Agenda packet — Aliso Viejo City Council, September 18, 2024 (part 2 of 7)

represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD appreciates the assistance that the City’s housing element team provided throughout the course of the housing element review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
Enclosure
232
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 1 August 8, 2023

APPENDIX

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article

10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-andcommunity-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)) Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP): While the element was revised to provide a current local analysis for R/ECAPs in the City, as well as a current local and regional analysis for Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence, the analysis must still evaluate patterns and changes over time and consider other relevant factors such as public participation, past policies, practices, and investments and demographic trends.

Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement: While the element was revised to provide a sufficient analysis of cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing, it must provide additional information and analysis for homelessness and displacement risk. For a complete homelessness analysis, the element should evaluate patterns and trends the unhoused population by racial/ethnic, disability and geographical concentrations throughout the City. Programs should be added as necessary based on the conclusions from this analysis.

Contributing Factors: The element was not revised to meet this requirement. The element must prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues and tie them to actions taken in the programs section that affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element was revised to add a table to program 12 with greater detail as to actions that will be taken during the planning period, most of these actions do not provide quantifiable metrics to measure and determine whether they are sufficient to AFFH. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. The element also does not address housing mobility, nor does it 233
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 2 August 8, 2023
address the availability of affordable housing opportunities throughout the community.

Please see HCD’s April 1, 2022 review.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Sites Inventory: While the element was revised to ensure it has adequate sites for above moderate units required to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), it must still provide more detail for the existing use on each site. While the inventory states that most sites have an existing use of “parking”, a description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis of the potential for additional development. Specifically, the element should identify if there are any lease agreements or other regulatory agreements that would inhibit the development of housing on these lots during the planning period.

Nonvacant Sites: The adopted element was not revised to show that the City has experience converting lots with existing uses to high density residential, nor was it revised to relate the characteristics of the sites identified in the inventory to the examples from other surrounding jurisdictions provided on Pages CP-72 and CP-73.

The element was also not revised to provide substantial evidence that existing uses on nonvacant sites in the inventory are likely discontinue in the planning period, nor it does not appear that the resolution adopting the element provided findings to this effect. Please see HCD’s April 1, 2022 review.

Aggregated Sites: While the element was revised to add actions to Program 1 (Adequate Sites for New Housing and Monitoring of No Net Loss) to facilitate lot consolidation on the four lots that make up the Freedom Lane property to facilitate residential development on the site, and the element now provides a basic methodology on how capacity is calculated on these sites, the methodology does not consider the City’s past experience with lot consolidation or provide examples similar to the sites in the inventory including lot consolidations with similar number of lots and affordability levels identified for each site. Additionally, while adopted element revised Program 1 to commit to consolidate the four lots of the Freedom Lane property by December 31, 2024, it does not describe any incentives that are currently in place to encourage this type of development.

Realistic Capacity: While the adopted element has been revised to give examples of two recent multifamily developments, it does not adequately describe the characteristics of these projects and how they relate to the sites in the inventory, nor does it give a unit count for the projects and the affordability level of these projects.

The adopted element also does not adequately analyze the likelihood of residential development in mixed-use zones, nor does it provide an analysis on capacity after the proposed rezones have been completed. Please see HCD’s April 1, 2022 review. 234
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 3 August 8, 2023
Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
x Emergency Shelters: While the element was revised to provide adequate information on capacity and suitability for adaptive reuse, it must provide analysis of spacing requirements and parcel sizes. Please see HCD’s October 18, 2021 review for further information. Additionally, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity. Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements. For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339- notice.pdf.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land-Use Controls: While the element was revised to address many of the requirements of this finding, including analysis of multifamily parking and garage requirements, the community benefit overlay (CBO) and the cumulative impact of land use controls analyzed, it does not provide a complete analysis of transitional and supportive housing parking requirements or landscaping requirements. Additionally, as mentioned in finding A2, the element does not sufficiently clarify whether 100 percent residential developments are/will be allowed in Mixed-Use zones. Please see HCD’s April 1, 2022 review.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element was revised to discuss whether there are preapplication meetings to ensure approval certainty, it must still clarify whether typical times for processing single-family and multifamily projects are the same.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element was not revised to meet this requirement. While Program 10 (Housing for Persons with Special Needs) has been modified to state the City will “review” current zoning to ensure compliance with State Law, it does not commit to any actions that will be taken as a result of this review. In addition, the element still does not address how residential care facilities or group homes for more than seven persons are currently permitted within the City. Please see HCD’s prior reviews.
235
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 4 August 8, 2023
B. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
While the element revised several programs to add specific commitment and timing, and Program 3 (Homeownership Assistance Programs) was revised to sufficiently demonstrate how the City will make homeownership programs available, Program 2 (Facilitate the Provision of Affordable Housing), Program 4 (Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers), Program 5 (OCHA Special Needs Groups Rental Assistance Program), Program 7 (Code Enforcement), Program 9 (Streamlined Residential Permit Processing), and Program 12 (Encourage Energy Conservation) were not revised to provide the information requested in HCD’s April 1, 2022 review letter.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, singleroom occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. Additionally, while Program 1 was revised to state that it will commit to all rezone requirements of Gov. Code, section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), program language must comply with the requirements outlined in HCD’s October 18, 2021 review. The program must commit to:
x permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. By-right means local government review must not require a conditional use permit (CUP), planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval;
236
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 5 August 8, 2023
x accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site;
x require a minimum density of 20 units per acre; and
x at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites:
o allow 100 percent residential use, and
o require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

The program must also list the City’s RHNA shortfall, the minimum acreage to be rezoned and include anticipated allowable densities.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the following must be revised:

Housing for Persons with Disabilities: While Program 10 was revised to commit to reviewing zoning requirements for “all residential care facility types”, it appears to indicate that revisions will only be made to ensure that care facilities of six or fewer will be allowed in single-family residential zones. The program must be revised to clarify that any revisions will apply to both residential care facilities for six or fewer and seven or more persons. The program must also still clarify that it will apply to all residential care facilities and not be limited to licensed care facilities.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element does not contain programs that satisfy the AFFH requirements for specific and meaningful actions accompanied by specific commitment, goals, and milestones to overcome fair housing issues. Based on a complete analysis, the element must add or revise programs. While Program 12 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) was revised to add more specific actions and timing to most program actions, it must still provide metrics and milestones to ensure the implementation meaningful actions that also AFFH.
237
City of Aliso Viejo’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 6 August 8, 2023
C. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element was revised to provide a more thorough analysis of individual public comments received, it must still describe how the City made diligent efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. Please see HCD’s April 1, 2022 review for more information.
238
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Tom P Moran
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle
Subject: Yes To AvalonBay - The Commons At Aliso Viejo! Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 3:17:37 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt, I hope you are doing well.

I have lived in Aliso Viejo for over 20 years, and I fully support AvalonBay proposed mixed-use development at The Commons.

Over the last 20-30 years, commercial real estate needs in every city have changed dramatically. If you look back 25 years ago most cities were focused on building office buildings and large retail power centers, and not housing. Naturally if you don’t focus on housing, you will have an issue.

Today the lack housing is the main issue for all cities in California. The population goes up every year, and we are not building enough housing. (Big demand and no supply = more expensive housing for all of us). So from my perspective, what we really need is to increase the housing supply.

In this post covid world and with the rise of online shopping and hybrid work schedules the commercial real estate needs of Aliso Viejo have changed. We desperately need housing, and repurposing empty parking lots, aging retail centers and outdated low rise office buildings into mix use apartment projects is the best way to increase housing.

I support this project and I hope that when the time comes you and the other council members see the benefits of adding housing here.

Thank you for reading my email.

Tom Moran
Aliso Viejo Homeowner.

WARNING: Moran & Company is acting solely in the capacity of soliciting, providing and receiving information and proposals on behalf of its principals. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, does Moran & Company have any authority to bind its principals to any item or terms contained herein. Moran & Company makes no representation or warranty, express, implied or otherwise that acceptance of any item or terms contained herein will be acceptable by its principal in any formal, binding document. No parties shall be bound by any terms, conditions or agreements, whatsoever, contained herein until the appropriate parties execute a formal legally binding agreement.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This Electronic Mail (e-mail) contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is sent. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 239
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Jeff Cheng
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim; David Doyle
Subject: Commons Apartments
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 8:17:07 AM
Hello Mayor Hurt,
I am the current manager at Walgreens in the Commons and I am writing to express my support for the AvalonBay mixed-use apartment complex. Having a customer base so close to our store and being the nearest pharmacy and retail store to the complex will ensure our services stay in business. Not only that, but as the manager I am thinking about job security for myself and my colleagues. The pandemic changed how people shop, but creating a community from the ground up who can easily shop for necessities is what our store needs.

As a resident of Aliso Viejo, I see this growth as an integral part of the future of Aliso Viejo. My daughter just graduated from Aliso Niguel High School and is off to college. But when she graduates and wants to live in her hometown where can she go? Avalon Aliso Viejo guarantees our kids can have a place to live with newer amenities and benefits.

I am familiar with the Commons, and I can easily say the parking lot where this project would go is almost never full. There is an overabundance of parking making the center look emptier than it is. Making use of the vacant space to bring more customers for businesses is a benefit and will make the center feel more alive. The white of the proposed project will match Eureka! and the incoming retail refresh with the brown tones.

I only see positives from this development.

Best,
Jeff Cheng
5 Water Ml
Aliso Viejo, Ca 92656
240
SUBJECT: Aliso Viejo Town Center Owner Supports AvalonBay Apt TO: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
June 13, 2023

Dear Mayor Hurt,
I am the tenant/owner of a section of Aliso Town Center (Buffalo Wild Wings, F45 Gym, etc) and read in the OC Register that Aliso finally has a new live, work and play concept proposed for the Commons. I support this project and I am sure that many other businesses at the Town Center do as well. Things have changed for the worse since Covid; the Town Center is quiet, people don’t walk, and the parking lot is never full.

I saw the renderings on the project website and the building blends with the Town Center.

The architecture is modern but fits in with the surrounding area. Also, potentially being able to get 362+ customers who just need to walk will immensely boost the Town Center.

Please help our businesses thrive and help Aliso Viejo build a greater sense of social community at the city’s core.

Best,

Renee Jennifer Voss
Aliso Viejo Town Center
241
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Kate VC
To: Reid Miller; [email protected]; City Council Cc: Rona Henry; Cesar Covarrubias; David Doyle; So Kim
Subject: Aliso Viejo, HE Draft Hearing June 7, 2023 (HE was approved) Date: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:03:52 PM
Re: June 7, 2023, Agenda Item: 5.3. RE-ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PA21-019 FOR THE 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
I am Kate Van Camp. I am a volunteer with Welcoming Neighbors Home, a ministry of Tapestry Unitarian that has members in Aliso Viejo.

Because I was unable to finish my verbal comment last evening, I am submitting this written statement. I have modified this written comment to reflect the meaning of my off-the-cuff remarks last night.

First, I would like to note that Welcoming Neighbors Home fully supports the letter submitted today by the Kennedy Commission. Our executive committee has been concerned about the very points that are well expressed in this letter.

Next are some observations from the latest draft as the areas that need improvement.

My accounting background drives caution in supporting sites where information is lacking to adequately judge the viability of the affordability percentages. On the other hand, I hope city efforts can move past the element, past the Builder’s Remedy concerns, and towards building housing that will mitigate our current housing crisis with urgency.

Thank you for the diligence found in this latest draft. I see extensive changes and appreciate that work.

I can never pass up the opportunity to advocate for stronger verbs in programs. It would be nice to build, create, enact, hire, and rezone rather than the tired statements to review, consider, explore, and study. In Fair Housing measurement 3. Page H-22, a goal of 5 participants is a rather low bar.

For the non-vacant sites, realistic capacity verbiage has been improved but still lacks convincing specificity.

For Site 1, AvalonBay’s proposal, we should not increase density to 82 units per acre without compensation in terms of community benefit. Specific Plan 2 has 30 units per acre and the same proposed 10% affordable housing. It is difficult for me to imagine the city increasing density without specific compensation, so I look forward to studying the eventual development agreement. Please note the Low and Very Low units on the Avalon website are only 8, not 18. We need many more in that category to assist the local workforce.

The 4 Freedom parcels interest me as the most realistic possibility for a low-income project. I 242
hope to see vigorous outreach to low-income housing developer specialists. We know the complexities of funding take considerable time to put together.

Further outreach is also important for the congregational sites.

Aliso Viejo still needs an inclusionary ordinance requiring affordable housing in all projects.

To end on a high note, I want to compliment the city, particularly, for purchasing the two transitional units for residents at risk of homelessness over the last few years. That was a wonderful decision. I trust FAM to manage these units successfully and support FAM’s involvement. I hope there are funds and opportunities to repeat that action in the future.

Thank you.

Catherine “Kate” Van Camp
243
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Thomas Merritt
To: So Kim
Cc: Rose Rivera
Subject: Re: Commons Development
Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 6:07:42 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Ms Kim,
Although my preference is to reduce not increase the density, at a minimum I respectfully request to maintain the same density. My calculation shows the # of units should be 286 not 362. This maintains the status quo (i.e. same density) which I still believe is too high for such a small parcel but that discussion can wait for the future. Happy to meet with you to discuss.

Tom
714 287 3344 cell
Get Outlook for Android
From: So Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 5:12:38 PM
To: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Cc: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commons Development
Hi Mr. Merritt,
The referenced attachment requests a Specific Plan Amendment for the following (not limited to # of units and density): density, permissible uses, number of units, parking requirement, drive isle width, setbacks, and height.

As for the expiration, when the County approved a Specific Plan, some of the development regulations/details were based on a Development Agreement, that has since been invalidated. This does not make the entirety of the Specific Plan invalid, but it may apply to certain details included in the Specific Plan.

The Specific Plan Amendment request is under review as part of the application package and will be presented at a future public hearing with staff’s analysis.

So Kim | Director of Community Development
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
T: 949-425-2527
avcity.org
From: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:31 PM
To: So Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commons Development
Ms. Kim, Thanks for the timely response! There seems to be some confusion. I was referring to what the AvalonBay Applicant is requesting in the attached Specific Plan Amendment. Please see the first page of the attached that states an increase in the number of dwelling units from 140 to 362 and the increase in the permitted density from 30 units per acre to 83 units per acre.

Also, I understood that fortunately the old County approved Specific Plan for The Commons with a higher residential building had expired and was no longer effective?
I look forward to possibly meeting you later this evening.

Thank you,
244
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Tom
From: So Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:07 PM
To: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Cc: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeffrey Weisberger <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Commons Development
Hi Mr. Merritt,
Please see my comments in red text below.

So Kim | Director of Community Development
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
T: 949-425-2527
avcity.org
From: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 2:34 PM
To: So Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeffrey Weisberger <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Commons Development
Ms. Kim, Thank you for the email below. A couple of follow-up questions/comments.

Your email below indicates a reduction in units from 637 to 362. It appears that the primary reason for this reduction is due to a more than 50% reduction in the footprint of The Commons potential site from 9.9 acres to only 4.4 acres (see below). Although the site size (i.e., footprint) has been reduced by 55% (5.5 acres) the density has only been reduced by 43% (275 units) therefore the Commons project size is actually bigger in total scale than what was approved in January 2022. The density, not scale, is increasing.

Furthermore, per the attached project description for the AvalonBay Apartments, please note that the Applicant is seeking an amendment to the Specific Plan to more than double the number of units for this reduced footprint site from 140 units to 362 units (coincidently the same number as tonight’s proposal) and to almost triple the density from 30 units per acre to 83 units per acre. A Specific Plan amendment is required for any residential project that deviates from what is permitted in the existing Specific Plan, including location, layout, height, density, number of units, etc. The density approved as part of the 2022 Housing Element is 64 du/ac (637 units over 9.9ac). The proposed is 82 du/ac (362 units over 4.4ac). This is a 27% increase, not triple. Accordingly, the proposed height of the Avalon Bay Apartment building will be more than twice the height of any existing structure in The Commons and Town Center Shopping Centers. As indicated in my previous email, the Specific Plan included a maximum height of 145’ for a residential development at the Commons. The proposed project is 89’ maximum.

I would appreciate your input and response to my analysis hopefully before tonight’s city council meeting. As I mentioned when we spoke yesterday, we simply don’t want any action tonight to prejudice or preclude all future objections to the Avalon Bay Apartment Building (including negative impacts on views and property values) from Vantis homeowners and the members of AVCA. The Housing Element does not “entitle” any projects. The proposal tonight is a revision to the previous approved Housing Element in response to HCD’s comments, most of which is focused on fair housing.
245
Thanks,
Tom Merritt
7 Colonial Way
714-287-3344
From: So Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 4:03 PM
To: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commons Development
Hi Mr. Merritt,
Thank you for speaking with me today. As we discussed, Exhibit C (Attached) referenced in your original email is an elevation drawing contained within the Specific Plan for the Commons (see page 86 of the Specific Plan, North Elevation). The Specific Plan for the Commons was originally approved through the County, which included the development of a high-density residential development with a building height envelope of 80’/145’ (see page 70 for development standards and pages 85 and 86 for elevations). The proposed plans include a mixed-use building with an average building height of 68’, which increases to 89’ for the parking/roof top amenities area.

As for the number of units, on January 19, 2022, the City Council approved the Housing Element update that identified the Commons site as a feasible location to accommodate 637 residential units. Click here to view the staff report and associated attachments (scroll down to Item

5.3). The adopted Housing Element was submitted to HCD and the City received a number of items that need to be addressed for certification. The revised Housing Element is subject to City Council consideration this Wednesday, which includes a reduction in the number of units on the Commons site to 362 units. Click here to view the June 7th staff report and associated attachments (scroll down to Item 5.3).

Hope this helps and feel free to contact me with additional questions or concerns.

So Kim | Director of Community Development
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
T: 949-425-2527
avcity.org
246
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 5:56 PM
To: So Kim <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Commons Development
Ms. Kim,
Thank you.

As we briefly discussed, if I had been able to attend today’s Standing Committee Meeting I would have emphasized that the AVCA CC&Rs give the Master Architectural Committee the authority to make the final binding decision on whether any Improvement to be constructed unreasonably obstructs the view from any other Lot or Condominium. As stated in my letter dated May 30, 2023, not only are views from the Vantis Condominiums being obstructed but views from the bluff top trail over which the AVCA has an easement and from the hillside trail leading down to the Town Center Shopping Center, which I believe is owned by AVCA, will also be obstructed. Therefore, the complaining parties are not only the Vantis Condominium owners including myself but also the entire AVCA membership since the bluff top and hillside trails are Community Association Properties.

My understanding is that this determination by the AVCA Master Architectural Committee is independent of and in addition to any approvals required by the City of Aliso Viejo for the AvalonBay Apartment Building. In other words, both approvals are necessary.

I will call you tomorrow at 3 PM to discuss what happened at today’s meeting and get more information on the changes being proposed to the General Plan on June 7th for low-income housing. My specific questions and concerns are how such changes might impact the proposed AvalonBay Apartment Building.

Thank you,
Tom Merritt
7 Colonial Way
714-287-3344
From: So Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Thomas Merritt <[email protected]>
Subject: Commons Development
Hi Mr. Merritt,
I’m available anytime after 2:30pm. Please let me know what time works best for you.

So Kim | Director of Community Development
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
T: 949-425-2527
avcity.org
Confidential Communications: This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received.

Confidential Communications: This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. 247
248
June 7, 2023
Mayor Hurt
Council Members
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey
Aliso Viejo, CA
RE: Item 5.3
Mayor Hurt and Council Members,
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for extremely low income families earning less than $30,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that have led to the construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.

We are writing today to request that the City of Aliso Viejo adopt a Housing Element that has strong affordable housing policies, programs and opportunity sites that will facilitate affordable housing development. The current 6th Cycle Housing Element draft does not have programs or policies that will facilitate affordability and ensure that the City will effectively produce affordable housing at the acutely low, extremely low, very low-, and low-income level.

Moreover, we want to ensure that the city includes an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as part of their priorities to support extremely and very low income families in Aliso Viejo.

As the Council considers item 5.3 we request that the city. - We request that the city provide additional analysis on existing sites identified in the Commons and Freedom Lane sites and how they will help facilitate affordable housing for lower income families. The analysis seems to indicate that sites under the Commons specific plan would have capacity for 360 units, and only a few units will be affordable housing to lower income. The Commons proposed development would only require 18 units as affordable at lower, while supplying 344 units for residents who are of moderate and above moderate income.

It appears the city is projecting a capacity of 509 units on the Freedom Lane sites, 170 VL and 170 Low. This affordability level and density is unlikely for an 249
affordable housing development. Unless this site has programs and policies that would make the development 100% affordable for lower income, it is unlikely that these levels of affordability may be reached. More analysis and description of the affordable housing policy, the mix use and housing requirements is necessary to understand the feasibility of these sites.
- We request the city work with residents and community organizations on further analysis of the feasibility and capacity of sites and programs that will facilitate affordable housing.
- A minimum of 20% of the units developed in the Commons and Freedom sites should be affordable at Low, VL and Extremely Low in exchange for the generous development incentive and increased density the city is facilitating on these sites to promote development.

Sites Proposed Under PRD Overlay To Meet Lower Income Capacity - The city proposes an overlay to meet the requirements for a rezoning program and meet sites capacity for lower income RHNA. The sites identified are parking lots in existing, small sites and existing office developments. Additional analysis is necessary to understand the existing uses and the need for the parking or office and the viability of transition. These sites should also incorporate a minimum of 20% of the units as affordable to lower income categories at Ext. Low, VLI, and Low.

The Housing Element should include robust and effective housing programs and should identify adequate affordable housing sites to address affordable housing requirements on the production of the lower-income segments. We request that the city prioritize the creation of affordable homes for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households to truly address housing needs not being addressed by the housing market in Aliso Viejo..

The Commission looks forward to partnering with the city to increase housing opportunities for lower-income residents in Aliso Viejo. Please keep us informed of any updates and meetings regarding strategies to increase the affordable homes for lower-income households in the city. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
250
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
cc: Ms. Melinda Coy, Proactive Accountability Chief, CA HCD 251
252
253
254
255
256
WŚŽƚŽϭ͗WƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞŝŶƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƚŽŶĞĂƌďǇŚŽŵĞƐŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ;ŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͿ
257
WŚŽƚŽ Ϯ͗ĞƌŝĂůǀŝĞǁŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ;ŐŽŽŐůĞ
ĂƌƚŚͿ
258
WŚŽƚŽϯ͗sŝĞǁĨƌŽŵsĂŶƚŝƐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇWĂƌŬʹ'ĂǌĞďŽĂƌĞĂ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚŚĞǀŝĞǁŽĨĚŽǌĞŶƐŽĨŚŽŵĞƐƚŚĂƚůŝŶĞƚŚĞƉĂƌŬ͘EŽƚĞ ƚŚĂƚƐŝŶĐĞƚŚŝƐƉĂƌŬŝƐĂďŽƵƚϭϬϬ͛ĨƌŽŵŐƌŽƵŶĚǌĞƌŽďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ͕ĂϭϮϱ͛ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ;ƉůƵƐƌŽŽĨƚŽƉĂŵĞŶŝƚǇŶŽƚƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ ƉůĂŶƐͿǁŽƵůĚŽďƐƚƌƵĐƚƚŚĞǀŝĞǁ;ƚŚĞŐĂǌĞďŽŝƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϮϬ͛ŚŝŐŚͿ͘dŚŝƐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŶŽƚŽŶůǇƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀŝĞǁďƵƚĂůƐŽ ƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞůŝƐŽsŝĞũŽŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŚŽĞŶũŽǇƐƐǁĞĞƉŝŶŐǀŝĞǁƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉĂƌŬĂŶĚƉŝĐŶŝĐĂƌĞĂĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞ ƐĐĞŶŝĐƚƌĂŝůďĞůŽǁ͘

259
WŚŽƚŽϰ͗EŝŐŚƚǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŵsĂŶƚŝƐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇWĂƌŬʹ'ĂǌĞďŽĂƌĞĂ
260
WŚŽƚŽ ϱ͗sŝĞǁƐĨƌŽŵůƵĨĨƚŽƉƚƌĂŝůĂŶĚďůƵĨĨƚŽƉsĂŶƚŝƐŚŽŵĞƐ 261
WŚŽƚŽϲ͗>ŝǀŝŶŐZŽŽŵƉŝĐƚƵƌĞϭĞĂĐŽŶtĂǇ͕ƌĞĐĞŶƚůŝƐƚŝŶŐ;ĨŽŐŐǇĚĂǇ͕ďƵƚ^ĂĚĚůĞďĂĐŬDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀŝĞǁнŶŝŐŚƚůŝŐŚƚƐǀŝĞǁͿ
262
WŚŽƚŽϳ͗sŝĞǁĨƌŽŵsĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶͬ'ƌĂŶĚWĂƌŬƐĐĞŶŝĐǁĂůŬŝŶŐƚƌĂŝů 263
WŚŽƚŽϴ͗sĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶͬ'ƌĂŶĚWĂƌŬƐĐĞŶŝĐǁĂůŬŝŶŐƚƌĂŝů 264
265
266

y,//d

D>^ůŝƐƚŝŶŐĨŽƌsĂŶƚŝƐ,ŽŵĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞůŝƐƚĞĚΘƐŽůĚŝŶůĂƐƚϭϬǇĞĂƌƐ;ŶŽƚĂŶĞǆŚĂƵƐƚŝǀĞůŝƐƚʹŵĞƌĞůǇĂƐĂŵƉůĞͿ D>^η
KϮϯϬϱϬϵϲϬ
ϮϮŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞dŚĞďĂůĐŽŶǇŚĂƐĂŶŝĐĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐĂŶĚĐŝƚǇŵĂŬŝŶŐ ƚŚŝƐĂŐƌĞĂƚƐƉŽƚƚŽƌĞůĂǆĂĨƚĞƌĂĚĂǇĂƚǁŽƌŬ͘͟
D>^
ηKϭϰϬϯϰϯϭϭ
ϲŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞dŚŝƐƉĂŶŽƌĂŵŝĐǀŝĞǁŚŽŵĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŽǀĞƌƐŝǌĞĚ͕ĚƵĂůŵĂƐƚĞƌ ďĞĚƌŽŽŵƐ͙͟
D>^
ηKϮϯϬϮϯϱϯϵ
ϳŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞ŽƌŶĞƌƵŶŝƚŽŶĂůĂƌŐĞŐƌĞĞŶƐƉĂĐĞďǇŐĂǌĞďŽƉŝĐŶŝĐĂƌĞĂǁŝƚŚ ƐǁĞĞƉŝŶŐƉĂŶŽƌĂŵŝĐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ĂĚĚůĞďĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐ͟
D>^
ηKϭϰϭϰϮϲϵϳ
ϭŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞dŚŝƐŚŽŵĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƉĂŶŽƌĂŵŝĐǀŝĞǁƐĨƌŽŵĞǀĞƌǇƌŽŽŵĂŶĚ ĞǀĞƌǇǁŝŶĚŽǁŝŶƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͊͟
D>^
ηKϭϲϬϭϳϴϰϵ
ϯŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞'ƌĞĂƚĨůŽŽƌƉůĂŶĨŽƌĞŶƚĞƌƚĂŝŶŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇŽŶĂďĞĂƵƚŝĨƵů ŐƌĞĞŶďĞůƚǁŝƚŚƐǁĞĞƉŝŶŐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨ^ĂĚĚůĞďĂĐŬDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ͘͟ D>^
ηKϭϰϬϯϰϯϭϭ
ϲŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞ŽŶΖƚŵŝƐƐŽƵƚŽŶƚŚŝƐŐŽƌŐĞŽƵƐ͕ĞŶĚůĞƐƐǀŝĞǁŚŽŵĞ͊͟ D>^η^ϳϮϬϱϲϬ ϴŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞
ůĞŐĂŶƚĂŶĚƐƉĂĐŝŽƵƐƚƌŝͲůĞǀĞůƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞǁŝƚŚŐĂƚĞĚĐŽƵƌƚǇĂƌĚ ŶĞƐƚůĞĚŶĞĂƌŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŵĂŶǇƐĞƌĞŶĞƉĂƌŬƐǁŝƚŚďƌĞĂƚŚƚĂŬŝŶŐĐŝƚǇ ůŝŐŚƚǀŝĞǁƐ͟
D>^
ηKϭϳϮϳϲϲϵϳ
ϭϲŽůŽŶŝĂůtĂǇ ͞dŚĞǀŝĞǁƐĨƌŽŵƚŚŝƐĂŵĂǌŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŽĂƌĞƐƚƵŶŶŝŶŐ͊͟ D>^
ηKϮϯϬϱϵϵϱϳ
ϭĞĂĐŽŶtĂǇ ͞zŽƵƌŵĂƐƚĞƌďĞĚƌŽŽŵŚĂƐƐƚƵŶŶŝŶŐŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀŝĞǁƐ͕ĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇ ŽǀĞƌůŽŽŬŝŶŐƚŚĞďƌĞĂƚŚƚĂŬŝŶŐ^ĂĚĚůĞďĂĐŬ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂƚƌĂŶƋƵŝů ǀŝĞǁƚŽĞŶĚĞĂĐŚĚĂǇ͘͟
D>^
ηKϭϳϮϭϵϲϰϴ
ϴϲDĞƌŝĚŝĂŶ
ƌŝǀĞ
͞ŽŵĞĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌĂŵĂǌŝŶŐsŝĞǁƐĂŶĚƚŚĞsĂŶƚŝƐĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞ͙͘ tĂŶĚĞƌŽƵƚƐŝĚĞĨŽƌĂŶĂĨƚĞƌͲŵĞĂůƐƚƌŽůůĚŽǁŶƚƌĞĞͲůŝŶĞĚƉĂƚŚƐ ǁͬƐǁĞĞƉŝŶŐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨ^ĂĚĚůĞďĂĐŬDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐΘƚŚĞǀĂůůĞǇ ďĞůŽǁ͙͘'ĂǌĞŽƵƚƚŚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁĂƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƐǁĞĞƉŝŶŐ
ƉĂŶŽƌĂŵŝĐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨ^ĂĚĚůĞďĂĐŬĂƐǇŽƵĚƌŝĨƚŽĨĨƚŽƐůĞĞƉ͘͟ D>^
ηKϭϳϭϮϰϮϮϭ
ϴϰDĞƌŝĚŝĂŶ
ƌŝǀĞ
͞dŚŝƐƌĂƌĞƚŽǁŶŚŽŵĞŝƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞďůƵĨĨĂŶĚĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂ ƐƉĂĐŝŽƵƐ͕ŽƉĞŶĨůŽŽƌƉůĂŶǁŝƚŚϮϱĨŽŽƚĐĞŝůŝŶŐƐĂŶĚ
ƵŶŽďƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶĂŶĚĐŝƚǇǀŝĞǁƐ͟
D>^
ηKϭϳϭϴϵϵϭϰ
ϴϮDĞƌŝĚŝĞŶ
ƌŝǀĞ
͞hƉƐƚĂŝƌƐǇŽƵǁŝůůĨŝŶĚĂŶŽǀĞƌͲƐŝǌĞĚďĞĚƌŽŽŵǁŝƚŚǁĂůŬͲŝŶ ĐůŽƐĞƚ͕ĂŵĂǌŝŶŐǀŝĞǁƐ͕ĂŶĚĂŐŽƌŐĞŽƵƐŵĂƐƚĞƌďĂƚŚ͟
D>^
ηKϭϳϭϭϭϮϬϴ
ϳϴDĞƌŝĚŝĂŶ
ƌŝǀĞ
͞s/
ts/
ts/
t͊͊͊͊^K>hd
>z^dhEE/E'͊'ƌĞĂƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ǁŝƚŚďƌĞĂƚŚƚĂŬŝŶŐŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶΘĐŝƚǇůŝŐŚƚƐǀŝĞǁƐ͘͟
267
May 31, 2023
Via Email “[email protected]”:

David Doyle, City Manager
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Re: Concerns Regarding Avalon Bay Residential Development Plan Dear City Manager Doyle,
I am writing to you as a deeply concerned resident of the Vantis Community, with a vantage point overlooking the Commons shopping center in Aliso Viejo. It is my duty to voice my apprehensions regarding the Avalon Bay’s proposed residential development plan within the retail center.

The primary issue resides in the sheer magnitude of the proposed apartment building. The conceptual proposal in the Site Development Permit indicates the construction of a six-story building, crowned with an additional level dedicated to service rooms and other amenities (see Attachment-1). This structure could potentially reach a maximum above-ground height of 89 feet, significantly surpassing the standard height restrictions applied to analogous structures within our community. The uncharacteristic scale of this proposed building will undeniably impose upon the picturesque views enjoyed by neighboring residences and public trails, thereby negatively impacting our cherished visual landscape.

Further, upon reviewing the details of the proposed Plan Amendments (see Attachment-2), it is apparent that the developer is advocating for considerable changes. These include an expansion of the number of units from 140 to 362, an increase in the permitted zone density, a decrease in the provision of parking spaces, elimination of parking prerequisites for retailers, narrowing of drive aisle widths, and a reduction in both parking spaces and building setbacks.

The aforementioned alterations indicate a clear intention on the part of the developer to amplify the residential density while simultaneously diminishing the space allocated for parking for both residents and retail customers. The potential implications of this include not only the visual detriment of an oversized apartment complex imposed upon the adjacent Vantis Community and public trails, but also an inevitable increase in traffic congestion in the surrounding neighborhoods.

This congestion, coupled with the altered aesthetic of our community, will undeniably impinge upon the quality of life of not only our neighbors but all residents of Aliso Viejo. Our charming town, known for its tranquility and community-oriented spirit, risks being overshadowed by an oversized, overpopulated development.

In conclusion, I urge you to consider the long-term implications of the proposed plans and amendments.

The consequences, if allowed to proceed, will echo for decades and may transform our community's character irreversibly. I believe it is imperative that we carefully evaluate any development that potentially compromises the well-being and essence of our community. 268
Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust you will take these concerns into consideration when making a decision that will impact the future of our beloved town, Aliso Viejo.

Yours sincerely,
Kambiz Rouintan
1 Colonial Way
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
([email protected])
CC: Rose Rivera, Senior Planner (via email “[email protected]”) 269

AVB COMMONS
ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIATCA # 2022-040
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITAPRIL 6, 2023
A-2.3 16’ 0’ 32’ 64’ BUILDING ELEVATIONS
SOUTH
-. ##
. #,
#01 23436
1 234
36,

##
. #,
#01 23-43-
1 234

3- ,
4 ##
. #,
#01 23
43

1 234

3
,

##
. #,
#01 234434
1 234
34,
##
. #,
#01 23
43

1 234!
3
,

##
. #,
#01 23 43
1 23
6 3,

"
# ""
. #,
#01 23
36
1 23
- !36,

"
#

#
"A%,
#01 23
43

1 23

3
,

"
# ""
"A%,
#01 23

36
1 23

36,

"
# ""
C D,

3
-
3- -6
3- -6
3- -6
3- -6
3- -6
36 !
36
-
3
4
3
364
#01 23 !36
1 23

636,

# EA

,
- -
- E- - - E
D . -

. - E-

"..
-. ##
. #,
#01 23436
1 234
36, 63
4
W W W AW AW S-2 S-1 S-3 S-1 S-2 CS CS CS CS CS RR RR RR RR RR RR GR GR N

ENTERPRISE
LEGEND
S
CS
PR
RR
GR

STUCCOCOMPOSITE SIDINGPICKET RAILINGPERFORATED METAL PANEL RAILINGGLASS RAILING ST
W
AW

STOREFRONTVINYL WINDOWAWNING
INDICATED SIGNAGE IS CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL. FORMAT / SIZE / LOCATION SUBJECTED TO CHANGE AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS.

