Agenda packet — Aliso Viejo City Council, September 18, 2024 (part 3 of 7)

Starla Baker, Principal Planner
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Authors:

John Gust, Ph.D and Eric Scott, M.A.

Principal Investigators:

John Gust, Ph.D and Kim Scott, M.S.

March 2024
Cogstone Project Number: 5680-01
Type of Study: Cultural and paleontological resources assessment Sites: None within the Project Area
USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle: San Juan Capistrano (1981)
Area: 4.4 acres
Key Words: Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County; Monterey Formation; Gabrielino/Gabrieleño/Tongva territory, Juaneño Acjachemen, Negative survey cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HISTORY
542
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................V INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF STUDY...........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 PROJECT PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................5 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................5 STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT...........................................................................................................5 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................6 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.....................................................................................................................................6 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................7 NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS ......................................................................................................................8 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307 ...............................................................................8

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO GENERAL PLAN - CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE (COS) ELEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................8 GOAL COS-8 PRESERVE AND PROTECT HISTORICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCE .................................8 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................................................9 NATURAL SETTING............................................................................................................................................9 GEOLOGICAL SETTING ...........................................................................................................................................9 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING..................................................................................................................................9 STRATIGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................................9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................................................11 PREHISTORIC SETTING..................................................................................................................................11 ETHNOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................15 GABRIELINO/TONGVA...........................................................................................................................................15 JUANEÑO ACJACHEMEN .......................................................................................................................................16 HISTORIC SETTING..........................................................................................................................................17 SPANISH PERIOD (1769-1820).............................................................................................................................17 MEXICAN PERIOD (1821-1847)............................................................................................................................17 AMERICAN PERIOD (1848-PRESENT).....................................................................................................................17 ALISO VIEJO HISTORY ..........................................................................................................................................18 PROJECT AREA HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................19 RECORDS SEARCH................................................................................................................................................19 PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH ...................................................................................................19 OTHER SOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................21 SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH......................................................................................................................22 SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................................................23 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................23 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................23 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................26 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................26 PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY.............................................................................................................27 CULTURAL RESOURCES SENSITIVITY ......................................................................................................28 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................28 543
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone iii
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................28 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................29 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS........................................................................................................................34 APPENDIX B. PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH ..............................................................................40 APPENDIX C. FOSSIL LOCALITIES NEAR TO THE PROJECT...................................................................43 APPENDIX D. SACRED LAND FILE SEARCH ..................................................................................................49 APPENDIX E. HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION .............................................................................55 APPENDIX F. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RANKING CRITERIA ..............................................64 544
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP ..............................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................................3 FIGURE 3. PROJECT AERIAL MAP .................................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 4. PROJECT GEOLOGY MAP ...........................................................................................................................10 FIGURE 5. TRIBAL BOUNDARY MAP............................................................................................................................15 FIGURE 6. LAND GRANT MAP......................................................................................................................................18 FIGURE 7. OVERVIEW OF EASTER PORTION OF PROJECT AREA. VIEW TO THE WEST.............................................24 FIGURE 8. OVERVIEW OF EASTERN PORTION OF PROJECT AREA. VIEW TO THE SOUTHWEST................................24 FIGURE 9. OVERVIEW OF NORTHEAST PORTION OF PROJECT AREA. VIEW TO THE SOUTH-SOUTHWEST. .............25 FIGURE 10. SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA. VIEW TO THE NORTHWEST...............................................25 FIGURE 11. TYPICAL SEDIMENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA................................................................................26

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CULTURE CHRONOLOGY............................................................................................................................12 TABLE 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN A HALF-MILE RADIUS OF THE PROJECT AREA .............................................20 TABLE 3. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN A HALF-MILE RADIUS OF THE PROJECT AREA .....................................................................................................................................................................................21 TABLE 4. ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED............................................................................................................22 TABLE C-1. NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS FROM NAHC .......................................................................................53 545
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone v

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during the Avalon Bay (AVB) Commons Project (Project). The City of Aliso Viejo (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project is located on the north side of Enterprise between Aliso Creek Road and Vantis Drive, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California. The Project Area is at Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 629-101-16 and is approximately 4.4 acres in size.

The proposed Project will construct a six-story mixed-use building with 362 residential apartments composed of Studios, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units with approximately 5,770 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial use. The Project also has a parking structure in the center of the development with a recreation space on top that includes a clubhouse, fitness/wellness center, meeting rooms and workspaces, all of which surround a pool/spa deck.

A search for paleontological records was completed by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Published literature, unpublished paleontological reports, and online databases were also searched for fossil records. Databases included the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Invertebrate Paleontology, the Paleobiology Database, and the University of California Museum of Paleontology. The Project is mapped on Miocene-age rocks of the fossiliferous Monterey Formation. This formation has moderate potential to yield significant fossil remains. The record search revealed multiple fossil localities from the Monterey Formation in the vicinity of the Project Area, although none occurred within the boundaries of the property. Paleontological monitoring of excavation may be required in the Monterey Formation depending upon lithology and depositional context. Based upon the anticipation of impacts to the Monterey Formation within the Project Area, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan should be implemented, which should include development of a paleontology Worker Environmental Awareness Program as well as paleontological monitoring.

Cogstone requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on December 18, 2023 which included the entire proposed Project Area as well as a half-mile distance radius. Results of the record search indicate that four previous studies have been completed within the Project Area while an additional thirteen studies have been completed previously within a half-mile radius of the Project Area. No cultural resources have been recorded within the Project Area. Outside of the Project Area a total of two cultural resources have been previously documented within the half-mile search radius from the Project Area.

Cogstone archaeologist Logan Freeberg requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 18, 2023. The NAHC responded on January 18, 2024 with a positive search result indicating that a tribal cultural resource is located within the same township, range, and section as the Project Area. The NAHC recommended that Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes be 546
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone vi
contacted for more information and provided a list of 19 groups and individuals that may have information about the Project Area.

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 has been received as of March 5, 2024.

Cogstone Archaeologist Sandy Duarte completed the pedestrian survey on February 28, 2024 using two to five meter transects in all non-hardscaped or landscaped areas. Sediments, where visible, were sandy loam and appeared to be amended by outside fill. No cultural or paleontological resources were observed during the pedestrian survey.

Based on a review of the SCCIC record search results, review of historic USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and USDA aerial photographs, the Project Area is assessed to have a low sensitivity for buried historic-aged cultural deposits. Based on these data sources alone the Project Area is also 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 Area.

With respect to cultural resources, Cogstone recommends that this Project proceed as planned, but that full-time cultural resources and Native American monitoring be required should the cultural sensitivity of the Project Area be enhanced by the results of government to government Native American consultation.

In the event of an unanticipated discovery, all work must be suspended within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist evaluates it. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project development, all work must cease near the find immediately.

In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods. Work may not resume in the vicinity of the find until all requirements of the health and safety code have been met. 547
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 1

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF STUDY
This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the Avalon Bay (AVB) Commons Project (Project). The City of Aliso Viejo (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project is located at on the north side of Enterprise between Aliso Creek Road and Vantis Drive, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California (Figure 1). The Project Area is at Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 629-101-16, is approximately 4.4 acres in size, and mapped within Section 9 of Township 7 South, Range 8 West, on the San Juan Capistrano United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figures 2 and 3).

The proposed Project will construct a six-story mixed-use building with 362 residential apartments composed of Studios, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units with approximately 5,770 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial use (Figures 2 and 3). The Project also has a parking structure in the center of the development with a recreation space on top that includes a clubhouse, fitness/wellness center, meeting rooms and workspaces, all of which surround a pool/spa deck.
548
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 2
Figure 1. Project vicinity map
Garden Gro
Santa Ana
ntain
lley
each
::

E Ch p111~-
Lake Forest
Laguna Woods
\ Laguna Hil Is
I Project Location L. ____::~ ___ ..,._===,--,0
\<) ,,,1.q..
-ft. ~o.. -
Aliso Viejo ~" ~
Laguna Beach
;, Laguna ~
<-.,
z
C:
.,
_,
~ "C
;,,o
San Juan
Capistrano
Dana~ int

CALIFORNIA
San Clemente
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri,
HERE, Garmin, USGS, lntermap,
fuy
I I II Project Area
0 0
Kilornclcrs
5 Miles

2.5 N
10 A
I :250,000

AVB COMMONS
City of Aliso Viejo
Orange County, CA
co~tone· PAU:0NT0L.00'f' • ARCHAEOLOGY- Hl$10R'f'
549
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 3
Figure 2. Project location map
Key
II II Project Area
Kilometers N
0 I A 0.5
Miles
F ~~~0.25 ~0. 5 1:24,000
USGS Quadrangle ( s ·)· . S·' m Juan Capistrano
City of Aliso Viel~
Orange County, C
coo-~tone· PA- LECINTCK.OfY ~ • AR H AEDL00T-Hl$'f0 RY
550
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 4
Figure 3. Project aerial map
Kev
II II Project Area 0
0 Meters
25 Feet
100
50 N
A
200 1:1,500

AVB COMMONS
City of Aliso Viejo
Orange County, CA
co~tone· PALECINTCK.OfY • ARCHAED LOOT• HIS'TORY
551
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 5

PROJECT PERSONNEL
Cogstone Resource Management (Cogstone) conducted the cultural and paleontological resources assessment and authored this report. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.

John Gust, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), served as the Task Manager and Principal Investigator for Archaeology for the Project, and co-authored this report. Dr. Gust has a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California (UC), Riverside, and over 11 years of experience in archaeology.

Kim Scott served as the Principal Investigator for Paleontology for the Project and is an Orange County certified paleontologist. Ms. Scott has an M.S. in Biology with a paleontology emphasis from California State University (CSU), San Bernardino, and over 28 years of experience in California paleontology and geology.

Eric Scott coauthored the paleontology and geology sections of the report. Mr. Scott is an Orange County certified paleontologist and has an M.A. in Anthropology, with an emphasis in biological paleoanthropology, from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and more than 39 years of experience in California paleontology.

Logan Freeberg prepared the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps throughout this report.

Mr. Freeberg has a B.A. in Anthropology from UC Santa Barbara, a GIS certification from CSU Fullerton, and over 20 years of experience in California archaeology.

Molly Valasik, RPA, provided Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) for the Project and reviewed this report. Ms. Valasik has an M.A. in Anthropology from Kent State University in Ohio and over 14 years of experience in California archaeology.

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA states that: It is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the 552
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 6
significant effects of proposed project and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.

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

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

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

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 5097.5: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands (lands under state, county, city, district or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. 553
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 7

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

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

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

The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. 554
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 8

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

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

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

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO GENERAL PLAN - CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE (COS) ELEMENT
GOAL COS-8 PRESERVE AND PROTECT HISTORICAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCE Aliso Viejo contains important historic, archeological and tribal sites. In a region characterized by growth and urbanization, these resources are threatened by the encroachment of urban development.
• Policy COS-8.1 Balance the benefits of development with a project’s potential impacts to cultural resources.
• Policy COS-8.2 Identify, designate, and protect sites of historic importance. • Policy COS-8.3 Encourage procurement of cultural resources and artifacts for public education and enjoyment.
555
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 9

BACKGROUND

NATURAL SETTING

GEOLOGICAL SETTING
Southern Orange County has a complicated paleoenvironmental history that began in the later Mesozoic Era – colloquially termed the “Age of Dinosaurs” – roughly 66 million years ago (Ma). Since that time, the region has transitioned from coastal lowlands during the Paleocene to Oligocene Epochs, to shallow marine during the early Miocene Epoch, to deep marine during the early to early-late Miocene, back to shallow marine in the latest Miocene through the Pliocene Epochs, and finally to increasingly arid terrestrial deposits from the Pleistocene to the Holocene Epochs.

PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING
The Project Area is part of the northernmost Peninsular Ranges, one of California’s geomorphic provinces. The Peninsular Ranges are a series of ranges separated by northwest trending valleys, subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault which for the most part lies to the east of this geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges extend from northern Orange County, eastward through the San Jacinto Range and south to the southern end of Baja California, Mexico (Wagner 2002).

STRATIGRAPHY
Geologic mapping by Morton and Miller (2006) indicates that the Project is situated entirely upon surface exposures of the fossiliferous Monterey Formation (= unit Tm; Figure 4). This siliceous and diatomaceous marine mudstone, shale, diatomite, and chert formation is primarily white to pale brown in color and is thinly laminated or bedded. In the Aliso Viejo area, sediments of the Monterey Formation are part of a deep submarine fan and plain deposit that was deposited between 13 Ma and 5 Ma (Redin 1991). Locally named “Pecten Reef,” a limestone in the Aliso Viejo area has produced abundant invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. The Monterey Formation was deposited at the same time as the Soquel Member, La Vida Member, and the lower portion of the undifferentiated Puente Formation elsewhere in southern California (Morton and Miller 2006).
556
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 10
Figure 4. Project geology map
l!::::::!J ~ Project Area
Geology from Morton and Miller, 2006
\ .. ~ Qya - young axial-channel deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene) ;1>~ ~, Qyls - young landslide deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene) Tn - Niguel Formation (Pliocene)
Tm - Monterey f ormation (Miocene)
~
Meters
0 25 50
Feet
e--
0 100 200

AVBCOMMONS
N
A
1:5,000
City of Aliso Viejo
Orange County, CA
co~tone- PALEIJNTOI..OIT • ARCHAEllLOOY • HISTORY
557
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 11

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project Area is situated in the San Joaquin Hills just north of the southeastern corner of Orange County. It is likely that creeks were more abundant during the prehistoric period, offering a flowing and year-round water source for human occupation and supporting a variety of wildlife. Modern vegetation in the Project Area consists mostly of introduced plants, not native species. The native plant community was coastal sage scrub (Rundel and Gustafson 2005).

The climate of Aliso Viejo is Mediterranean, ranging from cool, moist winters to dry, hot summers; mild breezes reach the area from the Pacific Ocean, located southwest of the Project location. The climate was similar in late prehistoric times.

PREHISTORIC SETTING
Approaches to prehistoric frameworks have changed over the years from being based on material attributes to radiocarbon chronologies to association with cultural traditions. Archaeologists defined a material complex consisting of an abundance of milling stones (for grinding food items) with few projectile points or vertebrate faunal remains dating from about 7,000 to 3,000 years before the present as the “Millingstone Horizon.” Later, the “Millingstone Horizon” was redefined as a cultural tradition named the Encinitas Tradition with various regional expressions including Topanga and La Jolla. Use by archaeologists varied as some adopted a generalized Encinitas Tradition without regional variations, some continued to use “Millingstone Horizon” and some used Middle Holocene (the time period) to indicate this observed pattern (Sutton and Gardner 2010:1-2).

Recently, the fact that generalized terminology is suppressing the identification of cultural, spatial and temporal variation and the movement of peoples throughout space and time was noted. These factors are critical to understanding adaptation and change (Sutton and Gardner 2010:1-2).

The latest cultural revisions for the Project Area define traits for time phases of the Greven Knoll pattern of the Encinitas Tradition applicable to the Pasadena area (Sutton and Gardner 2010; Table 1). This pattern is replaced in the Project Area by the Angeles pattern of the Del Rey Tradition later in time (Sutton 2010; Table 1). Each pattern has subdivisions as identified by specific changes in cultural assemblages through time. Phases are identified by their archaeological signatures in components within sites.

Greven Knoll sites tend to be in valleys similar to areas like the Project Area. These inland peoples did not switch from manos/metates to pestles/mortars like coastal peoples (c. 5,000 years before present); this may reflect their closer relationship with desert groups who did not exploit acorns.
558
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 12
Table 1. Culture Chronology

PATTERN PHASE DATES
(BP) MATERIAL TRAITS OTHER TRAITS
Encinitas
Greven
Knoll I
8,500 to
4,000
Abundant manos and metates, Pinto
dart points for atlatls or spears,
charmstones, cogged stones and
discoidals rare, no mortars or
pestles, general absence of shell
artifacts
No shellfish, hunting important,
flexed inhumations, cremations
rare
Greven
Knoll II
4,000 to
3,500
Abundant manos and metates, Elko
dart points for atlatls or spears, core
tools, late discoidals, few mortars
and pestles, general absence of shell
artifacts
No12helfish, hunting and
gathering important, flexed
inhumations, cremations rare
Angeles
Angeles
I
3,500 to
2,600
Appearance of Elko dart points and
an increase in the overall number of
projectile points from Encinitas
components; beginning of largescale trade in small steatite artifacts (effigies, pipes, and beads) and
Olivella shell beads from the
southern Channel Islands;
appearance of single-piece shell
fishhooks and bone harpoon points;
Coso obsidian becomes important;
appearance of donut stones
appearance of a new biological
population (Takic protoGab/Cupan language), apparent
population increase; fewer and
larger sites along the coast;
collector strategy; less overall
dependence on shellfish but
fishing and terrestrial hunting
more important; appearance of
flexed and extended inhumations
without cairns, cremations
uncommon
Angeles
II
2,600 to
1,600
Continuation of basic Angeles I
material culture with the addition of
mortuary features containing broken
tools and fragmented cremated
human bone; fishhooks become
more common
continuation of basic Angeles I
settlement and subsistence
systems; appearance of a new
funerary complex
Angeles
III
1,600 to
1,250
Appearance of bow and arrow
technology (e.g., Marymount or
Rose Spring points); changes in
Olivella beads; asphaltum becomes
important; reduction in obsidian
use; Obsidian Butte obsidian largely
replaces Coso
larger seasonal villages; flexed
primary inhumations but no
extended inhumations and an
increase in cremations;
appearance of obsidian grave
goods; possible expansion into
eastern Santa Monica Mountains,
replacing Topanga III groups
Angeles
IV
1,250 to
800
Cottonwood points appear; some
imported pottery appears; birdstone
effigies at the beginning of the
phase and “spike” effigies dropped
by the end of the phase; possible
appearance of ceramic pipes
change in settlement pattern to
fewer but larger permanent
villages; flexed primary
inhumations continue, cremations
uncommon; expansion into the
San Gabriel Mountains, displacing
Greven Knoll III groups
559
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 13

PATTERN PHASE DATES
(BP) MATERIAL TRAITS OTHER TRAITS
Angeles
V
800 to
450
Trade of steatite artifacts from the
southern Channel Islands becomes
more intensive and extensive, with
the addition or increase in more and
larger artifacts, such as vessels and
comals; larger and more elaborate
effigies
strengthening of ties, especially
trade, with southern Channel
Islands; expansion into the
northern Santa Ana Mountains
and San Joaquin Hills;
development of mainland dialects
of Gabrielino
Angeles
VI
450 to
150
Addition of Euroamerican material
culture (e.g., glass beads and metal
tools), locally made pottery, metal
needle-drilled Olivella beads
change of settlement pattern,
movement close to missions and
ranches; use of domesticated
species obtained from
Euroamericans; flexed primary
inhumations continue, cremations
uncommon to the north (nearer the
Chumash) but somewhat more
common to the south (nearer the
Luiseño); apparent adoption of
Chingichngish religion
The Greven Knoll toolkit is dominated by manos and metates throughout its extent. In Phase I, other typical characteristics were pinto dart points for atlatls or spears, charmstones, cogged stones, absence of shell artifacts and flexed position burials (Table 1). In Phase II, Elko dart points for atlatls or spears and core tools are observed along with increased indications of gathering (Table 1). In addition, the Greven Knoll populations are biologically Yuman (based on skeletal remains) while the later Angeles populations are biologically Shoshonean (Sutton and Gardner 2010; Sutton 2010).

