Aliso Viejo City Council
December 3, 2025

1 AGENDA

ALISO VIEJO CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2025
7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

CITY HALL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
12 JOURNEY

ALISO VIEJO, CA
Mayor Tiffany Ackley
Mayor Pro Tem Max Duncan
Councilmember Garrett Dwyer
Councilmember Mike Munzing
Councilmember Tim Zandbergen
WELCOME to the City of Aliso Viejo City Council meeting. Those persons wishing to address the City Council are requested to complete and submit to the City Clerk a “Request to Address City Council” form available at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. Speakers will be called at the appropriate time as their interested matter is heard. COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Council proceedings are recorded.

It is the City's intention to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . If you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and/or accommodations. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II] Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (949) 425-2505 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Regular meetings of the City Council are held on the first and third Wednesday of the month at the City Hall Council Chambers, 12 Journey, Aliso Viejo. Copies of the agenda are available in the lobby at City Hall on the Thursday preceding a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. All communications received by the City regarding an agenda item have been included in the agenda materials. Supplemental documents relating to specific agenda items, including communications received after agenda delivery, are presented at the dais and in the Public Copy agenda binder at the time of the meeting. Supplemental documents are also available for review in the City Clerk's office, 12 Journey, Aliso Viejo. For more information, please contact City Hall at (949) 425-2505.

This meeting will be broadcast live on Cox Communications Channel 851, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 and the City's website. By attending the City Council Meeting, you are giving your permission to be televised. The Council Meetings are rebroadcast on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. on Cox Communications Channel 851, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99, and can be viewed on the internet at www.avcity.org.

MITZI ORTIZ SCOTT C. SMITH KATHY BAILOR

CITY MANAGER CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK
1 2

PLEASE SILENCE ALL CELL PHONES AND OTHER

ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WHILE CITY COUNCIL IS IN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER: Convene Regular Meeting

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

None.

2. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, REORDERING TO THE AGENDA:

3. COMMUNITY INPUT:

Members of the public wishing to address the City Council are requested to complete and submit to the City Clerk a "Request to Address City Council" form available at the entrance to the City Council Chambers. In compliance with the Brown Act, no discussion or action may be taken on comments received at this time, except the City Council may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR:

All matters listed on the Consent Calendar will be acted upon by one vote unless members of the City Council, or staff request a matter to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be discussed and voted upon immediately following City Council action on the remainder of the Consent Calendar.

4.1 WAIVE THE READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Recommended Action: Approve the reading by title only of all ordinances and resolutions wherein the titles appear on the public agenda; said titles shall be determined to have been ready by title, and further reading is waived.

4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes as submitted for the September 10, 2025, Special Meeting and the November 19, 2025, Regular Meeting.

Draft Minutes - September 10, 2025, Special Meeting
Draft Minutes - November 19, 2025, Special Meeting
2 3

4.3 SECOND READING AND ADOPTON OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION

2.04.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
Recommended Action: Conduct second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled: AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTION 2.04.150 OF THE ALISO VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO LOCAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS TO BE REPLACED BY STATUTORY DEFAULT LIMITS.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Ordinance

4.4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Recommended Action: Ratify accounts payable checks and electronic funds transfers issued between November 7, 2025, and November 20, 2025, in the amount of $790,067.72.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Accounts Payable Report

4.5 TREASURER'S STATEMENT - OCTOBER 2025
Recommended Action: Receive and file the October 2025 Treasurer's Statement.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - October 2025 Treasurer's Report

4.6 ANNUAL MEASURE M2 EXPENDITURE REPORT
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the City’s annual Measure M2 expenditure report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Measure M2 Expenditure Report

4.7 APPROVAL OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE OSO PARKWAY/PACIFIC PARK

DRIVE/GLENWOOD DRIVE REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION

PROJECT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution approving the submittal of the Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive/Glenwood Drive Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project to OCTA for funding under the competitive Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (Project P).

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

5.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2025-00002, ZONE CHANGE ZC-2025-00002, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19340, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SDP2024-00001, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY AT 95 ARGONAUT
3 4
Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and:

1. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2025-00002, ZONE CHANGE ZC-2025-00002, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19340, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN:
623-091-01);

2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE

MAP FROM BUSINESS PARK TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN: 623-091-01);

3. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance entitled: A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM BUSINESS PARK 2 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (623-091-01);

4. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19340 FOR SUBDIVISION INTO CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP-2024-00001) TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (623-091-01); and

5. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MLC HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIALTOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN: 623-091-01).

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution (MND)
Attachment 1, Exhibit A - Resolution (MND) MND
Attachment 1, Exhibit B - Resolution (MND) MMP
Attachment 1, Exhibit C - Resolution (MND) Response to Comments Attachment 2 - Resolution (GPA)
Attachment 3 - Ordinance (ZC)
Attachment 4 - Resolution (VTTM and SDP)
Attachment 4, Exhibit B - Resolution (VTTM and SDP) Proposed Plans Attachment 5 - Ordinance (DA)
Attachment 5, Exhibit A - Ordinance (DA) DA
Attachment 5, Exhibit A - Ordinance (DA) Exhibit D Density Bonus Housing Agreement 4 5

5.2 CONSIDERATION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE AND A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.14.080 REGARDING ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND

DETERMINE THE ORDINANCES TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 21080.17
Recommended Action: Find that the adoption of the proposed urgency and nonurgency ordinance is statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code § 21080.17;

1. Adopt by title only an urgency ordinance entitled: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO AMENDING SECTION

15.14.080 OF THE ALISO VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING

UNITS TO COMPLY WITH RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW AND FINDING

THE ACTION TO BE STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 21080.17; and

2. Introduce for first reading by title only an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO AMENDING SECTION

15.14.080 OF THE ALISO VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING

UNITS TO COMPLY WITH RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW AND FINDING

THE ACTION TO BE STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 21080.17.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Urgency Ordinance
Attachment 2 - Non-Urgency Ordinance
Attachment 3 - Amended AVMC Section 15.14.180
Attachment 4 - Presentation

6. DISCUSSION:

6.1 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AT 1-5 POLARIS Recommended Action: Review and provide initial feedback on concept plans for a development proposal involving the demolition of five existing office buildings to accommodate the construction of a 405-unit, residential community at 1-5 Polaris.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Concept Plans
Attachment 2 - Project Description
Attachment 3 - Presentation

6.2 FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT Recommended Action: Receive and file the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the year ended June 30, 2025.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - FY 2024-25 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report Attachment 2 - Auditor Communication Letter
Attachment 3 - Report on Internal Controls
Attachment 4 - Report on Appropriations Limit
Attachment 5 - Report on Treasurer’s Monthly Statement
Attachment 6 - Presentation
5 6

6.3 CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
Recommended Action: Select a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-022, for the 2026 calendar year.

Staff Report

7. CITY MANAGER' S REPORT:

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS / COUNCIL COMMENTS / COMMITTEE UPDATES:

9. ADJOURNMENT:

Adjourn to January 21, 2026. The regularly scheduled City Council meetings of December 17, 2025, and January 7, 2026, have been cancelled.
6

Special Meeting Minutes

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025, 7:00 PM
Soka Performing Arts Center, 1 University Drive
Aliso Viejo, California
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ackley called the Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo to order at 7:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: MAYOR TIFFANY ACKELY

MAYOR PRO TEM MAX DUNCAN

COUNCILMEMBER MIKE MUNZING

COUNCILMEMBER TIM ZANDBERGEN
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD W. HURT
STAFF PRESENT: MITZI ORTIZ, CITY MANAGER
SCOTT C. SMITH, CITY ATTORNEY

HONGDAO NGUYEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

ANN EIFERT, FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR

SHAUN PELLETIER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

SO KIM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

LIZZY MENDOZA, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

ISAAC AZIZ, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER

1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

STATE OF THE CITY PRESENTATION TITLED “YOUR CITY, YOUR VOICE: AN EVENING OF COMMUNITY CONVERSATION”
Renee Bodie, Soka Performing Arts Center General Manager, welcomed those in attendance and provided information on the Performing Arts Center.

Duane Cave, Moulton Niguel Water District President, provided opening remarks and served as Master of Ceremonies for the remainder of the meeting.

Laurie Johnson of Orange County Realtors led the pledge of allegiance.

Mr. Cave introduced the elected officials in attendance and acknowledged the event sponsors.
7

Special Meeting Minutes
Mayor Ackley provided an overview of the City, including City Council changes, safety, recreation programs, and strategic planning.

City Manager Mitzi Ortiz provided updates on Aliso Viejo Town Center and The Commons at Aliso Viejo Town Center.

Community Development Director So Kim provided updates on residential development projects.

Public Works Director Shaun Pelletier provided an overview of the City’s infrastructure and Capital Improvement Program projects.

Chief of Police Services Captain Ryan Buhr provided a department overview.

Senior Fire Inspector Jonathan Lim provided fire prevention information.

A question and answer period followed the presentations.

Recommended Action: Receive the Mayor’s State of the City address, as presented by the Aliso Viejo Chamber of Commerce.

No further action was taken.

ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Ackley adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________

KATHY BAILOR TIFFANY ACKLEY

INTERIM CITY CLERK MAYOR
8

Regular Meeting Minutes

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2025, 7:00 PM
Council Chambers, City Hall, 12 Journey
Aliso Viejo, California
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ackley called the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: MAYOR TIFFANY ACKLEY

MAYOR PRO TEM MAX DUNCAN

COUNCILMEMBER GARRETT DWYER

COUNCILMEMBER MIKE MUNZING
COUNCILMEMBER TIM A. ZANDBERGEN
STAFF PRESENT: MITZI ORTIZ, CITY MANAGER

HONGDAO NGUYEN, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

KATHY BAILOR, INTERIM CITY CLERK

SHAUN PELLETIER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

SO KIM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

LIZZY MENDOZA, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

ISAAC AZIZ, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER
CAPT. RYAN BUHR, CHIEF OF POLICE SERVICES
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Recreation & Community Services Manager Lizzy Mendoza led the pledge of allegiance.

1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

None.

2. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, REORDERING TO THE AGENDA:

None.

3. COMMUNITY INPUT:

1. Jenna Minnick-Bull, Director of South Coast Conservatory, invited the City Council, staff, and residents to attend their Winter Festival at Capistrano Valley High School. 9

Regular Meeting Minutes

4. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.

Motion: Councilmember Munzing moved and Mayor Pro Tem Duncan seconded to approve the recommended actions. Motion carried 5-0.

4.1 WAIVE THE READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Recommended Action: Approve the reading by title only of all ordinances and resolutions wherein the titles appear on the public agenda; said titles shall be determined to have been ready by title, and further reading is waived.

4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes as submitted for the November 5, 2025, Special and Regular Meetings.

4.3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Recommended Action: Ratify accounts payable checks and electronic funds transfers issued between October 24, 2025, and November 6, 2025, in the amount of $$1,079,640.76.

4.4 APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES, LLC FOR THE ALISO VIEJO RANCH WOOD SEALING PROJECT Recommended Action:

1. Approve an agreement in the amount of $64,000 to United Building and Development Services, LLC as the lowest responsible bidder for the Aliso Viejo Ranch wood sealing project.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with United Building Development Services, LLC; and

3. Authorize City staff to make total compensation to United Building Development Services, LLC up to $64,000 plus $6,400 (10% of the agreement amount) to allow for contingencies, totaling $70,400.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

5.1 REQUEST TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN

OUTDOOR DINING AREA AND AN EXPANSION OF AN ABC LICENSE INTO THE

PARKING LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY 17% AT 7 JOURNEY (USE-2025-00018 AND USE-2025-00019) 10

Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayor Pro Tem Duncan recused himself and left the Council Chambers at 7:05 pm due to his daughter being an employee at the establishment.

City Manager Mitzi Ortiz introduced Senior Planner Rose Rivera, who provided an overview. Staff and Webb’s Grainworks owner Jeremy Webb, responded to questions regarding parking restrictions and live performances. Mayor Ackley opened the public hearing, and there were no requests to speak. Mayor Ackley closed the public hearing.

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.2025-19 approving Administrative Use Permit USE-2025-00018 to allow for an outdoor dining area and an expansion of an ABC license into the parking lot and Conditional Use Permit USE-2025-00019 to reduce the parking requirement by 17% at 7 Journey.

Motion: Councilmember Munzing moved and Councilmember Zandbergen seconded to approve the recommended actions. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Mayor Pro Tem Duncan absent.

Mayor Pro Tem Duncan returned to the dais at 7:14 p.m. for the remainder of the meeting.

5.2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT

MAP, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 95 ARGONAUT
City Manager Mitzi Ortiz introduced Community Development Director So Kim, who provided an overview. Staff and Danny Hinojosa of Meritage Homes, responded to questions regarding park in-lieu fees, affordable housing, additional impact fees and fee calculations. Mayor Ackley opened the public hearing, and there were no requests to speak. Mayor Ackley closed the public hearing. Direction was provided to use the Orange County Tax Assessor land value for park in-lieu fee calculations, apply State Density Bonus threshold for affordable housing units, not impose additional development impact fees, and use 50-year evaluation years with escalation rate based on last 5 years of CPI for fiscal impact calculation.

Recommended Action:

1. Continue the public hearing to a date uncertain; and

2. Review and provide direction on the preferred impact fee structure for development agreements.

Motion: Councilmember Munzing moved and Councilmember Zandbergen seconded, to continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of December 3, 2025. Motion carried 5-0.

6. DISCUSSION:

6.1 INSTALLATION OF FIXED LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS
11

Regular Meeting Minutes
City Manager Mitzi Ortiz introduced Chief of Police Services Captain Ryan Buhr, who provided an overview. Staff responded to questions regarding camera sizes and placements, system compatibility with neighboring jurisdictions, purchase versus leasing costs, anticipated timelines for procurement, data security, and privacy.

Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the purpose and intended use of License Plate Reader (LPR) cameras within the City of Aliso Viejo, including how this technology can enhance public safety and investigative capabilities.

Following this discussion, the Council may direct City staff and OCSD to develop a phased implementation plan, identify LPR camera locations, select a vendor, and provide a detailed proposal for consideration.

No further action was taken.

6.2 ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 2.04.150 OF CHAPTER 2.04 RELATING TO

LOCAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS TO BE REPLACED BY STATUTORY

DEFAULT LIMITS
City Manager Mitzi Ortiz introduced Assistant City Attorney HongDao Nguyen, who provided an overview. Staff responded to questions regarding the history, monitoring and enforcement relating to local campaign contribution limits. Mayor Ackley opened for public comment and the following person spoke:

1. Sarah Chamberlain expressed opposition to the matter.

Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo Repealing Section 2.04.150 of Chapter 2.04 relating to local campaign contribution limits to be replaced by statutory default limits.

Motion: Councilmember Munzing moved and Councilmember Zandbergen seconded to approve the recommended action. Motion carried 4-1, with Mayor Ackley dissenting.

7. CITY MANAGER' S REPORT:

City Manager Mitzi Ortiz announced the 8
th Annual All is Bright Holiday Celebration and
Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 4, 2025, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Town Center Fountain; Boys & Girls Club of Capistrano Valley accepting donations and volunteers for Operation Holiday Homework event on December 12, 2025, from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. at Aliso Viejo Ranch; and the Nourishing Great Futures Market every Wednesday from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm at the Iglesia Park Community Center.

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS / COUNCIL COMMENTS / COMMITTEE UPDATES:

Councilmember Munzing:
 Attended Veterans Day Observance at El Toro Memorial Park 12

Regular Meeting Minutes
 Attended Aliso Viejo Chamber of Commerce Networking Lunch  Attended OCFA Budget & Finance Committee Meeting
 Attended City of Hope Cancer Research Hospital Grand Opening  Extended wishes for Thanksgiving and the holiday season Councilmember Dwyer:
 Attended Aliso Viejo Chamber of Commerce Networking Lunch  Volunteered at Nourishing Great Futures Market at Iglesia Park Community Center  Registered to volunteer for Operation Holiday Homework  Commented on upcoming OCMVCD Budget & Finance Committee Meeting Councilmember Zandbergen:
 Commented on Operation Holiday Homework
 Attended SJHTCA Committee meetings
 Attended City of Hope Cancer Research Hospital Grand Opening Mayor Pro Tem Duncan:
 Attended Aliso Niguel High School CIF football game
 Extended Thanksgiving wishes to the community
 Commented that he was the 2021 AVCA Holiday Decorating Contest winner  Commented on All is Bright Holiday Celebration and Tree Lighting Ceremony  Obtained Council consensus to direct staff to explore a parking permit system Mayor Ackley:
 Attended City of Hope Cancer Research Hospital Grand Opening  Attended Veterans Day Observance at El Toro Memorial Park  Attended ACC-OC Business Meeting
 Attended County Selection Committee Meeting
 Attended Artisans Market at Aliso Viejo Ranch
 Provided an update on the Aliso Viejo Library Remodel

9. ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Ackley adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of December 3, 2025.

Respectfully submitted: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________

KATHY BAILOR TIFFANY ACKLEY

INTERIM CITY CLERK MAYOR
13 City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathy Bailor, Interim City Clerk
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND ADOPTON OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 2.04.150 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
Recommended Action:

Conduct second reading and adopt an Ordinance entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTION 2.04.150 OF THE ALISO VIEJO MUNICIPAL

CODE RELATING TO LOCAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS TO BE REPLACED BY STATUTORY DEFAULT LIMITS.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Discussion:

On November 19, 2025, the City Council approved the introduction and first reading of the subject Ordinance by 4-1 vote. If adopted, the Ordinance will take effect 30 days after adoption.

Attachment:

1. Ordinance
14

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO
VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTION 2.04.150 OF THE ALISO

VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LOCAL ELECTION

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS TO BE REPLACED BY

STATUTORY DEFAULT LIMITS
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 571 ("AB 571") imposed default, indexed campaign contribution limit upon cities and counties effective January 1, 2021, together with a regulatory structure to monitor and enforce the limit; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 85702.5, the City of Aliso Viejo adopted its own, lower local campaign contribution limit; and WHEREAS, in adopting this Ordinance, it is the City Council's intention to promote transparency and ensure a fair election process through utilization of the State’s default contribution limits and enforcement mechanism, tying them instead the state adjusted limit per Government Code Sections 85301(a) and (d) adjusted by the Commission pursuant to Section 83124; and
WHEREAS, any and all other legal prerequisites relating to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Code Amendment. Section 2.04.150 relating to City Council Campaign Finance Limitations and Regulations is hereby repealed.

SECTION 4. Statutory Compliance. The default campaign contribution limits found in Government Code Sections 85301 and 83124 shall hereafter apply as monitored and enforced by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

SECTION 5. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once within 15 days of adoption in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City of 15

Aliso Viejo, and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with California Government Code, section 36933.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2025. __________________________
Tiffany Ackley
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

__________________________ __________________________
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney Kathy Bailor, Interim City Clerk 16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO )
I, Kathy Bailor, Interim City Clerk of the City of Aliso Viejo, California, hereby certify that foregoing Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo at their regular meeting held on the ____ day of ____________, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________

KATHY BAILOR

INTERIM CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Aliso Viejo City Council at its regular meeting held _______, and that the Summary of the Ordinance was published on _______ and _______ in the Laguna Niguel News.
___________________________

KATHY BAILOR

INTERIM CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
60367.00100\40768859.1
17 City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ann Eifert, Director of Financial Services

SUBJECT: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Recommended Action:

Ratify accounts payable checks and electronic funds transfers issued between November 7, 2025, and November 20, 2025, in the amount of $790,067.72.

Fiscal Impact:

Expenditures in the amount of $790,067.72.

Background:

The City issues accounts payable checks on a bi-weekly basis and presents it to City Council for ratification at its next regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

Discussion:

The attached registers containing checks and electronic funds transfers issued between November 7, 2025, and November 20, 2025, for $790,067.72, are being presented for ratification. All payments have been made in compliance with the City’s purchasing policy and procedures. Payments have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff. The issued accounts payable checks and electronic funds transfers have been reviewed and deemed in accordance with the fiscal year budget by the Director of Financial Services.

Attachment:

1. Accounts Payable Report
18 Accounts Payable
Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount
101 - GENERAL FUND
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE CO. DEC'25 LIFE INSURANCE 1,509.75 CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 TZ - HEALTH PREMIUM 1,571.50
CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 TZ - HEALTH PREMIUM PEMCA MINIMUM 158.00 CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 CALPERS HEALTH PREMIUM 27,583.49
BEST BEST & KRIEGER SEP'25 BBK CEQA & ENVIRONMENTAL (SPECIALIZED) 347.00 BEST BEST & KRIEGER SEP'25 BBK APPLICANT INITIATED REIMB(AIR)-ARGONAUT 3,735.50 CHOICE BUILDER NOV'25 DENTAL - DD (145.88)
CHOICE BUILDER DEC'25 VISION - JM 6.48
CHOICE BUILDER NOV'25 VISION - DD (24.19)
CHOICE BUILDER DEC'25 DENTAL - TZ 96.90
CHOICE BUILDER DEC'25 DENTAL - JM 46.63
CHOICE BUILDER DEC'25 DENTAL INSURANCE 1,657.20
CHOICE BUILDER DEC'25 VISION INSURANCE 257.58
KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES OCT'25 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR 95 ARGONAUT 304.15 KOSMONT & ASSOCIATES OCT'25 KICK OFF MEETING WITH SHEA HOMES 106.65 JIM MURRAY ROOFING INC CD-2025-00005_19 DOVE ST_JIM MURRAY ROOFING 500.00 BROADWAY BUILDING GROUP, LLC CD-2025-00071_150 COLUMBIA_BROADWAY BUILDING CORP 2,400.00 ROOF PRO CD-2025-00133_2 ACORN_ROOF PRO 500.00
40,610.76

CITY COUNCIL
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 CITY COUNCIL PHONE LINES 191.52
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 CITY COUNCIL PHONE LINES 174.48
CITY COUNCIL TOTAL: 366.00

CITY MANAGER
CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 PG - HEALTH PREMIUM 158.00
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 CITY MANAGER PHONE 90.72
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 CITY MANAGER PHONE 90.78
CITY MANAGER TOTAL: 339.50

HUMAN RESOURCES
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 HR PHONE 21.17
HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL: 21.17

CITY CLERK
US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 10/15 NNA SERVICES LLC (CREDIT) (25.12) US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 10/08 OC REGISTER-DIGITAL SBSCPTN/4 WKS 26.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 10/09 LA TIMES-DIGITIAL SBSCPTN/4 WKS 7.96 MCCI, LLC FY25-26 LF REN.-SBSCPTN.S/W.SUPP:12/1/25-11/30/26 33,932.50 CITY CLERK TOTAL: 33,941.34

CITY ATTORNEY
BEST BEST & KRIEGER OCT'25 BBK GENERAL RETAINER LEGAL SERVICES 25,792.00 BEST BEST & KRIEGER OCT'25 BBK LITIGATION - CC 195.00
BEST BEST & KRIEGER OCT'25 BBK LABOR & EMPLOYMENT (SPECIALIZED) 1,804.40 BEST BEST & KRIEGER OCT'25 BBK GENERAL LITIGATION 258.70 CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL: 28,050.10

FINANCE
CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 CALPERS ADMIN FEE 25.50
CHOICE BUILDER DEC'25 ADMIN FEE 30.00
CA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS INC DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT STATEMENT 600.00 DAVIS FARR LLP FY24-25 AV CITY ANNUAL AUDIT-3RD PROGRESS BILLING 7,590.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM AE 10/13 CSMFO-CONF REGISTRATION 2/24-2/27/26 625.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM AE 10/14 HILTON HOTEL-CSMFO CONF DEPOSIT 2/24-2/27 292.35 FINANCE TOTAL: 9,162.85

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AT&T 9/22/25-10/21/25 CH-ALARM/POTS LINE 599.03
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC AUG-NOV'25 ACCT#0202 CH CABLE TV 699.78 19 Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC OCT-NOV'25 ACCT#8802 INTERNET - FIBER (600MB) 4,234.00 COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC OCT-NOV'25 ACCT#9302 LAB INTERNET 230.98 NEXUS IS INC NOV'25 NETWORK SUPPORT & SECURITY 416.67
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 EOC PHONES 109.59
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 CITY HALL MIFI 119.54
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 EOC MIFI 152.60
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 FLEET COMPLETE GPS 202.12
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 EOC MIFI 152.60
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 FLEET COMPLETE GPS 201.92
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 CITY HALL MIFI 119.54
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 EOC PHONES 110.22
JOSE RUEL FABELLA DIRA OCT'25 ENERGOV & GIS 3,300.00
GOTO COMMUNICATIONS NOV'25 CH GOTO VOIP SERVICE & SUPPORT 1,995.44 LUNAVI, INC NOV'25 OFFSITE BACKUP STORAGE 622.50
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TOTAL: 13,266.53

NON-DEPARTMENTAL
PV MAINTENANCE INC OCT'25 PVM VISTA PARK MAINTENANCE 579.00 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC QUADIENT POSTAGE-ADDED 10/29/25 500.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 9/27 PRIMO-SPKLTTS BTL WTR DEL/8 CASES 61.16 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL10/01 URBANE CAFE-CC MTG 10/1 DINNER 187.69 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 10/12 COSTCO-SAME DAY DEL/SUPPLIES 108.60 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 10/15 THAI BITE-CC MTG 10/15 DINNER 269.72 MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST ACCT#64101 VISTA WATER SVC 1,174.92 NON-DEPARTMENTAL TOTAL: 2,881.09
C. S. ADMINISTRATION
CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 HW - HEALTH PREMIUM 158.00
CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 DP - HEALTH PREMIUM 158.00
OCY MANAGEMENT, LLC OCT'25 SMP R&CS CONTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION 524.00 TROVAO AND ASSOCIATES INC FINAL DEP-2025 TREE INSTALL/CLEANUP/SNOW MACHINE 8,990.00 SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTORS LLC DEP FINAL - 2025 AV HOLIDAY TREE PLATFORM 5,839.74 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS DVD 19.92 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-CODREE 48 PCS HALLOWEEN FIDGET TOY 26.93 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-MHINZER HALLOWEEN PARTY FAVORS 26.93 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-ZEAYOU 80 PCS HALLOWEEN PARTY FAVORS 23.69 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-AMYLOVE HALLOWEEN TABLECLOTHS 22.62 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-DENWILLER HALLOWEEN TABLECLOTHS 19.38 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-OCATO 30 PCS SQUISHY TOYS 18.31 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-ULTIMATE NAME BRAND CANDY VARIETY PK 32.31 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-ULTIMATE NAME BRAND CANDY RETURN (32.31) KIMBERLY DOWNEY ESMOND 2025 TREE LIGHTING CHARACTERS 731.20 M&J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC FINAL PMT - 2025 TREE LIGHTING RENTALS 1,495.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/23 FACEBK-META ADS 87.05 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/09 FACEBK-META ADS 85.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/08 FACEBK-META ADS 79.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/07 FACEBK-META ADS 73.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/05 FACEBK-META ADS 67.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/04 FACEBK-META ADS 62.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/13 FACEBK-META ADS 98.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/03 FACEBK-META ADS 57.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM JM 9/11 FACEBK-META ADS 91.00 US BANK PURCHASING CARD PROGRAM LL 9/30 FACEBK-META ADS 23.45 C. S. ADMINISTRATION TOTAL: 18,776.22

IGLESIA PARK
PV MAINTENANCE INC OCT'25 PVM IGLESIA PARK MAINTENANCE 868.50 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES OF SO CAL OCT'25 PLAYGROUND REPAIR PARTS - IGLESIA 144.98 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#7997 IGLESIA PARK ELECTRICITY 76.01 IGLESIA PARK TOTAL: 1,089.49

IGLESIA BUILDING
TEAM ONE MANAGEMENT NOV'25 IGLESIA JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,064.00 ZAPP PEST MANAGEMENT OCT'25 PEST CONTROL SERVICES IGLESIA 75.00 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#7997 IGLESIA PARK BLDG ELECTRICITY 1,098.11 IGLESIA BUILDING TOTAL: 2,237.11
20 Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount

PLANNING
CALPERS HEALTH DEC'25 MF - HEALTH PREMIUM 158.00
PLANNING TOTAL: 158.00

BUILDING
CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOC INC OCT'25 CAA CONTRACT SERVICES - BUILDING 44,239.62 BUILDING TOTAL: 44,239.62

CODE ENFORCEMENT
CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOC INC OCT'25 CAA CONTRACT SERVICES - CODE ENFORCEMENT 9,265.00 CODE ENFORCEMENT TOTAL: 9,265.00

ENGINEERING (GENERAL)
PV MAINTENANCE INC NOV'25 PVM WAREHOUSE LEASE 1,035.00
MURPHY SWITCH OF CA NOV'25 MURCAL IOT SMARTCOMMAND MONITORING SERVICE 450.00 AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 PUBLIC WORKS TABLETS 120.72
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 PUBLIC WORKS TABLETS 120.72
MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST 2025 H2O FOR HOAS PARTNERSHIP 564.09 COUNTY OF ORANGE FY25-26 NPDES COST SHARE AGMT #D02-048 131,365.83 COUNTY OF ORANGE FY25-26 SOCWMA CO-OP AGREEMENT 7,314.38 COUNTY OF ORANGE FY25-26 CO-PERMITTEE SHARED COST D04-050 43,337.69 ENGINEERING (GENERAL) TOTAL: 184,308.43

STREET MAINTENANCE
PV MAINTENANCE INC OCT'25 PVM STREET MAINTENANCE MOE TAX 24,522.98 STREET MAINTENANCE TOTAL: 24,522.98

LAW ENFORCEMENT-OTHER
ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 10/26-11/08/25 414 HRS-CROSSING GUARD SERVICES 14,287.14 LAW ENFORCEMENT-OTHER TOTAL: 14,287.14

ANIMAL CONTROL
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO OCT-DEC'25 ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTER SERVICES 144,391.00 ANIMAL CONTROL TOTAL: 144,391.00
GENERAL FUND TOTAL: 571,914.33
102 - GEN. FD-CITY HALL

NON-DEPARTMENTAL
THURSTON ELEVATOR CONCEPTS INC NOV'25 CH ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 140.00 APEX FIRE SYSTEMS INC OCT'25 FIRE SPRINKLER & RISER 5 YR CERT INSPECTION 1,250.00 TEAM ONE MANAGEMENT NOV'25 CH JANITORIAL SERVICES 3,400.00 ZAPP PEST MANAGEMENT OCT'25 PEST CONTROL SERVICES CH 75.00 FOSTERS' GARDENS INC NOV'25 CH INTERIOR PLANT MAINTENANCE 115.00 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC SEP'25 CH BACKFLOW INSPECTIONS - 4 ASSEMBLIES 230.00 AYANTRA INC JAN-DEC'26 GENERATOR MONITORING SUBSCRIPTION CH 240.00 THE GAS COMPANY 10/01/25-10/31/25 MTR#16122180 CH GAS SVC 477.39 MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST ACCT#65408/65407/65406 CH WATER SVC 821.62 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#7189 CH ELECTRICITY 5,245.57
NON-DEPARTMENTAL TOTAL: 11,994.58
GEN. FD-CITY HALL TOTAL: 11,994.58
103 - GF-AV RECREATION SERVICES
RAQUEL SCARDINA OCT'25 REC1 REFUND_RAQUEL SCARDINA_ATN084 COOKING 10.00 RAQUEL SCARDINA OCT'25 REC1 REFUND_RAQUEL SCARDINA_ATN084 COOKING 5.00 RAQUEL SCARDINA OCT'25 REC1 REFUND_RAQUEL SCARDINA_ATN084 COOKING 135.00 EMILY MCCARTHY OCT'25 REC1 REFUND_EMILY MCCARTHY_ATN005 STAGEPLAY 18.00 168.00

RECREATION SERVICES
AT&T 9/22/25-10/21/25 AVR-ALARM/POTS LINE 200.00
CSG FORTE PAYMENTS, INC OCT'25 CREDIT CARD SERVICE FEES - POS 1,102.13 CSG FORTE PAYMENTS, INC OCT'25 CREDIT CARDE SERVICE FEES - WEB 430.96 PV MAINTENANCE INC OCT'25 PVM AVR MAINTENANCE 772.00
CLICKSTART DOG TRAINING ACADEMY, LLC FALL2025-ATN151 DOG TRAINING-6 PARTICIPANTS 1,044.00 SOPHI ALBERT FALL2025-ATN106 PIANO-4 PARTICIPANTS 336.00 RUIHONG LI FALL2025-ATN193 YOGA-5 PARTICIPANTS 297.00
KIMBERLY KRANTZ FALL2025-ATN091 POETRY-4 PARTICIPANTS 132.00 JOHN DAVID ALLEN JR FALL2025-ATN143/138/062 TENNIS-14 PARTICIPANTS 546.00 21 Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount
LAURELINDA HAUKSSON FALL2025-ATN101/ATN081-11 PARTICIPANTS 792.00 PRESTIGIOUS CLEANERS LLC 10/10 AVR DRY CLEANING 361.01
PRESTIGIOUS CLEANERS LLC 10/17 AVR DRY CLEANING 94.18
PRESTIGIOUS CLEANERS LLC 10/25 AVR DRY CLEANING 235.44
PRESTIGIOUS CLEANERS LLC 10/30 AVR DRY CLEANING 141.26
GARDAWORLD NOV'25 AVR - CASH COURIER SERVICE 507.87
L & O ALISO VIEJO, LLC FALL2025-ATN212 HIDDEN GEM-2 PARTICIPANTS 28.00 SUJATA CHIPLUNKAR FALL2025-ATN160 STIR FRIED-4 PARTICIPANTS 132.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-COZY UP 100 COUNT VARIETY TEA 36.98 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-BAINFE 100 PCS SPIDERS 7.53 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-JOYIN 1000 FT SPIDER WEB 25.58 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-WALKIE CHALK STAND-UP CHALK HOLDER 43.08 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-COLOVIS 3 PACK GIANT SPIDER 25.85 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-CHA4TEA 36-COUNT BLACK TEA 21.70 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-FELIZROCA WASHABLE SIDEWALK CHALK 21.54 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-JOLLY CHEF COMPOSTABLE PLATES 60.44 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-JIALWEN 50 PCS PLASTIC SPIDERS 5.16 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-10 PCS WEDDING BELLS DECORATIONS 16.15 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-NEW STAR FOOD SVC PLASTIC ICE SCOOP 17.26 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-ANEZUS FISHING LINE NYLON STRING 7.53 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC OCT'25 AMAZON-RUN NICO LARGE GREY CREEPY GAUZE 12.92 ZAPP PEST MANAGEMENT OCT'25 PEST CONTROL SERVICES AVR 95.00 AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 REC PHONE LINES 90.72
AT&T 8/17/25-9/16/25 REC TABLET 40.24
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 RECREATION TABLET 40.24
AT&T 9/17/25-10/16/25 REC PHONE LINES 90.78
LYONS SECURITY SERVICE IN OCT'25 GCF SECURITY SERVICES 1,658.25 LYONS SECURITY SERVICE IN OCT'25 AVR EVENT SECURITY SERVICES 3,308.25 FOSTERS' GARDENS INC NOV'25 AVR INTERIOR PLANT MAINTENANCE 110.00 CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 OCT'25 AVR FIRST AID SUPPLIES 139.51 CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 OCT'25 AVR FIRST AID SUPPLIES 108.15 TEAM ONE MANAGEMENT OCT'25 AVR JANITORIAL SERVICES 5,800.00 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC SEP'25 AVR BACKFLOW INSPECTIONS - 3 ASSEMBLIES 190.00 MUSIC MOVES ACADEMY INC FALL2025-ATN020 MUSIC-9 PARTICIPANTS 891.00 MUSIC MOVES ACADEMY INC FALL2025-ATN021 MUSIC-5 PARTICIPANTS 495.00 COUNTY OF ORANGE- 12/01/25-11/30/26_RESTAURANT PERMIT_AVR_OCHCA 777.00 GOTO COMMUNICATIONS NOV'25 AVR GOTO VOIP SERVICE & SUPPORT 665.14 THE KNOT WORLDWIDE INC WEDDING PRO PROGRAM SUBSCRIPTION - THE BARN AVR 11,945.00 MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST ACCT#105234/104936/104935/104986 RANCH WATER SVC 1,377.09 MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST ACCT#104515/104519 FARM WATER SVC 333.84 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#4551 FARM ELECTRICITY 386.71
SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#6247 AVR ELECTRICITY 2,948.94 AARON FLORA OCT'25 RENEWABLE FARMS 30,467.15
RECREATION SERVICES TOTAL: 69,411.58
GF-AV RECREATION SERVICES TOTAL: 69,579.58
203 - GAS TAX

