80 720 3 48.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Battery/container installation Phase54.9 8 Switchyard installation man lift 4 20 75 720 3 43.6 1 60 43 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 compressor (air) 2 40 78 720 3 46.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 drill rig truck 2 20 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 44 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 crane 1 16 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 42 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 excavator 1 40 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 generator 2 50 72 720 3 40.6 1 60 41 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 roller 2 20 80 720 3 48.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 man lift 2 20 75 720 3 43.6 1 60 40 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 dozer 2 40 82 720 3 50.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 front end loader 2 40 79 720 3 47.6 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 4 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 rock drill 2 20 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Switchyard installation Phase58.1 9 Loop-in transmission foundation and tower erection compressor (air) 2 40 78 720 3 46.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 crane 1 16 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 42 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 man lift 2 20 75 720 3 43.6 1 60 40 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 generator 2 50 72 720 3 40.6 1 60 41 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 pumps 2 50 77 720 3 45.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Welder / Torch 2 40 73 720 3 41.6 1 60 41 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Loop-in transmission foundation and tower erection Phase50.8 10 Loop-in transmission stringing and pulling man lift 2 20 75 720 3 43.6 1 60 40 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 2 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 generator 2 50 72 720 3 40.6 1 60 41 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Loop-in transmission stringing and pulling Phase52.2 11 Stormwater structure and waterline installation and landscaping installation excavator 2 40 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 rock drill 2 20 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 2 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Stormwater structure and waterline installation and landscaping installation Phase54.1 12 Decommissioning crane 2 16 81 720 3 49.6 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 tractor 2 40 84 720 3 52.6 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 concrete saw 2 20 90 720 3 58.6 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 dozer 2 40 82 720 3 50.6 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 710 10 720 710.0 10.1 720.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.0 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Decommissioning Phase57.4 magnitude of threshold (dBA) =
RCNM-emulator_CW052825_mcs-rvw-052925.xlsx Dudek Project No. 12782.05 ACStoNSR_ME Griffith Energy Storage Project --
Operational Noise Analysis and Construction Noise Study Attachment A -- Construction Noise Prediction Model Worksheets To User: bordered cells are inputs, unbordered cells have formulae air abs? 1 65 Source, receptor, and barrier all share same reference grade elevation; unless otherwise noted) enter "0" to turn off air or grnd absorption terms, "1" to turn on grnd abs? 1 allowable hours over which Leq is to be averaged =1 = Barrier of input height inserted between source and receptor Project
Phase No. Project Phase Description
Comparable FHWA RCNM
Construction Equipment Type Quantity
AUF % (from

FHWA RCNM)
Reference
Lmax @ 50 ft.
from FHWA
RCNM
Source to NSR
Distance (ft.)
Temporary Barrier
Insertion Loss (dB)
Additional Noise
Reduction
Distance-
Adjusted Lmax
Allowable
Operation
Time (hours)
Allowable
Operation
Time (minutes)
Predicted 1-
hour Leq
Source
Elevation (ft)
Receiver
Elevation (ft)
Barrier
Height (ft)
Source to
Barr. ("A")
Horiz. (ft)
Rcvr. to
Barr. ("B")
Horiz. (ft)
Source to
Rcvr. ("C")
Horiz. (ft)
"A" (ft) "B" (ft) "C" (ft) Path Length
Diff. "P" (ft)Abarr (dB) Heff (with
barrier)
Heff (wout
barrier)
G (with
barrier)
G (without
barrier) ILbarr (dB)
1 Access road site preperation, grading and paving Grader 1 40 85 395 3 59.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 1 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 54 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 front end loader 1 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 front end loader 1 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Access road site preperation, grading and paving Phase58.7 2 Site preperation grader 2 40 85 395 3 59.1 1 60 58 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 1 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 54 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 backhoe 1 40 78 395 3 52.1 1 60 48 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 dozer 2 40 82 395 3 56.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 front end loader 2 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Site preperation Phase61.7 3 Switchyard site preperation front end loader 2 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 dozer 2 40 82 395 3 56.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Switchyard site preperation Phase56.9 4 Grading grader 4 40 85 395 3 59.1 1 60 61 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 dozer 2 40 82 395 3 56.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 2 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 57 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 compactor (ground) 2 20 80 395 3 54.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 roller 2 20 80 395 3 54.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 front end loader 2 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Grading Phase64.0
5 Switchyard grading roller 2 20 80 395 3 54.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 dozer 2 40 82 395 3 56.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 2 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 57 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Switchyard grading Phase59.8 6 Wall earthwork and installation excavator 2 40 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 54 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 rock drill 2 20 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 2 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 57 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 man lift 2 20 75 395 3 49.1 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Wall earthwork and installation Phase59.7 7 Battery/container installation compressor (air) 4 40 78 395 3 52.1 1 60 54 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 crane 2 16 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 excavator 2 40 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 54 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 generator 4 50 72 395 3 46.1 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 roller 2 20 80 395 3 54.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 man lift 2 20 75 395 3 49.1 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 front end loader 2 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 compactor (ground) 2 20 80 395 3 54.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Battery/container installation Phase60.4 8 Switchyard installation man lift 4 20 75 395 3 49.1 1 60 48 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 compressor (air) 2 40 78 395 3 52.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 drill rig truck 2 20 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 49 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 crane 1 16 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 excavator 1 40 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 generator 2 50 72 395 3 46.1 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 roller 2 20 80 395 3 54.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 man lift 2 20 75 395 3 49.1 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 dozer 2 40 82 395 3 56.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 front end loader 2 40 79 395 3 53.1 1 60 52 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 4 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 60 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 rock drill 2 20 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Switchyard installation Phase63.6 9 Loop-in transmission foundation and tower erection compressor (air) 2 40 78 395 3 52.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 crane 1 16 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 47 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 man lift 2 20 75 395 3 49.1 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 generator 2 50 72 395 3 46.1 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 pumps 2 50 77 395 3 51.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Welder / Torch 2 40 73 395 3 47.1 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Loop-in transmission foundation and tower erection Phase56.3 10 Loop-in transmission stringing and pulling man lift 2 20 75 395 3 49.1 1 60 45 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 2 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 57 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 generator 2 50 72 395 3 46.1 1 60 46 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Loop-in transmission stringing and pulling Phase57.7 11 Stormwater structure and waterline installation and landscaping installation excavator 2 40 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 54 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 rock drill 2 20 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 51 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 2 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 57 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Stormwater structure and waterline installation and landscaping installation Phase59.6 12 Decommissioning crane 2 16 81 395 3 55.1 1 60 50 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 tractor 2 40 84 395 3 58.1 1 60 57 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 concrete saw 2 20 90 395 3 64.1 1 60 60 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 dozer 2 40 82 395 3 56.1 1 60 55 6 5 6.5 385 10 395 385.0 10.1 395.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.3 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Decommissioning Phase63.0 13 Potholing concrete saw 1 20 90 250 4 68.4 1 60 61 6 5 6.5 240 10 250 240.0 10.1 250.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.5 Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) 1 40 85 250 4 63.4 1 60 59 6 5 6.5 240 10 250 240.0 10.1 250.0 0.11 4.3 12.0 5.5 0.5 0.7 3.5 Total Aggregate Noise Exposure from Potholing Phase63.5 magnitude of threshold (dBA) =
RCNM-emulator_CW052825_mcs-rvw-052925.xlsx Dudek Project No. 12782.05 CSBtoNSR_ME

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment C:

Air Quality Supporting Documents
Griffith Energy Storage Project
Project Information and CalEEMod Modeling Inputs
PROPOSED PROJECT - SITE PLANS Date May 5, 2021
LandUse Category Modeled Land Use Footprint SF Building SF Lot Acreage Substation Area (87 x 108 ) User Industrial 9,233 NA 0.21 Storwater Treatment Area Industrial/Stormwater Treatment 10,810 NA 0.25 Equipment Area Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 83,532 NA 1.92 Access Road Area Other Asphalt Surfaces 19,130 NA 0.44 Subtotal 122,705
Easement/Landscaped Buffer Industrial/Landscaping 7,782 NA 0.18 Total Site Area 130,487 2.996
CY Gravel/
Aggregate
Substation 5,960 0 294
Eqpt Areas 38,220 0 1416
Gravel Pad (w/o Substation) 50,572 0 2498
Access Road 19,538 181 724
Total 114,290 181 4932
Construction Materials: 4208
Paving Materials: 905 CY = 113.1 trips @ 16 CY per
truck

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS/IMPORTED QUANTITIES
Site Breakdown: SF CY Asphalt
CY Asphalt /Gravel/Aggregate
Landscaping Area = total pervious area = 18,592 sq ft
Special landscaping = stormwater treatment area = 10,810 sq ft Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 1 / 19
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading/Foundation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 2 / 19

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

8. User Changes to Default Data
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 3 / 19

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Construction Start Date 6/3/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.50
Precipitation (days) 17.4
Location 18800 S Broadway, Gardena, CA 90248, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Carson
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4670
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Industrial

1.00 User Defined Unit 0.64 0.00 18,592 10,810 — —
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 4 / 19
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

83.5 1000sqft 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

19.1 1000sqft 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.31 3.63 32.8 37.1 0.05 1.45 3.67 5.11 1.33 1.54 2.87 — 6,078 6,078 0.25 0.14 3.67 6,115 2025 2.38 1.98 15.3 23.2 0.03 0.62 1.39 2.01 0.57 0.33 0.91 — 5,058 5,058 0.22 0.19 6.37 5,126 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 3.58 3.00 25.7 29.9 0.04 1.13 4.11 5.24 1.04 1.66 2.70 — 6,086 6,086 0.26 0.18 0.17 6,147 2025 1.34 1.14 8.15 11.9 0.02 0.34 0.78 1.12 0.31 0.18 0.49 — 2,573 2,573 0.11 0.04 0.08 2,589 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.05 0.88 7.79 8.80 0.01 0.35 1.29 1.64 0.32 0.55 0.87 — 1,652 1,652 0.07 0.04 0.63 1,667 2025 0.30 0.25 1.86 2.74 < 0.005 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.07 0.04 0.11 — 592 592 0.03 0.01 0.31 597 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.19 0.16 1.42 1.61 < 0.005 0.06 0.24 0.30 0.06 0.10 0.16 — 274 274 0.01 0.01 0.10 276 2025 0.05 0.05 0.34 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 98.1 98.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 98.9

3. Construction Emissions Details
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 5 / 19

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.92 1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.43 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 68.3 68.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.6 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 6 / 19
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.14 2.26 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 424 424 0.02 0.01 1.67 430 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 106 106 0.01 0.02 0.24 111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.90 2.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.04 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.85 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.08 1.75 16.7 16.4 0.02 0.77 — 0.77 0.71 — 0.71 — 2,595 2,595 0.11 0.02 — 2,604 Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 7 / 19
———————1.341.34—2.762.76——————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.31 0.26 2.52 2.48 < 0.005 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 391 391 0.02 < 0.005 — 392 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.46 0.45 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 64.7 64.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.14 2.26 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 424 424 0.02 0.01 1.67 430 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.9 35.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 37.7 Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 8 / 19
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 61.4 61.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 62.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.41 5.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.68 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.94

3.5. Grading/Foundation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.96 1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 9 / 19
2,462—0.020.102,4542,454—0.68—0.680.74—0.740.0215.415.91.651.96Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 3.26 3.17 < 0.005 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 — 506 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.57 0.57 — 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.60 0.58 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.14 2.26 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 424 424 0.02 0.01 1.67 430 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 147 147 0.01 0.02 0.33 155 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.62 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 494 494 0.03 0.08 1.14 520 Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 10 / 19
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.17 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 401 401 0.02 0.01 0.04 406 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.22 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 147 147 0.01 0.02 0.01 155 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.64 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 495 495 0.03 0.08 0.03 519 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.7 83.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 84.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.8 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 102 102 0.01 0.02 0.10 107 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.01 5.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.26 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 17.7

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.12 0.94 8.44 8.44 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 1,786 1,786 0.07 0.01 — 1,792 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 11 / 19
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 269 269 0.01 < 0.005 — 270 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.6 44.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.27 0.34 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 803 803 0.04 0.03 0.09 813 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 0.01 < 0.005 0.22 124 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.3 20.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 12 / 19

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.05 0.88 7.86 8.35 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,786 1,786 0.07 0.01 — 1,792 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.05 0.88 7.86 8.35 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,786 1,786 0.07 0.01 — 1,792 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.18 1.60 1.70 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 364 364 0.01 < 0.005 — 365 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.29 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.2 60.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 13 / 19
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.29 0.26 0.26 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 830 830 0.04 0.03 3.04 842 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.25 0.29 3.54 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 786 786 0.04 0.03 0.08 796 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 162 162 0.01 0.01 0.27 165 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 14 / 19
1,248—0.010.051,2441,244—0.25—0.250.27—0.270.018.216.130.700.83Off-Road Equipment
Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.64 5.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.66 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.13 2.09 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 415 415 0.02 0.01 1.52 421 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.96 0.37 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 783 783 0.04 0.12 1.82 822 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 15 / 19
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.81 1.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.55 3.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.73

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 Demolition 6/3/2024 6/15/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Grading Grading 6/3/2024 8/16/2024 5.00 55.0 —
Grading/Foundation Grading 8/17/2024 11/30/2024 5.00 75.0 — Building Construction Building Construction 10/16/2024 4/14/2025 5.00 129 — Paving Paving 4/1/2025 4/14/2025 5.00 10.0 —

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 Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 16 / 19
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading/Foundation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading/Foundation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading/Foundation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 30.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 17 / 19
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.50 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 30.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.51 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading/Foundation — — — —
Grading/Foundation Worker 30.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading/Foundation Vendor 4.00 10.2 HHDT
Grading/Foundation Hauling 7.01 20.0 HHDT
Grading/Foundation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 60.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 30.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 11.3 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 18 / 19

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.0 —
Grading 0.00 220 55.0 0.00 —
Grading/Foundation 4,208 0.00 75.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
Griffith Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project Custom Report, 3/8/2024 19 / 19
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Site plan.

Construction: Construction Phases Applicant-provided schedule.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Added excavator to grading phase to accomplish 220 cy of cut/fill.

Added trencher to building construction phase to accomplish electrical trenching.

Construction: Trips and VMT Applicant provided asphalt and aggregate haul quantities.

