Attachment A - PC Staff Report and Attachments part 1 — Long Beach City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 5 of 5)

5.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Appendix G(a) of the CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
The proposed Project would permanently impact approximately 5.75 acres of lands. Permanent impacts include approximately 0.14 acre of Avena spp. – Bromus spp. seminatural alliance/Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. semi-natural alliance, 4.57 acres of developed lands, 0.59 acre of disturbed lands, 0.02 acre of eucalyptus, and 0.43 acre of ornamental vegetation. None of the vegetation communities or land cover types to be impacted by the Project are considered sensitive communities. Table 5-1 provides a summary of impacts to vegetation/land use types.

Table 5-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Impacts
Vegetation/Land Use Type
Project Site
(Acres)
Avena spp. – Bromus spp. seminatural
alliance/Mesembryanthemum spp. –
Carpobrotus spp. semi-natural alliance

0.14 Developed 4.57
Disturbed 0.59
Eucalyptus 0.02
Ornamental 0.43
Total 5.75

5.4 Wetlands
Appendix G(c) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.”
40 The Project site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands, including wetlands as defined by the California Coastal Act. The nearest potential wetlands are located at least 194 feet from the Project site, and thus the Project is not subject to SEASP policies pertaining to wetlands [Exhibit 6].

5.5 Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Appendix G(d) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.”
The Project site consists of an existing commercial development and the disturbed edge of the Pumpkin Patch and although there may be local wildlife movement through the Pumpkin Patch, Project impacts would be limited to the edge of the Pumpkin Patch immediately adjacent to Studebaker Road, and therefore would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement.

The Project site does not contain a native wildlife nursery site.

The project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season (Generally January 1 to September 30 when potential nesting habitat for wading birds and raptors is present, and February 1 to September 30 when no raptor or wading bird nesting habitat is present). Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code.

Although impacts to native birds are prohibited by MBTA and similar provisions of California Fish and Game Code, impacts to native birds by the proposed Project would not be a significant impact under CEQA. The native birds with potential to nest on the Project site would be those that are extremely common to the region and highly adapted to human landscapes (e.g., house finch). The number of individuals potentially affected by the Project would not significantly affect regional or local populations of such species. A measure is identified in Section 6.0 of this report to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

Further, the proposed project would be landscaped with variety of plants species, including multiple tree varieties on the ground floor and on the pool deck. Trees in the landscape palette include western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), and Chitalpa (x Chitalpa tashkentensis). These trees could serve as new nesting opportunities for birds.

5.6 Local Policies or Ordinances
Appendix G(e) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.”
41 The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the policies set forth in SEASP, as no jurisdictional waters, wetlands, ESHA, or sensitive coastal habitat areas are located within 100 feet of the Project site.

5.7 Habitat Conservation Plans
Appendix G(f) of the State CEQA guidelines asks if a project is likely to “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.” The Study Area does not occur within the area covered by any habitat conservation plans.

5.8 Impacts to Critical Habitat
The proposed Project will not impact lands designated as critical habitat by the USFWS.

5.9 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
No jurisdictional waters occur within the defined Study Area, including the Project site and the 100-foot buffer that extends beyond the offsite improvement area into the Pumpkin Patch site.

5.10 Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources
In the context of biological resources, indirect effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to adjacent native open space. Potential indirect effects associated with development include water quality impacts from associated with drainage into adjacent open space/downstream aquatic resources; lighting effects; noise effects; invasive plant species from landscaping; and effects from human access into adjacent open space, such as recreational activities (including off-road vehicles and hiking), pets, dumping, etc. Temporary, indirect effects may also occur as a result of construction-related activities.

The Project site is bordered by existing development to the north, west, south, and northeast. The adjacent portion of the Pumpkin Patch does not contain native habitat and has low habitat value for native wildlife; therefore, there is no potential for temporary or permanent indirect effects to native open space. The City of Long Beach Property Site (Marketplace Marsh) is 194 feet northeast of the Project site, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is located to the northeast beyond the Marketplace Marsh; both wetland areas are separated from the Project site by existing development. Accordingly, there is no potential for temporary or permanent indirect impacts to adjacent native open space. Nevertheless, the Project will incorporate design features to prevent indirect impacts, including ensuring that stormwater flows and other runoff will not discharge into the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands, and installing exterior lighting that is directed down and away from the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands.

Additionally, the landscaping plant palette will not include any invasive species. Finally, the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands will remain fenced to prevent access.

Construction activities will comply with all applicable regulations and requirements for dust control, air quality, pollutants, and noise.
42 5.11 Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered potentially significant. “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project.

The Project site does not support any special-status biological resources and will not result in direct impacts to special-status biological resources. The Project will not result in any indirect impacts to special-status biological resources, including wetlands in the vicinity of the Project site, as it is separated from native open space by existing development. The Project site is located a minimum of 194 feet from the nearest wetland areas (Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands) and over 400 feet from the San Gabriel River. With implementation of the SEASP mitigation monitoring and reporting measures identified in Section 6.2 below as applicable, no cumulative impacts will result from the Project.

6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following discussion provides project-specific avoidance measures for actual or potential impacts to special-status resources, as well as mitigation for potential impacts to special-status biological resources for the SEASP plan area as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The SEASP measures should be incorporated into the Project as applicable.

6.1 Nesting Birds
The mitigation measure set forth in SEASP Policy 5.30 shall be implemented to ensure that nesting birds are not harmed during project construction. It should be noted that raptor species and wading birds are not expected to nest within the Project site due to a general lack of suitable habitat.
• If an active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets) as well as owls or raptors is found, construction activities shall avoid breeding/nesting season (January through September). If construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dB peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The 65 dB peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dB at the subject site, and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level. When construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, breeding/nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey conducted 3 days prior to commencement of construction on sites where there is probable cause to believe that nesting birds may exist. 43 To ensure regulatory compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, the following additional measure should be implemented:
• Vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season (February 1 through September 15). If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior any disturbance of the site, including vegetation clearing, demolition activities, and grading.

If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

6.2 SEASP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The following mitigation measures are set forth by the SEASP Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and should be incorporated into the Project as applicable. • BIO-1. Concurrent with submittal of site development plans for development on or adjacent to undeveloped land and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a biological resources report conducted by a qualified biologist. The biological resources report shall include: analysis of available literature and databases (CNDDB); historical sensitive biological resources; review of current land use and land ownership within the project vicinity; on-site survey and mapping that delineates vegetation communities present within the development area; identification of jurisdictional waters and special status habitat, wildlife, and plant species. Focused surveys for sensitive, threatened, endangered species, will also be prepared, as required. The project applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development and project design avoids impacts to special status species and habitats, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. If complete avoidance is not possible, the project applicant shall obtain necessary permits from CDFW and USFWS. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit plans, required permits, and mitigation plans (if needed) to the Long Beach Development Services Department for review and approval.
• BIO-2. Concurrent with submittal of site development plans for development on or adjacent to undeveloped land and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a jurisdictional delineation prepared by a qualified biologist or letters stating that no such jurisdictional features exist. The jurisdictional delineation shall be prepared pursuant to the requirements of (1) US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, (2) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, (3) RWQB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act, and (4) wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act. The project shall be designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. If wetland avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall ensure no net loss of wetlands either by creation of applicant-sponsored 44 wetlands or purchase of mitigation bank credits in consultation with applicable Federaland State- agencies (Corps, CDFW, RWQB, and/or Coastal Commission). Any mitigation, replacement, and/or restoration of habitat shall occur in the LCWC or in an approved coastal mitigation bank that covers this area. If the applicant can demonstrate that there are no logistically viable opportunities for mitigation within the LCWC, the applicant may propose mitigation elsewhere, which must be approved by the City and the resource agencies. The mitigation plan prepared in consultation with the applicable agencies shall include: responsibilities and of persons to supervise and implement the plan, site selection, restoration and creation of habitat; site preparation and planting implementation, schedule, maintenance guidelines, monitoring plan (5 year minimum), and long-term preservation. Prior to the issuance of grading permits covering jurisdictional areas, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the Long Beach Development Services Department that (1) all necessary permits or authorizations have been obtained from the Corps (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), CDFW (pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, and RWQCB (pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act), the Coastal Commission, or that no such permits are required; and (2) the detailed mitigation and restoration plan shall be approved by the Development Services Department.
• BIO-3. If sensitive biological resources are identified within or abutting to the proposed development area, the project applicant shall submit evidence to the Long Beach Development Services Department that a qualified biologist has been retained to prepare a construction management plan. The construction limits shall be clearly flagged and/or fenced. No construction access, parking, storage of equipment, or waste dirt or rubble will be permitted within such marked areas. A monitoring biologist shall be onsite during any grading activities. The qualified biologist shall also develop and implement a project specific contractor training program to educate project contractors on the sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed development project area and oversee measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species. • BIO-4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development, the project applicant shall include noise reduction measures to reduce noise impacts to wildlife. A note shall be provided on development plans indicating that throughout grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• During all excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. • The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors (wildlife) nearest the project site.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors (wildlife) during all project construction. 45 • No construction shall occur within 500 feet of nesting raptors or threatened or endangered species and 100 feet of all other nesting birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
• BIO-5. Prior to approval of any development adjacent to jurisdictional waters or habitat for special status species and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a photometric plan demonstrating that the project will be designed and shielded so that the project’s contribution of nighttime lighting shall be no greater than 0.10 foot-candles at the edge of the habitat. This would ensure that spill light does not result in exposure of artificial light at levels exceeding the intensity of moonlight (approximately 0.5 foot-candles). • BIO-6. Prior to approval of a trails/access plan within or adjacent to jurisdictional waters, the location, design, and text for urban-open space interface signage shall be developed.

The signage shall be located at all pedestrian access points. The signage shall educate users on the responsibilities associated with the open space interface and shall address relevant issues including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants.
• BIO-7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant and/or subsequent builder shall prepare an urban-open space interface brochure to be approved by the Long Beach Development Services Department to educate residents on the responsibilities associated with living near sensitive biological habitat. The brochure shall address relevant issues, including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants, including the “Light’s Out for Birds” programs. The approved brochure, along with attachments, shall be included as part of the rental/lease agreements and as part of the sales literature for future developments.
• BIO-8. If construction is proposed between January 15 to September 1st, a qualified biologist must conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three days prior to initiation of construction activities to document the presence or absence of nesting birds in or adjacent to the project site. The preconstruction survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and/or passerines nests that may be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If active nests are documented, the following measures are required:
• Species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be postponed until the young birds have fledged. A minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities are restricted from the area. 46 • A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the Long Beach Development Services Department prior to initiation of grading in the nestsetback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur.
• A final report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be submitted to the Long Beach Development Services Department prior to constructionrelated activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season.
47 7.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012.

The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. 1,568 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 7, 2012.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program, Sacramento.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Community List.

California Natural Resources Agency, July 5, 2022.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities.

State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. Special Animals List. State of California Natural Resources Agency, January 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency.

Sacramento, California. January 2023.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v 9.5). http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2023. RareFind 5. Records of occurrence for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Long Beach. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California Natural Resources Agency.

Sacramento, California. Accessed March 13, 2023.
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Chesser, R.T. et al. 2022. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa. 48 Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggert. 2009. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians, Sixth Edition. Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas. iv+44p.

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 407 pp.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp.

Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.

National Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed March 21, 2023.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.

Sawyer, J.O, T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation.

Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. 1,300 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill, New York. 536pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA: U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished memorandum; January 2000.

8.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed:______________________________ Date: June 28, 2023 p:0840-55c.biotech.docx
Source: ESRI World Street Map
0 2
4 8
Miles
Regional Map
^_
Exhibit 1
±

MARKETPLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

PROJECT LOCATION
Adapted from USGS Los Alamitos, CA quadrangle
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ±

MARKETPLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Exhibit 2
^_

PROJECT LOCATION
X:\0363-THE REST\0840-55EPCH\GIS\0840-55_Aerial.mxd
0 40 80 160
Feet ±

MARKETPLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Aerial Map
Exhibit 3
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: April 5, 2023
1 inch = 80 feet
Pacific Coast Highway
North Studebaker Road
Approximate
Project Site
100' Buffer into
Undeveloped Areas
X:\0363-THE RES T\0840-55EPCH\GIS \Veg eta tionGIS \0840-55_Veg eta tion.m xd 0 40 80 160 Feet ±

MARKETPLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Veg eta tion Ma p
Exh ibit 4
Coordina te S ystem : S ta te Pla ne 5 NAD 83
Projection: La m bert Conform a l Conic
Da tum : NAD 1983 2011
Ma p Prepa red by: B. Ga le, GLA
Da te Prepa red: April 10, 2023
1 inch = 80 feet
Project S ite
100' Buffer into
Undev eloped Area s
Av ena spp. –
Brom us spp.
sem ina tura l a llia nce/
Mesem brya nth em um spp. –
Ca rpobrotus spp.
sem i-na tura l a llia nce
Euca lyptus
Orna m enta l
Disturbed
Dev eloped
Pacific Coast Highway
North Studebaker Road
Photograph 1: Southeast facing view of Project site. Most of the Project site is developed and supports no native vegetation or habitat for special-status biological resources.

Photograph 3: Southwest facing view of the ornamental planter in the western portion of the Project Site. Vegetation is generally limited to ornamental vegetation and nonnative grasses and forbs. Some limited ponding is present due to recent heavy rainstorms, but this area does not constitute a wetland.

Exhibit 5
MARKETPLACE MIXED USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Site Photographs
Photograph 2: West facing view of the Project site. No native habitat or special-status biological resources are present.

Photograph 4: Southeast facing view of the southern portion of the Project Site at the edge of the Pumpkin Patch property. This area supports no native vegetation communities or habitat for special-status biological resources.

X:\0363-THE REST\0840-55EPCH\GIS\WetlandsGIS\0840-55_PotentialSEASPWetlands.mxd 0 50 100 200 Feet ±

MARKETPLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Potential SEASP Wetlands
Exhibit 6
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: April 11, 2023
1 inch = 100 feet
Pacific Coast Highway
North Studebaker Road
Project Site
100' Buffer into
Undeveloped Areas
Potential CCC Wetlands *
* Source: Glenn Lukos Associates.

June 22, 2017. Jurisdictional Delineation
for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation
and Restoration Project.

APPENDIX A

FLORAL COMPENDIUM
The floral compendium lists species identified within the Study Area. Taxonomy follows Jepson (Baldwin et al. 2012) and, for sensitive species, the California Native Plant Society's Rare Plant Online Inventory (CNPS 2022). Common names are taken from Baldwin et al. (2012), Munz (1974), and Roberts (1998). An asterisk (*) denotes a non-native species.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Bassia hyssopifolia Fivehook bassia*
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome*
Bromus rubens Red brome*
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass*
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum*
Festuca microstachys Small fescue
Ficus rubiginosa Rusty fig*
Hedera helix English ivy*
Hordeum murinum leporinum Hare barley*
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed*
Malva sylvestris High mallow*
Medicago polymorpha Bur clover*
Melilotus indicus Yellow sweetclover*
Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum Small flowered iceplant*
Phalaris paradoxa Hood canarygrass*
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm*
Pittosporum sp. Pittosporum*
Platanus x hispanica Plane tree*
Poa annua Annual bluegrass*
Rhaphiolepis indica Indian hawthorne*
Salsola tragus Russian thistle*
Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle*
Spergularia marina Salt sand spurry
Taraxacum officianale Dandelion*
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm*

APPENDIX B

FAUNAL COMPENDIUM
The faunal compendium lists species that were either observed within or adjacent to the Study Area. Taxonomy and common names are taken from AOS (2022) for birds; Collins and Taggart (2009) and CDFW (2016) for reptiles and amphibians; and CDFG (2016) for mammals.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

VERTEBRATES
Birds
Ardea alba Great egret
Ardea herodias Great blue heron
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Melospiza melodia Song sparrow
Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird
Passer domesticus House sparrow
Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe
Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch
Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow
Mammals
Canis latrans coyote
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix D Historic Evaluation
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 974-8300
Field Offices
San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Sacramento

cogstone.com
Toll free 888-333-3212
Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SDB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, UDBE

HISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION FOR

THE LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE MIXED-USE

PROJECT, CITY OF LONG BEACH, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Mariana Zimmermann, PlaceWorks
Author:

Shannon Lopez, M.A.

Principal Investigator:

Shannon Lopez, M.A
Date
June 2023
Cogstone Project Number: 5639
Type of Study: Historic Built Environment Evaluation
USGS Quadrangle: USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle Los Alamitos
Area: Long Beach, CA
Key Words: City of Long Beach, Long Beach Marketplace, Long Beach Marketplace Office Park, El Torito
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................IV INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF STUDY...........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................2 PROJECT PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................6 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................7 STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT...........................................................................................................7 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................7 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.....................................................................................................................................8 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................8 NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS ......................................................................................................................9 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307 ...............................................................................9 CITY OF LONG BEACH LOCAL REGULATIONS.........................................................................................9 SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SEASP) MITIGATION MEASURE.............................................10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................10 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................15 HISTORIC SETTING..........................................................................................................................................15 CITY OF LONG BEACH HISTORY............................................................................................................................15 PROJECT AREA HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................16 LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE OFFICE PARK AND THE BIXBY RANCH COMPANY.....................................................17 EL TORITO...........................................................................................................................................................19 SOURCES CONSULTED.........................................................................................................................................21 HISTORIC SOCIETY CONSULTATION.......................................................................................................................21 SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................................................23 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................23 EL TORITO...........................................................................................................................................................24 LONG BEACH MARKETPLACE OFFICE PARK..........................................................................................................26 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY .......................................................................................................................26 6621 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY .......................................................................................................................28 NATIONAL, CALIFORNIA, AND LOCAL EVALUATION ..............................................................................31

CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF LOCAL LANDMARKS AND LOCAL LANDMARK DISTRICTS ................................................................................................................................................................................31 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY..............................................................................................................32 6621 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY..............................................................................................................33 EL TORITO (6605 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY) ....................................................................................34 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................37 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................................................................................38 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................................................................41 APPENDIX B. HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION .............................................................................51 APPENDIX C. CITY OF LONG BEACH: CHAPTER 2.63 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION .......59 APPENDIX D. DPRS ...............................................................................................................................................69 Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone iii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP ..............................................................................................................................1 FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 3. PROJECT AREA MAP ....................................................................................................................................5 FIGURE 4. 1980 USDA AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (FRAME FINDER 1980).....................................................................17 FIGURE 5. 1978 SITE PLAN FOR THE “MARKETPLACE OFFICE PARK” (CHARLES KOBER ASSOCIATES 1978). .....19 FIGURE 6. FOUNDER OF THE EL TORITO CHAIN, LARRY J. CANO (PHOTO BY JOHN GILHOOLY; WOO 2014).......20 FIGURE 7. SOUTHWEST FAÇADE, FACING NORTHEAST..............................................................................................25 FIGURE 8. OVERVIEW OF SOUTHEAST ELEVATION, FACING NORTHWEST................................................................26 FIGURE 9. OVERVIEW OF SOUTHWEST FAÇADE (FACING WEST)...............................................................................28 FIGURE 10. OBLIQUE VIEW OF NORTHEAST ELEVATION (LEFT) AND NORTHWEST ELEVATION (RIGHT), FACING SOUTH..........................................................................................................................................................................28 FIGURE 11. OVERVIEW OF 6621 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FACING NORTHEAST.............................................29 FIGURE 12. SOUTHEAST ELEVATION, FACING NORTHWEST......................................................................................30

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED...........................................................................................................21 Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone iv

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to conduct a historic built environment evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project site encompasses private property and public right-of-way (approximately 253,636 square feet or approximately 5.8 acres) and is comprised of two full parcels with Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7237-020-040 and -050, a portion of parcel APN 7237-020-041, the sidewalk and bike lane along Pacific Coast Highway, and Studebaker Road right-of-way. The Project area of the mixed-use site is 3.7 acres in size.

The Project is bordered by surface parking and commercial uses to the north, an existing twostory office building and the Los Cerritos Wetlands to the northeast, a vacant lot (“Pumpkin Patch site”) to the south, and the Pacific Coast Highway to the west. The Project is located at 6615-6695 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California.

The Project will involve the demolition of two existing office buildings (6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway) and associated parking and landscape areas and construct a six-story mixed-use development comprised of 390 apartment units with 5,351 square feet (sf) of ground floor retail totaling a building area of 645,045 sf including the parking area. The Project area is currently developed as the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park, which contains two extant buildings that were constructed in 1979 (6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway) and 1983 (6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway) and are not yet 45 years of age or older. The office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway is also part of the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park (but not within the boundaries of the Project area) and was built in 1980 (43 years old).

This study was completed in compliance with the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) Mitigation Measure CUL-1 which states that “Future development or redevelopment projects on or near buildings or structures 45 years of age or older shall require an intensive-level historical evaluation.” In total, three buildings were evaluated as part of this study. This includes two office buildings within the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park; 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979) located within the Project area and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980) located adjacent to the Project area. The third building evaluated for this study is a vacant El Torito restaurant (built 1977/1978) located adjacent to the Project area at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway.

The buildings adjacent to the Project area (the El Torito restaurant at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway and the office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) were documented and evaluated for potential historic significant in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and to determine if the Project would have a negative impact on the historic setting if either of these buildings were determined historically significant. While 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway meets the minimum threshold of being 45 years old, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (43 years old) does not quite meet this threshold. Out of an abundance of caution and to maintain compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway was included in this study in the event that this is nearing 45 years of age and may reach that age threshold before this Project is complete. By that standard, the office building within the Project area at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway was not included in this study as it does not meet the minimum 45-year threshold (built Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone v
in 1983; 40 years old). It is not anticipated that this building will reach the minimum threshold before this Project is complete.

On March 2, 2023, Cogstone’s architectural historian Shannon Lopez visited the Project area.

Ms. Lopez photographed and documented the exterior of 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (office building) located within the Project area. Ms. Lopez then photographed and documented the 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (office building) and vacant El Torito restaurant (6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway) which are adjacent to the Project area. As the two office buildings are part of the same office park, both buildings were recorded on the same set of Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. The El Torito was newly recorded on one set of DPR 523 forms.

The two office buildings within the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park; 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979) located within the Project area and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980) located adjacent to the Project area are recommended not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level due to a lack of significance. The vacant El Torito restaurant (6605 E.

Pacific Coast Highway) located adjacent to the Project area is also recommended not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level due to lack of significance.

This analysis satisfies the requirements set forth by Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and therefore implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is not necessary. No further work is recommended.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 1

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to conduct a historic built environment evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California (Project; Figure 1). The City of Long Beach is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Figure 1. Project vicinity map
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 2

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project site encompasses private property and public right-of-way (approximately 253,636 square feet or approximately 5.8 acres) and is comprised of two full parcels with Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7237-020-040 and -050, a portion of parcel APN 7237-020-041, the sidewalk and bike lane along Pacific Coast Highway, and Studebaker Road right-of-way. The Project area of the mixed-use site is 3.7 acres in size. The Project is bordered by surface parking and commercial uses to the north, an existing two-story office building and the Los Cerritos Wetlands to the northeast, a vacant lot (“Pumpkin Patch site”) to the south, and the Pacific Coast Highway to the west. The Project is located at 6615-6695 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California (Figures 2 and 3).

The buildings adjacent to the Project area (the El Torito restaurant at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway and the office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) were documented and evaluated for potential historic significant in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and to determine if the Project would have a negative impact on the historic setting if either of these buildings were determined historically significant. While 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway meets the minimum threshold of being 45 years old, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (43 years old) does not quite meet this threshold. Out of an abundance of caution and to maintain compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway was included in this study in the event that this is nearing 45 years of age an may reach that age threshold before this Project is Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 3
complete. By that standard, the office building within the Project area at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway was not included in this study as it does not meet the minimum 45 year threshold (built in 1983; 40 years old). It is not anticipated that this building will reach the minimum threshold before this Project is complete.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 4
Figure 2. Project location
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 5
Figure 3. Project area map
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 6

PROJECT PERSONNEL
Cogstone Resource Management (Cogstone) conducted the cultural and paleontological resources monitoring and authored this report. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
• Molly Valasik provided overall QA/QC. Ms. Valasik has an M.A. in Anthropology from Kent State University in Ohio and over 14 years of experience in southern California archaeology.
• Shannon Lopez served as the architectural historian and authored this report. Ms. Lopez holds an M.A. in History (with an emphasis in architectural history) from CSU Fullerton.