WEST
270
The Commons at Aliso Viejo
Site Development Permit, Specific Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement 7 ii. Consistency with Zoning Code. The land use and associated development conform to the permitted use provisions and development standards of this zoning code and is consistent with this code and any applicable specific plan;
The Project will be consistent with the zoning code. The Property is classified as the SP2-RH Zone for High Density Residential Development within the Specific Plan, which also creates the Town Center Commercial Development area (“SP2-CTC Zone”). The Specific Plan creates separate development standards for both SP2-RH and SP2-CTC. The Project is located partially in the SP2-RH Zone and partially in the SP2-CTC Zone.

The Applicant is seeking an SPA to make several amendments to the existing Specific Plan, including:
x Reconfigure the existing SP2-RH Zone to apply to an approximately 4.4 acre subsection of the Specific Plan area, as set forth in the attached exhibit; x Permit general retail and food service uses in the SP2-RH Zone in Table IV-1A; x Revise references to maximum number of dwelling units permitted from 140 to 362 throughout the Specific Plan, including on Pages II-6, II-21, III-5, III-12, III-13, VII7, Table II-2; x Increase the permitted density in the SP2-RH Zone from 30 dwelling units per acre to 83 dwelling units per acre in Table IV-2;
x Decrease the required parking from 2 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit in Table IV-2, and eliminate additional visitor parking requirements; x Eliminate parking requirements for any retail or dining commercial spaces smaller than 5,800 sf that are located within a residential mixed-use structure; x Decrease the drive aisles from 26 feet to 24 feet;
x Permit up to 25 percent of the parking spaces to be compact; x Reduce the north setback from 20 feet to 15 feet; and x Increase the height limit on the “Enterprise Side” from 80 to 89 feet in Table IV-2.

Uses
The Project proposes primarily multi-family residential uses, which are currently permitted in the SP2-RH Zone. (SP, Table IV-1A.) The Applicant is seeking an SPA to reconfigure the SP2-RH Zone to cover an approximately 4.4 acre subsection of the Specific Plan area. It is also seeking an SPA to permit general retail and food uses within the SP2-RH Zone. Under this amendment, the Project fully complies with the zoning code.

Height
The Project proposes a height of 89 feet to the top of the rooftop amenity. The SP2-RH Zone permits up to 140 feet from the “lowest adjacent grade” on the eastern side, and 80 feet “from the lowest adjacent grade” from the Enterprise side. (SP, Table IV-2.) The Applicant is seeking an 271
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Rose Rivera
To: So Kim
Subject: Fw: AV - Letter FW: Recommendation Letter
Date: Thursday, July 6, 2023 8:59:13 AM
From: Paulina Montano <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Rose Rivera <[email protected]>
Subject: AV - Letter FW: Recommendation Letter
Hi Rose,
I hope your week is going well. I went back to the PRR documents and noticed the email below was not included in the package. I am forwarding this your way so you can have this for your record.

The property owner reached out to us, and we encouraged them to directly email the city.

Best,
Paulina

PAULINA MONTANO
Associate, Marathon Communications
5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2350, Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.655.4660 | [email protected] | www.marathon-com.com From: Gul Jaisinghani <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 10:39 PM
To: Paulina Montano <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Recommendation Letter
From: Gul Jaisinghani <[email protected]>
Date: May 3, 2023 at 10:36:47 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Recommendation Letter
272
Dear Mr. Hurt:

I am the manager of Zamindari Real Estate Investment, LLC 2 which owns the property known as Walgreens.

I, wholeheartedly support the new apartment development in the mall. With the closing of the Lowes Hardware the traffic has trickled and we need people to come in and give a boost to the business.

I hope the city considers the project favorably and you have my thumbs up.

Sincerely,
Gul Jaisinghani.
273
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Christy Cornwall
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Support for Avalon Aliso Viejo
Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:32:12 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
As a resident of Aliso Viejo for over 20 years, I am writing to express my support for Avalon Aliso Viejo. I am also an employee of Providence Mission Hospital and have seen firsthand the need for more housing opportunities - for our hospital workforce, local business owners, and young adults just entering into their first careers. Many of our employees live outside of South Orange County largely due to the lack of local housing opportunities.

Avalon Aliso Viejo is a great first step. Providing affordable and market housing in the center of Aliso.

I hope this project can pave the way for more housing opportunities that allows for our teachers, young professionals and emergency personnel to live closer to work.

Thanks for considering this project. I'm glad to be part of a city who recognizes the benefit of different housing options,
Christy Cornwall
274
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Jennifer Boswell
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Avalon Aliso Viejo
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 6:11:05 PM
Honorable Mayor Hurt,
Please mark me down as a supporter for this project. We are in a major housing crisis. The City of Aliso Viejo needs to do their part!
Thank you for reading this note, and I hope you embrace these plans and sorely needed housing units.

Sincerely,
Jennifer
275
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
Honorable Richard Hurt
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-5335
April 28, 2023
Dear Mayor Hurt and City Councilmembers,
On behalf of People for Housing Orange County, I am writing to express my support for the mixed-use residential and community-serving retail development being proposed at the Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center.

The housing shortage in California and especially in Orange County has created systemic problems impacting communities and residents of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. The problem is complex, but we know an increase in housing production is a big step towards ending the affordability crisis.

My organization, People for Housing OC, advocates for increased production of more homebuilding, especially in high opportunity communities. We know that diverse and affordable housing types, like apartments, condos and other multi-family and mixed use housing can provide more affordable price points in high opportunity communities where the majority of housing is zoned single-family. Integrating new 1 276
multi-family housing into existing commercially zoned sites enables the community to add more diverse housing without dramatic change to existing neighborhoods.

The Commons is a high-opportunity location for new housing, and AvalonBay is known across the nation as a reputable home builder of multi-family housing. The proposed Avalon Aliso Viejo will diversify the housing opportunities available in Aliso Viejo and South Orange County. We understand Avalon Aliso Viejo will include 10% of the units in the affordable at levels affordable to low and moderate income households, which enhances the affordability opportunities from this project.

Based on what I have seen for this proposed project, Avalon Aliso Viejo will peacefully coexist with the color scheme, size, and scale of its surroundings. The site will not only be conveniently located across from Aliso Viejo’s biggest shopping center, but will also be within walking distance to an array of offices and potential job sites for residents.

People for Housing OC envisions an equitable Orange County where every person has access to housing options near jobs, retail, and high-quality community services.

The needs of Orange County residents for more housing options and opportunities is only growing. We encourage Aliso Viejo to welcome this project and make room for new housing solutions.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder and Executive Director
Fighting for a future of abundant housing in Orange County. peopleforhousing.org
2 277
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Emma Gimpl
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Commons Apartments support
Date: Friday, May 5, 2023 4:14:28 PM
Hello Mayor Hurt,
I saw the OC Register article about multiple retail centers in OC re-developing with some housing. It was great to see Aliso Viejo in the article because I haven’t heard development happen here since I moved to Orange county.

I love going to the Farmer’s market on the weekends in Aliso and I think adding additional housing will bring more life and community.

It would be great to be a part of the community because right now, I can’t afford to live in Aliso and since the city doesn’t have affordable housing requirements, most apartment complexes don’t provide it.

So, to see the AvalonBay project provide 10% affordable in the center of the city, that’s amazing to hear.

Please support and approve this project.
-
Oc resident
278
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Rigoberto Jimenez
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Apartment supporter
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 4:44:29 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
I used to live in Aliso Viejo, but unfortunately had to move due to being priced out. I saw the OC Register and Patch articles and would like to show my support for the mixed-use project.

The city hasn’t seen major housing development in a decade? That is ridiculous and explains why California is in a housing crisis. The demand for housing is here but the lack of supply is causing people to move out of cities we know and love.

I do miss living in Aliso Viejo and would like to move back if the opportunity presents itself. This is the opportunity. Please support this project when the time comes! Best,
Former AV Resident
Santa Ana, Ca
279
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: John Larios
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: AvalonBay Commons Project
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 9:18:52 AM
Hello Mayor Richard Hurt,
I’m a current Costa Mesa resident and want to support the AvalonBay project. Aliso Viejo is a beautiful city with such a strong sense of community. I spend a lot of my time, especially on the weekends, in your city and it’s the kind of place that I would want to live and work in.

However, there aren’t many housing options in Aliso Viejo.

I recently read about the AvalonBay Commons project and it looks exactly like a place that I can see myself living in. Aliso Viejo’s a special place and I hope to one day be a part of it.

Please approve the project.

Sincerely,
John Larios
--
Best,
John L Lairos
280
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Mark
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Avalon Aliso Viejo Supporter
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2023 10:49:59 AM
Hello Mayor Hurt,
Following up on the recent OC Register story, I am reaching out to comment on my support for Avalon Aliso Viejo. Aliso is one of a kind, and this project will only improve the beautification of the city.

Right now, nothing sits on the site making it an eyesore of wasted empty space. I think creating a community from the ground up will not only help the businesses we have grown to love but bring in more fun entertainment and neighborhood retail for the community.

Aliso Viejo needs to boost its walk score to encourage people to use different modes of transportation, like walking and biking. Having housing close to retail can minimize traffic because folks will be able to walk to their daily needs.

This project will bring so much to the city’s core.

Best,
Mark Davis
OC Homeowner
281
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Richard Tran
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Avalon Aliso Viejo
Date: Friday, May 5, 2023 4:21:01 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
I fully support the proposed mixed-use project. Please let’s bring more action to the Town Center. The center is in dire need of a facelift. I saw the renderings on the Urbanize article and the design matches with the rest of the center.

Indoor and outdoor malls are changing, retail can’t survive economically on its own. We have seen it in Laguna Hills and Brea. Something needs to anchor the retail and I think adding apartments can only liven things up for the center.

Sincerely,
OC apartment renter
282
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our City of Aliso Viejo network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Stevie Grant
To: Richard Hurt
Cc: So Kim
Subject: Support for Avalon Aliso Viejo
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 4:05:31 PM
Dear Mayor Hurt,
I travel for work across Orange County, do most of my day-to-day business in Mission Viejo, but live in another county because there is simply no housing in South OC. I saw the OC register article about a potential mixed-use project near the Aliso Viejo Town Center. As someone who would like to move to Aliso Viejo, I support this project.

I am a young professional in my early 20s and it is difficult for adults my age to find housing opportunities especially close to work. Not only will this project bring needed housing, it will bring AFFORDABLE housing to an area that is severely lacking.

I hope this project can be the start of more housing developments that include an affordable component around South OC.

Best,
Stevie Grant
283

AVALON ALISO VIEJO PROJECT

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AUGUST 2024
Prepared for:

City of Aliso Viejo
Community Development Department
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
180 E. Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
■
■
284
285
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Public Review Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Contact: Rose Rivera, Senior Planner
[email protected]
PREPARED BY: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
180 E. Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, California 92780
Contact: Starla Barker, AICP
[email protected]
August 2024
286
287
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page i
Table of Contents

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

1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ........................................................................................1

1.2 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................................................2

1.3 Public Review Process...................................................................................................................2

1.4 Incorporation by Reference ..........................................................................................................3

1.5 Report Organization......................................................................................................................4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................7

2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................7

2.2 Existing Setting..............................................................................................................................7

2.3 Project Characteristics................................................................................................................11

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ..............................................................................................29

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................33

4.1 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................................33

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................................47

4.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................49

4.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................63

4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................69

4.6 Energy .........................................................................................................................................73

4.7 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................................79

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.........................................................................................................87

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................103

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................109

4.11 Land Use and Planning..............................................................................................................117

4.12 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................129

4.13 Noise .........................................................................................................................................131

4.14 Population and Housing............................................................................................................145

4.15 Public Services...........................................................................................................................149

4.16 Recreation.................................................................................................................................155

4.17 Transportation ..........................................................................................................................157

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................167

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................171

4.20 Wildfire......................................................................................................................................179 288
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page ii

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..........................................................................................181

5.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................185

6.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL .............................................................................................189 Appendices
Appendix A – CalEEMod and Energy Data
Appendix B – Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix C – Geotechnical Studies
Appendix D – Phase I ESA
Appendix E – Preliminary WQMP
Appendix F – Preliminary Hydrology Study
Appendix G – Noise Data
Appendix H – VMT Memo
Appendix I – Tribal Consultation Communications
289
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Vicinity.................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3a Proposed First Floor Plan.................................................................................................. 15 Figure 3b Proposed Second Floor Plan ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 3c Proposed Third-Fifth Floor Plan........................................................................................ 17 Figure 3d Proposed Sixth Floor Plan................................................................................................. 18 Figure 3e Proposed Seventh Floor Plan............................................................................................ 19 Figure 3f Proposed Eighth Floor Plan............................................................................................... 20 Figure 3g Proposed Subterranean Parking Garage Plan................................................................... 21 Figure 4 Proposed Landscape Plan ................................................................................................. 22 Figure 5a Proposed Building Elevation – North................................................................................ 23 Figure 5b Proposed Building Elevation – East................................................................................... 24 Figure 5c Proposed Building Elevation – South................................................................................ 25 Figure 5d Proposed Building Elevation – West................................................................................. 26 Figure 6 Proposed Project Rendering ............................................................................................. 27 Figure 7 Key View Map ................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 8a Visual Simulation – Key View 1......................................................................................... 40 Figure 8b Visual Simulation – Key View 2......................................................................................... 41 Figure 8c Visual Simulation – Key View 3......................................................................................... 42 Figure 8d Visual Simulation – Key View 4......................................................................................... 43 Figure 8e Visual Simulation – Key View 5......................................................................................... 44 Figure 8f Visual Simulation – Key View 6......................................................................................... 45 List of Tables
Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds .............................. 50 Table 4.3-2 Localized Significance Thresholds (Construction/Operations)......................................... 51 Table 4.3-3 Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ......................................... 55 290
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page iv
Table 4.3-4 Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)........................................... 56 Table 4.3-5 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day)............... 58 Table 4.3-6 Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day) ................ 59 Table 4.6-1 Project Construction Energy Usage .................................................................................. 75 Table 4.6-2 Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage .................................................... 76 Table 4.6-3 On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Operation ................................................... 76 Table 4.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)............................................................. 92 Table 4.8-2 Operational GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)............................................................... 93 Table 4.8-3 Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.............................................................. 94 Table 4.8-4 Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS)................................. 98 Table 4.11-1 Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies............................................ 119 Table 4.13-1 Short-Term Noise Measurement Data............................................................................ 134 Table 4.13-2 City of Aliso Viejo Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................... 135 Table 4.13-3 Average Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA)......................................................... 139 Table 4.15-1 Estimated Students Generated by Proposed Project ..................................................... 152 291
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Title 14 Sections 15000, et seq.). This Initial Study is an informational document intended to be used as a decision-making tool for the Lead Agency and responsible agencies in considering and acting on the proposed Project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City, as Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study to determine if the proposed Avalon Aliso Viejo Project (Project) would have a significant effect on the environment. If, as a result of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that mitigation cannot reduce the impact to a less than significant level for any aspect of the proposed Project, then the Lead Agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze project-related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the Project, as proposed, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency may prepare a Negative Declaration (ND). If the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence of a significant impact, but the impact can be reduced through mitigation, the Lead Agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such significant environmental impacts may occur (PRC Section 21080(c)).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c), the purposes of an Initial Study are to:

1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR, MND or a ND;

2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an MND or ND;

3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by; a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, c. Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environment effects.

4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;

5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a MND or ND that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;

6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and

7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 292
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 2
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the proposed Project. The resulting environmental documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.

1.2 Summary of Findings
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Aliso Viejo (City), as the Lead Agency, has the authority for environmental review and adoption of the environmental documentation, in accordance with CEQA. As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration (IS/ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) can be prepared when:
• The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment (resulting in a Negative Declaration), or
• The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
o Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
o There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment (resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration).

Based on the Environmental Checklist Form and supporting environmental analysis provided in Section

4.0, Environmental Analysis, the proposed Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact concerning all environmental issue areas, except the following, for which the Project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated:
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Mandatory Findings of Significance

1.3 Public Review Process
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provided to the Clerk of the County of Orange and mailed to responsible agencies and trustee agencies concerned with the Project and other public agencies with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the Project. A 30-day public review period has been established for the IS/MND in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 293
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 3
15073. During the public review period, the IS/MND, including the technical appendices, was made available for review at the following locations:
• City of Aliso Viejo, Community Development Department, 12 Journey, Suite 100, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
• City of Aliso Viejo website at:
https://www.avcity.org
In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the document’s adequacy in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts and the ways in which the Project’s potentially significant effects can be avoided or mitigated.

Written comments on this IS/MND may be sent to:

Rose Rivera, Senior Planner
City of Aliso Viejo, Community Development Department
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Email: [email protected]
Following receipt and evaluation of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals, the City will determine whether any substantial new environmental issues have been raised, and if further documentation may be required. If no new environmental issued have been raised or if the issues raised do not provide substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment, the IS/MND will be considered for adoption and the Project for approval.

1.4 Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, a MND may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the MND’s text.

The references outlined below were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. Copies of these documents are available for review on the City’s website (www.avcity.org) unless otherwise noted.

City of Aliso Viejo General Plan. The City adopted its comprehensive General Plan on April 21, 2004.

Subsequent updates have been made to various elements as outlined within the General Plan. The 6 th
Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element was adopted June 7, 2023.

The City of Aliso Viejo General Plan (General Plan) serves as the blueprint for future growth and development within the City’s Planning Area, which consists solely of areas within the City Limits. The General Plan identifies a community vision for the future and establishes a framework to guide decisions regarding development, transportation, housing, resource management, public safety, public services, and general community well-being. It includes goals, policies, and plans to guide land use and development decisions. The General Plan comprises the following elements:
294
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 4
• Land Use Element
• Circulation Element
• Noise Element
• Safety Element
• Conservation/Open Space Element
• Housing Element
The General Plan also includes a Land Use Policy Map, which serves as a general guide to the distribution of land uses throughout the City, and Implementation Program, which identifies specific actions to achieve the goals, policies, and plans identified in each General Plan element.

Aliso Viejo General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2003101060. The Aliso Viejo General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan FEIR) analyzed the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Aliso Viejo General Plan. The General Plan FEIR forecasts development under the Land Use Plan to result in approximately 19,404 dwelling units, 13,516 square feet of non-residential land uses, and a population of 48,071 at buildout. The General Plan FEIR concluded that significant and unavoidable impacts would occur concerning Air Quality.

Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. The Aliso Viejo Municipal Code (Municipal Code or AVMC) consists of the regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances of the City of Aliso Viejo. The Municipal Code is the primary method used for implementing the General Plan’s goals and policies. The City’s Zoning Code (Municipal Code Title 15) contains regulations establishing various classes of zoning districts and governing the use of land and the placement of buildings and improvements within districts, as well as a zoning map delineating the boundaries of zoning districts within the City.

Avalon Aliso Viejo Town Center Specific Plan (SP-2). Avalon Aliso Viejo Town Center, Specific Plan No. 2 (The Commons Specific Plan, or SP-2) oversees the development of the approximately 25.3-acre Aliso Commons site, located on the west side of Aliso Creek Road between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73) and Enterprise, in the central portion of the City. The Commons Specific Plan acts as a tool for implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan and includes development standards, guidelines, and regulations to achieve the overall vision for the site.

1.5 Report Organization
This document is organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0, Introduction, provides the CEQA Statute and Guidelines applicable to the Initial Study, summarizes the findings of the Initial Study, describes the public review process, and identifies documents incorporated by reference as part of the Initial Study.

Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the proposed Project, including Project location, environmental setting, Project characteristics, construction program and phasing, and requested entitlement, permits and approvals.

Section 3.0, Environmental Checklist Form, provides Project background information and a summary of environmental factors potentially affected by the proposed Project and the Lead Agency Determination 295
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 5
based on the analysis and impact determinations provided in Section 4.0. The impact evaluation criteria utilized in Section 4.0 is also provided.

Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist, and identifies mitigation measures, if necessary.

Section 5.0, References, identifies the information sources utilized in preparation of the IS to support the environmental analysis.
296
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 6
This page intentionally left blank.
297
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 7

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The Avalon Aliso Viejo Project (Project) site is located in the City of Aliso Viejo within the County of Orange; refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity. The Project site is located at 26501 Aliso Creek Road in the central portion of the City. The site comprises parcel APN 629-101-16 totaling approximately 4.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Enterprise and Town Center; refer to Figure 2, Project Location. The Project proposes to redevelop a portion of the larger Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center, an established commercial center located west of Aliso Creek Road.

Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 73 (SR-73), located to the northeast. Local access to the site is provided directly from Enterprise and Aliso Creek Road to the south and east, respectively.

Within the Project area, Enterprise is accessible from several roadways, with Aliso Creek Road and Aliso Viejo Parkway providing primary access from the east and west, respectively.

2.2 Existing Setting
On-Site Land Uses
The Project site consists of an irregularly shaped development area located within the southwestern portion of the Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center. The majority of the site is relatively flat with a slope that descends to the Town Center along the western site boundary. Elevations vary from approximately 350 to 400 feet above mean sea level. The site is currently developed with surface parking and a landscaped slope ascending up to Enterprise.

Two driveways provide access to the larger commercial center, including the Project site. One driveway provides access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site; a second driveway provides access via Aliso Creek Road to the east. The western site boundary consists of a landscaped slope with groundcover, bushes, and trees. A landscape planter with ornamental landscaping, monument sign, and sidewalk are located in the southeastern portion of the site along the Town Center entrance. Landscape planters with ornamental landscaping and trees are dispersed throughout the parking aisles within the site.

General Plan and Zoning
According to the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use Policy Map, the Project site is designated High Density Residential/Town Center Commercial and Open Space. The High Density Residential land use designation provides for multiple-family units such as apartments, town homes, condominiums, senior housing, and multi-family clusters at a range of 18.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Town Center Commercial land use designation provides for a mixture of uses within the Aliso Viejo Town Center including: community retail and commercial services, offices, theaters, art galleries and entertainment facilities, hotels/motels and restaurants, recreation and community facilities. The maximum intensity development for the Town Center Commercial designation is a 1.25:1 floor area ratio (FAR). The Open Space land use designation provides open space for outdoor recreation, buffering of incompatible land uses, preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, and protection of health and public safety. Areas designated as Open Space include: streams and washes, open space easements, 298
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 8
Regional Parks, and other private and public open space. No density or intensity standard is applied to the Open Space designation.

According to the City of Aliso Viejo Zoning Map, the Project site is zoned SP-2: The Commons Specific Plan.

The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center, Specific Plan No. 2 (Specific Plan) envisions a mixed-use development project within the Aliso Viejo Commons (Commons) portion of the Aliso Viejo Town Center.

According to the Specific Plan Zoning Districts Map (Exhibit IV-1), the Project site is located within the SP2- RH Zoning District (Residential – High Density District) and SP2-CTC Zoning District (Commercial – Town Center District).

Surrounding Uses
Uses surrounding the Project site include:
• North: North of the Project site is a parking lot, commercial structures currently undergoing renovation and improvements1, and landscaped area within the Commons commercial center.

North of the Commons is SR-73. To the northwest of the Project site are office uses within the Office Campus at the Summit. The commercial uses to the north are zoned SP-2. The office uses to the northwest are zoned PO (Professional Office).
• East: East of the Project site is a parking lot and commercial structures (e.g., restaurants, Trader Joe’s, Walgreens) within the Commons commercial center. To the east of the Commons is Aliso Creek Road. The area to the east is zoned SP-2.
• South: The Project site is bounded on the south by Enterprise. South of Enterprise are commercial uses (e.g.,retail, dining, entertainment, and medical office/urgent care uses) within the Aliso Viejo Town Center commercial center. The area to the south of Enterprise is zoned TC (Town Center Commercial).
• West: The Project site is bounded on the west by Enterprise. To the west of Enterprise is open space trails, followed by residential uses associated with the Vantis development. The open space trail area to the west of Enterprise is zoned OS (Open Space Recreation). The residential uses within the Vantis development are zoned SP-1: Vantis Specific Plan. 1 In 2022 a Site Development Permit for façade modifications to the former Lowe’s building and adjacent suites, a Development Agreement, and a Specific Plan Amendment was approved. In July and October 2023 permits were issued for a Tesla Sales and Showroom, 99 Ranch Market, and Daiso Japan. 299
UV241
UV261
UV133
UV142
UV57
UV91
UV91
UV241
UV22
UV55
UV72
UV42
UV1
UV31
UV39
UV39
UV83
UV91
UV55
UV73
UV73
UV71
UV1
UV72
UV90
UV74
UV74
§¨¦5
§¨¦15
§¨¦105
§¨¦605 §¨¦5
§¨¦405
Lake
Mathews
Santiago
Reservoir

SAN GABRIEL R

SANTA ANA R
Anaheim
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Laguna
Niguel
Orange
Placentia
San Juan
Capistrano
Santa Ana
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Chino Hills
Chino
Ontario
La Mirada
Santa Fe
Springs
Walnut
Riverside
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Norco
La Habra
Heights
Industry Diamond Bar
West Covina
Long
Beach
Montebello
Lakewood
Norwalk
Downey
Whittier
Pico
Rivera
Brea
Irvine
La Habra
Stanton
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Rancho Santa
Margarita
San Clemente
Seal Beach
Villa Park
Aliso
Viejo
Huntington
Beach
Tustin
Buena
Park
Dana
Point
Fountain
Valley
Laguna Beach
Laguna
Hills
Laguna Woods
Lake Forest
Jurupa Valley
Hawaiian Gardens
Newport Beach
Cerritos
Eastvale
Artesia
Bellflower
Bell Gardens
Commerce
Figure 1. Regional Vicinity
Legend
County Boundary
Incorporated Area
Sources: Orange County. Map date: April 22, 2024.
0 21
Miles
Project Location

THE COMMONS AT ALISO VIEJO
CJ
••••
300

SEQUOIA DR

HAWAII DR

POPLAR DR

ALISO VIEJO PKWY

PACIFIC PAR
K
DR

BROWNSTONE WAY

C TI Y LIGHTS DR

ALISO CREEK RD

RICHEMON
T WAY

CLOUDCREST ST

WOOD CANYON DR

SANTA CLARA ST

VANTIS DR

DEERHURST ST

BEACON WAY

POLARIS WAY
WOOD

CANYON DR

WINDROW DR

BARBADOS DR ALISO CREEK RD

SONOMA ST
GLENWOOD DRUV73
UV73
Oak Grove
Elementary
School
Don Juan Avila
Middle School
Woodfield
Park
Springdale
Park
Aliso Viejo
Community
Park
Grand Park

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 2. Project Location
Legend
Project Site
Park
School
Sources: Orange County; ArcGIS Map Service. Map date: April 22, 2024. 0 200100
US Feet
c:::J
CJ
CJ
301
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 11

2.3 Project Characteristics
The Project Applicant requests approval of the Avalon Aliso Viejo Project. The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement to allow construction of a mixed-use residential and retail development on the 4.4-acre site, as further described below.

Proposed Mixed-Use Development
As part of the Project, the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements would be removed and a mixed-use development consisting of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements would be constructed. The mixed-use building would wrap around a centrally located eight-level parking structure with a subterranean parking garage (basement level B1) and rooftop residential amenity space; refer to Figure 3a, Proposed First Floor Plan and Figure 3b, Proposed Second Floor Plan, Figure 3c, Proposed ThirdFifth Floor Plan2 , Figure 3d, Proposed Sixth Floor Plan, Figure 3e, Proposed Seventh Floor Plan, Figure 3f, Proposed Eighth Floor Plan, and Figure 3g, Proposed Subterranean Parking Garage Plan.

The 343 residential units would be located within all six levels of the six-story mixed-use building. Of the 343 units, 34 units would be deed restricted affordable units, including 26 units for moderate-income households, five units for low-income households, and three units for very low-income households. The units would consist of 48 studio apartments, 168 one-bedroom units, 119 two-bedroom units, and eight three-bedroom units, ranging in size from 612 to 1,446 square feet.

Nine commercial spaces for retail or dining uses totaling 17,273 square feet would be located on the ground floor within the southeastern portion of the site. Additionally, a 1,000-square-foot leasing office, 1,385-square-foot residential amenity, and 995 square foot mail room would be located on the ground floor within the southern portion of the site. A pedestrian walkway along the eastern and northern building perimeter would provide access to the commercial spaces from Enterprise and Town Center.

Three outdoor courtyards would be located on the ground floor within the western and southwestern portions of the site. An electrical room and commercial trash room would be located on the ground floor along the northwest portion of the site, along with a loading dock for new residents. Two outdoor roof decks would be located on the sixth floor, which is the top residential floor, in the south-southwestern portion of the site. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be located on the seventh floor. A retaining wall would separate the landscaped embankment along the west-southwest boundary of the Project site from the proposed mixed-use building.

The eight-level parking structure would include parking within the subterranean parking level (basement level B1) and levels one (ground floor) through seven. A roof deck would be provided on the eighth level of the parking structure and would consist of residential amenities including an approximately 5,271 square foot clubhouse and corresponding patio with seating and fire pit tables, an outdoor fitness patio, a covered outdoor bar and seating areas, and an outdoor recreation area with pool and spa. The Project 2 Floors three through five provide the same number of units and unit types. 302
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 12
includes a minimum setback of 15 feet and an average setback of 20 feet from Enterprise, 15 feet from the northern site boundary, and 10 feet on the eastern and western boundaries.

A residential use trash room and utility rooms would be located within the subterranean parking garage (basement level B1). An EV electrical room, telecommunications (MPOE) room, and utility rooms would be located within the parking structure on the ground floor. A mechanical room would be located within the parking structure on levels one through seven and the subterranean parking garage (basement level B1).

Open Space, Landscaping, and Amenities
Each one-, two-, and three-bedroom residential unit would have private open space ranging from 40 to 140 square feet within a balcony; studio units would not provide private open space. Three outdoor courtyards would be located on the ground floor within the western and southwestern portions of the site; refer to Figure 3a. Residents would have access to two outdoor roof decks located on the sixth floor with residential amenities that include seating areas, fire pits, and barbeques. Additionally, residents would have access to a 28,437-square-foot rooftop deck on the eighth level consisting of residential amenities, including an approximately 5,271-square-foot clubhouse and corresponding patio with seating and fire pit tables, an outdoor fitness patio, a covered outdoor bar and seating areas, and an outdoor recreation area with pool and spa.

The Project contains approximately 50,188 square feet of common open space; refer to Figure 4, Proposed Landscape Plan3. Bicycle parking would also be provided in the northeastern corner of the site, adjacent to the retail space. Landscaping including groundcover, bushes, and trees would be located around the northern, eastern, western, and southern perimeters of the building. An entry monument would be provided within the southern portion of the site, adjacent to Enterprise.

Access and Parking
Similar to existing conditions, vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two existing driveways. One driveway would provide access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site; a second driveway would provide access via Aliso Creek Road to the east. The Project would provide a total of 590 automobile parking spaces for residents and guests distributed across the subterranean parking garage (basement level B1) and levels one through seven of the proposed parking structure. The 590 parking spaces would include 504 resident spaces and 86 guest spaces. Vehicle parking for the proposed commercial uses and the leasing office would be accommodated in the existing surface parking lot adjacent to the Project site. A bicycle room would be provided within the subterranean parking garage (basement level B1), providing long term storage of 50 bicycles for the residents.

Pedestrian access to the Project site would be provided from a pedestrian walkway along Town Center and from three outdoor staircases providing access from Enterprise. A pedestrian walkway would be provided along the southeastern and northeastern boundaries of the proposed mixed-use structure. The 3 The Proposed Landscape Plan shows an illustrative composite plan containing landscaping from the ground floor (level one), level six, and level eight.
303
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 13
commercial uses would be accessible from ground floor entrances at the eastern and northern boundaries of the proposed mixed-use structure. The residential uses, parking, and amenities within the proposed structure would be accessible from two elevators located on opposite sides of the parking garage and four stairwells located throughout the building.

Architecture
The proposed building would be 89 feet to the top of the parapet wall; refer to Figure 5a, Proposed Building Elevation – North, Figure 5b, Proposed Building Elevation – East, Figure 5c, Proposed Building Elevation – South, and Figure 5d, Proposed Building Elevation – West. The exterior walls would be a stucco finish with composite siding as shown on Figures 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d and Figure 6, Proposed Project Rendering. Decorative elements would include awnings. The balconies would include a mix of perforated metal panel railing, picket railing, and glass railing. Vinyl windows would be used throughout the site. The commercial uses and leasing office would include glass storefront.

Utilities
The Project would connect to existing utilities within the Project area, as described below.

The existing public water line within the Project site would be removed and relocated to the east of the proposed mixed-use building. An existing fire hydrant within the southeastern portion of the Project site would be removed. A total of three fire hydrants and two Double Check Detector Assemblies (DCDAs) would be installed along the northern and eastern perimeters of the Project site and would connect to existing water lines. A proposed domestic water lateral would connect to the existing water line.

A proposed sewer lateral would connect to the existing sewer lateral in the southeastern portion of the site.

Existing underground storm drain lines and inlets within the Project site would be removed. The Project would install a new underground storm drainage system that would convey flows into an underground detention system consisting of two detention basins. Low flows equivalent to the required treatment volume or treatment flow rate from the underground detention system would be conveyed into a Modular Wetland System best management practice (BMP), which would discharge into the existing storm drain system.

The existing electrical equipment box in the southwestern corner of the Project site would be removed.

The Project would connect to existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure adjacent to the Project site.

Requested Entitlements
Approval of the following entitlements are requested:
• Site Development Permit pursuant to AVMC Section 15.74.020 to allow for a new project that involves building construction. The Project Site is currently developed as surface parking. The Project includes the development of a mixed-use project comprising 343 dwelling units and 17,273 square feet of ground-floor retail/restaurant space. 304
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 14
• Vesting Tentative Map pursuant to AVMC Section 14.08.030 to merge the existing contiguous lots and re-subdivide the Project site.
• Development Agreement pursuant to AVMC Section 15.82.010 to provide further site-specific regulations and community benefits in connection with the proposed Project.

Project Construction and Phasing
The Project’s construction phase is anticipated to occur over a 29-month period. Construction of the Project would include demolition, grading, site preparation, paving, building construction, and architectural coating.

Permits and Approvals
The City of Aliso Viejo, as the Lead Agency, has discretionary authority over the proposed Project. The proposed Project would be subject to various City permits and approvals, including, but not limited to:
• Adoption of a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Site Development Permit
• Vesting Tentative Map
• Development Agreement
305

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3a. Proposed First Floor Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.
306

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3b. Proposed Second Floor Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.
••••
307

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3c. Proposed Third-Fifth Floor Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

I
I
I
I
I
L -=:=::::i.::::=..::.=-==--~- --
I
I
__________ __) _J----- - I
••••
308

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3d. Proposed Sixth Floor Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I s ______________
=--.1
\
\
\
••••
309

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3e. Proposed Seventh Floor Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=? , ~~t:J~[l~D
(g ~ I ~E
I
I
I
D
/ I I L
________ S ______________ _J

POTENTIAL SOLAR

ZONE LOCATIONS
310

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3f. Proposed Eighth Floor Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /
:::i
(
/
L
I
I
I
7 I
/ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ I I L / __J ______________
I _J
-----------
••••
311

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 3g. Proposed Subterranean Parking Garage Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ I I L / _J ______________ __J I
-----------
\
\
\
••••
312

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 4. Proposed Landscape Plan
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

LEGEND
0 Ground Level Courtyards (A,B,C)
f) Ground Level Reta il/Pedestrian Access
8 6th Floor Roof Decks
C, 8th Floor Rooftop Pool Club
I
313

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 5a. Proposed Building Elevation – North
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.
_!(POFP~,
ELEV •l·•-O' l•~ ..0-0'J 1
IOl'OF.PilW'l~, -
ElFY •~ T7-0' (•~ 0'-0'J 1
IOl'OF~, -
!LFY •~ 73,.. l•~ "2•_..J I
IIPOF , _,__I~~
Hl\l •~• 4'l•~ llr-O')
314

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 5b. Proposed Building Elevation – East
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.
315

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 5c. Proposed Building Elevation – South
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.
'-
'-6
IIK_ll',l!l~TW.