Applicant provided worker counts.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment D:

Cultural Resources Supporting Documents
19-000088
19-000088
19-000088
CamScanner

CamScanner

Resource Detail: P-19-000088
P-19-000088
CA-LAN-000088
Identifying information
Primary No.:

Trinomial:

Attributes
General notes
Site appears to have been incorrectly plotted - it is much smaller than the shape that has been recorded on quad map. Prior recordation appears to follow historical boundaries of the Lagunas de los Domonguez (Nigger Slough).

Other IDs:

Recording events
Associated reports
Collections: No
Cross-refs:

Disclosure: Not for publication
Racer's Misc Sites #1 and Racer's Site #14Name:

Resource type:

Age:

Information base:

Accession no(s):

Facility:

Site
Prehistoric
Unknown
AP01 (Unknown); AP15 (Habitation debris)Attribute codes:

Type Name
Resource Name Racer's Misc Sites #1 and Racer's Site #14 Other LA-88 (Racer's Misc Sites #1)
Other LA-102 (Racer's Site #14)
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
RACER4/1/1939
Report No. Year Title Affiliation
1974 Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources
and Potential Impact of Proposed New
Freeway Construction on the Harbor Freeway
(route 11) And
LA-00114 University of California, Los Angeles
Archaeological Survey
1974 (Duplicate of LA-114) Evaluation of the
Archaeological Resources and Potential Impact
of Propsed New Freeway Construction on the
Harbor Freeway (route 11) and the Artesia
Freeway (route 91)
LA-01964 University of California, Los Angeles
Archaeological Survey
1993 A Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Hansen Dam Flood Control Basin, City of Los
Angeles, California
LA-03095 Archaeological Advisory Group
1974 The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity: a
Gazetteer and Compilation of Archaeological
Site Information
LA-03583 Archaeological Research, Inc.
1977 Cultural Resources Inventory of the City of
Carson, California
LA-04512
2001 Cultural Resources Records Search and
Constraints Analysis Report: LAX/South
(Orange County) High Speed Ground Access
Study, Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
California
LA-07826 Chambers Group, Inc.
2007 Cultural Resources Study of the Gardena
Department Store Project Sprint-nextel Site No.

La70xc303g, 1106 W. Gardena Boulevard,
Gardena, Los Angeles County, California 90247
LA-08780 Historic Resource Associates
1939 Camp Sites in Harbor District - F.H. RacerLA-11482 2013 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site
Visit Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate
LA0573 (NOLA Substation) 125 Griffith Street,
LA-12440 EAS

Resource Detail: P-19-000088
Location information
County: Los Angeles
Address:

Database record metadata
Entered: 5/1/2008 jay
Last modified: 9/4/2019 sstjames
IC actions:

Date User
Management status
PLSS:

UTMs:

Record status: Verified
USGS quad(s): INGLEWOOD, TORRANCE
Carson, Los Angeles County, California
2001 Cultural Resources Records Search and
Constraints Analysis Report: LAX/South
(Orange County) High Speed Ground Access
Study, Los Angeles and Orange Counties,
California
OR-03267 Chambers Group, Inc.

Date User Action taken
5/1/2008 jay Appended records from Encodent database.

Report Detail: LA-00114
Citation information
Year: 1974
Title: Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources and Potential Impact of Proposed New Freeway Construction on the Harbor Freeway (route 11) And
Affliliation: University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey No. pages: 9
Database record metadata
Entered: 5/5/2008 jay
Last modified: 10/3/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:

Collections:

Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Clewlow, William C. Jr.

Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): TORRANCE
Inventory size: 25 ac
No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-00114
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 3
PLSS:

Date User Action taken
5/6/2008 jay Appended records from old Surveys database.

Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-19-000088 CA-LAN-000088 Racer's Misc Sites #1 and Racer P-19-000100 CA-LAN-000100 RACER'S SITE #12
P-19-000101 CA-LAN-000101 RACER'S SITE #13

Report Detail: LA-01016
Citation information
Year: 1981
Title: Archaeological Resources Assessment of Replacement Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility for Division 18 in the City of Carson, California
Affliliation: Archaeological Resource Management Corp.

No. pages: 36
Database record metadata
Entered: 5/5/2008 jay
Last modified: 10/3/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:

Collections:

Disclosure:

Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Schroth, Adella
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): TORRANCE
Inventory size: 14 ac
No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-01016
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 0
PLSS:

Date User Action taken
5/6/2008 jay Appended records from old Surveys database.

Report Detail: LA-01445
Citation information
Year: 1984
Title: An Archaeological Survey and Impact Assessment of 9.99 Acre Parcel at 190th Street and the Harbor Freeway, City of Los Angeles, California
Affliliation:

No. pages:

Database record metadata
Entered: 5/5/2008 jay
Last modified:

IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:

Collections:

Disclosure:

Record status:

Location information
Author(s): Dillon, Brian D.

Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): TORRANCE
Inventory size: 10 ac
No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-01445
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 0
PLSS:

Date User Action taken
5/6/2008 jay Appended records from old Surveys database.

Report Detail: LA-03583
Citation information
Year: 1974
Title: The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity: a Gazetteer and Compilation of Archaeological Site Information Affliliation: Archaeological Research, Inc.

No. pages: 289
Associated resources
General notes
Also OR-4034 and VN-2983 - Mapped as Other Report to quads listed.

Collections: Yes
Disclosure: Not for publication
Author(s): Bucknam, Bonnie M.

Attributes: Other research
Inventory size: QC
No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-03583
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-19-000001 CA-LAN-000001 Tank Site; LA-36
P-19-000002 CA-LAN-000002 Lower Tank Site, Treganza's Tan P-19-000003 CA-LAN-000003 Tank Site 3
P-19-000004 CA-LAN-000004 Tank Site 4
P-19-000005 CA-LAN-000005 Tank Site 5
P-19-000007 CA-LAN-000007/H UNION STATION; LA CHINATO
P-19-000009 CA-LAN-000009 Topanga #9; LA-41
P-19-000010 CA-LAN-000010 Topanga #10; LA-42
P-19-000011 CA-LAN-000011 Topanga #11; LA-43
P-19-000012 CA-LAN-000012 Topanga #12; LA-44
P-19-000013 CA-LAN-000013 Topanga #13; LA-45
P-19-000015 CA-LAN-000015 LA-184; LAN-51
P-19-000016 CA-LAN-000016 LA-47
P-19-000017 CA-LAN-000017 LA-48; TOPANGA #17
P-19-000018 CA-LAN-000018 LA-115
P-19-000019 CA-LAN-000019 Croasdale's Metate Site; LA-108; P-19-000023 CA-LAN-000023 UPPER CAVE SITE; LA-51; Top
P-19-000024 CA-LAN-000024 LA-52; Topanga #24
P-19-000027 CA-LAN-000027 Topanga #27
P-19-000028 CA-LAN-000028 Lachuza
P-19-000029 CA-LAN-000029 Shell Midden Settlement
P-19-000030 CA-LAN-000030 Winding Way West; Ramirez Sit P-19-000031 CA-LAN-000031
P-19-000033 CA-LAN-000033
P-19-000037 CA-LAN-000037 Iny 111; LA-25 (Triunfo Canyon) P-19-000038 CA-LAN-000038 Crest Site; LA-126
P-19-000039 CA-LAN-000039 Crags Site; LA-124
P-19-000040 CA-LAN-000040 Zuma Creek "C"; LA-15; Dume P P-19-000044 CA-LAN-000044/H
P-19-000045 CA-LAN-000045
P-19-000046 CA-LAN-000046
P-19-000047 CA-LAN-000047 Sa' anga
P-19-000048 CA-LAN-000048 Salisbury #1
P-19-000049 CA-LAN-000049 Salisbury #2
P-19-000050 CA-LAN-000050 Smith's 162Pc
P-19-000051 CA-LAN-000051

Report Detail: LA-03583
P-19-000052 CA-LAN-000052 Arroyo Sequit, Village of Lisiqshi P-19-000053 CA-LAN-000053 Farragut Drive School Site
P-19-000054 CA-LAN-000054/H Deane's Broken Mortar Site
P-19-000055 CA-LAN-000055 Shulene #1
P-19-000056 CA-LAN-000056 Rozaire #1
P-19-000057 CA-LAN-000057 Lindberg Park Site
P-19-000058 CA-LAN-000058 Machado Site
P-19-000059 CA-LAN-000059 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000060 CA-LAN-000060 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000061 CA-LAN-000061 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000062 CA-LAN-000062 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000063 CA-LAN-000063 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000064 CA-LAN-000064 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000065 CA-LAN-000065 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000066 CA-LAN-000066 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000067 CA-LAN-000067 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000068 CA-LAN-000068 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000069 CA-LAN-000069 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000070 CA-LAN-000070 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000071 CA-LAN-000071 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000072 CA-LAN-000072 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000073 CA-LAN-000073 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000074 CA-LAN-000074 Malcolm Farmer's Baldwin Hills s P-19-000078 CA-LAN-000078
P-19-000080 CA-LAN-000080
P-19-000088 CA-LAN-000088 Racer's Misc Sites #1 and Racer P-19-000090 CA-LAN-000090
P-19-000091 CA-LAN-000091 RACER'S SITE #3
P-19-000092 CA-LAN-000092
P-19-000094 CA-LAN-000094 RACER'S SITE #6A (2 SITES M
P-19-000096 CA-LAN-000096 RACER'S SITE #7
P-19-000097 CA-LAN-000097 RACER'S SITE #8
P-19-000098 CA-LAN-000098 RACER'S SITE #10, Suangna In
P-19-000099 CA-LAN-000099 RACER'S SITE #11
P-19-000100 CA-LAN-000100 RACER'S SITE #12
P-19-000101 CA-LAN-000101 RACER'S SITE #13
P-19-000102 CA-LAN-000102
P-19-000103 CA-LAN-000103 RACER'S SITE #17
P-19-000104 CA-LAN-000104 RACER'S SITE #18; 18A, 18B (
P-19-000105 CA-LAN-000105 RACER'S SITE #19
P-19-000106 CA-LAN-000106 Racer's Site #21
P-19-000107 CA-LAN-000107 RACER'S SITE #20
P-19-000108 CA-LAN-000108/H Indian Hill
P-19-000109 CA-LAN-000109 Eberhart #14
P-19-000110 CA-LAN-000110 Eberhart #13
P-19-000112 CA-LAN-000112
P-19-000113 CA-LAN-000113 Eberhart #10
P-19-000114 CA-LAN-000114 Cottontail Lane Site; Broad Beac P-19-000115 CA-LAN-000115 Eberhart #8
P-19-000116 CA-LAN-000116 Eberhart #7
P-19-000117 CA-LAN-000117 Eberhart #6
P-19-000118 CA-LAN-000118 Eberhart #5
P-19-000119 CA-LAN-000119 Eberhart #4
P-19-000120 CA-LAN-000120 Eberhart #3
P-19-000121 CA-LAN-000121 Eberhart #2
P-19-000122 CA-LAN-000122 Eberhart #1
P-19-000123 CA-LAN-000123 Anaheim Street Site #1
P-19-000124 CA-LAN-000124
P-19-000125 CA-LAN-000125

Report Detail: LA-03583
P-19-000126 CA-LAN-000126
P-19-000127 CA-LAN-000127 Palmer-Redondo
P-19-000131 CA-LAN-000131
P-19-000133 CA-LAN-000133 SBMNH-127; Topanga Canyon s
P-19-000134 CA-LAN-000134 Nelson #2
P-19-000135 CA-LAN-000135 Nelson's #3
P-19-000136 CA-LAN-000136
P-19-000137 CA-LAN-000137 Nelson #5 Refuse Heap
P-19-000138 CA-LAN-000138 MALAGA COVE
P-19-000139 CA-LAN-000139 Nelson #7
P-19-000140 CA-LAN-000140 Nelson #8 Camp Site
P-19-000141 CA-LAN-000141 Nelson #9 Refuse Heap
P-19-000142 CA-LAN-000142 Nelson #10 Refuse Heaps
P-19-000143 CA-LAN-000143/H Nelson's #11 Camp Site
P-19-000144 CA-LAN-000144/H Nelson's #12 Camp Site
P-19-000145 CA-LAN-000145/H Nelson #13 Traces of Camp Site P-19-000146 CA-LAN-000146 Nelson's #14 Refuse Heap
P-19-000147 CA-LAN-000147 Nelson #15 Refuse Heap
P-19-000148 CA-LAN-000148 Nelson #16 Refuse Heap
P-19-000149 CA-LAN-000149 Nelson #17 Refuse Heap
P-19-000150 CA-LAN-000150 Nelson #18 Refuse Heap
P-19-000151 CA-LAN-000151 Nelson #19 Traces of Camp Site P-19-000152 CA-LAN-000152/H Nelson #10 Refuse Heaps
P-19-000153 CA-LAN-000153
P-19-000154 CA-LAN-000154
P-19-000155 CA-LAN-000155/H Stunt Ranch
P-19-000156 CA-LAN-000156 Stunt [5
P-19-000159 CA-LAN-000159/H La Brea Tar Pits
P-19-000161 CA-LAN-000161
P-19-000162 CA-LAN-000162 Biencourt
P-19-000170 CA-LAN-000170
P-19-000171 CA-LAN-000171 Angeles Mesa Find
P-19-000172 CA-LAN-000172 LOS ANGELES MAN
P-19-000174 CA-LAN-000174 Zuma Creek "A"
P-19-000175 CA-LAN-000175 Voided
P-19-000178 CA-LAN-000178
P-19-000179 CA-LAN-000179
P-19-000180 CA-LAN-000180
P-19-000181 CA-LAN-000181 Campsite
P-19-000182 CA-LAN-000182 Village of Sejat (multiple possibl P-19-000183 CA-LAN-000183 El Nido Site
P-19-000184 CA-LAN-000184H San Gabriel Mission Archaeologi P-19-000185 CA-LAN-000185H VOIDED
P-19-000187 CA-LAN-000187 Small Gathering Camp
P-19-000189 CA-LAN-000189 Escondido Canyon; Perro Feroz P-19-000190 CA-LAN-000190
P-19-000191 CA-LAN-000191/H Cypress Street Water Reservoir, P-19-000193 CA-LAN-000193/H Nelson #4 Refuse Heap
P-19-000194 CA-LAN-000194 Hammack St Site
P-19-000195 CA-LAN-000195 Burial; Calavera Site
P-19-000196 CA-LAN-000196 Zuma Creek "B"
P-19-000197 CA-LAN-000197 Trancas Cemetery; Trancas Can P-19-000198 CA-LAN-000198 Zuma Creek "D"
P-19-000199 CA-LAN-000199 Zuma Creek "E"
P-19-000200 CA-LAN-000200 Zuma Creek "F"
P-19-000201 CA-LAN-000201 Zuma Creek Site "G"
P-19-000202 CA-LAN-000202
P-19-000203 CA-LAN-000203 Metates
P-19-000204 CA-LAN-000204

