Vista City Council
September 23, 2025

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:

PH1 - P24-0139 – Monte Vista Residential – California West Communities The project applicant, California West Communities, is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Site Development Plan, and a Density Bonus to construct 19 single -family homes on a 6.47 acre site located at 1800 Monte Vista Drive (APN 181-022-05-00). The project qualifies for exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for projects that are consistent with a community plan or zoning.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2025-09, recommending approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Site Development Plan, and a Density Bonus to construct 19 single -family homes on a 6.47 acre site located at 1800 Monte Vista Drive (APN 181-022-05- 00).

Senior Planner Chris Winters provided the staff presentation.

Planning Commission questions:
• What is the difference between the Program EIR (PEIR) and Project Analysis? • Are the proposed lots smaller than required by the E-1 zone due to concessions granted by the State?
• Does the air quality study cover construction as well as future residents? What is a failing intersection?
• Why not have the HOA maintain the open space? Why is it not given its own lot designation?
• Could a higher density project have been proposed?
• Are the accessory units proposed as ADUs or JADUs?

Applicant provided a presentation to the Commission.

Applicant and Staff provided responses to the above questions from the Commission.

Chair De Jesus opened the meeting for public comments.

SPEAKERS:
• The following speakers were opposed to the project:

Oscar Vass Kristen Gulli Keith Andrew Deborah Brandt Nicolette Dante Penny Harrington Steve Harrington Scott Martin Jennifer Benitez Cynthia Skultety Scott Harrison

• The following speakers were in favor of the project:

Jacob Aldridge Rachel Beld

Chair De Jesus closed the public hearing.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 185 of 386

DRA
F
T

M
I
N
U
T
E
S
Planning Commission - Minutes
June 17, 2025

Planning Commission discussion:
• Did the applicant find any failing intersections in the vicinity of the project site? o The roadway and intersection of the proposed project operate at level service B, which is considered an acceptable level of service. The study found that this project did not worsen the existing intersection. o Applicant met with Principal and Assistant Principal to discuss the impact of the proposed project on the adjacent Monte Vista Elementary. Widening of the roadway, speed limit signage, and striping have been suggested to mitigate safety concerns.
• Once the street improvements are complete on Monte Vista Drive, will parking be allowed for school or residential traffic?
o The roadway section will not have street parking. Upon full development, Monte Vista Drive would have a bicycle lane.
• Comments on SB330 and State ADU law limiting Planning Commission discretion. • Can a condition be imposed requiring the HOA to ensure garages remain open and available for parking?
o State ADU law would override this condition as the garages could be converted to ADUs in the future.
• How many on-street parking spaces will be available inside the development? o Between 14-18 spaces depending on car size.
• Is this project exempt from CEQA? How was this determined? o Yes, the project conducted a CEQA checklist analysis. • Can the roadway handle additional capacity?
o A level service of B allows for additional capacity. The City Traffic Engineer confirmed to staff that the project would have a negligible impact on traffic operations and that the project would provide an improved line of sight. • Comments regarding State laws and their contribution to “urban sprawl.”

CMNR. GRIMM MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-09, SECONDED BY VICE

CHAIR MARTIN

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2025-09, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, AND A DENSITY BONUS TO CONSTRUCT 19 SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES ON A 6.47 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1800 MONTE
VISTA DRIVE (APN 181-022-05-00).

MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED: Vote 5-1 (Cmnr. Jolliff opposed, Cmnr. Hastings absent)

Chair De Jesus called for recess at 7:30PM.

Chair De Jesus called the meeting to order at 7:38PM.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 186 of 386

DRA
F
T

M
I
N
U
T
E
S
Planning Commission - Minutes
June 17, 2025

PH2 - P24-0311 – Caritas Village – Caritas Corporation
The project applicant, Caritas Corporation, is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan to construct a 100% affordable housing development consisting of 24 apartment homes on a

1.07 acre site located at 220 Camino Corto (APN 163-300-08-00). The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15332 – In Fill Development Projects. The proposed project meets the following five in-fill conditions of Class 32 exemptions: (a) it would be consistent with the applicable designations and policies of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; (b) it would be developed within City limits on a site no more than five acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required public utilities and services.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution 2025-10, recommending approval of a Site Development Plan to construct a 100% affordable housing development consisting of 24 apartment homes on a 1.07 acre site located at 220 Camino Corto (APN 163-300-08-00).

Senior Planner Chris Winters provided the staff presentation.

Applicant provided a presentation to the Commission.

Planning Commission questions and discussion:
• Is the parcel part of the mobile home park or separate? Would they be required to submit a parcel map if they wanted to sell the project? • Appreciation of the solar and EV charging, as well as shared community space.

Chair De Jesus opened the meeting for public comments.

SPEAKERS:
• The following speakers were in favor of the project:

Jacob Aldridge
• The following speakers were opposed to the project:

Virginia Roberts Jim Noble

Chair De Jesus closed the public hearing.

Planning Commission discussion:
• Appreciation of the public input to the project despite State laws limiting discretion. • Can the applicant add a variation in roof height on the rear elevation? o A condition of approval will be added to modify the architectural elements. • Are there any requirements to add a barrier between the development and the adjacent single-family residence?
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 187 of 386

DRA
F
T

M
I
N
U
T
E
S
Planning Commission - Minutes
June 17, 2025

o There is no City-imposed requirement, but the applicant has proposed a vinyl fence as a separation.
• Appreciation of the 100% affordability, provided parking, and street improvements. • Will there be a sidewalk?
o Yes, as well as a short retaining wall and landscaping on the street frontage.

CMNR. GRIMM MOTIONS TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-10 WITH A CONDITION

TO MODIFY THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE EAST (REAR) ELEVATION,

SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR MARTIN

ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2025-10, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 100%
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 24
APARTMENT HOMES ON A 1.07 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 220
CAMINO CORTO (APN 163-300-08-00).

MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED: Vote 6-0 (Cmnr. Hastings absent)

Chair De Jesus called for recess at 8:17PM

Chair De Jesus called the meeting to order at 8:19PM

EARLY DESIGN REVIEWS:

EDR 1 – P24-0053 – Cassera – Ambient Communities
Early Design Review of a preliminary proposal to develop a multi-family residential project consisting of 141 apartment units, inclusive of 22 affordable units, and a ground floor parking garage on a 2.38-acre site located on the north side of S. Santa Fe Avenue, between Postal Way and Monte Vista Drive, addressed as 1070 S. Santa Fe Avenue (APN 180 -310-15-00).

The project proposes a single five-story building with both covered and uncovered parking facilities, private and common recreation areas, landscaping, and associated site improvements.

Junior Planner Daisy Diep provided the staff presentation.

Applicant provided a presentation to the Commission.

Planning Commission discussion:
• A request for the trees to be placed on the street side, in between the building and the cars.
• Appreciation of the design, the affordability, and the parking on the street level as a buffer between the front of the building and Santa Fe Avenue. • Appreciation of the mix of floorplans and sizing of available units. • Concerns with the height of the building, cantilevering, and setbacks. • Request to consider mixed-use for the project.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 188 of 386

DRA
F
T

M
I
N
U
T
E
S
Planning Commission - Minutes
June 17, 2025

SPEAKERS
• The following speaker was in favor of the project:

Jacob Aldridge

NO VOTE IS REQUIRED ON THIS ITEM

EDR 2 – P25-0095 – Pepper Tree Mixed-Use Development – Vista Pepper Tree Owner, LLC
Early Design Review for a proposed Site Development Plan to demolish four existing commercial buildings and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 109 apartment units and two retail commercial spaces on an approximately 1.3 -acre site located at 270 S.

Santa Fe Avenue (APNs 175-303-01,02,08,09, and 10). The proposed building would be five stories in height including ground level parking. The plan also includes common open space and associated site improvements.

City Planner Michael Ressler provided the staff presentation.

Applicant and Property Owner provided a presentation to the Planning Commission.

SPEAKERS
• The following speakers were in favor of the project:

Jacob Aldridge Rachel Beld Lauren Fehlhaber
• The following speakers were in opposition to the project:

Karl Philip Miethke Helen Wade Heidi Hiht Dorri Quiroz • The following speakers were neutral to the project:

Maricela Bowman Beas

Planning Commission discussion:
• Appreciation of the mixed-use designation, art, wishing well, common open space, and creek walk.
• Will the flower shop be included in the future project? o If current tenants are available upon completion, they are welcome to stay in the project.
• A request for more parking, sound attenuation, design variation of the back of the building, kitchen design changes, and more one or two-bedroom units. • Has there been a historic resources study on the Peppertree Frosty site? o There has been a preliminary study and based on the modifications made to the buildings the historic significance has gone away and there is nothing to preserve.

NO VOTE IS REQUIRED ON THIS ITEM

REPORTS/COMMENTS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS
• None

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 189 of 386

DRA
F
T

M
I
N
U
T
E
S
Planning Commission - Minutes
June 17, 2025

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PATSY CHOW
• No meetings in the month of July.
• A reminder of SB 1439 – Levine Act disclosures as part of planning applications moving forward.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chair De Jesus adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.

SECRETARY
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 190 of 386

Monte Vista Residential
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Environmental Review Checklist
April 2025 | 02951.00042.001
Prepared for:

California West Communities
5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 9194209/23/2025 PH1 Page 191 of 386

This page intentionally left blank
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 192 of 386

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

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

1.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 General Plan PEIR Background............................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Project Components ........................................................................................................... 2

3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 5

4.0 SECTION 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 8

4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 9

4.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 20

4.5 Climate Change ................................................................................................................. 29

4.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 31

4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 35

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 39

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 44

4.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing .................................................................................. 51

4.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 56

4.12 Noise and Vibration .......................................................................................................... 57

4.13 Public Services and Recreation ......................................................................................... 62

4.14 Transportation and Circulation ......................................................................................... 69

4.15 Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 73

5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 79

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 193 of 386

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2 4 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................ 22

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 16 2 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 16

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 194 of 386

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

BMPs best management practices
BPO Biological Preserve Overlay
BSD Buena Sanitation District

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
City City of Vista
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
County County of San Diego
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

dBA A-weighted decibel
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIR Environmental Impact Report
E-1 Estates Residential

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPA Focused Planning Area
FTA Federal Transit Administration

General Plan City of Vista General Plan 2030
GHG greenhouse gas

HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

LD Low Density Residential
LOS level of service
LTS less than significant
LTSM less than significant with mitigation

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 195 of 386

iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
MRZ mineral resource zone
MS4 Permit municipal separate storm sewer system permit MT metric tons
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NI no impact
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OA Opportunity Areas
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PPV peak particle velocity
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RTP SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SCH State Clearinghouse
SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SF square foot
SIP State Implementation Plan
SR State Route
SU significant and unavoidable
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCA Traditionally Culturally Affiliated
VFD Vista Fire Department
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VID Vista Irrigation District
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VUSD Vista Unified School District
WSA Water Service Agreement
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 196 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides the environmental review for the Monte Vista Project (project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project proposes residential development in the City of Vista (City) consistent with the planned land use for the site in the City General Plan. The environmental effects of development under the City General Plan were previously considered in a certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). As such, the following evaluation was performed to determine if the conditions specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 would require the preparation of additional CEQA review for the proposed project. The checklist contained in Section 4 of this document demonstrates that the project is exempt from further environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

1.1 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provide an exemption from additional environmental review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b) specifies that examination of environmental effects for a project consistent with the development density established in the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan shall be limited to those effects that:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts, which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information, that was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c) further specifies that if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the proposed project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for that project solely based on that impact.

1.2 GENERAL PLAN PEIR BACKGROUND
The Vista General Plan 2030 (General Plan) was adopted in 2012 and includes a land use plan for the City. Potential environmental effects of development consistent with this land use plan, including circulation features and other public facilities, to serve projected population growth were disclosed in the Vista General Plan 2030 Update Program EIR (herein referred to as “the PEIR”) (City 2012; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2009121028). The PEIR provided the public and responsible trustee agencies with information about the probable environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the comprehensive update for the General Plan. In addition, the PEIR identified General Plan policies and 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 197 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
2 implementation programs that would reduce those potential effects as well as any additional mitigation measures necessary to minimize significant impacts to the environment. The City adopted the General Plan and certified associated PEIR on February 28, 2012.

The General Plan’s Housing Element 2021-2029 was amended and adopted by the Vista City Council on June 28, 2022, in compliance with state law (City 2022a; City 2022b). The updated Housing Element addresses Citywide development standards and changes in state law that facilitate housing development, including the State Density Bonus Law. No significant environmental impacts were identified as resulting from the updated Housing Element (City 2021).

The PEIR, including the Draft PEIR, Final PEIR, and all associated appendices, is hereby incorporated by reference. The PEIR is available at: https://www.cityofvista.com/departments/community- development/permits-forms/vista-general-plan-2030.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is proposed on a 6.47-acre site at 1800 Monte Vista Drive in the City of Vista in the northern portion of the County of San Diego (County). The site is comprised of one parcel with Assessor’s Parcel Number 181-022-05-00. Existing development on the site includes two vacant, single-family residences with surrounding accessory structures. Since the preparation of this document and project technical studies began, the homes were demolished. The residences were not rental units and were not subject to a rent restriction or occupied by lower or very low-income houses in the previous five years. A remaining unpaved driveway provided access to the residences from Monte Vista Drive.

The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LD) and is zoned as Estates Residential (E-1). The project site is at the eastern edge of the City, bordered by land to the north and east that is within unincorporated San Diego County but within the City sphere of influence.

Land uses surrounding the site include single-family residential to the north, east, and south; Monte Vista Elementary School to the west; and open space to the north. Refer to Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph.

2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project proposes a Site Development Plan and a Tentative Subdivision Map to construct 19 single- family residences, including two very low-income housing units, using a density bonus. The existing residences on the site have been demolished, and the site would be divided into 21 lots. The 19 residential lots would range in size from 5,855 square feet (SF) to 50,685 SF. The two remaining lots would contain a stormwater treatment vault and a private street to provide access to each of the proposed residences. Refer to Figure 3, Site Plan.

Each residential lot would contain a single-family residence with an enclosed two-car garage. The proposed building designs would feature a variety of elevational treatments, including offsets, decks, trellises, and rooflines, to provide both vertical and horizontal interest. The buildings would be constructed as typical Type IV structures, and the buildings would not exceed 32 feet in height. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 198 of 386

!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!!
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
Aò
POWAY

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
VISTA

ESCONDIDO
OTAY

CHULA VISTA
SANTEE

SANMARCOS

ENCINITAS

EL CAJON

LA MESA

CORONADO NATIONAL
CITY

IMPERIAL
BEACH
LEMON
GROVE
SOLANA
BEACH

DEL MAR
SAN
DIEGO

CAMP PENDLETON
Lake
San Marcos
Lake
Hodges
Lake Wohlford
Lake Ramona
Lake Poway
Miramar Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Lake
Murray
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lake
Jennings
Otay
Reservoir
Pacific
Ocean
San

D
ieg
o

B
ay
Santee
Lakes
Sutherland
Reservoir
Lake Henshaw
El Capitan Reservoir
Loveland Reservoir
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
Barrett Lake

TIJUANA

UNITED STATES
MEXICO

DULZURA
JULIAN
RAMONA

WARNERSPRINGS

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY

ALPINELA
JOLLA
?¹

FALLBROOK
Project Site
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
C
\
C
A
W
e
s
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
_
0 2
9 5
1 \
0 0
0 3
8 _
M
o
n
t
e
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
\
M
a
p
\
1 5
1 83C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
\
1 5
1 8
3 C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
.
a
p
r
x

0 2
9 5
1 .
0 0
0 3
9 .
0 0
1 9
/
1 3
/
2 0
2 4

-
D
Y
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)K
Monte Vista Residential Project
0 8 Miles
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 199 of 386

Monte Vista Dr
Val
ley
Dr
Ra
n
g
e

V
i
e
w

R
d
Tre
s

N
i
n
o
s

C
t
e
El C
r
u
e
r
o

C
t
Gid
d
i
n
g
s

R
a
n
c
h

R
d
Figure 2
Aerial Photograph
I:\P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
C
\
C
A
W
e
s
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
_
0 2
9 5
1 \
0 0
0 3
8 _
M
o
n
t
e
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
\
M
a
p
\
1 5
1 8
3 C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
\
1 5
1 8
3 C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
.
a
p
r
x

0 2
9 5
1 .
0 0
0 3
9 .
0 0
1 9
/
1 3
/
2 0
2 4

-
D
Y
Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023)K
Monte Vista Residential Project
0 200 Feet
Project Site
City/County Municipal Boundary
Monte Vista
Elementary School
Open Space
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
CIT
Y

O
F

V
I
S
T
A
SA
N

D
I
E
G
O

C
O
U
N
T
Y
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 200 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project
I:\P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
C
\
C
A
W
e
s
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
_
0 2
9 5
1 \
0 0
0 3
8 _
M
o
n
t
e
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
\
M
a
p
\
1 5
1 8
3 C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
\
F
i
g
3 _
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
i
n
d
d
02 9
5 1
.
0 0
0 4
2 .
0 0
1 9
/
4 /
2 4

-
D
Y
Site Plan
Figure 3
Source: BHA,, Inc. (2024)
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 201 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
3 As the project would provide two affordable housing units designated for very low-income households, the project qualifies for a density bonus and associated concessions or waivers pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and Vista Municipal Code Section 18.90. Concessions or waivers for the project are requested to deviate from the E-1 zone standards for setbacks within the lots and minimum lot size, as well as to waive the requirement for the undergrounding of overhead utilities along the project frontage. The project also requests the application of reduced parking standards under the State Density Bonus Law and waivers or reductions of any development standards that may physically preclude the project from being constructed as proposed, including common open space requirements.

Development of the proposed project would include the construction of utility connections, drainage improvements, and circulation elements. Water and sewer main connections would be made in Monte Vista Drive and pipelines would be constructed within the private street to connect to each residence. A stormwater treatment vault would be constructed at the southwest corner of the site and would outlet to a storm drain traversing the south and southeast edges of the project site. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site and would consist of a combination of ornamental and native evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, vines, and perennials.

On-site circulation would be provided via a private street from Monte Vista Drive to each of the proposed residential driveways. Off-site circulation improvements would consist of the construction of half-width improvements of Monte Vista Drive to a 2-Lane Light Collector along the project frontage.

The General Plan plans for this segment of Monte Vista Drive to be improved to a 2-Lane Light Collector, which is typically a 2-lane roadway with a 60-foot right-of-way, including a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet and a minimum eight-foot shoulder to serve as a parking lane, bicycle lane, or shoulder.

Conditions of Project Approval
The applicable mitigation measures from the PEIR are listed in Section 4 of this report under the applicable issue areas and would be implemented as conditions of project approval. In addition, the following conditions of approval would be applied to the project. These conditions of approval implement mitigation measures identified in the PEIR and/or are uniformly applied to development policies or standards in the City.

COA-BI-1. The project shall adhere to the site-specific measures identified in the Biological Resources Letter Report, which provides the site-specific measures to implement PEIR mitigation measures M-BI-1, M-BI-3, and M-BI-5 according to the habitat assessments conducted pursuant to PEIR mitigation measures M-B-1 and M-B-3.

COA-C-1. Archaeological and Tribal cultural resource mitigation monitoring shall be conducted to provide for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural and tribal resources that are affected by or may be discovered during the construction of the proposed project. The monitoring shall consist of the full-time presence of a Qualified Archaeologist and a traditionally and culturally affiliated (TCA) Native American Monitor associated with a TCA tribe for, but not limited to, any clearing or grubbing of vegetation, tree removal, demolition and/or removal of remnant foundations, pavements, abandonment and/or installation of infrastructure; grading or any other ground-disturbing or altering activities, including the placement of imported fill materials (note: all fill materials shall be absent of any cultural resources); and related off-site road improvements or utility installations. Other tasks of the monitoring program shall include the following:
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 202 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
4 • The requirement for cultural resource mitigation monitoring shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including demolition plans, grading plans, etc. • The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American Monitor shall attend all applicable pre- construction meetings with the Contractor and/or associated Subcontractors. • The Qualified Archaeologist shall maintain ongoing collaborative consultation with the TCA Native American monitor during all ground-disturbing or ground-altering activities, as identified above.
• The Qualified Archaeologist and/or TCA Native American monitor may halt ground-disturbing activities if cultural or tribal cultural resources are discovered. In general, ground-disturbing activities shall be directed away from these deposits for a short time to allow a determination of potential significance, the subject of which shall be determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor, in consultation with the Consulting Tribes for the project.

Ground disturbing activities shall not resume until the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native American monitor, deems the tribal cultural resource or feature has been appropriately documented and/or protected.
• At the Qualified Archaeologist's discretion, the location of ground-disturbing activities may be relocated elsewhere on the project site to avoid further disturbance of cultural resources. • The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and significant cultural and tribal cultural resources and/or unique tribal resources is the preferable mitigation for the proposed project. If avoidance is not feasible a Data Recovery Plan may be authorized by the City as the Lead Agency under CEQA. If data recovery is required, then the Consulting Tribes shall be notified and consulted in drafting and finalizing any such recovery plan.

COA-C-2. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, and subject to the approval of terms by the City, the Applicant or Owner, and/or Contractor shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement with a TCA tribe. A copy of the signed Agreement shall be forwarded to the City Planner. The purpose of this agreement shall be to formalize protocols and procedures between the Applicant or Owner, and/or Contractor, and the TCA tribe for the protection and treatment of, but not limited to, such items as Native American human remains, funerary objects, cultural and religious landscapes, ceremonial items, traditional gathering areas, and cultural items located and/or discovered through the cultural resource mitigation monitoring program in conjunction with the construction of the proposed project, including additional archaeological surveys and/or studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations, soil surveys, grading, or any other ground-disturbing activities.

COA-C-3. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Applicant or Owner, and/or Contractor shall provide a written and signed letter to the City's Director of Community Development, stating that a Qualified Archaeologist and a TCA Native American Monitor have been retained at the Applicant or Owner and/or Contractor's expense to implement the monitoring program, as described above and/or in the pre-excavation agreement. A copy of the letter shall be included in the Grading Plan Submittals for the Grading Permit.