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
GMU GEOTECHNICAL INC AUG'25 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 20,623.80 RK ENGINEERING GROUP INC ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FOR SPEED LIMITS 9,200.00 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TOTAL: 29,823.80

STREET MAINTENANCE
PV MAINTENANCE INC OCT'25 PVM STREET MAINTENANCE GAS TAX 29,972.52 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS INC OCT'25 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE RESPONSE 4,661.95 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS INC OCT'25 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE ROUTINE 3,225.90 MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST ACCT#64613/64615/65346 MEDIANS WATER SVC 1,604.50 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#6377 LS2 ST LIGHTS ELECTRICITY 1,360.71 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#7241 LS1 ST LIGHTS ELECTRICITY 17,166.18 SO CAL EDISON OCT'25 ACCT#8254 TC1 ST LIGHTS ELECTRICITY 4,544.57 STREET MAINTENANCE TOTAL: 62,536.33
GAS TAX TOTAL: 92,360.13
22 Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount
204 - MEASURE M

GEN-MEASURE M
OCY MANAGEMENT, LLC OCT'25 M2 FUND TRANSPORTATION SVC 2,096.00 GEN-MEASURE M TOTAL: 2,096.00
MEASURE M TOTAL: 2,096.00
215 - PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS

LAW ENFORCEMENT-OTHER
COUNTY OF ORANGE OCT'25 AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM 1,500.00 COUNTY OF ORANGE OCT-DEC'25 800 MHZ COST ALLOCATION 7,389.26 LAW ENFORCEMENT-OTHER TOTAL: 8,889.26
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS TOTAL: 8,889.26
231 - OTHER GRANTS

OTHER GRANTS
LAURA'S HOUSE OCT'25 PLHA GRANT REIMBURSEMENT-CASE MANAGEMENT 1,288.00 OTHER GRANTS TOTAL: 1,288.00
OTHER GRANTS TOTAL: 1,288.00
241 - TECHNOLOGY FUND

GEN-TECHNOLOGY GRANTS
ERIC WINTER OCT'25-CC MTGS 10/1&10/15 SPRTS ZONE 7-10 & ADMIN 1,382.16 GEN-TECHNOLOGY GRANTS TOTAL: 1,382.16
TECHNOLOGY FUND TOTAL: 1,382.16
261 - CITY FAC.-AQUATIC CENTER
PREMIER AQUATIC SERVICES NOV'25 AQC MANAGEMENT FEE RETENTION (1,208.30) -1,208.30

GEN-AQUATIC CENTER
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC OCT-NOV'25 ACCT#6701 AQC INTERNET 1,021.64 HASA INC OCT'25 AQC POOL CHEMICALS - ACID 313.74
GARDAWORLD NOV'25 AQC - CASH COURIER SERVICE 562.53
HASA INC NOV'25 AQC POOL CHEMICALS - CHLORINE 1,014.38
ZAPP PEST MANAGEMENT OCT'25 PEST CONTROL SERVICES AQC 75.00 PREMIER AQUATIC SERVICES NOV'25 AQC MANAGEMENT FEE 12,083.00 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC NOV'25 BOLLARD CONNECTORS - AQC 169.82 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC SEP'25 AQC BACKFLOW INSPECTIONS - 6 ASSEMBLIES 470.00 TEAM ONE MANAGEMENT NOV'25 AQC JANITORIAL SERVICES 2,510.26 THE GAS COMPANY 10/02/25-11/03/25 MTR#15672349 AQC GAS SVC 4,422.70 MOULTON NIGUEL WATER DIST ACCT#64095/64096 AQC WATER SVC 661.03 GEN-AQUATIC CENTER TOTAL: 23,304.10
CITY FAC.-AQUATIC CENTER TOTAL: 22,095.80
311 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS
BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS INC #104 ADA CURB RAMP PROJECT-TRAFFIC LOOP REPAIR 2,115.38 2,115.38

STREETS & HIGHWAYS
RK ENGINEERING GROUP INC OCT'25 CITYWIDE BIKE LANE STRIPING PLAN - DESIGN 2,850.00 STREETS & HIGHWAYS TOTAL: 2,850.00
STREET IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL: 4,965.38
23 Vendor Name Description (Item) Amount
721 - COMMUNITY TRUST

TRUST FUND
M&J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC FINAL PMT - 2025 TREE LIGHTING RENTALS 3,502.50 TRUST FUND TOTAL: 3,502.50
COMMUNITY TRUST TOTAL: 3,502.50
GRAND TOTAL: 790,067.72
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount Payment Amount
101 - GENERAL FUND 571,914.33 571,914.33
102 - GEN. FD-CITY HALL 11,994.58 11,994.58
103 - GF-AV RECREATION SERVICES 69,579.58 69,579.58
203 - GAS TAX 92,360.13 92,360.13
204 - MEASURE M 2,096.00 2,096.00
215 - PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS 8,889.26 8,889.26
231 - OTHER GRANTS 1,288.00 1,288.00
241 - TECHNOLOGY FUND 1,382.16 1,382.16
261 - CITY FAC.-AQUATIC CENTER 22,095.80 22,095.80
311 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS 4,965.38 4,965.38
721 - COMMUNITY TRUST 3,502.50 3,502.50
Grand Total: 790,067.72 790,067.72
24 Accounts Payable Payable Dates: 11/07/2025 - 11/20/2025 11/19/2025 9:42:35 AM Page 7 of 8
Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Payment Amount
101 - GENERAL FUND 571,914.33
102 - GEN. FD-CITY HALL 11,994.58
103 - GF-AV RECREATION SERVICES 69,579.58
203 - GAS TAX 92,360.13
204 - MEASURE M 2,096.00
215 - PUBLIC SAFETY GRANTS 8,889.26
231 - OTHER GRANTS 1,288.00
241 - TECHNOLOGY FUND 1,382.16
261 - CITY FAC.-AQUATIC CENTER 22,095.80
311 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS 4,965.38
721 - COMMUNITY TRUST 3,502.50
Grand Total: 790,067.72
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
101-1203-000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 1,551.44
101-2505-000 DENTAL INSURANCE PA… 1,657.20
101-2506-000 MEDICAL INSURANCE P… 27,741.49
101-2507-000 LIFE INSURANCE PAYABLE 1,509.75
101-2508-000 VISION INSURANCE PAY… 257.58
101-2602-000 PLANNING DEPOSIT 4,493.30
101-2606-000 C & D DEPOSIT 3,400.00
101-4-1101-4511-000 COMMUNICATION 366.00
101-4-1501-4206-000 MEDICAL INSURANCE 158.00
101-4-1501-4511-000 COMMUNICATION 181.50
101-4-1503-4309-000 OTHER CONTRACTUAL S… 21.17
101-4-1601-4305-000 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 33,932.50
101-4-1601-4520-000 MTGS/CONF./TRNG & D… -25.12
101-4-1601-4611-000 PUBLICATIONS/REF MAT… 33.96
101-4-2101-4304-000 LEGAL SERVICES 25,792.00
101-4-2101-4532-000 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1,804.40
101-4-2101-4735-000 LITIGATION 453.70
101-4-2501-4301-000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,190.00
101-4-2501-4309-000 OTHER CONTRACTUAL S… 55.50
101-4-2501-4520-000 MTGS/CONF./TRNG & D… 917.35
101-4-3101-4301-000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,716.67
101-4-3101-4305-000 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 8,927.36
101-4-3101-4481-000 COMPUTER EXPENSE 622.50
101-4-3501-4431-000 BUILDING & GROUND M… 1,753.92
101-4-3501-4512-000 POSTAGE 500.00
101-4-3501-4612-000 OPERATING SUPPLIES 627.17
101-4-4101-4206-000 MEDICAL INSURANCE 316.00
101-4-4101-4501-000 ADVERTISING & PROMO… 722.50
101-4-4101-4524-000 RECREATION-SENIOR TR… 524.00
101-4-4101-4527-000 REC-CITY SPECIAL EVENTS 17,075.86
101-4-4101-4528-000 REC-PARTNER EVENTS 137.86
101-4-4102-4411-000 UTILITIES 76.01
101-4-4102-4431-000 BUILDING & GROUND M… 1,013.48
101-4-4103-4411-000 UTILITIES 1,098.11
101-4-4103-4431-000 BUILDING & GROUND M… 1,139.00
101-4-4401-4206-000 MEDICAL INSURANCE 158.00
101-4-4402-4751-000 C.S-BUILDING 44,239.62
101-4-4403-4761-000 C.S-CODE ENFORCEMENT 9,265.00
101-4-4501-4471-000 RENT 1,035.00
101-4-4501-4562-000 PERMITS 182,017.90
101-4-4501-4612-000 OPERATING SUPPLIES 241.44
101-4-4501-4701-000 NPDES 1,014.09
25 Accounts Payable Payable Dates: 11/07/2025 - 11/20/2025 11/19/2025 9:42:35 AM Page 8 of 8
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
101-4-4503-4771-000 C.S-STREET MAINTENAN… 24,522.98
101-4-5102-4721-000 C.S-CROSSING GUARDS 14,287.14
101-4-5301-4722-000 C.S-ANIMAL CARE SERVI… 144,391.00
102-4-3501-4411-000 UTILITIES 6,544.58
102-4-3501-4431-000 BUILDING & GROUND M… 5,450.00
103-34150 OTHER INCOME 15.00
103-34161 CONTRACT CLASSES 153.00
103-4-4105-4305-000 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 12,810.14
103-4-4105-4309-000 OTHER CONTRACTUAL S… 4,693.00
103-4-4105-4411-000 UTILITIES 4,326.03
103-4-4105-4431-000 BUILDING & GROUND M… 11,052.25
103-4-4105-4451-000 FARM OPERATING EXPE… 32,845.95
103-4-4105-4511-000 COMMUNICATION 261.98
103-4-4105-4561-000 TAXES/FEES/PERMITS 2,040.96
103-4-4105-4601-000 SUPPLIES 549.38
103-4-4105-4612-000 OPERATING SUPPLIES 831.89
203-4-4502-4301-000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29,823.80
203-4-4503-4411-000 UTILITIES 24,675.96
203-4-4503-4771-000 C.S-STREET MAINTENAN… 37,860.37
204-4-6104-4309-000 OTHER CONTRACTUAL S… 2,096.00
215-4-5102-4803-000 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPM… 8,889.26
231-4-6131-4309-000 OTHER CONTRACTUAL S… 1,288.00
241-4-6141-4309-000 OTHER CONTRACTUAL S… 1,382.16
261-2103-000 RETENTIONS PAYABLE -1,208.30
261-4-6161-7411-000 UTILITIES 6,105.37
261-4-6161-7421-000 BUILDING & GROUND M… 3,225.08
261-4-6161-7425-000 POOL MAINTENANCE 1,328.12
261-4-6161-7445-000 FEES & PERMITS 562.53
261-4-6161-7451-000 MANAGEMENT FEES 12,083.00
311-2103-000 RETENTIONS PAYABLE 2,115.38
311-4-8301-5501-000 DESIGN 2,850.00
721-4-7501-6103-000 COLLABORATIVE EVENTS… 3,502.50
Grand Total: 790,067.72
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Payment Amount
**None** 770,557.31
1002FALL 4,693.00
10044309 1,288.00
1425501 2,850.00
9014612 457.41
9934527 2,226.20
9936103 3,502.50
SDP-2024-00001 4,386.65
SDP-2025-00004 106.65
Grand Total: 790,067.72
26 City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ann Eifert, Director of Financial Services/City Treasurer SUBJECT: TREASURER’S STATEMENT – OCTOBER 2025
Recommended Action:

Receive and file the October 2025 Treasurer’s Statement.

Fiscal Impact:

No Fiscal Impact.

Background:

Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer’s Statement for the City Council’s review. This statement shows the cash balance for all City funds, a breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned from investments.

Discussion:

The City’s portfolio consists of investments in Certificates of Deposits, US Treasuries, US Federal Agencies, Corporate Bonds, and Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). All funds invested with LAIF are available for withdrawal within 24 hours.

The Treasurer’s Statement provides information regarding the City’s investment portfolio and activity during the reporting month. The City’s investment portfolio is in compliance with all government codes as well as the City’s investment policy. Interest is credited to the City’s bank account monthly and allocated among the City’s funds. The current portfolio provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the upcoming operating expenses and spending requirements for the next 6 months.

Attachment:

1. October 2025 Treasurer’s Statement
27 TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT

BEGINNING ENDING

BALANCE RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS BALANCE
CASH BALANCE (ALL FUNDS) $ 10,507,806.64 $ 2,856,951.58 $ 4,039,739.43 $ 9,325,018.79 CITY TRUST FUNDS:

AV RANCH FOUNDATION $ 100.00 100.00
CFD 2005-01 $ (4,896.00) 4,009.22 (8,905.22)
COMMUNITY TRUST $ 9,170.98 9,170.98
CASH BALANCE TOTALS $ 10,512,181.62 $ 2,856,951.58 $ 4,043,748.65 $ 9,325,384.55 SUMMARY OF CASH:

DEMAND DEPOSITS: GENERAL ACCOUNT $ 849,644.37
INVESTMENTS: LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD $ 8,372,067.08
MONEY MARKET/SWEEP ACCOUNT $ 103,673.10
TOTAL CASH $ 9,325,384.55
Years to Maturity for October 2025 1.90
Weighted Average Yield for October 2025 3.960%
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Aliso Viejo's Investment Policy.

The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's estimated expenditures.

Other monies held include Cash with Fiscal Agent, Investments, Payroll and AV Center. $ 44,647,672.57 Cash With Fiscal Agent COPS/CFD 2005-01 1,456,519.34
Cash With Investment Advisor City Investments 41,740,017.36 AV Center 1,091,198.67
PR Account 358,013.59
Petty Cash 1,923.61
GRAND TOTAL OF CITY FUNDS $ 53,973,057.12

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
October 31, 2025
28 CURRENT MONTH Beginning 41,733,395.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 (625.00) (11,200.38) Interest Received 122,120.56 ENDING 41,843,690.46 46.25% 18.20% 16.36% 15.21% 3.78% 0.20% CITY OF ALISO VIEJO 29 CUSIP DESCRIPTION INTEREST YIELD TO MOODY'S S&P LGIP CALAIF California LAIF 10/31/2025 10/31/2025 8,372,067.08 8,372,067.08 0.00 8,372,067.08 4.15 1 1.00 8,372,067.08 0.00 8,372,067.08 16.36 NA 8,372,067.08 8,372,067.08 0.00 8,372,067.08 4.15 1 1.00 8,372,067.08 0.00 8,372,067.08 16.36 31846V567 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG;Z 10/31/2025 10/31/2025 103,673.10 103,673.10 0.00 103,673.10 3.92 1 1.00 103,673.10 0.00 103,673.10 0.20 Aaa AAA 103,673.10 103,673.10 0.00 103,673.10 3.92 1 1.00 103,673.10 0.00 103,673.10 0.20 912797QQ3 US TREASURY BILL 11/13/25 05/19/2025 05/20/2025 1,000,000.00 979,679.91 0.00 979,679.91 4.28 11/13/2025 13 99.89 998,929.51 19,249.60 979,679.91 1.95 P-1 A-1+ 912828M56 US TREASURY 2.250 11/15/25 05/30/2023 05/30/2023 1,000,000.00 955,117.19 0.00 955,117.19 4.19 11/15/2025 15 99.94 999,375.00 44,257.81 955,117.19 1.95 Aa1 AA+ 912797NU7 US TREASURY BILL 12/26/25 05/19/2025 05/20/2025 490,000.00 477,942.27 0.00 477,942.27 4.17 12/26/2025 56 99.43 487,183.14 9,240.87 477,942.27 0.95 P-1 A-1+ 91282CBH3 US TREASURY 0.375 01/31/26 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 1,000,000.00 973,242.19 0.00 973,242.19 4.12 01/31/2026 92 99.15 991,484.38 18,242.19 973,242.19 1.94 Aa1 AA+ 91282CGL9 US TREASURY 4.000 02/15/26 05/30/2023 05/30/2023 1,000,000.00 997,578.13 0.00 997,578.13 4.09 02/15/2026 107 100.02 1,000,195.31 2,617.18 997,578.13 1.95 Aa1 AA+ 91282CGV7 US TREASURY 3.750 04/15/26 01/22/2024 01/22/2024 1,200,000.00 1,187,437.50 0.00 1,187,437.50 4.24 04/15/2026 166 99.95 1,199,437.50 12,000.00 1,187,437.50 2.34 Aa1 AA+ 91282CCF6 US TREASURY 0.750 05/31/26 06/13/2022 06/13/2022 1,000,000.00 915,976.56 0.00 915,976.56 3.01 05/31/2026 212 98.28 982,812.50 66,835.94 915,976.56 1.92 Aa1 AA+ 91282CCJ8 US TREASURY 0.875 06/30/26 06/29/2022 06/29/2022 1,000,000.00 913,125.00 0.00 913,125.00 3.20 06/30/2026 242 98.11 981,093.75 67,968.75 913,125.00 1.92 Aa1 AA+ 91282CCP4 US TREASURY 0.625 07/31/26 01/13/2023 01/13/2023 1,100,000.00 987,292.97 0.00 987,292.97 3.73 07/31/2026 273 97.71 1,074,777.34 87,484.37 987,292.97 2.10 Aa1 AA+ 91282CJP7 US TREASURY 4.375 12/15/26 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 1,000,000.00 1,007,695.31 0.00 1,007,695.31 3.87 12/15/2026 410 100.70 1,007,031.25 (664.06) 1,007,695.31 1.97 Aa1 AA+ 91282CJT9 US TREASURY 4.000 01/15/27 01/22/2024 01/22/2024 1,000,000.00 996,718.75 0.00 996,718.75 4.12 01/15/2027 441 100.36 1,003,632.81 6,914.06 996,718.75 1.96 Aa1 AA+ 912828X88 US TREASURY 2.375 05/15/27 06/29/2022 06/29/2022 1,000,000.00 962,851.56 0.00 962,851.56 3.20 05/15/2027 561 98.13 981,250.00 18,398.44 962,851.56 1.92 Aa1 AA+ 9128282R0 US TREASURY 2.250 08/15/27 01/13/2023 01/13/2023 1,050,000.00 990,322.27 0.00 990,322.27 3.60 08/15/2027 653 97.66 1,025,431.64 35,109.37 990,322.27 2.00 Aa1 AA+ 9128284N7 US TREASURY 2.875 05/15/28 09/18/2024 09/19/2024 1,000,000.00 979,882.81 0.00 979,882.81 3.47 05/15/2028 927 98.27 982,734.38 2,851.57 979,882.81 1.92 Aa1 AA+ 91282CCR0 US TREASURY 1.000 07/31/28 09/18/2024 09/19/2024 1,000,000.00 910,507.81 0.00 910,507.81 3.50 07/31/2028 1,004 93.27 932,656.25 22,148.44 910,507.81 1.82 Aa1 AA+ 30 CUSIP DESCRIPTION INTEREST YIELD TO MOODY'S S&P 91282CCV1 US TREASURY 1.125 08/31/28 12/21/2023 12/21/2023 1,000,000.00 878,750.00 0.00 878,750.00 3.98 08/31/2028 1,035 93.41 934,062.50 55,312.50 878,750.00 1.83 Aa1 AA+ 91282CDF5 US TREASURY 1.375 10/31/28 12/21/2023 12/21/2023 1,500,000.00 1,328,906.25 0.00 1,328,906.25 3.98 10/31/2028 1,096 93.71 1,405,664.07 76,757.82 1,328,906.25 2.75 Aa1 AA+ 91282CJR3 US TREASURY 3.750 12/31/28 01/22/2024 01/22/2024 1,000,000.00 987,695.31 0.00 987,695.31 4.03 12/31/2028 1,157 100.40 1,003,984.38 16,289.07 987,695.31 1.96 Aa1 AA+ 91282CLC3 US TREASURY 4.000 07/31/29 07/14/2025 07/15/2025 1,000,000.00 1,002,304.69 0.00 1,002,304.69 3.94 07/31/2029 1,369 101.21 1,012,109.38 9,804.69 1,002,304.69 1.98 Aa1 AA+ 91282CLR0 US TREASURY 4.125 10/31/29 11/25/2024 11/26/2024 1,000,000.00 996,445.31 0.00 996,445.31 4.21 10/31/2029 1,461 101.70 1,017,031.25 20,585.94 996,445.31 1.99 Aa1 AA+ 91282CGB1 US TREASURY 3.875 12/31/29 02/07/2025 02/10/2025 1,000,000.00 978,828.13 0.00 978,828.13 4.36 12/31/2029 1,522 100.77 1,007,734.38 28,906.25 978,828.13 1.97 Aa1 AA+ 91282CMG3 US TREASURY 4.250 01/31/30 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 1,000,000.00 1,015,507.81 0.00 1,015,507.81 3.89 01/31/2030 1,553 102.23 1,022,265.63 6,757.82 1,015,507.81 2.00 Aa1 AA+ 91282CMZ1 US TREASURY 3.875 04/30/30 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 1,000,000.00 998,867.19 0.00 998,867.19 3.90 04/30/2030 1,642 100.78 1,007,812.50 8,945.31 998,867.19 1.97 Aa1 AA+ 91282CNK3 US TREASURY 3.875 06/30/30 10/20/2025 10/21/2025 600,000.00 607,898.44 7,139.27 615,037.71 3.57 06/30/2030 1,703 100.77 604,593.75 (3,304.69) 607,898.44 1.18 Aa1 AA+ 23,940,000.00 23,030,573.36 7,139.27 23,037,712.63 3.87 738 98.91 23,663,282.60 632,709.24 23,030,573.36 46.25 3135G06Q1 FANNIE MAE 0.640 12/30/25 '25 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 500,000.00 488,955.00 0.00 488,955.00 4.15 12/30/2025 60 99.46 497,310.00 8,355.00 488,955.00 0.97 Aa1 AA+ 3130ALHH0 FHLBANKS 0.960 03/05/26 '25 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 1,000,000.00 974,710.00 0.00 974,710.00 4.11 03/05/2026 125 98.96 989,640.00 14,930.00 974,710.00 1.93 Aa1 AA+ 3130AK5J1 FHLBANKS 0.700 09/18/26 '25 02/16/2023 02/16/2023 1,000,000.00 872,060.00 0.00 872,060.00 4.61 09/18/2026 322 97.13 971,280.00 99,220.00 872,060.00 1.90 Aa1 AA+ 880591EU2 TVA 2.875 02/01/27 05/06/2025 05/08/2025 1,000,000.00 983,560.00 0.00 983,560.00 3.86 02/01/2027 458 98.98 989,790.00 6,230.00 983,560.00 1.93 Aa1 AA+ 3130ASD63 FHLBANKS 3.250 06/28/27 06/28/2022 06/28/2022 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 3.25 06/28/2027 605 99.00 989,980.00 (10,020.00) 1,000,000.00 1.93 Aa1 AA+ 3133EPAU9 FED FARM CR BNKS 3.875 07/14/27 02/16/2023 02/16/2023 1,000,000.00 990,390.00 0.00 990,390.00 4.12 07/14/2027 621 100.29 1,002,910.00 12,520.00 990,390.00 1.96 Aa1 AA+ 3136G4X99 FANNIE MAE 0.740 08/25/27 '25 04/06/2023 04/06/2023 1,000,000.00 876,610.00 0.00 876,610.00 3.82 08/25/2027 663 94.43 944,310.00 67,700.00 876,610.00 1.85 Aa1 AA+ 3130AMX98 FHLBANKS 2.000 06/30/28 07/10/2025 07/11/2025 1,000,000.00 947,446.00 611.11 948,057.11 3.89 06/30/2028 973 95.68 956,760.00 9,314.00 947,446.00 1.87 Aa1 AA+ 3133EMSX1 FED FARM CR BNKS 1.550 03/15/29 '25 02/06/2025 02/07/2025 500,000.00 447,120.00 0.00 447,120.00 4.39 03/15/2029 1,231 92.65 463,240.00 16,120.00 447,120.00 0.91 Aa1 AA+ 3130B2GZ2 FHLBANKS 4.200 08/13/29 '26 08/21/2024 08/23/2024 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 4.20 08/13/2029 1,382 99.65 249,125.00 (875.00) 250,000.00 0.49 Aa1 AA+ 3133EL6D1 FED FARM CR BNKS 1.230 09/10/29 '25 02/06/2025 02/07/2025 500,000.00 434,525.00 0.00 434,525.00 4.41 09/10/2029 1,410 90.47 452,335.00 17,810.00 434,525.00 0.88 Aa1 AA+ 880591FE7 TVA 3.875 08/01/30 09/18/2025 09/19/2025 800,000.00 804,848.00 3,530.56 808,378.56 3.74 08/01/2030 1,735 100.43 803,432.00 (1,416.00) 804,848.00 1.57 Aa1 AA+ 31 CUSIP DESCRIPTION INTEREST YIELD TO MOODY'S S&P 9,550,000.00 9,070,224.00 4,141.67 9,074,365.67 3.99 714 97.57 9,310,112.00 239,888.00 9,070,224.00 18.20 59013KLQ7 MERRICK BANK 0.550 12/30/25 12/30/2020 12/30/2020 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 0.55 12/30/2025 60 99.47 243,701.50 (1,298.50) 245,000.00 0.48 NANA 02007GXG3 ALLY BANK 3.450 08/04/26 08/04/2022 08/04/2022 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 3.45 08/04/2026 277 99.69 244,230.70 (769.30) 245,000.00 0.48 NANA 38149MYB3 GOLDMAN BANK USA 1.000 08/11/26 08/11/2021 08/11/2021 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 1.00 08/11/2026 284 97.84 239,698.20 (5,301.80) 245,000.00 0.47 NANA 90348JR93 UBS USA 0.950 08/11/26 08/11/2021 08/11/2021 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 0.95 08/11/2026 284 97.79 239,578.15 (5,421.85) 245,000.00 0.47 NANA 254673N44 CAPITL ONE NA 3.500 07/29/27 08/03/2022 08/03/2022 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 3.50 07/29/2027 636 97.82 239,654.64 (5,345.36) 245,000.00 0.47 NANA 87164XN93 SYNCHRONY BANK 3.500 08/05/27 08/05/2022 08/05/2022 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 3.50 08/05/2027 643 97.80 239,605.26 (5,394.74) 245,000.00 0.47 NANA 02589ADQ2 AM EX BK 3.450 08/10/27 08/12/2022 08/12/2022 245,000.00 243,775.00 0.00 243,775.00 3.56 08/10/2027 648 99.64 244,113.10 338.10 243,775.00 0.48 NANA 58404DVV0 MEDALLION BANK 3.800 08/30/29 08/21/2024 08/30/2024 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 3.80 08/30/2029 1,399 100.00 245,000.00 0.00 245,000.00 0.48 NANA 1,960,000.00 1,958,775.00 0.00 1,958,775.00 2.54 530 98.76 1,935,581.55 (23,193.45) 1,958,775.00 3.78 14913UAR1 CTRPLLR FIN SERV 4.400 10/15/27 MTN 11/25/2024 11/26/2024 500,000.00 498,865.00 0.00 498,865.00 4.48 10/15/2027 714 101.01 505,050.00 6,185.00 498,865.00 0.99 A2A 24422EWR6 JOHN DEERE CAP 4.750 01/20/28 MTN 11/25/2024 11/26/2024 500,000.00 504,235.00 0.00 504,235.00 4.46 01/20/2028 811 101.76 508,815.00 4,580.00 504,235.00 0.99 A1A 931142FB4 WALMART 3.900 04/15/28 '28 11/25/2024 11/26/2024 325,000.00 320,619.00 0.00 320,619.00 4.33 04/15/2028 897 100.36 326,153.75 5,534.75 320,619.00 0.64 Aa2 AA 931142ES8 WALMART 1.500 09/22/28 '28 07/10/2025 07/11/2025 1,000,000.00 925,020.00 0.00 925,020.00 4.02 09/22/2028 1,057 93.95 939,500.00 14,480.00 925,020.00 1.84 Aa2 AA 58933YBD6 MERCK & CO 1.900 12/10/28 '28 11/25/2024 11/26/2024 500,000.00 452,905.00 0.00 452,905.00 4.47 12/10/2028 1,136 94.15 470,725.00 17,820.00 452,905.00 0.92 Aa3A+ 17275RBR2 CISCO SYSTEMS 4.850 02/26/29 '29 11/01/2024 11/04/2024 500,000.00 506,060.00 0.00 506,060.00 4.53 02/26/2029 1,214 102.47 512,340.00 6,280.00 506,060.00 1.00 A1 AA- 023135CG9 AMAZON.COM 3.450 04/13/29 '29 11/01/2024 11/04/2024 500,000.00 481,580.00 0.00 481,580.00 4.37 04/13/2029 1,260 98.48 492,380.00 10,800.00 481,580.00 0.96 A1 AA 30303M8S4 META PLATFORMS 4.300 08/15/29 '29 11/01/2024 11/04/2024 500,000.00 496,070.00 0.00 496,070.00 4.48 08/15/2029 1,384 100.94 504,680.00 8,610.00 496,070.00 0.99 Aa3 AA- 857449AE2 STATE STR BK TR 4.782 11/23/29 11/25/2024 11/26/2024 500,000.00 502,115.00 0.00 502,115.00 4.69 11/23/2029 1,484 102.78 513,920.00 11,805.00 502,115.00 1.00 Aa2 AA- 713448GB8 PEPSICO 4.600 02/07/30 '30 02/05/2025 02/07/2025 500,000.00 499,160.00 0.00 499,160.00 4.64 02/07/2030 1,560 102.23 511,140.00 11,980.00 499,160.00 1.00 A1 A+ 717081EY5 PFIZER 1.700 05/28/30 '30 08/21/2025 08/22/2025 625,000.00 556,418.75 2,479.17 558,897.92 4.27 05/28/2030 1,670 90.06 562,900.00 6,481.25 556,418.75 1.10 A2A 32 CUSIP DESCRIPTION INTEREST YIELD TO MOODY'S S&P 713448GH5 PEPSICO 4.300 07/23/30 '30 08/21/2025 08/22/2025 625,000.00 626,756.25 2,164.93 628,921.18 4.24 07/23/2030 1,726 100.83 630,187.50 3,431.25 626,756.25 1.23 A1 A+ 58933YBQ7 MERCK & CO 4.150 09/15/30 '30 09/22/2025 09/23/2025 800,000.00 803,696.00 1,291.11 804,987.11 4.05 09/15/2030 1,780 100.20 801,576.00 (2,120.00) 803,696.00 1.57 Aa3A+ 166756BJ4 CHEVRON USA 4.300 10/15/30 '30 10/20/2025 10/21/2025 500,000.00 506,945.00 4,061.11 511,006.11 3.98 10/15/2030 1,810 100.85 504,265.00 (2,680.00) 506,945.00 0.99 Aa2 AA- 7,875,000.00 7,680,445.00 9,996.32 7,690,441.32 4.33 1,344 98.99 7,783,632.25 103,187.25 7,680,445.00 15.21 CITY OF ALISO VIEJO TOTAL 51,800,740.18 50,215,757.54 21,277.26 50,237,034.80 3.96 696 51,168,348.58 952,591.04 50,215,757.54 100.00 51,800,740.18 50,215,757.54 21,277.26 50,237,034.80 3.96 696 51,168,348.58 952,591.04 50,215,757.54 100.00 33 CUSIP DESCRIPTION INTEREST YIELD 10/20/2025 10/21/2025 166756BJ4 CHEVRON USA 4.300 10/15/30 '30 500,000.00 506,945.00 4,061.11 (511,006.11) 3.98 10/20/2025 10/21/2025 91282CNK3 US TREASURY 3.875 06/30/30 600,000.00 607,898.44 7,139.27 (615,037.71) 3.57 1,100,000.00 1,114,843.44 11,200.38 (1,126,043.82) 3.76 CUSIP DESCRIPTION NET 10/15/2025 10/15/2025 91282CFP1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25 10/15/2025 (1,000,000.00) 1,000,625.00 1,000,000.00 (625.00) (1,000,000.00) 1,000,625.00 1,000,000.00 (625.00) 34 Local Agency Investment Fund
P.O. Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
(916) 653-3001

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO

DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SVCS/ CITY TREAS
12 JOURNEY, #100
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
Account Number: 98-30-007
October 2025 Statement
Effective
Date
Transaction
Date
Tran
Type Confirm
Number
Web
Confirm
Number Authorized Caller Amount
10/7/2025 10/7/2025 RW 1783249 1743862 ANN EIFERT -250,000.00 10/14/2025 10/14/2025 RW 1783482 1744092 ANN EIFERT -800,000.00 10/15/2025 10/14/2025 QRD 1785453 N/A SYSTEM 101,005.41 10/20/2025 10/20/2025 RW 1786012 1746633 ANN EIFERT -200,000.00 10/21/2025 10/21/2025 RW 1786062 1746684 ANN EIFERT -300,000.00 Account Summary
Total Deposit: 101,005.41 Beginning Balance: 9,821,061.67 Total Withdrawal: -1,550,000.00 Ending Balance: 8,372,067.08 LAIF Regular Monthly Statement
https://laifms.treasurer.ca.gov/RegularStatement.aspx 35 October 4.150
September 4.212
August 4.251
July 4.258
June 4.269
May 4.272
PMIA Average Life(1): 254
LAIF Fair Value Factor(1): 1.001929581
PMIA Daily(1): 4.19
PMIA Quarter to Date(1): 4.24
LAIF Apportionment Rate(2): 4.34
LAIF Earnings Ratio(2): 0.00011893333163814
LAIF Administrative Cost(1)*: 0.26
Treasuries

51.39%
Agencies

29.08%
Certificates of
Deposit/Bank Notes

9.74%
Time
Deposits

3.25%
Commercial
Paper

5.80%
Corporate
Bonds

0.58%
Loans

0.16%
Notes: The apportionment rate includes interest earned on the CalPERS Supplemental Pension Payment pursuant to Government Code 20825 (c)(1) .
*The percentage of administrative cost equals the total administrative cost divided by the quarterly interest earnings. The law provides that administrative costs are not to exceed 5% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund. However, if the 13-week Daily Treasury Bill Rate on the last day of the fiscal year is below 1%, then administrative costs shall not exceed 8% of quarterly EARNINGS of the fund for the subsequent fiscal year.

Source:
(1) State of California, Office of the Treasurer
(2) State of California, Office of the Controller
PMIA Average Monthly
Effective Yields(1)
PMIA/LAIF Performance Report
as of 11/05/25
Daily rates are now available here. View PMIA Daily Rates Quarterly Performance
Quarter Ended 9/30/25
Chart does not include $987,000.00 in mortgages, which equates to 0.001%. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Pooled Money Investment Account
Monthly Portfolio Composition (1)
9/30/25
$161.7 billion
36 City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ann Eifert, Director of Financial Services
SUBJECT: ANNUAL MEASURE M2 EXPENDITURE REPORT
Recommended Action:

Adopt a Resolution approving the City’s annual Measure M2 expenditure report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no financial impact in approving the annual expenditure report. The annual report is required to receive Measure M2 funds.

Background:

Measure M2 provides funding to local agencies through a half cent sales tax measure for street and traffic related maintenance and improvements and other transportation projects such as the Senior Mobility Program. Local jurisdictions are required to submit an annual report to the Orange County Transportation Authority to continue funding. The city has received approximately $10.5 million since 2011.