She has more than five years of experience in the field of history and architectural history.
• Logan Freeberg made the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps for this report.

Mr. Freeberg holds a B.A. in Anthropology from the UC Santa Barbara and a GIS certification from California State University (CSU) Fullerton. He has over 19 years of experience in California archaeology.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 7

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA states that: It is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed project and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.

CEQA declares that it is state policy to: "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As of 2015, CEQA established that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21084.2). In order to be considered a “tribal cultural resource,” a resource must be either:
(1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or
(2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource.

To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the lead agency must consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Public Resources Code §20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 8

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 5097.5: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands (lands under state, county, city, district or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a listing of all properties considered to be significant historical resources in the state. The California Register includes all properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, including properties evaluated under Section 106, and State Historical Landmarks No. 770 and above. The California Register statute specifically provides that historical resources listed, determined eligible for listing on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, or resources that meet the California Register criteria are resources which must be given consideration under CEQA (see above). Other resources, such as resources listed on local registers of historic resources or in local surveys, may be listed if they are determined by the State Historic Resources Commission to be significant in accordance with criteria and procedures to be adopted by the Commission and are nominated; their listing in the California Register is not automatic.

Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to having significance, resources must have integrity for the period of significance.

The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 9
historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS
Sites that may contain human remains important to Native Americans must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner, consistent with state law (i.e., Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98), as reviewed below:

In the event that human remains are encountered during project development and in accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods.

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307
This section states that “No person shall remove, injure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archeological or historical interest or value.”

CITY OF LONG BEACH LOCAL REGULATIONS
Per the City of Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 2.63 Cultural Heritage Commission, the recognition, preservation, protection and use of cultural resources are necessary to the health, property, social and cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people. The purpose of the City of Long Beach’s Cultural Heritage Commission is to recognize, protect and promote the retention, maintenance and use of Landmarks and Landmark Districts in the City in accordance with the LBMC. (Appendix C).

As defined in LBMC Chapter 2.63, 2.63.020 Definitions:

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 10
• Landmark: means any property or improvement, manmade or natural that has special historical, cultural, archeological, architectural or aesthetic value as part of the heritage of the City, State, or United States and has been designated as a Landmark pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
• Landmark District: means any grouping of related properties that has a special historical, cultural, archeological, architectural or aesthetic value as part of the heritage of the City, State or United States and has been designated as a Landmark District pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.

Criteria for designation of Landmarks and Landmark Districts.

Landmarks. A cultural resource qualifies for designation as a Landmark if it retains integrity and manifests one (1) or more of the following criteria:

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the City's history; or
B. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in the City's past; or C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or it represents the work of a master or it possesses high artistic values; or D. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Landmark Districts. A group of cultural resources qualify for designation as a Landmark District if it retains integrity as a whole and meets the following criteria:

A. The grouping represents a significant and distinguishable entity that is significant within a historic context.

B. A minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the properties within the boundaries of the proposed landmark district qualify as a contributing property. ( ORD-15-0038 § 1, 2015)

SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SEASP) MITIGATION MEASURE The following mitigation measures were prepared in 2017 by Place Works for the City of Long Beach regarding this project as required by CEQA.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1
Future development or redevelopment projects on or near buildings or structures 45 years of age or older shall require an intensive-level historical evaluation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant/developer shall prepare the evaluation in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local guidelines for evaluating historical resources. If, based on the evaluation of the property, it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource (i.e., it would reduce its integrity to the point that it would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 11
Historical Resources or in the list of Long Beach Landmarks), then the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall be implemented by the property owner or project applicant/developer to eliminate or reduce the project’s impact on historical resources.

CUL-2
If, based on the intensive-level historical evaluation required under Mitigation Measure CUL-1, it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource, the City of Long Beach shall require the property owner or project applicant/developer to implement the following measures:

A. Rehabilitation According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

1. If the proposed project includes renovation, alteration, or an addition to a historical resource (not including total demolition), then the property owner or project applicant/developer shall first seek to design all proposed renovation, alterations, or additions to the historical resource in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), found at: http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/stand.htm. a. Plans for rehabilitation shall be created under the supervision of a professional meeting the Department of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History or Historic Architecture and be designed by a licensed architect with demonstrated historic preservation experience.
b. Plans shall be reviewed in the schematic design phase prior to any construction work, as well as in the 60 and 90 percent construction documents phases, for compliance with the Standards by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience with the Standards compliance reviews.
c. The qualified historic preservation professional reviewing the plans shall create a technical memo at each phase and submit the memo to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department for concurrence. d. At the discretion of the City, a detailed character-defining features analysis and/or historical resource treatment plan may need to be prepared for select historical resources by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards if the nature of the project or the significance of the property warrants such detailed analysis.
e. A qualified historic preservation professional shall monitor construction activities at key milestones to ensure that the work to be conducted complies with the Standards. The milestones shall be agreed upon in advance by the City and property owner or project applicant/developer.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 12
f. City staff and the qualified historic preservation professional shall review the finished rehabilitation/renovation in person upon completion. g. In the event that any historical resource(s) are leased to third-party tenants and tenant improvements will be made, all of the terms of this stipulation shall be disclosed in the lease agreements, agreed upon in writing, and mutually enforced by the property owner or project applicant/developer and the City. The tenants shall not be permitted to conduct work that does not comply with the Standards.

B. Retention/On-Site Relocation- For Proposed Demolition

1. If the proposed project includes total demolition of a historical resource, the property owner or project applicant/developer shall first consider an alternative that retains the historical resource and incorporates it into the overall project development as an adaptive re-use of the building.

2. If the project site permits, the historical resource should be relocated to another location on the site, and the resource should be reincorporated into the overall project.

3. If the City determines that retention/onsite relocation of the historical resource is not feasible through a credible feasibility study, the City shall elect to allow the property owner or project applicant/developer to move forward with the development/redevelopment project; however, all other requirements outlined in this mitigation measure shall apply.

C. Third Party Sale

1. If the City determines that retention or onsite relocation of the historical resource is not feasible, then the property owner or project applicant/developer shall offer any historical resources scheduled for demolition to the public for sale and offsite relocation by a third party:
a. The historic resource(s) shall be advertised by the property owner or project applicant/developer at a minimum in the following locations:
project applicant’s/developer’s website (if applicable); City of Long Beach website; Los Angeles Times website and print editions; Long Beach Press Telegram.
b. The bidding period shall remain open for 60 days after the date of advertisement to allow adequate response time from interested parties. c. Qualified parties shall meet the following minimum qualifications to be considered a realistic buyer: possess adequate financial resources to relocate and rehabilitate the historical resource(s); possess an available location for the historical resource(s); and provide for a new use for the historical resource(s).
d. The City shall approve the qualified buyer. If no such buyer comes forward within the allotted time frame, the City shall elect to issue a demolition permit for the historical resource. However, all other requirements outlined in this mitigation measure shall apply.

D. Recordation
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 13

1. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall create HABS-like Level II documentation prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation.

Information on the Standards and Guidelines is available at the following links:
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_6.htm.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/index.htm.
a. Photographs with large-format black-and-white negatives (4 inches by 5 inches or larger) of the property as a whole shall be provided; photocopies with large format negatives of select existing drawings, site plans, or historic views where available. A minimum of 12 views showing context and relationship of historical resources to each other shall be provided; aerial views showing the whole property shall also be provided. b. Written historical descriptive data, index to photographs, and photo key plan shall be provided.
c. The above items shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience in creating HABS Level II documentation.
d. The above items shall be created prior to any demolition or relocation work.
e. The above items shall be distributed to the following repositories for use by future researchers and educators. Before submitting any documents, each of the following repositories shall be contacted to ensure that they are willing and able to accept the items: City of Long Beach Public Library; Long Beach Historical Society; Los Angeles Public Library; South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton; and City of Long Beach Development Services Department (building files).

E. Salvage and Reuse

1. If offsite relocation of the historical resource by a third party is not accomplished, the property owner or project applicant/developer shall create a salvage and reuse plan identifying elements and materials of the resource that can be saved prior to any demolition work.
a. The salvage and reuse plan shall be included in bid documents prepared for the site and shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience in creating salvage and reuse plans.
b. Elements and materials that may be salvageable include windows; doors; roof tiles; decorative elements; bricks, foundation materials, and/or paving materials; framing members; furniture; lighting; and flooring materials, such as tiles and hardwood.

2. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall identify individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items; these may include Habitat for Humanity Restore; other affordable housing organizations; or salvage yards. The following steps shall be taken by the property owner or project applicant/developer:

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 14
a. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items shall be completed in consultation with the City.
b. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items shall be accomplished by contacting potentially interested parties directly first.
c. Items to be salvaged shall be advertised in the following locations for a period of 60 days if none of the contacted parties are able to receive the items: Los Angeles Times and Long Beach Press Telegram.

3. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall remove salvageable items in the gentlest, least destructive manner possible. Historic materials and features shall be protected by storing salvaged items in indoor, climate- and weather-controlled conditions until recipients can retrieve them. The removal of salvageable items shall be performed by a licensed contractor with demonstrated experience with implementing salvage and reuse plans.

F. Other Optional Interpretive, Commemorative, or Educational Measures The City may also elect to require additional (optional) mitigation measures crafted in response to a specific historical resource’s property type or significance, association with a specific historic person, or overall value to the community, as practical, so long as the measure is commensurate with the significance of the property and the level of impact to that resource. Such measures may include educational or interpretive programming; signage; incorporation of historical features into new developments or public art; contribution to a mitigation fund for future historic preservation efforts; written histories or contexts important to the public’s understanding of the lost resource (presuming no other extant resource can interpret such significance); etc. The need for these additional measures shall be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. Some measures may be made available to the public through museum displays, written reports at research repositories, on-or offsite signage, or existing online multimedia sites.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 15

BACKGROUND

HISTORIC SETTING

CITY OF LONG BEACH HISTORY
In 1866, Jonathan Temple sold Rancho Los Cerritos to Flint, Bixby & Co. who used the land to raise sheep. The company appointed Jotham Bixby to manage the business at Rancho Los Cerritos until the land was sold to William E. Willmore in 1880. Willmore subdivided the land and by 1882 had named it Willmore City. In 1887, a Los Angeles-based land syndicate known as the “Long Beach Land and Water Company” bought out Willmore, and the community was renamed “Long Beach” after the suggestion of Belle Lowe, whose husband was the town’s first postmaster. (Schipske 2011).

By 1889, the Southern Pacific Railroad connected Long Beach with the San Pedro Line. The arrival of the railroad represented an important step in the area’s population and commercial expansion. The success of this growth resulted in the City’s incorporated in 1897. Quickly following incorporation, the Long Beach School District, a local newspaper called the Long Beach Journal, the Long Beach Hotel, along with the Methodist Resort Association’s Chautauqua Assembly and Tabernacle at American Street and Third Avenue were established.

In addition, general stores, brick-making facilities, an electric-lighting plant, a water company, and telephone services were quickly constructed to support the City’s development. (Schipske 2011).

In the 1920s, six of America’s largest oilfields were discovered in Huntington Beach, Torrance, Inglewood, Seal Beach, and Signal Hill in Long Beach. The increase in drilling and demand for labor resulted in a wave of population growth and a subsequent housing crisis. In 1926, the Port of Long Beach was established and by 1938 the U.S. Navy began development on the largely manmade Terminal Island.

From the 1930s through World War II, more U.S. Navy personnel lived in Long Beach than in any other city in the United States (LSA 2017). Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent entrance of the United States into World War II, numerous military bases, aircraft assembly plants, and other war-related facilities and industries were established in southern California. Major installations were located in Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Westminster, and Long Beach. A workforce of 16,000 supported the Long Beach Naval Shipyard throughout World War II, making the Naval Shipyard the largest employer in Long Beach during the war.

Following the end of World War II and during Long Beach’s period of suburbanization, the city’s pre-established central business districts fell into decline. In the 1950s, with the rise of car culture throughout the United States and residential development away from the city center, local Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 16
shopping centers and retail stores were built (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2009). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the area surrounding the Project area consisted of oil fields to the north, the marina and dense residential neighborhood of Naples to the south, and the residential area of Seal Beach to the east of the San Gabriel River. The Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd Street connected these areas (Frame Finder 1980).

PROJECT AREA HISTORY
The earliest known USGS historical topographic map of the Project area depicts the area as a marshland belonging to Alamitos Bay (Downey; 1:62500, 1896). By 1925, there is no physical change to the Project area, however, the 1925 topographic map depicts the Long Beach City boundaries just to the south (Long Beach; 1:24000, 1925). The 1942 Downey topographic map shows the Project area is, by that time, within the boundaries of an oil field (Downey; 1:62500, 1942).

The Project area is still within the boundaries of an oil field in 1950, with the addition of several access roads and three wells with associated towers (NETROnline 1952). By 1972, the access roads remain but the oil rigs have been removed (NETROnline 1972). By 1977, a paved parking lot is present with several tree plantings that remain today (FrameFinder 1977). By 1980, the El Torito at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway and the two-story commercial office building at 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway are present (Figure 4; FrameFinder 1980). By 1988, the two-story commercial office buildings at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Hwy and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway are present (NETROnline 1988).

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 17
Figure 4. 1980 USDA Aerial photograph (Frame Finder 1980)

LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE OFFICE PARK AND THE BIXBY RANCH COMPANY The Long Beach Marketplace Office Park is comprised of three similarly designed two-story commercial buildings: 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979), 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980), and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1983). A review of documents and contemporary application permits lists the Bixby Ranch Company as the project applicant.

According to the initial 1978 site plan, the Marketplace Office Park was designed to include seven office buildings, an extension of Shopkeeper Road, elongation/realignment of Studebaker Road, landscaping, and hardscaped parking areas (Figure 5). Ultimately, only two of the buildings proposed in this plan were constructed (now 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway). The two-story office building at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway was not included in the original 1979 site plan but was constructed very similar to the style and materials of its preexisting neighbors.

As multi-tenant office buildings, many businesses have occupied both 6615 and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway throughout the buildings’ period of use. Types of business include (but are not limited to): stock brokerage firms, real estate firms, wealth management, health services, international shipping companies, and domestic manufacturing offices. A representative El Torito
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 18
sampling of businesses associated with each building is provided below. The length of each company’s tenancy at its respective location is not provided. 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway
• 1980: Wagenseller and Durst, Inc.; a regional stock brokerage firm (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1980)
• 1981: Merrill Lynch; an American investment and wealth management company (The Los Angeles Times 1981a)
• 1994: CoastCo Real Estate (The Los Angeles Times 1994a) • 2001: Century 21 Sparrow-Shoreline; lending, escrow, notary, legal, and insurance services (The Los Angeles Times 2001)
• 2017: MJB Plastics, Inc.
• 2017: British American Shipping, LLC.
• 2017: DayWellness Chiropractic
• 2018: Caliber Home Loans
• 2021: Alliance Shippers, Inc./Alliance International
6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway
• 1981: Van de Kamp’s Frozen Foods (The Los Angeles Times 1981b) • 1982: Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Incorporated; Broker and Investment Adviser (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1982)
• 1989: Gregg Whelan-Associate Vice President/Investments (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1989)
• 1989: U.S. Census Bureau (The Los Angeles Times 1989) • 1992: Conroy’s Flowers; Florist (The Los Angeles Times 1992) • 1994: 1-800-Flowers; Florist (The Los Angeles Times 1994b) • 2005: The Long Beach Escrow Assn. (The Los Angeles Times, 2005) • 2018: Main St. Financial
• 2018: Keller Williams Realty-Coastal Properties
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 19
Figure 5. 1978 site plan for the “Marketplace Office Park” (Charles Kober Associates 1978).

EL TORITO
In 1954, Larry J. Cano (1924-2014), the founder of El Torito, purchased an old Polynesian restaurant in the City of Encino and converted it into a sit-down Mexican restaurant (Figure 6).

At the time, Mexican food in the United States was not considered mainstream and, according to a former El Torito chief executive, there was no such thing as casual Mexican dining (Woo 2014).

Mr. Cano served as an Air Force captain during World War II and the Korean War. After his military service, he earned his business degree from the University of Southern California. He planned to continue his education by attending law school but his summer job as a bartender at the Bali Hali sent him down a new path. Following the death of the owner, Mr. Cano and his wife purchased the restaurant and converted the Polynesian theme to a sit-down Mexican eatery.

The first few months were a struggle for the Canos and their restaurant; however, El Torito’s famed fajitas, margaritas, table-side-made guacamole, and staff dressed as charros helped to launch the business into a nationwide chain (Woo 2014). The success of El Torito was such that by the end of the decade additional locations were opened in Hollywood and Toluca Lake.

Considered a dining experience, El Torito drew customers from all walks of life including movie stars such as Lana Turner, John Wayne, Gregory Peck, and Michael Jackson (Woo 2014). 6615 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
6621 E. Pacific Coast Hwy
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 20
El Torito rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1978, Mr. Cano sold his chain of 22 restaurants to W.R. Grace & Co. (later sold to Restaurant Enterprises Group in 1986), however, he remained as company president for ten years. During his period as president, El Torito expanded across the United States from 22 to 190 locations with annual sales by 1987 exceeding $425 million (Woo 2014). In 1988, Mr. Cano stepped down as company president.

Over the following decade, the franchise began a gradual decline. The business was purchased in 1994 by Koo Koo Roo Enterprises (originally Foodmaker and finally renamed to Prandium Inc. in 1999). By 1999, the chain included 101 locations with a total sales of $221 million (Reuters 2000). In 2000, due to substantial debt, Prandium Inc. sold all but six of its El Torito locations to the Long Beach-based Acapulco Acquisition Corp. At the time of the sale, 18 El Torito restaurants were located in Orange County and the company headquarters was based in Irvine, California (Hernandez 2000).

Currently, El Torito is owned by Xperience Restaurant Group (XRG). A total of 31 El Torito restaurants remain in operation under XRG, 26 of which are located in Orange County (XPERIENCE Restaurant Group 2023).

Figure 6. Founder of the El Torito chain, Larry J. Cano (photo by John Gilhooly; Woo 2014).

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 21

SOURCES CONSULTED
A variety of sources were consulted in February 2023 to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Project vicinity (Table 1). Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). Specific information about the Project area, obtained from historicera maps and aerial photographs, is presented in the Project Area History section.

Table 1. Additional Sources Consulted
Source Results
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Negative
Historic USGS Topographic Maps See Project Area History Historic US Department of Agriculture Aerial
Photographs
See Project Area History
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Negative Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Negative
California Historical Landmarks (CHL) Negative
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) Negative Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land
Office Records
Positive; (T5S, R12W, Section 11)
Name Accession
No.

Authority
Abel Stearns CACAAA
084787
GrantSpanish/Mexican
Local Registers (Historical Societies/Archives) See below Able Stearns (1798-1871)
Abel Stearns was one of the richest and most influential citizens of Los Angeles during his lifetime. Born in Massachusetts in 1798, he eventually made his way to California and settled in Los Angeles around 1833. Mr. Stearns made a large amount of money in trade and eventually purchased large swaths of real estate including Ranchos Los Alamitos, Las Bolas, La Laguna de Los Angeles, and half interest in Los Coyotes. In 1849 he was a member of the first Constitutional Convention representing the district of Los Angeles. Mr. Stearns became one of the largest land and cattle owners in California. His wife Dona Arcadia, who was the daughter of Don Juan Bandini, inherited the entire estate upon his death in 1871 (Barrows 1899).

HISTORIC SOCIETY CONSULTATION
On March 7, 2023 a request for information was sent via USPS to the Historical Society of Long Beach and the Los Angeles Conservancy. On March 27, Cogstone followed up on the initial request via email to both the Historical Society of Long Beach and the Los Angeles Conservancy.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 22
Cogstone received an automated response from Julie Bartolotto, Executive Director of the Historical Society of Long Beach, stating she would be out until April 4. On April 6, 2023, a response was received via email from Jen Malone, who offered Cogstone a research appointment if further information was required regarding the buildings, land, use, City Manager Files, etc.

The Historical Society made no further comment regarding the Project. As Cogstone had already procured that information through alternative resources, an appointment with the Society was not requested.

A response was received via email on March 29, 2023, from Erik Van Breene of the Los Angeles Conservancy. Mr. Van Breene offered to check for additional information regarding the Project but also recommended Cogstone contact Long Beach Heritage for a request for information. On March 3, 2023, a request for information was sent to Long Beach Heritage through their website’s email/contact system. No response has been received from Long Beach Heritage and no further comment has been made by the Los Angeles Conservancy regarding the Project.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 23
SURVEY
The built environment resources survey typically identifies and verifies the location of all structures and buildings within the Project area aged 45 years or older. This study was completed in compliance with the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) Mitigation Measure CUL-1 which states that “Future development or redevelopment projects on or near buildings or structures 45 years of age or older shall require an intensive-level historical evaluation.” In total, three buildings were evaluated as part of this study. This includes two office buildings within the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park; 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979) located within the Project area and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980) located adjacent to the Project area. The third building evaluated for this study is a vacant El Torito restaurant (built 1977/1978) located adjacent to the Project area at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway.

The buildings adjacent to the Project area (the El Torito restaurant at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway and the office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) were documented and evaluated for potential historic significant in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and to determine if the Project would have a negative impact on the historic setting if either of these buildings were determined historically significant. While 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway meets the minimum threshold of being 45 years old, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (43 years old) does not quite meet this threshold. Out of an abundance of caution and to maintain compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway was included in this study in the event that this is nearing 45 years of age an may reach that age threshold before this Project is complete. By that standard, the office building within the Project area at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway was not evaluated as part of this study as it does not meet the minimum 45 year threshold (built in 1983; 40 years old) and it is not anticipated that this building will reach the minimum threshold before this Project is complete.

Once identified, built environment resources were examined to ascertain if they are recommended eligible for listing as a historic resource at the local, state, or national level and if the original integrity of the resource remains intact. The seven aspects of integrity which are considered as part of a determination of eligibility include location, design, setting, materials, feeling, workmanship, and association.

RESULTS
On March 2, 2023, Cogstone’s architectural historian Shannon Lopez visited the Project area.

Ms. Lopez photographed and documented the exterior of the two office buildings at 6615 E.

Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway and the vacant El Torito restaurant (6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway). As the two office buildings are part of the same office park, Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 24
both buildings were recorded on the same set of DPR 523 forms. The El Torito was newly recorded on one set of Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms.

EL TORITO
This one-story restaurant is part of Marketplace Long Beach (6401-6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway), an outdoor shopping plaza that consists of various restaurants, shops, a movie theater, and health services. Built-in late 1977-early 1978, this building was constructed in a style that draws heavily from both the Mission Revival style (most popular in California from 1890-1920), the Spanish Revival style (1915-1940), and Modern Style (Figures 7 and 8). Elements of this combination of styles include the widely overhanging open eaves, red tile roof, stucco wall cladding, asymmetrical façade, and dramatic front door and door surrounds (more typical of the Spanish Revival style).

The footprint of this building is irregular but generally follows a rectangular shape. The main body of this building is one-story with a two-story tower centered in the middle of the southwest façade. The rooflines consist of a mixture of gabled, shed, and flat roofs with the flat (more modern-styled) roofline relegated to the middle and back of the building. The gable and shedstyled roofs are clad with red clay tapered mission tiles. Unusual for Mission or Spanish Revival styles but seen with other El Torito locations, the tiles are double or triple-stacked and fixed to each other with thick layers of a combination of mortar and caulking. This gives the roofline a very rough and disheveled appearance, possibly an attempt to give the building the feeling of a much older structure. The exposed wood rafter tails are painted reddish brown and cut in a curved pattern; features exhibit substantial signs of material decay.