The Angeles pattern generally is restricted to the mainland and appears to have been less technologically conservative and more ecologically diverse, with a largely terrestrial focus and greater emphases on hunting and nearshore fishing. In Angeles Phase I, Elko points for atlatls or darts appear, small steatite objects such as pipes and effigies from Catalina are found, shell beads and ornaments increase, fishing technologies increase including bone harpoons/fishhooks and shell fishhooks, donut stones appear, and hafted micro blades for cutting/graving wood or stone appear. In addition, several Encinitas (Topanga) traits, such as discoidals, cogged stones, plummet-like charm stones and cairn burials (see Sutton and Gardner 2010: Table 1) virtually disappear from the record. Mortuary practices changed to consist of primarily flexed primary inhumations, with extended inhumations becoming less common. Settlement patterns made a shift from general use sites being common to habitation areas separate from functional work areas. Subsistence shifted from mostly collecting to increased hunting and fishing (Sutton 2010). 560
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 14
The Angeles Phase II is identified primarily by the appearance of a new funerary complex, with other characteristics similar to Angeles I. The complex features killed (broken) artifacts including manos, metates, bowls, mortars, pestles, points, and others plus highly fragmented cremated human bones and a variety of faunal remains. In addition to the cremains, the other material also often burned. None of the burning was performed in the burial feature (Sutton 2010).

The Angeles III Phase is the beginning of what has been known as the Late Period and Is marked by several changes from Angeles I and II. These include the appearance of small projectile points, steatite shaft straighteners and increased use of asphaltum all reflecting adoption of bow and arrow technology, obsidian sources changed from mostly Coso to Obsidian Butte and shell beads from Gulf of California species began to appear. Subsistence practices continued as before and the geographic extent of the Angeles Pattern increased (Sutton 2010).

Angeles Phase IV is marked by new material items including Cottonwood points for arrows, Olivella cupped beads and Mytilus shell disks, birdstones (zoomorphic effigies with magicoreligious properties) and trade items from the Southwest including pottery. It appears that populations increased and that there was a change in the settlement pattern to fewer but larger permanent villages. Presence and utility of steatite vessels may have impeded the diffusion of pottery into the Los Angeles Basin. The settlement pattern altered to one of fewer and larger permanent villages. Smaller special-purpose sites continued to be used (Sutton 2010).

Angeles V components contain more and larger steatite artifacts, including larger vessels, more elaborate effigies and comals. Settlement locations shifted from woodland to open grasslands.

The exploitation of marine resources seems to have declined and use of small seeds increased.

Many Gabrielino inhumations contained grave goods while cremations did not (Sutton 2010).

The Angeles VI phase reflects the ethnographic mainland Gabrielino of the post-contact (i.e., post-A.D. 1542) period. One of the first changes in Gabrielino culture after contact was undoubtedly population loss due to disease, coupled with resulting social and political disruption.

Angeles VI material culture is essentially Angeles V augmented by a number of Euroamerican tools and materials, including glass beads and metal tools such as knives and needles (used in bead manufacture). The frequency of Euroamerican material culture increased through time until it constituted the vast majority of materials used. Locally produced brownware pottery appears along with metal needle-drilled Olivella disk beads (Sutton 2010).

The ethnographic mainland Gabrielino subsistence system was based primarily on terrestrial hunting and gathering, although nearshore fish and shellfish played important roles. Sea mammals, especially whales (likely from beached carcasses), were prized. In addition, a number 561
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 15
of European plant and animal domesticates were obtained and exploited. Ethnographically, the mainland Gabrielino practiced interment and some cremation (Sutton 2010).

ETHNOGRAPHY
The Project Area is located very close to the estimated territorial boundary between the Gabrielino Tongva and the Juaneño Acjachemen. Both groups are discussed below as tribal boundaries are known to have shifted somewhat through time.

Figure 5. Tribal boundary map

GABRIELINO/TONGVA
The Gabrielino/Tongva are considered to have been one of the wealthiest tribes and to have greatly influenced tribes they traded with (Kroeber 1976:621; Figure 5). Houses were domed, Chumash /
.,
Tongva
(Gabrielino)
\ l'.C.-t, - .... ~ '- ,"! ...... -r .,._ _____ ____
Project Location
I I ~ ...... '-
)
/
J
I
,,,.,
/
/
/
/
(
I
I
I .... \
\
" \
'\
\
' '\
Juaneno }
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri. USGS. NOAA
Key
II I] Project Area
I= = Tribal Boundary
0 0
...... ,
Kilometers
20 Miles
20 40
I ' ,.. \.
\
40 I
I
\
\
t"
N
A
1:1,250,000
/
Serrano
'-
Cahuilla
..... .....

Luiseno
/
/
Ipai
·v
Cupeno
/
_,/ .tipai

AVB COMMONS
City of Aliso Viejo
Orange County, CA
562
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 16
circular structures thatched with tule or similar materials (Bean and Smith 1978:542). The best known artifacts were made of steatite and were highly prized. Many common everyday items were decorated with inlaid shell or carvings reflecting an elaborately developed artisanship (Bean and Smith 1978:542).

The main food zones utilized were marine, woodland and grassland (Bean and Smith 1978).

Plant foods were, by far, the greatest part of the traditional diet at contact. Acorns were the most important single food source. Villages were located near water sources necessary for the leaching of acorns, which was a daily occurrence. Grass seeds were the next most abundant plant food used along with chia. Seeds were parched, ground, and cooked as mush in various combinations according to taste and availability. Greens and fruits were eaten raw or cooked or sometimes dried for storage. Bulbs, roots, and tubers were dug in the spring and summer and usually eaten fresh. Mushrooms and tree fungus were prized as delicacies. Various teas were made from flowers, fruits, stems, and roots for medicinal cures as well as beverages (Bean and Smith 1978:538-540).

The principal game animals were deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, antelope, quail, dove, ducks, and other birds. Most predators were avoided as food, as were tree squirrels and most reptiles. Trout and other fish were caught in the streams, while salmon were available when they ran in the larger creeks. Marine foods were extensively utilized. Sea mammals, fish, and crustaceans were hunted and gathered from both the shoreline and the open ocean, using reed and dugout canoes. Shellfish were the most common resource, including abalone, turbans, mussels, clams, scallops, bubble shells, and others (Bean and Smith 1978:538- 540).

The Project Area was not home to any known major villages. The closest known named village is Kenga located 10.5 miles west of the Project Area. However, smaller villages and seasonal camps may have been present closer to the Project Area.

JUANEÑO ACJACHEMEN
About 1,300 years ago the Acjachemen (Juaneño), who were hunters and gatherers of the San Luis Rey Cultural Pattern, moved into southern Orange County. The Acjachemen speak a language that is part of the Takic language family. Their traditional tribal territory was situated partly in northern San Diego County and partly in southern Orange County (Figure 5). The boundaries were Las Pulgas Creek (south), Aliso Creek (north), the Pacific Ocean (west) and the Santa Ana Mountains (east). Villages were mostly along San Juan Creek, Trabuco Creek and San Mateo Creek (O’Neil and Evans 1980).

In prehistory, the Acjachemen had a patrilineal society and lived in groups with other relatives.

These groups had established claims to places including the sites of their villages and resource areas. Marriages were usually arranged from outside villages establishing a social network of 563
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 17
related peoples in the region. There was a well-developed political system including a hereditary chief. Religion was an important aspect of their society. Religious ceremonies included rites of passage at puberty and mourning rituals (Kroeber 1976).

Houses were typically conical in shape and thatched with locally available plant materials. Work areas were often shaded by rectangular brush-covered roofs (ramada). Each village had a ceremonial structure in the center enclosed by a circular fence where all religious activities were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978).

Women are known to have been the primary gatherers of plant foods, but also gathered shellfish and trapped small game animals. Men hunted large game, most small game, fished, and assisted with plant food gathering, especially of acorns. Adults were actively involved in making tools including nets, arrows, bows, traps, food preparation items, pottery, and ornaments. Tribal elders had important political and religious responsibilities and were involved in education of younger members (Bean and Shipek 1978).

HISTORIC SETTING
SPANISH PERIOD (1769-1820)
The earliest exploration of Orange County by Europeans was the land expedition of Gaspar de Portola. He set out from Mission San Diego to find a land route to the Bay of Monterey. His expedition passed through Orange County in northward (1769) and southward (1770) directions (Bean 1968). He named Trabuco Creek, Santiago Creek, and other geographic features he encountered.

MEXICAN PERIOD (1821-1847)
Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821 and the new liberal politics of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 were embraced by the emerging generation of Californios and Californias (persons of Mexican heritage born in California). Most of these young peoples’ parents were soldiers from Sonora and Sinaloa who had risen to positions of authority within the military. The opportunities for upward mobility for themselves and their families were significant (Beebe and Senkewicz 2001).

In 1846, the Mexican-American war erupted following the Bear Flag Revolt in California. Both the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which Mexico ceded California to the United States and the unprecedented events of the Gold Rush that same year destabilized California, producing rapid, dramatic change (Haas 1995).

AMERICAN PERIOD (1848-PRESENT)
The Mexican-American war followed on the heels of the Bear Flag Revolt of June 1846 (Ohles 1997). General Andrés Pico and John C. Frémont signed the Articles of Capitulation in 564
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 18
December 1847, and with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 1848, hostilities ended and Mexico relinquished California to the United States. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded the lands of present-day California, New Mexico and Texas to the U.S. for $15 million (Fogelson 1993:10). Within two years following the treaty, California applied for admission as a state.

Figure 6. Land grant map

ALISO VIEJO HISTORY
Juan Avila received the 13,316-acre Niguel land grant in 1842 (Figure 6) and re-established the title in 1848 after California become part of the United States. He remained owner of Rancho Niguel until 1865 (City of Laguna Niguel 2023). By 1884, Chicago born Lewis Moulton rented Rancho Niguel from then owner Cyrus B. Rawson to rear sheep and cattle. In 1895, Moulton LAS1BOLSAS

SANTIAGO DE

SANTAANA
A?
SAN :JOAQUIN

SAN JOAQUIN
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
Key
II II Project Area
D Land Grant
0 LOMAS DE

SANTIAGO
NIGUEL
Kilometers ,NMIL __
0 2.5
Miles

2.5 TRABUCO
N
A
1:250,000
\sANTA MARCARIT
Y L~S·FrnRES

AVBCOMMONS
City of Aliso Viejo
Orange County, CA
co~tone· PALECINTOI.OIY -AltCHAEIILOOY~ HISTORY
565
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 19
and his business partner, French Basque born Jean Pierre Daguerre, purchased the rancho and established the Moulton-Daguerre Ranch. Following the death of Daguerre in 1911 and Moulton in 1938, the surviving Moulton family maintained the ranch until 1950. The land was then divided amongst the Moulton and Daguerre families (Wells 2018). The Mission Viejo Company purchased the last 6,600 acres of Moulton holding in 1976. The first units were offered for sale in 1982 and the Aliso Viejo Community Association began a campaign to make the community a city. Aliso Viejo became a city in 2001 after a community vote (acvcity.org 2024).

PROJECT AREA HISTORY
Cogstone reviewed historic USGS topographic quadrangle maps and USDA historic aerial photographs of the Project Area
There is no built environment visible in the earliest available aerial photograph of the Project Area which is dated 1931(FrameFinder 1931). The 1938 aerial photograph depicts an adjoining parcel as tilled for agriculture but there is still no development in the Project Area (NETROnline 1938). The 1993 aerial photograph shows a direct access road and a wide drainage ditch within the Project Area (NETROnline 1993). Aerial photographs from 1995-1997 show construction for the modern building that adjoins the parking lot that is within the Project Area (NETROnline 1995), the completed building and parking lot (NETROnline 1996), and adjoining landscape (NETROnline 1997)
The earliest known USGS historical topographic map for the Project Area, Southern California Sheet No 1 (1:250,000; 1901), and the latest available topographic map of the Project Area, Santa Ana (1:100,000; 1983), both predate development of the Project Area and neither map provides any other useful information regarding the history of the parcel.

RECORDS SEARCH

PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH
A search for paleontological records was completed by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM; Bell 2024; Appendix B). Additional databases queried included the LACM invertebrate fossil database (LACMIP 2024), the Paleobiology Database (PBDB 2024) and the University of California Museum of Paleontology online database (UCMP 2024).

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 Area.

However, numerous localities are recorded from the Monterey Formation in the near vicinity of 566
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 20
the Project Area. 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 (Appendix C).

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
Cogstone requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton on December 18, 2023 which included the entire proposed Project Area as well as a half-mile distance radius. Results of the record search indicate that four previous studies have been completed within the Project Area while an additional 13 studies have been completed previously within a half-mile radius of the Project Area (Table 2).

Table 2. Previous Studies within a half-mile radius of the Project Area Report
No.
(OR-)
Author(s) Title Year Distance
(miles) from
Project Area
00255 Anonymous Archaeological Report on the Aliso Creek CorridorPlanning Units 2 & 3 Orange County, California1977 Within 00431 Anonymous Aliso Viejo Cultural/Scientific Resources Management Plan
1979 Within
00512 Romero, John B. Orange County, California, Indian Campsites 1935 0.25-0.5 00580 Anonymous The Aliso Creek Watershed, Orange County, California a Proposal for Creating an Archaeological
District for the National Register of Historic Places
and a Suggested Research and Study Design
1977 Within
00702 Scientific
Resource Surveys,
Inc.

Cultural Scientific Resources Report on the Aliso
Viejo Company Property Located in the Southeastern
Portion of the County of Orange
1977 0.25-0.5
00705 Anonymous A Final Report on the Scientific Resources Survey for Moulton Ranch
1973 Within
00718 Van Horn, David
M., J.D. Cooper,
E. Crespin, and
J.R. Murray
A Cultural/Scientific Resources Investigation of the
Planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
(phase II)
1983 0-0.25
00719 Anonymous Hansom Ranch 1972 0-0.25
00720 Cottrell, Marie G. San Joaquin Transportation Corridor: an Annotated List of Archaeological Reports Referenced by
Number
1983 0-0.25
00938 Bissell, Ronald M. Status of Cultural Resources in the Wood Canyon Area, Southern Orange County, California
1988 0.25-0.5
01133 De Barros, Philip,
and Henry C.

Koerper
Final Test Investigation Report and Request for
Determination of Eligibility for 23 Sites Along the
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
1990 0-0.25
01350 McKenna, Jeanette
A., and Philip De
Barros
Archaeological Survey Report Historic Sites
Addendum San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
12-ORA-73 12-102540
1993 0-0.25
567
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 21
Report
No.
(OR-)
Author(s) Title Year Distance
(miles) from
Project Area
01351 McKenna, Jeanette
A., and Philip De
Barros
Historic Study Report San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor 12-ORA-73 12-102540
1993 0-0.25
01717 Mason, Roger D.,
and Brant A.

Brechbiel
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Results of
Construction Monitoring for Archaeological
Resources Mitigation Monitoring Measures 11-1
1997 0-0.25
01843 Demcak, Carol R.
and Pamela C.

Maxwell
Archaeological Investigations at the Aliso Viejo
Sites, South Orange, California
1995 0.25-0.5
03574 Losee, Carolyn Cultural Resources Investigation for T-Mobile LA33538B “Hoag Health Center” 26671 Aliso Creek
Road, Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California 92656
2009 0-0.25
04103 Fulton, Phil Finding of Effect for the Route 73 Basin Sedimentation Project, Orange County, California,
EA 0H4400
2009 0-0.25
No cultural resources have been recorded within the Project Area (Table 3). Outside of the Project Area a total of two cultural resources, both of which are prehistoric archaeological sites, have been previously documented within the half-mile search radius and are located within a quarter to half mile radius of the Project Area (Table 3).

Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a half-mile radius of the Project Area
Primary
No. (P30-)
Trinomial
No. (CAORA-)
Resource
Type
Resource
Description
Year
Recorded
Distance
(miles) From
Project Area

NRHP/CRHR
Status
000017 000017 Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Romero’s Camp
Number 17 with
mortars and metates
1949 0.25-0.5 Unevaluated
001213 001213 Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic scatter with
manos, groundstone
fragments, one
chopper, one
scraper plane,
debitage and rodent
bone
1989 0.25-0.5 Unevaluated

OTHER SOURCES
In addition to the SCCIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted in February 2024 to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Project vicinity (Table 4). Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). Specific information about the Project Area, obtained from historic-era maps and aerial photographs, is presented in the Project Area History section.
568
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 22
Table 4. Additional sources consulted
Source Results
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Negative
Historic USGS Topographic Maps see Project Area History Section Historic US Department of Agriculture Aerial
Photographs
see Project Area History Section
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Negative Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Negative
California Historical Landmarks (CHL) Negative
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) Negative Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land
Office Records
Positive; see Table 5
Local Registers: Preserve Orange County (Orange
County Historic Sites)
Negative
Table 5. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) results
Name Accession No. Issue Date Authority Location
Juan Avila
Felipe Sanchez
Guadalupe Sanchez
Josefa Sanchez
Juana Sanchez
Louisa Sanchez
Tomas A. Sanchez
CACAAA 084591 4/5/1873 GrantSpanish/MexicanT:7S; R:8W; Sec 9 Felipe Lobo CA0500__.131
CACAAA 085014
11/10/1874 Sale-Cash Entry T:7S; R:8W; Sec 9
Cogstone architectural historian Shannon Lopez contacted the Orang County Historical Society via United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail on December 27, 2023. Ms. Lopez followed up via electronic mail on January 10, 2024 (Appendix E). No response as been received as of March 5, 2024.

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
Cogstone archaeologist Logan Freeberg requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 18, 2023. The NAHC responded on January 18, 2024 with a positive search result indicating that a tribal cultural resource is located within the same township, range, and section as the Project Area (Appendix D). 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 information about the Project Area.