Discussion:

Requirements for the Measure M2 funding program include an annual report for all Measure M2 revenues and expenditures during the fiscal year, general fund monies expended to satisfy Maintenance of Effort requirements, and fund balances at the beginning and end of the fiscal year. Measure M2 resources totaled $1,089,672 and expenditures totaled $757,795 for fiscal year 2024-25. Projects funded by Measure M2 include the Aliso Creek Road rehabilitation and Senior Mobility Program.

Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Measure M2 Expenditure Report for FY 2024-25
37

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO
VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING THE MEASURE M2 (M2)

EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to meet eligibility requirements and submit eligibility verification packages to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in order to remain eligible to receive M2 funds; and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to adopt an annual M2 Expenditure Report as part of one of the eligibility requirements; and
WHEREAS, local jurisdictions are required to account for Net Revenues, developer/traffic impact fees, and funds expended by local jurisdiction in the M2 Expenditure Report that satisfy the Maintenance of Effort requirements; and
WHEREAS, the M2 Expenditure Report shall include all Net Revenue fund balances, interest earned and expenditures identified by type and program or project; and WHEREAS, the M2 Expenditure Report must be adopted and submitted to the OCTA each year within six months of the end of the local jurisdiction’s fiscal year to be eligible to receive Net Revenues as part of M2.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO DOES HEREBY INFORM OCTA THAT:
a) The M2 Expenditure Report is in conformance with the template provided in the Measure M2 Eligibility Guidelines and accounts for Net Revenues including interest earned, expenditures during the fiscal year, and balances at the end of fiscal year.
b) The M2 Expenditure Report is hereby adopted by the City of Aliso Viejo. c) The City of Aliso Viejo Director of Financial Services is hereby authorized to sign and submit the M2 Expenditure Report to OCTA for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025.
38

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2025. __________________________
Tiffany Ackley
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

__________________________ __________________________
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney Kathy Bailor, Interim City Clerk 39

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO )
I, KATHY BAILOR, Interim City Clerk of the City of Aliso Viejo, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025-__ duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo at their regular meeting held on the 3 rd
day of December, 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________

KATHY BAILOR

INTERIM CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
40 41
42 43
44 45
City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shaun Pelletier, Public Works Director City Engineer

SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE OSO PARKWAY/PACIFIC

PARK DRIVE/GLENWOOD DRIVE REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Recommended Action:

Adopt a Resolution approving the submittal of the Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive/Glenwood Drive Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project to OCTA for funding under the competitive Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (Project P).

Fiscal Impact:

If awarded, the City of Aliso Viejo will be responsible for a local match of 20%, which is estimated at $468,292. This would be funded with Measure M Fair Share Funds and would be included in the FY 2026-27 CIP budget.

Background:

In 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, a 20-year half-cent local transportation sales tax. Then in 2006, Orange County voters approved the renewal of the Measure M half-cent transportation sales tax, known as Measure M2, through 2041.

OCTA distributes Measure M2 funds on a formula basis or through a competitive process.

Discussion:

The Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (Project P) provides funds to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions along key corridors and across multiple jurisdictions in Orange County. Most recently, the City received Project P funding for traffic signal synchronization along Aliso Creek Road and La Paz Road.
46

As part of its 2025 Call for Projects under Measure M2, OCTA accepted project applications for Project P. The application process requires that the City adopt a Resolution supporting the proposed project improvements.

The City of Aliso Viejo will serve as the lead agency in preparing and submitting the Project P application for the Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive/Glenwood Drive corridor.

The City is partnering with the City of Laguna Niguel, City of Laguna Hills, City of Mission Viejo, County of Orange and Caltrans to prepare and submit a project application for signal synchronization along Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive/Glenwood Drive between Moulton Parkway the SR-241 NB On-Ramp. The total improvement cost within the City of Aliso Viejo is estimated at $2,341,468. If awarded, the City of Aliso Viejo will be responsible for a local match of 20%, which is estimated at $468,292. The total project cost across all the agencies is estimated at $3.8 Million.

This regional corridor is approximately 10.6 miles long and includes 41 signalized intersections, 24 of which are in the City of Aliso Viejo (18 are located along the main corridor and 6 are offset signals). The project includes implementation of radar vehicle detection, installation of traffic signal fiber optic communication system, cabinet upgrades, and infrastructure improvements to support a traffic management center at City Hall.

Attachment:

1. Resolution
47

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO

VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF ONE

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING UNDER THE
COMPETITIVE MEASURE M2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SIGNAL

SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO HEREBY RESOLVES, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS THAT:

WHEREAS, the Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program targets over 2000 signalized intersections across Orange County to maintain traffic signal synchronization, improve traffic flow, and reduce congestion across jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo has been declared by the Orange County Transportation Authority to meet the eligibility requirements to receive revenues as part of Measure M2; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo must include all projects funded by Net Revenues in the seven-year Capital Improvement Program as part of the Renewed Measure M Ordinance eligibility requirement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo authorizes a formal amendment to the seven-year Capital Improvement Program to add projects approved for funding upon approval from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors, if necessary; and WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo has currently adopted a Local Signal Synchronization Plan consistent with the Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan as a key component of local agencies’ efforts to synchronizing traffic signals across local agencies’ boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo will provide matching funds for the project as required by the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs Procedures Manual; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo will not use Renewed Measure M funds to supplant Developer Fees or other commitments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aliso Viejo desires to implement multi-jurisdictional signal synchronization listed below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo hereby requests the Orange County Transportation Authority allocate funds in the amounts specified in the City’s application to said City from the Regional Traffic Signal 48

Synchronization Program. Said funds, if approved, shall be matched by funds from said City as required and shall be used as supplemental funding to aid the City in signal synchronization along the following street(s):
1) Oso Parkway/Pacific Park Drive/Glenwood Drive between Moulton Parkway to SR-241
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3
rd day of December, 2025.
____________________________
Tiffany Ackley
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Scott C. Smith Kathy Bailor
City Attorney Interim City Clerk
49

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO )
I, KATHY BAILOR, Interim City Clerk of the City of Aliso Viejo, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025-__ duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo at their regular meeting held on the ___ day of _______, 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________

KATHY BAILOR

INTERIM CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
50 60367.01460\44420408.2
City of Aliso Viejo

AGENDA ITEM
DATE: December 3, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: So Kim, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2025-00002, ZONE CHANGE ZC2025-00002, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19340, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SDP-2024-00001, ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ADOPTION

OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY AT 95

ARGONAUT
Recommended Action:

Conduct a public hearing and:

1. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2025-00002, ZONE CHANGE ZC-2025-00002, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19340, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN: 623-091-01);

2. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE MAP

FROM BUSINESS PARK TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN: 623-091-01);

3. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance entitled: A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FROM BUSINESS PARK 2 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME
COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (623-091-01);
51 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 2 of 13

4. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19340 FOR SUBDIVISION INTO CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP-2024-00001) TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95
ARGONAUT (623-091-01); and

5. Introduce for first reading an Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MLC HOLDINGS, INC.

FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME
COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN: 623-091-01).

Background:

On October 24, 2024, MLC Holdings, Inc. (“Applicant”) submitted a General Plan amendment, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, site development permit, and a Development Agreement application to demolish an existing office building to accommodate the construction of a multi-family residential community at 95 Argonaut (“Project”).

On November 6, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public review to receive and provide initial feedback on concept plans for the Project. At that meeting the City Council directed Staff to contract with a third-party consultant to negotiate terms of the Development Agreement and provide regular updates to the City Council.

On November 5, 2025, the City Council held a study session to discuss development agreements and impact fees. No action was taken.

On November 19, 2025, the City Council discussed the parameters of the public benefit contributions of the Development Agreement and continued the meeting to December 3, 2025, to allow the Applicant additional time to address easement encroachment issues with the Aliso Viejo Community Association.

Discussion:

Existing Site
The existing site measures 2.83 acres (123,275 square feet) in size, located at the southeast corner of Glenwood Drive and 95 Argonaut (“Site”). The site is developed with a two-story, 48,000 square foot office building with exterior parking areas. The site is accessed by a single entry/exit located at the interior south property line and is located within a larger business park. The General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are Business Park and Business Park 2, respectively. Surrounding land uses are detailed in Table 1 below.
52 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 3 of 13
Table 1 Existing Uses
North Attached multi-family residences, single-family residences, Glenwood Community Park
West & South Outpatient medical, storage, light industrial, hotel, fitness studios, restaurant, research laboratories, and other offices
East Moulton Niguel Water District, single-family residences Proposed Project
The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the Site by demolishing the existing office building and developing a residential community consisting of 61 townhome units, which includes three units restricted to very low-income households. The Project details are provided in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Project Details
Number of Units
 61 units spread across 8 separate buildings. Each building will consist of 7 to 8 attached units.
 Two- to 4-bedroom units measuring 1,210 to 1,765 square feet in size.

Building
Three-story townhomes, measuring 38’ max. height. The exterior of the building will have stucco finish, framed windows-some with faux shutters, recessed entryway, wrought iron balcony railings, hip and gable roofs with tile.

Parking
Each unit will have two enclosed private garages at ground floor level. Each garage will include additional areas for trash bins, water heater, and private storage. Driveways are not proposed. An additional 28 guest parking spaces are provided on site.

Common Space
32% (25% required) consisting of a 5,215 square foot private park (BBQ counter, shade structure, picnic tables, benches, play equipment), and approximately 35,000 square feet spread throughout the site as shared yards, walkways, and perimeter landscaping. Exterior mechanical units will be screened with landscaping.

Miscellaneous
Community will not be gated, however, the perimeter of the site will be secured with fencing and landscaped. Entrance to the site will be enhanced with paving, signage, and accent trees. Streetlights, bollards, and shade structure lighting will be designed with recessed, downward-facing light sources.

Grading
25,400 cubic yards (“CY”) of grading is proposed, 14,100 CY cut and 11,300 CY fill, with a net export of 2,800 CY. The maximum depth of cut is 8’ with 6’ fill to level the property.

Infrastructure New onsite water lines, sewer lines, storm drains, underground storm water facility, and fire hydrants.
53 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 4 of 13
Entitlements
The Project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement.

Additionally, the Project qualifies for the State Density Bonus Program, and the Applicant is requesting specific waivers and concessions. Each of these components is discussed in detail below.

General Plan Amendment
The Applicant requests to change the existing office use to residential use to develop the Project. This requires an amendment to the General Plan land use designation from Business Park to High Density Residential. Pursuant to Aliso Viejo Municipal Code (“AVMC”) Section 15.78.020 (General Plan Amendments), the City Council must make the following findings prior to approving the general plan amendment:

1. Public Welfare. Approval of the amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.

While the Site is located within a larger business park, it is at an entry corner, providing a natural transition between the non-residential uses and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Directly across from the site to the north are established multi-family and single-family residential communities. Notably, the adjacent multifamily development shares several characteristics with the Project, including large buildings, each composed of six attached units. The architectural style is also complementary, featuring stucco exteriors, tile roofing, wrought iron balconies, recessed entryways, and shared open space without private driveways. The single-family tract homes surrounding that multi-family community are also similar in architectural style in terms of color, exterior finish, design, and materials.

Additionally, the Site is situated in an area with established infrastructure, including roads, utilities, and public services, that can adequately support residential development. As part of the environmental assessment, the Project required comprehensive studies addressing air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geotechnical conditions, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation impacts. As discussed further in the Environmental Assessment section below, these studies concluded that the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. The Project plans also cleared preliminary review by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA).

Furthermore, the Project aligns with the City’s housing goals by facilitating the development of new housing opportunities. Future construction on the Site will be subject to plan check review and inspection process to ensure full compliance with applicable building and safety standards. Therefore, this finding can be made. 54 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 5 of 13

2. Internal General Plan Consistency. The amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan, which are not being amended.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan listed below in that it incorporates landscaping aligned with the City Councilapproved plant palette, emphasizing low-water, drought-tolerant species; features building materials, colors, and architectural design that are compatible with the surrounding residential communities; includes a development impact fee that a portion of which is consistent with the City’s parkland ordinance; proposes three affordable housing units restricted to very low-income households, thereby enhancing housing diversity and affordability; and introduces rezoning to facilitate residential development that includes affordable units in support of the City’s housing objectives. Therefore, this finding can be made.

In the General Plan, 'COS' refers to Conservation and Open Space policies, 'H' for Housing policies and goals, and 'LU' for Land Use policies.  Policy COS-1.2 Reduce the amount of water used for landscaping and increase use of native and low water plants. Maximize use of native, low-water plants for landscaping of areas adjacent to sidewalks or other impermeable surfaces.  Policy COS-4.2 Encourage and maintain high-quality architectural and landscaping designs that enhance or complement the community’s visual character.
 Policy COS-7.5 Ensure that new development provides park land and/or improvements at a fair share ratio, pursuant to the City’s Parkland Ordinance.  Goal H-1: Encourage a diversity of housing types and provide affordability levels within Aliso Viejo to meet the needs of community residents.  Policy H-1.1 Identify sites appropriate for the development of a variety of housing types and price ranges to meet the needs of all socioeconomic segments of the community through the disbursement of affordable units in projects.
 Policy H-1.2 Encourage through the use of density bonuses and rezoning to allow for residential development, development of affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, as well as development of housing for elderly and low- and moderate-income households near public transportation services.
 Policy H-1.4 Ensure that a portion of future residential development is affordable to low- and very-low-income households by designating certain sites as having the potential to be used for residential uses.  Policy H-3.8 Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
 Policy LU-12.2 As a condition upon new development, require payment of park fees and/or dedication and provision of parkland, recreation facilities and/or multi-use trails that improve the public and private recreation system. 55 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 6 of 13

3. Land Use Compatibility. In the case of amendments to the General Plan land use policy map, the new designation is compatible with the designations on nearby properties.

The Site is located at the edge of a larger business park and directly across from established multi-family and single-family residential neighborhoods. The adjacent multi-family development shares several characteristics with the Project, including large attached-unit buildings, stucco exteriors, tile roofing, wrought iron balconies, recessed entryways, and shared open space without private driveways. These similarities ensure architectural and functional continuity between the Project and existing residential uses. Furthermore, the transition from non-residential uses within the business park to residential neighborhoods is reinforced by the Site’s location at a corner entry, creating a natural buffer. The proposed land use designation therefore complements the surrounding residential character.

Therefore, this finding can be made.

4. Property Suitability. In the case of amendments to the general plan land use policy map, the new designation is suitable for the location, access, visual character and topography of the subject property.

The property is located along established roadways with adequate vehicular and pedestrian access and is supported by existing infrastructure, including utilities and public services, sufficient to accommodate residential development. The Site is generally level, with a slight descending slope from east to west, and sits several feet below the street elevations to the north and west. Proposed grading will consist primarily of recompaction and limited export to further level the Site, resulting in finished elevations comparable to current conditions. Architecturally, the Project incorporates building styles, materials, and landscaping consistent with adjacent residential communities, ensuring visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Site’s position at the entry corner of the business park further enhances its suitability, providing a natural transition between nonresidential and residential uses. Therefore, this finding can be made.

Zone Change
In addition to the proposed General Plan amendment, the Project requires a zoning designation change for the Site from Business Park 2 to High Density Residential.

Pursuant to AVMC Section 15.78.040 (Zone Change and Prezoning), the City Council must make the following findings prior to approving the zone change. All these findings can be made as evidenced in General Plan Amendment Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4 above.

1. Public Welfare. Approval of the zone change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.

2. General Plan Consistency. The zone change is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 56 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 7 of 13

3. Land Use Compatibility. The zone change is compatible with the zoning and land use on nearby properties.

4. Property Suitability. The zone change is suitable for the location, access, visual character and topography of the subject property.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §§ 66410 et seq.) and Title 14 of the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code, no tentative map shall be approved unless the following findings of consistency with the General Plan and compliance with CEQA have been made.

1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans.

The Site has a General Plan land use designation of Business Park.

The Applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the property for High Density Residential, which allows for residential development of 19 to 30 dwelling units per acre. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map proposes 61 multi-family homes on 2.85 acres, resulting in a density of 21.4 dwelling units per acre. As conditioned, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not take effect unless the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement take effect. Accordingly, the proposed map would be consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use designation. There is no applicable Specific Plan for the Site. Therefore, this finding can be made.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General and Specific Plans.

The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Conservation and Open Space, Housing, and Land Use element in that the Project promotes orderly growth, provides a compatible transition between non-residential and residential uses, supports housing objectives by creating new residential opportunities, and utilizes existing infrastructure in a manner consistent with the community’s longterm vision and planning framework. The Project is also subject to mitigation measures and conditions of approval that address potential impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and emergency access. There is no applicable Specific Plan for the Project site. Therefore, this finding can be made.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The Site is generally level, has adequate access from existing public streets, and is served by established infrastructure systems including water, sewer, storm drainage, and utilities. The Site’s size, configuration, and surrounding land use context are appropriate to accommodate the Project consistent with applicable 57 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 8 of 13
zoning and General Plan designations. No unusual topographic, geologic, or environmental conditions have been identified that would render the site unsuitable for residential use. Therefore, this finding can be made.

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The Project includes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the property to High Density Residential, which permits residential development at a range of 19 to 30 dwelling units per acre. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map proposes 61 multifamily homes on 2.85 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 21.4 dwelling units per acre. This proposed density falls within the allowable range for the HighDensity Residential designation. Therefore, this finding can be made.

5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The Project site is currently developed with an office building, surface parking lot, and landscaping. There is no fish, wildlife, or any habitat that would be affected by the Project.

6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The Project will be served by existing off-site infrastructure, with new on-site water, sewer, and storm drain facilities designed to connect to and extend those systems.

All facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed residential use.

The subdivision design incorporates standard improvements, including paved streets, sidewalks, street lighting, and utility connections that will be constructed in compliance with applicable building codes and City engineering standards. The Initial Study prepared for the Project did not identify any conditions that would result in significant public health impacts, and all potentially significant effects have been mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with existing easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the subdivision.

The Project as conditioned requires the Applicant to obtain easement holders’ authorization for any improvements or encroachments prior to building permit issuance.

Site Development Permit
The purpose of a site development permit (“SDP”) is to ensure that new development conforms to the development and design provisions of the AVMC, including but not 58 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 9 of 13
limited to permitted uses, development standards, and supplemental regulations.

Pursuant to AVMC Section 15.74.020 (Site Development Permits), the City Council must make the following findings prior to approving the SDP:

1. Consistency with General Plan. The Project is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

The Project includes a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”). As detailed in the preceding GPA section, all required findings to support the amendment can be made.

2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The land use and associated development conform to the permitted use provisions and development standards of this zoning code and is consistent with this code and any applicable specific plan.

The proposed zone change to High Density Residential, together with the associated development, is compatible with surrounding land uses, providing a transition that complements the existing neighborhood character. The property is suitable for residential use based on its location, access, visual character, and topography, and existing infrastructure is adequate to support the proposed development. The Project incorporates reduced perimeter setbacks for buildings, landscaping, and mechanical equipment, which are expressly permitted as incentives under California’s State Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915). This law requires cities to grant certain concessions and waivers or relaxed development standards when a project includes a qualifying percentage of affordable housing units. Because the Project meets the threshold of 5% for very low-income households, it is eligible for the setback reductions the building setbacks, landscaping setbacks, and mechanical equipment placement in front yard setbacks.

In addition, the Project qualifies for a reduced parking ratio under the State Density Bonus Law. Based on this ratio, a total of 112 parking spaces is required for the Project. The law does not prescribe how these spaces must be allocated between private resident parking and guest parking; rather, the distribution is left to the Applicant. In this case, the Applicant is proposing 150 parking spaces, consisting of 122 private residential spaces and 28 guest spaces. Although the City does not permit tandem parking, and tandem stalls must therefore be counted as a single space, the Project would still provide a total of 117 spaces (89 private and 28 guest), which exceeds the required 112 spaces.

With these provisions, the Project conforms to the permitted use requirements and development standards of the zoning code and remains consistent with all applicable Specific Plan regulations. Therefore, this finding can be made. 59 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 10 of 13

3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

This finding can be made as evidenced in the Environmental Analysis below.

4. Architectural Design. The architectural design of the Project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, and roof style, is compatible with surrounding development.

Directly north of the site are established multi-family and single-family residential communities. The adjacent multi-family development, in particular, shares several defining characteristics with the Project, including similarly scaled buildings composed of six attached units. The architectural style is complementary, featuring stucco exteriors, tile roofing, wrought iron balconies, recessed entryways, and communal open space without private driveways. The surrounding single-family tract homes also reflect a consistent architectural design, with comparable color palettes, exterior finishes, and material selections. The Project further enhances this compatibility through the inclusion of framed windows, some accented with faux shutters, as well as a mix of hip and gable roof forms, which reflects the roof styles found in nearby residences. Collectively, these design elements ensure compatibility with the surrounding development and this finding can be made.

5. Site Design. The site design of the Project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements, is compatible with surrounding development.

Based on the analysis provided in the Initial Study and supporting documentation, the Project will retain the existing single-entry driveway at the southern end of the site along Argonaut. The internal private roadway system designed to provide twoway access to residential garages and guest parking spaces, emergency access, hydrant placement has been reviewed and conceptually approved by both the Building Division and the OCFA. Each unit will include an enclosed private garage with dedicated space for trash bin storage. Approximately 32% of the site will be dedicated to open space, including a private park, shared yards, pedestrian walkways, and perimeter landscaping. Perimeter fencing and exterior mechanical equipment will be screened with additional landscaping, and the site entrance will be enhanced with decorative paving, signage, and accent trees. Lighting throughout the site, including streetlights, bollards, and shade structures, will be designed with recessed, downward-facing fixtures to minimize light spill. These design elements are compatible with surrounding residential communities, and the required finding can be made.

6. Landscape Design. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious 60 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 11 of 13
transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the Project.

The Project incorporates a landscape plan that enhances the overall visual continuity of the site and complements the architectural character of the development. Approximately 32% of the site is dedicated to open space, which includes a private park featuring a BBQ counter, shade structure, picnic tables, benches, and play equipment. In addition, approximately 35,000 square feet of shared yards, pedestrian walkways, and perimeter landscaping are distributed throughout the site to provide visual relief and promote connectivity. Landscaping is also proposed around the exterior mechanical equipment and perimeter fencing to screen undesirable views. The site entrance is designed to create a welcoming and visually prominent focal point, enhanced with decorative paving, signage, and accent trees. The plant palette aligns with the City Council-approved plant palette, emphasizing low-water, drought-tolerant species. Therefore, this finding can be made.

Development Agreement
This Project requires a land use and zoning change from office to residential, which requires a Development Agreement (“DA”) to ensure the Project is implemented as approved, minimize potential adverse impacts, and secure long-term community benefits.

Under the DA (Attachment 5, Exhibit A), the Applicant has agreed to pay a one-time public impact fee of $1,038,652, consisting of $213,850 for fiscal impacts and $824,802 for park in-lieu fees. Full payment must be made to the City prior to the issuance of any building permit, and no permit will be issued until the City has received the payment and confirmed compliance with all applicable fee requirements.

Pursuant to AVMC 15.82.010 (Development Agreements and Other Actions), the City Council must make the following findings prior to approving the DA:

1. Public Welfare. Approval of the development agreement will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.

The Project is consistent with the policies and regulations of the proposed HighDensity Residential zoning district. The DA includes provisions to ensure compliance with applicable land use regulations, defines the scope of the Project, and identifies the public benefit obligations of the Applicant. The Project is compatible with adjacent multi-family and single-family communities in terms of layout, architectural style, materials, and open space; the site is served by existing infrastructure, including roads, utilities, and public services sufficient to support residential development; that the environmental assessment determined impacts would be less than significant with mitigation; the Project advances the City’s housing goals by creating new housing opportunities; and future construction will 61 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 12 of 13
be subject to plan check review and inspection to ensure compliance with all applicable building and safety standards. Therefore, this finding can be made.

2. General Plan Consistency. The development agreement is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Conservation and Open Space, Housing, and Land Use elements in that the Project promotes orderly growth, provides a compatible transition between non-residential and residential uses, supports housing objectives by creating new residential opportunities, and utilizes existing infrastructure in a manner consistent with the community’s longterm vision and planning framework. The Project is also subject to mitigation measures and conditions of approval that address potential impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and emergency access. The A incorporates, among other provisions, the scope of the Project, compliance with governing regulations, and the Applicant’s public benefit obligations, ensuring that this finding can be made.

Environmental:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The analysis concluded that the Project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts; however, all such impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, the City also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in compliance with CEQA.

The IS/MND was circulated for a 20-day public review period, from October 2 to October 22, 2025. Distribution included the State Clearinghouse, required public agencies, property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project site, and interested parties. One comment was received from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (Attachment 1, Exhibit C), recommending that all imported soil and fill material be tested for contaminants, that any identified contaminants be addressed, and that the DTSC fact sheet on imported fill be referenced. Although the Applicant’s geotechnical report concludes that the existing fill materials are suitable for reuse, DTSC’s recommendations have been incorporated as conditions of project approval (Attachment 4, Exhibit A).

The IS/MND determined that the Project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, or wildfire. However, it identified potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils. With the implementation of mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures are detailed in 62 60367.01460\44420408.2 Page 13 of 13
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1, Exhibit B) and have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 4, Exhibit A) for the Project.

City Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the IS/MND and MMRP based on the findings set forth in the accompanying resolution. If the Project is approved, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of approval.

Attachments:

1. Resolution (Mitigated Negative Declaration)
a. Exhibit A – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program c. Exhibit C – Response to Comments

2. Resolution (General Plan Amendment)
a. Exhibit A – Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map

3. Ordinance (Zone Change)
a. Exhibit A – Zone Change Map

4. Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Permit) a. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
b. Exhibit B – Proposed Plans

5. Ordinance (Development Agreement)
a. Exhibit A – Development Agreement
63 60367.01460\44424266.1

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO

VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2025-00002,
ZONE CHANGE ZC-2025-00002, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
19340, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 61-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME
COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 95 ARGONAUT (APN: 623-091-01).

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, MLC Holdings, Inc. (“Applicant”) submitted a general plan amendment, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, site development permit, and a development agreement application to demolish an existing office building to accommodate the construction of a multi-family residential community at 95 Argonaut (“Project”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, § 15000 et seq.) (Collectively, “CEQA”), the City is the lead agency for the proposed of the Project;
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City prepared an Initial Study to analyze whether the proposed Project may cause a potentially significant effect on the environment;
WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, which concluded that the proposed Project could have potentially significant impacts but that those impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) should be prepared for the proposed Project;
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse Number [SCH] 2025100301) was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the proposed Project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid potential significant environmental effects (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” or “MMRP”); WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15072 and 17073, the IS/MND was circulated for public review from October 2 to October 22, 2025; 64 60367.01460\44424266.1

WHEREAS, the City received one comment from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, which the City has reviewed and responded to; WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the final IS/MND, and relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project, and determined that all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the resolution have been met;
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2025, the City gave public notice of the City Council public hearing for consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment GPA-2025-00002, Zone Change ZC-2025-00002, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19340 and Site Development Permit SDP-2024-00001, for the Project by advertising in a newspaper of general circulation; by posting notices at City Hall and the Project site; and by mailing notices to owners of property within 300 feet, to the project applicant, and to local agencies that provide water, sewage, electricity and schools; WHEREAS, on December 3, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing as prescribed by law and considered written and verbal public testimony that was submitted prior to the hearing and during the hearing, and evidence and recommendations presented by staff in the agenda report and oral presentation.

WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearing conducted by the City, and no additional information submitted to the City, have resulted in substantial new information requiring substantial revisions that would trigger recirculation of the IS/MND or additional environmental review of the proposed Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALISO VIEJO AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all of the recitals set forth above are true and correct. The above recitals are hereby incorporated as substantive findings of this Resolution.

Section 2: Compliance with CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the IS/MND, comments received, and other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project. The City Council finds that the IS/MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. Findings. Based on the whole record before it, including the IS/MND, the administrative record and all other written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are either less than significant or can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the mitigation measures outlined in the IS/MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 65 60367.01460\44424266.1

Program. The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in any significant environmental impact. The City Council finds that the IS/MND contains complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

Section 4. Adoption of The Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City hereby approves and adopts the IS/MND, which is hereby attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”.

Section 5. Adoption of The Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program.

The City hereby adopts the MMRP, which is hereby attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “B”. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth in the IS/MND and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.

Section 6. Notice of Determination. The City directs Staff to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

Section 7: Location of Documents. The administrative record for the Project is maintained at City Hall located at 12 Journey, Suite 100, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. The custodian of records is the City Clerk.

Section 8. Execution of Resolution. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3
rd day of December 2025.
__________________________
Tiffany Ackley
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

__________________________ __________________________
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney Kathy Bailor, Interim City Clerk 66 60367.01460\44424266.1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO )
I, Kathy Bailor, City Clerk of the City of Aliso Viejo, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025-__ duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo at their regular meeting held on the 3 rd day of December
2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________

KATHY BAILOR,

INTERIM CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
67 60367.01460\44424266.1

Exhibit “A”
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 60367.01460\44424266.1

Exhibit “B”
Mitigation Monitoring Program
69 60367.01460\44424266.1

Exhibit “C”
Response to Comments
70 95 Argonaut Residential Project
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California
PREPARED FOR:

City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949.425.2525
Contact: So Kim, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY:

FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 210
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Cecilia So, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
October 2, 2025
71 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
72 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS ii i
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
1 - Project Description 1

1.1 - Purpose 1

1.2 - Project Location 1

1.3 - Environmental Setting 1

1.3.1 - Land Use Designation and Zoning 1

1.3.2 - Surrounding Land Uses 2

1.4 - Proposed Project 2

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals 4

1.6 - Intended Uses of This Document 4
2 - Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation 19

2.1 Aesthetics 20

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 25

2.3 Air Quality 28

2.4 Biological Resources 45

2.5 Cultural Resources 51

2.6 Energy 57

2.7 Geology and Soils 61

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 70

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 76

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 83

2.11 Land Use and Planning 92

2.12 Mineral Resources 99

2.13 Noise 101

2.14 Population and Housing 111

2.15 Public Services 114

2.16 Recreation 120

2.17 Transportation 123

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 128

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems 132

2.20 Wildfire 141

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 145
3 - List of Preparers 149
Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Supporting Information 73 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N iv FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Appendix D: Geotechnical Due Diligence Review
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: Hydrology and Water Quality Supporting Information Appendix G: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix H: Public Service Letters
Appendix I: Transportation Supporting Information
Tables
Table 1: Unmitigated Construction—Maximum Daily Regional Emissions by Year 33 Table 2: Maximum Daily Operational Regional Pollutants 34 Table 3: Construction Localized Significance Screening Analysis 37 Table 4: Operational Localized Screening Significance Analysis 39 Table 5: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction 41 Table 6: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources 42 Table 7: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions 71 Table 8: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Unmitigated 73 Table 9: Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies 93 Table 10: Existing Ambient Noise Levels on the Project Site 102 Table 11: Orange County Residential Noise Standards 104 Table 12: Exterior Noise Standards 104
Table 13: Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) 135 Table 14: Current Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project 147 Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map 7
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map 9
Exhibit 3: General Plan Land Use Map 11
Exhibit 4: Zoning Map 13
Exhibit 5: Site Plan 15
Exhibit 6: Landscape Plan 17
74 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS v
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model AFY acre-feet per year
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
AVCA Aliso Viejo Community Association
AVTIG Aliso Viejo Transportation Impact Guidelines
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
bgs below ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CHL California Historic Landmarks
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
75 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N v i FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx CNPSEI California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUSD Capistrano Unified School District
CVC California Vehicle Code
cy cubic yard
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control
EMFAC Emission Factors mobile source emissions model
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGC Fish and Game Code
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GPD gallons per day
HARP2 Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HDR High Density Residential
HQTA High-quality Transit Area
HRA Health Risk Assessment
76 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS v ii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
iDigBio Integrated Digitized Biocollections
in/sec inch per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt hours
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
lbs pounds
Ldn day/night sound level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID low impact development
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
LOS Level of Service
LST localized significance threshold
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEIR maximally exposed individual receptor
MEIW Maximally Exposed Individual Worker
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MNWD Moulton Niguel Water District
mph miles per hour
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT CO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MWD Metropolitan Water District
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWS modular wetland systems
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NHM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
77 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N v ii i FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCSD Orange County Sheriff’s Department
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
PRIMP Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program PV photovoltaic
PWQMP Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
RCP reinforced concrete pipe
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA Geo SA Geotechnical, Inc.

SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SLF Sacred Lands File
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOCWA South Orange County Wastewater Authority
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWP State Water Project
78 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS ix
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
The Nat San Diego Natural History Museum
TAC toxic air contaminants
TK Transitional Kindergarten
TPA Transit Priority Area
TTM Tentative Tract Map
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSS Web Soil Survey
79 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
80 95 Argonaut Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the 95 Argonaut Residential Project (proposed project) in the City of Aliso Viejo (City), in Orange County (County), California.

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this Draft IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response.

Feasible mitigation measures are analyzed to reduce all impacts to below a level of significance.

Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
The project site is located at 95 Argonaut, in the City of Aliso Viejo, in Orange County, California (Exhibit 1). The approximately 2.83-acre project site consists of one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 623-091-01). As shown in Exhibit 1, the project site is in the northern portion of the City. Regional access to the project site is from Interstate 5 (I-5) via the El Toro Road exit and from State Route (SR) 73 via the Glenwood Drive exit.

1.3 - Environmental Setting

1.3.1 - Land Use Designation and Zoning
The project site is currently developed with an office building and a paved surface parking lot surrounding the building (Exhibit 2). The office building is approximately 24,879 square feet and 37 feet tall and is currently occupied by one tenant for general office uses. The project site is flat, and vehicular access is currently provided from a driveway along the southern boundary of the site.

The City of Aliso Viejo General Plan (General Plan) designates the project site as Business Park (Exhibit 3).1 The proposed project applicant requests a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the General Plan land use designation from Business Park to High Density Residential (HDR). The 1 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. City of Aliso Viejo General Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Policy Map, Figure LU-1.

Website: http://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/397/Land-Use-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed December 6, 2024. 81 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx HDR land use designation is intended to provide residential development with a density between 18 and 30 dwelling units per gross acre, with an average density of 20 units per gross acre.2 The project site is currently zoned Business Park-2 (Exhibit 4). The proposed project applicant requests a rezone to change the zoning designation from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density District. The RH Residential–High Density zoning district is intended to provide for the development and preservation of high-density neighborhoods consisting of attached and multiple dwelling units such as townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and senior housing. The required minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet and the maximum density allowed is 30 dwelling units per gross acre.3

1.3.2 - Surrounding Land Uses
North Land designated Very High Density Residential, Glenwood Drive, single-family homes and townhomes
South Land designated Business Park, Argonaut, office buildings East Land designated Community Facilities, Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) water storage facility
West Land designated Business Park, Argonaut, office buildings

1.4 - Proposed Project
MLC Holdings, LLC (applicant) proposes to demolish the existing approximately 48,000-square-foot 2-story office building, the existing parking lot, and landscaping and develop a new residential infill community consisting of a total of up to 61 3-story townhomes between eight buildings. The townhomes would range in size from approximately 1,210 to 1,765 square feet and would offer an array of two-, three-, and four-bedroom units (Exhibit 5). The townhomes would be a maximum height of 38 feet and would have a total building site area of 123,275 square feet.

The proposed project would include private roadways and parking, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, and a recreational amenity area. The proposed project’s density would be 21.6 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), which would comply with the maximum density allowed by the HDR land use designation (30 du/acre). The proposed project would also include 5 percent deed restricted affordable homes (three very-low-income homes), and the applicant seeks certain concessions and waivers pursuant the State’s Density Bonus Law, including reduced parking, reduced setbacks, and increased retaining wall heights.
2 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. City of Aliso Viejo General Plan, Land Use Element. Website:
https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/391/Land-Use-Element-PDF. Accessed December 6, 2024. 3 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/#!/AlisoViejo15/AlisoViejo1510.html#15.10. Accessed December 6, 2024. 82 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Townhomes would have a Spanish Eclectic architectural style which includes Spanish characteristics such as covered arched entry ways, window shutters, covered balconies and gable roof accents.