Report Detail: LA-03583
P-19-000205 CA-LAN-000205 Dume Point
P-19-000206 CA-LAN-000206 William Deane's site #6
P-19-000207 CA-LAN-000207
P-19-000210 CA-LAN-000210 Solstice Canyon Site; Sapo Ron P-19-000211 CA-LAN-000211 William Deane's Site #l
P-19-000212 CA-LAN-000212
P-19-000213 CA-LAN-000213 LA-31
P-19-000214 CA-LAN-000214
P-19-000215 CA-LAN-000215
P-19-000216 CA-LAN-000216
P-19-000217 CA-LAN-000217 City of Malibu Planning
P-19-000219 CA-LAN-000219
P-19-000220 CA-LAN-000220 Ridge Mandeville
P-19-000222 CA-LAN-000222
P-19-000224 CA-LAN-000224 Temescal Canyon
P-19-000225 CA-LAN-000225 Century Ranch
P-19-000226 CA-LAN-000226 Mariscos Site
P-19-000227 CA-LAN-000227
P-19-000229 CA-LAN-000229 Restaurant Site
P-19-000231 CA-LAN-000231
P-19-000232 CA-LAN-000232
P-19-000233 CA-LAN-000233
P-19-000234 CA-LAN-000234 Puvunga Indian Village Site
P-19-000235 CA-LAN-000235 Puvunga Indian Village Site
P-19-000236 CA-LAN-000236
P-19-000245 CA-LAN-000245
P-19-000255 CA-LAN-000255
P-19-000263 CA-LAN-000263 DUPLICATE OF LAN-19
P-19-000264 CA-LAN-000264/H MALIBU SITE, HUMALIWO (CH
P-19-000265 CA-LAN-000265
P-19-000266 CA-LAN-000266
P-19-000267 CA-LAN-000267 Sweetwater Mesa site, Winnikoff P-19-000268 CA-LAN-000268
P-19-000269 CA-LAN-000269
P-19-000270 CA-LAN-000270 Los Altos
P-19-000271 CA-LAN-000271
P-19-000272 CA-LAN-000272
P-19-000273 CA-LAN-000273 Margo Street Site
P-19-000274 CA-LAN-000274
P-19-000275 CA-LAN-000275
P-19-000276 CA-LAN-000276 Racer's Site #5
P-19-000277 CA-LAN-000277 Tor. 2
P-19-000278 CA-LAN-000278 Tor. 3
P-19-000279 CA-LAN-000279 Racer's Site #4
P-19-000280 CA-LAN-000280 Eberhart #11
P-19-000281 CA-LAN-000281 Tor. 6
P-19-000282 CA-LAN-000282 Duplicate of LAN-94
P-19-000283 CA-LAN-000283 Barton Hill and Knoll Hill Extensi P-19-000284 CA-LAN-000284 Tor. 9
P-19-000285 CA-LAN-000285 Racer's Site #1
P-19-000286 CA-LAN-000286 Tor.11
P-19-000287 CA-LAN-000287 Eberhart #9
P-19-000288 CA-LAN-000288 Racer's Site #2
P-19-000289 CA-LAN-000289 Tor. 14
P-19-000291 CA-LAN-000291 San Pedro 1
P-19-000292 CA-LAN-000292
P-19-000303 CA-LAN-000303 The Little Big Horn Indian Camp P-19-000306 CA-LAN-000306 Puvunga Indian Village Site / Lo P-19-000307 CA-LAN-000307

Report Detail: LA-03583
P-19-000308 CA-LAN-000308 Cheese Rock
P-19-000309 CA-LAN-000309
P-19-000310 CA-LAN-000310 Cima Site
P-19-000311 CA-LAN-000311 Barbacoa Site
P-19-000316 CA-LAN-000316
P-19-000317 CA-LAN-000317
P-19-000319 CA-LAN-000319
P-19-000322 CA-LAN-000322
P-19-000330 CA-LAN-000330 Shelter Complex 2, Topanga Sur P-19-000331 CA-LAN-000331 Topanga #31
P-19-000332 CA-LAN-000332 Topanga #32
P-19-000333 CA-LAN-000333 Complex II
P-19-000335 CA-LAN-000335 Morning View Site
P-19-000340 CA-LAN-000340 Santa Maria Creek
P-19-000341 CA-LAN-000341 Topanga #28
P-19-000344 CA-LAN-000344 Hollywood Riviera Site
P-19-000350 CA-LAN-000350
P-19-000352 CA-LAN-000352 San Nicholas Canyon Site
P-19-000353 CA-LAN-000353
P-19-000354 CA-LAN-000354
P-19-000356 CA-LAN-000356
P-19-000382 CA-LAN-000382/H Serra Springs, Unihi Site
P-19-000383 CA-LAN-000383
P-19-000385 CA-LAN-000385
P-19-000386 CA-LAN-000386
P-19-000387 CA-LAN-000387H TADIA RANCH
P-19-000388 CA-LAN-000388 Highland Cave, Five Shelters
P-19-000389 CA-LAN-000389 DOMINGNEZ HILLS #2
P-19-000390 CA-LAN-000390 DOMINGNEZ HILLS #1
P-19-000398 CA-LAN-000398
P-19-000400 CA-LAN-000400
P-19-000401 CA-LAN-000401
P-19-000403 CA-LAN-000403
P-19-000404 CA-LAN-000404
P-19-000406 CA-LAN-000406
P-19-000415 CA-LAN-000415 Ramirez Canyon #1
P-19-000423 CA-LAN-000423 VOID
P-19-000424 CA-LAN-000424
P-19-000425 CA-LAN-000425
P-19-000448 CA-LAN-000448 Old Santa Susana Stage Road / P-19-000454 CA-LAN-000454 Point Dume Site
P-19-000468 CA-LAN-000468 The Guess Who, Not Bernie Neu P-19-000469 CA-LAN-000469 The Garden Site
P-19-000470 CA-LAN-000470
P-19-000472 CA-LAN-000472 JOHN'S ROCKSHELTER
P-19-000478 CA-LAN-000478
P-19-000483 CA-LAN-000483 AVC-1
P-19-000484 CA-LAN-000484 AVC-2
P-19-000494 CA-LAN-000494 JZ-1
P-19-000495 CA-LAN-000495 EC-2
P-19-000496 CA-LAN-000496 EC-3
P-19-000497 CA-LAN-000497 EC-4
P-19-000499 CA-LAN-000499 T-1
P-19-000500 CA-LAN-000500 T-2
P-19-000501 CA-LAN-000501 Kybo
P-19-000505 CA-LAN-000505 Monte Nido #1
P-19-000506 CA-LAN-000506 Monte Nido #2
P-19-000512 CA-LAN-000512
P-19-000513 CA-LAN-000513

Report Detail: LA-03583
Database record metadata
Entered: 5/5/2008 jay
Last modified: 12/4/2014 agarcia
IC actions:

Date User
Address:

Record status:

Location information
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): ANAHEIM, BALDWIN PARK, BEVERLY HILLS, EL MONTE, HOLLYWOOD, INGLEWOOD, LA HABRA, LONG

BEACH, LOS ALAMITOS, LOS ANGELES, MALIBU BEACH, NEWPORT BEACH, POINT DUME, REDONDO

BEACH, SAN PEDRO, SEAL BEACH, SOUTH GATE, TOPANGA, TORRANCE, TRIUNFO PASS, VENICE,

WHITTIER
Has informals:

No. resources: 285
PLSS:

Date User Action taken
5/6/2008 jay Appended records from old Surveys database. 12/4/2014 agarcia GIS QC
P-19-000514 CA-LAN-000514
P-19-000515 CA-LAN-000515
P-19-000516 CA-LAN-000516/H Lake Vineyard Ranch Site
P-19-000517 CA-LAN-000517
P-19-000519 CA-LAN-000519
P-19-000520 CA-LAN-000520
P-19-000523 CA-LAN-000523
P-19-000525 CA-LAN-000525
P-19-000526 CA-LAN-000526 DUPLICATE OF LAN-477
P-19-000527 CA-LAN-000527 T-1 or T-2
P-19-000528 CA-LAN-000528 Montgomery/Brookins House
P-19-167019 Avila Adobe
P-19-179270 Rancho Los Cerritos

Report Detail: LA-05499
Citation information
Year: 2000
Title: Negative Archaeological Survey Report: to Cold Plane the Existing Pavement on Route 405 and Overlay With 30mm of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete at Selected On/off-ramps From Vermont Ave. to Manchester Blvd.

Affliliation: Caltrans District 7
No. pages: 5
Database record metadata
Entered: 5/5/2008 jay
Last modified: 10/3/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:

Collections:

Disclosure:

Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Smith, Philomene C.

Attributes: Literature search
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): INGLEWOOD, TORRANCE
Inventory size: 4 li mi
No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-05499
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 0
PLSS:

Date User Action taken
5/6/2008 jay Appended records from old Surveys database.

Type Name
Caltrans

Report Detail: LA-10567
Citation information
Year: 2005
Title: Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties - West Basin Municipal Water District Harbor- South Bay Water Recycling Project Proposed Project Laterals
Affliliation: CRM Tech
No. pages: 43
Database record metadata
Entered: 8/17/2010 agarcia
Last modified: 8/7/2014 agarcia
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Map of Project incomplete
Date User
Address:

Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status:

Location information
Author(s): Hogan, Michael, Bai "Tom" Tang, Josh Smallwood, Laura Hensley Shaker, and Casey Tibbitt Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): INGLEWOOD, LONG BEACH, REDONDO BEACH, TORRANCE Inventory size:

No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-10567
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 0
PLSS:

Report Detail: LA-11150
Citation information
Year: 2003
Title: West Basin Municipal Water District Harbor/ South Bay Water Recycling Project Affliliation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
No. pages: 27
Database record metadata
Entered: 10/24/2011 agarcia
Last modified: 8/7/2014 agarcia
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:

Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Location information
Author(s): Maxwell, Pamela
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): INGLEWOOD, LONG BEACH, REDONDO BEACH, SOUTH GATE, TORRANCE Inventory size:

No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-11150
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 22
PLSS:

Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-19-000094 CA-LAN-000094 RACER'S SITE #6A (2 SITES M
P-19-000098 CA-LAN-000098 RACER'S SITE #10, Suangna In
P-19-000103 CA-LAN-000103 RACER'S SITE #17
P-19-000140 CA-LAN-000140 Nelson #8 Camp Site
P-19-000276 CA-LAN-000276 Racer's Site #5
P-19-000277 CA-LAN-000277 Tor. 2
P-19-000278 CA-LAN-000278 Tor. 3
P-19-000279 CA-LAN-000279 Racer's Site #4
P-19-000280 CA-LAN-000280 Eberhart #11
P-19-000281 CA-LAN-000281 Tor. 6
P-19-000282 CA-LAN-000282 Duplicate of LAN-94
P-19-000389 CA-LAN-000389 DOMINGNEZ HILLS #2
P-19-000390 CA-LAN-000390 DOMINGNEZ HILLS #1
P-19-000709 CA-LAN-000709
P-19-000794 CA-LAN-000794 Carson l
P-19-000822 CA-LAN-000822
P-19-000844 CA-LAN-000844
P-19-000845 CA-LAN-000845
P-19-000847 CA-LAN-000847
P-19-000848 CA-LAN-000848
P-19-000999 CA-LAN-000999/H Eggers' Areas A, B, and C
P-19-001735 CA-LAN-001735 PTV-1

Report Detail: LA-11150
Record status:

Report Detail: LA-11482
Citation information
Year: 1939
Title: Camp Sites in Harbor District - F.H. Racer
Affliliation:

No. pages: 8
Associated resources
General notes
Mapped on SCCIC basemaps, but no maps included with records or reports. Map locations may not be exact and may be estimates based on other source material.

Address:

Collections:

Disclosure: Not for publication
Location information
Author(s): Racer, F.H.

Attributes: Other research
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): BEVERLY HILLS, INGLEWOOD, REDONDO BEACH, SAN PEDRO, TORRANCE, VENICE Inventory size:

No. maps: 0
Identifiers
Report No.: LA-11482
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 21
PLSS:

Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-19-000057 CA-LAN-000057 Lindberg Park Site
P-19-000060 CA-LAN-000060 Malcolm Farmer's Playa del Rey P-19-000088 CA-LAN-000088 Racer's Misc Sites #1 and Racer P-19-000091 CA-LAN-000091 RACER'S SITE #3
P-19-000094 CA-LAN-000094 RACER'S SITE #6A (2 SITES M
P-19-000096 CA-LAN-000096 RACER'S SITE #7
P-19-000097 CA-LAN-000097 RACER'S SITE #8
P-19-000098 CA-LAN-000098 RACER'S SITE #10, Suangna In
P-19-000099 CA-LAN-000099 RACER'S SITE #11
P-19-000100 CA-LAN-000100 RACER'S SITE #12
P-19-000101 CA-LAN-000101 RACER'S SITE #13
P-19-000103 CA-LAN-000103 RACER'S SITE #17
P-19-000104 CA-LAN-000104 RACER'S SITE #18; 18A, 18B (
P-19-000105 CA-LAN-000105 RACER'S SITE #19
P-19-000106 CA-LAN-000106 Racer's Site #21
P-19-000107 CA-LAN-000107 RACER'S SITE #20
P-19-000138 CA-LAN-000138 MALAGA COVE
P-19-000276 CA-LAN-000276 Racer's Site #5
P-19-000279 CA-LAN-000279 Racer's Site #4
P-19-000285 CA-LAN-000285 Racer's Site #1
P-19-000288 CA-LAN-000288 Racer's Site #2
Type Name
Other Racer's sites

Report Detail: LA-11482
Database record metadata
Entered: 2/7/2012 lnoyes
Last modified: 6/6/2018 sstjames
IC actions:

Date User
Record status:

Report Detail: LA-12440
Citation information
Year: 2013
Title: Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC Candidate LA0573 (NOLA Substation) 125 Griffith Street, Carson, Los Angeles County, California Affliliation: EAS
No. pages: 12
Database record metadata
Entered: 2/18/2014 lnoyes
Last modified: 10/4/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:

Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:

Collections:

Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Bonner, Wayne
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): Los Angeles
USGS quad(s): TORRANCE
Inventory size:

No. maps:

Identifiers
Report No.: LA-12440
Other IDs:

Cross-refs:

Has informals:

No. resources: 1
PLSS:

Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-19-000088 CA-LAN-000088 Racer's Misc Sites #1 and Racer Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
125 Griffith St Carson, CA

f
‘.
----c_4
0 c
2 L)
U
cD
-S
>
5-
z
5-
L
i-S
‘0
0)0
,‘0
LLJ
>4-
‘6,
0 C—,
Ui
TABLE
OF

CONTENTS
Page
PrefaceI.