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 has been received as of March 5, 2024.
569
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 23
The City is conducting government to government tribal consultation required under Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) and Senate Bill 18 (SB18).

SURVEY

METHODS
The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified cultural resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and the proximity of the resource to areas of cultural resources sensitivity. All undeveloped ground surface areas within the ground disturbance portion of the Project Area 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. Photographs of the Project Area, including ground surface visibility and items of interest, were taken with a digital camera.

RESULTS
Cogstone archaeologist Sandy Duarte completed the pedestrian on February 28, 2024 using two to five meter transects in all non-hardscaped or landscaped areas (Figures 7 to 10). Sediments, where visible, were sandy loam and appeared to be amended by outside fill (Figure 11). No cultural or paleontological resources were observed during the pedestrian survey. 570
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 24
Figure 7. Overview of easter portion of Project Area. View to the west.

Figure 8. Overview of eastern portion of Project Area. View to the southwest. 571
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 25
Figure 9. Overview of northeast portion of Project Area. View to the south-southwest.

Figure 10. Southern boundary of Project Area. View to the northwest. 572
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 26
Figure 11. Typical sediments within the Project Area.

STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources. Fossils are considered to be significant if one or more of the following criteria apply:

1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct;

2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein;

3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;

4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life;

5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.
573
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 27

6. All identifiable vertebrate fossils are considered significant due to the rarity of their preservation.

As so defined, 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 invertebrate 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 are also critically important (Scott and Springer 2003; Scott et al. 2004).

PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
Paleontological resources occur in geological units (e.g., formations or members) that can be evaluated with respect to the probability of finding significant fossils. The potential sensitivity of a given geological unit in a Project Area can be broadly predicted from previous records of fossils recovered from that geologic unit in and/or adjacent to the study area. The geological setting and the number of known fossil localities can also help determine the paleontological sensitivity.

A multilevel ranking system has been developed by professional resource managers within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a practical tool to assess the sensitivity of sediments for fossils. The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system (BLM 2016; Appendix F) has a multi-level scale based upon previously-demonstrated yield of fossils. The PFYC system provides additional guidance regarding assessment and management for different fossil yield rankings. The geological setting and the number of known fossil localities help determine the paleontological sensitivity according to PFYC criteria.

Sediments that are close to their basement rock source are typically coarse; those farther from the basement rock source are finer. The chance of fossils being preserved greatly increases once the average size of the sediment particles is reduced to 5 millimeters in diameter or less. Moreover, fossil preservation also greatly increases after natural burial in rivers, lakes, or oceans. Remains left on the ground surface can become weathered by the sun or consumed by scavengers and bacterial activity, usually within 20 years or less. So the sands, silts, and clays of rivers, lakes, and oceans are the most likely sediments to contain fossils.

Using the PFYC system, geologic units are classified according to the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts within the known extent of the geological unit. Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher PFYC value; instead, the relative abundance of localities is 574
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 28
intended to be the major determinant for the value assignment.

Using these criteria, sediments of the Monterey Formation present at the surface and at depth within the boundaries of the Project are assigned moderate paleontological sensitivity (= PFYC 3). This marine unit has previously yielded scientifically important fossils, but such remains are distributed somewhat sporadically and can be widely scattered.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SENSITIVITY
Based on a review of the SCCIC record search results, review of historic USGS topographic quadrangle maps, and USDA aerial photographs, the Project Area is assessed to have a low sensitivity for buried historic-aged cultural deposits. Based on these data sources alone the Project Area is also 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 Area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
The Project is mapped as situated upon surface exposures of the Miocene Monterey Formation.

This geological unit has moderate paleontological sensitivity. The record search revealed multiple fossil localities from within the Project Area, as well as the near vicinity from sediments similar to those found within the study area. Paleontological monitoring of excavation may be required in this formation depending upon lithology and depositional context. Given this, excavation or other surface-disturbing activities will require professional assessment and evaluation in order to determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed ground-disturbing action and whether the action might affect such resources.

Based upon anticipated impacts to these marine sediments, a qualified paleontologist must be retained to develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan, which should include development of a paleontology Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) and paleontological monitoring. In the event of unanticipated discoveries, all work must be suspended within 50 feet of the find(s) until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the find(s) and make recommendations.
575
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 29

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to cultural resources, Cogstone recommends that this Project proceed as planned, but that full-time cultural resources and Native American monitoring be required should the cultural sensitivity of the Project Area be enhanced by the results of government to government Native American consultation.

REFERENCES CITED
Avcity.org
2024 About Aliso Viejo. Available at https://avcity.org/303/About-Aliso-Viejo. Accessed February 26, 2024.

Bean, Walton
1968 California: an Interpretive History. McGraw Hill, New York.

Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino in California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beebe, R.M., and R.M Senkewicz
2001 Lands of Promise and Despair: Chronicles of Early California, 1535-1846. Heyday Books, Berkeley.

Bell, Alyssa (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) 2024 Paleontological resources for the 5680-01 AVB Commons Project, Orange County, CA.

See Appendix B.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management)
2016 Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System. https://www.blm.gov/policy/im2016-124, accessed January 2023. 2024 General Land Office Records. Available at https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx, accessed February 26, 2024.

City of Laguna Niguel
2023 History. Available at https://www.cityoflagunaniguel.org/388/History, accessed November 21, 2023.

Fogelson, Robert M.
1993 The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. University of California Press, Berkeley.

FrameFinder
1931 “Flight C_1590, Frame 256”. Scale: 1:18,000. Photograph taken May 22, 1931.

Available with https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/, accessed February 26, 2024.
577
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 31
Haas, L.
1995 Conquests and Historical Identities in California 1769-1936. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Reprint of 1925 book.

LACMIP
2024 Online records search of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County’s Department of Invertebrate Paleontology database.

McLeod, S. (Natural History Museum Los Angeles County, Department of Vertebrate Paleontology)
2018 Vertebrate Paleontology Records Check for paleontological resources for the proposed City of Lake Forest General Plan Update Project, Cogstone Project # 4050, in the City of Lake Forest, Orange County, Project Area.

Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller
2006 Geology map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California; Geology and description of map units, version 1.0. Digital preparation by Cossette, P. M. and K. R. Bovard. USGS Open File Report 2006-1217, scale 1:100,000. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_78686.htm, accessed December 17, 2020.

NETROnline
1938 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed February 26, 2024.
1993 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed February 26, 2024.
1995 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed February 26, 2024.
1996 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed February 26, 2024.
1997 Historic Aerials. Available at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer#, accessed February 26, 2024.

OCPC
2018 Records search of the Orange County PaleoBiology Database.

Ohles, Wallace V.
1997 Mission San Miguel Property and Padres. The Friends of the Adobes, Inc., San Miguel, California.

O’Neil, S., and N. Evans
578
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 32
1980 Notes on Historical Juaneño Villages and Geographical Features. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2(2): 226-232.

PaleoBiology Database (PBDB)
2024 Online records search, February 2024, http://paleodb.org/.

Redin, T.
1991 Oil and gas production from submarine fans of the Los Angeles Basin, in Biddle, K. T., ed., Active margin basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, p. 239–260.

Rundel, P.W., and R. Gustafson
2005 Introduction to the Plant Life of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Scott, E., and K. Springer
2003 CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California. The Environmental Monitor Winter: 4-10, 17.

Scott, E., K. Springer, and J.C. Sagebiel
2004 Vertebrate Paleontology in the Mojave Desert: The continuing importance of “FollowThrough” in preserving paleontological resources in M. W. Allen and Reed, J. editors The Human Journey and ancient life in California’s deserts, proceedings from the 2001 Millennium Conference, 65-70.

Sutton, M
2010 The Del Rey Tradition and its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(2):1-54
Sutton, M., and J. Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64.

USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer
1901 Southern California Sheet No 1. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:250,000. Topographic Quadrangle Map. CA, 1901. Available at
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed February 26, 2024. 1983 Santa Ana. [map]. U.S. Geological Survey. 1:100,000. Topographic Quadrangle Map.

Santa Ana, CA. 1983. Available at
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed February 26, 2024.

UCMP, University of California Museum of Paleontology
2018 Records search of the University of California, Berkeley paleontology database.

Accessed online April 2018.
2024 Records search of the University of California, Berkeley paleontology database.

Accessed online February 2024.
579
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 33
Wagner, D. L.
2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. Online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note36.pdf.

Wells, Ted
2018 “Laguna Niguel”. Images of America. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston. 580
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 34
APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS
581
Cogstone 35

JOHN GUST
Task Manager, Principal Investigator for Archaeology, and Report Co-Author

EDUCATION
2016 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside (UCR) 2011 M.A., Anthropology, UCR
2007 M.A., Applied Geography, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) 2002 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Geography/Environmental Studies, UCCS

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Dr. Gust is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with over 11 years of experience in field archaeology. He meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and his field expertise includes pedestrian surveys, excavation monitoring, resource recording, and historic artifact analysis. Dr. Gust has managed cultural assessments for over 20 cellular tower projects and multiple assessments for construction of commercial and residential structures. He has also managed cultural resources monitoring projects for both public and private sector clients. Dr. Gust is a member of the Society for California Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology, and the American Anthropological Association.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (MUST) Project, Los Angeles County, CA. In 2017, Cogstone prepared a cultural and paleontological resources assessment for the proposed construction of a stormwater facility. The project intended to improve the water quality of existing urban runoff to the Los Angeles River, and ultimately to the Long Beach Harbor. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, background research, built environment assessment, Native American consultation, and reporting. In 2020, Cogstone produced a Paleontological Resources Management Plan to propose effective mitigation of potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from proposed construction of MUST and its associated Wetlands project. Sub to Michael Baker. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020 Santiago Canyon Estates Fuel Mod Project, unincorporated Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential for surface cultural resources for compliance with Orange County Fire Authority’s Precise Fuel Modification Plan for zones of the Santiago Canyon Estates Community. Services included a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission, and a reconnaissance survey. Sub to Fire Safe Council East Orange County Canyons. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020
OC-44 Pipeline Rehabilitation Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted cultural resources monitoring during ground-disturbing activities following their 2014 Cultural Resource Assessment of the APE pursuant to the involvement of land managed by United States Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Coastal Commission (CCC).

Although no cultural resources were identified within the APE, cultural resources and Native American monitoring were required as was stipulated in the Conditions of Approval by the CCC, as detailed in the Archaeological Construction Monitoring Treatment Plan for the project. Sub to Michael Baker. Supervisor. 2019- 2020
Euclid Fueling Station Project, City of Santa Ana, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during the construction of a convenience store, associated parking, gas station, and underground fuel storage tank. The assessment was conducted to meet the requirements of CEQA with the City of Santa Ana acting as lead agency. Cogstone conducted record searches, a Sacred Lands File Search, an intensive pedestrian survey, gave mitigation recommendations, and produced a report. Sub to Sagecrest Planning + Environmental. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2019
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
582
Cogstone 36

KIM SCOTT
Principal Investigator for Paleontology

EDUCATION
2013 M. S., Biology with Paleontology Emphasis, California State University, San Bernardino 2000 B. S., Geology, University of California, Los Angeles

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Scott has more than 28 years of experience in California as a paleontologist and sedimentary geologist and 17 years with Cogstone. She has written over 100 paleontological assessments, paleontological mitigation plans, and monitoring compliance reports to all agency requirements. She has experience with street, roadway, interchange, bridge, and grade separation projects. She has managed multiple projects and prepared technical reports with Caltrans/FHWA/FTA/FRA as the lead agency and is knowledgeable of the processes and procedures required to obtain NEPA, NHPA Section 106 and CEQA environmental approvals. Ms. Scott meets the qualifications outlined in Attachment 1 to Caltrans Section 106 Programmatic Agreement with the FHWA, and Chapter 1, Volume 8, on paleontology of the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER). Ms. Scott serves as company safety officer and is the author of the company safety and paleontology manuals. She is a Member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and the Pacific Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists.

SELECTED PROJECTS
City of Irvine General Plan update, Orange County, CA. The project assessed the City of Irvine for paleontologically sensitive sediments as well as previously recorded fossil localities. Prepared a Cultural and Paleontological Assessment. Sub to PlaceWorks. Principal Paleontologist. 2019 City of Lake Forest General Plan update, Orange County, CA. The project assessed the City of Lake Forest for paleontologically sensitive sediments as well as previously recorded fossil localities. Prepared a Cultural and Paleontological Assessment. Sub to De Novo Planning Group. Principal Paleontologist. 2019 I-405 from SR-73 to I-605 Improvements Project, Caltrans District 12, Orange and Los Angeles counties, CA (EA 0H100). The project is to improve 16 miles of Interstate 405 (I-405) by adding General Purpose lanes (GP) and a tolled Express Lane in each direction as well as other improvements to ramps and bridges. Prepared a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PMMP). Currently supervising paleontological monitoring. Sub to OC405 Partners Joint Venture. Principal Paleontologist. 2017 to present Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County, CA. The project involves extension of the subway in Westwood for 9 miles. Currently supervising paleontological monitoring and fossil recovery of excavations and fossil preparation in the lab. Ms.

Scott is also serving as the paleontological consultant for the construction management team’s design-build of three stations. Sub to WEST (Stantec/Jacobs JV). Paleontology Director and co-author. 2014-present State Route 57 Northbound Widening Project, Caltrans District 12/ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), City of Anaheim, Orange County, CA. Caltrans is widening State Route 57 between Orangewood and Katella Avenues. Paleontological Identification Report (PM 11.5/12.5; EA 0M9700). Under contract to WSP.

Principal Paleontologist and report author. 2017.

Interstate 605 and Katella Interchange Improvement Project, Caltrans District 12/ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), City of Anaheim, Orange County, CA. Caltrans is updating the southbound onramp to the interchange at Katella Avenue. Combined Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PM 1.1/1.6; EA 0K8700). Under contract to Michael Baker International. Principal Paleontologist and report author. 2017
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
583
Cogstone 37

LOGAN FREEBERG
GIS Supervisor

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

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Freeberg has over 20 years of experience in cultural resource management and has extensive experience in field surveying, data recovery, monitoring, and excavation of archaeological and paleontological resources associated with land development projects in the private and public sectors. He has conducted all phases of archaeological work, including fieldwork, laboratory analysis, research, and reporting. Mr. Freeberg also has a strong grounding in conventional field and laboratory methods and is skilled in the use of ArcGIS.

SELECTED PROJECTS
Bell Gardens Water Reservoir Project, City of Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during improvements which included a new two-million-gallon reservoir, booster pump station, well to be drilled, and other components. Services included record searches, Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the 1.7-acre project area. Sub to Infrastructure Engineers. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020
Santiago Canyon Estates Fuel Mod Project, unincorporated Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential for surface cultural resources for compliance with Orange County Fire Authority’s Precise Fuel Modification Plan for zones of the Santiago Canyon Estates Community. Services included a cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission, and a reconnaissance survey. Sub to Fire Safe Council East Orange County Canyons. GIS Supervisor. 2020 State Route 108/Highway 49 and Mackey Ranch Road Intersection Improvements Project, Caltrans District 10, Tuolumne County, CA. The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California (Tribe), in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposed to replace an intersection and convert to a roundabout designed to accommodate forecasted future traffic volumes and provide an alternative access route to the Chicken Ranch Rancheria. Cogstone completed an intensive-level pedestrian survey, CHRIS records search, sacred lands file search from the NAHC, Native American consultation, consulted with local history societies and preservation groups, and produced a Historical Resources Compliance Report (HRCR) and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR). Sub to Foothill Associates. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020 Dogwood Road Project, City of El Centro, Imperial County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural resources assessment to determine the potential effects to cultural resources resulting from the construction of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Part 70-B RD Funding assisted housing on a 2.2-acre parcel. Cogstone conducted a record search, pedestrian survey, and determined that no further cultural resources work was necessary. The assessment provided environmental documentation as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of El Centro acted as the lead agency. Sub to Partner Science & Engineering, Inc. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020
Laguna Creek Trail and Bruceville Road Project, Caltrans District 3, City of Elk Grove, Sacramento County, CA.

The City of Elk Grove, in cooperation with Caltrans, proposed multiple trail extensions and gap closures in effort to provide connecting links that would ultimately provide trail users with access to a vast system of trails, with connections to parks, schools, community centers, commercial retail and office areas, and transit facilities. Cogstone conducted pedestrian surveys, records search, and prepared an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR). Sub to Helix Environmental. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020 cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
584
Cogstone 38

MOLLY VALASIK
QA/QC

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

SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Valasik is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with more than 14 years of experience. She is a skilled professional who is well-versed in the compliance procedures of CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA and regularly prepares cultural resources assessment reports for a variety of federal, state, and local agencies throughout California. Ms.

Valasik has managed a variety of projects at Cogstone in the water, transportation, energy, development, and federal sectors. She meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She is accepted as a principal investigator for prehistoric archaeology by the State Office of Historic Preservation’s Information Centers.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Brea 265 Specific Plan, City of Brea, Orange County, CA. The objective of this study was to review and summarize available information regarding known paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan. This study provided environmental documentation as required by CEQA. A Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program and full-time monitoring was recommended. Due to the high sensitivity for subsurface archaeological resources, a cultural resources mitigation plan and monitoring was also recommended. Sub to Placeworks. Project Manager and Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2018-2019 1874 Alisos Avenue Project, City of Laguna Beach, Orange County, CA. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the construction of a building site for a single-family residence had the potential to impact cultural or paleontological resources. Cogstone conducted record searches, a Sacred Lands File Search, background research, a pedestrian survey, and produced an assessment. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2019 Irvine General Plan Update, Phase II, City of Irvine, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a study to review and summarize available information regarding known paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources within the boundaries of the City of Irvine to support the Phase II update of the City’s General Plan. A general analysis of impacts of future projects within the City of Irvine that may adversely affect paleontological, archaeological, or historic resources was provided along with mitigation recommendations. Sub to Placeworks. Principal Archaeologist. 2018- 2019
River Street Marketplace, City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted record searches, literature studies, and intensive pedestrian surveys to determine the potential effects to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from the construction of 64,900 square feet of proposed commercial and office space. The proposed project consisted of five buildings and was located on a 5.6-acre property occupied by the Ito Nursery which has been in operation since 1970. Sub to Placeworks. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2018 Agora Town Center Mixed-Use EIR, City of Laguna Niguel, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted due diligence review of the previous environmental document. Prepared updated cultural and paleontological sections, including updated records search. The project also involved preparation of a new Tribal cultural resources section and assisting the City of Laguna Niguel with combined SB 18/AB52 consultation and outreach. Sub to PlaceWorks. Principal Investigator. 2016
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
585
Cogstone 39

ERIC SCOTT
Report co-author

EDUCATION
1990 M.A., Anthropology (Biological), University of California, Los Angeles 1985 B.A., Anthropology (Physical), California State University, Northridge

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Scott is a professional vertebrate paleontologist with over four decades of experience in paleontological mitigation, fieldwork, curation, and research. He is emeritus paleontology curator at the San Bernardino County Museum, an adjunct instructor at California State University, San Bernardino, and a research associate of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the La Brea Tar Pits and Museum. He is a 30+ year member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, an international society of professional scientists where he currently serves on the Government Affairs Committee, and also holds membership in the Geological Society of America and other professional societies. Mr. Scott has published over 40 research articles in professional scientific journals.