COA-C-4. Prior to the release of the Grading Bond, a Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the cultural resource mitigation monitoring efforts 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 203 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
5 (such as, but not limited to, a Research Design, Data Recovery Program, etc.) shall be submitted by the Qualified Archaeologist, along with the TCA Native American monitor's notes and comments, to the City's Director of Community Development for approval.

COA-C-5. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all tribal cultural resources collected during the cultural resource mitigation monitoring conducted during all ground-disturbing activities, and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the TCA tribe for respectful and dignified treatment and disposition in accordance with the Tribe's cultural and spiritual traditions. All tribal cultural materials that are associated with burial and/or funerary goods will be repatriated to the Most Likely Descendant as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

COA-C-6. Any historic, non-tribal cultural resources that are recovered shall be examined in the archaeological laboratory to determine whether they warrant cataloging, analysis, and curation, or if documentation of such resources is adequate to mitigate impacts. Resources that are cataloged and analyzed shall be curated at an appropriate repository, such as the San Diego Archaeological Center.

COA-C-7. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Coroner's office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by State law, the Coroner would determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. If Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ ("in place'') or in a secure location close to where they were found, and the analysis of the remains shall only occur on- site in the presence of a TCA Native American monitor.

COA-N-1. The project applicant must demonstrate compliance of the proposed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment with the property line noise limits provided in Vista Municipal Code Section 8.32.040 for internal property lines in the E-1 zone.

3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The project is consistent with the analysis performed for the General Plan in the PEIR (SCH No. 2009121028). The PEIR adequately anticipated and described the impacts of the project, identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the extent feasible, and the project would implement these mitigation measures as applicable.

A comprehensive environmental evaluation has been completed for the project as documented in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist provided in Section 4 of this report. This evaluation concludes that the project qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review because it is consistent 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 204 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
6 with the development density and use characteristics established by the City’s General Plan, as analyzed in the PEIR, and all required findings can be made. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the project qualifies for an exemption because the following findings can be made:
(1) The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified.

The project would develop a 6.47-acre site with 19 single-family residential units. Under the base LD land use designation and E-1 zoning, the allowable density is 2 units per acre or 13 units for the project site. The project is eligible for a density bonus because two of the 19 homes would be dedicated to very low-income housing, consistent with the State Density Bonus Law, Section 18.90 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City’s General Plan and its Housing Element, and the General Plan PEIR.

The City’s density bonus regulations are incorporated as Section 18.90 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Therefore, a project that receives a density bonus and otherwise complies with the applicable zoning requirements is consistent with the density provided in the applicable zoning designation. The density bonus regulations state that the granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted in and of itself to require a General Plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval. (Vista Municipal Code Section 18.90.070 (A))
This is consistent with the State Density Bonus Law, which states that the granting of a density bonus “shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval” (Gov. Code Sec 65915(f)(5)). This is also consistent with the State Housing Accountability Act, which provides, “the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision” (Government Code Section 65915(j)(3)).

Similarly, a project that provides affordable housing and receives a density bonus is consistent with the goals of the General Plan to provide affordable housing of varied housing types within the City. (2) There are no project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site, and which the PEIR failed to analyze as significant effects.

The project site has similar characteristics to other properties in the surrounding area, and there are no project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. The project site is in an area developed with similar uses, including residential homes to the north, south, and east, and an elementary school to the west. The project would not impact any resources peculiar to the site and would not result in any peculiar effects. In addition, as explained further in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, all project impacts were adequately analyzed by the PEIR. Any potentially significant project impacts would be mitigated and the impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures specified in the PEIR, which have been made conditions of approval for the project, and by uniformly applied development policies or standards.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 205 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
7 (3) There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that the PEIR failed to evaluate.

The project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of development on the site considered by the PEIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecasted for buildout of the City in accordance with the General Plan. Off-site impacts of the project associated with utility and circulation improvements also occur within the development area analyzed in the PEIR. The PEIR considered the incremental impacts of the project in combination with buildout of the General Plan and, as explained further in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, no potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts related to the project have been identified which were not previously disclosed in the PEIR.
(4) There is no substantial new information that results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the PEIR.

As explained in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, no new information has been identified that would result in a more severe impact from the project than what was anticipated in the PEIR. (5) The project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the PEIR.

As explained in the Section 15183 Exemption Checklist below, the project would incorporate all relevant, feasible mitigation measures specified in the PEIR. These PEIR mitigation measures would be required through the project’s conditions of approval. The project would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and ordinances that prevent adverse environmental effects.

Signature Date

Printed name For

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 206 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
8 4.0 SECTION 15183 EXEMPTION CHECKLIST
As described above, the proposed project is consistent with the development density identified for the site in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b), the following checklist provides an analysis of potential impacts of the project focusing on potential effects that:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts, which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan, or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information, was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.

This checklist indicates the impact significance conclusion for the General Plan at the program level identified in the PEIR and identifies mitigation measures in the PEIR that apply to the proposed project.

Some mitigation measures may be required by the PEIR regardless of the proposed project’s individual impact. Impacts for the PEIR are identified as significant and unavoidable (SU), less than significant with mitigation (LTSM), less than significant (LTS), or no impact (NI).

Environmental effects of the project are evaluated to determine if it would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 using the following criteria, as summarized in the table at the beginning of each environmental issue area:
• “Effect Peculiar to Project or Site?” indicates that the project could result in a peculiar impact, including a physical change that belongs exclusively or especially to the project or that is a distinctive characteristic of the project or the project site, and that peculiar impact is not substantially mitigated by the imposition of PEIR mitigation or other uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1), (c), (f)). • “New Significant Effect?” indicates that the project could result in a significant effect that was not analyzed as significant in the PEIR. Such a project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2), (c), (f)). • “New Significant Offsite, Cumulative Impact?” indicates the project could result in a significant offsite or cumulative impact that was not discussed in the PEIR. Such an offsite or cumulative project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(3), (c), (f)). • “New Information, More Severe Adverse Impact?” indicates that there is new information that leads to a determination that the project impact is more severe than discussed in the PEIR. Such an impact is not more severe if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4), (c), (f)). 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 207 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
9 If none of these items is checked, the project would have “no new impact,” which indicates that potential project impacts were adequately analyzed in the PEIR.

Below each checklist, further explanations of the PEIR conclusion and project-level comparative impacts are provided. Except in the case of new regulations or other guidance applicable to the project, the thresholds of significance used in the certified PEIR are considered for the analysis of project impacts.

4.1 AESTHETICS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Have a substantially
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Substantially degrade
the existing visual
character or quality of
the site and its
surroundings?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Create a new source
of substantial light or
glare that would
adversely affect day
or nighttime views in
the area?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings
within a state scenic
highway?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project have an adverse effect on a scenic vista? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that as a result of the implementation of the City’s Design Guidelines and General Plan policies (Land Use and Community Identity Element Policies 1.2, 2.1,

2.5, and OA-5.1), the General Plan Update would not result in a substantial adverse effect on existing scenic views and impacts would be less than significant. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 208 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
10 Project Analysis
No new impact. According to the PEIR, the project site is within Viewshed 1, where scenic vistas from the City include views to the San Marcos Mountains in the east/northeast. For motorists traveling on Monte Vista Drive in front of the project site, limited views of the peaks of the San Marcos Mountains are available, given the topography and existing development of the surrounding area. The project proposes residences up to 32 feet in height, and as anticipated in the PEIR, the San Marcos Mountains would remain visible, though obscured, in the background. The project would also comply with applicable Design Guidelines (City 2017) and General Plan policies, including Land Use and Community Identity Element Policies 1.2, 2.1, 2.5, and OA-5.1, which require consideration of existing visual character and pedestrian-oriented design. The proposed concessions or waivers to deviate from the standard lot size and setbacks for the project’s zone would not substantially alter scenic vistas in the project area. As such, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista peculiar to the project or site, a new significant impact not analyzed in the PEIR or which is the result of new information, or a new off-site or cumulative impact. Potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in the PEIR.
2) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in significant, adverse changes to the visual character of the City as land use changes and associated changes in visual character were primarily anticipated to occur in Opportunity Areas identified in the General Plan Update. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site does not occur within an Opportunity Area, and no change in the land use designation of the site is proposed. The project would redevelop the site with 19 single-family residences in place of the two previously existing residences and accessory structures in an area primarily developed with similar single-family residences. Consistent with the analysis in the PEIR, the project would be constructed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines, which would result in the provision of a visually attractive development compatible with its surroundings. Potential impacts from the project have been adequately evaluated in the PEIR. 3) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in significant, adverse changes to daytime or nighttime views in the area. The majority of new development would be in areas with existing sources of light and glare, and future projects would further minimize impacts by complying with the City’s Design Guidelines and General Plan policies (Land Use and Community Identity Element Policies OA-A, 2.6, and 3.2), which require responsible lighting practices. Impacts were found to be less than significant. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 209 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
11 Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is surrounded by existing development, including single-family residences to the north, east, and south and Monte Vista Elementary School to the west. Consistent with the analysis in the PEIR, the project would be constructed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines, General Plan policies regarding pedestrian safety and public disturbance, and Municipal Code regulations (including Section 18.58.260, Outdoor Lighting Facilities, and/or Fixtures) to minimize lighting impacts. Impacts would be consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR, and the project would result in no new impact.
4)Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that this threshold does not apply to the General Plan Update, as there are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City. State Route (SR) 76, which parallels the City boundary approximately 1.5 miles to the north, is an eligible state scenic highway. However, the portions of SR 76 that run north of the City are located in the developed areas of the County of San Diego (including Bonsall) and the City of Oceanside. The PEIR concluded that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a state scenic highway. Therefore, impacts would be consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR, and the project would result in no new impact on scenic resources visible from a scenic highway.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 210 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
12 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) 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?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) 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))?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Result in the loss of
forest land or
conversion of forest
land to non-forest
use?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 211 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
13 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
5) 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?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

The PEIR addressed the thresholds above in a single summary discussion in PEIR Chapter 5, Effects Determined Not to Be Significant. Therefore, the project analysis below is performed at a similar level of detail as the discussion in the PEIR to provide a comparative analysis.

PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that the majority of land within the General Plan Update area is identified as Urban and Built-Up Land under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), and any existing agricultural uses would be preserved under the Rural Residential land use designation.

Additionally, no Williamson Act lands occur within the General Plan Update area, and no impacts to agricultural resources would occur.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project site is not Williamson Act land. The project site is classified as Other Land under the FMMP (California Department of Conservation 2022), which characterizes land that does not fit into any other category, such as low-density rural developments, vegetated areas not suitable for livestock grazing, and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. The project site does not contain agricultural uses, and no impacts to agricultural resources would occur, consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 212 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
14 4.3 AIR QUALITY
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Where available, the
significance criteria
established by the
applicable air quality
management district or air
pollution control district
may be relied upon to
make the following
determinations. Would
the project:

1) Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of
the applicable air
quality management
plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Violate any air quality
standard or
contribute
substantially to an
existing or projected
air quality violation?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
M-AQ-1a
through
M-AQ-1c
3) 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
(including the release
of emissions that
exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
M-AQ-1a
through
M-AQ-1c
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 213 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
15 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
4) Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Create objectionable
odors affecting a
substantial number of
people?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not obstruct the implementation of the San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or the State Implementation Plan (SIP) despite its exceedance of 2030 growth projections from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The General Plan Update prioritizes mixed-use development and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City. Therefore, the PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project proposes the development of 19 single-family homes on one parcel zoned E-1. No change to the project site land use or zoning designation is proposed, and the project is therefore consistent with the growth projections assumed in the RAQS and SIP, which have been updated since the adoption of the General Plan. Additionally, as discussed in Threshold 2 below, the project’s construction and operational activities would not result in pollutant emissions in excess of applicable thresholds. The project would have no peculiar or cumulative impacts related to obstructing the implementation of the applicable air quality plans, and impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR.
2) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in construction and operational emissions that would exceed the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD’s) screening level thresholds, and impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation measures M-AQ-1a through M-AQ-1c require dust control measures, construction exhaust control measures, and VOC-free architectural coatings; however, construction-related emissions associated with 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 214 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
16 future projects may still exceed SDAPCD’s screening level thresholds. Therefore, impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Project Analysis
No new impact. Project emissions were calculated in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as described in the project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (HELIX 2024a). Mitigation measures M-AQ-1a through M-AQ-1c are required for all development under the General Plan and were therefore incorporated into the project’s emissions modeling. Construction and operational emissions would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds, as shown in Table 1, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 2, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, below. The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing air quality violation and would have no peculiar or cumulative impacts related to air quality violations. As such, the project is consistent with the findings in the PEIR and would result in no new impact.

Table 1

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emission (pounds per day)
Year VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2025 5.7 50.5 57.8 0.1 9.2 5.2
2026 1.1 9.9 13.3 <0.1 0.5 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.7 50.5 57.8 0.1 9.2 5.2
SDAPCD Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (complete model outputs are provided in Attachment A) VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SDAPCD = San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Table 2

MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emission (pounds per day)
Emission Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 1.3 <0.1 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Mobile 0.7 0.5 4.7 <0.1 1.0 0.3
Maximum Daily Emissions1 2.0 0.6 5.9 <0.1 1.0 0.3
SDAPCD Thresholds 137 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (complete model outputs are provided in Attachment A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SDAPCD = San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 215 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
17 3) Would the project 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 (including the release of emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. As described in Threshold 2 above, the PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would have a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to increases in criteria pollutants above applicable thresholds. As such, the General Plan was considered to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in pollutants for which the region is non-attainment. While mitigation measures M-AQ-1a through M-AQ-1c were identified to reduce construction emissions, the PEIR concluded impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Project Analysis
No new impact. Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds, and the project would therefore not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in any criteria pollutant for the region. Additionally, the project would implement mitigation measures M-AQ-1a through M-AQ- 1c from the PEIR, which require dust control measures, construction exhaust control measures, and VOC-free architectural coatings to further minimize project emissions during construction. The project would result in no new or unanalyzed impacts compared to the PEIR. 4) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan Update would not result in violations of the state or federal one- or eight-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standards, and impacts related to CO hot spot emissions would be less than significant. However, new development constructed as part of the General Plan Update within proximity of SR 78 has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in the form of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Mitigation measure M-AQ-3 identifies building design measures to be incorporated into the development of sensitive land uses within 500 feet of SR 78 to reduce the effects of TACs; however, it was unknown if health risks would be adequately reduced and impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As described in Section 4.14, Transportation and Circulation, the project would have a less than significant impact on traffic and would not cause delays that would create CO hot spots.

Impacts related to CO hot spot emissions would be less than significant. The project is not within 500 feet of SR 78 and would not be exposed to substantial TAC concentrations from SR 78. Therefore, PEIR mitigation measure M-AQ-3 would not apply. The project is a residential development that would not contain, create, or be located near any other substantial source of TACs, such as a large gas station, a typical gas dispensing facility, or a dry-cleaning facility that uses perchloroethylene. Project impacts, including off-site and cumulative effects, would be less than significant for these reasons. As such, no new impact would occur compared to the PEIR.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 216 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
18 5) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors because the City does not contain land uses associated with odor complaints, such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and manufacturing. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is a residential development that would not contain land uses typically associated with foul odors. Any odors produced during construction would be temporary in nature and would be further minimized with the implementation of mitigation measures M-AQ-1a through M-AQ- 1c, which require dust control measures, construction exhaust control measures, and VOC-free architectural coatings. Impacts would consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR, and the project would result in no new impact.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
M-AQ-1a Construction Dust Control Measures. Future developments shall undergo development review, including CEQA review, and shall evaluate project-specific impacts. Future construction activities shall be required to adhere to SDAPCD Rules and Regulations. These rules include but are not limited to, rules pertaining to visible emissions (Rule 50), limiting nuisance activities (Rule 51), reducing particulate matter (Rule 52), controlling dust and fumes (Rules 54), fugitive dust control (Rule 55), and limits to the VOC content of architectural coatings (Rule 67). Depending on the magnitude of emissions from construction activities, the city may also require measures to reduce or limit exhaust emissions.

For ground disturbance activities for any future development in the city, the on-site construction superintendent shall ensure the implementation of standard BMPs to reduce the emission of fugitive dust, including, but not limited to:
• Water any exposed soil areas a minimum of twice per day, or as allowed under any imposed drought restrictions.
• On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, apply additional water at a frequency to be determined by the on-site construction superintendent.
• Provide temporary hydroseeding and irrigation of cleared vegetation on graded slopes as soon as possible following grading activities in areas that will remain in disturbed condition (but that will not be subject to further construction activities) for a period greater than three months during the construction phase. • Pave or periodically water all on-site access points or apply chemical stabilizers to construction sites.
• Securely cover all transported material to prevent fugitive dust. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 217 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
19 •Operate all vehicles on the construction site at speeds less than 15 mph. •Cover all stockpiles that will not be utilized within three days with plastic or equivalent material, to be determined by the on-site construction superintendent, or spray them with a non-toxic chemical stabilizer.

M-AQ-1b Construction Exhaust Control Measures. The following measures shall be implemented throughout construction to minimize emissions of O3 precursors:
•Turn off all diesel-powered vehicles and gasoline-powered equipment when not in use for more than five minutes.
•Use electric or natural gas–powered construction equipment instead of gasoline or diesel-powered engines, where feasible.
•Use modified equipment incorporating such measures as cooled exhaust gas recirculation or lean-NOX catalysts.
•Require 10 percent of construction fleet to use any combination of diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, and/or CARB-certified Tier III equipment or better.

M-AQ-1c Construction Architectural Coating Measures. The following measures shall be used to minimize emissions of VOCs (an O3 precursor) and ensure compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67:
•Use VOC-free coatings.
•Limit volume usage per day verified with detailed record keeping. •Rent or purchase VOC Emission Reduction Credits.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 218 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
20 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) 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?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
M-BI-1
and M-
BI-2
2) Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or
other sensitive
natural community
identified in local or
regional plans,
policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ M-BI-3
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 219 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
21 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
3) Have a substantial
adverse effect on
federally protected
wetlands, as defined
by CWA Section 404
(including, but not
limited to, marshes
and vernal pools)
through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological
interruption, or other
means?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) 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?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ M-BI-5
5) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a
tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
6) Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state
habitat conservation
plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 220 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
22 1) Would the project 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?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that significant impacts to sensitive species could result from the implementation of the General Plan Update due to the presence of suitable habitat within the City. However, mitigation measure M-BI-1 requires surveys for sensitive species or their habitats and identification of associated site-specific measures to avoid direct or indirect impacts; and mitigation measure M-BI-2 requires bird nest avoidance. The PEIR found these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Project Analysis
No new impact. A preliminary biological survey of the project site was completed by a HELIX biologist in accordance with PEIR mitigation measure M-BI-1, as described in the Biological Resources Letter Report (HELIX 2024b). The proposed project site borders open space to the north and the northern third of the site contains Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern riparian woodland (Figure 4, Sensitive Vegetation Communities). These natural communities have the potential to contain Nuttall’s scrub oak, a sensitive plant species, which has been documented within one mile of the project site. However, Nuttall’s scrub oak was not observed on-site during project surveys. Given the presence of suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher, breeding season surveys for these species were conducted and neither species was detected. Therefore, as discussed further in the Biological Resources Letter Report for the project (HELIX 2024b), no further avoidance measures are required and the implementation of mitigation measure M-BI-1 is complete for the project. PEIR Mitigation Measure M- BI-1 has been satisfied through the preparation of a preliminary biological survey of the project site completed by a HELIX biologist (HELIX 2024b). Site-specific measures required to be included in the report by M-BI-1 will be required to be implemented by COA-BI-1.

No sensitive animal species were observed during the project’s site assessment, but the coastal California gnatcatcher has been recorded just over one mile from the site. Additionally, the non-native grassland on the site has a low potential to support burrowing owls. Coronado skink also has the potential to occur in the project area; however, effects on this species would be limited to temporary displacement of individuals during project construction and no take of the species would occur. While Crotch’s bumble bee was not observed during the preliminary biological survey required by M-BI-1, the project site contains grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats that could provide suitable habitat for this species. As directed by mitigation measure M-BI-1, the Biological Resources Letter Report prepared for the project identified appropriate mitigation for potential impacts to this species and site-specific measures recommended in that report, to be implemented as conditions of project approval (COA-BI-1), incorporate these measures for Crotch’s bumble bee. In addition, as anticipated in the PEIR, the development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests if vegetation clearing occurs during the general bird nesting season, such that compliance with PEIR M-BI-2 is needed.

Therefore, with the implementation of PEIR mitigation measures M-BI-1 (with site-specific measures required through COA-BI-1) and M-BI-2, the project would have no significant impacts to biological resources more severe than identified in the PEIR. No new impacts would result, and the project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 221 of 386

Monte Vista Dr
Ra
n
g
e

V
i
e
w

R
d
Tre
s

N
i
n
o
s

C
t
e
El C
r
u
e
r
o

C
t
Gidd
ings
R
a
n
c
hRd
Figure 4
Sensitive Vegetation Communities
I:\P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
C
\
C
A
W
e
s
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
_
0 2
9 5
1 \
0 0
0 3
8 _
M
o
n
t
e
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
\
M
a
p
\
1 5
1 8
3 C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
\
1 5
1 8
3 C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
.
a
p
r
x

0 2
9 5
1 .
0 0
0 3
9 .
0 0
1 9
/
1 9
/
2 0
2 4

-
D
Y
Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023)K
1800 Monte Vista Drive Biological Due Diligence
0 150 Feet
Project Site
Potential Jurisdictional Feature
Focused Planning Area
Impact
Off-site Impact
Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Non-native Grassland
Southern Riparian Woodland
Non-sensitive Vegetation Communities
Disturbed Habitat
Non-native Vegetation
Urban/Developed
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 222 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
23 2) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that sensitive habitats on vacant parcels throughout the City could be impacted by the buildout of the General Plan Update. While buildout under the General Plan would conform with General Plan policies to minimize biological impacts (Resources Conservation and Sustainability Element Policies 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 6.1 6.2, and 7.3), there is a potential for impacts to be significant due to the flexibility contained within some of the policies.