IUY •!- »~(•1- "°'~)
_ 1111_~.!,_~f(JW. .

11.!V •{- "'..f'(•I• *.#)
----~~,-- -a:!~~~~ .
316

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 5d. Proposed Building Elevation – West
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.

D _(lf~Tl,IJIHN.l
IUV •~-~(•/-.,t~)
ll~~~r:~~-5')
---~, ~ a~"!~!'..-(=l
__ £HJ.~i KUNI. .
ll!V •~ :i=.J' (~~-H ')
317

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 6. Proposed Project Rendering
Sources: TCA Architects. Map date: April 22, 2024.
318
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 28
This page intentionally left blank.
319
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 29

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Background

1. Project Title: Avalon Aliso Viejo Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Aliso Viejo
Community Development Department
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656

3. Contact Person and Address:

Rose Rivera
Senior Planner
City of Aliso Viejo, Community Development Department
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Email: [email protected]

4. Project Location: 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.
2050 Main Street, #1200
Irvine, CA 92614

6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential/Town Center Commercial and Open Space

7. Zoning: SP-2: The Commons Specific Plan

8. Description of the Proposed Project: See Section 2.3.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Section 2.2.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: See Section 2.4.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In compliance with AB 52, the City distributed letters to applicable Native American tribes informing them of the Project on February 27, 2024 via certified mail. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation has requested tribal consultation; refer to Response 4.18. 320
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 30
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Energy
X Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gasses Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation X Transportation X Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

X
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
_________________________________________________
So Kim
Community Development Director
_________________________
Date
8/22/2024
321
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 31
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. An explanation is provided for all responses with the exception of “No Impact” responses, which are supported by the cited information sources. The responses consider the whole action involved, including on- and off-site project level and cumulative, indirect and direct, and short-term construction and long-term operational impacts. The evaluation of potential impacts also identifies the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each impact question. If applicable, mitigation measures are identified to avoid or reduce the impact to less than significant. There are four possible responses to each question:
• Potentially Significant Impact. This response is appropriate when there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, upon completion of the Initial Study, an EIR is required.
• Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. This response applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • Less than Significant Impact. A less than significant impact is one which is deemed to have little or no adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures are, therefore, not necessary, although they may be recommended to further reduce a minor impact. • No Impact. These issues were either identified as having no impact on the environment, or they are not relevant to the project.
322
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 32
This page intentionally left blank.
323
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 33

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
X
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The Aliso Viejo General Plan describes the City as being characterized by a variety of scenic resources including hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors. Policy COS-4.1 of the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element directs the City to protect scenic landform features such as hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors through designation of key areas as open space and use of other land use planning tools. While scenic vistas are not specifically identified in the General Plan, the General Plan identifies a number of scenic resources in the City, including canyon views and scenic highways, which are cited as examples of scenic qualities benefiting the community. The General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element identifies areas of the City bordering the Aliso and Woods Canyons as being situated with highly valued viewsheds or scenic overlooks of the canyons. The Conservation/Open Space Policy Map further designates roadways within the City that have scenic qualities worth preserving. These roadways are classified as either Viewscape Corridors or Landscape Corridors, and are depicted on the Conservation/Open Space Policy Map. Viewscape Corridors are defined as “[a] route that traverses a corridor within which unique or unusual scenic resources and aesthetic values are found. This designation is intended to minimize the impact of the highway and land 324
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 34
development upon the significant scenic resources along the route.” Landscape Corridors are defined as “[a] corridor that traverses developed or developing areas and has been designated for special treatment to provide a pleasant driving environment as well as community enhancement.” Landscape Corridors identified within the vicinity of the Project site include Aliso Creek Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73 [SR-73]).

The Project site is located within an area that is generally developed and urbanized. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements. The majority of the site is relatively flat with a northeast-east facing slope along the western site boundary. The Project site is not identified as a scenic vista and does not contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify the site for designation as a scenic vista.

Views from the Project site include short- to middle-range views of parking, landscaping, and commercial structures to the north and east; parking, landscaping, commercial structures, and Enterprise to the south; and parking, landscaping, and residential uses to the west. Long-range views of hillsides, ridgelines, or canyons associated with Aliso and Woods Canyons, or designated Viewscape Corridors or Landscape Corridors, including Aliso Creek Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, are not available from the Project site due to topography and intervening trees and structures. Partial long-range views of the Santa Ana Mountains, located to the east, are available within some southern and western portions of the Project site; however, these views are already obstructed by the existing commercial building.

Views of the Project site from SR-73 mainline, SR-73 Aliso Creek Road offramp, and Aliso Creek Road (Landscape Corridors) are primarily obscured or intermittent due to the existing geography, intervening development, and landscaping. Aliso Creek Road, adjacent to the Commons commercial center is at a lower elevation than the Project site, furthering limiting views of the site.

The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The mixeduse building would wrap around a centrally located eight-level parking structure with a subterranean parking garage and rooftop residential amenity space. The maximum building height would be 89 feet.

Although the Project site is located in an area surrounded by multiple story office, residential, and commercial uses, the proposed development would be taller than the existing commercial buildings within the immediate area. However, the Project would not substantially alter long-range views from designated Viewscape Corridors or Landscape Corridors. The Project would not be visible from designated Viewscape Corridors, including El Toro Road and Wood Canyon Drive, due to distance and topography.

Although the Project may be visible intermittently from designated Landscape Corridors, including SR-73 and Aliso Creek Road, long-range views afforded to motorists traveling along these roadways would not be substantially altered, as the proposed development would be substantially setback from these roadways. Further, the Project is designed to tuck into the adjacent slope to the southwest and contains a number of design features such as setbacks to reduce building massing and reduce the visual impact from surrounding areas.

Visual simulations of the Project site were prepared by the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) to depict the views of the Project from the open space/trail areas adjacent to the Vantis 325
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 35
Residences, which are situated at a higher elevation to the west of Enterprise and the Project site; refer to Figure 7, Key View Map and Figures 8a through 8f, Visual Simulation.

As seen in Figures 8a and 8b, Visual Simulation – Key View 1 and Visual Simulation – Key View 2, views of the Project site and the proposed mixed-use structure would be obscured by existing landscaping. For Key View 1, existing middle ground views of the rooftops of commercial structures within the Commons commercial center and of the office building within the Town Center and a portion of Enterprise would continue. Long-range views of existing developed hillsides, SR-73, the Santa Ana mountains, and skyline would continue to be afforded from this area. Views from Key View 2 would continue to be of existing landscaping within the foreground with intermittent views of Enterprise.

As seen in Figure 8c, Visual Simulation – Key View 3, the upper levels of the proposed mixed-use building would be visible. Existing landscaping in the foreground would obscure views of the lower levels of the structure. This view would replace existing views of the multi-family development east of Aliso Creek Road, intermittent views of Aliso Creek Road, and more distant views of developed hillsides and portions of SR-73. Long-range views of existing developed hillsides, the Santa Ana mountains, and skyline would continue to be afforded from this area.

As seen in Figure 8d, Visual Simulation – Key View 4, the rooftop level of the proposed mixed-use building would primarily be visible. Existing landscaping in the foreground would obscure views of the lower levels of the structure. This view would replace existing intermittent views of the Commons commercial area, partially replace existing elevation and rooftop views of the office and commercial uses within the Town Center, and a portion of the multi-family development east of Aliso Creek Road. Long-range views of existing developed hillsides, SR-73, the Santa Ana mountains, and skyline would continue to be afforded from this area.

As seen in Figure 8e, Visual Simulation – Key View 5, the southern-most portion of the mixed-use structure, closest to Enterprise, would be visible. The remaining portions of the building would be obscured by existing landscaping in the foreground and due to the topography of the area and slope within the Project site. This view would replace existing views of surface parking and commercial uses with the Commons commercial center and the multi-family development east of Aliso Creek Road. Limited long-range views (due to existing landscaping) of existing developed hillsides, the Santa Ana mountains, and skyline would continue to be afforded from this area.

As seen in Figure 8f, Visual Simulation – Key View 6, the upper levels and rooftop of the proposed mixeduse building would primarily be visible. The remaining portions of the building would be obscured by existing landscaping in the foreground and due to the topography of the area and slope within the Project site. This view would partially replace existing views of the commercial uses within the Town Center and a portion of the multi-family development east of Aliso Creek Road. Long-range views of existing developed hillsides, SR-73, the Santa Ana mountains, and skyline would continue to be afforded from this area.

The Project is a discretionary project subject to various City permits and approvals, including a Site Development Permit. The Project would be required to undergo design review, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.62, Design Standards. The design standards would ensure high quality physical design for the Project, including visual compatibility with existing development, and that development 326
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 36
protects, to the greatest extent feasible, existing vistas and panoramas of open space, major landforms, ocean, and special landmarks. Additionally, the Project is subject to the development standards, guidelines, and regulations of The Commons Specific Plan, which would ensure the physical design of the development is consistent with the overall vision for the site. Thus, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework, which would be verified through the City’s development review process, would ensure that the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 91, approximately 19 miles north of the Project site.4 The nearest eligible State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 1, located approximately four miles southwest of the Project site. The Project site is not located adjacent to or within view of a designated State scenic highway. As such, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway; no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an “Urbanized area” as:
(a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
(1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
(2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.

According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Aliso Viejo has a current (2023) population of 50,766.
5 The adjacent city of Laguna Niguel has a population of 64,702. Combined, the cities have 115,468, which exceeds 100,000 persons; thus, the City qualifies as being within an urbanized area. Since 4 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed March 15, 2024.
5 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2023, https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-citiescounties-and-the-state-2020-2023/, accessed March 20, 2024. 327
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 37
the Project is within an urbanized area, a significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Construction
Short-term construction activities associated with development of the Project would temporarily influence the Project site and immediate surroundings. Project conditions of approval would require the use of screening to buffer views of construction equipment and material. Construction fencing would reduce potential impacts to sensitive viewers in the area (e.g., public street users). Additionally, construction-related impacts would be temporary in nature and all construction equipment would ultimately be removed following completion of construction activities. Therefore, Project construction activities would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational
The Project site is located within an area that is generally developed and urbanized. The Project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east, and south; and bounded by Enterprise to the west, followed by open space trails and residential uses. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking and landscaping. The site is designated High Density Residential/Town Center Commercial and Open Space, and is zoned SP-2, which corresponds to The Commons Specific Plan. The Commons Specific Plan envisions a mixed-use development project within the Commons portion of the Aliso Viejo Town Center. The Specific Plan Zoning Districts Map identifies the Project site as being located within the SP2- RH Zoning District (Residential – High Density District) and SP2-CTC Zoning District (Commercial – Town Center District).

The Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit and Development Agreement. The Site Development Permit would allow for discretionary review of the Project’s appropriateness, scale, architecture, site design, and compatibility with the surrounding area. The decision-making authority would be required to make findings for approval including consistency with the General Plan, consistency with the Zoning Code, compliance with CEQA, architectural design and site design that is compatible with surrounding development, and landscape design that provides a unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The Development Agreement allows the City to provide further site-specific regulations, including permitted levels of development, and community benefits. These processes would provide an opportunity for public review and evaluation of site-specific requirements and characteristics, to minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment, and to ensure that all site development regulations and performance standards are provided in accordance with the City’s General Plan, The Commons Specific Plan, and Municipal Code.

The Project would be required to undergo design review, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter

15.62, Design Standards. The design standards would ensure high quality physical design for the Project, including visual compatibility with existing development, and that development protects, to the greatest extent feasible, existing vistas and panoramas of open space, major landforms, and special landmarks.

Additionally, the Project would be subject to the development standards of the Development Agreement and guidelines and regulations of The Commons Specific Plan, which would ensure the physical design of the development is consistent with the overall vision for the site. Thus, compliance with the City’s 328
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 38
established regulatory framework, which would be verified through the City’s development review process, would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking and landscaping.

The site is surrounded by commercial, office, and residential uses, as well as a major transportation corridor, and therefore currently experiences lighting and glare typical of a developed and urbanized area (e.g., security and landscape lighting, automobile headlights, glare from glass surfaces).

The proposed building materials would include glass railing, windows, and storefronts; however, these materials are not anticipated to exhibit highly reflective properties potentially resulting in significant glare impacts. Access to the Project site would continue to occur from the two existing driveways to the southeast and east of the site. Thus, the Project would not introduce new conditions related to headlights from vehicles entering and exiting the site.

All lighting installed as part of the Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s lighting requirements. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 15.62.070, Outdoor Lighting, requires outdoor lighting to be designed and shielded to minimize spillover onto neighboring properties. Additionally, Section 5.3, Lighting Guidelines, of the Specific Plan requires exterior lighting to be shielded or recessed to minimize direct glare and reflection, and for lighting to be directed away from residential areas. Compliance with the Municipal Code and Specific Plan provisions specific to lighting would ensure proper design, installation, and operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects, light spillover onto adjacent properties, or conflicts with adjacent land uses. The Project would be required to submit a lighting plan identifying the type, location, and height of proposed lighting fixtures, with an associated photometric analysis showing lighting illumination levels and spillover, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 15.74.020, Site Development Permits. The lighting plan would be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure the proposed lighting would not adversely impact surrounding development. Thus, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework, which would be verified through the City’s development review process, would ensure potential impacts associated with proposed Project lighting and glare would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 329

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 7. Key View Map
Legend
Project Site
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 6, 2024. 0 100 200
US Feet
1 2
5 6
3 4
••••
330

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8a. Visual Simulation – Key View 1
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
331

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8b. Visual Simulation – Key View 2
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,. 0 , 0 Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
332

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8c. Visual Simulation – Key View 3
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
333

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8d. Visual Simulation – Key View 4
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
334

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8e. Visual Simulation – Key View 5
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024. l)~:,.o,o Plu,u,ug Gro"p ■
\Lmdll., 11•,ml"l•l"'''l"••"dt,"u"'••• .. •·•lln.,
335

AVALON ALISO VIEJO
Figure 8f. Visual Simulation – Key View 6
Sources: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. Map date: May 3, 2024.

D<t- ;,.,:,,·,:, Pl•11n1ug Gro"p ••••
336
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 46
This page intentionally left blank.
337
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 47

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 1222(g)) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? 338
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 48
No Impact. The City does not contain any mapped Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.6 The Project site is zoned the SP-2: The Commons Specific Plan and is not zoned for agricultural use. The site is currently developed with surface parking and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the Project would not involve the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, the Project site is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production occurs within the vicinity of the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/, accessed March 14, 2024. 339
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 49

4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
X
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
This section is based, in part, on the Technical Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations (CalEEMod Results), prepared by Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, dated December 2023, and included in its entirety as Appendix A, CalEEMod and Energy Data.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Thresholds Mass Emissions Thresholds
The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) significance criteria is relied upon to assess the potential for significant impacts to air quality. According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if a proposed project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during project construction and operations, as shown in Table 4.3-1, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.
340
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 50
Table 4.3-1
South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors (Regional)
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 (PM2.5 threshold adopted June 1, 2007).

Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, the proposed Project would be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) impacts.

The California 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards are:
• 1-hour = 20 parts per million (ppm)
• 8-hour = 9 ppm
The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near a project site exceed State and federal CO standards. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.

Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (“LSTs”) for emissions of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), CO, Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10), and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or State ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours. The nearest sensitive receptors include the Vantis Residences, a collection of multi-family residential properties located approximately 350 feet west of the Project site, across Enterprise; and the St. Moritz Resort Apartments, a multi-family residential complex located over 500 feet east of the Project site, across Aliso Creek Road. The SCAQMD also suggests that LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and CO, may also be applied to receptors such as commercial and industrial facilities since it is reasonable to assume that workers at these sites may be present for up to eight hours. 341
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 51
Nearby receptors where workers or other users may be present for one to eight or more hours include a multitude of commercial, retail, and other land uses surrounding the Project site. The nearest such land uses to the Project include commercial and retail uses less than 100 feet from the Project site, within The Commons commercial center.

LST analysis for construction is applicable for projects that disturb 5.0 acres or less on a single day, such as the proposed Project, which is 4.4 acres. The City of Aliso Viejo is located within SCAQMD SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal). Table 4.3-2, Localized Significance Thresholds (Construction/Operations), shows the LSTs for the Project site.

Table 4.3-2
Localized Significance Thresholds (Construction/Operations) Project Size Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx)2 – lbs/day
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)2 – lbs/day
Coarse Particulates
(PM10)
3 – lbs/day
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5)
3 – lbs/day

1.0 acres1 92/92 647/647 27/7 9/3
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, revised April 2019; South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology – Appendix C, revised October 21, 2009.

Notes:

1. 1-acre maximum daily disturbed acreage, consistent with the Project’s maximum grading activities. This is the smallest project size used for analysis in the LST guidance document and is consistent with the SCAQMD’s “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” document. Utilizing a 1-acre project size for construction results in the most stringent emissions thresholds.

2. For NOx and CO a receptor distance of 25 meters (approximately 80 feet) was utilized, which roughly corresponds with the distance to nearby receptors where workers and other users may be present for one to eight hours. This is the shortest distance used for analysis in the LST guidance document.

3. For PM10 and PM2.5 a receptor distance of 100 meters (approximately 330 feet) was utilized, which roughly corresponds with the distance to the nearest residential sensitive receptor where occupants may be present for 24-hour periods (Vantis Residences).
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that each state with nonattainment areas prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the federal and State ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which SCAB is in non-attainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in December 2022, as an update to the 2016 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving 342
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 52
State and national air quality standards. The AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the EPA. The 2022 AQMP’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS)7, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s growth forecasts.

SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The proposed Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: A proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of the AQMP’s air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: A proposed project would not exceed the AQMP’s assumptions or increments based on the years of the project build-out phase.

Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As shown in Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4, the proposed Project construction and operational emissions would be below SCAQMD’s thresholds. As the Project would not generate localized construction or regional construction or operational emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the Project would not violate any air quality standards. Thus, no impact would occur, and the Project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to SCAG’s growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections, which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP.

With respect to determining consistency with Consistency Criterion No. 2, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the air basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed Project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. 7 Since initiation of the analysis presented in this Initial Study, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal 2024 (2024–2050 RTP/SCS). However, the 2022 AQMP utilizes growth forecasts and measures from Connect SoCal 2020 (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). Therefore, for purposes of this Initial Study and the air quality analysis, Connect SoCal 2020 is relevant and appliable to consistency with the 2022 AQMP.
343
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 53

1. Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
Growth projections included in the 2022 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions and are based on the General Plan land use designations and SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts. The population, housing, and employment forecasts within the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS are based on local general plans as well as input from local governments, such as the City of Aliso Viejo. The SCAQMD has incorporated these same demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment) into the 2022 AQMP.

As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Thus, the Project would not increase growth beyond the AQMP’s projections.

2. Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses (b) and (c). As such, the proposed Project meets this 2022 AQMP consistency criterion.

3. Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Project construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

Construction-generated emissions are short term and temporary, lasting only while construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements. The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The mixed-use building would wrap around a centrally located eight-level parking structure with a subterranean parking garage and rooftop residential amenity space. Projectrelated construction activities would include demolition, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and landscaping. This short-term and minor construction would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level, and therefore impacts associated with Project construction emissions would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions.

In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the air basin. The proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed Project’s long-term influence on air quality in the air basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the above criteria and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 344
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 54
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
Project construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project site include ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., Volatile Organic Compounds [VOC] and NOx) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and temporary, lasting only while construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities, as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

For purposes of this analysis, the duration of the proposed Project’s construction activities was estimated to last approximately 29 months. The Project’s construction-related emissions were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. Proposed Project demolition, site grading, building construction, and paving phases are anticipated to begin in 2025. Building construction and architectural coating were estimated to begin in 2026 and extend into 2027. The demolition phase was anticipated to last two weeks; the grading three months; building construction approximately 25 months; paving approximately two months; and architectural coating phase approximately 10 months.

Although the exact construction timeframe is currently unknown, the 2025 construction start date used in the modeling results in a conservative analysis because CalEEMod uses cleaner emissions factors in future years due to improved emissions controls and fleet turnover; refer to Appendix A for additional information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis.

The Project’s predicted maximum daily construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4.3-3, Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day).

As shown in Table 4.3-3, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds.

While impacts would be considered less than significant, the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 (Public Nuisance), 403 (Fugitive Dust), and 1113 (Architectural Coatings), which would further reduce specific construction-related emissions. As the proposed Project emissions would not worsen ambient air quality, create additional violations of federal and State standards, or delay SCAB’s goal for meeting attainment standards, impacts associated with Project construction emissions would be less than significant.
345
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 55
Table 4.3-3
Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Construction Activity
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(VOC)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Oxides
(SOx)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
2025
(Demolition, Grading, Building
Construction, Paving)

3.54 25.5 47.8 0.06 6.63 2.15
2026
(Building Construction,
Architectural Coatings)

16.2 16.2 40.3 0.05 6.97 1.98
2027
(Building Construction,
Architectural Coatings)

16.0 15.3 38.7 0.05 6.92 1.93
Maximum Daily 16.2 25.5 47.8 0.06 6.97 2.15
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1; refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with mobile, energy, and area sources. Energy source emissionsinclude electricity and natural gas for heating and cooling; area sources include gasolinepowered landscaping and maintenance equipment, and consumer products (such as household cleaners); and mobile sources emissions are generated from vehicle operations associated with Project operations.

CalEEMod estimated unmitigated emissions from Project operations are summarized in Table 4.3-4, Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day). As shown in Table 4.3-4, emission calculations generated from CalEEMod demonstrate that Project operations would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. Therefore, Project operational impacts would be less than significant.
346
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 56
Table 4.3-4
Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Emissions Source
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(VOC)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Oxides (SOx)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Area Source 14.3 0.29 32.1 <0.01 0.03 0.02
Energy Source 0.03 0.52 0.44 <0.01 0.04 0.04
Mobile Source 6.23 4.71 50.7 0.13 12.9 3.33
Total 20.6 5.23 83.2 0.14 13.0 3.39
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1; refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.

Since these thresholds indicate whether individual Project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the Project-related construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. Fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related cumulative projects. As concluded above, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
347
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 57
As shown in Table 4.3-4, the Project’s operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact.

Localized Construction Significance Analysis
As discussed, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is the Vantis Residences, located approximately 350 feet west of the Project site at its nearest location. The nearest land uses with the potential for workers to be present for up to eight hours, include commercial and retail uses less than 100 feet from the Project site, within The Commons commercial center.

To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction.

LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance.8 The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.

LST analysis for construction is applicable for projects that disturb 5.0 acres or less on a single day, such as the proposed Project, which is 4.4 acres. The maximum daily disturbed acreage for the Project would be less than 5.0 acres. The appropriate SRA for the LSTs is the SCAQMD SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal), since SRA 20 includes the Project site. LSTs apply to CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, as recommended by the SCAQMD, LSTs for receptors located at a receptor distance of 100 meters was used for PM10 and PM2.5 which roughly corresponds with the distance to the nearest residential sensitive receptor where occupants may be present for 24-hour periods (Vantis Residences); and a receptor distance of 25 meters was used for NOx and CO, which roughly corresponds with the distance to nearby receptors where workers and other users may be present for one to eight hours. Table 4.3-5, Localized 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 revised July 2008).
348
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 58
Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day), presents the results of localized emissions during proposed Project construction.

Table 4.3-5
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day)1 Construction Activity
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Demolition (2025) 21.9 24.8 2.83 1.18
Grading (2025) 13.6 16.5 3.15 1.85
Building Construction (2025) 11.3 14.1 0.47 0.43
Paving (2025) 7.8 10.5 0.34 0.31
Overlap of Building Construction (2025) and
Paving (2025) 19.1 24.6 0.81 0.71
Building Construction (2026) 10.7 14.1 0.41 0.38
Architectural Coatings (2026) 1.14 1.51 0.13 0.03
Overlap of Building Construction (2026) and
Paving (2026) 11.84 15.61 0.44 0.41
Building Construction (2027) 10.2 14.0 0.36 0.34
Architectural Coatings (2027) 1.11 1.50 0.03 0.02
Overlap of Building Construction (2027) and
Architectural Coatings (2027) 11.31 15.50 0.39 0.36
Maximum Localized Emissions 21.9 24.8 3.15 1.85
Localized Significance Threshold 92 647 27 9
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

Notes:

1. Emissions reflect on-site construction emissions only, per SCAQMD guidance.

As shown in Table 4.3-5, the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Project construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Further, the Project would be subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 (Public Nuisance), 403 (Fugitive Dust), and 1113 (Architectural Coatings), which would further reduce specific construction-related emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during construction activities.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis
The on-site operational emissions are compared to the LSTs in Table 4.3-6, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day). Table 4.3-6 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during operational activities.
349
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 59
Table 4.3-6
Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day) Emission Sources Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
On-Site Emissions 0.81 32.51 0.34 0.24
SCAQMD Localized Screening Thresholds 92 647 7 3
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; refer to Appendix A for model outputs.

The Project would not involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants, and no significant toxic airborne emissions would result from operation of the proposed Project. Construction activities are subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air contaminants would be less than significant.

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] 6 Cal.5th 502). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year.

The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts would occur.

NOx and VOC are precursor emissions that form ozone in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level ozone can result in health effects that include: reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers. 350
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 60
According to SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP, ozone, NOx, and VOC have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the SCAB continue to increase, NOx and VOC levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOx emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOx reductions needed to meet the ozone standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.

SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOx reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing ozone levels and will also lead to a significant decrease in PM2.5 concentrations. NOx-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2022 AQMP identifies robust NOx reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOx emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMP plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

As previously discussed, Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds; refer to Table 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-4. Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were also found to be less than significant; refer to Table 4.3-5 and Table 4.3-6. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS. LSTs were developed by SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. As shown above, Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or LSTs, and therefore would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutant levels more than the health-based ambient air quality standards.

Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminants emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.
351
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 61
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment would dissipate rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are located approximately 350 feet west of the Project site at its nearest location.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time.

Construction activities would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. For these reasons, DPM generated by Project construction activities, in and of itself, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxins and the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the proposed Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The 2016 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with approximately 100,000 average daily traffic (ADT), was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 ADT, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any Project area intersections from the new 2,081 ADT attributable to the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 352
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 62
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant.

Operational
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project proposes development of residential and commercial uses, which would not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

353
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 63

4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
354
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 64
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements as part of a larger commercial center development. The western site boundary consists of a landscaped slope with groundcover, bushes, and trees. Landscape planters with ornamental landscaping and trees are located within the southeastern portion of the site along the Town Center entrance and dispersed throughout the parking aisles within the site. Vegetation within the site is not associated with natural vegetation communities. The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The mixed-use building would wrap around a centrally located eight-level parking structure with a subterranean parking garage and rooftop residential amenity space.

The Project proposes landscaping including groundcover, bushes, and trees located around the northern, eastern, western, and southern perimeters of the building.

As indicated in the Aliso Viejo General Plan FEIR, much of the City is comprised of urbanized or disturbed lands that generally have low habitat value for wildlife. The General Plan FEIR identifies the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park as being a significant source of ecological and biological resources. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park and is physically separated from this area by extensive development. The General Plan FEIR does not identify the Project site as containing important vegetative communities, including scrub, grassland, chaparral, woodland, or riparian habitat or vernal pools.9 The disturbed and maintained condition of the Project site is generally not suitable for candidate, sensitive, or special status plant or wildlife species. The area surrounding the Project site is generally urbanized and developed with commercial uses and roadway infrastructure. West of the Project site is land containing open space trails. This area is physically separated from the Project site by Enterprise (a public street) and landscaped hillsides. Further, the Project does not propose any improvements or development within this area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any special status plant or wildlife species, any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or on any State or federally protected wetlands.
9 Cotton/Bridges/Associates, Final Environmental Impact Report Aliso Viejo General Plan, April 2004. Figure 5.3-1. 355
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 65
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As previously stated, the Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements as part of a larger commercial center development. The Project site does not contain an open body of water that serves natural habitat for any native resident or migratory fish. The western site boundary consists of a landscaped slope with groundcover, bushes, and trees. Landscape planters with ornamental landscaping and trees are located within the southeastern portion of the site along the Town Center entrance and dispersed throughout the parking aisles within the site. The disturbed and maintained condition of the Project site is generally not suitable for wildlife species. Additionally, the site is surrounded by urban development and is not part of a known migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery.

Mature trees within the Project site could provide habitat for migratory birds during nesting season.

Development of the Project would require the removal of ornamental vegetation onsite, including trees distributed within the surface parking area. Thus, the Project could result in potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. Project construction activities have the potential to impact nesting birds if construction activities occur during the nesting season.

The Project would be required to comply with the MBTA and implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to avoid disturbance of nesting birds and to protect nesting birds if they are present onsite during construction. Specifically, in conformance with the MBTA, tree removal activities would take place outside of the nesting season (February 15 to September 15) to the greatest extent practicable. To the extent that vegetation removal activities must occur during the nesting season, a biological monitor would be present during the removal activities to ensure that no active nests would be impacted, or a pre-construction nesting bird survey is to be completed within 14 days prior to construction to document all active bird nests. If active nests are found, a buffer (up to 500 feet, determined by the biologist) would be established until the fledglings have left the nest. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and compliance with the existing regulatory environment would ensure that Project impacts to native resident or migratory avian species would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), clearing of vegetation and removal of trees should occur outside of the bird nesting season (February 15 to September 15). If this avoidance schedule is not feasible, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist and carry out the following activities:

A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. The survey will consist of full coverage of the proposed disturbance limits and up to a 500-foot buffer area, determined by the biologist and taking into account the species nesting in the area and the habitat present. 356
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 66
If no active nests are found, the biologist shall document the negative results with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of Aliso Viejo Community Development Department, before construction can proceed. No additional measures are required in this scenario.

If “occupied” nests are found, their locations shall be mapped, species documented, and, to the degree feasible, the status of the nest (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young, near fledging) recorded. The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area.

No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction supervisor that activities may resume. The biologist shall document and submit a brief letter report to the City of Aliso Viejo Community Development Department, before activities may resume. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Aliso Viejo does not have any local policies or ordinances specific to tree preservation, but the Aliso Viejo General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element does contain Goal COS3 and related policies aimed at the protection of ecological and biological resources. In addition, The Commons Specific Plan contains development standards, guidelines, and regulations related to landscaping within the Specific Plan area, including requirements that landscaping and street trees be incorporated and maintained as part of overall site design.

As previously stated, the Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements as part of a larger commercial center development. The western site boundary consists of a landscaped slope with groundcover, bushes, and trees. Landscape planters with ornamental landscaping and trees are located within the southeastern portion of the site along the Town Center entrance and dispersed throughout the parking aisles within the site. The Project proposes to remove some of the existing landscaping to construct a mixed-use development and associated parking and improvements.

The Project proposes new landscaping in accordance with The Commons Specific Plan, including groundcover, bushes, and trees located around the northern, eastern, western, and southern perimeters of the building. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As indicated in the Aliso Viejo General Plan FEIR, portions of the City lie within the Coastal subregion of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); however, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to designated Non-Reserve Open Space or NCCP Habitat Reserve within the NCCP/HCP. The Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area, and is not located within the boundaries of the NCCP/HCP reserve system. As 357
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 67
such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 358
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 68
This page intentionally left blank.
359
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 69

4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
X
This section is based on the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the Avalon Bay (AVB) Commons Project, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Cogstone, dated March 2024 and included in its entirety as Appendix B, Cultural Resources Assessment.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant.

A search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was performed at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) that includes the Project site and a one-half mile radius. Results of the records search indicate that four previous cultural resource studies had been completed within the Project site area, while an additional 13 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within a one-half-mile radius of the Project site. No cultural resources have been recorded within the Project site.

Outside of the Project site, two cultural resources, both of which are prehistoric archaeological sites, have been previously documented within a quarter- to half-mile radius of the Project site. In addition to the SCCIC records search, additional sources were consulted, including the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI).

Review of historic-era maps and documents and aerial photographs were also conducted. Based on the results of the records search and review of additional sources, the Cultural Resources Assessment concluded that the Project site has a low sensitivity for buried historic-aged cultural deposits.

For purposes of identifying potential on-site resources, a survey of the Project site was conducted on February 28, 2024 using two- to five-meter transects in all non-hardscaped or landscaped area. All 360
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 70
undeveloped ground surface areas within the ground disturbance portion of the Project site were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cutbanks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were visually inspected. No cultural resources were observed during the pedestrian survey.

The Project site is currently developed with surface parking and landscaping. As no historic or potentially historic built environment resources are located within the site, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, results of the records search indicate that four previous cultural resource studies had been completed within the Project site area, while an additional 13 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within a one-half-mile radius of the Project site. No cultural resources have been recorded within the Project site. Outside of the Project site, two cultural resources, both of which are prehistoric archaeological sites, have been previously documented within a quarter- to half-mile radius of the Project site. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 18, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the NAHC responded with a positive search result, indicating that a tribal cultural resource is located within the same township, range, and section as the Project site. A pedestrian survey of the Project site was conducted on February 28, 2024, yielding no evidence of cultural resources.

The Cultural Resources Assessment concluded that, based on the results of the records search and review of additional sources, the Project site has a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources.

However, the positive SLF search result may indicate that there are tribal cultural resources present that are unknown to the SCCIC that elevate the cultural sensitivity of the Project site.

The Project site has been altered by previous ground disturbance and is currently developed with surface parking and landscaping. As indicated in the Cultural Resources Assessment, a cultural resource records search and pedestrian survey identified no archaeological resources within the Project site. As such, archaeological resources are not anticipated to occur; however, there is the potential for unknown or undiscovered resources to be uncovered through ground-disturbing construction activities. Should ground disturbing activities during Project construction encounter archaeological resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all work within 50 feet of the find to be suspended until the resource is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Construction would not resume in the area until appropriate protection and preservation measures are in place and have been approved by the Director of Community Development, or designee, and the qualified archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage any archaeological resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance 361
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 71
of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and impacts would be less than significant.

For potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources, refer to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1: If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease and the Director of Community Development shall be notified and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the Project, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts. In the event an identified cultural resource is Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall consult with the Project owner and the Director of Community Development, or designee, to implement Native American consultation procedures. Construction shall not resume in the area until appropriate protection and preservation measures are in place and have been approved by the Director of Community Development, or designee, and the qualified archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage any archaeological resources. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no dedicated cemeteries within the Project site or surrounding area. Most Native American human remains are found in association with prehistoric archaeological sites.

As discussed above, there are no known archaeological resources within the Project site. Based on the results of the records search and review of additional sources, the Project site is assessed to have a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources. The Project site has been altered by previous ground disturbance and is currently developed with surface parking and landscaping. Due to the extensive ground disturbance that has occurred on the Project site and in the surrounding area associated with construction of the existing development, the potential for the proposed Project to disturb previously undiscovered human remains is unlikely.

In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project development, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. These include California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e), which mandate procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands. According to these applicable regulations, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial would be required to cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The County Coroner would be immediately notified and must then determine whether the remains are Native American in origin. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who would in turn, notify the person they identify as the Most-Likely-Descendent of any human remains. 362
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 72
Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 363
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 73

4.6 Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
This section is based primarily on the Technical Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations (CalEEMod Results), prepared by Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, dated December 2023, and included in its entirety as Appendix A, CalEEMod and Energy Data.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal and State agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs.

At the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the United States Department of Energy, and the U.S. EPA are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. At the State level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commissions (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Key federal and State energy‐related laws and plans are summarized below.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) The 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” became effective on January 1, 2023. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Title 24 standards require installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, rooftop solar panels, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen)
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is the first-in-thenation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards Commission developed CALGreen in an effort to meet the State’s landmark initiative Assembly Bill (AB) 32 goals, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and 364
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 74
water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the administration. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials.

Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill (SB) 100 (Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; 60 percent by December 31, 2030; and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. The bill requires the CPUC, CEC, CARB, and all other State agencies to incorporate the policy into all relevant planning. In addition, SB 100 requires the CPUC, CEC, and CARB to utilize programs authorized under existing statutes to achieve that policy and, as part of a public process, issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and every four years thereafter, that includes specified information relating to the implementation of SB 100. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact. The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The Project proposes to remove existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development and associated parking and improvements. The amount of energy used at the Project site would directly correlate to the size of the proposed structures, the energy consumption of associated facility uses, and outdoor lighting. Other major sources of Project energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during Project construction and operation, and fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction.

The following discussion provides calculated levels of energy use expected for the proposed Project, based on commonly used modelling software. It should be noted that many of the assumptions provided by CalEEMod are conservative relative to the Project; thus, this discussion provides a conservative estimate of proposed Project emissions.
365
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 75
Project Construction
During Project construction, energy would be consumed in connection with the conveyance of water used for dust control and on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Project construction would also consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project Site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, and delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., hauling of demolition material to off-site reuse and disposal facilities). Construction activities, including those anticipated to construct the Project, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas.

Accordingly, natural gas would not be supplied to support Project construction activities, and there would be no associated demand.

As shown in Table 4.6-1, Project Construction Energy Usage, a total of approximately 5,558 kWh of electricity is anticipated to be consumed during Project construction. The electricity demand at any given time would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of construction. When not in use, electric equipment would be powered off so as to avoid unnecessary or wasteful energy consumption.

Table 4.6-1
Project Construction Energy Usage
Fuel Type Quantity
Electricity
Water Consumption (Dust Control) 5,558 kWh
Gasoline
On-Road Construction Equipment 174,737 gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment 0 gallons1
Total Gasoline 174,737 gallons
Diesel
On-Road Construction Equipment 75,168 gallons
Off-Road Construction Equipment 30,392 gallons
Total Diesel 105,560 gallons
Total Petroleum-Based Fuel 280,297 gallons
Source: Detailed calculations are included in Appendix A.

Notes:

1. Off-road construction equipment uses diesel fuel.

Project construction would involve off-road construction vehicles that use diesel fuel. The Project would also generate on-road vehicle trips during Project construction (from construction workers and vendors).

As shown in Table 4.6-1, on- and off-road vehicles would consume an estimated 174,737 gallons of gasoline and approximately 105,560 gallons of diesel fuel throughout the Project’s construction. 366
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 76
Project Operation
During operation of the Project, energy would be consumed for multiple purposes, including, but not limited to HVAC, lighting, and the use of electronics, equipment, and machinery. Energy would also be consumed during Project operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips.

Electricity and natural gas used by the Project would be used primarily to power on-site buildings. Total annual natural gas (kBTU) and electricity (kWh) usage associated with the operation of the Project are shown in Table 4.6-2, Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage.

Table 4.6-2
Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage
Emissions Project Annual
Consumption
Orange County
Annual Consumption
(2022)
Percent Increase
Natural Gas Consumption (kBTU) 1,941,585 57,245,474,400 0.003% Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 2,201,311 20,243,721,856 0.011% Sources: CalEEMod version 2022.1 (refer to Appendix A for model outputs); California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed April 19, 2024; California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed April 19, 2024.

Notes: kWh = kilowatt-hour; kBTU = 1,000 British Thermal Units As shown in Table 4.6-2, Project operational natural gas usage is forecast to represent an approximately

0.011 percent increase above the County’s typical annual electricity consumption, and approximately

0.003 percent increase above the county’s typical natural gas consumption. These increases are minimal in the context of the County as a whole.

The Project would generate vehicle trips during its operational phase. As shown in Table 4.6-3, On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Operation, the Project would generate vehicle trips that would use approximately 320,018 gallons of gasoline and diesel per year.

Table 4.6-3
On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Operation
Fuel Type Gallons Per Year
Gasoline 256,437
Diesel 63,581
Total 320,018
Source: Detailed calculations are included in Appendix A. 367
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 77
Conclusion
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of the Project building, for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the Project (both during Project construction and operation), and from off-road construction activities associated with the Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would be required to comply with Statewide and local measures regarding energy conservation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards.

The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, Southern California Edison (SCE) is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. SCE has achieved at least a 33 percent mix of renewable energy resources, and will be required to achieve a renewable mix of at least 50 percent by 2030. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed Project. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard) are improving vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

As a result, the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. Both SCE, the electricity provider to the site, and Southern California Gas Company, the natural gas provider to the site, maintain sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project. The Project would be required to comply with all existing energy efficiency standards, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary of energy resources during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 368
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 78
This page intentionally left blank.
369
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 79

4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. X
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
3) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
4) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
X
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
370
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 80
This section is based primarily on the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, Proposed Commons Mixed-Use Apartment Development, City of Aliso Viejo, California (Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study), dated June 20, 2022, and Preliminary Summary of Geotechnical Findings, Proposed Commons Mixed-Use Apartment Development, City of Aliso Viejo, California (Preliminary Geotechnical Study), dated August 30, 2022, prepared by NMG Geotechnical, Inc., and included in their entirety as Appendix C, Geotechnical Studies.

The analysis for paleontological records is based on the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the Avalon Bay (AVB) Commons Project, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (Cultural Resources Assessment), prepared by Cogstone, dated March 2024 and included in its entirety as Appendix B, Cultural Resources Assessment.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, there are no known active faults mapped across the Project site, and the site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Based on review of published maps, historic aerial photographs, and topographic maps, the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study concludes that the potential for primary ground rupture due to an earthquake is considered to be very low. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the seismically active southern California region and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active southern California faults. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Study, the primary seismic hazard is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault. There are several other active and potentially active faults within the region, including the Newport-Inglewood (Offshore), Elsinore Glen Ivy, and Oceanside faults.

Pursuant to AVMC Chapter 13.02, Building Regulations, the City has adopted the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and related codes. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the 2022 CBC as amended by the AVMC, which includes design requirements to mitigate the effects of 371
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 81
potential hazards associated with seismic ground shaking. The City would review Project design and construction plans for compliance with the CBC and AVMC, as well as the recommendations of the soil engineering and engineering geology reports pursuant to AVMC Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code. Thus, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework and standard engineering practices and design criteria, which would be verified through the City’s plan review process, would ensure potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking at the Project site would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors involved in controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and depth to groundwater.

As indicated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, the Project site is not located in a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction. Groundwater in the form of seepage was previously encountered at a depth of 20 feet below the existing parking lot grades. Project construction and operation is not anticipated to increase the potential for liquefaction to occur. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the CBC as amended by the AVMC, which would reduce the likelihood of impacts from seismic-related hazards, including liquefaction. Further, pursuant to AVMC Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code, the Project would incorporate applicable site-specific recommendations of the soil engineering and engineering geology reports, which would address any identified potential soil and geologic hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Landslides?
Less Than Significant. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. As indicated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, the buttress slope along the western boundary of the Project site is located within a seismic hazard zone for earthquake-induced landslides.

The Study anticipates that slope stabilization measures conducted during prior grading of the buttress slope has adequately mitigated the potential for earthquake-induced landslides.

The proposed site plan reviewed as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Study indicates significant cuts into the toe of the slope, up to 60 feet horizontally, which would essentially remove the earthen buttress and potentially create an unstable condition for the slope. In order to address the potential unstable slope condition, as part of the Project, an anchored retaining wall (i.e., tiebacks) would be constructed, separating the landscaped embankment along the west-southwest boundary of the Project site from the proposed mixed-use building. Further, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the CBC as amended by the AVMC, as well as the recommendations of the soil engineering and engineering geology reports pursuant to AVMC Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code.

Compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework and standard engineering practices and 372
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 82
design criteria, which would be verified through the City’s plan review process, would reduce the likelihood of impacts from seismic-related hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements associated with The Commons commercial center. Grading and earthwork activities associated with Project construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Project construction activities would be required to comply with applicable City requirements to control erosion and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff containing sediment, including AVMC Chapter

13.08, Article XIII, Erosion Control, which requires preparation of an Erosion Control Plan, submitted to the building official, and the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures. Project construction activities would also be required to comply with applicable water quality measures, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance (AVMC Chapter 7.35, Stormwater Management), which include conditions and requirements established by the City related to the reduction or elimination of storm water runoff pollutants during construction and operational phases of the Project. In accordance with AVMC Section 7.35.070, Control of urban runoff- Construction projects, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant would be required to submit a pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or an erosion and sediment control plan meeting the requirements of the water quality manual, and obtain and submit evidence of coverage under the Statewide Construction General Permit.

Development of the Project would increase the amount of impervious area when compared to existing conditions associated with the proposed structure, hardscape, landscape, and reduced hillside area; refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would be required to implement operational BMPs in accordance with the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (refer to Section 4.10), including common area landscape management, which would ensure landscaped areas would be maintained and properly irrigated to reduce the amount of potential soil erosion or the loss of top soil.

Following compliance with the established regulatory framework identified in the AVMC regarding stormwater and runoff pollution control and implementation of the Project’s WQMP, potential impacts associated with soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.7(a)(3) and 4.7(a)(4) regarding the potential for liquefaction and landslides, respectively.
373
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 83
Lateral spreading is a type of ground deformation that occurs when surface material extends or spreads on gentle slopes.10 Ground shaking, especially when inducing liquefaction, may cause lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes.

Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface due to removal or displacement of subsurface earth materials. Common causes of land subsidence include: aquifer-system compaction associated with groundwater withdrawals; drainage of organic soils; underground mining; and natural compaction or collapse.

The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the 2022 CBC as amended by the AVMC, which includes design requirements to mitigate the effects of potential soil and geologic hazards, including landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and seismic settlement. Further, pursuant to AVMC Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code, the Project would incorporate applicable site-specific recommendations of the soil engineering and engineering geology reports, which would address any identified potential soil and geologic hazards. The City would review Project design and construction plans for compliance with the CBC and the AVMC prior to construction activities. Thus, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework and standard engineering practices and design criteria, which would be verified through the City’s plan review process, would ensure potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable at the Project site would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wet and shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study states that the bulk samples collected within the site indicate a “medium” expansion potential. However, it further notes the values are close to being considered as having a “high” expansion potential. Therefore “high” expansion potential should be expected at the Project site.

The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the 2022 CBC as amended by the AVMC. Further, pursuant to AVMC Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code, the Project would incorporate applicable site-specific recommendations of the soil engineering and engineering geology reports, which would address any identified potential soil and geologic hazards. The City would review Project design and construction plans for compliance with the CBC and the AVMC prior to construction activities. Thus, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework and standard engineering practices and design criteria, which would be verified through the City’s plan review process, would ensure 10 United States Geological Survey, Lateral Spread, https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/lateral-spread, accessed April 3, 2024.
374
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 84
potential impacts associated with expansive soils at the Project site would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The Project would be served by the existing sewer system and would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology is also critically important.

According to the General Plan FEIR, most of the City has been designated as an area of paleontological resource sensitivity by the Orange County General Plan. The Aliso Creek area and other portions of the City are highly fossiliferous with exposed outcrops of chitin shells (clams), mollusks, oyster shells, marine mammal bones, and sharks' teeth. In addition, largely intact sea lions and sea cow specimens have been discovered.

The Project site has been altered by previous ground disturbance and is currently developed with surface parking and landscaping. The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development.

A search for paleontological records was completed as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment; refer to Appendix B. The records search included a search of paleontological records by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Additional databases queried included the Los Angeles County invertebrate fossil database, the Paleobiology Database, and the University of California Museum of Paleontology online database. Pertinent geological and paleontological literature and previous records searches on file with Cogstone were also consulted. The records search did not reveal any known paleontological localities within the Project site area. However, numerous localities are recorded from the Monterey Formation in the near vicinity of the Project site. These localities have produced fossils of pinnipeds, baleen and toothed whales, dugongs, desmostylians, birds, crocodiles, sea turtles, bony fish, sharks and rays, and invertebrates. Numerous species of land plants and algae have also been recovered from these localities. As indicated in the Cultural Resources Assessment, the Project is mapped as situated upon surface exposures of the Miocene Monterey Formation. This geological unit has moderate 375
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 85
paleontological sensitivity. The Cultural Resources Assessment also included an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project site; no paleontological resources were observed during the pedestrian survey.

Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study, the Project site is underlain by artificial fill up to 20 to 40 feet thick within the buttress slope and the northeast portion of the site, and diatomaceous siltstone/claystone bedrock of the Monterey Formation exposed at existing grade for the southern and western portion of the existing parking lot. The Project would require excavation to a depth of approximately 17 feet below the ground surface for the subterranean parking level. Additionally, the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation recommends removal of artificial fill and overexcavation of the bedrock. The anticipated depth of removals and overexcavation would generally be on the order of five feet below existing grades throughout the site. The parking garage footprint is recommended to be overexcavated a minimum of three feet to provide a uniform compacted fill blanket beneath the slab. As a result, there is the potential for Project excavation activities to encounter paleontological resources.

Thus, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a qualified paleontologist to develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan, which shall include development of a paleontology Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and paleontological monitoring. In the event of unanticipated discoveries, all work within a 50-foot radius of the find would be suspended until the resource is evaluated by the paleontologist. If the discovery proves to be significant, before construction activities resume at the location of the find, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted, as deemed necessary by the paleontologist. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO1, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan, which shall include development of a paleontology Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and paleontological monitoring. In the event of unanticipated discoveries, all work within a 50-foot radius of the find shall halt, the Director of Community Development shall be notified, and the qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find(s) and make recommendations. The paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction, as necessary. Documentation and treatment of the discovery shall occur in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The significance of the find shall be evaluated pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. If the discovery proves to be significant, before construction activities resume at the location of the find, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted, as deemed necessary by the paleontologist. 376
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 86
This page intentionally left blank.
377
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 87

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
This section is based primarily on the Technical Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations (CalEEMod Results), prepared by Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, dated December 2023, and included in its entirety as Appendix A, CalEEMod and Energy Data.

BACKGROUND
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs, including CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 47, 156, and 23 percent, respectively. 11 Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation.

As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). 11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf, accessed April 22, 2024. 378
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 88
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.

In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial sector.12 As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively.

California produced approximately 381.3 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2021, meeting the annual statewide target set by the CARB, which required that California emissions be below 431 MMTCO2e by 2020.13 To meet CARB’s statewide targets, California emissions must further be reduced to below 260 MMTCO2e by 2030.

Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2021, accounting for 38.2 percent of total GHG emissions in the state. 14 This category was
followed by the industrial sector (19.4 percent), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out-of-state sources) (16.4 percent), residential and commercial sector (10.2), agriculture sector (8.1 percent), high global warming potential gases (GWP) (5.6 percent), and waste sectors (2.2 percent).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 12 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, December 2023, accessed April 22, 2024.
13 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, December 2023, accessed April 22, 2024.
14 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, December 2023, accessed April 22, 2024.
379
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 89
existing Clean Air Act and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500-38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley Bill) should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocations. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities’ strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, is required to provide each affected region with GHG reduction targets emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets are to be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The Executive Order directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Secretary to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary is required to submit biannual reports to the Governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with Executive Order S-3-05, the CalEPA Secretary created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The Climate Action Team released its first report in March 2006, which proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs. 380
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 90
Title 24, Part 6
The California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and commonly referred to as “Title 24” were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Part 6 of Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 Title 24 standards took effect on January 1, 2023.

Title 24, Part 11
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, is a Statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in five green building topical areas. The 2022 CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Senate Bill 3
Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). SB 32 authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

CARB Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions levels of 596 million MTCO2e under a business as usual (BAU) scenario.

This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, and requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.

AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB updated the Scoping Plan in 2013 (First Update to the Scoping Plan) and again in 2017. The 2013 Update built upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations, and also set the groundwork to reach the longterm goals set forth by the state. Successful implementation of existing programs(as identified in previous iterations of the Scoping Plan) has allowed California to meet the 2020 target. The 2017 Update expands the scope of the plan further by focusing on the strategy for achieving the state’s 2030 GHG target of 40 percent emissions reductions below 1990 levels (to achieve the target codified into law by SB 32), and substantially advances toward the state’s 2050 climate goal to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan Update (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update assesses progress towards the SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent 381
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 91
below 1990 emissions by 2030, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels.

City of Aliso Viejo
The City has not adopted a climate action plan, evidence-based numeric thresholds under the 2017 or 2022 Scoping Plan, or any other plan, policy, or regulation that would bear on this assessment of the Project’s GHG emissions, as conducted pursuant to CEQA. However, the City maintains various policies relating to sustainability. For example, the Aliso Viejo General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element contains Goal COS-6 and related policies aimed at the conservation of energy and identification of alternative energy sources.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions and gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The California Natural Resources Agency has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).15,16 A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not to be cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.

Neither the City of Aliso Viejo nor SCAQMD has adopted GHG significance thresholds for land use development projects such as the Project. Based on the legal standards outlined above, the City finds that analyzing the Project’s GHG emissions through consistency with the plans, policies, and regulations that have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions is the appropriate methodology to analyze the Project’s GHG emissions impacts. This analysis includes estimates of GHG emissions associated with Project construction and operational activities using CalEEMod version 2022.1. The model is considered by SCAQMD to be an 15 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf, December 2009. 16 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Transmittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, April 13, 2009. 382
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 92
accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects in California. These estimates have been disclosed to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) and to provide evidence that the implementation of the plans, policies, and regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions would result in actual GHG emissions reduction. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would generate GHGs during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Project construction would require demolition, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating phases. The Project’s primary source of constructionrelated GHGs would result from emissions of CO2 associated with Project construction and worker vehicle trips; refer to Table 4.8-1, Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year).

Table 4.8-1
Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Year Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2025 0 917 917 0.03 0.05 933
2026 0 1,216 1,216 0.04 0.07 1,239
2027 0 638 638 0.02 0.03 649
Maximum 0 1,216 1,216 0.04 0.07 1,239
Total 0 2,771 2,771 0.09 0.15 2,821
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1 (refer to Appendix A for model outputs).

Note: Table 4.8-1 represents unmitigated results.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, Project construction-related activities would generate a maximum of approximately 1,239 MTCO2e of GHG emissions in a single year and a total of 2,821 MTCO2e of GHG emissions during construction (anticipated to last approximately 29 months). Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the Project’s lifetime (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.17 The amortized Project emissions would be approximately 94 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of construction-related GHG emissions would cease.

The operational phase of the Project would generate GHGs primarily from the Project’s operational vehicle trips and building energy (electricity and natural gas) usage; refer to Table 4.8-2, Operational GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year).
17 The Project lifetime is based on SCAQMD’s standard 30-year assumption (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009). 383
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 93
Table 4.8-2
Operational GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Category Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area 0 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8
Energy 0 543 543 0.05 0.01 546
Mobile 0 2,185 2,185 0.10 0.09 2,217
Waste 41.1 0 41.1 4.10 0 144
Water 5.80 19.9 25.7 0.60 0.01 44.9
Refrigerant 0 0 0 0 4.99 4.99
Total 46.9 2,759.7 2,806.6 4.85 5.1 2,968.69
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1 (refer to Appendix A for model outputs).

Note: Table 4.8-2 represents unmitigated results.

As shown in Table 4.8-2, Project operational GHG emissions would total approximately 2,968.7 MTCO2e annually, and combined with construction-related GHG emissions, would total approximately 3,062.7 MTCO2e annually. In addition, with continued implementation of various Statewide measures, the Project’s operational energy and mobile source emissions would continue to decline in the future.

Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations 2022 Scoping Plan Consistency
The goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified by the California Legislature as AB 32. In 2008, CARB approved a Scoping Plan as required by AB 32. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target, as well as to achieve the State’s target of carbon neutrality by year 2045. These measures build upon those identified in the previous Scoping Plan updates. Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted subsequently as required to achieve Statewide GHG emissions targets.

Table 4.8-3, Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, summarizes the Project’s consistency with applicable policies and measures of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As indicated in Table 4.8-3, the Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2022 Scoping Plan and would support the 2022 Scoping Plan action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping. 384
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 94
Table 4.8-3
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Sector/Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis Area
SCAQMD Rule 445
(Wood Burning Devices)
Restricts the installation of woodburning devices in new development.Mandatory Compliance. Approximately 15 percent of California’s major anthropogenic
sources of black carbon include fireplaces
and woodstoves.1 The Project would not
include hearths (woodstove and fireplaces)
as mandated by this rule.

Energy
California Renewables
Portfolio Standard,
Senate Bill 350 (SB 350)
and Senate Bill 100 (SB
100)
Increases the proportion of electricity
from renewable sources to 33
percent renewable power by 2020.

SB 350 requires 50 percent by 2030.

SB 100 requires 44 percent by 2024,
52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent
by 2030. It also requires the State
Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to double
the energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas final end
uses of retail customers through
energy efficiency and conservation.

No Conflict. The Project would utilize
electricity provided by Southern California
Edison (SCE), which is required to meet the
2020, 2030, 2045, and 2050 performance
standards. In 2020, 33.1 percent of SCE’s
electricity came from renewable resources.2
By 2030 SCE plans to achieve 80 percent
carbon-free energy.
3 California Code of
Regulations, Title 24,
Building Standards Code
Requires compliance with energy
efficiency standards for residential
and nonresidential buildings.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project is
required to meet the applicable
requirements of the Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and additional CALGreen
requirements (see discussion under
CALGreen Code requirements below).
385
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 95
Table 4.8-3 (continued)
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Sector/Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis California Green
Building Standards
(CALGreen) Code
Requirements
All bathroom exhaust fans are required
to be ENERGY STAR compliant.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project
construction plans are required to
demonstrate that energy efficiency
appliances, including bathroom exhaust fans,
and equipment are ENERGY STAR compliant.

HVAC system designs are required to
meet American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) standards.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project
construction plans are required to
demonstrate that the HVAC system meets
the ASHRAE standards.

Air filtration systems are required to
meet a minimum efficiency reporting
value (MERV) 8 or higher.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project is
required to install air filtration systems
(MERV 8 or higher) as part of its compliance
with the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards.

Refrigerants used in newly installed
HVAC systems shall not contain any
chlorofluorocarbons.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project must
meet this requirement as part of its
compliance with the CALGreen Code.

Parking spaces shall be designed for
carpool or alternative fueled vehicles.

Up to eight percent of total parking
spaces is required for such vehicles.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project would
meet this requirement as part of its
compliance the CALGreen Code.

Mobile Sources
Mobile Source
Strategy (Cleaner
Technology and Fuels)
Reduce GHGs and other pollutants from
the transportation sector through
transition to zero-emission and lowemission vehicles, cleaner transit systems, and reduction of vehicle miles
traveled.

Consistent. The Project would be consistent
with this strategy by supporting the use of
zero-emission and low-emission vehicles;
refer to CALGreen Code discussion above.

Senate Bill (SB) 375
SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the
development of regional targets for
reducing passenger vehicle GHG
emissions. Under SB 375, CARB is
required, in consultation with the
state’s Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, to set regional GHG
reduction targets for the passenger
vehicle and light-duty truck sector for
2020 and 2035.

Consistent. As demonstrated in the 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS Consistency discussion below,
the Project would comply with the Southern
California Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2020-2045 RTP/SCS), and therefore, the
Project would be consistent with SB 375.
386
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 96
Table 4.8-3 (continued)
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Sector/Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis Water
CCR, Title 24, Building
Standards Code
Title 24 includes water efficiency
requirements for new residential
and non- residential uses.

Mandatory Compliance. Refer to the
discussion under Title 24 Building Standards
Code and CALGreen Code, above.

Water Conservation Act
of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7)
The Water Conservation Act of 2009
sets an overall goal of reducing per
capita urban water use by 20
percent by December 31, 2020. Each
urban retail water supplier shall
develop water use targets to meet
this goal. This is an implementing
measure of the Water Sector of the
AB 32 Scoping Plan. Reduction in
water consumption directly reduces
the energy necessary and the
associated emissions to convene,
treat, and distribute the water; it
also reduces emissions from
wastewater treatment.

Consistent. Refer to the discussion under
Title 24 Building Standards Code and
CALGreen Code, above. Also, refer to Section

4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Solid Waste
California Integrated
Waste Management Act
(IWMA) of 1989 and
Assembly Bill (AB) 341
The IWMA mandates that State
agencies develop and implement an
integrated waste management plan
which outlines the steps to divert at
least 50 percent of solid waste from
disposal facilities. AB 341 directs the
California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
to develop and adopt regulations for
mandatory commercial recycling and
sets a Statewide goal for 75 percent
disposal reduction by the year 2020.

Mandatory Compliance. The Project would
be required to comply with AB 341. This
would reduce the overall amount of solid
waste disposed of at landfills. The decrease in
solid waste would in return decrease the
amount of methane released from
decomposing solid waste.

Notes:

1. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Figure 4: California 2013 Anthropogenic Black Carbon Emission Sources, November 2017.

2. California Energy Commission, 2020 Power Content Label Southern California Edison, https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3902, accessed April 22, 2024.

3. Southern California Edison, The Clean Power and Electrification Pathway, https://newsroom.edison.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/166/files/20187/g17- pathway-to-2030-white-paper.pdf, accessed April 22, 2024. 387
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 97
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, referred to by SCAG as Connect SoCal or Connect SoCal 2020.18 At the regional level, Connect SoCal is adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs resulting from vehicular emissions by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. In order to assess the Project’s consistency with Connect SoCal, the Project’s land use assumptions are reviewed for consistency with those utilized by SCAG in its SCS. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as Connect SoCal, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.

Connect SoCal includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects, as well as different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. Connect SoCal is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by eight percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018.

Five key SCS strategies are included in Connect SoCal to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State. These strategies are all aimed at efforts to be undertaken by various levels of government, quasi-governmental agencies, and special purpose entities, rather than individual land use projects. Table 4.8-4, Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), shows the Project’s consistency with these five strategies found within Connect SoCal. As shown in Table

4.8-4, the proposed Project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in Connect SoCal.
18 Since initiation of the analysis presented in this Initial Study, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal 2024 (2024–2050 RTP/SCS). Connect SoCal 2024 carries forward policy direction established in Connect SoCal 2020, as well as more recent Regional Council actions that address emerging issues facing the region. For purposes of this Initial Study and the greenhouse gas analysis, Connect SoCal 2020 is relevant and is the document reviewed for consistency. 388
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 98
Table 4.8-4
Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that
facilitate multimodal access to
work, educational and other
destinations
• Focus on a regional jobs/housing
balance to reduce commute times
and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and
along center-focused main streets
• Plan for growth near transit
investments and support
implementation of first/last mile
strategies
• Promote the redevelopment of
underperforming retail
developments and other
outmoded nonresidential uses
• Prioritize infill and redevelopment
of underutilized land to
accommodate new growth,
increase amenities and
connectivity in existing
neighborhoods
• Encourage design and
transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and
number of solo car trips (this could
include mixed uses or locating and
orienting close to existing
destinations)
• Identify ways to “right size”
parking requirements and
promote alternative parking
strategies (e.g. shared parking or
smart parking)
Center Focused
Placemaking, Priority
Growth Areas (PGA), Job
Centers, High Quality
Transit Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority Areas
(TPA), Neighborhood
Mobility Areas (NMAs),
Livable Corridors, Spheres
of Influence (SOIs), Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mixeduse residential and commercial development on an underutilized site
currently used for parking. The Project
consists of infill development and has been
designed in an effort to promote and
support redevelopment of The Commons
commercial center.

The Project site is in an urbanized area and
in close proximity to existing office and
commercial development, providing
opportunities for reduced commute times
and the use of non-motorized
transportation to access office and
commercial destinations. The Project site is
located within an area that provides
pedestrian circulation opportunities, given
that it fronts existing sidewalks to the south
and west. The Project would provide bicycle
parking spaces and infrastructure for
electric vehicle charging in accordance with
CALGreen Code, which would facilitate bike
travel by residents and employees, as well
as use of zero emissions vehicles traveling
to/from the site.

A Transit Priority Area (TPA) is defined as a
half mile area around an existing major
transit stop or an existing stop along a highquality transit corridor. There are no TPAs in Aliso Viejo. However, by increasing housing
and employment density at the Project’s
location near major arterials (i.e., Aliso
Creek Road), the Project would help
leverage future efforts to expand public
transportation service to this location.

Therefore, the Project would focus growth
near destinations and mobility options.
389
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 99
Table 4.8-4 (continued)
Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate
affordable housing and prevent
displacement
• Identify funding opportunities for
new workforce and affordable
housing development
• Create incentives and reduce
regulatory barriers for building
context sensitive accessory
dwelling units to increase housing
supply
• Provide support to local
jurisdictions to streamline and
lessen barriers to housing
development that supports
reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions
PGA, Job Centers, HQTAs,
NMA, TPAs, Livable
Corridors, Green Region,
Urban Greening.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mixeduse residential and commercial development on an underutilized site
currently used for parking. There is no
housing within the Project site currently; the
Project would not displace existing
residents. However, the Project would
provide new housing opportunities,
including affordable housing, within
proximity to existing employment and retail.

The Project would provide for enhanced
walkability, given that the proposed
pedestrian walkway and outdoor staircases
would connect to existing sidewalks to the
south and west. The Project would provide
bicycle parking spaces and infrastructure for
electric vehicle charging in accordance with
CALGreen Code, which would facilitate bike
travel by residents and employees, as well
as use of zero emissions vehicles traveling
to/from the site. Further, by increasing
housing and employment density at the
Project’s location near major arterials (i.e.,
Aliso Creek Road), the Project would help
leverage future efforts to expand public
transportation service to this location.

Therefore, the Project would promote
greater housing choice in Aliso Viejo by
providing studio, one-, two-, and threebedroom residential units in a mixed-use format in The Commons commercial center.
390
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 100
Table 4.8-4 (continued)
Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission
technologies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles,
shared rides hailing, car sharing,
bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated
lanes, charging and parking/dropoff space
• Improve access to services
through technology—such as
telework and telemedicine as well
as other incentives such as a
“mobility wallet,” an app-based
system for storing transit and
other multi-modal payments
• Identify ways to incorporate
“micro-power grids” in
communities, for example solar
energy, hydrogen fuel cell power
storage and power generation
HQTA, TPAs, NMA, Livable
Corridors.

Consistent. The Project would be required
to install infrastructure for electric vehicles,
as well as bike parking and storage in
accordance with the 2022 Title 24 standards
and CALGreen Code. The Project would
provide electric vehicle charging stalls and
additional infrastructure to support zero
emissions vehicles. To encourage bicycle
use, the Project would provide long-term
storage for 50 bicycles onsite. As such, the
Project is consistent with this reduction
strategy.
391
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 101
Table 4.8-4 (continued)
Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to
support local sustainable
development implementation
projects that reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
• Support statewide legislation that
reduces barriers to new
construction and that incentivizes
development near transit
corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the
establishment of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization
and Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax increment or
value capture tools to finance
sustainable infrastructure and
development projects, including
parks and open space
• Work with local
jurisdictions/communities to
identify opportunities and assess
barriers to implement
sustainability strategies
• Enhance partnerships with other
planning organizations to
promote resources and best
practices in the SCAG region
• Continue to support long range
planning efforts by local
jurisdictions
• Provide educational opportunities
to local decisions makers and staff
on new tools, best practices and
policies related to implementing
the Sustainable Communities
Strategy
Center Focused
Placemaking, Priority
Growth Areas (PGA), Job
Centers, High Quality
Transit Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority Areas
(TPA), Neighborhood
Mobility Areas (NMAs),
Livable Corridors, Spheres
of Influence (SOIs), Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Consistent. Although this strategy is focused
on local governments, agencies, and
organizations’ actions to support the
implementation of sustainability policies,
the Project would implement sustainability
actions supported by the City. As previously
discussed, the proposed Project would
promote alternative modes of
transportation. Further, the Project would
comply with sustainable practices included
in the 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen
Code, such as installation of electric vehicle
infrastructure, bike parking and storage,
high efficiency LED lighting, energy efficient
appliances, low-flow fixtures, waterefficiency irrigation, and drought tolerant landscaping. Thus, the Project would not
conflict with this reduction strategy.
392
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 102
Table 4.8-4 (continued)
Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local
climate adaptation and hazard
mitigation plans, as well as project
implementation that improves
community resiliency to climate
change and natural hazards
• Support local policies for
renewable energy production,
reduction of urban heat islands
and carbon sequestration
• Integrate local food production
into the regional landscape
• Promote more resource efficient
development focused on
conservation, recycling and
reclamation
• Preserve, enhance and restore
regional wildlife connectivity
• Reduce consumption of resource
areas, including agricultural land
• Identify ways to improve access to
public park space
Green Region, Urban
Greening, Greenbelts and
Community Separators.

Consistent. Although this strategy is focused
on local governments, agencies, and
organizations’ actions to promote a green
region, the Project would implement
sustainability actions that would support a
green region. The proposed Project consists
of mixed-use residential and commercial
infill development in an urbanized area and
would, therefore, not interfere with
regional wildlife connectivity or
consumption of agricultural land. The
Project would also incorporate various
common open space areas, including
courtyards, outdoor decks, and a rooftop
deck with amenities. The Project would be
required to comply with 2022 Title 24
standards and CALGreen Code, which would
help reduce energy consumption and
reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the Project
would support efficient development that
reduces energy consumption and GHG
emissions. The Project would not conflict
with this reduction strategy.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.

Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the proposed Project is generally consistent with or would not conflict with strategies outlined in the Connect SoCal (2020-2045 RTP/SCS) and 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As a result, the Project’s GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment, and the Project’s contribution to climate change impacts would not be considerable.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 393
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 103

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
394
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 104
This section is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Undeveloped Property APN 629-101-16 and a portion of 629-101-17 & 629-101-19, 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656 (Phase I ESA), prepared by California Environmental, dated June 2022 and included in its entirety as Appendix D, Phase I ESA.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Generally, the exposure of persons to hazardous materials could occur in the following manners: 1) improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of future development, particularly by untrained personnel; 2) an accident during transport; 3) environmentally unsound disposal methods; or 4) fire, explosion or other emergencies. The severity of potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous material or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors.

The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of residential and ground floor commercial uses within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project may involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, such as petroleumbased fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for hazards associated with the transport and use of hazardous materials. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law.

A Phase I ESA was prepared to provide information on potential hazardous material impacts to the soil and groundwater beneath the Project site; refer to Appendix D. The Phase I ESA identifies recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that may exist at the Project site, including current RECs, historical RECs, and controlled RECs. The term recognized environmental conditions (RECs) means “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.” The Phase I ESA included a site reconnaissance and research of land use records and other sources for preliminary indications of hazardous material use, storage, or disposal at the Project site, and/or on contiguous parcels.

The Phase I ESA confirmed no structures are currently present, or have been historically present on the property. The parking lot currently present the east side of the site was constructed in approximately 1996. The address associated with the Project site is identified on the standard environmental government sources searched as part of the Phase I ESA. The listing are not associated with the Project site, but are associated with the commercial structure that is located east of the Project site and shares the same address. The nearest listed contaminated site to the subject property is the 76 Station #5743 395
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 105
LUST cleanup site located approximately 2,000 feet to the south. This property had a release of gasoline from several underground storage tanks (USTs) on the property that was discovered in 2008. Several assessments determined impacts were confined to soil. The site received case closure from the Orange County Health Care Agency on June 15, 2012. Due to the distance and downgradient location of this offsite release it is considered unlikely that it has impacted the Project site. The former Lowes property is listed within the database search associated with a diesel generator. The facility also produced small quantities of photo processing waste, organic waste, and alkaline waste between 1996 and 2019. However, according to the Phase I ESA, these listings are not considered an environmental concern for the Project site. The Phase I ESA identified no evidence of RECs, historical RECs, or controlled RECs in connection with the Project site and therefore, no additional assessment is recommended.

The Project includes residential and commercial uses that would not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than limited quantities of hazardous materials such as solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used for regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping. The quantities of these materials would not typically be at an amount that would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As such, the proposed Project would not introduce uses to the site that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials would be required to be stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with local, State, and federal regulations.