SELECTED PROJECTS
Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway), Section 1, Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO), Los Angeles, CA. The project involves construction of seven stations from the existing Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Avenue along Wilshire Boulevard to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Westwood for 8.6 miles. Supervises paleontological monitoring, fossil recovery, and fossil preparation in the lab. Contributes to monthly reporting.

Sub to JV West. Paleontologist. 2017-ongoing
Irvine General Plan Update - Phase II, City of Irvine, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a study to review and summarize available information regarding known paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources within the boundaries of the City of Irvine to support the Phase II update of the City’s General Plan. A general analysis of impacts of future projects within the City of Irvine that may adversely affect paleontological, archaeological, or historic resources was provided along with mitigation recommendations. Sub to PlaceWorks.

Paleontology QA/QC. 2018-2019
Victorville Fleet Service Center Project, City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, CA. Cogstone was retained by the County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works to provide paleontological monitoring and mitigation during excavation conducted in conjunction with construction of the 4.8-acre project. Upon completion of monitoring, a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Report was submitted. Principal Investigator for Paleontology. 2018
SR 14 / Avenue N Operational Interchange Improvements Project, Caltrans District 7, City of Palmdale, Los Angeles County, CA. The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate paleontological resources during the proposed upgrades and improvements to transportation facilities. Cogstone conducted a ground-truthing survey and requested a record search from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Online records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database and the Paleobiology Database were searched for fossil records as well as print sources. Ultimately, a combined Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) was submitted and accepted with minimal comments. Sub to ECORP Consulting. Principal Investigator for Paleontology. 2018
I-10/Grove Avenue Corridor Project, Caltrans District 8, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA.

Cogstone produced a combined Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) and Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) to assess and plan for the potential for impacting fossil resources during proposed improvements to Grove Avenue south of Interstate 10. The proposed improvements included the widening of Grove Avenue from a four‐lane roadway to a six‐lane roadway from 4th Street to State Street/Airport Drive. The City of Ontario acted as the lead agency under CEQA and NEPA. Sub to Parsons. Paleontology QA/QC. 2017
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
586
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 40
APPENDIX B. PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH
587
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 41
Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90007
tel 213.763.DINO
www.nhm.org
Research & Collections
e-mail: [email protected]
January 7, 2024
Cogstone Resource Management
Attn: Logan Freeberg
re: Paleontological resources for the 5680-01 AVB Commons Project Dear Logan:

I have conducted a thorough search of our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for proposed development at the 5680-01 AVB Commons Project area as outlined on the portion of the San Juan Capistrano USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on December 18, 2023. We do not have any fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area, but we do have numerous fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that may occur in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth.

The following table shows the closest known localities in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA).

Locality
Number
LACM VP 7506
LACM VP 4445
LACM VP 3864
LACM VP 3863
Location
Aliso Viejo Golf & Practice
Center; west of Moulton Parkway;
north of the intersection of
Glenwood Drive & Golf Road
west edge of Moulton Parkway
between El Toro Road & Via
Iglesia
west side of Moulton Parkway
200 feet south of the intersection
of Calle Aragon
Formation
Monterey Formation
(laminated & blocky
diatomite & silt)
Monterey Formation (white
diatomaceous shale)
Monterey Formation
(deformed & folded white
shale)
Monterey Formation (orange
roadcut on the east side of to white coarse sand &
Moulton Parkway approximately elastic limestone which lies Taxa
Herbivorous
mammal
(Paleoparadoxia)
Baleen whale
(Mysticeti)
Marine mammal
(Cetacea)
2 miles directly south of the as lenses between beds of Uncatalogued fish intersection of El Toro Road & elastic & massive mollusk and marine San Diego Freeway bearing limestone) mammals
Roadcut on Moulton Parkway; 2 Scallops
miles south of intersection with El (Amussiopecten,
LACM IP 1189 Toro Road Vaqueros Formation Lyropecten)
VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; bgs, below ground surface This records search covers only the records of the NHMLA. It is not intended as a Depth
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
588
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 42
paleontological assessment of the project area for the purposes ofCEQA or NEPA. Potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area, either at the surface or in the subsurface. As such, NHMLA recommends that a full paleontological assessment of the project area be conducted by a paleontologist meeting Bureau of Land Management or Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Sincerely,
Alyssa Bell, Ph.D.

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
enclosure: invoice
589
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 43
APPENDIX C. FOSSIL LOCALITIES NEAR TO THE PROJECT
590
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 44
Common Name Taxon Age Locality Location Reference
sea lion Otariidae late
Miocene
LACM 3198,
3486, 3209-3210,
3412-3413, 4103-
4114
southern Lake Forest
area
McLeod 2018
dolphin †Kentriodontidae
baleen whale Mysticeti
dugong †Dioplotherium allisoni
bird Aves
crocodile †Crocodylus sp.
eel Anguilliformes
jack Carangidae
bonito Sarda sp.
barracuda Sphyraena sp.
hammerhead shark Sphyrna sp.
bonito shark †Isurus benedeni
shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus
megalodon shark †Carcharocles megalodon
bramble shark †Paraechinorhinus barnesi
shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus late
Miocene
OCPC 00023 Pecten Reef I OCPC 2018
hooked-tooth mako Isurus planus
mackerel shark Isurus sp.
mackerel shark Lamna sp. late
Miocene
OCPC 05431 Pecten Reef, Carol
Stadum collection
OCPC 2018
megalodon shark †Carcharocles megalodon
lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris
oyster Ostrea sp.
scallop †Lyropecten crassicardo
scallop Pecten sp.
prickly cockle Trachycardium sp.
clam Cardiida
butter clam Saxidomus sp.
591
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 45
geoduck Panopea sp.
bivalve Bivalvia
moon snail Polinices sp.
moon snail Naticid
Temblor tower snail †Turritella temulences
rock snail Forreria sp.
snail Gastropoda
barnacle Balanus sp.
animal Animalia
foram Foraminifera
sea urchin Eucidaris sp. late
Miocene
SDNHM 4520 Pecten Reef- Lake
Forest
SDNHM 2018
sea urchin Strongylocentrotus sp.
sand dollar †Vaquerosella merriami
sand dollar Vaquerosella sp.
sand dollar Rotulidae?
mussel Mytilus sp.
oyster †Crassostrea titan
oyster Ostrea sp.
scallop †Lyropecten crassicardo
scallop †Spondylus scotti
prickly cockle Trachycardium sp.
clam Veneridae
butter clam Saxidomus sp.
geoduck Panopea sp.
cowrie Zonaria new sp.
fig snail Trophosycon sp.
tower snail Turridae
murex snail Trophon bartoni
barnacle Balanus sp.
bryozoa Conopeum barbarensis
coral Anthozoa?
ichnofossil Ichnofossil
toothed whale Odontoceti late
Miocene
SDNHM 4522 Pecten Reef - Lake
Forest - Phosphate Bed
SDNHM 2018
whale Cetacea
592
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 46
desmostylus †Desmostylidae
mammal Mammalia
bony fish Osteichthyes
hooked-tooth mako Isurus planus
murex snail Trophon bartoni
woody plant Tracheophyta
scallop †Delectopecten peckhami late
Miocene
SDNHM 4892 Pecten Reef - Lake
Forest - Diatomite/Ash
SDNHM 2018
woody plant Tracheophyta
red algae Rhodophyta
trace fossil Ichnofossil
walrus-like seal †Desmatophocidae? late
Miocene
SDNHM 4964 Pecten Reef- Lake
Forest- Orange Sand
SDNHM 2018
rorqual whale Balaenopteridae?
toothed whale Odontoceti
whale Cetacea
desmostylus †Desmostylidae
mammal Mammalia
bird Aves
sea turtle Cheloniidae
crocodile †Crocodylidae
sheephead Semicossyphus sp.
wrass Labridae
mackerel/ tuna Scombridae, Scombridae?
barracuda Sphyraenidae
triggerfish/ filefish Balistidae
pufferfish Tetraodontidae
bony fish Osteichthyes
weasel shark †Hemipristis serra
requiem shark Carcharhinus sp.
requiem shark †Galeocerdo aduncus
lemon shark Negaprion sp.
ground shark Carcharhinidae
hammerhead shark Sphyrna sp.
thresher shark Alopias sp.
broad-tooth mako †Isurus hastalis
593
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 47
hooked-tooth mako Isurus planus
mackerel shark Isurus sp.
mackerel shark Lamna sp.
megalodon shark †Carcharocles megalodon
megalodon shark †Carcharocles sp.
eagle ray Myliobatis sp.
cartilagenous fish Chondrichthyes
pecten †Lyropecten crassicardo late
Miocene
UCMP 1910 Aliso Creek UCMP 2018,
2024
snail Voluta sp. late
Miocene
UCMP 6131 Bee Canyon UCMP 2018,
2024
polychate worm Pectinaria late
Miocene
UCMP 36218 Antonio Parkway UCMP 2018,
cockle †Scapharca obispoensis 2024
scallop †Delectopecten peckhami
walrus-like seal †Allodesmus kernensis late
Miocene
UCMP V71020 El Toro 1 UCMP 2018,
sea lion Otariidae 2024
sperm whale Physeteridae
whale Cetacea
dugong Dusisiren jordani
desmostylus †Desmostylidae
bony fish Osteichthyes
dusky shark Carcharhinus sp.
requiem shark †Galeocerdo aduncus
broad-tooth mako †Isurus hastalis
hooked-tooth mako Isurus planus
mackerel shark Isurus sp.
eagle ray Myliobatis sp.
cartilagenous fish Chondrichthyes
leatherback sea turtle †Psephophorus sp. late
Miocene
UCMP V91240/
LACM 7136
Moulton Parkway UCMP 2018,
bird Aves 2024
halibut Paralichthys sp.
ground shark Carcharhiniformes
cartilagenous fish Chondrichthyes
594
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 48
leatherback sea turtle Dermochelyidae late
Miocene
UCMP V99592 Geraldine's Turtle UCMP 2018,
2024
leatherback sea turtle Dermochelyidae late
Miocene
UCMP V99593 Scott's Turtle UCMP 2018,
2024 I I
595
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 49
APPENDIX D. SACRED LAND FILE SEARCH
596
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 50
Sacred Lauds File & Native Ame1icao Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite I 00
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 - Fax
[email protected]. "'OV
Ir formation Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: AVB Commons
County: Orange
USGS Quadrangle
Name: San Juan Capistrano
Township: 7S Range: SW
Company/Finn/Agency:

Cogstone Resource Management
C011tact Person:

Street Address: 1518 W. Taft Avenue
City: Orange
Phone: (714) 974-8300 Extension:

Fax: (714) 974-8303
Section( s ): 9
--------------
Zip: 92865
Email: cog stonecon sult@cog stone. com
Project Description:

The proposed Prcject will construct a six-story mixed-use building with 362 residential apartments composed of Studios, 1-, 2- & 3-bedroom units with approximately 5,770 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial use. The Prcject also has a parking structure in the center of the development with a recreation space on top th at includes a clubhouse, fitness/wellness center, meeting rooms and workspaces all of which surround a pool/spa deck.
0 Project Location Map is attached
SLF&Cont.acufonn: nv: 05/07/14
597
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 51
Key
I CJ I Project Area City of Aliso Y~
Oraoge Couoty,
co~t~~~:' ...u. ... m. ...........
598
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 52
CHAlePEl1'SON
Reginald Pagaling
0-,umash
VlcE-CHA1ePEl1'SON
Buffy McOuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
SECeETAeY
SCl'a Outschke
lv'iwok
PAeUAM.ENl'ARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Lui'sef>o
CoMt-'J~ONfe
Isaac Bojorquez
0-,lone-Costanoan
COM.Ml~ONEe
Stanley R:om'iguez
Ktxneyaay
COMMl~ONEe
Lall"ena Bolden
Serrano
COMVJ~ONEe
Reid Milonovich
Gahui«a
ExECUTIYE SECeETAeY
Raymonde.

Hitchcock
Mwok, Ni'senan
NAHC HEADQUAltT ERS
1S50 Harbor BoUevard
&Jite 100
West Sacramento,
Califorria 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]. gov
NAHC.ca.gov
SJAJE OE CAI IEORNIA Gavin Newsom Gnvemoc

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
January 18, 2024
Logan Freeberg
Cogslone Resource Management
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: AVB Commons Project, Orange County
Dear Mr. Freeberg:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for lhe information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes on the attached list for information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. A SLF search~ not a substitute for consultation with lobes that are traditionally and culturally attiliated with a project's geographic area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding mown and recorded sites, such as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System ( CHRIS) archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological sites.

Attached~ a l~t of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in localing areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge_ By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
CU/ltxol Resources f>no/yst
Attachment
Page I of I
599
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 53
Table C-1. Native American contacts from NAHC
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Orange County
1/18/2024
Tribe Name Contact Person Cultural
Affiliation
Counties Last Updated
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson Gabrieleño Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
8/18/2023
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation
Christina Swindall Martinez,
Secretary
Gabrieleño Los Angeles, Orange ,Riverside, San
Bernardino ,Santa Barbara, Ventura
8/18/2023
Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson Gabrieleño Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura
12/4/2023
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Sandonne Goad, Chairperson Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura
3/28/2023
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
3/16/2023
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Cultural
Resource Administrator
Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Ventura
3/16/2023
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Charles Alvarez, Chairperson Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura
5/30/2023
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resource
Director
Gabrielino Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Ventura
5/30/2023
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Sonia Johnston, Chairperson Juaneño Orange, Riverside, San Diego Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation - Belardes
Joyce Perry, Cultural Resource
Director
Juaneño Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
3/17/2023
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation 84A
Heidi Lucero, Chairperson,
THPO
Juaneño Los Angeles, Orange ,Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
3/28/2023
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Norma Contreras, Chairperson Luiseno Orange, Riverside, San Diego Pala Band of Mission Indians Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO Cupeno Luiseno
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego 11/27/2023 Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cupeno
Luiseno
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego 11/27/2023 Pala Band of Mission Indians Christopher Nejo, Legal
Analyst/Researcher
Cupeno
Luiseno
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego 11/27/2023 I
600
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 54
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Orange County
1/18/2024
Tribe Name Contact Person Cultural
Affiliation
Counties Last Updated
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar, Chairperson Luiseno Orange, Riverside, San Diego Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair Cahuilla Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
7/14/2023
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego
7/14/2023
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed AVB Commons Project, Orange County.

Record: PROJ-2024-000294
Report Type: List of Tribes
Counties: Orange
NAHC Group: All
601
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 55
APPENDIX E. HISTORICAL SOCIETY CONSULTATION
602
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 56
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
January LO, 2024 (1" attempt: December 27, 2023)
Orange County Historical Society
3l01 W Harvard St.

Santa Ana, CA 92704
RE: Request for Information regarding the AvalonBay Commons Prcject, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California
To Whom It May Concern:

Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) is conducting a cultural resources assessment for the AvalonBay (AVB) Commons Prcject (Prcject) located on 4.4 acres within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 629-LOl-16, located in the City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California.

The proposed Project will construct a six-story mixed-use building with 362 residential apartments composed of Studios, 1-, 2- & 3-bedroom units with approximately 5,770 square feet of ground floor retaiVcommercial use. The Prcject also has a parking structure in the center of the development ;vith a recreation space on top that includes a clubhouse, fitness/wellness center, meeting rooms, and workspaces all of which surround a pooVspa deck.

We are contacting you because we would like to invite members of the Orange County Historical Society to provide input regarding the redevelopment of the Prcject area. We appreciate any information regard111g the history of the Prcject area that you may have as well as any comments, issues, and/or concerns relating to the history of the Prcject area. Please contact me at [email protected]. Thank you for your attention to this matter. •
Sincerely,
SL-..-~
Shannon Lopez, M.A.

Architectural Historian
(714) 974-8300 x.108
[email protected]
1518 We~tTaftAvmue
Orange, CA 92865
Office(?14) 9?4-8300
Bl'anclt Offices
San Di.ego- Riverside- Morro Bay- Saaamento
f'ede'tal Cmi.fi.cati.ons EDWOSB, SOB
fute CatifiCJ.tions DBE, WBE, UOSE
mgstoue,com
Tollfree(SSS) 333-3212
, • : • ,-:~·?::;:
,.,.: ;~!~~~ '•"'1'• '
t:.
'
603
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 57
Santa Ana ,.,~, ;;.
ncaro
llf'/
"
~ .. .

Service Layer Credits: Souroes: Esri,
HE~E. Garmin, USGS, lntermap~
Ke,,
[Q I Projc-ct A n:o
Figure 1. Project Vidnity Map
Kilomtt("B
mgstone.com
N
10 A

1.250,000

CAL IFOR N IA

AVBCOMMONS
City o( Ah.so Vic,o
Orangt. County, CA
ft
604
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 58
Figure 2. Project Location Map
rogstOM.eom

AVB COMMONS
c;it)' of AliJ.O Viej()
Orsnge Count)', (.'A
605
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 59
!w:
[g) l'roj«t Ar<ll
Figure 3. Project Aerial Map
2,
Fcc1
100
,o
cogstone.com
N
A Cily of Ahso Vic,o
Orange County. CA
606
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 60
cogstone
PALEONTOLOGY· ARCHAEOLOGY· HISTORY
December 27, 2023
Orange County Historical Society
3101 W Harvard St.

Santa Ana, CA 92704
RE: Request for Information regarding the AvalonBay Commons Prcject, City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California
To Whom It May Concern:

Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) is conducting a cultural resources assessment for the AvalonBay (AVB) Commons Prcject (Prcject) located on 4.4 acres within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 629-101-16, located in the City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California.

The proposed Project will construct a six-story mixed-use building with 362 residential apartments composed of Studios, 1-, 2- & 3-bedroom units with approximately 5,770 square feet of ground floor reta.iVcommercial use. The Prcject also has a. parking structure in the center of the development ;vith a. recreation space on top that includes a. clubhouse, fitness/wellness center, meeting rooms, and workspaces all of which surround a. pooVspa. deck.