Mitigation measure M-BI-3 requires a habitat assessment for future development projects and a Biological Resources Letter Report to address project impacts and appropriate mitigation measures if sensitive natural communities are identified. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Analysis
No new impact. In accordance with mitigation measure M-BI-3, a habitat assessment of the project site (as described in the Biological Resources Letter Report) identified the sensitive vegetation communities that would be affected and identified mitigation measures required to reduce potential impacts to the vegetation communities (HELIX 2024b). Two sensitive upland communities, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland, were documented on the project site. Southern riparian woodland, a sensitive wetland/riparian community, was also identified on the project site, but would not be impacted by the project as it occurs in the northern portion that would remain as open space (Figure 4). The Biological Resources Letter Report describes site-specific measures to be implemented as required by a condition of project approval (COA-BI-1) to address the project’s potentially significant impacts on 0.22 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub (disturbed) and 2.05 acres of non-native grassland. These impacts are consistent with the PEIR impact conclusions and the site-specific measures identified in the Biological Resources Letter Report implement the requirements and mitigation framework from PEIR mitigation measure M-BI-3, which would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. These site-specific measures implementing M-BI-3 include the establishment of a mitigation area for Diegan coastal sage scrub as well as establishing staging areas outside of sensitive habitats and the presence of a qualified biologist during buffer delimitation and project construction. Therefore, with the implementation of the PEIR mitigation framework (through COA-BI-1), the project would have no significant impacts on biological resources more severe than those identified in the PEIR. No new impacts would result. 3) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by CWA Section 404 (including, but not limited to, marshes and vernal pools) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that watercourses throughout the City could be impacted by the buildout of the General Plan Update, particularly where wetlands are adjacent to or on developable land. While future development under the General Plan would be required to conform with policies to minimize biological impacts, there is a potential for impacts to remain significant due to the flexibility contained within some of the policies. Mitigation measure M-BI-4 requires a formal jurisdictional delineation if the habitat assessment required under mitigation measure M-BI-1 identifies 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 223 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
24 potential federal and/or state jurisdictional wetlands on or adjacent to a project site. If the jurisdictional delineation identifies jurisdictional wetlands, mitigation measure M-BI-4 further requires compensatory mitigation and permit issuance by the applicable resource agencies. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Analysis
No new impact. While the drainage channel that crosses the northern part of the project site has the potential to be a jurisdictional feature, the project has been designed to avoid impacts on this area and the surrounding riparian habitat. The project is proposed to be constructed in the formerly disturbed southern area of the project site, and no direct impacts to this area would occur. Therefore, mitigation measure M-BI-4 does not apply to the project. In addition, standard best management practices (BMPs) required by the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would prevent indirect impacts associated with construction on the site. Impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these uniform development policies and regulations. Therefore, the project would have no new impacts compared to the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR. 4) Would the project 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?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update could cause impacts to natural open space locations, such as the wetland areas around the San Luis Rey River at Guajome Regional Park and areas associated with the Agua Hedionda Creek, which function as important wildlife corridors. While development under the General Plan Update would follow policies to minimize impacts to wildlife corridors, impacts would remain potentially significant, and mitigation measure M-BI-5 would be required. Mitigation measure M-BI-5 requires avoidance and minimization measures if a project’s habitat assessment identifies the project would interfere with wildlife movement. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project involves the replacement of two single-family homes with 19 new single- family units on a disturbed site. Development would be confined to the southern portion of the property and would not encroach upon the open space to the north. However, the proposed open space in the northern portion of the site may serve as a localized movement corridor and nursery site for wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the project, impacts to which could be considered significant, consistent with the PEIR impact conclusion. Mitigation measure M-BI-5 would be required of the project and the Biological Resources Letter Report would provide site-specific measures to reduce effects to wildlife movement, such as shielded lighting and barriers adjacent to the open space to limit human intrusion effects. As a result of the implementation of mitigation measure M-BI-5 with the site-specific measures required by COA-B-1, the project would not interfere with wildlife movement or disrupt a wildlife corridor, and no new impact would occur compared to the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 224 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
25 5) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that this threshold does not apply to the General Plan Update because the City does not currently have any ordinances specifically related to the protection of biological resources. The General Plan includes policies designed to protect biological resources (listed under Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element Goals 6, 7, and 8), and future development would be required to comply with these policies. The PEIR concluded that no impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No new impact. Because the City does not have ordinances specifically related to the protection of biological resources, the project would not conflict with ordinances protecting biological resources. The project would comply with the relevant General Plan policies related to biological resources, including the conservation and restoration of open space and protection of plant and animal species, and no new impact would occur compared to the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR. 6) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The City signed a Natural Community Conservation Plan enrollment/planning agreement in 1992 but has not adopted a Subarea Plan for the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) due to the absence of a permanent funding source. The PEIR concluded that while the City has not adopted the Subarea Plan, the General Plan includes policies to address the MHCP as a key tool for future conservation efforts in the City (Goal 6 of the Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element). The Biological Preserve Overlay (BPO) is included in the City’s Land Use Plan to identify biologically sensitive areas where development should be limited. Through these policies and land use plan, the PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As stated above, the City has not formally adopted a Subarea Plan. Regardless, the project would not conflict with the Draft Subarea Plan. The project site is not within the BPO established by the City. The project has been designed to avoid the open space in the northern portion of the property, which is located within a hardline Focused Planning Area (FPA) with a 90 to 100 percent conservation target. FPAs are areas within the MHCP where the permanent MHCP preserve land will be assembled and managed for its biological resources and defined by quantitative thresholds for the preservation of sensitive vegetation communities and species. Project construction would occur within the existing disturbed southern area of the property and the northern third of the project site within the FPA would remain open space. As a result, the project would not conflict with the MHCP. As no adopted habitat conservation plan applies to the project site, no conflict with such a plan would occur and there would be no conflict with such a plan and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would have no new impact and would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 225 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
26 General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
M-BI-1 Habitat Assessment and Focused Surveys for Special-Status Species. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other construction permit for undeveloped parcels in the project area, a habitat assessment shall be conducted for the parcel to determine whether the potential exists for special-status species to occur. If the habitat assessment identifies potentially suitable habitat for threatened and endangered species, focused surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine their presence or absence.

If threatened and endangered species are observed/detected, project-specific mitigation measures shall be developed to mitigate impacts on threatened and endangered species to below a level of significance. Specific measures shall include, but are not limited to:
• Early consultation with the wildlife agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) for Endangered Species Act- and California Endangered Species Act-listed species to ensure avoidance to the greatest extent feasible and appropriate “take” authorization. • Provision of a qualified biological monitor on-site during all earth-disturbing activities to ensure avoidance of impacts on listed species.
• The use of fencing or flagging to identify sensitive areas that support the listed species and to ensure that the areas are protected from direct and indirect impacts. • Implementation of noise reduction measures (e.g., noise attenuation structures) within habitats occupied by listed avian species, and noise monitoring during the breeding season.
• Identification and transplantation of listed plant species populations in accordance with best practices.
• Avoidance of the breeding seasons for listed species such as:
o Arroyo toad—March 1 to September 30
o Least Bell’s vireo—March 1 to September 30
o Willow flycatcher (all subspecies)—March 1 to September 30 o Coastal California gnatcatcher—March 1 to September 30 If no threatened or endangered species are observed or detected during focused surveys, but potentially suitable habitat for non-threatened and non-endangered plant or wildlife species is present, a site-specific determination shall be made as to whether the potential impacts are significant based on the degree of threat and the size of the population/ occupied habitat to be impacted. Focused surveys may be required in order to make a significance determination, depending on the species to be impacted and the size of the project. The measures described above shall be employed as appropriate. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 226 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
27 PEIR Mitigation Measure M-BI-1 has been satisfied through preparation of a preliminary biological survey of the project site completed by a HELIX biologist (HELIX 2024b). Site-specific measures required to be included in the report by M-BI-1 will be required to be implemented by COA-BI-1.

M-BI-2 Bird Nest Avoidance. If construction activities occur between January 15 and September 15, a preconstruction survey (within seven days prior to construction activities) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the area proposed for development in order to avoid the nesting activities of breeding birds/raptors. The results of the surveys shall be submitted to the City (and made available to the Wildlife Agencies, upon request) prior to initiation of any construction activities.

If nesting activities within 200 feet of the proposed work area are not detected, construction activities may proceed. If nesting activities are confirmed, construction activities shall be delayed within an appropriate buffer (e.g., 300-feet) from the active nest until the young birds have fledged and left the nest or until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist. The size of the appropriate buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist based on field conditions. The results of all biological monitoring shall be submitted to the City (and made available to the Wildlife Agencies, upon request). The Wildlife Agencies are available for consultation regarding nesting status and appropriate buffers.

Also, at no time is take of California Full Protected species permitted (Fish and Game Code §3511).

M-BI-3 Habitat Assessment/Biology Report. Prior to the initiation of future development projects within the project area, a habitat assessment shall be conducted when warranted in areas undisturbed by prior development to determine whether sensitive natural communities (including riparian vegetation) are present. If the habitat assessment identifies sensitive natural communities, a biological report shall be prepared to address impacts on sensitive natural communities resulting from the proposed future project. The report shall identify mitigation measures to reduce all significant impacts to below a level of significance.

Mitigation measures shall include, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist in consultation with the wildlife agencies:
• Early consultation with the wildlife agencies to ensure maximum avoidance of sensitive habitats, as feasible.
• Provision of a qualified biological monitor on site during all earth-disturbing activities to ensure avoidance of sensitive habitats.
• The use of fencing or flagging to identify and avoid sensitive areas and to ensure that the areas are protected from direct and indirect impacts. • Appropriate siting of staging areas within developed or disturbed areas, ensuring such areas are outside of existing sensitive habitats.
• Avoidance of the avian breeding seasons if riparian or other sensitive habitat supports breeding birds, or other special-status species.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 227 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
28 • Provision of mitigation at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio to ensure no net loss of sensitive habitat. Consultation with the wildlife agencies or professional best practices may result in higher ratios.

PEIR Mitigation Measure M-BI-3 has been satisfied by completion of a habitat assessment of the project site (HELIX 2024b). Site specific measures required to be included in the biological report per M-BI-3 will be implemented as required by COA-BI-1.

M-BI-5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Continued Wildlife Movement. If the habitat assessment described in Mitigation Measure M-BI-3 identifies that a specific development project will interfere substantially with wildlife movement or established wildlife corridors, avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed that ensure the continued movement of wildlife through a specific corridor or area. Measures shall be specific to each project and be determined by a qualified biologist during project design; however, the following minimization measures shall be incorporated where appropriate, as determined by a qualified biologist:
• Project design shall be sensitive to wildlife movement and, if a corridor is determined to be located on site, the project shall be designed to avoid segmentation of the corridor and the continued viability of the corridor.
• Street lighting shall be designed such that it does not increase the overall ambient lighting and glare in the natural area. This may be accomplished by designing street lighting with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground so there is a zero side angle cut off to the horizon.
• Potential noise, motion, and human intrusion impacts shall be minimized by incorporating setbacks, berms, or walls into the project design. Construction-related noise shall be mitigated consistent with the city’s Noise Ordinances by limiting construction activities to daytime hours and requiring construction equipment to be equipped with mufflers.
• Plant species acceptable for the project’s landscaping must not be considered invasive species by the California Invasive Plant Council ( https://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/inventory/).
• When culverts are included in a project design within areas known to be used as wildlife crossings, they shall be placed in locations suitable for use by wildlife and shall be sized and shaped such as to facilitate wildlife movement through the culvert.

Site specific measures required by M-BI-5 are provided in the Biological Resources Letter Report and will be required to be implemented by COA-BI-1.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 228 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
29 4.5 CLIMATE CHANGE
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions,
either directly or
indirectly, that may
have a significant
impact on the
environment?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Conflict with any
applicable plan,
policy, or regulation
of an agency adopted
for the purpose of
reducing GHG
emissions?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Expose property and
persons to the
physical effects of
climate change,
including but not
limited to flooding,
public health, wildfire
risk, or other impacts
resulting from climate
change?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that it is unknown whether the policies within the General Plan provide a sufficiently comprehensive framework for reducing GHG emissions in the City in line with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, and whether impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure M-CC-1 requires the implementation of a quantified climate action plan (CAP) within 24 months of the adoption of the General Plan to reduce GHG emissions. However, it is unknown whether or not a CAP would adequately reduce GHG emissions below a level of significance, and impacts were therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 229 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
30 Project Analysis
No new impact. The City is responsible for implementing mitigation measure M-CC-1, as a CAP is a Citywide plan. The City adopted a CAP in 2012 and updated it again in 2021; therefore, mitigation measure M-CC-1 has been achieved. The majority of the CAP measures can only be completed at the program level by Citywide efforts; the CAP does not establish compliance measures for individual projects. A discussion of the project’s consistency with the CAP measures is provided in the project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (HELIX 2024a). The project would not prevent the implementation of any of the CAP measures. At the project level, determination of the significance of the project’s GHG emissions is accomplished by an analysis of consistency with a threshold 30 percent below the City’s threshold of 1,185 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per service population per year, or 829 MT CO2e, according to the anticipated first year of project operation. As described in the project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (HELIX 2024a), the project’s annual GHG emissions, including amortized construction emissions, would be approximately 276 MT CO2e per year, which is below the 2027 adjusted City threshold of 829 MT CO2e per year. The project would also be constructed in accordance with the energy-efficiency standards, water reduction goals, and other standards contained in the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Per City Municipal Code Chapter 13.15, the project would also be required to collect and dispose of organic waste to reduce Citywide emissions. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the PEIR, and the Project would result in no new impact.
2) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in Threshold 1 above, the PEIR concluded that it is not possible to know if the General Plan policies related to GHG emissions would sufficiently reduce emissions in line with AB 32. Mitigation measure M-CC-1 requires the City to implement a quantified CAP within 24 months of the adoption of the General Plan, but no additional mitigation was considered to be feasible at the program level to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with state targets. Therefore, the PEIR concluded impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would not result in GHG emissions above the City’s GHG emissions threshold and would not conflict with the goals of the City’s CAP, which was updated by the City in October of 2021. The CAP is consistent with and complementary to statewide legislation and regulatory mandates to reduce GHG emissions. While the CAP does not establish compliance measures for individual development projects, a discussion of the project’s consistency with the CAP measures is provided in the project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (HELIX 2024a). The project would be consistent with Measure T-7, which requires the use of alternative fuels, by requiring electric or natural gas-powered construction equipment, where applicable. The project would not prevent the implementation of any of the remaining CAP measures, such as the establishment of a citywide waste reduction goal, which are the responsibility of the City. As such, the project would be consistent with local plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The project would result in no new impact compared to the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 230 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
31 3) Would the project expose property and persons to the physical effects of climate change, including but not limited to flooding, public health, wildfire risk, or other impacts resulting from climate change?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that it is not possible to know if the proactive strategies in the City’s CAP would be able to protect property and persons from the adverse effects of global climate change. No additional mitigation was considered to be feasible at the program level to reduce GHG emissions, and impacts resulting from climate change were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As stated above in Thresholds 1 and 2, the project would not exceed the City’s GHG emissions threshold or conflict with plans or policies to reduce GHG emissions. As a result, the project would not substantially exacerbate global climate change as a result of substantial GHG emissions.

Additionally, the project site is not located in a flood hazard zone as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA; 2024) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as defined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE; 2024), such that risks associated with flooding and fire as a result of climate change are low. Thus, the project is consistent with the findings and analysis contained in the PEIR and would not result in new impacts related to the physical effects of climate change.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource as
defined in Section
15064.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 231 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
32 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
2)Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of
the State CEQA
Guidelines?
LTSM ☐☐☐☐☒M-CR-1a
and M-
CR-1b
3)Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature?
LTSM ☐☐☐☐☒M-CR-2
4)Disturb any human
remains, including
those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
LTS ☐☐☐☐☒None
1)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development under the General Plan Update would implement General Plan policies and adhere to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Development Code Chapter 15.12), which would ensure that such development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The City’s historical evaluation criteria under its General Plan policies and Historic Preservation Ordinance are essentially the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria, so a historic built environment preliminary evaluation was conducted that assessed the property’s potential significance under CRHR and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria. The evaluation concluded that the existing structures on the site are recommended to be not eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or the City’s list of historic sites (HELIX 2024c). Research did not reveal important events associated with the property that would indicate it is significant in local, state, or national history. Thus, demolition of the structures would have no new or site-peculiar impact and the project is consistent with the findings and analysis contained in the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 232 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
33 2) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR identified that unknown cultural resources could underlie sites developed under the General Plan Update. The General Plan identifies policies to target archaeological preservation (Resources Conservation and Sustainability Element Policies 11.1 and 11.2), but a substantial adverse change may still result as a consequence of the General Plan Update.

Mitigation measures M-CR-1a and M-CR-1b, which require pedestrian surveys and archaeological monitoring, would be required and were found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Project Analysis
No new impact. Consistent with PEIR mitigation measure M-CR-1a, a field survey was conducted for the project site by a HELIX archaeologist and TCA Native American Monitor on August 22, 2024 (HELIX 2024c). No archaeological resources have been previously identified on the project site, and no newly identified archaeological resources were identified within the project area during the field survey.

However, the surrounding area is generally rich in cultural resources, and a grading monitoring program would be implemented for the project according to PEIR mitigation measure M-CR-1b. Mitigation measure M-CR-1b identifies the need for site-specific monitoring requirements, which would be implemented via COA-C-1 through COA-C-7 (HELIX 2024c). Impacts would be less than significant with the imposition of PEIR mitigation and uniformly applied development policies and standards, consistent with the findings and analysis in the PEIR.
3) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that future development under the General Plan Update could take place in areas characterized by moderate to high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Mitigation measure M-CR-2, which requires paleontological monitoring, was required and found to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Project Analysis
No new impact. According to the PEIR, the development of vacant parcels outside of the General Plan Opportunity Areas (OAs) could encounter paleontological resources. The project involves the replacement of two single-family homes with 19 new single-family homes. While there are no known paleontological resources on the project site, grading would be required in areas that are currently undeveloped. As a result, consistent with the PEIR, the project would be required to implement PEIR mitigation measure M-CR-2 to ensure project impacts remain less significant through appropriate paleontological monitoring. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to destroying a unique paleontological resource, site, or geologic feature and is consistent with the findings contained in the PEIR.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 233 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
34 4) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that compliance with General Plan policies and state laws regarding the accidental discovery of human remains would ensure impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Specifically, General Plan Resource Conservation and Sustainability Element Policies 10.5, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, and 12.2 require public education regarding cultural resources, the establishment of a database identifying archaeological sites within the City, and the adoption of procedures to protect archaeological features before and during construction. Should human remains be unearthed during grading and excavation activities, the construction contractor would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

Project Analysis
No new impact. There are no known human remains on the project site, and project compliance with the General Plan policies and state law described above would ensure impacts remain less than significant and consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR. No new impact would result.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
M-CR-1a Pedestrian Survey. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to a grading permit, for any future development project proposed under the General Plan Update, the NAHC and local tribes shall be contacted and consulted by a Professional Archaeologist approved by the City. If the NAHC and/ or local tribes indicate in a written response that the site of the proposed project may potentially contain Native American resources, a pedestrian survey (i.e., physical walk over) shall be conducted by a Professional Archaeologist and a local Native American monitor. Should the pedestrian survey identify Native American cultural resources, the Professional Archeologist shall, in consultation with the Native American monitor, make an immediate written evaluation of the significance and appropriate treatment of the resource, including any avoidance measures, additional testing and evaluation, or data recovery plan. In addition, the Professional Archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall also include in the written determination whether the potential presence of subsurface resources requires 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 234 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
35 archaeological and/or Native American monitoring during site grading or other ground- disturbing activities. If construction monitoring is required, Mitigation Measure M-CR-1b shall be implemented.

M-CR-1b Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or excavation permit for any future development project within the General Plan Update area that has been identified as having the potential to contain subsurface cultural resources, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City Planner that the applicant has retained a City-approved Professional Archaeologist and Native American monitor, if appropriate, to observe grading and excavation activities for the presence of cultural materials. If any cultural materials are found, work in the area shall be halted so that the significance of the find can be evaluated. A significant discovery may require additional evaluation and mitigation; however, any such additional requirements would be site-specific and would be determined at the time of discovery by the Professional Archaeologist and Native American monitor. A post-construction monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City Planner at the completion of grading and/or excavation activities.

M-CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring. Monitoring during construction grading or trenching shall be required for projects that would excavate to a depth of ten feet or more, or that propose a total cut amount of 1,000 cubic yards or more. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or excavation permit, the project applicant must provide written proof to the City Planner that a Professional Paleontologist has been retained to observe all earth-disturbing activities. All fossil materials recovered during mitigation monitoring shall be cleaned, identified, cataloged, and analyzed in accordance with standard professional practices. The results of the fieldwork and laboratory analysis shall be submitted in a technical report and the entire collection transferred to an approved facility.

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 235 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
36 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
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?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
iv) Landslides? NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
b) Result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
c) Be located on a
geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or
that would become
unstable as a result of
the project, and
potentially result in
on or off-site
landslide, lateral
spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction, or
collapse?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 236 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
37 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
d) Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994),
creating substantial
risks to life or
property?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
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?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

PEIR Chapter 5 addressed potential geology and soils impacts in the context of the three categories below. Therefore, the project analysis below is performed in a similar format to provide a comparative analysis with the PEIR.

Faults and Seismically Related Ground Shaking
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that while the General Plan Update area is in seismically active Southern California, the closest active fault is approximately 12 miles west, and new developments would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code, which establishes seismic requirements to minimize earthquake risk. Impacts from seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is more than 10 miles from the nearest fault and would be constructed according to the California Building Standards Code per Chapter 15.02 of the City’s Municipal Code. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 237 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
38 Liquefaction
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that while some areas in the General Plan Update area may be at risk of liquefaction, all future developments would include removal, moisture conditioning, and compaction of on-site soils, as necessary, in conformance with the California Buildings Standards Code, as well as the recommendations of a civil engineering report required under the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance for the issuance of a grading permit. Impacts were therefore considered less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project (GEOCON Incorporated 2024), the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered to be low due to the relative density of the older alluvium and granitic rock. Additionally, the project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code per Chapter 15.02 of the City’s Municipal Code. Site-specific impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.