Introduction-
Scope
and
Purpose
of
the
Study
Methods
Used
LD
Inventory
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
a.

Record
Search
b.

Field
Survey
c.

Data
Evaluation
and
Report
Preparation
Areas
and
Sources
Not
Included
in
the
Inventory
II.

The
Significance
of
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
10 III.

The
City
of
Carson’s
Environmental
&
Historical
Setting
14 Geology
and
Environmental
Setting
The
Cultural
Background

1. The
Native
American
Period
The
Early
Man
Phase
The
Millingstone
Phase
The
Intermediate
Phase
The
Canalino
Phase

2. The
Hispanic
Period

3. The
American
Period
IV.

The
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
of
Carson
35 Results
of
the
Field
Survey
Recorded
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
in
Carson
Summary
of
Existing
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
&
Sensitive
Areas
Native
American
Cultural
Heritage
Resources

1. Suangna
Village

2. LAn
88 3.

LAn99

4. LAn
106

5. Carson
1 6.

Carson
2 7.

Carson
3 Hispanic
Period
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
(1770-1849)
63 1.

Eastern
Road
From
San
Pedro
Harbor
to
Los
Angeles
and
San
Gabriel
Mission

2. Rancho
Los
Palos
Verdes
Boundary
Line
American
Period
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
(1850-1976)
69 1.

The
Old
German
Church

2. Dominguez
Water
Comnany

3. The
Dominguez
United
Methodist
Church

4. Dominguez
Elementary
School

5. Carson
Elementary
School

6. Henri’s
Lariat

7. First
City
Hall
of
Carson
346781519202021222325293535424242454749515458646873747577787981 LA-4512
Sensitive
Areas
82 Areal
83 Area
2 85
Area
3 86
Area
4 89
Area
5 90
V.

Recommendations
on
CHR
Policy
&
Conservation
91 A.

Existjnq
Policies
&
Guidelines
for
Cultural
Heritaqe
Resources
91 1.

Federal
Laws,
Policies
&
Guidelines
91 2.

State
Laws,
Policies
&
Guidelines
95 3.

Regional
and
Local
CHR
Preservation
Measures

4. Existing
Policies
&
Program
for
the
City
of
Carson
B.

Proposals
For
A
CHR
Program
For
The
City
Of
Carson

1. Establish
a
Formal
Policy
For
CHR
Management

2. Include
CHR
Management
Programs
in
Development
or
Improvement
Projects

3. Include
CHRs
and
Sensitive
Areas
in
Parks
&
ODen
Space

4. Promote
a
Public
Awareness
of
the
City’s
Heritage

5. Enforce
Strict
Compliance
With
Current
Environmental
Laws

6. Establish
Interim
Guidelines
and
Procedures
for
Project
ing
and
Conserving
Identified
CHRs
and
Sensitive
Areas

7. Establish
Penalties
for
Failure
to
Observe
Interim/
Permanent
Guidelines
for
CHR
Conservation

8. Seek
Determinations
of
Eligibility
of
Certain
CHRs
for
the
National
Register
of
Historic
Places
Bibliographic
Sources
Consulted
Groups,
Agencies
&
Organizations
Consulted
Persons
Contacted
FiguresMapsAppendices:

Appendix
I.

Glossary
of
Terms
Appendix
II.

Cultural
Overview
of
Los
Angeles
rDunty
Appendix
III.

Types
of
Archaeological
Sites
Appendix
IV.

Reports
on
Surveys
and/or
Subsurface
Tests
at
Carson
1,
2 &
3 LA-4512

PREFACE
This
report
contains
data
on
existing
and
pre-existing
cultural
heri
tage
resources
of
local,
statewide
and
national
significance
located
within
the
City
of
Carson.

Because
of
the
information
included
on
the
location
of
Native
American
sites
and
the
possibility
of
disturbance
to
these
resources
from
vandalism
and
unsystematic
collecting,
this
report
and
the
maps
and
other
materials
accompanying
it,
should
not
be
made
available
to
the
general
A
public
or
published
in
its
present
form.

The
historical
information
and
pre
cise
locational
data
for
the
sites
should
be
provided
to
persons
demonstrat
ing
a
justifiable
need
for
or
right
to
the
material
as
described
in
the
last
section
of
the
text.

LA-4512
I.INTRODUCTION
Scope&PurposeoftheStuy
ThepresentstudyconsistsofaninventoryandevaluationoftheCultural Heritage(ie.,PrchistoricandHistoric)resourceslocatedwithinthebound3’- iesoftheCityofCarson.Thestudyhasbeenconductedinthreeparts,some ofwhichwerecarriedoutconcurrently.First,thehistoryofhumansettle mentontheCarsonareawasresearchedfromdocumentarysourcesandinformed persons.Anattemptwasalsomadetoinvestigatethegeologicandclimatic environmentofthearea.

Second,awalkoversurveyoftheundevelopedportionsoftheCitywascon ductedbytheConsultantandatrainedcrew.Archaeologicalandhistorical sitesorstructureswereidentifiedandmappedand,inoneinstance,systematic fieldtestswerecarriedoutaswell.Inthecourseofthewalkover,attempts werealsomadetolocateandassessresourcesidentifiedfromthebackground data.Themethodsemployedaredescribedinthefollowingsectionandwere designedtopermitamoreaccurateandcompleteevaluationoftheresources discovered.However,aswillbeseen,fieldtestsandevaluationscouldnot bemadeinallcases.

Thirdly,asetofpoliciesandprotectivemeasureshasbeenprovidedto theCityfortheconservationofitsculturalheritageresources.Thesemeas uresandpoliciesareintendedasguidelinesforassessingandconservingsuch resourcesandforthepreparationofenvironmentaldocumentsandgrantappli cations.Proceduresarealsopresentedfortheinvestigationof‘sensitive’ areas(i.e.,thoseadjacenttoorcontaining,orknowntohavecontainedcult uralheritageresources)priortoand/orduringtheintroductionofchangesin existingfeaturesorterrainsoastoproduceanadverseeffectuponhistorical remains.

Atthetimethatthesurveywascontractedandcarriedout,themethodology, formatandcontent“fsuchinventorieshadonlyrecer.tlybeenconceivedand theultimateusestowhichsuchdatacouldbeputwerenotclearlyestablished.

However,withinthelastfewmonths,theStateCoastalZonePlanhasbeen formallyadoptedbytheLegislature,CEQA(CaliforniaEnvironmentalQialityAct) hasbeenamended,theStateGovernmentalCode(Section65303)hasbeenrevised LA-4512
toprovideforthepreparationofaspecialhistoricalpreservationelement forgeneralplansandtheOfficeofPlanning&Research(OPR)hasissued guidelinestoaidinpreparingthiselement.NumerousFederalandState Grant-in-AidProgramsforculturalheritageresourceprotectionandconser vationhavebeeninstitutedrecentlytofacilitatetheimplementationofsuch elementsaswellaslocalordinancesandpreservationprograms.

Manyfederalassistanceprogramswhichinvolvetheredevelopmentofurban areas,theconstructionofhousingorotherprograms(airports,highways, communitylandandwaterconservationassistance,watertreatment,etc.) presentlyrequirearchaeological/historicalsurveysorinventoriestobecon ductedintaffectedareaspriortothefilingofapplications.Plansfor theadequateutilizationofadverseimpactstoentitiesofhistoricalvalue mustbepresentedtothegrantingorresponsibleagencies(inmostcases) beforesuchapplicationscanbeconsideredfavorably.Asafurtheraidto historicalpreservation,programsinvolvingfederalagenciescanutilizea percentageofconstructionmoney,tosurveyaffectedareasandcarryout effectiveinvestigationmeasures(P.L.93-291)
Althoughmanyofthesepoliciesandlawswerenotineffectorformally establishedwhenthepresentinventorywasbegun,itwasanticipatedthat governmentalagenciesweremovingrapidlyinthesedirectionsandtheinven torywascarriedoutwiththeaimofsatisfyingsuchrequirementswhenform allyapproved.Thethird(final)sectionofthereportdealswiththesesub jectsingreaterdetail.

Inpreparingthisreport,ithasbeennecessarytoutilizephrasesand terminologieswhicharetechnicalinnatureorwhichhaverestricteddefini tions.Althoughacompletelistofdefinitionsisnotposiblegiventhe natureofthisreport,abriefglossaryofimportanttermswhichhavebeen usedrepeatedlyintext ispresentedintheAppendices.Abrieftabledepict ingmajorperiodsofhistorydatingfromtheearliesknownhumanoccupation inrecenttimesisalsopresentedalongwithageneraloverviewofmajorhis toriceventswhichhaveaffectedtheSouthBayregion.

Beforeproceedingtothebodyofthereport,itshouldbenotedinpartic ularthattheConsultanthastriedtotheextentpcssibletoassessthecur rentstatusofexistingculturalheritageresources.Thereporttobe —2_
LA-4512
presented
is
evaluative
in
nature
and
is
not
intended
to
be
a
comprehensive
history
of
the
City
of
Carson
or
the
adjacent
area.

Historical
data
is
in
cluded
only
to
the
degree
necessary
to
assess
the
scientific
and
cormemorative
value
of
cultural
resources
located
within
the
city
boundaries
and
to
place
them
in
general
perspective.

For
more
complete
discussions
of
the
history
of
the
area,
the
reader
is
directed
to
the
list
of
sources
consulted
which
follows
the
text.It
should
also
be
observed
that
the
term
‘cultural
heritage
resources’
(or
‘cultural
resources’)
is
gaining
currently
in
environmental
documents
and
scientific
circles
and
reflects
a
change
in
the
way
in
which
archaeologists
have
come
to
view
their
data.

Cultural
Heritage
Resources
(referred
to
as
‘CHR’
in
the
text)
include
all
sites,
features,
inscriptions,
objects
or
re
mains
which
commmemorate,
represent
or
relate
to
the
activities
of
human
beings
previously
occupying
or
utilizing
a
specific
area.

This
term
is
preferable
in
many
instances
to
previously
current
terms
such
as
‘archaeological
sites’
or
historical
since
it
is
more
comprehensive
and
avoids
the
distinction
between
‘historic’
and
‘prehistoric’
events.

The
terms
‘historic’
and
‘prehistoric/archeological’,
make
an
artificial
distinction
between
peoples
and
events
of
the
past
based
on
the
presence
or
absence
of
literacy
and
written
documentation
and
also
overstress
differences
in
investigative
techniques
used
by
‘historians’
(i.e.
the
students
of
written
history)
and
‘prehistorians
(i.e.,
‘archaeologists’
who
depend
largesly
on
non-
documentary
data
and
excavation
techniques
to
study
man’s
past).

Today’s
re
searchers
are
combining
both
techniques
of
study
to
investigate
human
history
by
means
of
reconstructing
the
cultural
pattern(s)
existing
at
a
particular
time.

The
term
‘history’,
therefore,
will
refer
to
developmental
changes
in
the
cultural
patterns
occurring
in
an
area
from
the
earliest
known
time
of
occupation
up
to
the
present
generation
of
inhabitants.

Specific
periods
or
patterns
will
be
referred
to
in
cultural
terms
(e.g.,
the
Canalino
Period,
The
Mission
Period,
the
American
Period)
and
the
term
‘prehistoric’
will
be
avoided
in
the
text
of
the
report.

Methods
Used
To
Inventory
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
As
stated
above,
the
inventory
of
CHRs
for
the
City
of
Carson
was
carried
out
in
three
stages
each
employinq
different
data
sources
and
investigative
-3-
LA-4512
techniques.Acompletelistofallsourcesconsultedwillbefoundfollowing thetextofthisreport.
a.RecordSearch
Theinitielstageofthein”entoryinvolvedaninvestigationofexist ingdatarelatingtoCHRswithinorneartheCitylimits.Books,documents andrecordscontaininghistoricaldataontheSouthBayRegionwereconsulted andarchivalmaterialswerelocated.Chiefamongthesewerethearchivesmain tainedbytheDominguezWaterCompanyandpresentlyhousedintheSpecialCol lectionsRoomoftheCaliforniaStateCollege,DominguezHills(CSCDH)Library, mapsandpapersintheHuntingtonLibrary,SouthwestMuseum,TitleInsurance Company,andtheResearchLibraryandArcheologicalSurveyatUCLA.Contacts werealsoestablishedwiththeLosAngelesCountyHistoricalCommission,The HistoricalSocietyofSouthernCalifornia,TheCaliforniaHistoricalLandmarks CommissionandtheHistoryandAnthropologyDepartmentsofRegionalUniversities andColleges.Archivalmaterialshousedatlocalmuseumsandhistoricalbuild ings,includingtheDominguezMemorialSeminary,theRanchoLosCerritosAdobe, theLosAngelesCountyMuseum,theLosAngelesCityLibrary,theFederalRecords Cehter(LagunaNiguel)andtheBancroftLibrary,UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Inadditiontoconsultingdocumentarysources,attemptsweremadetocon tactpersonsandorganizationsknowledgeableaboutthehistoryanddevelopment oftheSouthBayRegion.Thiswasdeemedtobeofspecialiinportanceto the recordsearchbecauseofthelackofwrittendataavailablefortheareaandthe needforspecificinformationonrecenthistory.Especiallyhelpfulinthis regardwereMr.ArthurReeves,VicePresidentoftheDominguezWaterCompany, Ms.ThelmaStrelitz,Mr.WilliamSnuddow,Mr.RichardAlbertoni,Mr.ManuelGon zalez,Mr.CyAndrews,Mr.RandolphCarr,formerattorneyfortheSouthern PacificTransportationCompany,andhismother,Mrs.FranklinCarr,allofwhom eithergavefreelyoftheirknowledgeordirectedtheConsultanttovariousdata sources.Dr.R.C.Gillingham,authorof theauthoritativebookTheRanchoScfl Pedro,alsogenerouslygaveofhistimeandprovidedvaluablemapsandphoto graphs.