We are contacting you because we would like to invite members of the Orange County Historical Society to provide input regarding the redevelopment of the Prcject area.. We appreciate any information regard111g the history of the Prcject area. that you may have as well as any comments, issues, and/or concerns relating to the history of the Prcject area.. Please contact me at [email protected]. Thank you for your attention to this matter. •
Sincerely,
SL-..-~
Shannon Lopez, M.A.

Architectural Historian
(714) 974-8300 x.108
[email protected]
1518 We~tTaftAvmue
Orange, CA 92865
Office(?14) 9?4-8300
Bl'anclt Offices
San Di.ego- Riverside- Morro Bay- Saaamento
f'ede'tal Cmi.fi.cati.ons EDWOSB, SOB
fute CatifiCJ.tions DBE, WBE, UOSE
mgstoue,com
Tollfree(SSS) 333-3212
, • : • ,-:~·?::;:
,.,.: ;~!~~~ '•"'1'• '
t:.
'
607
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 61
Santa Ana ,.,~, ;;.
ncaro
llf'/
"
~ .. .

Service Layer Credits: Souroes: Esri,
HE~E. Garmin, USGS, lntermap~
Ke,,
[Q I Projc-ct A n:o
Figure 1. Project Vidnity Map
Kilomtt("B
mgstone.com
N
10 A

1.250,000

CAL IFOR N IA

AVBCOMMONS
City o( Ah.so Vic,o
Orangt. County, CA
ft
608
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 62
Figure 2. Project Location Map
rogstOM.eom

AVB COMMONS
c;it)' of AliJ.O Viej()
Orsnge Count)', (.'A
609
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 63
!w:
[g) l'roj«t Ar<ll
Figure 3. Project Aerial Map
2,
Fcc1
100
,o
cogstone.com
N
A Cily of Ahso Vic,o
Orange County. CA
610
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 64
APPENDIX F. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY RANKING

CRITERIA
611
AVB Commons AP Assessment
Cogstone 65
PFYC Description Summary (BLM 2016) PFYC
Rank
Very Low. The occurrence of significant fossils is non-existent or extremely rare. Includes igneous (excluding air-fall and reworked volcanic ash units), metamorphic, or Precambrian rocks.

Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is usually unnecessary except in very rare or isolated circumstances that result in the unanticipated presence of fossils. 1 Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are unlikely to contain vertebrate or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils. Includes rock units less than 10,000 years old and sediments with significant physical and chemical changes (e.g., diagenetic alteration) which decrease the potential for fossil preservation. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is not likely to be necessary.
2 Moderate. Units are known to contain vertebrate or scientifically significant nonvertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered and/or of low abundance. Common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found and opportunities may exist for casual collecting. Paleontological mitigation strategies will be based on the nature of the proposed activity.

Management considerations cover a broad range of options that may include record searches, predisturbance surveys, monitoring, mitigation, or avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities may require assessment by a qualified paleontologist to determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the paleontological resources.
3 High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Fossils must be abundant per locality. Vertebrates or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability.

Mitigation plans must consider the nature of the proposed disturbance, such as removal or penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, or increased ease of access that could result in looting. Detailed field assessment is normally required and on-site monitoring or spot-checking may be necessary during land disturbing activities. In some cases avoidance of known paleontological resources may be necessary. 4 Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils are known or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted area. Paleontological resources are highly susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing activities.

Paleontological mitigation may be necessary before or during surface disturbing activities. The area should be assessed prior to land tenure adjustments. Pre-work surveys are usually needed and on-site monitoring may be necessary during land use activities. Avoidance or resource preservation through controlled access, designation of areas of avoidance, or special management designations should be considered.
5 Unknown. An assignment of “Unknown” may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied and field studies are needed to verify the presence or absence of paleontological resources. The unit may exhibit features or preservational conditions that suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the actual unit or area is known.

Literature searches or consultation with professional colleagues may allow an unknown unit to be provisionally assigned to another Class, but the geological unit should be formally assigned to a Class after adequate survey and research is performed to make an informed determination.

U
Water or Ice. Typically used only for areas which have been covered thus preventing an examination of the underlying geology.

W, I
612
Appendix C
Geotechnical Studies
613
17991 Fitch • Irvine, California 92614 • PHONE (949) 442-2442 • FAX (949) 476-8322 • www.nmggeotechnical.com June 20, 2022
Project No. 22048-01
To: Avalon Bay Communities
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90025
Attention: Mr. Christopher Bench
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, Proposed Commons Mixed-Use Apartment Development, City of Aliso Viejo, California

INTRODUCTION
At your request, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has prepared this preliminary geotechnical due diligence report for the proposed Commons project located northwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Enterprise in the city of Aliso Viejo. Our summary is based on review of available geotechnical reports and maps provided by you and the City of Aliso Viejo, review of historic aerial photographs and topographic maps; a site reconnaissance; our knowledge of geological conditions and constraints in the region; our experience during design, grading and construction of the Summit Business Park; and our experience with similar residential developments.

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The approximately 4.1-acre site is located northwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Enterprise in the city of Aliso Viejo, California. The site currently consists of an asphalt surface parking lot with planter medians and a 2H:1V slope that ascends up to 45 feet to Enterprise. The elevation across the asphalt parking lot is fairly flat, ranging from approximately 348 to 351 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The northwestern portion of the site consists of a 2H:1V buttress slope that ascends approximately 5 to 45 feet to Enterprise. We understand this compacted buttress fill slope was constructed with a subdrain system with subdrain outlets that extend to the slope face; some of these outlets were observed during our recent site reconnaissance. The fill material exposed in the slope and planters in the parking lot was observed to be white diatomaceous silt with small siltstone fragments. The asphalt surface and concrete V-ditches/curbs appear to be in moderately good condition, with some linear cracks throughout, generally consistent with aging improvements. 614
22048-01
June 20, 2022
220620 Prelim Due Diligence 2
NMG

SITE HISTORY
Based on our knowledge of the development in Aliso Viejo, the site was mass graded in the early 1990s by the Mission Viejo Company under the geotechnical observation and testing of The Earth Technology Corporation (Earth Tech), who also performed the initial investigation during the design stages of the site. We have not been able to obtain copies of these reports through requests from the City of Aliso Viejo.

Based on review of historic aerial photographs dating to 1946 and topographic maps dating to 1949, the site originally consisted of gentle hillside terrain ranging from 340 to 400 feet above msl.

The site sloped to the north to an incised channel in the location of the current State Route 73 Toll Road (SR 73). Historically, this region was used for dry farming and cattle grazing until the late 1980s when the Mission Viejo Company started development. The northeastern portion of the site was mass graded between 1988 and 1992, and included construction of Aliso Creek Road. By 1995, the entire site was graded to essentially its current condition, which included grading of the abutting slope and paving of Enterprise from Aliso Creek Road to the Town Center. Between 1996 and 1997, SR 73 was constructed and the adjacent commercial property to the northwest had been graded.

In 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) performed a feasibility study and provided design parameters specific to the subject site for a prior land use plan. The prior land use plan included two levels of subterranean development and retaining structures up to 55 feet high, essentially cutting out the buttress slope that ascends to Enterprise. Their study included three bucket-auger borings and slope stability analysis along the buttress slope. Their report did not include geotechnical borings logs, but provided a description of the fill and bedrock encountered and included cross-sections showing the bedrock layers dipping out of slope. They concluded that excavation into the buttress slope would render it unstable, and as such, they recommended a tieback anchor wall be designed and constructed (Kleinfelder, 2006).

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on review of the yield study exhibits, the proposed mixed-use apartment development will be a wrap-style construction with up to six stories of retail and apartments around the perimeter, and a central eight-story parking structure. No subterranean structures are anticipated at the site.

The recreation area is anticipated to be constructed atop the parking structure. Although a grading study was not available for our review, the yield study exhibits show the buildings may encroach significantly into the adjacent buttress slope.

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject site is located in the San Joaquin Hills within the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province. This geomorphic province includes the Los Angeles Basin and has a long, active geologic history, including deep marine sedimentation followed by uplift and fluvial and marine erosion.
615
22048-01
June 20, 2022
220620 Prelim Due Diligence 3
NMG
The subject site is underlain by artificial fill materials and interbedded diatomaceous siltstone/ claystone bedrock of the Monterey Formation. The bedrock was originally deposited within the Capistrano Embayment, which extended from San Clemente northward to the Santa Ana Mountains. During the Quaternary period, active faulting (associated with the San Andreas Fault system) subjected the embayment to compression and regional uplift. Also, during the Quaternary period, active streams channels cut canyons into the emergent bedrock. However, during past grading operations, the natural terrain was modified by cutting the ridges and filling canyon areas resulting in the current site configuration.

Geologic Units and Structure
We anticipate the northeast portion of the site and the buttress fill slope to consist of up to 20 to 40 feet of previously placed artificial fill primarily derived from bedrock of the Monterey Formation and placed under the observation and testing of Earth Tech (1995). Although we do not have the referenced report available, we have encountered the subject fill material during various phases of exploration for the adjacent Summit Business Park. Also, Kleinfelder encountered the fill during their site feasibility study (Kleinfelder, 2006) in two of their three borings. We anticipate the fill to consist of various mixtures of diatomaceous silt, elastic silt, clay, silty clay, and silty sand that is generally dry to moist, stiff, slightly to moderately plastic, and containing bedrock fragments.

The majority of the site may consist of sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation, which also underlies the artificial fill. Within Aliso Viejo, the Monterey Formation consists predominately of light gray to light brown highly diatomaceous clayey siltstone, which is moist, stiff to hard, and locally highly fractured and jointed. The clayey siltstone is interbedded with abundant sheared clay beds and vitric tuff horizons. The material is locally highly laminated and well-bedded, and has been found to be compressible under significant loading. During their feasibility study, Kleinfelder (2006) encountered this bedrock in all three of their bucket-auger borings and described it as diatomaceous siltstone and shale deposits that are friable and relatively weak. They also encountered some very soft sheared clay beds every few feet within the siltstone and local lenses of volcanic ash, concretionary limestone, calcareous sandstone and thin sandstone beds.

The geologic structure within the area can be somewhat variable due to regional faulting and folding; however, bedding was identified and measured by Kleinfelder (2006) and found to dip 6 to 41 degrees consistently to the northeast. These dips correlate to an apparent dip of 8 to 39 degrees out of slope, for an adverse bedding condition within the slope adjacent to Enterprise.

Faulting
The site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (California Geological Survey, 2018 and Hart and Bryant, 2007), and no evidence of active faulting was observed during this investigation or during rough grading operations. Also, based on mapping by the State (California Geological Survey, 2010), there are no active faults mapped at the site.
616
22048-01
June 20, 2022
220620 Prelim Due Diligence 4
NMG
Using the USGS computer program (USGS, 2022) and the site coordinates of 33.5786 degrees north latitude and 117.7253 degrees west longitude, the controlling fault at the site is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault located 3.8 kilometers (≈ 2.4 miles) at depth below the site. The maximum moment magnitude for the Controlling Fault is 7.1 MW. The other faults noted that can produce strong ground shaking at the site include the Newport-Inglewood (Offshore), Elsinore Glen Ivy and Oceanside. Based on review of published maps, historic aerial photographs, and topographic maps, the potential for primary ground rupture due to an earthquake is considered very low.

Seismic Hazards
The primary seismic hazard at the subject site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on a major regional active fault, such as the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault mentioned above. The site is not located in a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction as mapped by the State, but the slope adjacent to the site that ascends to Enterprise is located in a seismic hazard zone for earthquake induced landslides (CDMG, 2001a), likely due to the regional geology. Figure 2 shows the subject site in relation to the seismic hazard zones mapped by the State. Development of the site by the Mission Viejo Company included slope stabilization measures to mitigate this potential hazard.

Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the form of seepage zones by Kleinfelder (2006) at approximate elevations of 320 to 328 feet above msl, which is roughly 20 feet below the existing asphalt parking lot. Groundwater was not encountered by NMG during our prior study for the adjacent business development (NMG, 1997). Historic high groundwater is in excess of 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) (CDMG, 2001b).

LABORATORY TESTING
The Kleinfelder feasibility study did not include tabulated laboratory test results, but it did indicate the soils are corrosive to concrete and metals, have moderate to very high expansion potential, and have low shear strengths with an average friction angle of 12 degrees and a cohesion of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) along bedding and 25 degrees and 500 psf cohesion for across bedding (Kleinfelder, 2006).

Prior laboratory testing by NMG (1997) for the adjacent business development indicated the compacted fill soils are generally comprised of silty clay with liquid limits of 66 to 81 percent and plasticity indices of 37 to 49 percent (USCS classification of CH). Sieve analysis of the same compacted fill soils shows 74 to 82 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and 37 to 47 percent passing the two-micron sieve. Expansion indices ranged from 73 to 111, falling in the medium to high expansion potential range and direct shear tests indicated ultimate friction angles of 30 to 47 degrees with 0 to 200 psf cohesion.
617
22048-01
June 20, 2022
220620 Prelim Due Diligence 5
NMG

GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS/CONSTRAINTS
Based on the geotechnical data provided in the referenced reports (References) and review of published geologic maps/reports, the following conditions are anticipated. • Soil conditions across the site consist of 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.
• Overexcavation of both the bedrock and artificial fill materials should be anticipated, such that a minimum of 5 feet of new compacted fill underlies the building and footings. • Groundwater in the form of seepage was previously encountered at a depth of 20 feet below the existing parking lot grades. Other nuisance seepage may be encountered in heavily landscaped areas.
• Storm water infiltration into the subsurface soils is not considered feasible due to the presence of clayey subgrade soils and diatomaceous siltstone bedrock. • If grading/construction is proposed to encroach into the existing buttress slope, excavations into this slope may de-stabilize the slope and adversely impact Enterprise. Use of tie-back supported retaining structures and shoring should be anticipated during construction of the walls impacting this slope.
• The proposed parking structure and residential units may straddle a contact between siltstone bedrock and moderately deep artificial fill. Both of these earth units are considered compressible; thus, total and differential settlement under the heavy building load may be a significant constraint. Use of mat slab foundations, deep foundations and/or ground improvement (i.e., geopiers) may be required at the site. • Laboratory testing by NMG and others indicates the expansion index (EI) for soils at the site range from medium to very high.
• Based on chemical testing by Kleinfelder and on our experience at the adjacent business park, the sulfate exposure of the onsite soils is in the severe ("S4") range and may also be categorized as "severely corrosive" with respect to ferrous metals. • The site is not located in a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction, but the buttress slope along the western and northern border of the site is located in a seismic hazard zone for earthquakeinduced landslides. We anticipate that the prior grading of the buttress slope has adequately mitigated the potential for earthquake induced landslides. The most significant seismic hazard at the site is strong ground shaking due to an earthquake on a nearby active fault, such as the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust, Newport-Inglewood (Offshore), Elsinore Glen Ivy and Oceanside Faults.
--
618
22048-01
June 20, 2022
220620 Prelim Due Diligence 6
NMG

EXPLORATION, PLANNING AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The following presents a summary of our recommendations during the next phase of due diligence and future design stages.

1. A detailed subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program should be performed to verify the geotechnical conditions described herein in light of the proposed development.

2. Coordination with the design team, including the structural engineers for the parking structure foundation, residential building foundation, and the perimeter retaining structure will be important during analysis of the collected data.

3. Engineering analysis should be performed based on the subsurface exploration and should include settlement analysis, slope stability analysis, seismic design parameters, and foundation and wall design parameters. A geotechnical exploration and design report should be prepared documenting the geotechnical findings and site-specific conditions.

4. Future rough and precise grading plans should be reviewed and a report prepared to provide geotechnical parameters for design in accordance with the most recent requirements of the California Building Code (CBC).

5. The structural and foundation plans should be reviewed to confirm that the parameters used for design are in accordance with the recommendations of the design report.

6. The street improvement and utility plans should be reviewed and recommendations provided as needed.

If you have any questions regarding this preliminary due diligence study, please contact our office.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer our services.

Respectfully submitted,
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Shahrooz "Bob" Karimi, RCE 54250 Lynne Yost, CEG 2317
Principal Engineer Principal Geologist
LY/SBK/grd
Attachments: References
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Seismic Hazards Map
Distribution: Addressee (E-Mail)
619
22048-01
June 20, 2022
220620 Prelim Due Diligence

REFERENCES
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, California, Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits, Bulletin 204, Plate 1.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 2001a, Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the San Juan Capistrano 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Official Map Released December 21, 2001.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 2001b, Seismic Hazard Report for the San Juan Capistrano 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report No. 53, 2001.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, Compiled and Interpreted by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.

Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault zones Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 1997 and 2018.

Earth Tech, 1995, Final Rough Grade Compaction and Geology Report for Proposed Super KMart (#4957) Phase IIB, A Portion of Lots 18, 19 and 20 and Adjacent Slopes and Offsite Areas, Tentative Tract 13435; Planning Area 40.2, Aliso Viejo, California, Grading Permit No. GA940032, Project No. 94-1101-02, Dated February 22, 1995.

The Earth Technology Corporation, 1988, Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Planning Areas 40.1, 40.2 and 40.3, Aliso Viejo, California, Two Volumes, Project No. 87-810, Dated August 31, 1988.

Kleinfelder, Inc., 2006, Geotechnical Feasibility, Phase 3 Redevelopment, Enterprise and Town Center Drive, Aliso Viejo, California, Project No. 65579, dated November 1, 2006.

NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 1997, Geotechnical Investigation and Preliminary Recommendations for Foundation Design and Construction of the Proposed Phase I Commercial Development, Tentative Tract 13435, Aliso Viejo, California, Project No. 96152-01, dated February 20, 1997.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2022, Unified Hazard Tool, NSHM 2014 Dynamic Deaggregation Program; web site address: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 620

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

COMMONS AT ALISO VIEJO
ALISO VIEJO, California
Project Number: 22048-01
Project Name: Avalon/Aliso Viejo
Date: 6/20/2022
By: SBK/LY
Figure 1
Service Layer Credits: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS ©
2022 TomTom
© 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES
(2022) Distribution Airbus DS

SITE LOCATION MAP
0 250 500
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet ±
Subject Site
P:\2022\22048-01 Avalon - Aliso Viejo\Drafting\GIS\22048-01 SiteLocation.mxd NMG
~
621

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

COMMONS AT ALISO VIEJO
ALISO VIEJO, California
Project Number: 22048-01
Project Name: Avalon/Aliso Viejo
Date: 6/20/2022
By: WG/TM
Figure 2
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar
Geographics, and the GIS User Community
California Department of Conservation:
http://data-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/
b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad_0
Subject Site

SEISMIC HAZARDS AND FAULT ZONES MAP
Base: California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle Dated: December 21, 2001
Legend
P:\2022\22048-01 Avalon - Aliso Viejo\Drafting\GIS\22048-01 SeismicHazards.mxd Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones
Liquefaction Zones
± 0 250 500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
D
•
-
NMG
~
622
17991 Fitch • Irvine, California 92614 • PHONE (949) 442-2442 • FAX (949) 476-8322 • www.nmggeotechnical.com August 30, 2022
Project No. 22048-01
To: Avalon Bay Communities
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90025
Attention: Mr. Christopher Bench
Subject: Preliminary Summary of Geotechnical Findings, Proposed Commons Mixed-Use Apartment Development, City of Aliso Viejo, California
References: Kleinfelder, Inc., 2006, Geotechnical Feasibility, Phase 3 Redevelopment, Enterprise and Town Center Drive, Aliso Viejo, California, Project No. 65579, dated November 1, 2006.

NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2022, Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, Proposed Commons Mixed-Use Apartment Development, City of Aliso Viejo, California, Project No. 22048-01, dated June 30, 2022

INTRODUCTION
At your request, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has prepared this preliminary summary of geotechnical findings for the proposed Commons project located northwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Enterprise in the city of Aliso Viejo. This summary is based on our geotechnical exploration, laboratory testing, review of the site plan prepared by Tait and Associates received by NMG on August 25, 2022, our preliminary due diligence summary previously provided to you (NMG, 2022), and discussion with you.

SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY
The approximately 4.1-acre site is located northwest of the intersection of Aliso Creek Road and Enterprise in the city of Aliso Viejo, California. The site currently consists of an asphalt-surface parking lot with planter medians and a 2H:1V slope that ascends up to 45 feet to Enterprise. The elevation across the asphalt parking lot is fairly flat, ranging from approximately 345 to 349 feet above mean sea level (msl).

The northwestern portion of the site consists of a 2H:1V buttress slope that ascends approximately 5 to 50 feet to Enterprise. We understand this slope was originally a design cut slope but was replaced as a compacted buttress fill slope with a subdrain system. Based on our knowledge of the development in Aliso Viejo, the site was mass graded in the early 1990s by the Mission Viejo 623
22048-01
August 30, 2022
220830 Summary of Findings 2
NMG
Company under the geotechnical observation and testing of The Earth Technology Corporation (Earth Tech), who also performed the initial investigation during the design stages of the site. We have not been able to obtain copies of these reports through requests from the City of Aliso Viejo or the County of Orange.

In 2006, Kleinfelder, Inc. performed a feasibility study and provided design parameters specific to the subject site for a prior land use plan. Their study included three bucket-auger borings and slope stability analysis along the buttress slope. Their report did not include geotechnical borings logs, but provided a description of the fill and bedrock encountered and included cross-sections showing the bedrock layers dipping out of slope. They concluded that excavation into the buttress slope would render it unstable, and as such, they recommended a tie-back anchor wall be designed and constructed (Kleinfelder, 2006).

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on review of the site plan and discussions with you, the proposed mixed-use apartment development will be a wrap-style construction with up to six stories of retail and apartments around the perimeter, and a central eight-story parking structure, with one level of subterranean parking.

The recreation area is anticipated to be constructed atop the parking structure. The preliminary site plan shows the buildings may encroach significantly into the adjacent buttress slope.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Our subsurface study was conducted on July 22, 2022. Our study consisted of excavation of five hollow-stem-auger borings (H-1 through H-3) drilled to a depth of 16.5 to 51.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The boring locations were marked with stakes and cleared with DigAlert. Sampling of the borings included collection of drive samples using the modified California ring sampler and bulk samples. California ring samples were obtained from the exploratory borings with a 2.5-inchinside-diameter, split-barrel sampler. The samplers were driven with a 140-pound automatic-trip safety hammer, free-falling 30 inches. The bulk and drive samples were used to assess soil types beneath the site and obtain relatively undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. Blow counts were used to obtain a measure of resistance of the soil to penetration (recorded as blows-per-foot on the geotechnical boring logs). Bulk samples of onsite soils were collected from the cuttings and used for additional soil identification purposes and laboratory testing. Soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Upon completion of logging, the borings were backfilled with native soils and tamped.

Based on our drilling, the majority of the site consists of sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation, with only a thin veneer of artificial fill, up to 7.5 feet thick, along the eastern portion of the proposed development. The Monterey Formation bedrock consists predominately of light gray to light brown highly diatomaceous clayey siltstone, which is moist, stiff, and locally highly fractured and jointed. The clayey siltstone is interbedded with abundant sheared clay beds.

Bedding is variable due to regional faulting and folding; however, bedding was identified and measured by Kleinfelder dipping 6 to 41 degrees consistently to the northeast. These dips correlate to an apparent dip of 8 to 39 degrees out of slope, for an adverse bedding condition within the slope adjacent to Enterprise.
624
22048-01
August 30, 2022
220830 Summary of Findings 3
NMG
Groundwater was encountered in only one boring at a depth of 49.5 feet bgs. However, the prior study by Kleinfelder encountered groundwater seepage at approximate elevations of 320 to 328 feet above msl, which is roughly 20 feet below the existing grades.

LABORATORY TESTING
In-situ moisture contents of the subsurface soils ranged from 33.2 to 114.9 percent and dry densities ranged from 58.8 to 86.7 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Grain-size distribution tests were conducted on two soil samples collected in the upper five feet at the site. The results indicate the near-surface soils have fines contents (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from 78 to 86 percent with clay contents ranging from 24 to 44 percent. Atterberg limits tests performed on four samples of the upper 5 feet indicated liquid limits in the range of 62 to 78 percent with plasticity indices in the range of 38 to 49 (USCS classification of CH).

Direct shear tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed ring samples of bedrock to evaluate the strength properties of the onsite soil materials. The results of this testing indicate ultimate internal friction angles of 27 and 29 degrees at cohesions of 150 to 400 pounds per square foot (psf). Peak values for friction angles are 27 and 31 degrees at cohesions of 700 and 850 psf, respectively.

Consolidation tests were performed on six relatively undisturbed ring samples of artificial fill and bedrock materials in order to evaluate the settlement potential at the site.

Two bulk samples collected within the upper 6 feet of the existing subgrade soils indicate "medium" expansion potential, with expansion indices of 84 and 87. Note that these values are very close to "high" expansion potential, and our experience in the area indicates that soils with "high" expansion potential should be expected at the site.

INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY
Storm water infiltration into the subsurface soils is not considered feasible due to the presence of clayey subgrade soils and diatomaceous siltstone bedrock. Storm water capture, filtration and discharge into suitable drainage devices should be assumed for the proposed development.

SLOPE STABILITY
The existing slope, which ascends to Enterprise, consists of an earthen buttress approximately 5 feet deep by 40 to 80 feet wide. The clayey siltstone and sheared claystone bedrock dips roughly 10 to 40 degrees to the northeast and the strength parameters assigned by Kleinfelder (2006) for the bedrock indicate an internal friction angle of 12 degrees with a cohesion of 100 psf.

The site plan we reviewed 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 and the improvements above. Cutting into the buttress slope as designed will require construction of a nearly 30- to 40-foot-high anchored retaining wall (i.e., tiebacks, etc.).
--
625
22048-01
August 30, 2022
220830 Summary of Findings 4
NMG
Alternatively, the site plan may be modified to minimize encroachment into the adjacent slope, near the existing toe of the slope.

SETTLEMENT
The majority of the development consists of approximately 2 to 10 feet of artificial fill overlying sedimentary bedrock. In estimating the settlement potential of underlying soils due to fill and structural loads, we have assumed that the thickness of new fill placed at the site will be less than 3 feet above existing grades, the first level of the parking structure will be subterranean and the future parking structure column loads will not exceed 1,000 kips. The total settlement at the site due to fill and structural loads is estimated to be 1¾ inches, the differential settlement is typically estimated as ½ of the total settlement over a 40-foot span, provided that the remedial grading is performed as described below.

REMEDIAL EARTHWORK
The recommended geotechnical remedial removals across the site include removal of the weathered artificial fill and overexcavation of the bedrock. The anticipated depth of removals and overexcavation is generally on the order of 5 feet below existing grades throughout the site. The parking garage footprint should be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet to provide a uniform compacted fill blanket beneath the slab.

Please note that the diatomaceous nature of the sedimentary bedrock exhibits a high inherent moisture, due to encapsulated moisture in the diatoms. Grading within this material requires significant moisture-conditioning to obtain the required compaction.

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN
Based upon our experience, our site investigation, and laboratory testing, and provided that the unsuitable soils are removed and replaced with compacted fill, the continuous building foundations at the subject site may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. The foundations should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For shear wall and column pad footings, an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf may be used for footings with minimum depth of 24 inches (measured from the bottom of the slab) to bottom of footing and a minimum width of 24 inches.

The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. A coefficient of resistance of 0.32 against sliding is considered appropriate.

The garage slab should be a minimum of 6 inches thick, reinforced with minimum No. 4 bars at 18 inches on-center, over a minimum 6-inch-thick granular layer.

The design of foundations and slabs-on-grade for the apartment buildings should verify that the final design, at minimum, meets the requirements for expansive soils and the estimated settlement provided in this report. The following table provides our general guidelines and recommendations for design of post-tensioned foundations and slabs on expansive soil in accordance with the 2019 626
22048-01
August 30, 2022
220830 Summary of Findings 5
NMG
California Building Code (CBC) and Post-Tension Institute (PTI) DC 10.5 Edition provisions. These parameters will be reviewed upon adoption of the 2022 CBC and may need be updated in accordance with the updated code.

GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES

FOR DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED SLABS
Parameter Recommendation
Center Lift
* Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
* Center Lift, ym

7.5 feet

0.92 inches
Edge Lift
* Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
* Edge Lift, ym

3.9 feet

1.22 inch
Subgrade Modulus, k 50 pci
Modulus of Elasticity of Soils, Es 1,000 psi
Presaturation, as needed, to obtain the minimum
moisture down to the minimum depth

1.4 x optimum down to
24 inches
*Based on method in CBC 2019
The thickness of the slabs for the structures at the site is the purview of the project structural engineer.

For uniform-thickness post-tensioned slabs, we recommend that the slabs have a thickened edge such that the slab is embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The thickened edge should be tapered and have a minimum width of 12 inches. If non-uniform (ribbed) post-tensioned slabs are used, we recommend minimum embedment of 18 inches below adjacent grades for the thickened edges.

In addition, as indicated in the DC 10.5 Edition of PTI, shape factor calculations should be performed by the project structural engineer in order to determine if strengthening/modification of foundations are necessary. Per PTI guidelines, the modifications to the foundation design should be considered if the shape factor (ratio of square of foundation perimeter over foundation area) exceeds 24.

The slabs should also be designed to satisfy the settlement criteria discussed previously.

EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES
Existing utilities, including a trunk sewer and domestic waterline, are present within some of the drive aisles and electrical conduit is present throughout the site. The utilities to be abandoned, should include complete removal of the pipeline (in order to remove the backfill soils overlying the utility). Due to the potential adverse bedding conditions, excavations to remove abandoned utilities as well as excavations for proposed utilities should be no steeper than 1.5H:1V (unless shored) as the soils are anticipated to be classified as Type C for CalOSHA trenching and shoring excavation requirements.
627
22048-01
August 30, 2022
220830 Summary of Findings 6
NMG

FUTURE PLANNING AND DESIGN
Coordination with the design team, including the structural engineers for the parking structure foundation, residential building foundation, and the perimeter retaining structure will be important during analysis of the collected data. Engineering analysis should be performed based on the subsurface exploration and should include settlement analysis, slope stability analysis, seismic design parameters, and foundation and wall design parameters. A geotechnical exploration and design report should be prepared documenting the geotechnical findings and site-specific conditions.

If you have any questions regarding this summary of preliminary findings, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to offer our services.

Respectfully submitted,
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Shahrooz "Bob" Karimi, RCE 54250 Lynne Yost, CEG 2317
Principal Engineer Principal Geologist
LY/SBK/je
Distribution: Addressee (E-Mail)
628
Appendix D
Phase I ESA
629
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 • P: (818) 991-1542 • E: [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT - PHASE I
Undeveloped Property
APN 629-101-16 and a portion of 629-101-17 & 629-101-19 26501 Aliso Creek Road
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
FOR
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, Inc.
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90025
Attention: Christopher Bench, Senior Development Manager CE Job No. EV0622-3644
June 2022
California
~ I
• I
Environmental
630
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022 ii
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TEXT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................iv

2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................................................5

3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................5

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY / PROPOSED PROJECT.........................................................................................5

3.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .....................................................................................................................5

4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................6

4.1 PREVIOUS WORK..............................................................................................................................................6

4.2 SITE UTILIZATION HISTORY...............................................................................................................................6

4.2.1 Historical City Directories .........................................................................................................................6

4.2.2 Historical Aerial Photographs...................................................................................................................7

4.2.3 Historical Fire Insurance Maps .................................................................................................................8

4.2.4 Historical Topographic Maps....................................................................................................................8

4.3 RECORDS REVIEW INFORMATION....................................................................................................................8

4.3.1 Building Information.................................................................................................................................8

4.3.2 Underground Storage Tank & Hazardous Materials Research.................................................................8

4.3.3 State Regulatory Agency File Review........................................................................................................9

4.3.4 SCAQMD File Review ................................................................................................................................9

4.4 SITE DRIVE-BY...................................................................................................................................................9

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 10

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY .................................................................................................................. 10

5.2 ADJACENT PROPERTIES ................................................................................................................................. 10

5.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE...................................................................................................................... 10

5.4 PAST USES OF THE PROPERTY....................................................................................................................... 11

5.5 USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ............................................................................................................... 11

5.6 STORAGE TANKS............................................................................................................................................ 11

5.7 CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS OR UNIDENTIFIED SUBSTANCES................................................................... 11

5.8 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL................................................................................................................................ 11

5.9 POLY-CHLORINATED BIPHENYL’S (PCBs)....................................................................................................... 11

5.10 HEATING/COOLING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................................ 12

5.11 ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACM) ............................................................................................... 12

5.12 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS................................................................................ 12

5.13 RADON......................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.14 LEAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.15 WELLS.......................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.16 ODOR........................................................................................................................................................... 13

5.17 STRESSED VEGETATION............................................................................................................................... 13

5.18 STAINING OR RESIDUE ................................................................................................................................ 13

5.19 PITS, PONDS, OR LAGOONS......................................................................................................................... 13

5.20 POTABLE WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................................................................ 13

5.21 SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM........................................................................................................................ 13 631
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022 iii
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers, Inc.

5.22 OTHER CONDITIONS OF CONCERN ............................................................................................................. 14

6.0 NEARBY CONTAMINATED SITES ........................................................................................................................ 14

6.1 LANDFILLS...................................................................................................................................................... 14

6.2 OIL FIELD MAPS/METHANE HAZARD ZONES................................................................................................. 14

6.3 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ........................................................................................ 14

6.4 POTENTIAL VAPOR ENCROACHMENT CONDITION (p-VEC) .......................................................................... 17

7.0 APPARENT PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS............................................................................................................ 17

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 17

9.0 OPINION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL................................................................................................ 18

10.0 REFERENCES AND QUALIFICATIONS................................................................................................................ 19 TABLES
I. Historical City Directories.....................................................................................................................................7 II. Historical Aerial Photographs ..............................................................................................................................7 III. Standard Environmental Record Sources..........................................................................................................16

ILLUSTRATIONS
Site Photographs – Plates 1-2
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Plot Plan

APPENDICES
I. Environmental Field Reconnaissance Checklist and User Questionnaire II. EDR City Directory, Aerial Photographs, Sanborn Maps, and Topographic Maps III. Agency Inquiry and Response Letters
IV. EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck
V. Previous Environmental Reports
632
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022 iv
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers, Inc.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I was prepared for the subject property located 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656. The scope of work for the Phase I meets ASTM E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The purpose of the Phase I report is to provide information regarding the potential for hazardous material impacts to the soil and groundwater beneath the subject property. Such threats or material threats are identified in this report as Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). The presence of Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs) and Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) was also evaluated. The extent of this evaluation in conjunction with owner/client-supplied data is intended to satisfy the requirements of all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property. The scope of the work included a site reconnaissance, research of land use records and other sources for preliminary indications of hazardous material use, storage, or disposal at the property and/or on contiguous parcels.

The subject property is located on the south side of California State Route 73 between Enterprise and Aliso Creek Road, in the City of Aliso Viejo, California. The current street address for the property is 26501 Aliso Creek Road. According to the Orange County Tax Assessor’s office, the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the subject property are APN 629-101-16 and a portion of 629-101-17 & 629-101-19.

The subject property consists of one (1) complete irregular-shaped parcel of land and a portion of two (2) irregular-shaped parcels of land that encompasses approximately 4.2 acres. The central and eastern portions of the property are currently developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and the remainder of the property is covered with landscaping. The subject property parcels are contiguous with the Commons at Aliso Viejo mall.

The parking lot and mall were developed in approximately 1996. Access to the property is via Enterprise to the south and Aliso Creek Road to the east. Acquisition and residential redevelopment are proposed for the site.

Historical site utilization research indicates that the subject property was undeveloped until the currently existing parking lot was constructed in approximately 1996 as part of the Commons at Aliso Viejo mall.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed by AEI Consultants for several parcels including the subject property in 2022. The report was prepared pursuant to the ASTM 1527-2013 Standard for Phase I Environmental Assessments using the All-Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Standard. No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) were identified in connection with the subject property.

The subject property address (26501 Aliso Creek Road) is identified on the standard environmental government sources researched in this report. The address is listed on the CIWQS, AST, HWTS, HAZNET, RCRA NONGEN/NLR, FINDS, HWTS, and AST databases. These listings are not associated with the subject property and are connected with the commercial structure that is directly adjacent to the east that shares the same address (26501 Aliso Creek Road). The nearest listed contaminated site to the subject property is the 76 Station #5743 LUST cleanup site located approximately 2,000 feet to the south. The site 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 subject property.
633
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022 v
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers, Inc.

California Environmental has prepared an Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM 1527-21 for the property located at 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California. One (1) data failure was encountered during the preparation of this report. The owner questionnaire was not returned to CE. This does not alter the conclusions or recommendations made in this report. Review of recorded Land Title Records including environmental liens was excluded from this report. These records should be obtained and reviewed by the user.

No evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) was identified in connection with the subject property. No additional assessment is recommended. 634
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 1
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report presents the findings of the Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I prepared for the subject property located at 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California. The scope of the Phase I study meets ASTM E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments and included research of available land use records and other sources for preliminary indications of hazardous material use, storage or disposal at the property. The findings of this study are intended to provide information to the client regarding potential hazardous material impacts to the soil and groundwater beneath the site.

The scope of the investigation was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments – Phase I, Environmental Site Assessment Process ASTM E 1527-21.

The steps outlined in this process are intended to permit a user (client) to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide purchaser limitations on CERCLA liability. Specifically, this report along with certain obligations of the client, constitutes All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with the standard of care as practiced in this area by environmental professionals. A main component of the assessment is to identify recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, and historical recognized environmental conditions, as they may affect the subject property. As defined by ASTM E 1527-13, a recognized environmental condition (REC) 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.” A controlled recognized environmental condition (C-REC) is defined as “a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required 635
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 2
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.
controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” An historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) is defined as “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).”
An important component of complying with the ASTM E 1527-13 Standard is information to be obtained or in the possession of the client and/or seller of the property. Such information includes obtaining and review of a recent title report, any specialized information regarding the site or surrounding area which may give rise to identification of a recognized environmental condition, and/or reasons given by the seller should the purchase price be significantly lower than what would be reasonably expected for a property of similar size and value. Often a real estate appraiser is commissioned to evaluate the purchase or sale price of a property. Such an appraisal is outside the scope of this Phase I Assessment report.

The independent conclusions represent California Environmental’s (CE) professional judgment based on the conditions that existed and the information and data available during the course of the study.

Factual information regarding operations, conditions, and test data provided by the client, the owner or their representatives have been assumed to be correct and complete. This report includes CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, which together with the remainder of this report are subject to the NOTICE at the end of the report. This report was prepared for the sole use and reliance by the client as identified on the title page of this report. Use of this report by other entities is expressly forbidden unless the client and CE grant permission.

The scope of work included:
• A walkover of the site.
• Review of client/owner supplied information.
636
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 3
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.
• Review of building and grading permits on file with the City of Aliso Viejo. • A review of underground storage tank files and industrial waste records maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency – Environmental Health Division (OCHCA-EHD). • Review of historical USGS topographic maps and historical aerial photographs maintained by EDR Company.
• Research of historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps maintained by EDR Company. • Contact with the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control to review their files.
• Contact with the California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board to review their files.
• Contact with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to review their files. • Review of oil well records maintained by the Geologic Energy Management Division. • Review of the following lists and maps of suspect or known contaminated sites; a complete listing of these sources is contained within APPENDIX IV.
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board, (RWQCB) - Computer Case Listing of Reported Underground Tank Leaks, covering Orange County.
• California Department of Health Services - Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites - Cortese List and Contaminated Wells List, which includes the Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP) sites. • California Environmental Protection Agency, Facility and Manifest Data, HAZNET. • Historical California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control - CalSites List.
• California Department of Health Services, Hazardous Waste Information System (HWIS) and Tanner Report.
• California Integrated Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System - (SWIS) List. • State Water Resources Control Board, Toxic Pits Clean-up Act (Toxic Pits). • State Water Resources Control Board, Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (UST, LUST, SLIC, and WDS).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - National Priorities List (NPL). 637
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 4
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS). • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Conservation and Recovery Information, System Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities, (RCRA-TSDF). • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System, Large Quantity Generators, (RCRA-LQG).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System, Small Quantity Generators, (RCRA-SQG).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, Title III, (SARA Title III).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS). • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Index System (FINDS). • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Enforcement Docket (DOCKET). • A review of government records databases of suspect or known contaminated sites and historical city directories research was performed by EDR Company. The results of the search are summarized in this report. The EDR reports are enclosed in APPENDICES II and IV. • Review of a previous Phase I environmental report prepared by AEI Consultants. • Preparation of this report.
638
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 5
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located on the south side of California State Route 73 between Enterprise and Aliso Creek Road, in the City of Aliso Viejo, California, see FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP. The current street address for the property is 26501 Aliso Creek Road. According to the Orange County Tax Assessor’s office, the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the subject property are APN 629-101-16 and a portion of 629-101-17 & 629-101-19

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY / PROPOSED PROJECT
The subject property consists of one (1) complete irregular-shaped parcel of land and a portion of two (2) irregular-shaped parcels of land that encompasses approximately 4.2 acres. The central and eastern portions of the property are currently developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot and the remainder of the property is covered with landscaping, which is part of the Commons at Aliso Viejo mall. The parking lot and associated structures were developed in approximately 1996. Access to the property is via Enterprise to the south and Aliso Creek Road to the east. Acquisition and residential redevelopment are proposed for the site.

3.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The subject property is located within the San Juan Groundwater Basin. The basin is underlain by continental and marine sedimentary rocks with recent and Pleistocene alluvium deposits. The alluvium is poorly stratified and ranges from clay to gravel in size with the amount of fine-grained material increasing downstream towards the Pacific Ocean.
639
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 6
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

Groundwater level data was obtained from the RWQCB GeoTracker database for the Mobil #18-826 LUST cleanup site located approximately 2,500 feet to the north of the subject property. In 2015 the average depth to groundwater on this offsite property was approximately 15 feet bgs with a southeast direction of flow.

4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4.1 PREVIOUS WORK
A previous Phase I ESA report was prepared for the property by AEI Consultants (AEI) - Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 26501-26505 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656, dated May 4, 2022. The AEI Phase I ESA report encompassed several parcels including the subject property.

The report was prepared pursuant to the ASTM 1527-2013 Standard for Phase I Environmental Assessments using the All-Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) Standard. No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) were identified in connection with the property.

4.2 SITE UTILIZATION HISTORY

4.2.1 Historical City Directories
EDR Company was contacted to research historical city directories for the subject property and adjacent sites. The city directories were reviewed at approximately five-year intervals spanning from 1920-2014. A summary of city directories reviewed for the subject property is included in TABLE I. The EDR City Directory is attached in APPENDIX II.
640
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 7
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

TABLE I
Historical City Directories
Year Use/User Source
26501 Aliso Creek Road
1997 & 1999 KMART Super Stores, Little Cesears,
Perfuman 11A, Pizza Station Pacific Bell
2009 K Tyner, KMART, Lowes Cole Information Services
2014 Lowes, Lowes Home Improvement Cole Information Services

4.2.2 Historical Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs were reviewed as part of this study. The photographs are part of the aerial photograph collection maintained by the EDR Company. Fifteen (15) photographs (1938-2016) were reviewed for the subject property. The photographs are summarized below in TABLE II. The aerial photographs are attached in APPENDIX II of this report.

TABLE II
Historical Aerial Photographs
Date Source Description
1938 USDA The subject property appears undeveloped with agricultural land to the southeast and a creek to the north.
1946 USGS The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1952 USDA The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1963 USGS The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1967 USGS The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1972 EDR The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1977 USGS The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1981 USDA The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 1989 USGS/DOQQ The subject property and area to the north, south, and east appear to be partially graded and under development.
1994 USGS/DOQQ The subject property is graded. Aliso Creek Road can be seen adjacent to the east and a large development of residential structures can be seen beyond. 2002 USDA/NAIP The subject property appears developed with the currently existing parking lot. The surrounding area is densely developed with commercial and residential structures. The California 71 Freeway can be seen adjacent to the north and Enterprise can be see adjacent to the south and west
2005 USDA/NAIP The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 2009 USDA/NAIP The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 2012 USDA/NAIP The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 2016 USDA/NAIP The subject property and surrounding area appear similar to the previous aerial photograph. 641
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 8
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

4.2.3 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
There is no Sanborn historical fire insurance map coverage for the subject property. The EDR response letter is included in APPENDIX II of this report.

4.2.4 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical USGS topographic maps were provided by EDR Company and from online database sources.

Maps covering the subject property for ten (10) time periods were found. The subject property appears in an area of sparse development until at least 1995. Aliso Creek is located to the southeast.

4.3 RECORDS REVIEW INFORMATION

4.3.1 Building Information
No structures are currently present, or have been historically present on the property. The parking lot currently present the east side of the subject property was constructed in approximately 1996.

4.3.2 Underground Storage Tank & Hazardous Materials Research The Orange County Health Care Agency – Environmental Health Division (OCHCA-EHD) was contacted by our personnel to research their files for underground storage tank (UST) permits and industrial waste records associated with the subject property. A response from OCHA-EHD indicates that there are several records associated with the structure located on the adjacent property to the east (Currently occupied by Michaels) that shares the same address (26501 Aliso Creek) as the subject property. There are no records that pertain to the subject property parcels. The inquiry and response letters are attached in APPENDIX III.
642
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 9
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

4.3.3 State Regulatory Agency File Review
The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker online databases were reviewed for any information they may have regarding soil, soil gas, water, or air contamination at the subject property.

CE’s review of the GeoTracker and Envirostor online databases indicates that no files are maintained for the subject property.

4.3.4 SCAQMD File Review
The SCAQMD online FIND database was researched for any active or inactive records related to the subject property. A review of the SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (FIND) database indicates that no records are maintained for the subject property address. The agency response is included in APPENDIX III.

4.4 SITE DRIVE-BY
A drive-by of the area within one-quarter mile of the property was conducted to help identify nearby sites that possibly use, store, or generate hazardous materials. The area surrounding the subject property consists of residential and commercial properties. No service stations are located on the properties adjacent to the subject property. A list of selected environmental risk sites identified within a one-quarter mile radius of the subject property is included in the STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS SOURCES section of this report.
643
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 10
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
The site conditions were observed during a reconnaissance conducted by Eric Koons of California Environmental on June 18, 2022. California Environmental completed a Field Reconnaissance Checklist during the site reconnaissance. The Environmental User Questionnaire was completed by Christopher Bench of AvalonBay. The Environmental Owner Questionnaire was not returned by the current property owner, ValueRock Realty The Environmental Field Reconnaissance Checklist and Environmental Owner Questionnaire are included in APPENDIX I. The features described below are shown on the enclosed FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN. Photographs of the subject property are attached in the ILLUSTRATIONS section of this report.

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
The subject property consists of one (1) complete irregular-shaped parcel of land and a portion of two (2) irregular-shaped parcels of land that encompasses approximately 4.2 acres. The property is currently developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot with associated landscaping, which is part of the Commons at Aliso Viejo mall. The parking lot was developed in approximately 1996. Access to the property is via Enterprise to the south and Aliso Creek Road to the east. Acquisition and residential redevelopment are proposed for the site.

5.2 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The subject property is bound to the north by , to the east by , to the south by , and to the west by .

5.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
The subject property has a gentle slope towards the east. The topographic elevation of the subject property ranges from approximately 400 to 350 feet above mean sea level. Drainage from the site is by sheetflow towards the adjacent city streets. No evidence of surface drains, catch basins, sumps or standing water was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance. 644
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 11
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

5.4 PAST USES OF THE PROPERTY
No evidence of the past use, treatment, storage, disposal or generation of hazardous substances was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.5 USE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
No evidence of significant hazardous substance use was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.6 STORAGE TANKS
No evidence of existing aboveground or underground storage tanks, clarifiers, sumps, or grease interceptors was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.7 CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS OR UNIDENTIFIED SUBSTANCES
No evidence of containers of hazardous or unidentified substances was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.8 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
No evidence of onsite disposal or landfill of solid waste material was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.9 POLY-CHLORINATED BIPHENYL’S (PCBs)
No evidence of PCB containing transformers or equipment was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.
645
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 12
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

5.10 HEATING/COOLING EQUIPMENT
There are no structures currently located on the subject property.

5.11 ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACM)
There are no structures currently located on the subject property.

5.12 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
No evidence of wastewater treatment or disposal systems was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.13 RADON
Radon hazard assessment was not included in the scope of this study. However, the EDR research report indicates the levels of radon at two (2) of seventy four (74) sites located within the 92656 zip code in Orange County exceeded four picoCurie per Liter (4 pCi/L), the Federal Action level. The 2015 California Dept. of Conservation Orange County Radon Potential Map shows the subject site in the Moderate Potential Risk Area for radon.

5.14 LEAD
There are no structures currently located on the subject property.

5.15 WELLS
No evidence of dry wells, irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, monitoring wells or other wells was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance. 646
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 13
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

5.16 ODOR
No evidence of strong, pungent or noxious odors was noted on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.17 STRESSED VEGETATION
No evidence of stressed vegetation was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.18 STAINING OR RESIDUE
No evidence of significant staining or residue was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.19 PITS, PONDS, OR LAGOONS
No evidence of pits, ponds, and/or lagoons was observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

5.20 POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
Water is supplied to the subject property by the Moulton Niguel Water District.

5.21 SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
The subject property is connected to the public sewage disposal system. 647
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 14
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

5.22 OTHER CONDITIONS OF CONCERN
No other conditions of environmental concern regarding potential sources for soil and groundwater contamination were observed on the subject property at the time of the site reconnaissance.

6.0 NEARBY CONTAMINATED SITES

6.1 LANDFILLS
The Major Waste System maps for Los Angeles County, the Solid Waste Information Systems (SWIS), and the Waste Management Unit Database (WMUD) were reviewed to identify landfills and transfer stations located near the property. The EDR database report indicates that there are no landfills or transfer stations located within a 2,000-foot radius of the subject property.

6.2 OIL FIELD MAPS/METHANE HAZARD ZONES
The California Geologic Energy Management Division's (CalGEM) online mapping system (Well Finder) was researched to determine if oil production occurred on or near the subject property. The CalGEM Well Finder database indicates no oil fields or oil wells are located within a 2,000-foot radius of the site.

6.3 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
In addition to the above records, agency database lists were reviewed for known or suspected contaminated sites and for sites that store, generate or use hazardous materials near the subject property. The subject property address is identified on the standard environmental government sources researched in this report. The property address is listed on the CIWQS, AST, HWTS, HAZNET, RCRA NONGEN/NLR, FINDS, HWTS, and AST databases. These listings are not associated with the 648
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 15
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.
subject property parcels and are actually associated with the commercial structure that is directly adjacent to the east of the subject property and shares the same address as the subject property parcels (26501 Aliso Creek Road).

The nearest listed contaminated site to the subject property is the 76 Station #5743 LUST cleanup site located approximately 2,000 feet to the south. The site 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 subject property.

The environmental sites listed on the databases researched for this report located within a one-half mile radius of the subject property are presented in TABLE III, below. 649
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 16
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

TABLE III
Standard Environmental Record Sources
Database Number of Sites
<1/8 Mile 1/8 – 1/4 Mile 1/4 to 1/2 Mile
Federal NPL site list 0 0 0
Federal Delisted NPL Site list 0 0 0
Federal CERCLIS list 0 0 0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list 0 0 0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list 0 0 0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list 0 0 0
Federal RCRA generators list 2 1 --
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries 0 0 0
Federal ERNS list 0 -- --
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL 0 0 0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS 0 0 0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists 0 0 0
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists 0 0 1
State and tribal registered storage tank lists 0 0 --
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites 0 0 0
State and tribal Brownfields sites 0 0 0
Local Brownfield lists 0 0 0
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites 0 0 1 Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites 4 3 0 Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks 0 0 --
Local Land Records 0 0 0
Records of Emergency Release Reports 0 -- --
Other Ascertainable Records 5 6 1
EDR Exclusive Records 0 0 0
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives 0 -- --
Totals
11 10 3
Note: A search of public information databases may omit some nearby contaminated sites due to missing or inaccurate information in the public record.

Selected environmental risk sites found to exist within one-quarter mile radius of the property are discussed below:
• Former Lowes – 26501 Aliso Creek Road (adjacent & east) Listed on CIWQS, AST, HWTS, HAZNET, RCRA NONGEN/NLR, FINDS, HWTS, and AST database. The former Lowes store is part of the Commons at Aliso Viejo mall. These listings are associated with a diesel generator on the offsite, adjacent property. The facility also produced small quantities of photo processing waste, organic waste, and alkaline waste between 1996 and 2019. These listings are not considered an environmental concern for the subject property. 650
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 17
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

6.4 POTENTIAL VAPOR ENCROACHMENT CONDITION (p-VEC)
The State of California has adopted the Vapor Intrusion Guidance document issued by CalEPA DTSC in October 2011. Potential sources for vapor intrusion to indoor air include degassing of solvents and other compounds from contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater. No evidence of soil and groundwater contamination that would suggest the potential impact of vapor encroachment into onsite structure(s) was noted within the scope of this investigation.

7.0 APPARENT PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS
• No recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC), or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) were identified in connection with the subject property.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
California Environmental has prepared an Environmental Site Assessment - Phase I in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM 1527-21 for the property located at 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California. One data failure was encountered during the preparation of this report. The owner questionnaire was not returned to CE. This does not alter the conclusions or recommendations made in this report. Review of recorded Land Title Records including environmental liens was excluded from this report. These records should be obtained and reviewed by the user.

No evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC), or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) was identified in connection with the subject property. No additional assessment is recommended. 651
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 18
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

This report is subject to the following NOTICE:

9.0 OPINION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
All properties are subject to some element of environmental risk and the risk cannot be eliminated. Industrial and commercial properties developed prior to modern environmental laws are especially risk prone to environmental hazards which include, but are not limited to, wastes which may be toxic, ignitable, corrosive or reactive. The potential for these environmental hazards to impact the use of the property can be reduced by the identification and mitigation of the hazards prior to development or redevelopment of the property. Due to the difficulty in locating underground wastes, in some cases it is not always possible to ascertain that hazardous wastes are present on the property prior to development.

A Phase I environmental site assessment does not utilize subsurface exploration to check for the presence of hazardous wastes on the property. The experience of the assessor, along with the research of available reports, aerial photographs and land use records are used to evaluate the potential for hazardous wastes to occur on the site. Based on the information gained from the historical research, subsurface exploration may be recommended to check for the presence of hazardous wastes. Preexisting environmental problems such as the presence of hazardous wastes in the soil or groundwater, can be concealed by grading activities and site improvements. If such wastes are present these wastes cannot be observed.

The undersigned, Charles I. Buckley declares that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR 312 and I have the specific education, training, and experience necessary to exercise professional judgment to develop opinions and conclusions regarding conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases on, at, in, or to a property, sufficient to meet the objectives and performance factors in §312.20.

This report was prepared with the skill and competence as commonly used by environmental professionals in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, of any kind is made or intended in connection with this report, or by the fact you are being furnished this report, or by any other oral or written statement.