These architectural details emulate the adjacent residential community to the north. Three different building types, a 6-plex, a 7-plex, and an 8-plex building, each include their own color scheme to create variety within the community. The color schemes include terracotta colored roof tiles, with trim accents of an earth tone palette such as browns, reds, and blues.

Parking and Circulation
Vehicles would access the project site via a proposed driveway at the south of the project site along Argonaut. An internal private roadway system would provide two-way access to each unit’s parking garage as well as to guest parking spaces that would be distributed throughout the site. The proposed project has been designed such that emergency service providers would be able to access the site from any of the public streets or the drive aisles, with a minimum of 150 feet of hose pull to cover the entirety of each building. Pedestrians would circulate within the site via proposed internal pedestrian walkways and sidewalks.

Pursuant to the concessions being sought through the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project has been designed to meet the Reduced Parking Ratios set forth in Municipal Code Section

15.38.120. The proposed project would have 155 on-site parking spaces, consisting of 122 spaces within garages (2 per unit) and 26 guest spaces. The proposed parking spaces would exceed the parking ratio requirement of 115.5 total parking spaces in accordance with the State Density Bonus Law.

Open Space and Landscaping
The Municipal Code requires open space equal to 25 percent of the total site area (30,819 square feet).4 The proposed project would provide 40,259.9 square feet of open space area. The proposed project would be required to include a minimum 25 percent of the total site area of open space (30,819 square feet). The proposed project would exceed the required minimum amount of open space. The proposed project would include 5,587.4 square feet of usable open space and 34,672.5 square feet of other type of open space. Additionally, the proposed project design includes amenities such as decorative walkways, gathering spaces with electric barbeques, open lawn area for free-play, and a tot lot (Exhibit 6). The proposed project would include landscaping derived from the City’s Landscape Plant Palette for low water plants.

Infrastructure and Utilities
Water service is currently provided by MNWD. The proposed project would connect to an existing 10- inch domestic water line within Argonaut and would extend one existing 8-inch line into the site through the internal drive aisles. An existing 6-inch domestic water line would be capped. 4 The project site is 2.83 acres in size (123,274 square feet). Twenty-five percent of the total site is therefore 30,819 square feet.
83 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 4 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Wastewater is collected via the MNWD’s wastewater collection system and is sent to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). The proposed project would include the installation of an 8-inch system within the project site that would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line in Argonaut.

The proposed project would passively treat stormwater via an on-site underground modular wetland system (MWS). Stormwater would flow from the underground MWS through a proposed 18-inch private storm drain pipe to a proposed 18-inch public storm drain pipe before it enters the municipal storm drain within Argonaut.

Additionally, the proposed project would include a total of three new fire hydrants on the eastern, western, and southern portions of the project site and would connect to existing water lines.

Construction
The applicant anticipates that construction of the proposed project would begin in Quarter 1 of 2026, with the community opening for sales in Quarter 3 of 2027; construction is estimated to be completed at the end of Quarter 4 of 2027. It is anticipated that project construction would require 16,500 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 14,100 cy of fill, with 2,400 cy of export soil.

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Aliso Viejo has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the applicant would need to secure the following permits/approvals:
• General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Business Park to HDR (density of up to 30 du/acre).
• Rezone to change the zoning from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density zone (density of up to 30 du/acre).
• Waiver of local standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law to allow for reduced parking and concessions and waivers for setbacks and retaining wall height. • Tentative Tract Map (TTM) for construction of up to 61 for-sale residential townhomes. • Site Development Permit for building construction.

1.6 - Intended Uses of This Document
This Draft IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project.
84 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 20 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND should be sent to:

So Kim, Community Development Director
City of Aliso Viejo Planning Services
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Phone: 949.497.2527
Email: [email protected]
85 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
86 !
·|}˛91
·|}˛91
·|}˛55
·|}˛241
·|}˛261
·|}˛241
·|}˛74
!"#$5
!"#$5
Orange County
Riverside County
%&'(5
%&'(405
%&'(5
·|}˛22
·|}˛133
·|}˛1
%&'(15
San Onofre
San Clemente
Dana Point
South Laguna
Laguna Beach
Emerald Bay
San Juan
Capistrano
Balboa Island Newport Coast
Laguna Hills
Aliso Viejo
Laguna Woods San Juan
Hot Springs
Coto de Caza
Trabuco
Irvine Canyon Santa Ana
Heights
Huntington
Beach
Orange
Park Acres
Foothill
Ranch
Silverado
Portola Hills
El Cerrito
Yorba Linda
Tustin
Station
Riverside County
San Diego County
Prado Flood
Control Basin
Santiago
Reservoir
Lake
Mathews
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Cleveland
National
Forest
Exhibit 1
Regional Location Map
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
·|}˛73
Source: Census 2000 Data,The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL).

I

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
95 ARGONAUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
49400049 • 12/2024 | 1_regional.mxd
Project Site
Legend
City of Aliso Viejo
87 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
88 49400049 • 12/2024 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI World Imagery. County of Orange.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
95 ARGONAUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
M
ou
lton Pky
Glenwood Dr
Aliso Creek Rd
Arg
onaut
Go
lf
Dr
Laguna Hills Dr
Eastwing
Cedarbrook
Windsong
Eastwood
I
1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Wingspan
Park
Pinewood
Park
Ridgecrest
Park
Argonaut
Park
Creekside
Park
Aliso Viejo
Country Club
Glenwood Dr
Argona
ut
89 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
90 49400049 • 12/2024 | 3_GPLU.mxd
Exhibit 3
General Plan Land Use Map
Source: ESRI World Imagery. City of Aliso Viejo.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
95 ARGONAUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Glenwood Dr
Aliso Creek Rd
Argo
naut
Golf Dr
Cedarbrook
Eastwood
I
500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
General Plan Land Use Designations
BP - Business Park
CF - Community Facilities
HDR - High Density Residential
LDR - Low Density Residential
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
OS - Open Space
R - Recreation
RC - Recreation Commercial
VLDR - Very Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
VHDR - Very High Density Residential
RC
LDR
MDR
MDR

MDR MDR
MDR
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
R R
R
R
R
R
MDR
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
NC
VRLD
VRLD
VRLD
VRLD
VRLD
VRLD
MDR
CF
CF
HDR
VHDR
MDR
R
VRLD
91 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
92 49400049 • 12/2024 | 4_zoning.mxd
Exhibit 4
Zoning Map
Source: ESRI World Imagery. City of Aliso Viejo.

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
95 ARGONAUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Glenwood Dr
Aliso Creek Rd
Argo
naut
Golf Dr
Cedarbrook
Eastwood
I
500 250 0 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Zoning Designations
BP - Business Park 2
CF - Community Facilities
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
OSP - Open Space Preservation
OSR - Open Space Recreation
RLD - Residential Low Density
RMD - Residential Medium Density
SP-G - Specific Plan: Glenwood
SP-G
SP-G
RMD
RMD

RMD RMD
RMD
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP
OSP

OSR OSR
OSR
OSR
OSR
OSR
RMD
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
NC
RLD
RLD
RLD
RLD
RLD
RLD
RMD
CF
CF
93 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
94 49400049 • 04/2025 | 5_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 5
Site Plan

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
95 ARGONAUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: Meritage Homes; MLC Holdings, Inc., April, 2025. 95 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
96 49400049 • 04/20254 | 6_landscape_plan.cdr
Exhibit 6
Landscape Plan

CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
95 ARGONAUT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: C2 Collaborative; MLC Holdings, Inc., March 28, 2025. 97 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
98 95 Argonaut Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS 1 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Signed:
99 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 20 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a
State Scenic Highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element identifies the hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors as the primary aesthetic resources in the City. Canyon views and scenic highways are examples of scenic qualities, as defined by the General Plan, benefiting the community. Architectural and landscaping design guidelines complement the natural setting, enhancing the City’s unique visual character. 5 Public and private portions of the City bordering the Aliso and Woods Canyons are situated with highly valued viewsheds or scenic overlooks of the canyons. In addition, several City roadways have been designated by the County of Orange Master Plan of Scenic Highways as having scenic qualities worth preserving. These roadways are classified as Viewscape Corridors or 5 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. Alisa Viejo General Plan, Conservation/Open Space Element. Website:
https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/394/Conservation--Open-Space-Element-PDF. Accessed December 2, 2024. 100
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 2 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Landscape Corridors.6 Additional scenic amenities such as golf courses also provide visual relief from the built environment and are important visual amenities and landmarks.

The project site is relatively flat and is currently developed with a 2-story office building. Surrounding uses include other commercial uses and residential uses, as well as Glenwood Community Park to the north across Glenwood Drive. As such, the project site’s existing visual character is a combination of urban and suburban uses. Views from the project site are primarily of surrounding infrastructure and landscaping, as well as surrounding roadways and parking lots. Distant views of hillsides to the east are visible from Glenwood Community Park and from Glenwood Drive but are not visible from the project site.

Existing sources of light and glare include streetlights and lighting on the interiors and exteriors of existing and surrounding buildings, limited amounts of lighting from the gazebo and pathway lights from Glenwood Community Park, as well as vehicle headlights and traffic signals. Landscaping along both sides of Glenwood Drive and Argonaut Drive, as well as the Glenwood Community Park and residential landscaping north of the project site, provide shielding from light and glare.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The City does not designate any specific scenic vistas; however, it identifies hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, canyon views, and view corridors as the primary aesthetic resources in the City and states that the Aliso and Woods Canyons have viewsheds or scenic overlooks of the canyons.

The project site is in northern portion of the City, 1.56 miles east of the hillside and canyon area.

Because of the distance and intervening development and topography, the project site cannot be seen from the hillsides and canyon areas or from the Aliso Viejo Country Club.

General Plan Policy COS-4.1 aims to protect scenic landform features such as hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors through designation of key areas as open space and use of other land use planning tools. Because of intervening development, there are no scenic views of the natural slopes from the project site or the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or obscure any views and would not affect public views of any scenic vistas. Furthermore, no hillsides or ridgelines are visible from the project site and the proposed project does not have the potential to obstruct views of hillsides from Glenwood Community Park or Glenwood Drive. As such, the proposed project would not obstruct any publicly available views and no impact would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway? No impact. The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is SR-91, approximately 18.40 miles north of the project site. A portion of SR-1, approximately 5.15 miles southwest of the project site, is 6 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. Alisa Viejo General Plan, Conservation/Open Space Element. Website:
https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/394/Conservation--Open-Space-Element-PDF. Accessed December 2, 2024. 101
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 22 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx identified as being eligible for listing.7 Because of the project site’s distance from this section of SR-1 and from SR-91, as well as intervening development, the project site is not visible from SR-1 or SR91.

General Plan Figure COS-1–Conservation/Open Space Policy Map shows the locations of viewscape corridors and landscape corridors. As shown on the map, no viewscape corridors or landscape corridors exist on or adjacent to the project site. The nearest landscape corridor is Aliso Creek Road, located 1,055 feet (0.2 mile) west of the project site. Because of intervening development, Aliso Creek Road is not visible from the project site.

The project site is developed with commercial business uses, and there are no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on-site or near the project site. The nearest golf course is Aliso Viejo Country Club, located 0.15 mile north of the project site. The golf course is not visible from the project site due to intervening development. Additionally, no unique visual resources or historic structures are located on or near the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur to scenic or historic resources or a State Scenic Highway. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed with an existing office building and parking lot. As such, this discussion focuses on zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance define the permitted land uses and the corresponding development standards within the City. The project site currently has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The proposed project would require a GPA to amend the land use designation from Business Park to HDR. The proposed project would be consistent with the HDR land use designation’s maximum density of 30 du/acre.

The project site is currently zoned as Business Park-2. The proposed project would require a rezone to amend the zoning of Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density. The RH Residential–High Density Zone is intended to provide for the development and preservation of high-density neighborhoods consisting primarily of attached and multiple dwelling units such as townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and senior housing. Additionally, the RH Residential–High Density Zone allows for a maximum density of 30 units per gross acre.8In conjunction with the proposed General 7 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. State System Highway Map. Website: https:// caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed December 2, 2024.
8 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/#!/AlisoViejo15/AlisoViejo1510.html#15.10. Accessed January 15, 2025. 102
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 2 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Plan Amendment to HDR, pursuant to the RH Residential–High Density Zoning District the proposed project would be subject to the RH Residential–High Density Zoning development standards.

The proposed project would comply with all Aliso Viejo Municipal Code requirements related to scenic quality, such as Chapter 15.62, which sets out design standards for development within the City and subjects the proposed project to a development review process to ensure the project design is consistent with adopted design guidelines. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with any General Plan policies related to scenic quality, including General Plan Policy COS-4.1 and Policy COS-4.2, which protect scenic landforms such as hillsides, ridgelines, and canyons and encourage high-quality architectural and landscaping design. The proposed project would be located on a previously developed site and would not impact any scenic landforms. Additionally, the proposed project would include townhomes with a Spanish Eclectic architectural style, which would be subject to design review as required by Chapter 15.62 of the City’s Municipal Code. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations pertaining to scenic quality, and no impacts would occur.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. The project site is currently developed and located in an urbanized area with existing light sources, which include streetlights and lighting on the interiors and exteriors of existing and surrounding buildings, as well as vehicle headlights and traffic signals. The existing building on-site contains sources of light and glare, including indoor and outdoor lighting, reflective surfaces, and headlights from vehicles in the parking lot.

The proposed project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from the building interiors that would pass through windows and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). The proposed lighting would be typical of residential developments. The proposed development would replace current existing sources of light and glare with new high-quality development and lighting. The proposed project would include four types of lighting fixtures: streetlights, pedestrian lights, bollard lights, and downlights. The proposed project’s lighting would be similar to existing residential development in the area and would not substantially increase sources of light as compared to the existing uses on the project site.

No nighttime construction is proposed, and construction activities would be subject to regulations set forth by the City’s Building and Safety Department, which restricts construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.9 Therefore, the proposed project would not require construction lighting, except security and safety lighting.

The City’s Building and Safety Department would review any proposed lighting to ensure conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBC), Title 24, as well as the California 9 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. Building & Safety. Website: https://avcity.org/154/Building-Safety. Accessed December 2, 2024. 103
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 24 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 11).. The photometric plan prepared for the proposed project demonstrates that project lighting would not result in light spillage outside of the project boundaries or impact sensitive uses. Although the proposed project would replace existing structures with new buildings that would introduce new light sources, the surrounding area is urban and already illuminated and the proposed lighting conditions would be similar to those currently used on the project site and surrounding the project site. The proposed project would also incorporate the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code, CBC, and CALGreen.

Sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials can cause reflected light (glare). Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. The proposed project does not propose use of materials known to cause glare, such as mirrored/reflective glass. Furthermore, the proposed project’s lighting would be similar to the existing residential uses in the area and would not substantially increase sources of light as compared to the existing uses on the site. Additionally, the proposed retaining wall and landscaping around the perimeter of the project site, combined with existing landscaping in the area, would help shield adjacent residential areas from sources of light and glare. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
104
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 2 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,
to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
105
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 26 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The General Plan currently designates the project site Business Park (Exhibit 3). The proposed project requests a GPA to change the General Plan land use designation from Business Park to HDR.

The HDR land use designation is intended for residential uses and does not include agricultural or forestry uses.

The project site is currently zoned Business Park-2 (Exhibit 4). The proposed project requests a rezone to change the zoning designation from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density District. The RH Residential–High Density zoning district is intended to provide for residential uses and does not include agriculture or forestry uses.

The project site is mapped as Urban and Built-up Land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Urban and Built-up Land is a nonagricultural land use designation.10 The project site was historically used as agricultural land from at least 1938 until 1981. By 1989, a commercial office building was developed on the project site.11 Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No impact. The project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation FMMP, which is a nonagricultural land use designation. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on or near the project site. The nearest designated farmland is Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland located 2.64 miles north of the project site.12 Additionally, the General Plan does not designate the site as agricultural or forest land, and the project site is not in active agricultural use. These conditions preclude the possibility of the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. No impacts would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No impact. The proposed project requests a rezone to change the zoning designation from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density District and is therefore not zoned for agricultural uses. The project site is currently developed with an office building and parking lot and does not support agricultural land use activities and, therefore, is not eligible for a Williamson Act Contract. This 10 California Department of Conservation. 2025. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed January 15, 2025. 11 Hillman Consulting LLC. 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA). April. 12 California Department of Conservation. 2025. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed January 15, 2025. 106
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 2 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx condition precludes the possibility of conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contracts. No impacts would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No impact. The proposed project requests a rezone to change the zoning designation from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density District; both are non-forest zoning districts. This condition precludes the possibility of conflicts with forest zoning. No impacts would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. The project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation FMMP. The project site is currently developed with an office building and parking lot and does not contain forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 51104(g). This condition precludes the possibility of the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. The project site and surrounding area are mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation FMMP. The project site is not located on or near land used for farmland or agriculture. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project creating pressures to convert farmland to nonagricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
107
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 28 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors or) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Environmental Evaluation
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Setting
The proposed project site is located in the City of Aliso Viejo, in Orange County, which is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). The SoCAB includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County (except for the Antelope Valley), the non-desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains bound the SoCAB on the north and east, while the Pacific Ocean lies to the west of the SoCAB. The southern limit of the SoCAB is the San Diego County line. The SoCAB is under the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).13 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022. Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed January 10, 2025. 108
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 2 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The air pollutants for which national and State standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the SoCAB include ozone, nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are of concern in the SoCAB. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below. Other pollutants that are regulated but not considered an issue in the project area are sulfur dioxide (SO2), vinyl chloride, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and lead; the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of those pollutants, so they are not discussed further in this section.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable SCAQMD rules and requirements. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook was developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. A potentially significant impact would occur if the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The SCAQMD is responsible for preparing air quality attainment plans to be transmitted to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan. SCAQMD has designated this area as extreme nonattainment for ozone and serious nonattainment for PM2.5.
14 To evaluate whether a project conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan (2022 Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP] for SoCAB), the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that there are two key indicators. These indicators are identified by the criteria discussed below. • Indicator: Whether the proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
• Indicator: According to Chapter 12 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the General Plan consistency findings is to determine whether a proposed project is inconsistent with the growth assumptions incorporated into the air quality plan and, thus, whether it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards.

The development of emission burdens used in AQMPs to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards is based, in part, on land use patterns contained within local general plans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that if a project is consistent with the applicable general plan 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022. Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed January 10, 2025. 109
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 30 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx land use designation, and the general plan was adopted prior to the applicable AQMP, then the growth of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and/or population generated by said project would be consistent with growth in VMT and population assumed within the AQMP. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance defines the permitted land uses and the corresponding development standards within the City.

The proposed project includes a GPA to change the land use designation from Business Park to HDR (density of up to 30 du/acre) and rezone to change the zoning from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density zone (density of up to 30 du/acre). Therefore, the 2022 AQMP would have analyzed a VMT and density different from the proposed project. However, as explained in Section

2.14, Population and Housing, the population growth resulting from the proposed project is consistent with SCAG’s growth projections for the City and is considered planned growth. Furthermore, as explained in Section 2.17, Transportation, the City VMT Guidelines consider small projects that generate fewer than 110 net new daily vehicle trips to have a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed project would generate 79 net new daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions due to an increase of density or VMT beyond what was evaluated in the 2022 AQMP.

Furthermore, considering the recommended criteria in the SCAQMD’s 1993 Handbook, this analysis uses the following criteria to address this potential impact:
• Criterion 1: Proposed project’s contribution to air quality violations; and • Criterion 2: Compliance with applicable emission control measures in the AQMPs.

Criterion 1: Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.15
If a project’s emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX, CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM10, or PM2.5, it follows that the project’s emissions would not exceed the allowable limit for each project in order for the region to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards, which is the primary goal of air quality plans. As shown in Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance during either construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under this criterion.
15 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2022. Air Quality Management Plan. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed January 10, 2025. 110
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 3 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Criterion 2: Control Measures
The AQMP contains several control measures which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Because of the nature of the proposed project, which includes earthmoving activity during construction, SCAQMD Rule 403 applies. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Compliance with this rule is achieved through the application of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils; covering haul vehicles; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph); sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways; cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph; and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. The proposed project would also be consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which serves to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. The proposed project’s mandatory compliance with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations would result in consistency with the applicable AQMP control measures.

Summary
In summary, the proposed project would not result in a regional exceedance of criteria air pollutants and would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. Furthermore, the proposed project would not interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and California air quality standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less than significant impact. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants results from past and present development within the SoCAB, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. Therefore, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the SoCAB would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

Potential regional impacts could result in exceedances of State or federal standards for NOX, PM10, PM2.5, or CO. NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne 111
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 32 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earthdisturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion and resulting health effects.

VOC emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors, such as the sick, elderly, and young children.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(4), the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that a project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable. Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the proposed project would result in regional emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. Projects that generate emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds would be considered consistent with regional air quality planning efforts and would not generate cumulatively considerable emissions. The proposed project’s regional construction and operational emissions are evaluated separately below.

Construction and operational emissions from the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1. The complete CalEEMod output files are included as part of Appendix A.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions are described as “short-term” or temporary in duration; however, they have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities such as demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction (home construction), architectural coating, and paving. Fugitive dust emissions are primarily associated with earth disturbance and grading activities and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on-site and off-site.

Construction-related NOX emissions are primarily generated by exhaust emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, material and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. VOC emissions are mainly generated by exhaust emissions from construction vehicles, off-gas emissions associated with architectural coatings, and asphalt paving. For the purpose of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was estimated to begin in April 2026 and conclude in October 2027 and was modeled based on an applicant-provided preliminary schedule; see Appendix A. Note that construction emissions would likely decrease if the construction schedule were deferred to later years because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. The duration of 112
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 3 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by the CEQA Guidelines. The calculations of pollutant emissions from the construction equipment account for the type of equipment, horsepower and load factors of the equipment, and the duration of equipment use. Table 1 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily construction emissions during the entire construction duration using the worst-case summer or winter daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions for each phase of construction. The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect the combined exhaust and fugitive dust emissions after implementation of best available dust control measures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 403.

Complete CalEEMod output files are included as part of Appendix A.

Table 1: Unmitigated Construction—Maximum Daily Regional Emissions by Year Construction Year
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily from Project
Construction (2026)

1.52 19.63 18.22 0.06 6.71 2.20
Maximum Daily from Project
Construction (2027)

48.03 6.50 9.26 0.02 0.85 0.35
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions 48.03 19.63 18.22 0.06 6.71 2.20 SCAQMD Significance
Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compound
The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect the combined exhaust and mitigated fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.

Source of Emissions: Appendix A.

As shown above in Table 1, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed the applicable significance threshold for any of the pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality during project construction.

Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emissions would be generated, resulting from daily operations at the proposed townhomes. Operational emissions for residential land use development projects are typically 113
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 34 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx distinguished as mobile-, area-, and energy-source emissions. Mobile source emissions are those associated with automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. Assumptions used to estimate mobile source emissions that would be generated by the proposed project were consistent with those presented in the project-specific Trip Generation Memorandum. The proposed project would replace the existing commercial uses on-site, but for conservative purposes, the analysis does not account for the removal of the existing emissions, such as car trips, that would be replaced by the proposed project. Area-source emissions are those associated with landscape maintenance activities and periodic architectural coatings. The proposed project would be all electric and would not have any natural gas infrastructure. Therefore, there are no direct emissions related to building energy use for space or water heating. Table 2 presents the proposed project’s estimated maximum daily operational emissions.

Table 2: Maximum Daily Operational Regional Pollutants
Operational Activity
Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)1

VOC NOX CO SOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Area 3.8148 0.0331 3.4631 0.0002 0.0016 0.0012
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile (Automobiles) 1.2362 0.8657 10.1283 0.0267 2.5859 0.6670 Overall Maximum Daily1 5.0510 0.8988 13.5915 0.0268 2.5875 0.6683 SCAQMD Significance
Threshold
55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compounds
1 Emissions shown represent the maximum daily emissions for summer and winter seasons for each operational emission source and pollutant. Therefore, total daily operational emissions represent the maximum daily emissions that could occur.

Source of Table: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 2, the proposed project’s regional daily operational emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality during project operation. 114
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 3 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. This impact evaluates the potential for the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. Sensitive receptors are defined as those individuals who are sensitive to air pollution, including children, the elderly, and persons with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities.

Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on-site for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide [NO2] and CO), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors. To result in a less than significant impact, the following criteria must be true:
• Criterion 1: Localized significance threshold (LST) assessment: emissions and air quality impacts during project construction or operation must be below the applicable LSTs to screen out of needing to provide a more detailed air quality analysis. If the proposed project exceeds any applicable LST when the mass rate lookup tables are used as a screening analysis, then project-specific air quality modeling may be performed to determine significance. • Criterion 2: A CO hotspot assessment must demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in the development of a CO hotspot that would result in an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.
• Criterion 3: TAC analysis must demonstrate that TAC emissions from construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in significant health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Criterion 1: Localized Significance Threshold Analysis—Criteria Pollutants The localized construction and operational analyses use thresholds (i.e., LSTs) that represent maximum emissions for a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. If the proposed project’s construction or operational emissions are under those thresholds, it follows that the proposed project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the standard and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Friant Ranch Case and Project Health Impacts
In the 5th District Court of Appeal case Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (also referred to as Friant Ranch) the Court found the project EIR deficient because it did not identify specific health-related effects resulting from the estimated amount of pollutants generated by the project. The ruling stated that the EIR should give a “sense of the nature and magnitude of the ‘health and safety problems’ caused by a project’s air pollution. The EIR should translate the emission numbers into adverse impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time (and what limited translation is, in fact, possible).”
115
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 36 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that a project would have significant impacts to air quality, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this case, the Court developed a multi-part test that includes the following:

1. The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter (DPM).

This air quality analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant above under Section 2.3, Air Quality, Environmental Setting, Air Pollutants. As such, this analysis meets the Part 1 of the Friant Ranch case test.

2. The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the project. On page 24 of the Ruling, it is stated that “[t]he Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision-makers of possible adverse health effects.”
The Friant Ranch case found that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD Friant Ranch (Brief), 16 SCAQMD has air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability among the most sophisticated of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed project due to various factors. The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk; it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the project.

Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.

On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources— as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically, 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. As shown above in Table 1, project-related construction activities 16 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and [Proposed] Brief of Amicus Curiae.

Website: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2025.
116
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 3 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx would generate a maximum of 48.03 pounds per day of VOC and 19.63 pounds per day of NOX; and, as shown above in Table 2, operation of the proposed project is estimated to generate 5.05 pounds per day of VOC and 0.98 pounds per day NOX. The proposed project would not generate emissions anywhere near levels that would reach 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

Notwithstanding, this analysis does evaluate the proposed project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed project’s on-site emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this analysis provided below, the proposed project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs during either the construction or operational period. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards for emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5.

Localized Construction Analysis
The LST Methodology only applies to on-site emissions and states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only on-site emissions were compared with the applicable LSTs.

Utilizing the earthmoving activity acreages and phase durations from CalEEMod (Section 5.6.1), the number of acres disturbed per day were 1.5 for site preparation and 1.0 for grading. As specified in SCAQMD’s guidance, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds, the appropriate thresholds were selected based on the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day. To ensure a conservative analysis, the proposed project emissions have been compared to the 1 acre per day LST.

Table 3 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the applicable LSTs. The closest sensitive receptor is within approximately 50 meters. The LSTs for the project site were obtained from the LST Methodology for a 1-acre project site located in Source Receptor Area 20–Central Coastal Orange County, with sensitive receptors at a distance of 50 meters. As noted in Table 3, emission estimates account for implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 (incorporated into the proposed project through SC AIR-1), and the construction vehicle trip lengths were adjusted to 0.5 mile to represent localized emissions.

Table 3: Construction Localized Significance Screening Analysis Activity
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily from Project Construction (2026) 14.1883 15.5950 5.0431 1.8778 Maximum Daily from Project Construction (2027) 5.8850 8.4082 0.2398 0.2144 Maximum Daily On-site Construction Emissions1 14.1883 15.5950 5.0431 1.8778 117
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 38 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Activity
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction Localized Significance Threshold
(Source Receptor Area 20, 1 acre disturbed, 50 meters)
93 738 13 5
Exceed Screening Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
1 Assumes overlap of construction activities based on construction schedule shown in Appendix A.

The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect the combined exhaust and mitigated fugitive dust emissions in accordance with SCAQMD Rule.

Source of emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Mass Rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Lookup Table for Source Receptor Area 20, 1 acre disturbed, within nearest sensitive receptor at a distance of 50 meters from the project site.

As shown in Table 3, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, localized construction impacts related to these air pollutants would be less than significant.

Localized Operational Analysis
Similar to the construction LST analysis above, the applicable operational LSTs were obtained for a project located in Source Receptor Area 20 with the nearest sensitive receptor being at a distance of 50 meters. SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for projects equal to 1 acre, 2 acres, or 5 acres in size.

For the project site of 2.83 acres, the lower, more conservative threshold for a 2-acre site is used.

As described above, the LST Methodology recommends that only on-site emissions are evaluated using LSTs. Because most of the proposed project’s mobile source emissions would occur on the local and regional roadway network away from the project site, a trip length of 0.5 mile was used in the modeling input assumptions to account for on-site emissions and from mobile sources. The 0.5- mile on-site trip length is a conservative estimate that takes into account the maximum project site distance a vehicle could travel, not the most likely or fastest route, to ensure all potential impacts are considered. On-site area-, energy-, and mobile source emissions were included in this analysis. Table 4 presents the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site emissions compared with the appropriate LSTs.
118
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 3 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Table 4: Operational Localized Screening Significance Analysis Emissions Source
Pounds per Day
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.0331 3.4631 0.0016 0.0012
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile (Automobiles) 0.2891 2.5408 0.1479 0.0392
Maximum Daily On-site Operational
Emissions

0.3221 6.3233 0.1496 0.0404
Localized Significance Thresholds (Source
Receptor Area 20, 2-acre site, 50 meters)
128 1,089 6 2
Exceeds Screening Threshold? No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter The highest daily emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 were in the summer season.

Source of Emissions: Appendix A.

Source of thresholds: SCAQMD Mass Rate Lookup Tables for a 2-acre site in Source Receptor Area 20 for sensitive receptors located within 50 meters of the project site.

As shown in Table 4, the proposed project’s maximum daily on-site operational emissions would not exceed any applicable SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project’s operational activities would not cause or contribute substantially to an existing or future ambient air quality standard violation.

Accordingly, the proposed project’s operational criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor concentrations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant.

Criterion 2: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis
A CO hotspot represents a condition wherein high concentrations of CO may be produced by motor vehicles accessing a congested traffic intersection under heavy traffic volume conditions. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Accordingly, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent to help remedy this impact. The CO hotspot analysis contained in the SCAQMD 1992 CO Plan is used to determine potential CO hotspot impacts from the proposed project, because by using the 1992 CO Plan as a worst-case scenario, the proposed project can measure CO impacts against intersections that experienced significantly more vehicle traffic than those adjacent to the proposed project. The 1992 CO Plan is used as a worst-case scenario because it included a CO hot spot analysis for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and 119
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 40 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Subsequently, the CO Plan determined that no CO hotspot would occur even with 100,000 vehicles per day at this one intersection.

According to the transportation analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, the proposed project would only generate 25 AM peak-hour trips and 32 PM peak-hour trips under the 61-unit scenario.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles per day at any of the intersections evaluated near the project site. As a result, none of the intersections near the proposed project site would have peak-hour traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections analyzed in the 1992 CO Plan. Additionally, the adjacent roadways are not located in an area where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited, such as a tunnel or overpass. Furthermore, there are no factors unique to the local meteorology to conclude that this intersection would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. Therefore, the operational CO impact would be less than significant.

Criterion 3: Project-specific Toxic Air Pollutants
An assessment was made of the potential health impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from TAC emissions during construction. The SCAQMD has defined health risk significance thresholds. These thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non-cancer hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risk represents the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs continuously over a period of several years. The principal TAC emission analyzed in this assessment was DPM from operation of off-road equipment and diesel-powered delivery and worker vehicles during construction. DPM has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM10. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed guidance for estimating cancer risks that considers the increased sensitivity of infants and adults to TAC emissions, different breathing rates, and time spent at home. This guidance was applied in estimating cancer risks from the construction and operation of the proposed project. To assess impacts to off-site sensitive receptors, the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model was used to estimate the concentrations from PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust at nearby sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. The Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) software was used to identify the cancer risks associated with DPM generated during construction activities.

Toxic Air Contaminant Construction Analysis
Major sources of DPM during construction include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck activities. The results of the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic cancer risk are summarized below. Detailed parameters, a description of methodology, and complete calculations are contained in Appendix A. 120
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 4 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The estimated health and hazard impacts at the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR) and Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW) from the proposed project’s construction emissions, prior to incorporation of mitigation, are provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction Source Cancer Risk (risk per million) Chronic Non-cancer HI Maximally Exposed Individual Resident1 8.73 0.0078
Maximally Exposed Individual Worker2 1.02 0.0124
Significance Threshold 10 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No
Notes:

HI = hazard index
1 The location of the construction MEIR was determined to be an existing single-family residence within approximately 141 feet north of the project boundary, at 33.5956629°N -117.723849"W. 2 The location of the construction MEIW was determined to be an existing office within approximately 100 feet southeast of the project boundary, at 33.594049°N, -117.723602"W.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 5, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not exceed any risk significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to residential health risks and hazards during project construction.

Toxic Air Contaminant Operation Analysis
The proposed project is a residential project and would not have stationary sources or on-site sources of TACs during operation. Traffic generated by the residential project would consist of mostly lightduty gasoline-powered vehicles, which are not a significant source of TAC and air pollutant emissions.

Thus, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of DPM or other TAC emissions during operation and would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation.

Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Analysis
As previously discussed, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered cumulatively considerable by the SCAQMD. Conversely, projects that do not exceed project-specific thresholds are generally not considered cumulatively significant. As discussed in Criteria 1 through 3 above, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Since the proposed project would not exceed project-specific thresholds, it would not be considered to result in cumulatively significant impacts.

The Proposed Project as a Receptor
The proposed project would locate new sensitive receptors (residents) that could be subject to existing sources of TACs at the project site. However, as demonstrated above, the proposed project 121
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 42 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx would comply with all existing regulations and would not exacerbate environmental hazards or conditions that already exist. Accordingly, no further analysis is required. The California Supreme Court concluded in California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD that CEQA generally does not require an analysis of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents.

In summary, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations either during construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

The SCAQMD does not provide a suggested screening distance for a variety of odor-generating land uses and operations. However, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) does have a screening distance for odor sources. These screening distances by type of odor generator are listed below in Table 6.

Table 6: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
122
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 4 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Odor Generator Screening Distance
Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). March 19. Website:
https://valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2025.

Construction-Related Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include exhaust from diesel construction equipment. However, because of the temporary nature of these emissions, the intermittent nature of construction activities, and the highly diffusive properties of DPM exhaust, nearby receptors would not be affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction.

Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the proposed project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites for a residential subdivision. As such, the proposed project would not cause odors that adversely affect a substantial number of people during the construction period; potential impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operational-related Odors
The proposed project includes the construction and development of a new residential infill community consisting of a total of up to 61 for-sale townhomes and associated amenities, landscaping, and paving. Operations of the proposed project could lead to odors from associated vehicle exhaust and outdoor cooking. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to nearby receptors. Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, composting facilities, feedlots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed residential project would not produce any offensive odor emitting end uses such as coffee roasting, composting, feed lots, refining, sewage treatment, or solid waste management and would not be considered an odor generator as identified in Table 6, and potential impacts during operation would be less than significant
Summary
The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people from construction or operations. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not result in any significant effects relating to other emissions (such as odors), and impacts would be less than significant.