The Project would be required to comply with additional regulatory requirements including, but not limited to, the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, specific to the transport of hazardous materials; California Code of Regulations Titles 8, 22, and Title 26, and their enabling legislation set forth in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory; and the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health Division (i.e., the Certified Unified Program Agency), which would ensure safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials are implemented. Consistency with local, State, and federal regulations related to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would minimize the potential for upset and accident conditions to occur within the site. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Don Juan Avila Middle School is the closest school to the Project site, which is located approximately 0.3-mile northwest of the Project site. The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of residential and ground floor commercial uses. Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 396
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 106
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory sites list (pursuant to the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116395. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The Project site is not included on any of the data resources identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements.19, 20 Therefore, the Project site has not been included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is the Project site located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 10 miles northwest of the Project site. Thus, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Aliso Viejo Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) focuses on the effective preparedness and response to hazard events within the City. The EOP is designed to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of reacting adequately in the face of any disaster; and to conduct such operations as the nature of the disaster deems necessary. It serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan and the Emergency Resource Management Plan and is consistent with the statewide Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which provides a framework for coordinating multi-agency responses in the case of emergencies. 19 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ , accessed March 27, 2024. 20 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/, accessed March 29, 2024.
397
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 107
The EOP also establishes evacuation routes, identifies emergency shelter facilities, and water supplies in coordination with the Moulton Niguel and El Toro Water Districts.

The Aliso Viejo General Plan Safety Element identifies evacuation routes in the City.21 Within the vicinity of the Project site, Aliso Creek Road and SR-73 are identified as primary evacuation routes.

The Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area. Regional access to the Project site is provided via State Route 73 (SR-73), located to the northeast. Local access to the site is provided directly from Enterprise and Aliso Creek Road to the south and east, respectively. Access to the Project site would be provided via two existing driveways, which would provide access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site and from Aliso Creek Road to the east. Project-related construction activities are not anticipated to result in significant traffic or queuing along Town Center, Enterprise, Aliso Creek Road, or other roadways within the area that could potentially impede emergency vehicles or impair any emergency evacuation plan. Additionally, any impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary in nature. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the AVMC, including the CBC and California Fire Code, as amended by the AVMC, and would be subject to approval by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). As such, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s EOP or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the Project site and surrounding area are located within a Local Responsibility Area and are not identified as being within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).22 Thus, the Project site and surrounding area are not identified as having a significant risk associated with wildland fires. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements associated with The Commons commercial center. The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. AVMC Chapter 13.02, Building Regulations, adopts the California Fire Code, with amendments, which would further reduce potential impacts related to wildland fire. Compliance with the Municipal Code, and State and federal regulations pertaining to fire safety, would ensure the Project does not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur in this regard.
21 Cotton/Bridges/Associates, City of Aliso Viejo General Plan, April 2004. Figure S-1. 22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed March 27, 2024.
398
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 108
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 399
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 109

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site? X
2) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite?
X
3) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
X
4) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
400
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 110
This section is based primarily on the Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary WQMP) prepared by Tait & Associates, Inc., dated June 22, 2024 and included in its entirety as Appendix E, Preliminary WQMP; and the Preliminary Hydrology Study, Avalon Bay Commons (Preliminary Hydrology Study) prepared by Tait & Associates, Inc., dated June 12, 2023 and included in its entirety as Appendix F, Preliminary Hydrology Study.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed Project could impact water quality.

Sources of potential construction-related storm water pollution include handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and site preparation activities, such as excavation, grading and trenching. These sources, if not controlled, can generate soil erosion and on- and off-site transport via storm run-off or mechanical equipment. Generally, standard safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials can adequately reduce the potential pollution of storm water by these materials. These types of standard procedures can be extended to non-hazardous storm water pollutants such as sawdust, concrete washout, and other wastes.

Grading activities would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. Two general strategies are recommended to prevent soil materials from entering local storm drains. First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed, and second, the Project site should be secured to control off-site transport of pollutants. In order to reduce the amount of on-site exposed soil, grading would be limited to the extent feasible, and any graded areas would be protected against erosion once they are brought to final grade. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the AVMC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.

Construction-related erosion effects would be addressed through compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit). Construction activity subject to this General Permit includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The Project would disturb more than one acre of land and therefore would be subject to the General Permit. To obtain coverage under the General Permit, dischargers are required to file Permit Registration Documents with the SWRCB, which include a Notice of Intent and other compliance-related documents. The General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.

Project construction activities would be required to comply with applicable City requirements to control erosion and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff containing sediment, including AVMC Chapter 13.08, 401
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 111
Article XIII, Erosion Control, which requires preparation of an Erosion Control Plan, submitted to the building official, and the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures. Project construction activities would also be required to comply with water quality measures included in the City of Aliso Viejo’s Water Quality Ordinance (AVMC Chapter 7.35, Stormwater Management). The Water Quality Ordinance is designed to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the storm sewers and to reduce the discharge of pollutants, and to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Specifically, in accordance with Section 7.35.080, Control of Urban Runoff – New Development and Redevelopment Projects, prior to the City’s issuance of a grading or building permit for the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to submit Project plans demonstrating compliance with all applicable local ordinances; California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA)standards; and the City’s water quality manual, which includes the City’s jurisdictional urban runoff management plan or local implementation plan, the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and the City’s NPDES permit. In addition to the requirements of AVMC Section 7.35.080, Project construction activities would be required to comply with AVMC Section 7.35.070, Control of Urban Runoff – Construction Projects, which requires the Project Applicant to submit a pollution control plan, construction best management practices (BMP) plan, and/or an erosion and sediment control plan meeting the requirements of the water quality manual, and to submit evidence of coverage under the Construction General Permit, prior to issuance of a permit involving ground disturbing activities. Thus, through adherence to the NPDES Stormwater Program and AVMC regulations, construction-related activities would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational
The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and would be subject to compliance with the Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The Regional MS4 permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended), requires co-permittees, including the City of Aliso Viejo, to control and reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from new development and significant redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable. While all development projects are required to implement source control and site design practices, the Regional MS4 Permit has additional requirements for Priority Development Projects (PDPs), which are required to incorporate structural BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants and address potential hydromodification impacts from changes in flow and sediment supply.

The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements. Under existing conditions, the Project site drainage pattern consists of overland flow to several drop inlets scattered across the parking lot. The drop inlets connect to an onsite storm drain system that flows south and exits the property to through a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) connection to a County owned 90-inch RCP within Enterprise near its intersection with Aliso Creek Road.

Under proposed conditions, existing underground storm drain lines and inlets within the Project site would be removed. The Project would install a new underground storm drainage system that would convey flows into an underground detention system consisting of two detention basins. Low flows equivalent to the required treatment volume or treatment flow rate from the underground detention system would be conveyed into a Modular Wetland System BMP, which would discharge into the existing storm drain system. Site grading would match existing grading in the parking lot area. Retaining walls 402
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 112
would extend into the existing slope adjacent to Enterprise in order to retain the existing grade up to Enterprise. Runoff within the Project’s courtyards would be designed to freely flow away from the structures toward the roadside slope and continue down and around the complex before ultimately discharging to the existing storm drain system. The Project site would consist of three drainage management areas (DMAs). Flows from DMA-A, an approximately one-acre area located within the western portion of the site, would be captured in an underground storm drainage and detention system.

The underground detention system would discharge into a Modular Wetland System BMP (or equivalent linear treatment device) with an internal high flow bypass for flows exceeding the required treatment rate, then discharge into the existing downstream storm drain system. Flows from DMA-B, an approximately 2.9-acre area located in the eastern portion of the site, would be captured in an underground storm drainage and detention system. A weir structure would divert low flows equivalent to the required treatment volume or treatment flow rate from the underground detention system into a Modular Wetland System BMP (or equivalent linear treatment device), and then discharge to the downstream storm drain system. Large storm events exceeding the water quality treatment requirements would overtop the weir, bypass the treatment system, and discharge to the downstream storm drain system. Flows from DMA-C, an approximately 0.3-acre area consisting of asphalt parking located in the southern portion of the site, would discharge to and be treated by the same underground detention system and Modular Wetland System (or equivalent linear treatment device) as DMA-B. A storm drain inlet would be added to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the parking lot.

The Preliminary WQMP identifies pollutants of concern associated with the proposed Project, including bacteria/virus/pathogens and dry weather runoff. Additionally, the Preliminary WQMP documents the various BMPs that would be implemented as part of the Project, which include structural, source control, and site design BMPs to address water quality conditions associated with the proposed Project. Proposed structural BMPs include the modular wetlands systems. Proposed non-structural source control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; hazardous materials disclosure compliance; common area litter control; common area catch basin inspection; and street sweeping. Proposed structural source control BMPs include storm drain system stenciling and signage; use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control; design of outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; design of trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; and hillside landscaping. Refer to Appendix E for a detailed list of proposed BMPs.

The Project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations related to water quality, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed on-site stormwater system and WQMP requirements for a PDP, including water quality operational BMPs, would reduce pollutants of concern associated with the stormwater runoff from the Project site in compliance with the Regional MS4 Permit and ensure the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 403
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 113
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). MNWD’s potable water supply is entirely imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).23 As such, Project implementation would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies associated with water demand such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

The Project site currently consists of approximately 26 percent (1.04 acres) of pervious area and approximately 74 percent (3.02 acres) of impervious area. In the proposed condition, the Project site would consist of approximately 11 percent (0.46 acres) of pervious area and approximately 89 percent (3.60 acres) of impervious area. Thus, the Project would decrease pervious area in the proposed condition.

However, the Preliminary WQMP concludes that stormwater infiltration into the subsurface soils is not considered feasible due to the presence of clayey subgrade soils and diatomaceous siltstone bedrock.

Accordingly, the Project does not propose infiltration BMPs. The Project site does not currently allow for infiltration and groundwater recharge; thus, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.10(a) regarding potential impacts involving erosion and water quality.

Under existing conditions, the Project site’s drainage pattern consists of overland flow to several drop inlets scattered across the parking lot. The drop inlets connect to an onsite storm drain system that flows 23 Moulton Niguel Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021. 404
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 114
south and exits the property through a 36-inch RCP connection to a County owned 90-inch RCP within Enterprise, near its intersection with Aliso Creek Road.

Flows from DMA-B would be captured in an underground storm drainage and detention system. A weir structure would divert low flows equivalent to the required treatment volume or treatment flow rate from the underground detention system into a Modular Wetland System BMP (or equivalent linear treatment device), and then discharge to the downstream storm drain system. Large storm events exceeding the water quality treatment requirements would overtop the weir, bypass the treatment system, and discharge to the downstream storm drain system. Flows from DMA-C would discharge to and be treated by the same underground detention system and Modular Wetland System (or equivalent linear treatment device) as DMA-B. A storm drain inlet would be added to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the parking lot.

As shown in the Preliminary Hydrology Study, the 25-year peak flow rate from the Project site would decrease from 15.81 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the existing condition to 12.24 cfs in the proposed condition. The Preliminary Hydrology Study concludes that the Project would reduce peak flow runoff and would not have an adverse effect on the downstream drainage system. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; increase the rate or amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system; or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Project site is located within Zone X, which indicates an area of minimal flood hazard.24 Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes, which can result in coastal flooding. Tsunamis do not pose hazards due to the Project site’s elevation and inland location approximately 4.2 miles from the Pacific Ocean.
24 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06059C0428J), December 2009.
405
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 115
Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in response to ground shaking. Due to the lack of large bodies of water within the vicinity of the Project site, seiches do not pose a significant risk to the Project.

For reasons listed above, impacts related to release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(a) regarding water quality. As discussed above, the MNWD provides water service to the City, including the Project site. MNWD’s potable water supply is entirely imported water purchased from the MWDOC. MWDOC obtains groundwater primarily from Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin), as well as smaller groundwater basins such as the Main San Gabriel Basin.25
The OC Basin is not adjudicated.26 Groundwater in the OC Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), which was formed in 1933 by a special legislative act of the State Legislature to protect and manage the County's groundwater supply and defend its water rights to the OC Basin. In 2014, the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed to help manage groundwater sustainably, and limit adverse effects such as significant groundwater-level declines, land subsidence, and water quality degradation. SGMA requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, be sustainably managed. DWR designated the non-adjudicated Coastal Plain of OC Basin (Basin 8-1) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. The agencies within Basin 8-1 collaborated to prepare and submit an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan on December 22, 2016.27 On July 17, 2019, DWR determined that the Alternative satisfied SGMA objectives and was therefore approved. Approved alternatives are required to submit annual reports to DWR on April 1 of each year, and to resubmit the alternative by January 1 every five years. The 2022 Update to the Alternative, prepared to satisfy Water Code Section 10733.8 and submitted in 2020, shows that the OCWD management area continues to be managed sustainably.

As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the Project involves the development of 343 residential units, which would induce direct population growth in the City, as well as employmentgenerating uses with the potential to increase the City’s population. Residential and employmentgenerating uses have been anticipated by the General Plan and the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents. The Project’s anticipated water demand is accounted for in the MNWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; refer to Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts to water 25 Arcadis U.S., Inc., MWDOC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021. 26 Arcadis U.S., Inc., MWDOC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021. 27 Orange County Water District, Basin 8-1 Alternative 2022 Update, January 2022. 406
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 116
supply would be less than significant. Thus, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 407
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 117

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community? X
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements associated with The Commons commercial center. The site is designated High Density Residential/Town Center Commercial and Open Space and is zoned SP-2: The Commons Specific Plan. North of the Project site is a parking lot, commercial structures, and landscaped area within the Commons commercial center, followed by SR-73. The commercial uses to the north are zoned SP-2. East of the Project site is a parking lot and commercial structures within the Commons commercial center, followed by Aliso Creek Road. The commercial uses to the east are zoned SP-2. Immediately south of the Project site is Enterprise, followed by commercial uses within the Aliso Viejo Town Center commercial center. The area to the south of Enterprise is zoned TC (Town Center Commercial). Immediately west of the Project site is Enterprise, followed by open space trails and residential uses associated with the Vantis development. The open space trail area to the west of Enterprise is zoned OS and the residential uses within the Vantis development are zoned SP-1: Vantis Specific Plan.

The Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The Project would provide enhanced pedestrian access to the Project site from a pedestrian walkway along Town Center and from three outdoor staircases providing access from Enterprise. The Project would not involve any other roadways or significant infrastructure systems that would physically divide the site or separate the site from surrounding uses. Development of the site, as proposed, would be consistent with other land uses that occur within the surrounding area. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 408
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 118
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact.

Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use and Policies
According to the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use Policy Map, the Project site is designated High Density Residential/Town Center Commercial and Open Space. The High Density Residential land use designation provides for multiple-family units such as apartments, town homes, condominiums, senior housing, and multi-family clusters at a range of 18.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Town Center Commercial land use designation provides for a mixture of uses within the Aliso Viejo Town Center including: community retail and commercial services, offices, theaters, art galleries and entertainment facilities, hotels/motels and restaurants, recreation and community facilities. The maximum intensity development for the Town Center Commercial designation is a 1.25:1 floor area ratio (FAR). The Open Space land use designation provides open space for outdoor recreation, buffering of incompatible land uses, preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, and protection of health and public safety. Areas designated as Open Space include: streams and washes, open space easements, Regional Parks, and other private and public open space. No density or intensity standard is applied to the Open Space designation.

An analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with relevant policies of the Aliso Viejo General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is provided in Table 4.11-1, Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies. As indicated in Table 4.11-1, the Project is consistent with the Aliso Viejo General Plan.
409
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 119
Table 4.11-1
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Land Use Element
Policy LU-2.1: Preserve the current pattern of
development that encourages more intense and
higher density development at the core of the
community (near Grand Park and Aliso Viejo Town
Center) and less intense uses radiating from the
central core.

Consistent. The Project proposes to redevelop a
portion of the larger Commons at Aliso Viejo Town
Center, an established commercial center located west
of Aliso Creek Road. The Project would remove a
surface parking lot and develop a mixed-use structure
that includes 343 residential dwelling units and 17,273 square feet of commercial use in the core of the
community, near sources of employment, housing,
shopping, and entertainment. The Project would
provide higher density development at the core of the
community, consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-2.4: Encourage land uses that complement
(in type, size, scale and design) the community’s
topography, scenic vistas, and natural resources.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mixed-use infill
redevelopment project in an area that is developed and
urbanized. Redevelopment of the site would be
generally consistent with existing surrounding uses, the General Plan, and The Commons Specific Plan. The
Project would require approval of a Site Development
Permit and Development Agreement. The Site
Development Permit would allow for discretionary
review of the Project’s appropriateness, scale,
architecture, site design, and compatibility with the
surrounding area. The Development Agreement allows
the City to provide further site-specific regulations,
including permitted levels of development, and
community benefits. The proposed Development
Agreement would ensure the physical design of the
development is consistent with the overall vision for
the site. Further, as discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the Project would not have an adverse effect or damage
a scenic vista or natural resources. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.
410
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 120
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Policy LU-3.4: Encourage innovative mixed-use,
pedestrian-friendly development projects to reduce
traffic congestion and improve quality of life.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mixed-use
residential and commercial development in an
urbanized area that is within close proximity to existing office, commercial, and residential uses, providing
opportunities for reduced automobile use within the
area. The Project site is located within an area that
provides pedestrian circulation opportunities and the
Project would provide enhanced pedestrian access to
the site from a pedestrian walkway along Town Center
and from three outdoor staircases providing access
from Enterprise. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-4.2: Encourage environmentally sensitive
development patterns, promote public education,
and enforce infrastructure criteria that protect
residents and property from hazards related to slope
stability and flooding.

Consistent. The proposed Project consists of mixed-use
infill redevelopment in an urbanized area and would
not degrade environmentally sensitive areas of the City.

The Project proposes retaining walls that would extend
into the existing slope adjacent to Enterprise and would be designed to protect against slope instability. On-site drainage and water quality improvements would
provide protection from localized flooding. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-4.4: Reduce the discharge of pollutants and
runoff flow from urban development to the
maximum extent practicable.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project proposes an on-site
stormwater system, including a Modular Wetland
System (a linear stormwater bioretention device that
treats flow) that would reduce onsite runoff and
provide for water quality. The proposed water quality
BMPs would adhere to WQMP requirements, including
providing operational BMPs, which would reduce
pollutants of concern associated with the stormwater
runoff from the Project site in compliance with the
Regional MS4 Permit and ensure the proposed Project
would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality. As such, the
Project is consistent with this policy.
411
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 121
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Policy LU-5.3: Ensure that new development is
consistent with City and service provider plans to
complete needed improvements and funding
capacity for such improvements.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services and Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, existing public and utility services are generally anticipated to be adequate to serve the Project; improvements to
water and wastewater facilities may be necessary to
serve the Project. As part of the Project, all necessary utility improvements, as determined by the service
provider, would be constructed to serve the proposed
development. Required improvements would be
constructed in compliance with City and service
provider standards and the Applicant would pay all
applicable fees as required. As such, the Project is
consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-8.2: Require recycling, composting, source
reduction and education efforts throughout the
community, including residential, businesses,
industries, and institutions, within the construction
industry, and in all City-sponsored activities.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would be required to
comply with applicable federal, State, and local
regulations regarding the recycling, composting, source reduction, and education efforts. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-11.1: Ensure that new development
contributes its fair share to the timely construction of new school facilities, to the extent permitted by law,
and compatible with other City land use objectives.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, the Project Applicant would be required to pay all
statutory fees in place at the time in compliance with
SB 50 and demonstrate proof of payment to the City for
approval of a building permit. As such, the Project is
consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-12.2: As a condition upon new
development, require payment of park fees and/or
dedication and provision of parkland, recreation
facilities and/or multi-use trails that improve the
public and private recreation system.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, the Project Applicant would be required to pay all
public benefits fees in accordance with the
Development Agreement, which would satisfy the
City’s parkland requirement. The Project would also
provide onsite amenities to residents that would
partially offset impacts to parks facilities. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Circulation Element
Policy C-3.1: Promote increased use of public
transportation to reduce roadway congestion, air
pollution, and non-point source water pollution.

Support efforts to increase bus service range and
frequency within the City as appropriate.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mixed-use
residential and commercial infill redevelopment
project in an area that is developed and urbanized. By
increasing housing and employment density at the
Project’s location near major arterials (i.e., Aliso Creek Road), the Project would help leverage future efforts to expand public transportation service to this location. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.
412
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 122
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Policy C-4.1: Improve City sidewalks and rights-ofway to make them efficient and appealing for walking and bicycling safely. Coordinate with AVCA, adjacent
jurisdictions, the County of Orange and regional
agencies to improve pedestrian and bicycle trails,
facilities, signage, and amenities, especially within
Aliso Viejo Town Center.

Consistent. The Project proposes a pedestrian walkway
along the southeastern and northeastern boundaries of
the proposed mixed-use structure. The Project would
provide enhanced pedestrian access to the Project site
from an existing pedestrian walkway along Town
Center and from three outdoor staircases providing
access to existing City sidewalks along Enterprise. The Project would also provide improvements such as
enhanced landscaping and trees along Town Center
and Enterprise. The Project would not modify or
conflict with existing or proposed bicycle facilities.

Additionally, the Project would provide bicycle parking in the northeastern corner of the site and 50 long-term bicycle parking spaces, which would facilitate bike
travel. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy C-4.2: Provide safe and convenient pedestrian
and bicycle connections to and from Aliso Viejo Town
Center, other commercial districts, office complexes,
neighborhoods, schools, other major activity centers,
and surrounding communities.

Consistent. Refer to response to Circulation Element
Policy C-4.1.

Conservation/Open Space Element
Policy COS-1.2: Reduce the amount of water used for
landscaping and increase use of native and low water
plants. Maximize use of native, low-water plants for
landscaping of areas adjacent to sidewalks or other
impermeable surfaces.

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply
with the City’s landscaping requirements, including
Chapter 7.30, Water Efficient Landscape Regulations,
which would increase water efficiency. The Project
proposes landscaping that includes native and/or low
water plants. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.
413
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 123
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Policy COS-1.4: Promote water conservation
measures, reduce urban runoff, and prevent
groundwater pollution within development projects,
property maintenance, City operations and all
activities requiring City approval.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would reduce urban runoff
when compared to existing conditions. Additionally,
the Project would implementstructural, source control,
and site design BMPs to address water quality
conditions associated with the proposed Project. The
Project would adhere to WQMP requirements, which
would reduce pollutants of concern associated with the
stormwater runoff from the Project site in compliance
with the Regional MS4 Permit and ensure the proposed
Project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Additionally, structural source control BMPs proposed
as part of the Project include the use of efficient
irrigation systems and landscape design, water
conservation, and smart controllers. As such, the
Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy COS-4.2: Encourage and maintain high-quality
architectural and landscaping designs that enhance
or complement the community’s visual character.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Element
Policy LU-2.4.

Policy COS-5.1: Integrate air quality planning with
City land use, economic development, and
transportation planning efforts.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the Project would not generate pollutant emissions in
excess of applicable significance thresholds. As such,
the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy COS-5.2: Support programs that reduce air
quality emissions related to vehicular travel.

Consistent. The Project proposes a mixed-use
residential and commercial infill redevelopment
project in an area that is developed and urbanized. The Project supports multi-modal transportation options by
increasing housing and employment density within
close proximity to goods and services. The Project
provides for enhanced pedestrian access and includes
on-site bicycle storage. Additionally, by increasing
housing and employment density at the Project’s
location near major arterials (i.e., Aliso Creek Road), the Project would help leverage future efforts to expand
public transportation service to this location. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy COS-5.3: Support alternative transportation
modes and technologies and develop bike- and
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods to reduce
emissions associated with automobile use.

Consistent. Refer to response to Conservation/Open
Space Element Policy LU-5-2.
414
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 124
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Policy COS-6.1: Encourage green building designs for
new construction and renovation projects within the
City.

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply
with 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code. As
such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy COS-6.4: Encourage expansion of
neighborhood-level products and services and public
transit opportunities throughout the City to reduce
automobile use.

Consistent. Refer to response to Conservation/Open
Space Element Policy LU-5-2.

Policy COS-7.5: Ensure that new development
provides park land and/or improvements at a fair
share ratio, pursuant to the City’s Parkland
Ordinance.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Element
Policy 12-2.

Policy COS-8.1: Balance the benefits of development
with a project’s potential impacts to cultural
resources.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural
Resources, the Project site does not contain known
cultural resources; however, there is the potential for unknown or undiscovered resources to be uncovered
through ground-disturbing construction activities. The
Project would be required to implement mitigation
measures, which would reduce potential impacts to
cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.

As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Safety Element
Policy S-1.1: Avoid development in areas susceptible
to erosion and sediment loss.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and
Soils, grading and earthwork activities associated with Project construction would expose soils to potential
short-term erosion by wind and water. However,
Project construction activities would be required to
comply with applicable City requirements to control
erosion and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff
containing sediment, including AVMC Chapter 13.08,
Article XIII, Erosion Control, which requires the
implementation of erosion and sediment control
measures. Project construction activities would also be required to comply with applicable water quality
measures, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance
(AVMC Chapter 7.35, Stormwater Management), which
include conditions and requirements established by the
City related to the reduction or elimination of storm
water runoff pollutants during construction and
operational phases of the Project. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.
415
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 125
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Policy S-1.2: Investigate specific geologic conditions
underlying all new development or redevelopment
proposals in areas where potential fault rupture,
liquefaction, slope instability or other geological
hazards are suspected.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and
Soils, the geologic conditions associated with
development of the Project site have been investigated
in the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study
and Preliminary Geotechnical Study; refer to Appendix
C. The Project site is not susceptible to potential fault rupture or liquefaction. The Project would be required
to comply with site-specific geotechnical
recommendations associated with potential
earthquake ground shaking, slope instability, or other
geological hazards. As such, the Project is consistent
with this policy.

Policy S-2.3: Ensure adequate fire equipment access
and fire suppression resources to all developed and
open space areas within the City.

Consistent. Under Project conditions, an existing fire
hydrant within the southeastern portion of the Project
site would be removed. A total of three fire hydrants
and two DCDAs would be installed along the northern
and eastern perimeters of the Project site and would
connect to existing water lines. The Project would be
required to comply with all City and OCFA requirements
for fire prevention and safety measures, including site access, and would be subject to approval by the City
and OCFA. As such, the Project is consistent with this
policy.

Policy S-3.1: Require that new development and
redevelopment minimize stormwater and urban
runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating on-site design features such as detention basins, water
features, or other suitable strategies. Where feasible, support the use of common detention facilities
serving more than one development.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Element
Policy LU-4.4 and Conservation/Open Space Element
Policy COS-1.4.

Policy S-5.3: Apply design techniques and standards
that employ adequate street and property lighting
and place an increased emphasis on public areas to
reduce potential criminal activity in new
development and reuse projects.

Consistent. All lighting installed as part of the Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s lighting requirements. In addition, the Project would be
required to comply with the City’s crime prevention
through environmental design (CPTED) requirements in
accordance with AVMC Section 15.50.020, CPTED
Safety Requirements. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, OCSD would review the Project plans to ensure
the Project adheres to all applicable security
requirements. As such, the Project is consistent with
this policy.
416
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 126
Table 4.11-1 (continued)
Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo Zoning
The Project Site is designated as one of the five Community Benefit Overlay (“CBO”) areas of the City. The General Plan Land Use Element outlines the permitted level of development on each of these CBO areas, which is referred to as the Land Plan. Alternative development consistent with or less intensive than the Land Plan may also be permitted with a new or amended development agreement (“DA”). In 1998, a DA was executed for the Project Site for an alternative development, with site specific regulations reflected in the adopted The Commons Specific Plan. The Commons Specific Plan envisions a mixed-use development project within the Commons portion of the Aliso Viejo Town Center. The Specific Plan Zoning Districts Map identifies the Project site as being located within the SP2-RH Zoning District (Residential – High Density District) and SP2-CTC Zoning District (Commercial – Town Center District).

The Project proposes an alternative plan that is consistent with or less intensive than the Land Plan and amends the site-specific regulations in The Commons Specific Plan. The Project proposes to remove the existing on-site surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a sixstory building, and associated parking and improvements. The mixed-use building would wrap around a centrally located eight-level parking structure with a subterranean parking garage and rooftop residential amenity space.

The Project requests approval of a Site Development Permit pursuant to AVMC Section 15.74.020, Site Development Permits, to allow for a new project that involves building construction; a Vesting Tentative Map pursuant to AVMC Section 14.08.030, Review of Tentative Maps, to re-subdivide the property into two lots; and a Development Agreement pursuant to AVMC Section 15.82.010, Development Agreements, to provide further site-specific regulations and community benefits in connection with the proposed Project.

Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Noise Element
Policy N-3.1: Ensure stationary noise impacts on
sensitive receptors and noise emanating from
construction activities, private
developments/residences, landscaping activities and
special events are minimized.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, the
Project would result in less than significant impacts
related to noise. As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.

Policy N-3.2: Require that mixed-use structures and
areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and
vibration from commercial uses to residential uses.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise, the
Project would result in less than significant impacts
related to noise and vibration. The Project would be
required to comply with AVMC Section 8.12.060,
Interior Noise Standards, which establishes interior
noise standards for residential property within the City.

As such, the Project is consistent with this policy.
417
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 127
The Project would be reviewed and only approved after finding the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code; is compliant with the requirements of CEQA; that the architectural and site design of the Project is compatible with surrounding development; and that landscaping has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity. The City may place conditions of approval on the Site Development Permit to ensure that the intent of the approval is achieved and/or to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents, businesses or the general public. The Project is also subject to the Development Agreement, which allows the City to provide further site-specific regulations, including permitted levels of development, and community benefits. These processes would provide an opportunity for public review and evaluation of site-specific requirements and characteristics, to minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment, and to ensure that all site development regulations and performance standards are provided in accordance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the Aliso Viejo General Plan, The Commons Specific Plan, or any other land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 418
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 128
This page intentionally left blank.
419
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 129

4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
X
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) establishes Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The following classifications are used by the State to define MRZs:
• MRZ-1: Areas where the available geologic information indicates no significant likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there is a likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-3a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist.

However, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. • MRZ-3b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist. However, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. • MRZ-4: Areas where there is not enough information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral deposits.

According to the 1994 Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map by the California Department of Conservation, the Planning Area has two classifications: MRZ-1 and MRZ-3.28 The Aliso Viejo General Plan does not designate any lands within the City as mineral resources deposit areas. There are no existing 28 RV Miller, Generalized Mineral Land Classification of Orange County, California, 1994. 420
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 130
mineral resource recovery operations on the Project site or surrounding area.29 Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of value to the region or result in the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact to mineral resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 29 California Department of Conservation, Mines Online, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed March 14, 2024.
421
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 131

4.13 Noise
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
This section is based in part on the Noise and Vibration Modeling Results (Noise Data), prepared by Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, dated November 2022 and included as Appendix G, Noise Data.

FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE
Sound can be described in terms of its frequency (pitch) and loudness (amplitude). Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second. The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the amplitude increases or decreases. The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel (dB).

Although the terms “sound” and “noise” are often used synonymously, noise is commonly defined as sound that is either loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be simply added or subtracted. For example, two cars each producing 60 dBA of noise would not produce a combined 120 dBA. Instead, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase.

Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the A-weighted scale (dBA) is used to reflect the normal hearing sensitivity range of the human ear. Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. 422
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 132
Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour period. Due to increased noise sensitivities during evening and night hours, CNEL is obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): The equivalent steady-state noise level for a stated period of time that would contain the same acoustic energy as the fluctuating, time-varying noise level of that same period.

For example, the Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level for that hour. Leq can be thought of as a continuous noise level for a certain period that is equivalent in acoustic energy content to a fluctuating noise level of that same period. In this analysis, Leq is expressed in units of dBA.

L(x): Lx is used to represent the noise level exceeded X percent of a specified time period. For example, L90 represents the noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of a specified time period. L90 is commonly used to represent ambient or background steady-state noise levels.

Noise Attenuation
Generally speaking, noise levels decrease, or “attenuate,” as distances from noise sources to receivers increases. For each doubling of distance, noise from stationary or small, localized sources, commonly referred to as “point sources,” may attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. This attenuation is referred to as the inverse square law. For example, if a point source emits a noise level of 80 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet its noise level would be approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 100 feet, 68 dBA at a distance of 200 feet, etc. Noise emitted by “line” sources, such as highways, attenuates at the rate of 3 dBA for each doubling of distance.30 30 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020.
423
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 133
Factors such as ground absorption and atmospheric effects may also affect the propagation of noise. In particular, ground attenuation by non-reflective surfaces such as soft dirt or grass may contribute to increased attenuation rates of up to an additional 8 to 10 dBA per doubling of distance.

Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line of sight, an unobstructed visual path between a noise source and a receiver. Barriers that break the line of sight between noise sources and receivers, such as walls and buildings, can greatly reduce source noise levels by allowing noise to reach receivers by diffraction only. Barriers can reduce source noise levels by up to 20 dBA, though it is generally infeasible for temporary barriers to reduce source noise levels by more than 15 dBA. In cases where the noise path from source to receiver is direct but grazes the top of a barrier, noise attenuation of up to 5 dBA may still occur.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, and acceleration.31 Unlike noise, vibration is not a common environmental issue, as it is unusual for vibration from vehicle sources to be perceptible. Common sources of vibration may include trains, construction activities, and certain industrial operations.

Peak Particle Velocity
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is commonly used to describe and quantify vibration impacts to buildings and other structures. PPV levels represent the maximum instantaneous peak of a vibration signal and are generally measured in inches per second (in/sec).

Effects of Vibration
High levels of vibration may cause damage to buildings or even physical personal injury. However, vibration levels rarely affect human health outside the personal operation of certain construction equipment or industrial tools. Instead, most people consider environmental vibration to be an annoyance that may affect concentration or disturb sleep. Background vibration in residential areas is usually not perceptible, and perceptible indoor vibrations are generally caused by sources within buildings themselves, such as slamming doors or heavy footsteps. Vibration from traffic on smooth roadways is rarely perceptible, even from larger vehicles such as buses or trucks.32 The threshold of human perception of vibration is approximately 0.01-0.02 in/sec PPV.

EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were obtained at multiple locations near the Project site to aid in the characterization of noise conditions surrounding the Project and nearby sensitive receptors. The 31 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 32 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020.
424
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 134
measured noise levels are shown in Table 4.13-1, Short-Term Noise Measurement Data. As indicated in Table 4.13-1, ambient noise levels range between 51.6 and 64.6 dBA Leq. At all locations, the primary source of noise was vehicular traffic along Enterprise and Aliso Creek Road. Based on the three long-term noise measurements taken at the intersection of Enterprise and Town Center (noise measurements No. 6-8), it is estimated that 24-hour noise levels near the Project Site are approximately 58.4 dBA Ldn. 33 Table 4.13-1
Short-Term Noise Measurement Data
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than do other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. Noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site include the Vantis Residences, a collection of multi-family residential properties located approximately 350 feet west of the Project site, across Enterprise; and the St. Moritz Resort Apartments, a multi-family residential complex located over 500 feet east of the Project site, across Aliso Creek Road.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Aliso Viejo General Plan
Applicable policies and standards governing noise in the City are set forth in the Aliso Viejo General Plan Noise Element. General Plan Noise Element Table N-1 contains residential noise standards that summarize maximum acceptable noise levels as measured from any residential property in the City. General Plan Noise Element Table N-2 contains a “Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix” that defines the City’s noise 33 24-hour Ldn was estimated based on guidelines contained in Appendix E of the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018).

Noise Measurement Location Duration Sound Level
(dBA Leq)

1. Near intersection of Aliso Creek Rd. and Enterprise 2:26 p.m. – 2:41 p.m. 64.6

2. Enterprise, near Vantis Drive 3:06 p.m. – 3:21 p.m. 64.3

3. Vantis Residences, facing Project Site 3:00 – 3:15 p.m. 51.6

4. Near 101 Summit Office Park 3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. 57.8

5. Near Commons at Aliso Viejo – Outdoor Restaurant Seating 4:04 p.m. – 4:19 p.m. 61.6

6. Intersection of Enterprise and Town Center 1:47 p.m. – 2:47 p.m. 59.3

7. Intersection of Enterprise and Town Center 4:21 p.m. – 5:21 p.m. 59.2

8. Intersection of Enterprise and Town Center 12:15 a.m. – 12:45 a.m. 51.7 Source: Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, Noise and Vibration Modeling Results, 2022, 2024. 425
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 135
standards for land use compatibility in the planning process. The Noise Element instructs that land uses should be evaluated using the standards shown in Table N-2 to ensure that proposed land uses do not adversely impact existing noise environments. In addition to these noise standards, the Noise Element outlines goals and policies to address potential noise impacts. It should be noted that the Noise Element summarizes the City’s residential noise ordinance standards that were in place at the time of its adoption, but the City’s residential and other noise ordinance standards have since been updated in the City’s Municipal Code.

The Noise Element identifies “noise sensitive land uses” and “sensitive receptors” as sites that include, but not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, religious meetings, and recreational areas.

City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code
AVMC Chapter 8.12, Noise Control, establishes noise standards to protect the health, safety, welfare, and living/working environments in the City. AVMC Section 8.12.050, Exterior Noise Standards, establishes exterior noise standards for residential and nonresidential land uses. These standards are shown in Table

4.13-2, City of Aliso Viejo Exterior Noise Standards.

Table 4.13-2
City of Aliso Viejo Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Noise Level Time Period
Residential Exterior Noise Standards
Density of less than 10 DU/acre 50 dBA 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 45 dBA 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM
Density of more than 10 DU/acre 55 dBA 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 50 dBA 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM
Nonresidential Exterior Noise Standards
Commercial 65 dBA 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM
60 dBA 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM
Manufacturing/Industrial 70 dBA 24 hours per day
Source: AVMC Section 8.12.050, Exterior Noise Standards.

Note: DU = dwelling unit
Section 8.12.050(C) establishes how these noise standards are to be applied by stating that noise levels shall not exceed:
• The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. • The noise standard plus five dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour. • The noise standard plus 10 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour. • The noise standard plus 15 dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour. • The noise standard plus 20 dB(A) for any period of time. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the applicable standards when the source of the noise is not operating, the ambient noise level shall become the standard.

AVMC Section 8.12.060, Interior Noise Standards, establishes interior noise standards for residential property within the City. Per Section 8.12.060, for all residential properties, the interior noise standard is 426
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 136
55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM; and 45 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. AVMC Section 8.12.060(B) establishes that noise levels shall not exceed:
• The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour. • The interior noise standard plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour.
• The interior noise standard plus 10 dBA for any period of time.

AVMC Section 8.12.060(C) further states that in the event the ambient noise level exceeds either of the first two noise level categories above, the cumulative period applicable to the category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the third noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under that category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

AVMC Section 8.12.070, Exemptions, establishes a list of activities that the AVMC considers exempt from the provisions of the City’s noise ordinance. Exempt activities include:
• Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. • Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided the activities take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on any day except Sunday or a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Sunday or a federal holiday. • Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law. • Noise sources associated with solid waste collection and removal, provided such activities take place between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday where audible in residential areas; or between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays where audible in residential areas; or between 5:00 AM and 9:00 PM any day where such activity is not audible in residential areas; or as otherwise provided in an approved franchise agreement between a waste hauler and the City.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Construction Noise Threshold
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The City has not adopted construction-related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration. The Project’s construction noise impact would be considered significant if any of the following were to occur:
• Construction activities occurring between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays, or between the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturday (excluding federal holidays), would cause existing ambient exterior noise levels at a noise-sensitive use to increase by greater than 5 dBA Leq. The averaging period shall be equivalent to the duration of a single workday, from start to finish of that day’s construction activities.
427
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 137
• Construction activities occurring outside the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM on weekdays, outside the hours of 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturday, or on any federal holiday would exceed the City’s exterior noise standards (AVMC Section 8.12.050) and interior noise standards (AVMC Section

8.12.060).

Operational Noise Threshold
For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if on- or off-site noise sources associated with the Project would generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed Project and any nearby land uses. The City has not adopted operations-related thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration. The Aliso Viejo General Plan instructs that noise impacts from proposed land uses should be assessed utilizing the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Noise Element Table N-2), but it does not contain instructions on how these standards may be applied to analysis under CEQA.

The exterior and interior noise standards set forth by AVMC Section 8.12.050 and Section 8.12.060 would apply to the Project’s operational noise sources that have not been exempted by Section 8.12.070. From a CEQA standpoint, this regulatory framework does not adequately meet the requirements of a threshold by which a determination of significance may be evaluated. As such, the following criteria to determine significance have been adopted in consideration of the City’s General Plan and AVMC noise standards.

The Project’s operational noise impact would be considered significant if any of the following were to occur:
• Project operations would cause ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors to increase by 3 dBA CNEL or more to or within “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise and land use compatibility categories, as defined by the City’s Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Noise Element Table N-2).
• Project operations would cause any 5 dBA CNEL or greater noise increase to a noise-sensitive receptor.
• Project operations would exceed the City’s noise ordinance standards as set forth by AVMC Section 8.12.050 and Section 8.12.060.

As a 3 dBA increase represents a barely noticeable change in noise level, this threshold considers any increase in ambient noise levels to or within a land use’s “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise/land use compatibility categories to be significant so long as the noise level increase can be considered barely perceptible when averaged over a daily period. For instance, when the noise level increase would not necessarily result in “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” noise/land use compatibility, a readily noticeable 5 dBA CNEL increase would still be considered significant. Increases less than 3 dBA CNEL are unlikely to result in noticeably louder ambient noise conditions and would therefore be considered less than significant. The third criterion also considers any exceedance of the City’s noise ordinance standards to constitute a significant impact. 428
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 138
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Noise
On-site Construction Activities
The Project’s construction phase would generate noise during the approximately 29 months of grading, building construction, and other related construction activities. During all construction phases, noisegenerating activities would be limited to hours between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays. The Project is anticipated to utilize a five-day work week, and work on the weekends and federal holidays would not occur. As a result, noise from the Project’s construction activities would be exempt from the AVMC Section

8.12.050 and Section 8.12.060 noise standards.

The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the Project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction would vary with the different phases of construction. Project-related construction activities would include demolition, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and landscaping. Noise from grading activities is typically the foremost concern when evaluating a project’s construction noise impact, as grading activities often require extensive use of heavy-duty, diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. Given this consideration, the following analysis assesses noise impacts that may result from the Project’s grading phase.

Grading for the Project is estimated to last approximately three to four months. The majority of the Project’s grading would be characterized by vehicles such as an excavator and loader working to level the site’s foundation pad and excavate for any utility trenches or footings. As these vehicles perform work across the approximately 4.4-acre Projectsite, their construction noise levels at sensitive receptors would fluctuate depending on these vehicles’ distances. Noise levels would be greater when vehicles are in proximity of sensitive receptors and lower when these vehicles are positioned farther away. Given this fact, the noise impact associated with the Project’s grading activities has been evaluated by modeling the noise levels that would be associated with an excavator and a loader grading a half-acre parcel of land in proximity to sensitive land uses.

Table 4.13-3, Average Construction Noise Level By Phase (dBA), shows the estimated noise increases that would result from the Project’s grading activities at nearby sensitive receptors. As shown, noise increases at St. Moritz Resort Apartments and Vantis Residences would not exceed the 5 dBA Leq threshold of significance adopted by this analysis. As discussed, this analysis assesses the Project’s “worst-case” construction phase. Other construction phases would not require the types of heavy-duty earthmoving equipment assumed by this grading phase scenario or would utilize heavy equipment on a more intermittent basis, and therefore would generate lesser noise impacts. Additionally, this is a conservative analysis as it assumes that two grading vehicles would spend an entire day operating within a small halfacre parcel in nearest proximity to receptors, despite the Project’s 4.4-acre area. Therefore, over the course of the Project’s grading phase, construction noise impacts are likely to be substantially lower than 429
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 139
what is estimated by this analysis. Based on the results shown in Table 4.13-3 and these additional considerations, the Project’s construction noise impact would be less than significant.

Table 4.13-3
Average Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA)
Receptor
Construction
Noise Level (dBA
Leq)
Existing Ambient
Noise Level (dBA
Leq)
New Noise Level
(dBA Leq) Increase
St. Moritz Resort Apartments 51.8 64.6 64.8 0.2
Vantis Residences 54.3 51.6 56.2 4.6
Source: Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, Noise and Vibration Modeling Results, November 2022.

Off-site Construction Activities
Trucks and other construction-related vehicles would access the Project site from roadways in the vicinity over the course of all construction phases. Based on construction activities, the Project’s maximum construction truck trip generation is estimated to be no more than 40 vendor-related truck trips per hour.34 This would have a marginal effect on roadside noise levels along Aliso Creek Road and other major thoroughfares that heavy-duty construction trucks would utilize to access the Project site. Based on the Project’s proximity to SR-73, it is reasonably expected that the majority of construction trucks would utilize this highway to access the Project site, meaning that the majority of surface street travel by these trucks would be limited to Aliso Creek Road and a small segment of Enterprise to access the Project site.

According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model 2.5 modeling, a maximum of 40 truck trips per hour (20 inbound trips and 20 outbound trips) would generate roadside noise levels of 59.9 dBA Leq, as measured 75 feet from the roadway centerline. This approximates the distance of St.

Moritz Resort Apartments from the segment of Aliso Creek Road that vendor trucks would utilize when accessing the Project site and SR-73. As shown in Table 4.13-3, field noise measurements indicate that existing daytime ambient noise levels at St. Moritz Resort Apartments are 64.6 dBA Leq. Thus, the increase in noise levelsfrom Project construction trucks would not have a substantial effect on ambient noise levels at this receptor (no more than an approximate 1 dBA Leq increase during worst-case hours). Vantis Residences are located over 600 feet from the truck route and are unlikely to experience measurable noise increases from vendor or other construction truck trips.

On average, the Project’s construction truck trip generation is anticipated to be significantly less than the 40 truck trips per hour worst-case scenario evaluated by this analysis, meaning that noise impacts would be significantly reduced. As a result, the Project’s noise impact from off-site construction sources would be less than significant.
34 Construction of the Project is estimated to generate a maximum 84 one-way vendor trips per day. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes a worst-case scenario in which approximately half of these trips occur during a single work hour.
430
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 140
Operational Noise
On-site Operational Noise
On-site operational noise associated with the proposed use would include residential and commercial activities, mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC units), and auto-related activities (e.g., loading and unloading, parking). As described further below, the Project would not generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the Project’s on-site operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Mechanical Equipment. Given the relatively quiet operation of modern HVAC systems and existing ambient noise levels within the proximity of the Project site, the Project’s HVAC systems are not anticipated to increase off-site ambient noise levels by a discernable degree. Most modern split-system residential HVAC systems generate noise levels below 60 dBA at 10 feet (exterior noise level). Thus, even when assuming the continuous 24-hour operation of many HVAC units at once, noise levels at Vantis Residences would be below 38 dBA Leq and 45 dBA CNEL; and noise levels at St. Moritz Resort Apartments would be below 34 dBA Leq and 41 dBA CNEL.35 These noise levels are below the AVMC’s minimum 45 dBA Leq exterior and interior noise standards for residential uses. As such, mechanical equipment noise from the Project’s HVAC systems would not result in audible noise increases at nearby sensitive receptor locations, including Vantis Residences and St. Moritz Resort Apartments.

At the nearest surrounding commercial uses, that are over 80 feet from the Project site, noise from the Project’s HVAC systems would be below 52 dBA Leq, which is below the AVMC’s minimum 60 dBA Leq exterior noise standard for commercial uses.

An additional consideration is the fact that many surrounding land uses (both commercial and residential uses) also contain rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment. For example, Vantis Residences is a similar multifamily development that contains over 400 dwelling units. Noise from Vantis Residences’ HVAC equipment was not audible at the time of the field noise measurement studies, most likely due to the presence of elevated ambient noise levels in the area surrounding the Project and receptors.

Other mechanical equipment associated with the proposed Project includes filtering and pumping equipment for the Project’s proposed pool. This equipment would be enclosed in mechanical rooms located within the Project building and would not be audible off-site or at any surrounding receptors.

Auto-Related Activities. The Project would include automobile parking spaces located in an eight-story parking structure with a subterranean parking garage. The parking structure would feature a wrap-around design (i.e., the mixed-use building would wrap around the majority of the parking structure) and help contain parking-related noises within the parking structure. This suggests that the Project’s parking facilities and the intermittent noises associated with them (e.g., doors slamming, engine starting) would have a nominal effect on surrounding ambient noise levels. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a hypothetical facility with an hourly activity of 174 vehicles, equal to the Project’s 35 The calculations assume that 10 HVAC systems are operating continuously for 24-hours and are 400 feet from Vantis Residences and 600 feet from St. Moritz Resort Apartments. 431
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 141
maximum gross peak hour trip generation, would be expected to result in a noise level of 49 dBA Leq within a distance of 50 feet. At Vantis Residences, noise levels would be no greater than approximately 31 dBA Leq (hourly) and 32 dBA CNEL; at St. Moritz Resort Apartments, noise levels would be no greater than approximately 28 dBA Leq (hourly) and 30 dBA CNEL.36 These noise levels are below the AVMC’s minimum 45 dBA Leq exterior and interior noise standards for residential uses, though the AVMC does not apply to noise from vehicles, which is a matter pre-empted by State regulations. As such, auto-related activity noise from the Project’s parking garage would not result in audible noise increases at nearby sensitive receptors, including Vantis Residences or St. Moritz Resort Apartments.

At the nearest surrounding commercial uses, that are over 80 feet from the Project’s footprint, noise levels would be below 45 dBA Leq, which is below the AVMC’s minimum 60 dBA Leq exterior noise standard for commercial uses (though as discussed above, the AVMC does not regulate noise from vehicles).

Amenity Space/Open Space. The primary source of noise associated with the Project’s balconies and shared amenity areas would be speech/conversation from the residential uses. Vocal noise from speech and conversation averages between 55 and 67 dBA at a reference distance of one meter, in proportion to background noise levels.37 Given the rapid attenuation of speech/conversation and the existing ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity, it is not anticipated that vocal noises from outdoor uses would be audible at sensitive receptors that are hundreds of feet from the Project site, let alone capable of causing or contributing to significant noise increases. Overall, reasonable use of the Project’s exterior amenity spaces and other open spaces would not be expected to result in discernible noise increases at nearby sensitive receptors.

Commercial Uses. The Project’s proposed ground-floor retail and dining services space would be oriented toward the center of the Project site’s existing shopping center location and hundreds of feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. Reasonable use of the Project’s retail and dining services space are not anticipated to result in substantial increases in surrounding exterior noise levels, and the Project’s inclusion of these uses within the site of an existing commercial shopping center would not represent a substantial change to the environment. Additionally, no exterior amplified noise systems are proposed by the Project.

The noise levels detailed above demonstrate that the Project’s on-site operational noise sources would have a nominal effect on surrounding noise levels. Worst-case noise levels at Vantis Residences would be no greater than approximately 45.2 dBA CNEL based on the combined influence of the Project’s HVAC (45 dBA CNEL) and parking garage (32 dBA CNEL) noise levels. Worst-case noise levels at St. Moritz Resort Apartments would be no greater than approximately 41.3 dBA CNEL based on the combined influence of the Project’s HVAC (41 dBA CNEL) and parking garage (30 dBA CNEL) noise levels. These noise levels are within the City’s “Normally Acceptable” and “Conditionally Acceptable” criteria for residential noise levels, 36 The calculations assume the same receptors distances as the previous HVAC-related analysis. CNEL calculations conservatively assume that the Project’s garage would generate worst-case noise levels between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
37 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments, May 1977. 432
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 142
which range up to 70 dBA CNEL. Accordingly, the applicable threshold is whether the Project’s on-site operational noise sources would increase 24-hour noise levels at Vantis Residences and St. Moritz Resort Apartments by greater than 5 dBA CNEL. Determining this impact first requires the estimation of CNEL noise levels at Vantis Residences and St. Moritz Resort Apartments. One helpful correlation is that CNEL noise levels are typically a few decibels below daytime noise levels in urbanized environments where traffic is the predominant source of ambient noise. At Vantis Residences, daytime ambient noise levels measured during off-peak traffic hours were 51.6 dBA Leq, suggesting that CNEL noise levels are approximately 48 dBA CNEL. When added to this figure, the Project’s worst-case 45.2 dBA CNEL impact for this receptor demonstrates that the Project’s on-site operational noise sources would not have the potential to increase ambient noise conditions at Vantis Residences by greater than approximately 1.8 dBA CNEL (48 dBA CNEL + 45.2 dBA CNEL = 49.8 dBA CNEL). At St. Moritz Resort Apartments, daytime ambient noise levels measured during off-peak traffic hours were 64.6 dBA Leq, suggesting that CNEL noise levels are approximately 61 dBA CNEL. When added to this figure, the Project’s worst-case 41.3 dBA CNEL impact for this receptor demonstrates that the Project’s on-site operational noise sources would not have the potential to increase ambient noise conditions at St. Moritz Resort Apartments by a measurable degree (the estimated increase would be less than a tenth of a decibel) (61 dBA CNEL + 41.3 dBA CNEL = approximately 61.0 dBA CNEL). These impacts are below the 5 dBA CNEL increase threshold of significance.

Overall, the Project would be located in an area with similar multi-family land uses, as well as other retail and dining services uses. The Project’s consistency with surrounding land use types and patterns further supports the conclusion that it would not alter the noise environment of surrounding sensitive receptors by a substantial degree or the 5 dBA CNEL increase that would represent a significant impact. Given these considerations, the impact of on-site operational noise sources would be considered less than significant.

Off-Site Operational Noise
Typically, a 3 dBA CNEL increase in roadway noise levels (which is equivalent to the threshold of significance) requires an approximate doubling of traffic volume. Thus, if a project would not double the traffic volume of a roadway, then it would not result in 3 dBA CNEL or greater increases in that roadway’s noise levels. On a typical weekday, the Project is estimated to result in a maximum of 166 new AM peak hour trips and 174 new PM peak hour trips. According to vehicle count data in the Project’s traffic study, AM and PM peak-hour volumes along Aliso Creek Road are in excess of 2,000 trips per hour. The Project would result in no more than approximately 120 trips per hour along any segment of Aliso Creek Road. As such, the Project would not double the traffic volume of Aliso Creek Road, Enterprise, or any other roadway. Therefore, the increase in vehicle trips associated with the Project would have minimal noise impacts along Aliso Creek Road. Based on the traffic study, AM and PM peak-hour volumes along Enterprise are estimated to be in excess of 350 trips per hour. The Project is anticipated to result in no more than approximately 25 trips per hour along any segment of Enterprise and thus, the Project’s impacts along this roadway would also be minimal. A similar scenario exists for all other roadways in the vicinity of the Project. The Project’s traffic along these roadways would be below levels correlated with 3 dBA CNEL noise increases, and actual impacts would be fractions of a decibel. Therefore, the impact of the Project’s off-site operational noise sources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 433
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 143
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Construction of the Project would require a variety of large, steel-tracked earthmoving vehicles. According to the FTA, large bulldozers and similar heavy-equipment can generate groundborne vibration levels up to 0.089 in/sec PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet, which is perceptible, but below any risk to architectural damage. There are no buildings within 25 feet of the proposed Project, meaning that construction of the Project would not expose surrounding buildings to perceptible groundborne vibration levels. Thus, construction of the Project would not expose any surrounding buildings to perceptible or potentially damaging levels of groundborne vibration. The nearest retail/commercial buildings would be located nearly 100 feet south of the Project’s construction footprint. At this distance, the Project’s groundborne vibration levels from construction would be far-below levels associated with building damage for even the most sensitive and fragile historic structures, much less levels associated with building damage for the types of modern structures surrounding the project. At more distant structures, the Project’s groundborne vibration levels would be even further reduced.

Project operational activities would not contain any significant stationary sources of groundborne vibration, such as heavy equipment or industrial operations. The Project’s related vehicle travel would not be considered a significant source of vibration, as vehicle travel rarely generates perceptible groundborne vibration. Therefore, potential groundborne vibration impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan; is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; and is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 10 miles northwest of the Project site. Thus, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project site area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 434
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 144
This page intentionally left blank.
435
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 145

4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area. The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The Project would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure, as the Project site and surrounding area are currently served by adjacent roadways and utilities infrastructure.

As of January 2023, the City of Aliso Viejo had a population of 50,766 persons.38 The Aliso Viejo General Plan FEIR anticipates a population of 48,071 persons at buildout. The buildout population identified in the General Plan FEIR has already been exceeded. The Project involves the development of 343 residential units, which would induce direct population growth in the City. Based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household, 39 the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 885 persons. The Project’s forecast population growth would increase the City’s existing population by approximately 1.7 percent to 51,651 persons.

SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial) and 191 cities, including the City of Aliso Viejo. As the 38 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2023, May 2023.
39 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2023, May 2023.
436
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 146
federally-designated MPO, SCAG is responsible for developing and adopting regional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local Orange County governments, among other counties. The 2020 RTP/SCS provides population, household, and employment projection estimates in five-year increments through 2045. Based on the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG’s growth forecasts for Aliso Viejo estimates population of 52,700, 19,700 households, and 24,200 employees for the year 2045.40 Since initiation of the analysis presented in this Initial Study, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal 2024 (2024–2050 RTP/SCS). The 2024 RTP/SCS provides household and employment projection estimates in five-year increments through 2050. For the 2024 RTP/SCS, SCAG’s growth forecasts for Aliso Viejo estimates 20,400 households and 24,600 employees for the year 2050.
41 Additionally, while the 2024 RTP/SCS does not provide population projections below the county-level, the 2024 RTP/SCS states that a rough estimate of the future jurisdiction-level population based on Connect SoCal’s household forecast can be derived using countylevel population to housing ratio.42 Using the 2050 Orange County population to housing ratio of 2.745, Aliso Viejo is projected to have a population of approximately 56,000 for the year 2050. As such, the Project would not exceed SCAG’s growth projections for the City.

SCAG’s socio-economic estimates and projections are used by federal and State mandated long-range planning efforts such as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. In 2021, SCAG adopted the 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, which assigns a share of the region’s future housing need to each jurisdiction in the SCAG region. Aliso Viejo’s share of the region’s new housing need for the 6th cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element is 1,195 units.43
The Project site is designated High Density Residential/Town Center Commercial and Open Space. In addition, the General Plan Land Use Element identifies the Project site as being located within the Enterprise/Aliso Creek Community Benefit Overlay (CBO) Area. Within these areas, alternative land uses may be permitted pursuant to execution of a development agreement. Residential and employmentgenerating uses have been anticipated at the site by the General Plan, including the Land Use Element and Land Use Policy Map. In addition, the General Plan 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element identifies The Commons Specific Plan Area as accommodating 362 housing units.44 As such, the population growth resulting from residential uses associated with the Project would be within the anticipated growth for the City.

In addition to residential uses, the Project proposes employment-generating uses. Construction activities associated with the Project would create temporary construction-related jobs. However, these jobs are anticipated to be filled by construction workers already living in the community and surrounding areas 40 Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2020: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020.
41 Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, April 4, 2024.
42 Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, April 4, 2024. Page 37.
43 Southern California Association of Governments, SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, July 1, 2021. 44 City of Aliso Viejo, Housing Plan, adopted June 7, 2023. Table CP-34. 437
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 147
and would not require workers to permanently relocate to the City. Further, operational activities associated with the proposed use (retail and service use) typically do not provide employment opportunities that involve substantial numbers of people needing to permanently locate to fill the positions, but would rather provide employment opportunities to people within the local community and surrounding areas. It should also be noted that estimating the number of future employees who would choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative since many factors influence personal housing location decisions (i.e., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Using Orange County Transportation Analysis Model’s employment estimation of 2.5 employees per 1,000 square feet of retail, the Project would employ approximately 43 people.45 Assuming 43 new employees (and their families) relocate to the City, employment-generating uses associated with Project implementation could result in a potential population increase of approximately 111 persons (based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household). This is a conservative assumption, as it assumes all employees would relocate to the City along with their families, instead of the more likely scenario of existing Aliso Viejo or other nearby residents filling some of the new employment opportunities.

The Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents, including the Aliso Viejo General Plan, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS, and the SCAG 6 th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As described above, the Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements. The Project site does not contain housing. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 45 Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual, October 2020. 438
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 148
This page intentionally left blank.
439
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 149

4.15 Public Services
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection? X
2) Police protection? X
3) Schools? X
4) Parks? X
5) Other public facilities? X
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire protection and emergency services throughout the City, including the Project site.46 The nearest OCFA fire station to the Project site is Station 57, located at 57 Journey, approximately 0.5-mile south of the Project site.

The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The Project site would be accessible to emergency vehicles from two existing driveways, which would provide access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site and from Aliso Creek Road to the east. An existing fire hydrant within the southeastern portion of the Project site would 46 City of Aliso Viejo, Fire Authority, https://avcity.org/198/Fire-Authority, accessed March 22, 2024. 440
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 150
be removed. A total of three new fire hydrants and two DCDAs would be installed along the northern and eastern perimeters of the Project site and would connect to existing water lines.

As discussed in Section 4.14, the Project’s 343 residential units would induce direct population growth in the City. Based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household,47 the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 885 persons. In addition, the Project proposes employment-generating uses. As discussed in Section 4.14, the Project is anticipated to employ approximately 43 people. Conservatively assuming 43 new employees (and their families) relocate to the City, employment-generating uses associated with Project implementation could result in a potential population increase of approximately 111 persons (based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household).

Fire protection and emergency service by the OCFA is currently provided to The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center under existing conditions. The proposed residential and employment-generating uses at the Project site would be expected to incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services to the site relative to existing conditions. However, as discussed in Section 4.14, residential and employment-generating uses have been anticipated at the Project site by the General Plan and the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents, including the Aliso Viejo General Plan, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS, and the SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. Therefore, as the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, it is expected that the population and employment growth associated with the Project would be adequately served by the OCFA and the Project would not create a need for new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, as amended, in accordance with AVMC Chapter 13.04, 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code, and would be subject to approval by OCFA. Adherence with fire code standards and approval by OCFA would reduce the potential demand for fire services by decreasing the likelihood and/or severity of a fire emergency at the site.

Implementation of City requirements, including compliance with the California Fire Code, and approval of site plans by OCFA would further reduce potential impacts concerning fire protection services. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD) provides police protection throughout the City, including the Project site.48 The nearest OCSD station is located at 12 Journey, approximately 0.7-mile southwest of the Project site.
47 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2023, May 2023.
48 City of Aliso Viejo, Police Services, https://avcity.org/212/Police-Services, accessed March 22, 2024. 441
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 151
As described above, the Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial uses. Police protection service to the Project site by OCSD occurs under existing conditions. While the Project would introduce approximately 885 residents and 43 employees to the Project site, residential and employment-generating uses have been anticipated at the Project site by the General Plan and the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents, including the Aliso Viejo General Plan, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS, and the SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan.

Therefore, as the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, it is expected that the population and employment growth associated with the Project would be adequately served by OCSD and the Project would not create a need for new or physically altered police facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Further, the Project would be required to comply with the City’s crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) requirements in accordance with AVMC Section 15.50.020, CPTED Safety Requirements.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, OCSD would review the Project plans to ensure the Project adheres to all applicable security requirements. Implementation of City requirements and approval of site plans by OCSD would further reduce potential impacts concerning police protection services. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. According to The Commons Specific Plan, the Project site is located within the boundaries of the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). The closest elementary school to the Project site is Oak Grove Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.5-mile southwest of the Project site. The closest middle school to the Project site is Don Juan Avila Middle School, which is located approximately 0.3-mile northwest of the Project site. The closest high school to the Project site is Aliso Niguel High School, which is located approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site.

The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units, which may result in new school-aged children attending schools within CUSD. The need for new school facilities is typically associated with a population increase that generates an increase in enrollment large enough to cause new schools to be constructed. Table 4.15-1, Estimated Students Generated by Proposed Project, provides the estimated number of students generated by the proposed Project. 442
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 152
Table 4.15-1
Estimated Students Generated by Proposed Project
Grade Level Student
Generation Rate
Number of Housing
Units/Employees
Number of
Students1
Multi-Family Housing Units
TK-5
2 -- -- --
6-12 0.039 343 14
Employees
All 0.00255 43 1
Total 15
Source: King Consulting, Developer Fee Justification Study, Capistrano Unified School District, May 2022.

Note:

1. Number of students is rounded up to the nearest whole number.

2. CUSD’s student generation rates are calculated for 6 th through 12th grade students per unit. Student
generation rates for transitional kindergarten (TK) through 5th grade students are not calculated since the CUSD has capacity to house these students in its existing facilities.

As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 15 students. The 2022 Developer Fee Justification Study conducted by CUSD concluded that while there is capacity for students in grades transitional kindergarten (TK) through grade five, student capacity at the CUSD is currently exceeded for grades six through 12.49 However, the Project would be subject to payment of school impact fees in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), payment of statutory fees is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property…” Developer fees collected by CUSD pursuant to SB 50 are used for the provision of additional and reconstructed or modernized school facilities. The Project Applicant would be required to pay all statutory fees in place at the time and demonstrate proof of payment to the City for approval of a building permit. With payment of the fees, potential impacts to schools would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use, which would generate approximately 885 residents and 43 employees to the Project site. Conservatively assuming the 43 new employees (and their families) relocate to the City, employment-generating uses associated with Project implementation could result in a potential population increase of approximately 111 persons (based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household); refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. Based on the City’s requirement of 5.0 acres of park area per 1,000 persons, the Project would result in the need for approximately 4.98- acres of usable park area.
49 King Consulting, Developer Fee Justification Study, Capistrano Unified School District, May 2022.

I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
443
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 153
Although Project residents would potentially use public parks, implementation of the Project would not require new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. The Project would provide amenities to residents that would partially offset impacts to parks facilities. These amenities include three outdoor courtyards, two outdoor roof decks located on the sixth floor with residential amenities that include seating areas, fire pits, and barbeques, and access to a 28,437-square-foot rooftop deck on the eighth level consisting of residential amenities, including an approximately 5,271-square-foot clubhouse and corresponding patio with seating and fire pit tables, an outdoor fitness patio, a covered outdoor bar and seating areas, and an outdoor recreation area with pool and spa. The potential environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed Project, including the proposed amenities have been analyzed throughout this Initial Study, and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures.

In addition to the provision of on-site residential amenities, the Project Applicant would be required to pay all public benefits fees in accordance with the Development Agreement. Specifically, the Project Applicant would provide an upfront cash payment to fund City services, including parks and recreation facilities, payable prior to the issuance of building permits, with the remainder due prior to the receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, as specified in the Development Agreement. With the provision of on-site amenities and the payment of public benefits fees in accordance with the Development Agreement impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Orange County provides a range of library, cultural facilities, and recreation services to County residents, including residents of Aliso Viejo. The nearest Orange County Public Library branch to the Project site is located at 1 Journey, approximately 0.6-mile south of the site.

The forecast population growth associated with the Project would incrementally increase the demand for County library services. As part of its Strategic Plan, the County supports the library system by identifying funding opportunities to extend programs and services at all County libraries, including the Aliso Viejo branch. Although the Project would increase demand for library services, the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents, including the Aliso Viejo General Plan, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS, and the SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. Therefore, as the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, it is expected that the population growth associated with the Project would not create a need for new or physically altered public facilities, such as the County library, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Impacts to library services and other public facilities would be less than significant.
444
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 154
This page intentionally left blank.
445
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 155

4.16 Recreation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response to 4.15(a)(4). The proposed residential and employmentgenerating uses at the Project site would be expected to incrementally increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities relative to existing conditions. The additional use would further contribute to the need for maintenance and improvements. However, as discussed in Section 4.14, residential and employment-generating uses have been anticipated at the Project site by the General Plan and the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents, including the Aliso Viejo General Plan, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS, and the SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. Therefore, as the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, it is expected that the population growth associated with the Project would not increase the use of exiting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

The Project includes on-site recreational amenities as part of the proposed development. These amenities include three outdoor courtyards, two outdoor roof decks located on the sixth floor with residential amenities that include seating areas, fire pits, and barbeques, and access to a 28,437-square-foot rooftop deck on the eighth level consisting of residential amenities, including an approximately 5,271-square-foot clubhouse and corresponding patio with seating and fire pit tables, an outdoor fitness patio, a covered outdoor bar and seating areas, and an outdoor recreation area with pool and spa. The potential environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed Project, including the proposed amenities have been analyzed throughout this Initial Study, and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation 446
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 156
measures. It is expected that these on-site recreational amenities would reduce the demand on neighborhood and regional parks and recreation facilities, reducing the Project’s contribution to the deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to pay all public benefits fees in accordance with the Development Agreement, which would offset impacts to parks and recreation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 447
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 157

4.17 Transportation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b. Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
This section is based in part on the Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the proposed 26501 Aliso Creek Road Project, Aliso Viejo (VMT Memo), prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated December 4, 2023 and included in its entirety as Appendix H, VMT Memo. a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Transit Facilities
Public transportation services within the Project site and surrounding area are provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Bus Route 87 provides service from Rancho Santa Margarita to Laguna Niguel via Alicia Parkway; a bus stop is located at the intersection of Alicia Parkway and Pacific Park Drive, approximately 0.8-mile east of the Project site.
50 Bus Route 90 provides service from Tustin to Dana Point via Moulton Parkway; a bus stop is located at the intersection of Moulton Parkway and Oso Parkway, approximately 1.4 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is also within the service area of OC Flex, OCTA’s pilot program offering on-demand, curb-to-curb shuttle service seven days a week. 51 The Project
would introduce residential and employment-generating uses to the Project site, further supporting the use of transit within the area. As there are no existing or planned transit facilities adjacent to the Project 50 Orange County Transportation Authority, Bus Book, February 11, 2024. 51 Orange County Transportation Authority, OC Flex Service Area, https://www.octa.net/getting-around/bus/ocflex/service-area/, accessed April 23, 2024. 448
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 158
site, Project implementation would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit.

Roadway Facilities
Two driveways provide access to the larger commercial center, including the Project site. One driveway provides access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site; a second driveway provides access via Aliso Creek Road to the east. The Project does not propose any modifications to Town Center, Enterprise, or Aliso Creek Road. Similar to existing conditions, the Project site would continue to be accessed from the two existing driveways. Roadway facilities would continue to serve the Project site and surrounding development. Thus, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing roadway facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
There are no existing bicycle facilities located within the segments of Town Center, Enterprise, or Aliso Creek Road adjacent to the Project site. The Aliso Viejo General Plan Circulation Element (Figure C-2) identifies existing bicycle facilities within Aliso Viejo as indicated on the OCTA 2001 Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. According to the more recently updated OCTA 2009 Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (Map 1.1), the segment of Aliso Creek Road that is adjacent to the Project site is a Class II Proposed bicycle facility.52 The Project does not involve modifications to Aliso Creek Road and thus, would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are currently provided along Town Center, Enterprise, and Aliso Creek Road, adjacent to the Project site. As discussed above, the Project would provide enhanced pedestrian access to the Project site from a pedestrian walkway along Town Center and from three outdoor staircases providing access from Enterprise. The Project would also provide enhanced landscaping and trees along Town Center and Enterprise. Thus, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Background
VMT is a measurement of miles traveled by vehicles within a specified region and for a specified period of time. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network and is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (round52 Orange County Transportation Authority, 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, May 2009. 449
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 159
trip) travel and is often estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.

In September 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law, which fundamentally changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant traffic impacts. SB 743 identifies VMT as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric. The justification for this paradigm shift is that LOS impacts lead to improvements that increase roadway capacity and thus, induce more traffic and GHG emissions.

