HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 4.13 - Cultural and Paleontological ResourcesSection 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
4.13 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.13.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) describes the cultural (prehistoric and
historic) resources known to be located on the Project site. The extent to which development of
the proposed Project could impact existing historic or prehistoric resources and paleontologic
resources is evaluated. Potential cumulative impacts are addressed in Section 5.0 of the EIR.
The findings of the following three studies are summarized in this section and are included in
their entirety in Appendix J of this EIR: (1) Archaeological Resources Assessment: Newport
Banning Ranch, Newport Beach, California (BonTerra Consulting 2009a); (2) Paleontological
Resources Assessment: Newport Banning Ranch, Newport Beach, California (BonTerra
Consulting 2009b); and (3) Historic Resources Assessment Report of West Newport Oil
Company Banning Ranch, 1080 17th Street, Newport Beach, CA (Daly 2009).
4.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
This section contains a discussion of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards that govern cultural resources and that must be followed prior to and during
construction of the proposed Proiect.
Federal
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the federal government, acting
through the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service, maintains an inventory of
properties and structures that have been determined to meet certain criteria as significant
historic resources commonly referred to as the "National Register of Historic Places" (NRHP).
Eligibility for the NRHP is determined by the U.S. Department of the Interior in a formal review
process in which a resource is proposed for listing. For purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA,
any property listed on or deemed eligible for listing on the NRHP is considered historic. While
ordinarily the NHPA does not apply to projects sponsored by private parties on private land,
Section 106 of the NHPA may apply if the project is on federal land, is using federal money, or
requires a federal permit (e.g., a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers [USAGE]).
State
Similar to the federal NRHP, the State of California also maintains a list of historic properties
called the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Eligibility for the CRHR is
determined by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in a formal review process in
which a resource is proposed for listing. A resource deemed eligible for the NRHP is typically
deemed eligible for the CRHR. The CRHR is an authoritative guide to California's significant
historical and archaeological resources to be used by State and local agencies, private groups,
and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which
resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse
change. The CRHR is maintained by the OHP's State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
This cultural resources analysis— including that pertaining to the built environment and
archaeological and paleontological resources —has been prepared to meet the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC]
§21083.2 and §21084.1) for inclusion in this EIR. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, "[a]
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13-1 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment"
(14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15064.5[b]). Substantial adverse change is defined
as "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired"
(14 CCR §15064.5[b][1]). CEQA has established statutory requirements for the formal review
and analysis of projects that fall under its jurisdiction. CEQA maintains that any property listed
in, determined, or found eligible for listing in the CRHR is considered to be a "historical
resource" and shall be considered historically significant. In addition, CEQA has additional
provisions regarding "unique" resources as they pertain to archaeological resources. The criteria
below are used to determine eligibility and significance.
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code §65352.3) incorporates the protection of or
mitigation of impacts to California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for
cities, counties, and agencies. It establishes responsibilities for local governments to contact,
refer plans to, and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or
amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB 18 requires
public notice to be sent to tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC's)
SB 18 Tribal Consultation List within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes.
Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter time frame
has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local
government. Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places,
features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the California Public
Resources Code that may be affected by the proposed adoption of or amendment to a general
or specific plan.
The proposed Project requires consultation under SB 18. The City notified tribes and individuals
listed on the NAHC contacts list (refer to Section 4.13.3, Methodology).
Prehistoric Archaeological and Historic Resources
CEQA requires a Lead Agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on
one or more historical resources. A "historical resource" is defined as a resource listed in or
determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR (PRC §21084.1); a resource included in a local
register of historical resources (14 CCR §15064.5[a][2]); or any object, building, structure, site,
area, place, record, or manuscript that a Lead Agency determines to be historically significant
(14 CCR §15064.5[a][3]).
Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
and Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the CEQA Statutes were used as the basic guidelines for
the EIR analysis. Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code requires evaluation of historical
resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purposes of the register are
to maintain listings of the State's historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be
protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were
expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for
listing on the NRHP.
Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "[g]enerally, a resource shall be
considered by the Lead Agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 Cu]Wral- 090211 Am 4.13 -2 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (PRC §5024.1; 14 CCR §4852),
including if the resource:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
The Lead Agency shall concurrently determine whether a project will cause damage to a unique
archaeological resource (as defined in PRC §21083.2[b]) and, if so, must make reasonable
efforts to permit the resources to be preserved in place or left undisturbed. Section 21083.2(g)
of CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site
about which it can be demonstrated that without merely adding to the existing body of
archaeological knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions
and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the
best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or
historic event or person.
To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place, mitigation
measures shall be required (PRC §21083.2[c]).
Using the information outlined above, the first level of evaluation is to determine whether a
resource on a site is a historical resource and /or a unique archaeological resource that would be
considered eligible for the CRHR and, therefore, significant.
Impacts to significant cultural resources that affect those characteristics of the resource that
qualify it for the CRHR or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for
listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to cultural
resources are considered significant if a project (1) physically destroys or damages all or part of
a resource; (2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the
setting of the resource that contributes to its significance; and /or (3) introduces visual,
atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the
resource.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -3 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Historic Resources
"Historical" resources are defined in Section 21084.1 of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
(14 CCR §15064.5). CEQA Section 21084.1 states:
A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource
listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of
Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical
resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020. 1, or deemed significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed
to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the
preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to
be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not
included in a local register of historical resources, or not deemed significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not
preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an
historical resource for purposes of this section.
The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15064.5[b]) state:
A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant
effect on the environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource
means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the
resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an
historical resource would be materially impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a
project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical
significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in
the California Register of Historical Resources; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of
historical resources... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of
the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the
resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical
significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for
purposes of CEQA.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -4 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
An archaeological resource must be determined to be "unique" or "historic" for an impact to the
resource to be considered significant. A "unique archaeological resource" is defined in Section
21083.2(g) of CEQA and is discussed above under "prehistoric archaeological resources ".
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are nonrenewable scientific and educational resources. The CEQA
regulatory framework for impacts on paleontological resources is contained in Appendix G
(Environmental Checklist Form) of the State CEQA Guidelines and includes paleontological
resources under the general heading "Cultural Resources'. Projects subject to CEQA must
determine whether the project would "directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource ".
An impact to paleontological resources would be considered a significant impact if a project
results in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique or important paleontological resource or
site. A project site is deemed paleontologically sensitive if (1) it has fossils that have previously
been recovered from a particular geologic unit; (2) there are recorded fossil localities within the
same geologic units as occur within the project area; and (3) the types of fossil materials that
have been recovered from the geologic unit are unique or important.
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code § §30000 et seq.)
establishes policies guiding development and conservation along the California coast.
Consistent with Section 30001 and the basic goals of Section 30001.5, and except as may be
otherwise specifically noted in the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act), the policies of Section
30200 of the Coastal Act constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal
programs and the permissibility of proposed developments subject to the requirement to obtain
a coastal development permit are determined. The consistency of the Project with applicable
Coastal Act policies is provided in later in this EIR section.'
City of Newport Beach
City Council Policy Manual Guidelines
The City of Newport Beach (City) has adopted archaeological and paleontological guidelines
that govern the identification and evaluation of these resources and are used to guide the
development or redevelopment of lands within the City. The City Council Policy Manual
Guidelines are summarized in Appendix J to this EIR.
With respect to paleontological resources, City Policy K -4 (adopted on August 26, 1974,
amended on January 24, 1994, and corrected on March 22, 1999) requires that impacts to
paleontological resources caused by development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Procedures to be used to assess paleontological resources are a walk -over site survey; review
of publications and reports on the geology or paleontology of the area; analysis of all available
soils information; and examination of the relationship of the proposed development site to
known or potential fossil - producing areas identified in available records, as applicable.
With respect to archaeological resources, City Policy K -5 (adopted on January 13, 1975,
amended on January 24, 1994, and corrected on March 22, 1999) requires that an impact to
significant archaeological resources caused by any development be mitigated in accordance
' For ease of reading, the policy tables are located at the end of this EIR section.
R:Trojeats \Newpart \J015RCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 doe 4.13 -5 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
with CEQA. If deemed necessary by the City, the City requires a site survey and report that
identifies potential impacts, alternatives, and recommendations for impact mitigation.
General Plan
Natural Resources Element
The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction regarding the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies the City's natural
resources and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This Element
addresses water supply (as a resource) and water quality (including bay and ocean quality, and
potable drinking water), air quality, terrestrial and marine biological resources, open space,
archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy.
The Project's consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is provided later in
this EIR section.
Historical Resources Element
The Historical Resources Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport
Beach's historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies are intended to recognize,
maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archeological sites and
structures. Preserving and maintaining these resources helps to create an awareness and
appreciation of the City's rich history. The Element identifies resources in the City that are on
the NRHP or CRHR, as well as locally recognized resources; these resources are identified on
Figure HR1 of the Historical Resources Element.
Four properties in the City are listed on the NRHP and four other properties are listed as
California Historical Landmarks. Properties that are not listed on the NRHP or CRHR may also
be considered historical resources. The City has established the Newport Beach Register of
Historical Properties to recognize structures or properties of local historical or architectural
significance. The City has listed seven properties in the City Register in recognition of their local
historical or architectural significance. Additionally, the City has a Historic Resource Inventory of
61 properties that are surveyed in 5 hierarchical "classes" of significance: Class 1, Major
Historic Landmark; Class 2, Historic Landmark; Class 3, Local Historic Site; Class 4, Structure
of Historic Interest; and Class 5, Point of Historic Interest. Under this system, properties
considered Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 would be eligible to use the State Historic Building
Code; Class 4 and Class 5 properties would be listed for recognition purposes only. The Historic
Resource Inventory was never adopted by the City, and the properties were never placed on the
City's Register of Historical Places. The Inventory is used as a guide for potentially historic
properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City. The Project site is not listed
on the Newport Beach Register of Historical Properties, and there are no properties or
structures located on the City's Historic Resource Inventory in the immediate vicinity of the
Project site. The Project's consistency with applicable General Plan Historical Resources
Element goals and policies is provided later in this EIR section.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -6 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
4.13.3 METHODOLOGY
Archaeoloaical Resources
Five prior archaeological investigations have resulted in the examination of the entire Project
site and identification of all exposed cultural resources. As recently as 2008, the Project area
was surveyed by qualified archaeologists and all previously recorded archeological sites were
examined. As a result of these prior investigations, eight prehistoric and three historic resources
are recorded on the Project site. Therefore, the archaeological investigation conducted as a part
of this EIR focused on testing previously recorded sites. The purpose of the Newport Banning
Ranch test investigations is to determine whether any of the 11 archaeological sites present on
the property are eligible for listing in the CRHR or the NRHP, and if they would thus warrant
further consideration in the planning process. To achieve this goal, the data collected through
survey, controlled excavation, and archival research is analyzed and used to evaluate the
significance of each site. Therefore, the primary goal of site testing was to establish the
dimensions, chronology, density, diversity, and integrity of the archaeological sites and to
compare them to other local and regional sites in order to determine whether any meet the
statutory requirements of the CRHR or the NRHP.
BonTerra Consulting Archaeologists Patrick Maxon and Christopher Drover, Ph.D., both
Registered Professional Archaeologists (RPA), completed an initial site walk to formulate
excavation plans on May 13, 2009. Site excavations were conducted under the direct
supervision and direction of Dr. Drover from May 27 through June 26, 2009.
BonTerra Consulting completed a Phase II test excavation and evaluation of archaeological
sites CA -ORA -148, CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -843, CA -ORA -844, CA -ORA -845, CA -ORA -906,
CA -ORA -1599, CA -ORA -1600, CA -ORA -1601 H, CA- ORA- 1602H, and CA- ORA- 1610H,
although CA -ORA -148 was not subjected to excavation. All work was completed under the
cultural resources provisions of CEQA and to federal level standards (Section 106 of the NHPA)
because of the possibility of a future federal nexus. The fieldwork consisted of site relocation;
site boundary delineation; brush clearing; construction of a data sampling grid at each site;
excavation of postholes and /or one square -meter units; matrix screening and washing; surface
collections; unit profiles; and site photographs.
Site Boundaries
The boundaries for several sites were difficult to delineate based on the observable surface
distribution of cultural materials and topographic limitations. The most salient materials at the
sites were shellfish remains. While site boundaries were identified primarily from the surface
distribution of shellfish remains, all other possible cultural materials such as bone, debitage, and
fire- affected rocks were also considered when the boundaries were identified. Pin flags were
used to demark the farthest extent of the surface artifacts and initial unit locations (shovel test
pits or control units).
Data Sampling and Excavation
Some archaeological sites received only shovel test pits (STPs). STPs were primarily used to
determine the presence or absence of subsurface cultural material in locations where
archaeological sites were previously mapped; however, few cultural remains were observed.
Archaeological investigations had been unable to relocate several archaeological sites on the
property subsequent to Van Horn's work in 1974. Such sites (e.g., CA -ORA -843 and
CA -ORA -906) had been subsequently recommended for STPs to determine whether the site
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -7 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
still existed and, if warranted, to dig control pits to evaluate the deposit. Because of the
extended effort and access to Van Horn's original research document (cf. 1982), the present
effort was able to relocate all original site locations. While original site locations could be verified
through photographs and accurate descriptions, several sites, such as those noted above, had
been heavily impacted by ongoing oilfield operations. On such sites, STPs alone were sufficient
to determine insignificance.
STPs were excavated with a circumference of 40 centimeters (cm) in 20 -cm increments. Next,
the matrix from each level was dry screened through % -inch mesh for specific classes of
material, including stone tools; debitage; groundstone tools; miscellaneous lithics (e.g., ochre,
asphaltum); non -fish and fish bone; bone tools; charcoal; fire- affected rock; or historic material.
Shell hinges and apices were collected, counted, weighed, and speciated.
Aside from the historic sites, historic materials in STPs provide evidence of recent disruptive
activities (such as pot hunting) and contribute to the general understanding of bioturbation
processes at the sites. Based on the results of the STPs, sub - surface control units were
implemented to recover comparative quantified data.
Archaeological sites where surface manifestation may have appeared to be sparse but where
STPs showed significant subsurface data warranted the excavation of control units for purposes
of eligibility determination (cf. CA -ORA -844 Locus B). Easily definable archaeological sites,
such as CA -ORA -839, were subject only to control test units to determine eligibility. Control
units 1 meter (m) by 1 meter (1m x 1m) in size were used to generate cubic density data and
were excavated in 10 -cm increments. Each level was wet screened and sorted through 1/8-inch
mesh for specific classes of materials, including flaked stone tools; debitage; groundstone tools;
miscellaneous lithics (e.g., ochre, asphaltum); bone tools; otoliths; shell; shell beads and
ornaments; charcoal; fire- affected rock; historic material; and non -fish and fish bone. The
shellfish sample from each 1 m x 1 m unit was sorted from the matrix and identified by the lab
technicians. Shellfish identification consisted of determining the genus (and species, where
possible) of all non - repetitive shell elements (hinges and apices). Non - repetitive elements were
then counted. If non - repetitive elements for a particular taxon were not found, the sample was
referred to as "sp. ", but not given a count. The shellfish from the postholes were speciated, and
the count of fragments was taken.
All stone tools, groundstone tools, miscellaneous lithics (e.g., ochre, asphaltum), bone tools,
otoliths, and beads /ornaments were separated from the matrix and weighed, bagged, and
labeled individually. The weight and count of fire - affected rocks was collectively recorded for
each unit level by material type and discarded. Charcoal was collectively weighed, bagged, and
labeled for each unit level.
Screening, Washing, and Laboratory Methods and Procedures
After the matrix that was recovered from each level of each posthole was water- screened
through 1/ -inch mesh in the field, the washed matrix remaining in the screen was dried, bagged,
labeled, and brought to the laboratory to be sorted and identified. In the lab, each unit level was
screened through 1/4 -inch mesh screen to effectively separate the larger matrix fraction that was
greater than 1/4 inch in size from the smaller matrix fraction that was less than i/4 inch in size.
The 1/ -inch mesh was used only to separate the larger items from the smaller items to facilitate
the sorting process. Laboratory sorters then sorted all cultural materials from the screened
matrices by separating items by class. The remaining non - cultural material was discarded.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\IDrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -6 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Cataloging
All artifacts (chipped -stone tools, groundstone tools, shell artifacts, bone tools, obsidian, otoliths,
beads, and ornaments) were identified in the laboratory and assigned individual catalog
numbers. The remaining cultural materials were separated into classes consisting of fish bone,
non -fish bone, speciated shell elements (shell was not speciated for the postholes), fire- affected
rock by material type, lithic debitage by material type, and charcoal.
Catalog entries for tools included provenience, identification of artifact type, material, weight,
and count. Catalog entries for fish bone, non -fish bone, and speciated non - repetitive shell
elements include provenience, weight, and number of specimens by unit level. Entries for
debitage included material type and type of break. All bags of catalogued material contain this
coded information on paper labels. All fish bone and non -fish bone was identified and cataloged.
All bone was identified by species, bone element, and symmetry.
Native American Consultation
Because the proposed Project requires a General Plan Amendment2, it is subject to the
statutory requirements of SIB 18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines (California Government Code
§65352.3), which require the offering of government -to- government consultation with interested
tribes identified by the NAHC. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural
resources in the area and may have concerns about adverse effects from development on
cultural resources. These resources may be sacred lands, traditional cultural places and
resources, and archaeological sites.
The City contacted the NAHC and informational letters were sent to each tribe identified on the
NAHC's list. Three requests for consultation were received from the tribes listed below:
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation (Anthony Rivera);
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation (David Belardes, Joyce Perry);
and
• Juaneno Band of Mission Indians (Sonia Johnston, Alfred Cruz).
The City undertook consultation with each of the three tribes. The results are contained in a
letter in Appendix J of this EIR.
A representative of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation, Anthony Rivera,
was present on site during all archaeological excavations and was afforded the opportunity to
examine excavation units and artifact discoveries.
Historic Resources
Daly & Associates conducted the historic resource assessment and evaluation for this EIR (Daly
2009). In order to identify and evaluate the subject property as a potential historic resource, a
multi -step methodology was used. A review of accessible archival sources for the Project site
was conducted and an inspection of the Project site's existing buildings and structures was
performed to document existing conditions and to assist with assessing and evaluating the
property for significance. Photographs were taken of all buildings and structures, including
2 An amendment is proposed to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of
Streets and Highways. An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is not required.
R:Troje ts\ Newport \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 doe 4.13 -9 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
photographs of architectural details or other points of interest, during the pedestrian -level
survey.
The NRHP and the CRHR criteria were used to evaluate the significance of the Project site. The
City does not have specific regulations in its Municipal Code for the preservation, alteration, or
demolition of historic resources. As such, built- environment resources in the City use CRHR
criteria to evaluate the significance of resources over 50 years old. The following additional
tasks were performed for the historic resource assessment and evaluation:
• The NRHP and the CHRR Inventory were searched;
• Site - specific research was conducted on the Project site using maps, City directories,
newspaper articles, historical photographs, and other published sources;
• Background research was performed at local historic archives and through internet
resources;
• Ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal,
State, and local historic preservation designation assessment processes, and related
programs were reviewed and analyzed; and
• A site visit and pedestrian -level inspection of the on -site buildings and structures was
performed on June 29, 2009.
Paleontoloaical Resources
BonTerra Consulting conducted a Phase II paleontological study, which consisted of a records
search, literature review, and limited field reconnaissance in order to evaluate the sensitivity of
the substrate underlying the proposed development for the presence of fossil resources and to
make recommendations to mitigate the effects of the Project on those resources.
Record searches of the paleontological collections of regional museums were conducted to
evaluate whether previous records of formal fossil locality exist on or within a one -mile radius of
the Project. Record and literature searches of the paleontological collections and archives of
vertebrate and invertebrate departments of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
(LACM) were conducted to determine if any previously recorded fossil localities were in the
study area of this Project. Geologic and paleontological literature was reviewed including
reports, papers, and maps that cover the limits of the Project. A limited paleontological field
reconnaissance of the Project area was conducted by Mark A. Roeder and David A. Alexander.
!K1QEZ:VA&J#lZ[e][•l•]P all IPPF'?
Natural Settin
The Project site is located on the northern end of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province.
These rocks are composed of pre- Cretaceous (more than 65- million - year -old) igneous and
metamorphic rock with limited exposures of post- Cretaceous sedimentary deposits. However,
these sedimentary deposits in coastal Orange County are considered to be some of the most
important fossil - producing formations in the world.
The Project site has been heavily disturbed by oil and natural gas extraction operations since
the 1940s, which continue today. As addressed in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the mesas
that surround the Project site were more extensive than they are today. For example, several
mesas that previously extended nearly to West Coast Highway have been largely removed,
R:Trojeets\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CulMeal- 090211 doe 4.13 -10 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
leaving evidence of eroded bluffs and remnants of the Newport Mesa (Upland) on the site. It is
unknown if these removals were solely a result of oil operations.
Prehistoric Setting
Archaeologists and ethnologists have long contemplated the cultural sequences that occurred
before Spanish contact. The two most currently accepted schemes are those proposed by
Wallace (1955), who interpreted the prehistory of coastal Southern California through temporal
horizons, and Warren (1968), who viewed cultural differences not as temporal distinctions but
as local traditions. Wallace (1955) saw four temporal horizons along the Southern California
coast: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric.
Early Man Horizon
Spanning the period from the end of the Pleistocene to approximately 8,000 years before
present (YBP),3 archaeological assemblages attributed to this horizon are characterized by
large projectile points and scrapers. The limited data available suggests that prehistoric
populations focused on hunting and gathering and moved about the region in small nomadic
groups.
Milling Stone Horizon
Characterized by the appearance of handstones and millingstones, this horizon tentatively dates
to between 8,000 YBP and 3,000 YBP. Assemblages in the early Milling Stone Horizon reflect
an emphasis on plant foods and foraging subsistence systems. For inland locales, it has been
assumed that grass seed exploitation formed a primary subsistence activity. Artifact
assemblages include choppers and scraper planes, but generally lack projectile points. The
appearance of large projectile points in the latter portion of the Milling Stone Horizon suggests a
more diverse economy. The distribution of Milling Stone sites reflects the theory that
aboriginal groups may have followed a modified, centrally based wandering settlement pattern.
In this semi - sedentary pattern, a base camp would have been occupied for a portion of the year,
but a small population group seasonally occupied subsidiary camps in order to exploit resources
not generally available near the base camp. Sedentism apparently increased in areas
possessing an abundance of resources available for longer time periods. More and inland
regions would have provided a seasonally dispersed resource base, restricting sedentary
occupation.
Intermediate Horizon
Dated to between 3,000 YBP and 1,350 YBP, the Intermediate Horizon represents a transitional
period. Little is known about the people of this period, especially those of inland Southern
California. Site assemblages retain many attributes of the Milling Stone Horizon. Additionally,
Intermediate Horizon sites contain large stemmed or notched projectile points and portable
mortars and pestles. The mortars and pestles suggest that the aboriginal populations may have
harvested, processed, and consumed acorns. Neither the settlement- subsistence system nor
the cultural evolution of this period has been well understood due to a general lack of data. It
has been proposed that sedentism increased with the exploitation of storable food resources
(acorns), and that the duration and intensity of base camp occupation increased, especially
toward the latter part of this horizon.
3 "Years Before Present' assumes that 1950 is "present', so in this case, 8,000 YBP would be 6,050 BCE (Before
Common Era).
R:Trojeats \NewparAJ015NCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -11 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Late Prehistoric Horizon
Extending from the year 750 to Spanish contact in 1763, the Late Prehistoric Horizon reflects an
increased sophistication and diversity in technology. This is characterized by the presence of
small projectile points that simplified the use of the bow and arrow. In addition, assemblages
include steatite bowls, asphaltum, grave goods, and elaborate shell ornaments. Use of bedrock
milling stations was widespread during this horizon. Increased hunting efficiency and
widespread acorn exploitation provided reliable and storable food resources. These innovations
apparently promoted greater sedentism.
By contrast, Warren's (1968) cultural traditions were more restricted spatially. Warren's scheme
accounted for the cultural variability particularly evident within Wallace's late Prehistoric
Horizon. Warren's traditions include the San Dieguito, Encinitas, Campbell, Chumash,
Shoshonean, and Yuman
Koerper (1981) and Koerper and Drover (1983) have taken the horizon system proposed by
Wallace and have applied it more specifically to the prehistory of Orange County. Koerper
(1981) and Koerper and Drover (1983) adapted Wallace's four horizons using artifacts and
associated radiocarbon dates from two Orange County sites: CA- ORA -64 and CA -ORA- 119 -A.
The authors argue that the transition between the Milling Stone and Intermediate Horizons was
marked by the appearance of the mortar and pestle. The primary projectile point type changed
from the Milling Stone "Pinto Basin" to the stemmed and side - notched forms. The beginning of
the Late Prehistoric Period occurred roughly with (1) the appearance of the smaller
"Cottonwood" points, suggesting the introduction of the bow and arrow; (2) the abundance of
shell beads and ornaments; (3) use of steatite for pipes, bowls, and ornaments; and
(4) appearance of arrow shaft straighteners. Pottery may or may not appear at the end of the
late Prehistoric Period or the Historic period.
Ethnographic Setting
At the time of European contact in 1769, the Santa Ana plain was occupied by the Gabrielino
Native Americans, so called by the Spanish after the nearby Mission San Gabriel Archangel.
According to Bean and Smith, the Gabrielino are, in many ways, one of the least known groups
of California native inhabitants. In addition to much of the Los Angeles Basin, they occupied the
offshore islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente. Gabrielino populations are
difficult to reconstruct; however, at any one time, as many as 50 to 100 villages were
simultaneously occupied. Like the prehistoric culture before them, the Gabrielino were a
hunter /gatherer group who lived in small sedentary or semi - sedentary groups, termed
Rancherias, of 50 to 100 persons. These Rancherias were occupied by at least some people all
of the time. Location of the encampment was determined by water availability. Within each
village, houses were circular in form and constructed of sticks covered with thatch or mats. Each
village had a sweat lodge and a sacred enclosure. Their subsistence relied heavily on plant
foods, but was supplemented with a variety of meat, especially from marine resources. Food
procurement consisted of hunting and fishing carried out by men, and gathering of plant foods
and shellfish by women. Hunting technology included bow and arrow use for deer and smaller
game, in addition to stick - throwing, snares, traps, and slings. Fishing was conducted with the
use of shell fishhooks, bone harpoons, and nets. Seeds were gathered with beaters and
baskets. Food was stored in baskets. It was prepared with manos and metates, and mortars
and pestles. Food was cooked in baskets coated with asphaltum, in stone pots, on steatite
frying pans, and by roasting in earthen ovens.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -12 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Although the earliest description of the Gabrielino dates back to the Cabrillo expedition of 1542,
the most important and extensive accounts were those written by Father Geronimo Boscana
circa 1822 and Hugo Reid in 1852. Major Gabrielino villages south of the City of Long Beach
apparently included Lukpa and Kengaa, also known as Gengara. Moyoonga is another location
name cited by Kroeber (1907), but it is unclear if this was a community or a geographical
designation. According to Merriam's mission records, Kengaa may have been occupied as late
as 1828 or 1829. The place name was still used as late as 1853, identifying Newport Bay as
"bolsa de gengara". Archaeological evidence suggests that CA- ORA -119A or CA -ORA -111 may
be the remains of this important village. The other village, Lukpa, was, according to one of
Kroeber's Native American informants, located in the City of Huntington Beach. One possibility
is the Newland site excavated by Winterbourne in the 1930s and more recently by other
investigators.
During the early 1900s, important ethnographic studies were conducted by several researchers
including A.L. Kroeber, J.P. Harrington, C.H. Merriam, W.D. Strong, and J.W. Hudson. Each of
these men was able to interview members of the Gabrielino who had living experience with the
Mission period when the group was in transition. Central Orange County was shared by both the
Juaneno (another Native American tribal group so named because of its association with
Mission San Juan Capistrano) and the Gabrielino. The three place names associated with
central Orange County are Genga, Pasbengna, and Hutuknga. Genga was located at CA -ORA-
58 in what today is Fairview Park in the City of Costa Mesa. Pasbengna was located along the
Santa Ana River approximately where the City of Santa Ana is today, and appears on the 1846
map drafted by Alexander Taylor. The third site, Hutuknga, is located where the City of Yorba
Linda exists today.
The Gabrielino are frequently thought to have been the dominant ethnohistoric group in Orange
County (e.g., Kroeber 1925). Earle and O'Neil have determined that sites along the Santa Ana
River provided pivotal political exchange and social interaction between the Gabrielino and
Juaneno. Based on Earle and O'Neil's research of Mission marriage records, the villages along
the Santa Ana River apparently consisted of multi- ethnic populations. Among the more
significant sites along the northern coast of Orange County was the complex of sites
surrounding Bolsa Chica, including CA- ORA -83, known as the "Cog Stone" site or the "Griset
Site ". As with Bolsa Chica, Newport Bay also is surrounded by a number of prehistoric sites.
The sites along the southern Orange County coast in the San Joaquin Hills include the
multi- component complexes at Bonita Mesa, Pelican Hill, and Shady Canyon.
Historic Setting
Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana
In 1801, Juan Pablo Grijalva and his son -in -law, Jose Antonio Yorba, requested title to all the
land that lay east of the Santa Ana River, from the Pacific Ocean and inland for 25 miles to the
mountains. Grijalva was not given title to the land, but he was allowed grazing rights on over
62,500 acres. Grijalva died in 1806, four years before the land was granted to his son -in law and
Yorba's cousin Juan Pablo Peralta. When the U.S. Government formally passed title to the
lands in 1883, in accordance with the Spanish- Mexican Grant Act of 1851, they defined Rancho
Santiago de Santa Ana as having 81,855 acres, and being legally owned by Juan Pablo Peralta,
Jose Antonio Yorba, Bernardo Antonio Yorba (the third son of Jose Antonio Yorba), and the
heirs of Bernardo Yorba. Through marriages and offspring between the Yorba, Peralta and
Grijalva families, Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana became one of the largest ranchos in
California (Daly 2009).
R:Trojets\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -13 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Andrew Glassell, an attorney from Los Angeles specializing in land issues, and founder of the
City of Orange, was paid for legal services rendered to the Peralta Family heirs with 4,077 acres
of land in the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. Glassell sold the land in 1872 to Gabe Allen of
Los Angeles who had earlier purchased acreage in the Rancho de Santa Ana from Don
Sepulveda's holdings located on the northern border of the Glassell parcel. Due to financial
problems, Allen had to sell the land back to Glassell in 1874 just two years after the sale.
Glassell subsequently sold the land again to Mary Hollister Banning for $17,500 in 1874
(Daly 2009).
When Mary Hollister's father died in the early 1870s, he had directly willed to his daughter a
share of a 60,000 -acre ranch he owned in Santa Barbara County that was worth $500,000. With
her share of the ranch, she bought what became known as the Banning Ranch in what had
been the Rancho Santiago Santa Ana from Andrew Glassell.
Over the years, Mary Banning leased portions of the property for various endeavors and to
farmers in the local area of what is now the City of Costa Mesa. She leased 3,000 acres of her
parcel to Henry D. Meyer in the 1890s; he farmed the land for over 35 years growing wheat,
oats, and barley. Gregory and Will Harper and Walter and Will Griffith also leased acreage from
Mary Banning for the raising of grain. In 1891, William Im Hof bought 150 acres for $5,500
(Daly 2009). In 1913, Mary Banning Norris (the daughter of Mary Hollister Banning) sold an
additional 1,020 acres of the Banning Ranch.
Exploratory oil wells were drilled in the West Newport region in the mid -1920s with mixed
results. In 1939, 1,750 acres of the Banning Ranch, of which the current Project site is a part,
were leased for drilling operations by the Thompson Company, an independent operator. After
her death in 1956, the estate of Mary Banning Norris sold the oilfields to Beeco, Ltd. The
property has gone through subsequent ownership, reducing the size of the parcel to
approximately 401.1 acres.
Military Use of Banning Ranch
In 1941, the U.S. Army Air Corps considered opening a flying base on 1,400 acres of the
Banning Ranch. The land was offered for purchase at $250 per acre. Major C.C. Mosely, the
head of Cal -Aero Corporation (a private firm that trained many pilots for later military service)
also looked at 750 acres of the Banning Ranch in order to establish a flying school. Both Mosely
and the U.S. Government rejected the site as an airfield.
The U.S. Army Air Corps did consider the site a good place to locate a gun emplacement as
part of a line of defense against a potential attack from Japan on the west coast of the
United States. In 1941 and 1942, temporary field mounts were used for the installation of three
155 - millimeter (mm) guns in the southernmost part of the property, near West Coast Highway.
In 1943, three permanent Panama gun mounts were constructed on Banning Ranch. A
"Panama" gun mount consists of a large circular concrete platform (approximately 38 feet in
diameter) where the end of the gun was fixed in the center of the concrete pad and the front of
the gun could be pushed along a circular metal rail, rotating the mouth of the gun into firing
position. The 3 mounts were placed about 200 feet apart with a system of 6- foot -deep trenches
and ammunition storage areas running between them.
After the end of World War II, the guns were removed and the trenches backfilled with the
demolished concrete pads and other related and unrelated refuse. Previous archaeological
investigations on the Project site have tentatively identified the location of an area of buried
debris, at least one element of which (a concrete anchor) is related to the gun emplacement.
R:Trojects\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 doc 4.13 -14 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Prehistoric Archaeological and Historic Resources
Eight prehistoric and three historic resources are recorded on the Project site, and five cultural
resources studies have been conducted on the site. There have been 17 cultural resources
investigations within a 1 -mile radius of the site, and 17 cultural resources have been recorded.
Table 4.13 -1 identifies, briefly describes, and provides eligibility recommendations for the
on -site cultural resources.
TABLE 4.13 -1
ON -SITE CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Maxon visited the Project site on May 13, 2009, to evaluate existing conditions. BonTerra
Consulting completed a Phase II archaeological test excavation and evaluation of the following
archaeological sites on the Project site from May 27 through June 26, 2009: CA -ORA -148,
CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -843, CA -ORA -844, CA -ORA -845, CA -ORA -906, CA -ORA -1599,
CA -ORA -1600, CA -ORA -1601 H, CA- ORA- 1602H, and CA- ORA- 1610H.