Applicable Existing Regulations
The proposed project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the following regulations. 123
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 44 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx SCAQMD 403 SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of best available dust control measures during activities capable of generating fugitive dust. The proposed project must follow the standard SCAQMD rules and requirements with regard to fugitive dust control, which include, but are not limited to the following:

1. All active construction areas shall be watered two times daily.

2. Speed on unpaved roads shall be reduced to less than 15 miles per hour (mph).

3. Any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed at the site access points within 30 minutes.

4. Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be covered or watered twice daily.

5. All operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 15 mph.

6. Access points shall be washed or swept daily.

7. Construction sites shall be sandbagged for erosion control.

8. Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).

9. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard space in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.

10. Pave or gravel construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road and use gravel aprons at truck exits.

11. Replace the ground cover of disturbed areas as quickly possible.

SCAQMD 1113 All interior and exterior architectural coatings used on-site during project construction must meet or exceed the VOC content limits established by SCAQMD Rule 1113.The project sponsor shall include in any construction contracts and/or subcontracts a requirement that all interior and exterior architectural coatings used in project construction meet the VOC content limits established by SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
124
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 4 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan?
125
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 46 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on a biological resources evaluation, which consisted of a field survey and desktop survey conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). Desktop survey results are included in Appendix B.

Setting
Methods
The biological resources evaluation included a review of existing environmental documentation for the project site and vicinity, including literature pertaining to the habitat requirements of special-status species with the potential to occur in the project vicinity; and federal register listings, protocols, and species data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). FCS also reviewed topographic maps, aerial photographs, and published soil surveys and queried special-status species databases, including the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database,17 the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),18 and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.19
The biological resources evaluation included a field survey of the project site on January 2, 2025, to ascertain general site conditions and identify whether existing vegetation communities provide suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species.

Results
An FCS Biologist conducted a general biological survey of the project site on January 2, 2025, between approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Weather conditions during the field survey were sunny, with an average temperature around 62–66°F (degrees Fahrenheit) and wind speeds between 0 and 2 mph.

Environmental Setting
The project site is developed and is surrounded by the MNWD water storage facility to the east, Glenwood Drive and residential development to the north, and Argonaut and commercial development to the west and south. The project site is mostly paved or covered by an office building and is flat, with minimal slopes increasing from south to north. Ornamental trees are located along the boundaries or adjacent to the site on all sides, including hedgerows of pine (Pinus spp.) trees along the eastern and northern boundaries.
17 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed November 27, 2024. 18 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. CNDDB RareFind 5 California Natural Diversity Database Query for Special-Status Species. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed November 27, 2024.
19 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory.

Website: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 27, 2024. 126
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 4 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is developed and is mostly paved or covered by an office building and contains ornamental trees located along the site boundaries and near the building. According to the CNDDB and CNPSEI of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 83 special-status plant species have been recorded within 10 miles of the project site or within the San Juan Capistrano, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map and the eight surrounding quadrangle search area that encompasses the project site (Appendix B). The potential for occurrence of a species was based on presence of suitable habitats, soil types and recency, proximity, and number of occurrences recorded in the CNPSEI and CNDDB. Based on the surface disturbances occurring throughout the project site, as well as its situation as developed land in an urbanized area, the likelihood for the potential for persistence and occurrence of populations of many special-status plant species is lowered. Because of the urban/developed nature of the project site and lack of suitable habitat, all special-status plants that occur in the region were assessed as having no potential for occurrence (Appendix B, Table 1). Thus, special-status plants are not expected to occur on the project site.

Sixty special-status wildlife species were identified as occurring within 10 miles of the project site as recorded in the CNDDB or as identified in the USFWS IPaC database. Because of the urbanized/developed nature of the project site and vicinity, all special-status wildlife species identified in the database reviews were determined to have no or low potential for occurrence on the project site. However, the project site contains trees that could provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk, a California Species of Special Concern. In addition to Cooper’s hawk, trees within the project site may provide nesting habitat for various migratory and nesting birds acclimated to anthropogenic environments, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). With the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b, which require a preconstruction survey and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on active nests, potential projectrelated impacts to protected bird nests (including Cooper’s hawk) would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. No riparian or other sensitive natural communities were recorded on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
127
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 48 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. There were no waters or wetland features detected on the project site that would be considered potentially jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), nor any features that would be considered potentially jurisdictional by State regulatory agencies including the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego RWQCB) and CDFW. Additionally, the project site does not contain vernal pools or features indicative of the historic presence of vernal pools. According to the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS),20 two soil types are mapped on the project site, Calleguas clay loam and Capistrano sandy loam. While Calleguas soils are known to support vernal pools, there would be no potential for vernal pools to occur due to the developed nature of the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to State or federally protected wetlands, including vernal pools. No impacts would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project site is developed and is surrounded by urbanized areas and roads on all sides that limit wildlife movement through the project site. The project site itself does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor.

The project site contains vegetation, including trees within the site and along the boundaries, that could provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the MBTA and the Fish and Game Code. These species include Cooper’s hawk and other avian species. Only avian species adapted to urbanized areas may use the trees on-site for nesting.

A total of 77 trees would be removed and replaced at a 1:1 ratio. Nearly all trees removed by the project would be replaced with trees that would function in a similar capacity for nesting. The proposed trees would include native species, as well as climate-adaptive and drought-tolerant species. If ground-disturbing or vegetation-removing construction activities are initiated during the nesting season, they could disturb nesting and breeding birds on the ground surface, in trees and shrubs, and on structures on and adjacent to the project site, which would be considered a significant impact. Potential construction-related project impacts on special-status and migratory birds include destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and parental abandonment of nests with eggs or pre-fledged young birds. With the implementation of MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b, potential project impacts to nesting Cooper’s hawk and other native and migratory birds would be reduced to a less than significant level.
20 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025. Web Soil Survey (WSS). Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed February 15, 2025. 128
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 4 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No impact. The General Plan for the City of Aliso Viejo contains the following two Ecological and Biological Resources policies for the Conservation/Open Space Element:

Policy COS-3.1 Support regional and sub-regional efforts to conserve ecological and biological resources.

Policy COS-3.2 Protect sensitive habitat areas and vegetation, particularly along Aliso Creek, within Aliso Woods, and within the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park, by maintaining these resources as long-term open space.

The proposed project would not conflict with these policies. Therefore, there are no local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, with which the proposed project would conflict. No impact would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the County of Orange Natural Communities Conservation Plan (County of Orange NCCP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), an HCP and NCCP authorized by the CDFW through the NCCP Act (California Fish and Game Code [FGC] § 2800) and Sections 2081 and 2084 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and by the USFWS through Sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act.

The project site does not contain Covered Habitats or suitable habitat for Identified Species covered under the County of Orange NCCP HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Nesting Bird Pre-construction Surveys
If ground-disturbing or vegetation-removing construction activities or tree removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season for migratory birds (February 1 through September 15), a qualified Biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for special-status birds and other migratory birds within the construction area, including a 300-foot survey buffer (where accessible), no more than 3 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities in the construction area.
129
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 50 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx MM BIO-1b Avoidance of Active Avian Nests
If an active nest (i.e., occupied by eggs or fledglings) is located during preconstruction surveys or at any point during the construction phase of the proposed project, the City of Aliso Viejo shall be notified regarding the status of the nest.

Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until the eggs or fledglings no longer are in the nest or a qualified Biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 300 feet around an active raptor nest and a 50-foot radius around an active migratory bird nest) or alteration of the construction schedule. 130
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 5 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. The following discussion is based on a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a cultural resources pedestrian survey conducted by FCS. The non-confidential SCCIC records search, pedestrian survey photographs, and NAHC correspondence are included in Appendix C.

South Central Coastal Information Center
On May 30, 2024, a record search/literature review was conducted at the SCCIC located at California State University, Fullerton. The purpose of this review was to access any existing cultural resources survey reports, archaeological site records, and historic maps to evaluate whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) exist within or near the project site. The record search/literature review was also conducted to evaluate whether the project site contains any historic properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historic Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Orange County. The results of the SCCIC records search indicate that 10 pre-contact cultural resources have been recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius, one of which (P-30-000414) is within the project boundaries. In addition, there are 16 area-specific survey reports on file with the SCCIC, two of which (OR-00255 and OR-00702) partially address the project site and three of which (OR131 9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 52 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx 00254, OR-00431, and OR-00705) address the project site entirely, indicating that the project site has been previously surveyed for cultural resources and produced positive results for cultural resources.

Native American Heritage Commission
On May 15, 2024, a records search request was sent to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the project site. On June 5, 2024, a response from the NAHC was received indicating that their SLF search came back positive for TCRs within the project site. The NAHC included a list of 23 Tribal representatives who may have additional knowledge of the project site. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by implementation of the proposed project are addressed, FCS sent letters to all 23 Tribal representatives on November 26, 2024. Two responses were received. The first response was received on November 26, 2024; the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation requested Lead Agency contact information. The second response was received on January 8, 2025, from the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation, stating that the proposed project is a sensitive area that is located in the Tribe’s territory with known burial sites near the project site. The Tribe expressed a request to consult on the proposed project as it moves forward. The Tribe also requested additional information pertaining to the expected extent of ground disturbance, as well as SCCIC record search results. No additional responses have been received to date.

Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey and Buried Site Potential On June 6, 2024, an FCS Archaeologist conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project site. The entirety of the project site is hardscaped. The perimeter of the project site is enclosed by a parking lot dedicated to the business center (constructed between 1988 and 1992) located at the center of the project site. Overview shots of the project site were taken from the northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest corners that showcase the structure and the surrounding parking lot. Visibility of the exposed soil was non-existent since the entirety of the site is hardscaped; thus, inspection of the soil for cultural resources was not possible. Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. No pre-contact or historic resources were found during the pedestrian survey.

In addition to the pedestrian survey, the potential for yet-identified cultural resources in the project vicinity was reviewed against geologic and topographic geographic information system data for the general area and information from other nearby projects. The proposed project was evaluated against a set of criteria originally identified by a geoarchaeological overview that was prepared for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Districts 6 and 9.21 This study mapped the “archaeological sensitivity,” or potential to support the presence of buried pre-contact archaeological deposits, based on geology and environmental parameters including distance to water and landform slope. The methodology used in the study is applicable to other parts of California, such as the Bay Area, and generally concluded that sites consisting of flat, Holocene-era deposits in close proximity to 21 Meyer, J., D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. 2010. Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 6 and 9, Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 6/9 Rural Conventional Highways. Submitted to Central California Department of Transportation, District 6. 132
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 5 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx natural water resources had a moderate to high probability of containing subsurface archaeological deposits when compared to earlier Pleistocene deposits situated on slopes or further away from drainages, lakes, and rivers.

According to the isotopic gravity map with geology of Santa Ana, Southern California,22 the surface of the project site rests entirely on alluvial valley deposits (Holocene to late Pleistocene; Qya). Applying the criteria set forth in Meyer et al., all Holocene-era deposits have the potential to contain archaeological deposits, which increases with the ease of the slope and proximity to water resources.

The terrain of the project site is relatively flat, and the closest water source is Aliso Creek, located approximately 0.7 mile east of the project site. In addition, positive results from the NAHC SLF search for TCRs and the positive SCCIC results for cultural resources indicate a moderate to high potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be impacted by project construction.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No impact. Historical resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Records search results conducted at the SCCIC did not identify any historical resources within the 0.5-mile search radius, nor within the proposed project boundaries. Additionally, the results of the pedestrian survey indicated that the project site consists of an enclosed parking lot and a business center building that was constructed between 1988 and 1992. As such, no historical resources were identified during the pedestrian field survey. Thus, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any such known resources. No mitigation measures are required and there would be no impacts to historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Results from the SCCIC indicate that 10 pre-contact archaeological resources are recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, of which one pre-contact resource is recorded within the project boundaries. There are no historic era archaeological resources located in or within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The results of the pedestrian survey failed to locate or identify any archaeological resources due to the lack of soil visibility across the project site. Given the results of the record searches, the potential to impact unidentified archaeological resources is considered moderate to high. It is possible that earthmoving activities associated with project construction could encounter previously undiscovered 22 Langenheim, V.E., Tien-Chang Lee, Shawn Biehler, A.C. Jachens, and D.M. Morton. 2006. Isotopic gravity map with geology of the Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, southern California. United States Geological Survey. Map. Scale 1:100,000.
133
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 54 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx archaeological resources. Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would be a potentially significant impact. MM CUL-1 would require a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, a site survey conducted by a qualified Archaeologist, and archaeological monitoring. MM CUL-2 would require consultation with a qualified Archaeologist in the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during construction, as well as inadvertent discovery procedures. Implementation MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources will be reduced to a level of less than significant.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. While no formal cemeteries or areas containing human remains are known to be in the project site’s vicinity, the possibility always exists that construction-related ground disturbance may uncover previously undiscovered human remains.

In the unlikely event such a discovery is made, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. Additionally, implementation of MM CUL-3, which details inadvertent discovery procedures, would reduce potential impacts of previously undiscovered human remains to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, all construction personnel conducting ground disturbance at the site shall be provided a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) cultural resources “tailgate” training. The training shall include visual aids, a discussion of applicable laws and statutes relating to archaeological resources, types of resources that may be found within the project site, and procedures to be followed in the event such resources are encountered. The training shall be conducted by an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology.

An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall conduct an updated survey of the site following demolition and exposure of native soils and prior to any project-related trenching or grading to check for the inadvertent exposure of cultural materials.

This shall be followed by archaeological monitoring during the grading and trenching phase of the proposed project. At the completion of these phases, archaeological monitoring shall be reduced to periodic “spot checks.” In the event exposed soils indicate cultural materials may be present, this may be followed by regular or full-time archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist. 134
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 5 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx MM CUL-2 In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within a 100-foot radius of the find and an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. The Lead Agency, along with other relevant or Tribal officials, shall be contacted upon the discovery of cultural resources to begin coordination on the disposition of the find(s).

Treatment of any significant cultural resources shall be undertaken with the approval of the Lead Agency. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Upon coordination with the Lead Agency, any archaeological artifacts recovered shall be donated to an appropriate Tribal custodian or a qualified scientific institution where they would be afforded applicable cultural resources laws and guidelines.

MM CUL-3 In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site where human remains are discovered and/or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with 135
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 56 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
136
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 5 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Energy use, especially through fossil fuel consumption and combustion, relates directly to environmental quality since it can adversely affect air quality and generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. Electrical power is generated through a variety of sources, including fossil fuel combustion, hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and others. Natural gas is widely used to heat buildings, prepare food in restaurants and residences, and fuel vehicles, among other uses. Fuel use for transportation is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; choice of different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and miles traveled by these modes and is generally based on petroleum-based fuels such as diesel and gasoline. Electric vehicles (EVs) may not have any direct emissions but do have indirect emissions via the source of electricity generated to power the vehicle. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity and natural gas services within the City of Aliso Viejo. SCE provides electricity and natural gas as customers request their services.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than significant impact. A discussion of the proposed project’s anticipated energy usage is presented below. Energy use consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes 137
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 58 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx electricity and fuel consumption for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix A.

Short-term Construction Impacts
For the purpose of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was estimated to begin in April 2026 and conclude in October 2027 and was modeled based on an applicant-provided preliminary schedule (see Appendix A). If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the buildings. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, front-end loaders, forklifts, and cranes. On-site, off-road construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of approximately 27,788 gallons of fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix A).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to and from the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors (EMFAC) model mobile source emission model. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 347,132 VMT and a combined 20,449 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Municipal Code Section 8.12.070 restricts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. As on-site construction activities would be restricted during these hours, it is anticipated that the use of construction lighting would be minimal.

The overall construction processes are already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.
138
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 5 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Long-term Operational Impacts
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 478,814 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. The proposed residential buildings would be built all-electric and the proposed project would install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems that would generate renewable energy, consistent with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The proposed project’s buildings (including townhomes) would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These are widely regarded as the most advanced Building Energy Efficiency Standards and compliance would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. As it relates to energy use from vehicular travel, the proposed project was estimated to generate approximately 412 daily vehicle trips for the 61-unit project. Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 72,634 gallons of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and electricity annually.

Furthermore, the current office building generates energy usage and the proposed project’s energy usage would be offset by energy usage under existing conditions. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be evaluated with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies included in the General Plan. The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by SCE. In 2022, the latest year with available data, SCE obtained 33.2 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources. SCE also offers a Green Rate 50 percent option that sources 66.7 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources and a Green Rate 100 percent option that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources.23 SCE would be required to meet the future objective of 60 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. Additionally, the proposed project is planned to be an all-electric design and would therefore utilize more renewable energy sources during project operation compared to existing development.

The proposed residential project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for residential buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. CALGreen requires all new garages for the proposed homes to install electrical panels of adequate size to support the installation of EV charging systems. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electricpowered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of 23 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2022 Power Content Label. Website: https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2025. 139
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 60 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s demand. The proposed project would install solar PV systems in compliance with Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy Code.

The General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element contains the following policies related to energy conservation.

Energy Supply and Conservation
Policy COS-6.1 Encourage green building designs for new construction and renovation projects within the City.

Policy COS-6.2 Coordinate with regional and local energy suppliers to ensure adequate supplies of energy to meet community needs, implement energy conservation and public education programs, and identify alternative energy sources where appropriate.

Policy COS-6.3 Encourage building orientations and landscaping that enhance natural lighting and sun exposure.

Policy COS-6.3 Encourage expansion of neighborhood-level products and services and public transit opportunities throughout the City to reduce automobile use.

While several of these policies are requirements at City level or voluntary, compliance with Title 24 standards and other applicable regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting.

The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
140
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 6 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
141
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 62 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Geology and Soils
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review prepared by SA Geotechnical, Inc. (SA GEO) on May 31, 2024, included in Appendix D of this document. The report concluded that the proposed grading and development is considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations in the report are implemented during design, grading, and construction.

Paleontological Resources
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Cultural Resources Due Diligence Memorandum prepared by FCS on July 3, 2024, which included paleontological records searches of the San Diego Natural History Museum (The Nat) online fossil locality database and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) collections, which are available online through the Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), and the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online fossil locality database.

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones; fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.), invertebrates (animals without backbones; starfish, clams, coral, cephalopods, etc.), microscopic plants and animals (microfossils), and trace fossils/ichnofossils (i.e., footprints, burrows, etc.). Fossils are valuable, nonrenewable, scientific resources used to document the existence of extinct life forms and to reconstruct the environments in which they lived. Fossils are preserved in sedimentary rocks and, despite the abundance of these rocks and the vast numbers of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is a rare occurrence.

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) defines a significant fossil resource as, “identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic 142
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 6 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx information.” Paleontological resources are considered older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).24 The sensitivity of an area with respect to paleontological resources hinges on its geologic setting and whether significant fossils have been discovered in the area or in similar geologic units.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant impact. Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Ground rupture is most likely to occur along active faults and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 or higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault.

The project site is located in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the project site are dependent on the distance to the causative fault and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event. The seismic hazards may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction and/or ground lurching.

Active faults are not known to exist within the project site, as discussed in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review. According to the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, the project site is not within a California State-designated earthquake fault zone, and the potential for primary ground rupture is considered very low. Furthermore, according to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Map, a known earthquake fault is not located near the project site or known to traverse the project site.25 Additionally, the General Plan Safety Element states that there are no known fault zones or seismic zones in the City.26 Therefore, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.
24 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
25 California Geologic Survey. 2024. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. Website: https:// maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/?print_preview=true. Accessed December 3, 2024. 26 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan Safety Element. Website:
https://www.avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/395/Safety-Element-PDF. Accessed January 22, 2025. 143
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 64 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. The City, as well as most of Southern California, is located in a region of historic seismic activity. Strong levels of seismic ground shaking can cause damage to buildings.

The intensity of ground shaking on the project site would depend upon the earthquake’s magnitude, distance to the epicenter, and geology of the area between the project site and epicenter.

According to the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, the closest active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault located 15.76 miles northwest and the San Joaquin Hills Fault.27 During seismic events, the project site could experience moderate ground shaking associated with the faults described above. The maximum moment magnitude would be generated from the San Joaquin Hills Fault; however, other regionally active faults could produce ground shaking at the project site during an earthquake.28

Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.02, Building Regulations, the City has adopted the 2022 CBC and related codes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the 2022 CBC as amended by the Municipal Code, which includes design requirements to minimize the effects of seismic ground shaking. The proposed project would be subject to the current CBC, as adopted by the City’s Planning and Building Department, with respect to seismic design parameters. Conformance with these standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking.

The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review noted that the project site has the potential for strong seismic shaking during an earthquake event. Section 3 of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review makes site-specific recommendations concerning earthwork, grading and fill, foundations, seismic design parameters, corrosivity, groundwater, and stormwater infiltration. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review concluded that the proposed project would be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the preliminary recommendations are implemented during design, grading, and construction. Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.170, Soil engineering and engineering geology reports, requires implementation of the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, including seismic design parameters. Compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.170 and the 2022 CBC would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the CBC, the Municipal Code, and the site-specific recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, potential impacts concerning exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
27 SA Geotechnical, Inc. 2024. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Due Diligence Study, and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Residential Development, 95 Argonaut, City of Aliso Viejo, California. May 31. 28 Ibid.
144
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 6 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. For liquefaction to occur, a project site must be subject to three factors: underlying loose, course-grained (sandy) soils, a groundwater depth of approximately 25 feet, and a potential for seismic shaking from nearby large-magnitude earthquakes.

The project site is not located in a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.29 Additionally, the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review indicates that the project site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone as defined by the State’s Seismic Hazard Mapping. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review states that based on the absence of groundwater in the uppermost 50 feet, liquefaction potential is considered very low to nil. Furthermore, the General Plan indicates that the project site is not located within an area with liquefaction potential.30 Therefore, the proposed project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. There would be no impact.
iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact. Landslides can occur if ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall disturb areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils. According to the General Plan, earthquake-induced landslides have the potential to occur within the City. Generally, these types of failures consist of rock falls, landslides, and debris flows. Areas having the potential for earthquake-induced landslides generally occur in areas of steep slopes consisting of unstable soils are disturbed by ground shaking and/or heavy rainfall.31
The project site is not mapped within an area with landslide potential by the General Plan. As shown in the General Plan Safety Policy Map, the nearest landslide zone is located adjacent to the project site’s eastern property boundary.32 However, as shown in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, the project site is not in an area mapped as having previous occurrences of earthquake-induced landslides or in an area where geological conditions indicate a potential for landslides. An approximately 20-foot-high descending slope is present along the eastern property boundary.

Accordingly, the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review conducted a slope stability analysis. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review determined that no significant modifications to the existing fill slope along the eastern property line are planned as part of the proposed project. The existing slope 29 California Geologic Survey. 2024. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/?print_preview=true. Accessed December 3, 2024. 30 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website:
https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed December 3, 2024. 31 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Safety Element. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/395/SafetyElement-PDF. Accessed December 3, 2024. 32 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website:
https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed December 3, 2024. 145
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 66 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx is composed of compacted artificial fill materials, and the proposed improvements are not anticipated to adversely impact the slope. Based on the slope stability analysis, the existing slope was found to be grossly stable. However, in general, slopes are considered susceptible to surficial instability in the form of erosion, raveling, and slumping. Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.170 requires implementation of the site-specific recommendations referenced in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review related to slope stability and slope setbacks. These recommendations would be required as conditions of approval (COA GEO-1) in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.170 and would ensure that on-site runoff is controlled and directed off-site in a nonerosive manner and that site drainage and slopes are maintained over the life of the project and would establish minimum setback criteria for descending slopes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review indicates that the project site is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey and Niguel Formations that is successively overlain by unconsolidated alluvium. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review noted the presence of compacted artificial fill underlying the site as a result of original mass grading. Approximately 25 to 75 feet of artificial fill was encountered in all borings, which generally consisted of olive gray, olive brown, bluish gray, brown, and black clayey silt, clay, silty/sandy clay, clayey sand, and silty sand that was moist to wet and medium stiff to hard. The proposed project would be required to implement the sitespecific recommendations referenced in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, which includes remedial grading consisting of removal of weathered/unsuitable artificial fill materials in their entirety.

During construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code, which requires that excavations and fills that may affect drainage and watercourses be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, thereby reducing to a minimum the hazards and damage to public and private property. This would include measures such as using sandbags or straw bales as temporary erosion control.

Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009DWQ, and all subsequent amendments) (Construction General Permit); see Impact 2.10(a). The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework, including Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 13.08.170 and the Construction General Permit, potential impacts concerning soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. 146
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 6 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Impact 2.7(a), the project site would not be subject to significant impacts from seismically induced liquefaction or landslides.

Lateral spreading is a type of ground deformation that occurs when surface material extends or spreads on gentle slopes.33 Ground shaking, especially when inducing liquefaction, may cause lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes.

Subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of Earth's surface that occurs when the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas vertically displaces a large portion of land. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content.

Sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey and Niguel Formations that is successively overlain by unconsolidated alluvium underlie the project site. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Review evaluated site conditions and identified the need for removal and recompaction of all weathered/unsuitable fill materials in order to provide competent subgrade and bearing conditions for the proposed structural slabs and foundations. Accordingly, the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study recommends disposal of the upper 3 to 4 feet of any unsuitable/disturbed artificial fill material. The removals for building pads should extend a minimum of 4 feet laterally, beyond the building footprint. Removals within the proposed drive areas may be limited to removal and recompaction of the upper 1 to 2 feet, below existing grades. Where deeper unsuitable material is encountered, the removals should be extended to the bottom of unsuitable materials to competent, unweathered/undisturbed artificial fill. Earthwork would be required to meet compaction standards and import soils must be approved by a Geotechnical Consultant.

Pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.170, Soil engineering and engineering geology reports, the proposed project would incorporate all site-specific recommendations of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study as COA GEO-1, which would address any identified potential soil and geologic hazards. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations in the 2022 CBC as amended by the Municipal Code, which includes design requirements to mitigate the effects of potential soil and geologic hazards, including landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and seismic settlement. The City would review project design and construction plans for compliance with the CBC and the Municipal Code prior to construction activities. Thus, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework and standard engineering practices and design criteria, which would be verified through the City’s plan review process, would ensure potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable at the project site would be less than significant. 33 United States Geological Survey (USGS). Lateral Spread. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/lateral-spread. Accessed January 22, 2025.
147
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 68 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Due Diligence Study anticipated on-site soils to have a “High” expansion potential and would be subject to climatic and landscape moisture. As such, the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review include foundation design parameters such as remedial grading measures, post-tensioned slabs, and caisson design measures.

Municipal Code Chapter 13.08.170 requires implementation of the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review. This requirement is incorporated into the proposed project as COA GEO-1. Additionally, the City’s Building Division would review construction plans to verify compliance with standard engineering practices, the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code, and the CBC.

Compliance with the Municipal Code and the City’s established regulatory framework; standard engineering practices, which would be verified through the City’s plan review process; and the CBC would ensure potential impacts related to expansive soil are less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No impact. Sewers are available for disposal of the proposed project’s wastewater. The proposed project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal and would not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Geologic mapping indicates that the project site is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation that is successively overlain by fill. According to the Geotechnical Due Diligence Study subsurface exploration, the project site was mass graded in the 1980s, resulting in thick artificial fill materials 25 to 70 feet deep placed over bedrock. Undisturbed sediments of the Monterey and Niguel Formations were encountered at depth of 25 to 75 feet.

According to The Nat online fossil locality database and the NHM collections (which are available online through the iDigBio), there are no recorded fossil localities within the project site.34,35 There are 23 recorded vertebrate fossil localities (4521, 5547, 5752, 6283, 6284, 6286, 6550, 6551, 7541, 7532, 7543, 7544, 7546, 7547, 7548, 7549, 7550, 7551, 7552, 7553, 7554, 7555 and 7755) approximately

1.09 miles northeast of the project site. Additional localities lie within 1 mile southwest of the site. 34 Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio). 2024. Online records search tool. National Science Foundation. Website:
https://www.idigbio.org/portal/search. Accessed on December 26, 2024. 35 San Diego Natural History Museum (The Nat). 2024. Paleontology Collection Database Results, Pleistocene-age vertebrate localities in Aliso Viejo, CA.
148
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 6 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx To address the potential for an unanticipated discovery during construction, implementation of MM GEO-1 would be required. MM GEO-1 would require a worker training by a qualified Paleontologist, prior to the start of construction, to inform construction personnel of the potential to encounter fossils and procedures to follow in the event fossils are encountered during construction. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce the potentially significant impact to less than significant. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Condition of Approval
COA GEO-1 In accordance with Municipal Code 13.08.170, Soil Engineering and Engineering Geology Reports, a soil engineering and engineering geology report shall be required for grading projects unless otherwise waived by the building official. The reports shall include information appropriate for the site including any information required by the building official. Recommendations included in the reports and approved by the building official shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications.

Accordingly, prior to issuance of grading permit, the project applicant shall provide grading plans or specifications that include all recommendations from the proposed project’s May 31, 2024, Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Due Diligence Study prepared by SA Geotechnical, Inc., or from the latest geotechnical study for the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 The project applicant shall enlist a qualified Paleontologist (meeting the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP]) to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) presentation for construction personnel. It will include information on paleontological resources, laws protecting them, types of fossils that could occur at the project site, and protocol for unanticipated discoveries. In the event that fossils are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify the qualified Paleontologist to examine the discovery. The qualified Paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with SVP standards, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Based on the significance of the find, the qualified Paleontologist shall determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If, in consultation with the qualified Paleontologist, it is determined that avoidance is not feasible, the qualified Paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) to outline salvage and recovery procedures. If deemed necessary by the qualified Paleontologist, the PRIMP shall include construction monitoring requirements as well. The PRIMP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and the approved plan shall be implemented.
149
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 70 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting and Threshold of Significance
The project site is within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. In 2008, the SCAQMD formed a working group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SoCAB. The working group developed several different options, which are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document-Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold (Interim GHG Thresholds). The working group has not provided additional guidance since the release of the interim guidance in 2008. In 2010, the SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold was expanded to include non-industrial projects, as explained in the minutes from the most recent working group meeting.36 The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the Lead Agency in adopting its own threshold.

In summary, the SCAQMD’s draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm) and stabilize global climate.

To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact with respect to the generation of GHG emissions, the appropriate tier for this project is Tier 3, which states that if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, projectlevel and cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant. However, this threshold was developed to meet the 2020 GHG emissions goals. To be consistent with State goals detailed in Senate Bill (SB) 32, Executive Order B-30-15, and Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHG emissions 36 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting No. 15. September 28.
150
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 7 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a scaled screening GHG threshold can be developed for an assumed opening year of 2027. Though the SCAQMD has not published a quantified threshold beyond 2020, a threshold of 2,160 MT CO2e per year would be appropriate.37 Therefore, this analysis utilizes 2,160 MT CO2e per year for a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions and ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for consistency with an applicable GHG emissions reduction plan.

A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not to be cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.

This analysis includes estimates of GHG emissions associated with project construction and operational activities using CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The model is considered by SCAQMD to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects in California. These estimates have been disclosed to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) and to provide evidence that the implementation of the plans, policies, and regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions would result in actual GHG emissions reduction.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The following is a discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions during both the construction and operation phases.

Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction activities, resulting from emission sources such as construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles.

Although these emissions would be temporary and short-term in nature, they could represent a substantial contribution of GHG emissions. Construction emissions were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Table 7, below, shows the annual construction GHG emissions.

Table 7: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Project Construction–2026 268
Project Construction–2027 192
37 The 2,160 MT CO2e per year threshold for opening year 2027 is calculated by reducing the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold (developed to meet the 2020 GHG emissions goals) by 40 percent, then interpolating to obtain the scaled GHG emissions threshold for 2027. Based on a starting threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year in 2020 a threshold of 1,800 MT CO2e per year in 2030, the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold would be reduced by 120 MT CO2e per year through 2030. 151
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 72 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Construction Year
Total GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Total Construction Emissions 460
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years1 15
Notes:

GHG = greenhouse gas
MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Construction GHG emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the proposed project.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown above, the proposed project would generate approximately 460 MT CO2e during construction. Over 30 years the construction GHG emissions would be amortized to approximately 15 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) per year. Since SCAQMD has not established a construction GHG threshold, total construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for the short-term, one-time GHG emissions from the construction phase of the proposed project.

Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational, or long-term, emissions are those emissions that occur over the life of the project.

Project operations were modeled for the 2027 operational year. To present a conservative estimate of emissions, the baseline for the analysis was assumed to be zero. Because the proposed project would demolish and replace an existing structure, the proposed project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions would be lower than what was estimated and presented below. Sources for operational GHG emissions are summarized below.

Motor Vehicles: These emissions refer to GHG emissions contained in the exhaust from the cars and other on-road vehicles that would travel to and from the project site. Based on the project-specific trip generation rates presented in the Trip Generation Memorandum, the proposed project was estimated to generate 412 daily vehicle trips for the 61-unit project.38 For the purpose of conservative analysis, the emissions in Table 8, below, do not take credit for the vehicle trips and associated emissions that would be replaced by the proposed project.

Natural Gas: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions that occur when natural gas is burned on the project site. The proposed project would be built all-electric and would, therefore, not result in any GHG emissions from natural gas use.

Indirect Electricity: These emissions refer to those generated by off-site power plants to supply electricity required for the proposed project. Although not included in the modeling and Table 8, below, the proposed project would install PV solar panels, consistent with Title 24, Part 6, California’s Energy 38 Urban Crossroads. February 12. Argonaut Residential Trip Generation Assessment. 2025. 152
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 7 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Code. The inclusion of solar panels would provide on-site renewable energy that would reduce the proposed project’s consumption of electricity generated at off-site power plants.

Area Sources: These emissions refer to those produced during activities such as landscape maintenance.

Water Transport: These emissions refer to those generated by the electricity required to transport and treat the water to be used on the project site.

Waste: These emissions refer to the GHG emissions produced by decomposing waste generated by the proposed project.

Table 8 presents the estimated annual GHG emissions from the proposed project’s operational activities. As shown in Table 8, the proposed project would generate approximately 556 MT CO2e per year after the inclusion of 15 MT CO2e per year from project construction. In addition, with continued implementation of various Statewide measures, the proposed project’s operational energy and mobile source emissions would continue to decline in the future.

Table 8: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Unmitigated GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
Area 1
Energy 76
Mobile (Automobiles) 444
Waste 14
Water 6
Amortized Construction 15
Total Annual Project Emissions 556
Applicable Threshold1 2,160
Exceed Applicable Threshold No
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
1 The 2,160 MT CO2e per year threshold for opening year of 2027 is calculated by reducing the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold (developed to meet the 2020 GHG emissions goals) by 40 percent, then interpolating to obtain the scaled GHG emissions threshold for 2027.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 8, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would not exceed the applicable threshold of significance. In addition, the emissions shown in Table 8 were estimated without taking any reductions for the existing land uses. The proposed project would replace existing structures with new residential buildings. The existing uses are currently generating GHG emissions that would no 153
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 74 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx longer occur once the existing structures are demolished. Thus, the proposed project’s net increase in GHG emissions would be even lower than what is shown in Table 8. In summary, construction and operational GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact on the environment. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?2022 Scoping Plan Consistency The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies additional GHG reduction actions and strategies necessary to achieve the AB 1279 target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These actions and strategies build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan (2013) and in the second update to the Scoping Plan (2017). Although a number of these measures are currently established as Statewide regulations, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve Statewide GHG emissions targets. Many of the measures are implemented at the State level and therefore not applicable to the proposed project. However, as it relates to local climate actions, Appendix D of the ARB 2022 Scoping Plan highlights three priority areas for local jurisdictions to focus on when reducing GHGs: (1) transportation electrification; (2) VMT reduction; and (3) building decarbonization. The proposed project would be consistent with and would further the goals of all three priority areas.

Regarding transportation electrification, the proposed project would provide EV charging infrastructure in accordance with the State CALGreen Code. Accordingly, each dwelling unit would be EV capable by installing a raceway to accommodate a future branch circuit for future electric vehicle supply equipment EVSE installation.39 Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with transportation electrification by having the infrastructure to accommodate the future residents’ EV charging needs.

Regarding VMT reduction, according to the Argonaut Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Evaluated, prepared by Urban Crossroads in February 12, 2025, the City Guidelines state that localserving uses such as day care centers, non-destination hotels, affordable housing, places of worship, municipal services, and other local essential services may be presumed to have a less than significant impact as local-serving in nature and would tend to shorten vehicle trips. The proposed project does not include any local-serving uses. However, the City Guidelines also consider small projects that generate fewer than 110 net new daily vehicle trips to have a less than significant VMT impact. The Argonaut Residential Trip Generation Assessment (Appendix I) estimates the proposed project to generate a net increase of 79 daily vehicle trips, which does not exceed the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant VMT impact and would be consistent with VMT reduction goals.
39 California Energy Codes and Standards. 2022. CALGreen Light-Duty Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Requirements. Website:
https://calgreeninfo.com/download/47/resource_file/fieldList/2022+CALGreen+EV+Light+Duty.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2025.
154
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 7 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Regarding building decarbonization, the proposed project would have an all-electric design and would therefore comply with this goal. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with all relevant Energy Code and CALGreen requirements, which would ensure energy efficiency. Impact Section 2.6 a) demonstrates that the proposed project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

The proposed project would be consistent with the appliable measures outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 ARB Scoping Plan and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
155
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 76 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
156
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 7 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by Hillmann Consulting LLC, on April 24, 2024. The Phase I ESA is included in Appendix E of this document.

No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs),40 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs),41 or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs)42 were identified on the project site. There were no significant data gaps identified. De minimis conditions are described below.43
The project site appears to have been developed as agricultural land from at least 1938 to 1981.

Given the 43 years since any agricultural use as well as the grading activities of current development, any remaining pesticide contamination is unlikely and therefore this is not considered to be a REC in connection with the project site.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed project would include the routine transport, use, and disposal of limited quantities of hazardous materials necessary for construction, including fuel and solvents. The use of these hazardous materials would be typical of construction 40 The term Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) is defined by American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E1527-21 as “(1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.”
41 The term Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is defined as a “previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations).” The ASTM E1527-21 standard has clarified that a historical recognized environmental condition is not a recognized environmental condition. 42 The term Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) is a type of recognized environmental condition and defined by ASTM E1527-21 as a “recognized environmental condition affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to implementation of required controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations).”
43 The term de minimis condition is defined by the ASTM as, “…a condition related to a release that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.” A condition determined to be a de minimis condition is not an REC nor a CREC.
157
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 78 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx projects, would be short-term, and would be handled in accordance with standard construction practices, as well as with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Standard construction practices would be observed such that hazardous materials are appropriately contained and remediated as needed, as required by local, State, and federal law. Regulatory requirements would include California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5, for appropriate management of hazardous materials, as well as the requirements of the EPA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), Caltrans, and SCAQMD.

The proposed project would include residential development, which does not typically use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. During the operational phase of the proposed project, hazardous materials may be handled on the project site. Hazardous materials that would likely be used during operation would likely be limited to fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, solvents, household cleaning agents, and similar materials used for maintenance and operation of the apartments, apartment building facilities, amenities, and landscaping. These types of materials are common and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used as intended. The proposed project would also be required to adhere to State and federal regulatory requirements as discussed above.

Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the Phase I ESA determined that the project site appears to have been developed as agricultural land from at least 1938 to 1981. However, the Phase I ESA determined that the previous agricultural use is not considered a REC. The Phase I ESA determined no RECs, HRECs, or CRECs were identified on the project site.

The Phase I ESA determined there is a potential that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are present in acoustical ceiling tiles, adhesives/mastics, and drywall. In the event ACM is detected, proper removal and disposal of the materials in compliance with regulatory requirements such as SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) would occur prior to any demolition activities.

As previously discussed above under Impact 2.9(a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste during the construction phase to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. Proper handling of the use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential uses would reduce the potential for exposure.

Operation of the proposed project would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials. The use of hazardous materials on the project site post-construction would consist of those commonly used in a residential setting for routine maintenance and cleaning and would not be of a significant quantity to create a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident. As such, 158
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 7 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx the proposed project would not introduce uses to the site that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed project would be required to comply with additional regulatory requirements including, but not limited to, the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, specific to the transport of hazardous materials; California Code of Regulations Titles 8, 22, and Title 26, and their enabling legislation set forth in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory; and the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health Division (i.e., the Certified Unified Program Agency), which would ensure safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials are implemented. Consistency with local, State, and federal regulations related to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would minimize the potential for upset and accident conditions to occur within the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest schools are Don Juan Avila Middle and Elementary School (26278 Wood Canyon Drive), 0.99 mile southwest of the project site; Aliso Viejo Middle School (111 Park Avenue), 1.13 miles southeast of the project site; and Laguna Hills High School (25401 Paseo De Valencia), 1.16-mile northeast of the project site. As discussed in Impact 2.9(a), construction of the proposed project would include the limited use of hazardous materials, such as fuel and solvents. The use of these hazardous materials would be in compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. During operation of the proposed project, limited use of hazardous materials would likely be used for building maintenance. Similarly, these hazardous materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Thus, the proposed project would not include any uses that could potentially generate hazardous materials in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools.

Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List contains hazardous waste and substance sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release; and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration. The Cortese List also includes hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action; historic Cortese sites; and sites with known toxic materials identified through the abandoned site assessment program. The proposed project site is not located on a site which is included on a hazardous materials site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. The closest site recognized by the Cortese List is approximately

2.04-miles northeast of the project site and is an active Voluntary Cleanup site located at 23804 159
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 80 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Mercury Road in Lake Forest.44 None of the activities occurring at this site would be close enough to the project site to have an impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No impact. The project site is not within 2 miles of an airport. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport located 9.65 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not within the Airport Influence Areas of this airport and is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard of excessive noise for people working or living at the project site. No impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The City has developed an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) outlining the City’s response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The EOP is designed to incorporate and coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of reacting adequately in the face of any disaster and to conduct such operations as the nature of the disaster deems necessary. It serves as an extension of the California Emergency Plan and the Emergency Resource Management Plan. The EOP is not intended to address normal day-to-day emergencies or the wellestablished and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Instead, the operational concepts reflected in the EOP focus on potential large-scale disasters that can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses. The EOP provides comprehensive policy and guidance for emergency and response operations and details the responsibilities of residents, organizations, and City departments. The EOP also establishes evacuation routes and identifies emergency shelter facilities and water supplies.

The General Plan Safety Element identifies evacuation routes in the City. Within the vicinity of the project site, Aliso Creek Road and Glenwood Drive are identified as primary evacuation routes.45 The project site is within Zone 20 of Aliso Viejo’s Evacuation Zones. Designated evacuation zones within Zone 20 include Glenwood Drive, Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo Parkway, and Moulton 44 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substances List. Website: https:// www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Aliso+Viejo. Accessed December 4, 2024. 45 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website: https:// avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed December 3, 2024. 160
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 8 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Parkway.46 The project site is adjacent to Glenwood Drive, and construction would not require closure or partial closure of Glenwood Drive. The proposed project would be constructed completely within the project site and construction equipment would access the project site via Argonaut, which is the main access point to the project site. If any road closures to Argonaut are required, the project applicant and construction crew would be required to coordinate with the City of Aliso Viejo Public Works Department to ensure that emergency access routes are maintained during construction.

Thus, construction of the proposed project would not impede the use of surrounding roadways for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles.

Operation of the proposed project would not interfere with roadways, and the proposed project would provide internal circulation for emergency vehicle access. The proposed project has been designed to provide emergency service providers access to the site from any of the public streets or the drive aisles. The 24-foot private drive meets Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) turnaround and access requirements (See Exhibit 5). The design of the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access consistent with City requirements, including the required number and design of access points and safety features. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to emergency access during construction and/or operation. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized, flat area and does not contain slopes that could contribute to wildfire. According to the General Plan, the project site is not located along an urban-wildfire interface and is not located in the portions of the City abutting the Aliso and Woods Canyon Wilderness Park within OCFA’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), where wildfires are of the greatest risk.47 Additionally, the project site and its surrounding areas do not have a history of wildfire.48 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout California and ranks fire threats on a scale of no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire severity. According to the CAL FIRE Hazards Severity Zone Mape Viewer, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).49

46 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. Citywide Evacuation Zones. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3750. Accessed January 21, 2025.
47 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Safety Element. Website: https:// avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/395/SafetyElement-PDF. Accessed December 4, 2024. 48 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. California Wildfire History Map. Website: https:// projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#10.64/33.5901/-117.7005. Accessed December 4, 2024. 49 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Website: https:// calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008. Accessed December 4, 2024.
161
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 82 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Further, the project site is in a developed, built-up urban area that is not adjacent to any VHFHSZ or areas in the wildland-urban interface. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
162
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 8 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
163
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 84 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The following analysis is based in part on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) and the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by X Engineering & Consulting, Inc., both included in Appendix F.

The project site is located within the Aliso Creek Watershed. Site drainage is generally broken up into two main watershed subareas in the existing condition. Drainage originates from overland flow of sloped landscaping and roof runoff that sheet flows east and west into perimeter gutters at the edge of the parking lot. Gutter flow drains into two curb outlets on either side of the driveway aisle located at the present-day driveway access to Argonaut. Stormwater flows into the gutter along Argonaut and to an existing catch basin approximately 250 feet south of the project site. This catch basin collects stormwater into a 39-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that eventually increases up to a 78-inch RCP downstream. The 78-inch RCP drains along a rip rap energy dissipation structure at Aliso Creek, where stormwater is conveyed to the Pacific Ocean at South Laguna Beach.

The project site is covered by asphalt concrete pavement and is approximately 76 percent impervious. The proposed project would increase the project site to 79 percent impervious.50 Apart from minor landscape drains that outlet to parking lot curb face, there are no known underground storm drain facilities on-site.

According to the General Plan’s Safety Element, the project site is not within a designated 100-year flood zone. The nearest 100-year flood zone is located south of the Aliso Viejo Parkway and Cedarbrook, 0.64 mile southeast of the project site.51 Additionally, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer, the project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X).52
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. Project impacts related to water quality could occur over three different periods:
50 X Engineering & Consulting. 2024. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), 95 Argonaut. September. 51 City of Aliso Viejo. General Plan, Safety Element, Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website: https:// avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed December 16, 2024. 52 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Website: https:// hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed December 16, 2024.
164
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 8 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx • During the demolition, earthwork, and construction phase, where the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest;
• Following construction, before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
• After project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly but those associated with urban runoff would increase.

Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Urban runoff pollution includes a wide array of environmental, stormwater characteristics depending on-site conditions (e.g., land use, impervious cover, and pollution prevention practices), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, and time between events), soil type and particle sizes, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff from urban areas include sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogens, and bacteria. Most urban stormwater discharges are nonpoint sources.

The City is within the jurisdictional area of the of the San Diego RWQCB. The San Diego RWQCB requirements are further clarified by the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which requires the preparation and implementation of Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for development projects. The DAMP reduces the pollution content of stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The purpose of the Orange County DAMP is to satisfy NPDES permit conditions for creating and implementing a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to reduce pollutant discharges to the MEP. The DAMP contains guidelines on structural and nonstructural BMPs for meeting the NPDES goals. Consistent with the DAMP, the project applicant would be required to submit a SWPPP prior to project grading and construction for City review along with a Preliminary Project WQMP and a Hydrology Report.

As described in the proposed project’s Hydrology Report, drainage originates from overland flow of sloped landscaping and roof runoff that sheet flows east and west into perimeter gutters at the edge of the parking lot. Peak flow originates as overland flow from a highpoint in subarea A-1. Runoff originating as overland flow along the site boundary and from the proposed buildings would be conveyed into area drains placed throughout the development.

As the proposed project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, it would be subject to the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities Construction General Permit (Construction General Permit). Construction activity subject to the Construction General Permit includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than 1 acre. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The types of required BMPs 165
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 86 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx are relative to the amount of soil disturbed, the types of pollutants used or stored at the project site, and proximity to water bodies.

The WQMP prepared for the proposed project is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program. The WQMP outlines the operation and maintenance of all BMPs to be used at the project site, including a catch basin storm filter, hydrologic source controls, and structural and nonstructural source controls.

Additionally, project construction activities would be required to comply with applicable City requirements to control erosion and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff containing sediment, including Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 Article XIII, Erosion Control, which requires preparation of an Erosion Control Plan, submitted to the building official, and the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures. Project construction activities would also be required to comply with water quality measures included in the City’s Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 7.35, Stormwater Management). The Water Quality Ordinance is designed to effectively prohibit nonstormwater discharges into the storm sewers, reduce the discharge of pollutants, and achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Specifically, in accordance with Section 7.35.080, Control of Urban Runoff–New Development and Redevelopment Projects, prior to the City’s issuance of a grading or building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant would be required to submit project plans demonstrating compliance with all applicable local ordinances; California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) standards; and the City’s water quality manual, which includes the City’s jurisdictional urban runoff management plan or local implementation plan, the Orange County DAMP, and the City’s NPDES permit. In addition to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 7.35.080, project construction activities would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 7.35.070, Control of Urban Runoff – Construction Projects, which requires the project applicant to submit a pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or an erosion and sediment control plan meeting the requirements of the water quality manual and to submit evidence of coverage under the Construction General Permit prior to issuance of a permit involving ground-disturbing activities.

Compliance with the above regulations would ensure that impacts related to water quality during construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.

The proposed project would comply with the NPDES requirement through implementation of the WQMP and with the Orange County DAMP; as such, construction of the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or degrade surface or groundwater quality.

During operations, the project site would be subject to compliance with the Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended), requires co-permittees, including the City, to reduce the discharge of pollutants from new development and significant redevelopment to the MEP. All development projects are required to implement source control and site design practices. Per the MS4 Permit requirements for redevelopment, the proposed project will also incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) elements into the site design as well as implementation of BMPs. 166
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 8 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The proposed hydromodification management system would be designed to attenuate and manage stormwater flows to mimic pre-development hydrology, per MS4 Permit requirements. The system includes two MWS for water quality treatment, followed by a subsurface concrete detention structure located in the southeasterly portion of the site. The proposed detention system, sized 42 inches by 42 inches by 5.5 inches, is designed for hydromodification management as well as peak flow mitigation.

As described in the Hydrology Report, the impervious surfaces would increase by 3 percent under the proposed project. Under the proposed project conditions, runoff from the project site would be routed to two 8- by 16-foot proposed MWS for water quality treatment prior to entering a proposed subsurface detention basin in the southeasterly portion of the project. The detention system is designed for hydromodification management as well as peak flow mitigation. Peak flows from the site would ultimately discharge through a proposed 18-inch pipe connection into an existing 24-inch RCP storm drain downstream. Drainage under the proposed project would mimic the existing drainage condition to the maximum extent possible. Runoff generally flows from north to south. Drainage under the proposed project condition would generally concentrate sheet flow into drainage inlets and catch basins and route it into subsurface storm drainage pipes. Runoff under proposed project conditions would be conveyed to dual MWS units for water quality treatment. These dual MWS units are designed to handle a typical heavy storm, specifically one that is bigger than 85 percent of all storms in a year and lasts 24 hours. Stormwater flows exceeding this value, including flows from the MWS, would then be routed into a subsurface detention facility with a flow control outlet orifice suitable for mitigating hydromodification and peak stormwater flows. The proposed project would include a proprietary biofiltration as a BMP with no infiltration and BMPs to ensure that the ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed project is consistent with the DAMP. The proposed condition peak flow drainage would mimic the existing condition to the maximum extent possible.

Under typical storm conditions (e.g., 2- to 10-year events), treated stormwater is detained and slowly released through a low-flow 1.5-inch orifice and a notched riser, reducing flow rates and minimizing downstream erosion. For larger storm events (e.g., 25-year storm event), excess flows bypass the MWS units and pass through the detention system, again slowing release through orifices and a weir before connecting to an existing 24-inch RCP via a new 18-inch pipe located approximately 110 feet south along Argonaut. The proposed system would reduce the post-development peak flow from 9.0 cfs (unmitigated) to 7.5 cfs (mitigated), which is less than the existing condition flow of 7.8 cfs.

Therefore, the proposed project would not negatively impact downstream infrastructure.

The proposed project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations related to water quality, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance. Implementation of the measures outlined above, including water quality operational BMPs, would reduce pollutants of concern associated with the stormwater runoff from the project site in compliance with the Regional MS4 Permit and ensure the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. The impact would be less than significant.
167
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 88 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the MNWD.

MNWD’s potable water supply is entirely imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County.53 As such, project implementation would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies associated with water demand such that the proposed project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

The proposed project would reduce the pervious surfaces as compared to the existing conditions.

Under the existing conditions, the project site is approximately 76 percent impervious. The proposed project would increase the project site to 79 percent impervious.54 However, according to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, on-site stormwater infiltration is not feasible considering that the site is underlain by relatively thick artificial fill, which is predominantly silty/clayey, overlying bedrock. Since the project site is not considered suitable for infiltration, the proposed project does not propose infiltration BMPs. The project site does not currently allow for infiltration and groundwater recharge; thus, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed project could impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of a basin. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces at the project site by 3 percent, which is not considered substantial because the proposed project would be subject to the NPDES permit requirements and would implement BMPs and LID elements to reduce runoff and erosion; the proposed condition peak flow drainage would mimic the existing condition to the maximum extent possible; and the proposed project would include a basin to reduce the proposed 25-year storm flow rate from the project site.55 As previously discussed, drainage under the proposed project condition would generally concentrate sheet flow into drainage inlets and catch basins and would route it into subsurface storm drainage pipes. Runoff would be conveyed to dual MWS units for water quality treatment; specifically, one that would be sized to be bigger than 85 percent of all storm related flow events in a year and lasts 24 hours. Stormwater flows exceeding this value, including flows from the MWS would then be routed into a subsurface detention 53 Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). 2025. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021. Website:
https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2025.
54 X Engineering & Consulting. 2024. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), 95 Argonaut. September. 55 Ibid.
168
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 8 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx facility with a flow control outlet orifice suitable for mitigating hydromodification and peak stormwater flows. The proposed basin would reduce the proposed project’s peak flow to below the existing conditions. Under the existing conditions, the attenuated peak flow is 7.7 cubic feet per second (cfs).

With implementation of the basin, the proposed attenuated peak flow of 7.1 cfs was shown to not have an adverse effect on the existing storm drain.56
According to the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review, slopes are considered susceptible to erosion.

Implementation of the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review in accordance with the Municipal Code, as discussed in Section 2.7, Geology and Soils, would ensure that on-site runoff is controlled and directed off-site in a nonerosive manner and that site drainage and slopes are maintained over the life of the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project would not alter the course of a river or stream, as the site is developed and located in an urban and developed area. As such, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern at the project site in a manner which would result in on- or off-site erosion or siltation. Additionally, the proposed project would implement the provisions provided in the WQMP prepared for the proposed project, which includes ongoing operation and management of BMPs at the project site. Further, the proposed project would be required to adhere to Article XIII of Chapter 13.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, which contains provisions related to erosion control such as grading specifications and erosion control device requirements. Adherence to the WQMP would also ensure compliance with the County NPDES Stormwater Program. As such, impacts would be less than significant. (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces on the project site as compared to the existing conditions. However, the proposed project would implement BMPs designed to manage stormwater runoff. The proposed project would not alter the course of a river or stream. The proposed project would be consistent with the approved drainage plan provided in the Hydrology Report, including the proposed basin discussed above, which would reduce peak flows from the project site and would not result in increased surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding. The proposed project’s peak flow drainage would mimic the existing condition to the maximum extent possible. All project drainage would be routed to two proposed MWSs for water quality treatment prior to entering a proposed subsurface detention basin in the southeasterly portion of the project site. The detention system is designed for hydromodification management as well as peak flow mitigation. Peak flows from the project site would ultimately discharge through a proposed 18-inch pipe connection into an existing 24-inch RCP storm drain downstream. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 56 X Engineering & Consulting. 2024. Preliminary Hydrology Report, 95 Argonaut. September. 169
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 90 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern at the project site through the increase of impervious surfaces at the project site or by altering the course of a river or stream. The proposed project would connect to existing water and sanitary sewer lines and would include the installation of stormwater management systems in-site. Stormwater from the proposed project would be routed to two proposed MWS for water quality treatment prior to entering a proposed subsurface detention basin in the southeasterly portion of the project site to meet water quality objectives as required by the MS4 Permit. The proposed project would be designed consistent with the approved drainage plan provided in the Hydrology Report and would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system.

Additionally, the proposed project would implement the provisions provided in the WQMP and the Geotechnical Due Diligence Review prepared for the proposed project—which includes ongoing operation and management of BMPs at the project site and measures to ensure that on-site runoff is controlled and directed off-site in a nonerosive manner. Further, adherence to the WQMP would ensure compliance with County NPDES Stormwater Program, which would include biofiltration, and MWS and detention systems to control and reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater.

Compliance with the WQMP would address potential additional sources of polluted runoff from the project site. The impact would be less than significant. (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X); and the proposed project would be consistent with the approved drainage plan provided in the Hydrology Report and would not cause flood flows to be impeded or redirected. Any potential flooding on-site would be treated via two MWS prior to entering a proposed subsurface detention basin in the southeasterly portion of the project. Peak flows from the site will ultimately discharge through a proposed public 18-inch pipe connection into an existing 24-inch RCP storm drain downstream approximately 110 feet south along Argonaut. As such, the impact would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than significant impact. The project site is approximately 5.02 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is not near any other large body of water; therefore, the project site is not at risk of inundation from a tsunami or seiche. As discussed above, the project site is within an area of minimal flood risk and would not include the storage of hazardous materials that could be released into the environment due to inundation from a flood other than small quantities of typical household cleaners. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
170
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 9 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. The project site is within the Aliso Creek Watershed and the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards as well as water quality goals and policies that govern the Santa Ana River Basin.57 The proposed project would be required to comply with the goals and policies outlined in the Basin Plan, such as nonpoint source pollution control policies, which requires the proposed project to implement LID strategies and site-specific BMPs, and implementation programs, which requires coordination with local stormwater permits. As previously discussed, the proposed project would comply with the WQMP prepared for it to ensure that the proposed project meets water quality standard and would not degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
57 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2024. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego RWQCB). San Diego Basin Plan. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/. Accessed December 16, 2024. 171
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 92 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The General Plan currently designates the project site Business Park. The proposed project would require a GPA to change the land use designation from Business Park to HDR. The HDR land use designation is intended to provide residential development with a density between 18 and 30 dwelling units per gross acre, with an average density of 20 units per gross acre.The project site is currently zoned Business Park-2 (Exhibit 4). The proposed project requests a rezone to change the zoning designation from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density District. The RH Residential–High Density zoning district is intended to provide for the development and preservation of high-density neighborhoods consisting of attached and multiple dwelling units such as townhomes, apartments, condominiums, and senior housing.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project site is in a highly developed and urbanized area and the project site is currently developed with an office building and parking lot. The surrounding area contains commercial and residential uses, similar to the project site. Land adjacent to the proposed project are designated for Very High Density Residential to the north, for Business Parks to the south and west, and Community Facilities to the east. The project site is not large enough or otherwise configured in such a way that would create a physical barrier within an established community. A typical example of such a barrier would be a project that involved a continuous right-of-way, such as a roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community. The proposed project does not include these types of features. Implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt the surrounding land uses or divide the physical arrangement of the established communities to the north 172
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 9 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx and east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include a GPA to amend the General Plan land use designation from Business Park to HDR and a rezone to change the zoning from Business Park-2 to RH Residential–High Density. The land uses to the north, south, east, and west of the project site are designated by the General Plan Very High Density Residential, Business Park, and Community Facilities. The proposed GPA would be consistent with the existing surrounding land uses, and with the approval of these changes, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Table 9 shows an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with relevant policies of the Aliso Viejo General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As shown in Table 9, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable General Plan policies.

Table 9: Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Land Use Element
Policy LU-2.1: Preserve the current pattern of
development that encourages more intense and higher
density development at the core of the community
(near Grand Park and Aliso Viejo Town Center) and
less intense uses radiating from the central core.

Consistent. The proposed project includes
redevelopment of an underutilized office space that is
not within the City’s central core. The proposed project would include 61 townhome units, which is consistent
with the town homes located just northwest of the site
at Glenwood Drive. Therefore, the proposed project
would provide an appropriate density, consistent with
this policy.

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

Consistent. The proposed project includes townhome
development in an area that is developed and
urbanized. Redevelopment of the site would be
generally consistent with existing surrounding uses,
including the existing town homes northwest of the
site. Further, as discussed in Section 2.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect
or damage a scenic vista or natural resources. As
such, the proposed project is consistent with this
policy.

Policy LU-4.1: Encourage environmentally sensitive
development patterns, promote public education, and
enforce infrastructure criteria that protect residents and Consistent. The proposed project consists of mixeduse infill redevelopment in an urbanized area and would not degrade environmentally sensitive areas of
173
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 94 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency property from hazards related to slope stability and
flooding.
the City. The proposed project is not located near a
flood zone. The proposed project would comply with all
recommendations in the project-specific geotechnical
review, per COA GEO-1. On-site drainage and water
quality improvements would provide protection from
localized flooding. Additionally, the proposed project is not located within or near a flood zone. As such, the
proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-4.2: In areas where residential and
business park or office land uses abut each other, use
buffering techniques employing water-conserving
landscaping, setbacks, screening, and appearance
standards to improve compatibility.

Consistent. The proposed project would be buffered
from adjacent business park uses by setbacks,
landscaping, and retaining walls.

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the proposed project includes an
on-site stormwater system that would reduce on-site
runoff. Specifically, runoff from the project site would be routed to two proposed modular wetland systems
(MWS) for water quality treatment prior to entering a
proposed subsurface detention basin in the
southeasterly portion of the project. The proposed
water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs)
would adhere to Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) requirements, including providing operational
BMPs that would reduce pollutants of concern
associated with the stormwater runoff from the project
site in compliance with the Regional Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and
ensure the proposed project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality. As such, the proposed
project is consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-5.3: Ensure that new development is
consistent with City and service provider plans to
complete needed improvements and funding capacity
for such improvements.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.15, Public
Services and Section 2.19, Utilities and Service
Systems, existing public and utility services are
generally anticipated to be adequate to serve the
proposed project. Any improvements would be
constructed in compliance with City and service
provider standards and the applicant would pay all
applicable fees as required. As such, the proposed
project is consistent with this policy.

Policy LU-8.2: Require recycling, composting, source
reduction and education efforts throughout the
Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would be
174
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 9 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency community, including residential, businesses,
industries, and institutions, within the construction
industry, and in all City-sponsored activities.
required to comply with applicable federal, State, and
local regulations regarding the recycling, composting,
source reduction, and education efforts. As such, the
proposed project is consistent with this policy.

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.15, Public
Services, the project applicant would be required to
pay all statutory fees in place at the time in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 50 and demonstrate proof of
payment to the City for approval of a building permit.

Payment of developer fees under SB 50 would ensure
school related impacts are less than significant. As
such, the proposed project is consistent with this
policy.

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.15, Public
Services, the project applicant would be required to
pay all public benefits fees in accordance with the
Municipal Code Chapter 14.16, which would satisfy the
City’s parkland requirement. The proposed project
would also provide on-site amenities to residents that
would partially offset impacts to parks facilities.

Additionally, the proposed project would provide
40,259.9 square feet of open space including 5,587
square feet of usable open space to help offset
impacts to park facilities. As such, the proposed
project is consistent with this policy.

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

Consistent. The proposed project would be required
to comply with the City’s landscaping requirements,
including Chapter 7.30, Water Efficient Landscape
Regulations, which would increase water efficiency.

The project proposes landscaping that includes native
and/or low water plants. As such, the proposed project
is consistent with this policy.

Policy COS-1.4: Promote water conservation
measures, reduce urban runoff, and prevent
groundwater pollution within development projects,
property maintenance, City operations and all activities requiring City approval.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the proposed project would
implement structural, source control, and site design
BMPs to address water quality conditions associated
with the proposed project. The proposed project would
adhere to WQMP requirements, which would reduce
pollutants of concern associated with the stormwater
runoff from the project site in compliance with the
Regional MS4 Permit and ensure the proposed project
would not violate any water quality standards or waste
175
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 96 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality. As such, the
proposed project is consistent with this policy.

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

Consistent. The proposed project would include
townhomes with a Spanish Eclectic architectural style,
which would be subject to design review as required
by Chapter 15.62 of the City’s Municipal Code.

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.3, Air Quality,
the proposed project would not generate pollutant
emissions in excess of applicable significance
thresholds. As such, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

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

Consistent. The proposed project would provide
electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure consistent with the latest CALGreen requirements, which would
allow future residents to charge electric vehicles, in
turn reducing air quality emissions from fossil fueled
vehicles. As such, the proposed project is consistent
with this policy.

Policy COS-6.1: Encourage green building designs for
new construction and renovation projects within the
City.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required
to comply with 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen.

Additionally, the proposed project would be built allelectric and install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems that would generate renewable energy consistent with the
2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. As such,
the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

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

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

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.5, Cultural
Resources, the project site does not contain known
cultural resources; however, there is the potential for unknown or undiscovered resources to be uncovered
through ground-disturbing construction activities. The
proposed project would be required to implement
mitigation measures, which would reduce potential
impacts to cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. MM CUL-1 would require a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, a
site survey conducted by a qualified Archaeologist,
and archaeological monitoring. MM CUL-2 would
require consultation with a qualified Archaeologist in
the event that buried archaeological resources are
176
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 9 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency discovered during construction, as well as inadvertent
discovery procedures. Implementation MM CUL-1 and
MM CUL-2 would ensure that potential impacts to
archaeological resources will be reduced to a level of
less than significant. As such, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

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

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.7, Geology and
Soils, grading and earthwork activities associated with project construction would expose soils to potential
short-term erosion by wind and water. However,
project construction activities would be required to
comply with applicable City requirements to control
erosion and reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff
containing sediment, including Aliso Viejo Municipal
Code Chapter 13.08, Article XIII, Erosion Control,
which requires the implementation of erosion and
sediment control measures. Project construction
activities would also be required to comply with
applicable water quality measures, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter

7.35, Stormwater Management), which include
conditions and requirements established by the City
related to the reduction or elimination of stormwater
runoff pollutants during construction and operational
phases of the proposed project. As such, the proposed
project is consistent with this policy.

Policy S-1.2: Investigate specific geologic conditions
underlying all new development or redevelopment
proposals in areas where potential fault rupture,
liquefaction, slope instability or other geological
hazards are suspected.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.7, Geology and
Soils, the geologic conditions associated with
development of the project site have been investigated
in the Preliminary Geotechnical Due Diligence Study.

The project site is not susceptible to potential fault
rupture or liquefaction. The proposed project would be
required to comply with site-specific geotechnical
recommendations associated with potential
earthquake ground shaking, slope instability, or other
geological hazards. As such, the proposed project is
consistent with this policy.

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

Consistent. The proposed project would include a
total of three new fire hydrants on the eastern,
western, and southern portions of the project site and
would connect to existing water lines. The proposed
project would be required to comply with all City and
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) requirements for
177
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 98 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency fire prevention and safety measures, including site
access and would be subject to approval by the City
and OCFA. As such, the proposed project is consistent
with this policy.

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

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

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

Consistent. All lighting installed as part of the
proposed project would be subject to compliance with
the City’s lighting requirements. In addition, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the
City’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) requirements in accordance with
Municipal Code Section 15.50.020, CPTED Safety
Requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit,
Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) would
review the proposed project plans to ensure the
proposed project adheres to all applicable security
requirements. As such, the proposed project is
consistent with this policy.

Noise Element
Policy N-3.1: Ensure stationary noise impacts on
sensitive receptors and noise emanating from
construction activities, private
developments/residences, landscaping activities and
special events are minimized.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2.13, Noise, the
proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to noise. As such, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

Impacts are therefore considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
178
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 9 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information and analysis for Mineral Resources impacts is based on the General Plan. The project site is zoned Business Park-2 and is located in an urbanized area in the City, and no known mineral resources are present on-site.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
No impact. The General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the City. The project site does not support mineral extraction and does not contain any mineral resource zones or other areas designated as containing known mineral resources. The project site is currently developed and is currently zoned Business Park-2 and is currently designated Business Park. The proposed project would redesignate the site HDR and would rezone the project site RH. These land use and zoning classifications do not support mineral resource extraction,58 which precludes the potential for impacts associated with mineral resources. No impact would occur. 58 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. City of Aliso Viejo General Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Policy Map, Figure LU-1.

Website: http://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/397/Land-Use-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed January 21, 2025. 179
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 10 0 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The Aliso Viejo General Plan does not designate any lands within the City as mineral resources deposit areas. There are no existing mineral resource recovery operations on the project site or surrounding area.59 Additionally, the project site is not zoned for mineral resources.60 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of value to the region or result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site described on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact to mineral resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
59 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. City of Aliso Viejo General Plan, Land Use Element, Land Use Policy Map, Figure LU-1.

Website: http://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/397/Land-Use-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed January 21, 2025. 60 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/#!/AlisoViejo15/AlisoViejo1510.html#15.10. Accessed January 21, 2025. 180
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 0 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The primary noise sources near the project site include traffic from Glenwood Drive to the north and Argonaut to the south and west. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are singlefamily residences located northwest of the project site.

Existing Conditions
Ambient Noise
The dominant noise sources in the project vicinity include traffic on local roadways, primarily from traffic on Glenwood Drive, which runs along the northern boundary of the project site, and on Argonaut located near the southwest corner of the project site.

An ambient noise monitoring effort was conducted to document daytime ambient noise levels on the project site. Short-term noise monitoring was conducted by Vista Environmental on Monday, May 6, 2024, between 12:23 p.m. and 12:56 p.m. The noise measurements were taken during the midday 181
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 10 2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx hours, as the midday hours typically have the highest daytime noise levels in urban environments. It should be noted that peak noise hours often vary slightly from peak traffic hours as peak noise hours more closely align with high volume traffic that is still free-flowing, while peak traffic hours often result in slower vehicle speeds due to the volume of traffic on the roadway. The short-term existing noise measurement results are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: Existing Ambient Noise Levels on the Project Site Site ID # Description Leq Lmax
ST-1 Measurements taken on north side of the project site, approximately 90 feet south of Glenwood Drive centerline. Primary noise sources observed were vehicles on Glenwood Drive.

57.9 72.0
ST-2 Measurements taken on southwest corner of the project site, approximately 70 feet east and 60 feet north of Argonaut centerline.

Primary noise sources observed were vehicles on Argonaut and truck delivery on-site.

56.0 73.1
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 A-weighted decibel (dBA) is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the dBA scale was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and the Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.
182
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 0 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Regulatory Framework
The project site is located within the City of Aliso Viejo, in Orange County. The City addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

City of Aliso Viejo General Plan
The City addresses noise in the City’s General Plan. The objectives of the General Plan’s Noise Element are to identify noise sources in the City and define strategies for reducing the negative impact of noise on the community. The Noise Element identifies baseline and projected noise levels so that this information can guide future land use decisions in a manner that limit noises and its effect on the community.

The following applicable goals and policies to the proposed project are from the Noise Element of the General Plan.

Goal N-1 Minimize the impact of point source noise and ambient noise levels throughout the community.

Policy N-1.1 Ensure that construction and occupancy of new development are compatible with, and do not exceed thresholds defining the acceptable noise environment in surrounding areas.

Policy N-1.2 Require inclusion of noise-reducing design features in development projects to address the impact of noise on residential development.

Policy N-2.3 Require inclusion of sound-reducing design measures in development projects impacted by transportation-related noise.

Policy N-2.4 Encourage use of alternative transportation technologies that minimize noise impacts.

Goal N-3 Minimize noise impacts from sources other than transportation.

Policy N-3.1 Ensure stationary noise impacts on sensitive receptors and noise emanating from construction activities, private developments/residences, landscaping activities and special events are minimized.

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

Table 11 (Table N-1 in the City’s General Plan Noise Element) summarizes Orange County’s residential noise standards, which have been adopted by the City. The standards represent the maximum acceptable noise levels as measured from any residential property in the City. Accordingly, it is unlawful to cause the noise level on any residential property to exceed the exterior noise standards: (1) for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour; (2) by plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour; (3) by plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of 183
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 10 4 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx more than 5 minutes in any hour; (4) by plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or (5) plus 20 dBA for any period of time. In addition, any noise that exceeds the interior noise standards established for residential uses: (1) for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour; (2) by plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour; or (3) by plus 10 dBA for any period of time, is unlawful.

Table 11: Orange County Residential Noise Standards
Daytime Noise Standards
(7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime Noise Standards
(10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.)
Interior Noise Standards 55 dBA 45 dBA
Exterior Noise Standards 55 dBA 50 dBA
Note:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Standards are based on measurements taken from any residential property in the City.

Source: Aliso Viejo General Plan, Noise Element, Table N-1.

City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code
The City of Aliso Viejo has established noise performance standards and permissible hours for construction activities in the Municipal Code. These provisions are summarized below:

Section 8.12.050 Exterior noise standards
A. The following exterior noise standards (Table 12), unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all residential property with the City:

Table 12: Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Noise Level Time Period
Residential Exterior Noise Standards
Density of less than 10 du/acre 50 dBA 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 45 dBA 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Density of more than 10 du/acre 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 50 dBA 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Nonresidential Exterior Noise Standards
Commercial 65 dBA 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
60 dBA 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Manufacturing/Industrial 70 dBA 24 hours per day
184
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 0 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Land Use Noise Level Time Period
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
du/acre = dwelling units per acre
Source: Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 8.12.050, Exterior Noise Standards.

Section 8.12.060, Interior Noise Standards
Section 8.12.060 establishes interior noise standards for residential property within the City. For all residential properties, the interior noise standard is 55 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Section 8.12.070, Exemptions
Section 8.12.070 establishes a list of activities that the Municipal Code considers exempt from the provisions of the City’s noise ordinance. Exempt activities that are relevant to the proposed project include:61
E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided the activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.

F. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided the activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a federal holiday, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sunday or a federal holiday.

G. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by State or federal law.

H. Noise sources associated with solid waste collection and removal, provided such activities take place between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday where audible in residential areas; or between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays where audible in residential areas; or between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. any day where such activity is not audible in residential areas; or as otherwise provided in an approved franchise agreement between a waste hauler and the City.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 61 City of Aliso Viejo. 2025. Aliso Viejo Municipal Code 8.12.070 Exemptions. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AlisoViejo/html/AlisoViejo08/AlisoViejo0812.html#8.12.070. Accessed February 14, 2025.
185
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 10 6 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Short-term Construction Impacts
Less than significant impact. For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the City’s established standards applicable to construction noise.

The Municipal Code Section 8.12.070 establishes allowable hours and noise standards for construction activities and equipment. Construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, are allowed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. Saturday. Construction activities on Sundays and federal holidays are prohibited all hours.

While the City does not establish noise level thresholds for construction activities, this analysis uses the noise limits established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to identify the potential for impacts due to substantial temporary construction noise. The FTA identifies construction noise limits in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.62 During daytime hours, a significant temporary increase would be an increase in excess of the average daily noise levels of 80 dBA Leq as measured at a receiving residential land use.

Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment such as pile drivers would not be used during construction of the proposed project.

The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the project site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Construction of the proposed project would require the use of graders, excavators, dozers, front-end loaders, and backhoes. The maximum noise level generated by each bulldozer, excavator, and grader is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from this equipment. A characteristic of sound is that 62 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 186
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 0 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases a sound level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq.

The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located northwest of the project site. The closest residence would be located approximately 200 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity where multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment would potentially operate simultaneously at the project site. At this distance, with minimal shielding from an existing 6-foot masonry walls, worst-case construction noise levels could range up to approximately 70 dBA Lmax intermittently and could have an hourly average of up to 64 dBA Leq, at the façade of the nearest single-family residential home. The calculation spreadsheet with detailed modeling assumptions is provided in Appendix G.

These reasonable worst-case construction noise levels would only occur periodically throughout the day as construction equipment operates along the nearest project boundaries. Additionally, these noise levels would drop off at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance as the equipment moves over the project site.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s permissible hours for construction (7:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m.

Saturday), which would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial increase in nighttime noise levels in the project vicinity. In addition, the calculated conservative worst-case construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s average daily threshold of 80 dBA Leq as measured at the nearest residential receptors. It should also be noted that these temporary, reasonable, worst-case maximum construction noise levels would not exceed existing maximum noise levels on the project site that were documented by the ambient noise monitoring effort. The reasonable worst-case hourly average noise levels would exceed documented existing ambient noise levels of 56 dBA to 57.9 dBA Leq by no more than 8 dBA. This would not be considered a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, the analysis demonstrates that the proposed project’s construction noise impact from on-site activities would be less than significant.

Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in an exceedance of the City’s noise performance standards for stationary noise sources. A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources at the proposed project site would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of any of the noise performance thresholds established by the City. As shown in Table 13 above, the City’s Residential Noise Standard for exterior daytime noise (7:00 a.m. through 10:00 p.m.) is 55 dBA and exterior nighttime noise (10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.) is 50 dBA.

Implementation of the proposed project would include operation of new mechanical ventilation equipment. Noise levels for residential-grade mechanical ventilation equipment systems range up to 187
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 10 8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx approximately 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. The proposed project would have residential-grade mechanical ventilation equipment for each proposed residential units. The proposed mechanical ventilation equipment could be located as close as 200 feet from off-site noise-sensitive receptors. At this distance, with minimal shielding from an existing 6-foot concrete wall, worst-case resulting noise levels could range up to approximately 16 dBA Leq. The noise calculation sheet is provided in Appendix G.

These operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s most stringent nighttime noise performance thresholds of 50 dBA as measured at the nearest residential property. In addition, they would not exceed existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, which, as noted above, range from 56 dBA to 57.9 dBA Leq. Therefore, rooftop mechanical ventilation system operational noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels in excess of established standards. The impact of mechanical ventilation equipment operational noise levels on sensitive offsite receptors would be less than significant.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if project-generated traffic would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with those that would exist without the proposed project. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels, which, as discussed in the characteristics of noise discussion above, is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a doubling of the existing ADT volumes would result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels.

According to the Trip Generation Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads (Appendix I),63 the existing peak-hour trips on Argonaut adjacent to the project site are 38 AM peak-hour trips and 24 PM peak-hour trips. However, the proposed project would only generate 25 AM peak-hour trips and 32 PM peak-hour trips under the 61-unit scenario. Therefore, net new proposed project trips would not double existing traffic trips on any roadway segment in the project vicinity. Furthermore, this increase in trips would result in a less than 1 dBA increase in existing traffic noise levels along any roadway segment in the project vicinity. This increase is below a level that would be a perceptible increase and well below a level that would be considered a substantial increase in traffic noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not double average daily trips on Argonaut adjacent to the project site and would not generate 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from project-generated traffic trips, and mobile source operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards. The 63 Urban Crossroads. 2024. Argonaut Residential Trip Generation Assessment. June 1. 188
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 0 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx City has not established requirements regarding construction vibration impacts; therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the FTA guidelines for vibration impacts are used to determine potential significant construction and operational-related vibration impacts.64 This section analyzes both construction and operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts.

Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings. Groundborne noise is generated when vibrating building components radiate sound, or noise, generated by groundborne vibration. In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
Of the variety of equipment that would be used during construction, small vibratory rollers would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Impact equipment such as pile drivers would not be used during construction of the proposed project. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The closest structure to the project site is a water tower to the east of the project site, located approximately 80 feet from the nearest construction footprint where small vibratory rollers would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.01 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s most stringent threshold for construction vibration damage of 0.12 in/sec PPV for a structure that is extremely susceptible to vibration damage. As a result, construction of the proposed project would not expose the nearby water tower to groundborne vibration levels in excess of their applicable FTA damage criteria, and this impact would be less than significant.

The nearest building structure to the project site is the Azarian US Gymnastics building to the west of the project site and is located approximately 115 feet from the nearest construction footprint where small vibratory rollers would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.01 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is below the FTA’s construction vibration damage criteria of 0.3 in/sec PPV for this type of structure, a building of engineered concrete and masonry construction. As a result, construction of the proposed project would not expose nearby buildings to groundborne vibration levels in excess of their applicable FTA damage criteria, and this impact would be less than significant.
64 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September. 189
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 11 0 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Operational Vibration Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any new permanent sources of groundborne vibration that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. Additionally, there are no active sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity that would produce vibration levels that would be perceptible without instruments within the project site.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to operational groundborne vibration. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 9.65 miles northwest of the project site. While aircraft noise is occasionally audible at the project site, because of the distance from the airport and the orientation of runways and flight patterns, the project site does not lie within the established noise contours of John Wayne Airport and is not close enough to any other airports to be affected by aviation noise. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would exceed normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
190
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 1 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the City had a population of 50,068 persons as of January 1, 2024.65
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. As described above, the City had a provisional population estimate of 50,068 persons as of January 1, 2024.66 The 2004 Aliso Viejo General Plan Final EIR anticipated a population of 48,071 persons at buildout. The buildout population identified in the General Plan Final EIR has already been exceeded.
65 California Department of Finance. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Website:
https:// view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwpcontent%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F352%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FDocuments%2FE5_2024_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. Accessed December 6, 2024. 66 Ibid.
191
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 11 2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx According to the California Department of Finance, the City has an average of 2.54 persons per household in 2024.67 The proposed project would include the construction of 61 3-story townhomes, which would increase the City’s population by up to 155 persons based on the California Department of Finance’s average household size.68 This is approximately 0.3 percent of the City’s existing population, which is a negligible increase of the City’s total population.

SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial) and 191 cities, including the City of Aliso Viejo. As the federally-designated MPO, SCAG is responsible for developing and adopting regional housing, population, and employment growth forecasts for local Orange County governments, among other counties. The latest SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is adopted in April 2024.69
While the 2024 RTP/SCS does not provide population projections below the county-level, the 2024 RTP/SCS states that a rough estimate of the future jurisdiction-level population based on Connect SoCal’s household forecast can be derived using county-level population to housing ratio.70 Using the 2050 Orange County population to housing ratio of 2.745, Aliso Viejo is projected to have a population of approximately 56,000 for the year 2050. As such, the proposed project would not exceed SCAG’s growth projections for the City.

Furthermore, in 2021, SCAG adopted the 6th Cycle Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Plan, which assigns a share of the region’s future housing need to each jurisdiction in the SCAG region. The City’s share of the region’s new housing need for the 2021–2029 planning period as established by SCAG in the RHNA is 1,195 units. Of these, the City’s housing need includes 390 units for very-low-income households, 214 for low-income households, 205 for moderate-income households, and 386 for above-moderate-income households.71 The proposed project would provide 61 residential units including three very-low-income units and 58 market rate units. Therefore, the proposed project would help to accommodate the RHNA housing allocation for the City in order to meet housing needs.
67 California Department of Finance. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Website:
https:// view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwpcontent%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F352%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FDocuments%2FE5_2024_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. Accessed December 6, 2024. 68 2.54 persons per household * 61 residential units= 155 persons 69 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. The Southern California Association of Governments’ 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/connectsocal. Accessed June 18, 2025. 70 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2024. 2024 – 2050. Connect SoCal 2024 Demographics & Growth Forecast. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-final040424.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2025. 71 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. City of Aliso Viejo Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element. Website:
https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/393/Housing-Element-PDF. Accessed January 21, 2025. 192
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 1 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Additionally, the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure, as the project site and surrounding area are currently served by adjacent roadways and utilities infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. There are no existing residences on-site, which precludes the possibility that the proposed project would displace people or housing. As such, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
193
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 11 4 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information in this section is based, in part, on correspondence with City of Aliso Viejo public service providers, included as Appendix H of this report. Correspondence consisted of responses to an inquiry sent via email to public service providers on December 16, 2024. Responses were provided to FCS between December 17, 2024, and January 14, 2025.

Fire
The City falls under the jurisdiction of OCFA, which provides services to 23 of Orange County’s 34 cities and all unincorporated areas of the county. OCFA’s services include emergency responses to 911 calls, fire inspections, plan review, public information and education, and arson investigation.

OCFA Fire Station 57 is located at 57 Journey, which is 2 miles south of the project site. It employs five firefighters and two paramedics and operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. OCFA Fire Station 57 also serves as a Division Headquarters, housing the local fire chief, administrative staff, and community educator. Division Chief Mike Summers serves as the Fire Chief for the City.72 72 City of Aliso Viejo. 2025. Fire Authority. Website: https://avcity.org/198/Fire-Authority. Accessed January 27, 2025. 194
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 1 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Police
The City contracts with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) for its law enforcement needs. OCSD–Aliso Viejo Station is located at 11 Journey, which is 2.4 miles south of the project site.

The staff dedicated to the City includes one Crime Prevention Specialist, one Emergency Management Coordinator, 17.65 Deputies (Patrol, Traffic Motor, School Resource Officer, Special Enforcement Team and Directed Enforcement Team), two Community Service Officers, 1.5 Investigators, and 2.33 Sergeants. The partial numbers are staff whose duties are split among other cities. There are 15 specialized units that can be contacted to provide service to the City when needed. They include units such as Canine, Gang Enforcement, Homicide Detail, and more.73

Schools
The project site falls within the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). During the 2023–2024 school year, the CUSD enrolled 48,326 students.74 CUSD serves the City of San Juan Capistrano, City of Dana Point, City of Laguna Niguel, and the City of San Clemente, as well as a portion of the City of Aliso Viejo, City of Mission Viejo, City of Rancho Santa Margarita, and a very small portion of the Cities of Laguna Beach and Laguna Woods and a portion of unincorporated Orange County.75 The proposed project is within the service area of Oak Grove Elementary School (584 students), Aliso Viejo Middle School (799 students), and Aliso Niguel High School (2,608 students).76 During the 2023–2024 school year, Oak Grove Elementary School enrolled 584 students, Aliso Viejo Middle School enrolled 799 students, and Aliso Niguel High School enrolled 2,608 students.77 Level 1 Developer Fees are established by the State and are considered a basic mitigation fee that all residential and commercial projects must pay. In January 2024, the State Allocation Board approved the Level 1 Developer Fee of $5.17 per square foot of residential development.78 Parks
The City of Aliso Viejo Recreation & Community Services department owns and manages Vista Park and Iglesia Park, which are a total of 7.4 acres. Additionally, Aliso Viejo Community Association 73 City of Aliso Viejo. 2025. Police Services. Website: https://avcity.org/212/Police-Services. Accessed January 27, 2025. 74 California Department of Education Data Reporting Office. 2024. Capistrano Unified Report (30-66464). Website:
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrgrdlevels.aspx?agglevel=District&year=2023-24&cds=3066464. Accessed January 28, 2025.
75 King Consulting. 2024. Developer Fee Justification Study, Capistrano Unified School District. Website:
https://www.capousd.org/documents/Developer%20Fees/Residential-and-Commercial-Industrial-Fee-Study-May-2024- Res.-2324-30.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2025.
76 Ibid.
77 California Department of Education Data Reporting Office. 2024. Capistrano Unified Report (30-66464). Website:
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/enrgrdlevels.aspx?agglevel=District&year=2023-24&cds=3066464. Accessed January 28, 2025.
78 King Consulting. 2024. Developer Fee Justification Study, Capistrano Unified School District. Website:
https://www.capousd.org/documents/Developer%20Fees/Residential-and-Commercial-Industrial-Fee-Study-May-2024- Res.-2324-30.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2025.
195
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 11 6 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx (AVCA) is responsible for an estimated 179 acres of parkland.79 The closest park is Glenwood Community Park, located 0.07 mile north of the project site, across Glenwood Drive. Glenwood Community Park is a private park owned and managed by the Glenwood Park neighborhood homeowners’ association.80 Crosswalks and traffic lights are available on Glenwood Drive, allowing for pedestrian access to Glenwood Community Park. The second two closest parks are Pinewood Park and Argonaut Park. Pinewood Park is less than 0.1 mile away in a straight line, but with no accessible pathways through the landscaping and hillsides, residents of the proposed project would need to travel around 0.4 mile on sidewalks along major roadways.

Libraries
Orange County provides a range of public libraries, cultural facilities, and recreation services. The nearest Orange County Public Library branch to the project site is the Laguna Woods Branch, located at 24266 El Toro Road in the City of Laguna Woods, approximately 1.07 miles north of the project site. Additionally, the Aliso Viejo Branch is located at 1 Journey, approximately 1.65 miles south of the project site. Orange County Public Libraries provides library services to the City of Aliso Viejo through its system-wide network of 32 branches across the county. Aliso Viejo residents have access to all services as membership is not specific to individual branches; as such, residents of the City have access to resources and services throughout the entire Orange County Public Library system. The Aliso Vejo branch is currently closed for renovations but is expected to reopen in 2025. The most current tenant projections are from 2023, during which the Aliso Viejo Branch had 140,931 visitors, with an average daily attendance of 470 people.

Upon reopening, the Aliso Viejo Branch is expecting an increase of usage as the redesign will add more amenities, such as quiet study rooms, more electricity, seating available throughout the branch, and a new program room for events.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. According to Deputy Fire Marshal Eric Evans of Planning and Development, OCFA has the ability to provide fire protection services to the project site and the proposed project will require an OCFA Secured Fire Protection Agreement.81 79 Weaver, Chris. Director of Parks & Landscape, Aliso Viejo Community Association. Personal communication: email.

December 18, 2024.
80 Play Parks Creative LLC. 2024. Glenwood Community Park (PRIVATE). Website:
https://funorangecountyparks.com/glenwood-community-park-aliso-viejo.html. Accessed January 21, 2025. 81 Evans, Eric. Deputy Fire Marshal, Orange County Fire Authority. Personal communication: email, January 14, 2025. 196
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 1 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Additionally, the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable OCFA planning and development fees.82 A total of three new fire hydrants would be installed on eastern, western and southern portions of the project site and would connect to existing water lines.

As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would generate 155 new residents. Fire protection and emergency service by the OCFA are currently provided to the area under existing conditions.

As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the population growth resulting from the proposed project is consistent with SCAG’s growth projections, and the 155 new residents would be considered planned growth that would be addressed with existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a need for new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, as amended, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 13.04, 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code, and would be subject to approval by OCFA. Adherence with fire code standards and approval by OCFA would reduce the potential demand for fire services by decreasing the likelihood and/or severity of a fire emergency at the project site. Implementation of City requirements, including compliance with the California Fire Code and approval of site plans by OCFA, as well as payment of planning and development fees, would ensure that there would be no substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities for fire protection services. As such, impacts would be less than significant. b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. OCSD did not respond to emails sent in December 2024 and January 2025 requesting information on expected impacts to police services as a result of the proposed project.

As described above, the proposed project would include the construction of a residential development that consists of 61 townhomes on the approximately 2.85-acre project site ranging from 1,200 to 1,800 square feet in size. Police protection services to the project site occurs under the existing conditions. While the proposed project would generate an estimated 155 residents, this would be considered planned growth, as discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing.

Because the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, it is anticipated that the proposed project would be adequately served by OCSD and would not create a need for new or physically altered police facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the City’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) requirements in accordance 82 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Planning and Development Services. 2024. 2024-25 Community Risk Reduction Fee Study. Website: https://ocfa.org/Uploads/CommunityRiskReduction/OCFA%202024-25%20Fee%20Schedule%20- %20Planning%20and%20Development.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2025. 197
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 11 8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx with Municipal Code Section 15.50.020. OCSD would review the project plans to ensure the proposed project adheres to all applicable security requirements prior to issuing the building permit.

Implementation of City requirements and approval of site plans by OCSD would further reduce potential impacts concerning police protection services. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
Less than significant impact.

The schools that would serve the proposed project would be Oak Grove Elementary (Transitional Kindergarten [TK] through Grade 5), Aliso Viejo Middle School (Grades 6 through 8), and Aliso Niguel High School (Grades 9 through 12). The estimate of the current standard student generation factors for elementary, middle, and high school students used by the CUSD showed that as a result of the proposed project, Oak Grove Elementary would expect an additional 13 students, Aliso Viejo Middle school would expect an additional four students, and Aliso Niguel High School would expect an additional five students, for a total of 23 new students. CUSD shows no concerns about the potential growth associated with the housing development and states that the school district can accommodate the number of projected students.83

The 2024 Developer Fee Justification Study conducted by CUSD concluded that while there is capacity for students in grades TK through grade five, student capacity at the CUSD is currently exceeded for grades 6 through 12.84 The proposed project would be subject to payment of school impact fees in accordance with SB 50. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), payment of statutory fees is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use or development of real property . . .” The developer would be required to pay Level 1 Developer Fees in accordance with Government Code Section 65995(3)(h). Developer fees collected by CUSD pursuant to SB 50 are used for the provision of additional and reconstructed or modernized school facilities. The project applicant would be required to pay all statutory fees in place at the time and demonstrate proof of payment to the City for approval of a building permit. With payment of the Level 1 Developer Fees, CUSD would be able to accommodate the additional students generated by the proposed project, and potential impacts to schools would be less than significant. d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop up to 61 dwelling units, which would generate an estimated 155 new residents (See Section 2.14, Population and Housing). The 83 Hampton, Clark D. Deputy Superintendent, Business and Support Services, Capistrano Unified School District. Personal communication: email, December 17, 2024.
84 King Consulting. 2024. Developer Fee Justification Study, Capistrano Unified School District. Website:
https://www.capousd.org/documents/Developer%20Fees/Residential-and-Commercial-Industrial-Fee-Study-May-2024- Res.-2324-30.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2025.
198
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 1 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx new residents would increase the demand on existing neighborhood and regional parks. The additional use would further contribute to the need for maintenance and improvements.

The proposed project includes a total of 40,259.9 square feet of open space, which includes 5,587 square feet of on-site recreational amenities to residents that would partially offset impacts to parks facilities. These recreational amenities would include walkways, gathering spaces with electric barbeques, an open lawn area for free-play, and a tot lot (See Exhibit 6). According to Municipal Code Section 14.16.050, the City has a park ratio goal of five acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons.

Therefore, the proposed project would need to dedicate 0.755 acre, or 32,888 square feet, of parkland to the City for its 155 new residents. The proposed project would provide approximately 17 percent of the required parkland. However, the applicant would comply with Municipal Code Chapter

14.16, which requires developers to dedicate land for park facilities or pay park and recreation impact fees to offset incremental demand on local parks. By providing on-site recreational amenities that exceed the required minimum open space and paying applicable park development fees, the proposed project would ensure that the incremental increase in recreational demand would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks.

Although project residents would likely use public parks, implementation of the proposed project would not require new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. A service letter was sent out to the Orange County Public Libraries Administration about expected impacts from the proposed project on December 16, 2024, and they responded on December 20, 2024. The library anticipates that the proposed project’s anticipated population generation would utilize library services and that the increase in visitors would not have a significant impact on the library or its services.85 Additionally, the Aliso Viejo Branch Library is currently undergoing redesign that would allow it to accommodate more visitors that would be added from the proposed project’s additional residential population. Although the proposed project would increase demand for library services, the anticipated growth generated by the proposed project would be within the population growth projections anticipated and planned for by local and regional planning documents. The proposed project’s impacts to the overall availability per capita of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not result in significant physical or environmental impacts, as the population growth resulting from the proposed project is within current City projections. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
85 Oakley, Julie. Library Administration, Orange County Public Libraries. Personal communication: email. December 20, 2024.
199
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 12 0 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.16 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
As previously discussed in Section 2.15, Public Services, the closest park is Glenwood Community Park, located 0.07 mile north of the project site, across Glenwood Drive. Glenwood Community Park is a private park owned and managed by the Glenwood Park neighborhood homeowners’ association.86 Crosswalks and traffic lights are available on Glenwood Drive, allowing for pedestrian access to Glenwood Community Park. The second two closest parks are Pinewood Park and Argonaut Park. Pinewood Park is less than 0.1 mile away in a straight line, but with no accessible pathways through the landscaping and hillsides, residents of the proposed project would need to travel around 0.4 mile on sidewalks along major roadways. These parks provide public amenities such as picnic tables, barbecues, playgrounds, and basketball courts. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would consist of approximately 61 3-story townhomes. The City has an estimated population of 50,068 persons as of January 1, 2024. As discussed previously in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, given the proposed project would develop up to 61 dwelling units, the proposed project would generate up to 155 new residents, which 86 Play Parks Creative LLC. 2024. Glenwood Community Park (PRIVATE). Website:
https://funorangecountyparks.com/glenwood-community-park-aliso-viejo.html. Accessed January 21, 2025. 200
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 2 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx would increase the demand on existing neighborhood and regional parks. The additional use would further contribute to the need for maintenance and improvements.

The City’s Municipal Code requires open space equal to 25 percent of the total site area (30,819 square feet). The proposed project includes a total of 40,259.9 square feet of open space, exceeding the City’s required minimum of 30,819 square feet for a project of this size. The proposed project would exceed the required minimum amount of open space. The proposed project would include 5,587.4 square feet of usable open space and 34,672.5 square feet of other type of open space. This open space includes decorative walkways, gathering spaces with electric barbeques, open lawn area for free-play, and a tot lot (See Exhibit 6). It is expected that these on-site recreational amenities would reduce the demand on neighborhood and regional parks and recreation facilities, reducing the proposed project’s contribution to the deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities.

As previously discussed, the proposed project is expected to add 155 persons to the current City population. As such, the proposed project would need to supply approximately 0.775-acres of parkland to meet the standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. To address the incremental increase in demand associated with the proposed project, the applicant would comply with Chapter 14.16 of the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code, which requires developers to dedicate land for park facilities or pay park and recreation impact fees. By providing on-site recreational amenities that exceed the required minimum open space and paying applicable park development fees, the proposed project would ensure that the incremental increase in recreational demand would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include 5,587.4 square feet of usable open space and 34,672.5 square feet of other type of open space. Additionally, the proposed project design includes amenities such as decorative walkways, gathering spaces with electric barbeques, open lawn area for free-play, and a tot lot.

The potential environmental effects associated with construction of the proposed Project, including the proposed amenities have been analyzed throughout this Initial Study, and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. It is expected that these on-site recreational amenities would reduce the demand on neighborhood and regional parks and recreation facilities, reducing the proposed project’s contribution to the deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay all public benefits fees, which would offset impacts to parks and recreation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 201
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 12 2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Mitigation Measures
None required.
202
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 2 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy of the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section is based, in part, on the Argonaut Residential Trip Generation Assessment and the Argonaut Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation, prepared by Urban Crossroads on June 4, 2025, and included as Appendix I of this report.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than significant impact.

Transit Facilities
Public transportation services within the project site and surrounding area are provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Bus Route 90 provides service from Tustin to Dana Point via Moulton Parkway; a bus stop is located near the intersection of Moulton Parkway and Glenwood Drive. The nearest bus stop is the Moulton-Glenwood bus stop, located along the Moulton Parkway,

0.8 mile east of the project site. There are no existing or planned transit facilities adjacent to the 203
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 12 4 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx project site. Project implementation would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit facilities.

Roadway Facilities
Vehicular access to the project site is currently provided from a driveway along the southern boundary of the project site. Vehicles would access the project site via a proposed driveway at the south of the project site along Argonaut. An internal private roadway system would provide two-way access to each unit’s parking garage as well as to guest parking spaces that would be distributed throughout the site. Roadway facilities would continue to serve the project site and surrounding development.

The proposed project would not involve modifications to any roadways and, thus, would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing roadway facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
The Aliso Viejo General Plan Circulation Element (Figure C-2) identifies existing bicycle facilities within the City.87 According to the General Plan Circulation Element and the OCTA 2009 Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan, Class II88 on-road bicycle lanes currently exist along both sides of Glenwood Drive. Additionally, Aliso Creek Road and Moulton Parkway have Class II on-road bicycle lanes.89 There are no planned bicycle facilities near the project site.90 The proposed project would not involve modifications to any of these roadways or bicycle lanes and, thus, would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities, including crosswalks, sidewalks, and traffic lights are currently available along both sides of Glenwood Drive north of the project site and along both sides of Argonaut south and west of the project site. Signalized crosswalks are available at the intersection of Glenwood Drive and Argonaut adjacent to the northwest corner of the project site. Non-signalized crosswalks are available at the intersection of Argonaut located southwest of the project site. Pedestrians would circulate within the site via proposed internal pedestrian walkways and concrete sidewalks. The proposed internal pedestrian walkways and sidewalks would connect to the existing sidewalks along Argonaut via the proposed driveway on the south side of the project site.

The proposed project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
87 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan Circulation Element, Figure C-2, Bikeways. 88 Class II bikeways are defined as on-road striped and signed bicycle lanes. 89 Alta Planning + Design, KOA Corporation. 2009. Final 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan for the Orange County Transportation Authority. Map 1-1. Website: https://www.octa.net/pdf/bikeways09.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2025.
90 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 2025. Bikeways Planning, Orange County Bikeways Map. Website:
https://www.octa.net/getting-around/active/oc-bike/bikeways-planning/overview/. Accessed February 18, 2025. 204
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 2 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. VMT is a measurement of miles traveled by vehicles within a specified region and for a specified period of time. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network and is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two-way (round-trip) travel and is often estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.

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

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

City Guidelines outline appropriate screening criteria for identifying when a proposed land use project is expected to have a less than significant impact, thus avoiding the need for a more detailed analysis. The screening criteria are divided into the following:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Areas (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Project Type Screening
A land use project needs only to meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a TPA or Highquality Transit Area (HQTA) (i.e., within 0.5 mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, consistent with City Guidelines, Aliso Viejo does not have any TPAs within the City. Therefore, the Step 1: TPA screening criteria is not met.

The proposed project is not located within a low VMT-generating area and would not qualify for Step 2: Low VMT Area screening criteria.
205
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 12 6 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The City Guidelines state that local-serving uses such as day care centers, non-destination hotels, affordable housing, places of worship, municipal services, and other local essential services may be presumed to have a less than significant impact as local-serving in nature and would tend to shorten vehicle trips. The proposed project does not include any local-serving uses. However, the City Guidelines also consider small projects that generate fewer than 110 net new daily vehicle trips to have a less than significant VMT impact. The Argonaut Residential Trip Generation Assessment (Appendix I) estimates the proposed project to generate a net increase of 79 daily vehicle trips, which does not exceed the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold. Therefore, Step 3: Project Type screening criteria is met.

Based on the City’s VMT screening types, the proposed project meets the Project Type screening criteria and is therefore considered to have a less than significant VMT impact. No additional VMT analysis is required, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not provide any off-site roadway improvements that could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. No changes are proposed to existing roadways. On-site circulation would be 24 feet wide to allow for emergency access in compliance with OCFA requirements (Exhibit 5).

As part of the City’s Site Development Permit process required under Municipal Code Section

15.74.020, Site Development Permits, the proposed project would be reviewed and only approved after finding the proposed development conforms with applicable requirements and standards set forth in the Municipal Code and General Plan, including the Circulation Element. The proposed project is designed to be consistent with existing residential land uses designated Very High Density Residential to the north of the project site. Additionally, the site already supports pedestrian activity associated with the proposed residential uses, including crosswalks and sidewalks available along both sides of Glenwood Drive north of the project site and along both sides of Argonaut south and west of the project site.

It would also be designed such that all driveway and ingress/egress would have sufficient line of sight that would not be impeded by landscaping, signage, or other obstructions. Furthermore, the proposed project is an urban use in an urbanized area, and would not introduce incompatible uses such as farm equipment. The proposed project is subject to the design review requirements set forth in Municipal Code 15.62.050 to further ensure that safe line of sight would be maintained and the proposed project would not create traffic hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Impact 2.9(f), the City has developed an EOP outlining the City’s response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The EOP establishes evacuation routes.

Additionally, the General Plan Safety Element identifies evacuation routes in the City. Within the 206
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 2 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx vicinity of the project site, Aliso Creek Road and Glenwood Drive are identified as primary evacuation routes.91
The project site is within Zone 20 of Aliso Viejo’s Evacuation Zones. Designated evacuation zones within Zone 20 include Glenwood Drive, Aliso Creek Road, Aliso Viejo Parkway, and Moulton Parkway.92 The project site is adjacent to Glenwood Drive, and construction would not require closure or partial closure of Glenwood Drive. The proposed project would be constructed completely within the project site and construction equipment would access the project site via Argonaut, which is the main access point to the project site. If any road closures to Argonaut are required, the project applicant and construction crew would be required to coordinate with the City of Aliso Viejo Public Works Department to ensure that emergency access routes are maintained during construction.

Thus, construction of the proposed project would not impede the use of surrounding roadways for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles.

The proposed project would provide internal circulation for emergency vehicle access. The proposed project has been designed to provide emergency service providers access to the site from any of the public streets or the drive aisles. The 24-foot private drive meets OCFA turnaround and access requirements (See Exhibit 5). The design of the proposed project would provide adequate emergency access consistent with City requirements, including the required number and design of access points and safety features. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to emergency access during construction and/or operation. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
91 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website: https:// avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed December 3, 2024. 92 City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. Citywide Evacuation Zones. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3750. Accessed January 21, 2025.
207
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 12 8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.

Environmental Evaluation
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, a records search conducted at the SCCIC, and a pedestrian survey failed to identify any listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. However, the NAHC SLF results were positive for TCRs in the project site, and subsequent outreach to Tribal representatives and a response from the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation indicated that the proposed project is in a sensitive area that is located in the Tribe’s territory with 208
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 2 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx known burial sites near the project site. As such, no eligible or potentially eligible TCRs will adversely be affected by the proposed project. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-3 will ensure that potential impacts to TCRs will be reduced to a level of less than significant. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City of Aliso Viejo pursuant to SB 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 to identify additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 were initiated on May 28, 2025, and consultation letters were sent to the Tribes on the NAHC consultation list. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation responded on June 2, 2025, and formally requested consultation with the City. The Kizh Nation has ancestral and cultural ties to the project site and seeks to protect and preserve TCRs, sacred sites, and traditional places within the Tribe’s traditional territory. A consultation meeting was scheduled for July 17, 2025; however, due to unforeseen circumstances the meeting was cancelled on July 16, 2025, and Kizh Nation offered to provide consultation via email, but no email correspondence was received from the Tribe. On June 30, 2025 the City consulted with the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. The City emailed draft mitigation measures on August 18, 2025, for review to both consulting Tribes. A response was received on August 18, 2025, from the Kizh Nation providing the City with their standard mitigation measures. The Acjachemen Nation responded on August 21, 2025, indicating that the Tribe agrees with the City’s draft mitigation measures. On August 25, 2025, the City emailed the revised mitigation measures with redlines to the Kizh Nation and requested a response by September 1, 2025. The Tribe responded on August 25, 2025, to address the revisions that were made to the mitigation measures, and a consultation meeting was scheduled for August 27, 2025, via a phone call, and a summary of that meeting was provided in a letter via email. The City addressed the concerns the Kizh Nation had with regard to the proposed mitigation measures on September 15, 2025; however, no response was received from the Tribe. On September 25, 2025, the City sent another email to the Kizh Nation expressing appreciation for their participation in the consultation process, thereby concluding the consultation.

Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM TCR-1 through MM TCR-3 will ensure that potential impacts to TCRs will be reduced to a level of less than significant.
209
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 13 0 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by both the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. The Monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to the earlier date of either: (1) the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or (2) the issuance of any permit required to commence any ground-disturbing activity.

The Monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribes. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), including, but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, Tribal Cultural Resources, or TCRs), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods.

Copies of Monitor logs shall be provided to the project applicant and the Director of Community Development upon written request to the Tribe.

On-site Tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Monitor and the Lead Agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Monitor to the Director of Community Development that no future planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact to TCRs.

MM TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Nonfunerary/Non-ceremonial) Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) 210
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 3 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx shall cease. The City shall consult with the project Archaeologist and initiate Native American consultation procedures with the project’s consulting Tribes (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation). The consultation effort is intended to be a meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement on the appropriate treatment and disposition of TCRs discovered. A Cultural Resources and Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the Archaeologist in coordination with the consulting Tribes (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation and the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation) and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this plan. Project construction shall not resume within the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until a Cultural Resources and Monitoring Treatment Plan is prepared and implemented. The plan may include, but would not be limited to, reburying, relocating, recording, and/or another culturally appropriate treatment. If it is determined that mutual agreement cannot be reached within 30 days of the initial consultation meeting, the TCR(s) under review shall be reinterred on-site in a location free from future ground-disturbing construction activities. This measure does not apply to the finding of human remains, which must comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.

MM TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
211
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 13 2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), MNWD relies on a combination of imported water and recycled water. The District’s potable water demands are supplied from imported sources via the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).
212
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 3 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Imported water represents approximately 79 percent of MNWD’s total water supply. MWD’s water supply originates from two principal sources–the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Feather River Watershed/Lake Oroville in Northern California through the State Water Project (SWP). Recycled water provides 21 percent of the district’s water supplies and is produced at one of two local treatment plants.93
The MNWD is responsible for maintenance of the City’s sewer and storm drain lines. Wastewater is collected via the MNWD’s wastewater collection system and sent to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by SOCWA.

Telecommunication services would be provided by AT&T and Cox Communications.

Individual trash service will be provided through CR&R Incorporated, with collection occurring on a weekly basis. Waste from the City is disposed of at a number of solid waste facilities, with the majority of waste disposed at the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill.94 Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than significant impact.

Water
The proposed project would connect to an existing 10-inch domestic water line within Argonaut and would extend an existing 8-inch line into the site through the internal drive aisles. An existing 6-inch domestic water line that serves the existing office building would be capped. The proposed project would be served by the MNWD.

MNWD has completed a preliminary review of the proposed project and indicates there is available water supply to support the proposed project; however, additional information is needed to confirm whether water system upgrades/upsizing is required.95 As a condition of approval, the project applicant would be required to comply with MNWD review and permitting requirements. Any potential improvements would occur on-site and/or within the project vicinity that has previously been 93 Moulton Niguel Water District. 2021 (MNWD). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2024.
94 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2025. RDRS Report 2: Jurisdiction Disposal and Beneficial Reuse by Destination. Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/RecyclingDisposalReporting/Reports/JurisdictionDisposalAndBeneficial. Accessed January 28, 2025.
95 Moulton Niguel Water District, Mark H. Mountford, P.E., Engineering Manager. Personal correspondence: letter. October 16, 2024
213
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 13 4 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx disturbed. The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the proposed water lines to serve the residential units are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the proposed project would not require or result in relocation or construction of water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
Wastewater is collected via the MNWD’s wastewater collection system and sent to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by SOCWA. The project site has existing wastewater infrastructure associated with the office building. The proposed project would include the installation of an 8-inch system within the project site that would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line in Argonaut. MNWD has performed a preliminary review of the proposed project and indicates there is available sewer capacity to support the proposed project. As a condition of approval, the project applicant would be required to comply with MNWD review and permitting requirements. Any potential improvements would occur on-site and/or within the project area that has previously been disturbed. The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the proposed sewer lines to serve the residential units are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the proposed project would not require or result in relocation or construction of wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Stormwater
The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the proposed stormwater facilities to serve the residential units are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Electric Power and Natural Gas
The project site is currently served by electrical and gas infrastructure associated with the existing office building. The proposed project would be all electric and would not require natural gas or natural gas infrastructure. The proposed project would connect to existing electrical infrastructure.. The proposed project would be served by two new transformers. Electrical service is currently available in the project area and would be provided by SCE. Electricity would connect to existing lines running within Argonaut through a proposed joint trench within the project site and would be served by SCE.

The proposed transformers would connect to the existing underground utility lines and would not cause significant environmental effects. SCE has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed 214
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 3 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx project and provided a will serve letter.96 As a condition of approval, the project applicant would be required to comply with SCE review and permitting requirements. Any potential improvements would occur on-site and/or within the project area that has previously been disturbed. The potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the proposed transformers, to serve the residential units are analyzed within this Initial Study and impacts have been determined to be less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. Thus, the proposed project would not require or result in relocation or construction of electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts associated with the proposed project’s electricity demand are discussed in Section 2.6, Energy.

Telecommunications
The project site is currently fully developed and served by telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed project would connect to the existing telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or development of new or improved telecommunications facilities such that environmental impacts would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than significant impact. The 2020 UWMP includes a supply and demand assessment for projected years between 2025 and 2045 for normal year, single-dry year, and multi-dry year scenarios. Table 13, below, shows the multiple dry year supply and demand comparison through 2045.

Table 13: Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First year
Supply totals 33,435 33,111 32,934 32,790 32,588
Demand totals 33,435 33,111 32,934 32,790 32,588
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second year
Supply totals 33,419 33,124 32,953 32,797 32,636
Demand totals 33,419 33,124 32,953 32,797 32,636
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
96 Southern California Edison, Kristine Newcomb, SCE Design Representative, letter dated October 22, 2024 215
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 13 6 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Third year
Supply totals 31,969 31,714 31,556 31,396 31,280
Demand totals 31,969 31,714 31,556 31,396 31,280
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth year
Supply totals 31,906 31,680 31,529 31,357 31,280
Demand totals 31,906 31,680 31,529 31,357 31,280
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth year
Supply totals 31,844 31,646 31,501 31,319 31,280
Demand totals 31,844 31,646 31,501 31,319 31,280
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). 2021 (MNWD). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2024.

The demands are expected to be met through a combination of imported and recycled water. MNWD works together with two primary agencies, MWDOC and MWD, to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that would serve the community in periods of drought and shortage.97 The UWMP accounts for projected water demand based on water consumption by single- and multi-family residences, commercial, and institutional/government customers.98 The UWMP also accounts for projected land use, population, economic growth, and future conservation.99 As noted in the UWMP and as shown in Table 13, the City would have sufficient water supplies for normal year, single dry year, and multiple years.

According to the California Department of Finance, the City has an average of 2.54 persons per household.100 The proposed project would include the construction of up to 61 3-story townhomes, which would increase the City’s population by up to 155 persons based on the average household size.101 As discussed in Impact 2.14(b), this population growth is considered planned growth.

MNWD’s 2020 actual consumption was 121 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). For the estimated 97 Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2024.
98 Ibid.
99 Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2024.
100
California Department of Finance. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. Website:
https:// view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdof.ca.gov%2Fwpcontent%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F352%2FForecasting%2FDemographics%2FDocuments%2FE5_2024_InternetVersion.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. Accessed December 6, 2024. 101

2.54 persons per household * 61 residential units = 154.94 216
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 3 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx 155 residents under the proposed project, this would result in an estimated 18,747.74 gallons per day (GPD) or 21 AFY. As noted in the UWMP, the projected normal year water use in 2025 is 32,093 AFY for the entire MNWD service area.102 The proposed project’s demand would be approximately 0.07 percent of the total projected normal year 2025 demand. This does not include the existing uses on the project site and is therefore a conservative estimate. As noted in the UWMP, during the fifth year of the multiple dry year scenario, the projected water demand and supply would be 31,844 AFY. The proposed project’s demand would be approximately 0.07 percent of the total projected fifth multiple dry year demand. Therefore, the small projected water use of the proposed project would be nominal, and water supplies would be sufficient to serve the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not significantly impact water supplies. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would connect to existing sanitary sewer lines. The MNWD is responsible for the City’s sewer lines. The MNWD collects and treats more than 10 million gallons of wastewater per day from residential and commercial customers throughout the district’s service area. MNWD utilizes three different treatment plants to appropriately treat the wastewater, with two of those treatment plants equipped to produce recycled water. The 3A Treatment Plant in Mission Viejo is owned and operated by MNWD and has a capacity of 6 million GPD. The Regional Treatment Plant in Laguna Niguel is currently operated by a regional operator, SOCWA, but is also home to the largest recycled water facility that is owned and operated by the MNWD. Regional Treatment Plant has a capacity of 9.4 million GPD. Additionally, the J.B. Latham Treatment Plant in Dana Point, which is also operated by SOCWA, provides an additional facility for treatment of wastewater and has a capacity of 13 million GPD.103 Any treated wastewater that cannot be utilized for irrigation purposes is then discharged to the ocean through one of two ocean outfalls, the Aliso Creek Ocean Outfall and the San Juan Creek Ocean Outfall. The MNWD works closely with SOCWA, as the regional permitting entity, and the appropriate regulatory agencies to ensure that all treated wastewater, whether used for irrigation purposes or discharged to the ocean, is compliant with all regulatory requirements.104
A Municipal Service Review was prepared for the Southwest Region of Orange County in 2023, which included a review of the MNWD.105 The purpose of the review was in part to review and study future growth in the service area and to determine whether Southwest Region of Orange County can 102 Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Website:
https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2024.
103
Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). 2024.Wastewater Collection and Treatment. Website: https:// www.mnwd.com/wastewater-treatment/. Accessed December 12, 2024. 104 Ibid.
105 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (Orange County LAFCo). 2023. Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Reviews. August 9. Website: https:// oclafco.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/OCLAFCO_Southwest_MSR_-_Final_8.28.23.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2024. 217
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 13 8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx efficiently, equitably, and reliably provide services. The review determined that MNWD existing and planned operations and infrastructure can meet current and future service demands.106 The proposed project would result in approximately 16,873 total gallons of wastewater per day, which is equivalent to 0.017 MGD.107 This estimate does not consider the existing uses on the project site and is therefore a conservative estimate. Based on a total combined wastewater treatment capacity of 28.4 GPD of the 3a Treatment Plant, the Regional Treatment Plant, and the J.B. Latham Treatment Plant, the proposed project’s wastewater generation would be approximately 0.06 percent of the total daily capacity, which is a nominal amount and would not exceed the wastewater treatment capacity.

Therefore, MNWD would have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater demands of the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than significant impact. The project site currently generates solid waste from the existing office building. Construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project would generate solid waste requiring disposal. CR&R Incorporated is a private recycling and nonhazardous solid waste hauler and provides solid waste services to the City, including the project site.108 CR&R Incorporated collects solid waste for all residential, commercial, and industrial waste and recycling services. Solid waste is disposed of in Orange County landfills.

Solid waste within the City is primarily disposed of at the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill. Other sanitary landfills, including Chiquita Canyon, El Sobrante, Frank R. Bowerman, Simi Valley, and Olinda Alpha received relatively small amounts of solid waste from the City. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is the closest facility to the City and would likely be the solid waste facility most often receiving waste from the project site.109 According to the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), the Prima Deshecha Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 4,000 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 128,800,000 cubic yards. The facility’s maximum permitted capacity is 172,100,000 cubic yards.110
CalRecycle provides a solid waste generation factor to estimate the amount of solid waste generated by residential projects. Using the generation rate of 12.23 pounds (lbs) per household per day for residential development, the proposed project would generate approximately 746.03 lbs per day of solid waste, or approximately 0.37 tons per day (based on 61 townhomes)—which represents less 106 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (Orange County LAFCo). 2023. Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Reviews. August 9. Website: https:// oclafco.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/01/OCLAFCO_Southwest_MSR_-_Final_8.28.23.pdf. Accessed December 12, 202. 107 Based on the assumption that wastewater generated is approximately 90 percent of indoor water use. 108
City of Aliso Viejo. 2025. Services. Website: https://avcity.org/101/Services. Accessed January 28, 2025. 109
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details.

Website: https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2750?siteID=2085. Accessed December 12, 2024.
110 Ibid.
218
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 3 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx than 0.01 percent of the maximum daily capacity of the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill. This estimate does not include the existing uses on the project site.

Therefore, the Prima Deshecha Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project and solid waste generated during construction and operations would represent a negligible increase compared to the daily permitted tonnage. The proposed project would also include recycling, reuse, and/or salvage programs to reduce solid waste and comply with all applicable regulations for solid waste. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. The City complies with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Regulations specifically applicable to the proposed project include the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), SB 2202, SB 1016, 2019 CALGreen Section 4.408, SB 1383, and AB 341, which requires multiple-family residential development and commercial uses to implement recycling programs.

In accordance with State law and Municipal Code Section 13.02, Building Regulations, which adopts CALGreen, the proposed project would be required to divert at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris from the project site by recycling, reuse, and/or salvage. In addition, Municipal Code Chapter 7.05, Solid Waste Disposal, addresses solid waste disposal, including recycling and organic waste. Compliance with the Municipal Code would achieve compliance with State law, including SB 1383.

The City has a per capita population disposal rate target of 3.3 pounds per person per day and a per capita employment disposal rate of 9.4 pounds per person per day. Since 2007, the City has met these targets through its diversion programs. The most recent population disposal rate (2023) was

3.2 pounds per day per capita for population and 7.9 pounds per day per capita for employment. 111 The City would continue to implement its diversion programs and requires compliance with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations for solid waste, including those identified under the most current CALGreen standards and in compliance with SB 1383.

In 1989, the Legislature adopted AB 939, in order to “reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy and required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each City prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. The SRRE was required to identify how each jurisdiction would meet the mandatory State waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000.
111 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Rate Trends. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports. Accessed January 28, 2025.
219
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 14 0 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx SB 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under AB 939. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.

SB 1016 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. SB 1016 repealed the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) 2-year process, requiring instead that the State Water Board make a finding whether each jurisdiction was in compliance with the Act’s diversion requirements for calendar year 2006 and determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year and beyond based on the jurisdiction’s change in its per capita disposal rate. The State Water Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s compliance with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is conditioned upon the State Water Board finding that the jurisdiction complies with those requirements or has implemented its SRRE and household hazardous waste element. SB 1016 requires the State Water Board to issue an order of compliance if the State Water Board finds that the jurisdiction has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its SRRE or its household hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure. The per capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction-specific index, which is used as one of several “factors” in determining a jurisdiction’s compliance with the intent of AB 939 and allows CalRecycle and jurisdictions to set their primary focus on successful implementation of diversion programs.

SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead in collaborating with jurisdictions located within the county in planning for the necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity needed to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations.

CALGreen Section 4.408 requires preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that provides an overview of ways in which the applicant would recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. As discussed above, during the construction phase, the proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen through the recycling and reuse of at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris from the project site.

Participation in the City’s recycling programs during project construction and operation, including CalRecycle’s requirements, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Additionally, solid waste would be disposed of at existing Orange County Waste and Recycling landfills. Disposal of solid waste would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. During operation, the proposed project would include receptacles for recyclables and garbage. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
220
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 4 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.20 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The CAL FIRE FHSZ Map indicates that the project site is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The closest SRA is 1.6 miles west of the project site, in the Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park. No part of the City is listed as an SRA.112 112 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Website: https:// calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008. Accessed December 4, 2024.
221
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 14 2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx VHFHSZs are located along the southern and western boundaries of the City.113 The General Plan indicates that the closest VHFHSZ is located near Aliso Creek Road, 0.85 mile west of the project site.114 However, according to the most recently updated CAL FIRE maps, which were updated in 2025, the closest VHFHSZ is located near Wingspan Park along Aliso Viejo Road,

0.68 mile west of the project site.115
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site is developed and located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure. According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Map, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ, nor is it within or near an SRA.116 Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all City and OCFA requirements for fire prevention and safety measures, including adequate site access.

The City is divided into 22 all-hazard evacuation zones. According to the Citywide Evacuation Zones map, the project site is located in Evacuation Zone 20.117 Traffic in Evacuation Zone 20 is directed to take either Glenwood Drive or Aliso Viejo Parkway east to Moulton Parkway or west to SR-73 during an emergency evacuation. Aliso Creek Road is an additional evacuation route that provides another north–south evacuation route out of the project site.118 The proposed project would have access to several different emergency evacuation routes as shown on the evacuation zone maps and would not impair access to any of these emergency evacuation routes. Furthermore, the proposed project would not interfere with the evacuation plan or evacuation routes identified City’s EOP and the General Plan Safety Element (see Impact 2.9(f)). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts related to emergency response or evacuation plans would occur.
113 City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website:
https://www.avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed January 22, 2025. 114
City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan Figure S-1 Safety Policy Map. Website:
https://www.avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/384/Safety-Policy-Map-PDF. Accessed January 22, 2025. 115 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/4207/FHSZ_City_LRA_11x17_AlisoViejo.

Accessed April 17, 2025.
116
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Website: https:// calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008. Accessed April 17, 2025.
117
City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. Citywide Evacuation Zones. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/3750. Accessed January 21, 2025.
118
City of Aliso Viejo. 2024. Evacuation Zones – AVO20. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2726. Accessed January 21, 2025.
222
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 4 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The project site is located in a developed urban area, is currently developed, and is not identified as having significant wildfire risk. The surrounding area is also not designated a VHFHSZ according to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Map.119 As shown in the General Plan, the project site is not located along an urban-wildfire interface and is not located in the Aliso and Woods Canyon Wilderness Park within a VHFHSZ, where wildfires are of the greatest risk in the City.120 The topography of the site is relatively flat, and prevailing winds or other factors do not increase the risk of wildfire spread or pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would adhere to applicable fire prevention standards, ensuring no wildfire risks are exacerbated. Thus, no impacts concerning exposure to wildfire pollutant concentrations or wildfire spread would occur.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include infrastructure improvements, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or new utility installations, that could exacerbate fire risk. The site is already developed with existing infrastructure in place. Compliance with fire safety standards and coordination with the OCFA ensures no additional infrastructure would create new fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts. Additionally, the proposed project would include a total of three new fire hydrants to be installed on eastern, western and southern portions of the project site, which would be installed in compliance with applicable regulations and approvals and would connect to existing water lines.. The MNWD operates 28 potable water reservoirs across 22 sites, locally storing more than 155 million gallons of water. Additionally, MNWD maintains backup generators at critical facilities and service approximately 7,000 fire hydrants throughout the MNWD service area.121 The proposed project would be required to submit an OCFA water availability form to the MNWD to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and to verify adequate fire flow and system pressures in the project area.122 As such, the proposed fire hydrants would not exacerbate any fire risks but would assist the City in preparing for and addressing potential fires. 119 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/4207/FHSZ_City_LRA_11x17_AlisoViejo.

Accessed April 17, 2025.
120
City of Aliso Viejo. 2004. General Plan, Safety Element. Website: https://avcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/395/SafetyElement-PDF. Accessed December 4, 2024. 121 Moulton Niguel Water District. 2025. Moulton Niguel’s Local Fire Preparedness Plan. Website: https;// https://www.mnwd.com/february-2025-newsletter-moulton-niguels-local-fire-preparedness-plan/. Accessed June 17, 2025.
122 Moulton Niguel Water District. 2019. Development Requirements For Establishing and Moving Potable Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Service. Website: https://www.mnwd.com/wp-content/uploads/Complete-Doc-DEVELOPMENTREQUIREMENTS-SIG-PAGE-PART-I-APENDICES-AND-PART-II-FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2025. 223
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 14 4 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx The proposed internal roadways would allow for emergency access, and fire hydrants would be provided throughout the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to infrastructure installation or maintenance and fire risk would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an office building and is located within a flat, urbanized area that is not susceptible to downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, or post-fire slope instability. The area is not designated a high-risk flood zone or landslide-prone area. The project site and surrounding areas do not have a history of wildfires.123 Moreover, the proposed project does not include changes to drainage patterns that could increase risks of flooding or slope instability.

Compliance with existing stormwater and drainage regulations would further prevent any related risks. Therefore, no impacts concerning significant risks from runoff, slope instability, or drainage changes would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
123 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. California Wildfire History Map. Website: https:// projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#10.64/33.5901/-117.7005. Accessed December 4, 2024. 224
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 4 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed throughout this document, the proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the 225
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 14 6 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx environment or result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated or reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with the established regulatory framework and implementation of mitigation measures.

As demonstrated in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project would be required to comply with the MBTA and other applicable regulations and to implement MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-1b, which require a pre-construction survey and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on active nests. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with habitat because it does not contain Covered Habitats or suitable habitat for Identified Species covered under the CONCCP/HCP.

As demonstrated in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

As concluded in Section 2.5, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources, TCRs, or human remains. MM CUL-1 would require a WEAP training, a site survey conducted by a qualified Archaeologist, and archaeological monitoring. MM CUL-2 would require consultation with a qualified Archaeologist in the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during construction, as well as inadvertent discovery procedures. MM CUL-3 would require specific procedures to be followed related to inadvertent discovery of human remains.

Therefore, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A significant cumulative impact may occur if a project, in conjunction with related projects, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed individually but would be cumulatively significant when viewed together.

Table 14 lists the development projects that have been proposed within the City. The nearest project is approximately 500 feet from the proposed project. Based on available information, there are no approved projects or projects currently under construction in the project’s surrounding area at this time or would have a construction schedule that would overlap with the proposed project.124 The 124 City of Aliso Viejo. Major Projects. Website: https://avcity.org/412/Major-Projects. Accessed June 19, 2025. 226
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N FCS 1 4 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx projects were reviewed to identify whether the proposed project could contribute to cumulatively significant impacts when evaluated in combination with other projects.

Table 14: Current Projects in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Project Type Location Distance Description Status
City of Aliso Viejo1
Residential 27081 Aliso Creek
Road

1.63 miles Demolition of three existing office
buildings and construction of a 137-
unit, residential community
Under review
Residential 26800-26970 Aliso
Viejo Parkway

1.45 miles Demolition of five, two-story office
buildings to accommodate the
construction of 215 residential units
Under review
Self Storage 15 Argonaut 2.5 miles Demolition of an existing office building and construction of a threestory, 149,328 square foot self storage facility
Under review
Residential 400-600 Freedom
Lane
500 feet Construction of a 134-unit residential
community
Under review
Mixed Use 26501 Aliso Creek
Road

1.03 miles Construction of a mixed-use building
with 17,273 square feet of ground
floor commercial space with 343
residential units above
Under review
Notes:
1 City of Aliso Viejo. Major Projects. Website: https://avcity.org/412/Major-Projects. Accessed June 19, 2025.

When considering the proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project does not result in environmental impacts that would incrementally contribute to a significant cumulatively impact. The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and paleontological resources. However, these impacts would primarily be related to construction period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics. As there are no cumulative projects that would be undergoing construction simultaneously with the proposed project, less than significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Specifically, since the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance related to air quality, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of construction emissions, operational emissions, or TACs. As discussed more fully in Section 2.8 of this IS/MND, GHG emissions-related impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. The proposed project 227
9 5 A R G O N A U T R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N 14 8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx also would not conflict with any applicable GHG plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As such, the proposed plan, in conjunction with other existing, planned, and probable foreseeable projects, would not results in a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions generation. As for transportation and traffic impacts, construction of the proposed project would have the potential for temporary impacts to road hazards and emergency access. Use of local roads for transport of construction equipment and construction personnel would be temporary and short-term. Given the location of the project area in relation to other development projects in the region, the transportation network is sufficient to accommodate construction traffic to avoid significant impacts to any one area. Transportation and Traffic impacts would be temporary and less than significant, and would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts.

Furthermore, compliance with the regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures at the project level would reduce the potential for incremental effects that would occur with construction and operation of the proposed project relevant to the environmental topical areas discussed within this document to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures identified in this document, including MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM GEO-1, MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3 would reduce the proposed project’s incremental contribution to any potential cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. No additional mitigation measures would be required to address cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than significant cumulative impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would improve the housing stock in the City. Based on the discussion provided in the Project Description and the analysis presented in Sections 2.1 through 2.19 of this document, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the proposed project’s potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM GEO-1, MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM GEO-1, MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR-3.
228
95 Argonaut Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS 1 4 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/4940/49400049/ISMND/49400049 Aliso Viejo 95 Argonaut Residential Project ISMND.docx 3 - LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 210
Irvine, CA 92602
Phone: 714.508.4100
Project Director ........................................................................................................................ Mary Bean Project Manager ............................................................................................................................. Tsui Li Assistant Project Manager ......................................................................................... Stephanie Shepard Analyst .............................................................................................................................. Alejandro Ortiz Legal Counsel ....................................................................................................................... Megan Starr Director of Cultural Resources ....................................................................... Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Director of Noise and Air Quality .............................................................................. Phil Ault, LEED® AP Biologist .................................................................................................................................. Kyle Killian Senior Managing Editor ........................................................................................................ Susie Harris Publications Manager ............................................................................................................. Alec Harris Technical Editor ...................................................................................................................... Sarah Vine Technical Document Manager ....................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics .............................................................................................................. Karlee McCracken GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................ Sebastian Macias Hillmann Consulting–Technical Subconsultant Phase I ESA 20 Corporate Park #330
Irvine, CA 92606
949.932.0141
SA Geotechnical–Technical Subconsultant Geotechnical
1000 North Coast Highway, Suite 10
Laguna Beach, California 92651
949.403.7229
X Engineering and Consulting, Inc–Technical Subconsultant Hydrology 6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 650
Santa Ana, CA 92707
949.522.7100
Urban Crossroads, Inc.–Technical Subconsultant Transportation 20341 SW Birch Street, Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.660.1994
229

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
230
95 Argonaut Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FCS
APPENDIX A:

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy
Supporting Information
231

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
232
Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy
Supporting Information
Table of Contents
CalEEMod Construction and Operations Emissions Report ..................................................... 1 CalEEMod Construction and Operations Emissions Localized Emissions Report..................... 37 Additional Supporting Calculations for CalEEMod Inputs ...................................................... 78 AERMOD Source Inputs - DPM ............................................................................................. 81 Construction DPM and Health Risk Calculations ................................................................... 82 AERMOD Source Receptor with Legend ............................................................................... 83 AERMOD Wind Rose ............................................................................................................ 84 AERMOD Max Impact Figure ................................................................................................ 85 AERMOD Report .................................................................................................................. 86 Construction HRA HARP Methodology ................................................................................ 109 HARP2 Results ................................................................................................................... 112 CalEEMod Off-Road Construction Equipment Fuel .............................................................. 120 CalEEMod Construction Vehicle Energy Calculations .......................................................... 121 Operational Energy Consumption – Buildings and Parking .................................................. 122 Energy Consumption Calculations from On-Road Mobile Sources ....................................... 123 233
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
1 / 36
Argonaut Residential Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Appendix A 1
234
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
2 / 36

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
Appendix A 2
235
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
3 / 36

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Appendix A 3
236
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
4 / 36

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Appendix A 4
237
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
5 / 36

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Argonaut Residential
Construction Start Date 4/7/2025
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 6.00
Location 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA
County Orange
City Aliso Viejo
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 6039
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse 61.0 Dwelling Unit 1.92 151,628 27,795 0.00 182 — Appendix A 5
238
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
6 / 36
Parking Lot 0.91 Acre 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 48.0 48.0 19.6 18.2 0.06 0.62 6.13 6.71 0.58 1.62 2.20 — 8,225 8,225 0.53 0.91 11.8 8,521 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 48.0 48.0 6.17 8.68 0.02 0.24 0.63 0.87 0.22 0.15 0.37 — 2,276 2,276 0.08 0.06 0.07 2,297 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.09 3.01 4.21 5.26 0.01 0.15 0.68 0.84 0.14 0.16 0.30 — 1,591 1,591 0.07 0.09 0.82 1,620 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.56 0.55 0.77 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.05 — 263 263 0.01 0.01 0.14 268

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.25 1.52 19.6 18.2 0.06 0.62 6.13 6.71 0.58 1.62 2.20 — 8,225 8,225 0.53 0.91 11.8 8,521 2027 48.0 48.0 6.50 9.26 0.02 0.24 0.63 0.85 0.22 0.15 0.35 — 2,290 2,290 0.10 0.11 2.26 2,313 Appendix A 6 239
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
7 / 36
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.91 0.77 6.17 8.68 0.02 0.24 0.63 0.87 0.22 0.15 0.37 — 2,276 2,276 0.08 0.06 0.07 2,297 2027 48.0 48.0 5.85 8.53 0.02 0.22 0.63 0.85 0.20 0.15 0.35 — 2,263 2,263 0.08 0.06 0.06 2,283 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.57 0.46 4.21 5.26 0.01 0.15 0.68 0.84 0.14 0.16 0.30 — 1,591 1,591 0.07 0.09 0.82 1,620 2027 3.09 3.01 3.02 4.43 0.01 0.11 0.31 0.42 0.10 0.07 0.18 — 1,148 1,148 0.04 0.03 0.49 1,160 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.10 0.08 0.77 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.05 — 263 263 0.01 0.01 0.14 268 2027 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.81 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.08 192

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.18 5.05 0.90 13.6 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.02 0.65 0.67 28.7 3,202 3,231 3.05 0.12 9.60 3,352 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.85 4.74 0.94 9.44 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 28.7 3,089 3,117 3.05 0.12 1.31 3,232 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.07 4.94 0.97 12.0 0.03 0.02 2.56 2.58 0.02 0.65 0.67 28.7 3,123 3,152 3.05 0.12 4.76 3,270 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.92 0.90 0.18 2.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 4.76 517 522 0.51 0.02 0.79 541 Appendix A 7
240
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
8 / 36

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.35 1.24 0.87 10.1 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 — 2,722 2,722 0.12 0.10 8.52 2,764 Area 3.83 3.81 0.03 3.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 9.25 9.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 454 454 0.04 0.01 — 457 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 5.18 5.05 0.90 13.6 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.02 0.65 0.67 28.7 3,202 3,231 3.05 0.12 9.60 3,352 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.34 1.23 0.94 9.44 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 — 2,618 2,618 0.12 0.11 0.22 2,653 Area 3.51 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 454 454 0.04 0.01 — 457 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 4.85 4.74 0.94 9.44 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 28.7 3,089 3,117 3.05 0.12 1.31 3,232 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.33 1.22 0.95 9.66 0.03 0.02 2.56 2.58 0.01 0.65 0.66 — 2,646 2,646 0.12 0.11 3.68 2,685 Area 3.73 3.72 0.02 2.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.34 6.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.36 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 454 454 0.04 0.01 — 457 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2 Appendix A 8 241
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
9 / 36
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 5.07 4.94 0.97 12.0 0.03 0.02 2.56 2.58 0.02 0.65 0.67 28.7 3,123 3,152 3.05 0.12 4.76 3,270 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.24 0.22 0.17 1.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.61 444 Area 0.68 0.68 < 0.005 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 75.2 75.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.6 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.73 2.81 3.54 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.95 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.03 0.00 4.03 0.40 0.00 — 14.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total 0.92 0.90 0.18 2.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 4.76 517 522 0.51 0.02 0.79 541

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.66 1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 4.49 4.49 — 0.68 0.68 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 9
242
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
10 / 36
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.08 0.71 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.25 0.25 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 163 163 < 0.005 0.01 0.57 165 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.55 0.08 6.65 2.94 0.04 0.07 1.47 1.54 0.07 0.41 0.48 — 5,568 5,568 0.42 0.88 11.3 5,852 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.60 8.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 305 305 0.02 0.05 0.27 320 Appendix A 10 243
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
11 / 36
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.42 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.5 50.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 53.0

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.34 1.13 9.84 10.8 0.03 0.42 — 0.42 0.39 — 0.39 — 2,716 2,716 0.11 0.02 — 2,725 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.62 0.62 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Appendix A 11 244
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
12 / 36
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.70 3.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.71 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.7 97.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 99.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.77 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Appendix A 12 245
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
13 / 36

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.70 1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 40.4 40.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 13 246
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
14 / 36
Off-Roa 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.68 6.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.70 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.34 0.05 4.09 1.81 0.02 0.04 0.90 0.95 0.04 0.25 0.30 — 3,426 3,426 0.26 0.54 6.94 3,601 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.3 56.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.33 9.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.79

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Appendix A 14 247
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
15 / 36
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.74 0.62 5.80 6.58 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,527 1,527 0.06 0.01 — 1,532 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.74 0.62 5.80 6.58 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,527 1,527 0.06 0.01 — 1,532 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.33 0.28 2.59 2.93 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 681 681 0.03 0.01 — 683 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 113 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 15 248
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
16 / 36
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.13 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 572 572 0.01 0.02 1.99 580 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 205 205 0.01 0.03 0.53 214 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.15 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 544 544 0.01 0.02 0.05 551 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.22 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 205 205 0.01 0.03 0.01 213 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 246 246 < 0.005 0.01 0.38 249 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 91.3 91.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 95.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.8 40.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 16 249
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
17 / 36
Off-Roa 0.72 0.60 5.51 6.56 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,527 1,527 0.06 0.01 — 1,532 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.72 0.60 5.51 6.56 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,527 1,527 0.06 0.01 — 1,532 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.33 0.27 2.50 2.98 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 693 693 0.03 0.01 — 695 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.46 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 115 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.13 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 562 562 0.01 0.02 1.78 570 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.20 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 201 201 0.01 0.03 0.48 210 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Appendix A 17 250 Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
18 / 36
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.12 0.13 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 535 535 0.01 0.02 0.05 542 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 201 201 0.01 0.03 0.01 209 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 246 246 < 0.005 0.01 0.35 250 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 91.2 91.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 95.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.8 40.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.77 0.65 5.74 8.20 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 — 1,248 Paving 0.12 0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Appendix A 18 251
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
19 / 36
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 0.31 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 68.2 68.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 68.4 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 192 192 < 0.005 0.01 0.61 195 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 0.01 0.71 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.05 0.05 — 605 605 0.05 0.10 1.15 636 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Appendix A 19 252
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
20 / 36
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 34.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.77

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Architect
ural
Coating
s

48.0 48.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Architect
ural
Coating
s

48.0 48.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 20 253
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
21 / 36
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.63 2.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.48 0.48 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 114 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 108 Appendix A 21 254 Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
22 / 36
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.94 5.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

1.35 1.24 0.87 10.1 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 — 2,722 2,722 0.12 0.10 8.52 2,764 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.35 1.24 0.87 10.1 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 — 2,722 2,722 0.12 0.10 8.52 2,764 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 22 255
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
23 / 36
Condo/T 1.34 1.23 0.94 9.44 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 — 2,618 2,618 0.12 0.11 0.22 2,653 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.34 1.23 0.94 9.44 0.03 0.02 2.57 2.59 0.01 0.65 0.67 — 2,618 2,618 0.12 0.11 0.22 2,653 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.24 0.22 0.17 1.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.61 444 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.24 0.22 0.17 1.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.61 444

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 421 421 0.04 < 0.005 — 424
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.1 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 454 454 0.04 0.01 — 457
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 421 421 0.04 < 0.005 — 424
Appendix A 23 256
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
24 / 36
Parking — — — — — — — — — — — — 32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.1 Lot
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 454 454 0.04 0.01 — 457
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 69.7 69.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 70.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5.45 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.48 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 75.2 75.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 75.6

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix A 24 257 Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
25 / 36
Condo/T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

3.25 3.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.26 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.32 0.30 0.03 3.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.25 9.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29 Total 3.83 3.81 0.03 3.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 9.25 9.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

3.25 3.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 25 258
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
26 / 36
Architect
Coatings

0.26 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.51 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 Total 0.68 0.68 < 0.005 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9 Appendix A 26 259
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
27 / 36
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.39 17.0 21.4 0.45 0.01 — 35.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.73 2.81 3.54 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.95 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.73 2.81 3.54 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.95

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2 Appendix A 27 260
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
28 / 36
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.3 0.00 24.3 2.43 0.00 — 85.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.03 0.00 4.03 0.40 0.00 — 14.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.03 0.00 4.03 0.40 0.00 — 14.1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix A 28 261
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
29 / 36
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
ownhou
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/6/2026 5/1/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/4/2026 5/6/2026 5.00 3.00 — Grading Grading 5/7/2026 5/14/2026 5.00 6.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/18/2026 8/20/2027 5.00 330 Default Length increased from 220 to 200
Paving Paving 8/23/2027 9/17/2027 5.00 20.0 Length Doubled from Default Length
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/20/2027 10/15/2027 5.00 20.0 Length Doubled from Default Lengtth

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Appendix A 29 262
Argonaut Residential Custom Report, 1/31/2025
30 / 36
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Electric Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Electric Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48