Itisextremelyunfortunatethatonesource,whosehelpwouldhavebenin valuable,wasnotavailabletotheproject.Mr.VictorCarson,grandsonof -4-
LA-4512
George
Henry
Carson
and
a
relative
of
the
Dominguez
family
who
had
lived
in
the
Carson
area
since
1893
was
terminally
ill
with
cancer
and
could
not
be
interviewed.

A
vigorous
man
who
had
a
vivid
and
detailed
knowledge
of
local
history,
Mr.

Carson’s
recollections
would
have
been
of
considerable
aid
in
reconstructing
the
settlement
patterns
and
environment
of
the
region.

It
is
fortunate
that
a
portion
of
his
recollections
were
obtained
and
recorded
by
Dr.

Judd
Grenier
(Grenier,
1971).

As
the
study
progressed,
it
became
necessary
to
accumulate
data
on
the
extent
of
environmental
change
that
had
occurred
in
the
Carson
area
as
a
pre
liminary
step
to
the
field
survey.

Grading
and
landfill
permits
and
reports
housed
at
Carson
City
Hall,
the
Los
Angeles
County
Sanitation
Department
and
the
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Regional
Planning
were
examined
and
the
data
were
plotted
on
large
scale
maps.

Aerial
photographs
of
the
area
dating
to
the
1920’s
(Spence-Fairchilde
Collection)
were
examined
and
compared
and
surveyors,
topography,
land
use
and
soil
maps
dating
to
1896
were
obtained
or
copies
from
the
Los
Angeles
County
Department
of
Regional
Planning,
the
Los
Angeles
County
Recorder’s
Office,
the
Huntington
Library,
UCLA
Map
Library
and
CSCDH
Geography
Department.

Again
Dr.

R.

C.

Gillingham
made
available
for
the
project
his
personal
set
of
aerial
photos
of
the
Carsun-Compton
area
taken
in
1941.

A
very
useful
copy
of
the
1916
Soil
Survey
Map
was
obtained
from
the
U.S.

Soil
Conservation
Service
office
in
Lancaster,
California.

Extensive
information
concerning
climate,
terrain,
vege.tation
and
settle
ment
patterns
in
the
North
Carson
area
was
accumulated
from
flood
records
and
well
logs.

The
Los
Angeles
County
Flood
Control
District,
U.S.

Army
Corps
of
Engineers
and
especially
the
UCLA
Water
Resources
Library,
and
the
Dominguez
Water
Company
were
extremely
cooperative
in
providing
records
and
locating
reports.

Similar
cooperation
was
obtained
from
the
Shell
Oil
Company
and
Atlantic
Richfield
(ARCO)
Refining
Company
in
providing
locational
maps
and
information
regarding
the
placement
of
pipelines
outside
of
street
rights-of-way
and
in
searching
for
historical
data.

Following
the
collection
of
data
and
prior
to
the
beginning
of
fieldwork,
base
maps
were
prepared
for
the
Carson
area
showing
the
location
and
dirensions
—5-
LA-4512
of
graded
and
filled
areas,
cultural
heritage
sites
and
undeveloped,
unaltered
property.

Areas
with
extensive
grading
and
which
contained
no
known
CHRs
were
to
be
avoided
in
the
field
survey
phase
of
the
project
and
inspections
and
walkovers
were
to
be
confined
to
the
relatively
undeveloped
and
unaltered
por
tions
of
the
City.
b.

Field
Survey
Following
the
accumulation
of
a
sufficient
amount
of
data
and
the
prop—
aration
of
the
base
maps,
a
systematic
walkover
survey
of
potential
and
known
sensitive
areas
of
the
City
was
begun.

Since
the
area
north
of
the
San
Diego
Freeway
and
surrounding
Dominguez
Hill
was
the
least
developed,
the
initial
sur
veys
were
conducted
here
and
then
extended
south
and
west
as
far
as
the
city
limits.

All
surveys
were
conducted
in
the
same
manner.

The
Consultant
and
a
crew
of
trained
assistants
(mostly
students
from
CSCDH
and
Long
Beach
State
Uni
versity)
obtained
written
or
verbal
penilission
to
investigate
a
particular
parcel
from
the
owner,
leaseholder
or
other
responsible
agent.

When
the
owner
or
res
ponsible
agent
could
not
be
located
or
contacted,
surveys
were
carried
out
only
on
portions
of
the
property
which
could
be
observed
from
oublic
access
areas,
rights
of
way
or
easements
or
adjoining
private
property
for
which
permission
could
be
obtained.Once
access
to
a
property
was
obtained,
the
soil
surface
of
the
parcel
or
lot
was
examined
on
foot
by
the
Consultant
and
field
crew
in
a
systematic
and
thorough
fashion.

The
subject
property
was
apportioned
into
areas
which
were
then
walked
over
in
a
series
of
roughly
parallel
transects
by
2-3
crew
persons.

The
transects
varied
slightly
according
to
the
requirements
of
terrain
and
existing
structures
but
were
usually
spaced
10 meters
apart.

Each
crewperson
followed
the
line
of
a
particular
transect
in
a
zig-zag
fashion
in
order
to
in
sure
a
visual
inspection
of
at
least
50-70%
of
the
ground.

Prior
to
surveying
large
tracts,
sketch
‘aps
were
prepared
locating
ll
boundaries,
structures
and
major
features
of
the
terrain.

These
maps
were
used
to
record
features
observed
during
walk-overs
and
were
incorporated
into
the
field
notes.

Smaller
properties
or
individual
lots
did
not
require
the
prior
preparation
of
maos
but
such
were
drawn
in
the
field
and
includad
in
the
records
as
circumstances
dictated.

In
some
cases,
especially
those
in
which
significant
remains
had
been
identified,
a
Transit,
Brunton
Compass
and
Stadia
Rod
were
-6-
LA-4512
employed
in
order
to
obtain
exact
dimensions
and
locations
of
features
or
col
lected
objects.

Extensive
field
notes
were
kept
for
each
property
surveyed
and
special
attention
was
paid
to
describing
structures
of
potential
historical
value
(e.’j.,
Keystone
Baptist
Church,
etc.).

Residents
or
lessors
on
or
adjacent
to
a
sub
ject
property
also
were
contacted
in
such
instances
in
order
to
acquire
addi
tional
background
data
where
available.

Observations
on
the
appearance
of
the
soil,
vegetation
patterns
and
extent
of
cover,
climate
and
degree
of
disturbance
of
the
terrain
were
also
recorded.

Parcels
were
also
examined
for
streambeds,
roadcuts
or
erosion
features
which
would
provide
clues
as
to
buried
features
and
subsurface
soils
not
otherwise
detectable
from
the
surface
alone.

Attention
was
focused
primarily
on
the
location,
distribution,
associa
tions
and
context
of
shellfish,
faunal
and
aboriginal
(pre-European)
cultural
remains.

Whenever
such
items
were
encountered
along
a
transect,
the
remains
were
plotted
and
tentatively
identified.

In
certain
instances,
as
described
in
the
text
below
and
in
the
appended
test
excavation
report,
it
was
necessary
to
remove
items
of
particular
scientific
interest
from
the
surface
for
further
study
and
such
items
were
mapped
in
place
and
described
in
the
field
notes
prior
to
collection.

Because
of
the
need
for
close,
detailed
and
accurate
visual
observation,
the
field
survey
phase
was
carried
out
during
winter
daylight
hours
(8-4
A.M.)
on
days
when
ground
fog
and
rainfall
were
not
an
obstructing
factor.

In
some
instances,
dense
vegetation
or
man
made
structures
prevented
observation
of
the
native
soil
surface
and
special
procedures
were
required.

In
areas
of
thick
grass
or
dense
shrubbery,
the
distances
between
the
transects
were
proportionately
reduced
and
the
area
was
covered
more
intensively.

Greater
attention
was
paid
to
natural
and
man-caused
features
which
partially
exposed
the
soil
surface
(e.g.,
rodent
burrows,
footpaths
and
trans.
plowed
or
disked
areas,
etc.)
as
indicators
of
the
presence
of
remains.
c.

Data
Evaluation
and
Report
Preparation
Following
the
completion
of
the
data
collection
and
field
survey
phases,
the
materiel
recovered
was
analyzed
nd
evaluated
for
the
area
as
a
;ho]e.

In
some
cases,
the
data
obtained
was
inccmplete
and
further
research
was
necessary
—7—
LA-4512
before
a
conclusion
could
be
reached
or
the
subject
matter
could
be
incorpor
ated.

This
was
especially
true
for
the
historical
data
for
the
Americanization
period
for
the
Carson
area.

The
complete
data
was
then
assessed
in
light
of
emerging
and
existing
legislation
and
the
General
Plan
in
order
to
designate
immediate
and
long
range
policies
and
goals
for
the
City.

Existing
and
proposed
ordinances
and
policies
for
other
communities
and
governmental
entities
also
were
reviewed
and
examples
were
selected
for
inclusion
in
the
report
as
models.

A
series
of
recommenda
tions
were
generated
which
would
enable
the
City
to
meet
its
present
and
future
obligations
for
CHR
identification
and
conservation.

Maps
and
figures
prepared
prior
to
the
beginning
of
the
field
phase
were
updated
and
redrawn
for
inclusion
in
the
final
report.

Also
included
as
an
Appendix
is
a
report
on
test
excavations
conducted
at
one
aboriginal
site
(Car
son
1)
which
was
identified
during
the
survey.

It
should
be
noted
that
the
text
of
the
report
on
the
results
of
the
record
search
and
survey
focuses
on
data
which
either
extend
existing
knowledge
or
else
add
new
information
not
otherwise
available.

Material
which
is
already
well
known
or
easily
obtainable
from
existing
sources
is
riot
treated
in
detail
but
may
be
summarized
or
referenced
in
the
text
or
included
as
an
Appendix.

It
is
hoped
that
the
deletion
or
abridgment
of
such
data
will
reduce
the
bulk
of
the
report,
make
it
more
readable
and
spotlight
the
conclusions
and
recommenda
tions
presented.

In
this
way,
the
report
will
serve
as
a
source
document
on
local
history
and
as
a
basis
for
considering
and
formulating
future
civic
actions.

AREAS
&

SOURCES
NOT

INCLUDED
IN
THE

INVENTORY
Because
of
time
limitations,
the
inaccessibility
of
necessary
data
of
persons
or
the
denial
of
permission
to
enter
private
property,
not
all
of
the
city
area
could
be
researched
or
surveyed,
including
some
portions
of
the
city
which
were
suspected
to
contain
valuable
resources.

The
majority,
however,
cor_
sisted
mainly
of
areas
now
severely
altered
by
grading
or
landfill
operations
or
by
residential,
commercial
or
industrial
development.

Also
included
are
several
properties
which
had
been
surveyed
previously
by
the
Consultant
although
the
results
obtained
from
these
surveys
have
been
consulted
and
presented
below
where
pertinent.
-8-
LA-4512
The
areas
excluded
from
the
survey
are
listed
as
follows:

1. The
Shell
Chemical
Company
plant
located
between
Chico
and
Perry
Streets
on
the
west,
Del
Amo
Boulevard
on
the
north,
Wilmington
Avenue
on
the
east,
and
Martin
&
213th
Streets
on
the
south.

Permission
to
survey
was
denied
(see
text
below).

2. The
Campus
of
California
State
College,
Dominguez
Hills
located
between
Victoria
Street
on
the
north,
Avalon
Boulevard
on
the
west,
Del
Amo
Boulevard
on
the
south
and
Central
Avenue
on
the
east.

The
property
belongs
to
the
State
of
California.

3. The
Arco
Refinery
bounded
by
223rd
Street
on
the
north,
Wilmington
Avenue
on
the
west,
Sepulveda
Boulevard
on
the
south
and
the
Southern
Pacific
Railroad
tracks
on
the
east.

Previous
research
(Eggers
1974,
Williams
1971)
showed
that
the
area
had
been
heavily
modified
to
accommodate
and
support
the
existing
facilities;
however,
data
from
test
cores
and
well
logs
on
the
prop
erty
were
consulted
during
the
record
search
and
evaluation
phases
of
the
in
ventory.

4. The
Shell
Oil
Refinery
located
south
of
Sepulveda
Boulevard
and
east
of
Wilmington
Boulevard
up
to
the
city limits.

See
comment
on
Arco
Refinery
above.

5. Landfill
Areas.

Nos.
1-21
located
north
and
south
of
the
San
Diego
Freeway
(see
Map
4).

All
existing
records
and
files
on
these
areas
were
exam
ined
at
the
Los
Angeles
County
Engineers
Offices.

However,
records
on
land
fills
#1,
3,
12,
13,
14,
16 &
17 could
not
be
located
and
were
reported
as
hav
ing
been
discarded.
(Mr.

Ken
Harvey,
personal
communication).

A
study
of
the
existing
records
showed
that
prior
to
raising
the
elevation
of
the
lava
in
a
project
area,
the
around
was
excavated
to
a
depth
of
10—20
feet
below
the
orig
inal
surface
and
soil
removed
was
replaced
and
compacted
along
with
the
fill
materials.

The
grading
of
the
original
surface
would
have
effectively
removed
and
destroyed
any
cultural
remains
or
data
present
on
the
project
area.

Note:

Landfills
No.
20 and
21 are
not
shown
or
Map

4. Number
20 (N.H.

Brown
Dump
Site)
is
northwest
of
No.
12 between
190th
and
Figueroa
Streets
and
The
Dorninguez
Channel.