A brief description of each site and a determination of eligibility for the NRHP are provided. As
previously addressed, most resources deemed eligible for the NRHP would be considered
eligible for the CRHR. Final determinations are made by the SHPO.
CA -ORA -148: The site was first recorded in the South Central Coastal Information System
(SCCIC) at the California State University, Fullerton in 1964 by McKinney; however, Van Horn
notes the site was claimed to have been first noted or recorded by Strand in 1935. Hall revisited
the site in 1979 and did not find any evidence of a midden or subsurface deposits. Van Horn
tested the site in 1982 and excavated 19 posthcles between 15 and 100 cm deep, which were
analyzed for artifacts, pH tested (a measure of the soil's acidity or basicity), and examined for
soil color. While pH testing suggested a one -time midden deposit, the results of the LSA study
warranted neither avoidance nor further mitigation. Drover and Smith (1999) found no evidence
of shellfish or midden and believed the site had been severely impacted both by oil pads and
later by closure of the pads and cleaning of the area. Drover and Smith further contended that
R:Trojeats\Newpan \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -15 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
CEQAISection 106
Eligibility
Site CA -a
Description
Condition
Prior Testing
Current Testing
Recommendation
ORA -148
Shell scatter
Destroyed
Van Horn (1982)
None
Not eligible
ORA -839
Minor residential
Good
Van Horn (1980)
8 Control Units
Eligible
base
ORA -843
Shell scatter
Poor
Van Horn (1982)
8 STPs'
Not eligible
Minor residential
Locus A:
1 Control Unit;
ORA -844
base
Satisfactory
No
10 STPs
Eligible (Locus B)
Locus B: Poor
ORA -845
Shell scatter
Poor
Van Horn (1982)
10 STPs"
Not eligible
ORA -906
Major residential
Good
No
1 Control Unit
Eligible
base
ORA- 1599
Lithic scatter
Poor
No
6 STPs'
Not eligible
ORA -1600
Lithic scatter
Poor
No
7 STPsa
Not eligible
ORA -1601H
Trash scatter
Poor
No
2 STPsa
Not eligible
ORA -1602H
Trash scatter
Poor
No
1 STP°
Not eligible
ORA -1610H
Gun emplacement
Destroyed
No
None
Not eligible
CA -ORA- : Califomia- Orange County -site number
° STP: Shovel Test Pit. An approximately 40 -cm by 40 -cm hand - excavated unit used to detect presence /absence of resources.
Mr. Maxon visited the Project site on May 13, 2009, to evaluate existing conditions. BonTerra
Consulting completed a Phase II archaeological test excavation and evaluation of the following
archaeological sites on the Project site from May 27 through June 26, 2009: CA -ORA -148,
CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -843, CA -ORA -844, CA -ORA -845, CA -ORA -906, CA -ORA -1599,
CA -ORA -1600, CA -ORA -1601 H, CA- ORA- 1602H, and CA- ORA- 1610H.
A brief description of each site and a determination of eligibility for the NRHP are provided. As
previously addressed, most resources deemed eligible for the NRHP would be considered
eligible for the CRHR. Final determinations are made by the SHPO.
CA -ORA -148: The site was first recorded in the South Central Coastal Information System
(SCCIC) at the California State University, Fullerton in 1964 by McKinney; however, Van Horn
notes the site was claimed to have been first noted or recorded by Strand in 1935. Hall revisited
the site in 1979 and did not find any evidence of a midden or subsurface deposits. Van Horn
tested the site in 1982 and excavated 19 posthcles between 15 and 100 cm deep, which were
analyzed for artifacts, pH tested (a measure of the soil's acidity or basicity), and examined for
soil color. While pH testing suggested a one -time midden deposit, the results of the LSA study
warranted neither avoidance nor further mitigation. Drover and Smith (1999) found no evidence
of shellfish or midden and believed the site had been severely impacted both by oil pads and
later by closure of the pads and cleaning of the area. Drover and Smith further contended that
R:Trojeats\Newpan \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -15 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
the surface topsoil consisted of exposed bedrock formations and recommended no further work
at the site.
The site was visited during the current study, and conditions are the same as reported by LSA
(2008) and Drover and Smith (1999). No work was undertaken by BonTerra Consulting because
the site was destroyed by earlier oilfield operation activities. The site does not possess the
integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does
it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
CA -ORA -839: One of the earliest archaeological sites recorded for the property, CA -ORA -839,
has been subject to the most archaeological investigations (see BonTerra Consulting 2009a for
detailed references). This site, originally recorded by Hall (1975), was considered in 1980
because a new well location was planned. The proposed well site coincided with Locus B of
CA -ORA -839, requiring investigation by Van Horn. Van Horn's investigations were not an
archaeological test of the entire site (CA -ORA -839), but of a single "locus" of the site resulting
from prior oilfield operation activities. In spite of apparent surface disturbances, Van Horn's
efforts included approximately 23 square meters of excavation. These excavations included 1 -m
x 1 -m units, and expanded units were used to expose larger cultural features. Van Horn's work
not only verified subsurface materials but resulted in the discovery of multiple stratigraphic
components to the site (discussed below). These observations warranted recommendation for
further evaluation as well as the avoidance of Locus B and the other site loci by fencing each
location.
BonTerra Consulting excavated two 1 -m x 1 -m control excavation units each for Loci A, B, and
C, while Loci D and E were limited to one 1 -m x 1 -m control unit each (due to topographical
constraints). Locus E had not been mentioned in Van Horn's work (1980), nor was it relocated
by Drover and Smith (1999) or LSA (2008). Van Horn noted Locus E in his 1982 document,
which indicates it was recorded as a result of his later survey work. A map received from
Archaeological Associates indicated the location of Locus E at the base of the mesa upon which
CA -ORA -839 exists. This locus was not tested, and its relationship to CA -ORA -839 (other than
proximity) was not clear.
The present test results agree with Van Horn's general findings of 1980. A feature was
encountered in the 30- to 40 -cm level of Unit 1, Locus C of CA -ORA -839. The feature contained
well- associated shell with a Carbon 14 (14C) date of 3960 +/- 80 YBP (Beta- 261339 MS3 -late
Millingstone Horizon /Early Intermediate), from a unit which extended to a depth of 70 to 80 cm.
Based on observations made at CA -ORA -839 and based on topography, soil color and
14C dates, the site may have multiple chronological components (vertical and spatial). The
existing 14C date from the site indicates the likelihood for an Intermediate Period and Milling
Stone Period occupation. While the existence of a "Pre - Milling Stone Period" is unknown, the
likelihood of an upper, Late Prehistoric occupation is possible. Local sites with two or three
occupation components are relatively rare and are significant.
Mason and Peterson believe that CA -ORA -839 appears to be a Minor Residential Base. To a
limited degree, male and female activities, food procurement, and food - processing activities all
seem to have occurred at the site. While trade items (obsidian) and socio - ideological items
(beads) are represented at the site, their limited quantities may reflect a limited duration
of occupation. Given the limited regional knowledge of the occupation and habitat of the area,
CA -ORA -839 can provide unique chronological and subsistence information and change about
two or possibly three prehistoric cultural periods. The site does possess the integrity and
distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical and /or unique resource.
R:Trojeats \Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13-16 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
CA -ORA -843: This was once likely a large site (approximately three acres) on a prominent point
on the bluff overlooking what is now the referred to as Newport Shores. Due to the degree to
which the site has been impacted by oilfield operations, the exact location and integrity of the
site has been difficult to ascertain. The site was first recorded by Hall (1975), independently by
Murray in 1979, and updated by Drover and Smith in 1999. The lack of specific records
information regarding the location of the prior testing by Van Horn (1982) at the SCCIC
combined with a scarcity of observable midden or artifacts hampered the understanding of the
site's status. Van Horn tested CA -ORA -843 with postholes and found the site to be significant.
The only cultural data recovered by BonTerra Consulting from the 8 STPs excavated during the
current effort were 15 pieces of shell: 7 from 0 to 20 cm, 5 from 20 to 40 cm, and 3 from 40 to
60 cm. Shell species include 1 Chione californiensis, 2 Chione undatella, 9 Chione spp.,
2 Argopecten, and 1 Astrea undosa. The small area that produced these few specimens was
highly disturbed by oilfield operations, intrusive phone poles, trash, and erosion. CA -ORA -843
lacks any vertical or horizontal integrity and has no representative data to address relevant
research questions. The site does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the
NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource.
CA -ORA -844: This site was originally identified by Hall (1975), but formally recorded in the
SCCIC by Murray in 1979. CA -ORA -844 was not tested by Van Horn in 1982, but was
determined to be worthy of testing. Locus A, described as being 40 feet by 60 feet in size, was
completely covered by ice plant and had undulating topography suggestive of disturbance. The
site was noted to have a locus on either side of a road (the main road from the bluff top to the
oilfields), but subsequent archaeological surveys did not mention nor relocate Locus B.
However, with consideration primarily for Locus A, both Drover and Smith (1999) and LSA
(2008) recommended testing.
Initial testing undertaken at both loci for the current study consisted of STPs. Those excavated
at Locus A consisted of seven units laid out on the compass axes, three oriented north -south
and four oriented on the longer east -west axis. Only three STPs were laid out on a north -south
axis at Locus B due to the limited amount of undisturbed (not eroded) terrain. Locus B is located
approximately 80 meters north of Locus A on a slightly elevated hillside with severe erosional
cuts. While Van Horn speculated that the two loci may have at one time been connected or
contemporary components of one another, no evidence of this was observed.
Locus A produced a limited amount of shell (primarily from STPs 3, 4, 5, and 6) in the western
half of the grid nearest the road intersection. Of the 4 STPs noted above, all produced limited
shell in the 40- to 60 -cm level; however, STPs 5 and 6 produced shell in the 60- to 80 -cm level.
The total shell count from all STPs was 36. The shell recovery was sparse, and no other
prehistoric cultural materials were recovered with the exception of a single, fire - cracked rock.
Given the undulating surface of this portion of the site ( +i- 3 to 4 feet), the recovery of historic
material, the size of the deposit, and sparsity of the shell, the ability of Locus A to yield
information important in prehistory is highly doubtful. Since it is recommended that Locus B
qualifies in its ability to yield important prehistoric data, a control unit excavated at Locus A may
provide an adequate radiocarbon sample to determine the contemporaneity of Loci A and B.
Of the 3 STPs excavated at Locus B, STP 1 produced cultural materials and soil integrity to a
depth of 60 cm, suggesting the need for the excavation of a Control Unit. The control produced
three data classes: shell, lithics and bone, with shell being the largest. Shell represented from
Control Unit 1 consisted of a non - repeating element (NRE) count of 443, which is very dense
given the unit was only excavated to the depth of 60 cm. (The cubic meter density for shellfish
R:Trojeats \Newpart \J015NOrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13-17 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
NRE is 404 cubic meters.) The diversity of Taxa, or "richness", in such a small sample is
promising in the reconstruction of the habitat and food procurement strategies. The lithic
material in the unit amounted to seven specimens of lithic debitage (flakes). Faunal material
from the unit included six small mammal bones and one shark centrum. Radiocarbon dating
was not conducted.
Based on the data retrieved it is not possible to reconstruct the site type; however, the shell
density and species frequency suggest the site was a Minor Residential Base. The remaining
portion of the site has the capability to at least address the temporal setting of the site and its
subsistence patterns. It is possible that other recovered data classes may contribute to other
important questions. Given the limited regional knowledge of the occupation and habitat of the
area, CA -ORA -844, Locus B may yet yield information important in prehistory. Therefore, the
site does possess the integrity and distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a
historical resource. It does not meet the standards of a unique archaeological resource.