The exterior of all elevations is clad in stucco. Historically, Mission Revival and Spanish Revival wall surfaces are clad with smooth (or lightly textured) stucco containing smaller aggregate particles. This building’s stucco cladding, however, has a coarse aggregate combined with a more sweeping troweling pattern, giving it a rough textured look.

The main entrance is located at the southwest façade of the two-story tower. Typical of the Spanish Revival style is the more elaborate door and door surrounds which, for this building, include stylized wood-paneled double doors with multi-paned glass panels organized in a pattern reminiscent of the mission-shaped parapet. A decorative wood panel matching the color and style of the double doors is immediately above this entrance. The doors are flanked by two matching concrete pilasters. These pilasters are clad in plaster, textured, and painted to imitate carved stone blocks; the crumbling plaster at the base of the pilasters reveals the concrete beneath. These faux stone pilasters support a short plastered balcony. A decorative wood paneled false door with a faux stone lintel overhead is at the second story level of the tower. The door is flanked by two matching pilasters supporting an ornamental projection designed to imitate the mission’s arched parapet; these features are assumed to be painted or plaster covered Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 25
concrete. The roofing at the top of the tower is gabled and clad with red Spanish-styled tiles.

The exposed rafter tails show notable signs of decay.

A one-story wing projects from both the northwest and southeast elevations of the tower (main entrance). These wings are asymmetrical in design. Both share the same shed-style roof and are clad in multiple layers of red Spanish tile. A tall but narrow stucco-clad chimney that projects approximately 8-10 feet above the roofline is at the end of the southeast wing. Two tall chimneys (with very wide bases) that rise 10-12 feet above the roofline are at the end of the northwest wing. All three chimneys have circular chimney pots.

As the building is vacant, the majority of windows are shuttered behind wood panelboards. The windows still visible at the northwest elevation are wood framed and consist of 16 small rectangular panes. The surrounding window casing, sill, lintel, and sash are clad in rough stucco/plaster.

Secondary doors intended for staff and emergency exits are located at the northwest and southeast elevations. Two of these doors are wood paneled and the third is flush steel.

The flat-roofed section of the building at the back of the restaurant (northeast elevation) has no fenestration. Decorative details are limited to a simple exterior cornice molding, a stucco-clad string course several feet below the roof level, and three rectangular pilasters with tapered ends at the northwest elevation.

Figure 7. Southwest façade, facing northeast.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 26
Figure 8. Overview of southeast elevation, facing northwest.

LONG BEACH MARKETPLACE OFFICE PARK
The Long Beach Marketplace Office Park is comprised of three similarly designed two-story commercial buildings: 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979), 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980), and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1983). All three buildings are designed in the Modern Style with Shed style elements. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1, for this study, only 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway were documented and evaluated for potential eligibility for listing at the national, state, and local level.

The office building within the Project area at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway was not evaluated as part of this study as it does not meet the minimum 45 year threshold (built in 1983; 40 years old) and it is not anticipated that this building will reach the minimum threshold before this Project is complete.
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway very closely matches the footprint, design, and materials of the neighboring office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway. This commercial building is two stories, with a rectangular shaped footprint, textured stucco exterior wall cladding, and a large open-air atrium set in the center of the footprint (Figures 9 and 10). The roofline is comprised of six sheet metal clad skillion roofs (four large primary- rectangular in shape; two small secondary- square in shape). The second story level projects over the first story by approximately two to three feet. Wide corrugated metal sheets that simulate a broken belt course are situated between the first and second story windows in large sections of all elevations.

Matching material is found just below the eave level (gutters) on the majority of all elevations, forming a projecting fascia. The majority of windows at the second story level are recessed and alternate in sets of two and four sliding windows (frames appear to be steel).

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 27
Entrances are located at the western and eastern corners of the building. The primary entrance at the building’s western corner consists of one set of double glass doors which are accompanied by side and transom lights (steel frames). A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and seven feet long, with a steel safety railing is immediately above this entrance. An exterior singlepaneled door with a floor vent leading into a small electrical room is adjacent to the first floor entrance. This electrical room is part of a semi-detached unit that partially cuts away from the main body of the building. This unit’s skillion roof is set several feet lower than the neighboring roof lines and has two square fixed windows at the second-story level. In addition to the electrical room, this unit also encloses a storage room and staircase that connect the first and second floors. An ADA-compliant ramp and entrance are at the southwest-facing side of this semi-detached unit. The corresponding door is glass with a transom window and a two-pane sidelight. A short balcony, approximately one foot by three feet, with a steel safety railing is located directly above this entrance.

A similar semi-detached two-story segment which encloses both men's and women’s bathroom facilities is at the eastern corner of the building. Two separate entrances are situated between this unit and the main body of the building. The main entrance (facing southeast) consists of a pair of double doors accompanied by sidelights and a transom light. A short balcony, approximately two feet deep by ten feet long, is above this entrance. Access is provided via a sliding glass door with associated sidelights. Two sets of double glass doors are at the northeastfacing section between the semi-detached building segment and the main body of the building.

A narrow balcony, approximately two feet deep and fifteen feet long, is above this entrance.

Access to this balcony is provided by two sets of sliding glass doors; a single utility room door is set between these glass doors.

Matching large wrap-around balcony areas are at the north and south corners of the building.

Two large windows and a steel-framed glass door are at the northern balcony level. Two large sliding glass doors and one large two-paned glass window are at the southern balcony level.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 28
Figure 9. Overview of southwest façade (facing west).

Figure 10. Oblique view of northeast elevation (left) and northwest elevation (right), facing south. 6621 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway very closely matches the footprint, design, and materials of the neighboring office building at 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway. This commercial building is two stories, with a rectangular shaped footprint, textured stucco exterior wall cladding, and a large open-air atrium set in the center of the footprint (Figures 11 and 12). The roofline is comprised of six sheet metal clad skillion roofs (four large primary- rectangular in shape; two small secondary- square in shape). The second story level projects over the first story by approximately two to three feet. Wide corrugated metal sheets that simulate a broken belt course are situated between the first and second story windows in large sections of all elevations.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 29
There are four primary entrance points to this building, two at the northwest corner of the building, one at the southeast elevation, and the fourth at the northern end of the southeast elevation. A semi-detached unit that partially cuts away from the main body of the building is at the northwest corner of the building. This unit’s skillion roof is set several feet lower than the neighboring roof lines and has two square fixed windows at the second-story level. The two entrances located at this end of the building are in the recessed areas between the semi-detached unit and the main body of the building. One entrance facing northwest is comprised of a set of steel-framed double glass doors with sidelights and transom windows. A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and seven feet long, with a steel safety railing is immediately above this entrance. Two matching wheelchair-accessible steel-framed glass double doors are at the southwest corner of the building. A balcony area approximately three feet deep and 18 feet long is directly overhead. Two steel-framed sliding glass doors and a single panel with a floor vent door leading to a small storage closet are on the balcony level.

A projecting canopy constructed in 1981 is at the southeast elevation of the building. This canopy has a sloped metal sheet roof and is supported by two rectangular stucco-clad pillars.

The entrance consists of steel-framed glass double doors. Large ground-to-ceiling rectangular two-paned windows are on both sides of these double doors. Another semi-detached unit that partially cuts away from the main body of the building is at the southeast corner. A set of steelframed glass double doors is in the recessed area at the southeast end of the building. An exterior single-paneled door with a floor vent leading into a small electrical room is adjacent to the first-floor entrance. A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and seven feet long, with a steel safety railing is immediately above this entrance. A single steel framed glass door (secondary entrance) is at the northwest-facing side of this semi-detached unit. A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and six feet long, with a steel safety railing is directly above this entrance.

Figure 11. Overview of 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway, facing northeast.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 30
Figure 12. Southeast elevation, facing northwest.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 31

NATIONAL, CALIFORNIA, AND LOCAL EVALUATION
To be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) a resource must:

A/1. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;
B/2. be associated with the lives of significant persons of the past; C/3. embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual distinction; or
D/4. yielded or may likely yield information important in history or prehistory.

Pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway, and 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway were evaluated under local guidelines for potential listing as a city Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District (City of Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 2.63 Cultural Heritage Commission; City of Long Beach 2015) (Appendix C).

As defined in LBMC Chapter 2.63, 2.63.020 Definitions:
• Landmark: means any property or improvement, manmade or natural that has special historical, cultural, archeological, architectural or aesthetic value as part of the heritage of the City, State, or United States and has been designated as a Landmark pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
• Landmark District: means any grouping of related properties that has a special historical, cultural, archeological, architectural or aesthetic value as part of the heritage of the City, State or United States and has been designated as a Landmark District pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.

CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF LOCAL LANDMARKS AND LOCAL

LANDMARK DISTRICTS
A cultural resource qualifies for designation as a Landmark if it retains integrity and represents one (1) or more of the following criteria:

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the City's history; or
B. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in the City's past; or Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 32
C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or it represents the work of a master or it possesses high artistic values; or D. yielded or may likely yield information important in history or prehistory.

A group of cultural resources qualify for designation as a Landmark District if it retains integrity as a whole and meets the following criteria:

A. The grouping represents a significant and distinguishable entity that is significant within a historic context.

B. A minimum sixty percent (60%) of the properties within the boundaries of the proposed landmark district qualify as a contributing property.

In addition to having significance using the above criteria, resources must have “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” to the period of significance (36 CFR Part 60). The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions.

Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Theme: Commercial Development
Period of Significance: 1979-present
Criteria A/1, Criteria B/2, and Local Criteria A and B
Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history? Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons in our past?
This building was designed to function as a multi-tenant office building and has maintained its function for over 40 years. A search of various advertisements, newspaper articles, and local business listings show this location is associated with recognizable company names such as Merrill Lynch and Century 21, however, this location represented only branch offices of these companies and were not associated with either their establishment or significant development. In light of this research, this building is not associated with events or individuals significant to history. Therefore, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A or B or the CRHR under Criteria 1 or 2, or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criteria A or B.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 33
Criteria C/3 and Local Criterion C
Does this resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction?
This two-story commercial building is an example of the Modern Style with Shed style elements.

The build range of Shed style throughout the United States was between ca. 1965-1990. The overall exterior condition of the building is well maintained, however 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of a distinctive type, period, or method of construction. The associated architectural firm which designed this building was Charles Kober Associates. While the firm undertook multiple distinguished architectural projects, 6615 E.

Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of their work. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion C.

Criteria D/4 and Local Criterion D
Has this building yielded or is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory?
Criterion D/4 is most often applied to archaeological sites and districts but can also apply to buildings, structures, and/or objects. This building does not exhibit a local variation of a standard design or construction technique that can yield important information (such as construction expertise or availability of local materials). Due to a lack of significance, this resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D or the CRHR under Criterion 4or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion D.
6621 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Theme: Commercial Development
Period of Significance: 1980-present
Criteria A/1, Criteria B/2, Local Criteria A and B
Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history? Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons in our past?
This building was designed to function as a multi-tenant office building and has maintained its function for over 40 years. A search of various advertisements, newspaper articles, and local business listings show this location is associated with recognizable names such as the U.S.

Census Bureau, Conroy’s Flowers, and 1-800-Flowers, however, this location represented branch offices of these entities/companies (some short term) and were not associated with either their establishment or significant development. In light of this research, this building is not associated Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 34
with events or individuals significant to history. Therefore, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A or B or the CRHR under Criteria 1 or 2or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criteria A or B.

Criteria C/3 and Local Criterion C
Does this resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction?
This two-story commercial building is an example of the Modern Style with Shed style elements.

The build range of Shed style throughout the United States was between ca. 1965-1990. The overall exterior condition of the building is well maintained, however 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of a distinctive type, period, or method of construction. The associated architectural firm which designed this building was Charles Kober Associates. While the firm undertook multiple distinguished architectural projects, 6621 E.

EL TORITO (6605 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY)
Theme: Commercial Development
Period of Significance: 1978-2017
Criteria A/1 and Local Criteria A
Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history?
Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 35
By the time this restaurant was officially opened in 1978, over 20 additional El Torito locations were in operation within the United States. The context of this location within the overall history of the franchise is in the middling period of the company’s height of success. This location was constructed decades after the early founding of El Torito and it did not contribute to the early expansion of the company. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) under Criterion A or the CRHR under Criterion 1 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion A.

Criteria B/2 and Local Criteria B
Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons in our past? This building was constructed in 1977/1978 and while the El Torito franchise is associated with respected restauranteur and businessman Larry J. Cano, this location was not associated with Mr.

Cano’s early years of business development or any significant event in his life. In addition, this restaurant is not associated with any other person or persons considered significant to national, state, or local history. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion B.

Criteria C/3 and Local Criteria C
Does this resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction?
This building is a combination of multiple architectural styles including Mission Revival, Spanish Revival, and some Modern style elements. This building was designed by the El Torito parent company and intended to exude an idealized corporate imagining of a Spanish Mission/ Mexican Revival aesthetic. While an interesting design, this building is not a true representation of any of the architectural styles used in its design nor does it reflect the material, techniques, or workmanship typically associated with those styles. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion C.

Criteria D/4 and Local Criteria D
Has this building yielded or is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory?
Criteria D/4 is most often applied to archaeological sites and districts but can also apply to buildings, structures, and/or objects. This building does not exhibit a local variation of a standard design or construction technique that can yield important information (such as construction expertise or availability of local materials). Due to a lack of significance, this resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D or the CRHR under Criterion 4 Or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 36
Criterion D.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 37

RECOMMENDATIONS
The two office buildings within the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park; 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979) located within the Project area and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980) located adjacent to the Project area are recommended not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level due to a lack of significance. The vacant El Torito restaurant (6605 E.

Pacific Coast Highway) located adjacent to the Project area is also recommended not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level due to lack of significance. No further work is required regarding the historic analysis of 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway. This analysis satisfies the requirements set forth by Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and therefore implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is not necessary.

No further work is recommended.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 38

REFERENCES CITED
Barrows, H.D.
1899 Abel Stearns. Published in the Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California and Pioneer Register, Los Angeles. Vol. 4, No. 3 (1899), pp. 197-199.

Charles Kober Associates
1978 “6615 E. PCH”. The Marketplace Office Park Long Beach California Site Plan. Building 1A. Plans provided by the City of Long Beach.

City of Long Beach
2015 “Chapter 2.63 Cultural Heritage Commission” City of Long Beach Municipal Code.

Title-Administration and Personnel. Supp. No. 41, Update 1. Copy available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT2ADPE_ CH2.63CUHECO_2.63.010PU.

FrameFinder
1977 “Flight TG_7700, Frame 12-20”. Photo taken February 1, 1977. Available at:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed: February 27, 2023. 1980 “Flight AMI_OC_80, Frame 9924”. Photo taken February 9, 1980. Available at:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed: February 27, 2023.

Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News, The
1980 “Brokerage Firm Opens New Long Beach Office.” Published: Thursday, November 13, 1980. Page 11. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/836147982. Accessed:

February 24, 2023.
1982 “Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Incorporated”. Published: Thursday, January 14, 1982.

Page 15 ends

February 23, 2023.
1989 No title. Published: Thursday, April 6, 1989. Page 6. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/836150587. Accessed: February 24, 2023.

Hernandez, Greg
2000 “Acapulco Chain Owner to Buy El Torito”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Wednesday, March 29, 2000. Page 145. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/161480882. Accessed: February 24, 2023.

LSA
2017 Historic Resources Assessment: California State University, Long Beach Technology Park Phase III Project. Prepared for: Christopher Koontz, Advance Planning Officer Long Beach Development Services/Planning Bureau.

Los Angeles Times, The
1981a “Beat the April 15th deadline to save on 1980 income taxes”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 39
Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, April 12, 1981. Page 104. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/387164627. Accessed: February 23, 2023. 1981b “Purchasing Secretary”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published:

Sunday, February 8, 1981. Page 260. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/387621492. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 1989 “Census Bureau Recruits Workers for Next Year’s National Survey”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Thursday, May 4, 1989. Page 56. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/405394917. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 1992 “Our Business is Really Blossoming”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

Published: Sunday, July 12, 1992. Page 10. Accessed: February 23, 2023. 1994a “People in Real Estate: CoastCo Real Estate opens office at the Marketplace in Long Beach.” The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, July 24, 1994. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/159924109. Accessed: February 23, 2023.
1994b “National Marketing Promotions Director”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Monday, November 14, 1994. Page 84. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/159155788. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 2001 “People in Real Estate”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published:

Sunday, April 15, 2001. Page 112. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/188172046. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 2005 “Escrow education”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published:

Sunday, June 5, 2005. Page 221. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/192844565. Accessed: February 23, 2023.

NETROnline
1952 Historic Aerials. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#. Accessed:

February 27, 2023.
1972 Historic Aerials. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#. Accessed:

February 27, 2023.
1988 Historic Aerials. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#. Accessed:

February 27, 2023.

Placeworks
2017 “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”. Southern Area Specific Plan for City of Long Beach. Prepared for City of Long Beach.

Reuters
2000 “Company News; Prandium Plans to Sell El Torito Chain of Restaurants”. The New York Times. Published: March 29, 2000. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/29/business/company-news-prandium-plans-to-sell-eltorito-chain-of-restau rants.html. Accessed: March 14, 2023.

Sapphos Environmental, Inc.
2009 City of Long Beach: Historic Context Statement. Prepared for: City of Long Beach Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 40
Department of Development Services. Copy available at:
https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/files/issues/2009%20historic%20contex t%20for%20city.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2020.

Schipske, Gerrie
2011 Images of America: Early Long Beach. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.

USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer
1896 Downey. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey.1:62500, Topographic Quadrangle Map, Downey, CA, 1896. Available at: https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html.

Accessed: February 27, 2023.
1925 Long Beach. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:24000. Topographic Quadrangle Map.

Long Beach, CA. 1925. Available at:
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html. Accessed: February 27, 2023. 1942 Downey. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:62500. Topographic Quadrangle Map.

Downey, CA. 1942. Available at: https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html.

Accessed: February 27, 2023.

Woo, Elaine
2014 “Larry J. Cano dies at 90; founder of El Torito restaurants”. The Los Angeles Times.

Online article. Published: December 16, 2014. Available at:
https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-larry-cano-20141217-story.html.

Accessed: March 14, 2023.

XPERIENCE Restaurant Group
2023 “Company”. Available at: https://www.xperiencerg.com/company/. Accessed: March 14, 2023.

Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project Cogstone 41
APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS
Cogstone 42

MOLLY VALASIK
Program Manager and Principal Archaeologist

EDUCATION
2009 M.A., Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 2006 B.A., Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Valasik serves as Cogstone’s CEO and CFO and helps guide the vision and direction of Cogstone. She has been with the company since 2009 and has helped transition Cogstone from sole ownership to multiple owners with an active board of directors. Ms. Valasik is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with more than 14 years of experience. She is a skilled professional who is well-versed in the compliance procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and regularly prepares cultural resources assessment reports for a variety of federal, state, and local agencies throughout California. Ms. Valasik has managed a variety of projects at Cogstone in the water, transportation, energy, development, and federal sectors. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She is accepted as a Principal Investigator for prehistoric archaeology by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and is listed as a Principal Investigator on Cogstone’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cultural Resource Use Permit.

SELECTED PROJECTS
City of San Juan Capistrano, In-N-Out 31791 Del Obispo Street, San Juan Capistrano, CA. Cogstone conducted a Historic Resources Project Review to determine potential impacts to historical resources resulting from the proposed construction of a 3,897 square foot In-N-Out Restaurant with a drive-through and related site improvements on two adjoining lots totaling 1.77 acres. Cogstone’s services included a cultural resources records search, built environment survey, updates to existing California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) forms, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility assessments, and preparation of a Historic Resource Project Review Report. Cogstone also reviewed design plans of the proposed commercial building for compatibility with the NRHP-listed Blas Aguilar Adobe and attended an in-person public hearing with the public and the San Juan Capistrano Cultural Heritage Commission. The assessment was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA with the City of San Juan Capistrano as the lead agency under CEQA. Project Manager. 2021
Character Defining Features (CDF) Assessment for Contributing Buildings and Structures at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, SC. Cogstone assessed CDFs for contributing resources to the Mainside Historic District and individually eligible historic properties at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. The study was conducted to determine which elements of the buildings and structures of the historic district were CDFs for the elements that are eligible for the NRHP. The assessment satisfied Section 110 of the NHPA and will assist the United States Marine Corps with the management of their historic properties. Prime.

Project Manager and Principal Archaeologist. 2017-2020
San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility assessments, and reporting. The project required a Section 408 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work was completed in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. Project Manager. 2020-2021 Cogstone 43

SHANNON LOPEZ
Architectural Historian

EDUCATION
2022 Certificate in Historic Preservation, The Boston Architectural College, Boston Courses included American Architecture: Colonial Period to Post Modernism, Historic Preservation Philosophy and Practice, and Architectural Materials Conservation 2018 M.A., History (with an emphasis in Architecture), California State University, Fullerton All courses taken by Ms. Lopez during her graduate program were under the public history concentration and were tailored by her professors to focus on American and world architectural themes. Specifically, two courses in history of world architecture were taken from the College of Arts, Art Department in collaboration with the History Department.
2012 B.A., History, Minor in Asian-Pacific Studies, California State University, Dominguez Hills

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Lopez is a qualified Historian, and she meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards and Guidelines for Architectural History. The SOI Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History state:

The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field with coursework in American architectural history or a bachelor's degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation or closely related field plus one of the following:

1. At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or

2. Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history.

Ms. Lopez has earned both a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree in History which is a “closely related field” with her Master’s degree focused on American and world Architecture. Subsequently, Ms. Lopez completed a certificate in Historic Preservation which included additional American architectural history coursework.

From 2020 to 2022, Ms. Lopez participated in a mentorship program under Ms. Virginia Adams who is a Senior Architectural Historian at the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Ms. Adams spent time above and beyond a typical mentorship to ensure Ms. Lopez had a thorough understanding of relevant topics.

Ms. Adams manages architectural history and multi-disciplinary planning and regulatory projects involving historic buildings, structures, landscapes, and archaeological resources for public and private clients throughout the Northeast and California. She received her B.A. and M.A. from Brown University and teaches at The Boston Architectural College in the Master of Historic Preservation program.

Ms. Lopez’s has five years of experience as an Architectural Historian at Cogstone Resource Management. She has completed numerous projects which required extensive research, writing, and evaluation of American architecture primarily in the state of California. Ms. Lopez’s degrees, certifications, and experience both meets and exceeds the minimum requirement of Option 1 for the SOI standards for architectural history. The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) which operates through the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) approves of Ms. Lopez’s qualification and she is currently listed as a principal investigator on the CHRIS Consultant’s List for both History and Architectural History and is also listed as a principal investigator on Cogstone’s Cultural Resources Use Permit (CRUP) from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Ms. Lopez is experienced in Architectural History research and surveys along with photo documentation and recording of built environment resources for local, state, and federal projects. Ms. Lopez is acknowledged as an approved Architectural Historian by Caltrans. She has extensive knowledge with Native American consultation, consultation with city and county historical societies, and analysis of primary and secondary sources. Additionally, she is an approved Reader at the Huntington Library by the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.

Cogstone 44

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Chico Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range Project, City of Chico, Butte County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to identify potential impacts to archaeological and historical resources from the Chico (CIC) Very High Frequency Omni Directional Range (VOR) Project which will require the demolition, removal, and disposal of the CIC VOR building, stairs, stoops, roof mounted antennas, and dome. The building’s foundation including eight concrete pilings, two steel girders, a concrete pull box, a steel distance measuring equipment (DME) pole, and a metal equipment cabinet will also be demolished. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Volpe National Transportation System Center (Volpe Center) provided environmental compliance support for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to meet their obligations for historic properties identification requirements under 36 CFR 800.4 in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) which included Cogstone’s assessment and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility recommendations for the one historic building that was constructed in 1966.