Number
21 (Mar-Gb
Paint
Company)
is
an
irregularly
shaped
area
located
between
Broadway
and
Main
west
of
the
paint
factory
(Sani
tary
Landfill
File
1-981;
See
1ap).

Additional
grading
operations
have
also
—9’-
LA-4512
recently
been
carried
out
on
areas
adjacent
to
the
site
of
the
Carson
hail
located
between
Del
Ama
and
Avalon
Boulevards,
the
Perry
Street
extension
and
the
San
Diego
Freeway.

Areas
were
surveyed
only
where
grading
operations
had
only
begun
or
had
not
progressed
to
the
point
where
fill
materials
were
being
deposited.

The
margins
of
landfills
18 &
19 were
examined
since
the
adjoining
areas
had
been
plowed
but
not
otherwise
significantly
altered
(see
Eggers
1976a).

6. The
San
Diego
and
Harbor
Freeways
Rights-of-Way
had
previously
been
examined
for
archaeological
remains
prior
to
construction
by
Caltrans.

Data
from
these
surveys
were
examined
during
the
inventory.

7. Specific
Portions
of
Properties
and
Land
Surfaces
Where
the
Original
Land
Area(s)
Was
Obscured
by
Existing
Structures
or
Features
(other
than
fill
materials;
see
above,
No.
5).

Unobscured
land
surfaces
adjacent
to
the
struct
ures
or
features
were
examined
and
were
considered
as
a
(non-random)
sampling
of
the
whole
area.

8. Rights-of-Way
of
Flood
Control
Channels
had
undergone
considerable
modifications
and
also
contain
extencive
structures
which
prevent
examination
of
the
ground
surface.

THE

SIGUFICANCE
OF

CULTURAL

HERITAGE

RESOURCES
CHRs
have
only
recently
been
recognized
as
valuable
resources
by
govern
mental
entities.

Until
1970-72
when
the
restrictive
interpretation
of
CEQA
was
expanded
to
include
private
projects
and
environmental
concernsere
more
precisely
defined
on
both
the
State
and
Federal
level,
historical
resources
and
remains
were
considered
to
be
the
special
province
of
scholars,
amateur
col
lectors
and
special
interest
groups.

Cultural
heritage
resources
received
little
recognition
from
planners
or
formulators
of
policies
and
conservation
was
either
—10-
LA-4512
ignored
or
else
carried
out
in
a
haphazard
or
arbitrary
way.

Although
major
events
and
personages
were
often
conmemorated
by
plaques
and
structures
such
as
birthplaces
of
important
figures
(e.g.,
Presidents,
Generals,
Inventors,
Founders
and
Explorers,
etc.)
or
early
structures
of
his
torical
significance
have
been
preserved
or
restored
(e.g.,
Dominguez
Adobe
Heritage
Park
[L.A.],
Banning House,
the
Drum
Barracks,
etc.),
such
actions
were
often
taken
independently
and
many
were
privately
financed.

Some
were
included
in
parks
maintained
by
governmental
agencies
(e.g.,
Pt.

Fermin
Light
house,
Los
Angeles
Arboretum
[Hugo
Reed
Adobe],
Los
Cerritos
Adobe,
etc.)
or
given
special
protection
(e.g.,
Avila
House,
San
Gabriel
Mission).

Despite
such
actions,
a
large
number
of
significant
remains
have
been
lost
or
purposely
destroyed
(e.g.,
San
Fernando
Mission)
to
make
way
for
urban
development.

In
some
cases,
the
loss
has
occurred
because
a
structure
has
deteriorated
through
lack
of
upkeep
and
funds
have
not
been
available
to
restore
it
and
maintain
it
in
accordance
with
safety
and
building
codes.

The
greatest
loss
has
been
felt
in
the
case
of
CHRs
dating
to
aboriginal
times.

Although
once
numerous
in
the
South
Bay
area,
habitation
sites
of
peoples
such
as
the
Tongva
(Gabrielino”)
have
been
rapidly
disappearing,
as
the
present
report
will
clearly
demonstrate.

Much
of
the
loss
can
be
attributed
to
the
effects
of
urbanization
but
the
greatest
single
factor
is
a
lack
of
public
awareness
both
of
the
existence
and
significance
of
such
sites.
‘Indian’
artifacts
have
tended
to
be
highly
perishable
and
even
the
living
structures
(“wickiup
“)
were
made
of
materials
such
as
tule
reeds,
branches
and
hides
which
decayed
rapidly.

Artifacts
were
also
largely
made
from
oceanic
materials
ex
cept
for
stone
(‘lithic)
tools
and
vessels
and
are
rarely
preserved.

Cultural
behavior
and
institutions
(religion,
political
practices,
ethics,
etc.)
are
now
extinct,
along
with
the
Tongva
themselves,
and
have
only
been
partially
noted
and
recorded
by
European
and
American
observers.

As
a
result,
an
estimated
50-80%
of
aboriginal
remains
in
the
Los
Angeles
area
have
been
destroyed,
in
most
in
stances
without
having
been
recognized
or
recorded
(M,,atto
1973,
State
Task
Force
Status
Report
1973).

In
recent
years
public
and
governmental
awareness
of
the
significance
and
value
of
CHRs
has
greatly
increased.

Organizations,
agencies
and
civic
oic
ials
have
realized
that
systematic
CHR
preservation
and
conscrvation
pcgras
—11—
LA-4512
can
bring
a
variety
of
benefits
to
a
corr;munity
or
region.

Most
of
these
benefits
have
been
itemized
and
discussed
in
State
and
Federal
documents
which
have
been
widely
distributed
(e.g.,
California
Historic
Preservation
Element
Guidelines
1976,
the
California
History
Plan,
Volume
1,
1973;
Publica
tion
‘11593’,
Office
of
Archaeology
&
Historic
Preservation,
Department
of
the
Interior)
and
will
be
presented
here
in
summary
form:

Cultural
Identity.

A
knowledge
and
understanding
of
the
history
of
the
peoples
and
developmental
events
and
processes
of
an
area
provide
its
inhabitants
with
a
sense
of
identity
and
place.

By
increasing
civic
pride,
the
inhabitants
of
an
area
are
encouraged
to
commit
themselves
to
improving
standards
of
life
and
to
become
involved
in
civic
projects.

Such
increased
pride
helps
to
reduce
crime,
relieve
urban
blight,
attract
new
residents
and
provide
ethnic
groups
(e.g.,
native
Americans,
Hispanic
speakers,
Asian-Americans,
etc.)
Reconstructing
the
Past.

Many
people
have
a
curiosity
about
and
interest
in
the
past
both
of
their
own
and
other
areas.

Museums
housing
objects
of
historic
value
and
rehabilitated
historic
structures
and
landmarks
develop
and
expand
this
interest.

Economic
Benefits.

These
are
many
arid
varied,
including
raising
the
value
of
property,
cutting
the
costs
of
redevelopment
of
innercity
areas,
pro
vide
interest
and
variety
to
blighted
areas,
and
reducing
the
costs
of
upkeep
and
costs
by
utilizing
recently
enacted
tax
laws
(e.g.,
the
Tax
Reform
Act
of
1976)
which
provide
for
depreciation
allowances,
reconstruct
ion
cost
deductions
and
charitable
deductions
on
historic
property.

A
major
economic
benefit
accrues
from
increased
tourism
to
an
area
(e.g.,
Avila
Adobe
and
Olvera
Street
in
Los
Angeles,
Oldtown
in
San
Diego,
Ghiradelli
Square
in
San
Francisco)
which
will
often
lead
to
increased
employment
and
development.

Benefits
to
Lonc
Range
Planning.

An
inventory
arJ
understanding
of
cult
ural
heritage
resources
and
their
place
in
local
history
can
promote
a
more
effective
appraisal
of
prospects
for
future
development
and
of
com
munity
needs
and
limitations.

Such
long
range
prospects
can
be
ftra1ized
and
incorporated
into
General
Plans
as
a
means
of
gaining
public
ccoperatiori
—12—
LA-4512
and
involvement
(see
California
Government
Code,
Section
65860).

Southern
California
has
a
history
of
development
that
is
colorful
and
worthy
of
pride
and
a
sense
of
accomplishment.

Its
population
is
ethnically
diverse
and
widely
distributed,
lacking
a
definite
and
tangible
focal
point
such
as
a
large
metropolitan
center
and
compact
communities.

Many
cities
and
towns
have
developed
recently
and
lack
a
unified
theme
in
architecture
or
gen
eral
layout.

Some,
such
as
Torrance,
began
as
industrial
citie
and
have
di
versified
into
residential
and
commercial
centers
or
vice-versa.

By
drawing
on
the
past
and
incorporating
it
into
present
day
life,
many
of
the
decentral
izing
forces
can
be
mitigated,
and
a
sense
of
community
and
permanence
can
be
encouraged.

The
Los
Angeles
region
contains
one
of
the
largest
Native
American
popu
lations
in
the
nation.

These
people
have
a
rich
and
varied
cultural
heritage
which
dates
back
more
than
25,000
years
in
the
Southwestern
and
Pacific
Coast
region.

With
the
European
exploration
and
colonization
of
the
area,
these
peoples
suffered
a
rapid
and
disastrous
decline
and
their
traditional
culture
under4ent
extensive
modification.

Since
they
were
illiterate
themselves
and
the
European
population
was
primarily
interested
in
the
prospects
of
Native
Americans
as
laborers
and
converts
to
Christianity,
few
records
were
made
of
their
life
styles,
beliefs
or
social
systems.

The
existance
of
peoples
an
cestral
to
those
encountered
by
the
Spanish
is
not
documented
by
written
rec
ords
of
any
type.

Many
groups
which
were
present
during
the
Spanish
and
Mexi
can
periods
(e.g.,
the
Tongva,
Serrano,
Luiseno,
etc.)
have
recently
become
extinct
or
so
reduced
in
numbers
and
modified
by
European
culture
that
they
no
longer
remember
aboriginal
life
patterns
and
ideologies.

The
study
and
reconstruction
of
P4tive
American
cultural
heritage
in
Southern
California
requires
a
combination
of
documentary
research
and
archae
ological
techniques.

The
general
outlines
of
the
latect
period
of
aboriginal
history
can
be
construed
from
explorers’
diaries,
Missionairies’
reports
and
settlers’
descriptions
and
observations.

However,
the
bulk
of
the
detailed
information
can
only
be
reconstructed
from
sites
which
have
been
carefully
excavated
and
analyzed
under
controlled
conditions.

Such
sites
are
the
only
LA-4512
repositoriesofhistoricalinforiiationforaboriginalculture(s)predating thefirstEuropeancontactsandthelossoftheseresourcesmightpermanently preventameaningfulstudyofculturalpatterninganddevelopmentforlarge periodsoftime.

Tocarryoutameaningfulreconstructionofnon—literate,extinctcul turesnotonlyisitnecessarytocarefullyexcavateexistingremainsandto extractasmuchdataaspossible,butsuchsitesasaredugmustbeaslittle damagedordisturbedaspossible.Iftheartifactsandtracesofhumanactiv ityareintheiroriginalcontexts,muchcanbededucedfromtheirassociations andstratographicpositions.However,oncethesepositionsaredisturbedor thematerialsremovedunsystematically,suchdeductionsaredifficultorim possibletomakeandthelossofdataisirremediable.Inviewofthelarge numberofsiteswhichhavealreadybeendamagedordestroyed,thescientific andhistoricalvalueofthoseremainingisverymuchgreaterthanbeforeand specialeffortsmustbetakentopreventfurtherunnecessaryusesofinforma tionandexistingremains.

The‘unlocking’andrecoveryofdatafromarchaeologicalsitescanonly bedoneatthepresenttimethroughexcavationutilizingcpecializedtoolsand techniques.Suchproceduresaretime—consumingandcostlyandinvolvetrained personnel.Inordertosuccessfullyexcavateasite,timeisrequiredtoun cover,recordandremovetheremainssoastopermitameaningfulinterpreta tionofthepatterningandareconstructionofthecultureoftheinhabitants.

Sinceexcavationisitselfdestructive,howevermuchcontrolled,itisprefer abletodelaydiggingasiteuntilitcanbedoneproperlyandinsuchaway astoinsuretherecoveryofarepresentativesampleofthedatacontent.If thisisnotpossibletheneffectivemeasuresshouldbetakentoinsurethe protectionandpreservationoftheCHRinitspresentstateuntilitcanbe properlyexamined.

THECITYOFCARSON’SENVIRONMENTALANDHISTORICALSETUNG
BeforepresentingtheresultsoftheCHRinventory,abriefreviewofthe physicalenvironmentandhistoryoftheCarsonareaisnecessary.Numerous booksanddocumentsexistwhichfocusonorincludethesesubjects(e.g.,Jer— rills1972,Gillingham161,Fink1966,Woodring,etal,1946,Polandetal, 1956,Johnston1962,Cieland1951,Ludwig1927,Gales1974,Thacker1923, —14-
LA-4512
Bates1963,Bancroft1886,Banning&Banning1930,Robinson1939etc.)anda completesummaryofallthedatawillnotbeattemptedhere.Instead,the presentsectionwillbconcernedwithdatathatwillcomplimentandexoand existingaccountsandwhichwillprovidebackgroundmaterialforlaterdiscus sions.Itwillalsodemonstratesomeofthedificultiesencounteredincorn— pilingacomprehensiveanddetailedhistoryoftheCityarea.

GEOLOGYANDENVIRONMENTALSETTING
TheCityofCarsonislocatedonanalluvialcoastalplain(theTorrance Plain,Reagan19l5b)extendingnorthfromthepresentLosAngelesandLongBeach Harbors.Theplainisflatandmarshyandisdominatedbytwoorominences; DominguezHillinthenorthwithanelevationof179feetabovesealeveland thePalosVerdesHilltothesouthwestwhichriseover1400feeta.s.l.Except fortheselandmarksandfortheexistenceofseveralsmallmarshylakes(Harbor Lakes),channelizedstreams(DominguezSlough,ComptonCreek)andrivers(Los AngelesRiver)theplainisfeaturelessandreachesamaximumelevationof35—40 feeta.s.1.