Unstable Soils
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that all future development consistent with the General Plan Update would include the removal, moisture conditioning, and compaction of on-site soils, as necessary, in conformance with the California Building Standards Code, as well as the recommendations of a civil engineering report required under the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance for the issuance of a grading permit. Expansive and erodible soils are likely to occur throughout much of the City, but the implementation of a SWPPP and compliance with requirements of the California Building Standards Code, the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, and the proposed General Plan policies were found to ensure that risks associated with unstable, expansive, and erodible soils would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is underlain by sandy loams with moderate expansion potential.

However, the project would comply with the regulations and requirements above, including the California Building Standards Code and the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, which would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 238 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
39 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) 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?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed
school?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) 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 for
people residing or
working in the project
area?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 239 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
40 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
5) Impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
6) Expose people or
structures to a
significant risk of loss,
injury, or death
involving wildland
fires, including where
wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized
areas or where
residences are
intermixed with
wildlands?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
7) Be located on a site
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, would
create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
8) For a project within
the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would
the project result in a
safety hazard for
people residing or
working in the project
area?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 240 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
41 1) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that while future projects under the General Plan Update may involve hazardous materials, development would be required to comply with federal, state, and local policies regarding hazardous substances, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The Public Safety, Facilities, and Services Element includes Policies 6.1 through 6.5, which require the preparation of Hazardous Material Business Plans for facilities containing hazardous waste and education about waste disposal options. Compliance with these regulations and policies would ensure impacts would remain less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is a residential development and is not expected to routinely use substantial quantities of acutely hazardous materials. Some common household hazardous substances would be used but would not be of the type or quantity that would create a significant risk to the public or environment. Construction activities associated with the project would require transportation and use of limited quantities of fuel, oil, sealants, and other hazardous materials typical to construction. The use of hazardous materials and substances during construction would be subject to the federal, state, and local health and safety requirements for handling, storage, and disposal described above, including General Plan Policies 6.1 through 6.5. As a result, no new impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would occur, and the project is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
2) Would the project 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?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in Threshold 1 above, the PEIR concluded that while future projects under the General Plan Update may involve hazardous materials, compliance with federal, state, and local policies regarding hazardous substances would ensure impacts would remain less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is a residential development that would use common household hazardous substances, but not of the type or quantity that would create a significant risk associated with accidental release. The use of hazardous materials and substances during construction would be subject to the federal, state, and local health and safety requirements for handling, storage, and disposal described in Threshold 1. As a result, no new impact related to the accidental release of hazardous materials would occur and the project is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 241 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
42 3) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in Threshold 1 above, the PEIR concluded that future projects under the General Plan Update may involve hazardous materials, compliance with federal, state, and local policies regarding hazardous substances would ensure impacts to schools would remain less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project proposes a residential development adjacent to Monte Vista Elementary School. Some common household hazardous substances would be used at the project site but would not be of the type or quantity that would create a substantial risk to the adjacent school as a result of accidental release. The use of hazardous materials and substances during construction would be subject to the federal, state, and local health and safety requirements for handling, storage, and disposal described in Threshold 1. No new impact would occur and the project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
4) 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) for the McClellan-Palomar and Oceanside Municipal Airports, and all future projects in the Airport Influence Areas of the McClellan-Palomar and Oceanside Municipal Airports would be reviewed for consistency with the ALUCPs. Impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is located approximately six miles northeast of the McClellan-Palomar Airport and approximately eight miles southeast of the Oceanside Municipal Airport. The project site is not located within the ALUCP area for either airport. No new impact would occur and the project is consistent with the findings of the PEIR.
5) Would the project impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that all future development and land use decisions under the General Plan Update would be subject to the state and local building and fire codes, including the City of Vista Uniform Fire Code (Development Code Chapter 16.40), which requires fire safety during construction and demolition and fire flow requirements for buildings. Individual projects would be reviewed for consistency with the Multi-Jurisdictional HMP; impacts would be less than significant. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 242 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
43 Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would be constructed in accordance with the state and local building and fire codes (including the City of Vista Uniform Fire Code, Development Code Chapter 16.40) to ensure adequate site access is maintained for emergency response and evacuation through the addition of building safety features and fire hydrants. During construction within public rights-of-way, a traffic control plan prepared in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings would be implemented to maintain acceptable emergency access. Preparation of a traffic control plan is required before City issuance of an encroachment permit.

Additionally, the project would not interfere with the implementation of the HMP, which includes broad goals for regional collaboration to prepare for and respond to emergencies. The project would not place people or structures in an area with an elevated risk of wildfire, flooding, or hazardous materials release, as described throughout this Section and in Section 4.5, Climate Change. Thus, the project is consistent with the analysis and findings of the PEIR, and the project would result in no new impact. 6) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not create a wildfire risk with the implementation of the applicable requirements in the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and General Plan goals and policies addressing wildfire hazards (Public Safety, Facilities, and Services Element Policies 5.1 through 5.7), and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is outside of the VHFHSZ but within the Wildland-Urban Interface, where development meets and mixes with undeveloped natural areas (U.S. Forest Service 2023). The open space to the north of the project site contains vegetation that could facilitate the spread of wildfire should a spark ignite. However, the implementation of the project would not increase wildfire risk at the site over existing conditions with the implementation of the applicable requirements in the CBC, CFC, and General Plan goals and policies addressing wildfire hazards, which require confirmation of adequate water supply and brush management. The project would replace existing single-family homes with new single-family residential development that is consistent with the site’s land use designation. The project would install standard fire safety features, such as automatic fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, and construct buildings in compliance with the fire regulations in the CBC and CFC, which would be reviewed by the City during the permitting process. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant consistent with the evaluation and conclusion of the PEIR, and no new impacts would occur. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 243 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
44 7) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that this threshold does not apply to the General Plan Update, as no hazardous materials sites have been identified within the study area pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). No impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No new impact. No hazardous materials sites have been identified within 1,000 feet of the project site, according to the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker database (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024). No new impact would occur, and the project would be consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR. 8) For a project near a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that this threshold does not apply to the General Plan Update, as there are no identified private airstrips within or immediately adjacent to the City.

Project Analysis
No new impact. There are no private airstrips near the project site, and no new impact would occur. The project would be consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 244 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
45 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
2) Create or contribute
runoff water that
would provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted
runoff?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Otherwise
substantially degrade
water quality?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Create or contribute
runoff water that
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the project
area, including
through the alteration
of the course of a
stream or river, in a
manner which would
result in substantial
erosion or siltation?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
6) Substantially alter the
existing drainage
pattern of the project
area, including
through alteration of
the course of a
stream or river or
substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on-
or off-site?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 245 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
46 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
7) Place housing within a
100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard
Boundary, FIRM, or
other flood hazard
delineation map?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
8) Place within a 100-
year flood hazard
area structures which
would impede or
redirect flood flows?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
9) Expose people or
structures to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death
involving flooding,
including flooding as a
result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
10) Result in a potential
inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
11) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies
or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that there would
be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table
level (e.g., the
production rate of
pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a
level which would not
support existing land
uses or planned uses
for which permits
have been granted)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 246 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
47 1) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development under the General Plan Update would implement BMPs and comply with the relevant regulations, such as the City’s Stormwater Ordinance (Chapter 13.18 of the City’s Municipal Code) and San Diego County Municipal Stormwater Permit (MS4 Permit), to ensure impacts to water quality would remain less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would comply with the relevant stormwater regulations outlined in Municipal Code Chapter 13.18, including implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction by incorporating BMPs to protect stormwater quality. The SWPPP would generally include construction BMPs and a combination of erosion control measures to reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project-related grading and construction activities, such as fiber rolls, fencing, and watering. The project would also require a Storm Water Quality Management Plan to document operational BMPs that prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater conveyance system.

A stormwater treatment vault is proposed in the southwestern corner of the property, adjacent to Monte Vista Drive to preserve water quality during operation. The stormwater treatment vault would treat stormwater before releasing it into the City’s stormwater system. Additional erosion and sediment control BMPs would be implemented during project construction to minimize the occurrence of soil erosion. The project would not violate water quality standards. The project is consistent with the findings contained in the PEIR and would result in no new impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
2) Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in Threshold 1 above, the PEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on water quality through compliance with the relevant water quality regulations.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As described above, the project would comply with the water quality regulations in Chapter 3.18 of the City’s Municipal Code and would not contribute runoff that would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR, and the project would result in no new impact. 3) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in Threshold 1 above, the PEIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on water quality through compliance with the relevant water quality regulations. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 247 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
48 Project Analysis
No new impact. As described above, the project would comply with the water quality regulations in Chapter 13.18 of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the project would result in no new impact, consistent with the conclusion of the PEIR.
4) Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development under the General Plan Update would comply with the City’s Stormwater Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, and Stormwater Standards Manual, which would ensure water runoff during construction would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater facilities. Additionally, future projects under the General Plan Update would follow General Plan policies to ensure adequate drainage is provided throughout the City, such as making improvements to inadequate storm drain infrastructure. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would comply with the regulations identified in the PEIR to minimize project impacts on runoff, including the City’s Stormwater Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, and Stormwater Standards Manual. Additionally, the project includes a stormwater treatment vault in the southwest corner of the property to catch and treat runoff before it is discharged into the public storm drain system. The stormwater treatment vault would be designed according to the Stormwater Ordinance and Stormwater Standards Manual, which would ensure the project would be compatible with the existing stormwater system. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
5) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that new development under the General Plan Update would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and the City’s Grading Ordinance. Projects with one or more acres of disturbance are required to prepare and implement a SWPPP to prevent runoff from construction sites per Municipal Code Chapter 13.18. In addition, compliance with General Plan policies would be required that would further reduce the potential for substantial erosion and siltation by restricting development that would have the potential of substantially altering existing drainage patterns. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would be required to comply with the regulations discussed above. As a development proposing more than one acre of disturbance, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP, which would include BMPs to limit erosion and siltation, per Chapter 13.18 of the City’s 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 248 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
49 Municipal Code. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
6) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would involve activities that could result in temporary impacts on drainage patterns during construction. However, per Section 17.56.310 of the City’s Grading Ordinance, discretionary projects would be required to maintain or improve existing peak storm drainage runoff rates. Additionally, the City’s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) contains mandatory Low Impact Development site design and source control BMPs intended to reduce runoff by maintaining natural drainage patterns to the extent possible.

Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would be required to comply with the regulations above, including the City’s Grading Ordinance and SUSMP. Development would be confined to the southern portion of the site and the project would not alter the course of the drainage in the northern portion of the property.

Site design elements and source control BMPs would ensure the project’s impacts on drainage patterns would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
7) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, FIRM, or other flood hazard delineation map? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that regulatory compliance and consistency with the General Plan Public Safety, Facilities, and Services Element policies related to flood zones would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. Particularly, any development project proposing to place housing or other structures within the existing 100-year flood zones would be subject to regulations by the City under the Flood Area Construction Regulations (Development Code Section 16.48), which require a hydrology analysis and demonstration that flooding is not a serious risk. Therefore, the PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project site is not in a 100-year flood zone and would not place housing in a 100-year flood zone (FEMA 2024). The project would not be subject to the Flood Area Construction Regulations. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 249 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
50 8) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As stated in Threshold 7 above, the PEIR concluded that regulatory compliance would ensure the General Plan Update would not place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. Impacts were considered to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 9) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that future development applications for projects within a dam inundation area would be subject to mandatory compliance with the Flood Area Construction Regulations, the City’s Grading Ordinance, and the SUSMP. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts related to levee or dam failure would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project is not a dam inundation zone and would not experience flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (California Department of Water Resources 2024). Therefore, the project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 10) Would the project result in a potential inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the City would not be subjected to inundation from seiche or tsunami, as the Pacific Ocean is seven miles west and the nearest inland body of water is downstream of the City. Mudflows are possible in the City, but compliance with General Plan policies requiring debris clearing, vegetation management, and fire prevention in areas with wildfire risk would reduce mudflow impacts to a less than significant level.

Project Analysis
No new impact. Consistent with the discussion in the PEIR, inundation by seiche or tsunami is not possible on the project site. According to the PEIR, when wildfires occur, the soil is left with little to no groundcover. During rain events following a fire, the soil can become saturated and begin to flow downhill, inundating homes and buildings below. The site slopes upward from Monte Vista Drive before dropping off into the vegetated northern portion of the property. However, the project site is not located in an area with elevated wildfire risk, as described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 250 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
51 Materials. The General Plan policies regarding mudflow described above would not apply to the proposed project. Additionally, after the construction of the 19 single-family homes and paving of the private road, there would be an increase in impervious areas. This would make it difficult for substantial quantities of mud to accumulate into a mudflow that would pose a hazard to life or property. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 11)Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that water supply in the City is expected to increase by 2030 and the General Plan Update would not cause a decrease in groundwater levels. Additionally, future project BMPs would ensure groundwater recharge is not substantially affected per the Stormwater Ordinance and Stormwater Standards Manual. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would be required to comply with the Stormwater Ordinance and Stormwater Standards Manual; however, the project is not anticipated to use groundwater and would include BMPs to ensure groundwater recharge remains possible to the extent feasible. Impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.10 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria
PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1)Physically divide an
established
community?
LTS ☐☐☐☐☒None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 251 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
52 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
2) Conflict with any
applicable land use
plan, policy, or
regulation of an
agency with
jurisdiction over the
project (including, but
not limited to the
general plan, specific
plan, local coastal
program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating
an environmental
effect?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Conflict with any
applicable habitat
conservation plan or
natural community
conservation plan?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Induce substantial
population growth in
an area, either
directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes
and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of
roads or other
infrastructure)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Displace a substantial
number of existing
housing units,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 252 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
53 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
6) Displace a substantial
number of people,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project physically divide an established community? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would encourage development that is integrated into the existing built environment, and buildout would abide by land use policies to preserve the City’s character, such as discouraging subdivision design that disrupts the existing development pattern within established neighborhoods. The PEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project involves the replacement of two single-family homes with 19 new single-family homes on a 6.47-acre lot. The project site is surrounded by open space to the north, single- family homes to the east and south, and Monte Vista Elementary School to the west. The project would replace an existing residential development with new residential uses and would not divide an established community. Thus, the project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
2) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would be consistent with the Carlsbad and San Luis Rey River Water Utility Resource Management Plans, SANDAG’s Congestion Management Plan and Regional Comprehensive Plan, the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the San Diego Basin Plan, and the RAQS; impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would include a stormwater vault to treat project runoff and would comply with the City’s Stormwater Ordinance, as described in Section 4.9, Hydrology. The project would 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 253 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
54 therefore comply with the Carlsbad and San Luis Rey River Water Utility Resource Management Plans and the San Diego Basin Plan. As described in Section 4.14, Transportation and Circulation, the project would not have a significant impact on the circulation system or cause traffic hazards or delays. The project would be consistent with SANDAG’s transportation plans. Finally, as described in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the project would be consistent with the RAQS and would not have a significant impact on air quality. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, would result in no new impact, and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
3) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that while development under the General Plan Update would mostly occur in existing urbanized areas, future projects would be reviewed for compliance with the North County MHCP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As stated above, the City has not formally adopted a Subarea Plan. Regardless, the project would not conflict with the Draft Subarea Plan. The project site borders open space and the northern third of the project site is located within a hardline FPA. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to open space. Project construction would occur within the disturbed southern portion of the project site while the northern third within the FPA would remain as open space. As a result, the project would not conflict with the MHCP and impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 4) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that while the population projections under the General Plan Update exceed SANDAG’s projected population for the City by 7,226 people, the City would place land uses with increased density in areas identified by SANDAG as appropriate for future population growth. Additionally, the City is mostly built-out and has few vacant parcels available for new development, none of which are located in areas without infrastructure. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would replace two single-family homes with 19 new single-family homes.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical household size in the City is 3.11 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). The project would therefore cause an increase of 60 people, which is approximately 0.4% of the 14,775-person population increase anticipated under the General Plan Update (U.S. Census Bureau 2024). This is a small percentage that would not constitute substantial population growth. The project is consistent with the site’s land use designation and the project’s growth is therefore anticipated in the PEIR. Additionally, the project would not create substantial extensions of roads or 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 254 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
55 other infrastructure that would allow for population growth. Project impacts would be consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR, and no new impact would occur. 5) Would the project displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not displace a substantial number of housing units because there would be an estimated increase of 4,532 residential housing units by the year 2030, some of which would be affordable, and the need to construct replacement housing outside the project area would not occur. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project proposes the replacement of two single-family homes with 19 new single- family homes. While the two existing homes have been demolished in preparation for the project, the project would provide a net increase of 17 homes, two of which would be affordable units. The project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and would increase the number of available housing units in the City. As a result, the project would have no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 6) Would the project displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not displace a substantial number of people because it would add up to 4,532 units, and state regulations protecting affordable housing would ensure adequate housing for all income levels. The PEIR found impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project proposes the replacement of two single-family homes with 19 new single- family homes. The homes and associated structures were vacant before demolition, and demolition of the existing single-family homes did not displace any people. Regardless, the project would provide a net increase of 17 homes, two of which would be affordable units. The project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere and would increase the number of available housing units in the City. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 255 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
56 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) 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?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) 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?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

The PEIR addressed the thresholds above in a single summary discussion in PEIR Chapter 5. Therefore, the project analysis below is performed at a similar level of detail as the discussion in the PEIR to provide a comparative analysis.

PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update area contains lands designated mineral resource zone (MRZ) 3 and 4, which have undetermined significance; however, the potential for viable extraction of mineral resources within these zones is limited due to the City’s urbanized character, and all future projects would undergo individual review to ensure that significant mineral resources are protected. Impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is classified as MRZ 3, and the project would involve residential uses.

No mineral extraction would occur on the project site, and no new impact would occur. The project would be consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 256 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
57 4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial
permanent increase
in ambient noise
levels in the project
vicinity above levels
existing without the
project?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Result in a substantial
temporary or periodic
increase in ambient
noise levels in the
project vicinity above
levels existing without
the project?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
M-N-1a
through
M N-1g
3) Expose persons to or
generate noise levels
in excess of standards
established in the
local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards
of the other agencies,
including resulting in
a project-related
noise increase of 3
dB(A) CNEL or more?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
M-N-1a
through
M N-1g
4) Expose persons to or
generate excessive
groundborne
vibrations or
groundborne noise
levels?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 257 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
58 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
5) 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, expose
people residing or
working in the project
area to excessive
noise levels?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
6) For a project within
the vicinity of a
private airstrip,
expose people
residing or working in
the project area to
excessive noise
levels?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the implementation of the General Plan Update would not permanently increase noise levels substantially. Increases in traffic noise were anticipated to be on the order of 1 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or less. General Plan policies would ensure future sensitive receptors are not placed within the 65 dBA contour for rail noise. Sensitive receptors could be exposed to stationary noise sources such as HVAC systems or industrial land uses, but all future projects would be required to meet the standards set forth in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix in the Noise Element of the General Plan before being granted a building permit. The PEIR concluded impacts related to ambient noise increases would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. A Noise Technical Report was prepared for the proposed project to analyze potential noise impacts (HELIX 2024d). The project is anticipated to generate approximately 190 average daily trips (ADT), and existing traffic noise levels of 62.3 dBA CNEL on Monte Vista Drive at 75 feet are anticipated to be maintained. Therefore, the project would not increase noise levels beyond the 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 258 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
59 significance threshold of 3 dBA CNEL (see Threshold 3). The project is located approximately 0.7 mile from the SPRINTER rail line and would not be within the railway’s noise contours, so no impact from rail noise would occur. The project would involve HVAC units that would cause an increase in stationary noise at property lines. The project’s HVAC units would not violate the City’s property line noise limits at existing property lines of neighboring land uses. Further, pursuant to Vista Municipal Code Section

8.32.040 (and as required by the conditions of project approval), the project applicant would be required to demonstrate that the specific HVAC units selected for the project would comply with the property line noise limits at internal property lines or be adequately attenuated by intervening barriers before issuance of building permits. As a result, the project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and the conclusion in the PEIR. 2) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that construction under the General Plan Update could temporarily generate construction noise that exceeds the City’s noise standards, and mitigation measures M-N-1a through M-N-1g would be required to reduce impacts. These mitigation measures impose construction noise reduction measures such as the use of mufflers, electrical equipment where feasible, and speed and signal limits. Impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As described in the project’s Noise Technical Report (HELIX 2024d), demolition activity is expected to generate the highest construction-period noise levels of 73.0 dBA time-averaged noise level (LEQ) and grading of the roadway widening area would result in noise levels of up to 75.0 dBA LEQ at the residential property to the south. Therefore, project construction would not result in noise levels exceeding the 75 dBA LEQ construction noise threshold established by the County Noise Ordinance, adopted by the City. The addition of heavy truck trips during construction is not anticipated to generate a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels during construction. The project would also be required to implement mitigation measures M-N-1a through M-N-1g from the PEIR, which would reduce temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant, which is a reduction in the level of impact compared to the PEIR. No new impact would occur. 3) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of the other agencies, including resulting in a project-related noise increase of 3 dB(A) CNEL or more? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. As described in Thresholds 1 and 2 above, the PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would largely have a less than significant impact on noise levels, but temporary increases in construction noise would be potentially significant and require mitigation measures M-N-1a through M-N-1g to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 259 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
60 Project Analysis
No new impact. The project’s Noise Technical Report (HELIX 2024d) determined that the project would not generate noise levels in excess of the City’s eight-hour construction noise standard of 75 dBA CNEL at single-family residential property lines, nor would it result in a permanent increase in noise levels of 3 dBA CNEL or more. Additionally, the implementation of mitigation measures M-N-1a through M-N-1g would reduce temporary noise increases from construction. As it relates to General Plan standards for the siting of residential land uses, noise levels at the proposed residential facades were calculated to be

64.1 dBA CNEL with the addition of project-generated traffic on Monte Vista Drive. Therefore, land use for the project is compatible with the existing exterior noise environment in accordance with the General Plan criteria. As exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL, during building permit issuance, the project would be required to provide an interior noise analysis demonstrating compliance with the California Building Code requirement for interior noise levels to be below 45 dBA CNEL. Impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR, except for temporary increases in noise, in which case project impacts would demonstrate a reduction in the level of impact compared to the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
4) Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that construction-related vibration levels would be below significance thresholds (levels that would cause damage to structures within the City), provided they are 25 feet or more from a sensitive receptor. Increases in loaded truck trips during construction could cause an increase in vibration, but the peak particle velocity (PPV) would be well under the construction damage criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The PEIR concluded impacts to vibration would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The piece of equipment required for project construction that generates the highest vibration level is a vibratory roller, which would be used at a minimum distance of 60 feet from the nearest residential structure to the east. At this distance, a vibratory roller would generate 0.056 inch per second PPV and 82.6 vibration decibels (VdB), which would not exceed the FTA criteria for the neighboring building type of 0.3 inch per second PPV or 94 VdB. Project impacts on vibration would be less than significant and consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR. No new impact would occur. 5) 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, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that impacts related to aircraft noise would be less than significant as the City does not lie within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for any airport in the region.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 260 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
61 Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is not within the noise contours for any public airport. While aircraft could occasionally fly over the site and generate audible noise due to the project’s location within a major metropolitan region, the site would not be exposed to noise levels over 60 dBA CNEL. Impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that impacts related to aircraft noise would be less than significant as there are no private airstrips within two miles of the City.

Project Analysis
No new impact. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. As stated in Threshold 5 above, aircraft could occasionally fly over the site and generate audible noise, but the site would not be exposed to noise levels over 60 dBA CNEL. Impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR. No new impact would occur.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
M-N-1 Construction Noise Reduction. Construction noise is unavoidable and could adversely affect nearby residents. However, the noise would be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction. The following measures shall be incorporated into project contract specifications to minimize construction noise impacts:

M-N-1a Noise-Reducing Features. All noise-producing construction equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers; air-inlet silencers where appropriate; and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specifications. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders and air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise-control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.

M-N-1b Use of Electrical Equipment. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal-combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.

M-N-1c Location of Equipment and Support Areas. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors.

M-N-1d Speed Limits. Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 261 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
62 M-N-1e Signal Limits. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.

M-N-1f Use of Audio Equipment. No project-related public address or music system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor.

M-N-1g Resolution of Complaints. The on-site construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process for the owner shall be established prior to construction commencement to allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor.

4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) 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 fire
protection services?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 262 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
63 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
2) 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 police
protection services?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) 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 or other
performance
objectives for public
schools?
LTSM ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ M-PS-2
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 263 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
64 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
4) 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 or other
performance
objectives for parks?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) 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 or other
performance
objectives for
libraries?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 264 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
65 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
6) 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?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
7) Include recreational
facilities or require
the construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not require new facilities because development impact fees would provide continued funding to the Vista Fire Department (VFD) and future developments would comply with the CFC. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would be required to pay a Fire Protection Development Fee, which is currently $379 per dwelling unit for residential uses (City 2024). Additionally, the project would be constructed according to the CFC to minimize fire risk. With the implementation of these uniformly applied development policies, the project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 265 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
66 2)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that in the absence of a development impact fee for police services, the General Plan Update would require mitigation measures M-PS-1a and M-PS-1b to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measure M-PS-1a prompts the City and the San Diego County Sheriff Department to implement a development impact fee to provide adequate police staffing for the City, and mitigation measure M-PS-1b requires future projects to contribute to the development impact fee established in M-PS-1a. Impacts were considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The City has not implemented a development impact fee for police protection services, so it is not possible for the project to incorporate mitigation measures M-PS-1a or M-PS-1b. Regardless, the project would result in an increase in approximately 60 residents, as described in Section 4.10, Land Use, Population, and Housing. According to the PEIR, the current staffing level is approximately 0.8 officers per 1,000 residents, and for each increase of 1,000 residents, approximately one sworn officer must be added to maintain adequate service levels. Given that the project would add only 60 residents to the City, no new officers would be required to maintain adequate service levels. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR.
3)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for public schools? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant with mitigation. The PEIR concluded that the increase in population and housing associated with the General Plan Update could require new school facilities to meet the projected demand, and mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measure M-PS-2 requires all future projects under the General Plan Update to pay statutory fees for public school services as determined by Vista Unified School District (VUSD). Impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project involves the addition of approximately 60 residents, some of which may be school-age children. Consistent with mitigation measure M-PS-2, the project would pay the applicable developer fees which are currently $4.08 per square foot of residential development (VUSD 2024). As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact on school facilities. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 266 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
67 4) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed the City’s population-based park acreage goal of 4.49 acres per 1,000 residents, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the project site, and the increase in population caused by the project is therefore anticipated in the General Plan Update. As discussed in the PEIR analysis above, the buildout of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the City’s population-based park acreage goal of 4.49 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, because it is consistent with the General Plan, the project would not conflict with the City’s park acreage goal. The project would also be required to pay standard development impact fees, including a park fee.

No new impacts would result from the project, and it is consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR.
5) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for libraries? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in an increased population that would put additional demand on the Vista Branch Library within the City and on the San Diego County Library System. However, the need for new facilities is speculative in nature, given new facilities could be constructed in the County and would occur slowly as the buildout of the General Plan Update occurs, and impacts were considered less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would add approximately 60 new residents to the City’s population, which would require only an incremental increase in the need for library facilities -- 30 square feet of library facilities according to the City’s optimal ratio of 0.5 square feet per person. The project area is already served by library services and the project would be required to pay standard development impact fees, including a public facilities fee, related to any incremental increase in demand. Therefore the project would result in no new impact to library facilities or service ratios, and impacts would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 267 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
68 6) 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? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As described in Threshold 4 above, the PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in a population increase that would reduce the park per resident ratio below the City’s goal of 4.49 acres per 1,000 people, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the project site, and the increase in population caused by the project is therefore anticipated in the General Plan Update. As discussed in the PEIR analysis above, the buildout of the General Plan Update would not conflict with the City’s population-based park acreage goal of 4.49 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, because it is consistent with the General Plan, the project would not conflict with the City’s park acreage goal. Existing recreation facilities would be able to accommodate the growth anticipated under the proposed project and the project would be required to pay any applicable park fee. There would be no new impact to existing parks, and impacts would be consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR. 7) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that new recreational facilities under the General Plan Update would largely take place in existing developed areas and would replace existing uses, and the impacts of creating these new recreational uses would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project involves the replacement of single-family residential uses with 19 homes and does not involve the creation of new recreational facilities. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the project site, and the increase in population caused by the project is therefore anticipated in the General Plan Update. As discussed in the PEIR analysis above, the buildout of the General Plan Update would not require recreation facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, because the project is consistent with the General Plan, no new impacts would result and the project is consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
M-PS-2 VUSD Fees. All future projects under the General Plan Update would be required to pay statutory fees for public school services. Project applicants shall contact the VUSD to determine the current and appropriate statutory fee for each future project proposed in the project area.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 268 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
69 4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in
traffic that is
substantial in relation
to the existing traffic
load and capacity of
the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial
increase in either the
number of vehicle
trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion
at intersections that
would exceed the
city’s standards)?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
2) Exceed, either
individually or
cumulatively, a level
of service standard
established by the
county congestion
management agency
for designated roads
or highways?
SU ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Result in a change in
air traffic patterns,
including either an
increase in traffic
levels or a change in
location that results in
substantial safety
risks?
NI ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 269 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
70 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
4) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm
equipment)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Result in inadequate
emergency access? LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
6) Conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or
programs supporting
alternative
transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections that would exceed the city’s standards)?
PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in 12 failing intersections that would operate at a level of service (LOS) E or worse, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable at intersections where no mitigation is possible. The PEIR identified ten mitigation measures, one for each affected intersection where mitigation is possible, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures involve constructing additional lanes or modifications to existing lanes. While mitigation measures M-TR-1 through M-TR-12 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level at intersections where mitigation is possible, the General Plan Update was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact at two intersections.

Project Analysis
No new impact. None of the failing intersections occur in the project vicinity, and mitigation measures M-TR-1 through M-TR-12 would not apply to the proposed project. Further, the method of determining the significance of traffic impacts has changed since the preparation of the PEIR. Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law in September of 2013 and determined that traffic impacts should be based upon the overall amount that people drive (VMT) instead of traffic congestion levels. This shift focuses on total 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 270 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
71 VMT instead of specific intersections, given emissions associated with vehicular traffic are correlated to VMT. In July of 2020, it became mandatory for agencies to switch from LOS to VMT in CEQA analyses. As a result, this analysis uses VMT to analyze the project’s traffic impacts.

The City implemented the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which provide requirements for performing transportation studies for land development projects, in December 2020.

According to the VMT Memo prepared for the project, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 190 ADT (Fehr and Peers 2024). For projects that are consistent with the General Plan and generate less than 1,000 ADT, the City Guidelines assume that VMT impacts would be less than significant. The project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site, and traffic impacts would therefore be less than significant. As such, no new impact would result compared to the PEIR. 2) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? PEIR Analysis
Significant and unavoidable impact. As described in Threshold 1 above, the PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the LOS of two intersections within the City.

Project Analysis
No new impact. As discussed above, a VMT analysis was completed for the proposed project in light of the statewide shift from LOS to VMT as a measure of significance. As stated in Threshold 1 above, the project would have a less than significant VMT impact and would not exceed any thresholds established for traffic impacts. As such, no new impact would result compared to the PEIR. 3) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? PEIR Analysis
No impact. The PEIR concluded that this threshold does not apply to the General Plan Update because the General Plan Update does not include specific development plans, nor would it affect allowable height regulations. No impact would occur.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project site is located approximately six miles northeast of the McClellan-Palomar Airport and approximately eight miles southeast of the Oceanside Municipal Airport and is not located within the ALUCP area for either airport. Additionally, the project involves 19 single-family homes that would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No new impact would occur, and the project is consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 271 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
72 4) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan Update would undergo development review, including by the City’s traffic engineer, and would comply with the General Plan policies regarding safe transportation facilities (Circulation Element Policies 1.10, 2.1 through 2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.12, and 6.17). Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project would undergo development review to ensure project safety. The project was designed according to Chapter 19.08 of the Municipal Code, which establishes design requirements for streets, sidewalks, and driveway improvements to preserve traffic safety. Per Section

12.20.100 of the Municipal Code, the traffic engineer is responsible for prohibiting the installation of driveways at locations where unusual hazards would be created by the installation of such driveways.

Additionally, project signage would be implemented consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 18.72, which aims to promote the safe movement of vehicles with adequate wayfinding. The existing dirt access road would be paved into a private street from Monte Vista Drive to provide access to the proposed residential driveways. Off-site circulation improvements would consist of the construction of a half width of Monte Vista Drive as a 2-Lane Light Collector along the project frontage. Neither of these project components is expected to create a sharp curve or dangerous intersection and both components would be an improvement upon existing conditions. Therefore, with the implementation of uniform development policies and standards, the project would have no new impacts and is consistent with the findings in the PEIR.
5) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that a combination of the required plan checks for approval of discretionary permits by the VFD and the emergency access-related policies included within the General Plan Update would be required by the City during the discretionary review period. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would be designed in compliance with applicable building standards related to emergency access and would undergo plan review to ensure no significant impacts to emergency access occur. As described in Threshold 1 above, the project would not increase traffic at a level that would pose a safety hazard. Therefore, with the implementation of uniform development policies and standards, the project would have no new impacts and is consistent with the findings in the PEIR. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 272 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
73 6) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not conflict with the SANDAG RTP, which is the guiding regional transportation document. The RTP focuses on connecting land use and transportation programs to increase efficiency for transportation planning. The General Plan’s Circulation Element includes planned improvements to the City’s circulation network, such as improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities and development that encourages the use of the region’s SPRINTER light-rail service. The General Plan was written to comply with the SANDAG RTP and impacts were considered less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the SANDAG RTP, as it would not inhibit improvements to the circulation system. In addition, the project would include construction of a half width of Monte Vista Drive as a 2-Lane Light Collector along the project frontage, consistent with the roadway classification in the General Plan, creating a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet and a minimum eight-foot shoulder to serve as a parking lane, bicycle lane, or shoulder. As a result, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would result, consistent with the conclusion in the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

4.15 UTILITIES
CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater
treatment
requirements of the
applicable Regional
Water Quality Control
Board?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 273 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
74 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
2) Require or result in
the construction of
new water or
wastewater
treatment facilities or
expansion of existing
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause
significant
environmental
effects?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
3) Require or result in
the construction of
new stormwater
drainage facilities or
expansion of existing
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause
significant
environmental
effects?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
4) Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the project area
from existing
entitlements and
resources, or are new
or expanded
entitlements needed?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
5) Result in a
determination by the
wastewater
treatment provider
which serves or may
serve the project area
that it has adequate
capacity to serve the
project’s projected
demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 274 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
75 CEQA Section 15183(b) Criteria

PEIR
Significance
Conclusion
Effect
Peculiar
to
Project
or Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Offsite,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More
Severe
Adverse
Impact?
No New
Impact?
Applicable
Mitigation
Measures
6) Be served by a landfill
with sufficient
permitted capacity to
accommodate the
project’s solid waste
disposal needs and
meet the waste
reduction and
recycling
requirements of
existing regulations?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None
7) Require new, offsite
energy supply and
distribution
infrastructure or
capacity-enhancing
alterations to existing
facilities that are not
anticipated by
adopted plans or
programs?
LTS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ None

1) Would the project exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would comply with applicable discharge requirements and NPDES permits and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would comply with the San Diego County Municipal NPDES Permit, which specifies waste discharge requirements for urban runoff. The project would not violate wastewater regulations and impacts would be less than significant. The project would have no new impact compared to the PEIR, and no further review is required. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 275 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
76 2) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not require or result in the construction or expansion of potable water or wastewater treatment facilities. Water and wastewater facility demand under the General Plan Update were anticipated and planned for by the Vista Irrigation District (VID), Vista Sanitation, Buena Sanitation District (BSD), and the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) such that impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The proposed project involves a residential development that is consistent with the site’s land use and zoning designation. As a result, the increase in water and wastewater demand for the project is anticipated in the General Plan and the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR. 3) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan Update would mostly involve redeveloping sites that are largely impervious, and runoff quantities would therefore not substantially increase. Development of vacant parcels would require mandatory compliance with the City’s Stormwater Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, and Stormwater Standards Manual, which would in turn be compliant with the NPDES General Construction Permit and the MS4 Permit. Impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project involves the replacement of two single-family homes with 19 new single- family units. While some previous land would be converted to impervious surfaces due to the increase in housing units and paving of the private road, such conversion would be modest. Further, as stated in the PEIR, the project would be required to comply with the relevant regulations regarding stormwater drainage facilities. A stormwater vault is proposed in the southwest corner of the site to treat project runoff before it is discharged to the existing public storm drain system. The impacts of the proposed stormwater vault have been analyzed throughout this document and determined to be less than significant. With compliance with the relevant regulations stated above, impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion of the PEIR, and no further review is required.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 276 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
77 4) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project area from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Threshold 2 above, there are adequate water supplies available to serve the General Plan Update. All projects developed under the General Plan that meet the criteria of SB 610 and SB 221 would be required to prepare either a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) or a Water Verification during the development review process. Impacts were considered to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is a residential development that is consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the project site, and the project’s water demand is therefore consistent with that anticipated in the PEIR. The project does not propose more than 500 dwelling units and therefore does not require a WSA or Water Verification from the local water authority. Impacts would be less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR.
5) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project area that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Threshold 2 above, Vista Sanitation, BSD, and EWA would have the capacity to serve the General Plan Update’s estimated water generation, and impacts were found to be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is a residential development consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the project site, and the project’s wastewater treatment demand is therefore anticipated in the PEIR. The project wastewater treatment demand for 19 single-family residences (replacing 2 units) is also inconsiderable compared to City treatment capacity. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR. 6) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the GP project’s solid waste disposal needs and meet the waste reduction and recycling requirements of existing regulations?
PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that the Sycamore Landfill has the capacity to serve the solid waste associated with the General Plan Update and impacts were found to be less than significant.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 277 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
78 Project Analysis
No new impact. The project is a residential development that involves the replacement of two single- family homes with 19 new single-family units. According to the PEIR, single-family uses generate 1.95 tons per household annually. The project would result in an increase of approximately 37 tons annually, which is approximately 0.11% of the total annual generation anticipated under the General Plan Update for single-family residences (34,700 tons). The incremental increase in waste associated with the project is accounted for in the General Plan. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR.
7) Would the project require new, offsite energy supply and distribution infrastructure or capacity- enhancing alterations to existing facilities that are not anticipated by adopted plans or programs? PEIR Analysis
Less than significant impact. The PEIR concluded that development under the General Plan Update would coordinate with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to determine individual project needs and assess development fees for upgrading facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project Analysis
No new impact. The project would connect to existing utilities and would coordinate with SDG&E as described above to ensure impacts to electricity demand remain less than significant. The project would result in no new impact and is consistent with the analysis and conclusion in the PEIR.

General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures
None.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 278 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
79 5.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ . Accessed September 12, 2024.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ . Accessed September 13.

California Department of Water Resources. 2024. Dam Breach Inundation Web Map Publisher. Available at: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 . Accessed September 13.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor database. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=71003083 . Accessed September 17.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at:

Accessed September 13.

Fehr and Peers. 2024. Monte Vista Drive Residential Project Transportation Study Requirement and Scoping Memorandum. August.

GEOCON Incorporated. 2024. Supplemental Study and Updated Geotechnical Report - 1802 Monte Vista Drive. February.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2024a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for the Monte Vista Residential Project. October. 2024b. Biological Resources Letter Report for the 1800 Monte Vista Drive Residential Project.

October.
2024c. Monte Vista Residential Project Cultural Resources Study. October. 2024d. Monte Vista Residential Project Noise Technical Report. October.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. GeoTracker database. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T0607303021&cmd=ptcprepor t&ltcp_id=100294. Accessed September 17.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2024. QuickFacts – Vista City, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/vistacitycalifornia/PST045221 . Accessed September 12.

U.S. Forest Service. 2023. Wildland Urban Interface: 2020. Available at: https://data- usfs.hub.arcgis.com/documents/usfs::wildland-urban-interface-2020-map-service/explore.

Accessed September 13, 2024.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 279 of 386

Monte Vista Residential Project | April 2025
80 Vista, City of (City). 2024. City of Vista Fees. July. Available at: https://www.vista.gov/business/permits- forms. Accessed September 12.
2022a. City of Vista 2021-2029 Housing Element. July. Available at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/vista-6th-adopted-071222.pdf . 2022b. Resolution No. 2022- A Resolution of the City Council of the Chartered City of Vista, California, Re-Adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element. June. Available at:
https://records.vista.gov/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=1995279&searchid=763690dd-6e10-4398- a527-17a5bc251de5&dbid=0. Accessed October 14, 2024.
2021. Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist P20-0258. March 1. Available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021030046/2 . Accessed October 14, 2024. 2017. City of Vista Design Guidelines. Revised April 11. Available at:
https://www.vista.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21385/637190018821070000 . Accessed October 14, 2024.
2012. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2030 Update. February.

Available at: https://www.vista.gov/departments/community-development/permits- forms/vista-general-plan-2030. Accessed September 12, 2024.

Vista Unified School District (VUSD). 2024. Developer Fees. Available at:
https://www.vistausd.org/departments/businessservices/developer-fees . Accessed September

12. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 280 of 386

City of Vista
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Monte Vista Residential Project – P24-0139
2025

Project Name: Monte Vista Residential – REF CEQA 15183 Checklist, HELIX April 2025 Description: The project proposes a Site Development Plan and a Tentative Subdivision Map to construct 19 single- family residences, including two very low-income housing units, using a density bonus. The existing residences on the site have been demolished, and the site would be divided into 21 lots. The 19 residential lots would range in size from 5,855 square feet (SF) to 50,685 SF. The two remaining lots would contain a stormwater treatment vault and a private street to provide access to each of the proposed residences.

Development of the proposed project would include the construction of utility connections, drainage improvements, and circulation elements. Water and sewer main connections would be made in Monte Vista Drive and pipelines would be constructed within the private street to connect to each residence.

A stormwater treatment vault would be constructed at the southwest corner of the site and would outlet to a storm drain traversing the south and southeast edges of the project site. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site and would consist of a combination of ornamental and native evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, vines, and perennials.

Location: The project is proposed on a 6.47-acre site at 1800 Monte Vista Drive in the City of Vista in the northern portion of the County of San Diego (County). The site is comprised of one parcel with Assessor’s Parcel Number 181-022-05-00.

This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Monte Vista Residential project P24-0139.

It is derived from the MMRP for the Vista General Plan 2030 (General Plan). The MMRP presents the schedule, monitor, and date of completion for implementation consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. In some cases, the Mitigation Measure referenced has been implemented, refer to the CEQA 15183 Checklist, HELIX April 2025 related notes . 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 281 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
1 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
Air-1
M-AQ-1a: Construction Dust Control Measures. Future developments shall undergo development review, including CEQA review, and shall evaluate project-specific impacts. Future construction activities shall be required to adhere to SDAPCD Rules and Regulations. These rules include, but are not limited to, rules pertaining to visible emissions (Rule 50), limiting nuisance activities (Rule 51), reducing particulate matter (Rule 52), controlling dust and fumes (Rules 54), fugitive dust control (Rule 55), and limits to the VOC content of architectural coatings (Rule 67).

Depending on the magnitude of emissions from construction activities, the city may also require measures to reduce or limit exhaust emissions. For ground disturbance activities for any future development in the city, the onsite construction superintendent shall ensure implementation of standard BMPs to reduce the emission of fugitive dust, including, but not limited to:
• Water any exposed soil areas a minimum of twice per day, or as allowed under any imposed drought restrictions.
• On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional water will be applied at a frequency to be determined by the onsite construction superintendent.
• Provide temporary hydroseeding and irrigation of cleared vegetation and graded slopes as soon as possible following grading activities in areas that will remain in disturbed condition (but will not be subject to further construction activities) for a period greater than three months during the construction phase.
• Pave or periodically water all on-site access points or apply chemical stabilizer to construction sites.
• Securely cover all transported material to prevent fugitive dust. • Operate all vehicles on the construction site at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. • Cover all stockpiles that will not be utilized within three days with plastic or equivalent material, to be determined by the on-site construction superintendent, or spray them with a non-toxic chemical stabilizer.

City Planner and/or
City Engineer
Prior to issuance
of any grading
permit and
during grading
activities

Air-2
M-AQ-1b: Construction Exhaust Control Measures . The following measures shall be implemented throughout construction to minimize emissions of ozone (O3) precursors (nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]):

• Turn off all diesel-powered vehicles and gasoline-powered equipment when not in use for more than five minutes.
• Use electric or natural gas-powered construction equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel- powered engines, where feasible.

City Planner and/or
City Engineer
Prior to issuance
of any grading
permit and
during
construction
activities

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 282 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
2 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
• Use modified equipment incorporating such measures as cooled exhaust gas recirculation or lean-NOX catalysts.
• Require 10 percent of construction fleet to use any combination of diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, and/or CARS-certified Tier III equipment or better.

Air-3
M-AQ-1c: Construction Architectural Coating Measures. The following measures shall be used to minimize emissions of VOCs (an 03 precursor) and ensure compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67 :

• Use VOC-free coatings.
• Limit volume usage per day verified with detailed record keeping . • Rent or purchase VOC Emission Reduction Credits.

City Planner/Building
Official
Prior to issuance
of any grading
permit and
during
application of
architectural
coatings

Bio-1
M-BI-1: Habitat Assessment and Focused Surveys for Special Status Species. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other construction permit for undeveloped parcels in the project area, a habitat assessment shall be conducted for the parcel to determine whether the potential exists for special-status species to occur. If the habitat assessment identifies potentially suitable habitat for threatened and endangered species, focused surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine their presence or absence.

If threatened and endangered species are observed/detected, project specific mitigation measures shall be developed to mitigate impacts on threatened and endangered species to below a level of significance. Specific measures shall include, but are not limited to:
• Early consultation with the wildlife agencies (i.e., USFWS, CDFG) for ESA- and CESA-listed species to ensure avoidance to the greatest extent feasible and appropriate "take" authorization. • Provision of a qualified biological monitor on site during all earth disturbing activities to ensure avoidance of impacts on listed species.
• The use of fencing or flagging to identify sensitive areas that support the listed species and to ensure that the areas are protected from direct and indirect impacts. • Implementation of noise reduction measures (e.g., noise attenuation structures) within habitats occupied by listed avian species, and noise monitoring during the breeding season.

• Identification and transplantation of listed plant species populations in accordance with best practices.

• Avoidance of the breeding seasons for listed species such as:

Director of
Community
Development
Prior to the
issuance of a
Grading Permit

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 283 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
3 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
o Arroyo toad-March 1 to September 30
o Least Bell's vireo-March 1 to September 30
o Willow flycatcher (all subspecies)-March 1 to September 30 o Coastal California gnatcatcher-March 1 to September 30 If no threatened or endangered species are observed or detected during focused surveys, but potentially suitable habitat for nonthreatened and non-endangered plant or wildlife species is present, a site-specific determination shall be made as to whether the potential impacts are significant based on the degree of threat and the size of the population/ occupied habitat to be impacted. Focused surveys may be required in order to make a significance determination, depending on the species to be impacted and the size of the project. The measures described above shall be employed as appropriate.

Bio-2
M-BI-2: Bird Nest Avoidance. If construction activities occur between January 15 and September 15, a preconstruction survey (within seven days prior to construction activities) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests are present within or adjacent to the area proposed for development in order to avoid the nesting activities of breeding birds/raptors. The results of the surveys shall be submitted to the City ( and made available to the Wildlife Agencies, upon request) prior to initiation of any construction activities.

If nesting activities within 200 feet of the proposed work area are not detected, construction activities may proceed. If nesting activities are confirmed, construction activities shall be delayed within an appropriate buffer (e.g., 300-feet) from the active nest until the young birds have fledged and left the nest or until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist. The size of the appropriate buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist based on field conditions. The results of all biological monitoring shall be submitted to the City ( and made available to the Wildlife Agencies, upon request). The Wildlife Agencies are available for consultation regarding nesting status and appropriate buffers. Also, at no time is take of California Full Protected species permitted (Fish and Game Code §3511).

City Planner
If construction
activity would
occur
between January
15 and
September 15,
then prior
to any
construction
activities.

Bio-3
M-B1-3: Habitat Assessment/Biology Report. Prior to the initiation of future development projects within the project area, a habitat assessment shall be conducted when warranted in areas undisturbed by prior development to determine whether sensitive natural communities (including riparian vegetation) are present. If the habitat assessment identifies sensitive natural communities, a biological report shall be prepared to address impacts on sensitive natural communities resulting from the proposed future project. The report shall identify mitigation measures to reduce all significant impacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation measures shall include, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist in consultation with the wildlife agencies:

City Planner
Prior to issuance
of a building
permit
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 284 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
4 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
• Early consultation with the wildlife agencies to ensure maximum avoidance of sensitive habitats, as feasible.
• Provision of a qualified biological monitor on site during all earth-disturbing activities to ensure avoidance of sensitive habitats.
• The use of fencing or flagging to identify and avoid sensitive areas and to ensure that the areas are protected from direct and indirect impacts.
• Appropriate siting of staging areas within developed or disturbed areas, ensuring such areas are outside of existing sensitive habitats.
• Avoidance of the avian breeding seasons if riparian or other sensitive habitat supports breeding birds, or other special-status species.
• Provision of mitigation at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio to ensure no net loss of sensitive habitat.

Consultation with the wildlife agencies or professional best practices may result in higher ratios.

Bio-5
M-B1-5: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Continued Wildlife Movement. If the habitat assessment described in Mitigation Measure M-81-3 identifies that a specific development project will interfere substantially with wildlife movement or established wildlife corridors, avoidance and minimization measures shall be developed that ensure the continued movement of wildlife through a specific corridor or area. Measures shall be specific to each project and be determined by a qualified biologist during project design; however, the following minimization measures shall be incorporated where appropriate, as determined by a qualified biologist:
• Project design shall be sensitive to wildlife movement and, if a corridor is determined to be located on site, the project shall be designed to avoid segmentation of the corridor and the continued viability of the corridor.
• Street lighting shall be designed such that it does not increase the overall ambient lighting and glare in the natural area. This may be accomplished by designing street lighting with internal baffles to direct the lighting towards the ground and so there is a zero side angle cut off to the horizon.
• Potential noise, motion, and human intrusion impacts shall be minimized by incorporating setbacks, berms, or walls into the project design. Construction-related noise shall be mitigated consistent with the city's Noise Ordinances by limiting construction activities to daytime hours and requiring construction equipment to be equipped with mufflers. • Plant species acceptable for the project's landscaping must not be considered an invasive species by the California Invasive Plant Council (http:/ / www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory /index.php).

City Planner/Land
Development
Engineer
Prior to the
issuance of the
discretionary
permit and if a
habitat
assessment
identified
potential impacts
to wildlife
corridors. Site
specific
measures are
included in the
Bio Report HELIX
2024.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 285 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
5 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
• When culverts are included in a project design within areas known to be used as wildlife crossings, they shall be placed in locations suitable for use by wildlife and shall be sized and shaped such as to facilitate wildlife movement through the culvert.

Cul-1
M-CR-1a: Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, including but not limited to a grading permit, for any future development project proposed under the GP Update, the NAHC and local tribes shall be contacted and consulted by a Professional Archaeologist approved by the City. If the NAHC and/or local tribes indicate in a written response that the site of the proposed project many potentially contain Native American resources, a pedestrian survey (i.e., physical walk over) shall be conducted by a Professional Archaeologist and a local Native American monitor. Should the pedestrian survey identify Native American cultural resources, the Professional Archeologist shall, in consultation with the Native American monitor, make an immediate written evaluation of the significance and appropriate treatment of the resource, including any avoidance measures, additional testing and evaluation, or data recovery plan. In addition, the Professional Archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, sha ll also include in the written determination whether the potential presence of subsurface resources requires archaeological and/ or Native American monitoring during site grading or other ground disturbing activities. If construction monitoring is required, Mitigation Measure M-CR-1b shall be implemented.

City Planner
Prior to issuance
of any grading or
building permit

Cul-2
M-CR-1b: Prior to the issuance of any grading and/ or excavation permit for any future development project within the GP Update area that has been identified as having the potential to contain subsurface cultural resources, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City Planner that the applicant has retained a City-approved Professional Archaeologist and Native American monitor, if appropriate, to observe grading and excavation activities for the presence of cultural materials. If any cultural materials are found, work in the area shall be halted so that the significance of the find can be evaluated. A significant discovery may require additional evaluation and mitigation; however, any such additional requirements would be site specific and would be determined at the time of discovery by the Professional Archaeologist and Native American monitor. A postconstruction monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City Planner at the completion of grading and/or excavation activities.

City Planner
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit
and during
grading and
excavation
activities

Cul-3
M-CR-2: Paleontological Monitoring. Monitoring during construction grading or trenching shall be required for projects that would excavate to a depth often feet or more, or that propose a total cut amount of 1,000 cubic yards or more. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/ or excavation permit, the project applicant must provide written proof to the City Planner that a Professional Paleontologist has been retained to observe all earth-disturbing activities. All fossil materials recovered during mitigation monitoring shall be cleaned, identified, cataloged, and analyzed in accordance with standard professional practices. The results of the field work and laboratory City Planner
During or prior to
the project
design phase
and prior to the
issuance of any
grading or
building permit

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 286 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
6 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
analysis shall be submitted in a technical report and the entire collection transferred to an approved facility.

Noi-1
M-N-1: Construction Noise Reduction. Construction noise is unavoidable and could adversely affect nearby residents. However, the noise would be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction. The following measures shall be incorporated into project contract specifications to minimize construction noise impacts:

M-N-1a: Noise-Reducing Features. All noise-producing construction equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers; air-inlet silencers where appropriate; and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc-welders and air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise-control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.

M-N-1b: Use of Electrical Equipment. Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible.

M-N-1c: Location of Equipment and Support Areas. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors.

M-N-1d: Speed Limits. Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.

M-N-1e: Signal Limits. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.

M-N-1f: Use of Audio Equipment. No project-related public address or music system shall be audible at any adjacent receptor.

M-N-1g: Resolution of Complaints. The onsite construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process for the owner shall be established prior to construction commencement to allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor.

City Planner/Land
Development
Engineer
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading or
building permit
and during
construction
activities

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 287 of 386

City of Vista P24-0139 Monte Vista Residential MMRP
7 Mitigation Measures Staff Monitor Timing of
Compliance
Date of
Compliance
Pub-1
M-PS-2: VUSD Fees. All future projects under the GP Update would be required to pay statutory fees for public school services. Project applicants shall contact the VUSD to determine the current and appropriate statutory fee for each future project proposed in the project area.

Timing: Prior to
the issuance of a
Certificate of
Occupancy.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 288 of 386

3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310 ŠSan Diego, CA 92103 Š619-795-6086 www.CRAmobility.com
TO: Carlos Bonilla
FROM: Phuong Nguyen, PE; CR Associates (CRA)
DATE: October 23, 2024
RE: 1800 Monte Vista Drive Focused Local Transportation Assessment The purpose of this technical memorandum is to document the potential impacts of the proposed 1800 Monte Vista residential project (the "Project") on the surrounding transportation network and to determine if any transportation improvements are necessary.

PP rojec tt Descriptio nn
The Project is located at 1800 and 1802 Monte Vista Drive, adjacent to Monte Vista Elementary School in the City of Vista. It involves constructing 19single-family homes across two parcels. Site access will be provided by a driveway approximately 1,000 feet east of Valley Drive on Monte Vista Drive, forming the third leg of a new intersection. This driveway will allow both ingress and egress. Figuress 11 andd 2 provide the regional location and site plan, respectively.

Background
The analysis of the Project’s impact on the roadway network follows the City of Vista's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (December 2020) and builds upon the previously approved Monte Vista Residential Project VMT Analysis and Project Information Form (PIF), included as AttachmentA.

As outlined in the approved PIF, the Project’s traffic is concentrated around the driveway, so the analysis focuses on this intersection and the segment of Monte Vista Drive along the Project frontage.

Roadway Segment
Monte Vista Drive (from Valley Drive to east of the proposed driveway) is an east-west, two- lane road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. There are no bike facilities along this section, although sidewalks exist on both sides near the school and on the south side along the Project frontage. Parking is permitted along the south side. Monte Vista Drive is classified as a two- lane Light Collector in the City's General Plan.

Intersection
Project Driveway & Monte Vista Drive (side-street stop-controlled). This intersection only exists in the "Existing with Project" scenario.

It is important to note that since the approval of the PIF, which initially assumed up to 20 single-family homes, the Project site has been adjusted to 19 single-family homes. However, for consistency and a conservative approach, the analysis presented here is based on the trip generation calculation for 20 single-family homes.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 289 of 386

§¨¦
·|}þ76
City of
San Marcos
City of
Carlsbad
City of
Oceanside
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
County of
San Diego
City of Vista
N
Figure 1
Project Regional Location
V1800 Monteista
Local Transportation Assessment7HFKQLFDO0HPRUDQGXP
0 21 Miles
Project Site
^
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 290 of 386

1800 Monte Vista
Local Transportation Assessment Technical Memorandum
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 291 of 386

4 | P a g e
EE xistin gg Condition ss
Traffic counts were taken on September 19, 2024, during AM and PM peak periods when the nearby elementary school was in session. Since the study intersection does not yet exist, only a roadway segment analysis was performed for existing conditions, comparing total average daily trips (ADT) to the City’s level of service (LOS) standards. Tablee 1 shows that Monte Vista Drive operates at LOS B under existing conditions. An excerpt of the LOS standard is included in AAttachmentt B, and the existing traffic count worksheets are provided in AAttachmentt C.

Tablee 1 – Roadway Segment LOS Results – Existing Conditions Roadwayy Segmentt ADTT LOSS EE
Capacity VV // C LOSS
Monte Vista Drive Valley Drive to east of Project 5,194 8,800 0.590 B Source; CR Associates (2024)
Propose dd Projec tt Tri pp Generatio nn an dd Tri pp Assignmen tt Per the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (December 2020), the Project’s trip generation was calculated based upon rates from SANDAG’s “Not so Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region” (2002). TTablee 2 displays the total project trip generation.

Tablee 2– Project Trip Generation
Landd Usee Units Tripp Rate ADT AMM Peakk Hourr PMM Peakk Hourr Trips Split In Out Trips Split In Out
Single-Family Residential 20 DU 10 / DU 200 16 30:70 5 11 20 70:30 14 6 Projectt Total 200 16 - 5 11 20 - 14 6
Source; SANDAG Not so Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002); CR Associates (2024) Note
DU = Dwelling Units
As shown, the Project would generate a total of 200 average daily trips, including 16 (5-in/11-out) AM peak hour trips and 20 (14-in/6-out) PM peak hour trips.

Trip assignments were based on distribution percentages from the Approved PIF. FFiguree 3 shows the proposed Project trip assignment.

Figuree 3 - Proposed Project Trip Assignment
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 292 of 386

5 | P a g e
EE xistin gg wit hh Projec tt Conditions
Traffic volumes for the "Existing withProject" scenario were calculated by adding Project trips to current volumes. The same geometrics were used, except for the new side-street stop-controlled Project driveway. FFiguree 4 displays the Existing & Existing with Project condition intersection turning movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours.

Figuree 4 - Existing & Existing with Project Traffic Volumes Existing Existing with Project
Roadway analysis was conducted using the same standard as those utilized for the ExistingConditions.

Intersection operation analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity 6th Edition side-street stop (Chapter 20) intersection analysis methodology. The computerized analysis of intersection operations was performed utilizing the Synchro Version 11 traffic analysis software by Trafficware Ltd. Excerpt of the unsignalized intersection delay and LOS criteria is provided in Attachment B.

Tablee 3 displays the roadway analysis results,and TTablee 4 displays the intersection operation analysis for the Existing with Project Conditions. Synchro analysis worksheets are included in AAttachmentt D.

Tablee 3 - Roadway Segment LOS Results – Existing with Project Conditions Roadway Segmentt
Existingg Pluss Projectt Existingg withoutt Project
Ƅ GPI?1

ADTT VV // C LOS ADT VV // C LOS
Monte Vista
Drive
Valley Drive to
east of Project 5,394 0.613 B 5,194 0.590 B 0.023 No
Source; CR Associates (2024)
Note
1 Column indicates whether or notthe addition of project traffic constitutes a General Plan Inconsistency As shown in the table, the study roadway segment operates at an acceptable LOS B under Existing with Project conditions.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 293 of 386

6 | P a g e
TTablee 4 - Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results – Existing with Project Conditions Intersectionn Peakk
Hour
Trafficc
Control
Existingg Pluss
Project
Existingg withoutt
Project
ƄƄ'HOD\ GPI?11 Delayy
(sec/veh) LOS
Delayy
(sec//
veh)
LOS

1. Project Driveway
& Monte Vista Drive
AM SSSC 11.7 B --11.7 No
PM 10.2 B - - 10.2 No
Source; CR Associates (2024)
Note:
1 Column indicates whether or notthe addition of project traffic constitutes a General Plan Inconsistency SSSC = Side-street stop-controlled intersection and the delay shown is the worst delay experience by any of the approaches AWSC = All-Way Stop-Controlled
As shown in the table, the Project Driveway & Monte Vista Drive intersection would operate at acceptable LOS B under Existing with Project Conditions. Since both the roadway and intersection operate at an acceptable LOS, the Project would not have a detrimental effect on the transportation network.

Sigh tt Distanc ee Analysi ss
As part of the design process, a corner sight distance and stopping sight distance analysis was performed on the Project’s driveway. Based on the sight distance criteria outlined in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – and Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street, an intersection where the minor roadway is stop controlled, allows left-turn movements, and has a design speed of 45 mph (Design Speed = 40 mph speed limit on Monte Vista Drive + 5 mph) would require a clear stopping sight distance of 360 feet and/or a clear corner sight distance of 500. Tables 55 && 6 display the standards for stopping sight distance and corner sight distance by design speedrespectively.

Tablee 55 -- Minimum Stopping Sight Distances
Designn Speedd (mph)) Minimumm Stoppingg Sightt Distancee (ft)
15 80
20 115
25 155
30 200
35 250
40 305
45 360
50 425
55 495
60 570
Source: AASHTO, 7th Edition
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 294 of 386

7 | P a g e
TTablee 66 -- Minimum Recommended Corner Sight Distance (CSD) Designn Speedd (mph)) Minimumm Cornerr Intersectionn Sightt Distancee (ft)
35 390
40 445
45 500
50 555
Source: AASHTO, 7th Edition
For determining corner sight distance, a setback distance for the vehicle waiting on the minor road must be assumed as measured from the edge of traveled way of the major road. Setback for the driver of the vehicle on the minor road should be a minimum of 10 feet plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 15 feet. In this case, the Project driveway would be moved 10 feet in from the current right of way. Therefore, corner sight distance was measured at a setback of 15 feet from the edge of assumed travel way.Tablee 7 displays the measured stopping sight distance, the design speed, as well as the minimum stopping sight distance requirements.

Tablee 77 -Stopping Sight Distance Analysis Results
Locationn Designn Speed Stoppingg Sightt Distance
Measuredd (ft) Requiredd (ft) Adequate?
Travelingg Westboundd Alongg Montee VVistaa Drivee
Project Driveway 45 700 360 Yes
Travelingg Eastboundd Alongg Montee Vistaa Drive
Project Driveway 45 880 360 Yes
Source: CR Associates (2024)
As shown in Table 7, the project driveway currently meets the requirements for stopping sight distance. TTablee 8 displays the measured corner sight distance, the design speed, as well as the minimum corner sight distance requirements. Figuress 33 through FFiguree 6 display the stopping sight distance and corner sight distances observed at the project driveway.

Tablee 88 -Corner Sight Distance Analysis Results
Location Design Speed Cornerr Sightt Distance
Measuredd (ft) Requiredd (ft) Adequate?
Lookingg Eastt Alongg Montee Vistaa Drive
Project Driveway 45 120 500 No
Lookingg Westt Alongg Montee Vistaa Drive
Project Driveway 45 900 500 Yes
Source: CR Associates (2024)
As indicated in Table 8, the project driveway currently does not meet the required corner sight distance due to existing vegetation obstructing the driver's view to the east (Figure 5). However, it is expected that with site grading and development, which will remove the existing vegetation, the corner sight distance will be improved to meet the required standards. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 295 of 386

8| P a g e
FFiguree 33 -- Stopping Sight Distance Traveling Westbound Towards Project Driveway = 700’ 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 296 of 386

9| P a g e
FFiguree 44 -- Stopping Sight Distance Traveling Eastbound Towards Project Driveway = 880’ 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 297 of 386

10| P a g e
FFiguree 55 -- Corner Sight Distance Looking East from Project Driveway = 120’ 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 298 of 386

11| P a g e
FFiguree 66 -- Corner Sight Distance Looking West from Project Driveway = 900’ 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 299 of 386

13| P a g e
AAttachmentt AA -Project Information Form and VMT
Memorandum
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 300 of 386

Date: August 22, 2024

To: Chris Winters

From: Sam Hasenin

Subject: Monte Vista Drive 20-Lots Subdivision; 1800 Monte Vista Drive; P24- 0139; Site Plan; PIF; Comments and Condition of Approval.