Cogstone’s assessment included a cultural records search from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), an archaeological reconnaissance and built environment survey, and evaluation of one historic building on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 (DPR 523) forms. Cogstone prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment Report documenting the findings of the study. Prime. Architectural Historian. 2021 Priest Valley Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range Project, Priest Valley, Monterey and Fresno Counties, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to identify potential impacts to cultural resources from the Priest Valley (ROM) VOR Project which will consist of the demolition, removal, and disposal of the facility (recorded as the Charley Mountain Radio Facility P-10-007062/P-27-003635). The USDOT Volpe Center provided environmental compliance support for the FAA to meet their obligations for historic properties identification requirements under 36 CFR 800.4 in Section 106 of the NHPA. Cogstone’s assessment was conducted under the BLM CRUP number CA-19-07 and BLM Fieldwork Authorization No.

FWA# CA-19-07-2022-190/01. Cogstone’s assessment included a cultural records search from the CHRIS, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, an intensive pedestrian and built environment survey, and updated the evaluation and site record for one historic facility on DPR 523 forms. Cogstone prepared separate Archaeological and Historical Resources Assessment Reports documenting the findings of the study due to changes in scope during the Project. Prime. Architectural Historian. 2021 Development of Management Plans for Historic Properties at Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris Island, Beaufort County, SC. Cogstone prepared multiple management plans for historic properties located at MCRD Parris Island in order to assist in the day-to-day management of numerous and diverse cultural resources within its installation boundaries including key resources such as the Santa Elena National Historic Landmark, the Mainside Historic District, and four historic African American cemeteries and to fulfill the United States Marine Corp’s Section 110 of the NHPA requirements. Specific deliverables included an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) Update for 2020-2025, Character Defining Features Assessment of Historic Properties, Management and Treatment Plan for Historic Buildings and Structures, and a Determination of Eligibility for Four Historic Cemeteries. The management plans were met with praise from MCRD Parris Island and the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for their usefulness in the day-to-day management of their cultural resources. Deliverables were completed on time and within budget.

All were reviewed and accepted by South Carolina SHPO. Prime. Architectural Historian 2017-2022 Character Defining Features (CDF) Assessment for Contributing Buildings and Structures at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, SC. Cogstone assessed CDFs for contributing resources to the Mainside Historic District and individually eligible historic properties at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. The study was conducted to determine which elements of the buildings and structures of the historic district were CDFs for the elements that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The assessment satisfied Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and will assist the United States Marine Corps with the management of their historic properties. Prime. Architectural Historian. 2017- 2020.

Rhode Island Historical Resource Archive of Melville Naval Historic District and United States Naval Hospital, Newport Historic District, Naval Station Newport, RI. Cogstone completed Rhode Island Cogstone 45
Historical Resources Archive (RIHRA) documentation of the Melville Naval Historic District and the United States Naval Hospital Newport Historic District, at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Newport, Newport, Rhode Island.

Prime. Architectural Historian. 2018
New Cuyama Dump Sites 1, 2, and 3, BLM Bakersfield Office, Santa Barbara County, CA. The Project involved identifying archaeological and historical resources present within three illegal dump sites on BLM land. This study included an assessment of the historic potential of dump refuse and NRHP eligibility recommendations for debris demonstrating affirmative evidence for an age of greater than 45 years. A Class III Cultural Resources survey was conducted and included an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) with no larger than ten-meter-wide transects when used. Smaller transects were used in narrower areas of the APE and during investigations of newly identified archaeological sites and isolates. A total of three historic trash scatters were identified during the survey and a total of four historic isolates were identified. These resources were recorded on DPR 523 forms. No archaeological sites or isolates were identified. No artifacts were collected. Cogstone was able to meet the scheduled deadlines for the Project and completed the work within the budget. The deliverables were accepted by the BLM without revisions. Prime.

Historian. 2020-2021
San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility assessments, and reporting. The project required a Section 408 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work was completed in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation.

Historian. 2020-2021
Well 28 Project, City of Orange, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural, historic built environment, and paleontological resources for the proposed construction of a new well and pumping station. Cogstone conducted records searches, a built environment survey, background research, and prepared a final report supporting the IS/MND. The study was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. The City of Orange acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to EDP Solutions, Inc. Architectural Historian. 2020
Del Mar Heights School Rebuild Project, City of Del Mar, San Diego County, CA. Cogstone conducted a study to determine the eligibility of the built environment resources for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for the proposed demolishment of an existing building. Services included a pedestrian survey, records search, background research, and the preparation of a historical review report. Sub to PlaceWorks. Architectural Historian. 2020
141st and Normandie Townhomes Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone identified and evaluated the potential impacts to cultural, historic built environment, and paleontological resources for the proposed construction of 50 new, three-story townhomes, which will range in size from 1,252 to 1,689 square feet. Services included pedestrian survey, built environment evaluation, records searches, Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, background research, and reporting. The project was completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA with the City of Gardena acting as the lead agency under CEQA. Sub to De Novo Planning. Architectural Historian. 2020
Los Angeles Harbor College, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a study to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historic built environment resources for the proposed demolition, renovation, and construction at the college. Three of the building scheduled for demolition were considered historic in age and required evaluation under CEQA. Cogstone conducted a records search, historical society outreach, a pedestrian survey, and produced a Historic Resources Evaluation Report. Sub to PlaceWorks.

Architectural Historian. 2020
Cogstone 46
737 S. Oxford Ave. Apartments Project, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential effects to cultural, historic built environment, and paleontological resources resulting from the construction of a new seven-story, 92-unit apartment building with a single-level subterranean parking garage. The project area was open ranching and agricultural lands until development began in the early 20th century. By 1918, two single-family homes with detached garages were present on the property with nearly two dozen homes around the project area as well a handful of empty lots. Cogstone conducted a survey, documented the building proposed for demolition within the project area, and prepared a cultural resources assessment. Sub to Private Developer. Architectural Historian. 2018 20000 Skyline Boulevard, Redwood City, San Mateo County, CA. Cogstone conducted a built environment evaluation to assist the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in determining whether selected buildings on one of their properties are historic in age and whether they are eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Cogstone conducted a cultural records search, two intensive level pedestrian surveys, and ultimately determined no mitigation was required due to lack of significance. Prime. Architectural Historian. 2019
3800 W. 6th Street Mixed-Used Development, Koreatown, Los Angeles County, CA. The project proposed to construct a 21-story mixed-use development with two levels of underground parking. Cogstone conducted a paleontological and cultural resources assessment. Tasks included records search, built environment survey, resource recording, and technical report. Conducted built environment survey, recorded building, and conducted viewshed impact analysis. Sub to Gateway Secured Regional Center. Architectural Historian. 2018 Fire Camp 8 Helistop Improvement Project, National Park Service, Los Angeles County, CA. The project involved the construction of a 6-inch diameter, 1,807-foot long water pipe to supply water to three fire hydrants.

The route ran through the historic age Nike Missile site – LA-78 L&A. Cogstone conducted an intensive survey, photographed and recorded the historic features and evaluated the site for its potential eligibility for NRHP eligibility listing in accordance with Section 106 procedures. This was part of an on-call contract with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADPW). Sub to Aspen Environmental Group. Assistant Architectural Historian. 2018

HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORTS
Glassell Street at Palmyra Avenue Traffic Signal Installation Project, City of Orange, Orange County, California.

Prepared for the City of Orange. 2022 In partnership with Ms. Virginia Adams of PAL, Cogstone prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation Report (HRER)for Caltrans District 12 to determine if the installation of a two phase traffic signal, located with the boundaries of the NRHP listed Old Towne Orange Historic District would negatively impact the integrity of the District. Cogstone conducted an intensive site survey, consultation with local historical societies and city agencies, prepared new and updated DPR 523 forms, and drafted a HRER .

Architectural Historian. 2021-2022.

Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the Linbrook Villas Project, City of Anaheim, Orange County, California.

Prepared for the City of Anaheim. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Linbrook Villas Project (Project) had the potential to impact cultural resources located within the project area. Cogstone conducted an intensive pedestrian survey, historical society consultation, intensive archival research, and prepared a cultural assessment report and associated DPR 523 forms. Architectural Historian. 2021.

Historical Resource Assessment for the Santa Ana River Levee Stabilization Project, Riverside County, California.

Prepared for County of Riverside, Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to historical resources during the Santa Ana River Levee Stabilization Project (Project), located in Riverside County and San Bernardino, California. Cogstone surveyes and documented the segment of the levee to be impacted by the project, conducted consultation with local historical societies, museums, and various county agencies. Final deliverables included a Historical Resource assessment report and associated DPR 523 forms. 2021.

Cogstone 47
Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the McBean Park Drive Bridge over Auburn Ravine Bridge Replacement Project, City of Lincoln, Placer County, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 3 and the City of Lincoln. 2021. The project involved the replacement of the existing bridge (Bridge 19C0254) on McBean Park Drive, which was formerly State Route (SR) 193, over the Auburn Ravine. Cogstone conducted records search, built environment survey, resource recording and technical report. Architectural Historian. 2022.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Palmyra Cemetery Project, City of Orange, Orange County, California. Prepared for the City of Orange. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resource assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from the renovation of the existing on-site building and redevelopment of the project area. To meet CEQA compliance Cogstone prepared an onsite survey, historical society consultation, in depth research, prepared a cultural and paleontological assessment report and associated DPR 523 forms. Architectural Historian. 2021.2021
Cultural Resources Assessment for the San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway Projects, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the City of Baldwin Park. 2021. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility assessments, and reporting. The project required a Section 408 permit from the USACE due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work performed complied with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. Architectural Historian. 2020-2021.

Century Villages at Cabrillo, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. This Project involved the demolition of 215 dwelling units, 20,000 square feet of administrative and supportive services, and 10,000 square feet of amenities. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic resources records search, a field visit, evaluation of the historic resources, and produced a built environment report. Conducted research, evaluation and co-author.

Architectural Historian. 2019 –2021
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the 4416 Azusa Canyon Road Project, City of Irwindale, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for the City of Irwindale. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resource assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from the demolition of the existing on-site building and redevelopment of the project area. To meet CEQA compliance Cogstone prepared an onsite survey, historical society consultation, in depth research, prepared a cultural and paleontological assessment report and associated DPR 523 forms. Architectural Historian. 2021.

National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Assessment of Four Historic Cemeteries, Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic Region. Cogstone prepared a management plan for MCRD Parris Island in order to assist in the day-to-day management of the four historic African American cemeteries and to fulfill the United States Marine Corp’s Section 110 of the NHPA requirements. Specific deliverables included an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) Update for 2020-2025. The management plans were met with praise from MCRD Parris Island and the South Carolina State .istoric Preservation Office (SHPO) for their usefulness in the day-today management of their cultural resources. Deliverables were completed on time and within budget. All were reviewed and accepted by South Carolina SHPO. Prime. Architectural Historian. 2017-2022 Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the Faith Home Road/Garner Road Project, Stanislaus County, California. Prepared for Stanislaus County Department of Public Works and Caltrans District 10. 2020.

Cogstone identified and evaluated cultural, paleontological, and historic resources present in or adjacent to the construction of a four-lane one-mile expressway. Cogstone produced an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR), Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR-PER). Services included intensive level pedestrian surveys, mapping, Cogstone 48
records searches, DPR forms, and Native American consultation. Sub to Environmental Intelligence.

Architectural Historian. 2019.

Condition Assessment for 6101 Wilshire Blvd., Miracle Mile District, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2020. On behalf of METRO, Cogstone was approved to reassess the exterior façade of Johnie’s Coffee Shop located on Wilshire Boulevard. The purpose of this assessment was to document the cracks of the current building during construction of the underground subway. Cogstone conducted a thorough site visit and prepared a condition assessment report. Architectural Historian and Monitor. 2018.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Well 28 Project, City of Orange, Orange County, California. Prepared for the City of Orange. 2020. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources for the proposed construction of a new well and pumping station. Cogstone conducted records searches, a built environment survey, background research, and prepared a final report supporting the IS/MND. The study was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. The City of Orange acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to EDP Solutions, Inc. Architectural Historian. 2020.

Built Environment Evaluation of the Community Baptist Church, Montgomery High School B/Fuze 5052688 Project, City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Prepared for Complete Wireless Consulting, Inc. 2018.

Verizon Wireless proposed to install a cell tower and associated equipment located adjacent to two potentially historic buildings. Determined the potential effects to built environmental resources. The evaluation was completed in compliance with CEQA guidelines. Co-author of Built Environment Evaluation, prepared DPR forms. Architectural Historian. 2018.

Updated Crack Propagation Memo for 8423 Wilshire Boulevard, City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2018. On behalf of METRO, Cogstone was approved to reassess the exterior façade of the old Porsche building located on Wilshire Boulevard. The purpose of this reassessment was to document and compare the cracks of the current building during construction of the underground subway with those recorded in a pre-construction survey. Architectural Monitor. 2018.

Cultural Resources Assessment for the Dos Palos Water Treatment Facility, City of Dos Palos, Merced County, California. Prepared for the City of Dos Palos. 2018. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential effects to cultural resources resulting from the proposed development of the Dos Palos Water Treatment Facility, where the Dos Palos’ allotment of water is removed from the California Aqueduct and travels through

17.5 miles of pipeline to the main facility for processing. This project had a federal nexus and required compliance with Section 106 of the Nation Historic Preservation Act. Services included archaeological and historical record searches, Sacred Lands search, pedestrian survey, built environment evaluation of three structures, and the production of a cultural assessment. Sub to QK, Inc. Architectural Historian. 2018

HISTORIC PROPERTY TREATMENT PLANS
Treatment Plan for Four Historic Cemeteries at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina.

Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic Region. Cogstone prepared a management plan for MCRD Parris Island in order to assist in the day-to-day management of the four historic African American cemeteries and to fulfill the United States Marine Corp’s Section 110 of the NHPA requirements.

Specific deliverables included an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) Update for 2020- 2025. The management plans were met with praise from MCRD Parris Island and the South Carolina State .istoric Preservation Office (SHPO) for their usefulness in the day-to-day management of their cultural resources. Deliverables were completed on time and within budget. All were reviewed and accepted by South Carolina SHPO. Prime. Architectural Historian 2017-2022 Maintenance and Treatment Plan for Historic Buildings and Structures at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic Region. Cogstone prepared a management plan for historic properties located at MCRD Parris Island in order to assist in the day- Cogstone 49
to-day management of numerous and diverse cultural resources within its installation boundaries (including the Mainside historic district) in order to fulfill the United States Marine Corp’s Section 110 of the NHPA requirements. Specific deliverables included the Management and Treatment Plan for Historic Buildings and Structures. The management plan was met with praise from MCRD Parris Island and the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for their usefulness in the day-to-day management of their cultural resources. Deliverables were completed on time and within budget. All were reviewed and accepted by South Carolina SHPO. Prime. Architectural Historian 2017-2022.

HISTORIC PROPERTY CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ASSESSMENTS Character Defining Features Assessment Report for the Contributing Buildings and Structures at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, MidAtlantic Region. Cogstone assessed CDFs for contributing resources to the Mainside Historic District and individually eligible historic properties at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. The study was conducted to determine which elements of the buildings and structures of the historic district were CDFs for the elements that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The assessment satisfied Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and will assist the United States Marine Corps with the management of their historic properties. Prime. Architectural Historian. 2017-2020.

HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY FORMS
U.S. Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island Melville Naval Historic District, Portsmouth, Newport County, Rhode Island Fueling Pier 40. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic Region. 2018. This purpose of this project is to produce Rhode Island Historical Resources Archive (RIHRA) documentation of the Melville Naval Historic District, at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Newport, Newport, Rhode Island. Conducted research, form contributor, and assistant Architectural Historian. 2018.

U.S. Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island U.S. Naval Hospital Newport Historic District Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island Main Hospital. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic Region. 2018. This purpose of this project is to produce Rhode Island Historical Resources Archive (RIHRA) documentation of the U.S. Naval Hospital Newport Historic District, at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Newport, Newport, Rhode Island. Conducted research, form contributor, and assistant Architectural Historian. 2018.

PUBLICATIONS
Welebaethan-CSUF
The Welebaethan: A Journal of History is published by undergraduate and graduate scholars in the Department of History at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF). It is also the official journal of CSUF’s Theta-Pi Chapter (established 1962) of Phi Alpha Theta (History Honor Society).

In 2018, the Welebaethan published an article by Shannon Lopez titled “The Legacy of the Zanjas”. Ms. Lopez combined and interpreted various primary and secondary sources regarding the history and importance of the first water systems of the City of Los Angeles. The methodology of this piece analyzed the relevance of these systems through the framework of California history, local history and culture, economics, as well as Supreme Court legislation regarding water rights of Southern California. The goal was to connect the importance of these water systems to the growth and development of Los Angeles as a national and international city.

Cogstone 50

LOGAN FREEBERG
GIS Supervisor

EDUCATION
2018 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Certificate, California State University, Fullerton 2003 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Freeberg has over 19 years of experience in cultural resource management and has extensive experience in field surveying, data recovery, monitoring, and excavation of archaeological and paleontological resources associated with land development projects in the private and public sectors. He has conducted all phases of archaeological work, including fieldwork, laboratory analysis, research, and reporting. Mr. Freeberg also has a strong grounding in conventional field and laboratory methods and is skilled in the use of ArcGIS.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Morro Bay Water Facility, City of Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County, CA. The City of Morro Bay has proposed to construct a new water reclamation facility. Federal funding for the project requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), along with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal lead and the City is the state lead agency, with permitting by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the State Water Resources Control Board. Cogstone conducted Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) trainings for all construction personnel, cultural and paleontological resources monitoring, and completed a Cultural Resources Monitoring Compliance Report upon completion of construction. Sub to Filanc Black & Veatch Joint Venture. GIS Supervisor. 2020-2021 Bell Gardens Water Reservoir Project, City of Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during improvements which included a new two-million-gallon reservoir, booster pump station, well to be drilled, and other components. Services included record searches, Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and an intensive-pedestrian survey of the 1.7-acre project area. Sub to Infrastructure Engineers. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020 Santiago Canyon Estates Fuel Mod Project, unincorporated Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential for surface cultural resources for compliance with Orange County Fire Authority’s Precise Fuel Modification Plan for zones of the Santiago Canyon Estates Community. Services included a cultural resources records search, SLF search from the NAHC, and a reconnaissance survey. Sub to Fire Safe Council East Orange County Canyons. GIS Supervisor. 2020 State Route 108/Highway 49 and Mackey Ranch Road Intersection Improvements Project, Caltrans District 10, Tuolumne County, CA. The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California (Tribe), in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposed to replace an intersection and convert to a roundabout designed to accommodate forecasted future traffic volumes and provide an alternative access route to the Chicken Ranch Rancheria. Cogstone completed an intensive-level pedestrian survey, CHRIS records search, SLF search from the NAHC, Native American consultation, consulted with local history societies and preservation groups, and produced a Historical Resources Compliance Report and Archaeological Survey Report. Sub to Foothill Associates. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020 Fresno West Area Specific Plan, City of Fresno, Fresno County, CA. The objective of this study was to review and summarize available information regarding known paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources within the boundaries of the City of Fresno’s West Area Specific Plan. The purpose of the West Area Specific Plan is to implement and refine the City’s vision for the West Area in order to guide future growth and development in the most northwest area of the City. Cogstone’s services included record searches, mapping, and extensive background research. Sub to De Novo Planning. GIS Supervisor. 2019 Cogstone 51
APPENDIX B. HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION
Cogstone 52
Cogstone 53
Cogstone 54
Cogstone 55
Cogstone 56
Cogstone 57
Cogstone 58
Cogstone 59
APPENDIX C. CITY OF LONG BEACH: CHAPTER 2.63 CULTURAL

HERITAGE COMMISSION
Cogstone 60
Cogstone 61
Cogstone 62
Cogstone 63
Cogstone 64
Cogstone 65
Cogstone 66
Cogstone 67
Cogstone 68
Cogstone 69
APPENDIX D. DPRS
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 19 ends

P1. Other Identifier:

P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
a. County: Los Angeles
b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Los Alamitos Date: 1981 T; R; NE of SE of Sec; M.D.B.M. c. Address: 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway City: Long Beach Zip: 90803 d. UTM: Zone: mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN: 7237-020-051
P3a. Description:

This one-story restaurant is part of Marketplace Long Beach (6401-6605 E. Pacific Coast Hwy), an outdoor shopping plaza that consists of various restaurants, shops, a movie theater, and health services. Built in late 1977-early 1978, this building was constructed in a style that draws heavily from both the Mission Revival style (most popular in California from 1890-1920), the Spanish Revival style (1915-1940), and Modern Style. Elements of this combination of styles include the widely overhanging open eaves, red tile roof, stucco wall cladding, asymmetrical façade, and dramatic front door and door surrounds (more typical of the Spanish Revival style).

The footprint of this building is irregular but generally follows a rectangular shape. The main body of this building is one story with a two-story tower centered in the middle of the southwest façade. The rooflines consist of a mixture of gabled, shed, and flat roofs with the flat (more modern-styled) roofline relegated to the middle and back of the building. The gable and shed-styled roofs are clad with red clay tapered mission tiles. Unusual for Mission or Spanish Revival styles but seen with other El Torito locations, the tiles are double or triple-stacked and fixed to each other with thick layers of a combination of mortar and caulking. This gives the roofline a very rough and disheveled appearance, possibly an attempt to give the building the feeling of a much older structure. The exposed wood rafter tails are painted reddish brown and cut in a curved pattern; the features exhibit substantial signs of material decay. See Continuation Sheet.

P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

Front (southwest) façade, facing
northeast, taken March 2, 2023
P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources:
Historic Prehistoric Both
Ca. 1977/1978 (The Los Angeles
Times 1978)
P7. Owner and Address:

CBRE
P8. Recorded by:

Shannon Lopez; Cogstone Resource
Management; 1518 W. Taft Ave.,
Orange, CA 92865
P9. Date Recorded: March 2, 2023
P10. Survey Type: Intensive pedestrian survey
P11. Report Citation: Historic Built Environment Evaluation For The Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Use Project, City Of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Mariana Zimmermann, PlaceWorks. Prepared by Cogstone Resource Management.

Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information

Page 2 of 19 ends

B1. Historic Name: None
B2. Common Name: El Torito
B3. Original Use: Restaurant
B4. Present Use: Vacant
*B5. Architectural Style: Combination Mission Revival style and Spanish Revival style influences *B6. Construction History:

A review of historic newspaper articles and USDA historic aerials indicates this building was constructed in late 1977-early 1978. An advertisement for employment opportunities published in the Los Angeles Times infers both the opening of the restaurant in 1978 and the building’s consistent occupation by the same business (El Torito) until its closure in 2017. A comparison of a 1980 USDA Aerial to current aerials (provided by Google Maps 2023) shows little to no notable alterations in the building’s footprint.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Not known b. Builder: Not known
*B10. Significance: None Theme: Commercial Development Area: Long Beach, CA Period of Significance: 1978-2017 Property Type: Restaurant Applicable Criteria: None Criteria A/1 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria A
Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history?
By the time this restaurant was officially opened in 1978, over 20 additional El Torito locations were in operation within the United States. The context of this location within the overall history of the franchise is in the middling period of the company’s height of success. This location was constructed decades after the early founding of El Torito and it did not contribute to the early expansion of the company. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) under Criterion A or the CRHR under Criterion 1 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion A.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: None.
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks: None.
*B14. Evaluator: Shannon Lopez
*Date of Evaluation:

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information

Page 3 of 19 ends

Map Name: Los Alamitos *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1981 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 4 of 19 ends

BUILDING DESCRIPTION CONTINUED
The exterior of all elevations is clad in stucco. Historically, Mission Revival and Spanish Revival wall surfaces are clad with smooth (or lightly textured) stucco containing smaller aggregate particles. This building’s stucco cladding, however, has a coarse aggregate combined with a more sweeping troweling pattern, giving it a rough textured look.

The main entrance is located at the southwest façade of the two-story tower. Typical of the Spanish Revival style is the more elaborate door and door surrounds which, for this building, include stylized wood-paneled double doors with multi-paned glass panels organized in a pattern reminiscent of the mission-shaped parapet. A decorative wood panel matching the color and style of the double doors is immediately overhead this entrance. Two matching concrete pilasters flank both sides of the doors. These pilasters are clad in plaster, textured, and painted to imitate carved stone blocks (the crumbling plaster at the base of the pilasters reveals the concrete beneath). These faux stone pilasters support a short plastered balcony. A decorative wood paneled false door with a faux stone lintel overhead is at the second story of this tower. The door is flanked by two matching pilasters supporting an ornamental projection designed to imitate the mission’s arched parapet; these features are assumed to be painted or plaster covered concrete. The roofing at the top of the tower is gabled and clad with red Spanish-styled tiles. The exposed rafter tails show notable signs of decay.

Secondary doors intended for staff and emergency exits are located at the northwest and southeast elevations. Two of these doors are wood paneled and the third is flush steel.

BACKGROUND HISTORY

BRIEF HISTORY OF EL TORITO
In 1954, Larry J. Cano (1924-2014) purchased an old Polynesian restaurant in the City of Encino and converted it into a sit-down Mexican restaurant. At the time, Mexican food in the United States was not considered mainstream and, according to a former El Torito chief executive, there was no such thing as casual Mexican dining (Woo 2014). Mr. Cano served as an Air Force captain during the World War and the Korean War.

After his military service, Mr. Cano earned his business degree from USC. He planned to continue his education by attending law school but his summer job as a bartender at the Bali Hali sent him down a new path. Following the death of the owner, Mr. Cano and his wife purchased the restaurant and converted the Polynesian theme to a sit-down Mexican eatery. The first few months were a struggle for the Canos and their restaurant, however, El Torito’s famed fajitas, margaritas, table-side-made guacamole, and staff dressed as charros helped to launch the business into a nationwide chain(Woo 2014). The success of El Torito was such that by the end of the decade additional locations were opened in Hollywood and Toluca Lake. Considered a dining experience, El Torito drew customers from all walks of life including movie stars such as Lana Turner, John Wayne, Gregory Peck, and Michael Jackson (Woo 2014).

El Torito rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1978, Mr. Cano sold his chain of 22 restaurants to W.R. Grace & Co. (later sold to Restaurant Enterprises Group in 1986), however, he remained as company president for ten years.

During his period as president, El Torito expanded across the United States from 22 to 190 locations with annual sales by 1987 exceeding $425 million (Woo 2014). In 1988, Mr. Cano stepped down as company president.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 5 of 19 ends

Over the following decade, the franchise began its gradual decline. The business was purchased in 1994 by Koo Koo Roo Enterprises (originally Foodmaker and finally renamed to Prandium Inc. in 1999). By 1999, the chain included 101 locations with a total sales of $221 million (Reuters 2000). In 2000, due to substantial debt, Prandium Inc. sold all but six of its El Torito locations to the Long Beach-based Acapulco Acquisition Corp. At the time of the sale, 18 El Torito restaurants were located in Orange County and the company headquarters was based in Irvine, California (Hernandez 2000).

NRHP/CRHR EVALUATION CONTINUED
Criteria B/2 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria B
Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons in our past? This building was constructed in 1977/1978 and while the El Torito franchise is associated with respected restauranteur and businessman Larry J. Cano, this location was not associated with Mr. Cano’s early years of business development or any significant event in his life. In addition, this restaurant is not associated with any other person or persons considered significant to national, state, or local history. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or the CRHR under Criterion 2 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion B.

Criteria C/3 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria C
Does this resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction? This building is a combination of multiple architectural styles including Mission Revival, Spanish Revival, and some Modern style elements. This building was designed by the El Torito parent company and intended to exude an idealized corporate imagining of a Spanish Mission/ Mexican Revival aesthetic. While an interesting design, this building is not a true representation of any of the architectural styles used in its design nor does it reflect the material, techniques, or workmanship typically associated with those styles. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion C.

Criteria D/4 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria D
Has this building yielded or is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory?
Criteria D/4 is most often applied to archaeological sites and districts but can also apply to buildings, structures, and/or objects. This building does not exhibit a local variation of a standard design or construction technique that can yield important information (such as construction expertise or availability of local materials). Due to a lack of significance, this resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D or the CRHR under Criterion 4 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion D.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 6 of 19 ends

SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS CONT.

Survey Photo Key
1 2-4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 7 of 19 ends

1. Front entrance (southwest façade), facing northeast.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 8 of 19 ends

2. Exposed concrete and painted stucco layers of pilaster flanking the main entrance.

3. False door and balcony immediately overhead main entrance at southwest façade.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 9 of 19 ends

4. Wood-paneled main entrance door and faux stone pilasters.

5. Overview of northwest elevation, facing southeast.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 10 of 19 ends

6. Close up of fenestration at the southern half of façade, double chimneys at northeast corner.

7. Oblique elbow and secondary entrance, northern end of the building.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 11 of 19 ends

8. Projecting unit at the rear of the building (northeast elevation), facing south.

9. Projecting unit at the rear of the building (northeast elevation), facing northwest.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 12 of 19 ends

10. Overview of southeast elevation, facing northwest.

11. Western end of southeast elevation, facing northwest.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 13 of 19 ends

Marketplace Long Beach: area highlighted in pink at the southeast corner of E.2nd Street and E. Pacific Coast Highway (map courtesy of the USGS Historic Map Explorer).

El Torito
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 14 of 19 ends

Founder of the El Torito chain, Larry J. Cano (photo by John Gilhooly; Woo 2014).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 15 of 19 ends

Employment opportunity advertisement (The Los Angeles Times 1978). Note: The façade depicted on this advertisement does not reflect the original design of 6605 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 16 of 19 ends

1989 Event Advertisement (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1989) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 17 of 19 ends

Announcement for sale of El Torito by Prandium Inc. to Advantica Restaurant Group. (The Los Angeles Times 2000).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 18 of 19 ends

1980 USDA aerial photograph of 6605 E. Pacific Coast Hwy (FrameFinder 1980).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 19 of 19 ends

REFERENCES
FrameFinder
1980 “Flight AMI_OC_80, Frame 9924”. UCSB Library. Available at:
https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed: March 2, 2023.

Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News, The
1989 “Action Travel”. The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News (Seal Beach, California). Published:

Thursday, June 1, 1989. Page 29. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/836151098. Accessed:

February 24, 2023.

Hernandez, Greg
2000 “Acapulco Chain Owner to Buy El Torito”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published:

Wednesday, March 29, 2000. Page 145. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/161480882.

Accessed: February 24, 2023.

Los Angeles Times, The
1978 “Come and Grow with Us”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, July 23, 1978.

Page 536 ends

2000 “Acapulco Chain Owner to Buy El Torito”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published:

Wednesday, March 29, 2000. Page 145. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/161480882.

Accessed: February 24, 2023.

Reuters
2000 “Company News; Prandium Plans to Sell El Torito Chain of Restaurants”. The New York Times. Published:

March 29, 2000. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/29/business/company-news-prandium-plans-to-sell-el-torito-chain-of-restau rants.html. Accessed: March 14, 2023.

Woo, Elaine
2014 “Larry J. Cano dies at 90; founder of El Torito restaurants”. The Los Angeles Times. Online article. Published:

December 16, 2014. Available at:
https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-larry-cano-20141217-story.html. Accessed: March 14, 2023.

XPERIENCE Restaurant Group
2023 “Company”. Available at: https://www.xperiencerg.com/company/. Accessed: March 14, 2023.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 6Z
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 19 ends

P1. Other Identifier:

P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
a. County: Los Angeles
b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Los Alamitos Date: 1981 T5S;R12W; NE of Sec11; M.D.B.M. c. Address: 6615-6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway City: Long Beach Zip: 90803 d. UTM: Zone: mN
e. Other Locational Data: APNs: 7237-020-040, 7237-020-041, and 7237-020-050.

P3a. Description:

The Long Beach Marketplace Office Park is comprised of three similarly designed two-story commercial buildings: 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979), 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980), and 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1983). All three buildings are designed in the Modern Style with Shed style elements (common period of Shed style construction was between ca. 1965-1990). For the purpose of this study only 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway were documented and evaluated for potential eligibility for listing at the national and state level.

P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial buildings P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo: Aerial view of
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 E.

Pacific Coast Highway.

P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
Historic Prehistoric Both
1979, 1980, and 1983
P7. Owner and Address:

P8. Recorded by:

Shannon Lopez; Cogstone Resource
Management; 1518 W. Taft Ave., Orange, CA
92865
P9. Date Recorded: March 2, 2023
P10. Survey Type: Intensive pedestrian
survey
P11. Report Citation: Historic Built
Environment Evaluation For The Long Beach
Market Place Mixed-Use Project, City Of Long
Beach, Los Angeles County, California.

Prepared for Mariana Zimmermann,
PlaceWorks. Prepared by Cogstone Resource
Management.

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information

Page 2 of 19 ends

B1. Historic Name: None
B2. Common Name: Marketplace Office Park; Long Beach Marketplace Business Park; 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway B3. Original Use: Multi-Tenant Office building
B4. Present Use: Multi-Tenant Office building
*B5. Architectural Style: Modern Style with Shed style elements *B6. Construction History:

APN: 7237-020-050. Built in 1979 (Los Angeles County Assessors n.d. 2023), this two-story, multi-tenant, commercial building is a commercial example of Modern Style with Shed style elements designed around a central courtyard. 6615 E.

Pacific Coast Highway is one of three buildings that make up the office park. A review of 1979 building plans originally refers to the project at the “Marketplace Office Park” and list Charles Kober Associates as the architectural firm, however, it is not clear who the lead architect is. The plans also list the initials of multiple contributing draftsmen (J.C., S.O., T.K.

J.M.C., and B.D). In 1983, Charles Kober Associates merged with its affiliate Gale, Hornberger & Worstell (headquarters in San Francisco;The Los Angeles Times 1983). At the time of the merger, Charles Kober Associates was in business for over 40 years, maintaining eight U.S.-based offices (including one London office) and 200 employees. The firm’s notable projects included the Glendale Galeria, Plaza Pasadena, Bellevue Square (in Seattle), the German and China Pavilions at EPCOT Center (Orlando, Florida), Kilroy Airport Center, and the Wilshire Thayer high-rise condominium (Westwood, CA). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Charles Kober Associates b. Builder: Not known *B10. Significance: None Theme: Commercial Development Area: Long Beach, CA Period of Significance: 1979-present Property Type: 2-story commercial building Applicable Criteria: None Criteria A/1 and Criteria B/2 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria A and B Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history?
Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons in our past? This building was designed to function as a multi-tenant office building and has maintained its function for over 40 years. A search of various advertisements, newspaper articles, and local business listings show this location is associated with recognizable company names such as Merrill Lynch and Century 21, however, this location represented only branch offices of these companies and were not associated with either their establishment or significant development. In light of this research, this building is not associated with events or individuals significant to history. Therefore, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A or B or the CRHR under Criteria 1 or 2, or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criteria A or B.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: None.
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks: None.
*B14. Evaluator: Shannon Lopez
*Date of Evaluation: March 3, 2023
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information

Page 3 of 19 ends

B1. Historic Name: None
B2. Common Name: Marketplace Office Park; Long Beach Marketplace Business Park; 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway B3. Original Use: Multi-Tenant Office building
B4. Present Use: Multi-Tenant Office building
*B5. Architectural Style: Modern Style with Shed style elements *B6. Construction History:

APN: 7237-020-041. Built in 1980 (Los Angeles County Assessors n.d. 2023), this two story, multi-tenant, commercial building is commercial example of Modern Style with Shed style elements designed around a central courtyard. 6621 E.

Pacific Coast Highway is one of three buildings which make up the b. A 1979 Building Permit lists the associated architect as the Charles Kober Associates firm (City of Long Beach 1979, “Building permit…”). The only notable alteration to the footprint of the building since its initial construction is the 1981 addition of a large projecting canopy at the southeast elevation (currently the main entrance to Keller Williams Coastal Properties). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Charles Kober Associates b. Builder: Not known *B10. Significance: None Theme: Commercial Development Area: Long Beach, CA Period of Significance: 1980-present Property Type: 2-story commercial building Applicable Criteria: None Criteria A/1 and Criteria B/2 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria A and B Is this resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history? Is this resource associated with the lives of significant persons in our past? This building was designed to function as a multi-tenant office building and has maintained its function for over 40 years. A search of various advertisements, newspaper articles, and local business listings show this location is associated with recognizable names such as the U.S. Census Bureau, Conroy’s Flowers, and 1-800-Flowers, however, this location represented branch offices of these entities/companies (some short term) and were not associated with either their establishment or significant development. In light of this research, this building is not associated with events or individuals significant to history. Therefore, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway is recommended not eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A or B or the CRHR under Criteria 1 or 2 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criteria A or B.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: None.
*B12. References: See Continuation Sheet.

B13. Remarks: None.
*B14. Evaluator: Shannon Lopez
*Date of Evaluation: March 3, 2023
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information

Page 4 of 19 ends

Page 5 of 19 ends

BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS:
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway very closely matches the footprint, design, and materials of the neighboring office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway. This commercial building is two stories, with a rectangular shaped footprint, textured stucco exterior wall cladding, and a large open-air atrium set in the center of the footprint. The roofline is comprised of six sheet metal clad skillion roofs (four large primary- rectangular in shape; two small secondary- square in shape). The second story level projects over the first story by approximately two to three feet. Wide corrugated metal sheets that simulate a broken belt course are situated between the first and second story windows in large sections of all elevations.

Matching material is found just below the eave level (gutters) on the majority of all elevations, forming a projecting fascia.

The majority of windows at the second story level are recessed and alternate in sets of two and four sliding windows (frames appear to be steel).

Entrances are located at the western and eastern corners of the building. The primary entrance at the building’s western corner consists of one set of double glass doors which are accompanied by side and transom lights (steel frames). A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and seven feet long, with a steel safety railing is immediately above this entrance.

An exterior single-paneled door with a floor vent leading into a small electrical room is adjacent to the first floor entrance.

This electrical room is part of a semi-detached unit that partially cuts away from the main body of the building. This unit’s skillion roof is set several feet lower than the neighboring roof lines and has two square fixed windows at the second-story level. In addition to the electrical room, this unit also encloses a storage room and staircase that connect the first and second floors. An ADA-compliant ramp and entrance are at the southwest-facing side of this semi-detached unit. The corresponding door is glass with a transom window and a two-pane sidelight. A short balcony, approximately one foot by three feet, with a steel safety railing is located directly above this entrance.

A similar semi-detached two-story segment which encloses both men's and women’s bathroom facilities is at the eastern corner of the building. Two separate entrances are situated between this unit and the main body of the building. The main entrance (facing southeast) consists of a pair of double doors accompanied by sidelights and a transom light. A short balcony, approximately two feet deep by ten feet long, is above this entrance. Access is provided via a sliding glass door with associated sidelights. Two sets of double glass doors are at the northeast-facing section between the semi-detached building segment and the main body of the building. A narrow balcony, approximately two feet deep and fifteen feet long, is above this entrance. Access to this balcony is provided by two sets of sliding glass doors (set between these glass doors is a single utility room door).

Matching large wrap-around balcony areas are at the north and south corners of the building. Two large windows and a steel-framed glass door are at the northern balcony level. Two large sliding glass doors and one large two-paned glass window are at the southern balcony level.
6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway
6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway very closely matches the footprint, design, and materials of the neighboring office building at 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway. This commercial building is two stories, with a rectangular shaped footprint, textured stucco exterior wall cladding, and a large open-air atrium set in the center of the footprint. The roofline is comprised of six sheet metal clad skillion roofs (four large primary- rectangular in shape; two small secondary- square in shape). The second story level projects over the first story by approximately two to three feet. Wide corrugated metal sheets that simulate a broken belt course are situated between the first and second story windows in large sections of all elevations.

Matching material is found just below the eave level (gutters) on the majority of all elevations, forming a projecting fascia.

The majority of windows at the second story level are recessed and alternate in sets of two and four sliding windows (frames appear to be steel).

There are four primary entrance points to this building, two at the northwest corner of the building, one at the southeast elevation, and the fourth at the northern end of the southeast elevation. A semi-detached unit that partially cuts away from the main body of the building is at the northwest corner of the building. This unit’s skillion roof is set several feet lower than the neighboring roof lines and has two square fixed windows at the second-story level. The two entrances located at this end of the building are in the recessed areas between the semi-detached unit and the main body of the building. One entrance facing northwest is comprised of a set of steel-framed double glass doors with sidelights and transom windows. A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and seven feet long, with a steel safety railing is immediately above this entrance. Two matching wheelchair-accessible steel-framed glass double doors are at the southwest corner of the State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 6 of 19 ends

building. A balcony area approximately three feet deep and 18 feet long is directly overhead. Two steel-framed sliding glass doors and a single panel with a floor vent door leading to a small storage closet are on the balcony level.

A projecting canopy constructed in 1981 is at the southeast elevation of the building. This canopy has a sloped metal sheet roof and is supported by two rectangular stucco-clad pillars. The entrance consists of steel-framed glass double doors.

Large ground-to-ceiling rectangular two-paned windows are on both sides of these double doors. Another semi-detached unit that partially cuts away from the main body of the building is at the southeast corner. A set of steel-framed glass double doors is in the recessed area at the southeast end of the building. An exterior single-paneled door with a floor vent leading into a small electrical room is adjacent to the first-floor entrance. A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and seven feet long, with a steel safety railing is immediately above this entrance. A single steel framed glass door (secondary entrance) is at the northwest-facing side of this semi-detached unit. A short balcony, approximately three feet deep and six feet long, with a steel safety railing is directly above this entrance.

HISTORY OF OCCUPATION
As multi-tenant office buildings, multiple businesses have occupied both 6615 and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway throughout the buildings’ period of use. Types of business include (but are not limited to): stock brokerage firms, real estate firms, wealth management, health services, international shipping companies, and domestic manufacturing offices. A representative sampling of businesses associated with each building is provided below. The length of each company’s tenancy at its respective location is not provided.
6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway
• 1980: Wagenseller and Durst, Inc. (Regional stock brokerage firm) (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1980)
• 1981: Merrill Lynch (an American investment and wealth management company) (The Los Angeles Times 1981) • 1994: CoastCo Real Estate (The Los Angeles Times 1994) • 2001: Century 21 Sparrow-Shoreline (lending, escrow, notary, legal, and insurance services) (The Los Angeles Times 2001)
• 2017: MJB Plastics, Inc.
• 2017: British American Shipping, LLC.
• 2017: DayWellness Chiropractic
• 2018: Caliber Home Loans
• 2021: Alliance Shippers, Inc./ Alliance International 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway
• 1981: Van de Kamp’s Frozen Foods (The Los Angeles Times 1981, p 260.) • 1982: Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Incorporated (Broker and Investment Adviser) (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1982)
• 1989: Gregg Whelan-Associate Vice President/Investments (The Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News 1989)
• 1989: U.S. Census Bureau (The Los Angeles Times 1989) • 1992: Conroy’s Flowers (Florist) (The Los Angeles Times 1992) • 1994: 1-800-Flowers (Florist) (The Los Angeles Times 1994, p. 84) • 2005: The Long Beach Escrow Assn. (The Los Angeles Times, 2005) • 2018: Main St. Financial
• 2018: Keller Williams Realty-Coastal Properties
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 7 of 19 ends

BUILDING EVALUATION CONT.
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Criteria C/3 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria C
Does this resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction? This two-story commercial building is an example of the Modern Style with Shed style elements. The build range of Shed style throughout the United States was between ca. 1965-1990. The overall exterior condition of the building is well maintained, however 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of a distinctive type, period, or method of construction. The associated architectural firm which designed this building was Charles Kober Associates.

While the firm undertook multiple distinguished architectural projects, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of their work. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion C.

Criteria D/4 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria D
Has this building yielded or is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory? Criterion D/4 is most often applied to archaeological sites and districts but can also apply to buildings, structures, and/or objects. This building does not exhibit a local variation of a standard design or construction technique that can yield important information (such as construction expertise or availability of local materials). Due to a lack of significance, this resource is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D or the CRHR under Criterion 4 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion D. 6621 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Criteria C/3 and City of Long Beach Local Criteria C
Does this resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction? This 2-story commercial building is an example of the Modern Style with Shed style elements. The build range of Shed style throughout the United States was between ca. 1965-1990. The overall exterior condition of the building is well maintained, however 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of a distinctive type, period, or method of construction. The associated architectural firm which designed this building was Charles Kober Associates.

While the firm undertook multiple distinguished architectural projects, 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway is not an exemplary representation of their work. Therefore, this building is recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or the CRHR under Criterion 3 or for listing as a Landmark or contributor of a Landmark District under Local Criterion C.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 8 of 19 ends

REFERENCES
FrameFinder
1980 “Flight AMI_OC_80, Frame 9924”. Photograph taken: February 9, 1980. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Copy available at: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 1994 “Flight NAPP_2C, Frame 6858-112”. Photograph taken: May 31, 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Copy available at: https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed: February 24, 2023.

Golden Rain Seal Beach Leisure World News, The
1980 “Brokerage Firm Opens New Long Beach Office.” Published: Thursday, November 13, 1980. Page 11.

Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/836147982. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 1982 “Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards Incorporated”. Published: Thursday, January 14, 1982. Page 15. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/836146553. Accessed: February 23, 2023. 1989 No title. Published: Thursday, April 6, 1989. Page 6. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/836150587. Accessed: February 24, 2023.

Los Angeles County Assessors
n.d. “AIN: 7237-020-041”. Available at: https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/7237020041. Accessed:

February 23, 2023.
n.d “AIN: 7237-020-050”. Available at: https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/7237020041. Accessed:

February 23, 2023.

Los Angeles Times, The
1981 “Purchasing Secretary”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, February 8, 1981. Page 260. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/387621492. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 1981 “Beat the April 15th deadline to save on 1980 income taxes”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

Published: Sunday, April 12, 1981. Page 104. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/387164627.

Accessed: February 23, 2023.
1983 “Kober Associates, Gale Firm Merge”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, April 3, 1983. Page 116. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/633630715. Accessed: March 17, 2023.
1989 “Census Bureau Recruits Workers for Next Year’s National Survey”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Thursday, May 4, 1989. Page 56. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/405394917. Accessed: February 24, 2023. 1992 “Our Business is Really Blossoming”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, July 12, 1992. Page 10. Accessed: February 23, 2023.
1994 “People in Real Estate: CoastCo Real Estate opens office at the Marketplace in Long Beach.” The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, July 24, 1994. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/159924109. Accessed: February 23, 2023. 2001 “People in Real Estate”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, April 15, 2001.

Page 112 ends

1994 “National Marketing Promotions Director”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published:

Monday, November 14, 1994. Page 84. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/159155788.

Accessed: February 24, 2023.
2005 “Escrow education”. The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). Published: Sunday, June 5, 2005. Page 221. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/image/192844565. Accessed: February 23, 2023.

Provided by City of Long Beach, CA
1979 “6621 PCH Bldy #6”. Scanned copy of hand-drawn building location map. 1979 “Building Permit for 6621 E. Pacific Coast Hwy”. Dated July 19, 1979. 1985 “First Floor Construction Plan”. The Marketplace Office Park Bldg 1A. Date: 2-22-1985. Published: July 16, 1986.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 9 of 19 ends

SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS CONT.