CA -ORA -845: This site was originally identified by Hall (1975), but was formally first recorded in
the SCCIC by Murray in 1979. Hall originally described the site as consisting of dark soil,
fire - cracked rock, and shellfish that covered an area of 50m x 150m; Hall noted that only
20 percent of the site remained intact. Van Horn conducted an archaeological test at this site in
1981 that consisted of four Control Units and a series of postholes on the compass axis. Van
Horn's results stated that "...no significant deposit is present at this site ". Van Horn also noted
that the site area had been heavily impacted. No subsequent archaeological survey has been
able to relocate the site.
Because occasional shell appeared on the surface of one of the two loci shown on the site
record, ten STPs were distributed and excavated in areas where either soil color or topography
indicated non - sterile (less disturbed) soil conditions. It appeared topographically that the once
"top" of the site may have, as in many other areas, been graded and soil removed.
Of the ten STPs (eight on the lower, larger mapped locus and two on the upper, smaller locus),
the only material recovered was shell from the lower locus. The deepest STP went to 60 cm.
The total NRE for shell recovered from all of the 8 lower STPs was 25 (8 Chione californiensis;
12 Ostrea lurida; and 5 Chione spp.). No other cultural material was recovered. Due to the
impact to this area, findings are in agreement with Van Horn (1982) that the site no longer exists
and lacks any physical integrity. Therefore, the site does not possess the integrity or distinction
to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for
a unique archaeological resource.
CA -ORA -906: This archaeological site is located at the base of the bluff below CA -ORA -839
Locus D. It was recorded by Van Horn and Murray in 1980. This site could not be relocated by
Drover and Smith (1999) or LSA (2008). Drover and Smith recommended that the site be
relocated (1999), and LSA (2008) recommended that the site undergo STP /Unit testing. The site
was located in dense foliage under a slump in the road at the base of the bluff below CA -ORA-
839. A 1 -m x 1 -m control unit was opened into the profile. Excavated in 10 -cm levels, the first 80
to 90 cm (above the present road level) were sterile. At approximately 100 cm deep (from the
present road level or standing surface), dense shell began to appear and continued to a depth
of approximately 200 cm. It cannot be estimated at this time how much of the site remains intact
because (1) the site has been heavily disturbed by oilfield roads; (2) has been partially buried by
slumping from the hill above; and (3) is obscured by dense vegetation.
Radiocarbon samples were submitted for the upper level (100 -110 cm) and the lowest level
(180 -200 cm) of the dense deposit. The dates respectively are 1330 +/- 70 YBP (Beta
RdPrgectswewportW01511oren eiRW13 cmwrei -09021 i.doc 4.13 -18 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
261340 -LP1 Late Prehistoric), with a basal date of 2340 + /- 80 YBP (Beta 261341 -LP1 Late
Prehistoric).
A sample projection for shellfish density is a cubic meter with an NRE of 4,470 cubic meters.
Such a density is ten times that of CA -ORA -839. Given the density of the shell and the size of
shell specimens in the midden, the focus on two primary species, Ostrea sp. and Argopecten
sp., is potentially significant. Only three artifacts recovered from the midden indicate Native
American presence. A small shell fragment (possibly Haliotis) caked with asphaltum was
recovered ( #906 -84), as was a small, circular shell bead ( #906 -29) and a utilized mammalian
bone (possibly a shellfish pry) ( #906 -48).
The site represents a third chronological period on the property, the Late Prehistoric. Little is
known about the prehistoric use of the mouth of the Santa Ana River and its estuary; therefore,
the data from this site could easily contribute to research questions regarding chronology and
subsistence and settlement patterns. The site does possess the integrity and distinction to
warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource but does not meet the criteria for a
unique archaeological resource.
CA -ORA -1599: This site was recorded in 1990 as part of the fieldwork associated with Phase I
survey activities associated with the Project. The site was recorded as a widely scattered,
sparse lithic scatter with two pieces of quartz shatter, one quartz flake, one quartz thinning flake,
four chert thinning flakes, and one retouched /utilized chert scraper or core within an area
measuring 50 m x 10 m. The site was located along a north -south oiled road (leading to pump
No. 340), and was parallel to the western side of the old road cut at the southern end of Banning
Ranch. Upon revisiting the site, LSA found no prehistoric lithics but identified some historic
glass and transfer ware porcelain (2008:60). The present test efforts did also observe the
historic glass and several shell fragments in the area intended for STPs; however, no Iithic
specimens were observed. The area has been impacted by oilfield operations. It is difficult to
determine the depth of any original cultural deposit.
Very limited cultural material was derived from the three STPs at CA -ORA -1599, and included
several species of shell mixed with modern materials. Therefore, the lack of cultural material,
evidence of mixing with historic material, and obvious topographic disturbance leaves little to no
value in these specimens.
The poor physical integrity of this site and resulting lack of cultural data available renders it
impossible to provide any of the data requirements to address important regional research
questions. The site, therefore, does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in
the NRHP or CRHR as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource.
CA -ORA -1600: This site was recorded in 1990 by Smith et al. as part of the fieldwork
associated with the Project's Phase I survey activities. The site consisted of diffuse Iithic scatter
containing two pieces of quartz shatter, one quartz flake, two quartz thinning flakes, three chert
flakes, and one retouched utilized chert core /scraper within an area of 25 m x 10 m. LSA's
revisit to the site in 2008 noted one small milky quartz flake and one large (four- to five -cm- thick)
secondary core reduction flake made of a brownish quartzite. Some shell was also observed in
small quantities.
All seven of the STPs excavated in the mapped location of this site returned negative cultural
material. The lack of cultural material, evidence of surface historic material, and obvious
appearance of topographic disturbance leaves little to no value in these specimens. The site,
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 Cu]Wral- 090211 Am 4.13-19 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
therefore, does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR
as a historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
CA- ORA- 1601H: This site was previously recorded as "partially buried trash scatter eroding out
of the roadway entering the pad from the south ". Strudwick and Goodwin (2008) report the site
in much the same condition as originally recorded by Drover and Smith (1999). The site was
relocated during the current field check, and a few fragments of historic material, chiefly bottle
glass, were noted.
BonTerra Consulting's field check revealed that the site was in much the same condition as
reported by Strudwick and Goodwin (2008). BonTerra Consulting Archaeologists note that the
site lies on the edge of a highly eroded, graded Upland flat which, upon surface inspection, has
four artifacts associated with the early 20th Century. In addition to surface inspection, STPs were
excavated at the site at three -meter intervals, resulting in no positive tests or evidence of
subsurface deposits within an area measuring approximately ten meters in diameter. No intact
cultural lenses or structural remains were present. Material recovered included one milk glass
cold cream jar, two amethyst glass bottle finishes, and one aqua glass bottle base. The site
does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a
historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
CA- ORA- 1602H: This site was previously recorded as a "partially buried historic trash dump
eroding out of the southwest facing wall of a moderately wide steep - walled drainage ". This
deposit was relocated and appeared in the same manner to BonTerra Consulting
Archaeologists.
As recorded by BonTerra Consulting, the site lies on the slope of a highly eroded, graded
Upland mesa which, upon surface inspection, yielded 49 artifacts associated with the late 19th
and 20th Centuries. In addition to surface inspection, one STP was dug, resulting in one positive
test. Subsurface artifacts were encountered at 0 to 80 cm below the surface. Two dark amber
( "black glass ") bottle bases with pontil scars represent the middle to late 19th Century, while the
remainder of the assemblage is dominated by ceramic and glass bottle fragments from the early
201h Century. Building material, including nails, brick fragments and window glass, were
recovered. Charcoal, ash, and fire - affected artifacts were present at 60 to 80 cm, representing a
discrete cultural lens within the site. No other area proved to be culturally intact.
Materials recovered include 11 amethyst glass shards; 14 aqua glass shards; 21 amber glass
shards; 66 clear glass shards; 2 milk glass shards; 1 cobalt glass shard; 2 green glass shards;
8 olive glass shards; 35 white warelironstone sherds (pottery fragments); 10 porcelain sherds;
6 salt glazed stoneware sherds; 1 earthenware sherd; 10 mammal bones; 31 miscellaneous
building materials; 55 miscellaneous metals; and 1 glass faux pearl hatpin mount. The site does
not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a historical
resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
CA- ORA- 161OH: This site was previously recorded as the location of a World War II gun
emplacement. This site's recorded location is on the mesa top directly above sites
CA -ORA -1601 H and CA- ORA- 1602H, which are included in the site record as separate loci of
the overall site. It was previously assumed to be entirely destroyed.
Field reconnaissance of the site by BonTerra Consulting strongly suggests that this was indeed
the location of the World War II gun emplacement. Found in a small arroyo adjacent to the site
are the remnants of an omega- shaped concrete anchor used to hold the gun in place and still
embedded in a larger concrete slab. However, a comparison of current and historic maps and
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13-20 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
photographs shows that up to 20 feet of the top of the mesa that supported the gun, as well as
the entire northern and southern portions of the mesa itself, have been removed. This likely
occurred during oil extraction operations. Therefore, there is little chance that any of the gun
emplacement and associated trenches and ammunition storage spaces remain at the site. The
site does not possess the integrity or distinction to warrant listing in the NRHP or CRHR as a
historical resource, nor does it meet the criteria for a unique archaeological resource.
Historic Resources
A site visit and pedestrian -level inspection of the historic resources on the Project site was
performed on June 29, 2009 (Daly 2009). Rick Swearingen, the Field Supervisor for the West
Newport Oil Company and 30 -year employee at the site, accompanied the investigator
describing the various buildings and structures spread over the 400 acres. Mr. Swearingen was
also able to assist in dating the various buildings which he said were constructed from the
1960s and later. Mr. Swearingen stated that all early pumping machinery and equipment has
been removed from the site and that the current pumps began arriving at the site in the 1970s.
He also stated that the only structures that may date from before 1960 are the temporary field
structures known as "dog houses ". These small, metal, multi - purpose structures can be easily
moved and have served a number of purposes on the oilfield over the years.
Eight structures were evaluated and are described below.
Building 1: The Crew Quarters building is used to provide field staff with changing rooms,
showers, lockers, and room for meetings and taking meals.
Building 2: A "dog house" is a small, movable structure used for any purpose from small field
offices to supplies and equipment storage.
Building 3: The Air Compressor Plant was used from the 1960s to the mid -1980s to house the
air compressor operations.
Building 4: The electrical substation was used to step -down the electrical power for the West
Newport Oil Company operations. There is a small shed built on skids and a "dog house"
located in close vicinity to the electrical substation.
Building 5: A ranch -style house currently used for the offices of the West Newport Oil
Company.
Building 6: The Tank Farm and associated oil recovery equipment used by the West Newport
Oil Company.
Building 7: The Vehicle Maintenance shed, a large metal -clad building, was used for repair and
maintenance of the various motor vehicles used on the site.
Building 8: A pole- framed structure was used to cover the equipment that supports the booster
air system.
Under NRHP Criterion (a) or CRHR Criterion (A) relating to the Project site's association with
significant historical events that exemplify broad patterns of our history, the subject property
does not qualify as a significant resource. There is no evidence of the activities of the early
rancho period, or of the period when the land had been used for agricultural purposes and
owned by Mary Hollister Banning and her heirs. The development of the Project site acreage of
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13-21 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Mary Hollister Banning's original 4,077 acres of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana as an area
of oil exploration and pumping operations occurred on a large scale starting in the 1960s. There
have been no significant events relating to the oil industry on a regional or national level at this
site.
Under NRHP Criterion (b) or CRHR Criterion (B) relating to the Project site's association with
persons of historic importance, the Project site and its collection of buildings do not qualify as
significant resources. Research has not revealed any direct association between the Project site
and persons important either regionally or nationally. The land has been used for grazing, the
growing of crops, and oil exploration. There are no buildings or structures on the site that
appear to date from before 1960.
Under NRHP Criterion (c) or CRHR Criterion (C) relating to the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region or method of construction, the buildings, structures, and related oil industry
features are not significant as they do not embody any distinctive style, high artistic design, or
method of construction. The house that now holds the West Newport Oil Company's office
operations was not constructed by a known architect, nor was it designed in an exceptional
architectural style. The buildings, structures, and equipment used by the oil pumping operations
are purely functional in design and do not have any architectural or engineering merit.
In summation, the Project site and buildings and structures on the site are not eligible for listing
on the NRHP or the CRHR as significant historic resources since they do not meet any of the
criteria necessary for listing in the registries.
Paleontological Resources
BonTerra Consulting conducted a Phase II paleontological study, which consisted of a records
search, literature review, and limited field reconnaissance in order to evaluate the sensitivity of
the substrate underlying the proposed development for the presence of fossil resources and to
make recommendations to mitigate the effects of the Project on those resources.
The Phase II study established that three lithologic units underlying the proposed development
have been mapped. These units are all relatively young (i.e., late Pleistocene to Holocene in
age) and consist of Quaternary San Pedro Sand, Quaternary Palos Verdes Sand (Qpv), and
Quaternary younger alluvium (Qa). The records search of the paleontological collections of the
LACM, Departments of Vertebrate Paleontology and Invertebrate Paleontology revealed the
presence of previously recorded fossil sites in two mapped units underlying the Project site. As
identified on Table 4.13 -2, the San Pedro Sand and Palos Verdes Sand are considered to have
high paleontological sensitivity, while the younger alluvium is of low paleontological sensitivity.
TABLE 4.13 -2
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY OF THE LITHOLOGIC UNITS
UNDERLYING THE PROJECT SITE
Lithologic Unit
Sensitivity
Quaternary younger alluvium
Low
Quaternary Marine Terrace Deposits (includes
"Palos Verdes Sand ")
High
Quaternary San Pedro Sand
High
R:Troieats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -22 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
4.13.5 PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND STANDARD CONDITIONS
Project Design Features
No project design features have been identified by the Applicant.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.13 -1 In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if
human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours
of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the
County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the
discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the
County Coroner determines that the remains are or are believed to be Native
American, s /he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in
Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the
California Public Resources Code, the NAHC must immediately notify those
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native
American. The descendents shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of
being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative
would then determine, in consultation with the property owner(s), the disposition
of the human remains.
4.13.6 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following significance criteria are derived from the City's Environmental Checklist. The
Project would result in a significant impact related to cultural resources if it would:
Threshold 4.13 -1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5.
Threshold 4.13 -2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Threshold 4.13 -3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.
Threshold 4.13 -4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Threshold 4.13 -5 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
4.13.7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold 4.13 -1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Section 15064.5(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for the determination of
significance of impacts to both archaeological and historical resources. The following analysis
R:Trojeets \Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CulWeal- 090211 doe 4.13 -23 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
addresses potential significant impacts to built- environment historical resources. Potential
impacts to archaeological resources, including archeological resources that meet the CEQA
definition of an historical resource, are addressed under Threshold 4.13 -2. The historical
resources (eight buildings and their adjacent elements) of the Newport Banning Ranch site were
formally evaluated as part of this proposed Project. None were found to be eligible for listing in
the CRHR or the NRHP. The Project would not impact any known significant historical
resources. Although no impacts are anticipated to historical resources, Mitigation Measure
(MM) 4.13 -1 requires that an archaeologist monitor grading and excavation activities. The
archaeologist would have the ability to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and resources, as appropriate. If resources are
found to be significant, the archaeologist would determine appropriate actions, in cooperation
with the City and Applicant /Contractor.
Impact Summary. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The Project would not impact
any known historical resources. However, grading and excavation could
impact unknown historical resources. This impact would be mitigated to a
level considered less than significant with implementation of Mitigation
Measure (MM) 4.13 -1.
Threshold 4.13 -2 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Evaluation of 11 archaeological sites on the Newport Banning Ranch property resulted in a
finding that 3 of the sites (CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) are deemed eligible
for listing in CRHR and the NRHP as historical resources. Only one (CA -ORA -839) qualifies as
a unique archaeological resource.
The proposed construction of North Bluff Road would extend north into the vicinity of
CA -ORA -839. North Bluff Road would be constructed along the bottom of and to the west of the
bluffs, while the site lies on the bluff top to the east. Therefore, CA -ORA -839 would not be
directly impacted as a result of the proposed Project. In the event that North Bluff Road is not
constructed north of 17`h Street, no direct impacts to CA -ORA -839 are anticipated. However, the
planned removal of oilfield - related infrastructure prior to grading would adversely impact
portions of the site. The extent of impacts is unclear at this time. All reasonable efforts would be
made to ensure minimal impact to the archaeological site during Project grading through the
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. MMs 4.13 -1 and 4.13 -2 require that data
recovery excavations, designed to recover the scientifically consequential information from
sites, be focused in those areas that would be disturbed through the removal of oilfield
infrastructure. Indirect impacts from increased population on the site as a result of the future
development could cause further damage to the site over time. Capping the site with chemically
stable soils would help to protect the site in perpetuity.
CA -ORA -8448 is located on a hillside transacted by two recent erosional cuts that exceed
six feet in depth. The western side of the site is absent due to oil pad construction. These
factors have left little midden from the original site intact at this location, but a large sample was
recovered through the test excavation in 2009. CA- ORA -844B would not be directly impacted as
a result of the proposed development; the construction of North Bluff Road would be
approximately 400 feet east of the archaeological site. However, oil infrastructure removal
activities prior to grading could adversely impact portions of the site; indirect impacts from
additional erosion of the unstable surface and the increased population on the site as a result of
the future development could cause further damage over time. Mitigation of the Project's
adverse effects is required.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13-24 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
CA -ORA -906 would be directly impacted as a result of the proposed development as well as by
oilfield infrastructure removal. The construction of North Bluff Road would impact the site as the
road travels along the bottom and to the west of the bluffs. Road construction would likely
completely destroy the site. Therefore, mitigation of the Project's adverse effects is required.
MM 4.13 -1 requires that an archaeologist monitor grading and excavation activities. The
archaeologist would have the ability to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts and resources, as appropriate. If resources are
found to be significant, the archaeologist would determine appropriate actions, in cooperation
with the City and Applicant/Contractor. MM 4.13 -2 is applicable for the three sites deemed
eligible for listing on the CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources. Only CA -ORA -839 is also
considered a unique archaeological resource. Mitigation is the same for both types of resources.
Mitigation options are provided to avoid, preserve in place, and /or recover data. Impacts to
these resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Impact Summary: Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The Project would impact
known archaeological resources. Three archaeological sites
(CA -ORA -839, CA -ORA -8448, and CA -ORA -906) are deemed eligible for
listing on CRHR and NRHP. Disturbance activities could also impact
unknown resources. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered
less than significant with implementation of MMs 4.13 -1 and 4.13 -2.
Threshold 4.13 -3 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
A paleontological study of the Project site established that there are three mapped lithologic
units that underlie the proposed development. These units consist of Quaternary San Pedro
Sand, Quaternary Palos Verdes Sand (Qpv), and Quaternary younger alluvium (Qa). Fossil
sites have been recorded in two mapped units that underlie the site. San Pedro Sand and Palos
Verdes Sand are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity, while the Quaternary
younger alluvium is of low paleontological sensitivity.
Most properties do not have paleontological resources exposed at the surface, and fossils are
usually found during the earth - moving activities as grading exposes the geologic formations.
Newport Banning Ranch in many ways is unique; paleontological resources are exposed in
natural outcrops, borrow areas, and drainages over most of the site. The first fossils were found
in the San Pedro Sand in Orange County. Several shell- bearing horizons were found during the
limited field survey. Most of the site had a prominent two- foot -thick shell- bearing horizon in the
Quaternary marine terrace deposits (elsewhere called the Palos Verdes Sand), which can be
traced from the northern to the southern end of the site. Additionally, there are several shell -
bearing horizons below the main shell bed. MM 4.13 -3 requires that a qualified paleontologist
monitor the grading and excavation activities and conduct salvage excavation as necessary. If
any scientifically important large fossil remains are uncovered, the paleontologist would have
the authority to divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site. MM 4.13 -4 requires a
paleontological survey be conducted to record all paleontological resources present at the
surface for those portions of the Project site where grading would occur that would affect
Quaternary San Pedro Sand and Quaternary Palos Verdes Sand. Significant impacts can be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Impact Summary: Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Grading activities could impact
significant paleontological resources. This impact would be reduced to a
level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 4.13 -3
and 4.13 -4.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -25 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Threshold 4.13 -4 Would the project disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There is no indication that there are burials present on the Project site. Native American tribes
note that ancestors were often buried in coastal locations and much evidence exists to support
this supposition. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading activities,
SC 4.13 -1, which addresses procedures to follow in the event of a discovery of suspected
human remains, would reduce proposed Project impacts to human remains to a less than
significant level.
Impact Summary: Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Grading activities could impact
unknown human remains, including those interred outside formal
cemeteries. This impact would be less than significant with
implementation of SC 4.13 -1.
Threshold 4.13 -5 Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,
but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Tables 4.13 -3 and 4.13 -44 evaluate the consistency of the proposed Project with the applicable
goals and policies of the City's General Plan and the Coastal Act, respectively.
Impact Summary: No Impact. As identified in Tables 4.13 -3 and 4.13 -4, the proposed
Project would not conflict with any goals or policies of the City of Newport
Beach General Plan or the Coastal Act related to historic, archaeological,
and paleontological resources.
4.13.8 MITIGATION PROGRAM
Project Design Features
No project design features have been identified by the Applicant.
Standard Conditions and Requirements
SC 4.13 -1 which requires that the County Coroner be notified if human remains are found is
applicable to the Project.
Mitigation Measures
Historical Resources
No mitigation is required for historical resources.
Archaeological Resources
MM 4.13 -1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit
Project site disturbance, the Applicant/Contractor shall provide written evidence
to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department that the
4 For ease of reading, the policy tables are located at the end of this EIR section.
R:�Projects\NewporBd015\loren E l R\4.13 cultural- 09021 1.doc 4.13 -26 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Applicant /Contractor has retained a qualified Archaeologist to observe grading
activities and to salvage and catalogue archaeological resources, as necessary.
The Archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference; shall establish
procedures for archaeological resource surveillance; and shall establish, in
cooperation with the Applicant/Contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the
artifacts, as appropriate. If archaeological resources are found to be significant,
the Archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the
City and Applicant/Contractor, for exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as
well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
Based on their interest and concern about the discovery of cultural resources and
human remains during Project grading, a qualified Native American Monitor(s)
shall be retained to observe some or all grading activities.
Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a single
cross - trained observer who is qualified to monitor for both archaeological and
paleontological resources.
MM 4.13 -2 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies,
wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological
nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Several possibilities
suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to
avoid the site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with
a chemically stable soil; and /or (4) deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement.
The following is applicable for the three sites deemed eligible for listing on the
CRHR or the NRHP as historical resources. Only CA -ORA -839 is also
considered a unique archaeological resource. In this instance, mitigation is the
same for both types of resources.