Theregionhasamildclimatewithanannualmeantemperatureof620Faren— heitandasingleseason(November-April)ofmoderate(c.12-15inches)rainfall (U.S.WeatherBureauStatistics;Bates1963).Vegetationispresentlysparse overmuchoftheareabutvariesaccordingtoelevation,degreeandorientation ofslopeandtheavailabilityofwater.Marshysoilsandlakeshoressupport growthsofAlder(Alnusrhombifolia),Willow(Salixp.),Rushes(Juncusso.), Cottonwood(Populustrichocarpa),Buirushes(ScjpussD.),andCat-Tail(Typha ..).Scrub,ValleyandCoastalLiveOakarefoundincanyonsariddrainagesand onthehigher,northernelevationsofPalosVerdesHills.Cactus(Cholla,Prickly Pear),Toyon,Yucca,CoastalSagebrushandSugarbush(RhusOvata)occuronthe drierandsunnierslopes.Theremainderofthecoastalplainsupportsavariety ofgrasses(Deergrass,GiantRyeGrass,PepperGrass),Buckwheat,Sagebrushand ChiaaswellasoccasionalgrovesofEucalyptusandothernon-indigenoustrees andshrubs(Butler1974,Curtis1959,Bates1963).

Domesticatedlivestock(cattle,sheep,etc.)presentlymakeupthe bulkofthe(land)animallifeandindigenousfaunaincludesonlysmallgopu— lationsofCoyote,GrayFox,MuleDeer,Skunk,Weasel,Badger,Snakes,Lizards, numerousrodents(mice,goher,squirrel)andrabbit.Offshoreandlittoral marineenvironmentsstillcontainlargeseasonalpopulationsoffish,sea —15—
LA-4512
mammalsandshellfishaswellasbirdsthatfeedoffofthemandwhichinhabit thelagoonsandterrestrialmarshes.

Thegeologicstructureandlithologyoftheregioniscomplexandhas developedoveraptriodof20millionyears.Ir.iocenetimes,thecoastal plain,especiallyintheCarsonarea,wassubmergedbythesea.OnlythePalos VerdesHillswereabovesealevelandformedapartofanextensiveseacoast highlandsincludingtheSantaMonicaHills(Woodringetal1946).Atthistime volcanoswereveryactive,depositingextensivebedsoflavaonthefloorof theLosAngelesBasinwhichwasalsobeginningtoformastheresultofsub sidence(Yerkesetal. 1965).ByPliocenetimes,theflooroftheBasincon tainedstratifiedlayersoflavasandsedimentsover10,000feetthick.How ever,continuingperiodsofdeformation(foldingandtilting)andsubsidence ofthesurfacekepttheareabelowsealevel.

FromlateMiocenetimesuntiltheUpperPleistoceneperiod,marinesedi mentscontinuedtoaccumulateintheCarsonarea.However,duringthelatter nerioddeformationandupliftoccurredwhichraisedthePalosVerdesHflls nearlytoitspresentelevation(A.S.L.)andcreatedthegeologicdomenowcalled DominguezHills(Polandetal,1956).MuchofthesurfaceofLosAngelesBasin wasthenabovesealevelandterrestrialalluvialsedimentsbegantoaccumulate ontopoftheoldermarinedeposits(Polandetal,1956,Yerkesetal1965).

ManyoftheselatePleistoceneandrecentdepositswhichconsistofinterbedded clays,gravels,siltsandsandstrappedordirectedtheflo4ofgroundwaterand createdtheaquifersandartesianflowswhichatthebeginningofthe20thcent uryconstitutedthemajorsourceof waterfortheCarsonarea(Polandetal1956, Reagan1915,BoardofEngineersFloodControlReport1915).Thesedepositshave producedseveral‘perchedfreshwatertableswhichhavebeenfedbyrunoffand byundergroundflowsfromhighlandslocatedtothe north.However,recentde mandsforwaterbyresidents,farmersandindustrialcompanieshavedepleted thesetablesandhavecausedtheintrusionofseawat’r.

AsthelandroseduringlatePleistocene,deformationcausedaconsiderable amountoffaultingandfolding.Aroughlyparallelseriesofanticlines,syn— dinesandfauitlinesformedintheTorrancePlainwhich,inturn,werecrossed bytheLosAngelesRiverfollowingitspresentcourse.TheupliftofDDrilgt-ez —16—
LA-4512
I-tillandtheformationoftheWilmingtonsynclinewithits1W-SEaxiscreated asmallswaleintheCarsonarea(Polandetal1956,Yerkesetal1965).This, combinedwiththecreationofoffshorecoastalsandbarsinSanPedroHarbor, resultedinthefonnationofmarshesandshallowlakes(e.ci.,WatsonLakes, HaborLakes;ee(naps)inthelowlyingportionsofthelandscapewhichwerefed byartesianspringsandoverflowfromthepartlyimpededLosAngelesRiver.

Periodicfloodinggreatlyincreasedboththeamountoftheoverflowaridtheex tentofthelakes.Duringthe1914floodithasbeenestimatedthatasmuch as3000acreswereunderwaterintheareaoftheDorninguezSlough(alsoknown asLagunaDominguez[Seet1aps],Reaganl9l5a,Grenier1976,Jerrillsl972L Theformationofthecoastalbar,besidescreatingWatsonLakes,alsoestab— lishedawidedeltaatthemouthofthesouthwardflowingLosAngelesRiver.

Thedeltaareaaccumulatedlargequantitiesofsandsandsilts,somederived fromterrestrialsources,others(mainlysand)fromtheoceanhichovertime hasmadeperiodicincursions.Consequently,themouthoftheLosAngelesRiver hasalternatedbetweenbeingasaltwater(tidal)andfreshwatermarshforat leastthelastfewthousandyearsB.P.(beforeA.D.1950)whichhasextended fromthepresentSanPedroBayshorelinenorthwardstoSepulvedaBoulevard.

StreamandriverflowintheLosAngelesareahasbeenintermittentand hasundergoneseveralmajorshiftsovertiwe.Geologicandgeomorphólogical studies(seeReagan1915,Polandetal1956,etc.)oftheLosAngelesRiver indicatethatwhilehavingchangedcoursedrasticallyandrejeatedlyoverthe centuries,ithasoccupiedonlythreemainriverbeds.Themajorbedappears tobethatwhichitcurrentlyoccupiesandwhichhasrecentlybeenchannelized bytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers.However,historicalrecordsandaccounts (Guinn1914)showthatpriorto1824(1815-1824?)theriverflowedwestwards fromthevicinityoftheformerPueblodeLosAngelesintoBallonaCreekand BallonaLagoon(nowPlayadelRey).Thefloodof1825wasofsuchmagnitude thattheriverjumpeditsbedandoccupieditspresentcourseuntil1889when twofloodsoccurringinthesameyear(possiblytheheaviestonrecord;See Reagan1915b)causedashifteastwardsthroughthepresentcityofVernonand thenbackintoitsoldchannelnorthofitsjunctionwiththeRioHondo.How ever,thelattershiftwasonlytenporaryandtheriverhadreestablishedits presentbedbythe1890s.TheSanGabrielRiverhasalsochangeditscourse —17—
LA-4512
in
its
lower
reaches,
fluctuating
between
its
original
bed
flowing
into
Ala
mitos
Bay
and
an
intermittent
channel
connecting
with
the
Los
Angeles
River
below
Dominguez
Junction
on
the
Southern
Pacific
Railroad.

Whenever
such
a
merger
occurred,
extensive
flooding
was
observec’
in
the
area
of
Dominguez
Slough
and
the
Los
Angeles
River
Delta
(Reagan
l915a).

The
flatness
of
the
coastal
plain
and
the
proximity
of
inland
highlands
and
mountain
ranges
have
combined
to
make
flooding
a
recurring
phenomena
in
the
Carson
area.

During
the
years
1811-1954
at
least
21 major
floods
have
been
reported
for
an
average
of
one
every
15-16
years
(Bigger
1959).

By
add
ing
in
the
dozen
or
so
smaller
floods
that
have
had
only
localized
impact,
the
rate
is
reduced
to
one
flood
per
decade.

Much
of
the
damage
from
these
events
has
been
greatly
reduced
by
the
construction
of
check
dams
and
flood
channels
along
the
major
river
systems,
but
accumulations
of
water
due
to
runoff
con
tinue
to
inundate
lowlying
and
marshy
areas
within
the
city
at
the
present
time.

These
floods
and
the
shifts
in
the
drainage
patterns
had
major
consequences
for
local
environments.

Guinn
(1914)
has
collected
and
published
accounts
of
observers
of
the
1832
flood
which
relate
how
the
flow
of
streams
so
changed
that
a
number
of
lakes
and
ponds
in
the
vicinity
of
Wilmington,
which
until
then
had
been
permanent,
became
nearly
dry
after
a
few
years
and
‘forests’
of
Willow
and
Alder
disappeared.

Heavy
deposits
of
silt
also
accumulated
in
the
delta
areas
in
back
of
Rattlesnake
(i.e.,
Terminal)
Island.

Although
many
of
these
effects
may
indeed
have
been
due
to
changes
in
drainage
patterns,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
years
1833-1862
were
‘dry’
years
during
which
little
or
no
flooding
occurred.

The
effects
produced
by
man,
especially
as
a
result
of
ranching
and
raising
livestock,
also
must
have
reinforced
natural
trends
and
could
certainly
account
for
much
of
the
‘deforestation’
(see
acounts
of

0. E.

Elftman,
C.

W.

Caseboom,
Edward
Carson
in
Reagan
l9l5a).

These
effects
will
be
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
the
sections
to
follow.

Soils
in
the
Carson
area,
as
stated
earlier,
consist
mainly
of
alluvial
sediments
including
barns
and
adobe/clays
with
intermixtures
of
sand
and
silt.

Small
pockets
of
beach
sand
containing
shell
and
wind-deposited
dune
sands
occur
on
the
flanks
of
Dorninguez
Hill
and
immediately
south
of
the
San
Diego
—l
8—
LA-4512
Freeway
in
the
downtown
area
(Nelson
et
al,
1919).

Most
of
the
loans
arid
clays
are
of
Pleistocene
age
and
were
laid
down
as
the
ocean
shoreline
re
treated
westward
and
south.

These
include
the
Ramona
and
Montezuma
series
which
cover
Dominguz
Hill
and
the
area
south
of
Dominguez
Slough.

In
Post-
Pleistocene
times,
recent
sediments;
i.e.,
the
Hanford,
Yolo,
Chino
and
Tu
junga
serieswere
deposited
along
the
Los
Angeles
River
drainage
and
were
ex
tended
into
the
Dorninguez
Slough
by
flooding.

Most
of
these
soils
are
extremely
fertile
and
have
been
the
basis
of
a
thriving
truck
farming
and
livestock
raising
industry
since
the
latter
part
of
the
19th
century
(Nelson
et
al,
1919,
Jerrills
1972,
Gillingham
1961).

Crops
included
sugar
beets,
grains,
alfalfa,
beans,
potatoes,
lima
beans,
let
tuce,
strawberries,
and
deciduous
fruits
continue
to
be
major
staples
grown
on
the
well
drained,
moisture-retaining
Pleistocene
and
recent
soils,
most
of
which
could
be
dry-farmed
or
only
minimally
irrigated.

The
marshier
and
more
saline
soils
at
the
foot
of
Dominguez
Hill
and
east
of
Dominguez
Slough
were
used
primarily
to
graze
cattle
and
sheep
until
the
1930’s
(Grenier
1976,
Jer—
rills
1972).

THE

CULTURAL

BACKGROUND
Recent
archaeological
evidence
and
historical
records
demonstrated
that
human
populations
have
inhabited
the
Carson
area
and
vicinity
for
at
least
8000
years.

This
long
record
of
habitation
can
be
divided
tnto
three
major
periods;
i.e.,
the
Native
American
(‘Indian’)
period,
the
Hispanic
Period
and
the
American
Period,
each
of
which
can,
in
turn,
be
subdivided
into
phases
dis
tinguishable
by
particular
ethnic
and
cultural
characteristics.

These
periods
and
phases
have
been
described
in
detail
for
the
Los
Angeles
Region
in
numerous
works
(see
Bibliography)
and
will
not
be
presented
in
the
text
of
this
report.

However,
a
summary
of
the
various
distinguishable
phases
of
the
Native
Amen
can
Period
is
included
in
the
Appendices
along
with
a
chronological
chart
and
reference
should
be
made
to
this
Summary
to
supplement
the
materiel
discussed
below.

The
purpose
of
the
discussion
to
follow
is
to
relate
regional
history
to
the
Carson
area
and
to
extrapolate
from
the
data
an
understanding
of
the
cultural
neritace
of
tna
city
frcm
earliest
times.
-19-
LA-4512
AsstatedinthesectiononMethodsabove,historicalinformationfor theCarsonareaislimitedinscopeandcontent.Historianshavefocused mainlyonthedevelopmentofthecityofLosAngelesandoftheSanPedro-Wil mingtonareasbecaueoftheirimportanceascentersofindustry,commerceanc’ residentialgrowth.Untilrecently,theCarsonareawasusedprimarilyfor ranchingandfarmingandwasunabletosupporturbandevelopmentbecauseof periodicflooding.Asaresult,thehistoryofthecityhashadtobeextrap olatedfromtheregionaldataandfromsecondarysources.

1.THENATIVEAMERICANPERIOD
Although95%ofthetimeofhumanhabitationoftheSouthBayareaisin cludedintheNativeAmerican(‘Indians)period,onlytheculturalpractices ofthelatestphase;i.e.,theCanalino,areknown.Kroeber(1953),Johnston (1962),Wallace(1955)andothershavesupplementedarchaeologicalevidence (e.g.,Walker1951,Meighanl954a,Bates1963)withgleaningsfromethnographic rtudiesandtheaccountsanddescriptionsofexplorers,missionariesandsettlers inordertoreconstructthebasiclifestylesofthesepeopleandresearchcon tinuestoclosetheaapsintheexistingrecord.

Phasespre-datingtheCanalinoPhasehavebenreconstructedsolelyfrom evidencederivedfromexcavationsofarchaeologicalsitesintheLosAngeles area.MostoftheexcavationsitesarelocatedinSantaonica,VenturaCounty andOrangeCountybutanumberofsignificantfindshavealsobeenmadeinSan Pedro,RedondoBeach,MarinadelRey(BallonaCreek)andthePalosVerdesPenin sula.However,onlyafewofthesesiteshaveasyetbeenextensivelystudied.