Survey photo key for 6615 E. Pacific Coast highway
1 2
3 4
5 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 10 of 19 ends

6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway

1. Southern end of southwest façade (facing northest).

2. Overview of Southwest façade (facing west).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 11 of 19 ends

3. Overview of northwest façade (facing southeast).

4. Oblique view of northeast elevation (left) and northwest elevation (right), facing south.

5. Oblique view southeast elevation (left) and northwest elevation (right) of facing west.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 12 of 19 ends

6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway
Survey Photograph Key for 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway 1 2
3 4
5 6
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 13 of 19 ends

1. Overview of 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway, facing northeast.

2. Southeast elevation, facing northwest.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 14 of 19 ends

3. Southern half of northeast elevation, facing southeast.

4. Balcony at northern end of northeast elevation
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 15 of 19 ends

5. Northwest elevation, facing northeast.

6. Overview of northwest elevation (left) and southwest elevation (right), facing east.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 16 of 19 ends

1980 USDA Aerial photograph of 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (Frame Finder 1980).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 17 of 19 ends

1994 USDA aerial photograph of 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (red) and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (blue).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 18 of 19 ends

First Floor Construction Plan for 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (provided by City of Long Beach 1985).

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
DPR 523L (9/2013) *Required information

Page 19 of 19 ends

Hand drawn building location map for 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (provided by City of Long Beach 1979).

MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
July 2023
Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation Report
MARKETPLACE MIXED - USE PROJECT AT 6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKETPLACE PROJECT
6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway
Long Beach, CA
Prepared for

CP VI MARKETPLACE, LLC
707 17th Street, Suite 3050
Denver, CO 80202
Prepared by
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
370 Amapola Avenue, Suite 212
Torrance, California 90501
Group Delta Project No. LA-1583
September 30, 2022
370 Amapola Avenue, Suite 212, Torrance, CA 90501 TEL: (310) 320-5100 Anaheim – Irvine – Ontario – San Diego – Torrance
www.GroupDelta.com
CP VI MARKETPLACE, LLC September 30, 2022
707 17th Street, Suite 3050 Project No. LA1583
Denver, CO 80202
Attention: Mr. Joe Pink
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project
6615, 6621, and 6695 E Pacific Coast Highway
Long Beach, California
Dear Mr. Pink,
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) is pleased to submit this design-level geotechnical investigation and report for the proposed development of the subject site comprised of lots located at 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach, California. This report presents our project understanding, the scope of work performed, our findings, and geotechnical recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

Pirooz Kashighandi, Ph.D., G.E. Asheesh Pradhan, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Engineer Project Engineer
Distribution: Addressee (1 electronic copy)
GE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Site History ............................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................1

1.3 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................2

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION................................................................................... 2

2.1 Previous Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing .............................................2

2.2 Current Field Investigation ....................................................................................3

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Surface Conditions.................................................................................................3

3.2 Subsurface Materials.............................................................................................4

3.3 Groundwater .........................................................................................................4

4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION ........................................................... 5

4.1 Geologic Setting.....................................................................................................5

4.2 Regional Seismicity................................................................................................5

4.3 Surface Fault Rupture............................................................................................6

4.4 Seismic Site Parameters ........................................................................................6

4.5 Liquefaction Potential ...........................................................................................6

4.1 Lateral Spreading and Slope Stability ....................................................................7

4.2 Flooding.................................................................................................................8

4.3 Methane, Oil, and Gas ...........................................................................................8

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 9

5.1 General..................................................................................................................9

5.2 Demolition.............................................................................................................9

5.3 Removals ...............................................................................................................9

5.4 Excavations............................................................................................................9

5.4.1 Temporary Excavations............................................................................10

5.4.2 Temporary Cantilevered Shoring .............................................................11

5.5 Earthwork and Grading........................................................................................11

5.5.1 Subgrade Preparation..............................................................................11

5.5.2 Import Fill ................................................................................................12

5.5.3 Grading Recommendations .....................................................................12

5.6 Deep (Pile) Foundation Recommendations .........................................................13

5.6.1 Axial Pile Capacity....................................................................................14

5.6.2 Settlement ...............................................................................................15

5.6.3 Lateral Pile Capacity.................................................................................15

5.7 Shallow Foundation Recommendations ..............................................................16

5.7.1 Bearing Capacity ......................................................................................16

5.7.2 Settlement ...............................................................................................17

5.7.3 Lateral Capacity .......................................................................................17

5.8 Retaining Walls....................................................................................................17

5.8.1 Earth Pressures........................................................................................17

5.8.2 Retaining Wall Backfill .............................................................................18

5.8.3 Retaining Wall Drainage ..........................................................................18 Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page ii
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

5.9 Slab-on-Grade (Courtyard Area)..........................................................................18

5.10 Fill Settlement and Preloading.............................................................................19

5.10.1 Fill Settlement..........................................................................................19

5.10.2 Preloading................................................................................................19

5.10.3 Settlement Monitoring ............................................................................20

5.11 Methane Control System.....................................................................................20

5.12 Future Landfill Settlement and Periodic Maintenance ........................................20

5.13 Infiltration Potential ............................................................................................20

5.14 Site Drainage .......................................................................................................20

5.15 Utility Trenches ...................................................................................................21

5.16 Expansive Soil ......................................................................................................21

5.17 Soil Corrosivity.....................................................................................................22

6.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................. 22

7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 23

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters Table 2 Summary of Liquefaction-Induced Settlement
Table 3-1 Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis for Single Pile (Static Loading) Table 3-2 Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis for Single Pile in a 2-Row Pile Group (Static Loading) Table 4 Summary of Soil Expansion Index (Previous Laboratory Testing)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial View Map
Figure 3 Exploration Location Map
Figure 4A Cross Section A-A’
Figure 4B Cross Section B-B’
Figure 4C Cross Section C-C’
Figure 5 Historically Highest Groundwater Map
Figure 6 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 7 Regional Fault and Seismicity Map
Figure 8 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map Figure 9 Site-Specific Design Earthquake and MCER Spectrum Figure 10 24-Inch Diameter Driven Pile Static Allowable Axial Capacities Figure 11 24-Inch Diameter Driven Pile Seismic Ultimate Axial Capacities Figure 12 24-Inch Diameter (Displacement and Non-Displacement) Pile Static Allowable Axial Capacities
Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page iii
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Figure 13 24-Inch Diameter (Displacement and Non-Displacement) Pile Seismic Ultimate Axial Capacities
Figure 14 18-Inch Diameter Driven Pile Static Allowable Axial Capacities Figure 15 18-Inch Diameter Driven Pile Seismic Ultimate Axial Capacities Figure 16 18-Inch Diameter (Displacement and Non-Displacement) Pile Static Allowable Axial Capacities
Figure 17 18-Inch Diameter (Displacement and Non-Displacement) Pile Seismic Ultimate Axial Capacities
Figure 18 Recommended Area for Preloading
Figure 19 Preloading Fill Height and Time for 90 % Settlement

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Previous Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing Appendix B Current Field Investigation
Appendix C Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Analysis
Appendix D Pile Lateral Capacity Analysis

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKETPLACE PROJECT
6615, 6621, AND 6695 EAST PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) is pleased to submit this design-level report presenting our findings and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project comprised of lots located at 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway in Long Beach, California. The project location is shown in the vicinity map in Figure 1.

1.1 Site History
Until the mid-1920 the project site and vicinity were undeveloped wetlands. In 1928 there were 2 oil wells reported on the property. The oil wells were no longer visible by 1964. Between the mid-1960 and early 1961, the eastern portion of the site was used as a landfill. Trash was placed to a depth of up to about 30 feet. During the landfill operation, the trash was dumped from trucks and pushed into trenches excavated by dragline.

An aerial view of the site is shown in Figure 2. The site boundaries and approximate location of the landfill are also indicated. There are three existing 2-story buildings, labeled as Buildings 1, 2, and 3. As we understand, the development of the site began in 1979 and the first two buildings, Buildings 1 and 3, were constructed by 1980. Building 2 is believed to have been constructed by 1983.

1.2 Project Description
The project site comprises about 5.5 acres and is bounded on the west by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the south by Studebaker Road. The San Gabriel River channel is located about 500 feet to the south. The site is currently developed with three two-story office buildings; two located along PCH and one located along the east edge. An asphalt paved parking lot is located within the center of the site and additional parking areas are located around the perimeter of the existing buildings.

As discussed earlier, the eastern portion of the site was previously used as a landfill between the mid-1960 and early 1961. An aerial view of the site is shown in Figure 2. The site boundaries and approximate location of the landfill are also indicated.

Based on the preliminary information provided by you, and the available conceptual plans, we understand that the plan is to demolish two of the existing buildings at 6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway and to redevelop the site with two 5-story mixed-use buildings over the existing site surrounding a new at-grade 5-story concrete parking garage located in the center of the site.

The parking structure may consist of a subterranean level within a portion of its footprint. The project is in the planning phase currently.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 2
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Group Delta prepared a Geotechnical Assessment Report for the property in October 2002, which included a review of several geotechnical investigations and environmental reports prepared by others. A due diligence report was also prepared by Group Delta in 2017 following a limited geotechnical investigation at the project site. This is a design-level geotechnical report for the proposed development. Figure 2 shows the approximate project limits based on the current conceptual plans for the proposed development.

1.3 Scope of Work
The scope of work was to supplement previous geotechnical data with a supplementary geotechnical investigation and prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation report. The scope of work included the following.

Review of available reports and data for the site.

Perform a supplementary subsurface exploration including Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) to supplement the subsurface data, obtain shear wave velocity measurements of the subsurface soils, and estimate the potential limits of the landfill.

Perform site-specific response spectra in accordance with the requirement for ASCE 7-16 for seismic design for new structures, based on site-specific shear wave velocity measurements.

Use the geotechnical data to develop geotechnical design recommendations, including updated seismic design parameters, updated liquefaction, and lateral spreading analyses, updated axial and lateral capacities of the pile foundations, site grading recommendations, and pavement design recommendations.

Prepare a design-level geotechnical report presenting the data collected, and our findings, and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project.

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

2.1 Previous Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing Previous Field Investigation by Group Delta
Group Delta performed a field investigation at the site on April 8, 2017, as a part of a due diligence assessment for the project. The field exploration program consisted of advancing six (6) CPT (cone penetration test) soundings at the locations shown in the exploration map in Figure 3. The CPTs were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 65 feet to 93 feet below the existing grade.

CPTs were terminated at depths where refusal to further penetration was reached. No laboratory testing was performed during this investigation. The CPT logs are presented in Appendix A.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 3
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Previous Field Investigation by others
Moore and Taber performed a geotechnical investigation at the project site in 1979 for Building 3, and 1982 and 1983 for Building 2. The field investigation consisted of advancing a hollow stem auger (HSA) boring to the depths of about 51 feet. Soil samples were retrieved from the borings and laboratory testing was performed on the soil samples. The boring logs and the laboratory testing results from the investigation are presented in Appendix A.

In addition, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared in 2016 by SCS Engineers. A Draft Existing Methane Mitigation and Monitoring Systems Site Evaluation Report was prepared in 2002 by Methane Specialists for the project site.

2.2 Current Field Investigation
Group Delta performed a field investigation program at the site on September 6, 2022. The field investigation program consisted of advancing four (4) CPT soundings to depths ranging from about 50 feet to 96 feet below the existing grade, or refusal. Shear wave velocity measurements were performed at a 5-feet depth interval in two of the CPTs. The locations of the explorations are shown in Figure 3. Details of the field investigation, including CPT logs and seismic shear wave velocity measurements are presented in Appendix B.

Hand auger borings were advanced to the depth of 5 feet at each CPT location for visual identification and collection of bulk soil samples of the shallow subsurface soils for laboratory testing. However, no laboratory testing was performed on the bulk soil due to the presence of hydrocarbon odor in the collected soil samples.

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 Surface Conditions
The site is currently developed with three two-story office buildings; two located along PCH and one located along the east edge of the site. An asphalt paved at-grade parking lot is located within the center of the site and additional parking areas are located around the perimeter of the existing buildings. Several landscape areas, trees, and utility poles exist throughout the site. The site is relatively flat with surface elevations varying from approximately 10 feet to 13 feet above mean sea level.

The asphalt paved at-grade parking lot area between the buildings on the east side and west side shows significant surface undulations visually estimated to be about a few inches to up to 2 feet with longitudinal cracks.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 4
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

3.2 Subsurface Materials
The subsurface soil profile for the site is presented in Figures 4A through 4C. The subsurface soil profile was developed based on the subsurface investigation data available from the following sources.
x Current field investigation performed by Group Delta in 2022. x Previous field investigation performed by Group Delta in 2017. x Previous field investigations performed by Moore and Taber in 1979, 1982, and 1983. x The information available from SCS Engineering’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (SCS, 2016).

As discussed in the earlier sections and shown in Figures 2 and 3, the eastern portion of the site consists of landfill material. The depth contour of the landfill (SCS Engineers, 2016) is shown in the figures and the maximum depth of the landfill extends to about 30 feet at the approximate central region of the project site.

Outside of the landfill area on the western portion of the project site, non-trash fill material extends from the depth of about 4.5 feet to 14.5 feet. The fill soils generally consisted of silty sand, sandy silt, and silty clayey sand with trace to few gravels and debris.

Below the fill soils, alluvium was encountered in the previous borings. The alluvium consisted of a relatively compressible layer of interbedded layers of clayey silt and silty clay with intermittent layers of medium dense silty sand to the depth of 20 feet. This layer is underlain by interbedded medium dense silty sand interbedded with stiff clays and silts to the approximated depth of 50 feet (approximate El. -40 feet). Below 50 feet depth, the soil is dense to very dense sandy soil with occasional clayey interbeds.

3.3 Groundwater
Based on the current field investigation and previous field investigation data, groundwater is approximately 10 feet (Elevation 0 feet) below the existing grade and could vary between Elevation 0 feet and 3 feet above mean sea level. The Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Alamitos and Seal Beach (CDMG, 1998) also indicates the historically highest shallow groundwater at the depth of about 10 feet at the project site as shown in Figure 5. The design groundwater depth was taken at 10 feet below the existing grade.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 5
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION

4.1 Geologic Setting
Regionally, the site is located within the seismically active Los Angeles Basin area of southern California Peninsula Ranges Geomorphic Province. The transtensional stresses and subsidence between north-west and east-west trending fault systems began forming the basin over 7 million years ago (Wright, 1991). Today, the basin is undergoing transpresssional stress bound by surrounding uplifting thrust blocks including the Palos Verdes fault system locally (Dolan, 1995).

Internally, the basin is filled with sedimentation thousands of feet thick. Thrusting fault blocks and strike-slip faults divide the basin into northwest-trending valleys and ridges (Wright, 1991).

Locally, the site is situated within the coastal margin of the Los Angeles Basin. It is bound on the east by the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone which locally divides the Long Beach flood plain. The San Gabriel River outlets to the Pacific Ocean southwest of the site and the Alameda Bay marina and channels are to the west. Surficial deposition is largely flood and deltaic debris transported by the river. Today the river is controlled within a lined channel that flows southwest and artificial fill materials blanket the site. Pleistocene marine sediments underlie the site at depth. The location of the site with respect to the geological features described above is presented in the Regional Geology Map in Figure 6.

4.2 Regional Seismicity
The site is located within the seismically active area of southern California and there is a high potential for the site to experience strong ground shaking from local and regional faults. These hazards and their potential impact can be mitigated with proper seismic design. The intensity of ground shaking is highly dependent upon the distance of the fault to the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the underlying soil conditions. Data evaluated for the local fault and seismic hazard at the site was obtained from USGS online earthquake catalog and Quaternary Fault Database resources unless otherwise noted. The site in relation to regional seismic faults and significant historical earthquake epicenters is presented in Figure 7 in Regional Fault and Seismicity Map.

Local historical earthquakes recorded within a 100-km radius of the site from 1800 to the present include 144 recorded events with M4.5 or greater. Of the 144 events, twelve were M6.0 and greater and include the 1933 M6.4 Newport-Inglewood Earthquake and the 1994 M6.7 Northridge Earthquake. Forty-three recorded events were M5.0 to M6.0 earthquakes. While not within the search radius, earthquakes of M7.0 and greater have been recorded in southern California. A M7.5 earthquake occurred in 1952 located about 95 miles north of the site and a M7.3 earthquake in 1992 was located about 100 miles east of the site. Construction in this area should be designed with accepted engineering practices and in compliance with current building codes that accommodate strong seismic ground motion.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 6
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

4.3 Surface Fault Rupture
Based on the review of available published geologic maps there are no mapped active faults that cross through or project toward the site. The closest active fault to the site is the Newport Inglewood Fault at a distance of about 900 feet northeast of the site, as shown in Figure 7. An Alquist-Priolo Zone was identified for this fault as shown in the earthquake zones of required investigation map in Figure 8. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of ground surface fault rupture at the site is considered low.

4.4 Seismic Site Parameters
Site-specific shear wave velocity measurements from the CPTs (SCPT-2 and SCPT-3) from the current field investigation were used to estimate the shear wave velocity within the upper 30 meters (Vs,30) at the site. The shear wave velocity measurement is provided in Appendix B. The site shear wave velocity was estimated at 210 m/s (689 feet/s) at the site, corresponding to a Site Class D.

A site-specific acceleration response spectrum was calculated in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Chapter 21 using UGMS MCER Tool available online from Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC, 2022). The site coordinates used in our seismic hazard analysis are -118.1066 (Longitude) and 34.7550 (Latitude). The summary of the Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters Design Parameters Seismic Design Parameters
(ASCE 7-16 Chapter 20)
Site Class D
SDS (g) 1.280
SD1 (g) 1.198
PGAM (g) 0.692
The site-specific design earthquake spectra and the site-specific MCER spectra are presented in Figure 9.

4.5 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a saturated, cohesionless soil (predominantly sand) caused by the build-up of pore water pressure during cyclic loadings, such as that produced by an earthquake. This increase in pore water pressure can temporarily transform the soil into a fluid mass, resulting in a vertical settlement, and can also cause lateral ground deformations.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 7
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Typically, liquefaction occurs in areas where there are loose sands and the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet from the surface. Seismic shaking can also cause soil compaction and ground settlement without liquefaction occurring, including the settlement of dry sands above the water table.

The site is located in the state-identified liquefaction zone based on the earthquake zones of the required investigation map for the Los Alamitos and Seal Beach Quadrangle as shown in Figure

8. The liquefaction analysis was performed using NCEER (Youd et al. 2001) procedure for the sitespecific PGAM of 0.7g and design groundwater depth of 10 feet. Our analyses indicate that liquefaction-induced settlement up to 2.1 inches may occur during a seismic event, however, liquefaction-induced settlement is generally less than 1 inch in most areas of the site. More significantly liquefiable layers were identified to the depth of about 30 feet below grade. The summary of liquefaction-induced settlement is presented in Table 2 below and the analysis and plots are presented in Appendix C.

Table 2: Summary of Liquefaction-Induced Settlement
Exploration Number (Year) Liquefaction-induced Settlement (in) CPT-02 (2017) 0.7
CPT-03 (2017) 1.5
CPT-04A (2017) 0.6
CPT-05 (2017) 1.0
CPT-06 (2017) 1.2
CPT-13 (2017) 0.9
CPT-1 (2022) 0.7
SCPT-2 (2022) 0.8
SCPT-3 (2022) 0.8
CPT-4 (2012) 2.1

4.1 Lateral Spreading and Slope Stability
Lateral spreading is characterized primarily by lateral movement of surficial soil layers of gently to steeply sloping saturated soil deposits because of the liquefaction of a subsurface granular deposit and in areas adjacent to an open source of water. The site is relatively leveled, and the nearest open source of water is the San Gabriel River about 500 feet southwest.

Therefore, minimal liquefaction-induced lateral spreading was calculated based on the CPT results. The lateral spreading was estimated using the computer program CLiq which uses Zhang Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 8
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
et al. (2002) procedure for assessment of lateral spreading. The liquefaction-induced lateral spreading at the site was calculated to be in the range of 0.3 inches to 3.2 inches using all CPT results, with an estimated average value of 1.4 inches for the project site. The plots for lateral spreading (displacement) are also presented in Appendix C.

The site and surrounding vicinity are relatively level. There are no mapped landslides or potential earthquake-induced landslide slopes at the site. The potential for landslide hazards at the site is negligible. The proposed development may require some excavation up to 10 feet in depth. With proper engineered shoring and/or laying back of cut slopes, the potential hazard of slope instability at the site is low.

4.2 Flooding
The site is situated within a low-lying coastal plain area at an elevation ranging from 10 feet to 13 feet and less than a mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The closest large body of water is the San Gabriel River located about 500 feet south of the site. Alamitos Bay is located about 800 feet west of the site.

The site is within a FEMA-identified moderate flood hazard zone, with a 0.2% annual chance of flood. It is within a potential tsunami inundation zone and dam inundation zone. Tsunami events are historically infrequent and typically associated with significant offshore seismic events. Dam inundation is also a historically infrequent event, associated with catastrophic dam failure.

However, the Long Beach Seismic Safety Element (City of Long Beach, 1988) considers these potential hazards to be low.

4.3 Methane, Oil, and Gas
The site is located with the Seal Beach Oil Field according to the Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources, District 1 Field Map 132. An abandoned landfill is located underneath the eastern portion of the site. We understand existing buildings are under observation and maintenance of ambient methane abatement by a methane specialist (SCS Engineers, 2016). The potential for methane and natural oil or gas at the site is considered high. A methane specialist will need to address the hazard potential for new development at the site and provide detailed recommendations regarding the City of Long Beach approved methane mitigation system in the final design of the proposed development.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 9
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General
Based on the findings and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, and the proposed mixed-use building and the parking structure may be supported on deep (pile) foundations and structural slabs supported on the piles.

Minor at-grade and lightly loaded structures (such as canopies, planter walls, and minor retaining walls) that are structurally isolated from the main structure may be supported on shallow footings following proper grading recommendations and notes provided in the following sections. Exterior Slab-on-grade for courtyard areas and hardscapes may be supported on properly compacted fill.

5.2 Demolition
Prior to the start of earthwork, demolition will be required to remove existing two buildings along the PCH. The existing Building 1 on the northwest side is supported on driven, 12-inch square, pre-cast concrete piles, and grade beams. The piles are 47 feet to 60 feet long. We understand that these existing pile foundations will be abandoned in place and cut off at the top as necessary to avoid conflict with the proposed foundation layout and structural slab. The existing Building 2 is supported on shallow footings. In addition, demolition will be required for the existing abovegrade utility poles, shrubs and trees, planter areas, and at-grade improvements such as pavements, curbs, hardscapes, and bollards. Any void created from the demolition should be properly backfilled to the limits determined by the project geotechnical engineer.

The site has several subsurface utilities such as electrical and communication, gas, water, sewer, and storm drain lines. The civil engineer should identify the presence and location of all existing utilities on and adjacent to the site. Precautions will be required to remove, relocate or protect any existing utilities, as appropriate.

5.3 Removals
The existing asphalt pavement and hardscapes will need to be removed before placing fill for raising the finished grade. Remnants of previous shallow foundations for the demolished structures will need to be removed in the areas of proposed slab-on-grade and hardscapes.

5.4 Excavations
Shallow excavation up to a maximum depth of about 10 feet below grade is anticipated for the project. Based on our investigation and the expected depth of excavations, we anticipate the excavations to be made in generally sandy materials and should be readily accomplished using Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 10
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
conventional heavy construction equipment. The sandy soils on site are generally classified as CAL/OSHA Type C soils.

If the excavation is exposed during periods of rainfall, provisions for collection of the runoff should be made. All surface drainage should be controlled and prevented from running down into the excavation. Ponding water should not be allowed within the excavation. In case clayey soil is exposed, any collected water should be pumped out. Soils softened by wetting should be removed and backfilled as directed by the geotechnical engineer.

All excavation slopes and shoring systems should meet the minimum requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Standards. Maintaining safe and stable slopes on excavations is the responsibility of the contractor and will depend on the nature of the soils and groundwater conditions encountered and his method of excavation. Excavations during construction should be carried out in such a manner that failure or ground movement will not occur. The short-term stability of excavation depends on many factors, including slope angle, engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials, height of the excavation, and length of time the excavation remains unsupported and exposed to equipment vibrations, rainfall, and desiccation. The contractor should perform any additional studies deemed necessary to supplement the information contained in this report for the purpose of planning and executing their excavation plan. Recommendations regarding sloped temporary excavations are provided in the sections below.

5.4.1 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavation slopes in the near-surface sandy soils may be made vertical for cuts of less than two (2) feet with some sloughing to be expected. Cuts higher than two (2) feet may be constructed at an angle of 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical ratio), or flatter. If sloping of the side slopes is not feasible due to a lack of spaces, shoring should be used.

Surcharge loads from equipment or stockpiled material should be kept behind the top of the temporary excavations at a horizontal distance of at least equal to the depth of the excavation.

Surface drainage should be controlled and prevented from running down the slope face. Ponding water should not be allowed within the excavation. Even with the implementation of the above recommendations, some sloughing of slopes and unstable soil zones may still occur within temporary excavations, and workmen should be adequately protected. Construction equipment and foot traffic should be kept off excavation slopes to minimize disturbance/sloughing.

Groundwater - Permanent groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during excavation to a maximum excavation depth of 10 feet, however nuisance water may be encountered due to capillary rise. If water is encountered in the excavation, it is anticipated that it can be controlled using shallow trenches, sumps, and pumps.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 11
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

5.4.2 Temporary Cantilevered Shoring
Cantilevered shoring may be used for excavation depths up to about 12 feet to 15 feet. For the design of cantilever shoring, an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid unit weight of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for level ground. If traffic loading can occur near the top of the shoring (i.e., within a lateral distance equal to the maximum height of the temporary shoring), an additional uniform lateral pressure of 120 pounds per square foot (psf) of vehicular traffic load should be added in the upper 10 feet of shoring. In addition, 35 percent of any other surcharge loads located adjacent to the shoring (i.e., within a lateral distance equal to the maximum height of the temporary shoring) should be included as a uniform rectangular loading over the height of the shoring. If an existing footing or other concentrated load is nearby, additional lateral pressure will be applied to the shoring. The magnitude and distribution of this additional pressure can be calculated when the nature and location of such loadings are known.

Resistance to lateral loading of the shoring piles may be provided by passive pressure of the native soils below the bottom of the excavation. The allowable passive pressure of the soils may be taken as the pressure developed from an equivalent fluid weight of 150 pcf, due to shallow groundwater conditions. To account for the rounded shape of the soldier piles, when calculating the passive pressure on individual piles, the equivalent fluid pressure may be multiplied by a factor of 2.

If the shoring will be used for the construction of a basement, the temporary shoring should be constructed with a geo-composite strip drain against the lagging. These drains will function as long-term drainage behind the basement walls. The drains should be tied into a pipe and sump system at the lowest basement level so the collected drainage can be pumped out to an appropriate outlet.

During construction, the shoring should be surveyed for any movement, until permanent walls are completed. Survey data should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer.

5.5 Earthwork and Grading

5.5.1 Subgrade Preparation
The bottom of the excavation should be checked and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. If soft or wet soils are exposed, over-excavation may be required to provide a firm subgrade to support construction equipment and compaction activities. All removals should be performed at the direction of the project geotechnical engineer.

Lean concrete slurry (often referred to as a “waste slab”) may be used to protect the exposed subgrade. The lean concrete slurry may be poured directly on the exposed firm subgrade, approximately 2 inches to 4 inches in thickness, to assist in preventing the clay soil from becoming Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 12
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
destabilized during construction activities before the concrete foundations are poured. If the lean concrete slurry is used, it should be poured on top of firm, competent native soils shortly after the excavation is exposed. Prior to placing the waste slab and the non-expansive fill, the subgrade soils should be moistened to prevent drying up.

5.5.2 Import Fill
The elevation of the project site is proposed to be raised in anticipation of future sea level rise.

The proposed finished floors are at an elevation of about 14.5 feet. This requires raising the grade in different areas of the site from about 2 feet in the northern portion to about 4.5 feet in the southern portion.

If imported soils are used as fill, the soils shall be free of vegetation organic materials, expansive clay, debris, or rocks greater than 3 inches in any dimension, and shall be approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Imported soils shall have an expansion index of less than 50 and a plasticity index of less than 15.

5.5.3 Grading Recommendations
All grading should conform to the City of Long Beach requirements, and the general grading recommendations outlined below.

1. The grading contractor is responsible for notifying the project geotechnical engineer of a pregrading meeting prior to the start of grading operations and anytime that the operations are resumed after an interruption.

2. Prior to the start of earthwork, existing improvements will require demolition. Existing utilities should be removed, relocated, or protected, as appropriate.

3. At the subgrade level, any loose or soft soils should be removed and recompacted, as directed by the project geotechnical engineer. The actual limits for removals should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer depending on the actual conditions encountered.

4. The bottom of the completed excavation should be observed and evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer, as it is proof rolled with heavy equipment. Any loose or unstable soils should be over-excavated to the limits determined by the project geotechnical engineer.

5. All fill and backfill should be placed in maximum 8-inch lifts, moisture conditioned to the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 13
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

6. If the construction is performed during the rainy season, the spoil pile should be covered and protected from becoming wet. During construction, provisions should be made to prevent surface runoff from draining into the excavation.

7. All earthwork and grading should be performed under the observation of the project geotechnical engineer, including approval of the bottom of excavations, foundation excavations, and placement of fill and backfill.

8. Compaction testing of the fill soils shall be performed at the discretion of the project geotechnical engineer. Testing should be performed for approximately every 2 feet in fill thickness or 2,000 cubic yards of fill placed, whichever occurs first. If specified compaction is not achieved, additional compaction effort, moisture conditioning, and/or removal and recompaction of the fill soils will be required.

9. If in the opinion of the project geotechnical engineer, contractor, or owner, an unsafe condition is created or encountered during grading, all work in the area shall be stopped until measures can be taken to mitigate the unsafe condition. An unsafe condition shall be considered any condition that creates a danger to workers, on-site structures, on-site construction, or any off-site properties or persons.

10. All materials used for asphalt, concrete, and base shall conform to the "Green Book" and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.

5.6 Deep (Pile) Foundation Recommendations
The proposed buildings and the parking structure should be supported on pile foundations and structural slabs.

Both driven piles and a combination of auger-cast displacement (ACD) and auger-cast nondisplacement piles (hybrid piles) may be utilized in supporting the proposed structures. These piles were selected due to environmental concerns associated with retrieving landfill materials from the drilled holes, as well as the presence of shallow groundwater.

The abovementioned pile types each pose their constructability challenges, as well.

The contents of the landfill material, if large debris is present, could create challenges for the drivability of driven piles. Furthermore, due to the presence of dense to very dense sandy soils at an approximate depth of 50 feet below grade, longer driven piles may encounter drivability issues within the denser soils at depths greater than 50 feet. In such cases predrilling with augers smaller than (or equal to) two-thirds of the diameter of the driven piles may facilitate pile driving of the longer driven piles.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 14
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
For the auger-cast hybrid piles, displacing denser soils (at depths greater than about 50 feet below grade) is not feasible. Therefore, both the installation method and pile capacities assume non-displacement pile construction at depths greater than 50 feet below grade. Additionally, the use of non-displacement pile construction (i.e. using a continuous flight auger at depths more than 50 feet) will result in additional soil spoils which may be mixed with retrieved landfill materials and should be disposed of in accordance with all appropriate environmental disposal requirements.

Pile foundation recommendations for the buildings are provided below.

5.6.1 Axial Pile Capacity
The static allowable axial capacities and seismic ultimate axial capacities for single piles, or piles within groups with a minimum center-to-center spacing of 3 pile diameters, were estimated for the following types of piles.
x 24-Inch diameter driven piles
x 18-Inch diameter driven piles
x 24-Inch diameter augercast displacement (ACD) piles to the depth of 50 feet over nondisplacement augercast (CFA) piles below the depth of 50 feet. x 18-Inch diameter augercast displacement (ACD) piles to the depth of 50 feet over nondisplacement augercast (CFA) piles below the depth of 50 feet.

The static allowable axial capacity of the piles ignores the capacity from the upper 20 feet of soil due to the potential settlement of landfill materials and native clay and assumes the skin friction resistance from the upper 20 feet of soil as downdrag load. The downdrag load reported on the figures should be added to the service level structural loads (dead plus live) to determine the pile length under static loading. The static allowable axial capacities utilize factors of safety of 2, and 3, for skin friction resistance, and end bearing respectively.

The seismic ultimate axial capacity of the piles should be used to determine the controlling pile length under ultimate factored structural loads. Fill and native soil materials in the upper 30 feet have been assumed to impose a downdrag load on the proposed piles due to long-term soil compression and earthquake-induced settlement. The downdrag load reported on the figures should be added to the factored structural loads to determine the pile length under seismic loading.

The axial capacities of the piles are presented in Figures 10 through 17 assuming a pile cut-off elevation of 12 feet.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 15
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Please note that if proprietary auger-cast (hybrid) piles are selected, a static axial pile load testing program (typically 2 test piles) should be completed prior to the installation of production piles to verify the capacities and obtain approvals. Furthermore, Low Strain Integrity Tests should typically be performed on 10 percent of the production piles.

We recommend the piles be installed after substantial completion of the settlement caused by raising the grades within the building pads, as discussed in Section 5.11.2.

5.6.2 Settlement
We estimate the settlement of the pile foundation to be less than ½ inch. The differential settlement between adjacent columns is expected to be ¼ inch or less.

5.6.3 Lateral Pile Capacity
The lateral capacities for the 24-Inch diameter and 18-Inch diameter single piles were estimated for static load conditions and seismic load conditions for both free-head and fixed-head conditions. The lateral capacities were estimated using the computer program LPILE 2019. The shear force and bending moments for the static loading conditions for a single pile are summarized in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1: Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis for Single Pile Pile
Diameter
(inches)
Boundary
Condition
Pile Head
Deflection
(inch)
Maximum
Shear (kips)
Maximum
Moment (ftkip)
Depth to
Maximum
Moment (ft)
24-Inch
Free
Head

0.5 42 145 6

1.0 63 248 7
Fixed
Head

0.5 93 389 0

1.0 145 665 0
18-Inch
Free
Head

0.5 23 71 5

1.0 35 125 5
Fixed
Head

0.5 56 193 0

1.0 89 339 0
Lateral pile capacity analysis was performed for a single pile in a group with a maximum of two (2) rows of piles assuming center-to-center spacing between piles as three times the diameter (3D, where D is the diameter of the pile) of the pile. Appropriate lateral capacity reduction factor was accounted for in the analysis and the shear force and bending moments for the static loading conditions are summarized in Table 3-2 below.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 16
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Table 3-2: Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis for Single Pile in a 2-Row Pile Group = Pile Center-to-Center Spacing of 3D
Pile
Diameter
(inches)
Boundary
Condition
Pile Head
Deflection
(inch)
Maximum
Shear (kips)
Maximum
Moment (ftkip)
Depth to
Maximum
Moment (ft)
24-Inch
Free
Head

0.5 31 121 7

1.0 47 207 7
Fixed
Head

0.5 69 321 0

1.0 108 548 0
18-Inch
Free
Head

0.5 17 59 5

1.0 26 107 6
Fixed
Head

0.5 42 162 0

1.0 67 284 0
To evaluate the extreme internal shear and internal moments within the pile, cases with a lateral spreading displacement of 1.4 inches (i.e. soil movement of 1.4 inches) applied in phase and out of phase with structural demands were also considered. The internal shear and moments should be considered in the structural design of the piles under seismic loading, as well. The lateral capacity analysis plots for the static and seismic loading conditions for single piles and single piles in a two-row pile group are presented in Appendix D.

5.7 Shallow Foundation Recommendations

5.7.1 Bearing Capacity
Following proper site grading, minor at-grade and lightly loaded structures (such as canopies, planter walls, and minor retaining walls) that are structurally isolated from the main building structures may be supported on shallow footings carried at least 1½ foot into the lowest adjacent grade or floor level. The footings may be designed to impose a net dead-plus-live load pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for temporary loads associated with wind and seismic loading.

The project geotechnical engineer should perform compaction tests, probing, or use other methods, to verify that the foundations are supported in competent soils. If disturbed, wet, or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered, or if water saturates the soils, the soils shall be excavated or stabilized as recommended by the project geotechnical engineer.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 17
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
All foundation excavations should be checked by the project geotechnical engineer before the placement of reinforcing steel. Any loose or soft soils should be excavated and recompacted with structural fill. The limits for the excavation should be determined by the geotechnical engineer.

5.7.2 Settlement
The total settlement of properly designed shallow foundations is estimated to be less than 1 inch.

The differential settlement is estimated to be less than ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

5.7.3 Lateral Capacity
Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction developed between the bottom of footings and the supporting soil, and by the passive soil pressure developed on the face of the footing.

For design purposes, an allowable passive fluid pressure of 300 pcf (above the water table) and a coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used for lateral sliding resistance of footings. A one-third increase in the passive value can be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

5.8 Retaining Walls

5.8.1 Earth Pressures
Cantilever retaining walls, which are free to move laterally at least ½ inch, may be designed using equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf for level backfill, and 55 pcf for ground sloping up at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical).

Buried or basement walls with a level backfill should be designed for at-rest pressure of 60 pcf.

The pressure values assume a triangle distribution and that proper drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. If the walls are to be designed for hydrostatic pressures, the equivalent lateral fluid pressures should be increased to 90 pcf below the design depth of the water.

The finish ground surface behind the top of the wall should be graded to drain away from the back of the wall.

If traffic loading can occur near the top of the wall, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf of vehicular traffic load should be added in the upper 10 feet of shoring.

According to Section 1803.5.12 of the CBC 2019, for structures assigned to the Seismic Design Category of D through F, walls 6 feet or greater in height should be designed for seismic loading.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 18
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
The magnitude of the seismic pressure can be evaluated using the procedures developed by Mononobe-Okabe (Seed and Whitman, 1970).

For this project, the effective ground surface acceleration is 0.23g, corresponding to one-half of аŽĨƚŚĞW'M. Based on this acceleration, we recommend using equivalent fluid pressure of 10 pcf with a triangular distribution. It should be noted that the seismic earth pressures are additive to the active earth pressures specified for permanent static support of the retention system walls.

The resultant seismic pressure should be applied at a height of 1/3 times the wall height above the base of the wall.

5.8.2 Retaining Wall Backfill
We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with non-expansive soils. A 2-ft thick cap consisting of less previous onsite materials should be used to minimize infiltration of surface water. The finished surface should be graded to drain away from the proposed structures. Heavy compaction equipment operating adjacent to retaining walls can cause excessively high lateral soil pressures to be exerted on the wall. Therefore, soils within 5 feet of the wall should either be compacted with hand-operated equipment or designed to withstand compaction pressure from heavy equipment.

5.8.3 Retaining Wall Drainage
Retaining walls should be constructed with a properly designed drainage system to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. This may consist of a geocomposite drain board or 12 inches of clean crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric, discharging to weep holes or drain pipes. Basement walls or walls with architectural facades or coverings should be properly waterproofed to minimize moisture transmission through the walls.

5.9 Slab-on-Grade (Courtyard Area)
The exterior slab on grade for the courtyard area may be supported on a properly compacted subgrade. A methane barrier/venting system and nuisance water drainage system should be installed under the slabs, as designed by a methane consultant. The methane/drainage system will reduce the potential for moisture transmission through the slab. The final design of the methane mitigation and subgrade protection system will be the responsibility of the methane consultant. The geotechnical aspects of the design should be reviewed by Group Delta before incorporation into the final building plans.

A sub-foundation drainage system should be designed to collect and discharge any nuisance water that may enter the gravel portion of the methane collection system. Based on our experience with other similar projects, gravel layers that make up a methane mitigation system have been observed to become accidental collectors of infiltrated surface water from sources such as irrigation and rain waters.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 19
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Expansion joints should be provided between the courtyard slab and the structural slab supported on the piles. The unit vertical modulus of subgrade reaction for the slab-on-grade may be taken as 60 pounds per cubic inch and the size adjusted modulus of subgrade reaction may be taken as 15 pounds per cubic inch.

5.10 Fill Settlement and Preloading

5.10.1 Fill Settlement
The elevation of the project site is proposed to be raised in anticipation of future sea level rise.

In the southeastern portion of the site, due to the presence of trash fill, and compressible natural clayey soils to a depth of about 20 feet below grade, raising the grade by a few feet is anticipated to cause substantial static settlements. The static settlement (elastic and consolidation) of the raised grades by 4.5 feet is estimated to be about 4 inches. The primary consolidation (90 percent consolidation) settlement is anticipated to be completed in approximately 6 months.

In the western portion of the site where the area is outside the landfill area and the northern portion where the depth of the landfill is shallow, the static settlements due to elastic and compression settlement due to 2 feet of the surcharge are estimated to be less than 1 inch. The primary consolidation (90 percent consolidation) settlement in these areas is anticipated to be completed in approximately 1.5 months.

5.10.2 Preloading
Piles should be installed after a minimum of 90 percent of the settlement due to raising the grades has been completed, in order to minimize any potential downdrag loads due to the raised grades. Primary consolidation of subsurface soils is anticipated to be completed in approximately 6 months with the 4.5 feet of surcharge in the southern portion and about 1.5 months with 2 feet of surcharge in the western and northern portions of the site. Therefore, preloading is recommended to be performed for the southeastern portion of the project site as shown in Figure 18 to expedite expected settlements due to the raised grades of the project.

Preloading the area by placing additional fill heights may reduce the time for substantial completion of consolidation settlement. A relation between the preloading fill height and the time to achieve 90 percent of the settlement due to the final raised grade is presented in Figure 19 for the proposed preloading area. For example, as can be seen in Figure 19, placing an additional 2 feet beyond the final grade will reduce the time to substantial completion of the settlement to only 2.5 months in the proposed preloading area. The excess fill soils may be removed and placed in northern and western areas of the site, once substantial settlement in the Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 20
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
proposed preloading area is completed. The settlement in northern and western areas is anticipated to be completed in approximately 1.5 months after fill placement based on the anticipated raised grades.

5.10.3 Settlement Monitoring
We recommend settlement monitoring plates be installed at the base of the fill at the eastern, central, and western portions of the surcharge in the preloading area. The settlement should be surveyed weekly. Care should be taken to prevent damaging the settlement monitoring monuments. In case a monument is irreparably damaged or destroyed, a replacement monument should be immediately installed, and a new survey baseline established for the new monument. Settlement is deemed as complete if less than 0.1 inches of settlement is measured over a period of two weeks after the placement of fill.

5.11 Methane Control System
A properly designed methane collection and venting system are to be developed and installed for the project by the project methane consultant.

5.12 Future Landfill Settlement and Periodic Maintenance Due to the nature of the fill, continued settlement, particularly differential settlements, may continue to manifest at the ground surface in the future in the areas of landfill due to the decomposition of organic matter in the fill. However, the magnitude of such settlement and duration of manifestation of such settlement cannot be estimated due to the nature, depth, and extent of the fill. Therefore, periodic maintenance for surface improvements supported on subgrade in the area of landfill should be anticipated and built into the project planning.

5.13 Infiltration Potential
The design groundwater at the project site is 10 feet below the existing grade. Per the Los Angeles County Administrative Manual (GS200.2) the invert of the stormwater infiltration system should be at least 10 feet above the design groundwater elevation. Therefore, onsite stormwater infiltration is not feasible at the project site. Additionally, a significant portion of the site was a previous landfill, and therefore onsite infiltration is not recommended.

5.14 Site Drainage
Surface drainage during construction should be controlled and directed to appropriate drainage facilities. All surface drainage should be prevented from running down along the face of the excavation. Ponding water should not be allowed within the excavation.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 21
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Additionally, all planters and landscape areas should be lined with impermeable membranes to prevent infiltration into the subsurface soil. Proper site drainage should be designed to collect surface runoff or irrigation water and discharge it properly into a drainage system and carried away from the site.

5.15 Utility Trenches
Excavations for utility trenches should be readily accomplished with conventional excavating equipment. All shoring and excavation should comply with current OSHA regulations and be observed by the designated competent person on site.

The bedding for any new sewer and water service pipelines should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should consist of clean sand, No. 4 concrete aggregate or gravel, and should have a sand equivalent of not less than 30. The pipe zone material, which extends to a level 12 inches above the pipe should consist of sand and should have a sand equivalent of no less than 30, and a maximum rock size of 1 inch. All imported materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer before being brought onsite.

Trench zone backfill extends from a level 12 inches above the pipe to the finished subgrade. The on-site excavated materials may not be suitable for backfill. Any boulders or cobbles larger than 3 inches in any dimensions, or any organics or other deleterious materials, should be removed before backfilling. We recommend that all backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding six to eight inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of relative compaction as determined by the ASTM D1557. Mechanical compaction will be required to accomplish compaction above the bedding along the entire pipeline alignments. Jetting or flooding of backfill should not be permitted.

In backfill areas, where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, 2-sack slurry (CLSM) may be substituted for compacted backfill.

5.16 Expansive Soil
Based on the results of the expansion index test on representative near-surface soil samples from previous investigations (Moore and Taber, 1979, 1982), the near-surface soils have low to very low expansion potential. The previous laboratory test results for the soil expansion index are summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Summary of Soil Expansion Index (Previous Laboratory Testing) Exploration Number (Year) Depth (feet) Expansion Index (EI) 6 (Moore & Taber, 1979) 0-5 7.0
Boring 1 (Moore & Taber, 1982) 6 28.0
Boring 2 (Moore & Taber, 1982) 6 19.0
Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 22
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

5.17 Soil Corrosivity
Two soil samples from Boring 1 and Boring 2 (Moore and Taber, 1982) from a depth of 6 feet were tested for soluble sulfate content. The samples had soluble sulfate content of 0.02 percent and 0.03 percent respectively. Soil corrosivity testing was not performed on the bulk soil samples collected during the current field investigation due to the presence of hydrocarbon odor in the soil samples.

A significant length of the proposed piles for the project will be under groundwater and exposed to the elements of the marine environment. Furthermore, soils present near seawater may have high chloride content, which is corrosive to buried metals, such as underground metal pipes. A corrosion expert should be consulted for further evaluation and to develop optimum protection.

6.0 LIMITATIONS
This investigation was performed in accordance with generally accepted Geotechnical Engineering principles and practice. The professional engineering work and judgments presented in this report meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report has been prepared for CP VI Marketplace, LLC and their design consultants. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes and should not be used for other projects or other purposes without review and approval by Group Delta.

The recommendations for this project, to a high degree, are dependent upon proper quality control of site grading, fill and backfill placement, and pile foundation installation. The recommendations are made contingent on the opportunity for Group Delta to observe the earthwork operations. This firm should be notified of any pertinent changes in the project, or if conditions are encountered in the field, which differ from those described herein. If parties other than Group Delta are engaged to provide such services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project and must either concur with the recommendations in this report or provide alternate recommendations.

Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 23
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

7.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2017). ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. ASCE, Reston, Virginia.

California Building Code (CBC). (2019). California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. Sacramento, CA.

California Division of Mines and Geology. (1998). Seismic Hazard Zone Report for Los Alamitos

7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 019, Plate 1.2.

California Division of Mines and Geology. (1998). Seismic Hazard Zone Report for Seal Beach 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 020, Plate

1.2. California Geological Survey. (2010). Geologic Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California Onshore Portion of the Long Beach 30’x60’ Quadrangle, 2010.

City of Long Beach. (1988). City of Long Beach General Plan, Seismic Safety Element, October 1988.

Dolan, J.F., Gath, E.M., Grant, L.B., Legg, M., Lindvall, S., Mueller, K., Oskin, M., Ponti, D.F., Rubin, C.M., Rockwell, T.K., H.J., Shaw, Treiman, J.A., Walls, C., and Yeats, R.S. (2001). Active Faults in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region. Southern California Earthquake Center.

Ensoft, Inc. (2019). LPile.

FEMA. (2008). FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (Official), Panel 06037C1988G, effective April 20, 2021.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (2002). Geotechnical Assessment, The Market Place Office Park, 6615, 6621, and 6695 Pacific Coast Hwy, Long Beach, California, GDC Project No. 1712B, October 14, 2002.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (2017). Geotechnical Due Diligence Assessment, Proposed Long Beach Market Place Project, 6615, 6621, and 6695 E Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA, April 25, 2017.

Moore & Taber. (1979). Foundation Investigation, Two Story Office Building, Long Beach, California, June 11, 1979.

Moore & Taber. (1982). Foundation Investigation, Bank Building, Market Place Office Park, Long Beach, California, September 16, 1982
Geotechnical Investigation Report September 30, 2022
Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project Page 24
CP VI Marketplace, LLC
Group Delta Project No. LA1583
LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx
Moore & Taber. (1983). Report of Geotechnical Services, The Market Place, Office Building No. 2, 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California, July 21, 1983.

SCS Engineers. (2016). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Market Place Long Beach Office Park, 6615, 6621, AND 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California, 90803, APNS:
7237-020-040, -041, AND -050, June 13, 2016.

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). (2022). UGMS MCER Tool https://data2.scec.org/ugms-mcerGM-tool_v18.4/, accessed 9/23/2022.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2022). Earthquake Catalog,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/, last accessed September 2022.

United States Geological Survey. (2010). Quaternary Faults in Google Earth, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/google.php
Wright, T.L. (1991). Structural geology and tectonic evolution of the Los Angeles basin, California, in Biddle, K.T., ed., Active margin basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, p. 35–134.

LA1583 Long Beach Market Place Geotech RPT_Final.docx

FIGURES
SCALE:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

PREPARED BY:

APPROVED BY:

DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT NUMBER:

GROUP DELTA

CONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.

Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501
-
-
09/26/2022
-

JMT SITE VICINITY MAP
1 AS SHOWN
LA1583
0 2000' 4000'
REFERENCE: LOS ALAMITOS AND SEAL BEACH QUADRANGLES (USGS, 2018) FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 1-2-3-4A-4B-4C.dwgPLOTTED DATE: 9/26/2022 5:46:02 AM SAVED BY: josemiguelt

PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT
6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

PROJECT SITE

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

STUDEBAKER ROAD
CPT-13
CPT-04A
CPT-06
SCPT-3
B-2
A
A'
CPT-03
B-1
C
C'
B'
B
3 5
6 5
15 25
30 ? 5 ?
?
?
?
?
?
? ? ? ?
5 101
CPT-1
SCPT-2 4
1 CPT-02
CPT-4
CPT-05
2 EXISTING BUILDING 2

EXISTING
BUILDING 1

EXISTING
BUILDING 3
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

REVISED:

GROUP DELTA

CONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501 -
-
09/27/2022
-

JMT AERIAL VIEW MAP
2 AS SHOWN
LA1583
REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGERY DATE: 10/8/2021
0 80' 160'
FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 1-2-3-4A-4B-4C.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/27/2022 9:04:21 AM SAVED BY: josemiguelt CPT-4 PROPOSED CPT LOCATION
LEGEND:
6 PRIOR BORING LOCATION (MOORE & TABER, 1979)

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY
B-2 PRIOR BORING (MOORE & TABER, 1982)
101 PRIOR BORING (MOORE & TABER, 1983)
A A'

CROSS SECTION LOCATION
CPT-13 LOCATION OF PRIOR CPT (GDC, 2017)

PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT
6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
? APPROXIMATE DEPTH LANDFILL LOCATION

CONTOUR OF LANDFILL DEPTH
(IT CORPORATION, 1989)
FILL:
5' (5' HA)
FILL: 14'
FILL:
5' (5' BORING)
FILL: 7'
FILL: 7.5'
FILL: 4.5'
FILL: 10'
FILL:
5' (5' HA) FILL: 12.5'
FILL: 14.5'
FILL:

FILL: 4.5' 5' (5' HA)

APPROXIMATE
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6

63$&(6

63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
(
+& +&
+& +&
63$&(6
63$&(6

63$&(6

63$&(6

63$&(6
7 +&

63$&(6
63$&(6
:(7/$1'/,0,76
:(7/$1'/,0,76
:(7/$1'/,0,76
:(7/$1'/,0,76
:(7/$1'$5($
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6
63$&(6

63$&(6
+& 63$&(6
63$&(6

63$&(6
63$&(6
+&
2+(
2+(
2+(
2+(
:(7/$1'$5($
:(7/$1'$5($
63$&(6
63$&(
:/
:/
:/ :/
:/
:/
:/
:/
:/
:/
:/
63$&( 63$&( 63$&( 63$&( 63$&( 63$&(
(/(&50

&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &% &% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
83 5
'1
5
83 5
'1
5

0$;
*$5$*(
(175<
6 6
$
$
$ $
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
&% &%
$
&% &%
$
$
(3
'$7$
&% &%
&% &%
$
$
&% &%
6
&%
6
&%
&% &%
$
029(,1
&% &%
$
&% &%
(/(&50
(/(&50
3$66$*( &% &% $
/($6,1*
0$,/
$0(1,7,(6
$0(1,7,(6
$0(1,7,(6),71(66
$

&% &%
$
&%&%
&% &%
5(7$,/
64)7
6
&% &%
$ $
$
83 38
5
1'
5
83 5
'1
5

0$;
83 5

0$;
(/(&50
3$66$*(
83 5

0$;
&% &%
%
% %
% %
%
%
%
%
%
%
% %
%
9,(:&255,'25 64)7 ),5($&&(66
&2857<$5'
64)7
&2857<$5'

64)7
3/$=$

64)7 &2857<$5'

64)7
&2857<$5'
64)7
3$&,),&&2$67+,*+:$<
678'(%$.(552$'
&37
&37$
&37
6&37
%
$
$

&37
%
&
&

%

" "
"
"
"
"
"
" " " "

&37
6&37

&37
&37
&37

'$7(
352-(&7180%(5

6&$/(

'5$:1%<
$33529('%<

),*85(180%(5

5(9,(:('%<

5(9,6('

*5283'(/7$
&2168/7$176,1&
$PDSROD$YH6XLWH
7RUUDQFH&$

-07 (;3/25$7,21/2&$7,210$3

$66+2:1
/$

),/(3$7+
1
?3URMHFWV?

?/$&DUPHO3DUWQHUVB/RQJ%HDFK0DUNHWSODFH*HRWHFKQLFDO?'UDIWLQJ?/$)LJV$%&GZJ 3/277(''$7(

$06$9('%<
MRVHPLJXHOW
&37 $3352;,0$7(&37/2&$7,216
*5283'(/7$

/(*(1'

35,25%25,1*/2&$7,21
0225( 7$%(5

$3352;,0$7(6,7(%281'$5<
% 35,25%25,1*
0225( 7$%(5

35,25%25,1*
0225( 7$%(5

$ $

&52666(&7,21/2&$7,21
&37 /2&$7,212)35,25&37
*'&

352326('/21*%($&+0$5.(73/$&(352-(&7
$1'
(3$&,),&&2$67+,*+:$<
/21*%($&+&$/,)251,$
" $3352;,0$7('(37+/$1'),///2&$7,21
&2172852)/$1'),//'(37+

,7&25325$7,21

),//

%25,1*

),//

+$
),//

),//

),//

+$

ELEVATION (FT)
A
-80
20 0
-20-40-60
-100

ELEVATION (FT)
A'
-80
20 0-20-40-60-100
E.G
E.G
Fs Qt
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR
10 Maximum depth: 93.34 (ft)
0 800
Fs Qt
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR
10 Maximum depth: 67.92 (ft)
0 80
10 Maximum depth: 67.59 (ft)
0 800
Fs Qt
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR
CPT-05 (GDC, 2017)
PROJ ~103' W
CPT-06 (GDC, 2017)
PROJ ~69' E
CPT-03 (GDC, 2017)
B-1
PROJ ~69' E
(MOORE & TABER, 1982)
PROJ ~21' E
B-2 (MOORE & TABER, 1982)
PROJ ~43' W

PROPOSED BUILDING
C-C'

INTERSECTION

STUDEBAKER RD

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND

MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND (SM)

INTERBEDDED WITH STIFF CLAY (CL)

AND SILT (ML)
SILTY SAND (SM); SANDY SILT (ML);

SILTY-CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)

SILTY CLAY (CL)

TO CLAYEY SILT (ML) WITH

INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND (SM)
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
??? ?
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

REVISED:

GROUP DELTA

CONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501 -
-
09/27/2022
-

JMT CROSS SECTION A-A'
4A

AS SHOWN
LA1583
FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 1-2-3-4A-4B-4C.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/27/2022 1:43:03 PM SAVED BY: josemiguelt PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT 6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 20' 40' LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 20' 10'0' H
V
SCALE (FT):

LEGEND:

NOTE: THE BLOWCOUNTS SHOWN ARE RAWBLOWCOUNTS WITHOUT ANY CORRECTION

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA RING SAMPLEBULK SAMPLEDESIGN GROUNDWATER

ELEVATION (FT)
B
-80
20 0
-20-40-60
-100

ELEVATION (FT)
B'
-8020
0 -20-40-60-100

EXISTING PARKING LOT
E.G E.G
Fs Qt
Sleeve Stress Tip Stress COR
10 Maximum depth: 93.34 (ft)
0 800
CPT-05 (GDC, 2017)
PROJ ~55' E
CPT-4
PROJ ~55' E
10 MAXIMUM DEPTH: 50.20 (ft)
0 500
Fs Qt
10 MAXIMUM DEPTH: 96.46 (ft)
0 500
Fs Qt
101
(MOORE & TABER, 1983)
PROJ ~83' E
CPT-1
PROJ ~5' E
10 MAXIMUM DEPTH: 90.22 (ft)
0 500
Fs Qt

PROPOSED BUILDING
SCPT-2
PROJ ~3' W
C-C'

INTERSECTION

STUDEBAKER RD
?
? ? ? ? ?
?
? ? ? ? ?
?
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

REVISED:

GROUP DELTA

CONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501 -
-
09/27/2022
-

JMT CROSS SECTION B-B'
4B

AS SHOWN
LA1583
FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 1-2-3-4A-4B-4C.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/27/2022 1:46:25 PM SAVED BY: josemiguelt PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT 6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 20' 40' LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 20' 10'0' H
V
SCALE (FT):

LEGEND:

NOTE: THE BLOWCOUNTS SHOWN ARE RAWBLOWCOUNTS WITHOUT ANY CORRECTION

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA RING SAMPLEBULK SAMPLE

APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF LANDFILL LOCATION
(IT CORPORATION, 1989)

DESIGN GROUNDWATER

SILTY CLAY (CL)

TO CLAYEY SILT (ML) WITH

INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND (SM)

MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND (SM)

INTERBEDDED WITH STIFF

CLAY (CL) AND SILT (ML)

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND
SILTY SAND (SM);SANDY SILT (ML);SILTY-CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)

ELEVATION (FT)
C
-80
20 0
-20-40-60
-100

ELEVATION (FT)
C'
-8020
0 -20-40-60-100
E.G E.G
B-1 (MOORE & TABER, 1982)
PROJ ~40' N
101 (MOORE & TABER, 1983)
PROJ ~4' N
SCPT-2
10 MAXIMUM DEPTH: 96.46 (ft)
0 500
Fs Qt
SCPT-3
PROJ ~6' S
10 MAXIMUM DEPTH: 72.83 (ft)
0 500
Fs Qt
4 (MOORE & TABER, 1979)

PACIFIC COAST HWY
PROJ ~5' S

PROPOSED BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING
A-A'

INTERSECTION
B-B'

INTERSECTION
? SILTY CLAY (CL)

TO CLAYEY SILT (ML) WITH

INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND (SM)

MEDIUM DENSE SILTY SAND (SM)

INTERBEDDED WITH STIFF

CLAY (CL) AND SILT (ML)

DENSE TO VERY DENSE SAND
SILTY SAND (SM);
SANDY SILT (ML);

SILTY-CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM)
?
?
?
?
? ?
?
? ? ? ? ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVISION:
370 Amapola Ave.Suite 212Torrance, CA. 90501

GROUP DELTACONSULTANTS, INC
REVISION:
--
09/27/2022
-

JMT CROSS SECTION C-C'
4C

AS SHOWN
LA1583

PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT
6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 1-2-3-4A-4B-4C.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/27/2022 1:44:54 PM SAVED BY: josemiguelt 20' 40' 20' 10'0' H
V
SCALE (FT):

LEGEND:

NOTE: THE BLOWCOUNTS SHOWN ARE RAWBLOWCOUNTS WITHOUT ANY CORRECTION

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA RING SAMPLEBULK SAMPLE

APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF LANDFILL LOCATION
(IT CORPORATION, 1989)

DESIGN GROUNDWATER
SCALE:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

PREPARED BY:

APPROVED BY:

DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT NUMBER:

GROUP DELTA

CONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.

Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501
-
-
09/26/2022
-

JMT HISTORICAL HIGHEST GROUND WATER
5 AS HSOWN
LA1583
FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 5_7.dwgPLOTTED DATE: 9/26/2022 5:54:42 AM SAVED BY: josemiguelt REFERENCE: CGS, 1998, SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE REPORT,
PLATE 1.2 GROUND WATER, FOR LOS ALAMITOS (SHZR 019)
AND SEAL BEACH (SHZR 020) 7.5-MINUTE QUADRANGLES,
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

Base map enlarged from U.S.G.S. 30 x 60-minute series
Plate 1.2 Historically Highest Ground Water Contours and Borehole Log Data Locations, Los Alamitos and Seal Beach Quadrangles.

PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT
6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

PROJECT SITE
0 5000' 10000'
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

REVISED:

GROUP DELTA

CONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501 -
-
09/26/2022
-

JMT REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
6 AS SHOWN
LA-1318

PROJECT SITE
REFERENCE: PETER D. ROFFERS AND TRINDA L. BEDROSSIAN, JULY 2010 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE LONG BEACH 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Fig 6.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/26/2022 5:56:52 AM SAVED BY: josemiguelt PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT 6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

OVERLAND

NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-ROSE CANYON

ELSINORE

LOWER ELYSIAN PARK

PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST

CENTRAL AVE

CHARNOCK

LOS ALAMITOS

SAN PEDRO BASIN

REDONDO CANYON

PALOS VERDES

CABRILLO

PERALTA HILLS

THUMS-HUNTINGTON BEACH

NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-ROSE CANYON SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

PREPARED BY:

GROUP DELTACONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.

Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501 -
-
09/27/2022
-
JMT

AND SEIMICITY MAP

REGIONAL FAULT
7 AS SHOWN
LA1583
FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Figs 5_7.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/27/2022 6:49:02 AM SAVED BY: josemiguelt PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT 6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA M5-M4.5
>M6 EQ
M6-M5
Undifferentiated
Quaternary
< 130,000 yrs
REFERENCE:

GOOGLE EARTH, IMAGERY DATE, 10/8/2021
USGS, EARTHQUAKE CATALOG, ACCESSED 09/23/2022USGS & CGS, QUATERNARY FAULT AND FOLD DATABASE, ACCESSED 3/4/2020 4 mi DATE: PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NUMBER:

REVIEWED BY:

PREPARED BY:

GROUP DELTACONSULTANTS, INC
370 Amapola Ave.

Suite 212
Torrance, CA. 90501 -
-
09/26/2022
-
JMT

REQUIRED INVESTIGATION MAP

EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF
8 AS SHOWN
LA1583
0 4000' 2000'
FILE PATH: N:\Projects\1500-1599\LA1583 Carmel Partners_Long Beach Marketplace Geotechnical\600 Drafting\LA1583 Fig 8.dwg PLOTTED DATE: 9/26/2022 6:00:05 AM SAVED BY: josemiguelt PROPOSED LONG BEACH MARKET PLACE PROJECT 6615, 6621 AND 6695 E PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA REFERENCE: CGS, SEISMIC HAZMAP LOS ALAMITOS AND SEAL BEACH QUADRANGLES (1999)

PROJECT SITE
WĞƌŝŽĚ ĞƐŝŐŶ D
Z
;ƐĞĐͿ ^Ă;ŐͿ ^Ă;ŐͿ
Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϱϰϰ Ϭ͘ϴϭϲϬ͘ϬϮ Ϭ͘ϱϰϲ Ϭ͘ϴϭϵϬ͘Ϭϯ Ϭ͘ϱϰϱ Ϭ͘ϴϭϳϬ͘Ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϱϵϴ Ϭ͘ϴϵϳ Ϭ͘Ϭϳϱ Ϭ͘ϳϭϳ ϭ͘Ϭϳϲ
Ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϴϮϭ ϭ͘ϮϯϮ
Ϭ͘ϭϱ Ϭ͘ϵϳϵ ϭ͘ϰϲϴ
Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϭϮϴ ϭ͘ϲϵϮ
Ϭ͘Ϯϱ ϭ͘ϮϱϮ ϭ͘ϴϳϴ
Ϭ͘ϯ ϭ͘ϯϰϵ Ϯ͘ϬϮϯϬ͘ϰ ϭ͘ϰϮϮ Ϯ͘ϭϯϰϬ͘ϱ ϭ͘ϯϳϬ Ϯ͘Ϭϱϱ
Ϭ͘ϳϱ ϭ͘ϭϯϳ ϭ͘ϳϬϲ
ϭ Ϭ͘ϵϴϮ ϭ͘ϰϳϯ
ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳϱϬ ϭ͘ϭϮϱ
Ϯ Ϭ͘ϱϵϵ Ϭ͘ϴϵϵϯ Ϭ͘ϯϵϴ Ϭ͘ϱϵϴ
ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯϳϴ Ϭ͘ϰϭϴϱ Ϭ͘Ϯϭϳ Ϭ͘ϯϮϱ
ϳ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϭϯϲ Ϭ͘ϮϬϱ
ϭϬ Ϭ͘ϬϴϮ Ϭ͘ϭϮϰ
^^с ϭ͘ϮϴϬ ^ϭс ϭ͘ϭϵϴ
WZK:
dEhD
Z
^
ϳͲϭϲD
ZĂŶĚ
ĞƐŝŐŶ
ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ
WZK:
dED
&/'hZ
ED

ĂƌŵĞůWĂƌƚŶĞƌƐͺ>ŽŶŐĞĂĐŚDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ ^
ϳͲϭϲ^ŝƚĞͲ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĞƐŝŐŶ
ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĂŶĚ &/'hZ
EhD
Z
ϲϲϭϱ͕ϲϲϮϭ͕ĂŶĚϲϲϵϱ
WĂĐŝĨŝĐŽĂƐƚ,ǁǇ ^ŝƚĞͲ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĞƐŝŐŶĐĐĞůĞƌĂƚŝŽŶWĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐ >ϭϱϴϯ ϵ Ϭ
Ϭ͘ϮϬ͘ϰϬ͘ϲϬ͘ϴ
ϭ
ϭ͘Ϯϭ͘ϰϭ͘ϲϭ͘ϴ
Ϯ
Ϯ͘ϮϮ͘ϰϮ͘ϲ
Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ϭ͘ϭ ϭ ϭϬ
^ƉĞĐƚƌĂůĐĐĞůĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ;ŐͿ
WĞƌŝŽĚ;ƐĞĐͿ
^ŝƚĞͲ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĞƐŝŐŶ
ĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞ;^
ϳͲϭϲ͕^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϮϭ͘ϯͿ
ϱйĂŵƉŝŶŐ
^ŝƚĞͲ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐD
Z^ŝƚĞͲ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĞƐŝŐŶZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ^ƉĞĐƚƌƵŵ;^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϮϭ͘ϯͿ
LA1583
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Depth (ft)
Axial Capacities (kips)
24ͲINCHͲDIAMETER DRIVEN PILE

STATIC ALLOWABLE AXIAL CAPACITIES
Allowable Downward Capacities
Allowable Upward Capacities
Notes:
ϭ͘ Axial capacity in the upper 20 feet is ignored due to potential settlement of landfill material and native clays.

Ϯ͘ A downdragůŽĂĚof 104 kips should be added to service level structural load (dead plus live) to determine the pile length under static loading.
ϯ͘ These allowable capacities are based on factor of safety of 2 for skin friction resistance and 3 for end bearing resistance.
ϰ͘ Allowable uplift capacities are based on 70 % of allowable downward skin friction resistance. ϱ͘ Minimum recommended pile embedment is 50 feet.

FIGURE 10
LA1583
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Depth (ft)
Axial Capacities (kips)
24ͲINCHͲDIAMETER DRIVEN PILE

SEISMIC ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITIES
Sesimic Ultimate Downward Capacity
Seismic Ultimate Upward Capacity
Notes:

1. The ultimate seismic capacity ignores the resistance within the landfill and significantly liquifiable soil layers.

2. A seismic downdrag load of 140 kips was estimated to the bottom of the significantly liquifiable soil layers.

3. The downdrag load should be added to the factored structural loads for the determination of controlling pile length under the seismic conditions.

4. The ultimate seismic capacity utilizes factor of safety of 1 for both skin friction and end bearing.

5. The seismic uplift capacities are based on 70 % of seismic downward skin friction resistance.

6. The minimum recommended pile embedment is 50 feet.

FIGURE 11
LA1583
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Depth Below Pile Head (ft)
Axial Capacities (kips)
Allowable Downward Capacities
Allowable Upward Capacities
24ͲINCH DIAMETER (DISPLACEMENT & NONͲDISPLACEMENT) PILE

STATIC ALLOWABLE AXIAL CAPACITIES
Notes:
ϭ͘ The axial capacity assumes a displacement pile installation to the depth of 50 feet and a nonͲdisplacmenet pile installation at depths greater than 50 feet.

Ϯ͘ Axial capacity in the upper 20 feet is ignored due to potential settlement of landfill material and native clays.
ϯ͘ A downdragůŽĂĚof 104 kips should be added to service level structural load (dead plus live) to determine the pile length under static loading.
ϰ͘ These allowable capacities are based on factor of safety of 2 for skin friction resistance and 3 for end bearing resistance.
ϱ͘ Allowable uplift capacities are based on 70 % of allowable downward skin friction resistance. ϲ͘ Minimum recommended pile embedment is 50 feet.

FIGURE 12
LA1583
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Depth Below Pile Head (ft)
Axial Capacities (kips)
Seismic Ultimate Downward Capacity
Seismic Ultimate Upward Capacity
24ͲINCH DIAMETER (DISPLACEMENT & NONͲDISPLACEMENT) PILE

SEISMIC ULTIMATE AXIAL CAPACITIES
Notes:

1. The axial capacity assumes displacement pile to the depth of 50 feet and nonͲdisplacement pile below the depth of 50 feet.

2. The ultimate seismic capacity ignores the resistance within the landfill and significantly liquifiable soil layers.

3. A seismic downdrag load of 140 kips was estimated to the bottom of the significantly liquifiable soil layers.

4. The downdrag load should be added to the factored structural loads for the determination of controlling pile length under the seismic conditions.

5. The ultimate seismic capacity utilizes factor of safety of 1 for both skin friction and end bearing.

6. The seismic uplift capacities are based on 70 % of seismic downward skin friction resistance.

7. The minimum recommended pile embedment is 50 feet.

FIGURE 13
LA1583
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Depth (ft)
Axial Capacities (kips)
18ͲINCHͲDIAMETER DRIVEN PILE

STATIC ALLOWABLE AXIAL CAPACITIES
Allowable Downward Capacity
Allowable Upward Capacitiy
Notes:

1. Axial capacity in the upper 20 feet is ignored due to potential settlement of landfill material and native clays.

2. A downdrag load of 78 kips should be added to service level structural load (dead plus live) to determine the pile length under static loading.

3. These allowable capacities are based on factor of safety of 2 for skin friction resistance and 3 for end bearing resistance.

4. Allowable uplift capacities are based on 70 % of allowable downward skin friction resistance.

5. Minimum recommended pile embedment is 50 feet.

FIGURE 14

Long Beach City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Long Beach City Council
September 19, 2023