I have reviewed the subject documents and I have the following Traffic Engineering comments:

1. Please see attached approved Traffic Impact Analysis Project Information Form.

The project will need to complete a Local Transportation Assessment per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at x-5411.

Attachment: Approved Project Information Form (PIF)

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 301 of 386

29 | P a g e

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM (PIF)
THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT:

PROJECT INFORMATION FORM

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

2. PROJECT LOCATION:

3. LAND USE: ____________________
SIZE/DENSITY: ____________________

4. ZONING AND LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN? տ Yes ܆ No

5. PROJECT LOCATED IN TRANSIT PRIORITY AREA1, SMART GROWTH AREA, OR LOW VMT AREA2?
տ Yes ܆ No

6. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION: _______ADT
܆ 400 ADT
܆ > 500 ADT ܆ > 1,000 ADT
܆ > 2,400 ADT

ATTACHMENTS
A. PPROJECT LOCATION MAP ܆ Attached
B. PPROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ܆ Attached
C. PPROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT ܆ Attached

1. Projects located in a TPA must be able to access the transit station within a ½ mile walking distance or 6 minute walk continuously without discontinuity of sidewalk or obstructions to the route. Qualifying transit stops means a site containing an existing rail transit station served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (OPR, 2017). A high-quality transit corridor may also be considered if a corridor with fixed route bus service has service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours (OPR, 2017).

2. Based on the most recent SANDAG SB 743 Screening Map. Example shown in Appendix B.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY STAFF AND RETURNED TO PROJECT APPLICANT PROJECTSTUDYREQUIREMENTS
1) Does the project require a CEQA VMT analysis?
A. If yes, does the project require a SANDAG Model Run? ܆ Yes
܆ Yes
܆
No
܆
No
܆ Incomplete(1)
2a) Does the project require a Local Transportation Study? ܆ Yes ܆ No ܆ Incomplete(1)
OR
2b) Does the project require a Local Transportation Assessment? ܆ Yes ܆ No ܆ Incomplete(1)
(1) Incomplete application or additional information is needed to determine study requirements.

Monte Vista Residential Project
1800 & 1802 Monte Vista Dr, Vista, CA, 92084
Single Family Residential Units
20 Units
200
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 302 of 386

555 West Beech Street | Suite 302 | San Diego, CA 92101 | (619) 234-3190 | Fax (619) 702-9345 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum

Date: August 9, 2024
To: Ninia Hammond, [email protected]
From: Katy Cole, Ali Ahmadi, Marie Bedogne, Fehr & Peers Subject: Monte Vista Drive Residential Project Transportation Study Requirement and Scoping Memorandum
SD24-0537
Introduction
This memorandum presents the transportation study requirements for the Monte Vista Drive residential project development (hereafter referred to as “Project”) in the City of Vista, California.

The requirements for VMT analysis and Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) were conducted consistent with methodologies included in the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Guidelines, December 2020), which refers to the Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region prepared by ITE San Diego, May 2019 (ITE San Diego Region Guidelines) and utilizes the 2002 SANDAG Not so Brief Trip Generation Guide to estimate the number of new trips generated from the Project site. The approach is also consistent with the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), in December 2018 (OPR Technical Advisory).

This memo is organized into the following sections:

Project Description
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening:

SB 743 Background: Provides background information regarding SB 743 and conducting VMT analysis per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Procedure: Outlines the City of Vista’s procedure for VMT screening as applied to the project.

Local Transportation Assessment (LTA): Outlines the City of Vista’s procedure for Local Transportation Assessment as applied to the project.

Conclusions: Presents key findings and next steps.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 303 of 386

Monte Vista Drive Residential Project VMT Analysis
August 9, 2024

Project Description
The project site is located at 1800 and 1802 Monte Vista Drive on the east side of the Monte Vista Elementary School. The proposed development consistsof 20 single-family units on approximately 9,000 square-foot lots.Figure 1 shows the project location map.

Figure 1: Project Location map
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)Screening
SB 743 Background
In December 2018, the OPR Technical Advisory was finalized and transportation analysis using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis as the basis for CEQA analysis was passed into law. OPR Technical Advisory recommended the use of automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT, as the preferred CEQA transportation metric, along with the elimination of auto delay/LOS for CEQA purposes statewide. Based on the OPR Technical Advisory, mandatory statewide application of the CEQA section implementing the VMT measure was implemented in 2020.

The City of Vista implemented the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, which provides requirements for performing transportation studies for land development projects, in December 2020. The Guidelines identify requirements for CEQA VMT analysis and local transportation study requirements.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 304 of 386

Monte Vista Drive Residential Project VMT Analysis
August 9, 2024

VMT Screening Procedure
The City of Vista’s procedurefor VMTscreening and analysis isoutlined inthe City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.The screening procedure as applied to the proposed project is as follows:

Step 1: Determine if the project is ina low VMT area. The project site is located on the SANDAG Screening Maps (SANDAG Series 14, 2016 Baseline, Scenario ID 434). Based on the SANDAG VMT Map, the project site, located in Census Tract 196.02, is anticipated to produce an Average VMT per Capita of 16.4per resident. The average VMT rate is 86.7% of the regional mean. A significant threshold for a residential project in the City of Vista is 15% below the regional average(or an average VMT rate below 85% of the regionalmean). Thus, the project is not located in a low VMT area.

Step 2:Determine if the project meets other screening criteria presented in Figure 3-1 of the Guidelines.The first screening criterion in the City of Vista’sGuidelines is to determine if the project is a small project based on the expected trip generation. Per SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002), the proposed project includes 20 Single Family residential dwelling units and is anticipated to generate 10 daily trips per dwelling unit or (10 * 20) = 200total daily trips.Table 1 shows the detailed trip generation estimates.

Table 1: Trip Generation
Land Use
Trip Generation Rates Daily
Trips
AM Peak PM Peak
Weekday AM
Peak
PM
Peak
Split Trips Split Trips
In:Out In Out Total In:Out In Out Total
20 Single-Family
Residential Dwelling
Unit
10/DU 8%10%200 3:7 5 11 16 7:3 14 6 20
Per the City of Vista’s Guidelines, a fullVMT analysis for development consistent with the General Plan is required if the project will generatemore than 1,000 ADT. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and based on the daily trip generation estimate, generates less than 1,000 daily trips (200 daily trips). Thus,the project is screened out and a full Transportation VMT CEQA Analysis is not required.

Local TransportationAssessment (LTA) Requirements
In addition to the VMT analysis for CEQA purposes, the City of Vista’s Guidelinesrequirea transportation study in accordance with the General Plan to determine and address local traffic safety andoperational impacts.

Based on the trip generation estimates provided in Table 1, the site is projected to generate approximately 200 daily trips. For projects that generate less than 400 daily trips, a Local 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 305 of 386

Monte Vista Drive Residential Project VMT Analysis
August 9, 2024

Transportation Assessment(LTA) instead of a comprehensive LocalTransportation Study (LTS)is required. In addition, the guidelines indicate that ”formost projects that are under 200 ADT, the City will likely require focused LTAs.”
An LTA helps the Citymonitor development impacts on the transportation network and is similar to an LTS. The main difference between the two studies is that an LTA analyzes fewer scenarios than an LTS. An LTA will be required to analyze existing conditions and existing conditions plus project scenarios only. Also, similar to LTS, an LTA will requirea review of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular conditions per guidelines provided in the City of Vista’s Guidelines.

Based on Table 1, the project site is projected to generate 16 AM peak hour trips(5 inbound / 11 outbound) and 20 PM peak hour trips (14 inbound / 6 outbound). Given the minimal number of trips generated from the site, we recommend that the LTA focus on reviewing the intersection of the project access point with Monte Vista Drive. Beyond the project’s access point, the trips are dispersed, and the impacts are expected to be negligible.Figure 2 shows the estimatedproject trip distribution and assignment.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 306 of 386

Monte Vista Drive Residential Project VMT Analysis
August 9, 2024

Figure 2: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 307 of 386

Monte Vista Drive Residential Project VMT Analysis
August 9, 2024

Conclusions
This memorandum provides transportation study requirements per the City of Vista Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines,for the Monte Vista Road residential development in the City of Vista.

Based on the review of the SANDAG VMT maps, the project is not located ina low-VMT area.

However, based on the Guidelines, a developmentproject consistent with the General Plan that generates less than 1,000daily trips does not require VMT analysis. Based on the trip generation calculations provided in Table 1, theproposed development is projected to generate an estimated 200 daily trips.As such, the project is screened out from doing a VMT analysis and VMT impacts are considered to be less than significant.

In addition to the VMT assessment, the City of Vista Guidelines require an LTS in accordance with the General Plan to determine and address local traffic safety and operational impacts. For developments that generate less than 400 ADT, an LTA is required instead of an LTS. LTA is similar to LTSwith the exception of only two analysis scenarios are required: Existing conditions, and Existing plus project conditions.Similar to an LTS, the LTA should review Existing conditions for pedestrian, bicycle, transit (within 0.5 miles), and vehicular conditions. Based on the minimal number of trips generated from the site, we recommend that the LTA studythe intersection operations of the project access point with Monte Vista Drive. 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 308 of 386

14| P a g e
AAttachmentt BB -City of Vista Guideline Excerpts
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 309 of 386

26 | P a g e
Table 10-3 Circulation Element Roadway Classifications – Capacity and Levels of Service Roadway Classification ADT Level of Service (LOS)

A B C D E
6-Lane Prime Arterial (divided) <
36,000 < 42,000 < 48,000 <
54,000
<
60,000
6-Lane Urban Major <
30,000 < 35,000 < 40,000 <
45,000
<
50,000
4-Lane Major Arterial (divided) <
24,000 < 28,000 < 32,000 <
36,000
<
40,000
4-Lane Collector (undivided) <
15,000 < 17,500 < 20,000 <
22,500
<
25,000
2-Lane Collector with TWLTL(1) < 9,000 < 10,500 < 12,000 < 13,500
<
15,000
2-Lane Collector (divided) < 5,280 < 6,160 < 7,040 < 7,920 < 8,800 2-Lane Semi-Rural(2) < 7,900

1. TWLTL= Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (striped center median).

2. Semi-Rural Streets: capacities identified are the maximum recommended volumes to maintain this classification. If volumes exceed this capacity, either a classification modification should be considered or measures should be taken to reduce through traffic.

IMPROVEMENT THRESHOLDS
A project will need to implement improvements to operation of an intersection when one of the following occurs:

1. In either the Existing Conditions Plus Project and Existing Conditions Plus Near-Term Cumulative Projects scenarios, the addition of project traffic results in a service drop from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. Under this condition, the project is responsible for improvements necessary to restore the intersection to LOS D conditions or better.

2. In either the Existing Conditions Plus Project and Existing Conditions Plus Near-Term Cumulative Projects scenarios, an intersection is operating at LOS E or F under the no-project scenario and the project adds more than an additional two seconds of average vehicle delay. Under this condition, the project is responsible for improvements necessary to restore the intersection LOS to pre-development conditions or better.

3. In the longer-range cumulative condition, if the addition of project traffic results in a service drop from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or if an intersection is operating at LOS E or F and the project contributes to the average vehicle delay (regardless of time), the project is determined to have a cumulative impact. Under this condition, the project applicant is responsible for mitigating the intersection LOS to pre-development conditions or better. Identified cumulative transportation related impacts can be mitigated by participation in the City of Vista’s Impact Fees for Arterials Streets and Traffic Signals program.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 310 of 386

25 | P a g e
Unsignalized freeway ramp intersections shall be analyzed if the project will add 20 or more peak hour (new trips) trips in either direction.

Table 10-2 HCM Level of Service Description for Unsignalized Intersections Level of
Service Description of Traffic Conditions Control Delay (sec/veh)
A No delay for stop-controlled approaches. 10 – 15
C Operations with moderate delays. > 15 – 25
D Operations with some delays. > 25 – 35
E Operations with high delays and long queues. > 35 – 50 F Operation with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long queues unacceptable to most drivers.
> 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

Roadway Segments:

Roadway segment Level of Service (LOS) standards and thresholds provide the basis for analysis of roadway segment performance. The analysis of roadway segment LOS is based on the functional classification of the roadway, the maximum capacity, roadway geometrics, and existing or forecast Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes. TTable 10-3 from the Vista 2030 General Plan Circulation Element presents the City’s roadway segment capacity and LOS standards utilized to analyze roadways.

The standards shown in Table 10-3 are generally used as long-range planning guidelines to determine the functional classification of roadways. The roadway capacities are “rule of thumb” estimates for planning purposes and are affected by such factors as intersections (spacing, configuration and control features), degree of access control, roadway grades, design geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignment standards), sight distance, vehicle mix (truck and bus traffic) and pedestrian bicycle traffic.

The actual capacity of a roadway facility varies according to its physical attributes. Typically, the performance and LOS of a roadway segment is heavily influenced by the ability of the intersections to accommodate peak hour volumes. The more detailed peak hour intersection analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity. TTherefore, roadway segment widening is typically only recommended if the peak hour intersection analysis indicates the need for additional through lanes and/or to meet the street cross sections in the Circulation Element adjacent to the project boundary. Within the City of Vista and the region as a whole, intersection performance, rather than roadway segment performance, is a more accurate and realistic indicator of true traffic operations and is used as the basis for defining traffic impacts.
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 311 of 386

15| P a g e
AAttachmentt CC -Traffic Counts
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 312 of 386

THURSDAY - SEPTEMBER 19, 2024 AREA: VISTA PROJECT:

MONTE VISTA - 1,000FT EAST OF VALLEY DR

AM NB SB EB WB PM NB SB EB WB
00:00 4 3 12:00 31 28
00:15 2 2 12:15 34 33
00:30 2 2 12:30 39 35
00:45 7 15 1 8 23 12:45 37 141 38 134 275
01:00 3 2 13:00 19 36
01:15 1 2 13:15 25 38
01:30 1 0 13:30 28 44
01:45 0 5 0 4 9 13:45 31 103 50 168 271
02:00 0 0 14:00 34 57
02:15 1 0 14:15 82 56
02:30 1 1 14:30 45 48
02:45 1 3 2 3 6 14:45 50 211 36 197 408
03:00 2 0 15:00 56 59
03:15 0 1 15:15 36 78
03:30 0 0 15:30 42 51
03:45 3 5 1 2 7 15:45 63 197 52 240 437
04:00 1 2 16:00 75 50
04:15 1 0 16:15 74 64
04:30 5 3 16:30 70 63
04:45 5 12 8 13 25 16:45 77 296 38 215 511
05:00 4 6 17:00 79 56
05:15 6 8 17:15 91 50
05:30 17 11 17:30 69 55
05:45 21 48 8 33 81 17:45 72 311 48 209 520
06:00 31 17 18:00 62 46
06:15 26 21 18:15 57 38
06:30 40 14 18:30 39 36
06:45 32 129 37 89 218 18:45 30 188 26 146 334
07:00 31 57 19:00 29 35
07:15 22 78 19:15 28 28
07:30 41 119 19:30 17 12
07:45 59 153 96 350 503 19:45 19 93 25 100 193
08:00 42 53 20:00 24 14
08:15 30 61 20:15 32 20
08:30 34 40 20:30 22 5
08:45 36 142 47 201 343 20:45 13 91 17 56 147
09:00 16 43 21:00 25 11
09:15 24 31 21:15 15 11
09:30 28 28 21:30 13 11
09:45 25 93 35 137 230 21:45 11 64 4 37 101
10:00 29 29 22:00 9 11
10:15 19 30 22:15 9 12
10:30 21 31 22:30 11 7
10:45 26 95 37 127 222 22:45 4 33 5 35 68
11:00 24 33 23:00 3 5
11:15 29 34 23:15 3 3
11:30 27 31 23:30 5 2
11:45 26 106 27 125 231 23:45 8 19 2 12 31
Total Vol.806 1092 1898 1747 1549 3296
NB SB EB WB Combined
2553 2641 5194
Split %42.5% 57.5%36.5%53.0%47.0%63.5%
Peak Hour 07:30 07:00 07:15 16:30 15:00 16:30
Volume 172 350 510 317 240 524
P.H.F.0.73 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.77 0.93
PREPARED BY: ELITE TRAFFIC DYNAMICS, LLC
PMAM
Daily Totals
ETD24-0301-01
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 313 of 386

DATE:LOCATION:VISTA PROJECT #:ETD24-0920-01
9/19/24 NORTH & SOUTH:VALLEY DR LOCATION #:1
THURSDAY EAST & WEST:MONTE VISTA CONTROL:STOP
NOTES:AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES:X X X X
7:00 AM 2 5 5 2 4 14 9 30 1 18 39 4 133 0
7:15 AM 3 8 10 14 12 20 9 31 2 14 60 10 193 0
7:30 AM 10 6 22 25 13 14 22 45 1 27 79 30 294 0
7:45 AM 6 3 19 27 14 34 24 59 8 32 80 29 335 0
8:00 AM 1 5 11 7 30 3 7 30 3 13 56 9 175 0
8:15 AM 4 3 3 1 10 7 2 25 1 10 51 2 119 0
8:30 AM 8 9 5 0 9 15 3 48 4 5 49 1 156 0
8:45 AM 2 8 7 0 8 4 2 53 0 9 83 0 176 0
VOLUMES 36 47 82 76 100 111 78 321 20 128 497 85 1,581 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %22%28%50%26%35%39%19%77%5%18%70%12%
APP/DEPART 165 /210 287 /248 419 /479 710 /644 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 20 22 62 73 69 71 62 165 14 86 275 78 997
APPROACH %19%21%60%34%32%33%26%68%6%20%63%18%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.684 0.710 0.662 0.778 0.744
APP/DEPART 104 /162 213 /169 241 /300 439 /366 0
4:00 PM 3 8 21 6 8 17 17 59 7 5 45 11 207 1 1
4:15 PM 5 11 9 6 7 11 11 59 8 8 57 3 195 0
4:30 PM 7 12 6 2 6 13 9 67 5 7 53 5 192 0
4:45 PM 3 10 9 3 3 9 6 61 4 4 28 4 144 0
5:00 PM 9 6 11 5 8 13 10 64 6 8 50 3 193 1 1
5:15 PM 4 17 13 4 7 6 9 81 2 8 42 5 198 0
5:30 PM 3 10 13 5 9 10 15 59 3 9 46 3 185 0
5:45 PM 5 5 9 5 6 6 14 64 5 6 40 3 168 0
VOLUMES 39 79 91 36 54 85 91 514 40 55 361 37 1,482 0 0 2 0 2 APPROACH %19%38%44%21%31%49%14%80%6%12%80%8%
APP/DEPART 209 /207 175 /149 645 /641 453 /485 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 21 38 46 19 30 35 48 268 16 31 178 14 744
APPROACH %20%36%44%23%36%42%14%81%5%14%80%6%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.772 0.808 0.902 0.914 0.939
APP/DEPART 105 /100 84 /77 332 /333 223 /234 0

VALLEY DR

NORTH SIDE

MONTE VISTA WEST SIDE EAST SIDE MONTE VISTA

SOUTH SIDE

VALLEY DR

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 1 1
7:15 AM 3 3 0 1 1
7:30 AM 22 1 23 0 0
7:45 AM 66 1 8 75 0 1 1
8:00 AM 1 1 0 1 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0
8:30 AM 1 1 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0
TOTAL 91 3 9 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4
4:00 PM 0 0 0
4:15 PM 1 1 2 0 0
4:30 PM 2 2 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0
5:15 PM 1 1 0 0
5:30 PM 1 1 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0
TOTAL 1 1 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AM
PM
AM
7:15 AM
PM
5:00 PM

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS PEDESTRIAN ACTIVATIONS

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: ELITE TRAFFIC DYNAMICS, LLC

INCLUDES BIKE & PED

U-TURNS

VALLEY DR VALLEY DR MONTE VISTA MONTE VISTA
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 314 of 386

16| P a g e
AAttachmentt DD -Synchro Analysis Worksheets
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 315 of 386

HCM 6th TWSC Existing with Project AM
1: Monte Vista Dr & Project Drwy 10/18/2024
Existing + P AM 4:18 pm 10/03/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 300 439 1 1 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 300 439 1 1 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 4 326 477 1 1 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 478 0 - 0 812 478
Stage 1 -- - - 478 -
Stage 2 - - - - 334 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1079 - - - 347 585
Stage 1 - - - - 622 -
Stage 2 -- - - 723 -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1079 - - - 345 585
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 345 -
Stage 1 -- - - 619 -
Stage 2 - - - - 723 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11.7

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1079 - - - 550
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.022
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 - - 11.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 316 of 386

HCM 6th TWSC Existing with Project PM
1: Monte Vista Dr & Project Drwy 10/18/2024
Existing + P PM 4:19 pm 10/03/2024 Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 333 223 2 1 5
Future Vol, veh/h 12 333 223 2 1 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 13 362 242 2 1 5

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 244 0 - 0 631 243
Stage 1 - - - - 243 -
Stage 2 - - - - 388 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1316 - - - 443 793
Stage 1 - - - - 795 -
Stage 2 - - - - 683 -
Platoon blocked, %- - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1316 - - - 438 793
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 438 -
Stage 1 - - - - 785 -
Stage 2 - - - - 683 -

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.2

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)1316 - - - 699
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.009
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 10.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 317 of 386

3900 5th Avenue, Suite 310  San Diego, CA 92103  619-795-6086 www.CRAmobility.com

TO: Carlos Bonilla
FROM: Phuong Nguyen, PE; CR Associates (CRA)
DATE: June 16, 2025
RE: 1800 Monte Vista Residential – Supplemental Traffic Memorandum

The purpose of this supplemental traffic memorandum is to confirm the proposed 1800 Monte Vista Residential project’s (the "Project") consistency with the Focused Local Traffic Assessment (dated October 23, 2024) prepared for the Project, particularly with regards to the junior accessory dwelling units that are attached to the single-family dwelling units within the Project.