Project Screening Criteria
In May 2020, the City adopted its Aliso Viejo Transportation Impact Guidelines for CEQA and General Plan Consistency (AVTIG), which serves as the City’s transportation analysis guidelines. The AVTIG includes screening criteria that are intended to provide a simplified way to determine whether a project’s VMT would be expected to cause a less than significant CEQA transportation impact without having to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. Below is a discussion of the various screening criteria outlined in the AVTIG and an analysis of whether the Project would be “screened” from requiring a detailed VMT analysis, either in its entirety or partially based on individual land uses.

Criterion 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening. The AVTIG states that projects located within a TPA may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. A TPA is defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. A “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. “A high-quality transit corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

Based on a review of transit and bus routes in the City, there are no TPAs within the City and thus, the Project cannot be screened from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis based on the TPA Screening criteria.

Criterion 2: Low VMT Area Screening. The AVTIG states that residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.

To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, Appendix A of the AVTIG provides a map of low VMT-generating zones in Aliso Viejo as compared to the County. Additionally, the project must be consistent with the existing land use within that Transportation Analysis Zone, and through the use professional judgment, determined that there is nothing unique about the project that would otherwise be misrepresented by using the data from the travel demand model. 450
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 160
Based on a review of Appendix A of the AVTIG, the Project is not located within a low VMT-generating area and hence, the Project cannot be screened from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis based on this screening criteria.

Criterion 3: Project Type Screening. The AVTIG states that local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The following uses can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local-serving K-12 schools;
• Local parks;
• Daycare centers;
• Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet, including:
o Gas stations;
o Banks;
o Restaurants;
o Shopping Center;
• Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels);
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses; • Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations); • Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government); • Local-serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in RTP/SCS; • Affordable or supportive housing;
• Assisted living facilities;
• Senior housing (as defined by the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development); • Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips; 53 o This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:
▪ 11 single family housing units;
▪ 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units; ▪ 10,000 square feet (sf) of office;
▪ 15,000 sf of light industrial;54
▪ 63,000 sf of warehousing;
53 The threshold ties directly to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) and notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (e.g., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-240 trips per 10,000 square feet.

Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact. 54 Threshold may be higher depending on the tenant and the use of the site. This number was estimated using rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual.
451
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 161
▪ 79,000 sf of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse; and • Other local-serving projects as approved by the Planning Manager and Director of Community Development.

Based on the above, the commercial component of the Project can be screened from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis since the commercial use is local-serving and is less than 50,000 square feet.

However, the residential component of the Project cannot be screened since the residential component is not listed in any of the above categories and thus, has been further evaluated by applying the City’s required methodology for VMT impact analysis, as discussed below.

VMT Analysis Methodology
As required by the AVTIG, projects that are not screened through the methods described above shall complete a full VMT analysis and forecasting using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) to determine if the project would have a significant VMT impact. This analysis shall include both “project-generated VMT” and “project’s effect on VMT” estimates under the four scenarios listed below:
• Baseline Conditions;
• Baseline-Plus-Project Conditions;
• Cumulative-No-Project Conditions; and
• Cumulative-Plus-Project Conditions.

VMT Impact Thresholds
As previously discussed, a project that does not meet the screening criteria requires the preparation of a detailed VMT analysis. A project’s VMT is evaluated in order to determine if the project is expected to cause a significant VMT impact. The VMT significance criteria as stated in the AVTIG are detailed below:
• A project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions exists:
o The baseline or cumulative project-generated VMT-per-service population exceeds the City’s General Plan Buildout VMT-per-service population. • A project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if the project resulted in either of the following:
o The baseline or cumulative link-level boundary Citywide VMT-per-service population increases under the plus project condition compared to the Baseline Conditions.

Based on the above, a VMT impact analysis for the residential component of the Project was conducted utilizing OCTAM to determine the Project’s residential VMT, the City’s VMT, and the following:
• Project-generated residential VMT-per-service population; and • Link-level boundary Citywide VMT-per-service population.

It should be noted that the AVTIG further states:
452
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 162
Baseline plus project - …If this scenario results in a less-than-significant impact, then additional cumulative scenario analysis may not be required…
Please note that the cumulative no project shall reflect the adopted RTP/SCS; as such, if a project is consistent with the RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence.

The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was adopted by SCAG in September 2020. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS prioritizes growth near destinations and mobility options that facilitate multimodal access to work, education, and other destinations. The Project Site is within close proximity to SR-73 and within one mile of OCTA Bus Route 87, which provides bus service at around 70-minute intervals. Further, the Project site is adjacent to a shopping center, which provides more job opportunities and life convenience for Project residents.

The Project site is located near parks and open space opportunities, including Woodfield Park and Aliso Viejo Community Park, which are an estimated five-minute drive from the Project site. As such, the Project is consistent with the region’s mobility goals.

VMT Analysis
Summarized below are the average VMT-per-service population values utilizing OCTAM for the City and the Project; refer to Appendix H for additional information regarding calculations.

Project-Generated VMT Impacts
Based on the application of VMT significance criteria described above, the Project would have a significant Project-generated VMT impact for both the Baseline and Cumulative scenarios (i.e., baseline or cumulative project-generated VMT exceeds the City’s VMT), as outlined below:
• Baseline Project-Generated VMT. The Project’s residential VMT will need to be reduced by 8.23 percent to meet the City’s VMT significance threshold, based on the following:
o Baseline Project-Generated VMT/SP (residential only) = 29.51 o City’s VMT Significance Threshold = 27.08
o (29.51 – 27.08) / 29.51 = 8.23 percent VMT reduction needed to mitigate the Project’s significant residential VMT impact
• Cumulative Project-Generated VMT. The Project’s residential VMT would need to be reduced by

6.10 percent to meet the City’s VMT significance threshold, based on the following:
o Cumulative Project-Generated VMT/SP (residential only) = 28.84 o City’s VMT Significance Threshold = 27.08
o (28.84 – 27.08) / 28.84 = 6.10 percent VMT reduction needed to mitigate the Project’s significant residential VMT impact
Project’s Effect on VMT Impacts
Based on the application of VMT significance criteria described above, the Project would not have a significant effect on VMT for both the Baseline and Cumulative scenarios (i.e., baseline or cumulative linklevel boundary Citywide VMT does not increase under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition), as outlined below:
453
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 163
• Baseline Project’s Effect on VMT. As shown below, the Baseline-Plus-Project link-level boundary Citywide VMT-per-service population does not represent any increase to, and is 0.06 less than, the Baseline link-level boundary Citywide VMT-per-service population threshold:
o Baseline-Plus-Project link-level Citywide VMT/SP (residential) = 6.27 o Baseline link-level Citywide VMT/SP (baseline) = 6.33 o 6.27 – 6.33 = -0.06 (No Project increase and as such, the Project’s effect on VMT would not be significant)
• Cumulative-Plus-Project’s Effect on VMT. As shown below, the Plus-Project link-level boundary Citywide VMT-per-service population is 0.17 less than the no Project link-level boundary Citywide VMT-per-service population threshold:
o Plus-Project link-level Citywide VMT/SP (residential) = 6.26 o No Project link-level boundary Citywide VMT/SP (cumulative) = 6.43 o 6.26 – 6.43 = -0.17 (No Project increase and as such, the Project’s effect on VMT would not be significant.)
As the Project would have a significant Project-generated VMT impact for both the Baseline and Cumulative scenarios, VMT reduction strategies would be required to reduce Project VMT.

As referenced in the OPR Technical Advisory, Chapter 3 of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s(CAPCOA’s) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, Designed for Local Government, Communities, and Project Developers55 (CAPCOA Report) quantifies the reduction in VMT associated with a particular VMT reduction strategy. The CAPCOA Report’s VMT reduction strategies include built environment changes and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions.

The following VMT reduction strategies focus on the “Project/Site” scale categories in CAPCOA, and have been identified as applicable to the Project:
• Reduction Strategy T-1 (Increase Residential Density): up to 30 percent maximum VMT reduction • Reduction Strategy T-4 (Integrate Affordable and Below-Market Housing): up to 28.6 percent maximum VMT reduction
• Reduction Strategy T-10 (Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities): up to 4.4 percent maximum VMT reduction
• Reduction Strategy SDT-7 (Providing Bike Parking)56: potential reduction not quantified Reduction Strategy T-1. Increase Residential Density. This measure accounts for the potential VMT reduction that could be achieved by a development project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units (DU) compared to the average residential density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing 55 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, Designed for Local Government, Communities, and Project Developers, December 2021.
56 As referenced in older versions of the CAPCOA Report. 454
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 164
residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. This measure is best quantified when applied to larger developments and developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding area due to the underlying research being found in data from the neighborhood level.

The Project site is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1478, which is comprised of 244 acres. Project implementation would support and contribute to a greater residential density in TAZ 1478 when compared to no Project (existing allowed development) conditions. Applying CAPCOA’s T-1 formula, the Project’s VMT could reasonably be reduced by 7.3 percent (less than CAPCOA’s maximum VMT reduction of 30 percent).

Reduction Strategy T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below-Market Housing. This VMT reduction strategy involves provision of affordable and below-market housing in location-efficient residential projects because these types of units are considered to typically have lower vehicle ownership and a greater propensity for using Active Transportation (i.e., bicycles, walking) compared to market-rate housing.

The Project proposes to designate approximately 10 percent of its total number of units as affordable housing (34 units). In addition, the Project is in a location-efficient setting given its close proximity and high levels of accessibility to jobs and services in the local area (i.e., Aliso Viejo Town Center), which would result in both lower-income and higher-income households to drive less and take shorter trips (i.e., making more efficient use of land space). Based on these aspects of the Project, the provision of affordable housing units is likely to shift trips to bicycling and walking, reduce and/or shorten driving trips, and could potentially reduce the Project’s VMT by approximately 2.86 percent (less than CAPCOA’s maximum VMT reduction of 28.6 percent).

Reduction Strategy T-10. Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities and SDT-7. Providing Bike Parking. These two VMT reduction strategies relate to the provision of bicycle facilities and bike parking to enhance active transportation for a development.

The Project proposes to provide bicycle amenities and parking. Older versions of the CAPCOA Report refer to SDT-7 (Providing Bike Parking), but the potential VMT reduction was not quantified. Based on this, CAPCOA’s maximum VMT reduction for T-10 (Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities) was applied, and the Project’s VMT could be reduced by approximately 0.7 percent (less than CAPCOA’s maximum VMT reduction of 4.4 percent).

Conclusion
Based on the combined implementation of the VMT reduction strategies from the CAPCOA Report, as described above, the Project’s VMT could be reduced by 10.6 percent (8.23 percent and 6.10 percent VMT reduction required under Baseline and Cumulative conditions, respectively), which would reduce the VMT impact for both the Baseline and Cumulative scenarios to less than significant. As demonstrated above, the Project, as proposed, would incorporate the above VMT reduction strategies as Project features, including providing increased residential density, integrated affordable and below-market housing, and the end-of-trip bicycle facilities and bicycle parking. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 455
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 165
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Project proposes to redevelop a portion of the larger Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center, an established commercial center located west of Aliso Creek Road. More specifically, the Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The mixed-use building would wrap around a centrally located eight-level parking structure with a subterranean parking garage and rooftop residential amenity space. The residential and commercial uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, and with existing development within the surrounding area. Thus, the Project would not introduce an incompatible use to the site. Further, the Project would not provide any off-site roadway improvements that could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature.

The Project site would continue to be accessed by the two driveways that provide access to the larger commercial center, including the Project site. One driveway provides access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site; a second driveway provides access via Aliso Creek Road to the east.

The Project does not propose any modifications to Town Center, Enterprise, or Aliso Creek Road. As part of the City’s Site Development Permit process required under AVMC Section 15.74.020, Site Development Permits the Project would be reviewed and only approved after finding the proposed development conforms with applicable requirements and standards set forth in the AVMC and General Plan, including the Circulation Element.

As part of the Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers (November 28, 2023), a driveway queuing analysis was prepared for the Project driveways for year 2028 for Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The analysis indicates that the spillover queue on Town Center at Enterprise can be accommodated within the transition area of the turn pocket or on-site (not affecting public roadways). In order to ensure that adequate storage is provided at Enterprise and Town Center, as determined by the City of Aliso Viejo Public Works Department, the Project Applicant would be required to implement Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2. Mitigation Measure T-1 requires the Project Applicant to restripe the eastbound left turn pocket at Town Center and Enterprise to provide additional storage space to accommodate the queue. The length of the turn pocket would be determined in consultation with and require the approval of the City’s Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure T-2 would require the Project Applicant to either provide the required upgrades to the traffic signal to provide a westbound right turn overlap at Town Center and Enterprise or provide payment to the City to install the improvements.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

T-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall restripe the eastbound left-turn pocket at Town Center and Enterprise to provide additional storage space to adequately accommodate the queue. The length of the turn pocket shall be determined in consultation with and approved by the City’s Public Works Department. 456
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 166
T-2: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall either provide the required upgrades to the traffic signal at Town Center and Enterprise, including upgraded traffic signal controllers and equipment to support setup with the Centracs system and also connect to the fiber system existing on Aliso Creek Road, in order to provide a westbound right turn overlap, as determined by the City’s Public Works Department, or provide payment to the City of Aliso Viejo to install the improvements and upgrades.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. Local access to the Project site is provided directly from two driveways. One driveway provides access from Town Center via Enterprise to the southeast of the site; a second driveway provides access via Aliso Creek Road to the east. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not place any permanent physical barriers on Town Center, Enterprise, Aliso Creek Road, or other roadways within the area. There is the potential that one or more traffic lanes located immediately adjacent to the Project site may be temporarily closed or controlled by construction personnel during construction activities. However, this would be temporary and emergency access to the Project site and surrounding area would be required to be maintained at all times. Construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the Project site and would not interfere with circulation along Enterprise or any other nearby roadways. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the AVMC and would be subject to approval by the OCFA. As such, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 457
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 167

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
2) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
458
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 168
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 18, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the NAHC responded with a positive search result, indicating that a tribal cultural resource is located within the same township, range, and section as the Project site. The NAHC recommended that Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes be contacted for more information and provided a list of 19 groups and individuals that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area. Cogstone contacted the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen nation – Belardes was contacted on February 26, 2024 via electronic mail and United States Postal Service certified mail; no response was received.

As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, a records search and intensive pedestrian survey was conducted. The Cultural Resources Assessment concluded that, based on the results of the records search and review of additional sources, the Project site is assessed to have a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric archaeological resources. However, the positive SLF search result may indicate that there are tribal cultural resources present that are unknown to the SCCIC that elevate the cultural sensitivity of the Project site.

The City conducted Native American consultations under the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)), also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which requires consulting for projects within the City’s jurisdiction and within the traditional territory of the Tribal Organizations who have previously requested AB 52 consultations with the City. Two tribes have requested to be notified of projects within the City pursuant to AB 52.57 On February 27, 2024, the City sent letters via certified mail to Native American individuals and/or Tribal Organizations in compliance with AB 52; refer to Appendix I, Tribal Consultation Communications. The consultation letters provided information regarding the proposed Project and contact information for the Project Planner. Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and formal consultation. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation contacted the City on February 27, 2024 requesting consultation. In response to the request for consultation, the City engaged with the Tribe and a consultation meeting was held on March 27, 2024. Following the meeting, additional information was provided to the Tribe regarding geology and soil conditions at the site.

At the time this Initial Study was made available for public review, no additional requests for consultation or correspondence from any tribes have been received.

Although no Native American tribal cultural resources are known to occur within the Project site, based on the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s cultural affiliation with the area, the parties agreed to impose measures to mitigate potential impacts in the event previously unidentified Native American tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation measure TCR-1 would require the retention of a qualified Native American Monitor who would be present during all construction-related ground disturbance activities. In the event tribal cultural resources are unearthed, TCR-2 would ensure they would be evaluated by the Native American Monitor 57 Although the Project is not subject to Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City also provided notification to the Tribal Organizations listed on the SB 18 Native American Contact List on February 23 and 27, 2024. 459
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 169
and if determined to be Native American in origin, appropriate treatment and curation of the resources would occur. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TCR-3 would address the potential discovery of human remains and associated funerary objects. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity
The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial).

Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
460
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 170
TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects.

Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
461
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 171

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, or
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
X
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact.

Water
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the MNWD. As previously stated, the Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use within a six-story building, and associated parking and improvements. The Project proposes to remove and relocate an existing public water line within the Project site to the east of the proposed mixed-use 462
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 172
building. An existing fire hydrant within the southeastern portion of the Project site would be removed. A total of three fire hydrants and two DCDAs would be installed along the northern and eastern perimeters of the Project site and would connect to existing water lines. A proposed domestic water lateral would connect to the existing water line.

MNWD has completed a preliminary review of the proposed Project and indicates that a water main extension of approximately 525 feet and looping may be required. Additional information, including a OCFA Water Availability Form, would be necessary to assess whether water system upgrades/upsizing would be required by MNWD as part of the Project.
58 As a condition of approval, the Project Applicant
would be required to comply with MNWD permitting requirements and, if necessary, provide improvements to the existing distribution system necessary to serve the proposed development in compliance with MNWD’s standards. The potential improvements would occur on-site and/or within the area of the existing water main that has previously been disturbed.

The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project, including the proposed water lines to serve the mixed-use development are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements.

Thus, the proposed Project would not require or result in relocation or construction of water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Refer to Response 4.19(b) regarding water supply.

Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater within the Project site is treated by MNWD’s wastewater collection system and sent to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). As part of the Project, a sewer lateral would be constructed and connect to the existing sewer lateral in the southeastern portion of the Project site.

MNWD has completed a preliminary review of the proposed Project and indicates that sewer main upsizing may be required; however, additional information is required in order to assess whether the existing MNWD gravity sewer pipelines can convey the ultimate flows and whether pipeline upsizing would be required.
59 As a condition of approval, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with MNWD permitting requirements and, if necessary, provide improvements to the existing sewer conveyance system necessary to serve the proposed development in compliance with MNWD’s standards.

The potential improvements would occur on-site and/or within the area of the existing sewer main that has previously been disturbed.

The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project, including the proposed sewer lines to serve the mixed-use development are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the proposed Project would not require or result in 58 Moulton Niguel Water District, Mark H. Mountford, P.E., Engineering Manager, letter dated May 23, 2024. 59 Moulton Niguel Water District, Mark H. Mountford, P.E., Engineering Manager, letter dated May 23, 2024. 463
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 173
relocation or construction of wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Refer to Response 4.19(c) below, regarding wastewater treatment.

Stormwater Drainage
The Orange County Flood Control District (OCFD) is responsible for regional flood control facilities. The City maintains publicly owned local facilities within its jurisdiction that tie into OCFD's regional system.

The City’s local drainage facilities collect and convey storm water to OCFD’s regional facilities.

The Project site is currently developed with surface parking, landscaping, and improvements, including storm drainage infrastructure that connects to the City’s local facilities. As previously stated, the Project proposes to remove the existing surface parking, landscaping, and improvements to construct a mixeduse development. Existing underground storm drain lines and inlets within the Project site would be removed. The Project would install a new underground storm drainage system that would convey flows into an underground detention system consisting of two detention basins. Low flows equivalent to the required treatment volume or treatment flow rate from the underground detention system would be conveyed into a Modular Wetland System BMP, which would discharge into the existing storm drain system.

The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Project, including the proposed storm drain improvements to serve the mixed-use development are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements. Thus, the proposed Project would not require or result in relocation or construction of stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, regarding drainage patterns and the Project’s proposed hydrology and drainage.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project site. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) provides natural gas to the Project site. Telecommunication services are provided by a variety of companies and are typically selected by the individual customer. Transmission lines/infrastructure for these services are provided within the Project area.

As part of the Project, the existing electrical equipment box in the southwestern corner of the Project site would be removed. The Project would connect to existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications lines infrastructure adjacent to the Project site. The Project’s anticipated electricity demand would be approximately 2,201,311 kWh per year. The Project’s anticipated natural gas demand would be approximately 1,941,585 kBTU per year; refer to Section 4.6, Energy, regarding an analysis of the Project’s energy use. The potential environmental effects associated with the Project’s energy demand are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would not require or result in relocation or construction of electric power, natural gas, 464
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 174
or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. MNWD supplies water to the Project site. In order to determine MNWD’s full buildout demands, MNWD coordinates with the cities within its service area on the respective cities’ general planning, which takes into consideration future growth of undeveloped areas. In compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, MNWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) demonstrates water supply reliability in a normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years over a 25-year planning period. According to MNWD’s 2020 UWMP (Tables 7-1, 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4), water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045.60
As previously stated, the Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use. As discussed in Section 4.14, the Project’s 343 residential units could induce direct population growth in the City. Based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household,61 the Project’s forecast population growth is approximately 885 persons. In addition, the Project proposes employmentgenerating uses. As discussed in Section 4.14, the Project is anticipated to employ approximately 43 people. Conservatively assuming 43 new employees (and their families) relocate to the City, employmentgenerating uses associated with Project implementation could result in a potential population increase of approximately 111 persons (based on the 2023 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 2.58 persons per household). As previously stated, residential and employment-generating uses have been anticipated at the Project site by the General Plan and the Project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents, including the Aliso Viejo General Plan, SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS, and the SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. MNWD’s 2020 UWMP water demand forecasts are based on a number of variables, including projected new developments in the water service area based on General Plan Land Use Elements; and the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton, which is developed in coordination with local and regional agencies.

MNWD’s 2020 UWMP indoor water generation rate is 55 GPCD; as such the Project’s water demand (including growth of 885 persons associated with proposed residential uses and 111 persons associated with employment-generating uses) would total approximately 54,780 GPCD. This amount does not take into account MNWD’s water conservation programs and incentives that are projected to occur and would likely reduce the Project’s water consumption. MNWD’s 2020 UWMP indicates that adequate water 60 Moulton Niguel Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021. Tables 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4. 61 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2023, May 2023.
465
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 175
supplies would be available to serve future water demands during normal, dry and multiple dry years. In addition, MNWD has indicated that their preliminary review of the proposed Project suggests available water supply to support the Project.
62 Thus, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Less Than Significant Impact.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Wastewater treatment services for the majority of the City, including the Project site, are provided by MNWD. Wastewater within the Project site would be conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by the SOCWA. According to the SOCWA, the Regional Treatment Plant typically experiences liquid waste flows of 7.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and has the current capacity to treat 12 mgd of liquid waste, with an ultimate capacity (both liquid and solid waste) of 32 mgd.63 The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development that consists of 343 residential units and 17,273 square feet of ground floor commercial use. A proposed sewer lateral would connect to the existing sewer lateral in the southeastern portion of the Project site.

According to CalEEMod calculations (Appendix A), total unmitigated annual wastewater use associated with the operation of the Project would be approximately 18,291,970 gallons per year (approximately

0.05 mgd).
64 This is a conservative assumption and would account for less than one percent (approximately 0.68 percent) of the current total daily wastewater flows (7.3 mgd) and would be within the Regional Treatment Plant’s remaining capacity (4.7 mgd). MNWD has indicated that their preliminary review of the proposed Project suggests available sewer capacity to support the Project. 65 However, sewer
main upsizing may be required. As a condition of approval, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with MNWD permitting requirements and, if necessary, provide improvements to the existing sewer conveyance system necessary to serve the proposed development in compliance with MNWD’s standards. Further, the Project Applicant would be required to pay sewer connection fees to MNWD when acquiring new sewer services. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 62 Moulton Niguel Water District, Mark H. Mountford, P.E., Engineering Manager, letter dated May 23, 2024. 63 South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA), Regional Treatment Plant, https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/regional-treatment-plant/, accessed March 25, 2024. 64 NT Environmental Consulting, Technical Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations, December 2023 (included as Appendix A). Page 47.
65 Moulton Niguel Water District, Mark H. Mountford, P.E., Engineering Manager, letter dated May 23, 2024. 466
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 176
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. CR&R Incorporated provides the solid waste collection services to the City, including the Project site.66 Waste from the City is disposed of at a number of solid waste facilities, with the majority of waste disposed at the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill. 67 Construction and operational activities associated with the Project would generate solid waste requiring disposal. In accordance with State law and AVMC Section 13.02, Building Regulations, which adopts the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), the Project would be required to divert at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris from the Project site by recycling, reuse, and/or salvage. In addition, AVMC Chapter 7.05, Solid Waste Disposal, addresses solid waste disposal, including recycling and organic waste. Compliance with the Municipal Code would achieve compliance with State law, including SB 1383.

Project implementation would increase solid waste disposal demands over existing conditions. As stated, solid waste within the City is primarily disposed of at the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill. In 2023, approximately 11,903.23 tons (76 percent) of solid waste from Aliso Viejo was disposed of at the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill.
68 Other sanitary landfills, including the Chiquita Canyon, El Sobrante, Frank R.

Bowerman, and Olinda Alpha received relatively small amounts of solid waste from the City. Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 4,000 tons per day.69 The facility’s maximum permitted capacity is 172,100,000 cubic yards and has a remaining capacity of 128,800,000 cubic yards as of 2023. According to CalEEMod calculations (Appendix A), total unmitigated solid waste generation associated with the operation of the Project would be approximately 460.93 tons per year (1.27 tons per day).
70 This would account for less than one percent (approximately 0.032 percent) of maximum permitted throughput for the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill (4,000 tons per day). Further, this is a conservative assumption and does not account for Project-specific source reduction. Solid waste 66 City of Aliso Viejo, Services, https://avcity.org/101/Services,accessed Mach 25, 2024. 67 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), RDRS Report 2: Jurisdiction Disposal and Beneficial Reuse by Destination,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/RecyclingDisposalReporting/Reports/JurisdictionDisposalAndBeneficial, accessed March 26, 2024.
68 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), RDRS Report 2: Jurisdiction Disposal and Beneficial Reuse by Destination,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/RecyclingDisposalReporting/Reports/JurisdictionDisposalAndBeneficial, accessed March 26, 2024.
69 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085, accessed March 26, 2024. 70 NT Environmental Consulting, Technical Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations, December 2023 (included as Appendix A). Page 47.
467
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 177
generated from the Project could be accommodated at the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill or a combination of the disposal facilities that currently receive solid waste for disposal from the City.

The City has a per capita population disposal rate target of 3.3 pounds per person per day and a per capita employment disposal rate of 9.4 pounds per person per day. Since 2007, the City has met these targets through its diversion programs.71 The most recent population disposal rate (2022) was 2.9 pounds per day per capita population and 7.2 pounds per day per capita employment. The City would continue to implement its diversion programs and require compliance with all federal, State and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under the most current CALGreen standards and in compliance with SB 1383. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts concerning solid waste.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 71 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Rate Trends (Post 2006), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports, accessed March 26, 2024.
468
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 178
This page intentionally left blank.
469
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 179

4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The Project site is developed and located within an urbanized area. According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ, nor is the site within or 470
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 180
near a State Responsibility Area.72 The Project site and surrounding area are not identified as having a significant risk associated with wildfire. The Project would be required to comply with all City and OCFA requirements for fire prevention and safety measures, including site access. No impacts concerning wildfire would occur.
72 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed March 15, 2024.
471
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 181

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the Project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environmental or result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated or reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with the established regulatory framework and implementation of mitigation measures.

As demonstrated in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The Project would be required to comply with the MBTA 472
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 182
and other applicable regulations, including, but not limited to, Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, and implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

As demonstrated in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As concluded in Section 4.5 and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains. In the unlikely event that buried archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbance activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all work within 50 feet of the find to be suspended until the resource is evaluated by a qualified archaeologist.

Construction would not resume in the area until appropriate protection and preservation measures are in place and have been approved by the Director of Community Development, or designee, and the qualified archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage any archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure a Native American Monitor is present during site disturbance activities having the potential to unearth tribal cultural resources and, if discovered, Mitigation Measures TCR-2 and TCR-3 would ensure activities in the vicinity of the find are halted and appropriate evaluation and treatment of any potential resources occurs.

Therefore, the Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts that cannot be mitigated or reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with the established regulatory framework and implementation of mitigation measures. Compliance with the regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures at the Project-level would reduce the potential for the incremental effects that would occur with construction and operation of the proposed Project relevant to the environmental topical areas discussed within this Initial Study.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 473
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 183
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed Project’s potential impacts to human beings related to several environmental topical areas. As determined throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated or reduced with compliance with the established regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 474
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 184
This page intentionally left blank.
475
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 185

5.0 REFERENCES
Arcadis U.S., Inc., MWDOC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.

California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Figure 4: California 2013 Anthropogenic Black Carbon Emission Sources, November 2017.

California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf, December 2023, accessed April 22, 2024.

California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/, accessed March 14, 2024.

California Department of Conservation, Mines Online, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed March 14, 2024.

California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2023, https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/, accessed March 20, 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Rate Trends (Post 2006),
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports, accessed March 26, 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), RDRS Report 2: Jurisdiction Disposal and Beneficial Reuse by Destination,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/RecyclingDisposalReporting/Reports/JurisdictionDisposalAndBenef icial, accessed March 26, 2024.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085, accessed March 26, 2024.

California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa, accessed March 15, 2024.

California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020.

California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed April 19, 2024 California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed April 19, 2024 476
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 186
California Energy Commission, 2020 Power Content Label Southern California Edison, https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3902, accessed April 22, 2024.

California Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Undeveloped Property APN 629-101- 16 and a portion of 629-101-17 & 629-101-19, 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656, June 2022.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed March 27, 2024.

California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf, December 2009.

City of Aliso Viejo, Avalon Aliso Viejo Town Center (Specific Plan No. 2), December 2005.

City of Aliso Viejo, Housing Plan, adopted June 7, 2023.

City of Aliso Viejo, Disaster Preparedness, https://avcity.org/230/Disaster-Preparedness, accessed March 27, 2024.

City of Aliso Viejo, Fire Authority, https://avcity.org/198/Fire-Authority, accessed March 22, 2024.

City of Aliso Viejo, November 2023. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, https://avcity.org/397/Local-HazardMitigation-Plan, accessed March 27, 2024.

City of Aliso Viejo, Police Services, https://avcity.org/212/Police-Services, accessed March 22, 2024.

City of Aliso Viejo, Services, https://avcity.org/101/Services, accessed Mach 25, 2024.

Cogstone, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Report for the Avalon Bay (AVB) Commons Project, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California, March 2024.

Cotton/Bridges/Associates, City of Aliso Viejo General Plan, April 2004.

Cotton/Bridges/Associates, Final Environmental Impact Report Aliso Viejo General Plan, April 2004.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06059C0428J), December 2009.

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf, accessed April 22, 2024.

King Consulting, Developer Fee Justification Study, Capistrano Unified School District, May 2022. 477
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 187
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the proposed 26501 Aliso Creek Road Project, Aliso Viejo, December 4, 2023.

Moulton Niguel Water District, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021.

NMG Geotechnical, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, Proposed Commons Mixed-Use Apartment Development, City of Aliso Viejo, California, June 20, 2022.

Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, Noise and Vibration Modeling Results, November 2022.

Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting, Technical Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations, December 2023.

Orange County Transportation Authority, Bus Book, February 11, 2024.

Orange County Transportation Authority, 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, May 2009.

Orange County Water District, Basin 8-1 Alternative 2022 Update, January 2022.

RV Miller, Generalized Mineral Land Classification of Orange County, California, 1994.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 revised July 2008).

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology – Appendix C, revised October 21, 2009
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, revised April 2019.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.

South Orange County Wastewater Authority, Regional Treatment Plant, https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/regional-treatment-plant/, accessed March 25, 2024.

Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020.

Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2020: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020.

Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, April 4, 2024.

Southern California Association of Governments, SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, July 1, 2021.

Southern California Edison, The Clean Power and Electrification Pathway, https://newsroom.edison.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/166/file s/20187/g17-pathway-to-2030-white-paper.pdf, accessed April 22, 2024. 478
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 188
State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Transmittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, April 13, 2009.

Tait & Associates, Inc., Water Quality Management Plan, June 12, 2023.

Tait & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Hydrology Study, Avalon Bay Commons, June 22, 2024.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments, May 1977.

United States Geological Survey, Lateral Spread, https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/lateral-spread, accessed April 3, 2024.

479
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 189

6.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
City of Aliso Viejo (Lead Agency)
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
714-738-6540
So Kim, Community Development Director
Rose Rivera, Senior Planner
De Novo Planning Group (Environmental Consultant)
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, California 92780
949-396-8193
Starla Barker, AICP, Principal Planner
Josh Smith, AICP, Senior Planner
Erik Anderson, AICP, Associate Planner
Abdul Jama, Assistant Planner
Technical Specialists
California Environmental (Phase I ESA)
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Cogstone (Cultural Resources Assessment)
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (VMT Memo)
2 Executive Circle, Ste. 250
Irvine, CA 92614
NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (Preliminary Geotechnical Study) 17991 Fitch
Irvine, California 92614
Noah Tanski Environmental Consulting (CalEEMod Result, Noise Study) Email: [email protected]
Phone: 310-722-6346
480
Avalon Aliso Viejo Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Draft August 2024 Page 190
Tait & Associates, Inc. (Preliminary WQMP, Preliminary Hydrology Study) 701 N. Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
481
ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ
Ăů

DŽĚĂŶĚ
ŶĞƌŐǇĂƚĂ

482
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
1 / 56
483

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
2156
484

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
3 / 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
485

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
4 / 56
486

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
5 / 56
487

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
6 I 56
488
1 . Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Value
AVB Commons Dec 2023
2/3/2025
2027
Project/site
County

2.50 13.6

33.57796754873273, -117. 72538886419643
Orange
Aliso Viejo
South Coast AQMD
South Coast
6036
12 Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.21
Building Area (sq ft)
7 I 56
Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
489
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Apartments Mid Rise 343 Dwelling Unit 4.43 436,684 28,586 - 1,022 Enclosed Parking 273 1000sqft 0.00 272,614 0.00
with Elevator
General Office 1.00 1000sqft 0.00 1,000 0.00
Building
High Turnover (Sit 17.3 1000sqft 0.00 17,273 0.00
Down Restaurant)

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) i'l@ -lllll-llll--i411MM•Hli-i·MiHIMMiHti11iHti·li4dtiiii=S+EHi=S•ti[llllmllllBI-- Daily, Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 4.26 16.2 23.3 47.8 0.06 0.83 6.51 6.97 0.76 1.56 2.15 - 12,082 12,082 0.38 0.61 26.9 12,295 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 3.30 16.2 25.5 37.1 0.06 1.02 6.51 6.97 0.94 1.56 1.98 - 10,943 10,943 0.41 0.61 0.70 11,132 Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 2.15 5.65 11 .2 24.7 0.03 0.39 4.16 4.47 0.36 1.00 1.28 - 7,344 7,344 0.22 0.42 7.61 7,481 Annual
(Max)
Unmit. 0.39 1.03 2.04 4.50 0.01 0.07 0.76 0.82 0.07 0.18 0.23 - 1,216 1,216 0.04 0.07 1.26 1,239 8 / 56
490
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ------•HIM iHlui·liillt·•MiH~iii4UE·li4Miiii=M+ Hi=M• -lllllal-lllll DailySummer (Max)
2025 4.26 3.54 23.3 47.8 0.06 0.83 5.81 6.63 0.76 1.40 2.15 - 12,082 12,082 0.38 0.59 26.9 12,295 2026 3.31 16.2 15.9 40.3 0.05 0.46 6.51 6.97 0.42 1.56 1.98 - 11,220 11,220 0.31 0.61 26.9 11,435 2027 3.19 16.0 15.2 38.7 0.05 0.41 6.51 6.92 0.38 1.56 1.93 - 11,074 11,074 0.30 0.59 24.2 11,280 DailyWinter
(Max)
2025 3.20 2.59 25.5 33.4 0.06 1.02 5.55 6.03 0.94 1.40 1.95 - 9,982 9,982 0.41 0.57 0.67 10,161 2026 3.30 16.2 16.2 37.1 0.05 0.46 6.51 6.97 0.42 1.56 1.98 - 10,943 10,943 0.32 0.61 0.70 11,132 2027 3.19 15.9 15.3 35.7 0.05 0.41 6.51 6.92 0.38 1.56 1.93 - 10,801 10,801 0.31 0.59 0.63 10,985 Average
Daily
2025 1.93 1.59 11.2 20.4 0.03 0.39 3.06 3.45 0.36 0.86 1.22 - 5,539 5,539 0.19 0.29 5.26 5,637 2026 2.15 5.04 10.9 24.7 0.03 0.31 4.16 4.47 0.29 1.00 1.28 - 7,344 7,344 0.22 0.42 7.61 7,481 2027 1.13 5.65 5.50 12.9 0.02 0.14 2.29 2.43 0.13 0.55 0.68 - 3,852 3,852 0.11 0.21 3.70 3,920 Annual
2025 0.35 0.29 2.04 3.73 0.01 0.07 0.56 0.63 0.07 0.16 0.22 - 917 917 0.03 0.05 0.87 933 2026 0.39 0.92 1.99 4.50 0.01 0.06 0.76 0.82 0.05 0.18 0.23 - 1,216 1,216 0.04 0.07 1.26 1,239 2027 0.21 1.03 1.00 2.36 < 0.005 0.03 0.42 0.44 0.02 0.10 0.12 - 638 638 0.02 0.03 0.61 649

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ilfflMij alll-lllll-EllliHIM iHlui·MiHIMMi4M41 i4Mi·li4M4iiM3·FEHi=M• -lllllal-lllll 9 I 56
491
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 10.9 20.6 5.15 83.2 0.14 0.15 12.8 13.0 0.14 3.25 3.39 283 17,080 17,363 29.3 0.64 72.6 18,358 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 6.83 16.7 5.23 47.7 0.13 0.12 12.8 12.9 0.11 3.25 3.37 283 16,456 16,739 29.3 0.66 31.2 17,700 Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 9.56 19.3 5.48 70.8 0.13 0.14 12.7 12.8 0.13 3.22 3.35 283 16,668 16,951 29.3 0.66 48.5 17,930 Annual
(Max)
Unmit. 1.74 3.52 1.00 12.9 0.02 0.03 2.32 2.34 0.02 0.59 0.61 46.9 2,760 2,806 4.85 0.11 8.02 2,968

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ~¾i·i alll----•Hii-i iHii-i·MiHIMMi4MiiiH~i·li4Miili=M•f Hi=M•tl[ _____ Daily, Summer
(Max)
Mobile 6.82 6.23 4.34 50.7 0.13 0.08 12.8 12.9 0.07 3.25 3.33 - 13,576 13,576 0.60 0.52 42.5 13,788 Area 4.05 14.3 0.29 32.1 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.02 0.00 104 104 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 104 I
Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 3,279 3,279 0.31 0.03 - 3,296 Water - - - 1- - - - - - - - 35.1 120 155 3.61 0.09 - 271 Waste - - - I- - - - - - - - 248 0.00 248 24.8 0.00 - 868 Refrig. - - - I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.1 30.1
Total 10.9 20.6 5.15 83.2 0.14 0.15 12.8 13.0 0.14 3.25 3.39 283 17,080 17,363 29.3 0.64 72.6 18,358 10 / 56
492
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Mobile 6.77 6.18 4.71 47.2 0.13 0.08 12.8 12.9 0.07 3.25 3.33 - 13,057 13,057 0.62 0.54 1.10 13,235 Area 0.00 10.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 3,279 3,279 0.31 0.03 - 3,296 p Water - - - - - - - - - - - 35.1 120 155 3.61 0.09 - 271 Waste - - - - - - - - - - - 248 0.00 248 24.8 0.00 - 868 Refrig. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.1 30.1
Total 6.83 16.7 5.23 47.7 0.13 0.12 12.8 12.9 0.11 3.25 3.37 283 16,456 16,739 29.3 0.66 31.2 17,700 Average
Daily ,.