-. 11M
It should be possible to preserve the vast majority of the site in place in
perpetuity to avoid further disturbance to it. However, it appears that the planned
removal of oilfield infrastructure may impact portions of the site. In that event, the
site shall undergo a data recovery excavation of those areas that would be
impacted.
Research Design/Treatment and Mitigation Plan
A Research Design/Treatment and Mitigation Plan (data recovery pian) shall be
prepared by a qualified Archaeologist and approved by the City of Newport
Beach Community Development Director prior to any excavation being
undertaken. The Plan shall explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the
excavation and the scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope
to answer;
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -27 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Data Recovery
Data recovery excavation shall be completed prior to Project grading and shall be
designed to recover the consequential data present on the site. Data recovery
shall be sufficient to collect a representative sample of site constituents, including
organic materials, to permit additional absolute dating of the deposit. The study
shall include:
a. Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and shovel test pits (STPs)
to recover a representative sample of site constituents;
b. Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of a computerized
database of artifacts recovered;
c. Completion of a Data Recovery Excavation /Mitigation Report detailing the
results of the study; and
d. Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other scientifically
accredited institution that would make the collections available to future
researchers.
Capping
In addition, secondary impacts (e.g., increased foot traffic, erosion) could occur
at the site after the Project has been constructed; therefore, the site shall be
capped with chemically stable soil to preserve it in perpetuity. During grading
operations, excess dirt shall be placed on the site to a sufficient depth to protect
the deposit, but not cause unintended damage to it. Shallow- rooted vegetation
(such as native coastal sage scrub) may be planted on the new surface. To
ensure the integrity of the archaeological deposit, the current ground surface
shall initially be covered with some form of horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a
polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the deposit from mixing with the covering
material and to serve as a marker of the site if the covering is ever removed. The
following relies on guidance provided by the National Park Service's Brief #5
Intentional Site Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical
Loss (NIPS 1989, revised 1991).
The capping program must include submittal to the Community Development
Department of a Site Capping Plan that includes:
a. An evaluation by a qualified Archaeologist of the classes of archaeological
components to be preserved and their suitability for preservation;
b. An analysis by a qualified Soils Scientist of the pH levels, compression
strength, and permeability of the horizon marker and capping material to be
used to ensure they fit the preservation needs of the site's constituents;
c. Formulation of a plan by a qualified Civil /Structural Engineer that details how
the cap would be physically constructed to ensure that (1) hydraulic changes
over time, (2) erosion, and (3) the physical placement of the cap itself do not
adversely impact the deposit;
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -28 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
d. Archaeological monitoring during placement of the capping material;
e. A Revegetation Plan, prepared by a qualified Biologist/Restoration Specialist,
that is designed to help stabilize the new land surface and to prevent future
erosion at the cap surface;
A plan of future monitoring of the site to ensure the long -term success of the
capping program; and
g. A report detailing the results of the capping effort.
CA -ORA -844 Locus B
CA- ORA -844B is not expected to be directly impacted by development. Oil
infrastructure removal activities that would occur prior to grading are expected to
adversely impact portions of the site. Indirect impacts from additional erosion of
the unstable surface and increased population in the vicinity of the site as a result
of the future development could cause further damage over time.
Both capping and data recovery excavation are viable options for treating the
site; however, because it has been disturbed by erosion and oil extraction
activities, capping the deposit would be difficult and possibly more expensive and
time consuming and may produce less desirable results than data recovery
excavation. Considering these circumstances, two options are provided:
(1) successful capping of the site, while likely difficult to accomplish, would be
designed to protect the site in perpetuity or, preferably, (2) data recovery shall be
undertaken prior to grading to collect the scientifically consequential data that is
present in the site since it appears that only a small, yet important, portion of the
site remains. Because of the limited size of this site, this option would enable the
removal and analysis of the site in its entirety.
Capping the deposit or data recovery would result in temporary impacts to
approximately 0.92 acre of coastal sage scrub (0.29 acre of encelia scrub and
0.63 acre of cactus scrub). The Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.6,
Biological Resources, addresses this impact.
Capping
If option 1 is chosen, the site shall be capped with chemically stable soil to
preserve it in perpetuity. During grading operations, excess dirt shall be placed
on the site to a sufficient depth to protect the deposit, but not cause unintended
damage to it. Shallow- rooted vegetation (such as native coastal sage scrub) may
be planted on the new surface. To ensure the integrity of the archaeological
deposit, the current ground surface shall initially be covered with some form of
horizon marker (e.g., by Mirafi, a polypropylene geotextile) to prevent the deposit
from mixing with the covering material and to serve as a marker of the site if the
covering is ever removed. The following relies on guidance provided by the
National Park Service's Brief #5 Intentional Site Burial. A Technique to Protect
Against Natural or Mechanical Loss (NPS 1989, revised 1991).
The capping program must include submittal to the Community Development
Department of a Site Capping Plan that includes:
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13-29 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
a. An evaluation by a qualified Archaeologist of the classes of archaeological
components to be preserved and their suitability for preservation;
b. An analysis by a qualified Soils Scientist of the pH levels, compression
strength, and permeability of the horizon marker and capping material to be
used to ensure they fit the preservation needs of the site's constituents;
c. Formulation of a plan by a qualified Civil /Structural Engineer that details how
the cap would be physically constructed to ensure that (1) hydraulic changes
over time, (2) erosion, and (3) the physical placement of the cap itself do not
adversely impact the deposit;
d. Archaeological monitoring during placement of the capping material;
e. A Revegetation Plan, prepared by a qualified Biologist/Restoration Specialist,
that is designed to help stabilize the new land surface and to prevent future
erosion at the cap surface;
f. A plan of future monitoring of the site to ensure the long -term success of the
capping program; and
g. A report detailing the results of the capping effort.
Data Recovery
If option 2 is selected, data recovery excavation at CA- ORA -844B shall be
completed prior to Project grading and shall be designed to recover the
consequential data present in the site and to remove site constituents. The study
shall include:
a. Development of a Research Design /Treatment and Mitigation Plan to
explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the excavation and the
scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope to answer.
b. Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and STPs to recover a
representative sample of site constituents.
c. Controlled demolition /removal of the site by a small scraper under the
direction of a qualified Archaeologist to ensure the removal of all midden and
other cultural constituents of the site. Controlled demolition permits the
discovery and recovery of larger features not typically found during hand
excavation and reduces the number of hand - excavated control units
necessary.
d. Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of a computerized
database of artifacts recovered.
e. Completion of a Data Recovery Excavation /Mitigation Report detailing the
results of the study.
f. Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other scientifically
accredited institution that would make the collections available to future
researchers.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\IDrafi EIRW.13 CuNmi- 090211 doe 4.13 -30 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
CA -ORA -906
CA -ORA -906 would be directly impacted as a result of development as well as oil
infrastructure removal. Data recovery excavation at the site shall be completed
prior to Project grading and shall be designed to recover the consequential data
present in the site and to remove the site constituents. Mitigation shall be in the
form of data recovery excavation to collect the scientifically consequential data
that the site retains prior to its destruction by Project grading. The study shall
include:
a. Development of a Research Design /Treatment and Mitigation Plan to
explicitly lay out the methods to be used in the excavation and the
scientifically consequential questions that the study will hope to answer.
b. Excavation of a sufficient number of Control Units and STPs to recover a
representative sample of site constituents.
c. Controlled demolition /removal of the site by a small scraper under the
direction of a qualified Archaeologist to ensure the removal of all midden and
other cultural constituents of the site. Controlled demolition permits the
discovery and recovery of larger features not typically found during hand
excavation and reduces the number of hand - excavated control units
necessary.
d. Laboratory analysis of all recovered materials and creation of a computerized
database of artifacts recovered.
e. Completion of a data recovery excavation /mitigation report detailing the
results of the study.
f. Curation of excavated cultural material in a museum or other scientifically
accredited institution that would make the collections available to future
researchers.
Paleontological Resources
MM 4.13 -3 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit
Project site disturbance, the Applicant/Contractor shall provide written evidence
to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department that the
Applicant /Contractor has retained a qualified Paleontologist to observe grading
activities and to conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources as
necessary. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference;
shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance; and shall
establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the
fossils as appropriate.
Any earth - moving activity associated with development, slope modification, or
slope stabilization that requires moving large volumes of earth shall be monitored
according to the paleontological sensitivity of the rock units that underlie the
affected area. All vertebrate fossils and representative samples of
megainvertebrates and plant fossils shall be collected. Productive sites that yield
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015NCrafi EIRW.19 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -31 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
vertebrates should be excavated, and approximately 2,000 pounds (Ibs) of rock
samples should be collected to be processed for microvertebrate fossil remains.
If any scientifically important large fossil remains are uncovered during
earth - moving activities, the Paleontologist shall divert heavy equipment away
from the fossil site until s /he has had an opportunity to examine the remains. If
warranted, a rock sample shall be collected for processing. The Paleontologist
shall be equipped to rapidly remove fossil remains and /or matrix (earth), and thus
reduce the potential for any construction delays.
If scientifically important fossil remains are observed and if safety restrictions
permit, the Construction Contractor shall allow the Paleontologist to safely
salvage the discovery. At the Paleontologist's discretion, the Grading Contractor
may assist in the removal of the fossil remains and rock sample to reduce any
construction delays.
All fossils shall be documented in a detailed Paleontological Resource Impact
Mitigation Report. Fossils recovered from the field or by processing shall be
prepared; identified; and, along with accompanying field notes, maps and
photographs, accessioned into the collections of a designated, accredited
museum such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) or
the San Diego Natural History Museum.
Because of slope modification, fossil- bearing exposures of the Quaternary
marine deposits may be destroyed. If feasible, a few stratigraphic sections with
fossil- bearing horizons shall be preserved for educational and scientific
purposes.
MM 4.13 -4 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would allow for
Project site disturbance, a paleontological survey shall be conducted to record all
paleontological resources present at the surface for those portions of the Project
site where grading would occur that would affect Quaternary San Pedro Sand
and Quaternary Palos Verdes Sand. A qualified Paleontologist shall make
collections of exposed fossils from lithologic units of high paleontologic
significance, especially in areas where access to fossil sites is not permitted
because of slope modification. All vertebrate and representative samples of
megainvertebrates and plant fossils shall be collected. Productive sites yielding
vertebrates should be excavated, and approximately 2,000 Ibs of rock samples
shall be collected to process for microvertebrate fossil remains. Dry screening of
fossil marine shell horizons in the Quaternary terrace deposits and San Pedro
Sand with 1/8 -inch archaeological field screens shall be conducted to recover rare
types of fossil marine mollusks, bony fish, sharks, reptiles, birds, and marine and
terrestrial mammals. All fossil sites shall be tied to detailed measured sections
showing sedimentary structures and relationships with over- and underlying rock
units.
a. For San Pedro Sand, prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or
action that would permit Project site disturbance, a qualified Paleontologist
shall prepare a detailed mitigation plan to sample the existing paleontological
sites that would be affected by slope modification. The plan shall be
developed in consultation with a local museum (e.g., the LACM or the San
Diego Natural History Museum) in order to describe the size of the sample,
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -32 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
cultural and Paleontolovlcal Resources
methods of collection and processing, stratigraphic information, and other
pertinent information. A bulk sample of at least 100 Ibs per fossil site shall be
processed through fine screens, and all identifiable fossils shall be sorted
from the concentrate. Detailed measured geologic sections placing the fossil
sites in a stratigraphic sequence must be made. Bulk sampling that is
collected from matrix or sediment to recover rare invertebrates, marine
vertebrates, and terrestrial vertebrates must also be part of the mitigation
plan.
b. For Quaternary marine terrace deposits (Palos Verdes Sand), prior to the
issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit Project
site disturbance, a detailed mitigation plan must be developed to sample the
existing paleontological sites that would be affected by slope modification.