THEEARLYWNPHASE
TheearliestdatIevidenceofhumanpresenceintheLosAngelesBasinwas foundintheBallonaCreek—AngelesMesa(BaldwinHills)area.Herein1936a skeletonwasrecoveredfromadepthof12-13feetbelowthesurfaceofthe groundalongwithremainsofanextinctmammotheiephant(Lapotin1936).Radio metricanalyseshavedemonstratedrecentlythatthehumanremainsdateto23,600 yearsB.C.ThesixskeletonsrecoveredfromAngelesMesaundersimilarcircum stanceshavenotyetbeendatedbuttheyalsoappeartobeofgreatantiquity. —20-.

LA-4512
Itisunfortunatethatnoartifactsofotherculturalremainswererecovered fromeithersite.

TheoldestculturalremainsfromtheLosAngelesBasinwerefoundinthe LaBreaTarPits.Twopitsd”gtoadepiof6-10feetproducedtheskeletal remainsofawoman,animalbonesshowingknifecutsandatotalof15artifacts includingatypeofprojectilepointrarelyfoundincoastalsites(Woodward 1937,Stack1942).Thefindshavebeendatedtobetween5-13,000yearsB.C.

Althoughlackinginskeletalmaterialandasyetpoorlydated,remainsof earlymanhavebeenrecoveredonPalosVerdesPeninsula.In1936,Mr.E.F.

WalkeroftheSouthwestMuseumandagroupofvolunteersexcavatedadeeply stratifiedsiteonasandduneonthebluffoverlookingMalagaCove.Knownto bethelocationoftheCanalinophasevillageofChowingnaatthetimeofSpan ishexploration,thesiteprovedalsotobeasuccessionoffouroccupations, theoldestofwhichmayhaveanantiquityofnearly8,000years.Thefour culturallayers(I—IV)containedquantitiesofartifactsandevidenceofhuman occupationand,atpresent,thesiterepresentsthelongestcontinuouslyinhab itedsiteintheLosAngelesarea(Walker1951).Ifgeologicalevidencecan beborneoutbyradiometrictesting,itispossiblethattheoldestoccupation (LevelI)maydatetothelatePleistocenePeriod(Woodwardetal,1946).

TheculturalremainsfromLevelIwerenotasnumerousasthosefromover lyinglevelsbuttheydoprovideinsightintotheculturalpatternsofthe Millingstoneera.Stoneartifactsincludescrapers,microliths,knives,several hollow—basedprojectilepoints,atlatldarts,harrrnerstonesandflakingdebris.

Toolsofshell(abaloneshellspluggedwithasphaltum),shelldiscbeads, incisedstonesandboneimplementsincludingpointsandharpoons,grinding stonesalsowerefound.Mostnotably,LevelIcontainedlargequantitiesof fish,shellfish,birdandland/seamammalremainsindicatingthattheoccupants hadbeenskilledexploitersofnativemarineandterrestrialfoodresources.

However,foodprocessingartifactsespeciallystunegrindingtools(manos,meates, mortars,etc.)wereconspicuouslyabsentfromtheassemblagealthoughthepresence oftar-coatedpebblesindicatesthattheartofbasketrywasknown(Walker1951).

THEMILLINGSTONEPHASE
LevelIIwasathinlayeroverlyingLevelIandrepresentingthebeginning —21—
LA-4512
of
post-Pleistocene
(recent)
dune
sand
accumulation
at
the
site.

The
layer
yielded
small
cairns
of
stone
with
re-interred
human
remains
(i.e.,
‘reburials’),
manos,
metates,
a
single
small
mortar
and
pestle,
and
several
soapstone
(steat
ite)
specimens
(Walker
1951).

The
steatite
is
significant
since
a
major
source
of
this
material
is
found
in
Catalina
Island
implying
that
the
inhabitants
of
Malaga
Cove
were
capable
of
long
range
trade
in
sea—going
boats.

The
contents
of
Level
II
closely
resemble
those
from
sites
in
the
Santa
Monica
mountains,
the
San
Fernando
Valley,
Santa
Barbara
and
San
Oieao,
and
Wallace
and
others
des
cribe
the
assemblage
as
belonging
to
the
Millingstone
Phase
of
Southern
Calif
ornia
(Wallace
1955,
Kowta
1969,
Treganza
and
Bierrriian
1955).

Other
sites
in
the
South
Bay
area
have
yielded
remains
dating
from
this
period.

The
best
studied
of
those
is
the
“San
Pedro
Harbor
Site”
(LAn
283),
situated
just
north
of
the
intersection
of
Gaffey
Street
and
the
Harbor
Freeway.

Although
once
a
large
shell
midden
covering
more
than
5 city
blocks,
recent
urban
and
highway
development
had
disturbed
or
destroyed
much
of
the
site
and
had
caused
a
mixing
of
stratographic
levels.

However,
the
recovery
of
large
pro
jectile
points,
discoids,
a
variety
of
Millingstones
and
a
cogged
stone,
(an
arti
fact
unique
to
Los
Angeles
and
Orange
County),from
the
site
along
with
artifacts
representative
of
later
phases
indicates
that
the
site
had
been
occupied
from
late
in
the
Millingstone
Phase
until
the
early
part
of
the
Canalino
Phase.

The
site
evidently
had
been
abandoned
prior
t6
the
arrival
of
the
first
Spanish
explorer
in
1542.

As
described
in
the
Appendix1
the
Millingstone
Phase
is
characterized
by
artifacts
indicative
of
increased
specialization
in
hunting
and
food
collecting
practices
with
the
beginnings
of
systematic
exploitation
of
marine
and
littoral
resources.

It
was
also
a
time
during
which
populations
became
less
nomadic
and
began
to
establish
centrally-based
settlement
patterns
(cf.

Beardsley
et
al.1956).

These
were
the
precursors
of
the
village-based
patterns
that
characterized
suc
ceeding
phases
although
villages
as
such
are
not
known
to
have
existed
during
the
Millingstone
Phase.

The
San
Pedro
Harbor
site
is
indicative
of
this
period
and
is
similar
to
Malaga
Cove,
Level
II
and
a
coastal
site
at
Lunada
Bay
(PV
8)
excavated
and
described
by
Bates
(1963).

THE
iTEMEDiATE
PHASE
Level
III
assemblage
shows
considerable
deve1oment
over
that
of
the
preced
ing
layer.

Well
made
rrcrtars
and
pestles
were
th
dominant
food
processing
-22-
LA-4512
artifacts
while
manos
and
metates
were
absent.

Large
quantities
of
fishing
implements
including
shellfish
hooks
and
bone
harpoon
barbs
were
recovered
along
with
a
variety
of
fish
and
large
sea
mammal
remains
and
large
asphalt
coated
stones.

Although
remains
of
actual
boats
have
not
yet
been
found
at
any
site,
the
evidence
in
Level
III
strongly
suggests
that
the
inhabitants
had
made
the
‘Tomolo’;
i.e.,
the
large
ocean-going
plank
canoe
lashed
with
rawhide
thongs
and
caulked
with
asphaltum
described
by
early
Spanish
explorers
(Walker
1951).

The
presence
of
broken
(‘killed’)
artifacts
and
reburied
charred
human
bone
indicates
that
cremation
and
the
‘mourning’
ceremony
were
practiced.

Precise
dating
of
the
level
is
not
possible
on
the
basis
of
present
data
but
various
researchers
have
considered
it
to
belong
either
to
the
late
Inter
mediate
or
early
Canalino
Phase
(Wallace
1955,
Treganza
&
Bierman
1955,
Kowta
1969,
Warren
1969).

Other
•sites
dating
to
the
Intermediate
Phase
includes
LAn
709,
844,
845
in
Rolling
Hills
Estates,
Lan
283
(San
Pedro
Harbor
Site)
and
several
located
in
Long
Beach.

The
increased
number
of
sites
known
for
this
phase
is
indicative
of
the
establishment
of
the
vallage
based
settlement
pat
tern
with
the
specialized
seasonal
exploitation
of
land
and
sea
resources.

THE

CANALINO
PHASE
The
majority
of
the
sites
known
from
the
Palos
Verdes
Peninsula
and
sur
rounding
area
belong
to
the
Canalino
Phase
of
the
Native
American
period.

Accounts
by
early
Spanish
explorers
and
settlers
arriving
in
Los
Angeles
des
cribe
the
many
villages
that
occupied
the
area
although
few
felt
impelled
to
carry
out
detailed
investigations
of
Canalino
life
styles
and
cultural
patterns
their
long
distance
trade
systems,
religious
beliefs
and
social
institutions.

At
least
twelve
sites
dating
to
this
phase
are
located
within
or
adjacent
to
the
Carson
City
Limits
(See
Maps
1-3).

Those
depicted
by
solid
circles
(e.g.,
LAn
88,
96,
99 &
106)
have
been
heavily
damaged
or
destroyed
while
those
marked
by
a
triangle
are
intact
or
only
partiaFy
disturbed.

They
be-
longed
to
a
large
complex
of
semi—autonomous
villages
and
satellite
sites
which
ringed
San
Pedro
and
Long
Beach
Harbors
from
A.D.
1000
until
A.D.
1800
(Johnston
1962,
Kroeber
1953).

The
people
occupying
the
area
were
the
Tonova,
a
Shoshcne-speaking
population
which
gradually
replaced
the
earlier
Pckn
speakers
who
occupied
the
coast
during
the
Intermediate
Phase.

The
Tonq’ia
were
—23—
LA-4512
called
the
“Gabrielino’
by
the
Spanish
since
they
were
placed
under
the
jur
isdiction
of
the
San
Gabriel
Mission
during
the
Hispanic
Period.

A
summary
of
their
culture
is
given
in
the
Appendix
and
a
more
detailed
description
can
be
found
in
Johnstcm
(1962)
and
Fink
(1966).

They
had
a
complex
system
of
religious
beliefs
involving
elaborate
funerary
practices
and
vision
quests
(see
Moriarity
1969,
Harrington
1934,
DuBois
1908)
and
kinship
networks
as
well
as
advanced
techniques
of
stone
working
and
polishing.

However,
within
forty
years
of
the
establishment
of
the
Mission
at
San
Gabriel
the
villages
and
sites
within
the
Los
Angeles
Basin
were
abandoned
or
destroyed.
-24-
LA-4512

2. THE

HISPANIC
PERIOD
European
exploration
and
settlement
of
California
officially
begins
with
Juan
Cabrillo’s
voyage
to
Monterey
Bay
in
1542-43.

Although
he
was
not
the
first
citizen
of
the
Old
World
to
reach
the
Pacific
Coast
of
North
America
(the
Chinese
had
preceded
him
perhaps
1000
years
earlier;
Moriarity,
personal
communication),
he
was
the
earliest
to
record
his
observations
for
written
hi
story.

As
one
of
the
Conquistadors
who
in
1521
participated
in
the
capture
of
Mexico
City,
his
interests
in
sailing
northward
were
the
same
as
those
which
motivated
most
of
the
explorers
of
his
time;
i.e.,
nationalism,
religious
fervor,
ambition,
as
well
as
a
desire
to
discover
a
‘Northwest
Passage’
con
necting
the
Atlantic
and
Pacific
Oceans
across
North
America.

He
is
reported
to
have
sailed
into
San
Pedro
Bay
(actually
so
named
by
Vizcaino
in
his
voyage
of
1602)
but
made
no
landing.

However,
he
did
make
contact
with
Tongva
‘md
ians’
in
a
canoe
and
he
recorded
his
observations
of
the
coastal
area.

The
quantity
of
smoke
he
saw
eminating
from
the
campfires
and
signal
fires
of
the
many
villages
along
the
harbor
and
on
the
slope
of
Palos
Verdes
Hills
led
him
to
refer
to
the
area
as
‘Bahia
de
los
Humos’
(Bay
of
Smokes)
(Bancroft
1886).

It
is
unfortunate
that
he
died
on
San
Miguel
Island
in
1543,
after
discovering
Monterey
Bay,
since
he
was
an
interested
and
accurate
observer
of
all
he
saw
and
was
fascinated
by
the
Chumash
Culture
which
at
the
time
was
very
similar,
except
for
language
and
religion,
to
that
of
the
Tongva
(Forbes
1969,
Kroeger
1953,
Johnston
1962).

Although
California,
in
particular
Cape
Mendocino,
served
as
a
major
land
fall
for
the
‘Manila
Galleons’
plying
between
Mexico
and
the
Philippines,
no
further
voyages
of
discovery
were
launched
along
the
coast
until
1602
when
Sebastian
Vizcaino
rediscovered
and
named
Monterey
Bay
(Cabrillo’s
‘Bahia
de
los
Pinos’).

Along
the
way,
according
to
journals
kept
by
various
clerics
and
chroniclers
(e.g.,
Fray
Francisco
Palou
and
Fray
Antonio
de
las
Ascension)
who
accompanied
the
explorer,
Vizcaino
put
in
at
the
‘Bahia
de
los
Humos’
(which
he
renamed
San
Pedro
Bay)
and
sent
a
small
boat
to
investigate
the
coast
and
to
search
for
water.

However,
again
no
attempt
was
made
to
explore
the
coastal
plain
or
to
investigate
the
peoples
living
there
]though
other
areas
were
-25-
LA-4512
visited
by
Vizcaino
(e.g.,
Catalina
Island
where
Viscaino
made
personal
con
tact
with
the
Native
Americans
at
Avalon
Harbor).

No
further
exploration
of
Carson/San
Pedro
area
was
conducted
until
after
the
establishment
of
the
San
Gabriel
Mission
in
1771
(Bancroft
1886,
Johnston
1962,
Bolton
1916).

The
earliest
record
of
prolonged
Hispanic
contact
with
the
Carson
area
is
contained
in
the
Register
of
the
San
Gabriel
Mission.

Beginning
in
1780,
one
year
before
the
founding
of
the
“Pueblo
de
Nuestra
Senora
de
Los
Angeles”,
the
r1issionaries
began
converting
the
‘Indians’
in
the
vicinity
of
San
Pedro
Harbor.

The
common
practice
was
to
remove
converts
from
their
villages
(‘Ran
cherias’)
and
establish
them
in
barrack-like
domiciles
at
the
Mission
where
the
conversion
process
continued
and
where
they
served
as
laborers
(Englehardt
1927).