Mobile 6.72 6.14 4.75 48.3 0.13 0.08 12.7 12.8 0.07 3.22 3.30 - 13,197 13,197 0.62 0.54 18.3 13,392 Area 2.78 13.1 0.20 22.0 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 0.00 71 .3 71 .3 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 71 .5 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 3,279 3,279 0.31 0.03 - 3,296 Water - - - - - - - - - - - 35.1 120 155 3.61 0.09 - 271 Waste - - - - - - - - - - - 248 0.00 248 24.8 0.00 - 868 Refrig. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.1 30.1
Total 9.56 19.3 5.48 70.8 0.13 0.14 12.7 12.8 0.13 3.22 3.35 283 16,668 16,951 29.3 0.66 48.5 17,930 Annual
Mobile 1.23 1.12 0.87 8.82 0.02 0.01 2.32 2.33 0.01 0.59 0.60 - 2,185 2,185 0.10 0.09 3.04 2,217 Area 0.51 2.40 0.04 4.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 0.00 11 .8 11 .8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 11 .8 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 543 543 0.05 0.01 - 546 Water - - - - - - - - - - - 5.80 19.9 25.7 0.60 0.01 - 44.9 Waste - - - - - - - - - - - 41.1 0.00 41 .1 4.10 0.00 - 144 Refrig. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.99 4.99
Total 1.74 3.52 1.00 12.9 0.02 0.03 2.32 2.34 0.02 0.59 0.61 46.9 2,760 2,806 4.85 0.11 8.02 2,968 11 / 56
493
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ···iliii·i,1411111-lllll--•Hlt·iMiHiui·MiHIMMUMi11iHti·li4Miiii=M+EHi=M•ti[IIIIIIIIIBI-- Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 2.89 2.43 21 .9 24.8 0.04 0.98 - 0.98 0.90 - 0.90 - 4,433 4,433 0.18 0.04 - 4,449 Equipment
Demolitio - - - I- - - 1.85 1.85 - 0.28 0.28
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.08 0.07 0.60 0.68 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.02 - 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 122 Equipment
Demolitio - - - I- - - 0.05 0.05 - 0.01 0.01
n
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 20.2 Equipment
Demolitio - - -
1- - - 0.01 0.01 - < 0.005 < 0.005
n
12 / 56
494
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 - 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 160 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.27 0.05 3.57 1.50 0.02 0.04 0.76 0.80 0.04 0.21 0.25 - 2,916 2,916 0.23 0.47 0.16 3,063 Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 4.39 4.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 - 79.9 79.9 0.01 0.01 0.07 84.0 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.9

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) d·i&iii·i,iallll-l!ll--•Hli-iMiHIM·Mi411MiiHi-i11i4Mi·li4M-iiii=M-+EHi=M• l[BIEIIIII--- Onsite Daily,
Summer
(Max)
13 / 56
495
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Off-Road 1. 73 1.45 13.6 16.5 0.03 0.59 - 0.59 0.54 - 0.54 - 2,808 2,808 0.11 0.02 - 2,818 Equipment
Dust - - - - - - 2.56 2.56 - 1.31 1.31
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 1. 73 1.45 13.6 16.5 0.03 0.59 - 0.59 0.54 - 0.54 - 2,808 2,808 0.11 0.02 - 2,818 Equipment
Dust - - - - - - 2.56 2.56 - 1.31 1.31
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.31 0.26 2.42 2.94 < 0.005 0.10 - 0.10 0.10 - 0.10 - 500 500 0.02 < 0.005 - 502 Equipment
Dust - - - - - - 0.46 0.46 - 0.23 0.23
From
Material
Movemen:

Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.06 0.05 0.44 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 83.1 Equipment
Dust - - - - - - 0.08 0.08 - 0.04 0.04
From
Material
Movemen:
14/ 56
496
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 - 166 166 < 0.005 0.01 0.63 168 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.79 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 - 667 667 0.05 0.11 1.41 702 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 - 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 160 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.82 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 - 668 668 0.05 0.11 0.04 701 Average
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 28.5 28.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 - 119 119 0.01 0.02 0.11 125 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 4.72 4.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.7

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;,;-B11-mll--•HU-i Onsite iHU-i·MiHIMMi4Mi11i4Mi·Ni44&ili=M+ Hi=M•tl ----- 15 / 56
497
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Daily,
Summer
(Max) p
Off-Road 1 .45 1.21 11.3 14.1 0.03 0.47 - 0.47 0.43 - 0.43 - 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 - 2,639 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 1 .45 1.21 11.3 14.1 0.03 0.47 - 0.47 0.43 - 0.43 - 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 - 2,639 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.64 0.54 5.03 6.28 0.01 0.21 - 0.21 0.19 - 0.19 - 1,168 1,168 0.05 0.01 - 1,173 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.12 0.10 0.92 1.15 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.03 - 0.03 - 193 193 0.01 < 0.005 - 194 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.48 1.31 1.28 20.7 0.00 0.00 4.82 4.82 0.00 1.13 1.13 - 4,899 4,899 0.06 0.17 18.6 4,971 Vendor 0.21 0.08 2.80 1.39 0.02 0.02 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.20 0.22 - 2,689 2,689 0.15 0.37 7.32 2,811 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16/ 56
498
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 1.48 1.30 1.46 17.9 0.00 0.00 4.82 4.82 0.00 1.13 1.13 - 4,662 4,662 0.07 0.17 0.48 4,716 Vendor 0.21 0.07 2.90 1.42 0.02 0.02 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.20 0.22 - 2,690 2,690 0.15 0.37 0.19 2,806 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.65 0.57 0.64 8.30 0.00 0.00 2.12 2.12 0.00 0.50 0.50 - 2,099 2,099 0.03 0.08 3.56 2,127 Vendor 0.09 0.03 1.30 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.33 0.01 0.09 0.10 - 1,195 1,195 0.07 0.17 1.41 1,247 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.12 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 - 348 348 < 0.005 0.01 0.59 352 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 - 198 198 0.01 0.03 0.23 207 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;,;a111-mll--•HU-i iHli111MiHIMli#U&,1i#fri·NiiU&ili=B.P Hi=B•tl -rmlllal-- Onsite Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.38 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 - 0.41 0.38 - 0.38 - 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 - 2,639 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
17 / 56
499
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Off-Road 1.38 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 - 0.41 0.38 - 0.38 - 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 - 2,639 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily ,.

Off-Road 0.99 0.83 7.62 10.0 0.02 0.29 - 0.29 0.27 - 0.27 - 1,878 1,878 0.08 0.02 - 1,885 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual ,.

Off-Road 0.18 0.15 1.39 1.83 < 0.005 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.05 - 311 311 0.01 < 0.005 - 312 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.28 1.24 1.12 19.4 0.00 0.00 4.82 4.82 0.00 1.13 1.13 - 4,805 4,805 0.06 0.17 16.7 4,876 Vendor 0.21 0.06 2.69 1.35 0.02 0.02 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.20 0.22 - 2,645 2,645 0.13 0.37 6.83 2,767 ,.

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 1.27 1.24 1.29 16.8 0.00 0.00 4.82 4.82 0.00 1.13 1.13 - 4,573 4,573 0.07 0.17 0.43 4,627 Vendor 0.20 0.05 2.80 1.38 0.02 0.02 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.20 0.22 - 2,647 2,647 0.13 0.37 0.18 2,761 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.91 0.88 0.92 12.5 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 0.00 0.80 0.80 - 3,311 3,311 0.05 0.12 5.15 3,355 Vendor 0.15 0.04 2.02 0.97 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.53 0.01 0.14 0.16 - 1,890 1,890 0.09 0.27 2.11 1,974 18/ 56
500
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker 0.17 0.16 0.17 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.15 0.15 - 548 548 0.01 0.02 0.85 555 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.37 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 - 313 313 0.02 0.04 0.35 327 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) H·i&ili·i,illllll-lllll--•HU-iMiHU-i·Mi411Mii4Ui-1iiHti·li4Ui-iii=M+EHi=M•tl1llllmllllBl-mlll Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max) ~
Off-Road 1.33 1.11 10.2 14.0 0.03 0.36 - 0.36 0.34 - 0.34 - 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 - 2,639 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 1.33 1.11 10.2 14.0 0.03 0.36 - 0.36 0.34 - 0.34 - 2,630 2,630 0.11 0.02 - 2,639 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.47 0.39 3.60 4.97 0.01 0.13 - 0.13 0.12 - 0.12 - 931 931 0.04 0.01 - 935 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
19 / 56
501
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Off-Road 0.09 0.07 0.66 0.91 < 0.005 0.02 - 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 - 154 154 0.01 < 0.005 - 155 Equipment
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 1.23 1.05 1.11 18.2 0.00 0.00 4.82 4.82 0.00 1.13 1.13 - 4,724 4,724 0.05 0.17 15.0 4,793 Vendor 0.21 0.05 2.59 1.29 0.02 0.02 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.20 0.22 - 2,596 2,596 0.13 0.35 6.21 2,712 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 1.23 1.05 1.13 15.7 0.00 0.00 4.82 4.82 0.00 1.13 1.13 - 4,496 4,496 0.06 0.17 0.39 4,550 Vendor 0.20 0.05 2.70 1.32 0.02 0.02 0.72 0.74 0.02 0.20 0.22 - 2,598 2,598 0.13 0.35 0.16 2,707 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.43 0.37 0.45 5.80 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 0.40 0.40 - 1,614 1,614 0.02 0.06 2.29 1,636 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.96 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.08 - 920 920 0.05 0.13 0.95 959 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.07 - 267 267 < 0.005 0.01 0.38 271 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 - 152 152 0.01 0.02 0.16 159 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;,;-B11----•HU·iMi#&l111 •Mi#iiMli#Mi11i#Ui·Ni#U&ili=M+ Hi=i9- -mlllBI-BIII 20 / 56 502
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 1.03 0.87 7.80 10.5 0.02 0.34 - 0.34 0.31 - 0.31 - 1,599 1,599 0.06 0.01 - 1,604 Equipment
Paving - 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Off-Road 0.12 0.10 0.94 1.26 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 193 193 0.01 < 0.005 - 193 Equipment
Paving - 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 31 .9 31.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 32.0 Equipment
Paving - 0.00
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 - 265 265 < 0.005 0.01 1.01 269 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 / 56
503
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 31 .3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 5.11 5.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ;;.;;;;;.;,;a111-mll--•Hli·i iHli111MiHIMli#U&,1i#Mi·li#U&ili=B•fhiii=B• Dllmllmml-- Onsite Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.19 0.16 1.14 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.03 - 0.03 - 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 - 179 Equipment
Architect - 13.4
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.19 0.16 1.14 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.03 - 0.03 - 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 - 179 Equipment
22156
504
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Architect - 13.4
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily ,.

Off-Road 0.05 0.04 0.27 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 42.5 42.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 42.6 Equipment
Architect - 3.19
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 7.04 7.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 7.06 Equipment
Architect - 0.58
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.26 0.25 0.22 3.89 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.23 0.23 - 961 961 0.01 0.03 3.34 975 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.25 0.25 0.26 3.36 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.23 0.23 - 915 915 0.01 0.03 0.09 925 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23/ 56
505
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 - 221 221 < 0.005 0.01 0.34 224 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 36.6 36.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 37.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) B·iiili·i,lallll----•HIM iHlui·Mi411MiiHhMli4Mi·li4MH-ili=M.PEHi=M•tl[----- Onsite Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road 0.18 0.15 1.11 1.50 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.02 - 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 - 179 Equipment
Architect - 13.4
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road 0.18 0.15 1.11 1.50 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.02 - 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 - 179 Equipment
24 / 56
506
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Architect - 13.4
ural
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily ,.

Off-Road 0.06 0.05 0.39 0.53 < 0.005 0.01 - 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 63.1 63.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 63.3 Equipment
Architect - 4.74
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 10.5 Equipment
Architect - 0.86
ural
Coatings
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.25 0.21 0.22 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.23 0.23 - 945 945 0.01 0.03 3.00 959 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.25 0.21 0.23 3.14 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.23 0.23 - 899 899 0.01 0.03 0.08 910 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25/ 56
507
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.09 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 - 323 323 < 0.005 0.01 0.46 327 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 - 53.5 53.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 54.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ••••••••••••••••••• Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme 4.52 4.13 2.89 33.8 0.09 0.05 8.56 8.61 0.05 2.17 2.22 - 9,067 9,067 0.40 0.35 28.4 9,208 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
General 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 - 115 115 0.01 < 0.005 0.36 117 Office
Building
26/ 56
508
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
High 2.24 2.05 1.41 16.5 0.04 0.03 4.15 4.17 0.02 1.05 1.08 - 4,394 4,394 0.20 0.17 13.7 4,463 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total 6.82 6.23 4.34 50.7 0.13 0.08 12.8 12.9 0.07 3.25 3.33 - 13,576 13,576 0.60 0.52 42.5 13,788 Daily,
Winter
(Max) ,.

Apartme 4.49 4.10 3.14 31 .5 0.09 0.05 8.56 8.61 0.05 2.17 2.22 - 8,720 8,720 0.41 0.36 0.74 8,839 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator ,.

General 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 - 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 112 Office
Building
High 2.22 2.03 1.53 15.4 0.04 0.03 4.15 4.17 0.02 1.05 1.08 - 4,226 4,226 0.20 0.18 0.36 4,284 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total 6.77 6.18 4.71 47.2 0.13 0.08 12.8 12.9 0.07 3.25 3.33 - 13,057 13,057 0.62 0.54 1.10 13,235 Annual
Apartme 0.81 0.74 0.58 5.88 0.02 0.01 1.55 1.56 0.01 0.39 0.40 - 1,459 1,459 0.07 0.06 2.03 1,481 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
General 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 - 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.8 Office
Building
27 / 56
509
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
High 0.40 0.37 0.28 2.87 0.01 < 0.005 0.75 0.75 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 - 707 707 0.03 0.03 0.98 718 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurar1t)
Total 1.23 1.12 0.87 8.82 0.02 0.01 2.32 2.33 0.01 0.59 0.60 - 2,185 2,185 0.10 0.09 3.04 2,217

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ·············••-
Summer
Daily, -•
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed -
Parking
with
Elevator
General
Office
Building
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
- - '
1,103 1,103 0.11 0.01 1,110
954 954 0.09 0.01 960

15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 15.8
584 584 0.06 0.01 587
2,657 2,657 0.25 0.03 2,672
28/ 56
510
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Apartme - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,103 1,103 0.11 0.01 - 1,110 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - - - - - - - - - 954 954 0.09 0.01 - 960 Parking
with
Elevator
General - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 15.8 Office
Building
High - - - - - - - - - - - - 584 584 0.06 0.01 - 587
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,657 2,657 0.25 0.03 - 2,672 Annual
Apartme - - - - - - - - - - - - 183 183 0.02 < 0.005 - 184 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - - - - - - - - - 158 158 0.02 < 0.005 - 159 Parking
with
Elevator
General - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 2.62 Office
Building
High - - - - - - - - - - - - 96.6 96.6 0.01 < 0.005 - 97.2 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total - - - - - - - - - - - - 440 440 0.04 0.01 - 442

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 29/ 56
511
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
••••••••••••••••••• Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 nts
Mid Rise
' Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
General 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Office
Building
High 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 622 622 0.06 < 0.005 - 624 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 622 622 0.06 < 0.005 - 624 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1- - -
Winter 1- (Max)
Apartme 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
General 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Office
Building
High 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 - 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 622 622 0.06 < 0.005 - 624 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
30/ 56
512
Total 0.06
Annual
Apartme 0.00
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed 0.00
Parking
with
Elevator
General 0.00
Office
Building
High 0.01
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total 0.01

0.03 0.52 0.44

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.01 0.10 0.08

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) A·l·iii a.mllllZll--•HIMMiHli·i·MiHiuiiiHtiiiiMi·liHiii Daily, Summer
(Max)
Hearths 0.00
Consum
er
Products
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.00 0.00

9.74 0.80

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31 / 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
622 622 0.06 < 0.005 624

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
103 103 0.01 < 0.005 103
103 103 0.01 < 0.005 103
NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
513
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Landsca 4.05 3.79 0.29 32.1 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.02 - 104 104 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 104 Equipment
Total 4.05 14.3 0.29 32.1 < 0.005 0.03 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.02 0.00 104 104 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 104 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Consum - 9.74
er
Products
Architect - 0.80
ural
Coatings
Total 0.00 10.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Annual
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Consum - 1.78
er
Products
Architect - 0.15
ural
Coatings
Landsca 0.51 0.47 0.04 4.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 11 .8 11.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 11 .8 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 0.51 2.40 0.04 4.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 0.00 11 .8 11 .8 < 0.005 < 0.005 - 11 .8

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 32 / 56
514
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
••••••••••••••••••• Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme - - - - - - - - - - - 24.7 85.4 110 2.54 0.06 - 192 nts
Mid Rise
' Enclosed - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
General - - - - - - - - - - - 0.34 1.15 1.49 0.04 < 0.005 - 2.62 Office
Building ,. ,.

High - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 33.9 43.9 1.03 0.02 - 77.1 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant) ,.

Total - - - - - - - - - - - 35.1 120 155 3.61 0.09 - 271 Daily, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1-
-
Winter
(Max)
Apartme - - - - - - - - - - - 24.7 85.4 110 2.54 0.06 - 192 nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
General - - - - - - - - - - - 0.34 1.15 1.49 0.04 < 0.005 - 2.62 Office
Building
High - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0 33.9 43.9 1.03 0.02 - 77.1 Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
33/ 56
515
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Total
Annual
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed -
Parking
with
Elevator
General
Office
Building
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

35.1 120 155 3.61

4.08 14.1 18.2 0.42

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.06 0.19 0.25 0.01

1.66 5.60 7.27 0.17

5.80 19.9 25.7 0.60
----------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed -
Parking
with
Elevator
- - '
137 0.00 137 13.7

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
34/ 56

0.09 271

0.01 31 .7

0.00 0.00
<0.005 - 0.43
<0.005 - 12.8

0.01 44.9
-•

0.00 478

0.00 0.00
516
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
General ----------- 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 - 1.75
Office
Building p
High
----------- 111 0.00 111 11
.1 0.00
- 388
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
}
Total
----------- 248

0.00 248 24.8 0.00
- 868
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Apartme ----------- 137 0.00 137 13.7 0.00 - 478
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed -----------

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
- 0.00
Parking
with
Elevator
General
-----------

0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00
- 1.75
Office
Building
}
High
----------- 111 0.00 111 11
.1 0.00
- 388
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total
----------- 248 0.00 248 24.8

0.00 - 868
Annual
Apartme ----------- 22.6 0.00 22.6 2.26

0.00 - 79
.2
nts
Mid Rise
Enclosed ----------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 - 0.00
Parking
with
Elevator
35/ 56
517
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
General
Office
Building
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

0.08 0.00 0.08

18.3 0.00 18.3

41.1 0.00 41.1
---------------
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
General
Office
Building
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
36/ 56

0.01 0.00 0.29

1.83 0.00 64.2

4.10 0.00 144
-

3.13 3.13
< 0.005 < 0.005

27.0 27.0

30.1 30.1

3.13 3.13
518
General
Office
Building
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total
Annual
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
General
Office
Building
High
Turnover
(Sit Down
Restaurant)
Total

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ■ .

Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
37 / 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
< 0.005 < 0.005

27.0 27.0

30.1 30.1

0.52 0.52
< 0.005 < 0.005

4.47 4.47

4.99 4.99
519
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ■ .

Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 38/ 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
520
■ .

Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
---------------
Summer
Daily,
-
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
39/ 56
521
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) •••••••••••••••
Summer
Daily, •
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) k·iilii a.-llZll-lllliHU-IMiHIM·MiHU-iiiHtiiiHti·liHtiii Daily, Summer
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
40/ 56
NBC02 C02T CH4 N20 R C02e
522
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal
Annual
Avoided
Subtotal
Sequest
ered
Subtotal
Remove
d
Subtotal

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name
Demolition
Grading
Phase Type
Demolition
Grading
Start Date
2/3/2025
2/17/2025
End Date
2/14/2025
5/16/2025
41 / 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Days Per Week

5.00 5.00
Work Days per Phase

10.0 65.0
Phase Description
523
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers
Demolition Excavators
Grading Excavators
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers
Building Construction Cranes
Building Construction Forklifts
Building Construction Generator Sets
Building Construction Welders
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Paving Pavers
Paving Paving Equipment
Paving Rollers
Architectural Coating Air Compressors
5/19/2025
6/2/2025
9/1/2026
Fuel Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
6/30/2027
7/31/2025
6/30/2027
Engine Tier
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average

5.00 5.00

5.00 Number per Day

2.00 3.00

1.00 3.00

1.00 1.00

3.00 1.00

1.00 3.00

1.00 2.00

2.00 1.00
42 / 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Hours Per Day

8.00 8.00

8.00 8.00
553

44.0 217
Horsepower Load Factor
367 0.40
158 0.38
158 0.38

84.0 0.37
367 0.40
367 0.29

82.0 0.20

14.0 0.74

46.0 0.45

84.0 0.37

10.0 0.56

81.0 0.42

89.0 0.36

36.0 0.38

37.0 0.48
524

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Grading
Grading
Grading
Grading
Grading
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
Paving
Paving
Paving
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
Trip Type
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix

12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
- 10.2 HHDT,MHDT

33.6 25.0 HHDT
- - HHDT

12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
- 10.2 HHDT,MHDT

7.69 25.0 HHDT
- - HHDT
369 18.5 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2

84.3 10.2 HHDT,MHDT

0.00 20.0 HHDT
- - HHDT

20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
- 10.2 HHDT,MHDT

0.00 20.0 HHDT
- - HHDT

73.8 18.5 LDA,LDT1 ,LDT2
- 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
43/ 56
525
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating

5.4. Vehicles
Hauling
Onsite truck

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name
Architectural Coating

5.6. Dust Mitigation
Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
884,285

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name
Demolition
Grading
Paving
Material Imported (Cubic Yards)

0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

0.00 Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
294,762
Material Exported (Cubic Yards)

0.00 4,000

0.00 20.0
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
27,410
Acres Graded (acres)

0.00 32.5

0.00 Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction Water Exposed Area
Water Demolished Area

5. 7. Construction Paving
2 2
61%
36%
44/56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
HHDT
HHDT
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
9,137
Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
1,341

0.00 0.00
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Acres Paved (acres)

0.00 PM2.5 Reduction
61%
36%
526
Land Use
Apartments Mid Rise
Enclosed Parking with Elevator
General Office Building
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
Area Paved (acres)

0.00 0.00

0.00 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year
2025
2026
2027
kWh per Year

0.00 0.00

0.00 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday
Apartments Mid Rise 1,375 1,375
Enclosed Parking 0.00 0.00
with Elevator
General Office 18.0 18.0
Building
High Turnover (Sit 686 686
Down Restaurant)

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Trips/Sunday
1,375

0.00 18.0
686
349
346
346
TripsNear
502,032

0.00 6,570
250,420
45/ 56

0.03 0.03

0.03 VMT/Weekday
12,098

0.00 154
5,859
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
% Asphalt
0%
100%
0%
0%
VMT/Saturday
12,098

0.00 154
5,859
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
VMT/Sunday
12,098

0.00 154
5,859
VMTNear
4,415,951

0.00 56,103
2,138,410
527

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type
Apartments Mid Rise
Wood Fireplaces
Gas Fireplaces
Propane Fireplaces
Electric Fireplaces
No Fireplaces
Conventional Wood Stoves
Catalytic Wood Stoves
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves
Pellet Wood Stoves

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) 884285.1

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season
Snow Days
Summer Days
294,762

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Unit
day/yr
day/yr
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Unmitigated (number)
0 0
0 0
343
0 0
0 0
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
27,410
46/ 56
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
9,137
Value

0.00 250
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
528
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)
Apartments Mid Rise 1,163,068 346
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,006,336 346
General Office Building 16,595 346
High Turnover (Sit Down 615,312 346
Restaurant)

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use
Apartments Mid Rise
Enclosed Parking with Elevator
General Office Building
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use
Apartments Mid Rise
Enclosed Parking with Elevator
General Office Building
High Turnover (Sil Down Restaurant)
Indoor Water (gal/year)
12,871,298

0.00 177,734
5,242,938
Waste (ton/year)
254

0.00 0.93
206

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

0.0330

0.0330
47 / 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023

0.0040

0.0040
Outdoor Water (gal/year)
452,815

0.00 0.00

0.00 Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)

0.00 0.00

0.00 1,941,585
529
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 and/or freezers
General Office Building Household refrigerators R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00 and/or freezers
General Office Building Other commercial A/C R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 and heat pumps
High Turnover (Sit Household refrigerators R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00 Down Restaurant) and/or freezers
High Turnover (Sit Other commercial A/C R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0 Down Restaurant) and heat pumps
High Turnover (Sit Walk-in refrigerators R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0 Down Restaurant) and freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
48/ 56
530
Equipment Type

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Fuel Type Number
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Initial Acres
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Fuel Type
Initial Acres Final Acres
Final Acres
Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. 49/ 56
531
Climate Hazard
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
Result for Project Location

8.79 4.15

8.32 AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Unit
annual days of extreme heat
annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
meters of inundation depth
annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 50/ 56
532
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone 65.4
AQ-PM 43.5
AQ-DPM 67.9
Drinking Water 5.91
Lead Risk Housing 8.42
51 / 56
533
Pesticides
Toxic Releases
Traffic
Effect Indicators
Cleanup Sites
Groundwater
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Education
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

0.00 43.6

68.6 0.00

0.00 73.9

66.7 0.00

11.3 27.5

17.8 5.86

69.9 35.3

27.0 36.4
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Result for Project Census Tract

88.18170153

92.87822405

71. 70537662
52 / 56
534
Education
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
Auto Access
Active commuting
Social
2-parent households
Voting
Neighborhood
Alcohol availability
Park access
Retail density
Supermarket access
Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership
Housing habitability
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes
Insured adults
Arthritis
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure

81.40639035
100

81.66303093

70.20402926

44.16784294

90.38881047
31 .0278455

20. 77505454
81 .35506224

94.96984473

83.29269858

58.20608238

23.05915565
71 .16643141

82.66392917

84.1524445

78.31387142

74.51559091

0.0 89.9

0.0 53/ 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
535
Cancer (excluding skin)
Asthma
Coronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes
Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity
Pedestrian Injuries
Physical Health Not Good
Stroke
Health Risk Behaviors
Binge Drinking
Current Smoker
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk
SLR Inundation Area
Children
Elderly
English Speaking
Foreign-born
Outdoor Workers

0.0 0.0

0.0 94.8

98.4 83.0

83.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

19.6 0.0

0.0 0.0

15.5 87.4

76.1 45.9

65.7 54/ 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
536
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density
Traffic Access
Other Indices
Hardship
Other Decision Support
2016 Voting

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)

47.9 54.7

23.0 3.9

59.8 AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
Result for Project Census Tract

17.0 85.0
No
No
No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
55/ 56
537
Screen
Characteristics: Utility Information
Land Use
Construction: Construction Phases
Construction: Off-Road Equipment
Construction: Trips and VMT
Operations: Vehicle Data
Operations: Hearths
Operations: Energy Use
Justification
See Note A
See Note B
See Note C
See Note D
See Note E
See Note F
See Note G
See Note H
56/ 56
AVB Commons Dec 2023 Detailed Report, 12/15/2023
538
AVB Commons Project
CalEEMod Notes
Note A The Project s electricity services would be provided by Southern California Edison Note B Land use details, including landscaping square footage, were based on information provided by the Project applicant.

Note C Construction phases and durations were based on information provided by the Project applicant.

Note D Construction equipment selections were based on information provided by the Project CalEEMod default horsepower assumptions were replaced with more conservative default estimates from CalEEMod version 2020. CalEEMod version 2022, the latest version of CalEEMod at the time of the analysis, seems to underestimate default horsepower ratings for certain construction equipment (e.g., excavators).

Note E Construction haul trip lengths were based on information provided by the Project applicant.

Note F Trip generation was modified in accordance with the findings of the Project s VMT analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers.

Note G The Project would not contain fireplaces or wood stoves.

Note H The Project would utilize all-electric appliances for its residential uses and leasing office.

applicant, as well as the consultant's experience with similar projects. For some equipment, 539

FUEL CONSUMPTION CALOJIATIONS
Operational Traffic Fuel
Existing Annual VMT: 0
Gallons
Fleet Mix auto 91% Ogas (mpg) 23.49 0.00
other 9% O diesel (mpg) 9.37 0.00

0.00 Project Annual VMT: 6,619,464
Gallons
Fleet Mix auto 91% 6,023,712lgas (mpg) 23.491 256,437.30 other 9% 595,752 diesel (mpg) 9.37 63,580.76
320,018.07
Construction Traffic Fuel
wort.er Fuel {Gasoline, on-road)
phase trips length {miles) Days total Miles MPG Gallons Demolition 12.5 18.5 10 2,313 23.49 98.45
Gradin2 12.2 18.5 65 14,671 23.49 624.54
Building Construction 369 18.5 553 3,775,055 23.49 160,709.00 Paving 20 18.5 44 16,280 23.49 693.06
Architectural Coating 73.8 18.5 217 296,270 23.49 12,612.61 174,737.66
Vender Fuel {Diesel, on-road)
phase trips length {miles) days total Miles MPG Gallons Demolition 0 10.2 10 0 9.37 0.00
Grading 0 10.2 65 0 9.37 0.00
Building Construction 84.3 10.2 553 475,503 9.37 50,747.34 Paving 0 10.2 44 0 9.37 0.00
Architectural Coating 0 10.2 217 0 9.37 0.00
50,747.34
Haul Fuel {Diesel, on-road)
ohase trios lenath {miles) davs total Miles MPG Gallons Demolition 33.6 25 10 8,400 9.37 896.48
Grading 7.69 25 65 12,496 9.37 1,333.64
Building Construction 18.8 20 553 207,928 9.37 22,190.82 Paving 0 20 44 0 9.37 0.00
Architectural Coating 0 20 217 0 9.37 0.00
24,420.94
Total On-Road Gas {gallons) 174,737.66
Total On-Road Diesel {gallons) 75,168.28
Construction Equipment Fuel
Construction Eauloment (Diesel, off-road)
Phase Equipment Units Hours HP Load Factor Ave. Daily Load Factor Days HP Hours Demolition concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73 0.6 10 2,838.24 Excavators 3 8 158 0.38 0.6 10 2,881.92
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 247 0.4 0.6 10 4,742.40
Building Construction Cranes 1 7 231 0.29 0.6 553 155,590.97 Forklifts 3 8 89 0.2 0.6 553 47,248.32
Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 0.6 553 164,997.50
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 97 0.37 0.6 553 83,358.11 Paving cement and motar mixers 2 6 9 0.56 0.6 44 798.34 Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 0.6 44 11,531.52
Paving Equipment 2 6 132 0.36 0.6 44 7,527.17
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37 0.6 44 7,579.97
Rollers 2 6 80 0.38 0.6 44 4,815.36
Grading Excavators 1 8 158 0.38 0.6 65 18,732.48
Grading Graders 1 8 187 0.41 0.6 65 23,921.04
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 0.6 65 30,825.60
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 0.6 65 11,197.68
Architectural Coating Air Com pressers 1 6 78 0.48 0.6 217 29,248.13 HP = hoursepower. Gallons of diesel fuel per HP-hour - 0.05. Total 607,834.75 Diesel Usage {gallons) 30,391.74
Equipment assumptions are provided in the CalEEMod output files for the Project and fuel usage estimate of 0.05 gallons of diesel fuel per horsepower-hour is from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-3E.

Water Usaie for fu2:itive dust control durini construction Water application rate = 3,020 gallons/acre/day
Each gallon of delivered potable water in Southern California is associated with 0.009727 kWhr of electricity).

Grading 44 days x 4.3 acres x 3,020 gallons - 571,384 gallons x 0.009727 - 5,558 kWbr 189.2
571384
5557.852168
540
Appendix B
Cultural Resources Assessment
541
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 974-8300
Field Offices
San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Sacramento

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

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE AVALON BAY (AVB)

COMMONS PROJECT, CITY OF ALISO VIEJO,

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Aliso Viejo City CouncilSeptember 18, 2024

Aliso Viejo City Council
September 18, 2024