This shall be conducted in consultation with a local museum (e.g., the LACM
or the San Diego Natural History Museum) to describe the size of the sample,
methods of collection and processing, stratigraphic information, and other
pertinent information. A bulk sample of at least 100 Ibs per fossil site shall be
processed through fine screens, and all identifiable fossils shall be sorted
from the concentrate. Detailed measured geologic sections placing the fossil
sites in a stratigraphic sequence shall be made. Bulk sampling, collecting,
water screening, or dry screening of sediments that contain rare
invertebrates, marine vertebrates, and terrestrial vertebrates shall be part of
the mitigation plan.
c. A qualified Paleontologist shall be notified and retained when earth - moving
activities are anticipated to impact undisturbed deposits in the San Pedro
Sand and Palos Verdes Sand. The designated Paleontologist shall be
present during construction activities on a full -time basis to assess whether
scientifically important fossils are exposed. Part-time monitoring is
recommended in Younger Alluvium. If any scientifically important, large fossil
remains are uncovered during earth - moving activities, the Paleontological
Monitor shall divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site until s /he has
had an opportunity to examine the remains. If warranted, a rock sample shall
be collected for processing. The Monitor shall be equipped to allow for the
rapid removal of fossil remains and /or matrix (earth), and thus reduce the
potential for any construction delays. At the Monitor's discretion, the Grading
Contractor may assist in the removal of the fossil remains and rock sample to
reduce any delay in construction.
d. All fossils shall be documented in a detailed Paleontological Resources
Impact Mitigation Report. Fossils recovered from the field or by processing
shall be prepared; identified; and, along with accompanying field notes, maps
and photographs, accessioned into the collections of a designated,
accredited museum such as the LACM or the San Diego Natural History
Museum.
e. Because of slope modification and restoration of the bluff area, most, if not
all, the fossil- bearing exposures of the San Pedro Sand and Quaternary
marine terrace deposits would be destroyed. If feasible, a few stratigraphic
sections with fossil- bearing horizons shall be preserved in perpetuity for
educational and scientific purposes.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -33 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.13
Cultural and Paleontolovical Resources
Nothing in this mitigation measure precludes the retention of a single
cross - trained observer qualified to monitor for both archaeological and
paleontological resources.
4.13.9 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
With implementation of the Mitigation Program set forth in this section and Section 4.6,
Biological Resources, potential impacts to archaeological, historical, and paleontological
resources would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CUIWmi- 090211 Am 4.13 -34 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cultural and
TABLE 4.13 -3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Section 4.13
V Resources
City of Newport Beach General Plan
Relevant Goals, Policies, and Programs
Consistency Analysis
Historical Resources Element
Historical Resources Element Goal HR 1
Recognize and protect historically significant
The Project is consistent with this goal. There are no historically
landmarks, sites, and structures.
significant landmarks, sites, or structures on the Project site.
Policies
HR Policy 1.3: Historical Landmarks
The Project is consistent with this policy. There are no
Encourage the placement of historical landmarks,
historically significant landmarks, sites, or structures on the
photographs, markers, or plaques at areas of
Project site.
historical interest or value. Create a Landmark
Plan that will recognize and designate culturally
important heritage sites that are eligible for the
placement of historical landmarks or plaques. The
Plan will also identify funding opportunities to
support the program such as development fees,
corporate or civic sponsorships, donations, or
utilizing General Funds.
HR Policy 1.5: Historical Elements within New
The Project is consistent with this policy. There are no
Projects
historically significant landmarks, sites, or structures on the
Require that proposed development that is
Project site.
located on a historical site or structure incorporate
a physical link to the past within the site or
structural design, if preservation or adaptive reuse
is not a feasible option. For example, incorporate
historical photographs or artifacts within the
proposed project or preserve the location and
structures of existing pathways, gathering places,
seating areas, rail lines, roadways, or viewing
vantage points within the proposed site design.
HR Policy 1.6: Documentation
The Project is consistent with this policy. An Architectural
Require that, prior to the issuance of a demolition
Historian was retained as a part of the preparation of the EIR to
or grading permit, developers of a property that
evaluate the potential significance of structures on the Project
contains an historic structure as defined by CEQA
site. All findings were recorded using California Department of
retain a qualified consultant to record the structure
Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms for the
in accordance with U.S. Secretary of Interior
recordation of cultural resources. There are no historically
guidelines (which includes drawings,
significant landmarks, sites, or structures on the Project site; no
photographs, and written data) and submit this
historic resources are eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR.
information to the Newport Beach Historical
Society, Orange County Public Library, and City
Planning Department.
Historical Resources General Plan Goal HR 2
Identification and protection of important
The Project is consistent with this goal. As a part of the EIR, a
archeological and paleontological resources
prehistoric and historical archaeological resources assessment
within the City.
and paleontological resources assessment were prepared. The
findings of these reports are presented in this section of the
EIR. The Project would not significantly impact any know
significant historic resources. A Mitigation Program is provided
to mitigate significant impacts to archaeological and
paleontological resources. Impacts can be mitigated to a less
than significant level.
R:Trojets\Newpan \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -35 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cultural and
TABLE 4.13 -3 (Continued)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Section 4.13
V Resources
City of Newport Beach General Plan
Relevant Goals, Policies, and Programs
Consistency Analysis
Policies
HR Policy 2.7: New Development Activities
The Project is consistent with this policy. The historic,
Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new
archaeological, and paleontological investigations prepared for
development protect and preserve paleontological
the Project as a part of this EIR have been prepared in
and archaeological resources from destruction,
accordance with CEQA and the City of Newport Beach City
and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources.
Council Policy Manual Guidelines City Policy K -4 (with respect
Through planning policies and permit conditions,
to paleontological resources) and City Policy K -5 (with respect
ensure the preservation of significant
to archeological resources). The investigations identify potential
archeological and paleontological resources and
impacts, alternatives, and recommendations for impact
require that the impact caused by any
mitigation. To the degree feasible, the Project Mitigation
development be mitigated in accordance with
Program prioritizes the avoidance of impacts to these
CEQA.
resources; mitigation is provided where significant resources
would be impacted by the proposed Project.
HR Policy 2.2: Grading and Excavation
The Project is consistent with this policy. Paleontological and
Activities
archaeological records for this area are retained at the LACM
Maintain sources of information regarding
and the SCCIC at California State University, Fullerton,
paleontological and archeological sites and the
respectively. Results of research for the Project are included in
names and addresses of responsible
this EIR, and files can be accessed at each repository if
organizations and qualified individuals, who can
desired. The SCCIC maintains listings of qualified
analyze, classify, record, and preserve
archaeologists. The Mitigation Program includes monitoring
paleontological or archeological findings.
during grading and excavation activities.
Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to
monitor all grading and /or excavation where there
is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or
paleontological resources. If these resources are
found, the applicant shall implement the
recommendations of the paleontologist/
archeologist, subject to the approval of the City
Planning Department.
HR Policy 2.3: Cultural Organizations
The Project is consistent with this policy. The State of California
Notify cultural organizations, including Native
NAHC provided the City with a list of tribal affiliations in the
American organizations, of proposed
area. Consistent with the statutory requirements of Section
developments that have the potential to adversely
65352.2 of the California Government Code, the City offered
impact cultural resources. Allow representatives
government -to- government consultation with the interested
of such groups to monitor grading and /or
tribes. Tribal representatives were notified by mail of the
excavation of development sites.
proposed Project and their comments or questions were invited
regarding the Project. The City received three requests for
consultation; the City met with each tribal representative.
Additionally, a representative of the Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians, Acjachemen Nation was present on the Project during
the archaeological testing program. Further, the City provides
Native American tribes with the opportunity to conduct
monitoring.
HR Policy 2.4: Paleontological or
The Project is consistent with this policy. The Mitigation
Archaeological Materials
Program set forth in this EIR includes this requirement.
Require new development to donate scientifically
valuable paleontological or archaeological
materials to a responsible public or private
institution with a suitable repository, located within
Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever
possible.
R:TrolectslNewpanu015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -36 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cultural and
TABLE 4.13 -3 (Continued)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Section 4.13
V Resources
City of Newport Beach General Plan
Relevant Goals, Policies, and Programs
Consistency Analysis
Natural Resources Element
Natural Resources Element Goal NR 18
Protection and preservation of important
The Project is consistent with this goal. The historic,
paleontological and archaeological resources.
archaeological, and paleontological investigations prepared for
the Project as a part of this EIR have been prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the City of Newport Beach City
Council Policy Manual Guidelines City Policy K -4 (with respect
to paleontological resources) and City Policy K -5 (with respect
to archeological resources). The investigations identify potential
impacts, alternatives, and recommendations for impact
mitigation. To the degree feasible, the Project Mitigation
Program would avoid impacts to these resources; mitigation is
provided where significant resources would be impacted by the
proposed Project.
Policies
NR Policy 18.1: New Development
The Project is consistent with this policy. Please refer to the
Require new development to protect and preserve
response to Goal NR 18.
paleontological and archaeological resources
from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts
to such resources in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies
and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of
significant archeological and paleontological
resources and require that the impact caused by
any development be mitigated in accordance with
CEQA.
NR Policy 18.3: Potential for New Development
The Project is consistent with this policy. The Project requires a
to Impact Resources
General Plan Amendment; therefore, Section 65352.3 of the
Notify cultural organizations, including Native
California Government Code applies. The NAHC was contacted
American organizations, of proposed
to provide a list of tribal affiliations in the area. Tribal
developments that have the potential to adversely
representatives were notified by mail of the proposed Project
mpact cultural resources. Allow qualified
and their comments or questions were invited regarding the
representatives of such groups to monitor grading
Project. Three tribal representatives were given tours, and one
and /or excavation of development sites.
tribe monitored the archaeological evaluation of resources on
the Project site. The City provides Native American tribes with
the opportunity to conduct monitoring during grading activities.
NR Policy 18.4: Donation of Materials
The Project is consistent with this policy. The Mitigation
Require new development, where on site
Program set forth in this EIR includes this requirement.
preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to
donate scientifically valuable paleontological or
archaeological materials to a responsible public or
private institution with a suitable repository,
located within Newport Beach or Orange County,
whenever possible.
R:Trojeats\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 Cultural - 090211 Am 4.13 -37 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cultural and
TABLE 4.13 -4
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Section 4.13
V Resources
Relevant California Coastal Act Policies
Consistency Analysis
Applicable Sections
Land Resources
Section 30244 Archaeological or
The Project is consistent with this policy. Prehistoric and historic
paleontological resources
archaeological and paleontological resource sites have been
Where development would adversely impact
recorded on the Project site. As a part of the EIR, a Prehistoric
archaeological or paleontological resources as
and Historical Archaeological Resources Assessment and a
identified by the State Historic Preservation
Paleontological Resources Assessment were prepared. The
Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be
findings of these reports are presented in this EIR. To mitigate
required.
for potential significant impacts, the Project would be required to
comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in this EIR. This
Mitigation Program requires compliance with standard practices
for the preservation of cultural resources remains and /or the
recovery of these remains in a manner that preserves the
scientific and historical value of the resource. Mitigation of
paleontological resources is also addressed in the Mitigation
Program set forth in this EIR. This Mitigation Program is
intended to comply with Section 30244 of the Coastal Act.
R:Trojets\Newpart \J015\ICrafi EIRW.13 CuIWral- 090211 Am 4.13 -38 Newport Banning Ranch
Draft Environmental Impact Report