Should you have any questions or desire any additional information, please contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,
Charles I. Buckley
Professional Geologist No. 4035 Eric S. Koons
Certified Engineering Geologist No. 1250 Staff Environmental Scientist Certified Hydrogeologist No. 55
652
26501 Aliso Creek Road June 2022
Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Page 19
3644.PhI.Rpt.2022
California Environmental Geologists & Engineers Inc.

10.0 REFERENCES AND QUALIFICATIONS

1. ASTM International, Designation: E1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, 2021.

2. ASTM International, Designation: E2600-10, Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Encroachment into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, 2010.

3. DTSC, Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, January 1994 Revised October 2015.

4. SCAQMD, File Review, June 2022.

5. OCHCA, File Review, June 2022.

6. RWQCB, File Review, June 2022.

7. DTSC, File Review, June 2022.

8. EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry No. 7008319.9, June 2022.

9. EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, Inquiry No. 7008319.4, June 2022.

10. EDR-Radius Map with Geocheck, Inquiry No. 7008319.2s, June 2022.

11. EDR-City Directory, Inquiry No. 7008319.5, June 2022.

12. Certified Sanborn® Map Report, Inquiry No. 7008319.3, June 2022.

13. California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), Well Finder Database, 2022.

14. USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map, San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, 2018.

15. AEI Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 26501-26505 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656, May 4, 2022.
653
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 • P: 818.991.1542 • F: 818.991.1542 • E: [email protected] CHARLES I. BUCKLEY, JR.
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, California 91301
EDUCATION:
• Masters Work in Hydrogeology
California State University, Los Angeles, 1980-1988
• Bachelor of Science, Engineering Geology
University of California, Los Angeles, 1978
REGISTRATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS:
• State Mining and Geology Board, State of California, Dept. of Conservation, Former Member, (Appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson and State Senate confirmed to 4 year term, 1997-2001) • State of California, Certified Hydrogeologist, No. 55 • State of California, Professional Geologist No. 4035
• State of California, Certified Engineering Geologist No. 1250 • CA Contractors State License Board #732377A-Haz
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Jan 88-Present CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
CEO - Principal Hydrogeologist
• Founded California Environmental in January of 1988. Clients include Fortune 500 Corporations, County Government, Municipal Agencies, Financial Institutions, Land Developers, and Consultants. Principal Investigator for groundwater supply and groundwater contamination investigations. Project leader for groundwater remediation at a State of California Superfund Sites.

Principal hydrogeologist for design and implementation of a groundwater-monitoring network for an existing Sanitary Landfill. Lead investigator to delineate structure of a California Groundwater Basin; Pioneered use of a cost effective soil/gas vapor technique used to track groundwater plumes. Conducted over 3,400 Phase I Environmental Investigations in California. These investigations included the use and interpretation of historic topographic maps, Sanborn Insurance Maps, aerial photography, and other historic data sources. Successfully completed remedial clean-up on 500+ sites in southern California; including impacts associated with fuels, PCBs, metals, asbestos and chlorinated solvents. Expert consultant for environmental impairment of soil and groundwater: Expert for the Port of Los Angeles, L.A. County Counsel, L.A. City Recreation and Parks and private attorneys.
654
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 • P: 818.991.1542 • F: 818.991.1542 • E: [email protected] CHARLES I. BUCKLEY, JR.
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, California 91301
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (continued)
Mar 84-Dec 87 KOVACS-BYER AND ASSOCIATES
Manager Environmental Services Group
• Spearheaded the development into the groundwater and environmental segments of consulting market. Ascended from project geologist status to manager of Environmental Services Group.

Responsible for all aspects of project management including; organization and staffing, developing technical requirements needed to complete projects, client and agency liaison. • Provided technical leadership for groundwater testing including design and analysis of aquifer pump tests. Lead Geotechnical Investigator for remedial repair of complex landslide terrains.

Prepared Seismic Analysis for critical facilities. Recommended specialized drainage systems for abatement of groundwater problems. Project Consultant for award winning projects on which severe geotechnical problems were overcome.

Mar 80-Mar 84 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES GROUP

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Assistant Engineering Geologist
• Performed geologic mapping in hillside areas of the City of Los Angeles. Reviewed Geotechnical Reports submitted to the City of Los Angeles for private development. Directed landslide investigations. Prepared Expert Opinion documents regarding groundwater and geologic issues for the City Engineer and City Attorney. Conducted field monitoring of known landslides within the City of Los Angeles.

Aug 79-Mar 80 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Field Assistant
• Assisted in geological mapping for a uranium resource development project sponsored by the Department of Energy and the United States Geological Survey. 655
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 • P: 818.991.1542 • F: 818.991.1542 • E: [email protected] CHARLES I. BUCKLEY, JR.
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, California 91301
CONTINUING EDUCATION:
• “Advanced Data Analysis Techniques for Evaluating and Quantifying Natural Attenuation for Remediation of Contaminated Sites”, NGWA Short Course, March 2007. • “Technical Guidance for Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion”, Severn Trent Laboratory, San Pedro, CA, 1/2005.
• “Low Cost Remediation Techniques”, AGSE, San Francisco, CA 2002. • “Remediation of MtBE”, AGSE, Anaheim, CA 2002.
• "Assessment and Management of MtBE Impacted Sites", San Francisco, January 1999. • "Workshop on MtBE Water Issues", Los Angeles, June 1997. • "Management Action Programs Seminar", Newport Beach, November 1996. • "ACWA - Groundwater Workshop", Monterey, June 1995.
• "SeSoil Modeling Workshop" GSC, San Francisco, CA, October 1994 • "Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation", Short Course AEG, October 1992 • "Microbial Processes in Biodegradation", AGSE, Albuquerque NM, February, 1991 • "Introduction to Groundwater Geochemistry", National Water Well Association, San Francisco, CA 1988
• "Fate and Transport of Contaminants in the Subsurface", United States Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA, December, 1987.
• "How to Monitor and Sample the Vadose Zone "National Water Well Association, San Diego, CA, 1988.
• "Treatment Technology for Contaminated Groundwater" UCLA Fall, 1986. • "Groundwater Contamination Detection, Monitoring and Cleanup", UCLA, April, 1986. • "Introduction to Groundwater Modeling", National Water Well Association, Fullerton, CA 1985.

ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND SEMINARS:
• "Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology", Guest Undergraduate Course Lecturer, UCLA Department of Geology, ESS Class 139, Spring 2017. • "Environmental Issues and Careers", Guest Lecturer, USC Department of Geology, Spring 1992. • "Overview of Environmental Regulations, State and Federal Laws" Guest Lecturer, University of Southern California, 1991.
• "Environmental Risks and Underground Tank Leaks, Commercial Property Inspection" California Real Estate Inspectors Association, California, May, 1988/2015 • "Modified Technique for Soil/Gas Surveys to Detect Groundwater Contamination".

Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section meeting. December, 1987. 656
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 • P: 818.991.1542 • F: 818.991.1542 • E: [email protected] CHARLES I. BUCKLEY, JR.
30423 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, California 91301
ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND SEMINARS (Continued):
• "Historic Aerial Photographic Evidence of Landslide Development, Potrero Canyon, CA." Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA., October, 1986.

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS:
• "Geology, Landslides and Slope Stabilization, Potrero Canyon Park, Pacific Palisades, CA." • Association of Engineering Geologists Guidebook, June 20, 1987. • "Red Rose Landslide Stabilization, 3358-3400 Red Rose Drive, CA., with Hollingsworth, R.A.; Association of Engineering Geologists Guidebook. June 20, 1987. • "Residential Development and Landsliding, Castellammare Mesa area, Los Angeles, CA." • Association of Engineering Geologists Guidebook June 2, 1984.

AFFILIATIONS:
• Association of Engineering Geologists.
• Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers.
• California Groundwater Association.
• Hazardous Waste Association of California.
• Hydrology Section-American Geophysical Union.
• National Water Well Association
657

ILLUSTRATIONS
Site Photographs – Plates 1-2
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Plot Plan
658
View to the north across the subject property.
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656
View along west property line of the subject property.
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656
PLATE 1
659
View of landscaped area on the west side of the subject property. 26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656
View to the south across the subject property.
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, California 92656
PLATE 2
660
Drawn By:

Checked By:

Job #
Date:

CE
California
Environmental
CIB
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
26501 Aliso Creek Road,
Aliso Viejo, California
ESK
References: USGS 7.5’ San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, 2018.

EV0622-3644
June 2022 3644 Vicinity Map
1 inch = 2000 feet
0 1000 2000 ft.

Scale
N
S
W E CE

SUBJECT PROPERTY
.
'•~ ' . i"'/
I ;
I
r '
~ { r,1 r'
! j , (
(~\-L~ 7 ._, ) ...... ...... ('--

1. { .

I \ ) ' ... ·'
tr , ,t,., ~~r);i .. :,\{)
IJ.... ~ :,..a• L ' q -, "'
661
Drawn By:

Checked By:

Job #
Date:

CE
California
Environmental
CIB
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
26501 Aliso Creek Road,
Aliso Viejo, California
ESK
References: Google Earth
EV0622-3644
June 2022 3644 Plot Plan
1 inch = 1500 feet
0 75 150 ft.

Scale
N
S
W E CE
Subject Property
Michaels
Former Lowes
E
The Commons at Aliso Viejo
nterprise
Aliso Cre
k Road
662

APPENDIX I
Environmental Field Reconnaissance Checklist
and User Questionnaire
663

ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD

RECONNAISSANCE CHECKLIST (PART A)
Completed By: Eric Koons Title: Env Scientist
Property Address: 26501 Aliso Creek Road Date: 6/18/22

USES OF THE PROPERTY

1. Name of present occupants of the property (include
business names and addresses or unit numbers): The Commons Mall

2. Describe the present use(s) of the property: Parking Lot

3. Describe the present of adjacent properties: Commercial

4. Is the property used for an industrial use? No

5. Is any adjoining property used for an industrial use? No

6. Is the property used as a gasoline station, auto repair facility, commercial printing facility, dry cleaners,
photo developing laboratory, or junkyard? If so,
identify which and give the name of the business(es):

7. Is the property used as a landfill or a waste treatment, storage, processing, recycling, or disposal facility?
No

8. Is any adjoining property used as a gasoline station, auto repair facility, commercial printing facility, dry cleaners, photo developing laboratory, or junkyard? If
so, identify which and give the name of the
business(es):

9. Is any adjoining property used as a landfill or a waste treatment, storage, processing, recycling, or disposal
facility?
No

10. Is the property used for agricultural purposes? No

PROPERTY CONDITIONS

11. Are there or have there been any damaged or
discarded industrial or automotive batteries on the
property?
No

12. Are there currently any solvents, paints, fuels,
pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals, in individual containers larger than 5 gallons or totaling more than
50 gallons, used on or stored at the property?
No

13. Are there currently any industrial drums (typically 55 gallons) or sacks of chemicals located on the property? No

14. Is there any visible evidence fill dirt has been brought onto the property from a contaminated site?
No

15. Is there any visible evidence fill dirt has been brought onto the property from an unknown site?
No

16. Are there any waste treatment or waste disposal
ponds, pits or lagoons on the property?
No

17. Is there any stained soil, or soil emitting unusual odors, on the property?
No
664
Environmental Questionnaire Page
2 18. Are there any flooring, drains, or walls in the facility that are stained by substances other than water or
have emitted unusual odors?
No

19. Is there heating and cooling equipment onsite? No

20. What is the fuel source for any onsite heating and
cooling equipment?
N/A

21. Is there any visible evidence of storage tanks
(underground or aboveground) at the property?
No

22. Are there currently or have there been any vent pipes, fill pipes, fill ports, or surface covers indicating possible fill ports on the property or adjacent to any building
located on the property?
No

23. Is there visible evidence of geotechnical and/or
environmental subsurface assessments such as
patched borings or groundwater monitoring well
covers?
No

24. Are there any oil wells, drilling sumps, mud pits, or oil pipelines on or adjacent to the property?
No

25. Are there any pipelines on, beneath, or adjacent to the property, other than water, sewer, and natural gas
utilities serving the property?
No

26. Is the property known to be located in a methane
hazard area due to oil fields, natural seepage, or
landfill gas?
No

27. Does the property or any facility at the property
produce wastewater other than domestic sewage and
storm water runoff?
No

28. Are there any waste water treatment systems
(clarifiers, oil/water separators, grease traps, filtration systems, etc.) at the property?
No

29. How is waste water from the property disposed of?
Sanitary sewer. Septic system. Surface water. Pond,
pit, sump, or well. Other (describe).

30. Does the property or any facility at the property
produce solid waste other than domestic trash and
greenwaste?
No

31. How is solid waste from the property disposed of?
Municipal or private trash service. Recycling. Onsite
dumping or burial. Other (describe).

N/A

32. How is solid waste stored at the property? N/A

33. Does the property or any facility at the property
generate hazardous or special waste in the course of
normal operation? Examples include spent solvents,
photo processing waste, waste oil, used filters, etc.

Provide copies of generator notification or waste
manifests.

34. If hazardous or special wastes are generated at the property, how are they stored? No
665
Environmental Questionnaire Page 3

35. Are pesticides or herbicides stored, mixed, or disposed of on the property?
No

36. Are there any transformers, capacitors, or hydraulic equipment on the property that are known or
suspected of containing PCBs?
No

37. Are there any building materials on the property
known or suspected to contain asbestos? Please
describe:

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

38. Does the property or any occupant of or facility on the property have any licenses, permits, registrations, or
notifications for tanks, pipelines, industrial waste,
wastewater treatment, wastewater discharge,
stormwater discharge, waste disposal, waste storage
or treatment, air emissions, chemical use, or chemical
storage?
No

39. Is there visible evidence of any spills, leaks, or other releases or threatened releases of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products from the property
to soil, groundwater, or surface water?
No

40. Is there visible evidence of any release or threatened release of any hazardous substances or petroleum
products from another location to soil, groundwater,
or surface water at the property?
No

41. Is there visible evidence of the current or past
existence of environmental violations on the property
or in any facility located on the property?
No

42. Does the property discharge waste water, other than storm water runoff, into a storm drain or onto
adjacent properties or streets?
No

43. Does the property discharge waste water, other than storm water, into a sanitary sewer system?
No

44. Is there visible evidence that hazardous substances, petroleum products, unidentified waste materials,
tires, batteries, or any other waste materials have
been dumped, buried, or burned on the property?
No
666
[email protected]
Fax: 818-991-1544

USER QUESTIONNAIRE (PART C)
In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Action of 2001 (the “Brownfields Amendments”), the user must provide the following information (if available) to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this information could result in a determination that “all appropriate inquiry” is not complete.

The purpose of this section, defined in ASTM E1527-13, Section 6.1 Users Responsibilities, is to describe tasks to be performed by the user that will help identify the possibility of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. These tasks do not require the technical expertise of an environmental professional and are generally not performed by environmental professionals performing a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The purpose of this User Questionnaire is to assist the environmental professional in gathering information from the user that may be material to identifying recognized environmental conditions.

Completed By: Title:

Property Address: Date:

1. Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the property that are filed or recorded under federal, tribal, sate or local law?

2. Are you aware of any AULs, such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the site and/or have been filed or recorded is a registry under federal, tribal, state or local law?

3. As the user of this ESA do you have any specialized
knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the
property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business?

4. Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you concluded that there is a difference, have you
considered whether the lower purchase price is because
contamination is known or believed to be present at the property?

5. Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably
ascertainable information about the property that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example, as user,
a. Do you know the past uses of the property?
b. Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the property?
c. Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property?

6. Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have
taken place at the property?

7. As the user of this ESA, based on your knowledge and experience related to the property, are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property?
Christopher Bench Sr. Development Manager
26501 Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 5/27/2022
No specialized knowledge of the property other than
the current tenants in place at the neighboring retail
buildings.

The purchase price explicitly assumes no
environmental conditions.

Used as a parking lot. No previously known use.

None.

Perhaps oil/gas from cars parking on the property.

None.

None.
667

APPENDIX II
EDR City Directory, Aerial Photographs, Sanborn Maps, and Topographic Maps 668
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
AVB - Aliso Creek 26501 Aliso Creek Road Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 June 06, 2022 7008319.3 669
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Certified Sanborn Results:

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
- page
The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million
fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris &
Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track
historical property usage in approximately 12,000
American cities and towns. Collections searched:

Library of Congress
University Publications of America
EDR Private Collection
The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™
Limited Permission To Make Copies
Sanborn® Library search results
EDR Inquiry # Contact:

Site Name: Client Name:

Certification #
PO #
Project
06/06/22 26501 Aliso Creek Road AVB - Aliso Creek California Environmental 30423 Canwood Street Suite 208 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 7008319.3 Agoura Hills, CA 93012 Eric Koons The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by California Environmental were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn.

The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated. 2A54-4CB6-8C3D 3644 UNMAPPED PROPERTY AVB- Aliso Viejo This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found.

Certification #: 2A54-4CB6-8C3D
California Environmental (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request.

This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY

DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,

WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.

Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2022 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 7008319 3 2 ~EDR®
670
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
with QuadMatch™
AVB - Aliso Creek 26501 Aliso Creek Road Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 June 06, 2022 7008319.4 671
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
EDR Inquiry #
Search Results:

P.O.#
Project:

Maps Provided:

Latitude:

Longitude:

UTM Zone:

UTM X Meters:

UTM Y Meters:

Elevation:

Contact:

Site Name: Client Name:
2018
2015
2012
1981
1974
1965, 1968
1949
1948
1942
1902
06/06/22 AVB - Aliso Creek California Environmental 26501 Aliso Creek Road 30423 Canwood Street Suite 208 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Agoura Hills, CA 93012 7008319.4 Eric Koons EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by California Environmental were identified for the years listed below. EDR’s Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.
3644 33.578231 33° 34' 42" North AVB- Aliso Viejo -117.725438 -117° 43' 32" West Zone 11 North 432677.39 3715628.40 344.86' above sea level This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY

Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2022 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 7008319 4 2 ~EDR'
672
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
2018 Source Sheets
2018
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
2018
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
2015 Source Sheets
2015
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
2015
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
2012 Source Sheets
2012
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
2012
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
1981 Source Sheets
1981
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1977
1981
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
7008319 4 3
::
673
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1974 Source Sheets
1974
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1974
1974
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1974
1965, 1968 Source Sheets
1965
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1963
1968
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1967
1949 Source Sheets
1949
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
1949
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
1948 Source Sheets
1948
San Juan Capistrano

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
1948
Laguna Beach

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
7008319 4 4
674
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1942 Source Sheets
1942

SANTA ANA
15-minute, 50000
1942

SANTIAGO PEAK
15-minute, 50000
1902 Source Sheets
1902
Corona
30-minute, 125000
7008319 4 5
675
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT: