the SR-73 toll road, and includes 33 traffic signals, 6 of which are located in Aliso Viejo, including La Paz/SR73 ramps that are maintained by Caltrans. A vicinity map is attached.
The project will install new fiber optic communications, traffic signal cabinets, traffic signal controllers, and hybrid video/radar vehicle detection equipment along the corridor within Aliso Viejo.
All participating agencies within the project corridor are required to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the lead agency. In the past, the City of Aliso Viejo entered into similar Cooperative Agreements with OCTA, which served as the lead agency for traffic signal synchronization projects such as Los Alisos and Aliso Creek Road.
Discussion:
The total project cost is approximately $2.4 million, of which about $415,000 is within the City of Aliso Viejo.
The Cooperative Agreement describes the scope of work and responsibilities for each agency on this project. Laguna Niguel is the lead agency and will be responsible for managing the design, construction, and maintenance phases of the project as well as seeking reimbursement payments from OCTA and the participating agencies for completed work. The Cooperative Agreement specifies the dollar match amounts that would be invoiced by the City of Laguna Niguel to each participating agency, and the participating agencies would be responsible for making payments within 30 days of receipt of invoices.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Cooperative Agreement
145
La Paz Road Vicinity Map
146
55842.00001\45364259.1
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL
AND
THE CITIES OF ALISO VIEJO, LAGUNA HILLS, AND MISSION VIEJO
FOR THE
LA PAZ ROAD REGIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROGRAM
PROJECT
This La Paz Road Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program Project Cooperative Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) is entered into as of _______________, 2026 (“Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL, hereinafter referred to as “LAGUNA NIGUEL”, and the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, and Mission Viejo, hereinafter referred to as “ALISO VIEJO”, “LAGUNA HILLS”, AND “MISSION VIEJO” respectively, jointly referred to as “AGENCIES”. LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “PARTY” or collectively as the “PARTIES”.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, La Paz Road between Olympiad Road/Felipe Road and Crown Valley Parkway, is geographically located in the Cities of Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, and Mission Viejo; and
WHEREAS, La Paz Road between Olympiad Road/Felipe Road and Chrisanta Drive is maintained by MISSION VIEJO; and
WHEREAS, La Paz Road between Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp/Muirlands Boulevard and Interstate 5 Southbound Off-Ramp/Cabot Road and between State Route 73 Northbound Ramps/Merienda and State Route 73 Southbound Ramps/Aliso Viejo Plaza are maintained by the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “STATE” or “CALTRANS”; and
WHEREAS, La Paz Road between Mclntyre Street and Moulton Parkway is maintained by LAGUNA HILLS; and
147
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
WHEREAS, La Paz Road at Pacific Park Drive is maintained by ALISO VIEJO; and
WHEREAS, La Paz Road between Plaza Del La Paz/Avenida Breve and Crown Valley Parkway is maintained by LAGUNA NIGUEL; and
WHEREAS, the Measure M2 Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (RTSSP) targets over 2,000 signalized intersections across Orange County to maintain traffic signal synchronization, improve traffic flow and reduce congestion across jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES are committed to implementing multi-jurisdictional signal synchronization to enhance countywide traffic flow and reducing congestion; and
WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL has been awarded Project P funds based on the application (“APPLICATION”) prepared by LAGUNA NIGUEL for the implementation of signal synchronization of traffic signals along the La Paz Road Corridor between Olympiad Road/Felipe Road and Crown Valley Parkway (hereinafter, “PROJECT”); and WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES will provide matching funds as required by the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs; and WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL agrees to act as the lead agency for design, construction and management of PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the PROJECT will include twenty-three (23) traffic signals along La Paz Road, between Olympiad Road/Felipe Road and Crown Valley Parkway,, and located in the Cities of Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, and Mission Viejo.
Additionally, ten (10) offset signalized intersections are included, for a total of thirtythree (33) signals, as shown in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the PROJECT will include Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) elements identified in the Application and other associated systems (“ITS Elements”), that will be constructed and/or installed and implemented as part of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the PROJECT Scope of Work also includes the ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the coordinated signal system’s operation, including system communication/detection upkeep, for two years; and
WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL agrees to work with AGENCIES to coordinate 148
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
the inclusion of other ITS elements that must be installed before or at the same time as the construction of the PROJECT and are not part of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, all costs associated with the inclusion of these other elements, if any, are the sole responsibility of the PARTY owning each and any of those other elements; and
WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL and each other respective PARTY acknowledge and understand that in-house resources (staff hours) from each PARTY will provide various services for the PROJECT per the Application; and WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL and each other respective PARTY acknowledge and understand that PROJECT costs for various types of additional work required by each respective PARTY may not have been included in the original application and therefore those costs are not included in the PROJECT allocation; and WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL and each other respective PARTY agree that these additional costs will be paid by the PROJECT only with written approval by LAGUNA NIGUEL, which may result in additional dollar match; and WHEREAS, LAGUNA NIGUEL agrees to implement the PROJECT as referenced on the Application; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES desire to enter into this Agreement to implement the PROJECT in support of Project P as part of M2; and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree to contribute the share of the PROJECT as set forth in the Application, shown in Attachment B and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, in the event the cost of the PROJECT exceeds the estimates as submitted in the Application prepared by LAGUNA NIGUEL, the PARTIES agree to meet and determine revisions to the PROJECT to satisfy the budget(s) or revised funding proposal(s) by the PARTIES, which shall be documented and submitted in writing as an amendment to the Agreement. Any cost overruns shall be the financial responsibility of the jurisdiction where the work improvement occurs or as the case may be, causes the required improvement; and
WHEREAS, this AGREEMENT defines the roles, specific terms, conditions and responsibilities between LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES; and 149
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
WHEREAS, the City of ALISO VIEJO’s City Council approved this AGREEMENT on the ______ day of ________, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City of LAGUNA HILLS’s City Council approved this AGREEMENT on the ______ day of ________, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City of MISSION VIEJO’s City Council approved this AGREEMENT on the ______ day of ________, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City of LAGUNA NIGUEL’s City Council approved this AGREEMENT on the ______ day of ________, 2026; and
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually understood and agreed by LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES as follows:
ARTICLE 1. COMPLETE AGREEMENT
A. This AGREEMENT, including any attachments incorporated herein and made applicable by reference, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the term(s) and condition(s) of the agreement between LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES concerning the PROJECT and it supersedes all prior representations, understandings and communications between the PARTIES. The invalidity in whole or in part of any term or condition of this AGREEMENT shall not affect the validity of other term(s) or condition(s) of the AGREEMENT. The above referenced Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein.
B. LAGUNA NIGUEL’s failure to insist on any instance(s) of AGENCIES’ performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this AGREEMENT shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of LAGUNA NIGUEL’s right to such performance or to future performance of such term(s) or condition(s), and AGENCIES’ obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this Agreement shall not be binding upon LAGUNA NIGUEL except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of LAGUNA NIGUEL by way of a written amendment to this Agreement and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
C. AGENCIES’ failure to insist on any instance(s) of LAGUNA NIGUEL’S performance of any term(s) or condition(s) of this AGREEMENT shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of AGENCIES’ right to such performance or to future 150
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
performance of such term(s) or condition(s), and LAGUA NIGUEL’s obligation in respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. Changes to any portion of this AGREEMENT shall not be binding upon AGENCIES except when specifically confirmed in writing by an authorized representative of AGENCIES by way of a written amendment to this AGREEMENT and issued in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE 2. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT specifies the roles and responsibilities of the PARTIES as they pertain to the subjects and PROJECT addressed herein. Both LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES agree that each will cooperate and coordinate with the other in all activities covered by this AGREEMENT and any other supplemental agreements that may be required to facilitate purposes thereof.
ARTICLE 3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LAGUNA NIGUEL
LAGUNA NIGUEL as the Lead Agency agrees to the following responsibilities for the implementation of the PROJECT:
A. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall serve as lead agency for design, construction and construction management of PROJECT and shall provide oversight by establishing PROJECT milestones and overseeing the PROJECT development to ensure compliance with all standards and requirements set forth in this AGREEMENT.
B. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall be responsible for completing the PROJECT in accordance with the funding guidelines and any and all other federal, state, and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) requirements related to these funding programs, as well as any and all applicable statutes and regulations including, but not limited to, bidding laws, prevailing wage and other labor laws, provisions of the California Building Standards Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines thereunder.
C. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide AGENCIES with a copy of all design documents for AGENCIES’ approval of work to be performed in AGENCIES’ jurisdictions prior to LAGUNA NIGUEL advertising for bids.
D. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide staff, consultants, and contractors deemed necessary and appropriate to manage, administer, coordinate and oversee engineering design and construction management of the PROJECT. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall require 151
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
all such consultants and contractors to obtain and maintain comprehensive general liability, automobile liability, workers’ compensation and employers’ liability, and professional liability insurance policies meeting the applicable requirements of the Consultant Contract and Bidders Specifications for the PROJECT and to indemnify, defend and hold each of the AGENCIES and their respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers (“Indemnitees”) free and harmless, including payment of attorneys’ and experts’ fees, with respect to any and all claims and liabilities of any kind arising out of each such contractor’s acts or omissions in the performance of work on the PROJECT, to the maximum extent permitted by law. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall require all such contractors to name the Indemnitees as additional insureds on all commercial general and automobile liability policies required by LAGUNA NIGUEL for the PROJECT.
E. The budget for the PROJECT is Two Million Four Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars And Eighty Cents ($2,416,425.80). One Million Nine Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand One Hundred Forty Dollars And Sixty-Four Cents ($1,933,140.64) is funded by the OCTA Project P/Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Program. Minimum PROJECT matching funds of twenty percent (20%) amount to Four Hundred Eighty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars And Sixteen Cents ($483,285.16). LAGUNA NIGUEL’s share of the match amounts to One Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars And Forty Cents ($133,622.40).
F. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall maintain coordination with AGENCIES for construction of the PROJECT.
G. LAGUNA NIGUEL specifically shall coordinate construction activity for the PROJECT within AGENCIES and provide a schedule of the construction activity for the PROJECT within AGENCIES that is acceptable to AGENCIES. In the event of planned street closures, LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide prior notice to, and receive approval from, the responsible AGENCY, prior to the execution of the street closure.
H. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall require AGENCIES and its officers and employees to be named as additional insured on the construction contractors’ liability insurance policies.
152
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
I. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall collect manual intersection turning movement and automated machine traffic counts for the Caltrans-owned locations of Interstate 5 Northbound Off-Ramp, Interstate 5 Southbound Off-Ramp, State Route 73 Northbound Ramps, and State Route 73 Southbound Ramps.
J. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall implement required signal improvements at the locations set forth in the Application.
K. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall implement the PROJECT based on the intent of the usage in the Application, prepared by LAGUNA NIGUEL in accordance with the policies and procedures contained in the CTFP Guidelines.
L. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide formats, templates, and guidance in reporting requirements as described in the CTFP Guidelines.
M. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall manage, procure, implement, and complete all aspects of the PROJECT as identified in the Application.
N. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall cooperate with the OCTA and coordinate outreach efforts for the Primary Implementation (design and construction) phase of the PROJECT.
O. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall prepare a Project Final Report (Measure M2 Ordinance No. 3, Section B.III.9) for the PROJECT. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide the Project Final Report for the PROJECT to AGENCIES in draft and final formats for comment, and comments shall be noted in the final study and incorporated as mutually agreed by all PARTIES.
P. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide ongoing maintenance and operation of optimized signal timing after the Primary Implementation phase of the PROJECT is completed and to continue such maintenance until the end of the three (3) year grant period.
Q. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall provide updates to AGENCIES on the PROJECT as part of the semi-annual review process until completion of the three (3) year grant period for the PROJECT. Documents to be provided include, but are not limited to, contracts pertinent to the PROJECT and purchase orders pertinent to the PROJECT.
R. LAGUNA NIGUEL shall invoice AGENCIES for dollar match amounts due as identified in Attachment B, at the end of each phase.
153
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
ARTICLE 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AGENCIES
AGENCIES agree to the following responsibilities:
A. AGENCIES shall be responsible for providing the required documentation and funding commitments for PROJECT implementation on the STATE portions of La Paz Road within their respective geographical jurisdictions.
B. AGENCIES shall remit to LAGUNA NIGUEL within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of an acceptable invoice, the PROJECT matching funds as required by the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Funding Programs. a. ALISO VIEJO’S share of the minimum twenty percent (20%) PROJECT match amounts to Eighty-Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars And Seventy-Six Cents ($86,133.76).
b. LAGUNA HILLS’ share of the minimum twenty percent (20%) PROJECT match amounts to One Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars And Sixteen Cents ($124,462.16). c. MISSION VIEJO’S share of the minimum twenty percent (20%) PROJECT match amounts to One Hundred Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Six Dollars And Eighty-Four Cents ($130,826.84), including up to Eight Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars And Zero Cents ($8,240.00) of in-kind services.
Documentation of AGENCIES’ in-kind services, such as administrative or construction inspection services, shall meet OCTA CTFP Guidelines.
C. At no cost to LAGUNA NIGUEL, AGENCIES shall provide LAGUNA NIGUEL with current intersection, local field master and/or central system timing plans and related data no later than thirty (30) calendar days subsequent to the execution of this AGREEMENT, and updates as they occur within seven (7) calendar days of the event.
D. At no cost to LAGUNA NIGUEL, AGENCIES shall provide to LAGUNA NIGUEL appropriate documents to utilize in the design and construction of infrastructure required to implement the desired coordinated and synchronized system and operations no later than thirty (30) calendar days subsequent to the execution of this AGREEMENT, and updates as they occur within seven (7) calendar days of the update.
E. AGENCIES shall waive all costs and fees related to any and all AGENCIES 154
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
required encroachment and inspection permits required by the AGENCY for the construction phase of the PROJECT.
F. At no cost to LAGUNA NIGUEL, AGENCIES shall be responsible for coordinating the construction and/or installation of traffic control elements and other items within AGENCIES’ own jurisdictions that are not requested by the AGENCIES and are NOT a part of the PROJECT Scope of Work but, by necessity, must be built concurrent with the PROJECT.
G. Any additional work determined to be outside the PROJECT Scope of Work shall require prior written agreement by the PARTIES, and all associated costs shall be funded in full by the responsible PARTY or PARTIES. Such funds shall be provided upfront, prior to the commencement of any related construction activities.
H. In the event of an unanticipated cost overrun, LAGUNA NIGUEL shall meet with all AGENCIES to resolve the cost overrun. Should the PARTIES be unable to come to a resolution of the cost overrun, the AGREEMENT will terminate.
I. AGENCIES shall provide a technical representative to meet and participate as a member of the PROJECT’S Traffic Forums.
J. AGENCIES shall authorize LAGUNA NIGUEL to manage, procure, implement, and complete all aspects of the PROJECT.
K. AGENCIES shall support the PROJECT’S implementation within the timeframe outlined in the Application and consistent with the CTFP Guidelines adopted by OCTA.
L. AGENCIES shall provide LAGUNA NIGUEL all current intersection as-built drawings, all current intersections controller assembly plans as provided by the manufacturer and modified by Party since original installation, local field master, local controller, and Advanced Traffic Management System timing plans and other ITS related data upon request.
M. AGENCIES shall provide updates to LAGUNA NIGUEL on the PROJECT as part of the semi-annual review process until completion of the three (3) year grant period for the PROJECT. Documents to be provided include, but are not limited to, payroll records, contracts pertinent to the PROJECT, and purchase orders pertinent to the PROJECT.
155
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
N. AGENCIES shall provide LAGUNA NIGUEL with a combined dollar and inkind services match, totaling at least twenty percent (20%) of actual PROJECT costs.
The Application estimate this amount to be as shown in Attachment B. PARTIES shall work with LAGUNA NIGUEL to address and mitigate budget impacts. Failure to provide local dollar match and/or evidence of in-kind services match may result in the ineligibility of future participation in competitive funding opportunities.
O. AGENCIES shall provide payment for the dollar match to LAGUNA NIGUEL within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of an invoice.
P. AGENCIES shall provide documentation of conformance as part of the semiannual review process or as requested by LAGUNA NIGUEL, or agents of LAGUNA NIGUEL, if included an in-kind services match, as identified in Attachment B.
Q. AGENCIES shall waive all cost and fees related to any and all permits that may be required of the consultant, subconsultants, and/or service or equipment providers, if such permits are required to perform any PROJECT related work within its jurisdiction.
R. To review and approve in writing the traffic synchronization signal PS&E package within the respective jurisdiction within ten working days of receipt.
ARTICLE 5. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
The PARTIES agree to the following mutual responsibilities:
A. The PARTIES shall cooperate and coordinate their staff, contractors and consultants, in providing the services and responsibilities required under this AGREEMENT to the extent practicable with respect to the performance of the PROJECT.
B. The PARTIES agree to work together in good faith, using reasonable efforts to resolve any unforeseen issues and disputes arising out of the performance of this AGREEMENT.
C. The PARTIES shall be responsible for obtaining required STATE permits for requested improvements for their agency’s jurisdiction that are a part of the PROJECT Scope of Work on the STATE portions of La Paz Road within their respective geographic jurisdictions.
D. This AGREEMENT may only be modified or amended upon written agreement 156
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
of all PARTIES. All modifications, amendments, changes and revisions of this AGREEMENT in whole or in part, and from time to time, shall be binding upon the PARTIES, so long as the same shall be in writing and executed by the PARTIES. No waiver of any term or conditions of this AGREEMENT shall be a continuing waiver thereof.
E. Applicable Laws and Regulations: This AGREEMENT shall be governed by all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The PARTIES warrant that in the performance of this AGREEMENT, each shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and ordinances and all lawful orders, rules and regulations promulgated there under.
F. Any notice sent by first class mail, postage paid, to the address and addressee, shall be deemed to have been received three (3) business days after deposit in the U.S. Mail. The representatives of the PARTIES who are primarily responsible for the administration of this AGREEMENT, and to whom notices, demands and communications shall be given are as follows:
City of Laguna Niguel – Lead Agency
30111 Crown Valley Parkway
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Attention: Jason Jung
TITLE: Principal Civil Engineer
Tel: 949-362-4317
Email: [email protected]
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Attention: Quang Le
TITLE: Principal Civil Engineer
Tel: (949) 425-2531
Email: [email protected]
157
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
City of Laguna Hills
24035 El Toro Rd
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Attention: Joe Ames
TITLE: Assistant City Manager
Tel: (949) 707-2655
Email: [email protected]
City of Mission Viejo
200 Civic Center
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
Attention: Mario Gutierrez
TITLE: Transportation Engineer
Tel: (949) 470-3068
Email: [email protected]
158
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
ARTICLE 6. DELEGATED AUTHORITY
The actions required to be taken by AGENCIES in the implementation of this AGREEMENT are delegated to their respective City Managers, Directors of Public Works, or designees, and the actions required to be taken by LAGUNA NIGUEL in the implementation of this AGREEMENT are delegated to its City Manager, Director of Public Works, or designee. AGENCIES acknowledges this designation of authority is authorized under their respective local rules and regulations.
ARTICLE 7. AUDIT AND INSPECTION
LAGUNA NIGUEL and AGENCIES shall maintain a complete set of records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon reasonable notice, AGENCIES shall permit the authorized representatives of the LAGUNA NIGUEL to inspect and audit all work, materials, payroll, book, accounts, and other data and records of AGENCIES for a period or five (5) years after final payment, final closeout, or until any on-going audit is completed, whichever is later. For purposes of audit, the date of completion of this Agreement shall be the date of the LAGUNA NIGUEL’S payment of consultant’s final billing (so noted on the paid invoice) under this AGREEMENT.
LAGUNA NIGUEL shall have the right to reproduce any such books, records, and accounts. The above provision with respect to audits shall extend to and/or be included in contracts with AGENCIES’ contractors.
ARTICLE 8. INDEMNIFICATION
A. To the fullest extent permitted by Law, AGENCIES shall defend (at AGENCIES’ sole cost and expense with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to LAGUNA NIGUEL), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless LAGUNA NIGUEL, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgements, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (AGENCIES employees included), for damage to property, including property owned by LAGUNA NIGUEL, or from any violation of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance, alleged to 159
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of AGENCIES its officers, directors, employees or gents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this AGREEMENT.
B. To the fullest extent permitted by law, LAGUNA NIGUEL shall defend (at LAGUNA NIGUEL’S sole cost with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to AGENCIES), indemnify protect, and hold harmless AGENCIES, including their officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against any an all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgements, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or deaths by AGENCIES, or from any violation of federal, state, or local law or ordinance, alleged to be caused by the negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of LAGUNA NIGUEL, its officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance of this AGREEMENT.
C. The indemnification and defense obligations of this AGREEMENT shall survive its expiration or termination.
ARTICLE 9. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
A. Term of AGREEMENT: This AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect through June 30, 2028.
B. Amendment: This AGREEMENT may be extended or amended at the mutual consent of all PARTIES hereto. No amendment shall have any force or effect unless executed in writing and approved as to form by each AGENCIES’ City Attorney and the City Attorney for LAGUNA NIGUEL.
C. Termination: In the event any PARTY defaults in the performance of their respective obligations under this agreement or breaches any of the provisions of the AGREEMENT, a non-defaulting PARTY(s) shall have the option to terminate the AGREEMENT upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the PARTY in default D. Termination for Convenience: Any PARTY may terminate this AGREEMENT for convenience by providing thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice of its intent to terminate for convenience to the other PARTY.
E. The PARTIES shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, 160
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
statutes, ordinances and regulations of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the PROJECT.
F. Legal Authority: The PARTIES hereto consent that they are authorized to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of said PARTIES and that, by so executing this AGREEMENT, the PARTIES hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this AGREEMENT.
G. Severability: If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, to any extent, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this AGREEMENT shall not be affected thereby, and each term, provision, covenant or condition of this AGREEMENT shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
H. Counterparts of AGREEMENT: This AGREEMENT may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute the same AGREEMENT. Facsimile signatures will be permitted.
I. Assignment: Neither this AGREEMENT, nor any of the PARTIES’ rights, obligations, duties, or authority hereunder may be assigned in whole or in part by any PARTY without the prior written consent of the other PARTY hereto in its sole and absolute discretion. Any such attempt of assignment shall be deemed void and of no force and effect. Consent to one (1) assignment shall not be deemed consent to any subsequent assignment, nor the waiver of any right to consent to such subsequent assignment.
J. Governing Law: The laws of the State of California and applicable local and federal laws, regulations and guidelines shall govern this AGREEMENT. Any action brought relating to this AGREEMENT shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange, State of California.
K. Litigation Fees: Should litigation arise out of this AGREEMENT for the performance thereof, the court shall award costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, to the prevailing PARTY.
L. Force Majeure: Either PARTY shall be excused from performing its obligations under this AGREEMENT during the time and to the extent that it is prevented 161
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
from performing by an unforeseeable cause beyond its control, including but not limited to; any incidence of fire, flood; acts of God; commandeering of material, products, plants or facilities by the federal, state or local government; national fuel shortage; or a material act or omission by the other PARTY; when satisfactory evidence of such cause is presented to the other PARTY, and provided further that such nonperformance is unforeseeable, beyond the control and is not due to the fault or negligence of the PARTY not performing.
M. Disputes: The PARTIES agree to work together in good faith, using reasonable efforts to resolve any unforeseen issues and disputes arising out of the performance of this AGREEMENT.
N. Obligations to Comply with Law: Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to authorize or require any PARTY to issue bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness under the terms, in amounts, or for purposes other than as authorized by local, state or federal law.
O. Notices: Any notices, requests, or demands made between the PARTIES pursuant to this AGREEMENT are to be directed to the contacts noted in Article 5, Paragraph E.
(Signature Page Follows)
162
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both PARTIES.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed on the date of the last signature below.
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY OF ALISO VIEJO
By:
Gene Johns, Mayor
By:
Max Duncan, Mayor
Dated:
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Marissa J. Asistin, City Clerk
Dated:
By:
Maria Kendig, City Clerk
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney
By:
HongDao Nguyen, City Attorney
Dated:
Dated:
163
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both PARTIES.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed on the date of the last signature below.
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
By:
Gene Johns, Mayor
By:
Don Caskey, Mayor
Dated: Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Marissa J. Asistin, City Clerk
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Joshua Stevenson, City Clerk
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney
By:
Colin Burns, Interim City Attorney
Dated:
Dated:
164
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
55842.00001\45364259.1
This Agreement shall be made effective upon execution by both PARTIES.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed on the date of the last signature below.
CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
By:
Gene Johns, Mayor
By:
Wendy Bucknum, Mayor
Dated:
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Marissa J. Asistin, City Clerk
Dated:
ATTEST:
By:
Alison Walker, City Clerk
Dated:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney
Dated:
By:
Tarquin Preziosi, City Attorney
Dated:
165
Attachment A: La Paz Road Vicinity Map La Paz Road RTSSP Project 166
The following two pages provide a comprehensive snapshot of the project across all agencies. In the subsequent sections, tables are presented for each individual agency.
167
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
ATTACHMENT B
ESTIMATED LOCAL MATCH COMMITMENT
SECTION 1: AGENCY TOTAL MATCH SUMMARY
AGENCY CASH MATCH IN-KIND MATCH* TOTAL MATCH
PI O & M PI O & M PI O & M
City of
Aliso
Viejo
$80,493.76 $5,640.00 $80,493.76 $5,640.00
$86,133.76 $0.00 $86,133.76
City of
Laguna
Hills
$117,882.16 $6,580.00 $117,882.16 $6,580.00
$124,462.16 $0.00 $124,462.16
City of
Laguna
Niguel
$126,102.40 $7,520.00 $126,102.40 $7,520.00
$133,622.40 $0.00 $133,622.40
City of
Mission
Viejo
$119,546.84 $11,280.00 $8,240.00 $127,786.84 $11,280.00 $130,826.84 $8,240.00 $139,066.84
TOTAL
MATCH
$444,025.16 $31,020.00 $8,240.00 $0.00 $452,265.16 $31,020.00 $475,045.16 $8,240.00 $483,285.16
*In-kind match may be converted to cash match if agency does not satisfy in-kind match commitment by the end of the respective phase. However, Cash Match is NOT allowed to be converted to in-kind match.
SECTION 2: MATCH BREAKDOWN (CASH VS IN-KIND SERVICES)
A. Cash Match
AGENCY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT OF CASH
DISTRIBUTION
City of Aliso Viejo General Funds $86,133.76
City of Laguna Hills General Funds $124,462.16
City of Laguna Niguel General Funds $133,622.40
City of Mission Viejo General Funds $130,826.84
TOTAL CASH MATCH: $475,045.16
168
B. In-Kind Services
i. Specific Improvements (List Items and Cost):
AGENCY IMPROVEMENT DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE
N/A
TOTAL FOR SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS (i): N/A
ii. Staffing Commitment:
AGENCY STAFF
POSITION
TYPE OF SERVICE
TO PROJECT
NO. OF
HOURS
FULLY
BURDENED
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAL**
City of
Mission
Viejo
Traffic Engineer
Project Admin,
Signal Design
Review,
Construction
Management
40 $100 $4,000.00
Transportation
Analyst
Signal Design
Review,
Construction
Management,
System Integration
40 $75 $3,000.00
PW Inspector Project Inspection 8 $90 $720.00
Information
Technology
Specialist
System Integration 8 $65 $520.00
Total for City of Mission Viejo: $8,240.00
TOTAL STAFFING COMMITMENT (ii): $8,240.00
TOTAL IN-KIND MATCH* (i + ii): $8,240.00
**Total amount is the required participation by the identified agency. The number of hours and hourly rate will be based on each agency’s actual fully burdened billing rates, which must collectively equal the same value of the assigned “Total” dollars. Each agency will be responsible for keeping detailed records of hours worked and description of work. An accounting record of personnel hours at fully burdened rate is expected to be included with the final submittal. Records will be subject to auditing. 169
Begin Aliso Viejo’s version of Attachment B
170
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
ATTACHMENT B
ESTIMATED LOCAL MATCH COMMITMENT
SECTION 1: AGENCY TOTAL MATCH SUMMARY
AGENCY CASH MATCH IN-KIND MATCH* TOTAL MATCH
PI O & M PI O & M PI O & M
City of
Aliso
Viejo
$80,493.76 $5,640.00 $80,493.76 $5,640.00
$86,133.76 $0.00 $86,133.76
*In-kind match may be converted to cash match if agency does not satisfy in-kind match commitment by the end of the respective phase. However, Cash Match is NOT allowed to be converted to in-kind match.
SECTION 2: MATCH BREAKDOWN (CASH VS IN-KIND SERVICES)
A. Cash Match
AGENCY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT OF CASH
DISTRIBUTION
City of Aliso Viejo General Funds $86,133.76
B. In-Kind Services
i. Specific Improvements (List Items and Cost):
AGENCY IMPROVEMENT DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE
N/A
TOTAL FOR SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS (i): N/A
ii. Staffing Commitment:
AGENCY STAFF
POSITION
TYPE OF SERVICE
TO PROJECT
NO. OF
HOURS
FULLY
BURDENED
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAL**
**Total amount is the required participation by the identified agency. The number of hours and hourly rate will be based on each agency’s actual fully burdened billing rates, which must collectively equal the same value of the assigned “Total” dollars. Each agency will be responsible for keeping detailed records of hours worked and description of work. An accounting record of personnel hours at fully burdened rate is expected to be included with the final submittal. Records will be subject to auditing. 171
Begin Laguna Hills’ version of Attachment B
172
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
ATTACHMENT B
ESTIMATED LOCAL MATCH COMMITMENT
SECTION 1: AGENCY TOTAL MATCH SUMMARY
AGENCY CASH MATCH IN-KIND MATCH* TOTAL MATCH
PI O & M PI O & M PI O & M
City of
Laguna
Hills
$117,882.16 $6,580.00 $117,882.16 $6,580.00
$124,462.16 $0.00 $124,462.16
*In-kind match may be converted to cash match if agency does not satisfy in-kind match commitment by the end of the respective phase. However, Cash Match is NOT allowed to be converted to in-kind match.
SECTION 2: MATCH BREAKDOWN (CASH VS IN-KIND SERVICES)
A. Cash Match
AGENCY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT OF CASH
DISTRIBUTION
City of Laguna Hills General Funds $124,462.16
B. In-Kind Services
i. Specific Improvements (List Items and Cost):
AGENCY IMPROVEMENT DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE
N/A
TOTAL FOR SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS (i): N/A
ii. Staffing Commitment:
AGENCY STAFF
POSITION
TYPE OF SERVICE
TO PROJECT
NO. OF
HOURS
FULLY
BURDENED
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAL**
**Total amount is the required participation by the identified agency. The number of hours and hourly rate will be based on each agency’s actual fully burdened billing rates, which must collectively equal the same value of the assigned “Total” dollars. Each agency will be responsible for keeping detailed records of hours worked and description of work. An accounting record of personnel hours at fully burdened rate is expected to be included with the final submittal. Records will be subject to auditing. 173
Begin Mission Viejo’s version of Attachment B
174
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
2026 LA PAZ ROAD RTSSP PROJECT
ATTACHMENT B
ESTIMATED LOCAL MATCH COMMITMENT
SECTION 1: AGENCY TOTAL MATCH SUMMARY
AGENCY CASH MATCH IN-KIND MATCH* TOTAL MATCH
PI O & M PI O & M PI O & M
City of
Mission
Viejo
$119,546.84 $11,280.00 $8,240.00 $127,786.84 $23,500.00 $130,826.84 $8,240.00 $139,066.84
*In-kind match may be converted to cash match if agency does not satisfy in-kind match commitment by the end of the respective phase. However, Cash Match is NOT allowed to be converted to in-kind match.
SECTION 2: MATCH BREAKDOWN (CASH VS IN-KIND SERVICES)
A. Cash Match
AGENCY FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT OF CASH
DISTRIBUTION
City of Mission Viejo General Funds $130,826.84
B. In-Kind Services
i. Specific Improvements (List Items and Cost):
AGENCY IMPROVEMENT DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE
N/A
TOTAL FOR SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS (i): N/A
ii. Staffing Commitment:
AGENCY STAFF
POSITION
TYPE OF SERVICE
TO PROJECT
NO. OF
HOURS
FULLY
BURDENED
HOURLY
RATE
TOTAL**
City of
Mission
Viejo
Traffic Engineer
Project Admin,
Signal Design
Review,
Construction
Management
40 $100 $4,000.00
Transportation
Analyst
Signal Design
Review,
Construction
40 $75 $3,000.00
175
Management,
System Integration
PW Inspector Project Inspection 8 $90 $720.00
Information
Technology
Specialist
System Integration 8 $65 $520.00
Total for City of Mission Viejo: $8,240.00
TOTAL STAFFING COMMITMENT (ii): $8,240.00
TOTAL IN-KIND MATCH* (i + ii): $8,240.00
**Total amount is the required participation by the identified agency. The number of hours and hourly rate will be based on each agency’s actual fully burdened billing rates, which must collectively equal the same value of the assigned “Total” dollars. Each agency will be responsible for keeping detailed records of hours worked and description of work. An accounting record of personnel hours at fully burdened rate is expected to be included with the final submittal. Records will be subject to auditing. 176
City of Aliso Viejo
AGENDA ITEM
DATE: October 21, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ann Eifert, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer SUBJECT: COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2005-01
(GLENWOOD AT ALISO VIEJO) LOCAL AGENCY SPECIAL TAX AND
BOND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT COMPLIANCE (SB 165) REPORT FOR
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2026
Recommended Action:
For the City Council to accept and file the Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Compliance (“SB 165”) Report for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2026.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Background:
Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 was formed by the City on March 16, 2005, for the purpose of financing the acquisition and/or construction of certain public improvements to be owned by the City, the County of Orange and Moulton Niguel Water District. On December 6, 2007, the City issued the CFD No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) 2007 Special Tax Bonds in the amount of $34,070,000. Proceeds of the Bonds were used to finance the acquisition and construction of the authorized public facilities.
On February 13, 2014, the City issued for CFD No. 2005-01 the 2014 Special Tax Refunding Bonds in the aggregate amount of $32,270,000.
On December 5, 2023, the City issued for CFD No. 2005-01 the 2023 Special Tax Refunding Bonds in the aggregate amount of $23,430,000.
Discussion:
The SB 165 Report includes information prepared in compliance with the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act, which was enacted to provide accountability 177
measures for any local special tax and/or bond measure subject to voter approval on or after January 1, 2001. According to the requirements of the Accountability Act (Sections 50075.1 and 53410 of the Government Code of the State of California), an annual report must be filed by the local agency levying the special tax and or issuing a bond measure and shall contain a description of the following:
(1) The amount of funds collected and expended.
(2) The status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the special tax and/or bond measure.
The table below summarizes the amount of annual special taxes collected and the authorized expenditures for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as outlined in the SB165 Report.
There are no status updates as the projects have been completed.
Attachment:
1. SB 165 Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
178
City of Aliso Viejo
Community Facilities District No. 2005-01
(Glenwood at Aliso Viejo)
Local Agency Special Tax and Bond
Accountability Act Compliance Report
(SB 165)
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
Prepared for:
City of Aliso Viejo
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949-425-2500
179
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section I. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 Section II. Bond Proceeds ............................................................................................................... 2 Section III. Collection of Special Taxes............................................................................................ 3 Section IV. Authorized Facilities...................................................................................................... 4 Section V. Expenditures to Fund Authorized Facilities................................................................... 5 180
______________________________________________________________________________ City of Aliso Viejo, Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) 1 Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Compliance (SB 165) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
SECTION I. BACKGROUND
The Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act (“Accountability Act”) was enacted by California State Legislature through Senate Bill 165 to provide accountability measures for any local special tax and/or bond measure subject to voter approval on or after January 1, 2001.
According to the requirements of the Accountability Act (Sections 50075.1 and 53410 of the Government Code of the State of California), an annual report must be filed by the local agency levying a special tax and/or issuing a bond measure on or before each January 1, commencing January 1, 2002, and shall contain a description of the following:
(1) The amount of funds collected and expended to fund authorized facilities. (2) The status of any project required or authorized to be funded by the special tax and/or bond measure.
The information contained in this Report has been compiled and is being presented to and in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 for the City of Aliso Viejo (“City”) and their Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) (“CFD No. 2005-01” or “CFD”).
181
______________________________________________________________________________ City of Aliso Viejo, Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) 2 Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Compliance (SB 165) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
SECTION II. BOND PROCEEDS
On December 6, 2007, the City issued 2007 Special Tax Bonds (“2007 Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $34,070,000, the proceeds of which were used to pay the costs of acquisition and construction of certain public facilities within CFD No. 2005-01. The City issued 2014 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (“2014 Refunding Bonds”) on February 13, 2014 in the aggregate principal amount of $32,270,000. A portion of the proceeds of the 2014 Refunding Bonds, together with certain existing funds on hand, were used to defease and refund the City’s 2007 Bonds. On December 5, 2023, the City issued 2023 Special Tax Refunding Bonds (“2023 Refunding Bonds”) in the aggregate principal amount of $23,430,000. A portion of the proceeds of the 2023 Refunding Bonds, together with certain existing funds on hand, were used to defease and refund the City’s 2014 Refunding Bonds. The table below summarizes the application of the 2023 Refunding Bond proceeds:
Fund/Account/Subaccount Bond Proceeds
Costs of Issuance Fund $392,059.57
Reserve Fund 1,269,210.59
Redemption of 2014 Refunding Bonds 26,924,966.56
Total1 $28,586,236.72 1 The difference between the 2023 Refunding Bond issue amount of $23,430,000 and the total Bond proceeds deposited is the Original Issue Premium less the Underwriter’s Discount, plus funds on hand from the 2014 Refunding Bonds.
182
______________________________________________________________________________ City of Aliso Viejo, Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) 3 Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Compliance (SB 165) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
SECTION III. COLLECTION OF SPECIAL TAXES
In accordance with the FAA, all Special Taxes collected by the City shall be deposited into the Special Tax Fund. The table below provides a summary of the Special Taxes deposited, interest accrued, transfers, and other transactions within the Special Tax Fund established under the FAA for the 2023 Refunding Bonds for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2026.
Item Balance
Beginning Balance as of July 1, 2025 $1,483,442.88
Sources of Funds:
Special Tax Receipts $2,018,960.49
Interest Accrued 44,514.65
Miscellaneous Transfers In 0.00
Subtotal: Sources of Funds $2,063,475.14
Uses of Funds:
Transfers to Administrative Expense Fund ($43,704.00)
Transfers to Bond Fund (Debt Service) (1,959,750.00)
Miscellaneous Transfers (Out) 0.00
Subtotal: Uses of Funds ($2,003,454.00)
Ending Balance as of June 30, 2026 $1,543,464.02
183
______________________________________________________________________________ City of Aliso Viejo, Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) 4 Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Compliance (SB 165) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
SECTION IV. AUTHORIZED FACILITIES
CFD No. 2005-01 is authorized to finance the acquisition and construction and engineering design of certain facilities to be owned by the City, the County of Orange, and the Moulton Niguel Water District (the “Facilities”).
Details of the authorized Facilities are as follows:
- The Community Conference Center;
- The Aquatic Center;
- The Public Park;
- The Public Parking Lot;
- Golf Drive;
- Water and sewer facilities to be owned, operated and maintained by the Moulton Niguel Water District (the “Water District”) as are necessary to serve the proposed development within CFD No. 2005-01;
- Water and sewer facilities to be owned, operated and maintained by the Water District that would otherwise be financed from the proceeds of the connection fees payable to the Water District for the development within CFD No. 2005-01; - Storm water facilities that will replace existing storm facilities for collection and transport of off-site storm water to be owned, operated and maintained by the City; - Street improvements to be owned, operated and maintained by the County that would otherwise be financed from the proceeds of fees payable to the County as part of the county’s Coastal Area Road Improvement and Moulton Parkway and Laguna Niguel Road Programs for the development within CFD No. 2005-01;
- Those public facilities authorized to be financed from the proceeds of the Community Enhancement Fee as required pursuant to the Development Agreement dated September 1, 2004 (“Development Agreement”);
- Offsite traffic mitigation improvements as required to be provided pursuant to the Development Agreement; and
- Offsite park enhancement improvements as required to be provided pursuant to the Development Agreement.
184
______________________________________________________________________________ City of Aliso Viejo, Community Facilities District No. 2005-01 (Glenwood at Aliso Viejo) 5 Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act Compliance (SB 165) Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2026
SECTION V. EXPENDITURES TO FUND AUTHORIZED
FACILITIES
The improvement fund established for the 2007 Bonds to pay for authorized facilities (the “2007 Improvement Fund”) had a balance remaining of approximately $662,337 at June 30, 2013.
Approximately $30,000 of the total amount remaining in the 2007 Improvement Fund was transferred to the Improvement Fund under the FAA to finance remaining obligations for the construction of the City’s aquatic center facilities. The net amount, plus interest, following the transfer of funds to the Improvement Fund, was combined with other sources of funding and used to defease and fully refund the 2007 Bonds.
The following table shows the amount deposited in the Improvement Fund, interest accrued, transfers and expenditures made to fund the authorized facilities from bond issuance. The final expenditures were paid from the Improvement Fund during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 and the fund was subsequently closed.
Item Balance
Sources of Funds:
Deposit into the Improvement Fund1 $30,000.00
Interest Accrued 5.52
Total Sources of Funds $30,005.52
Expenditures:
Aquatic Center Improvements ($21,386.23)
Transfer to Bond Fund2 (8,619.29)
Total Expenditures ($30,005.52) 1 Transferred from the 2007 Improvement Fund. 2 Transferred remaining balance to Bond Fund. 185
City of Aliso Viejo
AGENDA ITEM
DATE: October 21, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: So Kim, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-2026-01004, ZONE CHANGE ZA2026-01003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19442, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SDP-2025-00004, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT DA-2026-01001 AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY AT 27081 ALISO CREEK
ROAD
Recommended Actions:
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-2026-01004, ZONE CHANGE ZA-2026-01003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19442, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SDP2025-00004, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-2026-01001 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 27081 ALISO CREEK ROAD (APN: 632-124-08);
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 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 27081 ALISO CREEK ROAD (APN: 632-124-08);
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 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 27081 ALISO CREEK ROAD (APN: 632-124-08); 186
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 2 of 15
4. Adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19442 FOR SUBDIVISION INTO CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP-2025-00004) TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 27081 ALISO CREEK ROAD (APN: 632-124-08); 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 DA-2026-01001 BETWEEN THE CITY AND SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 27081 ALISO CREEK ROAD (APN: 632-124-08).
Background:
On March 20, 2025, Shea Homes (“Applicant”) submitted a pre-application to obtain feedback on concept plans for a development proposal involving the demolition of three existing office buildings to accommodate the construction of a 137-unit, residential community at 27081 Aliso Creek Road.
May 7, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public review and provided initial feedback on concept plans for the Project.
July 1, 2025, the Applicant submitted a general plan amendment, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, site development permit, and a Development Agreement DA-2026- 01001 application to demolish existing office buildings to construct a multi-family residential community at 27081 Aliso Creek Road (“Project”).
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines and was circulated for public review and comment from June 18 through July 8, 2026. The City received and responded to the three comments from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA).
Discussion:
Existing Site
The 8.44-acre site is currently developed with three two-story office buildings totaling approximately 125,166 square feet, with individual buildings that measure 41,722 square feet in average. The remainder of the site consists of surface parking, outdoor seating areas, and ornamental landscaping. The site is accessed from an unsignalized driveway on Pacific Park Drive and by a shared internal drive along the southern property boundary that provides connections to Aliso Creek Road and Journey. The site is generally flat, with 187
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 3 of 15
slopes located along the eastern and western property boundaries and is generally at grade with Pacific Park Drive and the adjoining office development to the south. The existing General Plan land use and Zoning designations are both Professional Office.
Surrounding land uses are detailed in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Existing Uses
North Pacific Park Drive and commercial uses within the Aliso Viejo Town Center
West Fire Station, library, restaurant, City Hall, offices, training facilities, and medical office uses.
East Gas station, Aliso Creek Road, and multi-family residential uses South Commercial uses within Pacific Park Plaza
Proposed Project
The Applicant is proposing to redevelop the Site by demolishing three existing office buildings to construct a 137-unit, three-story, for-sale attached townhome community on approximately 8.44 acres. Project details are provided in Table 2 below:
Table 2 Project Details
Number of Units
137 units of which 7 of these units (5%) will be deed restricted for very low-income households.
Two- to four-bedroom units measuring 1,102 to 2,207 square feet in size.
Building
Three-story attached residential buildings consisting of two housing types: Row Townhomes and Garden Courts. Row Townhome
buildings range from four to six dwelling units per building, while Garden Court buildings contain five units organized around a central courtyard. The buildings will measure 41’ max. height and include articulated stucco facades, varied building massing, recessed entries, decorative balconies with metal railings, enhanced window trim, and a combination of gable and hip roof forms with concrete tile roofing.
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 83 guest parking spaces are provided on site. The total parking count of 343 complies with the City’s parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit (343 spaces) and exceeds the minimum required by State Density Bonus Law (308 spaces).
Common Space
34.7% or 127,400 square feet (25% required) consisting of:
7,000 square foot central park, 51,400 square feet of pedestrian paseos, landscaped courtyards, walkways, perimeter
landscaping, and two community amenity areas that provide 188
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 4 of 15
Table 2 Project Details
opportunities for passive recreation, social gathering, and pedestrian connectivity.
Preservation of 69,000 square feet of landscaped slope areas.
Exterior utility and mechanical equipment will be screened through a combination of architectural treatments and landscaping.
Miscellaneous
The project will retain the existing north and south access points, incorporate enhanced landscaping throughout the site, 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. The internal streets and accessways shall remain open and accessible and not gated as a private community.
Grading
13,700 cubic yards (“CY”) of grading is proposed, 4,200 CY cut and 3,900 CY fill, with a net export of 5,600 CY. The maximum depth of cut is 8’ with 6’ fill to level the property.
Infrastructure
Construction of new onsite water, sewer, storm drain, fire protection, and dry utility infrastructure to serve the residential community, including water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, fire hydrants, utility connections, and associated site improvements.
Entitlements
The Project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Mitigated Negative Declaration, 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 Professional Office to Medium 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.
The project would replace the existing office development with a 137-unit residential community that includes onsite parking, internal circulation improvements, utility infrastructure, landscaped open space, and access from existing site driveways. The project consists of three-story attached Row Townhome and Garden Court residential buildings with stucco façades, tile roofs, 189
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 5 of 15
decorative metal balcony railings, recessed entries, and articulated building elevations. The project also provides approximately 127,400 square feet of open space, including a central park, landscaped paseos and garden courts, and landscaped slope areas. Although the site is currently designated and zoned for Professional Office uses, it is located at the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road, where it serves as a transition between commercial and office uses and existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed residential design, architectural character, landscaping, and open-space amenities are consistent with surrounding residential development patterns, and the project retains the existing site access points and circulation system, supporting compatibility with the surrounding urban environment. Therefore, this finding can be made.
Additionally, 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.
2. Internal General Plan Consistency. The amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan, that 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 public benefit fee; 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. 190
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 6 of 15
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.
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 intersection of Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road and is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, office, and community facility uses. Properties to the east are designated Medium and High Density Residential and developed with attached multifamily residential uses, while properties to the north also include similar residential neighborhoods in proximity to the Aliso Viejo Town Center. The proposed residential designation therefore extends an existing residential land use pattern in the surrounding area and provides a transition between residential neighborhoods and nearby commercial and office uses. The project's three-story Row Townhome and Garden Court buildings, residential architectural design, landscaped open-space network, and retention of existing access and circulation patterns further support compatibility with adjacent developments. Accordingly, the proposed Medium Density Residential designation is compatible with the land use designations and development pattern of nearby properties. Therefore, this finding can be made. 191
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 7 of 15
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 at the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road, with access provided from existing driveways connecting to Pacific Park Drive, Aliso Creek Road, and Journey through an established internal circulation system. The site is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, office, and community facility uses and is immediately adjacent to existing attached residential development, making it well suited for residential use. The project site is generally flat, with limited slopes along the eastern and western property boundaries, and can accommodate residential development with proposed grading, circulation, utility, and drainage improvements. The proposed development consists of threestory Row Townhome and Garden Court buildings designed around landscaped courtyards, paseos, and open-space areas totaling approximately 127,400 square feet, or 34.7% of the site. The proposed building style and design elements exist in adjacent residential neighborhoods. 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 Professional Office 2 to Medium 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 the above General Plan Amendment Findings.
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.
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.
192
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 8 of 15
1. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans.
The Site has a General Plan land use designation of Professional Office.
The Applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the property for Medium Density Residential, which allows for residential development of 9 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map proposes 137 multifamily homes on 8.44 acres, resulting in a density of 16.2 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 air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems.
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 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 Medium Density Residential, which permits residential development at a range of 9 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map proposes 137 multi-family homes on 8.44 acres, resulting in a density of approximately 16.2 dwelling units per acre. This proposed density falls within the allowable range for the Medium-Density Residential designation. Therefore, this finding can be made. 193
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 9 of 15
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 fully developed, contains no special-status plant or wildlife species, no riparian habitat, wetlands, sensitive natural communities, or wildlife corridors, and is not located within or adjacent to any habitat conservation reserve area. While the Site provides limited nesting habitat for common avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, including pre-construction nesting bird surveys, avoidance buffers, monitoring, and seasonal construction restrictions, would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.
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 Project site is not listed on any hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, 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.
8. The advisory agency shall determine whether the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing sanitary sewer system would result in or add to a violation of existing requirements prescribed by either the Santa Ana or San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
The project site's wastewater will be conveyed through the existing Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) wastewater collection system and treated at existing regional wastewater treatment facilities. The project's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) concluded that implementation of the proposed residential development would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not substantially degrade surface water or 194
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 10 of 15
groundwater quality. MNWD provides wastewater collection and treatment services throughout its service area and has existing treatment capacity to serve anticipated development within the district. In addition, the project will be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, regional, and local water quality regulations, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, implementation of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), and all applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.
9. If the advisory agency approves or conditionally approves a tentative map which deviates from any standard of design as allowed by AVMC, the advisory agency shall make a finding that each such deviation has been individually considered and found to be justified based upon specific special circumstances.
No deviations from the subdivision design standards are proposed as part of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Accordingly, no deviations require consideration or justification based on special circumstances.
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 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 Medium Density Residential, together with the associated development, is compatible with surrounding land uses, providing a transition that complements the existing neighborhood character. The project site is located at the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road and is surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial, office, and community facility uses.
Properties to the east and north are designated and developed with attached multifamily residential neighborhoods, and the proposed residential development extends this existing residential land use pattern while providing an appropriate transition between adjacent residential neighborhoods and nearby commercial and 195
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 11 of 15
office uses. The site is well suited for residential development based on its location, established access and circulation system, visual character, and generally flat topography. The proposed three-story Row Townhome and Garden Court buildings incorporate residential architectural design, landscaped courtyards, paseos, and open-space amenities that are compatible with surrounding residential development and neighborhood character.
The Project incorporates reduced perimeter landscape setbacks, an increase in maximum building height, and an increase in retaining wall height along the western property line, all of which are requested as waivers under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). Because the Project provides the required percentage of affordable housing units for very low-income households, it is eligible for these waivers, which the City is required to grant upon making the applicable statutory findings. In addition, the Project qualifies for a reduced parking ratio under the State Density Bonus Law, which requires a minimum of 308 parking spaces. The Applicant proposes 343 parking spaces, consisting of 260 private residential spaces and 83 guest spaces. Although the Project qualifies for a reduced parking requirement, the proposed parking supply exceeds the minimum parking required under State law and fully complies with the City's parking standard of 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, which requires 343 parking spaces. Accordingly, the Project conforms to the permitted use provisions and applicable development standards of the Zoning Code. Therefore, this finding can be made.
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.
The Project consists of three-story Row Townhome and Garden Court residential buildings that are consistent with the scale and intensity of existing multifamily residential developments located immediately east of the site and across Pacific Park Drive on both sides of the Aliso Viejo Town Center. The proposed residential building forms, architectural character, and site design reflect the development pattern established in these surrounding residential neighborhoods and provide a compatible transition between the adjacent residential, commercial, and office uses. The Row Townhome buildings contain four- to six-unit configurations organized along landscaped paseos, while the Garden Court buildings are arranged around central courtyards, creating a residential character similar to nearby attached housing communities. The proposed architecture incorporates features common throughout Aliso Viejo residential neighborhoods, including stucco exterior finishes, tile roofing, enhanced entry features, varied building elevations, articulated facades, recessed balconies, decorative trim elements, and 196
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 12 of 15
a combination of roof forms that reduce building mass and provide visual interest.
In addition, the Project includes courtyards, paseos, and community gathering areas that complement the design character of surrounding residential development. The building placement, architectural detailing, material palette, and overall site design provide a cohesive residential environment that is compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods and serves as an appropriate transition to nearby commercial and office uses. Accordingly, the architectural design of the Project is compatible with 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 Project plans and supporting documentation, the Project will retain the existing site access configuration, with primary entry and exit points provided from Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road. The Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the Project will maintain acceptable traffic operations within the surrounding roadway network and that site access is adequate to accommodate project traffic safely and efficiently. To improve circulation and vehicular safety, the existing driveway on Aliso Creek Road will be modified to a full-ingress/right-turnout configuration through the installation of a channelized right-turn island. The analysis also recommends signage, pavement markings, and HOA provisions within the shared access area between the Project and Pacific Park Plaza to discourage cut-through traffic and reinforce the intended circulation pattern. The internal private roadway network, including emergency and service access, was reviewed and accepted by the Orange County Fire Authority. Each dwelling unit will be served by enclosed private garage parking, while guest parking is distributed throughout the site to support visitor access. Approximately 127,400 square feet of landscaped open space, including courtyards, paseos, recreation areas, and perimeter landscaping, is provided throughout the development to enhance the residential character of the site. Utility equipment and other service elements are integrated into the site design and screened from public view through building placement and landscaping. Exterior lighting will be designed to provide safe illumination for vehicular and pedestrian areas while minimizing off-site glare and light spill. These site design elements are compatible with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential, commercial, and office uses; therefore, this 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 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.
197
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 13 of 15
The Project incorporates a landscape plan that enhances the overall visual continuity of the site and complements the architectural character of the development. Approximately 127,400 square feet, or 34.7% of the site, is devoted to landscaped open space, including courtyards, paseos, recreation areas, community gathering spaces, perimeter landscaping, and enhanced streetscape improvements. Landscaping is strategically located throughout the development to define pedestrian corridors, frame project entries, provide visual separation between land uses, soften building massing, and screen utilities from public view.
The landscape palette includes a variety of trees, shrubs, groundcovers, and accent plantings that comply with City landscape requirements, emphasizing lowwater, drought-tolerant species. The proposed landscape design and planting palette enhances landscaping throughout the site, providing visual buffering and transition between the proposed development and surrounding properties.
Therefore, this finding can be made.
Development Agreement DA-2026-01001
This Project requires a land use and zoning change from office to residential, which requires a Development Agreement DA-2026-01001 (“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 provide a public benefit contribution to the City totaling approximately $3,663,548.
Pursuant to AVMC 15.82.010 (Development Agreement DA-2026-01001s and Other Actions), the City Council must make the following findings prior to approving the DA:
1. Public Welfare. Approval of the Development Agreement DA-2026-01001 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 MediumDensity 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 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 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 DA-2026-01001 is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
198
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 14 of 15
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, as evidenced in General Plan Amendment Finding No. 2. The Project is also subject to mitigation measures and conditions of approval that address potential impacts related to air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems. The DA 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 determined that the Project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, or wildfire. However, it identified potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems. With the implementation of mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures are detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 1, Exhibit A, Section 6.0) and have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 4, Exhibit A) for the Project.
The IS/MND was circulated for a 20-day public review period, from June 18, 2026 to July 8, 2026. Distribution included the State Clearinghouse, required public agencies, property owners within a 300-foot radius of the Project site, and interested parties. Three comment letters were received during the public review period from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). OCTA requested minor revisions to the transit service descriptions contained in the IS/MND, and the document was revised accordingly to accurately reflect OCTA Routes 177 and 90. Caltrans provided recommendations related to bicycle parking, pedestrian accessibility, transit connectivity, internal circulation, package delivery facilities, and construction traffic management. The Applicant 199
60367.01460\45505048.1 Page 15 of 15
responded that the Project already incorporates bicycle parking, sidewalks, internal circulation improvements, and access provisions, while other recommendations were either not warranted based on project conditions, did not apply to the Project, or would be addressed through subsequent permit review and construction requirements. OCFA concluded that the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to fire protection services. None of the comments identified new significant environmental impacts or resulted in changes to the IS/MND's environmental conclusions.
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 – 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
c. Exhibit C – Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442
5. Ordinance (Development Agreement DA-2026-01001)
a. Exhibit A – Development Agreement DA-2026-01001
6. Presentation
200
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___
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-2026-01004,
ZONE CHANGE ZA-2026-01003, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
19442, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SDP-2025-00004 AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-2026-01001 TO ALLOW THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 137-UNIT RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME
COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 27081 ALISO CREEK ROAD (APN: 632-
124-08).
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2025, Shea Homes (“Applicant”) submitted a pre-application to obtain feedback on concept plans for a development proposal involving the demolition of three existing office buildings to accommodate the construction of a 137-unit, residential community at 27081 Aliso Creek Road;
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public review and provided initial feedback on the concept plans for the Project; WHEREAS, on July 1, 2025, the Applicant submitted a general plan amendment, zone change, vesting tentative tract map, site development permit, and a development agreement application to demolish existing office buildings and construct a multi-family residential community at 27081 Aliso Creek Road (“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] 2026060921) was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines;
201
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 June 18, 2026 to July 8, 2026; WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, copies of the IS/MND were available for review and inspection at the City of Aliso Viejo, Community Development Department and on the City’s website;
WHEREAS, the City received and responded to three comments from Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA);
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 1, 2026, the City gave public notice of the City Council public hearing for consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment GPA-2026-01004, Zone Change ZC-2026-01003, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Site Development Permit SDP-2025-00004, and Development Agreement DA-2026- 01001 for the Project by advertising in a newspaper of general circulation; posting notices at City Hall and the Project site; and mailing notices to owners of property within 300 feet, Applicant, and local agencies that provide water, sewage, electricity and schools; WHEREAS, on October 21, 2026, 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:
202
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 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 “A”, Section 6.0. 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. 203
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October 2026. __________________________
Max Duncan
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
__________________________ __________________________
Scott C. Smith, City Attorney Maria Kendig, City Clerk
204
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO )
I, Maria Kendig, City Clerk of the City of Aliso Viejo, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2026-__ duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Aliso Viejo at their regular meeting held on the 21st day of October 2026, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
___________________________
MARIA KENDIG,
CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
205
Exhibit “A”
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
206
Exhibit “B”
Response to Comments
207
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NO. CEQA-2026-01000
Lead Agency:
City of Aliso Viejo
Community Development Department
12 Journey, Suite 100
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Contact: So Kim, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Contact: Peter Carlson, President
Date:
June 2026
208
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2.0 Existing Setting ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Regional Setting..................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Existing Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................ 3 Section 3.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Recreation and Open Space................................................................................................ 8
3.1.2 Residential Uses ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Architecture........................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.4 Parking ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.5 Grading and Construction.................................................................................................. 12
3.1.6 Density Bonus Waivers ........................................................................................................ 12
3.1.7 Infrastructure and Utilities ................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Intended Use of the IS/MND ............................................................................................. 13 Section 4.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................... 19
4.1 Determination....................................................................................................................... 19 Section 5.0 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................... 20
5.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 20
5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 24
5.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................. 26
5.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 34
5.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................... 38
5.6 Energy.................................................................................................................................... 41
5.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................ 43
5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 50
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 56
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................ 61
5.11 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................... 67
5.12 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................ 75
5.13 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 76
5.14 Population and Housing..................................................................................................... 82
5.15 Public Service........................................................................................................................ 84
5.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 89
5.17 Transportation/Traffic.......................................................................................................... 92
5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................100
5.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................105
5.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................110
5.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance...............................................................................112 Section 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................. 114 209
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page ii FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location Map ...................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Project Location Map.......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: General Plan Land Use Designation ................................................................................ 6 Figure 4: Zoning Classification........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 6: Tentative Tract Map .......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 7: Proposed Elevation - 4-Unit Building Rowtowns ......................................................... 14 Figure 8: Proposed Elevation - 5-Unit Building Rowtowns ......................................................... 15 Figure 9: Proposed Elevation - 6-Unit Building Rowtowns ......................................................... 16 Figure 10: Proposed Elevation - 10-Unit Building Garden Courts ............................................ 17 Figure 11: Proposed Elevation - 6-Unit Building Garden Courts............................................... 18 TABLES Table 1. Three-Story Rowtowns ......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Three-Story Garden Courts ................................................................................................. 9 Table 3. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds .............................................................. 27 Table 4. SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) ...................................................... 27 Table 5. Daily Construction Emissions............................................................................................ 31 Table 6. Daily Operational Emissions ............................................................................................. 31 Table 7. Localized Construction Emissions.................................................................................... 33 Table 8. Localized Operational Emissions ..................................................................................... 33 Table 9. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 52 Table 10. Operational and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................... 52 Table 11. Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Priority Areas ...................................... 53 Table 12. Peak Discharge Rates 10 Year and 25 Year Storms for Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions....................................................................................................... 65 Table 13. Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies ...................................... 68 Table 14. Project Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................. 77 Table 15. Daytime Hours Stationary Noise Impacts ..................................................................... 79 Table 16. Nighttime Hours Stationary Noise Impacts .................................................................. 79 Table 17. SED Data for TAZ 1553.................................................................................................... 95 Table 18. Residential Trip Lengths By TAZ .................................................................................... 96 Table 19. VMT Comparison – Existing to Proposed..................................................................... 96
APPENDICES
Appendix A Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study
Appendix B Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Resource Assessment in the City of Aliso Viejo
210
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page iii Appendix C Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
Appendix D Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential Redevelopment
Appendix E Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project
Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Shallow Soil Sampling Report
Appendix G Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report
Appendix H Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Noise Impact Study Appendix J Pacific Park Drive Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, City of Aliso Viejo
Appendix K Moulton Niguel Water District Engineering Feasibility Letter Appendix L Fire Master Plan
211
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. CEQA-2026-01000 Project Title:
Aliso Creek Residential Development
Project
Reference Application Numbers:
General Plan Amendment GPA-2026-01004, Zone
Change ZA-2026-01003, Development Agreement
DA-2026-01001, Tentative Tract Map No. 19442,
Site Development Permit SDP-2025-00004, and
Density Bonus Application.
Lead Agency:
City of Aliso Viejo
Contact Person and Telephone No.:
So Kim, Director of Community Development
[email protected]
949.425.2527
Project Proponent and Address:
Shea Homes
2 Ada, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact Person and Telephone No.:
Emilie Simard, Director of Forward Planning
[email protected]
949.244.7172
Project Location:
The Project site address is 27081 Aliso Creek Road. The site is located south of Pacific Park Drive, west of Aliso Creek Road, and north of Journey.
Existing General Plan Designation:
Professional Office
Existing Zoning Classification:
Professional Office (PO)
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Aliso Viejo (City), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Initial Study (IS) for the Aliso Creek Residential Development Project (Project). The information contained in the IS was used by the City of Aliso Viejo to evaluate and determine potential impacts associated with the proposed Project as required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
This IS assesses the environmental effects of the proposed Aliso Creek Residential Development Project, located on approximately 8.44 acres of land currently developed with three two-story office buildings. The Project site is located at 27081 Aliso Creek Road, which is generally south of Pacific Park Drive, west of Aliso Creek Road, and north and east of Journey.
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and Site Development Permit to develop the site as a for-sale residential community with 137 three-story attached residential units. 212
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 2 The preparation of an IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is governed by two principal sets of documents: CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000, et seq.). Specifically, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (“Initial Study”) and Sections 15070–15075 (“Negative Declaration Process”) guide the process for the preparation of an IS/MND. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference is made either to the statute, the State CEQA Guidelines, or appropriate case law. As mandated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, affected public agencies and the interested public may submit comments on the Draft IS/MND. Comments will be responded to in writing.
This IS/MND and its appendices have been prepared in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. This IS/MND contains (1) a brief description of the proposed Project, (2) the proposed Project location, (3) proposed findings that the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment, (4) a copy of the IS/Environmental Checklist documenting support for the findings, and (5) all mitigation measures to be implemented. When combined with the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, this serves as the environmental document for the proposed Project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.).
SECTION 2.0 EXISTING SETTING
2.1 Regional Setting
The approximately 8.44-acre site (Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 632-124-08) is located in the City of Aliso Viejo on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle topographic map within Section 16, Township 7 south, and Range 8 west. The Project site is located south of Pacific Park Drive, west of Aliso Creek Road, and north and east of Journey in the City of Aliso Viejo (Figures 1 and 2).
2.2 Existing Site Conditions
The site is currently developed with three two-story office buildings. The three office buildings measure approximately 35,568, 49,538, and 40,060 square feet in size. The remaining areas of the Project site consist of paved parking, outdoor seating areas, and ornamental landscaping.
Direct access currently occurs to the Project site from an unsignalized driveway at Pacific Park Drive. Additional access to the Project site occurs from an internal drive along the southern Project boundary that connects to and extends west from Aliso Creek Road at an unsignalized driveway and south through the adjoining office campus to Journey, also at an unsignalized driveway. The shared internal drive along the southern Project boundary includes a center round-about with a landscaped median and decorative paving, which is a defining feature of the internal circulation system. An access easement is recorded over this drive, allowing the Project site to retain access to both Aliso Creek Road and Journey. 213
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 3 The Project site is generally flat; however, slopes occur on the western and eastern Project boundaries. The Project site is generally at grade with Pacific Park Drive at the drive entry and at grade with the adjoining office complex to the south.
The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Professional Office (Figure 3). The existing Zoning classification is Professional Office (Figure 4). The proposed Project seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Professional Office to Residential Medium Density.
2.3 Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is bordered by a fire station, library and medical office to the west; a gas station, Aliso Creek Road and attached residential uses to the east; Pacific Park Drive and commercial uses within the Aliso Viejo Town Center to the north; and commercial uses within Pacific Park Plaza to the south. The surrounding General Plan land use designations are Community Facilities to the west, Town Center Commercial to the north, High Density Residential to the east, and Business Park to the south. 214
Approximate Project Location
I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
1 inch = 5,000 feet
0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: November 25, 2025 Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1
^_
N.T.S.
N
FIGURE 1
Source: World Street Imagery. Regional Location Map
215
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community I Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: November 25, 2025 Project Location Map
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Source: WorldImagery. Project Location Map N.T.S.
N
216
Aliso Creek Road
Project
Site
Pacific Park Drive
FIGURE 3
Source: City of Aliso Viejo (2004). General Plan Land Use Designation General Plan/ Land Use
N.T.S.
N
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Business Park
Professional Office
Community Facilities
217
Project
Site
Aliso Creek Road
Pacific Park Drive
N.T.S.
N
FIGURE 4
Source: City of Aliso Viejo (2025). Zoning Classification Zoning Designation
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Residential Very High Density
Planned Residential Development
Town Center Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Business Park 1
Professional Office
Community Facilities
218
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 8 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Agreement, Tentative Tract Map, Density Bonus, and Site Development Permit in order to construct 137 three-story for-sale attached residential, landscape, streets and drive aisles on approximately
8.44 acres. Two residential housing types are proposed, Three-Story Townhomes and ThreeStory Garden Courts.
As required by CEQA for the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Public Resources Code Section 21064.5), after the Project application was submitted, the City has evaluated the Project as originally proposed and recommended to the applicant that changes to the Project proposal be made to “avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur.” Prior to the circulation of this MND, the applicant has accepted those recommendations. Therefore, all Project features and actions identified in this MND as either Project Design Features or Mitigation Measures have been agreed to and incorporated into the Project as required by Public Resources Code Section 21064.5.
3.1 Site Plan
The Project proposes to retain the existing circulation pattern, which provides access to the Project site from an unsignalized driveway at Pacific Park Drive, as well as access to Aliso Creek Road and Journey. Pacific Park Drive would provide primary access to the Project site, and this entrance would be enhanced with accent paving, enhanced landscaping, and community signage.
The internal backbone streets would measure 26 – 28 feet wide without parking and 31 feet wide with parallel parking. Alleys that serve garages would measure 24 feet in width.
The site plan generally provides a 20-foot perimeter setback from the property line to proposed residential uses, except along the southern property boundary where encroachments into the 20-foot setback occur. Retaining walls are proposed on both the west and east sides of the property. The walls along the west side of the property would be at the toe of the slope and measure up to approximately 8 feet in height. The remainder of the slope would be landscaped and the walls would not be visible from surrounding properties or Journey. The retaining walls along the eastern boundary would occur at the top of the slope and measure up to approximately 5-feet in height. The walls would be separated from Aliso Creek Road by more than 20 feet of landscaped area, which would screen the walls from public view.
The proposed Site Plan and Tentative Tract Map are provided in Figures 5 and 6.
3.1.1 Recreation and Open Space
The Site Plan provides for a central recreation area featuring a pool, BBQ area, and lounge seating. Additionally, a tot lot and playground, with play equipment, benches, and shaded 219
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 9 areas are provided in the western portion of the site adjacent to the slope. The central recreation area totals approximately 7,000 square feet.
Each of the dwelling units includes private open space areas in the form of patios and balconies. Private open space totals approximately 34,372 square feet. Additionally, throughout the community are courtyards with seating and accent landscaping, providing passive green spaces as well as paved walkways with trees and specimen plantings, enhancing the community’s visual appeal and walkability. The paseos and green courts total approximately 43,900 square feet. The perimeter slopes would also include landscaping consisting of trees and understory. The total private landscaping is approximately 69,000 square feet.
3.1.2 Residential Uses
The Project proposes two different residential building types, Three-Story Rowtowns (70 dwelling units) and Three-Story Garden Courts (67 dwelling units). The Rowtowns provide side-by-side dwelling units (dus) with front door access from a landscape paseo. Buildings range from four to six dwelling units, measure 41 feet tall, and are primarily located in the south-central and south-east portion of the site. The Garden Courts consist of generally five dwellings in a building separated by a central courtyard. Some configurations include buildings with two to five dwellings. The Garden Courts are located in the northern portion of the Project site and the south-western corner of the site.
Tables 1 and 2 below provide a summary of the two residential housing types.
Table 1. Three-Story Rowtowns
Plan # of
Units
Square
Footage
(sf)
Stories Garage Count Bedrooms Bathrooms
Plan 1 16 2,019 3-story 2-car 3 bdrm 3 bath
Plan 2 26 2,207 3-story 2-car 4 bdrm 4 bath
Plan 3 28 2,249 3-story 2-car 4 bdrm 4 bath
Total 70
Table 2. Three-Story Garden Courts
Plan # of
Units
Square
Footage (sf)
Stories Garage Count Bedrooms Bathrooms
Plan 1* 14 1,102 3-story 1-car 2 bdrm 3 bath
Plan 2 14 1,456 3-story 2-car 3 bdrm 3 bath
Plan 3 14 1,626 3-story 2-car 3 bdrm 3 bath
Plan 4 11 1,804 3-story 2-car 3 bdrm 4 bath
Plan 5 14 2,186 3-story 2-car 4 bdrm 4 bath
Total 67
* The Project proposes 5% Very Low Income affordable dwelling units, which totals 7 dwelling units. The affordable units would be provided in the Garden Courts, where 7 of the 14 Plan 1 units would be deed restricted for Very Low Income qualified buyers.
220
LEGEND NOTES:
Community Pool Area - See Enlargement [L-2]Paseo - See Enlargement [L-2]Existing Roundabout - to RemainProject ID WallFocal Tree at EntryTypical Courtyard - See Enlargement [L-4]Community Playground - See Enlargement [L-4]Community Dog ParkCommunity MailboxesCommunity ParkingExisting Slope - Refresh PlantingPrivate Yard/PatioEnhanced Vehicular PavingGated Entry to Amenity Space Note:* Planting within sight triangle shall be maintained under 30” in height.*Yard buildings are not to exceed 12’ in height and are to occur at a 3’ minimum from all property lines. 123456789
1011121314
J O U R N E Y
A L I S O C R E E K R D
EXISTING
O F F S I T E -
GAS STATION EXISTING
O F F S I T E -
FIRE STATION
P A C I F I C P A R K D R
1 3
2 6
6 6
11 11
11 6
2 4
9 9 14 10 10
10 10
5 4 13
7 14
8 14 12
12 12
12 12
12 12 12
10.22.25 ALISO VIEJO, CA
L-1
ALISO CREEK -
Collaborative
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Scale: 1”= 30’-0” CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
N.T.S.
FIGURE 5
Source: C2Collaboration (10.22.2025) Conceptual Site Plan 221
8''DW
8''DW
8''DW 8''DW
8''S
8''S
8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW
8''DW 8''DW
8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''S 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW 8''DW
8''S
8''DW
8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW
8''S 8''S
8''DW 8''DW 8''DW
SD
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD
SW
X X
SD
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:
”
”
09/23/2025
N.T.S.
FIGURE 6
Source: ProActive Enginerring&Surveying (August 2025) Tentative Tract Map 222
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 12
3.1.3 Architecture
The Project architectural style includes rowtown and garden courtyards, which includes transitional architectural style, balancing traditional forms with contemporary details.
Materials include smooth stucco, horizontal siding, and stone veneer, creating contrast and visual interest. Architectural elevations are provided in Figures 7 through 11. To enhance the street presence, buildings along Pacific Park, Aliso Creek, and the southern boundary are oriented forward, to promote walkability and strong urban design. The garden courts open inward, softening building mass and maximizing landscape views, providing a more intimate neighborhood feel.
3.1.4 Parking
Each unit includes a two-car enclosed garage with side-by-side parking, except for the Plan 1 garden courts, which are designated as affordable dwelling units, which have a one-car garage. Garages are designed to accommodate parked cars plus three individual trash carts per unit. Additionally, surface parking areas are provided throughout the Project site with 83 guest parking spaces. The parking ratio totals 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
3.1.5 Grading and Construction
The existing improvements on the Project site would be demolished and hauled off-site.
Recyclable construction materials would be taken to an approved recycling facility. The remaining construction materials would be hauled to an approved landfill. The estimated amount of demolition includes:
• Building = 125,166 sf
• Asphalt Concrete (AC) = 217,550 sf
• Landscape =41,200 sf
The Project site would be graded following demolition. Remedial grading would prepare the site for residential development. Grading quantity estimates in cubic yards (cy) include:
• Raw cut = 4,200 cy
• Raw fill = 9,800 cy
• Remedial = 5,500 cy
Since the amount of raw fill exceeds the amount of raw cut, the Project would require import of approximately 5,600 cubic yards.
3.1.6 Density Bonus Waivers
Under State Density Bonus Law, projects are afforded waivers of development standards as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The proposed Project includes the following three waivers to development standards.
• Building Height: The Project proposes a waiver to increase the height of the residential buildings from 35 feet to 41 feet.
• Landscape Buffer: The Project proposes a waiver to encroach into the 20-foot landscape buffer along the southern property line.
223
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 13 • Retaining Wall Height: The Project proposes a waiver to permit a retaining wall up to 8 feet in height along the west property line below the fire station.
3.1.7 Infrastructure and Utilities
The proposed grading plan would maintain existing drainage patterns by incorporating a series of high and low points, as well as utilizing existing v-ditches, effectively channeling stormwater to catch basins to a primary outlet to the north in Pacific Park Drive. Construction of a new public lateral storm drain would be required to connect to the existing storm drain in Pacific Park Drive. There would be a secondary storm drain outlet to the south, discharging to Aliso Creek Road. Stormwater treatment is proposed by underground flow-based treatment systems, such as modular wetlands. The on-site stormwater system includes an underground detention vault measuring approximately 28 feet by 130 feet by 5 feet deep.
The vault is designed to capture and hold stormwater, released through an orifice opening sized to meet the South Orange County Hydromodification Management Plan (SOCHM) criteria.
Utility connections are planned within Pacific Park Drive and at the roundabout south of the subject property. The Project site would be served by a looped water main with connections in Pacific Park Drive and the roundabout at the south property line. Each home is expected to have an individual water meter with private service connections. The sewer mainline is planned to connect in Aliso Creek Road following the replacement of the existing sewer line in the shared drive. The point of connection to service the residential development would occur in the roundabout at the south property line.
3.2 Intended Use of the IS/MND
The Project proposes the following entitlements:
• General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2026-01004
• Zone Change No. ZA-2026-01003
• Development Agreement No. DA-2026-01001
• Tentative Tract Map No. 19442
• Site Development Permit No. SDP-2025-00004
• Density Bonus
224
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Right Elevation
4-Unit Building Rowtown
Front Elevation
N.T.S.
FIGURE 7
Source: Woodley Architectural Group (10.22.25) Proposed Elevation - 4-Unit Building Rowtowns 225
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Right Elevation
5-Unit Building Rowtown
Front Elevation
N.T.S.
FIGURE 8
Source: Woodley Architectural Group (10.22.25) Proposed Elevation - 5-Unit Building Rowtowns 226
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Right Elevation
6-Unit Building Rowtown
Front Elevation
N.T.S.
FIGURE 9
Source: Woodley Architectural Group (10.22.25) Proposed Elevation - 6-Unit Building Rowtowns 227
6-Unit Building Garden Courts
Front Elevation
Rear Elevation
Left Elevation
Right Elevation
N.T.S.
FIGURE 10
Source: Woodley Architectural Group (10.22.25) Proposed Elevation - 10-Unit Building Garden Courts 228
Front Elevation
6-Unit Building Garden Courts
Left Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
N.T.S.
FIGURE 11
Source: Woodley Architectural Group (10.22.25) Proposed Elevation - 6-Unit Building Garden Courts 229
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 19 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Transportation / Traffic
Agriculture & Forest Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Tribal Cultural Resources Air Quality Land Use / Planning Utilities / Service Systems Biological Resources Mineral Resources Wildfire
Cultural Resources Noise
Energy Population / Housing
Geology / Soils Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation Significance
4.1 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 or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
230
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 20 SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
5.1 Aesthetics
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS. 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 buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In nonurbanized 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
The Project site constitutes an infill site currently developed with existing office buildings, associated parking lot and scattered ornamental vegetation. The Project site is not located on a ridgeline or an area of visual prominence. There are no rock outcroppings or other unique geologic features. The scattered ornamental trees on the Project site are common to the area.
The City’s General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element defines scenic resources as unique hillsides, ridgelines, canyons and view corridors. While there are a number of scenic resources within the City, the Project site does not have the elements to meet the definition of scenic resource. Policy COS-4.1 of the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element directs the City to protect scenic landform features such as hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors through designation of key areas as open space and use of other land use planning tools. While scenic vistas are not specifically identified in the General Plan, the General Plan identifies a number of scenic resources in the City, including canyon views and scenic highways, which are cited as examples of scenic qualities benefiting the community.
Several roadways within Aliso Viejo have scenic qualities and are designated as viewscape and landscape corridors by the City. Viewscape corridors are defined as “[a] route that traverses a corridor within which unique or unusual scenic resources and aesthetic values are found. This designation is intended to minimize the impact of the 231
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 21 highway and land development upon the significant scenic resources along the route.” Landscape corridors are defined as “[a] corridor that traverses developed or developing areas and has been designated for special treatment to provide a pleasant driving environment as well as community enhancement.” The closest viewscape corridor to the Project site is Wood Canyon Drive, located south of the Project site. The Project site is located adjacent to Aliso Creek Road, which is designated a landscape corridor.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. The Project site is not identified as a scenic vista and does not contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify the site for designation as a scenic vista. The Project site is located within an area that is generally developed and urbanized. The Project site is currently developed with office buildings, surface parking, landscaping, and improvements.
Views from the Project site include short- to middle-range views of parking, landscaping, and commercial structures, parking, ornamental landscaping to the north, west and south; and residential uses and Aliso Creek Road to the east. There are no public views from the Project site of scenic resources. Furthermore, there are no established public views of a scenic vista surrounding the Project site. Journey is elevated above the Project site to the west and provides glimpses of territorial views to the east. However, there are no established vista points from Journey. Furthermore, the views from Journey are interrupted by existing street trees planted along Journey.
Future development of the Project site would increase the development pad elevations in the eastern portion of the site approximately two feet above existing conditions.
However, the building heights of the proposed residential development at approximately 41 feet would remain well below the current Professional Office height limit of 65 feet.
A small portion of the eastern Project boundary is adjacent to Aliso Creek Road, which is identified as a Landscape Corridor. The General Plan Conservation / Open Space Element defines Landscape Corridor as “A corridor that traverses developed or developing areas and has been designated for special treatment to provide a pleasant driving environment as well as community enhancement.” The area of the Project site adjacent to Aliso Creek Road would be landscaped in accordance with the objectives of the Landscape Corridor. The minor encroachment into the landscape setback associated with the proposed density bonus waiver would occur along the southern property line along a driveway and not adjacent to surrounding public streets. The existing landscaped slope along Aliso Creek Road will be preserved and enhanced with additional low water, drought tolerant plantings. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The Project site is not located within a state scenic highway corridor. The Project site is not located near any designated scenic highways, significant ridgelines, or other identified scenic resources, and would not result in any impacts related to 232
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 22 having an adverse impact on a scenic vista. The closest officially designated scenic highway to the Project site is the SR-91 located approximately 20 miles north and outside of the City. Highway 74, located in San Juan Capistrano approximately 7 miles southeast of the Project site is designated as an eligible scenic highway. Since the Project site does not contain any scenic resources, such as significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, or is located within a state scenic highway, no impacts would occur.
c) Less than Significant. The Project site is located in an urbanized area as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21071(a). The definition of an urbanized area is either an incorporated city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or a city of less than 100,000 persons plus one or two contiguous incorporated cities with a combined population of at least 100,000 persons. The City of Aliso Viejo has an estimated population of 50,457 (Census July 2024), however combined with Laguna Niguel (64,185 people) and Laguna Hills (30,378 people), the City of Aliso Viejo meets the definition of urbanized area.
The Project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, west, and south; and bounded by Aliso Creek Road to the east, followed by residential uses. Therefore, the applicable threshold of significance is whether the proposed Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The proposed Project requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Professional Office to Residential Medium Density. A Zone Change is also requested to change the zoning classification from Professional Office to Residential Medium Density.
The Project requires approval of a Site Development Permit and Development Agreement. The Site Development Permit would allow for discretionary review of the Project’s appropriateness, scale, architecture, site design, and compatibility with the surrounding area. The decision-making authority would be required to make findings for approval including consistency with the General Plan, consistency with the Zoning Code, compliance with CEQA, architectural design and site design that is compatible with surrounding development, and landscape design that provides a unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the Project. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. and Section 15.82.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Development Agreement assures the City of specified public benefits and provides the landowner with certainty for ten years in the ongoing application of the City’s ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the approval of the Project. The Development Agreement references, but does not expand or modify, the scope of the Project or the Project approvals which are evaluated by this MND and does not propose or authorize any additional physical improvements.
233
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 23 The Project would be required to undergo design review, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.62, Design Standards. The design standards would ensure high quality physical design for the Project, including visual compatibility with existing development. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the development standards of the Site Development Permit as modified by State Density Bonus Law waivers, which would ensure the physical design of the development is consistent with the overall vision for the site. The Project requests three waivers of development standards consistent with State Density Bonus Law. One waiver would permit an increase in building height from 35 feet to 41 feet. However, this height increase remains less than the 65-foot heigh limit of the existing Professional Office zone and would not extend above and block views from Journey. A second waiver would permit minor encroachments into the 20-foot landscape buffer along the southern property boundary, which does not occur along a public roadway. The third waiver would permit an eight-foot-high retaining wall along the toe of the slope below the existing fire station, which would not be readily visible from surrounding properties or public roadways. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant. The Project site is located in an urban area with numerous nearby light sources, as well as office and residential structures with glass windows. The proposed Project would not create a new source of glare. The construction materials used for the residential structures would be common to other residential structures and include composite roofs, stucco and sided exteriors, and standard residential windows.
The construction materials for typical residential construction do not create a new source of glare.
The existing development of the Project site includes wall-mounted lighting, security lighting, and parking lot lighting. Existing light sources surrounding the Project site include streetlights, existing residential neighborhoods, and existing commercial uses.
The Project would include light sources typical of residential developments, which are less intensive than the surrounding commercial property lighting. Internal roadways would have streetlights and each residence would have typical wall lighting associated with residential uses. The Aliso Viejo Municipal Code (AVMC) regulates exterior lighting.
Specifically AVMC Section 15.62.070 states, “All properties shall be subject to the outdoor lighting standards of this section. This section provides standards which allow adequate outdoor lighting for public safety and decorative purposes while minimizing the adverse effects of excessive lighting on adjacent properties and the community.” The section provides standards for light spillage, visibility of light sources, and shielding requirements. The light sources included in the proposed Project will comply with AVMC regulations and have the same character and intensity as existing surrounding light sources, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element and Land Use Element; California State Scenic Highway System Map; Google Earth; and site visit. 234
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 24
5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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 non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
235
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 25 Impact Analysis
The Project site is currently developed with three office buildings totaling approximately 125,166 square feet and associated parking lots. The Project site is not being actively farmed or used for forest use and there is no recent history of such uses on the Project site.
Findings of Fact
a) No Impact. The Project site is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance based on mapping by the Department of Conservation. The Project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land.” Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The proposed Project site is zoned Professional Office and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) No Impact. The Project site is zoned Professional Office. While the proposed Project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the request does not include rezoning of agricultural or forest land. No impact would occur. d) No Impact. The proposed Project site does not have forested land or land that was used for the harvesting of timber. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The Project site is not located on a site dedicated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Furthermore, the proposed Project does not contain forestland, timberland, or land zoned Timberland Production as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 51104(g) and therefore, would not result in the conversion of existing forest land to non-forest land. No impact would occur.
Sources: Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, DLRP Important Farmland Finder (DLRP Important Farmland Finder); Title Report; City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use Map; City of Aliso Viejo Zoning Map; and Google Earth. 236
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 26
5.3 Air Quality
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management 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 non-attainment 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) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
The proposed Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (also referred to as “Basin”), for which the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources and to a lesser extent, mobile sources. Additionally, SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for creating, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a regional air quality strategy program. While air quality has improved dramatically over the past years, the South Coast Air Basin continues to exceed federal public health standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM).
The City relies on the SCAQMD for establishing significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, shown in Table 3 below. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the Project would also be in compliance with the SCAQMD AQMP and the federal and state air quality standards.
237
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 27 Table 3. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (Lbs /Day) Operation (Lbs/Day)
NOX 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
CO 550 550
Source:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf Lbs/Day = pounds per day
Furthermore, Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) are used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of four applicable air pollutants for source receptor area (SRA) 20 – Central Orange County Coastal. Table 4, below, provides the LST threshold of significance developed by AQMD.
Table 4. SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) Pollutant Construction (Lbs /Day)1 Operation (Lbs/Day)2 NOX 161.1 197.0
CO 1,325.2 1,711.0
PM10 10.4 4.0
PM2.5 6.9 2.0
1 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 3.5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
2 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
The report, Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A), analyzes potential air quality impacts from construction and operations of the proposed Project. The report analyzes grading of the Project site, including the import of approximately 5,600 cubic yards of fill material and the demolition of the existing office structures and parking lot. The report also analyzes operational impacts from construction of 137 dwelling units.
The analysis of air quality impacts included in the Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study assumes implementation of standard air quality rules and requirements and design features designed to reduce emissions. These commitments are defined as Project Design Features (PDFs), which will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as PDFs to ensure 238
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 28 implementation. The following PDFs were included in the air quality analysis and are hereby incorporated into the Project.
Project Design Features:
PDF AQ-1 The project will follow the SCAQMD rules and requirements for fugitive dust control, which include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Pre-water active grading or trenching areas.
2. Water all active construction areas as frequently as needed (at least twice daily) to prevent visible dust plumes from extending more than 100 feet.
3. Maintain a stabilized surface or apply dust suppressants to inactive areas, disturbed surfaces, staging areas, haul routes, and unpaved roads.
4. Limit on-site vehicle speeds to 15 mph on unpaved areas.
5. Maintain all haul trucks with covered loads and ≥6 inches of freeboard (CVC §23114).
6. Stabilize stockpiles with water or covers and restrict height if near occupied structures.
7. Use a gravel pad at egress points (minimum 30' x 50', 1" washed gravel, 6" depth), or alternatively a wheel shaker or wheel washing station.
8. Remove track-out extending ≥25 feet onto public roadways immediately and clean daily.
9. Suspend dust-generating activities and implement contingency measures during high wind events (wind gusts >25 mph).
10.Re-vegetate or stabilize disturbed areas within 21 days of inactivity.
11.Limit construction vehicle traffic to designated haul routes only.
PDF AQ-2 Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune.
PDF AQ-3 All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from excessive idling. Excessive idling is defined as five (5) minutes or longer.
PDF AQ-4 Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units, to the maximum extent feasible.
PDF AQ-5 The use of heavy construction equipment and earthmoving activity shall be suspended during Air Alerts when the Air Quality Index reaches the “Unhealthy” level.
PDF AQ-6 Establish staging areas for the construction equipment that are as distant as possible from adjacent residential homes.
PDF AQ-7 Utilize zero VOC and low VOC paints, coatings, and solvents consistent with the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 1113 and 1143.
239
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 29 PDF AQ-8 The project will comply with the mandatory requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) and Part 11 (CALGreen), including, but not limited to:
1. Install low flow fixtures and toilets, water efficient irrigation systems, drought tolerant/native landscaping, and reduce the amount of turf.
2. Provide the necessary infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging.
3. Provide solar installations/solar readiness zones per the prescribed Energy Design Ratings.
PDFAQ-9 Participate in the local waste management recycling and composting programs.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) in December 2022.
Consistency with the 2022 AQMP is determined based on evaluating a project against two criteria. These criteria are:
(1) Whether the project will 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.
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
The Project’s consistency with the 2022 AQMP is evaluated below using Criterion 1 and
2. Criterion 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations As identified within the Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix A), the Project construction and operational emissions are compared to SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds. As shown and discussed in checklist item b) below, the Project’s short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. In addition, the Project’s emissions would not exceed localized significance thresholds at nearby sensitive receptors.
Because the proposed Project’s emissions would remain below the applicable regional significance thresholds, project-related emissions would not be cumulatively 240
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 30 considerable and would not contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard.
Accordingly, the proposed Project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations, cause or contribute to new federal or State violations, or delay timely attainment of applicable air quality standards in the 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP attainment strategy and is consistent with Criterion 1.
Criterion 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP
The 2022 AQMP relies on regional population, housing, and employment growth forecasts prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based, in part, on cities’ general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into SCAG’s regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled in the SCAG region. The AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans.
The Project proposes 137 residential dwelling units and approximately 348 new residents on a site designated and zoned for Professional Office. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment from Professional Office to Residential Medium Density.
While the proposed Project is not consistent with the land use designation assumed in the AQMP, the AQMP assumed development of the Project site as Professional Office, with associated emissions from employment. As discussed in Section 5.14 Population and Housing, the proposed Project’s population growth would be within SCAG’s forecast growth projections for the City. Additionally, the proposed Project would address the need for additional housing to accommodate population growth in the City.
Finally, the long-term emissions generated by the proposed Project would not cause criteria air pollutants to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for Project operations. South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds identify whether or not a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the air basin’s nonattainment designations. Because the proposed Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and growth is consistent with regional growth projections, the proposed Project would not interfere with SCAQMD’s ability to achieve the long-term air quality goals identified in the AQMP.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.
241
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 31 b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Project would be generated by both construction emissions and operational emissions.
As shown in Table 5 below, the daily construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD air quality standards and thresholds of significance. The analysis shown in Table 5 below includes implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1, which requires the use of Tier 4 off-road grading equipment to the extent feasible. MM AQ-1 has been agreed to by the Project Applicant and included in the air quality modeling, which demonstrates consistency with SCAQMD air quality standards.
Table 5. Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2.50 34.62 25.69 0.11 13.24 3.18
Site Preparation 3.20 29.22 29.60 0.05 9.14 5.14
Grading 1.73 18.04 19.42 0.04 4.29 2.19
Building Construction 1.41 10.69 18.04 0.03 1.80 0.69
Paving 1.04 6.99 10.59 0.01 0.49 0.32
Architectural Coating 46.83 0.89 1.96 0.00 0.28 0.08
Maximum1 46.83 34.62 29.60 0.11 13.24 5.14
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No 1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite Project emissions.
Table 6 below summarizes the analysis of operational emissions. As shown in Table 6, operational emissions would also be below the SCAQMD thresholds.
Table 6. Daily Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 3.67 2.82 34.84 0.09 9.19 2.36
Energy Sources 4.19 2.35 8.74 0.01 0.19 0.19
Area Sources 0.04 0.71 0.30 0.00 0.06 0.06
Maximum1 7.90 5.88 43.88 0.10 9.44 2.61
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold (?) No No No No No No
1 Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite Project emissions.
With implementation of the Project Design Features (PDFs) and MM AQ-1, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non- attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed 242
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 32 quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Therefore, impacts from criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.
MM AQ-1 All off-road diesel construction equipment over 100 horsepower will have Tier 4 low emission “clean diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control technology.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Sensitive receptors surrounding the Project site include neighboring residential uses, preschool and day care uses, medical uses, and Orange County Fire Station 57. Exposure of pollutant concentrations on sensitive receptors can occur from construction and operation of the proposed Project. While project construction would generate less than significant criteria pollutant emissions, construction operations could cause fugitive dust impacts and impacts from diesel particulate matter. Operation of the proposed Project could also result in localized concentration of emissions.
As indicated in the Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, the Project would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) during construction from off-road diesel equipment and trucks. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted guidelines for preparation of Health Risk Assessments (HRAs). The guidelines provide risk factors based on exposure to toxic substances over a 30-year lifetime span. The proposed Project’s construction activity would not be a long-term (i.e., 30 years) source of toxic air contaminant emissions, and short-term risk factors have not been developed. Due to the significantly reduced risk from short-term exposure, SCAQMD does not typically require the evaluation of long-term health risks for short-term construction activities from a project such as the proposed Project. Previously listed PDFs and MM AQ-1 have been applied to the Project to reduce Project construction diesel exhaust emissions and associated exposure to adjacent sensitive receptors to less than significant.
Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) are used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of four applicable air pollutants for source receptor area (SRA) 20 – Central Orange County Coastal.
With implementation of the PDFs and MM AQ-1, localized construction emissions are summarized in Table 7, which demonstrates that emissions have been mitigated below the SCAQMD threshold. Operational emissions are summarized in Table 8, which also demonstrates less than significant operational emissions. 243
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 33 Table 7. Localized Construction Emissions
Emissions Sources
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 29.16 28.81 9.93 5.08
SCAQMD Threshold2 161.1 1,325.2 10.4 6.9
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
1. Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes on-site Project emissions only.
2. Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 3.5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
Table 8. Localized Operational Emissions
Emissions Sources
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions2 4.41 10.79 0.70 0.36
SCAQMD Threshold3 197.0 1,711.0 4.0 2.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
1. Maximum daily emission during summer or winter; includes on-site Project emissions only.
2. Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 3.5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
As shown in the prior tables, emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed LSTs for the nearest sensitive receptors for construction and operational emissions.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation. d) Less than Significant. Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding facilities, food processing plants, landfills, refineries, rail yards, and wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed Project does not include any of these uses that result in significant odor impacts. Some objectionable odors may occur during construction from diesel engines, paving, and architectural coatings/paint.
However, these odors are temporary, limited only to specific construction activities, and dissipate quickly. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with standard building code requirements related to exhaust ventilation, as well as comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Since residential uses do not typically generate objectionable odors and the Project site is surrounded by existing commercial and residential uses on all sides, no new objectionable odors would be created. Impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A).
244
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 34
5.4 Biological Resources
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
Biological resources on the Project site were evaluated and presented in The Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Resource Assessment in the City of Aliso Viejo, dated December 5, 2025, by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions, and included in Appendix B.
The Project site is classified as entirely developed. Non-native and ornamental vegetation consist of glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), southern magnolia tree (Magnolia grandiflora), carrotwood tree (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), century plant (Agave americana), crimson fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), bottlebrush tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and Chinese 245
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 35 elm (Ulmus parvifolia) which are scattered throughout the parking lot and observed on the adjacent slope to the west. No blue line drainages or drainages that qualify as jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State were identified on the Project site.
The Project site is located within the Orange County NCCP/HCP; however, the Project site is not located within the boundaries of the NCCP/HCP reserve system.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. No special status plant or wildlife species were identified on the Project site, nor were any observed offsite within the buffer area. The proposed Project includes the removal of all buildings, ornamental trees and shrubs, and the parking lot area. Since the project site does not contain special status plant or wildlife species, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
The Project site consists of developed habitat and lacks suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species. The Project site provides limited suitable habitat for some common avian species in the form of ornamental species and existing building eaves. While none of the common species carry a Federal or State listing as threatened or endangered, they are all protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Therefore, a preconstruction survey is required in compliance with the MBTA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to the avian species to a less than significant level, if nesting individuals are present.
With implementation of MM BIO-1 impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be mitigated to less than significant.
MM BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to the extent feasible to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds and/or ground nesters.
2. Any construction activities that occur during typical nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat, on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before 246
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 36 commencement ground disturbances. If active nests are identified, the biologist would establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers would be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist would review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and would verify the nesting effort has finished.
Work can resume within these areas when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
b and c) No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified on the Project site. Additionally, no jurisdictional non-wetland or wetland waters regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on the Project site.
Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is surrounded by existing residential and commercial development and roadways that serve the area. The Project site does not function as a wildlife corridor.
The Project site provides limited suitable habitat for some common avian species in the form of ornamental species and existing building eaves. While not considered a wildlife corridor, the potential exists for avian species to nest on the Project site. Nesting activity typically occurs from January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503. As such, direct impacts to breeding birds (e.g. through nest removal) or indirect impacts (e.g. by noise causing abandonment of the nest) is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the MBTA through MM BIO-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. e) No Impact. The Project is not subject to any local policies, such as a tree preservation ordinance, which protects biological resources. In addition, the Project site consists primarily of disturbed/developed habitat communities. Furthermore, the Project site does not contain unique vegetation or wildlife habitats; significant scenic, ecological, or recreational value; or contain endangered or threatened species. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
247
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 37 f) No Impact. As indicated in the Aliso Viejo General Plan FEIR, portions of the City lie within the Coastal subregion of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); however, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to designated Non-Reserve Open Space or NCCP Habitat Reserve within the NCCP/HCP. The Project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area, and is not located within the boundaries of the NCCP/HCP reserve system. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur in this regard.
Sources: The Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Biological Resource Assessment in the City of Aliso Viejo, dated December 5, 2025, by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions, and included in Appendix B.
248
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 38
5.5 Cultural Resources
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
The potential for cultural resources to occur on the Project site was assessed in the Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, dated June 30, 2025, and included in Appendix C. The analysis included a review of archaeological records at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was also requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Additionally, a field survey was also conducted on the Project site.
The results of the records search indicate that six resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the Project site, none of which occur on the Project site. The record search also identified 18 previous studies conducted within one mile, three of which overlap on the Project site.
BFSA also requested a Sacred Land File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search for the presence of any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance. The SLF search indicated the positive presence of sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the Project site. In accordance with the recommendations of the NAHC, BFSA contacted all Native American Tribes listed in the NAHC response letter.
A field survey was conducted on July 10, 2025, by BFSA and did not locate any cultural resources within the Project.
The City of Aliso Viejo as the Lead Agency notified registered Native American Tribes of the proposed Project under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 on November 14, 2025. Notification letters were sent to the following tribes according to the consultation list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission:
249
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 39 • Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation
• La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
On November 25, 2025, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen NationBelardes responded to the City’s notice and requested consultation. During consultation agreement was reached on mitigation measures and consultation closed on April 6, 2026.
On December 18, 2025, the City held a consultation meeting with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City followed up with emails to the Kizh Nation on January 13, February 19, and May 11, 2026 without response from the Kizh Nation to the emails. Thus, consultation stalled and is presumed complete. Further discussion is included within Section 5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.
Findings of Fact
a) No Impact. Based on the historic map and aerial, the Project site was cleared and graded during 1988 when the surrounding community was graded. Prior to 1976, the Project site was part of the Moulton Ranch, which operated as a large-scale sheep and cattle ranch. Between 1988 and 1992, the area was further developed, and the roads surrounding the Project site, which include Journey, Aliso Creek Road, and Pacific Park Drive, were built. Additionally, by 1992, a commercial building located directly northwest of the Project site was constructed. The 1999 historic aerial demonstrates that development of the Project site had began and was completed by 2000, with the three commercial buildings and associated parking lot. The existing buildings on the Project site were constructed from 1999 to 2000 and are therefore not of historic age. No impact would occur to historic resources.
b) Less than Significant. The records search from SCCIC indicated that six resources, all prehistoric in age, are located within a one-mile radius of the Project site. The results of the SCCIC records search also indicate that 18 archaeological investigations have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the Project, three of which overlap the Project site. The other investigations did not identify any potential resources within the Project site.
A field survey was conducted of the Project site. However, no records indicate prehistoric resources on the Project site and the field survey did not identify any evidence of resources on the Project site. A SLF search was also requested from NAHC to identify 250
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 40 any sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance on or near the Project site. The search indicated the positive presence of sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the vicinity of the Project site. The NAHC recommends contacting local Native American groups, specifically the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation for further information. The request for further information was included in the AB52 and SB18 notification and additional information is included within Section 5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.
Given the disturbed nature of the Project site resulting from previous agricultural use, development of the property, and the results of the field survey, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant. No conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found on the Project site. However, if human remains are found, those remains would be required to conduct proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 to 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the NAHC and consultation with the individual identified by the NAHC to be the “most likely descendant (MLD).” The MLD would have 48 hours to make recommendations to landowners for the disposition of any Native American human remains and grave goods found. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Since the treatment of human remains is governed by state law, no mitigation measures are necessary, and impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, dated June 30, 2025, and included in Appendix C.
251
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 41
5.6 Energy
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
An analysis of energy consumption is provided in the report, Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A).
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. Construction of the Project consists of demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings.
Construction activities primarily consume energy in the form of motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel) for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips. The Project is expected to use approximately 37,444 gallons of fuel during construction for off-road equipment and 24,576 gallons of fuel during construction for on-road equipment. Energy consumption constitutes a substantial portion of construction costs and therefore, energy consumption and efficiency is closely monitored. Therefore, construction of the Project site would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Operation of the Project is anticipated to consume energy from electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. Based on the energy consumption projections, the Project would consume a total of 26,184 million British Thermal Units per year. The majority of the energy consumption would occur from operational petroleum consumption, essentially automobiles and trucks traveling to and from the Project site.
The proposed Project has been designed and would comply with California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) to reduce energy consumption. California’s building standards are some of the strictest in the nation and the project’s compliance with the Building Code will ensure that wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy is minimized. The California Building Code is designed to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat or cool a building, reduce energy usage for lighting and appliances and promote usage of energy from renewable sources to reduce energy consumption. California’s building standards are some of the strictest in the nation, and 252
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 42 the project’s compliance with the California Building Code will ensure that wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy is minimized. The California Building Code is designed to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat or cool a building, reduce energy usage for lighting and appliances and promote usage of energy from renewable sources. In addition, the Project is expected to comply with Section 110.10 of the California Building Code regarding mandatory requirements for solar readiness and/or rooftop solar zones. By virtue of compliance with these codes, the proposed Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant. The Project will purchase electricity through Southern California Edison which is subject to the requirements of California SB 100. SB 100 is the most stringent and current energy legislation in California; requiring that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Furthermore, the Project would comply with California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and Green Building Standards (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11) to reduce energy consumption.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, and by virtue of compliance with state and local plans, the proposed Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A).
253
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 43
5.7 Geology and Soils
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 onor 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 waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Impact Analysis
Preliminary Geotechnical evaluation of the Project site was conducted by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California, dated November 25, 2025 (Appendix D). In addition, this analysis relied on 254
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 44 the report, Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project prepared by BSFA Environmental Services dated June 30, 2025 (Appendix E).
The Geotechnical investigation included six hollow-stem-auger borings to a depth of 51 feet below ground surface (bgs). In addition, four geotechnical test pits were advanced with a backhoe at the toe of the slope ascending to the fire station located at the northwest corner of the Project site to evaluate the limits of compacted fill and bedrock conditions exposed in the lower portion of the slope.
The Project site is generally flat with site elevations ranging from approximately 346 to 388 feet above mean sea level (MSL) generally descending to the southeast. The Project site is mostly underlain primarily by a thin veneer of compacted fill placed over sandstone and siltstone bedrock over a majority of the site. Quaternary-age alluvium was encountered in the southeast corner of the site at a depth of 40 feet. The existing compacted fills range from 2.5 to 40 feet thick. The deeper fills are generally located in the southern portion of the site. No groundwater was encountered to the boring depth of 51.5 feet.
Percolation testing was not performed since the site consists of compacted fill over siltstone and sandstone bedrock and is not suitable for infiltration.
The Project site is not located within a State mapped Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act) or a mapped liquefaction hazard area.
Findings of Fact
a.i) Less than Significant. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during the geotechnical evaluation conducted by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. The closest active fault to the Project site is the San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault, which is mapped approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast. Additionally, the Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Dana Point Section) is located approximately 6.1 miles to the southwest and the Glen Ivy section of the Elsinore Fault Zone is located 19.2 miles to the northeast. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site, like many areas in Southern California, is subject to strong seismic ground shaking. While the Project site does not have any faults on the property, the closest fault to the Project site is the San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault, which is mapped approximately 2.5 miles northeast, which have the potential to generate strong ground shaking.
The construction of three-story attached residential homes is common in earthquake prone areas like Southern California, including the Project site. The geotechnical 255
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 45 analysis included in Appendix D included an evaluation of site seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2025 California Building Code (CBC) and American National Standards Institute (ASCE) 7-22. Based on the site’s seismic characteristics, the geotechnical study provides seismic design parameters to minimize the effects of seismic ground shaking. With adherence to the seismic design parameters, impacts associated with seismic ground shaking would be less than significant within implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1. MM GEO-1 is consistent with Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 13.08.170, which requires preparation of geotechnical reports and inclusion of geotechnical recommendations on construction drawings.
MM GEO-1 The Project Applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California, dated November 25, 2025, by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (Appendix D) to reduce geologic hazards during implementation of the proposed Project. Included in the reports are site-specific recommendations involving such topics as grading and earthwork, slope stability, retaining walls, seismic design, construction materials, geotechnical observation, and testing and plan reviews. a.iii) Less than Significant. The Project site does not have earthquake faults on the property, therefore, the potential for seismic rupture is very low. While the Project site does not have any faults on the property, the closest fault to the Project site is the San Joaquin Hills Thrust Fault, which is mapped approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Project site.
The Project site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone, as mapped by the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone mapping. The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation evaluated the liquefaction potential and determined that based on the lack of high groundwater and given the presence of dense/stiff alluvium, the potential for liquefaction or significant dynamic settlement is negligible; therefore, impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.
a.iv) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site and the immediate area consist of generally flat topography, which is not prone to landsliding. Therefore, the potential for landsliding is negligible and impacts would be less than significant.
Secondary types of ground failure that might occur from a large seismic event include ground subsidence, ground lurching, and lateral spreading. Based on the proposed grading and the flat topography across the site, landsliding, ground subsidence and lateral spreading are considered unlikely at the Project site. Ground lurching could occur during a major seismic event, however, the remedial grading described in Section 256
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 46 (c) and compliance with the seismic building standards in the California Building Code and MM GEO-1, would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. b) Less than Significant. The Project site and surrounding properties are essentially flat, without large steep slopes on or adjacent to the property that would be conducive to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The Project site was previously graded and developed with commercial use. Furthermore, the Project site is surrounded by existing development and arterial roadways. Given current site conditions, the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil is low.
During construction, the Project would be required to comply with Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code, which requires implementation of erosion and siltation control measures. Furthermore, during grading when the highest risk of loss of topsoil and/or erosion would occur, the 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). 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.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is not located on a geologic unit that is unstable or could become unstable. The Project site is mostly underlain primarily by a thin veneer of compacted fill placed over sandstone and siltstone bedrock over a majority of the site. There are no mapped earthquake faults or landslides. The potential for liquefaction is very low given the underlying dense sandstone and siltstone bedrock and lack of shallow groundwater, and the Project site has very low to low expansive soil potential.
The Project site was evaluated for geotechnical feasibility pursuant to CEQA and determined to be feasible, without causing significant impacts, with implementation of design standards presented in the geotechnical report included in Appendix D. An example of a design standard included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report is the remedial 5-foot-deep removals in the fill areas and 5-foot-deep over excavation in order to provide uniform compacted fill blanket for structural support. Furthermore, prior to grading, a final geotechnical report must be prepared to accompany the construction level documents and the final geotechnical report will ensure all design recommendations have been incorporated. While standard practice, the requirement for a final geotechnical report has been included as a mitigation measure for further 257
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 47 disclosure and tracking. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a final geotechnical report based on the final rough grading plans and the final geotechnical report shall incorporate all of the recommendations included in Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California dated November 25, 2025, by NMG Geotechnical Inc (Appendix D). The geotechnical report included in Appendix D has established that the site is geotechnically suitable for development and a final geotechnical report is required to ensure all construction-level geotechnical recommendations and design parameters are included on the final rough grading plans.
d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based on test results, the on-site soils have “low” to “Very Low” expansion potential. However, should highly expansive soils be encountered at the site, the Geotechnical Report outlines recommendations for handling soils with expansive qualities, if encountered, such as additional mixing and blending of fill materials. Lastly, any required imported fill material should be very low to low expansion potential. Adherence of MM GEO-1, which is to comply with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report, would ensure the expansion potential would be low. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with commercial development that relies on municipal sewer system connections. The proposed Project would also rely on municipal sewer connections, and no septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Since no new septic is proposed, no impact would occur. f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site was evaluated for paleontological resources by BFSA Environmental Services and documented in the report Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, dated June 30, 2025 (Appendix E). Based on the prepared report, there is high potential for paleontological resources to occur on the Project site due to the Niguel and Monterey formations (bedrock) mapped onsite.
A paleontological literature review was conducted by the Parks Divisions of Orange County, which identified 66 fossil localities within one mile of the Project site from the Niguel, Monterey, and other formations.
The existence of Niguel and Monterey formations mapped on the Project site, the high paleontological resource sensitivity assigned to these sediments, and the presence of previously recorded fossil specimens from the similar deposits less than five miles of the Project site, result in the potential for significant impacts. To mitigate that potential 258
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 48 impact, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) as outlined in MM PALEO-1 shall be prepared prior to the start of grading. Therefore, implementation of MM PALEO-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
MM PALEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare for City review and approval a Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Plan, as follows:
1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by a qualified professional (Project) paleontologist, defined as an individual with a master’s or doctorate in paleontology or geology who has proven experience and is knowledgeable in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall always work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.
2. Starting at one foot above the artificial fill/bedrock interface, full-time monitoring shall be conducted in areas of grading or excavation within the Niguel and Monterey formations. Monitoring of artificial fill or disturbed deposits that may be present otherwise is not required.
3. Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.
Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. The monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will then notify any concerned parties of the discovery.
4. Fossils shall be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected.
Before the site is vacated and the fossils are moved to a safe place, notes are taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites are protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils shall be collected in a similar manner, with notes and photographs being taken before removing the fossils. Precise location of the site is determined through use of handheld Global Positioning System units. If a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as a large bone or a mammoth tusk, is too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find(s), encase the find(s) within a plaster and 259
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 49 burlap jacket, and remove the find(s) after the plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the contractor’s construction equipment may be solicited to help move the jacket to a safe location.
5. In the laboratory, individual fossils shall be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks repaired, and the specimen, if needed, shall be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).
6. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
7. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Orange County Parks’ Cooper Center) shall be conducted. The
paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to initiating mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Aliso Viejo) shall be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.
8. A final report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to and accepted by the appropriate lead agency, shall signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
Sources: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California, dated November 25, 2025 by NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (Appendix D); and Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, dated June 30, 2025 (Appendix E). 260
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 50
5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of greenhouse
gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
An analysis of greenhouse gas emission is provided in the report, Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A).
Impact Analysis
Greenhouse gases (GHG) comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total atmospheric composition, yet they play an essential role in influencing climate. Greenhouse gases include naturally occurring compounds such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapor (H2O), and nitrous oxide (N2O), while others are synthetic. Man-made GHGs include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The State of California has adopted extensive foundational legislation to reduce GHG emissions across all sectors of the economy. Some of the foundational key climate change legislation includes AB 32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, SB 375 – the Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Act of 2008, and SB 100 – the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Other legislation has followed that has expanded the range of laws intended to reduce GHG emissions. Most notably are changes that have been made to the CBC Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards. These obligatory construction and appliance/lighting standards, originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, include requirements that ensure all development in California implement mandatory energyefficient design, enable or install solar and EV infrastructure, increase density, and reduce vehicle miles traveled resulting in GHG reductions at a project level and consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans. The key climate legislation and regulation in the State includes the following:
• Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set the stage for the State’s transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. AB 32 261
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 51 was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change.
• Senate Bill (SB) 375, Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Act of 2008.
SB 375 requires the Air Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by the State's 18 metropolitan planning organizations.
• Senate Bill (SB) 100, California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers by 2045.
• California Building Standards Code – Title 24. The California Building Standards Code Title 24 Part 6 (Energy Code) and Title 24 Part 11 (CALGreen) requires multiple building provisions to reduce energy usage and GHG emissions and is updated on a triennial basis.
SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). At its last meeting in September 2010, the Working Group established for nonexempt projects, such as the proposed Project, a screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) and land use specific thresholds, which for residential projects, was established at 3,000 MTCO2e. GHG emissions occur from the following four sources for residential projects: construction; gas, electricity, and water uses; solid waste disposal; and motor vehicle use. Since construction operations are temporary, short-term emissions, the total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years per Working Group guidance.
Findings of Fact
a) Less Than Significant. The proposed Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions through the construction and operation of the proposed residences.
As documented in the report, Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A), total GHG emissions for the proposed Project would be less than the screening level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and the land use specific threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e, as shown in the following tables. 262
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 52 Table 9. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source On-site
(MTCO2e)1
Off-site
(MTCO2e)1
Total
(MTCO2e)1
Demolition 54.59 190.71 245.30
Site Preparation 24.11 1.01 25.12
Grading 26.94 25.00 51.95
Building Construction 250.94 177.85 428.79
Paving 13.76 1.70 15.46
Architectural Coating 1.22 2.22 3.44
Total 371.56 398.49 770.06
Amortized over 30 years2 12.39 13.28 25.67
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (Appendix A) 1 MTCO2e is metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbon)
2 The emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations.
Table 10. Operational and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)1
Mobile Source 1,284.00
Area Source 35.11
Energy Source 322.02
Water 19.25
Waste 31.61
Refrigerant 0.17
Construction 30-yr Amortization 25.67
Total 1,717.83
SCAQMD Tier 3 Screening
Threshold2
3,000
Exceed Tier 3 Threshold? No
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Study (Appendix A) 1 MTCO2e is metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbon)
2 Per South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
Since the proposed Project would generate less than 3,000 MTCO2e, which is the emission threshold established by SCAQMD and relied upon by the City, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Less than Significant. The proposed Project will be required to comply with the mandatory requirements of the latest 2022 California Building Standards Code, including Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen, and Title 24, Part 6, Energy Code. The purpose 263
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 53 of the building standards is to reduce negative impacts on the environment through improved planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, and material and resource conservation. The California Building Standards were developed to help meet the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).
The California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan) outlines statewide strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the targets established under AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. The Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to individual development projects or local land use approvals. However, the Scoping Plan provides the primary framework used to inform performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and greenhouse gas reduction targets implemented through regional and local planning efforts.
The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies a range of statewide strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including transportation electrification, reductions in vehicle miles traveled, building decarbonization, expansion of renewable energy, low-carbon fuel standards, and implementation of energy efficiency and clean technology standards.
Many of these strategies are implemented through State regulations that apply to new development, including vehicle emission standards, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and CALGreen requirements.
Table 11, Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan Priority Areas, summarizes the proposed Project’s consistency with the priority areas identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan that are applicable at the project level. As shown in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable priority areas related to transportation electrification, vehicle miles traveled reduction, and building energy efficiency and decarbonization through compliance with adopted State and local requirements.
Table 11. Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Priority Areas Priority Area Priority Area Attributes Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provide EV charging
infrastructure that, at a
minimum, meets the most
ambitious voluntary
standards in the California
Green Building Standards
Code at the time of project
approval.
Consistent: The proposed Project
would be subject to State and local
transportation-related greenhouse
gas reduction requirements,
including vehicle fuel efficiency
standards, zero-emission vehicle
regulations, and electric vehicle
charging infrastructure
requirements. The Project includes
electric vehicle charging
infrastructure in accordance with
applicable codes and would rely
on increasingly cleaner vehicle
technologies over time. Consistent
264
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 54 Priority Area Priority Area Attributes Project Consistency with adopted transportation
electrification strategies, the
Project would not interfere with
implementation of greenhouse
gas reduction measures related to
transportation emissions.
VMT Reduction Meets local jurisdiction
adopted SB 743 threshold
for VMT.
Consistent: Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), the
proposed Project would “decrease
vehicle miles traveled in the project
area compared to existing
conditions” and, therefore, “should
be presumed to have a less than
significant transportation impact.”
The proposed Project would
reduce total daily VMT by 4,779
Daily VMT and reduce the
VMT/Service Population for the
Project site from 25.91 to 18.46.
Building
Decarbonization
Uses all electric appliances
without any natural gas
connections and does not
use propane or other fossil
fuels for space heating,
water heating, or indoor
cooking.
Consistent: The proposed Project
would comply with current
California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and
California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen),
which are designed to reduce
building energy consumption and
associated greenhouse gas
emissions. Furthermore, the
Project would have an all-electric
design and would therefore
comply with the building
decarbonization goal.
Source: CARB 2022a.
By complying with the California Building Standards Code requirements, the Project would result in consistency with the intent of the Global Warming Solutions Act and CARB’s current 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and the impact is considered less than significant. 265
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 55 Therefore, the proposed Project’s generation of GHG emissions would not cause a project-specific or cumulatively considerable contribution that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed Project’s impact would be less than significant.
Sources: Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study dated May 19, 2026, and prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix A).
266
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 56
5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 § 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared to analyze the history of the site and the potential for encountering hazardous materials. The report, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Shallow Soil Sampling Report, dated February 6, 2025, by Farallon Consulting is included in Appendix F.
The Project site was previously vacant, undeveloped land in 1931 and from 1947 through 1994. Small white objects in an organized pattern, which could have been an orchard, were present on the eastern adjacent property in the 1938 aerial photograph, 267
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 57 a small portion of which may have been present on the southeastern corner of the Project site. The potential orchard may have been in use as early as 1932 and as late as 1946. Wide-spread grading was apparent on the Project site and vicinity in the 1988 aerial photograph, and the retaining wall and perimeter landscaping were observed in the 1994 aerial photograph. The Project site buildings were constructed in 1999 and appear relatively unchanged to the present. City directory listings for the Project addresses included various commercial office tenants, including health care, computer, financial, insurance, real estate, and management service companies, since as early as 2001.
Due to the lack of evidence that the adjacent potential orchard was present on a substantial portion of the Project site in the 1930s, the relatively short duration of the potential orchard use, the lack of evidence of storage or mixing areas on or near the Project site, and extensive grading of the hilltop and reworking of the soil conducted to redevelop this area, it is unlikely that historical pesticide use (if any) would represent a recognized environmental condition.
The Project site is not listed within the Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS).
Additionally, no regulatory records were found for the subject property parcel.
On December 4, 2024, Farallon personnel conducted a reconnaissance to physically observe the Project site. Farallon conducted a walk around the entire perimeter of the Project site and inspected interior portions of the buildings, including representative areas of first floor offices, the SpyGlass Pharma laboratory (27061 building), American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN) warehouse (27081 building), and the janitorial and elevator rooms of each building. No indication of any potential adverse environmental impact to the Project site was observed during the reconnaissance visit.
No above or below ground storage tanks or other Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) were identified in the record search and site investigation.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. Residential projects are not operators or generators of hazardous materials. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not involve the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it generate hazardous emissions, materials, or waste. Grading and construction activities may involve limited transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel for construction equipment. However, construction activities are short-term and hazardous materials used during construction would be transported, used, and disposed of according to federal, State, and local health and safety requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F) includes results from database searches to determine the potential for release of 268
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 58 hazardous materials from the Proposed Project site. No RECs, Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CREC), Significant data gaps (SDG), or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HREC) occur on the Project site. Furthermore, residential projects are not operators or generators of hazardous materials. The proposed Project would not involve the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it generate hazardous emissions, materials, or waste during operations. Hazardous materials used during construction would be used in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations, such as the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the implementation of BMPs to control runoff from the Project site, which would control a spill of construction materials, such as oil, solvents, etc., if one were to accidentally occur.
Neither the Project site conditions, nor Project activities, would result in a reasonably foreseeable accident condition, given the minimal use of hazardous materials during the limited construction phase of the Project. Therefore, no potential for release of hazardous materials was identified and impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant. No Schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. While no schools are located within one-quarter mile, a childcare facility is located on the south-adjoining property.
Residential projects are not operators or generators of hazardous materials. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not involve the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it generate hazardous emissions, materials, or waste.
Grading and construction activities may involve limited transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel for construction equipment. However, construction activities are short-term and hazardous materials used during construction would be transported, used, and disposed of according to federal, State, and local health and safety requirements.
Therefore, no potential for release or emissions of hazardous materials was identified in general or within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and impacts would be less than significant.
d) No Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix F) includes results from database searches to determine if the Project site is on a list of hazardous materials sites. The Phase I searched the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), SCAQMD, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Moulton Niguel Water District, City of Aliso Viejo building and planning departments, and California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). The Project site is not listed on any of the regulatory databases and no other sites listed on the databases pose a significant threat to the Project site. No oil wells are located on the Project site. 269
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 59 Therefore, no RECs were identified on or near the Project site and no impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor within two miles of a private airstrip or public airport. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, located in Santa Ana, approximately 10 miles from the Project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Less than Significant. The Project site is bordered by Pacific Park Drive, Aliso Creek Road, and Journey. According to the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, Figure S-1, the closest emergency evacuation routes to the Project site is Aliso Creek Road, adjacent to the Project site. The emergency access route would remain unchanged by the proposed Project and the proposed Project would not interfere with an emergency response plan.
On-site circulation and emergency access would conform to applicable City regulations that require 26 to 28-foot-wide street widths without parking and 31-foot-wide street widths with parallel parking. Alleys that serve garages would measure 24 feet in width.
All street widths include designated fire truck turnarounds and key staging areas throughout the Project area. The on-site circulation was presented in the FMP and reviewed and approved by OCFA.
The proposed Project would not require the full closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction or operations and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the Project or any surrounding areas. For any construction in the public right-of-way, the Project would implement a traffic control plan to ensure continued access through the area. This traffic control plan is required by City standards and imposed as a condition of approval for projects that involve improvements within a right-of-way and would be subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
All emergency access routes would remain unchanged by the proposed Project and the proposed Project would not interfere with an emergency response plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g) Less than Significant. According to Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not located within a State Responsibility or Local Responsibility Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
The Project site is surrounded by existing developed and urban conditions and is not located near wildlands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
270
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 60 As part of the City’s standard development review process, the OCFA reviews preliminary project plans in their role as the citywide fire protection and emergency service provider. A project-specific Fire Master Plan (FMP) was prepared by Dudek, dated October 4, 2025 (Appendix L) to ensure a project’s comprehensive fire safety strategies comply with the California Fire Code as amended by City code. Key components include detailed site plans showing fire apparatus access roads, hydrant locations/spacing, building construction features, water supply details, and fuel modification plans if needed for wildfire protection. Through review of the Project plans and the FMP, OCFA determined that the change from commercial to residential would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report and Shallow Soil Sampling Report, dated February 6, 2025 by Farallon Consulting (Appendix F); City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Public Safety Element; Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program; Fire Hazard Severity Zones (ca.gov); and Fire Master Plan, prepared by Dudek, dated October 4, 2025 (Appendix L).
271
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 61
5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
The hydraulic and water quality analysis is based on the technical reports, Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report, dated September 2025, by Proactive Engineering Consultants included as Appendix G, and the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP), dated January 12, 2026, by Proactive Engineering (Appendix H).
Currently, the Project site primarily flows to a low spot in the eastern portion of the Project site. The western edge of the property is an existing landscaped 2:1 slope. The runoff from the slopes is picked up by a series of v-ditches and downdrains, which in turn tie into the private on-site storm drain system. There are a series of onsite inlets that 272
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 62 take the site surface drainage and run it to the point of connection at the eastern edge of the site. No offsite run-on drainage or cross lot drainage is entering the site.
Once the runoff reaches Aliso Creek Road, it flows north to Pacific Park Drive. From Pacific Park Drive it flows east to Woodfield where it ultimately outlets into Aliso Creek Channel. The drainage flows along Aliso Creek Channel, through Aliso Creek (mouth), and ultimately discharging to the Pacific Ocean.
The existing site conditions consist of 72% impervious surfaces due to the commercial/office building and surface parking. With implementation of the Project, a total of 62% of the Project site would be impervious due to the increase of landscaped areas and parks throughout the Project site. Runoff in the proposed condition would follow existing drainage patterns.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. Water quality treatment is further discussed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP), included in Appendix H. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and would be subject to compliance with the Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The Regional MS4 permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended), requires co-permittees, including the City of Aliso Viejo, to control and reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from new development and significant redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable. 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). While all development projects are required to implement source control and site design practices, the Regional MS4 Permit has additional requirements for Priority Development Projects (PDPs), which are required to incorporate structural BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants and address potential hydromodification impacts from changes in flow and sediment supply. Per the MS4 Permit requirements for redevelopment, the proposed Project will include Low Impact Development (LID) elements into the site design as well as implementation of BMPs to the extent practicable.
Project Construction Impacts
Project construction activities are 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 prohibits non- stormwater discharges into storm sewers, reduces discharge of pollutants, and achieves compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In accordance with Section 7.35.080, Control of Urban Runoff–New Development and Redevelopment Projects, issuance of a grading or building permit for the proposed 273
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 63 Project would be subject to submittal and approval of project plans demonstrating compliance with 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 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) 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. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Project Operation Impacts
After construction, water quality treatment for the proposed Project would be provided by a Modular Wetlands System (MWS) to remove the Project’s storm water pollutants.
The biofiltration system would include 10 MWS Linear units (one in each Drainage Management Area (DMA)). The units would provide decentralized treatment to collect street, common area and roof drain flows. Treated flows would then be conveyed to the main storm drain system at the eastern edge of the site.
Additionally, the PWQMP documents the various BMPs that would be implemented as part of the Project, which include structural, source control, and site design BMPs to address water quality conditions associated with the proposed Project. Proposed nonstructural source control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants, and occupants; activity restrictions; common area landscape management; common area litter control; common area catch basin inspection; and street sweeping. Proposed structural source control BMPs include the modular wetlands system; storm drain system stenciling and signage; use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design to protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation; and hillside landscaping.
The Project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations related to water quality, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed on-site stormwater system and PWQMP requirements, 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 274
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 64 proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant. The geology and geotechnical analysis (see Section 5.7) determined the Project site is underlain by a thin veneer of compacted fill placed over sandstone and siltstone bedrock. Drilling to 51 feet below ground surface (bgs) did not encounter groundwater. Furthermore, percolation testing was not performed since the site consists of compacted fill over siltstone and sandstone bedrock and is not suitable for infiltration. Without feasible infiltration, the Project site does not provide groundwater recharge.
The Project does not include drilling a well for drinking water and therefore does not rely directly on groundwater supplies. Water is supplied to the existing commercial use on the Project site by the Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD), and water would continue to be supplied to the proposed Project by MNWD. MNWD does not utilize groundwater resources and therefore, indirect impacts from the Project’s use of groundwater would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
C.i Less than Significant. Approximately 76 percent of the developed site is currently covered by impervious surfaces and upon completion of the Project approximately 63 percent of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. Development of the Project site would therefore decrease the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. Despite the decrease in impervious surfaces, the proposed Project site will generate a higher quantity of peak stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions as discussed below. The peak stormwater flows would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site because the proposed Project would be subject to the project specific NPDES permit requirements that will implement BMPs and LID elements identified in the Project’s hydrology and water quality reports to reduce runoff and erosion. Stormwater treatment is proposed by underground flow-based treatment systems, such as modular wetlands. With implementation of the BMPs contained in the WQMP ensuring compliance with the County NPDES Stormwater Program and adherence to Chapter 13.08 of the City’s Municipal Code provisions related to erosion control, impacts from erosion or siltation on- or off-site would be less than significant.
C.ii - Ciii. Less than Significant with Mitigation. Despite the decrease in impervious surfaces, the proposed Project will generate a higher quantity of site peak runoff compared to existing conditions. Development of the Project site would therefore increase stormwater runoff that could exceed existing conditions, leading to on or offsite flooding or that would exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 275
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 65 The Hydrology & Hydraulics Report included in Appendix G calculated pre- and postproject stormwater flows for the Project site. Table 12 below compares the existing runoff in the 10 and 25-year storm events to the proposed Project conditions.
Table 12. Peak Discharge Rates 10 Year and 25 Year Storms for Existing Conditions and Proposed Conditions
Tributary Area
(acres)
10 Year Peak
Flow (cfs)
25 Year Peak
Flow (cfs)
Existing Conditions 7.4 15.6 18.8
Proposed Conditions 7.9 17.2 20.8
Difference +0.5 +1.6 +2.0
As outlined within the Table above, the proposed Project would increase the peak flow leaving the site by approximately 2 cfs or 11%. The primary reason for this increase is the slight change in total tributary area. The existing condition tributary area is only 7.4 acres compared to the proposed condition, which would be 7.9 acres. The main difference in the drainage areas occurs along the southern boundary. In the existing condition, parking spaces occur along the southern boundary, which drain away from the Project site. In the proposed condition the runoff from this area would be captured in the onsite storm drain system. A slight increase in drainage area would also occur along the eastern edge where retaining walls are planned to increase the flat developable space. Overall, the slight increase in flow can be attributed to the slight increase in drainage area.
As discussed previously, Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Grading and Excavation Code, requires compliance with erosion and siltation control measures. During grading when the highest risk of loss of topsoil and/or erosion would occur, silt fencing, sandbags, waddles, and other BMPs would be installed as part of the SWPPP. Construction impacts would be less than significant.
In order to mitigate the increase in peak storm flow discharge, Mitigation Measure (MM) HYD-1 requires that a section of the onsite storm drain pipe be upsized to sufficiently capture and store the increased volume. The outlet of the storm drain pipe would be restricted in order to regulate the rate of discharge to match the existing peak flow.
Reducing the peak discharge rates to existing conditions would reduce the risk of downstream erosion and/or flooding, resulting in less than significant impacts.
MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the storm drain plans shall demonstrate that the storm drain pipes are sufficiently sized to capture and store storm runoff volume in the developed condition in order to discharge the storm runoff at or below the existing peak flow rate leaving the Project site.
276
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 66 C.iv. Less than Significant. Development of the Project would substantively maintain the existing site and off site drainage patterns by utilizing existing v-ditches, and channeling a majority of stormwater to the proposed onsite catch basins that outlet north to the Pacific Park Drive storm drain. A secondary storm drain will outlet south to the Aliso Creek Road storm drain. Stormwater treatment is proposed by underground flowbased treatment systems, such as modular wetlands. Drainage would generally mimic the existing condition to the maximum extent possible and flood flows would not be impeded or redirected. A less than significant impact would occur. d) No Impact. The Project site is not located in a flood hazard area. Furthermore, the Project site is approximately 4 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and approximately 3 miles from the Sulphur Creek Reservoir, both of which are located at a lower elevation than the Project site. Therefore, no impacts from tsunami or seiche would occur. e) Less than Significant. The Project has been designed with water quality and hydromodification features to be comply with Regional MS4 Requirements and the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. Stormwater flows will be detained in an underground vault to reduce stormwater flows to the natural condition in compliance with the South Orange County Hydromodification Management Plan. Percolation testing was not performed since the site consists of compacted fill over siltstone and sandstone bedrock and is not suitable for infiltration. Furthermore, no groundwater was encountered to exploratory depth of 51 feet.
The proposed Project will implement the BMPs contained in the WQMP to capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff consistent with LID principles that prioritize on-site retention and infiltration. To ensure water quality on the Project site, the proposed Project includes a Modular Wetland System for treatment and implementation of BMPs.
The Project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations related to water quality, including the City’s Water Quality Ordinance. Implementation of the proposed on-site stormwater system and water quality operational BMPs identified in the PWQMP, would reduce pollutants of concern associated with 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. Therefore, impacts to water quality are less than significant and the proposed Project is consistent with water quality regulations.
Sources: Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Report, dated September 2025, by Proactive Engineering Consultants (Appendix G); and the Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) dated January 12, 2026, by Proactive Engineering (Appendix H). 277
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 67
5.11 Land Use and Planning
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
The Project proposes to change the General Plan and Zoning designations for the Project site as follows:
General Plan Zoning
Existing: Professional Office (PO) Professional Office (PO) Proposed: Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
Medium Density Residential (RM)
Findings of Fact
a) No Impact. The proposed Project plans to demolish an existing commercial development including three structures and associated accessory uses, such as parking lots, landscaping, etc. The Project site is surrounded by existing roads and development on all four sides. The proposed Project is not gated and includes pedestrian walkways through the Project site that would be available to existing surrounding residents.
The proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
However, these changes would not divide an existing community. The Project site is currently developed, and the proposal would only change the land use and not create a barrier that would divide the community. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less than Significant. The proposed Project is inconsistent with the adopted land use plan and zoning for the site and both a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would be required, requiring a change in land use and zoning from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Land uses to the north are the Aliso Viejo Town Center, to the south a business park, to the east a gas station with convenience market and multi-family condominiums, and to the west a fire station, a library, and medical offices. The proposed Project would be consistent with the existing surrounding land uses, and with the approval of the GPA, the proposed Project would 278
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 68 not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Table 13 provides 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 13, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable General Plan policies.
Table 13. Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency 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 in the City located across from the
Aliso Viejo Town Center. The proposed
Project includes a total of 137 attached
residential dwelling units on 8.44 acres, 70
Rowtowns and 67 Garden Courts. This
medium-density development is
consistent with Policy LU-2.1. 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
the construction of Rowtowns and Garden
Courts in an area that is developed and
urbanized. Redevelopment of the site
would be generally consistent with existing
surrounding uses, including commercial
uses to the north, west, and south; and
bounded by Aliso Creek Road to the east
and residential uses further east. As
discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, the
proposed Project would not adversely
affect or damage a scenic vista or natural
resources. 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 property from hazards related to slope
stability and flooding.
Consistent. The proposed redevelopment
Project is located in a multi-use, urbanized
area and would not degrade
environmentally sensitive areas. 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
279
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 69 Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency MM GEO-1. On-site drainage and water
quality improvements would provide
protection from localized flooding. 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. The proposed Project is
consistent with this policy.
Policy LU-4.4: Reduce the discharge of pollutants and
runoff flow from urban development to the maximum
extent practicable.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the
proposed Project includes an on-site
stormwater system that would reduce onsite runoff and pollutants. Stormwater flows would be routed to two modular
wetland systems for water quality
treatment prior to entering a subsurface
detention basin. BMPs identified in the
WQMP would reduce operational
pollutant discharges of concern in
compliance with the MS4 Permit and
ensure the proposed project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. 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
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.15,
Public Services and Section 5.19, Utilities
and Service Systems, existing public and
utility services are 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.
The proposed project is consistent with
this policy.
Policy LU-8.2: Require recycling, composting, source
reduction and education efforts throughout the
community, including residential, businesses,
industries, and institutions, within the construction
industry, and in all City-sponsored activities.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.19,
Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed
Project would be required to comply with
applicable federal, State, and local
regulations regarding the recycling,
composting, source reduction, and
280
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 70 Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency education efforts. 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 5.15,
Public Services, the Project applicant
would be required to pay all statutory fees
in place at the time in compliance with SB
50 and demonstrate proof of payment to
the City for approval of a building permit.
Payment of school fees under SB 50 would
provide consistency with this policy.
Policy LU-12.2: As a condition upon new
development, payment of park fees and/or
dedication and provision of parkland, recreation
facilities and/or multi-use trails that improve the public and private recreation system.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.15,
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 partially offset impacts to park facilities
by providing onsite amenities including: a
common recreation area featuring a pool,
BBQ area, and lounge seating; a tot lot and
playground; private open space totaling
approximately 34,372 SF including patios
and balconies; community courtyards with
seating and accent landscaping providing
passive green spaces totaling
approximately 43,900 SF feet; and
perimeter slope landscaping consisting of
trees and understory totaling
approximately 69,000 SF. 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. The proposed Project is
consistent with this policy.
Policy COS-1.4: Promote water conservation
measures, reduce urban runoff, and prevent
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the
281
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 71 Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency groundwater pollution within development projects,
property maintenance, City operations and all
activities requiring City approval.
proposed Project would implement
structural, source control, and site design
BMPs identified in the WQMP that address
water quality associated with the proposed
Project. The Project would adhere to
WQMP requirements, which would reduce
stormwater pollutants from the Project site
in compliance with the Regional MS4
Permit and ensure the Project would not
violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade ground water
quality. The Project is consistent with this
policy.
Policy C-4.2: Provide safe and convenient pedestrian
and bicycle connections to and from Aliso Viejo Town
Center, other commercial districts, office complexes,
neighborhoods, schools, other major activity centers,
and surrounding communities.
Consistent. The Project would include
construction of internal walkways and
adequate internal driveway widths to
accommodate internal pedestrian
circulation. These pedestrian routes
provide connections to public sidewalks
on Pacific Park Drive, Aliso Creek Road,
and Journey enabling pedestrian and
bicycle travel to Aliso Viejo Town Center to
the north located on the northwest corner
of the Aliso Creek Road/Pacific Park Drive
intersection. The Project is consistent with
this policy.
Policy COS-5.1: Integrate air quality planning with City land use, economic development, and transportation
planning efforts.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3, Air
Quality, the Project would not generate
pollutant emissions in excess of applicable
significance thresholds. The Project is
consistent with this policy.
Policy COS-5.3: Support alternative transportation
modes and technologies and develop bike- and
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods to reduce
emissions associated with automobile use.
Consistent. The Project would provide
internal walkways and adequate internal
driveway widths to accommodate internal
pedestrian and bike travel and
connections to Pacific Park Drive, Aliso
Creek Road, and Journey enabling
pedestrian and bicycle travel on public
sidewalks and bike lanes. The Project
would also provide electric vehicle (EV)
charging infrastructure consistent with the
latest CALGreen requirements, enabling
282
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 72 Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency residents to charge electric vehicles and in
turn reducing air pollution emissions. The
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 Project is required to
comply with 2022 Title 24 standards and
CALGreen. Consistent with the 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the
Project will be “all electric” (mandatory
high-efficiency electric heat pumps for
HVAC and water heating; 240-volt circuits
for electric ranges/cooktops and clothes
dryers; 200-amp main electrical panel
minimum with space for future solar and
battery storage; EV ready; and solar
photovoltaic systems required with
electrical readiness for future battery
storage. The 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 LU-12-2. The Project is
consistent with this policy.
Policy COS-8.1: Balance the benefits of development
with a project’s potential impacts to cultural resources.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.5,
Cultural Resources, the Project site does
not contain known cultural resources. The
Project was cleared and graded in 1988
and developed between 1999 and 2000.
The SCCIC records search revealed six
prehistoric resources within one mile of the
Project site with none located on the site.
The field survey did not identify evidence
of onsite cultural resources. A SLF search
was also requested from NAHC. The
search identified presence of sacred sites
or locations of religious or ceremonial
importance within the vicinity of the Project
site, recommended contact with the
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation for further
information. The request for further
information was included in the AB52 and
SB18 notification and additional
information is included within Section 5.18
Tribal Cultural Resources. As concluded in
283
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 73 Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency Section 5.5 Cultural Resources, given the
disturbed nature of the site resulting from
previous agricultural use, development of
the property, and the results from the field
survey, impacts would be less than
significant. The Project is consistent with
this policy.
Safety Element
Policy S-1.1: Avoid development in areas susceptible
to erosion and sediment loss.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.7,
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)
and the BMPs identified in the projectspecific WQMP, 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
Project. The 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 5.7,
Geology and Soils, the Project site is not
susceptible to potential fault rupture or
liquefaction. The Project would be
required to comply with site-specific
geotechnical recommendations
associated with potential earthquake
ground shaking, slope instability, or other
284
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 74 Aliso Viejo General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency geological hazards. The Project is
consistent with this policy.
Policy S-2.3: Ensure adequate fire equipment access
and fire suppression resources to all developed and
open space areas within the City.
Consistent. The Project would include a
total of 6 new fire hydrants internal to the
Project site on internal driveways that
would connect to existing water lines. The
Project would be required to comply with
all City and Orange County Fire Authority
(OCFA) requirements for fire prevention
and safety measures including site access
as contained in the project-specific Fire
Master Plan (FMP). These requirements will
be included in the Project construction
plans as part of standard review by the City
and OCFA. The Project is consistent with
this policy.
Policy S-3.1: Require that new development and
redevelopment minimize stormwater and urban
runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating on-site design features such as detention basins, water
features, or other suitable strategies. Where feasible, support the use of common detention facilities
serving more than one development.
Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use
Element Policy LU-4.4 and
Conservation/Open Space Element Policy
COS-1.4. The 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 5.13,
Noise, the Project would result in less than
significant impacts related to noise. The
Project is consistent with this policy.
Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact by conflicting with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect resulting in a less than significant impact.
Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use Map; and City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use Element.
285
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 75
5.12 Mineral Resources
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
a and b) No Impact. The California Department of Conservation has classified the State into Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) which designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The Project site and surrounding area are designated as MRZ-3, defined as areas likely containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. 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. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of value to the region or result in the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.
In addition, within the City’s General Plan Land Use Element the Project site is currently designated Professional Office (PO) and not Resource Areas or Open Space, the proposed Project would not impact a site that has been historically used for the extraction of mineral resources, nor would the proposed Project conflict with areas designated by the General Plan for mineral resource extraction. Therefore, no impact associated with the loss of availability of a known or locally-important mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site would occur.
Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Land Use Element; California Department of Conservation Website.
286
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 76
5.13 Noise
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
Noise impacts can occur from construction operations and long-term operations of a project, which for residential consists of vehicle traffic noise, and stationary sources, such as air conditioning noise. Potential construction and operational noise impacts from these sources were analyzed in the report, Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Noise Impact Study (Noise Impact Study), prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated May 19, 2026, and included in Appendix I.
Noise is regulated by the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan and Chapter 8.12 of the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. For construction noise, Chapter 8.12.070 of the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code states that construction activity is exempt from exterior noise standards provided construction activities take place between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on any day except for Sunday or a Federal holiday, or between the hours of 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Noise generated outside of those hours is subject to the standards in Table 4.13-2.
The standards for stationary noise sources are defined in Table N-1 of the Aliso Viejo General Plan Noise Element. During the daytime (7am – 10 pm), hourly noise levels shall not exceed 55 dBA with a maximum of 75 dBA. During the nighttime (10 pm – 7 am), hourly noise levels shall not exceed 50 dBA, with a maximum of 70 dBA.
The Aliso Viejo General Plan Noise Element also provides land use compatibility standards in Table N-2. For residential neighborhoods, the land use compatibility noise 287
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 77 standard is 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and below. The CNEL noise metric is a 24-hour weighted average noise measurement.
The analysis of noise impacts included in the Noise Impact Study assumes compliance with standard noise regulations, including the City’s noise ordinance, which restricts construction during nighttime, Sundays and holidays, and the California Building Code standards, which regulate interior noise levels.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. Noise impacts can occur from construction operations and longterm operations of a project, which for residential projects consists of vehicle traffic noise and stationary sources, such as air conditioning noise. As noted previously, potential noise impacts from these sources were analyzed in the Noise Impact Study and included in Appendix I.
While construction noise levels are exempt from the City’s noise standards, construction noise levels were calculated for the different phases of construction, including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The City of Aliso Viejo does not have established thresholds for constructionrelated noise. Consequently, construction levels were measured against the Federal Transportation Administration General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria for the purposes of construction noise impact significance.
Noise levels for each stage of construction are shown in Table 14 below.
Table 14. Project Construction Noise Levels
Stage Equipment Combined Noise
Level (dBA)
Demolition Concrete/Industrials saws, rubber tired dozers 76.3 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 73.0
Grading Graders, Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 73.6
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 73.0
Paving Rollers 69.0
Arch Coating Air compressors 63.7
Worst Case Construction Phase Noise Level – Leq (dBA) 76.3 FTA Daytime General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria – Leq (dBA) 90.0 Noise Level exceeds criteria? No
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Section 7: Noise and Vibration During Construction.
As shown in Table 14, construction operations remain below the 90 dBA threshold of significance. Consequently, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. 288
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 78 Operational noise impacts were analyzed by combining equipment noise from HVAC equipment, road noise from additional vehicle trips and ambient conditions to determine noise impacts from the operation of the proposed Project. To help ensure onsite noise levels do not exceed the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan and Municipal Code noise standards, the following stationary noise impact analysis has been prepared. The analysis assumes that onsite HVAC units will be operating continuously during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
The Noise Impact Study addresses potential operational noise impacts at six sensitive receptor locations (see Noise Impact Study, Exhibit A Location Map) located adjacent to the Project site. The closest potential daytime HVAC location to the adjacent sensitive receptors would be near the southern boundary of the Project site, approximately 70 feet from Receptor-3, which consists of educational land uses. Although the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code does not include stationary noise thresholds for educational buildings, these land uses are considered sensitive for the purposes of this analysis.
Therefore, potential noise impacts are conservatively estimated at a distance of 70 feet from the nearest potential HVAC location and are compared with the City’s stationary noise thresholds for residential land uses. It is assumed that the educational land use located at Receptor-3 is only occupied and operational during daytime hours.
Therefore, this analysis only compares the worst-case noise levels at Receptor-3 to the City’s daytime noise level threshold because all other sensitive receptors are located farther away from any of the proposed HVAC locations and would therefore experience lower noise levels.
Potential noise level impacts during nighttime hours are assessed at the property line of Receptor-5, identified as the existing Orange County Fire Station 57, which is the nearest adjacent receptor that is assumed to be occupied and operational during nighttime hours and represents the worst-case noise level location because it is closest to proposed HVAC locations and therefore would experience the highest stationary source noise levels. Receptor-5 is located approximately 125 feet from the nearest potential onsite HVAC location.
Tables 15 and 16 below summarize the results for Project noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours at the nearest adjacent receptors. Modeling of the nearest receptors was conducted first and once it was determined that noise levels would not exceed the thresholds of significance, no further noise modeling was performed because receptors located farther from the Project site would experience less noise. 289
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 79 Table 15. Daytime Hours Stationary Noise Impacts
Noise Source Receptor Distance from
Noise Source
(feet)
Noise Level at Receptor (dBA Leq)
Daytime (Leq / Lmax
7 a.m. – 10 p.m.)
HVAC1 70.0 51.1 / 51.1
Noise Level Threshold 55.0 / 75.0
Noise Level Exceeds Threshold? No /No
1. Noise level is indicative of five (5) units.
Source: Noise Study Report, RK Engineering, Table 6-1.
Table 16. Nighttime Hours Stationary Noise Impacts
Noise Source Receptor Distance from
Noise Source
(feet)
Noise Level at Receptor (dBA Leq)
Nighttime (Leq / Lmax
10 p.m. – 7 a.m.)
HVAC1 125.0 48.6 / 48.6
Noise Level Threshold 50.0 / 70.0
Noise Level Exceeds Threshold? No /No
1. Noise level is indicative of five (5) units.
Source: Noise Study Report, RK Engineering, Table 6-2.
As shown in the tables above, noise levels generated by the Project are not expected to exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime noise standards at any of the adjacent sensitive receptor locations, therefore impacts are less than significant.
The Project is not expected to cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the site as a result of increased traffic volumes along adjacent roadways.
Typically, a doubling of traffic volume along a roadway is required to cause a significant increase in ambient noise levels of more than 3 dBA1.
Per 2024 Streetlight data, the segment of Pacific Park Drive adjacent to the Project site has an existing annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 16,074 vehicles. The segment of Aliso Creek Road adjacent to the Project site has an existing annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 16,664 vehicles.
Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition trip generation rates for Land Use 215: Single-Family Attached Housing, the Project is forecast to generate approximately 986 daily trips2. Therefore, discounting the traffic generated by the existing office use on the Project site, the amount of traffic generated by the proposed 1 Source: Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, California Department of Transportation, (Caltrans), September 2013.
2 The noise study was prepared prior to the release of the 12th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which was used for the VMT and traffic analysis. The noise analysis was not updated because use of the 11th Edition results in more trips (980 daily trips) than use of the 12th Edition (900 daily trips) 290
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 80 Project would not double the amount of traffic along Pacific Park Drive or Aliso Creek Road, either directly or cumulatively, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant. The construction of the Project is not expected to require the use of substantial vibration-inducing equipment or activities, such as pile drivers or blasting. The main source of vibration impacts during the construction of the Project would be the operation of equipment such as bulldozer activity during site preparation and loading trucks during grading and excavation. The evaluation of an impact’s significance can be determined by reviewing both the likelihood of annoyance to individuals as well as the potential for damage to existing structures. The construction vibration assessment utilizes the referenced vibration levels and methodology set forth within the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.
According to the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018, the appropriate threshold for damage to modern residential structures is a PPV of 0.5 inches/second. Annoyance is assessed based on levels of perception, with a PPV of 0.01 being considered “barely perceptible,”
0.04 inches/second as “distinctly perceptible,” 0.1 inches/second as “strongly perceptible,” and 0.4 inches/second as “severe.”
The nearest location of grading equipment to occupied residences is approximately 215 feet. At this distance, the PPV from a large bulldozer would be approximately 0.008 inches/second; from loaded trucks would be approximately 0.007 inches/second; and from a vibratory roller would be approximately 0.020 inches/second. This level of vibration falls below the building damage PPV criteria of 0.5 inches/second. In terms of annoyance, the impact would be “barely perceptible” to “distinctly perceptible.” The nearest location of grading equipment to commercial structures is approximately 30 feet. At this distance, the PPV from a large bulldozer would be approximately 0.073 inches/second; from loaded trucks would be approximately 0.062 inches/second; and from a vibratory roller would be approximately 0.172 inches/second. This level of vibration falls below the building damage PPV criteria of 0.5 inches/second. In terms of annoyance, the impact would be “barely perceptible” to “distinctly perceptible.” Since construction vibration would not cause damage to off-site commercial or residential buildings and the majority of the grading would be barely perceptible to offsite receivers, impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor within two miles of a private airstrip or public airport. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, located in Santa Ana, approximately 10 miles from the Project site. No impact would occur.
291
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 81 Sources: Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Noise Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated May 19, 2026, and included in Appendix I; City of Aliso Viejo General Plan; and City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. 292
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 82
5.14 Population and Housing
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
The California Department of Finance (DOF) provides demographic data for cities, such as Aliso Viejo. The DOF defines a "household" as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, or unrelated persons sharing living quarters. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households.
As of January 1, 2025, DOF estimates the total population of the City of Aliso Viejo as 50,213 persons with 20,189 households and an average size of 2.54 people per household3. Based on the proposed 137 units, the Project would result in an increase of approximately 348 new residents.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. The proposed Project residential land use would directly generate population growth beyond that planned for the Project site in the City’s General Plan due to the conversion of commercial use to residential use. However, the proposed Project would not indirectly encourage population growth in other areas of the City or exceed the City’s overall projected population growth.
The proposed Project does not include any infrastructure that could indirectly cause growth in other portions of the City. The proposed Project is located on an already developed site and bordered by existing roadways, existing commercial and residential land uses. The proposed Project would connect to existing water and sewer service within surrounding streets, including the domestic water main along Pacific Park, with 3 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021- 2025, November 2025.
293
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 83 no required upsizing. Therefore, the proposed Project does not include any infrastructure, such as roadways, water, sewer or other facilities, sized beyond what is necessary to serve only the proposed Project; therefore, no growth-inducing impacts would occur.
At 2.54 persons per household, the additional 137 residential units would generate approximately 348 additional residents for the City that would exceed General Plan projections for the Project site. The current population of Aliso Viejo is approximately 50,213 residents. The addition of 348 residents above the General Plan projections represents approximately 0.0069% of the current population. A less than 1/10 of 1% increase is not considered a substantial unplanned population increase and the very small population increase would not cause impacts to public services. Furthermore, the addition of 137 dwelling units would contribute toward meeting the City’s Regional Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation of 1,195 dwelling units4. Based on the RHNA obligation, population growth from the Proposed project would not exceed SCAG’s overall projected population growth for the City.
Furthermore, this IS/MND has analyzed the additional 137 dwelling units in its analysis of the operational topics that are sensitive to density and the number of dwelling units, such as air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, energy, public services, traffic, and utilities.
This IS/MND has found Project impacts related to each of those environmental topics would be either less than significant or can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with growth beyond General Plan projections would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The Project site currently contains an underutilized commercial development. No existing residences or residents would be displaced. Redevelopment of the Project site would not displace people or housing and would not necessitate the construction or replacement of housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur with the loss of existing residential units and displacement of people.
Sources: California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021- 2025
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2025/. 4 City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Housing Element, Page CP-24 294
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 84
5.15 Public Service
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
a) Less than Significant.
Fire Protection. The proposed Project site is served by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), which provides fire protection and emergency service throughout the City. The closest fire station to the proposed Project site is Station #57 located directly northwest of the Project site at 57 Journey, approximately 125 feet from the Project site. The next closest station is Station #39 located at 24241 Avila Road, Laguna Niguel, approximately
2.3 miles from the Project site.
Although the building is partially occupied, OCFA currently serves the approximately 125,166 square foot commercial use building. Redevelopment of the property would not change OCFA’s ability to provide service. The additional 137 residential units and approximately 348 residents would incrementally change the demand for Fire Department services from commercial to residential.
As part of the City’s standard development review process, the OCFA reviews preliminary project plans in their role as the citywide fire protection and emergency service provider. A project-specific Fire Master Plan (FMP) was prepared by Dudek, 295
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 85 dated October 4, 2025 (Appendix L) to ensure a Project’s comprehensive fire safety strategies comply with the California Fire Code as amended by City Code. Key components include detailed site plans showing fire apparatus access roads, hydrant locations/spacing, building construction features, water supply details, and fuel modification plans if needed for wildfire protection. Through review of the Project plans and the FMP, OCFA determined that the change from commercial to residential service of 348 residential units could be served by OCFA without any significant reduction in level or service, response times, or the need for additional equipment, personnel, or facilities.
Compliance with existing regulations and OCFA conditions of approval would ensure the availability of adequate fire protection without construction of new or expanded fire facilities. Therefore, environmental impacts associated with construction of new or expanded fire facilities would not occur and impacts would be less than significant.
Police Protection. The Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD) currently provides police protection throughout the City and serves the Project site. The closest OCSD substation is located at 11 Journey, approximately 0.6 mile west of the Project site.
However, police officers are routinely on patrol throughout the City; therefore, response times can vary.
The Project site is currently being served by the OCSD and the redevelopment of the property would not change the OCSD’s ability to provide service. An additional 137 residential units and 348 residents would exceed the General Plan projections for the Project site. However, the Project site is currently being served by OCSD as an office use. As part of the City’s standard development review process, the OCSD reviews preliminary project plans in their role as the citywide police protection and first responder. Through review of the Project plans, OCSD determined that the change from commercial to residential service of 348 residential units could be served by OCSD without any significant reduction in level of service, response times, or the need for additional equipment, personnel, or facilities.
Furthermore, using design strategies and added security measures from various stakeholders may help reduce the number of times OCSD responds to the proposed Project. To ensure adequate services are provided and to minimize the demands on police services, security and design strategies which employ defensible space concepts have been utilized throughout the development and construction plans. These measures incorporate the concepts of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) in accordance with Aliso Viejo Municipal Section 15.50.020, which involves the placement, and orientation of structures, access and visibility of common areas, placement of doors, windows, addressing, lighting and landscaping. CPTED promotes public safety, physical security and allows citizens the ability to monitor activity. Final plans depicting CPTED strategies which are included as part of the Project would be reviewed by OCSD.
296
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 86 Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause any significant reduction in level of service, response times, or the need for additional equipment, personnel, or facilities.
Environmental impacts associated with construction of new or expanded police facilities would not occur and impacts would be less than significant.
Schools. The Project site falls within the boundaries of the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). CUSD provides 5 TK – 8 schools, 30 elementary schools, 8 middle schools, 6 high schools, 8 charter schools, and 8 alternative schools/programs. Students from the proposed Project would likely attend Wood Canyon for grades TK-5, Don Juan Avila Middle School for grades 6-8, and Aliso Niguel High School for grades 9-12.
Student generation from the additional 137 residential units is anticipated to be 31 elementary students, 11 middle school students, and 14 high school students for a total of 56 additional students5. The addition of 56 students would place additional demands on the public school system not previously planned. However, the additional number of students generated by the proposed Project would be a small fraction of the overall student population of the school district and would not cause an impactful growth2.
Based on the student generation rates, the Project Applicant would be required to pay Level 1 development impact fees to CUSD per SB 50. The fees would be collected by the school districts at the time building permits are issued. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h):
The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed … are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization …on the provision of adequate school facilities.
Payment of these fees would offset impacts from the increased demand for school services associated with the proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools as needed. Therefore, CUSD would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the additional 56 students as a result of the proposed Project, and payment of development impact fees would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
Parks. The City owns and manages Vista Park and Iglesia Park, which are a total of 7.4 acres. Additionally, Aliso Viejo Community Association (AVCA) is responsible for an estimated 179 acres of parkland6. The closest park to the Project site is Grand Park, approximately 0.3 mile north of the project site, across Pacific Park Drive, along City 5 Correspondence with Clark Hampton of the Capistrano Unified School District on November 21, 2025, provided student generation rates, determined the project would require Level 1 Developer Fees, and concluded that CUSD does not have concerns related to the proposed development. 6 95 Argonaut Residential Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 2, 2025. 297
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 87 Lights Drive. Crosswalks and traffic lights are available to cross Pacific Park Drive, allowing for pedestrian access to Grand Park. Woodfield Park, which has multiple ballfields, is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site.
The proposed Project would construct homes with private balconies/patio, provide a central recreation area featuring a pool, BBQ area, lounge seating, a tot lot and playground, complete with play equipment, benches, and shaded areas within a central recreation area, courtyards throughout the community with seating and accent landscaping, offering serene passive green spaces as well as paved walkways with trees and specimen plantings, and enhancing the community’s visual appeal and walkability.
However, the proposed Project would add new residents to the City who would increase the demand for park facilities. The new proposed residential units would incrementally exceed the City’s General Plan projections for the Project site, resulting in an additional 137 dwelling units and approximately 348 new residents on a site currently designated and developed as Professional Office. However, the growth proposed for the Project site would not exceed the City’s overall planned growth. Therefore, while the proposed Project would add population growth to a property currently developed with office uses, the population growth represents approximately 0.0069% of the City’s overall population. The corresponding additional demand for park facilities represents a very small fraction of the overall City population and therefore, demand on park facilities.
According to the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Natural Resources Element the City’s park objective is to reach 5 acres per 1,000 residents. As stated on Page COS-20, The City will adopt by ordinance a development standard of 5.0 acres of community or neighborhood parkland per 1,000 residents. As of 2003, Aliso Viejo residents enjoyed a ratio of 5.37 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. New residential development will be required to provide land and/or fees necessary to maintain the City’s adopted parkland standard, consistent with the California Subdivision Map Act.
Based on the City’s requirement of 5.0 acres of park area per 1,000 persons, the Project would result in the need for approximately 1.74-acres of usable park area. The Project proposes the creation of 1.33 acres of parks and paseos.
In addition to the provision of on-site residential amenities, the Project Applicant would be required to pay all development impact fees and park fees to the extent required by the City’s Municipal Code. With the provision of on-site amenities and the payment of these fees, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded park facilities which could have adverse effects on the physical environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
298
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 88 Other Public Facilities. The proposed Project would place additional demands on other public facilities. These facilities range from the County’s library to City streets, storm drains, and other public facilities such as City Hall, etc. When a residential development project is newly constructed in an established city, often that project would rely on, and impact, established infrastructure. In those situations, the impacts would be often offset by payment of development impact fees.
Payment of the fees, which are a condition of approval, enable the City to collect funds to construct new public facilities and enhance existing facilities. The Project’s additional growth represents a small fraction of the overall City population. Consequently, the Project would not directly place additional demand on other public facilities that would cause the construction or expansion of those facilities, which could have adverse effects on the physical environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Community Facilities Element; City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Public Safety Element; City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section
15.50.020; and Fire Master Plan, prepared by Dudek, dated October 4, 2025 (Appendix L).
299
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 89
5.16 Recreation
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION. Would the project:
b) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
Existing public park facilities in the vicinity of the proposed Project include Foxborough Park, approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the Project site, the Grand Park, approximately
1.0 mile north, and Woodfield Park and Springdale Park located 0.9 mile to the northeast of the Project site.
The Site Plan provides for a central recreation area featuring a pool, BBQ area, and lounge seating. Additionally, a tot lot and playground, with play equipment, benches, and shaded areas are provided in the western portion of the site adjacent to the slope.
The central recreation area totals approximately 7,000 square feet.
Each of the dwelling units includes private open space areas in the form of patios and balconies. Private open space totals approximately 34,372 square feet.
Additionally, throughout the community are courtyards with seating and accent landscaping, providing passive green spaces as well as paved walkways with trees and specimen plantings, enhancing the community’s visual appeal and walkability. The paseos and green courts total approximately 43,900 square feet.
The perimeter slopes would also include landscaping consisting of trees and understory. The total landscaping is approximately 69,000 square feet. The common open space areas would be owned and maintained by a newly formed homeowner’s association.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. The proposed Project would construct homes with private balconies/patio, provide a central recreation area featuring a pool, BBQ area, lounge seating, a tot lot and playground, complete with play equipment, benches, and shaded areas within a central recreation area, courtyards throughout the community with 300
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 90 seating and accent landscaping, offering passive green spaces as well as paved walkways with trees and specimen plantings, and enhancing the community’s visual appeal and walkability.
However, the proposed Project would add new residents to the City who could increase the demand for park facilities. The new proposed residential units would exceed the City’s General Plan projections for the Project site, resulting in an additional 137 dwelling units and approximately 348 new residents. This unplanned growth in population represents approximately 0.0069% of the City’s overall population. The unplanned growth that would exceed General Plan projections for the Project site would not exceed overall growth projections for the City and represents a very small fraction of the overall City population, and therefore, demand on park facilities.
According to the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Natural Resources Element the City’s park objective is to reach 5 acres per 1,000 residents. As stated on Page COS-20, The City will adopt by ordinance a development standard of 5.0 acres of community or neighborhood parkland per 1,000 residents. As of 2003, Aliso Viejo residents enjoyed a ratio of 5.37 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. New residential development will be required to provide land and/or fees necessary to maintain the City’s adopted parkland standard, consistent with the California Subdivision Map Act.
Based on the City’s requirement of 5.0 acres of park area per 1,000 persons, the Project would result in the need for approximately 1.74-acres of usable park area. The Project proposes the creation of 1.33 acres of parks and paseos.
In addition to the provision of on-site residential amenities, the Project Applicant would be required to pay all development impact fees and park fees to the extent required by the City’s Municipal Code. With the provision of on-site amenities and the payment of these fees, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded park facilities which could have adverse effects on the physical environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant. The proposed Project is not of sufficient size to require, and does not propose to construct new park facilities, or expand existing park facilities, located outside of the Project site. As described in Response a) above, extensive parks are provided within the City and available to new residents of the Project. Furthermore, the proposed Project provides an on-site park for use by residents of the proposed Project, and the Project would pay park fees in accordance with the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code. Consequently, the Project would not result in the construction of new or expanded park facilities which could have adverse effects on the physical environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
301
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 91 Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Community Facilities Element; City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Public Safety Element; and City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 15.50.020.
302
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 92
5.17 Transportation/Traffic
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law. The legislature found that with the adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), the state had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32).
SB 743 started a process that fundamentally changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. Changes include the elimination of auto delay, Level of Service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria were designed to promote the reduction of greenhouse GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), previously known as the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), developed alternative metrics and thresholds based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The guidelines were certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency in December 2018, and automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, could not be considered a significant impact on the environment.
The City of Aliso Viejo adopted Transportation Impact Guidelines for CEQA and General Plan Consistency, dated May 2020, to specify the methodology to assess project-related VMT impacts.
303
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 93 The report, Pacific Park Drive Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, City of Aliso Viejo, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated November 24, 2025, and included in Appendix J, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s VMT Guidelines.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. The following provides an analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with programs, plans, ordinances and policies addressing the City’s circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element includes “Goal C-1”, and numerous related policies, to “Provide for convenient and safe local travel throughout Aliso Viejo.” The proposed Project is consistent with that goal by providing a residential neighborhood in a location adjacent to existing roadways that facilitate both automobile and pedestrian movement. The proposed Project would replace existing commercial/office use and provide residential housing within close proximity to commercial uses, facilitating pedestrian mobility between commercial and residential uses.
Transit Facilities
Public transportation services within the Project site and surrounding area are provided by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The primary OCTA bus routes serving the Project area are Routes 177 and 90. Route 177 provides service between Foothill Ranch and Laguna Hills, traveling via Alicia Parkway with key stops serving the Aliso Viejo Town Center to the north of the Project across Pacific Park. Route 90 connects Tustin to Dana Point, passing through Aliso Viejo along Aliso Creek Road.
There are no existing or planned transit facilities adjacent to the Project site. Project implementation would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit facilities.
Roadway Facilities
The City’s General Plan Circulation and Mobility Element includes “Goal C-1”, and numerous related policies, to “Provide for convenient and safe local travel throughout Aliso Viejo.” The proposed Project is consistent with that goal by providing a residential neighborhood in a location adjacent to existing roadways that facilitate both automobile and pedestrian movement. The proposed Project would replace existing commercial/office use and provide residential housing within close proximity to commercial uses, facilitating pedestrian mobility between commercial and residential uses.
Primary vehicular access to the Project would be provided at an unsignalized driveway on Pacific Park Drive, as well as secondary access from Aliso Creek Road via a shared driveway. Internal private driveways would provide two-way access to each unit’s 304
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 94 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. According to the General Plan Circulation Element, Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park have Class II on-road bicycle lanes. There are no planned bicycle facilities near the Project site. 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 Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park. Non-signalized crosswalks are available at the intersections of Aliso Creek Road and Journey and the southern driveway. Pedestrians would circulate within the site via proposed internal pedestrian walkways and concrete sidewalks.
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. b) Less than Significant. The proposed Project has been evaluated to determine if, pursuant to either CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) and/or the VMT screening provisions of the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines for CEQA and General Plan Consistency (City Guidelines), the Project is presumed to have less than a significant impact on transportation.
VMT Analysis Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1). Section 15064.3(b)(1) states that “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.” In accordance with the City Guidelines, VMT analysis is based on the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM) and the City relies on VMT per Service Population, which accounts for residents and employees. The City is divided into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ), and the Project site falls within TAZ 1553. Land use data are used to create Socio-Economic Data (SED) for each TAZ. As shown in the following excerpt from the OCTAM model, the 2019 data represent the baseline condition for the TAZ. Below within Table 17 is data from the OCTAM model for TAZ 1553, which includes the Project site.
305
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 95 Table 17. SED Data for TAZ 1553
Scenario Year 2019 2050 Total Model Growth
(2050-2019)
Zone 1553 1553 -
Total Population 0 18 18
Household Population 0 18 18
Employment Population 0 10 10
Total Household 0 8 8
Median Income 0 62,571 62,571
Retail Employment 51 58 7
Service Employment 1,823 1,720 -103
Basic Employment 662 774 112
School Enrollment 0 0 0
University Enrollment 0 0 0
Source: OCTAM model. Data extracted and reformatted into a new table format for legibility.
The data indicates that within TAZ 1553 in 2019, there is no population and 51 retail employees, 1,823 service employees (such as office), and 662 basic employees.
OCTAM includes conversion rates from SED to land use and vice versa. For residential townhomes, the conversion rate is 2.599 residents per dwelling unit (DU), which is sourced from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) dated April 2021. The conversion rate for office use is 3.5 employees per thousand square feet (TSF), which is sourced from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) dated October 2020.
Of the 1,823 service employees identified in TAZ 1553, 438 employees are attributed to the Project site. This calculation is based on the existing 125,166 square feet of office at 3.5 employees per TSF. The OCTAM model has determined that for TAZ 1553, the VMT per service population equals 25.91 VMT/Service Population. Therefore, the existing office buildings on the Project site generate 11,349 Daily VMT (438 employees * 25.91 VMT/service population) as reported within OCTAM. Furthermore, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, establishes trip generation rates for different land uses, including office. The trip generation rate for office use is 7.83 daily trips per TSF. Therefore, the Project site has a current trip generation rate of 980 daily trips based on the existing office land use and those trips are imbedded within the OCTAM model.
To confirm that the reduction in daily trips would result in a reduction in VMT, the average trip lengths, which are the basis for VMT, were compared for residential and office uses.
The OCTAM model has determined that for TAZ 1553, the VMT per service population is 25.91. Based on 438 employees generated by the existing office buildings, the 306
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 96 OCTAM model has determined that the existing office buildings generate 11,349 daily VMT. TAZ 1553 does not have any residential uses, therefore, the 25.91 VMT per service population would not apply. Therefore, residential trip lengths in surrounding TAZs were used to create an average trip length. Table 18 below shows the residential trip lengths in the five TAZs surrounding the Project site.
Table 18. Residential Trip Lengths By TAZ
TAZ ID Average Trip Length (miles)
1545 6.1
1546 4.7
1549 6.5
1552 7.3
1554 6.4
The longest trip length of 7.3 miles can conservatively be applied to the Project site with TAZ 1553. Based on the trip generation of 900 daily trips at 7.3 miles per trip, the Project would generate a total of 6,570 daily VMT. Applied to the SED projection of 356 residents, the Project would generate 18.46 VMT/Service Population.
The proposed transition from office to residential associated with the Project must first include the removal of VMT/Service Population in OCTAM for the existing office use and replacement with the proposed 137 DU residential use. The addition of the residential use SED without first removing the office use SED would result in double counting VMT within TAZ 1553.
Therefore, the proposed transition from office to residential use on the Project site would result in the following changes to VMT within TAZ 1553, as summarized in Table 19 below.
Table 19. VMT Comparison – Existing to Proposed
Land Use Quantity Residents Employees VMT/Service Pop Daily VMT Office 125,166 438 25.91 11,349
Townhomes 137 356 18.46 6,570
Difference (4,779)
As shown in Table 19, the transition from office to residential use would reduce the total daily VMT within TAZ 1553 by 4,779 Daily VMT and reduce the VMT/Service Population for the Project site from 25.91 to 18.46.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), the proposed Project would “decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions” and, therefore, “should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.”
307
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 97 Since the proposed Project reduces both Daily VMT and VMT/Service Population, a full VMT analysis is not required and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), a project that reduces VMT would have a less than significant impact.
VMT Screening under the City Guidelines. Separate from the above analysis under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), the City Guidelines state that the first step in preparing a VMT assessment is to determine if the project meets any of the three (3) types of screening criteria outlined in the City’s VMT Guidelines7. The screening criteria are identified below:
• Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
• Step 3: Project Type Screening
The proposed Project is not located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) or a Low VMT Area, therefore, neither Step 1 nor Step 2 screening criteria apply to the Project.
Step 3 of the screening criteria screens out “Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips.” For clarification, the City Guidelines includes the following footnote providing an example of the application of these criteria, with the portions highlighted to emphasize the intent of the City Guidelines:
“This threshold ties directly to the OPR technical advisory and notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact.” 8 As clarified by the example contained in this footnote, the calculation of “Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips” refers to “trip generation increases,” projects which “generate or attract an additional” number of trips, and “the addition of 7 The City of Aliso Viejo Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA and General Plan Consistency, May 2020, pages 17 – 20. 8 City of Aliso Viejo Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA and General Plan Consistency, May 2020, pages 19-20.
308
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 98 110 or fewer trips,” each refers to a net calculation of trips, consistent with CEQA’s standard evaluation of impacts.
The proposed transition from office to residential associated with the Project must first include the removal of daily trips in OCTAM for the existing office buildings, otherwise the addition of the proposed residential trips without first removing the office trips would result in double counting daily trips within TAZ 1553. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, attached residential housing generates 6.57 daily trips per dwelling unit. Therefore, the 137 proposed dwelling units would generate 900 daily trips.
The VMT study provides detailed information showing that the proposed Project would have a trip generation that would reduce daily peak hour trips, with a forecast of 91 fewer AM Peak Hour trips, 78 fewer PM Peak Hour trips, and 80 fewer average daily trips compared to the existing office use.
Since the proposed Project would generate 80 fewer weekday trips, pursuant to “Step 3: Project Type Screening,” the Project is screened from further VMT analysis and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant. The Project proposes to redevelop an existing commercial/office building. More specifically, the Project proposes to demolish the existing buildings, surface parking, landscaping, and improvements and construct 137 residential units, and associated parking and improvements. The Project would not introduce an incompatible use to the site. Further, the Project would not provide any off-site roadway improvements that could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature.
The Project site would continue to be accessed by existing driveways that currently provide access to the Project site from Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Road.
Therefore, redevelopment of the Project site would not create new turning movements or geometric roadway design features resulting in new hazardous roadway conditions.
As part of the City’s Site Development Permit process required under Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Section 15.74.020, Site Development Permits, the Project would be reviewed and only approved after finding the proposed development conforms with applicable roadway and driveway requirements and standards set forth in the Aliso Viejo Municipal Code and General Plan, including the Circulation Element, thereby verifying that the Project would comply with applicable driveway, sight-distance, and internal circulation standards.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any transportation program, plan, ordinance, or policy; create an increase in hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections); or create incompatible uses.
Impacts would be less than significant.
309
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 99 d) Less than Significant. The Project site is bordered by Pacific Park Drive, Aliso Creek Road, and Journey. According to the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, Figure S-1, the closest emergency evacuation routes to the Project site is Aliso Creek Road, adjacent to the Project site. The emergency access route would remain unchanged by the proposed Project and the proposed Project would not interfere with an emergency response plan.
On-site circulation and emergency access would conform to applicable City regulations that require 26 – 28-foot-wide street widths without parking and 31-foot-wide street widths with parallel parking. Alleys that serve garages would measure 24 feet in width.
All street widths include designated fire truck turnarounds and key staging areas throughout the Project area. The on-site circulation was presented in the FMP and reviewed and approved by OCFA.
The proposed Project would not require the full closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction or operations and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the Project or any surrounding areas. For any construction in the public right-of-way, the Project would implement a traffic control plan to ensure continued access through the area. This traffic control plan is required by City standards and imposed as a condition of approval for projects that involve improvements within a right-of-way and would be subject to approval by the City.
All emergency access routes would remain unchanged by the proposed Project and the proposed Project would not interfere with any existing emergency response plans.
Therefore, the emergency response plan has already accounted for a similar intensity of development as the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: Pacific Park Drive Townhomes Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, City of Aliso Viejo, dated November 24, 2025, prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Appendix J); and Fire Master Plan, Dudek, October 4, 2025 (Appendix L). 310
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 100
5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project
cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code § 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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Impact Analysis
The potential for tribal cultural resources to occur on the Project site was assessed in Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, dated June 30, 2025, and included in Appendix C.
Pursuant to AB 52 and SB18, the City provided notification of the proposed Project to the Native American Historical Commission (NAHC) and notification letters were sent to the following tribes on November 14, 2025:
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation
• La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
311
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 101 • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
On November 25, 2025, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen NationBelardes responded to the City’s notice and requested consultation. During consultation agreement was reached on mitigation measures and consultation closed on April 6, 2026.
On December 18, 2025, the City held a consultation meeting with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City followed up with emails to the Kizh Nation on January 13, February 19, and May 11, 2026 without response from the Kizh Nation to the emails. Thus, consultation stalled and is presumed complete.
Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant. Based on archival research and aerial photographs, the Project site is disturbed and developed. Historic aerial photographs illustrate that between 1988 and 2000, the entire Project site was cleared, graded, and developed.
Based on the historic map and aerial, the Project site was cleared and graded during 1988 when the surrounding community was graded. Prior to 1976, the Project site was part of the Moulton Ranch, which operated as a large-scale sheep and cattle ranch.
Between 1988 and 1922, the area was further developed, and roads surrounding the Project, which include Journey, Aliso Creek Road, and Pacific Park Drive, were built.
Additionally, by 1992, a commercial building located directly northwest of the Project site was constructed. The 1999 historic aerial demonstrates that development of the Project site began and was completed by 2000, with the three commercial buildings and associated parking lot. The buildings are not associated with any significant events or individuals and are not likely to provide any information important to the history of the region.
The threshold of significance is whether any buildings or structures on the Project site are listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or on a local register of historic resources, which pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) includes, “A list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.” None of the buildings located on the Project site are listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and the City has not adopted a local list of historic buildings. A records search conducted at the SCCIC, and a pedestrian survey failed to identify any structures that would meet the definitions presented in the threshold of significance. Furthermore, during consultation, the buildings on site were not identified as tribal cultural resources.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
312
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 102 b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Pursuant to AB 52 and SB18, the City sent notification letters via email on November 14, 2025 to the following Tribes:
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation
• La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
On November 25, 2025, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen NationBelardes responded to the City’s notice and requested consultation. During consultation agreement was reached on mitigation measures and consultation closed on April 6, 2026.
On December 18, 2025, the City held a consultation meeting with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The City followed up with emails to the Kizh Nation on January 13, February 19, and May 11, 2026 without response from the Kizh Nation to the emails. Thus, consultation stalled and is presumed complete.
As a result of tribal consultation, Mitigation Measures (MM) TCR-1 through MM TCR-3 shall be implemented.
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 the consulting tribe(s). 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 onsite and any offsite 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 in areas of previously disturbed soil.
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. 313
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 103 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 grounddisturbing 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) 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 314
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 104 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.
Implementation of MM TCR -1, MM TCR-2, and MM TCR -3 would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Sources: Cultural Resources Study for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, dated June 30, 2025 (Appendix C); and Paleontological Assessment for the Journey and Pacific Park Drive (Shea Aliso Viejo) Project prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, dated June 30, 2025 (Appendix E).
315
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 105
5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
The proposed Project is currently being served, and would continue to be served, by Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) for water and sewer water service. MNWD has completed a preliminary review of the proposed Project and indicates the proposed Project could be adequately served (Appendix K). Wastewater within the Project site is treated by MNWD’s wastewater collection system and sent to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA).
Utility connections are planned within Pacific Park Drive and at the roundabout south of the subject property. The Project site would be served by a looped water main with connections in Pacific Park Drive and the roundabout at the south property line. Each home is expected to have an individual water meter with private service connections.
The sewer mainline is planned to connect in Aliso Creek Road following the replacement of the existing sewer line in the shared drive. The point of connection to service the residential development would occur in the roundabout at the south property line.
316
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 106 Findings of Fact
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed Project would connect to existing water and sewer facilities located within the adjacent streets.
Utility connections are planned within Pacific Park Drive and at the roundabout south of the subject property. The Project site would be served by a looped water main with connections in Pacific Park and the roundabout at the south property line. Each home is expected to have an individual water meter with private service connections. The sewer mainline is planned to connect in Aliso Creek Road following the replacement of the existing sewer line in the shared drive. The point of connection to service this development would connect in the roundabout at the south property line.
Based on the preliminary letter from MNWD, both the water and wastewater treatment systems have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Project. MNWD issued a Will Serve letter on February 5, 2025, committing to serve the proposed Project.
As discussed in detail previously in Section 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Project would increase the peak storm flows leaving the site by approximately 2 cfs or 11%. The primary reason for this increase is the slight change in total tributary area. The existing condition tributary area is only 7.4 acres compared to the proposed condition, which would be 7.9 acres. The main difference in the drainage areas occurs along the southern boundary. In the existing condition, parking spaces occur along the southern boundary, which drain away from the Project site. In the proposed condition the runoff from this area would be captured in the onsite storm drain system. A slight increase in drainage area would also occur along the eastern edge where retaining walls are planned to increase the flat developable space. Overall, the slight increase in flow can be attributed to the slight increase in drainage area.
Mitigation Measure (MM) HYD-1 would mitigate the increase in peak storm flow discharge by requiring a section of the onsite storm drain pipe to be upsized to sufficiently capture and store the increased volume. The outlet of the storm drain pipe would be restricted in order to regulate the rate of discharge to match the existing peak flow. Furthermore, to address hydromodification conditions, underground storage has been included within the Project design to detain peak flows to match historic undeveloped conditions. Therefore, the existing storm drain system surrounding the Project site has sufficient capacity to convey storm flows from the Project site.
Electric service is currently provided to the Project site to serve the existing office buildings. Unlike the existing office buildings, the proposed residential uses would include solar panels on the new buildings. Installation of solar panels would offset the proposed Project’s demand for electricity. Furthermore, the Project must comply with the CBC and Title 24, which requires energy efficient appliances. Therefore, the proposed Project would not warrant expansion of existing electrical facilities offsite to serve the Project site.
317
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 107 Natural gas is available to serve the Project site from surrounding adjacent streets. The Project must comply with the CBC and Title 24, which requires energy efficient appliances and substantially restricts the use of natural gas. Therefore, expansion of natural gas facilities offsite is not anticipated.
Telecommunications services are available within adjacent streets and wirelessly and available to serve the proposed Project. No expansion of telecommunications facilities is anticipated to serve the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant. MNWD provides potable water to residents and would serve the proposed Project. In order to determine MNWD’s full buildout demands, MNWD coordinates with the cities within its service area on the respective cities’ general planning, which takes into consideration future growth of undeveloped areas. In compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, MNWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) demonstrates water supply reliability in a normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years over a 25-year planning period. According to MNWD’s 2020 UWMP (Tables 7-1, 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4), water supplies would meet the service area’s water demands for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry-year conditions through 2045.
Per the MNWD’s 2020 UWMP generation rates, offices use planning demand factor is 65 gallons per day (gpd)/thousand square feet (ksf) and multifamily residential has a planning demand factor of 180 gpd/dwelling unit (DU). The generation rates were confirmed with MNWD staff9 to ensure the most current rates were being utilized. The current office square footage is 125,166 square feet therefore the water demand is 8,136 gpd. The proposed Project, which consists of 137 units, would have a water demand of 24,660 gpd. This amount does not take into account MNWD’s water conservation programs and incentives that are projected to occur and would likely reduce the Project’s water consumption. While the water demand of the proposed residential use exceeds that of the current use, the will serve letter from MNWD indicates that adequate water supply would be available to serve future water demands during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant. Wastewater treatment services for the majority of the City, including the Project site, are provided by MNWD. Wastewater within the Project site would be conveyed to the Regional Treatment Plant operated by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). According to SOCWA, the Regional Treatment Plant typically experiences liquid waste flows of 7.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and has the current capacity to treat 12 mgd of liquid waste, with an ultimate capacity (both liquid and solid waste) of 32 mgd.
9 Correspondence with Sheldon Yu, Senior Engineer, on October 20, 2025, and phone conversation on October 23, 2025.
318
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 108 Per the MNWD’s generation rates, the wastewater demand factor for office use is 60 gallons per day (gpd)/thousand square feet (ksf). Multifamily residential has a planning demand factor of 170 gpd/dwelling unit (DU). The current office square footage is 125,166 square feet; therefore, the wastewater demand is 7,510 gpd. The proposed Project, which consists of 137 units, would have a sewer demand of 23,290 gpd. While the residential uses exceed that of the current use, MNWD indicated during their preliminary review of the proposed Project that available sewer capacity exists to support the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant. The City contracts with CR&R for waste and recycling services.
CR&R and the City have an extensive program designed to recycle trash consistent with state regulations. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which emphasizes resource conservation through reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. The City achieves waste reduction through resident curbside recycling, which includes separate carts for refuse, recyclables, and green waste.
Each residential dwelling would be supplied with three trash carts (refuse, recyclables, and green waste). The Project’s Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) would require that each resident store trash carts in the garage or in a fenced yard area, out of sight of other residences and Association Property, until scheduled collection times.
Residents are therefore responsible for separating waste into the three bins, including yard waste from the private outdoor space of each dwelling. Waste generated from the common area, which is maintained by the Association, would generally include trash and green waste. The Association’s contractors, generally landscape contractors, would collect the green waste and refuse from common area (Association) property and dispose of the green waste at a green waste recycling facility and the refuse at a landfill.
Waste that cannot be disposed of would likely be taken to the Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) owns and operates the landfills. 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. The Prima Deshecha landfill has capacity until approximately 2102.
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 1675.5 lbs per day of solid waste, or approximately 0.84 tons per day (based on 137 townhomes), which represents less 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 and therefore is a slightly inflated estimate. 319
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 109 Construction activities, including demolition of existing structures, would generate waste. The proposed Project would be required to comply with AVMC Section 7.15, which requires recycling applicable construction waste.
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. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, also known as AB 939, mandates jurisdictions to meet a diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000, and thereafter. SB 1383 sets goals to reduce disposal of organic waste in landfills, including edible food. The bill’s purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane, and address food insecurity in California.
The City implements programs applicable to the proposed Project that comply with these statutes. In the City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code Chapter 7.05, Solid Wase Disposal, this includes strategies for solid waste disposal, including recycling and organic waste. One strategy required of residents of residential communities, such as the proposed Project, is curbside separation of trash into recyclable, green waste, and solid waste. The City also implements Christmas tree collection, household hazardous waste centers, and used oil collection centers. Furthermore, the City’s Green Building Program’s requires recycling and diversion from landfills, which would apply during construction of the proposed Project.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with federal, state, and local ordinances in place designed to reduce solid waste generation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan; City of Aliso Viejo Municipal Code; CalRecycle, New Statewide Mandatory Organic Waste Collection - CalRecycle Home Page; Moulton Niguel Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; and Moulton Niguel Water District Preliminary Letter dated February 5, 2025 (Appendix K). 320
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 110
5.20 Wildfire
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
The Project site is developed and located within an urbanized area. The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
Findings of Fact
a) No Impact. According to Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not located within or near an SLA or within a VHFHSZ. Neither the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Public Safety Element nor the Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program list the Project site as being located within a VHFHSZ.
Furthermore, as detailed in Section 5.9, the proposed Project would not conflict with or interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. According to Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not located within or near an SLA or VHFHSZ. The proposed Project is located within an urban area surrounded by residential and commercial development, and arterial roadways. All new structures would comply with current building standards, including fire sprinklers. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate a fire risk to surrounding properties or to the new residents of the Project site. Fires in the 321
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 111 general Aliso Viejo and County of Orange areas could expose occupants to smoke during a wildfire. This risk is temporary and would not be exacerbated by the proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) No Impact. According to Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not located within or near an SLA or VHFHSZ. As such, the proposed Project does not include infrastructure, including construction and maintenance, that could exacerbate fire risk. The proposed Project is located within an urban area surrounded by residential and commercial development, and arterial roadways. All new infrastructure would comply with current City standards, including the undergrounding of all electrical lines. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) No Impact. According to Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not located within or near an SLA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the Project site is not located to adjacent wildland areas that could be subject to wildfire risk. The Project site currently consists of a nearly flat area in an urbanized area. The Project site is surrounded by existing streets and residential and commercial development is approximately the same elevation as the Project site. The Project site is not located adjacent to any large hillsides that could cause flooding, mudflows, landslides, or significant erosion after a fire. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Sources: City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Public Safety Element; and Cal Fire – Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Fire Hazard Severity Zones (ca.gov). 322
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 112
5.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Impact Analysis
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in the Biological Resources Section, the proposed Project has no potential to impact special status species or habitat supporting special status species. The Project would, however, potentially result in significant impacts to biological resources from impacts to nesting birds and jurisdictional features. As such, the proposed Project would incorporate MM BIO-1, to reduce the potential impact to nesting birds to a less than significant level. Additionally, as discussed in the Cultural Resources Section, no newly recorded historic sites were identified within the Project site as a result of the records search, archival research, or the intensive-level pedestrian survey. In addition, due to the high sensitivity of a paleontological resource occurring onsite within the Niguel and Monterey formations, the proposed Project would incorporate MM PALEO-1. Through consultation with the Native American tribes, a potential for tribal cultural resources exists on the Project site.
Implementation of MM TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 would reduce all tribal cultural resource impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or 323
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 113 wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or 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. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As concluded throughout this IS/MND, the proposed Project would result in either no impact, less-than-significant impact, or a lessthan-significant impact with mitigation incorporated with respect to all environmental impact areas outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist.
Reasonably foreseeable projects have been incorporated into traffic, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas studies, all of which have shown that impacts can be reduced to less than significant. Furthermore, no significant resources, such as cultural, geotechnical, or biotic, exist on the Project site and therefore no cumulative impact would occur. The proposed Project would detain and treat storm runoff from the proposed Project onsite; therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not create individually limited but cumulatively considerable impacts. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As evaluated throughout this document, the proposed Project would have no impact, less-than-significant impact, or a less-thansignificant with mitigation incorporated with respect to all environmental impact areas.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
324
City of Aliso Viejo
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 114 SECTION 6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
325
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 115
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME: Aliso Creek Residential Development Project PROJECT LOCATION: The Project site is located south of Pacific Park Drive, west of Aliso Creek Road, and north of Journey in the City of Aliso Viejo.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project proposes to construct 137 three-story for-sale attached residential, landscape, streets and drive aisles on approximately 8.44 acres. Two residential housing types are proposed, Three-Story Rowtowns and Three-Story Garden Courts.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Aliso Viejo
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: So Kim | 949.425.2527
APPLICANT: Shea Homes
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Emilie Simard | 949.244.7172
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
Air Quality
PDF AQ-1 The project will follow the SCAQMD rules and
requirements for fugitive dust control, which include,
but are not limited to the following:
1. Pre-water active grading or trenching areas.
2. Water all active construction areas as
frequently as needed (at least twice daily) to
prevent visible dust plumes from extending
more than 100 feet.
3. Maintain a stabilized surface or apply dust
suppressants to inactive areas, disturbed
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
326
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 116
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
surfaces, staging areas, haul routes, and
unpaved roads.
4. Limit on-site vehicle speeds to 15 mph on
unpaved areas.
5. Maintain all haul trucks with covered loads and
≥6 inches of freeboard (CVC §23114).
6. Stabilize stockpiles with water or covers and
restrict height if near occupied structures.
7. Use a gravel pad at egress points (minimum
30' x 50', 1" washed gravel, 6" depth), or
alternatively a wheel shaker or wheel washing
station.
8. Remove track-out extending ≥25 feet onto
public roadways immediately and clean daily.
9. Suspend dust-generating activities and
implement contingency measures during high
wind events (wind gusts >25 mph).
10. Re-vegetate or stabilize disturbed areas within
21 days of inactivity.
11. Limit construction vehicle traffic to designated
haul routes only.
PDF AQ-2 Construction equipment shall be maintained in
proper tune.
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
PDF AQ-3 All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from excessive idling. Excessive idling is defined as five (5) minutes or longer.
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
PDF AQ-4 Minimize the simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units, to the maximum extent
feasible.
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
327
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 117
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
PDF AQ-5 The use of heavy construction equipment and
earthmoving activity shall be suspended during Air
Alerts when the Air Quality Index reaches the
“Unhealthy” level.
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
PDF AQ-6 Establish staging areas for the construction
equipment that are as distant as possible from
adjacent residential homes.
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
PDF AQ-7 Utilize zero VOC and low VOC paints and solvents, where feasible.
During
Construction
Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
PDF AQ-8 The project will comply with the mandatory
requirements of the California Building Standards
Code, Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) and Part 11
(CALGreen), including, but not limited to:
1. Install low flow fixtures and toilets, water
efficient irrigation systems, drought
tolerant/native landscaping, and reduce the
amount of turf.
2. Provide the necessary infrastructure to support
electric vehicle charging.
3. Provide solar installations/solar readiness
zones per the prescribed Energy Design
Ratings.
During
Construction
Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
PDF AQ-9 Participate in the local waste management recycling and composting programs.
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
MM AQ-1 All off-road diesel construction equipment over 100 horsepower will have Tier 4 low emission “clean
diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel
During Grading Project
Applicant/Project
Contractor
328
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 118
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control
technology.
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be
scheduled outside the nesting season
(September 1 to February 14 for songbirds;
September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to the
extent feasible to avoid potential impacts to
nesting birds and/or ground nesters.
2. Any construction activities that occur during
typical nesting season (February 15 to August
31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for
raptors) will require that all suitable habitat,
on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the
site (as feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for
the presence of nesting birds by a qualified
biologist before commencement ground
disturbances. If active nests are identified, the
biologist would establish buffers around the
vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive
species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive
species). All work within these buffers would
Prior to Ground
disturbance
Project
Applicant/Project
Biologist
329
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 119
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e.
the juveniles are surviving independent from
the nest). The onsite biologist would review
and verify compliance with these nesting
boundaries and would verify the nesting effort
has finished. Work can resume within these
areas when no other active nests are found.
Alternatively, a qualified biologist may
determine that construction can be permitted
within the buffer areas and would develop a
monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while
the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks,
etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any
follow-up construction avoidance
management, a report shall be prepared and
submitted to City for mitigation monitoring
compliance record keeping.
.
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1 The Project Applicant shall implement the
recommendations contained in the Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential
Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California, dated
November 25, 2025, by NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
(Appendix D) to reduce geologic hazards during
implementation of the proposed Project. Included in
During Grading Project Geologist/
Public Works
Department
330
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 120
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
the reports are site-specific recommendations
involving such topics as grading and earthwork, slope
stability, retaining walls, seismic design, construction materials, geotechnical observation, and testing and
plan reviews.
MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a final geotechnical report
based on the final rough grading plans and the final
geotechnical report shall incorporate all of the
recommendations included in Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation and Review of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 19442, Proposed Residential
Redevelopment, Aliso Viejo, California dated
November 25, 2025, by NMG Geotechnical Inc
(Appendix D). The geotechnical report included in
Appendix D has established that the site is
geotechnically suitable for development and a final
geotechnical report is required to ensure all
construction-level geotechnical recommendations
and design parameters are included on the final
rough grading plans.
Prior to Grading
Permit
Project Geologist/
Public Works
Department
MM PALEO-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare for City review and approval a
Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Plan, as
follows:
1. All mitigation programs shall be performed by
a qualified professional (Project)
paleontologist, defined as an individual with a
master’s or doctorate in paleontology or
geology who has proven experience and is
Prior to Grading Project
Applicant/Cultural
Consultant
331
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 121
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
knowledgeable in professional
paleontological procedures and techniques.
Fieldwork may be conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, defined as an
individual who has experience in the collection
and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor shall always work
under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.
2. Starting at one foot above the artificial
fill/bedrock interface, full-time monitoring
shall be conducted in areas of grading or
excavation within the Niguel and Monterey
formations. Monitoring of artificial fill or
disturbed deposits that may be present
otherwise is not required.
3. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to
salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays. The monitor must be
empowered to temporarily halt or divert
equipment to allow for the removal of
abundant or large specimens in a timely
manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the
potentially fossiliferous units are not present in
the subsurface, or, if present, are determined
upon exposure and examination by qualified
paleontological personnel to have low
332
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 122
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
potential to contain fossil resources. The
monitor shall notify the project paleontologist,
who will then notify any concerned parties of
the discovery.
4. Paleontological salvage during trenching and
boring activities is typically from the generated
spoils and will not delay trenching or drilling
activities. Fossils will be collected and placed
in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and
identified by field number, collector, and date
collected. Before the site is vacated and the
fossils are moved to a safe place, notes are
taken on the map location and stratigraphy of
the site. On mass grading projects, discovered
fossil sites are protected by flagging to
prevent them from being overrun by
earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins.
Fossils will be collected in a similar manner,
with notes and photographs being taken
before removing the fossils. Precise location of
the site is determined through use of
handheld Global Positioning System units. If a
large terrestrial vertebrate, such as a large
bone or a mammoth tusk, is too large to be
easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil
recovery crew shall excavate around the
333
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 123
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
find(s), encase the find(s) within a plaster and
burlap jacket, and remove the find(s) after the
plaster is set. For large fossils, use of the
contractor’s construction equipment may be
solicited to help move the jacket to a safe
location.
5. In the laboratory, individual fossils will be
cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will
be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will
be stabilized by soaking in an archivally
approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of
acetone and Paraloid B-72).
6. Recovered specimens will be prepared to a
point of identification and permanent
preservation (not display), including screenwashing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of
individual vertebrate fossils is often more timeconsuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils.
7. Identification and curation of specimens into a
professional, accredited public museum
repository with a commitment to archival
conservation and permanent retrievable
storage (e.g., the Orange County Parks’
Cooper Center) shall be conducted. The
334
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 124
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
paleontological program should include a
written repository agreement prior to initiating
mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead
agency (the City of Aliso Viejo) will be
consulted on the repository/museum to
receive the fossil material.
8. A final report of findings and significance will
be prepared, including lists of all fossils
recovered and necessary maps and graphics
to accurately record their original location(s).
The report, when submitted to and accepted
by the appropriate lead agency, will signify
satisfactory completion of the project program
to mitigate impacts to any potential
nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e.,
fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise
adversely affected without such a program in
place.
Hydrology
MM HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the storm drain plans shall demonstrate that the storm drain
pipes are sufficiently sized to capture and store storm runoff volume in the developed condition in order to
discharge the storm runoff at or below the existing
peak flow rate leaving the Project site.
Prior to Building
Permits
Project
Applicant/Project
Engineer
Tribal Cultural Resources
335
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 125
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
MM TRC-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.
The project applicant shall retain a Native American
Monitor from or approved by the consulting tribe(s).
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 onsite 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 in areas of previously disturbed soil.
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 grounddisturbing 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 Prior to Grading
Permit
Project Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native American
Monitor
336
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 126
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
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 grounddisturbing 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 TRC-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) shall cease. The City shall consult with the project
Archaeologist and initiate Native American
consultation procedures with the project’s consulting
Prior to Grading
Permit
Project Applicant/
City/ Native
American Monitor
337
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 127
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
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.
338
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initials
Aliso Creek Residential Development Project Admin Draft IS/MND Page 128
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Agency/Party
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
MM TRC-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.
During Grading Project Applicant/
Project
Archaeologist/
Native American
Monitor
339
Appendix A:
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy
Impact Study
340
RK1234 // 1234-2024-01
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Energy Impact Study
Aliso Viejo, California
May 19, 2026
341
RK1234 // 1234-2024-01
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact
Study
City of Aliso Viejo, California
Prepared for:
Mr. Peter Carlson
CARLSON STRATEGIC LAND SOLUTIONS
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Prepared by:
RK Engineering Group, Inc.
1401 Dove Street, Ste. 540
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Bryan Estrada, T.E.
Becca Morrison
Claire Stokes
W////,1////////ff/////////,1///////l//ll//////;1/#//////;1////////ff/////////ff/////////l////////////////;1/////////ff//////;1/////////////// R1< I =~~•NG rkengineer.com 1401 Dove Street I Suite 540 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I +949.474.0809 342
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose of Report & Study Objectives ............................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Site Location & Project Description .................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Sensitive Receptors............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 Summary of Analysis Results.............................................................................................. 1-3
1.5 Recommended Mitigation Measure (MM) ....................................................................... 1-4
2.0 Air Quality Setting ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Description of Air Pollutants .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 2-4
2.3 Attainment Status ................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)............................................. 2-7
2.4.1 SCAQMD Rules and Regulations ......................................................................... 2-8
2.5 Local Climate and Meteorology...................................................................................... 2-10
2.6 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 2-10
3.0 Global Climate Change Setting.................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 GHG Regulatory Setting – State of California................................................................... 3-4
3.3 GHG Emissions Inventory................................................................................................... 3-4
4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions ...................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Construction Assumptions................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Localized Construction Analysis Modeling Parameters ................................................. 4-2
4.3 Operational Assumptions .................................................................................................. 4-3
4.3.1 Mobile Source Emissions ...................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2 Energy Source Emissions ...................................................................................... 4-5 ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 343
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03
Table of Contents
Section Page
4.3.3 Area Source Emissions .......................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.4 Other Sources of Operational Emissions ............................................................ 4-5
5.0 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds.................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Air Quality Localized Significance Thresholds................................................................. 5-1
5.3 GHG Significance Thresholds............................................................................................ 5-2
5.3.1 SCAQMD GHG Interim Significance Thresholds................................................ 5-2
6.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts – Construction ............................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 Regional Emissions – Construction....................................................................... 6-1
6.1.2 Localized Emissions – Construction...................................................................... 6-2
6.1.3 Fugitive Dust – Construction ................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.4 Odors – Construction............................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.5 Asbestos – Construction ........................................................................................ 6-3
6.1.6 Diesel Particulate Matter – Construction.............................................................. 6-3
6.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts – Operation.................................................................... 6-4
6.2.1 Regional Emissions – Operation........................................................................... 6-4
6.2.2 Localized Emissions – Operations ........................................................................ 6-5
6.2.3 Odors – Operation ................................................................................................. 6-5
6.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants – Operations .................................................................. 6-6
6.3 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan Consistency.................................................... 6-6
6.3.1 Criterion 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations ..................... 6-7
6.3.2 Criterion 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP................................................. 6-7
7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 7-1 ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 344
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03
Table of Contents
Section Page
7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Construction ..................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Operations ........................................................................ 7-1
8.0 Energy Impact Analysis................................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Utility Providers.................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Project Energy Consumption............................................................................................. 8-1
8.3.1 Electricity Consumption ........................................................................................ 8-1
8.3.2 Natural Gas Consumption..................................................................................... 8-2
8.3.3 Petroleum Consumption ....................................................................................... 8-3
8.4 Summary of Project Energy Consumption....................................................................... 8-8
8.5 Energy Impacts.................................................................................................................... 8-8
8.5.1 Energy Impact – A................................................................................................... 8-8
8.5.2 Energy Impact – B................................................................................................... 8-9 ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 345
RK20939.1 // 2827-2025-03
List of Exhibits
Exhibit No.
Location Map ............................................................................................................................................................... A Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................................................... B ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 346
RK20939.1 // 2827-2025-03
List of Tables
Table No. Page
Table 1-1 | Project Land Use Summary .................................................................................................. 1-1 Table 1-2 | CEQA Air Quality Impact Criteria........................................................................................ 1-3 Table 1-3 | CEQA GHG Impact Criteria.................................................................................................. 1-3 Table 1-4 | CEQA Energy Impact Criteria.............................................................................................. 1-4 Table 2-1 | Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)1............................................. 2-5 Table 2-2 | South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status1.......................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-3 | Meteorological Summary1.................................................................................................. 2-10 Table 2-4 | Local Air Quality1................................................................................................................. 2-12 Table 3-1 | Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases1, 2......................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 | GHG Emissions Inventory 1................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 4-1 | Construction Equipment Assumptions 1............................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2 | Operational Vehicle Miles Traveled 1.................................................................................. 4-4 Table 4-3 | Operational Vehicle Mix 1..................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-4 | Operational Water Usage and Waste Generation 1.......................................................... 4-6 Table 5-1 | SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds1.................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2 | SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)......................................................... 5-2 Table 6-1 | Regional Construction Emissions........................................................................................ 6-1 Table 6-2 | Localized Construction Emissions....................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-3 | Regional Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 6-5 Table 6-4 | Localized Operational Emissions ........................................................................................ 6-5 Table 7-1 | Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 7-1 Table 7-2 | Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 7-2 Table 8-1 | Utility Providers...................................................................................................................... 8-1 Table 8-2 | Project Electricity Consumption1......................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-3 | Project Natural Gas Consumption1..................................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-4 | Construction Off-Road Equipment Energy Consumption ............................................... 8-4 Table 8-5 | Construction On-Road Equipment Energy Consumption ................................................ 8-5 Table 8-6 | Operational Trips Energy Consumption - Annual............................................................. 8-7 Table 8-7 | Total Annual Energy Consumption..................................................................................... 8-8 ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 347
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03
List of Appendices
Appendix ID
CalEEMod Emissions Outputs .................................................................................................................................. A EMFAC2025 Vehicle Fuel Consumption Data....................................................................................................... B ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 348
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 1-1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Report & Study Objectives
The purpose of this air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact study is to determine whether the estimated energy usage and criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project (hereinafter referred to as “project”) would cause significant impacts to air resources.
This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.). The methodology follows the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the SCAQMD, and City of Aliso Viejo recommendations for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts.
This study also evaluates the potential impact on energy conservation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation Analysis, and the use of renewable energy sources.
1.2 Site Location & Project Description
The proposed project site is generally located south of Pacific Park Drive, between Journey and Aliso Creek Road, in the City of Aliso Viejo. The project site is approximately 8.44 acres and is currently occupied by three (3) 2-story commercial office buildings and associated parking lots. Exhibit A shows the location map of the proposed project.
The proposed project consists of demolishing the existing commercial buildings and constructing 137 residential townhome dwelling units.
During construction, the project will demolish approximately 125,166 square feet of building area, 217,550 square feet of hardscape, and 41,200 square feet of landscaping. The project will require the import of approximately 5,700 cubic yards of earthwork material for grading purposes.
Exhibit B shows the proposed site plan used for this analysis. Table 1-1 summarizes the land use assumptions used for this analysis.
Table 1-1 | Project Land Use Summary
Project Land Use CalEEMod Land Use Category Quantity Metric1 Single-Family Attached Housing Condo/Townhouse 137 DU
Onsite Paved Surfaces Parking Lot 85 Spaces
1DU = Dwelling unit.
Spaces = Outdoor Parking Spaces
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 349
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 1-2
1.3 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other types of population groups that are more sensitive to air pollution exposure. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases.
For CEQA purposes, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours or longer, such as residences, hospitals, and schools (etc.), as described in the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008a, page 3-2). There are several sensitive land uses adjacent to the project site, including the following.
A project site location map, including sensitive receptor locations, is provided in Exhibit A.
Receptor-1 Existing multifamily residential land uses located to the northeast of the project site.
The nearest point of Receptor-1 (marked as circle “1” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 400 feet (~122 meters) northeast of the northeastern corner of the project site.
Receptor-2 Existing multifamily residential land uses located to the east of the project site. The point of Receptor-2 (marked as circle “2” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 210 feet (~64 meters) east of the project site’s eastern boundary.
Receptor-3 Existing educational land uses located to the south of the project site, including the Preschool of Aliso Viejo and the Alive Church Orange County’s daycare services. The nearest point of Receptor-3 (marked as circle “3” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 50 feet (~15 meters) south of the project site’s southern boundary.
Receptor-4 Existing medical office land uses located to the west of the project site. The nearest point of Receptor-4 (marked as circle “4” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 80 feet (~24 meters) west of the project site’s western boundary.
Receptor-5 Existing Orange County Fire Station 57 located to the west-northwest of the project site. The nearest point of Receptor-5 (marked as circle “5” on Exhibit A) is located directly adjacent to the project site’s western boundary.
Receptor-6 Existing multifamily residential land uses located to the northwest of the project site.
The nearest point of Receptor-6 (marked as circle “6” on Exhibit A) is located approximately 375 feet (~114 meters) northwest of the northwestern corner of the project site.
For conservative localized analysis purposes, sensitive receptors are considered to be approximately 25 meters from the project site.
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 350
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 1-3
1.4 Summary of Analysis Results
Table 1-2 provides a summary of the CEQA air quality impact analysis results.
Table 1-2 | CEQA Air Quality Impact Criteria
Air Quality Impact Criteria Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with, or obstruct the implementation of,
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
Table 1-3 provides a summary of the CEQA GHG impact criteria analysis results.
Table 1-3 | CEQA GHG Impact Criteria
Greenhouse Gas Impact Criteria Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Table 1-4 provides a summary of the CEQA energy impact criteria analysis results. ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 351
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 1-4
Table 1-4 | CEQA Energy Impact Criteria
Energy Impact Criteria Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant No Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
1.5 Recommended Mitigation Measure (MM)
The following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure that project-generated noise levels do not exceed the applicable thresholds at adjacent sensitive receptors.
MM AQ-1 All diesel construction equipment over 100 horsepower will have Tier 4 low emission “clean diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control technology.
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 352
Exhibit A Location Map 2827-2025-03 PACIFIC PARK DRIVE TOWNHOME PROJECT AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF ALISO VIEJO ENGINEERING GROUP INC. Legend N 1 = Sensitive Receptor Location = Project Site Boundary 1 4 2 3 5 6 0 /////////////////!?///////////////////!?//////////!?//////////////////////////////////////////!?/////////////////////!?///////////////////!?///////////,/////////////////////////////////////// 353
Exhibit B Site Plan 2827-2025-03 PACIFIC PARK DRIVE TOWNHOME PROJECT AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT STUDY // CITY OF ALISO VIEJO ENGINEERING GROUP INC. N ///////////////// IRK I r , ,-
i-J
l ¥u
I "
..
+u,
.
,, .
-'-< 'F ol-.
,. t\_oL -I=-
~-
s:.. __ w -=- ------"""
\
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 354
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-1
2.0 Air Quality Setting
The Federal Clean Air Act (§ 7602) defines air pollution as any agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive substance which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Household combustion devices, motor vehicles, industrial facilities and forest fires are common sources of air pollution. Air pollution can cause disease, allergies and death. It affects soil, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate. It can also cause damage to and deterioration of property, present hazards to transportation, and negatively impact the economy.
This section provides background information on criteria air pollutants, the applicable federal, state and local regulations concerning air pollution, and the existing physical setting of the project within the context of local air quality.
2.1 Description of Air Pollutants
The following section describes the air pollutants of concern related to the project. Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health. The following descriptions of criteria air pollutants have been provided by the SCAQMD. • Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and biomass). Sources include motor vehicle exhaust, industrial processes (metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources. CO is somewhat soluble in water; therefore, rainfall and fog can suppress CO conditions. CO enters the body through the lungs, dissolves in the blood, and competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood's ability to transport oxygen to vital organs in the body. The ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is intended to protect persons whose medical condition already compromises their circulatory system's ability to deliver oxygen.
These medical conditions include certain heart ailments, chronic lung diseases, and anemia. Persons with these conditions have reduced exercise capacity even when exposed to relatively low levels of CO. Fetuses are at risk because their blood has an even greater affinity to bind with CO. Smokers are also at risk from ambient CO levels because smoking increases the background level of CO in their blood. The South Coast basin has recently achieved attainment status for carbon monoxide by both USEPA and CARB. • Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and, in equal concentrations, is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in young ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 355
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-2
children has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). NO2 absorbs blue light which results in a brownish red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Although NO2 concentrations have not exceeded national standards since 1991 and the state hourly standard since 1993, NOx emissions remain of concern because of their contribution to the formation of O3 and particulate matter. • Ozone (O3) is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants that are formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O3 concentrations in the South Coast basin are typically among the highest in the nation, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog, which is a popular name for a number of oxidants in combination, are generally related to the concentrations of O3.
Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the subgroups most susceptible to O3 effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. In recent years, a correlation between elevated ambient O3 levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. The South Coast Air Basin is designated by the USEPA as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone. Although O3 concentrations have declined substantially since the early 1990s, the South Coast basin continues to have peak O3 levels that exceed both state and federal standards.
• Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) consists of extremely small suspended particles or droplets 10 microns or smaller in diameter that can lodge in the lungs, contributing to respiratory problems. PM10 arises from such sources as re-entrained road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, tire and brake abrasion, construction operations, and fires. It is also formed in the atmosphere from NOx and SO2 reactions with ammonia. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. Inhalable particulates pose a serious health hazard, alone or in combination with other pollutants. More than half of the smallest particles inhaled will be deposited in the lungs and can cause permanent lung damage. Inhalable particulates can also have a damaging effect on health by interfering with the body’s mechanism for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as a carrier of an absorbed toxic substance. The South Coast basin has recently achieved federal attainment status for PM10, but is non-attainment based on state requirements.
• Ultra-Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is defined as particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns and is a subset of PM10. PM2.5 consists mostly of products from the reaction of NOx and SO2 with ammonia, secondary organics, finer dust particles, and the combustion of fuels, including diesel soot. PM2.5 can cause exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease, declines in pulmonary function growth in children, and increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in the elderly.
Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 levels have been related to hospital admissions for acute ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 356
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-3
respiratory conditions, school absences, and increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. The South Coast basin is designated as non-attainment for PM2.5 by both federal and state standards.
• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms and difficulty in breathing for children. Individuals with asthma may experience constriction of airways with exposure to SO2. Though SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and federal standards, further reductions in SO2 emissions are needed because SO2 is a precursor to sulfate and PM10. The South Coast basin is considered a SO2 attainment area by USEPA and CARB.
• Lead (Pb) is a toxic heavy metal that can be emitted into the air through some industrial processes, burning of leaded gasoline and past use of lead-based consumer products.
Lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates in soft tissues and bones, damages the nervous system, and causes blood disorders. It is particularly problematic in children, in that permanent brain damage may result, even if blood levels are promptly normalized with treatment. Concentrations of lead once exceeded the state and federal air quality standards by a wide margin, but as a result of the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, ambient air quality standards for lead have not been exceeded since 1982.
Though special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded localized violations of the state standard in 1994, no violations have been recorded since.
Consequently, the South Coast basin is designated as an attainment area for lead by both the USEPA and CARB. This report does not analyze lead emissions from the project, as it is not expected to emit lead in any significant measurable quantity. • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), although not actually a criteria air pollutant, VOCs are regulated by the SCAQMD because they cause chemical reactions which contribute to the formation of ozone. VOCs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher PM10 and lower visibility levels. Sources of VOCs include combustion engines, and evaporative emissions associated with fuel, paints and solvents, asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols.
Although health-based standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations of VOC. Some hydrocarbon components classified as VOC emissions are hazardous air pollutants. Benzene, for example, is a hydrocarbon component of VOC emissions that are known to be a human carcinogen. The term reactive organic gases (ROG) are often used interchangeably with VOC. • Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are defined as air pollutants which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health, and for which there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants, in that there is no threshold level for TAC exposure below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. The majority of the ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 357
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-4
estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most common being diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel engine exhaust. In addition to DPM, benzene and 1,3-butadiene are also significant contributors to overall ambient public health risk in California.
2.2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Federal Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The State of California has also established additional and more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in addition to the seven criteria pollutants designated by the federal government.
AAQS are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. The standards are divided into two categories, primary standards and secondary standards.
Primary standards are implemented to provide protection for the “sensitive” populations such as those with asthma, or the children and elderly. Secondary standards are to provide protection against visible pollution as well as damage to the surrounding environment, including animals, crops, and buildings.
Table 2-1 shows the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 358
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-5
Table 2-1 | Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)1 Air Pollutant Averaging Time2
Federal Standard
(NAAQS)2
California Standard
(CAAQS)2
Ozone
1 Hour -- 0.09 ppm
8 Hour 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 35 ppm 20 ppm
8 Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
1 Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
1 Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
3 Hour 0.5 ppm3 --
24 Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
Annual Mean -- 20 µg/m3
Ultra-Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour 35 µg/m3--
Annual Mean 9.0 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3
Lead
(Pb)
30 Day Average -- 1.5 µg/m3
Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3--
Rolling 3 Month Average 0.15 µg/m3--
Visibility Reducing
Particles 8 Hour --
0.23/km extinction
coefficient
(10-mile visibility standard)
Sulfates 24 Hour -- 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour -- 0.03 µg/m3
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour -- 0.01 ppm
1 Source: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf. 2ppm = parts per million of air by volume.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
3 Secondary standards.
Several pollutants listed in Table 2-1 are not addressed in this analysis. Lead is not included because the project is not anticipated to emit lead. Visibility-reducing particles are not explicitly addressed in this analysis because particulate matter is addressed. The project is not expected to generate or be ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 359
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-6
exposed to vinyl chloride because proposed project uses do not utilize the chemical processes that create this pollutant and there are no such uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project is not expected to cause exposure to hydrogen sulfide because it would not generate hydrogen sulfide in any substantial quantity.
2.3 Attainment Status
The Clean Air Act requires states to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to ensure air quality meets the NAAQS. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides designations of attainment for air basins where AAQS are either met or exceeded. If the AAQS are met, the area is designated as being in “attainment”, if the air pollutant concentrations exceed the AAQS, then the area is designated as being “nonattainment”. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, the area is considered “unclassified.”
National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
When a state submits a request to the EPA to re-designate a nonattainment area to attainment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(a) requires that the state (or states, if the area is a multi-state area) submit a maintenance plan ensuring the area can maintain the air quality standard for which the area is to be re-designated for at least 10 years following the effective date of re-designation. Table 2-2 lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 360
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-7
Table 2-2 | South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status1
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone Nonattainment
Nonattainment
(Extreme)2
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
(Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
(Maintenance)
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
(Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment
(Partial)3
1 Source: CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. 2 8-Hour Ozone.
3 Partial Nonattainment designation for Los Angeles County portion of Basin only.
2.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The agency responsible for air pollution control for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments, is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the federal and/or California ambient air quality standards.
The term nonattainment area is used to refer to an air basin where one or more ambient air quality standards are exceeded.
The latest version is the 2022 AQMP, adopted in December 2022. The 2022 AQMP is a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and healthful air. While air quality has dramatically improved over the years, the SCAB still exceeds federal public health standards for both ozone and particulate matter (PM) and experiences some of the worst air pollution in the nation. The 2022 AQMP includes both stationary and mobile source strategies to ensure that rapidly approaching attainment deadlines are met, that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible, and that the region is not faced with burdensome sanctions if the Plan is not approved or if the NAAQS are not met on time.
According to the 2022 AQMP, the most significant air quality challenge in the SCAB is to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines. Based ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 361
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-8
on the inventory and modeling results, the 2022 AQMP projects that 184 tons per day (tpd) of NOx will be emitted in the year 2037 as a result of continued implementation of already adopted regulatory actions (“baseline emissions”). The analysis suggests that in order to meet the ozone standard of 60 tpd, NOx emissions need to be reduced about 67 percent beyond the projected 2037 baseline emissions and about 83 percent below current levels1.
2.4.1 SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
The SCAQMD establishes a program of rules and regulations to obtain attainment of the state and federal standards in conjunction with the AQMP. Several of the rules and regulations that may be applicable to this project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. • SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, 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.
• SCAQMD Rule 445 restricts wood burning devices from being installed into any new development and is intended to reduce the emissions of particulate matter for wood burning devices.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of project must comply with Rule 1113. • SCAQMD Rule 1143 governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule.
1 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted December 2, 2022. ,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 362
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-9
• SCAQMD Rule 1186 limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, state, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the above South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations, as well as all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations related to air quality. The following list summarizes applicable regulatory compliance requirements for the project. The project actions listed below represent standard regulatory compliance obligations and are not considered mitigation measures.
1. During construction, the project will follow the SCAQMD rules and requirements for fugitive dust control, including the following:
• Pre-water active grading or trenching areas.
• Water all active construction areas as frequently as needed (at least twice daily) to prevent visible dust plumes from extending more than 100 feet. • Maintain a stabilized surface or apply dust suppressants to inactive areas, disturbed surfaces, staging areas, haul routes, and unpaved roads. • Limit on-site vehicle speeds to 15 mph on unpaved areas. • Maintain all haul trucks with covered loads and ≥6 inches of freeboard (CVC §23114). • Stabilize stockpiles with water or covers and restrict height if near occupied structures. • Use a gravel pad at egress points (minimum 30' x 50', 1" washed gravel, 6" depth), or alternatively a wheel shaker or wheel washing station.
• Remove track-out extending ≥25 feet onto public roadways immediately and clean daily.
• Suspend dust-generating activities and implement contingency measures during high wind events (wind gusts >25 mph).
• Re-vegetate or stabilize disturbed areas within 21 days of inactivity. • Limit construction vehicle traffic to designated haul routes only.
2. The project will utilize low-VOC or zero-VOC paints, coatings, and solvents consistent with the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 1113 and 1143.
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 363
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-10
2.5 Local Climate and Meteorology
The weather station closest to the project site is the National Weather Service Cooperative – Laguna Beach, CA (044647) station. Climatological data from the National Weather Service at this station is summarized in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 | Meteorological Summary1
Month
Temperature (°F) Mean
Precipitation
Max. (inches) Min. Mean
January 65.1 43.0 54.1 2.43
February 66.1 44.1 55.1 2.77
March 67.1 45.8 56.5 2.01
April 69.0 48.4 58.7 0.98
May 70.9 53.0 62.0 0.25
June 73.1 56.1 64.6 0.10
July 76.5 59.3 67.9 0.03
August 78.1 59.6 68.9 0.07
September 77.5 58.2 67.9 0.26
October 74.5 53.7 64.1 0.47
November 70.4 47.5 59.0 1.24
December 66.1 43.4 54.8 1.92
Annual 71.2 51.0 61.1 12.52
1 Source: Western Regional Climate Center. Averages derived from measurements recorded between 1928 and 2016 at Laguna Beach, CA (044647).
2.6 Local Air Quality
The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin.
The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into fourteen general forecasting areas and thirty-eight Source Receptor Areas (SRAs) for monitoring and reporting local air quality. The SCAQMD provides daily reports of the current air quality conditions in each general forecast area and SRA. The monitoring areas provide a general representation of the local meteorological, terrain, and air quality conditions within the SCAB.
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 364
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-11
The project is located within the Coastal general forecasting area and Central Orange County Coastal air monitoring area (SRA-20). The SCAQMD has not published air quality monitoring data for SRA-20.
Therefore, pollutant data for the most recent three-year period is derived from the nearest adjacent stations available (i.e., Saddleback Valley/SRA-19 and Central Orange County/SRA-17). These pollutant levels were used to comprise a “background” for the project location and existing local air quality.
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,~~~ING rkengineer.com 365
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 2-12
Table 2-4 | Local Air Quality1
Air Pollutant
Location
Averaging
Time Item2 2022 2023 2024
Carbon
Monoxide
--
Saddleback
Valley
1 Hour
Max 1-Hour (ppm) 1.2 -- --
Exceeded State Standard (20 ppm) No -- --
Exceeded National Standard (35 ppm) No -- --
8 Hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) 1.0 -- --
Days > State Standard (9 ppm) No -- --
Days >National Standard (9 ppm) No -- --
Ozone
--
Saddleback
Valley
1 Hour
Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.110 -- --
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 1.0 -- --
8 Hour
Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.088 -- --
Days > State Standard (0.070 ppm) 6 -- --
Days >National Standard (0.070 ppm) 5 -- --
Nitrogen
Dioxide
--
Central Orange
County
1 Hour
Max 1-Hour (ppm) 0.053 0.051 0.053
Exceeded State Standard (0.18 ppm) No No No
Annual
Annual Average (ppm) 0.012 0.011 0.011
Exceeded State Standard (0.030 ppm) No No No
Exceeded National Standard (0.053 ppm) No No No
Sulfur Dioxide
--
Saddleback
Valley
1 Hour
Max 1 Hour (ppm) -- -- --
Exceeded State Standard (0.25 ppm) -- -- --
Exceeded National Standard (0.075 ppm) -- -- --
PM10
--
Central Orange
County
24 Hour
Max 24-Hour (µg/m³) -- 146 118
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m³) -- 7 6
Days >National Standard (150 µg/m³) -- 0 0 (0%)
Annual
Annual Average (µg/m³) -- 24.00 26.50
Exceeded State Standard (20 µg/m³) -- Yes Yes
PM2.5
--
Central Orange
County
24 Hour
Max 24-Hour (µg/m³) -- 33.20 49.70
Days >National Standard (35 µg/m³) -- 0 4
Annual
Annual Average (µg/m³) -- 9.07 10.31
Exceeded State Standard (12 µg/m³) -- No No
Exceeded National Standard (15 µg/m³) -- No No
1 Source: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data-by-year. 2ppm = parts per million.
µg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meter.
,//////////////////////////////////#///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,'~~~ING rkengineer.com 366
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 3-1
3.0 Global Climate Change Setting
Global climate change is the change in the average weather of the earth that is measured by such things as alterations in temperature, wind patterns, storms, and precipitation. Current data shows that the recent period of warming is occurring more rapidly than past geological events. The average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 1.4° Fahrenheit since the early 20th Century. 1.4° Fahrenheit may seem like a small change, but it's an unusual event in Earth's recent history, and as we are seeing, even small changes in temperature can cause enormous changes in the environment.
The planet’s climate record, preserved in tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, shows that the global average temperature has been stable over long periods of time. For example, at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average global temperatures were only 5° to 9° Fahrenheit cooler than today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5° to 10° Fahrenheit over the next century. Therefore, significant changes to the environment are expected in the near future.
The consequences of global climate change include more frequent and severe weather, worsening air pollution by increasing ground level ozone, higher rates of plant and animal extinction, more acidic and oxygen depleted oceans, strain on food and water resources, and threats to densely populated coastal and low-lying areas from sea level rise.
The impacts of climate change are already visible in the Southwest United States. In California, the consequences of climate change include:
• A rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of coastal businesses and residencies; • A reduction in the quality and supply of water from the Sierra snowpack; • Increased risk of large wildfires;
• Exacerbation of air quality problems;
• Reductions in the quality and quantity of agricultural products; • An increased temperature and extreme weather events; and • A decrease in the health and productivity of California’s forests.
3.1 Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
GHGs comprise less than 0.1 percent of the total atmospheric composition, yet they play an essential role in influencing climate. Greenhouse gases include naturally occurring compounds such as carbon W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 367 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 3-2
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapor (H2O), and nitrous oxide (N2O), while others are synthetic.
Man-made GHGs include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Different GHGs have different effects on the Earth's warming. GHGs differ from each other in their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency") and how long they stay in the atmosphere, also known as the "lifetime".
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO2. The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms the Earth compared to CO2 over that time period. The time period usually used for GWPs is 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, which allows analysts to add up emissions estimates of different gases and allows policymakers to compare emissions reduction opportunities across sectors and gases.
Table 3-1 lists the 100-year GWP of GHGs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report (AR5) and IPCC sixth (6th) assessment report (AR6).
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 368 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 3-3
Table 3-1 | Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases1, 2 Gas Name Formula
Lifetime
(Years) GWP
Carbon Dioxide CO2
-- 1
Methane
CH4 (Fossil Origin)
12 29.8
CH4 (Non-Fossil Origin) 27.2
Nitrous Oxide N2O 114 273
Sulphur Hexafluoride SF6 3200 23,500
Nitrogen Trifluoride NF3 740 16,100
Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC11) CFC-11 52 8,321
Hexafluoroethane (PFC116) C2F6 10,000 11,100
Octafluoropropane (PFC218) C3F8 2,600 8,900
Octafluorocyclobutane
(PFC-318) C4F8 3,200 9,540
Tetrafluoromethane (PFC14) CF4 50,000 5,301
Hydrofluorocarbon 125 HFC-125 29 3,170
Hydrofluorocarbon 134a HFC-134a 14 1,526
Hydrofluorocarbon 143a HFC-143a 52 4,800
Hydrofluorocarbon 152a HFC-152a 1 138
Hydrofluorocarbon 227ea HFC-227ea 34 3,350
Hydrofluorocarbon 23 HFC-23 270 12,400
Hydrofluorocarbon 236fa HFC-236fa 240 8,060
Hydrofluorocarbon 245fa HFC-245fa 8 858
Hydrofluorocarbon 32 HFC-32 5 771
Hydrofluorocarbon 365mfc HFC-365mfc 9 804
Hydrofluorocarbon 43-
10mee HFC-43-10mee 16 1,650
1 Source: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf and https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf. 2GWPs are used to convert GHG emission values to “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) units.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 369 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 3-4
3.2 GHG Regulatory Setting – State of California
The State of California has been a leader in climate change legislation and has passed numerous bills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. Some of the key climate legislation and regulation in the State include the following:
• Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set the stage for the State’s transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. AB 32 was the first program in the country to take a comprehensive, long-term approach to addressing climate change.
• Senate Bill (SB) 375, Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Act of 2008. SB 375 requires the Air Resources Board to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by the State's 18 metropolitan planning organizations. • Senate Bill (SB) 100, California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers by 2045. • California Building Standards Code – Title 24. The California Building Standards Code Title 24 Part 6 (Energy Code) and Title 24 Part 11 (CALGreen) requires multiple building provisions to reduce energy usage and GHG emissions and is updated on a triennial basis.
3.3 GHG Emissions Inventory
Table 3-2 shows the latest GHG emission inventories at the national, state, regional, and local levels.
Table 3-2 | GHG Emissions Inventory 1
United States
(2019)2
State of California
(2019)3
SCAG
(2020)4
6,558 MMTCO2e 418 MMTCO2e 216.4 MMTCO2e
1 MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. 2 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks. 3 Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
4 SCAG – Regional GHG Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990 – 2035. May 30, 2012. http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Pages/GreenhouseGases.aspx.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 370 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 4-1
4.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod) was used to calculate criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the project. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions.
The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from off-site energy generation, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The model also identifies design features to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts.
4.1 Construction Assumptions
Construction of the project is estimated to begin in the year 2026. Construction activities are expected to consist of demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The project will require the import of up to 5,700 net cubic yards of earthwork material for grading purposes. For the purposes of this analysis, construction phases are not expected to overlap.
The CalEEMod default construction equipment list is based on survey data and the size of the site. The parameters used to estimate construction emissions, such as the worker and vendor trips and trip lengths, utilize the CalEEMod defaults.
Construction-related emissions were modeled using the default CalEEMod construction equipment list. However, all excavators included in the default equipment mix were replaced in the model with crawler tractors to better reflect anticipated construction activities. In addition, two scrapers were added to the grading phase of construction to account for the expected earthmoving requirements of the project. The construction equipment list used in the model is shown in Table 4-1.
The project will be required to comply with several standard fugitive dust control measures, per SCAQMD Rule 403. The following key inputs are utilized in CalEEMod and are based upon data provided from SCAQMD:
• Water exposed area – 61% PM10 and PM2.5 reduction.
• Water unpaved roads twice daily – 55% PM10 and PM2.5 reduction. • Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph – 44% PM10 and PM2.5 reduction. • Sweep paved roads once per month – 9% PM10 and PM2.5 reduction.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 371 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 4-2
Table 4-1 | Construction Equipment Assumptions 1
Phase Equipment Number Hours
Per Day
Soil
Disturbance
Rate
(Acres/8-
Hour Day)
Off-Road
Equipment
Daily
Disturbance
Footprint
(Acres)
Total Daily
Disturbance
Footprint
(Acres)
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 0.50 1.00
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 0.00 0.00 2.50
Crawler Tractors 3 8 0.50 1.50
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 0.50 1.50
1.50 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 0.00 0.00
Grading
Graders 1 8 0.50 0.50
3.50 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 0.00 0.00
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 0.50 0.50
Crawler Tractors 1 8 0.50 0.50
Scrapers 2 8 1.00 2.00
Building
Construction
Forklifts 3 8 0.00 0.00
0.00 Generator Sets 1 8 0.00 0.00
Cranes 1 7 0.00 0.00
Welders 1 8 0.00 0.00
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 0.00 0.00
Paving
Pavers 2 8 0.00 0.00
Paving Equipment 2 8 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rollers 2 8 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 6 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 CalEEMod defaults.
4.2 Localized Construction Analysis Modeling Parameters CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. This report identifies the W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 372 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 4-3
following parameters in the project design or applicable mitigation measures in order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables:
1. The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.
2. The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day.
3. Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment.
4. Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.
4.3 Operational Assumptions
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project and are considered “long-term” sources of emissions. Operational emissions include both direct and indirect sources. This section briefly describes the operational sources of emissions analyzed for the project.
4.3.1 Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile source emissions are the largest source of long-term air pollutants from the operation of the project. Mobile sources are direct sources of project emissions that are primarily attributed to tailpipe exhaust and road dust (tire, brake, clutch, and road surface wear) from motor vehicles traveling to and from the site.
Estimates of mobile source emissions require information on four parameters: trip generation, trip length, vehicle/fleet mix, and emission factors (quantity of emission for each mile traveled or time spent idling by each vehicle).
The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The proposed project consists of constructing 137 townhome dwelling units. As such, ITE Land Use 215: Single-Family Attached Housing accurately reflects the proposed project land use. For trip lengths, the CalEEMod defaults are used.
The Emission Factors (EMFAC2021) 2021 model and off-model adjustments factors to account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule is used to estimate the mobile source emissions are embedded in the CalEEMod emissions model. No adjustments have been made to default emission factors.
The project’s total vehicle miles traveled is shown in Table 4-2.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 373 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 4-4
Table 4-2 | Operational Vehicle Miles Traveled 1
Land Use Annual Home-Based Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)
Condo/Townhouse 4,002,671
1 CalEEMod defaults.
To be conservative, this analysis has assumed that 2% of the total trips associated with the project will be heavy trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or greater. This includes LHD2, MHD, HHD, OBUS, UBUS, and SBUS vehicles. The adjusted vehicle mix is proportioned according to the default CalEEMod vehicle mix.
Table 4-3 summarizes the adjusted vehicle mix used for the project.
Table 4-3 | Operational Vehicle Mix 1
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Light Duty Automobile (LDA) 50.19%
Light Duty Truck (LDTI) 4.06%
Light Duty Truck (LDT2) 23.94%
Medium Duty Truck (MDV) 14.74%
Light Heavy Truck (LHD1) 2.82%
Light Heavy Truck (LHD2) 0.43%
Medium Heavy Truck (MHD) 0.91%
Heavy Heavy Truck (HHD) 0.34%
Other Bus (OBUS) 0.04%
Urban Bus (UBUS) 0.02%
Motorcycle (MCY) 2.25%
School Bus (SBUS) 0.06%
Motor Home (MH) 0.21%
Total 100.00%
1 Adjusted fleet mix to include 2% total trucks over 10,000 lbs. GVWR (LHD2, MHD, HHD, OBUS, UBUS, SBUS, MH).
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 374 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 4-5
4.3.2 Energy Source Emissions
Energy usage includes both direct and indirect sources of emissions. Direct sources of emissions include on-site energy usage, while indirect emissions include electricity generated by offsite power plants. The proposed project will be powered exclusively by electricity, with no use of natural gas. As a result, this analysis evaluates all project-related energy consumption solely in terms of electricity usage.
CalEEMod divides building electricity use into uses that are subject to Title 24 standards and those that are not. Lighting electricity usage is also calculated as a separate category in CalEEMod. For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24, such as space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation. NonTitle 24 uses include all other end uses, such as appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plugin uses. Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, and since a separate mitigation measure is applicable to this end use, CalEEMod makes lighting a separate category.
The baseline values are based on the California Energy Commission (CEC) sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies.
The project will be required to provide on-site renewable energy photovoltaic installations (solar panels), as prescribed by the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
In order to assess the project’s future energy usage, RK has performed a quantitative energy impact analysis using CEQA energy impact criteria. The energy impact analysis is provided in Section 8.0 of this report.
4.3.3 Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions are direct sources of emissions that fall under four categories: hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. Per SCAQMD Rule 445, no wood burning devices are allowed in new developments; therefore, no wood hearths are included in this project.
Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications which emit ROGs during their product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries.
4.3.4 Other Sources of Operational Emissions
• Water. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the upstream energy required to supply and treat the water used on the project site. Indirect emissions from water usage are counted as part of the project’s overall impact.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 375 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 4-6
• Waste. CalEEMod calculates the indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. The program uses annual waste disposal rates from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) data for individual land uses. The program quantifies the GHG emissions associated with the decomposition of the waste which generates methane based on the total amount of degradable organic carbon.
The project’s estimated water usage and waste generation is reported in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 | Operational Water Usage and Waste Generation 1 Land Use
Water Usage
(gallons/yr) Waste Generation
(tons/yr) Indoor Outdoor Total
Condo/Townhouse 5,141,014.05 2,018,073.99 7,159,088.04 101.24 Parking Lot -- -- -- --
Total 5,141,014.05 2,018,073.99 7,159,088.04 101.24
1 CalEEMod defaults.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 376 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 5-1
5.0 Significance Thresholds
5.1 Air Quality Regional Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has established air quality emissions thresholds for criteria air pollutants for the purposes of determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment per Section 15002(g) of the Guidelines for implementing CEQA. By complying with the thresholds of significance, the project would be in compliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the federal and state air quality standards.
Table 5-1 lists the air quality significance thresholds for the six air pollutants analyzed in this report.
Lead is not included as part of this analysis as the project is not expected to emit lead in any significant measurable quantity.
Table 5-1 | SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds1
Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)
Operation
(lbs/day)
NOX 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
CO 550 550
1 Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
5.2 Air Quality Localized Significance Thresholds
Air quality emissions were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look-up Tables.
Table 5-2 lists the Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of four applicable air pollutants for SRA-20 (Central Orange County Coastal).
The nearest existing sensitive receptor is located to the south of the project site, at a distance of approximately 15 meters. Although receptors are located closer than 25 meters to the site, SCAQMD 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////; rkengineer.com 377
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 5-2
LST methodology states that projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.
The daily disturbance area during construction is calculated to be 3.5 acres, however, LST thresholds are only based on 1, 2, and 5-acre sites. To be conservative, a linear trend was used to estimate the construction thresholds for 3.5-acre sites based on the established LST thresholds.
The proposed project site is approximately 8.44 acres. Therefore, the operational LST thresholds for 5-acre sites have been utilized
Table 5-2 | SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) Pollutant Construction
(lbs/day)1
Operation
(lbs/day)2
NOX 161.1 197.0
CO 1,325.2 1,711.0
PM10 10.4 4.0
PM2.5 6.9 2.0
1 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 3.5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters. 2 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
5.3 GHG Significance Thresholds
5.3.1 SCAQMD GHG Interim Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has published the Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds, December 2008, to assist local agencies with determining the impact of a project’s GHG emissions.
SCAQMD’s objective in providing the GHG guidelines is to establish a performance standard that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels, and thus achieve the requirements of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).
In the absence of a formal threshold established by the State, SCAQMD’s interim GHG threshold has been established for use by lead agencies in determining significance of GHG emissions in CEQA.
SCAQMD guidance describes a five-tiered approach for determining significance. Tier 3 is the primary method used for development projects of this size and is the approach used in this analysis. The Tier 3 approach limits the amount of GHG emissions from residential and commercial development projects to 3,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year (MTCO2e/yr).
If the project exceeds 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, then the impact is considered significant, and mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions below the threshold. 1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////; rkengineer.com 378
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-1
6.0 Air Quality Impact Analysis
6.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts – Construction
6.1.1 Regional Emissions – Construction
Regional air quality emissions include both on-site and off-site emissions associated with construction of the project. As shown in Table 6-1, regional daily emissions of criteria pollutants are expected to be below the allowable thresholds of significance.
CalEEMod emissions outputs are provided in Appendix A.
Table 6-1 | Regional Construction Emissions
Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)1
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 3.03 39.34 30.00 0.11 13.66 3.57
Site Preparation 3.20 29.22 29.60 0.05 9.14 5.14
Grading 3.33 32.10 32.11 0.08 6.01 2.89
Building Construction 1.41 10.69 18.04 0.03 1.80 0.69
Paving 1.04 6.99 10.59 0.01 0.49 0.32
Architectural Coating 46.83 0.89 1.96 0.00 0.28 0.08
Maximum1 46.83 39.34 32.11 0.11 13.66 5.14
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite project emissions.
The project must follow mandatory SCAQMD rules and requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, as described in Section 6.1.3.
Table 6-1 shows that the project’s daily construction emissions will be below the applicable SCAQMD air quality standards and thresholds of significance. As a result, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Furthermore, by complying with the SCAQMD standards, the project would not contribute to 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 379 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-2
Therefore, the project’s short-term construction impact on regional air resources will be less than significant.
6.1.2 Localized Emissions – Construction
Table 6-2 illustrates the construction-related localized emissions and compares the results to SCAQMD LST thresholds. As shown in Table 6-2, the emissions will be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for localized construction emissions. The project must follow all standard SCAQMD rules and requirements with regards to fugitive dust control, as described in Section 6.1.3.
Therefore, the project’s short-term construction impact on localized air resources will be less than significant.
Table 6-2 | Localized Construction Emissions
Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-site Emissions 29.16 29.90 10.35 5.08
SCAQMD Construction Threshold2 161.1 1,325.2 10.4 6.9
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite project emissions. 2 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 3.5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
6.1.3 Fugitive Dust – Construction
The Project is required to comply with standard SCAQMD rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions associated with suspended particulate matter, also known as fugitive dust.
Fugitive dust emissions are commonly associated with land clearing activities, cut-and-fill grading operations, and exposure of soils to the air and wind. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust is 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 Rules 402 and 403 require implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site.
6.1.4 Odors – Construction
Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction will emit odors; however, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. The project is required to comply with Rule 402 during construction, which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 380 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-3
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed Project.
Therefore, the project impact from odor emissions will be less than significant.
6.1.5 Asbestos – Construction
Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and regulated through the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Asbestos fibers imbedded within construction materials become a health hazard once they are disturbed and rendered airborne, such as through physical contact like building renovation and demolition activities.
SCAQMD is the local enforcement authority for asbestos. SCAQMD Rule 1403 establishes the survey requirements, notification, and work practices to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and hardscape on the project site during construction. Compliance with Rule 1403 will ensure that the project does not result in asbestos emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Asbestos also occurs naturally in serpentine and ultramafic rock. Based on the California Division of Mines and Geology General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, naturally occurring asbestos has not been shown to occur within in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small. However, in the event NOA is found on the site, the project will be required to comply with SCAQMD and NESHAP standards.
By following the required asbestos abatement protocols, the project impact will be less than significant.
6.1.6 Diesel Particulate Matter – Construction
The project will generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) during construction from off-road diesel equipment and trucks. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted the Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (HRA Guidelines) to provide procedures for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources2.
2 OEHHA. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 381 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-4
The HRA Guidelines provide risk factors based on exposure to toxic substances over a 30-year lifetime span. The proposed project’s construction activity is not expected to be a long-term (i.e., 30 years) source of toxic air contaminant emissions and short-term risk factors have not been developed. Due to the significantly reduced risk from short-term exposure, SCAQMD does not typically require the evaluation of long-term cancer risk or chronic health impacts for construction operations from a project such as the one being proposed.
The following mitigation measure will reduce diesel exhaust emissions and are recommended to be included as part of the conditions of approval. With the recommended mitigation measure, the potential DPM exposure to adjacent sensitive receptors is considered less than significant.
MM AQ-1 All diesel construction equipment over 100 horsepower will have Tier 4 low emission “clean diesel” engines (OEM or retrofit) that include diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that meet the latest CARB best available control technology.
6.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts – Operation
6.2.1 Regional Emissions – Operation
Long-term unmitigated operational air pollutant impacts from the project are shown in Table 6-3.
CalEEMod emissions outputs are provided in Appendix A.
The project’s daily unmitigated operational emissions will be below the applicable SCAQMD regional air quality standards and thresholds of significance, and the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Furthermore, by complying with the SCAQMD standards, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Therefore, the project’s long-term regional air quality impacts will be less than significant.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 382 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-5
Table 6-3 | Regional Operational Emissions
Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)1
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 3.67 2.82 34.84 0.09 9.19 2.36
Area Sources 4.19 2.35 8.74 0.01 0.19 0.19
Energy Sources 0.04 0.71 0.30 0.00 0.06 0.06
Total 7.90 5.88 43.88 0.10 9.44 2.61
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter; includes both onsite and offsite project emissions.
6.2.2 Localized Emissions – Operations
Table 6-4 shows the localized operational emissions and compares the results to SCAQMD LST thresholds of significance. As shown in Table 6-4, the emissions will be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for localized operational emissions.
Therefore, the project’s long-term localized air quality impacts will be less than significant.
Table 6-4 | Localized Operational Emissions
Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Onsite Emissions 4.41 10.79 0.70 0.36
SCAQMD Localized Threshold2 197.0 1,711.0 4.0 2.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
1 Maximum daily emissions during summer or winter.
2 Source: SCAQMD Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds for 5 acres/day in SRA-20 at 25 meters.
6.2.3 Odors – Operation
Land uses that commonly receive odor complaints include agricultural uses (farming and livestock), chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding facilities, food processing plants, landfills, refineries, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. The proposed residential project does not contain land uses that would typically be associated with significant odor emissions.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 383 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-6
The project will be required to comply with standard building code requirements related to exhaust ventilation, as well as comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 requires that a person may not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Project related odors are not expected to meet the criteria of being a nuisance.
Therefore, the project’s operation would result in less than significant odor impacts.
6.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants – Operations
The proposed project consists of residential land use and does not include major sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions that would result in significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Examples of land uses that are major sources of TACs include distribution centers with heavy truck traffic, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing stations. The project does not include any of these uses, hence the project impact is considered less than significant.
6.3 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate the proposed project’s consistency with the assumptions, growth projections, and control measures set forth in the 2022 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2022 AQMP serves as the regional attainment plan for achieving and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) within the South Coast Air Basin. Accordingly, this analysis evaluates whether the proposed project would interfere with the AQMP’s attainment strategy for federal and state air quality standards.
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that new or amended General Plan Elements, including land use zoning and density amendments, Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP. Full conformity with every individual control measure in the AQMP is not required for a project-level consistency determination. Rather, a project is considered consistent if it does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP control strategy and does not undermine the attainment demonstrations for applicable ambient air quality standards.
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
1. Whether the project will 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.
2. Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2016 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 384 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-7
Consistency with the AQMP is evaluated below using these indicators.
6.3.1 Criterion 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project were quantified and compared to the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds. As shown in the sections above, the project’s short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional mass emission thresholds for criteria pollutants. In addition, localized significance thresholds would not be exceeded at nearby sensitive receptors.
SCAQMD’s regional thresholds are designed to identify projects whose emissions would be cumulatively considerable and could interfere with attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Because the proposed project’s emissions would remain below the applicable regional significance thresholds, projectrelated emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would not contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations, cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS, or delay timely attainment of applicable air quality standards as demonstrated in the 2022 AQMP. The project therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP attainment strategy and is consistent with Criterion 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
6.3.2 Criterion 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP
The 2022 AQMP relies on regional population, housing, and employment growth forecasts prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in its adopted Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). These regional forecasts form the basis of the AQMP’s future year emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations for the NAAQS and CAAQS.
The AQMP growth projections are developed at the regional level and are not based on parcelspecific land use designations. The AQMP incorporates projected increases in population, housing, and employment within the South Coast Air Basin consistent with SCAG regional forecasts.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow residential development on a site that is currently designated for Professional Office land uses. While the existing land use designation differs from the proposed residential use, the AQMP does not allocate growth at the parcel level. Therefore, a change in land use designation at a specific site does not indicate inconsistency with the AQMP, provided that overall regional growth assumptions are not exceeded.
As a result, project consistency with this criterion is demonstrated by evaluating whether the population growth associated with the project would be consistent with the growth projections incorporated into the RTP/SCS and AQMP, as well as by evaluating whether the project would generate emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional mass emission thresholds for criteria pollutants.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 385 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 6-8
The proposed project consists of constructing 137 residential dwelling units. Based on default CalEEMod occupancy rates, the project would result in an increase of approximately 408 residents.
SCAG’s 2024 RTP/SCS projects that the County of Orange’s population will increase from approximately 3,188,000 in the year 2020 to approximately 3,439,000 by the year 2050, reflecting an increase of approximately 251,000 residents over the planning horizon. Per the City of Aliso Viejo Housing Element, the City had a population of approximately 50,044 in the year 2020. The addition of approximately 408 residents would represent approximately 0.16 percent of the total projected County population growth through 2050, and an approximately 0.82 percent increase in the City of Aliso Viejo’s 2020 population. In this context, the addition of approximately 408 residents represents a small increment of growth relative to the demographic increases assumed in the RTP/SCS and incorporated into the 2022 AQMP.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 6 above, regional emissions generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional mass emission thresholds for criteria air pollutants. In addition, projectgenerated emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or CAAQS.
Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions used in the 2022 AQMP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP attainment strategy. As such, the proposed project is consistent with Criterion 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 386 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 7-1
7.0 Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Construction
Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site construction activity using CalEEMod.
Table 7-1 shows the construction greenhouse gas emissions, including equipment and worker vehicle emissions for all phases of construction.
CalEEMod GHG output calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Table 7-1 | Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
1 Onsite Offsite Total
Demolition 64.49 190.71 255.20
Site Preparation 24.11 1.01 25.12
Grading 63.31 25.58 88.89
Building Construction 250.94 177.85 428.79
Paving 13.76 1.70 15.46
Architectural Coating 1.22 2.22 3.44
Total 417.82 399.07 816.90
Amortized Over 30 Years2 13.93 13.30 27.23
1 MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and/or hydrofluorocarbons).
2 The emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations.
Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions. Therefore, the SCAQMD recommends assessing construction GHG impacts by amortizing emissions over a 30-year project lifetime and adding them to the overall project operational emissions. Pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations, this study assesses construction related GHG emissions along with the project’s operational emissions, as further discussed in the section below.
7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Operations
Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated for on-site and off-site operational activity using CalEEMod.
Table 7-2 shows the project’s operational greenhouse gas emissions, along with the project’s amortized construction emissions.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 387 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 7-2
Appendix A provides the CalEEMod emissions outputs for this study.
Table 7-2 | Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Unmitigated GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr.)1
Mobile Source 1,284.00
Area Source 35.11
Energy Source 322.02
Water 19.25
Waste 31.61
Refrigerant 0.17
Construction (30-year amortization) 27.23
Total Annual Emissions 1,719.39
SCAQMD Tier 3 Significance Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
1 MTCO2e/yr. = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.
As shown in Table 7-2, the proposed project’s GHG emissions are not expected to exceed the SCAQMD GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.
Additionally, the project will comply with the mandatory requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 6 (Energy Code) and Part 11 (CALGreen), including, but not limited to:
• Install low flow fixtures and toilets, water efficient irrigation systems, drought tolerant/native landscaping, and reduce the amount of turf. • Provide the necessary infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging. • Provide solar installations/solar readiness zones per the prescribed Energy Design Ratings.
The project will also participate in the standard local waste management recycling and composting programs that will help further lower the project’s GHG impact.
Therefore, the proposed project’s impact from GHG emissions will be less than significant.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 388 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-1
8.0 Energy Impact Analysis
8.1 Study Objectives
The purpose of this energy conservation analysis is to review the energy implications of the proposed project and provide recommendations to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during the operation of the project. This analysis has been prepared within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.).
CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation, describes the framework within which energy conservation should be analyzed. Conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy through decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, natural gas, and oil), and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
8.2 Utility Providers
The proposed project would be served by the utility providers shown in Table 8-1 below.
Table 8-1 | Utility Providers
Utility Provider
Electricity Southern California Edison
Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company
8.3 Project Energy Consumption
The three (3) main types of energy expected to be consumed by the project include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum products in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. CalEEMod is used to calculate energy usage associated with the construction and operation of the project.
The CalEEMod calculation sheets for the project are provided in Appendix A. The EMFAC2025 vehicle fuel consumption data used for this analysis is provided in Appendix B.
8.3.1 Electricity Consumption
The project will use electricity for operational activities including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, electronics, mechanical equipment, and parking lot lighting.
Indirect electricity usage will also be required to supply, distribute, and treat water and wastewater.
Electricity will be provided to the site by Southern California Edison.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 389 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-2
Temporary electricity usage for construction activities may include lighting, electric equipment, and mobile office uses. However, CalEEMod does not calculate electricity usage during construction.
Electricity usage during construction is expected to be short-term and relatively minor compared to the operational demand. Therefore, construction-related electricity usage is not included in this analysis.
Table 8-2 shows the project’s estimated operational electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr) and millions of BTU per year (MMBTU/yr).
Table 8-2 | Project Electricity Consumption1
Land Use/Activity
Electricity Consumption
(KWh/yr.)2(MMBTU/yr.)3
Condo/Townhouse 565,721.60 1,930.24
Parking Lot 76,317.12 260.39
Water Supply and Treatment 48,731.91 166.27
Total 690,770.63 2,356.90
1 CalEEMod defaults.
2KWHr/yr. = kilowatt hours per year.
3 MMBTU/yr. = million British Thermal Units per year.
8.3.2 Natural Gas Consumption
The project will use natural gas for such things as building heating and cooling and gas water heaters.
Natural gas is not expected to be used during construction in any significant quantities and is not included in the overall calculation of the project’s natural gas consumption.
Table 8-3 shows the project’s estimated operational natural gas consumption in MMBTU/yr.
Table 8-3 | Project Natural Gas Consumption1
Land Use/Activity Natural Gas Consumption
(MMBTU/yr.)2
Condo/Townhouse 2,817.37
Parking Lot --
Total 2,817.37
1 CalEEMod defaults.
2 MMBTU/yr. = million British Thermal Units per year.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 390 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-3
8.3.3 Petroleum Consumption
The project’s energy consumption from petroleum products is primarily associated with transportation-related activities. This includes gasoline and diesel fuel usage for auto and truck trips during construction and operation and off-road equipment usage during construction.
8.3.3.1 Petroleum Consumption – Construction
Construction of the project is expected to consist of demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases. Construction activities will consume energy in the form of motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel) for off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips. Vehicle trips include workers and vendors traveling to and from the project site.
Table 8-4 and Table 8-5 show the project’s energy consumption for all off-road and on-road equipment during construction, respectively. For the purposes of this analysis, all off-road equipment is assumed to run on diesel fuel.
W/////////////////////////////////////////////////,7//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~~~~NG rkengineer.com 391 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-4
Table 8-4 | Construction Off-Road Equipment Energy Consumption Phase1
Phase
Duration
(Days)1
Equipment1 Amount1 Hrs./Day1 Horsepower
(HP)1
Load Factor1 HP-hrs.2
Fuel
Consumption
Rate
(HP-hrs./gal.)3
Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(Gal.)
Diesel Fuel
Consumption
by Phase
(Gal.)
MMBTU
4 Demolition 35
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.40 82,208.00
18.5 4,443.68
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 6,745.20 364.61 6,506.90 893.92 Crawler Tractors 3 8 87 0.43 31,424.40 1,698.62
Site Preparation 10
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.40 35,232.00 1,904.43
2,442.03 335.49
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 9,945.60 537.60
Grading 20
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 9,708.80 524.80
6,436.41 884.24
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 14,918.40 806.40
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.40 23,488.00 1,269.62
Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 5,985.60 323.55
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 64,972.80 3,512.04
Building
Construction 230
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.20 90,528.00 4,893.41
25,359.30 3,483.89
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 19,062.40 1,030.40
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 171,352.30 9,262.29
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 38,088.00 2,058.81
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 150,116.40 8,114.40 Paving 20
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 10,886.40 588.45
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 10,252.80 554.21 1,379.29 189.49 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 4,377.60 236.63
Architectural Coating 20 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 2,131.20 115.20 115.20 15.83 Total Energy Requirements 42,239.13 5,802.86
1 CalEEMod defaults.
2 HP-hrs. = Horsepower hours.
3 Source: Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 2017 Revisions. Table D-21. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm. 4 MMBTU = Millions of BTU, assuming 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 BTU.
W/hW///////2'/,W/////////////////,W//////////,W///////////////////////////////////////////////////,W//////,W///////,W///////////,W/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////,W///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RI( I ~~~~·~~NG rkengineer.com 392 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-5
Table 8-5 | Construction On-Road Equipment Energy Consumption Phase1
Phase
Duration
(Days)1
Trips per
Day1
Trip
Length
Phase
VMT
Vehicle
Class1
Vehicle
Mix1
Average
Fuel
Economy
(MPG)2
Gasoline Diesel
Total
MMBTU
3 Fuel Split2
Fuel Consumption
by Vehicle Class
(Gal.)
Fuel Consumption
by Phase
(Gal.)
Fuel Split2
Fuel Consumption
by Vehicle Class
(Gal.)
Fuel Consumption
by Phase
(Gal.)
Worker Trips
Demolition 35 15 18.5 9,713
LDA 0.50 26.25 0.9987 184.77
402.20
0.0013 0.20
LDT1 0.25 22.26 0.9998 109.05 0.0002 0.02 0.39 48.49
LDT2 0.25 22.37 0.9987 108.39 0.0013 0.12
Site Preparation 10 18 18.5 3,330
LDA 0.50 26.25 0.9987 63.35
137.90
0.0013 0.08
LDT1 0.25 22.26 0.9998 37.39 0.0002 0.01 0.14 16.63
LDT2 0.25 22.37 0.9987 37.16 0.0013 0.05
Grading 20 15 18.5 7,400
LDA 0.50 26.25 0.9987 140.77
306.44
0.0013 0.18
LDT1 0.25 22.26 0.9998 83.08 0.0002 0.01 0.30 36.95
LDT2 0.25 22.37 0.9987 82.58 0.0013 0.11
Building
Construction 230 99 18.5 421,245
LDA 0.50 26.25 0.9987 8,013.57
17,444.17
0.0013 10.29
LDT1 0.25 22.26 0.9998 4,729.60 0.0002 0.77 17.13 2,103.14 LDT2 0.25 22.37 0.9987 4,701.00 0.0013 6.07
Paving 20 15 18.5 5,550
LDA 0.50 26.25 0.9987 105.58
229.83
0.0013 0.14
LDT1 0.25 22.26 0.9998 62.31 0.0002 0.01 0.23 27.71
LDT2 0.25 22.37 0.9987 61.94 0.0013 0.08
Architectural
Coating 20 20 18.5 7,400
LDA 0.50 26.25 0.9987 140.77
306.44
0.0013 0.18
LDT1 0.25 22.26 0.9998 83.08 0.0002 0.01 0.30 36.95
LDT2 0.25 22.37 0.9987 82.58 0.0013 0.11
Subtotal Worker Trips Energy Consumption Gasoline (Gal.) 18,750.37 Diesel (Gal.) 18.50 2,269.86 Vendor Trips
Building
Construction 230 15 10.2 35,190
MHDT 0.50 7.62 0.3562 822.72
824.27
0.6438 1,486.80
4,238.96 681.62
HHDT 0.50 6.39 0.0006 1.55 0.9994 2,752.16
Subtotal Vendor Trips Energy Consumption Gasoline (Gal.) 824.27 Diesel (Gal.) 4,238.96 681.62 Hauling Trips
Demolition 35 165 20.0 115,500 HHDT 1.00 6.39 0.0006 10.18 10.18 0.9994 18,066.19 18,066.19 2,483.18 Grading 20 36 20.0 14,400 HHDT 1.00 6.39 0.0006 1.27 1.27 0.9994 2,252.41 2,252.41 309.59 Subtotal Hauling Trips Energy Consumption Gasoline (gal.) 11.45 Diesel (gal.) 20,318.61 2,792.77 Total On-Road Construction Trips Energy Consumption Gasoline (Gal.) 19,662.70 Diesel (gal.) 24,576.07 5,744.25 1 CalEEMod defaults.
2 HP-hrs. = Horsepower hours.
3 Source: Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 2017 Revisions. Table D-21. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm. 4 MMBTU = Millions of BTU, assuming 1 gallon of diesel fuel = 137,381 BTU.
W/hW///////2'/,W/////////////////,W//////////,W///////////////////////////////////////////////////,W//////,W///////,W///////////,W/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////,W///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// RI( I ~~~~·~~NG rkengineer.com 393 RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-6
8.3.3.2 Petroleum Consumption – Operation
The project is expected to consume energy from auto and truck trips generated by the proposed land uses. Operational vehicle trips are associated with workers, customers, and vendors/non-workers (i.e., delivery, service, maintenance vehicles, etc.) traveling to and from the site. EMFAC2025 vehicle fuel consumption data is provided in Appendix B.
Table 8-6 shows the project’s petroleum energy consumption for all operational trips generated by the project on an annual basis.
W///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////,W////////////////////////////4/////////////////////////////////////// ~ ::g/,~~~•- rkengfneer.com 394
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-7
Table 8-6 | Operational Trips Energy Consumption - Annual Vehicle Class Vehicle Mix
Average Fuel
Economy
(MPG)
Annual VMT
Gasoline Diesel
MMBTU
Fuel Split
Fuel
Consumption
(Gal.)
Fuel Split
Fuel
Consumption
(Gal.)
LDA 50.19% 26.25
4,002,671
0.9987 76,431.68 0.0013 98.14 9,218.07
LDT1 4.06% 22.26 0.9998 7,293.28 0.0002 1.19 878.49
LDT2 23.94% 22.37 0.9987 42,781.94 0.0013 55.24 5,159.78 MDV 14.74% 18.35 0.9749 31,342.61 0.0251 807.54 3,885.50 LHD1 2.82% 15.69 0.7513 5,414.22 0.2487 1,792.29 898.26 LHD2 0.43% 16.25 0.3741 394.38 0.6259 659.74 138.13
MHD 0.91% 7.62 0.3562 1,704.11 0.6438 3,079.62 628.31
HHD 0.34% 6.39 0.0006 1.19 0.9994 2,116.74 290.94
OBUS 0.04% 6.14 0.5706 130.81 0.4294 98.44 29.28
UBUS 0.02% 5.11 0.9847 160.88 0.0153 2.51 19.72
MCY 2.25% 39.10 1.0000 2,304.74 0.0000 0.00 277.56
SBUS 0.06% 8.50 0.6224 166.10 0.3776 100.78 33.85
MH 0.21% 5.72 0.8345 1,231.06 0.1655 244.21 181.81
Total Operational Trips Energy Usage
Gasoline
Consumption
(gal.)
169,357.00
Diesel
Consumption
(gal.)
9,056.44 21,639.70
1///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////l/////////////////////l/l///////////////////////l///l/////////l//d////////////////////////////////////////////////l//,'l ~ ~~~~,:'~"'a rkengineer.com 395
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-8
8.4 Summary of Project Energy Consumption
Table 8-7 provides a summary of the project’s annual operational energy consumption.
Table 8-7 | Total Annual Energy Consumption
Activity Energy Consumption
(MMBTU/yr.)1
Operational Electricity 2,356.90
Operational Natural Gas 2,817.37
Operational Petroleum 21,639.70
Total 26,813.97
1 MMBTU/yr. = Million British Thermal Units per year.
8.5 Energy Impacts
This analysis has been prepared within the context of the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. According to CEQA, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy through decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, natural gas, and oil), and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
A significant environmental impact would result if the project would:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
8.5.1 Energy Impact – A
Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The project will implement the mandatory requirements of California’s Building Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) to reduce energy consumption. California’s building standards are some of the strictest in the nation and the project’s compliance with the Building Code will ensure that wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy is minimized. The California Building Code is designed to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat or cool a building, reduce energy usage for lighting and appliances and promote usage of energy from renewable sources.
W//////////////////////////4////#////////////////#//////,W//////////////////////////////,W///////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,f;!~~NG rkenglneer.com 396
RK20939.4 // 2827-2025-03 8-9
In particular, the project is expected to comply with Section 110.10 of the building code regarding mandatory requirements for solar readiness and/or rooftop solar zones.
Hence, the project will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and the impact is considered less than significant.
8.5.2 Energy Impact – B
Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The project is not expected to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The project will purchase electricity through San Diego Gas and Electric which is subject to the requirements of California Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). SB 100 is the most stringent and current energy legislation in California; requiring that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.3
The project will also comply with the mandatory requirements of California’s Green Building and Building Energy Efficiency standards that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Hence, the project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and the impact is considered less than significant. 3 SB-100 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100 W//////////////////////////4////#////////////////#//////,W//////////////////////////////,W///////////////////////////////////////// ~ ~g/,f;!~~NG rkenglneer.com 397
Appendices
398
Appendix A
CalEEMod Emissions Outputs
399
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 1 / 52
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year
2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026)
3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
400
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 2 / 52
3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2026)
3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2026)
3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.4. Building Construction (2026)
3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2027)
3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.6. Paving (2027)
3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.7. Architectural Coating (2027)
3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
401
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 3 / 52
3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.8. Architectural Coating (2028)
3.8.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.8.2. Offsite - 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
402
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 4 / 52
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
403
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 5 / 52
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
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
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
404
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 6 / 52
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
8.3. Land Use
405
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 7 / 52
8.4. Construction
8.4.1. Construction Phases
8.4.2. Off-Road Equipment
8.5. Operations
8.5.1. Mobile Sources
8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
8.5.1.2. Fleet Mix
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.1. Hearths
406
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 8 / 52
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project
Construction Start Date 10/1/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50000
Precipitation (days) 13.6000
Location 33.56952132382476, -117.72475938824789
County Orange
City Aliso Viejo
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 6036
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.41
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 137.000 Dwelling Unit 6.44000 145,220 127,400 — 408.000 — 407
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 9 / 52
Parking Lot 85.0000 Space 2.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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. 1.59477 1.32092 10.1363 18.0389 0.02669 0.33987 1.41462 1.75449 0.31294 0.33683 0.64977 — 4,110.76 4,110.76 0.13321 0.12774 5.08256 4,157.24 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 46.8615 46.8280 39.3405 32.1102 0.11432 1.41283 12.2519 13.6648 1.31140 3.99357 5.13668 — 15,496.0 15,496.0 1.01799 1.82192 0.60802 16,065.0 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.53288 2.35174 6.82074 11.6613 0.01758 0.24180 1.64937 1.89117 0.22370 0.41831 0.64201 — 2,659.13 2,659.13 0.13002 0.20116 1.40506 2,687.08 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.46225 0.42919 1.24478 2.12819 0.00321 0.04413 0.30101 0.34514 0.04083 0.07634 0.11717 — 440.249 440.249 0.02153 0.03331 0.23262 444.876
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year
2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.
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 -------------------
-------------------
408
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 10 / 52
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.59477 1.32092 10.1363 18.0389 0.02669 0.33987 1.41462 1.75449 0.31294 0.33683 0.64977 — 4,110.76 4,110.76 0.13321 0.12774 5.08256 4,157.24 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 4.50224 3.33009 39.3405 32.1102 0.11432 1.41283 12.2519 13.6648 1.31140 3.99357 5.13668 — 15,496.0 15,496.0 1.01799 1.82192 0.60802 16,065.0 2027 46.8615 46.8280 10.1618 17.3612 0.02669 0.33987 1.41462 1.75449 0.31294 0.33683 0.64977 — 4,050.03 4,050.03 0.13506 0.12774 0.13206 4,091.60 2028 46.8521 46.8202 0.86773 1.90881 0.00173 0.01536 0.25786 0.27322 0.01413 0.06044 0.07457 — 369.614 369.614 0.00846 0.01043 0.01852 372.954 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.76713 0.56393 6.37003 5.48474 0.01678 0.24180 1.64937 1.89117 0.22370 0.41831 0.64201 — 2,173.84 2,173.84 0.13002 0.20116 1.12318 2,238.16 2027 2.53288 2.35174 6.82074 11.6613 0.01758 0.23043 0.89964 1.13007 0.21216 0.21405 0.42621 — 2,659.13 2,659.13 0.08859 0.08163 1.40506 2,687.08 2028 1.10025 1.09951 0.02038 0.04567 0.00004 0.00036 0.00600 0.00636 0.00033 0.00141 0.00174 — 8.75557 8.75557 0.00020 0.00025 0.00727 8.84082 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.14000 0.10292 1.16253 1.00096 0.00306 0.04413 0.30101 0.34514 0.04083 0.07634 0.11717 — 359.904 359.904 0.02153 0.03331 0.18595 370.553 2027 0.46225 0.42919 1.24478 2.12819 0.00321 0.04205 0.16418 0.20624 0.03872 0.03906 0.07778 — 440.249 440.249 0.01467 0.01352 0.23262 444.876 2028 0.20080 0.20066 0.00372 0.00833 0.00001 0.00007 0.00110 0.00116 0.00006 0.00026 0.00032 — 1.44958 1.44958 0.00003 0.00004 0.00120 1.46370
2.2.2. Onsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.84165 3.22805 29.1635 29.8995 0.06422 1.27400 9.08244 10.3504 1.17208 3.93995 5.08307 — 6,954.46 6,954.46 0.28210 0.05642 0.00000 6,978.32 -------------------
409
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 11 / 52
2027 46.7959 46.7721 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 0.30965 0.00000 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 0.00000 2,405.30 2028 46.7886 46.7660 0.80814 1.11833 0.00173 0.01536 0.00000 0.01536 0.01413 0.00000 0.01413 — 133.517 133.517 0.00542 0.00108 0.00000 133.975 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.63775 0.53560 4.84089 4.68941 0.00857 0.22618 1.28928 1.51546 0.20808 0.31918 0.52726 — 919.076 919.076 0.03728 0.00746 0.00000 922.230 2027 2.30081 2.16620 6.30574 8.70798 0.01552 0.22836 0.00000 0.22836 0.21009 0.00000 0.21009 — 1,592.78 1,592.78 0.06461 0.01292 0.00000 1,598.24 2028 1.09875 1.09822 0.01898 0.02626 0.00004 0.00036 0.00000 0.00036 0.00033 0.00000 0.00033 — 3.13543 3.13543 0.00013 0.00003 0.00000 3.14619 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.11639 0.09775 0.88346 0.85582 0.00156 0.04128 0.23529 0.27657 0.03797 0.05825 0.09622 — 152.164 152.164 0.00617 0.00123 0.00000 152.686 2027 0.41990 0.39533 1.15080 1.58921 0.00283 0.04168 0.00000 0.04168 0.03834 0.00000 0.03834 — 263.702 263.702 0.01070 0.00214 0.00000 264.607 2028 0.20052 0.20043 0.00346 0.00479 0.00001 0.00007 0.00000 0.00007 0.00006 0.00000 0.00006 — 0.51911 0.51911 0.00002 <
0.000005
0.00000 0.52089
2.2.3. Offsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.36402 0.29104 0.74532 5.10095 0.00329 0.00329 1.41462 1.41791 0.00329 0.33683 0.34013 — 1,713.68 1,713.68 0.03597 0.10829 5.08256 1,751.93 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.14177 0.34182 13.9677 6.67972 0.07606 0.14488 3.16948 3.31436 0.14488 0.87986 1.02473 — 11,447.9 11,447.9 0.85379 1.78907 0.60802 12,003.0 2027 0.36369 0.28855 0.77083 4.42328 0.00329 0.00329 1.41462 1.41791 0.00329 0.33683 0.34013 — 1,652.95 1,652.95 0.03782 0.10829 0.13206 1,686.30 2028 0.06350 0.05415 0.05959 0.79048 0.00000 0.00000 0.25786 0.25786 0.00000 0.06044 0.06044 — 236.097 236.097 0.00304 0.00935 0.01852 238.978 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.12938 0.02833 1.52914 0.79533 0.00820 0.01562 0.36008 0.37571 0.01562 0.09913 0.11475 — 1,254.76 1,254.76 0.09274 0.19371 1.12318 1,315.93 2027 0.23206 0.18554 0.51500 2.95333 0.00207 0.00207 0.89964 0.90171 0.00207 0.21405 0.21612 — 1,066.35 1,066.35 0.02398 0.06871 1.40506 1,088.83 2028 0.00150 0.00128 0.00140 0.01941 0.00000 0.00000 0.00600 0.00600 0.00000 0.00141 0.00141 — 5.62014 5.62014 0.00007 0.00022 0.00727 5.69463 -------------------
410
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 12 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.02361 0.00517 0.27907 0.14515 0.00150 0.00285 0.06572 0.06857 0.00285 0.01809 0.02094 — 207.741 207.741 0.01535 0.03207 0.18595 217.867 2027 0.04235 0.03386 0.09399 0.53898 0.00038 0.00038 0.16418 0.16456 0.00038 0.03906 0.03944 — 176.547 176.547 0.00397 0.01138 0.23262 180.269 2028 0.00027 0.00023 0.00026 0.00354 0.00000 0.00000 0.00110 0.00110 0.00000 0.00026 0.00026 — 0.93048 0.93048 0.00001 0.00004 0.00120 0.94281
2.3. 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. 8.47755 7.90101 5.63249 43.8890 0.11093 0.29540 9.13990 9.43531 0.29095 2.31801 2.60896 64.4150 14,234.6 14,299.0 7.01958 0.34046 30.5244 14,606.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.74040 7.19779 5.79996 33.3687 0.10686 0.29172 9.13990 9.43163 0.28816 2.31801 2.60617 64.4150 13,836.1 13,900.6 7.03299 0.35647 1.80453 14,184.4 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.34725 6.95918 3.32969 33.5958 0.08099 0.11536 7.67263 7.78799 0.11173 1.94614 2.05787 64.4150 9,880.78 9,945.20 6.92386 0.30406 11.8216 10,220.7 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.34087 1.27005 0.60767 6.13124 0.01478 0.02105 1.40026 1.42131 0.02039 0.35517 0.37556 10.6646 1,635.88 1,646.54 1.14632 0.05034 1.95720 1,692.16
2.4. 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 4.03785 3.67397 2.57431 34.8414 0.09155 0.05046 9.13990 9.19036 0.04689 2.31801 2.36491 — 9,316.42 9,316.42 0.35872 0.30161 29.4843 9,444.75 -------------------
-------------------
411
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 13 / 52
Area 4.35646 4.18543 2.34684 8.74493 0.01484 0.18744 — 0.18744 0.18654 — 0.18654 0.00000 2,905.44 2,905.44 0.05519 0.00560 — 2,908.49 Energy 0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 1,938.95 1,938.95 0.13796 0.00874 — 1,945.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007 Total 8.47755 7.90101 5.63249 43.8890 0.11093 0.29540 9.13990 9.43531 0.29095 2.31801 2.60896 64.4150 14,234.6 14,299.0 7.01958 0.34046 30.5244 14,606.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.02099 3.65297 2.81603 32.0990 0.08782 0.05047 9.13990 9.19037 0.04691 2.31801 2.36492 — 8,938.78 8,938.78 0.37301 0.31780 0.76446 9,043.57 Area 3.63617 3.50319 2.27259 0.96706 0.01451 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.00000 2,884.66 2,884.66 0.05432 0.00543 — 2,887.63 Energy 0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 1,938.95 1,938.95 0.13796 0.00874 — 1,945.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007 Total 7.74040 7.19779 5.79996 33.3687 0.10686 0.29172 9.13990 9.43163 0.28816 2.31801 2.60617 64.4150 13,836.1 13,900.6 7.03299 0.35647 1.80453 14,184.4 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.38221 3.07095 2.41184 27.8996 0.07522 0.04273 7.67263 7.71537 0.03972 1.94614 1.98585 — 7,656.26 7,656.26 0.31388 0.27033 10.7816 7,755.45 Area 3.88179 3.84661 0.20651 5.39354 0.00122 0.01512 — 0.01512 0.01451 — 0.01451 0.00000 211.813 211.813 0.00432 0.00049 — 212.067 Energy 0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 1,938.95 1,938.95 0.13796 0.00874 — 1,945.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007 Total 7.34725 6.95918 3.32969 33.5958 0.08099 0.11536 7.67263 7.78799 0.11173 1.94614 2.05787 64.4150 9,880.78 9,945.20 6.92386 0.30406 11.8216 10,220.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61725 0.56045 0.44016 5.09168 0.01373 0.00780 1.40026 1.40805 0.00725 0.35517 0.36242 — 1,267.58 1,267.58 0.05197 0.04476 1.78501 1,284.00 Area 0.70843 0.70201 0.03769 0.98432 0.00022 0.00276 — 0.00276 0.00265 — 0.00265 0.00000 35.0680 35.0680 0.00071 0.00008 — 35.1101 Energy 0.01519 0.00760 0.12982 0.05524 0.00083 0.01050 — 0.01050 0.01050 — 0.01050 — 321.016 321.016 0.02284 0.00145 — 322.018 412
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 14 / 52
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.63101 12.2108 13.8418 0.16793 0.00406 — 19.2487 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.03362 0.00000 9.03362 0.90288 0.00000 — 31.6056 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17219 0.17219 Total 1.34087 1.27005 0.60767 6.13124 0.01478 0.02105 1.40026 1.42131 0.02039 0.35517 0.37556 10.6646 1,635.88 1,646.54 1.14632 0.05034 1.95720 1,692.16
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026)
3.1.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.36047 2.82079 25.3728 23.3229 0.03826 1.26796 — 1.26796 1.16652 — 1.16652 — 4,048.06 4,048.06 0.16421 0.03284 — 4,061.95 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 9.08244 9.08244 — 1.37534 1.37534 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.32224 0.27049 2.43301 2.23644 0.00367 0.12159 — 0.12159 0.11186 — 0.11186 — 388.170 388.170 0.01575 0.00315 — 389.502 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.87092 0.87092 — 0.13188 0.13188 — — — — — — — -------------------
413
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 15 / 52
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05881 0.04936 0.44402 0.40815 0.00067 0.02219 — 0.02219 0.02041 — 0.02041 — 64.2659 64.2659 0.00261 0.00052 — 64.4865 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.15894 0.15894 — 0.02407 0.02407 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.1.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05159 0.05060 0.05241 0.68189 0.00000 0.00000 0.19606 0.19606 0.00000 0.04596 0.04596 — 185.890 185.890 0.00265 0.00711 0.01758 188.092 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 1.09019 0.15936 13.9153 5.99783 0.07606 0.14488 2.97342 3.11829 0.14488 0.83390 0.97878 — 11,262.0 11,262.0 0.85114 1.78196 0.59044 11,814.9 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00495 0.00482 0.00503 0.06797 0.00000 0.00000 0.01864 0.01864 0.00000 0.00437 0.00437 — 18.0691 18.0691 0.00025 0.00068 0.02810 18.3067 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.10523 0.01563 1.34962 0.57236 0.00729 0.01389 0.28318 0.29707 0.01389 0.07948 0.09337 — 1,079.70 1,079.70 0.08196 0.17087 0.94263 1,133.61 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00090 0.00088 0.00092 0.01240 0.00000 0.00000 0.00340 0.00340 0.00000 0.00080 0.00080 — 2.99154 2.99154 0.00004 0.00011 0.00465 3.03088 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
414
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 16 / 52
Hauling 0.01921 0.00285 0.24631 0.10446 0.00133 0.00254 0.05168 0.05422 0.00254 0.01450 0.01704 — 178.756 178.756 0.01357 0.02829 0.15606 187.682
3.2. Site Preparation (2026)
3.2.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.74146 3.14387 29.1635 28.8082 0.04890 1.24251 — 1.24251 1.14311 — 1.14311 — 5,297.94 5,297.94 0.21491 0.04298 — 5,316.12 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.66623 7.66623 — 3.93995 3.93995 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.10251 0.08613 0.79900 0.78927 0.00134 0.03404 — 0.03404 0.03132 — 0.03132 — 145.149 145.149 0.00589 0.00118 — 145.647 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.21003 0.21003 — 0.10794 0.10794 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
415
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 17 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01871 0.01572 0.14582 0.14404 0.00024 0.00621 — 0.00621 0.00572 — 0.00572 — 24.0311 24.0311 0.00097 0.00019 — 24.1135 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03833 0.03833 — 0.01970 0.01970 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.2.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06019 0.05903 0.06115 0.79554 0.00000 0.00000 0.22874 0.22874 0.00000 0.05362 0.05362 — 216.872 216.872 0.00309 0.00829 0.02052 219.441 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00165 0.00161 0.00168 0.02266 0.00000 0.00000 0.00621 0.00621 0.00000 0.00146 0.00146 — 6.02302 6.02302 0.00008 0.00023 0.00937 6.10222 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00030 0.00029 0.00031 0.00413 0.00000 0.00000 0.00113 0.00113 0.00000 0.00027 0.00027 — 0.99718 0.99718 0.00001 0.00004 0.00155 1.01029 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
416
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 18 / 52
3.3. Grading (2026)
3.3.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.84165 3.22805 29.0102 29.8995 0.06422 1.27400 — 1.27400 1.17208 — 1.17208 — 6,954.46 6,954.46 0.28210 0.05642 — 6,978.32 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.80206 3.80206 — 1.44818 1.44818 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.21050 0.17688 1.58960 1.63833 0.00352 0.06981 — 0.06981 0.06422 — 0.06422 — 381.066 381.066 0.01546 0.00309 — 382.374 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20833 0.20833 — 0.07935 0.07935 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
417
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 19 / 52
Off-Roa 0.03842 0.03228 0.29010 0.29900 0.00064 0.01274 — 0.01274 0.01172 — 0.01172 — 63.0899 63.0899 0.00256 0.00051 — 63.3064 d
Equipm
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03802 0.03802 — 0.01448 0.01448 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.3.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06878 0.06746 0.06989 0.90919 0.00000 0.00000 0.26142 0.26142 0.00000 0.06128 0.06128 — 247.853 247.853 0.00353 0.00948 0.02345 250.790 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.23657 0.03458 3.01961 1.30153 0.01650 0.03144 0.64523 0.67667 0.03144 0.18096 0.21239 — 2,443.86 2,443.86 0.18470 0.38669 0.12813 2,563.84 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00377 0.00367 0.00383 0.05179 0.00000 0.00000 0.01420 0.01420 0.00000 0.00333 0.00333 — 13.7669 13.7669 0.00019 0.00052 0.02141 13.9479 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.01305 0.00194 0.16735 0.07097 0.00090 0.00172 0.03511 0.03684 0.00172 0.00986 0.01158 — 133.883 133.883 0.01016 0.02119 0.11689 140.568 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00069 0.00067 0.00070 0.00945 0.00000 0.00000 0.00259 0.00259 0.00000 0.00061 0.00061 — 2.27927 2.27927 0.00003 0.00009 0.00354 2.30924 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00238 0.00035 0.03054 0.01295 0.00017 0.00031 0.00641 0.00672 0.00031 0.00180 0.00211 — 22.1658 22.1658 0.00168 0.00351 0.01935 23.2726 -------------------
418
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 20 / 52
3.4. Building Construction (2026)
3.4.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.27993 1.07101 9.85401 12.9664 0.02340 0.37865 — 0.37865 0.34836 — 0.34836 — 2,397.24 2,397.24 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.47 Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00250 0.00210 0.01928 0.02537 0.00005 0.00074 — 0.00074 0.00068 — 0.00068 — 4.69127 4.69127 0.00019 0.00004 — 4.70737 Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00046 0.00038 0.00352 0.00463 0.00001 0.00014 — 0.00014 0.00012 — 0.00012 — 0.77669 0.77669 0.00003 0.00001 — 0.77936 Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
-------------------
419
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 21 / 52
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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.33924 0.33272 0.34468 4.48411 0.00000 0.00000 1.28932 1.28932 0.00000 0.30221 0.30221 — 1,222.41 1,222.41 0.01740 0.04675 0.11564 1,236.90 Vendor 0.03532 0.00911 0.48664 0.23925 0.00329 0.00329 0.12530 0.12860 0.00329 0.03462 0.03791 — 459.566 459.566 0.02292 0.06483 0.03080 479.490 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00066 0.00065 0.00067 0.00912 0.00000 0.00000 0.00250 0.00250 0.00000 0.00059 0.00059 — 2.42494 2.42494 0.00003 0.00009 0.00377 2.45683 Vendor 0.00007 0.00002 0.00096 0.00046 0.00001 0.00001 0.00024 0.00025 0.00001 0.00007 0.00007 — 0.89909 0.89909 0.00004 0.00013 0.00100 0.93903 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012 0.00166 0.00000 0.00000 0.00046 0.00046 0.00000 0.00011 0.00011 — 0.40148 0.40148 0.00001 0.00002 0.00062 0.40676 Vendor 0.00001 <
0.000005
0.00017 0.00008 <
0.000005
<
0.000005
0.00004 0.00005 <
0.000005
0.00001 0.00001 — 0.14885 0.14885 0.00001 0.00002 0.00017 0.15547 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.5. Building Construction (2027)
3.5.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
-------------------
420
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 22 / 52
Off-Roa 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.77314 0.64695 5.89920 8.12736 0.01470 0.21143 — 0.21143 0.19451 — 0.19451 — 1,505.80 1,505.80 0.06108 0.01222 — 1,510.96 Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14110 0.11807 1.07660 1.48324 0.00268 0.03859 — 0.03859 0.03550 — 0.03550 — 249.302 249.302 0.01011 0.00202 — 250.157 Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.5.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 421
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 23 / 52
Worker 0.32837 0.28162 0.29575 4.87772 0.00000 0.00000 1.28932 1.28932 0.00000 0.30221 0.30221 — 1,262.83 1,262.83 0.01305 0.04675 4.00409 1,281.09 Vendor 0.03565 0.00943 0.44957 0.22323 0.00329 0.00329 0.12530 0.12860 0.00329 0.03462 0.03791 — 450.851 450.851 0.02292 0.06154 1.07846 470.842 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.32837 0.27944 0.30227 4.19488 0.00000 0.00000 1.28932 1.28932 0.00000 0.30221 0.30221 — 1,201.86 1,201.86 0.01522 0.04675 0.10413 1,216.28 Vendor 0.03532 0.00911 0.46855 0.22840 0.00329 0.00329 0.12530 0.12860 0.00329 0.03462 0.03791 — 451.088 451.088 0.02260 0.06154 0.02793 470.020 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20491 0.17554 0.21379 2.74784 0.00000 0.00000 0.80285 0.80285 0.00000 0.18808 0.18808 — 765.294 765.294 0.00956 0.02937 1.08779 775.374 Vendor 0.02239 0.00592 0.29624 0.14165 0.00207 0.00207 0.07813 0.08020 0.00207 0.02160 0.02367 — 283.279 283.279 0.01420 0.03866 0.29199 295.446 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03740 0.03204 0.03902 0.50148 0.00000 0.00000 0.14652 0.14652 0.00000 0.03432 0.03432 — 126.703 126.703 0.00158 0.00486 0.18010 128.372 Vendor 0.00409 0.00108 0.05406 0.02585 0.00038 0.00038 0.01426 0.01464 0.00038 0.00394 0.00432 — 46.9000 46.9000 0.00235 0.00640 0.04834 48.9144 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.6. Paving (2027)
3.6.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
422
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 24 / 52
Off-Roa 0.87761 0.73744 6.94439 9.95313 0.01395 0.29813 — 0.29813 0.27428 — 0.27428 — 1,511.11 1,511.11 0.06130 0.01226 — 1,516.29 d
Paving 0.26200 0.26200 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04809 0.04041 0.38051 0.54538 0.00076 0.01634 — 0.01634 0.01503 — 0.01503 — 82.8004 82.8004 0.00336 0.00067 — 83.0845 Paving 0.01436 0.01436 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00878 0.00737 0.06944 0.09953 0.00014 0.00298 — 0.00298 0.00274 — 0.00274 — 13.7085 13.7085 0.00056 0.00011 — 13.7556 Paving 0.00262 0.00262 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.6.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04993 0.04249 0.04597 0.63791 0.00000 0.00000 0.19606 0.19606 0.00000 0.04596 0.04596 — 182.764 182.764 0.00231 0.00711 0.01583 184.957 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
423
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 25 / 52
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00272 0.00233 0.00284 0.03645 0.00000 0.00000 0.01065 0.01065 0.00000 0.00249 0.00249 — 10.1513 10.1513 0.00013 0.00039 0.01443 10.2850 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00050 0.00042 0.00052 0.00665 0.00000 0.00000 0.00194 0.00194 0.00000 0.00046 0.00046 — 1.68066 1.68066 0.00002 0.00006 0.00239 1.70279 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.7. Architectural Coating (2027)
3.7.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s
46.6587 46.6587 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
424
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 26 / 52
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00429 0.00355 0.02602 0.03524 0.00005 0.00060 — 0.00060 0.00055 — 0.00055 — 4.18044 4.18044 0.00017 0.00003 — 4.19478 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.46094 1.46094 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00078 0.00065 0.00475 0.00643 0.00001 0.00011 — 0.00011 0.00010 — 0.00010 — 0.69212 0.69212 0.00003 0.00001 — 0.69449 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.26662 0.26662 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.7.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06567 0.05589 0.06045 0.83898 0.00000 0.00000 0.25786 0.25786 0.00000 0.06044 0.06044 — 240.372 240.372 0.00304 0.00935 0.02083 243.255 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
425
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 27 / 52
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00204 0.00175 0.00213 0.02739 0.00000 0.00000 0.00800 0.00800 0.00000 0.00187 0.00187 — 7.62910 7.62910 0.00010 0.00029 0.01084 7.72958 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00037 0.00032 0.00039 0.00500 0.00000 0.00000 0.00146 0.00146 0.00000 0.00034 0.00034 — 1.26308 1.26308 0.00002 0.00005 0.00180 1.27972 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.8. Architectural Coating (2028)
3.8.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12985 0.10731 0.80814 1.11833 0.00173 0.01536 — 0.01536 0.01413 — 0.01413 — 133.517 133.517 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.975 Architect
ural
Coating
s
46.6587 46.6587 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
426
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 28 / 52
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00305 0.00252 0.01898 0.02626 0.00004 0.00036 — 0.00036 0.00033 — 0.00033 — 3.13543 3.13543 0.00013 0.00003 — 3.14619 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.09570 1.09570 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.00056 0.00046 0.00346 0.00479 0.00001 0.00007 — 0.00007 0.00006 — 0.00006 — 0.51911 0.51911 0.00002 <
0.000005
— 0.52089
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.19997 0.19997 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.8.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06350 0.05415 0.05959 0.79048 0.00000 0.00000 0.25786 0.25786 0.00000 0.06044 0.06044 — 236.097 236.097 0.00304 0.00935 0.01852 238.978 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -------------------
427
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 29 / 52
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00150 0.00128 0.00140 0.01941 0.00000 0.00000 0.00600 0.00600 0.00000 0.00141 0.00141 — 5.62014 5.62014 0.00007 0.00022 0.00727 5.69463 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00027 0.00023 0.00026 0.00354 0.00000 0.00000 0.00110 0.00110 0.00000 0.00026 0.00026 — 0.93048 0.93048 0.00001 0.00004 0.00120 0.94281 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
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
4.03785 3.67397 2.57431 34.8414 0.09155 0.05046 9.13990 9.19036 0.04689 2.31801 2.36491 — 9,316.42 9,316.42 0.35872 0.30161 29.4843 9,444.75 Parking
Lot
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total 4.03785 3.67397 2.57431 34.8414 0.09155 0.05046 9.13990 9.19036 0.04689 2.31801 2.36491 — 9,316.42 9,316.42 0.35872 0.30161 29.4843 9,444.75 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
428
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 30 / 52
Condo/T 4.02099 3.65297 2.81603 32.0990 0.08782 0.05047 9.13990 9.19037 0.04691 2.31801 2.36492 — 8,938.78 8,938.78 0.37301 0.31780 0.76446 9,043.57 ownhou
Parking
Lot
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total 4.02099 3.65297 2.81603 32.0990 0.08782 0.05047 9.13990 9.19037 0.04691 2.31801 2.36492 — 8,938.78 8,938.78 0.37301 0.31780 0.76446 9,043.57 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.61725 0.56045 0.44016 5.09168 0.01373 0.00780 1.40026 1.40805 0.00725 0.35517 0.36242 — 1,267.58 1,267.58 0.05197 0.04476 1.78501 1,284.00 Parking
Lot
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Total 0.61725 0.56045 0.44016 5.09168 0.01373 0.00780 1.40026 1.40805 0.00725 0.35517 0.36242 — 1,267.58 1,267.58 0.05197 0.04476 1.78501 1,284.00
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — 912.878 912.878 0.05115 0.00620 — 916.004 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 123.149 123.149 0.00690 0.00084 — 123.571 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,036.03 1,036.03 0.05805 0.00704 — 1,039.58 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 912.878 912.878 0.05115 0.00620 — 916.004 429
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 31 / 52
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 123.149 123.149 0.00690 0.00084 — 123.571 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,036.03 1,036.03 0.05805 0.00704 — 1,039.58 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 151.137 151.137 0.00847 0.00103 — 151.655 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 20.3888 20.3888 0.00114 0.00014 — 20.4586 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 171.526 171.526 0.00961 0.00116 — 172.114
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
0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 902.925 902.925 0.07991 0.00170 — 905.430 Parking
Lot
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 902.925 902.925 0.07991 0.00170 — 905.430 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 902.925 902.925 0.07991 0.00170 — 905.430 Parking
Lot
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.08324 0.04162 0.71134 0.30270 0.00454 0.05751 — 0.05751 0.05751 — 0.05751 — 902.925 902.925 0.07991 0.00170 — 905.430 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 430
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 32 / 52
Condo/T 0.01519 0.00760 0.12982 0.05524 0.00083 0.01050 — 0.01050 0.01050 — 0.01050 — 149.490 149.490 0.01323 0.00028 — 149.904 Parking
Lot
0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.01519 0.00760 0.12982 0.05524 0.00083 0.01050 — 0.01050 0.01050 — 0.01050 — 149.490 149.490 0.01323 0.00028 — 149.904
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 0.26594 0.13297 2.27259 0.96706 0.01451 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.00000 2,884.66 2,884.66 0.05432 0.00543 — 2,887.63 Consum
er
Product
s
3.11456 3.11456 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.25566 0.25566 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.72030 0.68223 0.07425 7.77787 0.00034 0.00369 — 0.00369 0.00280 — 0.00280 — 20.7812 20.7812 0.00087 0.00017 — 20.8543 Total 4.35646 4.18543 2.34684 8.74493 0.01484 0.18744 — 0.18744 0.18654 — 0.18654 0.00000 2,905.44 2,905.44 0.05519 0.00560 — 2,908.49 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.26594 0.13297 2.27259 0.96706 0.01451 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.00000 2,884.66 2,884.66 0.05432 0.00543 — 2,887.63 Consum
er
Product
s
3.11456 3.11456 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
431
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 33 / 52
Architect
Coatings
0.25566 0.25566 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.63617 3.50319 2.27259 0.96706 0.01451 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.18374 — 0.18374 0.00000 2,884.66 2,884.66 0.05432 0.00543 — 2,887.63 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00332 0.00166 0.02841 0.01209 0.00018 0.00230 — 0.00230 0.00230 — 0.00230 0.00000 32.7115 32.7115 0.00062 0.00006 — 32.7452 Consum
er
Product
s
0.56841 0.56841 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.04666 0.04666 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.09004 0.08528 0.00928 0.97223 0.00004 0.00046 — 0.00046 0.00035 — 0.00035 — 2.35655 2.35655 0.00010 0.00002 — 2.36484 Total 0.70843 0.70201 0.03769 0.98432 0.00022 0.00276 — 0.00276 0.00265 — 0.00265 0.00000 35.0680 35.0680 0.00071 0.00008 — 35.1101
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
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 432
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 34 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.85139 73.7536 83.6050 1.01428 0.02450 — 116.263 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.63101 12.2108 13.8418 0.16793 0.00406 — 19.2487 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.63101 12.2108 13.8418 0.16793 0.00406 — 19.2487
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
— — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 433
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 35 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 54.5636 0.00000 54.5636 5.45343 0.00000 — 190.899 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.03362 0.00000 9.03362 0.90288 0.00000 — 31.6056 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.03362 0.00000 9.03362 0.90288 0.00000 — 31.6056
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
434
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 36 / 52
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007 ownhou
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04007 1.04007
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17219 0.17219
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17219 0.17219
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 435
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 37 / 52
Equipm TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ent
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
436
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 38 / 52
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 437
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 39 / 52
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
438
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 40 / 52
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 10/1/2026 11/18/2026 5.00000 35.0000 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/19/2026 12/2/2026 5.00000 10.00000 — Grading Grading 12/3/2026 12/30/2026 5.00000 20.0000 —
Building Construction Building Construction 12/31/2026 11/17/2027 5.00000 230.000 — Paving Paving 11/18/2027 12/15/2027 5.00000 20.0000 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/16/2027 1/12/2028 5.00000 20.0000 —
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 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 33.0000 0.73000
Demolition Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 87.0000 0.43000 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
439
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 41 / 52
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 87.0000 0.43000 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 423.000 0.48000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition Worker 15.0000 18.5000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2000 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 164.286 20.0000 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 18.5000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 20.0000 18.5000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 35.6500 20.0000 HHDT 440
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 42 / 52
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 98.6400 18.5000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 14.6453 10.2000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 18.5000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 19.7280 18.5000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 294,071 98,023.5 0.00000 0.00000 5,227.20
5.6. Dust Mitigation
441
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 43 / 52
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 23,000.0 0.00000
Site Preparation 0.00000 0.00000 15.0000 0.00000 0.00000 Grading 5,700.00 0.00000 70.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2.00000
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%
5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Paving Parking Lot 2.00000 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00000 588.983 0.03300 0.00400
2027 0.00000 588.983 0.03300 0.00400
2028 0.00000 588.983 0.03300 0.00400
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
442
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 44 / 52
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 986.400 1,200.12 982.290 370,966 10,643.1 12,949.1 10,598.8 4,002,671 Parking Lot 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Condo/Townhouse Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Gas Fireplaces 137 137
Condo/Townhouse Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse No Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Parking Lot Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Parking Lot Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Parking Lot Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Parking Lot Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Parking Lot No Fireplaces 0 0
Parking Lot Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Parking Lot Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Parking Lot Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Parking Lot Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
443
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 45 / 52
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
294,071 98,023.5 0.00000 0.00000 5,227.20
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 250.000
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 565,722 588.983 0.0330 0.0040 2,817,368 Parking Lot 76,317.1 588.983 0.0330 0.0040 0.00000
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 5,141,014 2,018,074
Parking Lot 0.00000 0.00000
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
444
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 46 / 52
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 101.243 0.00000
Parking Lot 0.00000 0.00000
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
445
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 47 / 52
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Proposed project consists of building townhomes with 137 dwelling units, 127,400 square feet of landscaped area, and 85 outdoor parking spaces. The total proposed site area is approximately 8.44 acres.
Construction: Construction Phases Demolition phase has been adjusted to reflect the proposed construction timeline.
Construction: Off-Road Equipment The default construction equipment list has been modified to align with project conditions.
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation rates are adjusted based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Operations: Fleet Mix Fleet mix has been adjusted to reflect a total of 2% heavy trucks (GVWR > 10,000 lbs.).
Operations: Hearths Per SCAQMD Rule 445, no woodburning devices shall be allowed.
8.3. Land Use
446
Pacific Park Drive Townhome Project Custom Report, 4/6/2026 48 / 52
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 8.56250 6.44000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 127,400
Lot Area acre 0.76500 2.00000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 0.00000
8.4. Construction
8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Demolition Demolition End Date 10/29/2026 11/18/2026
Demolition Demolition Work Days per Phase 20.0000 35.0000 Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 10/30/2026 11/19/2026 Site Preparation Site Preparation End Date 11/13/2026 12/2/2026 Grading Grading Start Date 11/14/2026 12/3/2026
Grading Grading End Date 12/12/2026 12/30/2026
Building Construction Building Construction Start Date 12/13/2026 12/31/2026 Building Construction Building Construction End Date 10/31/2027 11/17/2027 Paving Paving Start Date 11/1/2027 11/18/2027
Paving Paving End Date 11/29/2027 12/15/2027
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 11/30/2027 12/16/2027 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating End Date 12/28/2027 1/12/2028