Background
A Focused Local Traffic Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the Project (dated October 23, 2024), which included an evaluation of the Project trip generation, a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions, a sight distance analysis at the proposed Project driveway, as well as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening documentation for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. The Focused LTA estimated approximately 200 daily trips for the proposed Project, assuming 20 single-family dwelling units for a more conservative approach. It should be noted that the Project currently proposes 19 single family dwelling units, two of which are considered affordable housing (very-low income). As such, other technical analyses for the Project assume 190 daily trips for the Project.

The Focused LTA noted that the roadway segment of Monte Vista Drive from Valley Drive to east of the Project, as well as the Project driveway intersection with Monte Vista Drive would both operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic. Also, the Project driveway would meet sight distance requirements with proper design of the driveway, which would remove any existing shrubbery that would potentially affect sight distance for vehicles exiting the Project driveway.

Potential for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
There is the potential for up to 16 of the Project’s proposed 19 single-family dwelling units to incorporate an attached JADU within the primary residence’s square footage. Each JADU would comprise less than 500 square feet (SF) of floor space, as noted below:

 Plan 1:
o No JADU units
 Plan 2:
o 8 JADU units: 481 SF
o Attached and incorporated into the primary residence SF  Plan 3:
o 8 JADU units: 386 SF
o Attached and incorporated into the primary residence SF

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 318 of 386

2 | P a g e

JADUs are permitted by right to be attached to a single-family residence under zoning regulations applicable to the Project site. In addition to expanding housing flexibility, they support the City of Vista’s efforts towards meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.

JADUs are typically used to accommodate extended family members – such as seniors or adult children — rather than functioning as independent units. Further, JADUs are limited in size, lack independent utility metering, and must be contained within the primary dwelling unit, which constrains their functionality as separate units. As such, they do not typically operate as fully independent households and are not expected to generate vehicle trips beyond those already assumed under single-family residential trip rates.

Neither the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region nor the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) provide specific trip generation rates for JADUs. However, both sources assign relatively high daily trip rates to single-family detached homes — rates that already account for a range of household compositions and travel behavior, including configurations that may include JADUs.

Furthermore, under California law, JADUs are not treated as separate dwelling units for the purpose of parking requirements (See Gov. Code § 66334 [no additional parking required for JADUs]; see also, Gov. Code §§ 66337 and 66338 [JADUs “shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit” for purposes of utilities, fire, or life safety requirements.]). Per City of Vista Municipal Code Section

18.31.080.C, no additional parking is required for the inclusion of JADUs, as the JADUs would be within the building footprint of the Primary Residence. Based on City of Vista Municipal Code Section

18.54.050, the Project requires 86 parking spaces (4.5 parking spaces per unit, including Guest parking; see Attachment A). The Project would provide 95 total parking spaces (76 off-street parking spaces, 19 private on-street parking; see Attachment B), resulting in a parking surplus of 9 parking spaces on-site.

Given the information outlined above regarding JADUs, any potential trips associated with the inclusion of JADUs would be accommodated within the estimated 190 daily trips generated by the proposed Project. Therefore, the presence of JADUs would not change the traffic-related conclusions or environmental findings for the Project. Therefore, no additional analysis would be required.

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 319 of 386

Attachment A – City of Vista Municipal Code Section

18.54.050 – Parking Requirement Table

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 320 of 386

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 321 of 386

Attachment B – Project Parking Exhibit

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 322 of 386

DATA TABLE DATA TABLE DATA TABLE DATA TABLE
A
B
B
C
C

OPEN SPACE
1,003 SF

OPEN SPACE
42,968 SF

OPEN SPACE
35,876 SF
9,788 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 532.0
LOT 1
7,314 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 533.5
LOT 2 LOT 3
PAD 536.5
7,330 SF NET/GROSS 7,347 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 540.0
LOT 4 LOT 5
PAD 544.0
7,363 SF NET/GROSS
7,379 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 547.0
LOT 6
7,271 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 549.0
LOT 7
6,732 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 552.0
LOT 8
11,293 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 553.5
LOT 9
50,685 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 555.0
LOT 10
LOT 11
PAD 553.0
50,614 SF NET/GROSS
LOT 12
PAD 553.0
10,075 SF NET/GROSS
5,855 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 552.0
LOT 13
6,275 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 551.0
LOT 14
7,365 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 548.5
LOT 15
7,389 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 545.5
LOT 16
LOT 17
PAD 542.0
7,398 SF NET/GROSS7,408 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 538.5
LOT 18
7,417 SF NET/GROSS
PAD 535.0
LOT 19
PLAN 3
PLAN 2 PLAN 3
PLAN 3 PLAN 3PLAN 2
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 3
PLAN 1
PLAN 1
PLAN 2
PLAN 2
PLAN 2PLAN 2PLAN 3 PLAN 3 PLAN 3
A
LOT A
BASIN 521.0
14,085 SF

NET/GROSS
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS
P24-0139

M
O
N
T
E

V
I
S
T
A

D
R
.

PRIVATE STREET - LOT B 25,652 SF.

PARKING EXHIBIT

MONTE VISTA

PARKING SUMMARY
GARAGE SPACES - 38
DRIVEWAY SPACES - 38
STREET SPACES - 19

TOTAL PARKING
SPACES PROVIDED - 95

TOTAL REQUIRED-
RESIDENTIAL - 86
LEGEND

PARKING SPACE
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 323 of 386

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 324 of 386

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 325 of 386

09/23/2025 PH1 Page 326 of 386

P24-0139

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF THE

VISTA CITY COUNCIL

VICINITY LOCATION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the Chartered City of Vista, California, will hold a public hearing in the Vista Civic Center Council Chambers, 200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 5:30 PM, to receive and consider all evidence and reports presented at said hearing and/or obtained previously relative to the following matter:

P24-0139 – Monte Vista Residential – California West Communities An appeal of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan, and Density Bonus to construct 19 single-family homes on a 6.47 acre site located at 1800 Monte Vista Drive (APN 181-022-05-00). The project qualifies for exemption from the California Environmental Qualit y Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for projects that are consistent with a community plan or zoning.

NOTE: If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Vista at, or prior to, the publi c hearing.

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED to participate and express opinions on the matter outlined above. QUESTIONS regarding the above should be directed to the Planning Division, City Hall, 200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., or by telephoning the City’s Planning Division at (760) 639 -6100. If you wish to send correspondence, the mailing address is: City of Vista, Planning Division, 200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, CA 92084.

Monte Vista Dr
Ra
n
g
e

V
i
e
w

R
d

Gi
d
d
i
n
g
s

R
a
n
c
h

R
d

Project Site:
1800 Monte Vista Drive
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 327 of 386

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Jennifer Thompson
Christopher Winters
Re: Monte vista project
Monday, August 4, 2025 9:52:04 AIM

ADD TO PACKET
I You don't often get email from
Yes, I will be at the hearing.

I earn why this is important
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 9:50 AM Jennifer Thompson
Mr Winters,
wrote:

I've been working my entire life (cunently a public school teacher) to move myself from a child of poverty in over populated San Diego to finally, at nearly fifty, to purchase and enjoy a rural home in Vista. I hoped to raise my children in this peaceful setting only to find out that there will be a housing project for wealthy homeowners clogging up Monte Vista, causing unknown noise and pollution, destruction of open spaces for our hawks, snakes and other critters as well as leaving us with an ugly eye sore of modern McMansion architecture.

In all seriousness, is there nothing sacred to these money grubbing land developers and city officials who clearly gain from these endeavors? Average families like mine are tired of this nonsense, and I plan to vote against eve1y person who is behind this decision. I can't imagine that my neighbors feel differently.

Jen Thompson
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 328 of 386

From: Charles Bachmeier
To: Planning Questions
Subject RE: Public Hearing for P24-0139 — Monte Vista Residential Project Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 5:01:24 PM
You don't often get email from Learn w
To the Honorable Members of the Vista City Council:
nic mperan
I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed development of 19 single-family homes at 1800 Monte Vista Drive (P24-0139 — Monte Vista Residential). I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this project and I urge the Council to closely consider the following issues before approving the plan:

1. Traffic Capacity and Infrastructure Improvements
The addition of 19 homes will increase local traffic volume, particularly along IMonte Vista Drive, Buena Creek, and surrounding access points. This increase must be met with appropriate infrastructure improvements. I respectfully request that the City ensure:

Roadways leading to and from the development are evaluated for capacity, wear, and safety.

Upgrades include bike lanes and potentially bus lanes to support multimodal transportation and reduce future congestion.

Emergency evacuation routes are analyzed and potentially expanded to accommodate higher vehicle volume during events such as wildfires. This is critical to public safety given the increasing frequency of fire emergencies in Southern California.

2. Support for Schools and Public Services
With new homes come new residents —likely including children who will enter local schools and participate in community services. The plan should ensure:

Adequate capacity and funding support for local school districts, potentially through developer fees or agreements.

Investment in parks and recreational services to serve the incoming population and maintain a high quality of life.

I encourage the City Council to include these concerns in your deliberations and to condition project approval on tangible commitments to infrastructure, safety, and community services.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Charles Bachmeier
Vista, CA 92084
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 329 of 386

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Kathy Valdez
Kallison Leahy
FW: Subject: Urgent Safety Deficiency in Monte Vista Project Traffic Study Monday, August 11, 2025 11:46:46 AM
From: MonteVistaDriveGroup
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 7:11 PM

ADD TO PACKET
To: John Conley ; Doris Calvo ; John Franklin
; Katie Melendez ; Jeffrey Fox ;
Dan O'Donnell ; Corinna Contreras ; Kathy Valdez

Subject: Subject: Urgent Safety Deficiency in Monte Vista Project Traffic Study Councilmembers,
The CRA "1800 Monte Vista Drive Focused Local Transportation Assessment" (dated Oct. 23, 2024) contains a glaring safety finding that cannot be ignored before Tuesday's hearing:

On page 7, in the "School Crosswalk Protection" row, the column marked "Adequate?" reads: "No."
This is not my opinion -it's in the City's own traffic consultant's report. Please verify it yourself in the LTA, Oct 23, 2024, p.7.

Given Monte Vista Elementary's proximity, this finding alone is a CEQA red flag for unmitigated safety impacts to school children. CEQA requires substantial evidence of mitigation before approval. This is not a minor oversight -it is a documented failure of adequacy in the school zone.

I urge you to:

1.Ask staff why this "No" was not highlighted in the CEQA Checklist.

2.Require the developer to resolve this deficiency before any approval vote.

3.Place this item in the public record for the 8/12 meeting.

If the City proceeds without addressing this, it will knowingly approve a project with an admitted school safety inadequacy on record.

Keith Andrew
Vista Resident
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 330 of 386

ADD TO PACKET
From: Kathy Valdez
Kallison Leahy To:

Subject: FW: Public Comment for Council Record -Deficient School Traffic Analysis in Monte Vista Project (P24-0139) Monday, August 11, 2025 11:46:27 AM Date:

From: Tatjana Andrew
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 9:46 AM
To: John Conley ; Doris Calvo ; John Franklin
; Katie Melendez ; Jeffrey Fox ;
Dan O'Donnell ; Corinna Contreras ; Kathy Valdez

Subject: Public Comment for Council Record -Deficient School Traffic Analysis in Monte Vista Project (P24-0139}
I You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am submitting this comment for the official public record regarding the proposed Monte Vista Residential Project (P24-0139). My concerns focus on a critical deficiency in the project's October 23, 2024 Local Transportation Assessment (L TA) prepared by Urban Systems Associates and accepted by City staff.

1.Failure to Measure Peak 30-Minute School Traffic Windows The L TA claims that traffic conditions adjacent to Monte Vista Elementary School were evaluated during "school peak" periods. However, the data collection methodology does not measure -or even attempt to measure -the actual 30- minute windows in which vehicle volumes spike during student drop-off and dismissal.
•Monte Vista Elementary School's published bell schedule confirms that school starts at 8:00 AM and dismisses at 2:18 PM.
•Any parent or resident familiar with the site knows that the overwhelming majority of vehicle trips occur within a 20-30 minute surge before the start bell and after dismissal, not spread evenly across a broader hour-long AM or PM period.
•The LT A appears to average traffic volumes over longer collection periods, thereby diluting the actual peak congestion figures and masking the severity of conditions at the narrow, sidewalk-deficient frontage on Monte Vista Drive.

This is not a minor technical oversight -it is a methodological flaw that materially underestimates project impacts on school traffic safety, queueing, and Level of Service during the only time windows that matter for child pedestrian safety.

2.Ignoring Afternoon Dismissal Surge Entirely
The L TA's "school peak" reference is ambiguous, but based on review of the tables 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 331 of 386

ADD TO PACKET
and count times, it appears the study either:
•Did not collect dismissal period counts at all, or
•Collected PM data outside the 2:00-2:30 PM dismissal window.

Either scenario constitutes a failure to evaluate a known, daily recurring traffic condition directly adjacent to the project site.

3.City Authority to Require Proper Study
Under CEQA §15183 and the City's own authority to protect public safety, Vista is not preempted from requiring a targeted "special generator" traffic analysis for unique high-intensity uses like an elementary school. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual acknowledges schools as special generators requiring site-specific count methodology -particularly where standard peak-hour factors are known to misrepresent true conditions.

In this case, failure to follow special generator protocols means the L TA does not provide substantial evidence to support the Staff Report's conclusion of "no significant pedestrian/bicycle safety impact."
Requested Action
I urge the City Council to require an amended traffic study that:

1.Collects AM and PM counts specifically during the 30-minute peak drop-off and dismissal periods (7:30-8:00 AM, 2:00-2:30 PM) on regular school days.

2.Incorporates queue length, pedestrian crossing safety, and sight distance evaluations under these true peak conditions.

Without such targeted analysis, the Council risks approving a project on the basis of incomplete and misleading transportation data -directly affecting the safety of hundreds of children who walk or are dropped off at Monte Vista Elementary every day.

Respectfully submitted,
Tatjana Andrew
Life and Physical Science Teacher
Tri-City Christian School
302 N. Emerald Drive, Vista CA 92083
(760)630-8227
[email protected]
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 332 of 386

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Charles Bachmeier
Public Comments
RE: Monte Vista Residential project (P24-0139)
Monday, August 11, 2025 8:13:08 AM
I You don't often get email from
Dear Viista City Council Members,

ADD TO PACKET
I earn wh� this is important
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed Monte Vista Residential proj ect (IP24- 0139) and its potential impact on traffic, public safety, and community infrastructure.

While I understand the need for additional housing, the Northeast Vista unincorporated county area, which iin cludes the Monte Vista project site, has experienced significant growth in recent years without corresponding roadway upgrades. I and other residents of Ora Ava Drive have previously discussed these concerns wiith Fire Chief Gerard Washington in communi ty meetings, particullarly in the context of fire safety and evacuation planning.

The surrounding roads, especiially Monte V ista Drive and Buena Creek Road, a lready experience heavy congestion during peak commute times. Traffic often backs up from the intersection of Monte Vista Drive and Buena Creek Road alll the way to the Buena Creek Transit Station. In the event of a wildfire or other emergency, this congestion could severely hinder safe and timely evacuation for residents.

I respectfully request that the City require any approval for this project to include the following:

1.A comprehensive traffic capaciity analysis for MOJnte Vista Drive, Buena Creek Road, and other primary access roads.

2.Roadway improvements, including widening where necessary and the addition of bi ke lanes to support alternative transportation.

3.Coordination with fire safety officials to ensure evacuation pl ans are realistic gi ven existing congestion.

4.Developer contributions to local school districts, parks, and r ecreatii on faciliti!es to offset the added demand from new residents.

These measures will !help ensure that new development strengthens rather than strains our community's safety and quality of llife.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Si ncerely,
Charles Bachmeier
Vista, CA 92084
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 333 of 386

ADD TO PACKET
From: Penny Harri ngton
To:

Cc:

John, Franklin; Jeffrey Fox; Corinna Contreras; Katie Melendez: Dan O''Donnell; Public Comments Kathy Valdez: Patsy Chow; John Co nley: Doris Calvo
Subject:

Date:

Monte Vista Project -Urgent Safety, Traffic, and CEQA Deficiencies Sunday, August 10, 2025 3:07:51 PM
I Some people who received this message don't often get email fromimportant Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
. I earn why this is
We urge you to reject or require major changes to the Monte Vista housing project based on these seriious deficiencies documented in the project record:

1. Emergency Access NoncomplianceCivil pl ans show private drive sections narrowed! to 20 feet, directly violating the Fi re DepartmentCondition of Approval requiiring minimum 24-foot clear width for fire apparatus access. This creates a clear public safety hazard and triggers the Housing Accountability Act's safety exception.

2.Outdated and Incomplete Traffic AnalysisThe traffic study and staff report calculated trip generation only for 19 si ngle-family homes, ignoring the 16 attached ADUs already in the plans and the additional JADUs allowed by state l aw via garage conversions. This undercounts actual traffic, fails to analyze school peak-hour conditions at Monte Vista Elementary, and ignores the safety implications for children and pedestrians.

3.CEQA "Whole of the Action" ViolationCEQA requires analysis of the "whole of the action," including all reasonably foreseeable uses and impacts. By omitting ADUs and JADUs from the traffic and parking an alysis, the C ity lacks substantial evidence for its reliance on CEQA Guidelines §15183. This is a clear legal vulnerability.

Given these unresolved safety, traffic, and environmental review failures, we ask you to delay or deny approval until proper analysis is completed and the project compl ies with all fire safety and CEQA requirements.

Respectfully submitted, Steve and Penny Harrington Vista residents, Valley Drive 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 334 of 386

From:

To:

Jennifer Jacobs
Public Comments

ADD TO PACKET
Subject: Fwd: 1800 Monte Vista Drive housing project P24-0139 Sunday, August 10, 2025 12:49:26 PM Date:

I Some people who received this message don't often get email fromimportant I earn why this is Dear City of Vista City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the housing project at 1800 Monte Vista Drive.

As a wi ldlife biologist, I was very surpr ised to see that this project qualified for a CEQA exemption, since an aeria l survey shows that there is both Coastal Sage Scrub and Riparian Forest vegetation commun ities on the project site, which provide potential habitat to multiple speci al-status species, including California Gnatcatcher and Least Bell's Vireo, both of which are federally-listed species per the Endangered Species Act.

Furthermore, I also learned that part of the site is within a Focus Planning Area (FPA), which means that it was designated a "hardline preserve" because of its biological importance and potential to host imperiled species.

For thiis reason, I urge the City to consider an alternative of the project that would avoid impacts to this sensitive habitat. Also, the project does not include professional ongoing management of the "preserved" habitat, but rather suggests that the habitat will be avoided because of its topography and poison oak. Though it may deter some people from entering and disturbing the habitat, it will not deter pets. I urge the Cit y to requ ire the developer to not only create a conservation easement but to commit to funding its professional management in perpetuity. That is the least the developer can do to compensate flor dist urbing our native wildlife.

Thank you for your consideration of my requests.

Sincerely,
Jennifer T.

North County resident
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 335 of 386

ADD TO PACKET
From: Nikki Leeds
To: Public Comments
Subject: Fwd: Please file with the official record my opposition ID the Monte Vista Development Project, ITEM PH1 cAppeal of IP24-0l39, Monte Vista Residential
Date: Sunday, August 10, 2025 12:31:22 PM
I Some people who received this message don't often get email from1mportant . I earn why this is See below Begin fo1warded message: From: Nikki Leeds
Subject: Please file with the official record my opposition to the Monte Vista Development Project, ITEM PH1-Appeal of P24-0139, Monte Vista Residential
Date: August 10, 2025 at 11 :48: 15 AM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: dodonnell@vista gov, ccontreras@vista gov, kvaldez@vista gov, [email protected], [email protected], dcalvo@vist a.gov Hello Collllcil and Staff, I am a longtime resident of Vista and live in the area close to the proposed development of homes to be built next to the Monte Vista Elementary School. There are myriad reasons I oppose this development in its approved incarnation and will plan to speak more on those points at the upcoming council meeting as well. The most salient point is that this overly dense development and the re-zoning to accommodate such dense housing poses an increased public safety risk that akeady exists with speedy and traffic congestion dUiing school stai1 and stop times. The second and most salient pai1, in my opinion, is the incrnased 1isk to the school children as they will be exposed to increased levels of Forever chemicals, known as PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl su bstances) in the soil, ground water and air as many building and landscaping materials are known PF AS tha t are uniquely dangerous to children. I will discuss more concerns around this housing development in my next outreach. Please consider with deep contemplation the seriousness of this matter; it has e verlasting consequences.

Wann regards,
Nikki Leeds
09/23/2025 PH1 Page 336 of 386

August 8, 2025
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L AWYERS
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Vista
City Clerk
200 Civic Center Drive
Vista, CA 92084
[email protected]

ADD TO PACKET
Re: August 12, 2025 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item# PHJ Monte Vista Project (P24-0139) -Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval (APN 181-022-05-00)
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers:

We write on behalf of the applicant for the Monte Vista Residential project (the "Project") to address the administrative appeal (appeal) filed by Keith Andrew "on behalf of the Monte Vista Drive Group" (appellant). The appellant has challenged the Planning Commission's June 17, 2025 approval of this housing development project.

The Project will provide 19 families with the opportunity to live in new homes near a neighborhood school, with two homes reserved for very low-income households-helping to ensure that Vista remains a place where people of all incomes can live, grow, and thrive.

The appeal fails to raise any significant issues related to the Project's approval or environmental compliance. The application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Plan, and Density Bonus to construct 19 detached single-family homes and associated site improvements on a 6.47-acre site has undergone extensive environmental and design review, ensure its consistency with state housing and environmental law, as well as its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Analysis by City staff, expert environmental consultants, and the Planning Commission during an open public hearing confirmed the Project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The detailed Monte Vista Residential CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Environmental Review Checklist (April 2025) and supporting technical documents (totaling approximately 350 pages) provide substantial evidence supporting the City's determination that the project is exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21083 .3 and Guidelines section 15183.

The Checklist describes that the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, for which an EIR -the General Plan Program EIR -was certified, and would not result 2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009 T 760.431.9501
F 760.431.9512 gdandb.com 09/23/2025 PH1 Page 337 of 386

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L AWYERS
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
August 8, 2025